Strengthening Sailing · Web view72 DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 73 2.5 GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT 76 2.5.1 Yachting Australia Governance Model and Constitutional

Strengthening Sailing

A Review of Opportunities to Strengthenthe Delivery of Sailing in Australia

Draft Report

March 2008

ContentsFOREWORD...................................................................................................................................... 6SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS........................................................................................8SECTION ONE I INTRODUCTION...................................................................................101.1 INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT OF REVIEW...............................................................101.1.1 ABOUT THE REVIEW............................................................................................101.1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF REVIEW..........................................................................101.1.3 KEY PERFORMANCE VARIABLES............................................................................111.1.4 TERMS OF REFERENCE........................................................................................111.1.5 ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIC ISSUES.....................................................121.1.6 THE APPROACH..................................................................................................13SECTION TWO I KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................152.1 BUSINESS STRATEGY........................................................................................162.1.1 YACHTING AUSTRALIA OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE......................................................172.1.2 BUSINESS FOCUS DILEMMA..................................................................................182.1.3 BUSINESS MODEL FOR YACHTING AUSTRALIA..........................................................192.1.4 CUSTOMER AND MARKET SEGMENTS......................................................................212.1.5 YA MEMBERSHIP/CUSTOMER MODEL.......................................................................222.1.6 STRATEGIC PLAN FOR YACHTING IN AUSTRALIA........................................................23DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS I BUSINESS STRATEGY.............................................................24

2.2 SPORT DEVELOPMENT (COMMUNITY SAILING)...................................................262.2.1 THE SAILING PATHWAY AND PROGRAMS..................................................................262.2.2 TRAINING..........................................................................................................332.2.3 SPORT DEVELOPMENT LINKS TO HIGH PERFORMANCE...............................................342.2.4 MEMBERSHIP MODEL AND SERVICES......................................................................352.2.5 COMMUNITY (CLUB) COACHING..............................................................................362.2.6 OFFICIATING......................................................................................................382.2.7 CLUB EVENTS/REGATTAS.....................................................................................39CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................40DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS: SPORT DEVELOPMENT (COMMUNITY SAILING)..............................412.3 HIGH PERFORMANCE........................................................................................432.3.1 OVERVIEW OF OLYMPIC SAILING PROGRAM..............................................................432.3.2 HIGH-PERFORMANCE PLAN FOR SAILING.................................................................442.3.3 OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC PROGRAM UNIT.............................................................462.3.4 COACHING DEVELOPMENT AND PATHWAY...............................................................50

2

2.3.5 ATHLETES SUPPORT AND DEVELOPMENT................................................................522.3.6 COLLABORATION WITH AIS...................................................................................532.3.7 NATIONAL TRAINING CENTRE................................................................................542.3.8 TOWARDS BEIJING..............................................................................................562.3.9 POST BEIJING – BUILDING AN OLYMPIC LEGACY........................................................56CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................58DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS: HIGH PERFORMANCE..............................................................59

2.4 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT............................................................................612.4.1 OVERVIEW OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES AND RESOURCES..........................................612.4.2 BRAND – YACHTING AUSTRALIA AND SAILING...........................................................612.4.3 SPONSORSHIP....................................................................................................632.4.4 COMMERCIAL EVENTS/REGATTAS..........................................................................662.4.5 MEDIA/COMMUNICATIONS/MARKETING STRATEGY.....................................................672.4.6 LICENSING AND MERCHANDISING...........................................................................692.4.7 BUILDING COMMERCIAL CAPACITY OF YA................................................................70CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................72DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT...................................................732.5 GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT.....................................................................762.5.1 YACHTING AUSTRALIA GOVERNANCE MODEL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS......762.5.2 YA BOARD.........................................................................................................842.5.3 YA MANAGEMENT...............................................................................................862.5.4 COMMUNICATION: INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL............................................................892.5.5 STAKEHOLDER RELATIONSHIPS AND ROLES.............................................................902.5.6 PEOPLE DEVELOPMENT (EXCL. AST COACHES).........................................................90CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................92DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS: GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT............................................93

APPENDICES I

APPENDIX 1 I SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION.....................................................................103APPENDIX 2 I IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.............................................................................106APPENDIX 3 I PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT CYCLE...........................................................107APPENDIX 4 I YA ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE...............................................................109APPENDIX 5 I CUSTOMER AND MARKET SEGMENTATION FOR SAILING....................................111APPENDIX 6 I OLYMPIC CLASSES AND AUSTRALIAN PERFORMANCES....................................118

3

APPENDIX 7 I SUMMARY OF YA PARTNERS AND SPONSOR ASSOCIATION................................120APPENDIX 8 I ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (YA AND MYAS)...............................................122APPENDIX 9 I FINANCIAL RESULTS AND 07/08 BUDGET........................................................123APPENDIX 10 I YA BUSINESS MODEL TEMPLATE................................................................133

4

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AIS Australian Institute of Sport ASC Australian Sports CommissionAPST Australian Paralympic Sailing TeamAST Australian Sailing TeamAWD Athletes with a DisabilityBIA Boating Industry AssociationDSS Decision Support SystemsFA Federal AssemblyGMP Gold Medal Plan IFDS International Federation Disabled SailingISAF International Sailing FederationLTS Learn to SailMYA Member Yachting Association (Eight state and territory peak bodies for yachting)NCAS National Coaching Accreditation SchemeNOP National Officiating ProgramNSO National Sporting Organisation PSDS Paralympic Sailing Development SquadPST Paralympic Sailing TeamPMS Performance Management SystemsSBP Sport Business PartnersSHPP State High Performance ProgramsSIS/SAS State Institute of Sport/State Academy of SportSSSM Sport Science/Sport MedicineTSPGP Targeted Sports Participation Growth ProgramYA Yachting Australia YATC Yachting Australia Training CentreYV Yachting Victoria

5

FOREWORD

It is with pleasure that we submit the review of opportunities to strengthen the delivery of sailing in Australia.

Strengthening Sailing represents the first of a next-generation of national sporting organisation reviews commissioned by the Australian Sports Commission. Historically, reviews commissioned by the ASC have been interventions with sports that featured underperforming elite programs, poor fiscal management or governance models and behaviour that did not meet the ASC’s governance principles of best practice. The next-generation reviews are focused on working with sporting organisations that are perceived to be generally working well and providing insight and assistance to enable the development of recommendations and business strategies that will challenge the sport and the business to strengthen and improve its performance.

Entering into an ASC-funded review with a sport operating in a relatively stable environment presented some initial challenges in gaining the buy-in and indeed the trust of some of the sport’s stakeholders. Some stakeholders expressed concern that the ASC favoured a unitary model of governance (thus potentially threatening the Federal model and history of the Member Yachting Associations), while others assumed there must be a major sport or business performance concern that was driving the ASC’s ‘intervention’. As a result, the reviewers were required to invest significant time at the front end of the project overcoming these concerns and providing assurances of our own independence, as well as promoting the best practice principles of undertaking a core business review of Yachting Australia and the sport of sailing. Overall, participants involved in the consultative process responded and contributed positively, and it was clearly evident they shared a common intention towards the aim of the review, which is to strengthen the delivery of sailing in Australia.

From the outset, our team of review consultants promoted a partnership approach to the review between YA, MYAs, ASC, stakeholders and ourselves as independent reviewers. While this approach has contributed to lengthy delays in completing the review within its initial timetable, it has been particularly beneficial in allowing all parties to distil information and constructively debate threshold considerations at key stages of the project. The resultant report demonstrates a high level of unified support for the majority of recommendations by the Steering Committee.

A number of the recommendations will be confronting and likely to draw opposition from those who perceive that their own or the sport’s interests will be compromised by the proposed directions. I am, however, confident that based upon the convergence of views, the evidence and expertise contributed to the review and its subsequent recommendations, the sport of sailing can be substantially strengthened throughout Australia and across all levels of the sport if the proposed directions of this report are adopted and executed.

There have been many contributors to the review over the past 10 months, and on behalf of our team I would like to thank all those who participated at various stages through written submissions, capital city workshops and personal interviews. The insights have been educative for the reviewers

6

and were typically provided with the backing of strong passion and optimism for the prospects of the sport of sailing.

Acknowledgement must be given to Andrew Plympton, Phil Jones and the YA Board for participating in the first of the ASC’s next-generation reviews. It has been a lengthy process for all involved and my sincere thanks go to the Board and the CEO for their willingness to consider, contribute to, and embrace change.

My thanks also to the ASC’s Dr Robert Kidston, Senior Consultant, Governance and Management Improvement, who was a major contributor to the project methodology and strategic considerations of the review outcomes.

Finally, I thank my own team of Brendan Lynch and Peter McGrath for their expert contributions to the overall review and in particular their insight and recommendations towards strengthening the governance and sport development programs for the sport of sailing.

Chris MuldoonManaging Director, Sport Business PartnersMelbourneMarch 2008

7

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

The core business focus of YA as the national governing body of sailing has been inadequately defined and communicated. There is fragmented alignment with the core business of several of the Member Yachting Associations (MYAs) and YA, which has created tension and focus dilemma on whether it should be sailing (incorporating competitive, recreational and commercial sailing) or boating (incorporating both sailing and recreational power boating).

The lack of clarity of YA’s core business focus and definition has resulted in the inability for YA to articulate its business model and priorities (how YA generates its income and hierarchy of activities based on available resources). The desired outcome of the current YA 2005–09 strategic plan to provide the vehicle for delivering a systematic approach to change management within the Federation at both National and State/Territory levels and to ensure a cohesive ‘all of sport’ approach to planning and resulting in agreed strategic priorities has not been achieved. There are nine strategic plans for yachting in Australia, resulting in a non-aligned vision and purpose, which creates a highly inconsistent and inefficient model to develop the sport and business.

The sport is experiencing the typical growing pains of an organisation aspiring to transition from a small business into a medium-sized business – or more explicitly in the sport context, movement along the continuum from that of a ‘cottage’ industry to that of a professional sport business. The organisational capabilities of most MYAs are limited and there is a significant gap emerging between the professional governance and management continuum of the state associations and YA.

The Governance Structure and Processes Review conducted in 2000 by BoardWorks International has resulted in positive improvement to the performance and professionalism of YA governance and the ability to attract more appropriately skilled directors. While the YA constitution has been improved, several key recommendations of the 2000 review were not adopted, which is compromising the leadership of the YA Board and management to govern and deliver the sport professionally and effectively.

The current behaviour and practices of the sport within its federated structure are dysfunctional. Effective collaboration between the centre (YA) and its parts (MYAs) is being compromised by passive resistance and distrust between some states and YA. This is impeding the ability of the YA and MYA management to work together seamlessly to implement a national vision and strategy for sailing in Australia.

There is a perception by MYAs and individuals within the sport that the focus of the YA Board and YA’s resource allocation is geared too heavily towards the activities of the Australian Sailing Team (Olympic Program) and not in proportion with the needs of its members (clubs) who are predominantly interested parties in competitive sailing below the elite level and recreational sailing/boating. This is of particular concern to clubs and MYAs as overall participation in sailing has either stagnated or declined in some parts of Australia.

8

While it is not necessarily accepted by stakeholders from within the sailing community, the participation pathway for sailing is complex and perceived as being expensive for new entrants comparative to that of the major mass participation sports. While there are many examples of clubs and commercial training operators providing innovative and effective participation programs, this is happening largely in isolation and lacks the consistency of product offering which is desirable for a national participation growth strategy for the sport.

Significant improvements have been realised in the delivery of sailing’s high-performance

activities between the years of 2005 and 2007. These improvements have been enabled via a highly focused and uncompromised strategy, which has been supported by a significant structural change to the high-performance unit (Olympic and Paralympic), a refreshed coaching structure, and stronger collaboration with the Australian Institute of Sport to integrate and apply sports science and sports medicine. The AST has rebounded from its number 10 ISAF country ranking in the Olympic Classes (Fleet Racing) in 2004 to number one ISAF country ranking in March 2008– this includes five AST members currently ranked number one in the world in their respective classes by ISAF.

There are indicators of improvement in the management and results of YA’s commercial activities. The establishment of premium sponsorship properties associated with the Australian Sailing Team and AST brand has been a key driver in the growth of corporate sponsorship income, however this has for the most part not yet enabled YA to deliver more direct benefits to clubs and community level sailing. Further growth in YA self-generated revenue (i.e. non-government) requires bolstering of expertise and dedicated resources to commercial and media development activities.

9

SECTION ONE I INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT OF REVIEW

1.1.1 About the Review

In March 2007, the ASC and YA agreed to conduct a joint whole-of-sport review of opportunities to strengthen the delivery of sailing in Australia.

Unlike some previous ASC reviews where there has been some precipitating event adversely affecting the delivery of a sport, the origins of the joint ASC–YA review were more positive and very much in the formative, developmental mould with a focus on improvement rather than remediation.

At the same time, it was agreed that the present review would be undertaken on a ‘without prejudice’ basis aimed particularly at improving the capability of YA through an objective, independent examination of the key drivers affecting the delivery of the sport, including matters such as business strategy, organisational structure and the NSO’s relationships with the various components of the sport nationally.

Management of the Review

A Steering Committee has overseen the management of the review. The role of the steering committee has been to:

Approve the selection of the consultant; Approve the project plan; Review the outcome of stakeholder consultation; and Approve the final report.

The membership comprises:

Brent Espeland, Director, Sport Performance and Development (SPD), ASC (chair); Professor Peter Fricker, Director, Australian Institute of Sport (AIS); (Note: Dr Dennis Hatcher,

Assistant Director, Sports Science Sports Medicine, AIS, represented Prof. Fricker at meetings.) Greg Nance, Director, National Sports Programs (NSP), ASC; Andrew Plympton, President, YA; and Phil Jones, CEO, YA.

ASC Project Manager

Dr Robert Kidston, Senior Consultant, Governance and Management Improvement, ASC.

Funding of ReviewThe ASC is meeting the cost of engaging the independent consultancy to conduct the review.

1.1.2 Purpose and Scope of Review

The purpose of this review is to examine opportunities to strengthen the delivery of the sport of sailing. To achieve this objective, the findings and recommendations of this report have been developed via a partnership approach between YA, sailing stakeholders, the ASC and the appointed independent reviewer, Sport Business Partners (SBP). SBP has completed over 100 projects for Australian and New Zealand sporting organisations since its inception in 2001, including

10

governance and management reviews, delivery of high performance and sport development plans, and development of commercial strategies.

The project plan devised for this review reflects a blending of a successful model applied by the ASC to recent reviews of several other National Sporting Organisations with that of the methodology proposed by SBP. The review was to have a particular focus on defining and delineating the roles and responsibilities of YA with the relationships and activities of the Member Yachting Associations and individual sailing clubs.

The primary focus of the review was on the key performance variables outlined in section 1.1.3. Data relating to these variables will compare ‘what is’ (describing and analysing the current arrangements for the delivery of the sport) with ‘what ought to be’ (describing and analysing how the sport should be delivered). Key stakeholders consulted have included:

Sailing’s Stakeholders Method of ConsultationYA Board and Staff Members Personal interviews and internal workshopsMYA Board and CEOs/General Managers Personal interviews and capital city workshopsClubs and the Sailing Community Capital city workshopsAthletes, Coaches, Officials, Personal interviews and capital city workshopsAustralian Sports Commission and AIS Personal interviews and internal workshops

1.1.3 Key Performance Variables

The key performance variables identified by the ASC and YA as critical to assessing the performance of Yachting Australia and the sport of sailing include:

Governance Factors: such as the constitutional arrangements, board policies, practices and behaviours;

Organisational Structure and Strategic Management: policies and practices such as planning, resource management, performance reporting and monitoring, communication with internal and external stakeholders;

Revenue Generation: from pursuing commercial opportunities; Sport Development: including club development and coaching and officiating; and High Performance: planning and implementation, in particular the sport’s objectives and

priorities for high-performance success, high-performance management, coaching and athlete support services, talent identification and development, team and national coach selection, and opportunities for competition in national and international events.

1.1.4 Terms of Reference

The reviewer will:

Describe and analyse the current arrangements for the delivery of the sport, including the roles of key stakeholders;

Describe and analyse how the sport should be delivered, having regard to stakeholder feedback and best practice principles and practices;

Identify gaps between the current and preferred arrangements for the delivery of the sport that, if not remedied, will impede the sport’s ability to achieve the goals outlined in the agreed strategic plan;

Recommend changes to remedy any gaps identified; Propose a strategy for the adoption and implementation of the report’s recommendations; Brief key stakeholders on the report and obtain feedback; and Prepare an addendum to the report on the results of this post-report consultation.

11

1.1.5 Additional Objectives and Strategic Issues

During SBP’s initial briefings and documentation review with the ASC and the YA board and management, the following priority focus areas were more specifically identified as key objectives and strategic issues to address through the review in addition to the general terms of reference.

ASC Objectives and Strategic Issues YA Objectives and Strategic IssuesEffectiveness of the Board: evaluate the skill sets of the board and YA’s governance system and determine what processes and protocols are in place to support decision-making and performance appraisal.

YA’s Business Model: Define what business we are in. Who are our customers? What services will we offer them?

Effectiveness of YA Management: Determine what YA is using to measure its current performance across its core business divisions. The review should provide a legacy for an ongoing performance framework for practical decision support tools.

Modernisation of Governance and Constitution: Following on from the Kilmister Review of AYF Governance in 2000, several aspects of the recommendations are yet to be completed. This extends to organisational structure and legal form.

Sailing’s Participation Strategy: Explore the tension between the elite and social membership/participation elements of the sport. Clearly delineate the nature and responsibility of servicing registered members from the triallists/learn to sail group – where do the 80,000+ learn to sail participants fit in the YA business model and sailing pathway?

Revenue Generation: Identify commercial opportunities to generate increased revenue for investment in sport/club development and high-performance activities.

Development of a Clear and Realistic Strategy to accelerate the adoption and implementation of the review’s key recommendations.

Yacht Club and MYA Relationships: Is there a demand and/or benefit for yacht clubs to have a stronger and more direct relationship with YA constitutionally and operationally? MYAs have suggested YA develop a values-based service agreement to articulate benefits and performance targets to be provided to MYAs and affiliated clubs.Participation and Promotion of Sailing: Addressing the limited growth in competitive and recreation sailing participation.

12

1.1.6 The Approach

The framework of the Review Project Plan has been developed in eight key stages detailed below. The approach for the review was initially designed around a proposed methodology by the ASC utilising gap analysis (comparing ‘what is’ with ‘what ought to be’) based on program logic principles (see diagram below). However, where appropriate SBP was provided flexibility to modify the proposed approach as it saw fit to strengthen the best outcome for the sport. When variations to the project methodology did emerge throughout the review, both YA and ASC have been adaptable working partners in considering and accepting modifications to the conduct and delivery of the review.

Review Methodology Approach: Program Logic Framework

Key Review Stages and Tasks1. Review Preparation and Planning1.1 Workshop preparation session – internal review of YA documentation and planning for initial

stakeholder briefings with YA management and Board.

1.2 Strategic Issues Workshop – two structured half-day workshop sessions with ASC and AIS personnel.

1.3 Revise and finalise Project Plan and refine ASC/SBP joint methodology and review delivery model.

2. Consultation and Data Collection2.1 Design of capital city workshops and personal interview consultations – combination of whole-of-sport scope and questions related to specialised components of the sport.

2.2 Conduct of seven stakeholder workshops (Perth, Sydney, Adelaide, Hobart, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne) personal interview consultations – face-to-face and telephone interviews.

2.3 Compilation and summation of stakeholder feedback from capital city workshops and personal interviews. 3. Analysis and Review3.1 Analysis of data collection utilising gap analysis.

3.2 Identification of performance gaps and understanding of weaknesses in links in the program chain – analysis and write-up of results.

3.3 Review of provisional consultation findings and emerging themes with Review Steering Committee.

InputsResources,

Budget Lines

ActivitiesActivities, Tasks and Strategies

OutputsDeliverables

OutcomesShort,

intermediate and longer term

impact

13

4. Performance Development Strategy4.1 Draft background report on key findings from sport stakeholders and SBP analysis (prepared

for YA Board and Senior Management) to consider prior to ‘solutions retreat’.

4.2 Solution Retreat – consideration, development and improvement of draft recommendations to enhance the delivery of sailing – driven and owned by participants of the YA Board and senior management team, ASC and SBP.

4.3 Draft recommendations to address performance gaps and strengthen sailing.

5. Reporting and Implementation Plan5.1 Completion and review of draft report

5.2 Completion and review of final report

5.3 Develop strategy for adoption and implementation of review recommendations.6. Review Communication6.1 Communication of review and implementation strategy to YA stakeholders7. Review Completion7.1 Completion of post report consultations7.2 Completion of final addendum to report8. Joint Review and Assessment of Project8.1 Performance analysis of project team, partnership model, project methodology and project outcomes.

14

SECTION TWO I KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This section details the findings from consultations with a broad range of sailing stakeholders and the desktop review of relevant documentation across the key performance variables impacting the delivery of sailing. The findings are organised into five key chapters encompassing the whole-of-sport and business review, and are sequenced to reflect the principle of strategy before structure. The chapters in Section Two include:

Business Strategy Sport Development (Community Sailing) High Performance Commercial Development; and Governance and Management.

Each chapter provides an overview and analysis of key performance drivers of sailing and describes ‘what is’ and ‘what ought to be’. These are the fundamental drivers that shape the performance and growth of the sport and business. This approach provides for an evaluation of how the YA business and delivery model performs overall as a business system, not just as a collection of individual parts.

Each chapter provides a succinct conclusion, which summarises key findings of the body of the chapter and contains an interpretation in plain English of what this means for the future delivery of the sport. The conclusion is followed by the reviewer’s recommendations to strengthen the delivery of sailing in the future.

15

2.1 BUSINESS STRATEGYKEY PERFORMANCE DRIVERS

Business Model Customer and Market Segments Strategy Analysis and Formulation

As each stage of the review progressed, it became increasingly evident that there was a general lack of understanding and/or agreement on what business YA is or should be in and what the priorities of sailing in Australia should be. Naturally, the inability to articulate the business focus and business model of YA presents challenges to the board, management, MYAs, Clubs and other stakeholders to manage and grow the sport of sailing and the business of YA effectively with the limited resources available.

Operating effectively within the environment of a federated sporting structure is complex and imperfect. It requires the centre (YA) and the sum of the parts (MYAs, clubs, private providers) to be working with each other in collaboration to improve the health of the sport overall. This does not mean that all stakeholders must have a perfectly aligned view of core business; however agreement is needed in key areas if the sport is to be delivered effectively and with efficiency, which is imperative due to the constraint of resources which exists. There is acknowledgement that the current approach and model are not working for YA, and moreover for the sport of sailing and its members. The inability of YA to universally implement national initiatives (particularly participation development), policies and commercial activities is compromising the growth and performance potential of sailing throughout Australia.

The growing pains being experienced by YA is typical of organisations aspiring to transition from a small business into a medium-sized business – or, more explicitly in the sport context, movement along the continuum from that of a ‘cottage’ industry to that of a fully professional sport business. This finding is the key underlying premise of the overall review and it is reflective of the expressed direction stated by the YA Board to the reviewer and the ASC to incrementally progress the organisation along this continuum towards professionalism and greater direct exploitation of commercial opportunities over the next five to seven years.

Given the importance of such threshold decisions for the sport and the support of the YA Board and the ASC to apply the ‘structure follows strategy’ organisational principle, it would be prudent for YA to defer major decisions on forward planning for the medium and longer term until further work is completed to enable an evidenced-based understanding of YA’s current and targeted customers and the associated business options. This will allow the Board and management to make more informed decisions about the future delivery of the sport and business.

While the resultant decisions of YA’s forward business strategy should precede any significant changes to the governance and management structure of YA, this review does lay out proposed structural reform options designed to support the progress of YA along the desired professional business continuum.

16

2.1.1 Yachting Australia Overview and Purpose

The YA constitution and its objects are referenced in this section and discussed in further detail in section 2.5.1. The objects provide a logical starting point to understand the intended purpose of the organisation.

It is also instructive to review the YA 2007 membership information booklet, About Yachting Australia, which provides a more narrative summary of the purpose and functions of YA under the following headings:What is Yachting Australia?

We are the national association for recreational boating. We are recognised as the National Sports Organisation for sailing by the: ASC, AOC, APC, ISAF.

We represent recreational boating interests to the National Marine Safety Committee and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority.

What We Do (summary of description of member services and benefits) Speak for boating by advocating on behalf of the recreational boating community to the

government on a range of national and international issues including safety and the environment.

Offer quality training to get people into sailing and boating safely and enjoyably and to improve their skills through a series of practical courses for windsurfers, dinghies, powerboats and yachts.

Building a future by providing a pathway and coaching opportunities to allow young athletes to progress in the sport to the level to which they aspire.

Developing world class athletes through a series of state and national initiatives, talented athletes are identified, supported and nurtured, receiving expert coaching, sport science support and financial assistance.

Supporting competitive sailing by setting and reviewing the racing rules and safety regulations in line with world’s best practice, providing the framework for enforcing the rules including training officials, issuing boat rating certificates as well as owning and promoting key events.

Supporting clubs and their members with a wide range of tailored insurance services for Clubs, Class Associations and individuals through to an award winning IT platform providing management tools to support organisations and volunteers at all levels.

Information and advice provided through a website that is a leading source of information on the organisation of sailing and boating in Australia, through contact with members via Nautical News our regular e-newsletter and response to direct inquiries.

Developing policies and plans to ensure the proper governance and management of the Federation with national policies to protect the interests of members, such as anti-doping, and member protection and a strategic plan laying out the future direction.

17

2.1.2 Business Focus Dilemma

The terms yachting, sailing and boating are frequently and interchangeably used to describe the business and activities of YA, MYAs and clubs, as well as industry associations such as the state Boating Industry Associations (BIA). As a terminology, sailing can best be described as wind-powered boats used for competitive and recreational sporting and leisure pursuits, whereas the terminologies for yachting and boating are descriptors which can comfortably comprise most forms of wind and motor-powered boats intended for competitive, recreational or commercial sailing and boating pursuits.

While the YA and ASC agreed scope of this review was implicit in that it should only examine the strengthening of the delivery of the ‘sport of sailing’ in Australia, the review scope was subject to criticism by some stakeholders who held the view that the core business and interests of YA, the MYAs and clubs had evolved over a period of time to be more broadly reflective of the boating sector – incorporating all forms of wind, water and motor-powered boats. Indeed several of the MYAs (QLD, WA and Victoria) have established boating divisions within their organisations, registered business names reflective of a broader boating focus, and have actively promoted the servicing of the boating sector in response to the demonstrated and perceived demand by the MYA members – the yachting clubs. Other MYAs such as NSW, ACT, SA and Tasmania were quite clear that the immediate and foreseeable core focus of their respective organisations should be sailing.

The matter of business definition and focus has taken on a more fluid form by YA. YA membership materials state that YA define it as being both the national sporting organisation for sailing as well as the national association for recreational boating. However the objects of the Federation as described in the constitution would appear to reflect that the primary activity of the national body and the branches of the Federation should be focused on promoting and administering the ‘sport’ of yachting – with the assumption that sport generally constitutes a form of organised competition and in this instance various racing disciplines for sailing (fleet, match and teams).

The argument for YA and MYAs encompassing the broader boating sector is driven by the assertion that power boating represents the strongest growth sector for club memberships and revenue sources. Therefore, some MYAs are adjusting their business focus to better mirror the make up of their membership. As the powerboat group grows, so to does the demand for services relevant to this group of constituents. Some MYAs felt strongly that YA should also adjust its focus to support the development of a value proposition to the broader boating sector in order to reflect alignment with the MYAs’ shift in focus and member servicing.

As provisional findings of the review were distilled and reported to the YA Board and FA, there was an increased sense of urgency surrounding the need for a decisive position on core business focus and the business model to be adopted to enable clarity and direction with the whole-of-sport strategic planning process which commenced in September 2007. Attempts were made throughout the review and the strategic planning forums to describe the options which ought to be considered to determine what YA ‘should’ do in the future. The options outlined in earlier discussions did not take on the rigor or form of a business model taxonomy, rather they were described in the very briefest of manner as ‘choices’ for the FA and YA. The business definition ‘choices’ can be summarised as three general options:

‘Sailing Australia’: This option would focus YA and MYA priorities on competitive, recreational and commercial sailing. In reality, this is probably accountable for over 90% of YA activities and much of it is currently under-resourced. This model would promote the alignment of sailing priorities between YA and the MYAs and be flexible to allow the MYAs to take on boating if they wish to pursue that as a core activity of their own. YA would logically continue to provide training services/courses for

18

powerboats on the basis of generating profitable revenue streams for YA, MYAs, clubs and private providers of registered training centres. ‘Boating Australia’: This option would service defined member/customer needs for recreational and commercial power boating as well as competitive, recreational and commercial sailing.

If the organisation truly wants to embrace sailing and recreational power boating at a national level then it will be required to strengthen the value proposition for power boats. Currently, the YA offering, benefits and business case for servicing the power boat sector are not sufficiently developed or strong enough to justify this shift at a national level.

It is questionable whether YA possesses adequate resources to further broaden its focus and member servicing without a significant injection of revenue. There is currently limited evidence and no developed business case to support the financial consequences or benefits of broadening YA’s services to encompass the boating sector, and whether this shift in focus would be beneficial or detrimental to growing the sport of sailing. It is feasible to suggest that the high fixed costs associated with servicing the current membership could potentially reduce the per head servicing cost of servicing additional boating members. YA must also consider whether a broadened focus and allocation of resources to boating would be detrimental to strengthening sailing in the medium to longer term.

‘Yachting Australia’: This option is the status quo. It would provide for the MYAs to take on boating as a core activity at their own volition with limited YA support. YA would deliver common interests advocacy services on behalf of the sailing and recreational boating sector in partnership with other stakeholders such as the BIA.

Unfortunately, when these ‘choices’ were more substantially tested against the architecture of a business model at the FA strategic planning forum in October 2007, it became apparent that the evidence required to substantiate threshold decisions on ‘which business are we in’ and ‘how we should deliver it’ was significantly compromised by deficient understanding of current and potential customer needs and the resultant financial consequences of the business options being considered. As a result there has been no clear convergence of thinking by the FA.

The lack of hard data to support evidence-based decision-making concerning the future business options of YA has presented initial frustration to the strategic planning process. However, the acknowledgement that YA needs to undertake market research to better understand the needs of its current and potential customers and support the selection of possible business options (along with rigorous financial modelling) does in itself represent significant progress for the organisation and a positive spin-off emanating from this review. This is further discussed in Section 2.1.4.

2.1.3 Business Model for Yachting Australia

YA operate in a customer-orientated business environment, which should fundamentally be shaped around first understanding what customers desire (and need) and then building offerings (products and services) designed to meet the needs of their existing and new customers. In the customer-driven approach, customer wants are the drivers of all strategic marketing decisions. No strategy should be pursued until it passes the test of customer research. Every aspect of a market offering, including the nature of the product or service itself, is driven by the needs of potential customers – the starting point for strategy and execution is always the consumer. The rationale for this approach is quite straightforward – there is no point in investing funds into the development of products and services that people do not want and will not buy. This marketing theory can be translated in a business model context as a ‘demand orientated’ customer model. The term ‘business model’ is often misused when describing the activities of a business; however, the definition itself is not complex and may be paraphrased as a description of:

19

What the business does and why; Who its customers are; and How a business makes its money.

From a practitioner perspective, Magretta1 wants a business model to pass two tests. The first is that the business model should be a good, credible and coherent narrative. It should be possible to tell a story about the business model that makes sense. The second test is to check if the numbers and profit and loss figures add up and are credible. Underlying any business model is the structure of its value chain.

There are numerous definitions which provide guidance on taxonomies for business models, and two examples are provided below.

Chesbrough and Rosenbloom2 state that the functions of a Business Model are to:

1. Articulate the Value Proposition – the value created for users by the offering based on the product/services provided;

2. Identify a Market Segment – the users to whom the product/service is useful and for what purpose;

3. Define the Structure of the Value Chain – the network of activities within the organisation required to create and distribute the products or services offered to customers;

4. Estimate the Cost Structure and Profit Potential of Producing the Offering – given the value proposition and value chain structure chosen;

5. Describe the Position of the Organisation within the Value Network linking Suppliers and Customers – including identification of potential complementors and competitors;

6. Formulate the Competitive Strategy – by which the organisation will gain and hold advantage over rivals.

Osterwalder’s business model template (used in an adapted format as an indicative template at the October 2007 FA planning forum) contains nine building blocks to help describe and visualise the flow of a business model:

1. The value proposition of what is offered to the market; 2. The target customer segments addressed by the value proposition; 3. The communication and distribution channels to reach customers and offer the value

proposition; 4. The relationships established with customers; 5. The core capabilities needed to make the business model possible; 6. The configuration of activities to implement the business model; 7. The partners and their motivations of coming together to make a business model happen; 8. The revenue streams generated by the business model constituting the revenue model; 9. The cost structure resulting from the business model.

The adapted Osterwalder model requires minor modification to reflect the ‘demand’ orientated nature of YAs business. The adapted business model template for YA is attached in Appendix 10. When fully developed, the business model template could be utilised to describe YA’s various customers, what the business does and the value it offers these customers. The model should further describe the capabilities of YA and its partners which are required to create, market and

1 Magretta, J. ‘Why Business models matter‘, Harvard Business Review, 80, 5 (May 2002), pp 86–92.

2 Chesbrough, H. and Rosenbloom, R., The Role of the Business Model in Capturing Innovation (2002).

20

deliver this value with the objective of delivering profitable and sustainable income. Currently, the business models for YA and the MYAs are not well articulated or developed and not reflective of a customer-driven model.

2.1.4 Customer and Market Segments

It is not possible to further develop the YA business model or strategic plan with any substance until there is a stronger evidence-based understanding of current and potential customer and market segments developed through national market research. However, it is beneficial to review existing national (The Sweeney Sports Report) and international research (Volvo Ocean Race) findings that study the overall market and those customers and enthusiasts with an interest in sailing.

It is also worthwhile to review the internal considerations of YA and the Federal Assembly in relation to existing and targeted customer and market segments from the September 2007 strategic planning forum in Melbourne and the preliminary market segmentation strategy developed by the P4 Group for YA in 2004. These findings can be found in Appendix 5 of the report.

The information gleaned from the Sweeney Sports, Volvo Ocean Race and P4 studies and the efforts of the FA are useful starting points to understand the profile of sailing’s current and potential customers and their needs. Often well-designed customer research confirms the anecdotal views of people closely involved in a sport, and it would be likely that much of the insight on current customers and obstacles to attracting new participants would be reflected in a nationally commissioned and structured research study. However, given that there are some contrasting and possibly insular views within the sport as to who the customer is and what they want, it is imperative that there is impartiality and supporting evidence to define the needs and characteristics of existing customers and those which represent the richest vein for sailing to target. This is particularly relevant in the highly competitive Australian sponsorship market.

The scope of the proposed national market research study will need to be fully developed and refined by YA and an appointed market research agency. However, at a broad level, the primary objective of the proposed national market research project is to determine the groups or segments with the most potential to build and retain participation in sailing as well as increase the consumption of sailing goods and services and/or the offerings of YAs sponsors.

There are a range of secondary objectives or specific issues that will need to be explored throughout this research, which potentially include:

Identifying interest levels in sports and other activities. Exploring barriers and drivers of the major activities/sports. Identifying information sources for a number of sports. Establishing the current levels of interest in sailing. Determining the depth and breadth of attitudes towards sailing. Exploring the attitudes and perceptions of the sport of sailing, including:

o strengths and weaknesseso barriers o understanding.

Establish the key brand parameters of sailing, and how they relate to Australians. Determine or estimate the likelihood to attend events or be involved in watching sailing on TV. Establish the likelihood to participate in sailing and interest in alternative formats.

21

Explore attitudes towards club membership in general and its format, and identify some of the possible alternatives to traditional club membership.

Explore various parameters and initiatives that may enhance appeal of the sport (including price issues).

Identify the needs of existing sailors and develop a hierarchy of member priorities and preferences.

Understand the demographic profile of existing customers with a view to utilising information to strategically target potential corporate sponsors.

2.1.5 YA Membership/Customer Model

Following the completion of a national market research study to understand customer attitudes, needs and segments (and therefore business focus), YA may wish to consider a hybrid service delivery model which caters for the demand-orientated nature of the business. A model is required that provides greater flexibility to enable YA to operate more nationally, commercially and directly to deliver tailored value propositions to different consumer segments, i.e. a value proposition which is customised and targeted to satisfy the needs of both the traditional membership and fee-for-service customers.

Traditional sport membership and its associated commitments is becoming an increasingly difficult proposition to attract and retain participants – particularly those aged under 30. There is a prevailing ‘what’s in it for me’ sentiment within this broad segment, which requires a sophisticated understanding and development of the loyalty drivers (quality, service, value, convenience) sailing potentially offers to these consumers and a highly tailored approach to match product and service offerings with their needs. Therefore, it is the reviewer’s opinion that YA should develop within its business model a choice that enables the sport to provide consumer offerings matched to both the traditional membership model (subscription based) and the utility model (on demand, pay as you go) to remain competitive with other sport and lifestyle options.

A very broad view and definition of these types of customers and how they are serviced is outlined in the table below.

22

Table 1: Differentiation of Membership Offerings

1. Membership(Subscription-based model)

This model is representative of the traditional institutional model provided by both YA and the MYAs to deliver the base level of services and benefits, which is articulated in the ‘about Yachting Australia’ membership booklet. Users are charged an annual fee to subscribe to a service. Subscription fees are incurred irrespective of actual usage rates of the base level services and benefits.

2. Utility (Fee-for-Service)

The utility or ‘on-demand’ model is based on a ‘pay as you go’ approach. Unlike YA and MYA membership subscriber services, services are based on actual usage rates and pricing reflects market-driven value.

This model would provide for YA to undertake commercially driven initiatives and deliver services and products direct to national and international customers. These activities could be incorporated internally into YA core commercial activities or alternatively through a wholly owned for-surplus subsidiary company.

2.1.6 Strategic Plan for Yachting in Australia

The desired outcome of the current YA 2005–09 strategic plan to provide the vehicle for delivering a ‘systematic approach to change management within the Federation at both National and State/Territory levels’ and to ‘ensure a cohesive “all of sport” approach to planning and resulting in agreed strategic priorities’ has not been achieved.

The current implicit business model of YA is not delivering the desired outcomes of the sport or business – there are roadblocks. The current behaviour and practices of the sport within its federated structure are dysfunctional. Effective collaboration between the centre (YA) and its parts (MYAs) is being compromised by passive resistance and distrust between some states and YA, which is impeding the ability of YA and MYA management to implement a national vision and strategy for sailing in Australia.

A national plan for yachting in Australia does not exist – rather there are nine strategic plans of the YA and MYAs which present a fragmented blueprint of future directions of the sport and contribute to substantial inefficiencies to sailing’s collective activities.

The recent strategic planning forums in September and October 2007 with the Federal Assembly identified the need for a more focused approach and more effective allocation of its finite resources to build yachting’s whole-of-sport competitive advantage. The plan needs to be national and supported by specific and measurable performance targets for mission critical goals. The current strategic plan is ineffective as a YA and MYA business tool and reflects the lack of buy-in by the stakeholders. Real commitment to cultural change (lasting changes to the shared ways of thinking, beliefs, values, procedures and relationships of the stakeholders) is needed at all levels to one direction for the sport – endorsement is simply not enough. Enduring cultural change can only happen over time, hence the need for staged structural changes as discussed in Section 2.5.

However, in the first instance YA must define its business model and then provide evidence for what the rationale of the vision and focus of the business will be before the strategic roadmap for ‘yachting in Australia’ can be fully developed.

23

DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS I BUSINESS STRATEGY

Provisional Views on Business Strategy Options

The reviewers have recommended that threshold decisions on business focus, business model and the development of the strategic plan for yachting in Australia be deferred until such time that market research is completed, which can provide evidence-based data which substantiates the case for business strategy.

However, it is instructive for the reviewers to present their views on the salient business strategy options based on the consultations and observations over a period of ten months of working with the sport, and to draw on extensive experiences within the sporting industry over the past decade. It should be noted that the reviewer’s observations are provisional and are subject to confirmation (and variation) following the completion and analysis of the proposed market research. The reviewer provides the following observations concerning YA’s key business strategy options:

Business Focus: As the national governing body for the sport of yachting, the reviewer’s opinion is that YA’s primary purpose and business focus should be to provide strategic leadership and management to strengthen all aspects of sailing in Australia. YA should focus on first getting the core business and purpose of the organisation functioning at a higher level of performance before proceeding with diversification of targeted customers and offerings which fall outside of the sailing (non-motor) marketplace.

The boating customer segment may present an attractive membership and/or fee-for-service opportunity for YA, however the boating sector should be categorised as a secondary customer target with primary focus firmly directed towards sailing. Offerings and resource allocation by YA to the boating market should be considered and developed following consumer research to determine their needs and supported by an appropriate business case, which supports the market opportunity and the cost consequences of servicing the boating customer segment.

Customer Focused and Driven Business Model: YA must be customer-driven (demand orientated) in all aspects of its business. The value propositions (bundled offering of products and services) should be designed and offered to the marketplace based upon a clear understanding and priority of what its various customer segments want. Currently, YA and MYAs are predominantly operating as supply-orientated businesses, often dictating offerings to customers. In the future, the starting point for any YA product or service offering must start with the customer in mind. This will require a significant behavioural and cultural shift (supported by incremental structural changes) and ongoing commitment and investment to research and decision support systems. The customer-driven approach will ensure more efficient allocation of resources by YA with cascading benefits and savings to MYAs and clubs.

National Vision and Plan for Yachting in Australia: The interests of the sport will be best progressed through the adoption and implementation of a single national strategic plan utilised by YA and all MYAs and supported by a common Performance Management System (see also Section 2.5). There should still be some flexibility for MYAs to tailor components of the national plan for state/territory–specific priorities and initiatives; however the key strategic pillars, priorities and performance drivers of the sport should be consistent throughout Australia and delivered by an aligned and collaborative YA/MYA management team.

Customer-Driven Business FocusAs a first step in the development of the business strategy for yachting in Australia, YA should invest in appropriate national market research to assist the sport in understanding the attitudes,

24

needs and preferences of its current customers and those the sport would like to acquire. The outcomes of this research will guide YA and the FA on the products and services it may offer to its targeted customer segments, provide guidance on business focus and how the business model should be constructed. It is recommended that:

Recommendation OneYA develop a research brief and engage an external market research provider to conduct a national study to determine the attitudes, needs, priorities and preferences of current and targeted customers and translate these findings into a customer-driven core business focus.

YA Business Model YA should resolve the fundamental questions of its business model, which are:

What the business does and why; Who its customers are; and How the business makes its money.

The financial modelling associated with this process should determine the fixed costs of YA’s operations and what the marginal costs of servicing additional new members are. It is recommended that:

Recommendation TwoYA develop a national business model (which explores the cost consequences of the various business opportunities and business model options emerging as a result of the research project) to clearly articulate what products and services the organisation will offer and how it will deliver these offerings to meet the needs of its targeted customers/audiences.

National Strategic Plan Development of the new strategic plan should be deferred until the completion of the market research project. A 12-month interim plan should be developed to cover the activities of 2008.

The new strategic plan should work towards a 2009–2013 timeframe and incorporate the recommended directions of the Strengthening Sailing Review, the national market research project, and the YA business model and initiatives (which emerge as a result of the research findings).

The plan should be future-focused and provide a clear roadmap for the sport to deliver its core business. The plan should be supported by specific and measurable performance targets for mission-critical goals, and commitment is required at all levels towards an agreed national vision for the sport using one unified national strategic plan delivered through a national business model for yachting. It is recommended that:

Recommendation ThreeHaving regard to the business model, the YA Board involve key stakeholders to develop a national strategic plan for ‘yachting in Australia’ that is future-focused with clear priorities and achievable objectives, strategies and responsibilities to focus, guide and align YA, MYA and the clubs towards the delivery of a national vision through the business model.

25

2.2 SPORT DEVELOPMENT (COMMUNITY SAILING) KEY PERFORMANCE DRIVERS Pathways and Programs (participant recruitment, development and retention for recreational

and competitive streams) Training Membership Model and Services Sport Development Links to High Performance Coaching and Officiating (volunteers) Events

2.2.1 The Sailing Pathway and Programs

Active paid membership numbers for Yachting have remained relatively stable over the past five years, reaching a peak of 45,171 in 2004 and dropping to 40,703 in 2007, representing a 4.5% decline in the past 12 months. According to a recently commissioned study by Yachting Victoria (YV) with its clubs, it is believed that approximately 45% to 50%3 of the capitated membership engage in regular competitive or semi-competitive racing on the weekends or mid-week during the summer period. In 2006, according to ERASS4 research, 90,500 people participated in sailing in Australia. These figures indicate that upwards of 50,000 participants may fall into the non-affiliated categories of recreational, learn to sail and occasional participants.

While there is a perception that sailing is elitist and expensive, this not necessarily the case at the entry level of the sport. The 2007 YV club survey revealed that the total number of boats in Victoria (5,200) compared to the 12,000 active registered sailors supported the premise that sailing can be a widely accessible and affordable sport as more than half the participants do not own boats.

Table 2:Trends in Membership for the period of 2002 - 20075

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Growth last 12 Months

(+/-)Total 40,628 43,584 45,171 44,738 42, 585 40,703 -4.5%

Table 3: Proportionate Market Share in 2007 by State/TerritoryState/Territory 2007 Registered

MembersPopulation at End of Mar qtr 2007 (‘000)6

Percentage of population who are members

NSW 10,931 6 875.7 0.0016VIC 11,746 5 188.1 0.0022QLD 6,377 4 162.0 0.0015SA 2,486 1 581.4 0.0015WA 5,395 2 094.5 0.0025TAS 2,943 492.7 0.0059NT 177 213.8 0.0008ACT 648 338.2 0.0019TOTAL 40,703 20 948.9 0.0019

3 Estimates based on 2007 Yachting Victoria Club Survey: Go Sailing and Boating (August 2007).4 Participation in Exercise, Recreation and Sport (2006 Annual Report).

5 YA MyClub Database, 28 February 20086 3101.0- Australian Demographic Statistics, (March 2007)

26

By way of comparison, many of the mass participation team sports such as AFL, Rugby Union and Rugby League have typically experienced annual growth of 5% to 9% in the same period – Cricket has experienced 16% growth in the last 12 months. Overall, the trend in sports participation in Australia is moving toward a more flexible (pay as you go) and recreational delivery model and a growing reluctance to join a club and the associated commitments that come with that. This leads to demand for a fee-for-service model (customer driven) rather than a subscription-driven (membership) model.

It must be noted though that unlike football or netball where the sport can be played and skills picked up over time, sailing is more similar to swimming which requires some form of structured basic skill training at the beginning, so any membership mode would need to allow for provision of this basic training.

The growth in recreational power boating is considered to be having a detrimental effect on club sailing membership numbers nationally; however, only WA and Victoria have current and reliable data to reflect its membership segments. In response to the business priorities of their Member Clubs, QLD, WA and Victoria have made a concerted shift to embrace and service the boating sector as a core MYA business focus – thus creating tension in the governance and management of the sport.

While the prolonged drought conditions present sailing with a competitive advantage to target participants with yachting clubs’ proximity to the coastal regions, inland sailing clubs are being impacted (particularly Northern Victoria) by the effects of a variable climate. Proportionately, the inland clubs represent a small membership component of sailing’s overall participants, however it is appropriate to acknowledge and consider the challenges the drought presents to these clubs. As an example, Bendigo Yacht Club, located at Lake Eppalock, has experienced a decline in membership from 450 to 156 members since 2002. The club is unable to conduct recruiting and coaching programs, and will continue to struggle with their ongoing viability until there is adequate rainfall.

The Sailing PathwayLike many other organised sports, sailing features both a competitive stream of participants and a recreational/social stream. Sailing does provide genuine entry points for people of all ages, however depending on the age of entry into the sport the pathway will include elite competitive and recreational streams or narrow to intra-club (semi-competitive) and recreational options.

There are more than 100 recognised sailing classes in Australia, 11 of which are represented at the Olympic Games (see Appendix Six for Olympic class descriptions and Australian performances). There are three racing formats for competitive sailing:

Fleet RacingFleet Racing is the most common form of sail racing. Fleet Racing is used at the Olympic Games, and is also the form of racing generally used in the longer haul ocean races. In fleet racing a number of boats start on one start line, race around the same course, and then cross the finish line. The length of the race or the type of course varies from event to event.

Team RacingThe recognised format for the Team Racing World Championship involves racing in two-handed dinghies, three a side. The boats are provided by the organisers to ensure that they are evenly matched, and should be of a type that can be sailed effectively without there being a premium on strength or an optimum weight. The two teams of three race to try to achieve a winning combination of places – the lowest score wins. The scoring system is usually: 1st place – 1 point, 2nd place – 2 points, 3rd place – 3 points, and so on. A team that scores ten or less is therefore the winner, so that 2, 3, 4 beats 1, 5, 6.

27

Match RacingA match race consists of two identical boats racing against each other. With effective boat handling and prudent use of wind and currents, a trailing boat can escape the grasp of the leader and pass. The leader uses blocking techniques to hold the other boat back. This one-on-one duel is a game of strategy and tactics.

While there are well-articulated elite athlete pathways documented in the YA National Youth Development Plan for talented young sailors, there is no clear or consistent resource or direction for the sport which encompasses the preferred whole-of-sport national pathway from entry level to elite. YA has developed the basic diagrammatic pyramid of the Olympic Sailing Pathway (Section 2.3, Figure 3), however this does not integrate the levels of the pathway below the sub-elite.

There is a degree of consensus about the options available for new entrants, and these can be described by most active members of the sailing community. However, the level of understanding for people outside of the sailing community is in fact very poor. The reviewer’s frank assessment of the under-development of sailing’s pathways and programs often elicited a defensive response from the sailing fraternity. This is due to the fact that if you know what to look for, an offering in sailing exists – the dilemma for sailing is that it is not uniform in its promotion or delivery.

In the absence of a nationally developed and articulated participation pathway (encompassing both competitive and recreational), there are many examples of clubs demonstrating practical and sensible leadership in the provision of accessible pathways and participation development for sailing. A good example is the Royal Perth YC which has established a strategic objective of being the ‘go to sailing training centre for WA’. The club has identified and purchased classes of boats most appropriate for client development (Optimist, Laser, 420, BW8’s, Tasar) and has appointed a full-time Club Development Officer and Head Coach to drive the development process. The RPYC model provides a strong national blueprint for adoption in metropolitan and larger regional centres; however, these types of positive initiatives are often occurring in isolation. As one YA staff member describes the situation:

‘Sailing lacks the franchise model for participation – something that is consistent, clear and easy to use nationally. We need a pathway and programs which are well-researched, trialled and branded which provide “copy and paste” solutions for the club network. Unfortunately, every club is doing their own thing in isolation and there is no cohesive approach by the 383 clubs, 8 MYAs and YA. We have 392 entities working individually – we must agree on how we can best work together to develop the sport.’

Indicative Pathways for Sailing

Indicative pathways for entry-level sailors can potentially occur through a number of forms. The three key streams are: 1. Family; 2. Club; and 3. Schools. The diagram on the following page summarises a participant’s pathway through each of these streams.

Figure 1: Participant Entry and Progression Streams1. Learn to Sail through Family Involvement - (learn the ropes through family and friends. Not

necessarily part of any formalised structure)

28

Participant as introductory Crew Club Member Recreation Racing Sailor Competition Racing Sailor

2. Learn to Sail Club Program – (structured pathway with clear training mechanisms. Usually a sailing school or perhaps a club employed sailing instructor or coach)

Attend learn to sail classes Participant as introductory Crew Club Member Recreation Racing Sailor Receive learn to race training Competition Racing Sailor

3. School Sailing – (same as club, a structured mechanism. Typically a teacher who happens to be a sailing instructor or a coach, or a club with a sailing school & instructor bring the school kids into their facility)

Attend learn to sail classes Participant as introductory Crew Club Member Recreation Racing Sailor Receive learn to race training Competition Racing Sailor

The indicative pathway could also be described using a matrix which delineates by customer type (by age of entry) and offer.

Table 4: Indicative Pathway for Sailing ParticipantsJunior (7-14 years)

Youth (14-24 years)

Young Adult (20-30 years)

Older Adult 30+

Learn To Sail Simple, fun, learn basics – club or private provider programs

Simple, fun, learn basics – club or private provider programs



Learn to Race Club coaching and regattas

Club Coaching and regattas



Social Competition

Limited Limited Twilight mid-week Twilight mid-week

Advanced Competition

State and National level competitions




Elite Competition National and International level competitions

National and International level competitions



Degree of Pathway Development

Partial Partial Low Low

Participant Definitions7

‘Junior’: is defined by the class rules of the following junior classes: International Cadet, International Optimist, Sabot, Minnow, Flying Ant, Manly Junior, Flying 11 and Laser 4.7. The recommended junior age is generally recognised as less than 16 years. ‘Youth’ in loose terms is any participant under the age of 25. For the purposes of Youth-only events ‘Youth’ is based on ISAF Regulation 17.4.3, i.e. a Participant shall not have achieved their 19th Birthday by 31st December of the year of participation. At present this is the maximum age. The exception to this statement is in the case of Youth Match Racing where the regatta age limit is generally determined by the regatta organiser.

The absence of a national pathway and consistent entry-level programs and opportunities has created an inefficient and an inferior market approach to participation development in sailing throughout Australia, resulting in ineffective collaboration between the YA, MYA and club partner network.

In addition to the evidence provided in the overall declining membership numbers for sailing, there are numerous examples where nationally driven sport development initiatives have consistently failed to generate the support required from the MYA and club partner network. The failure of YA,

7 Yachting Australia National Youth Development Plan 2006-2009 (2006).

29

MYAs and clubs to work together effectively on interdependent initiatives in its current federal structure is covered in more specific detail in Section 2.5 of this document. Unfortunately, there appears to be an endemic dysfunction in successfully implementing initiatives within the sport which are aimed at participation recruitment and retention, volunteers (coaches and officials) and overall club development.

Several examples follow which illustrate the problematic nature of executing sport development initiatives within the sailing community. These examples include the Onboard and Youth Sailboard initiatives.

Case Study One: Onboard – National ‘Welcome to Sailing’ InitiativeThe Onboard Program was part of the ASC’s Targeted Sports Participation Growth Program (TSPGP) and originally set out to provide sailing clubs, who signed up to the program, with access to interested potential participants. As an Onboard partner, a club could search a YA database for registered participants who live in the area near the club, and from there contact them with invitations to come to the club and participate in a club event, and hopefully they are interested in becoming active members of the club.

For prospective participants, Onboard provides the capability to use specific criteria to list preferences or interests in categories such as dinghies, crewing opportunities and opportunities for people with a disability. The registration system for Onboard was trialled by the reviewer and works very efficiently. A welcome message was immediately delivered from the YA CEO upon registration, and within two hours a personal invitation to visit the club and a club event was received from the Rear Commodore of the club matched to the inquiry.

The lack of understanding and agreement related to the ASC-funded Onboard targeted growth program highlighted flaws in the YA and MYA relationship and impeded the possibility of successful delivery. The ASC observed the inability of YA to work with the states effectively in delivering a national sport development initiative. Some MYAs and clubs share a view that participation development and programs is the domain of clubs and that there is not a meaningful role for YA. As a result, the strategy was not well supported, despite YA initially securing more than $700,000 from the ASC to fund its development and delivery.

It must be said though that many of the Targeted Sport Growth Programs saw NSOs being driven by ‘getting the numbers’ within the life of the program funding, often at the detriment of sustainability. These programs may well have benefited from the work that has been done in the meantime on junior sport ethos and club development. A majority of the targeted growth programs, including Onboard, suffered particularly from lack of buy-in and resistance from the stakeholders. The low levels of commitment from stakeholders may have been overcome had there been an adequate opportunity to thoroughly research the needs of the clubs and design a solution which provided them with the practical assistance required to execute the awareness and welcoming initiative.

Many sailing clubs do run successful open days with come-and-try events to encourage new members into their clubs. YA could build on these principles and those of the original Onboard program to provide a structured national welcoming program that provides clubs with the tools and promotional resources to welcome new participants. The Onboard web-based technology is still very relevant to the new recruitment value chain, however it is the vital elements of creating awareness to use Onboard and the subsequent level of readiness of clubs to be willing and able to accept new members into a nationally branded welcoming/participation scheme which remain under-developed.

Case Study Two: Youth Sailboard InitiativeThis initiative was intended to build depth for the high-performance board class and was initiated by the YA high-performance unit and developed by the YA sport services unit. Significant resources of the sport services unit were invested in the development of the initiative, despite concerns that

30

there were limited resources available by YA and MYAs to implement effectively and clubs had shown little interest in the initiative.

Unfortunately, the initiative has failed to gain traction. The MYAs did not ask for it (no demand), and only a handful of clubs (two or three) showed any interest in activating the initiative. While the premise of the high-performance unit of building the depth and capability of the class is logical, development of the initiative ultimately diverted scarce resources in the sport services unit to activities which did not reflect the needs or priorities of YA’s customers.

While both the Onboard and Youth Sailboard initiatives had sound premise, it would have been instructive to design and evaluate both initiatives using a decision support tool such as program logic methodology (results-based measurement). The principal aim of the program logic model is that it requires users to specify what they hope will happen (in the form of a sequenced chain), and then test each of the links in the chain to identify what actually happened. Below is a simple yet effective illustration of its application to a participation development initiative such as Onboard.

Objective: Yachting Australia wishes to inform people about its introductory sailing program and club welcoming initiative (Onboard) and where and how they can participate.

The inputs are money ($700,000), human resources (YA and MYA), intellectual property (YA and MYA), and facilities, training and equipment (383 clubs) required to deliver the program.

The activity (this converts inputs to outputs) is promoting the Onboard program – via websites, clubs, schools, boat shows, radio, etc. (Program awareness).

The output (what was produced) is that some people hear and learn about the Onboard offering (via the YA website or direct enquiry to clubs).

The outcome is that some of the people act on what they have heard and join the program (Conversion of interest).

The impact is that sampling/membership of the Onboard program and participation in sailing is increased.

The step-by-step testing of the chain is the power of the program logic model – if the program did not work as intended, the model provides the ability to identify the weak links in the chain. In the context of the Onboard initiative, this approach could have served as a useful diagnostic tool in helping to identify the underlying cause of poor performance so that remediation could be targeted at fixing the problem rather than simply addressing the symptoms. Application of this tool would have been especially useful at the pilot program stage. Naturally, the roll-out of the pilot stage of a new sport development initiative and its subsequent evaluation should only happen following appropriate research to determine the needs of the targeted audience.National Leadership on Participation and Club Development

Pathway clarity and consistency is an important component to all organised sports for a variety of reasons. Not only is it critical to be able to articulate in a narrative or diagrammatically the pathway options which exist for participants, a consistent and cohesive approach provides far stronger efficiencies in the execution of professional promotional awareness strategies and production of technical and marketing resources.

Sailing has an attractive product; unfortunately, a highly fragmented approach means it is currently not possible to describe and communicate this offering consistently to the marketplace. The current approach of participation development for entry-level sailing in Australia largely being devolved to the clubs is not working, as is evidenced by the decline in overall sailing membership. Development of the pathway and programs for entry-level participants should not be left in the hands of the clubs

31

and is clearly an area where both YA and MYAs need to demonstrate stronger leadership if participation in the sport is to prosper.

It is the reviewer’s opinion that the priorities for YA leadership in nationally driven participation development programs are in the following areas:

Learn to Sail program (LTS) – introductory, learn basics, fun, Auskick-style program to introduce primary and high school aged children 5 to 12 years to small dinghies (preferably delivered through a YA licensing model and delivered by clubs or private providers to ensure a consistent national product offering).

Learn to Sail and Race – introductory, learn basics, then learn to race (i.e. program may culminate with intra or inter school teams racing regatta). This program would target high school participants aged 12 to 17 years and would also potentially be delivered through a YA licensing model by clubs or private providers.

The existing online IT platform provided through Onboard and developed through the ASC TSPGP could be readily integrated into both programs. Schools programs provide very good opportunities for recruitment into the sport through teams racing, however this segment remains underdeveloped. YA are currently exploring partnerships with potential providers (possibly via a licensing model) who would provide transportable equipment and programs to groups on a fee-for-service arrangement. This would address the significant downtime at sailing clubs during the middle part of the day from Monday to Friday, and presents a strong opportunity to build sailing into the school curriculum, while strengthening club viability.

As indicated in other sections of this report, the majority of the MYAs are supportive of YA and have stated that they are looking for leadership, guidance, support and tools to improve the delivery of the sport to their members. The YA website (www.yachting.org.au) in fact provides a comprehensive range of sport and club development information for clubs and members. Given the perception of many stakeholders consulted throughout the review that these resources do not exist, YA may need to be more proactive and promote these resources to their MYAs and members.

YA have created an initial working relationship with the Boating Industry Association (BIA) to explore mutually beneficial initiatives. The boating industry members through the BIA (which encompass the interests of manufacturers of sailing vessels) have a vested interest in seeing yachting and boating participation grow as they stand to benefit directly from equipment and boat purchases. Together with the BIA there is potential to create a strong alliance for advocacy purposes but also to advance YA’s current Junior Sailing Plan and improve support for the recently adopted Youth Development strategy.

YA have also attained Gold Level of Project Connect for disability sailing. An example of implementation of such programs is Sailability, a non-profit organisation dedicated to increasing sailing opportunities, regardless of age or disability.

Internationally, various initiatives are being developed as part of the ISAF Connect to Sailing Project.

2.2.2 Training

YA are recognised as a Registered Training Organisation (RTO) by NSW VETAB to deliver training, conduct assessments and issue qualifications in four units of competency from the TAA40104 Training Package. As part of the Training program, YA currently maintain and operate a series of National Training Schemes which are delivered via nearly 350 Recognised Centres around Australia. MYAs are closely involved with the delivery model and provide on-site auditing of recognised centres to ensure compliance is maintained. Training is offered for both sail and power craft, and is

32

designed to impart the basic knowledge and skills necessary to allow the student to get afloat in safety.An estimated 80,000 to 100,000 members of the community undertake training at commercial and club operated Yachting Australia recognised centres each year, although not all of these result in a Yachting Australia qualification. Many of the participants are either not assessed or don’t want the qualification – thus making it very difficult to provide an accurate assessment of the number of people going through the scheme. YA is in the process of revamping the business structure and resources of its training operations to re-energise its National Training Scheme, with a view to seeing its training activities generating a profit. Whilst progress to rebuild the schemes and the brand has been made, it may be some time before training generates a positive financial return.

A review of training in 2004 found that there is general frustration in the delivery and performance of the YA National Training Scheme. The scheme is not being taken up consistently, and some clubs are using their own adaptations of the resources and courses and thus creating concerns about quality control. It was also noted that many clubs were underselling the training product and attempting to keep costs down utilising a volunteer delivery model. While the consumer does seek good value for money, the lack of professionalism typically delivered through the volunteer-dependent model is clearly not working and not what the majority of the public want or demand. Consumers are seeking a professional experience and are prepared to pay for it. Utilising a delivery model which is more reflective of the ‘golf pro-shop’ will be the more effective direction to grow the profitability of clubs, commercial operators, MYAs and YA.

‘Training at our club has grown in revenue by about 25–30% last 12 months – but it’s not very profitable. Most clubs are underselling the value of training. The commercial operators are savvier and charge market value without resistance.’

- General Manager, Sandringham YC

However, YA are now addressing this and will adopt the Royal Yachting Association (RYA) cruising scheme as the national scheme for Australia. In July 2006 Yachting Australia and the RYA signed a Heads of Agreement regarding various training initiatives. YA and the RYA then committed to collaborate and jointly manage the operation of the Yacht Cruising Scheme. RYA has recently invited Yachting Australia to enter into a licence agreement for the future delivery of the scheme.

The program will provide a clear pathway and recognition for students nationally and internationally. All materials produced for the scheme, including certificates, will be co-branded by YA and RYA. YA will be the sole RYA provider in Australia and the program will be managed and administered nationally. The agreement will be for a five-year term commencing 1 January 2008 and renewable every five years. YA will pay the RYA an annual audit fee and royalties on recognition fees and exams from year 2 onwards. The existing Yacht Cruising Scheme would be phased out by 31 December 2010.

Under the agreement Yachting Australia will manage, administer and promote all aspects of the scheme, including:

handling all financial transactions from January 2008 and being the first point of contact for the Scheme;

contracting the services of the current RYA Australia Coordinator from November 2008 to oversee the Scheme as Chief Instructor and handle all inspections, etc. thereafter;

being a non-exclusive distributor of non-restricted publications and the exclusive distributor of restricted publications; and

seeking recognition of the scheme by Australian regulatory authorities.

33

The RYA will provide an Australian Co-ordinator for the first 12 to 15 months and will be responsible for:

handling all technical and instruction matters and assisting Yachting Australia with all transitional arrangements;

training Yachting Australia personnel to handle all administrative arrangements; leading the delivery of training for examiners and instructors; inspecting all schools seeking to deliver the scheme; auditing the management and delivery of the scheme; and maintaining the MCA recognition for the scheme.

YA have recently developed and advertised a new position to employ a National Participation and Training Manager. The new role will be responsible for leading and managing the provision of boating training in Australia and managing Yachting Australia’s Training and RTO operations. The position will also lead the development and management of the necessary infrastructure and program arrangements to attract new participants to the sport and ensure they receive quality experiences. The Participation and Training Manager will work closely with MYA representatives to ensure the National Training Schemes and other agreed national initiatives are successfully delivered by appropriately contracted Yachting Australia Training Centres (YATCs) or licensed operators and manage the development and maintenance of agreed publications and other materials to support the schemes and other programs.

Bringing together the activities of both training and participation development is a logical and beneficial direction for the sport to adopt. This indicated direction should provide a more streamlined and consistent approach to participation recruitment and retention activities.

2.2.3 Sport Development Links to High Performance

The YA 2006–09 National Youth Development Plan identifies its preferred international classes as suitable for youth participation as the International 420, International 29er, International Laser, International Laser Radial, Sailboard Neil Pryde RSX 8.5, and International Hobie 16 with spinnaker. The preferred Junior classes are the International Cadet, International Optimist and Laser 4.7, and junior feeder classes allow for various Australian classes including but not limited to Sabot, Minnow, Flying Ant, Manly Junior and Flying 11.

The diagram below represents the preferred Youth Development pathway to the Olympic Classes. Beyond the elite level coaches and SIS/SAS programs, there appears to be limited knowledge within the broader sailing community of this preferred pathway and boat classes for youth development leading into the Olympic Classes.

Figure 2: Youth Development Pathway into Olympic Classes

34

Simplification, clarification and standardisation of preferred and appropriate classes for entry-level competitive and recreational sailors is required to improve consistency of program delivery nationally. As an example, YA have designated the Pacer Dinghy as the preferred equipment for Team Racing activities and have also provided details of manufacturers throughout Australia who supply the Pacer, which is the primary format for competitive sailing development within the high school system.

A plan to standardise the classes of boats provided and subsidised by clubs that are most appropriate for client development would assist in removing a lot of confusion generated by having more than 100 classes in the sport, and would encourage stronger development of classes which underpin the 11 Olympic classes and Teams Racing. A nationally consistent fleet promoted to clubs and private training providers would enable a move towards a more cost-effective fleet procurement model. The opportunity could exist to create preferred fleet manufacturing partners, which may result in a fleet rebate or licensing fee which could be redirected and invested into YA development activities nationally.

2.2.4 Membership Model and Services

YA has recently developed a ‘Yachting Demographic’ to classify yacht clubs into seven bands, taking into account factors such as membership numbers, history, facilities, competitive programs, staff and turnover. This determines what levies will be applied to clubs. This membership scheme has been adopted by the FA and fees are collected by MYAs through their member clubs. The contribution from members through this scheme is currently around $560,000 per annum ($13.72 per adult; $3.43 for those under 18). Part of the fee is retained by the respective MYA, with the balance passed on to YA. Fees from members are spent exclusively on activities related to developing and providing services and programs delivered by the MYAs.

Feedback from several of the capital city consultations was that YA should establish a national membership contribution target and set a fixed fee to collect from each MYA proportionate to relative membership share, allowing the MYAs flexibility to develop their own arrangements for membership systems for clubs, and let clubs define their own membership models. In this model, clubs would be given an unlimited supply of Silver Cards to provide to their sailing and recreational

35

Chris Muldoon, 20/03/08,

Due to the passage of time, the description in the report of the YA membership scheme mixes the old and new schemes. This will be updated to reflect the current situation when the report is published. YA to provide details.

boating members as required. In all of this it is important that YA can view and have access to the total membership.

YA have indicated that the most recent iteration of the proposed National Membership Scheme fees presented to the FA in October 2007 is broadly reflective of the proposed model described above, although MYAs and clubs would not be provided with an unlimited supply of Silver Cards. In the proposed model, MYAs have total discretion to choose their own methodology for the collection of the YA subscription and may choose to apply the national banding model or their own system entirely. The fees to be paid by each MYA under the new banding system will be phased in over three years so that by the 2010–11 year the fees paid by the MYAs will be made on an agreed basis.

The proposed fee schedule for the next three years (without CPI increase) for the new National Membership Scheme to be introduced from the 2008–09 is as follows:

Table 5: Proposed MYA Fee Schedule (2008/09-2010/11)

MYA 2008–09 MYA Fee to be paid

(excl. insurance)

2009–10 MYA Fee to be paid

(excl. insurance)

2010–11 MYA Fee to be paid

(excl. insurance) Victoria $168,139 $156,445 $144,750 NSW $187,657 $190,803 $193,950 Queensland $92,949 $91,925 $90,900 Western Australia

$91,032 $99,491 $107,950

South Australia $43,173 $47,187 $51,200 Tasmania $44,731 $43,891 $43,050 ACT $9,055 $7,353 $5,650 Northern Territory

$3,400 $3,450 $3,500

Totals $640,136 $640,545 $640,950

The funds derived from member contributions are not insignificant; however YA should be aspiring to ultimately reduce its dependency on these fees over a seven- to ten-year period and aim to replace this income with increasingly self-generated revenues. A nationally consistent suite of sport and club development assets whose value could be aggregated and delivered nationally throughout the club network would create an attractive selection of sponsorship properties which would go some way towards replacing the current reliance on income derived from the membership levy.

2.2.5 Community (Club) Coaching

Yachting Australia has made a distinction between Instructors and Coaches based on the activities they undertake with their participants. Instructors introduce and teach new skills and knowledge, as set out in the National Training Scheme syllabus, to course participants. Coaches refine and develop skills and knowledge. Coaches do not deliver to a syllabus, rather to the individual needs of those being coached. The following definitions and delineations apply to the roles:

Instructor An Instructor teaches introductory sailing/powerboating skills to all participant age groups. The training scheme sets out course syllabus for delivery and accreditation is through Yachting Australia and delivered through a recognised YATC.

Pre-requisite: Instructors must be over 18 years of age, posses a current senior first aid and CPR certificate, powerboat handling, scheme certificate of level that they want to deliver.

36

Club Coaches

Delivers introductory racing skills and assists athletes to develop to club representative level. Works with athlete on an informal (may be regular) basis. Could be through the club environment or post-training scheme coaching. Athletes of any age, but are likely to be youth. Assisting the athlete by interpreting information for them (i.e. weather). Probably operates in local area – limited travel with athletes.

Pre-requisite: Club coaches must be over 18 years of age, possess Instructor qualification, senior first aid and CPR certificate (re-validated), and safety-boat handling certificate.

Club coaching varies from state to state, with coaches engaged by clubs often for specific programs or employed directly by individual crews. While there is a documented NCAS structure which outlines the national coaching pathway, it is not necessarily observed. Following the development of the NCAS Sailing Club Coach Course by YA in partnership with the ASC, YA reports that uptake of the course by clubs has been disappointing – possibly due to apathy or lack of understanding by the clubs and YA of what was actually wanted.

While there should ideally be a seamless pathway for coaches to be developed at all levels of the pathway (from entry, through feeder and sub-elite levels to the elite level), YA support for non-Olympic coach development should have a major role to play in junior coach development, while maintaining close collaboration with the AST (Olympic Program) on pathways planning and delivery to ensure optimal coach development at all levels.

Table 6: Distribution of Accredited Coaches and Instructors (2007)

States & Territories Number of Coaches and Instructors

Avg. No. of Coaches and Instructors per

(Registered Member)

Avg. No. of Coaches and Instructors per

(Club)Victoria 213 55.14 (11,746) 2.36 (90)NSW 412 26.53 (10,931) 3.46 (119)Queensland 255 25.00 (6,377) 4.25 (60)Western Australia 392 13.76 (5,395) 11.52 (34)South Australia 183 13.58 (2,486) 4.15 (44)Tasmania 65 45.27 (2,943) 2.50 (26)ACT 22 29.45 (648) 3.14 (7)Northern Territory 11 16.09 (177) 3.66 (3)TOTAL 1553 26.20 4.05 (383)2.2.6 OfficiatingYA have recently undertaken an initial review of its National Officiating Program (NOP). The review aimed to make recommendations for improvements to the current structure, delivery processes and resources of the YA NOP. The review recommended YA takes a leadership role in the development of national standards, the syllabus and program management.

Purpose of the NOPThe NOP aims to: Support MYAs in the development of volunteer management tools. Improve YA and MYA communication with existing and prospective NOP members. Develop a strong club education training structure. Review national and state accreditation qualification requirements.

37

Conduct regular education seminars in all disciplines. Develop an internationally recognised sail measurers accreditation. Review all NOP training materials and processes. Update and support course and accreditation feedback processes. Publish clear development procedures including accreditation requirements and standards. Support the national database for accreditation and logbook use. Establish a development fund to assist officials achieve higher accreditation. Develop a recognition program for members. Review and update the structure of officiating management committees. Develop self management policies. Allocate the necessary resources within YA to support the delivery of the NOP.

The review is intended to provide each MYA with a clear set of policies, guides and appropriate resources so that the sport can develop Measurers, Judges, Umpires and Race Officers in a consistent manner and standard of quality. The sport will need to invest in the production of printed and electronic resources, and support these materials with a national communication/education strategy and practical roll-out to clubs in order to implement these outcomes and enhance the position of officiating nationally.

Table 7: Trends in Accredited National Officials: 2002/03 -2007/08Season Judge Umpire Race Officer

National International National International National International2002-03 30 18 6 10 19 112003-04 32 19 14 11 21 122004-05 31 19 15 11 24 122005-06 32 19 16 11 25 112006-07 31 19 16 11 25 112007-08 21 18 17 10 27 10

N.B. 2007-08 year is incomplete

38

2.2.7 Club Events/Regattas

YA provide a national competition template, including conditions of conduct that details the structure of each event so as to ensure they are conducted in the same manner from year to year. The conditions also detail the process and guidelines for clubs to apply, through their MYA, to host national events. Yachting Australia may also appoint an Event Technical Delegate to a Yachting Australia Championship. The role of the Technical Delegate is to act as Yachting Australia’s representative for the overall management, conduct and authority of the event. It is also important to note however that many events are controlled by the Classes and not the MYAs or YA.

There is also a change in the number and nature of events, with more social events, more one-off events and shorter races.

YA (in partnership with MYAs and clubs) may wish to explore the opportunity to develop boutique events that engage a broader range of sailors and members of the general non-sailing public as well as target corporate and regional commercial opportunities. The development of spectator-friendly events would provide an attractive showcase for the sport to promote sailing to the mainstream public while at the same time engaging a broader range of sailing competitors. State, metropolitan and regional event corporations should be targeted to explore the development of new events or to align existing events with YA as part of building the profile and desired brand image and footprint of the sport during the summer period.

It is interesting to note that Rowing Australia is currently undertaking an audit of all its national events to review their purpose, format, timing and potential commercial benefits. The process also aims to identify additional events which may serve particular purposes, including promotion and marketing of the sport to the public, sponsors and potential participants.

There are a myriad of events at the levels below international and national regattas, which are managed by the clubs and MYAs. The National Events Schedule is managed by YA and consists of annual championships which are conducted on a rotational basis throughout the states and territories. The national events include:

Australian Youth Championship (AYC) Australian Schools Team Racing Championship (ASTRC) Australian Team Racing Championship (ATRC) Australian Youth Match Racing Championship (AYMRC) Australian Women's Match Racing Championship (AWMRC)

Australian Match Racing Championship (AMRC)

39

CONCLUSION

National leadership supported by effective and unambiguous collaboration with the MYAs and clubs is the key to fostering the growth in sailing’s membership and participation - and ultimately the delivery of better outcomes for clubs and the sailing community. Sailing will simply not compete with the better funded organised sports if it continues with its highly fragmented and inconsistent delivery model at the grass roots level. Sailing does not have the resources to sustain the inefficiencies of the current approach.

Sailing is an attractive product, which has adventure appeal and the flexibility to be delivered through the traditional club system and on a pay-as-you-go basis – these are points of difference and strong competitive advantages for the sport if correctly harnessed.

Naturally, the overwhelming contribution to the sport comes from the grass roots through volunteering services and the investment in developing local markets by the clubs themselves. If YA is to act in a more direct manner to lead the development of community sailing and contribute to the building of better clubs, then the bolstering of the YA commercial program becomes an increasingly critical factor in providing tangible support in sailing’s sport and club development outcomes especially through national program initiatives.

40

DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS: SPORT DEVELOPMENT (COMMUNITY SAILING)

In developing these recommendations, the reviewer acknowledges that YA is currently developing and/or beginning to undertake many of the initiatives outlined below. We do however believe that with the adoption of the major strategy, governance and management related recommendations, YA will be able to deliver stronger stakeholder alignment, commitment and accountability at all levels of the sport that will lead to a higher implementation success rate for national sport development strategies and programs – and ultimately better outcomes for clubs and the sailing community.

National Participation Pathways and Programs

To improve the participation development activities which attract and retain new members (through programs and experiences) and contribute towards the growth of sailing in Australia, it is recommended that:

Recommendation FourIn consultation with its member stakeholders and the deliverers of the sport, YA develops a well-researched National Participation Pathway, which incorporates nationally branded and marketed participation programs (including Learn To Sail and Race with schools) featuring consistent product offerings that promote sailing’s value proposition and pathways to competitive, community and recreational sailors to maximise the promotion and uptake of participation in sailing at club levels.

Recommendation FiveThe National Participation Programs should be supported by the endorsement and promotion by YA of a preferred fleet of boat classes to clubs which best support sailors’ progress from entry level through to the Olympic Classes.

To promote best practice and to minimise the waste of resources and risk to YA, MYAs and clubs associated with the development of new participation and club development initiatives it is recommended that:

Recommendation SixYA introduce a robust program development and assessment method based on DSS/PMS methodology to optimise the success potential of nationally developed sport/club development initiatives and minimise waste in resource allocation.

Resource Awareness and DevelopmentTo improve the promotion and application of existing and future resources designed to improve the delivery of sailing at clubs it is recommended that:

Recommendation SevenAs a component of the national communication strategy, YA provide practical public forums and information to support participants and providers to accompany the release of the ‘About Yachting Australia’ brochure to help promote understanding and uptake of the tools that it already provides to clubs and MYAs.

Recommendation EightYA conduct an annual audit of its club development resources to identify those that still require development or refreshment.

Training

41

YA has now adopted the Royal Yachting Association (RYA) cruising scheme as the national scheme for Australia and in early 2008 will appoint a National Participation and Training Manager to drive the adoption and growth of the RYA products. To optimise the uptake of the RYA/YA scheme and the professionalisation of training, it is recommended that:

Recommendation NineYA develops a national education and awareness strategy to accelerate the adoption of the Royal Yachting Association (RYA) cruising scheme by YATCs as the leading national scheme for Australia.

Recommendation TenYA promote a more professional and commercially focused delivery model for training to deliver a consistent and high-quality sailing proposition and experience for new entrants, which also increases the profitably of training services for providers.

Membership Model

The new YA membership model scheme is designed to simplify the national scheme for MYAs and clubs without compromising the ability of YA to have oversight of the national membership. YA oversight and connection to clubs and individual customers is required to make strategic decisions on future advancements in the sport as well as promote opportunities and benefits to members. It is recommended that:

Recommendation ElevenThe new YA membership model be adopted as a nationally consistent scheme to simplify the administration of national affiliation (allowing YA to have oversight of individual membership information) and improve the accuracy of participation reporting.

Officiating

Following the completion of the YA review of its National Officiating Program, it is recommended that:

Recommendation TwelveYA commit to the development of printed and electronic resources supported by a national communication and education strategy to foster the ongoing recruitment of officials in order to ensure the ongoing supply of qualified and high-quality race officials for sailing.

42

2.3 HIGH PERFORMANCE

KEY PERFORMANCE DRIVERS

High-performance planning and implementation, in particular the sport’s objectives and priorities for high-performance success;

Talent identification and development; High-performance management; and Coaching and athlete support services.

2.3.1 Overview of Olympic Sailing Program

History and Results – Olympic Games

Sailing has been a mainstay sport in the modern Olympic era with regattas conducted at all games with the exception of 1896 (cancelled due to rough weather conditions) and the 1904 Games in the inland city of St. Louis USA.

The USA and Norway have each won 16 Gold medals, followed by Great Britain with 14, France with 12, Denmark with 10 and Sweden and Spain with 9 each. Australia’s Olympic sailing results include a strong record of 5 Gold, 3 Silver and 8 Bronze medals.

While Australia has an enviable Olympic record, in the more recent era Great Britain and Spain have emerged as the leading contenders at Olympic regattas. Great Britain’s elite sailing program has benefited significantly from increased Government investment (approximately double the amount of Australian funding) and was GBR’s most successful Olympic sport in 2004.

Figure 3: Comparison of Olympic Results – Australia, Great Britain and Spain (1948-2004)

43

The 2004 Olympic Campaign

After sustained improvement at and between the 1992 and 1996 Olympics, Australian sailing delivered its best ever results at Sydney 2000, and medal expectations and sailor world rankings were high leading into Athens 2004. However, the campaign faltered due to a variety of factors, which emerged from the post-Athens high-performance review and subsequently during the development of Yachting Australia’s Gold Medal Plan (see section 2.3.2). The Gold Medal Plan identified a number of key contributing factors which led to Australia’s underperformance in Athens, many of which were analysed in comparison to the approach of the GBR Olympic Sailing program. Factors identified in the review and plan relating to the 2004 campaign included:

Insufficient understanding and/or poor handling of conditions vs. competitors: Other countries led by Great Britain were better prepared for local conditions.

Poor lead-in preparation to the campaign: Characterised by a late start; limited local competition/team; poor fitness levels and illness within the team.

Psychological preparation: Performances leading into the Games presented high expectations, however winning mentality issues were not adequately addressed which delivered inconsistent racing risk management under pressure. The psychological issues were twofold: 1) Positive results in the lead-in events distorted perception of the competitiveness of the playing field – i.e. some competitors were trialling new innovations or developing more adaptable race tactics in test events and therefore results were not reflective of real competition; 2) Some of the Australian sailors lacked confidence and self-belief in their own abilities and were beaten mentally at the starting line.

A team approach, focused on winning Gold Medals: This is at the core of GBR’s comprehensive Olympic program. This is of particular importance on a crew boat – a hierarchal element between the skipper and the crew had developed in several of the Australian classes which have since been abolished to breed a truly unified team approach.

Coaching gaps: Insufficient level of resources and focus; problematic relationships; limited use of SSSM and technology-based innovation; and

Insufficient funding: Led by GBR and a number of the other top countries, competitive Olympic sailing programs were generously funded and more professional relative to Australia’s program and preparation.

2.3.2 High-Performance Plan for Sailing

In 2003, YA and the ASC/AIS conducted a review of sailing’s high-performance program and appointed a high-performance advisory panel. According to the AIS, very few of the recommendations of this review were successfully implemented prior to 2006. During the 2003–05 period, it was considered that personnel within the YA High Performance Unit (HPU) struggled with formal planning processes and the structured operational delivery of the review recommendations and strategic initiatives.

Australian Sailing Team (Olympic Program) – The Gold Medal Plan

In 2005, YA commissioned external consultant Peter Conde to conduct a comprehensive review of the 2004 Olympic campaign and to develop a strategic level framework aimed at delivering success at the 2008 Olympics and beyond. The process gathered and synthesised insights from a range of leading Australian athletes, coaches and subject experts from within and outside of the sport of sailing. The review also involved a comprehensive analysis of competitive intelligence – in particular the ingredients of success modelled by the GBR Olympic Sailing Program.

44

The resultant Gold Medal Plan (GMP) produced five key themes to prioritise the success of Australia’s campaign for 2008 and beyond. They were to:

1. Build a superbly supported team approach to winning Olympic Gold Medalsa. Develop a cohesive team structure and culture modelled on Australian Swimming and Great Britain

Sailing.b. Build a gold medal focused professional support organisation led by an Olympic Program Director

and advised by an Olympic Sailing Advisory Group. Quarantine funding from other YA activities.c. Raise the level of coaching substantially through tiered system of high-level coaches developed

under Head Coach, securing world experts for part time input, facilitating greater exposure to Australian sailing legends, other elite athletes and other team members.

2. Select, develop and retain outstanding athletes and support them to sail extensively in expected conditionsa. Select and maintain a portfolio of Olympic level athletes with the desire and commitment to win

Olympic Gold Medals and retain their commitment over multiple Olympics. Aim for 2-4 top crews in each supported class.

b. Support athletes to maintain an essentially full-time sailing program including supporting training partners post-selection.

c. Sail extensively in expected conditions and indeed from an Olympic location base for the three years prior to the Olympics.

d. Ultimately, select the athletes most likely to win Olympic Gold Medals by a robust, tailored and timely process.

3. Invest in multiple bases for advantage in areas of speed, conditions and sports sciencea. Systematically identify bases for advantage at team level and for individual classes.b. Deploy Australian capabilities that can deliver these advantages in key areas.

Conditions: develop a superior understanding of conditions based on data intensive, analytical approach

Speed: rigs, hulls, foils e.g. varying flexibility of foils in planing dinghies Sports Science: particularly decision-making, risk management via cross-training and simulation

4. Draw support from sponsors, major sailing supporters and the sailing community to enable the strategya. Secure existing funding levels and focus it on strong gold medal prospects.b. Double funding by raising private funds at four levels.

Naming sponsor – long term perspective Supplier sponsors – have shipper, shipping agent and equipment but airlines and car in Europe

are major costs not currently covered Major sailing supporters – high net worth sailors with a passion for Olympic success Club-level syndicates – market framework based on RQYS “Wyuna” syndicate

c. Seek increased public funding on the basis of gold medal prospects to further leverage private funds.

5. Support our supporters in multiple ways to ensure an enduring legacya. Offer a range of benefits to a limited number of major sailing supporters: exposure to Olympics,

coaching, crewing, technology access, networking.b. Engage management capability to secure supporters and to add value to all funders: apply

resources and focus to make it happen.c. Give back to the sailing community in general: Olympic athletes in training and coaching youth

and development squads; clear pathway and syllabus leading to Olympic level performance.

The GMP is positive in that the objectives and priorities of the plan are very focused and clear and their development has been evidence-based. As a planning instrument for high-performance sport, the GMP is considered by both the AIS and the reviewer as a leading best practice example. More importantly, the plan is delivering its promise in the majority of the priority areas and associated

45

initiatives. Upon review of the YA 2006/07 Operations Plan 3rd Quarter Report – 100% of the nineteen strategic initiatives and outputs are on track for both the Olympic and Paralympic Key Result Areas. This is indicative of the changed culture and behaviour which now exists within the Olympic Program delivery model.

2.3.3 Olympic and Paralympic Program Unit

Following the delivery of the GMP, the Olympic and Paralympic Program Unit was substantially restructured. It is working considerably better under the new structure and leadership of the Olympic Program Director and Olympic Sailing Program Manager. The YA Olympic and Paralympic Unit now has six full-time staff and employs eight coaches.

In addition to the restructure of the high-performance delivery model and personnel within the unit, the establishment of the Australian Sailing Team (AST) brand for this department has delivered an overarching sense of alignment of mission and purpose for sailing at the peak level. The AST is the official national representative sailing team and comprises the best sailors in their class in Australia. Selected annually, athletes qualify for inclusion in the team by finishing in the top ten at a World Championship in their class, or are identified as having the potential to do so within a two-year period. The AST is strongly modelled on the successful GBR Sailing Team and the Australian Swimming Team.

While still embedded within the YA structure, the AST has developed into an agile, stand-alone arm of the sport and business. The approach has activated a significant and positive cultural shift in professionalism and performance of sailing’s high-performance program. The approach has also greatly assisted YA’s ability to attract and build an impressive portfolio of commercial partners and sailing benefactors on the basis of their alignment with a premium YA asset, the AST brand.

Talent Identification and Development

The AIS does not currently support the talent identification and development program for sailing. Unlike most other sports, there are no specific physical or psychological profile to identify talent. Therefore, the identification and development of emerging sailing talent relies on the collaborative efforts of YA, MYAs and clubs to fulfil this need and is supported by Youth Development and High Performance Programs in most states. The New South Wales Institute of Sport (NSWIS) program is the dominant state program for the sport, providing 16 of the 18 members of the 2004 Australian Olympic sailing team. In 2007, 13 of the 21 members of the Australian Sailing Team were NSWIS scholarship holders.

The view of AST management is that there has historically been significant duplication of roles within the MYAs which has led to a cumbersome delivery model for talent identification and development. Each state has varied systems of managing the High Performance Coach and programs – some with the support of state-based academy/institute programs and others without. Prior to 2007, the pathway for emerging athletes was considered to be very unclear, however this is now improving.

The AST have indicated that State High Performance Programs should focus on developing the sub-elite with the aim of delivering these athletes to the AST (see Figure 4 below). Entry into the AST typically requires the athletes to be ranked in the world Top 10 in their respective class, and once they are a member of the AST they become an AST responsibility. This approach has brought about some resistance from the state programs, as typically the states held the view that AST members would come back to their own programs. However, this role is now developmental and it is strictly

46

focused on youth and development squad scholarship holders. Members of the AST will return to cross pollinate and share knowledge and culture with the state high-performance programs when they are available. This model gives the AST the agility it needs and removes the politics, which is advantageous.

Figure 4: Olympic Athlete Pathway

Clubs and classes are largely driving early talent identification, but in a very informal way. State programs are considered to be underperforming and under-resourced. It remains very difficult to retain the best coaches within the Australian system due to limited opportunities that exist to support professional coaches and lucrative offshore coaching opportunities.

Athlete Pathway ObstaclesAustralian youth sailors have been highly successful at Youth Worlds; however the talent has not been retained and transitioned into the Australian Olympic ranks effectively. Retention of talented younger sailors is a challenge, largely due to financial obstacles. There is a significant step up in investment to facilitate the movement of talented sailors from state sailing squads to the next level of national and international competition. As an indicator, out-of-pocket expenses will typically range from $200,000 to $1m per annum for AST members and athletes pursuing the Olympic circuit.

The total cost of professional campaigning is a debilitating and discouraging scenario for all but a few of the elite athletes. There is a harsh reality that progression along the Olympic sailing pathway ultimately hinges on having talent, money, and a good boat – more talented but less financial sailors will struggle to be retained by the sport. Additionally, the financial obstacles limit the provision of sufficient support in areas including coaching, SSSM, and international competition.

SIS/SAS & State High

Performance Programs

Australian Sailing Youth Team National & International

Class Talent ID Program

Australian Sailing Development Squad

17 Members 10 Classes

9 Members 5 Classes

22 Members 10 Classes

29 Members 11 Classes Australian Sailing Team

Olympic Sailing Team

AIS

YA Managed

47

Certainly, the links between participation development and high performance are critical, and the diminishing base of competitive participants compromises the talent pool available to sailing in future. While AST management are hopeful that participants in the 2008 campaign will make themselves available for 2012, the depth of talent post-Beijing is considered to be limited and ultimately needs to be underpinned in the longer term by healthy participation levels in the sport and higher levels of investment to progress talented Youth sailors to the senior international level.

There is not a direct recommendation to solve the challenges of the financial and talent depth obstacles which hamper the elite athlete pathway. Rather, they are addressed through a number of linked recommendations emerging from the commercial development, sport development and high performance sections. It would be convenient to suggest that government should assist in funding these shortfalls, however YA is pragmatic on this challenge and recognise that much of the funding gap will need to be addressed through self-generated revenue activities by YA/AST. It should however be noted that the funding provided to the GBR/RYA for junior and youth development programs is substantially higher than the Australian investment.

Another key barrier in talent development at the sub-elite level is the lack of international-level competition within the Olympic classes in Australia as the Olympic circuit competition is predominantly conducted in Europe. Consideration to support the establishment of a stronger domestic Olympic circuit may be beneficial in bridging the gap between the top overseas-based sailors and the emerging or less financially self-sufficient sailing talent.

“…..early identification of talent is not critical to a sport like sailing….the funnel needs to be kept as wide as possible for as long as possible. Rather than remove the top sailors and send them overseas (which further weakens those left behind), YA should be developing a strategy to strengthen Olympic class fleets and get the rest of the world to come to Australia over summer.”

- Mark Turnbull OAM, Chairman – Sail Melbourne(470 Gold Medallist, Sydney 2000)

48

Paralympic Sailing Team

The Australian Paralympic sailing program exists under an agreement with the Australian Paralympic Committee and Yachting Australia. Under the Yachting Australia/APC agreement, each party acknowledges and agrees that the objectives of this agreement are to:

(a) Be successful at the 2008 Paralympic Games;(b) Increase the depth and reach of the Yachting High Performance Plan Athletes with a

Disability (AWD) base;(c) Aim to finish in the top three positions in open competitions at targeted international

events at the Paralympic Games;(d) Successfully recruit and retain the best people to deliver the Yachting High Performance

Plan;(e) Develop and maintain a sport data system in respect of Yachting;(f) Maintain compliance with Australian Sports Drug Agency (ASDA) and Australian Sports

Commission (ASC) standards and international standards for anti-doping and anti-doping education; and

(g) Acknowledge the intellectual property rights of the APC and APC acknowledge reciprocal rights of YA.

The services provided under the agreement include coaching services, administrator services and financial assistance through limited funding from the APC and YA. The delivery partners of the program include YA, APC, SIS (WAIS, VIS, NSWIS), and SAS (QAS).

The Australian Paralympic Sailing Team (APST) joint management committee meets quarterly and consists of YA and APC nominees. The staffing arrangements for the delivery of the program consist of a part-time head coach and management/administration support from YA.

Participation pathways and programs to assist persons with a disability to participate in sailing are currently run through Sailabilty Australia, and these activities fall outside the scope of the Paralympic program. Overall, the arrangements within sailing to promote inclusiveness within the mainstream athlete community are improving and are gaining gradual acceptance.

The key challenge for the APST program is gaining full integration and acceptance as an important partner of the AST. Full integration would provide for ongoing focus through a four-year cycle and enable stronger continuity of the coach and management team. This is difficult to achieve in practical terms as the regattas for the AST and APST are not aligned, and much of the activity for Paralympic regattas occurs in the last 12 months prior to the Games, as opposed to the four-year program of the AST. Therefore, the emphasis on AST assistance to APST really only occurs in the last 12 months prior to the Paralympics.

Effort has been made by the AST to share knowledge and resources with the APST where possible and when applicable. Assistance is provided in the form of:

Provision of Operations Centre Container – fitted out shipping container providing on-site workshop and offices for use at regattas;

Provision of all weather and tidal information; Information sharing of applicable technical innovations; Combine shipping costs of Olympic and Paralympic athlete equipment; and State High Performance Programs provide coaching assistance.

49

The establishment of a development squad in 2007 has been a positive step in bridging the pathway gap in the entry level to sub-elite level competition for athletes with a disability. However, current talent identification and development programs have limited impact on the APST program and pathways are disjointed and considered to lack the necessary funding.

Funding needs to be improved to a level that will enable full-time employment to people in the program, provide funding for athletes to assist in attending overseas competition, and the provision of equipment funded and owned by the program and stored overseas.

The main priorities of the APST over the next 12 to 48 months are as follows:

2008 Prepare Australian Paralympic Sailing Team (APST) for Paralympic Games and achieve medal success

2009 Develop talent and provide opportunities for Paralympic Sailing Development Squad (PSDS).

2010 Develop PSDS to sub-elite level.2010-2012 Focus on PST and identify sailors capable of winning medals in 2012.

Internally, the Paralympic Sailing Head Coach proposed the following priority changes to further strengthen the performance of the Paralympic Sailing Program:

Increase the depth of the APST and the Paralympic Sailing Development Squad – the establishment of a sub-elite squad below these levels would also augment the strength of the national program;

Increase the number of regattas (IFDS Grade 1 or otherwise) within the Australian program.

2.3.4 Coaching Development and Pathway

Coaching Culture, Roles and Responsibilities

While the GMP was an instrumental starting point for the reform of sailing’s Olympic program, the biggest hindrance to the performance of the program (according to the athletes) was the need for better coaching.

Coaching appointments to prior Olympic campaigns were largely historical and coaches were highly resistant to embrace change – particularly the application of SSSM. Team culture and professionalism was very poor, with class coaches acting independently. The coaching philosophy was all about boat speed, which was inhibiting racing skills in competition, resulting in poor tactical adaptation to certain conditions such as changing or different types of winds.

The role of a Head Coach in sailing (be it national or state) is considered different to other sporting codes due to the volume of sailing disciplines, however the core skills are considered to be readily transferable across the various classes. A consistent viewpoint at national and state/territory levels is that the AST needs to drive the up-skilling of sub-elite coaches and transfer of coaching knowledge, as well as provide education on the benefits of integrating appropriate SSSM for competitive advantage.

As with many sports there is a general tendency by coaches to resist sharing their knowledge; however it is considered that the coaching culture within sailing is changing and slowly getting better. An increased degree of comfort is being developed by reinforcing confidence and certainty around the elite coaching positions so that coaches don’t feel threatened.

50

The roles and responsibilities of elite-level coaches in sailing were redefined in 2007 by the AST to provide clarity on a preferred model to best develop the elite coaching pathway and support AST and sub-elite developing athletes. The preferred interface between the AST and State High Performance Program coaches was clearly defined in 2007.

AST athletes are coached by AST coaches overseas and in Australia

State High performance coaches have two clear roles:o Identify and develop sub-elite sailors and coaches in their stateo Cooperate and coordinate with AST coaches to provide a seamless national program of

optimal training and an environment for development of AST as well as raise the talent of sub-elite sailors and coaches squads

Development Squad and Youth Squads will join with AST in Australia to provide high level training and competition, skills transfer and development.

The figure below has been developed by AST and summarises the overall coaching pathway and linkages from entry level (Learn to Sail Coach – Level 1) through to the pinnacle of Australian Olympic sailing (AST Coach – Level 3).

A new breed of coaches and philosophy has been built from the ground up by the AST management. The refreshed approach features innovative, analytical coaches who are strong supporters of evidence-based approaches and integration of SSSM. The effective change of paradigm and culture within the AST can also be attributed to the restructure of the Olympic Unit and the resultant increase in management and sport credibility of the key personnel. It has taken time to fully develop, however the AST personnel have built a high degree of trust and respect with

Figure 5: High Performance Sailing (Olympic) Coaching Pathways

AST Coach – Level 3

SHPP Coach – Level 2

Youth Coach – Level 2

Club Coach – Level 1-2

Learn to Sail Coach – Level 1

Professional Sailor

Previous YA HPP

Talented International Level Sailor

Retired International Level Sailor

Recreational sailor

AIS Scholarship

In house professional development

51

the coaches and the athletes. The roles and responsibilities of the current AST coaches are summarised as follows:

Summary of AST Coach Roles and ResponsibilitiesPrimary: Produce Gold Medal winning athletesSecondary: Develop athletes of the future

Responsibilities: Manage the program of athletes Reduce reliance on coaches, i.e. increase the tactical self-sufficiency of athletes Work with the management as one team

Games Roles:Coaches tied to team and classes with secondary class responsibility not tied to athletes

Elite Coaching Accreditation

Following a review of the National Coaching Accreditation Scheme (NCAS) for sailing, a new structure and pathway has been established to provide clearer guidance on the qualifications which progress coaches from the club level (instructor, club coach) to the elite level. An overview of the elite-level guidelines8 for state and international level coaches is summarised below.

State Coach: Working with specific athletes on a regular basis to prepare them for competition with an emphasis on technique analysis and individualising coaching. Athletes of any age and ability (youth – master) predominantly at state/national level competition. Assisting the athletes to interpret information for themselves (i.e. weather). May operate at different events around the country – travel with athlete, additional understanding of non-local systems may be required, i.e. tides, weather, procedures.

Pre-requisite: Club Coach Qualification or equivalent, must have two or three years of experience as Club Coach, re-validate First Aid and CPR, safety-boat handling.

International/Australian Coach: Prepare and accompany elite athletes at international competition. Program management skills. Develop holistic training programs, along with other specialists to prepare elite sailors.

Pre-requisites: State Coach (experience two or three years as State Coach with state/national sailors), re-validates First Aid and CPR. Nominated by a mentor.

2.3.5 Athletes Support and Development

The ASC/AIS provides direct support and development to athletes through the purchase of capital equipment and grants to athletes to offset training and competition costs.

Purchase of Capital Equipment for AST In 2007, the ASC/AIS made a significant investment in the AST with the purchase of eight boats across six classes in order to provide more flexibility to move athletes between classes, e.g. from

8 Yachting Australia Scheme Certification, Instructors and Coaches Pathway.

52

Laser to Finn class. The purchase cost of the boats, trailers, outboard motors and associated training equipment between February 2007 to March 2008 was $481,375.

Australian Government Sport Training Grant The schedule below represents total payments made to AST athletes under the Australian Government Sport Training Grant (AGSTG).

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08$ - NIL $95,900 $162,000 $180,000

There will be a further and final payment for 2008/09. The AGSTG program will be terminated on 30 June 2009.

Athlete Career Education

Temporary and Permanent Recruitment Services and Career Counselling Services are provided through Adecco to Yachting Australia Athletes.

2.3.6 Collaboration with AIS

The Olympic Sailing program was described by several AIS personnel as being ‘reasonably dysfunctional’ as a high-performance program for the four years post-2000 Olympics. In 2005, sailing was considered to be thirty years behind in terms of Sport Science Sport Medicine (SSSM) knowledge and application. The use of technology for competitive advantage was highly undeveloped. However, for the past two years the AIS and AST have significantly improved their collaboration and SSSM integration and focused on a back-to-basics approach to improve athletes’ preparation and fitness.

AST has built a far stronger alignment with the AIS since the Athens Olympics – which is convincing athletes and other partners of the benefits, i.e. solution development is more readily achieved with the collective expertise of the ‘team partners’. The injection of AIS SSSM services (supported by an AIS coordinator) over the past 24 months has had a positive impact on the AST environment and performance. The coordination of SSSM services to the different classes has presented challenges, however the appointment of the AIS SSSM Coordinator has allowed sailing to develop structure and priorities in the delivery of these services. The mix of YA/AST/AIS personnel is becoming highly complementary and the overall high-performance structure for sailing at the national level with better resources and better people is demonstrating rapid improvement in the program. The key to this improvement is that the AST management are consistently delivering what is planned and promised.

The view from within the AST management is that the AIS support has demonstrated significant value, however the challenge is prioritising what’s going to add the most value and getting coaches to make the time to trial and integrate new methods. There are still non-believers within the sailing coaching and athlete fraternity who prefer a ‘seat of the pants’ approach, and acceptance of SSSM benefit and modifying behaviour has been difficult to change. Overall, the sport is in a period of transition with SSSM but gaining traction incrementally. Michael Blackburn (Laser Class World Champion) is suggested as an ideal case study of an athlete who has embraced the SSSM ethos and program supported by evidence-based results.

There is evidence of innovation enhancement built around technology and SSSM optimisation, however careful balancing of innovation application and suitability for the team needs to be managed. Effective management of resources presents challenges, and a challenge that is not necessarily solved with more people – but with better systems.

53

SSSM Comments related to YA/AST by ASC/AIS Management

“After many years of lack of engagement there is now a very good working relationship between AIS and YA/AST HP management team.” Coordinator SSSM AIS

“….the AST management team do not hide from the issues. The environment before the current AST management team was one where ASC/AIS enquiries fell into a black box of passive resistance. There is now an acknowledgement of greater need for information sharing and openness between YA/AST and the AIS.”- ASC/AIS Sport Consultant

“…the last two years there has been a concerted effort to bring sailing into the AIS program (beyond AIS being the ‘banker’) and determine where value can be added, primarily through SSSM. Eighteen months prior, sailing was in the 1960’s in relation to SSSM knowledge and application – but this is getting better.” - Assistant Director AIS

The increased collaboration with the AIS further supports the AST objective to develop professional campaigns and to provide better support for athletes.

“The ethos of the AST brand is to make it aspirational for talented sailors – and communicate that there is provision and care available through AST and the AIS for those who reach peak performance and represent the national team”. - AST Olympic Sailing Program Manager

2.3.7 National Training Centre

The current training arrangements for the AST are decentralised. Programs are delivered through a combination of tri-partite and quad-partite partnerships with YA, MYAs, SIS/SAS and clubs in NSW, VIC, QLD and WA. Thirteen of the twenty-one AST squad members are based in Sydney and all AST coaches are located in Sydney.

The establishment of the National Training Centre (NTC) at Hamilton Island has also emerged as a positive element in the AST/AIS collaboration. The partnership at Hamilton Island emerged through a sponsorship agreement and provides free accommodation, food and access to gymnasium equipment. The local sailing conditions work to some degree in terms of replicating the conditions expected at 2008 Olympic sailing venue in Qingdao (high tide and low winds).

The NTC has raised the standards of camps, fostered the team ethos, and made athletes feel like they are now genuinely part of an AIS program. The camps at Hamilton Island highlight the benefits of being together as a group to discuss and address difficult technical issues, and joint training and collaboration as a team has allowed the squad to develop competitive advantages as a collective. Twelve months ago the biggest challenge was the integration of 11 sailing disciplines into a true team environment and culture – the NTC and the Hamilton Island partnership has strongly assisted in facilitating the cohesion and culture of the team.

However, the current location presents some logistical and cost disadvantages. The initial intention was to conduct up to four camps annually at Hamilton Island, however the costs involved and the time spent travelling and transporting equipment from Sydney to Hamilton Island has been prohibitive, and has resulted in scaling back the delivery of camps to twice a year. For example, a camp was planned for October 2007 but was cancelled due to the difficulty of logistics and squad member’s timetables. Only one class of boat is provided for on the island (470’s), which means the other 10 classes are required to bring in boats each via car and trailer, and then ferry the cars and boats across to the island at an average cost of $2,000 per car and trailer (approximately $40,000 per camp).

54

The decentralised nature of sailing’s training programs and the Hamilton Island location also present compromises in the ability of the sport to work as closely as it would like with the AIS. Taking the AST squad members to the AIS in Canberra has significant benefits, however it is not the best option for athlete preparation – a centralised AST ‘centre of excellence’ where the AIS goes to the team and operates in situ is considered far more beneficial.

National Sailing Centre – Conceptual ModelThe establishment of a National Sailing Centre which is geographically accessible and desirable for athletes, coaches, and AIS personnel is essential. According to AST management, Sydney Harbour presents the best overall mix of sailing conditions (flat water in the harbour, choppy water at Sydney Heads, and open water), athlete support services, proximity to the AIS, proximity to YA, and proximity to current and future corporate partners. All of the coaches and the majority of AST athletes are also in Sydney, and this concentration commenced prior to the Sydney Olympics.

There are a number of Crown land options in Sydney Harbour, which may present possible locations to establish a permanent training centre for the AST, potentially under a peppercorn lease arrangement. While this would be a desirable scenario, concerns have been raised about the reality of securing Crown land at an affordable cost (i.e. peppercorn lease) due to the scarcity of premium land and water in Sydney Harbour. A more realistic alternative may be to work in partnership with one or several Sydney yacht clubs to establish a National Sailing Centre.

The infrastructure requirements in the initial stages could be quite basic, but would deliver extensive benefits in comparison to the current NTC arrangements. Essential elements of the on-site infrastructure and services would include:

permanent offices for AST management, complemented by open plan ‘hot desks’ for coaches, visitors (AIS, State High Performance Program Staff) and athletes;

lecture facilities and meeting rooms for review of programs, video analysis, etc.; storage for coaches’ boats and class boats; launching ramp and crane; medical and allied training services facilities, including more formal arrangements and provision

for AIS employees on-site (physiotherapists, nutritionists, psychologists, strength and conditioning).

AST athletes currently have arrangements with the franchise fitness group ‘Fitness First’, which provides free access to their gymnasiums nationally.

While the priorities of the National Sailing Centre would be firmly focused on high-performance outcomes, there would be significant commercial potential in establishing a home of sailing in Sydney Harbour. Potential opportunities include elite training services coaches and athletes, experiential sailing opportunities for corporate incentives and rewards or as part of the sponsor business-to-business leveraging program for YA and AST supporters (i.e. sail with an AST coach or athlete), and corporate professional development days.

A feasibility study supported by a costed business case (with average and best case scenarios) will need to be conducted by YA to build the momentum of the National Sailing Centre concept. There are examples in other sports where local, state and federal government agencies have provided financial assistance in the development of training centre feasibility studies and have also invested in the establishment of the required infrastructure. As an initial step, YA should consider the development of a joint brief with the AIS, which outlines the current arrangements of the AST’s NTC and the desired conceptual elements of the National Sailing Centre. This brief could be used to develop support from appropriate government agencies to jointly fund the conduct of the feasibility study to assess and cost the infrastructure and training services requirements of the AST.

2.3.8 Towards Beijing

55

In the first two months of 2008, members of the AST won three World Championships (Laser, Tornado and 49er), a silver (Yngling) and a bronze (Women’s 470). The recent results move the Australian team into the number one ISAF ranking in the world (March 2008).The AST has now qualified for 10 of the 11 events in Beijing, and expectations are high that the team will turnaround the disappointing performance in Athens, where the team failed to win a medal.

Beijing is the short-term milestone and naturally is the dominant focus of the AST management. Expectations set by the team and management are to deliver no less than the best ever results for an Australian Olympic sailing campaign. Overall, the YA high-performance program is progressing well, and looking towards Beijing the team will be far better prepared than Athens – the holistic, team-based approach should be beneficial. Australia finished second overall behind Great Britain in the August 2007 Beijing Olympic test event, which has given the team and management additional confidence in combating the light wind conditions (typically 5 to 10 knots) that are indicative of the 2008 Olympic sailing venue in Qingdao.

Longevity in Olympic campaigning and past success at Youth Worlds are key indicators of Olympic success, as evidenced in the Gold Medal Plan. A number of past campaigners are preparing for 2008, which should further strengthen the potential of the team to deliver at the Games.

2.3.9 Post Beijing – Building an Olympic Legacy

There is a strong foundation for Olympic success in 2008 and the period beyond. Everyone within the AST is pedalling hard towards 2008; however the documentation and retention of systems, structure and campaign knowledge/intellectual property needs to improve. Previous Olympic campaigns have resulted in the legacy of experience and knowledge being lost – this cannot be permitted to occur in the subsequent campaigns beyond Beijing. There needs to be a change in behaviour to document and systematise the high-performance program so that knowledge can be retained. Technology is being better utilised to create training logs which document recovery, workloads, lack of strength, etc. Overall, the method of data gathering needs to be improved with better use of technology, however this has been attended to in recent months.

Succession planning for coaches and AST Management will also be a critical element in strengthening the foundation of the AST in the period beyond 2008.

Increased Collaboration with the AISYA and the AST would like to develop a much closer relationship with the AIS to further the development of AST athletes and coaches. The enhanced collaboration would still be annexed from the AIS; however the aim would be to extract AIS personnel more regularly to implant into the AST program in order to achieve closer integration and better access to resources that is comparable to other Olympic programs such as swimming, rowing and cycling. Bolstering sailing’s collaboration with the AIS increases the professionalism of the athletes and coaches and strengthens team culture. This is best achieved via the establishment of a National Sailing Centre in Sydney.

YA and the AST also have an interest in collaborating and sharing resources with other sports based in Europe to minimise waste in expenditure. For example, the AST would like to promote a closer working relationship with cycling at the AIS Europe base and tapping into the network of physiotherapists and physiologists utilised by the cycling program.

Benchmarking and Innovation

Much of the comparative benchmarking utilised in the post-Athens review focused on what the Great Britain sailing program had done to achieve its success in 2004. This has been beneficial as a guide to close the gap with GBR and other leading nations; however it is a risk to focus too closely

56

on what one program is doing. YA and the AIS have collaborated more effectively during the past 24 months to further integrate SSSM. The ASC/AIS has also made significant additional investment in innovative technology such as the CSIRO/BOM project. According to the AIS SSSM Coordinator for the AST, the dramatic improvement of the AST’s world ranking ‘….can be attributed to a large degree on the focus on technological advances being used extensively by the team’.

Beyond the Beijing campaign, the basics of the AST/AIS sailing program will be well developed which will provide a far stronger platform to introduce a managed innovation program, which should be a key pillar of AST strategic priorities leading into London 2012.

Coaching Resources and CapabilityThere have been strong gains made in the development, performance and accountability of the AST coaches between the years 2005 and 2007. The increased support to athletes during this period and the creation of performance-based contracts for coaches (which were enforced rigorously) provided strong accountability. Coaching is an area where significant competitive advantage can be delivered for the 2012 campaign if appropriate levels of investment are made. If the aim for athletes is to increasingly move them towards the expectations that come with being a professional athlete, then the same approach should apply to current and aspiring AST coaches.

The AST aim should be to further develop and professionalise the environment for attracting and retaining the best of the best coaches to the program. The positive change at the elite and sub-elite levels of coaching should provide the impetus to strengthen the culture of coaching at the community level of sailing.

57

CONCLUSIONOver the past 24 months, YA has demonstrated its capacity to turn around the performance of its high-performance activities, and as a result Australian sailing is in a significantly strengthened position leading into Beijing. The critical success factors of improvement include:

The conduct of an independent and expert review. A cathartic self-assessment which recommended the hard options.

Development of a clear and focused gold medal strategy to target internal weaknesses, integrate success ingredients of competitors (and other successful sports), and bolster resources for athletes, coaches, management and training services.

Rebuilding the high-performance delivery model through the appointment of key personnel to lead and deliver the GMP. The subsequent restructure of the unit has enabled focus and agility – and most importantly uncompromised execution of the strategy.

The creation of a professional ethos embraced by the athletes and new team of AST coaches.

Enhanced collaboration with the AIS. One of the key areas that contributed to the below par results of 2004 was the under-utilisation of technology. The value add to sailing has been derived through better understanding and application of SSSM. The AIS and NTC have also significantly contributed to fostering team culture. The ASC/AIS has also committed increased funding towards the 2008 campaign to provide athletes with a better preparation in local conditions and to integrate innovative technology such as the confidential CSIRO/BOM Project.

Development and launch of the Australian Sailing Team. While embryonic, its creation has gained immediate traction with athletes and commercial partners (sponsors and supporters) and should continue to strengthen as the brand builds meaning and context.

The blueprint for performance improvement is not complicated. The key to turning planning into results has ultimately been achieved by a significant cultural and behavioural shift within the unit, driven by the leadership team and a willingness by the ASC/AIS to support SSSM integration.

The AST is performing well leading into the pre-Beijing period. However, both the AST management and AIS acknowledge the need to strive for continuous improvement in the culture of the program to achieve a competitive edge in Beijing and beyond.

ASC (AIS) Value for Money If medals are the primary measure of success (as the GMP program objective clearly states), then sailing presents the potential for an attractive return of investment to the Federal Government. There are a sufficient number of Olympic medals that are realistically achievable for Australia to derive success from across the various sailing classes (Australia has qualified for 10 of the 11 classes in Beijing and in March 2008 were ranked by ISAF as the number one team). For the purposes of relative benchmarking (realistic medal yield), the sailing ROI opportunity is comparative to that of the perennial peak performing Australian Olympic sports such as swimming, cycling and rowing.

Given the significant positive shift in the culture and professionalism of the YA Olympic Sailing Program between 2005 and 2007, and contingent on delivering best ever results in Beijing, sailing should be strongly positioned and considered as a top four Olympic program for the purposes of Federal Government funding allocation moving into the next quadrennial planning cycle.

DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS: HIGH PERFORMANCE

58

Due to the elapsed period of time to conduct the review, it is noted that several of the recommendations contained in this section have since commenced or have been included in the 2009-13 National Pathways Plan. In these instances, the reviewers have, to the best of their knowledge, noted the work-in-progress accordingly.

Preserve the Legacy

Over the past six months, the AST has commenced a more formal approach to the capture of campaign knowledge for use in future campaigns and to transfer to SHPP. To preserve the legacy of the AST and 2008 campaign, it is recommended that:

Recommendation ThirteenYA/AST continue to formalise its approach to the process of capturing the AST developed IP and systems and undertake appropriate succession planning for key management and coaching personnel in the lead up to the 2008 Olympics with continuity through to a post-Games review and beyond. The sharing of knowledge needs to flow through to all state high-performance programs to enhance the delivery, performance and professionalisation of the sub-elite sailing programs.

Commitment to the AST Pathway Model

The AST has now provided very clear guidance on the preferred roles and responsibilities of the AST and the State High Performance Programs (SHPP) in the elite pathway model for sailing in Australia. This model requires the commitment of the State High Performance Programs to work within the pathway model at the sub-elite level (Youth Development and AST Development Squad) to develop future national team athletes and coaches before they progress to the AST environment (typically those ranked in the Top 10 athletes in the world for the Olympic Classes). Good progress has been made by the AST and SHPP over the past six months. To further optimise arrangements for sailing’s elite pathway, it is recommended that: Recommendation FourteenState High Performance programs continue to integrate with the AST preferred elite pathway for sailing’s athletes and coaches and focus their role on identifying and developing sub-elite athletes (development squad) and coaches within their state.

Talent Development of CoachesIt is imperative that the depth and professional coaching ethic of Australian coaching talent continues to be developed and that appropriate opportunities are made accessible to emerging coaches to coach at the next level. As part of the succession planning and talent development model for AST coaches and managers, it is recommended that:Recommendation FifteenYA/AST continue and build upon current initiatives (Professional Development Days, Elite Coaching Development Scholarships) to enhance the capabilities of talented coaches and managers.

59

National Sailing Centre (NSC) and AIS EuropeSailing requires a National Sailing Centre which optimises the training preparations for Olympic, Paralympic and Worlds campaigns. The key elements required for the NSC include a location which is geographically desirable (for coaches, athletes, AIS), provides integrated and accessible training services on-site, and provides for a suitable variety of sailing conditions. It is recommended that:

Recommendation SixteenAs soon as practicable, YA and the AIS jointly conduct a feasibility study to assess the desired infrastructure, training service elements, associated costs and potential funding sources to establish a permanent NSC and home base for the AST/AIS Sailing Team in Sydney Harbour.

Following the Beijing Olympics, the utilisation and sharing of resources with other sports at the AIS Europe base should be investigated. It is recommended that:

Recommendation SeventeenYA investigate the opportunities to deliver cost efficiencies to the AST program through the sharing of resources with other sports based at the AIS Europe location.

Benchmarking and Innovation

Innovation and technology is a major contributing factor to performance in sailing and needs to be supported by a formalised and managed process. Other sports which have acknowledged technology as a contributing factor to program success (such as rowing has done with the AIS) have created innovation advisory panels consisting of representatives from within and outside of their own sports. In the instance of sailing, representatives may include athletes, coaches, manufacturers, AIS, university, business innovation specialists, etc. Therefore, it is recommended that:

Recommendation EighteenYA/AST/AIS* establish a Sailing Innovation advisory panel and create formalised innovation management system to assess, develop and apply appropriate innovations and technology to the AST/AIS sailing program.

*While it is desirable (and more feasible) for the ASC/AIS to commit funding towards the establishment and management of the Sailing Innovation panel, YA/AST should not defer the establishment of the panel should the ASC/AIS not be prepared to fund the initiative.

During the course of the review, the ASC/AIS have indicated its support to collaborate with YA/AST to undertake a benchmarking review post-Beijing. It is recommended that:

Recommendation NineteenYA/AST/AIS conduct a benchmarking review following the 2008 Olympics and continue to observe and explore the level of analysis in the sailing programs of the leading countries and broaden the search and source of benchmarks and innovation that can be applied across the disciplines.

60

2.4 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT KEY PERFORMANCE DRIVERS

Brand development of sailing Marketing of sailing Revenue generation and business development activities

2.4.1 Overview of Commercial Activities and Resources

In financial terms, YA are a substantial recipient of ASC allocated grants ($5.236m in 2006–07), ranking seventh overall among the sixty-five ASC-assisted sports. The ASC funding accounted for approximately 68% of YA’s total turnover in the 2007 financial year. The remaining 32% of income can best be described as self-generated revenue (sponsorship, membership fees, training income, etc.).

The current commercial development activities of YA can be broadly compartmentalised into four main functions:

1. Sponsorship – Acquisition, servicing and leveraging of sponsors and suppliers.

2. Media and PR – Responsibility for external communications, media liaison and internal communications to MYAs.

3. Brand Development and Marketing: Brand development, protection and management. General marketing and promotion of the sport, events and YA products (including training) and marketing support across all YA business units.

4. Licensing/Merchandising – This is a relatively new program for YA and is outsourced to Melbourne-based company IMS. YA have the responsibility for the approval of licensed categories, products and licensee applications.

YA’s commercial resources are spread thinly across its revenue generation, marketing and communication activities. The Marketing Manager and Marketing Coordinator are broadly responsible for the functions of servicing YA sponsors, managing media, public relations, brand and marketing and overseeing the licensing activities. YA’s CEO and Olympic Program Director are largely responsible for the sponsor acquisition activities of YA; however this is very much a part-time and often reactive activity.

2.4.2 Brand – Yachting Australia and Sailing

Development and execution of an effective brand strategy is fundamental to the success of most businesses and is particularly salient in the context of sporting organisations as they seek recognition in an increasingly cluttered market. The brand of a sporting organisation is a multi-dimensional tool which in essence should be brought to life in all parts of corporate, commercial, participation and high-performance activities.

In 2003 YA and all MYAs launched a refreshed corporate identity, which has been successfully adopted to deliver a consistent look and feel for the sport and communicate to stakeholders the common link of ‘yachting’ across the national and state/territory bodies. As a first stage component of the brand strategy, YA have been tremendously successful in gaining acceptance from all MYAs to implement the common corporate identity. Many larger and better resourced NSOs have aspired but failed to deliver a common identity for their respective sports. Tennis Australia, Cricket Australia, Swimming Australia and Softball Australia provide recent examples of NSOs which have been successful in transitioning to a common corporate identity nationally.

61

While the corporate identity and common ‘look and feel’ of yachting is now well established and the benefits of achieving this consistency are accepted, the brand story and personality for yachting/sailing remains largely underdeveloped. The YA Visual Standards Guide delivered in 2005 is professionally produced and is an effective tool to manage and protect the integrity and consistency of the application of the YA and MYA corporate identities, and will in time improve the value of yachting’s brand assets. However, the guide itself does not provide discussion or instruction on what the ‘yachting’ brand means or the desired image and perceptions of the sport, which YA wants to develop through key strategies.

As identified in the 2004 P4 Group Sponsorship and Marketing Plan, the next stage of the brand strategy evolution is to bring the essence and meaning of the brand to life for targeted audiences – including sponsors, the converted membership, and potential consumers/participants.

The logical starting point to build the brand story is to start with the shopfront of the sport – its national teams and athletes. Whether driven by the imperatives of the high-performance/Olympic program or designed as part of an incremental brand strategy roll out by YA, the creation of the Australian Sailing Team brand and entity is gaining traction within the sailing and corporate community and in time will build the brand equity (the perceived quality and value of a brand amongst consumers and clients) and further the commercial potential of YA’s revenue generation activities. Naturally, Olympic success will further strengthen the value of the AST shopfront.

‘Perceptions of the sport need to shift significantly – we need to address the way the sport is perceived by the public and the media. We need more focused promotion and profile around the Olympic athletes to reposition the image of sailing as a sport which is accessible.’

– Olympic Sailing Program Manager

‘Perceptions of the sport’s affluence are both a strength and a weakness – diverse range of imagery in the sport from dinghy enthusiast’s running clubs on a shoestring to Sydney to Hobart Race with corporate support from aspirational products such as Audi and Rolex.’

– YA Marketing Manager

The key remaining element of the YA and ‘yachting’ brand strategy is the integration and implementation of the strategy with the national marketing and communication strategy (see Section 2.4.5), which brings the brand to life consistently with YA and MYA employees, volunteers and consumer segments and ultimately creates positive brand movement towards yachting’s desired image. If YA and MYA management teams can ‘live the brand’ in day-to-day activities, it will create a greater sense of unity and common purpose, which should contribute to belief and commitment in the brand promise and breed stronger motivation and commitment from employees.

There has been some preliminary development of yachting’s market segments (see Section 2.1) which has been undertaken through the P4 report, SBP’s state workshop consultations, and also at the recent strategic planning forum in Melbourne with the Federal Assembly (September 2007). This has provided insight into possible market segments, a hierarchy of customer segments and positioning of brand and image. However, this now needs to be supported by a national marketing research project involving the yachting family and members of the public not actively involved in the sport or lifestyle of yachting.

As discussed in Section 2.1 and Recommendation One of this report, the outcomes of the research project should deliver insight on yachting’s:

Primary customer segments: typically, ‘rusted on’ active sailing and boating participants; Secondary segments: typically, the recreational or occasional participants;

62

New segments: identification and prioritisation of non-sailing/boating consumers representing the richest vein of potential for new participants to the sport; and

Current membership profile, their needs, purchasing behaviour and preferences.

“There is very little reliable research data available within sailing – resulting in little understanding of the consumer. Additional research within the sport would benefit sponsor development, and assist the shaping of overall YA strategy by providing actual versus anecdotal evidence.”

- YA Marketing Manager

Overall, YA management has a strong understanding of what needs to happen in the development of sailing’s brand strategy – unfortunately the lack of reliable market research makes it very difficult to develop the brand with a high degree of certainty or effectiveness. The inability to fully implement the strategy is compromising YA’s commercial development and overall brand image. Consumer research and a clear brand development strategy requires a significant upfront investment and there are resource constraints which have resulted in rolling the strategy out incrementally without the requisite market research. The investment into fully implementing the strategy should be considered a future revenue generation activity – it will, over time, provide a return on investment to YA and the sport more generally.

2.4.3 Sponsorship

In 2003–04, YA engaged the P4 Group to assist with the strategic development and direction of the YA sponsorship program. An overall value-chain was built for the YA sponsorship program to reflect three core streams of assets:

National Events; Participation and Development Programs (capitalising on YA’s 45,000 membership base);

and National Representative Teams.

These core assets were packaged and valued and accompanied by a detailed policy and delivery strategy. At the time the Plan was completed in 2004, YA’s target for minimum net revenues from all sponsorship sources was $865,000 (consisting of a mix of 60% cash and 40% budget relieving VIK) and a maximum net revenues stretch target of $1,275,000. The net revenue outcomes are based on a servicing cost of 30%, which is in the upper scale of typical provisions for servicing.

In the 2006–07 financial year YA’s gross sponsorship revenues were approximately $1,200,000 and net revenue of $840,000 (consisting of 40% cash and 60% budget relieving VIK). In comparison with similar-sized amateur Olympic NSOs, the YA result is comparatively strong for the marketplace. Approximately 90% of revenues from sponsors and supporters is generated and directed toward the AST and high-performance activities. The partnership agreements with key sponsors and suppliers are between two and three years. One weakness is perhaps that all three of the major sponsor category partner agreements expire within three months of each other in mid 2009.

There is little direct flow-through benefit of sponsorship revenues to non-Olympic activities of YA. The OAMPS partnership as major sponsor of Youth Development (sub-elite) is a key exception. While there were strong views by a number of stakeholders that the corporate support of the AST should be filtering down to the MYAs and clubs, the arrangements are not unusual for national sporting bodies as the elite end of sport has typically been the most utilised component for corporate entities to leverage their association. However, the sponsorship environment is changing and there is a significant marketplace shift by sponsors towards properties which often provide a stronger association with community-based sport – although it could be argued most have not been

63

particularly effective in understanding and leveraging associations with community sport to their fullest potential. In part, this difficulty is due to the challenges of sponsors and NSOs rolling out and managing deliverables at the community level.

While it has been imperative for YA to focus on building the resources of the AST to enable a more competitive and uncompromised campaign for 2008, there are opportunities to develop highly valuable assets for sailing through a combination of corporate partnerships which provide overarching associations with the AST and community sailing assets. Swimming Australia provides an example of a strong model where typically its sponsorship assets are co-packaged with an element of rights for both the national teams programs and community swimming. Swimming, through its commercial agency, has also benefited through successfully moving several AOC sponsors into the SA portfolio which allows continuity of association during the Olympics. It should be noted that Swimming Australia and the AOC share the same commercial sports agency; Sydney based Sports Marketing and Management (SMAM).

Sponsor Aggregation and Flow through Benefits to MYAs and Clubs

MYAs are in almost all cases fully reliant on state government funding, government-sponsored awareness initiatives (e.g. SunSmart, Be Active), and membership fees to deliver their activities – there is limited access or use of corporate sponsorship. It is difficult in most instances for most state amateur sporting bodies to secure significant sponsorship for a variety of factors, however much of this is due to limited resources and a lack of commercial expertise to actively pursue major partners and sponsors’ concerns over the abilities of state bodies to deliver benefits and services. Yachting clubs are generally active in pursuing local partnerships, but typically these relationships are mostly in supplier/VIK categories or benefactors from within the sailing family.

There are demonstrable opportunities to aggregate the most significant shared asset of the YA/MYA/Clubs by creating access to its membership. There are a number of ways in which this may be achieved – the key to any aggregation is in the simplicity of its delivery model. Obvious options are opportunities built around the approximate 46,000 affiliated members and the probable AB demographic – of which 16,000 are contactable by email. Privacy issues related to database access can be navigated safely and legally, as has been demonstrated by a number of national sporting bodies and professional sporting clubs.

The 380 yacht club venues also provide a prominent physical infrastructure (i.e. external signage for brand building) and direct ‘connection channel’ (i.e. newsletters, noticeboards) to communicate prospective partners leveraging initiatives to YA’s core customer base. The clubs are essentially the ‘retail outlets’ for sailing. In many instances, yachting clubs could be utilised as business venues by organisations seeking to leverage their association as a supporter of sailing through a decentralised sales force (such as financial services) to conduct information sessions to club members and the local community. This latter approach has numerous benefits – it activates meaningful sponsor/club relationships at a local level, creates venue hire income, and provides an opportunity to showcase club facilities and services to non-club members from within the local community.

64

Growth Strategy and ChallengesDue to the limited media content which is currently available of YA controlled/owned sailing events, the approach to cultivating a sponsorship portfolio is quite different to those sports which are regularly televised such as the AFL, NRL and Cricket. YA has adopted a tailored approach to its sponsorship proposition which is focused on utilising an association with YA and sailing as a more direct business development instrument. In other words, YA is targeting brand owners (sponsors) that are more interested in targeting the demographic of the people participating or associated with the sport of sailing.

This is a reasonable approach for YA, however there should be caution in designing the sponsorship proposition too strongly around the consumer. According to research undertaken in 2005 by the UK company SportBusiness Group9, a survey of major global sponsors of yachting indicated that brand owners are primarily targeting business audiences (business to business) and internal stakeholders ahead of consumer audiences.

The study also reveals a hierarchy of business objectives sponsors are seeking to achieve through their association with yachting, which are as follows:

Brand building; Corporate reputation and brand image; Relationship building and corporate hospitality; Internal relations; Team building and leadership; Sales and market development; Product development and showcasing; and Corporate citizenship and social responsibility.

The key challenges to enable the next stage of YA’s sponsorship development and growth strategy will be dependent on: Bolstering internal and external expertise, capabilities and resources to drive revenue

generation growth strategically – currently, acquisition activities are undertaken part-time by the CEO and Olympic Program Director and attention has and will taper further for the 12 months leading into the Olympics. While this approach has met with some success, it is difficult to deliver any significant growth and retain sponsors without further dedicated high-level resources. There are a number of options discussed in the recommendations section;

Better understanding of the sailing membership profile – current propositions to prospective sponsors provide basic information on general interest and participation in sailing, however it is limited in its ability to effectively demonstrate consumer profile, attitudes, preferences and purchasing behaviour. Initial and ongoing investment in marketing research is required. The YA database is a powerful tool and possibly under-utilised as a research instrument and as a CRM device;

To maximise flow-through sponsorship benefit to community sailing, auditing, aggregating and packaging of the key assets/properties of YA, MYAs and clubs needs to be undertaken and driven by YA with the support of the MYAs;

Developing sailing content – television or new/digital (3G mobiles, webcast, pod-cast) media. This may not necessarily be in the form of pure sporting competition content – it may be content built around lifestyle and/or water-based sporting pursuits. Currently there are very few media exposure opportunities to offer prospective sponsors as part of their benefits package (this is discussed further in Section 2.4.5).

9 SportBusiness Group, The Business of Yacht Racing, (2005).

65

YA should continue with its primary focus on generating funds for the AST until such time that its commercial development resources are increased and cooperative arrangements for aggregation of MYA sponsor properties are developed. In the interim, it would be beneficial for YA to examine with MYAs what opportunities there may be to broaden current partners’ interest into association with the community sailing properties.

2.4.4 Commercial Events/RegattasYA have identified a suite of event offerings to present to potential corporate partners. These events consist of: Youth Sailing: State Youth Championships; OAMPS Australian Youth Championship. Match Racing: Australian Match Racing Championships; Australian Youth Match Racing

Championships; and Australian Women’s Match Racing Championships. Team Racing: Australian Team Racing Championship; Australian Schools Team Racing

Championships. Audi IRC Australian Championship: Incorporating Skandia Geelong Week, Sydney Harbour

Regatta, Audi Sydney to Gold Coast Race, Hamilton Island Race Week. Official Functions: Australian Yachting Awards, Yachting Australia Hall of Fame.These events are critical elements of the high-performance platform of sailing in Australia and would not be possible without the primary delivery agents – the MYAs and yachting club network. Due to the disparate management and control of these events, there is little consistency in their packaging and no meaning or context to the majority of these events to the non-sailing public and media. This has contributed to the difficulty of attracting corporate support to the majority of the events, particularly those considered ‘YA owned’.

Skandia Geelong Week and Sail MelbourneFirst held in 1844, Skandia Geelong Week is one of Australia’s major sailing events, and is hosted by the Royal Geelong YC and underwritten with the support of Skandia, City of Geelong and the State Government of Victoria. The attraction of the event to the general public is primarily around the precinct activity off the water, rather than on the water. Critical to the event’s success with the non-sailing public is the ability to create a hub of land-based events and activities, which provide a mix of general family engagement. The event has also provided the sailing family and participants with a balanced mix of highly competitive racing and after-racing ‘club house socialising’ and entertainment.

In contrast, Sail Melbourne is an annual Group One ISAF event conducted in January by four or five yacht clubs in Port Phillip Bay. Despite the high quality of international competition, the event largely falls under the radar of the Melbourne public or media, and its only significant sponsor is the State Government of Victoria. While the Victorian Government’s primary success measures of Sail Melbourne relate to economic return (i.e. destination marketing to international audience), there is a desire by the Government to stimulate participation development in sailing and to create lasting infrastructure benefits for yachting clubs and communities.

The challenges of delivering the Victorian Government’s desired performance measures and developing Sail Melbourne as both a commercial event and one which attracts the attention of the national and international media are predominantly due to the dislocated delivery of the event. The event is dispersed over several clubs, and as a result competition locations for events change day to day, making it difficult to deliver the ‘non-sailing’ entertainment and precinct which has been successful in Geelong. The competition also occurs in the middle of the bay which provides little attraction to spectators and sponsors.

Sponsors also desire integrated event opportunities which happen in the same place, same time, etc. to enable a stronger leveraging of their association and as a more manageable means of

66

delivering effective corporate hospitality. January also presents challenges for media attention due to competition from sports and events such as cricket and the Australian Open – as well as other ‘yachting’ events.

The Victorian Government also indicated that it would prefer to work in closer partnership with YA to assist with developing the commercial elements of the Sail Melbourne event. The thinking behind closer collaboration is quite practical and seeks out the possibility of YA effectively partnering with the Government as a sponsorship agent and providing the ability for YA to aggregate its proposition to current or prospective YA sponsors to associate with the event. Indeed, YA should explore the opportunity as a matter of urgency to evaluate whether the opportunity exists to create a standalone sports marketing company which provides expert advice and services to sailing event hosts and owners to promote, manage and market events on their behalf.

YA, Yachting Victoria and the Victorian Government are currently pursuing the opportunity to host a leg of the ISAF World Cup. This event would appear to have many of the attractive elements of Skandia Geelong Week in that it is intended to create a single hub of activity and village atmosphere in Catania Gardens adjacent to the St Kilda entertainment precinct. These types of events are likely to be attractive to other metropolitan and regional centres with the appropriate infrastructure to support a large volume of intrastate and international visitors. This is the preferred model of state major event corporations. The dilemma for the sport is effective balancing of the need to deliver a good technical sailing event with that of an entertainment product for mainstream audiences.

2.4.5 Media/Communications/Marketing Strategy

A common observation during the stakeholder workshops throughout the country was the inability of sailing to cut through to the popular media. The lack of media interest is a culmination of factors, including limited major events, very limited and irregular television coverage, comparatively weak participation pathways, limited meaning and context of sailing events by the general public, and the dominance of the major team sports including the football codes and cricket. YA have acknowledged the current lack of media and PR activity within the sport and both the Board and Management have identified the need to prioritise and increase these levels to build awareness of sailing. Not only will this help in providing additional ROI benefits to retain and attract YA sponsors, it will build a greater base of interest and awareness for sailing in general.

At the time of conducting the review, the Board had instructed the YA Marketing Manager to redevelop the draft YA Communications and Marketing Strategy to provide a stronger focus on developing the profile of sailing through the popular media. This has resulted in the Marketing Manager role becoming increasingly focused on external communications. The draft communications and marketing strategy refers to similar themes and challenges identified throughout this report, namely the need to better understand YA’s customers and inconsistent unity of purpose between YA and MYAs. For an effective media/communications/marketing strategy to be developed, YA needs to:

First establish and clearly articulate what YA and sailing wants to achieve through its communication and media strategy – these objectives should be aligned with the strategic plan, desired brand image, and values of yachting;

Develop a story which informs, attracts and inspires the audiences YA wish to target. The ‘sailing story’ becomes the key communication and brand asset and its power relies on being clear, compelling, concise and easy to understand;

Understand the audience YA intends to target (broadly sailors and people who are interested in sailing) and communicate the sailing story through reliable channels which connect to the target audience; and

67

Develop a joint YA/MYA strategic and tactical media/communications plan to ensure a consistent and coherent execution of the strategy.

Consistent with the restraints of YA’s sponsorship activities, the Marketing and Communications resources are spread thinly across many activities and it is doubtful that a media and communications strategy will gain much traction without the requisite tactical support and media relationships with key print, television and online partners. The sport also has limited and sporadic event content and these events are typically not media or spectator friendly. Instructing YA management to ‘raise the media profile’ of sailing will simply not happen until YA understands its targeted customers, how to reach them, and provides them with a compelling and consistent story – and skilled tactical resources to support strategy delivery. The sport also needs to examine how it presents its shop front (national teams, athletes and events) and be flexible where possible with the competition format to accommodate the preferences of media and corporate partners to enable a more accessible and entertaining spectator/television viewer proposition.

The reviewer interviewed the external media consultants (The Content Group) of Rowing Australia and Australian Canoeing to conceptually discuss the approach to developing the media profile of sailing. Their advice was consistent with the approach described above and the scale and speed of building the profile is commensurate with the investment, although it is possible to make significant improvements with a relatively small investment so long as there is a clear and professional strategy and a compelling story to tell. The sailing story must be enduring and evolving and brought to life through the media, starting with home grown, local stories as the foundation of the sport’s profile, building a national profile realistically developed through a sustained strategy over a period of four to five years.

Swimming Australia provides another example of a sport working with an external media consultant over a sustained period of time. In the instance of swimming, the service and support provided is comprehensive and includes media management/relations, public relations and promotion, media training (athletes, coaches, and staff) and crisis management. Swimming has made a significant and ongoing investment in its media and communications strategy with the strong belief that an effectively developed and managed approach to this component of the business becomes a revenue driver – not a cost centre. The benefits of integrating this strategy with swimming’s brand development, sponsors and broadcasters has been significant in the evolution of professionalisation and revenue growth of the organisation in the period between 2001 and 2007.

Television and New MediaTelevision is critical for sailing to gain any significant results in raising the media and public awareness of the sport, and more specifically the Olympic sailing classes which are the primary media asset that YA can control. Developing compelling content for television will be an incremental process and may need to initially be built around programming which incorporates racing highlights packages (featuring start–middle–finish–medal) rather than live coverage and potentially assembled as a sailing or boating lifestyle program. A lifestyle program may feature vignettes profiling AST athletes and coaches, information on learn to sail and YA national participation programs, and possibly showcasing technology and innovation through sponsored manufacturer segments.

During the course of the review, the reviewer facilitated a meeting between YA’s CEO and a leading sport media production and distribution group (Sportsbrand Media Group) to further explore the options for packaging a summer sailing television series for Australian pay television. This dialogue is still developing, however it is thought that there is sufficient global sailing content to supplement domestic content to create a viable domestic weekly sailing lifestyle program throughout the Australian summer which would be attractive to pay television broadcasters and audiences. The media rights arrangements for ISAF events is somewhat grey, however the current position would appear that until such time that the ISAF-owned content (essentially the Olympic class events)

68

increases in commercial value it would be in the interests of the sport’s global development to make this content available to broadcasters for minimal to no cost.

The key to activating a pay television strategy in Australia for YA is to develop a compelling proposition to brand owners (sponsors) which convinces them to underwrite the production costs of a thirty-minute weekly program with a minimum run of 18 to 20 weeks annually. As an indicative example of the volume of Olympic class regattas operating in the summer period, there will be a total of seven Olympic Class, World and Asia Pacific Championships and four All Olympic Class events hosted in Australia and New Zealand between November 2007 and March 2008. Well-known sailing events such as the Sydney to Hobart and Melbourne to Hobart are also supported by a diverse and substantial number of small to medium sailing events conducted throughout Australia and internationally during the summer period.

There is a critical volume and quality of sailing content that is available to construct a weekly sailing television magazine, however further work is required to cost and develop a realistic and viable production model that can be underwritten by current and prospective YA sponsors. Naturally, if television production of events such as Sail Melbourne can be underwritten by sponsors, then a concerted effort and strategy to release video news reels to target nightly news bulletins of free-to-air and pay television broadcasters would accompany the weekly series strategy.

Interestingly, sailing was ranked as the fifth most popular Olympic sport on the new media platform during the 2004 Olympics and also proved a popular platform for the Americas Cup. One of the more popular websites broadcasting video content for sailing is the UK based ‘sail.tv’, which features free, on-demand content of ISAF Worlds, showcases a variety of boat trade shows and an online trade directory for the sailing sector. The Sail.tv model provides an example of how YA could and should directly or in partnership with another provider create meaningful, readily accessible and cost-effective content to showcase the AST and other YA events and initiatives to its sailing membership via the YA website. Cricket Australia’s ‘CATV’ also provides another example of using the internet as a platform for competition and behind-the-scenes vision.

2.4.6 Licensing and Merchandising

The YA licensing program was established in 2007 through a partnership between YA and licensing agency ISM. As has been demonstrated by the national licensing programs of Surf Life Saving Australia (SLSA) and Bowls Australia (BA), it is possible for the lower profile sporting bodies to generate a significant stream of revenue from licensing activities, however it is a medium to long-term strategy which may take five to seven years to demonstrate meaningful income. Nevertheless, it is another vital ingredient to position the sport for the future.

There are lessons to glean from the respective SLSA and BA programs – both have relevance to the current and intended activities and considerations of YA’s licensing and merchandising strategies. The BA program is a mandatory program requiring competitive lawn bowlers to wear licensed BA apparel/club clothing when competing in pennant and other competitive leagues. The program is now 12 years old and generates in excess of $6.5m per annum in wholesale sales (and continues to grow), of which BA derives approximately 10% as a licensing royalty and returns 100% of profits (less staff and operational costs) back into the development of the sport. While the outcome of this program has provided a significant new stream of revenue to be invested in the sport, there is very little awareness by participants that the funds are reinvested back into the sport and in fact there is resentment towards the national body for perceived ‘skimming’ of its paid-up members (the reality is that the competition between licensees has in fact delivered a stronger price proposition for consumers).

The SLSA program has a more diverse mix of licensed products for retail and club offerings including apparel, rescue equipment and training manuals and videos. There are similarities

69

between several of the product category opportunities licensed by SLSA and being developed by YA – and in both instances the ability to achieve retail penetration is proving more problematic than anticipated. In both the SLSA and BA programs, the opportunity to source and develop their own branded products, thus creating the opportunity to collect the wholesale margin on sales of licensed product is underdeveloped.

2.4.7 Building Commercial Capacity of YA

As highlighted in section 2.4.3, YA require improved capacity and expertise of its commercial activities to underpin and sustain growth of self-generated revenues for the sport of sailing. There are a number of options which YA could consider to bolster its commercial capacity and expertise, of which we have reviewed three:

Option One – Internal Business Unit and Resourcing

With this option, YA would create a standalone business unit for all commercial activities under the leadership of a General Manager of Commercial Operations. This unit and manager would be responsible for all revenue generation and marketing activities of the organisation including:

Sponsorship; Business development; Government Grants; Marketing and Communications; and Licensing and Merchandising.

This option has benefits in that it builds the internal capability of the organisation and minimises revenue leakage to third parties. However, it is a costly option to implement. The cost of employing a suitably skilled and strategic Sydney-based general manager to drive and develop YA’s commercial operations would be upward of $125,000 p.a. It would be likely that a period of 12 to 18 months would elapse before a tangible commercial return would be realised by the organisation.

It is the reviewer’s opinion that at the present time this option is not the preferred way forward in the immediate 24 months. It may be the model YA aspires to once the commercial strategy is implemented and growing sufficiently to self-fund the establishment of this full-time position. Option Two – Non-Exclusive Outsourced Sponsor Acquisition Model

In this option, YA would appoint an external agency to represent YA’s major sponsorship properties (i.e. those valued in excess of $100k p.a.) on a non-exclusive basis. YA would retain the right to directly sell major sponsorship properties; however YA’s primary focus would be on sponsorship servicing and sales of minor sponsorship properties (under $100k p.a.) and VIK budget relieving partnerships.

This model has benefits in that it retains flexibility for YA to both sell and service the sponsorship function and build internal capabilities while at the same time bolstering its resources to target higher yield partners through a non-exclusive partnership with an appropriate sports sponsorship agency who are prepared to absorb some risk in return for a sales commission (variable from 15% to 25%) for the duration of the sponsorship.

Naturally, the key to success of this model is finding the right fit with a focused and motivated partner and ensuring that appropriate partner activity and reporting is occurring and being tracked against agreed objectives on a monthly basis. It is particularly important with this option that contractual arrangements are sufficiently robust to ensure that a non-exclusive partner does not impede the ability of YA to pursue its own sponsorship opportunities or claim stake to conversion opportunities where the non-exclusive partner is loosely involved.

70

The other significant downside is that most of the traditional external agencies within the sport business sector have focus and expertise in the area of sponsorship. Whereas YA ultimately requires expertise that can strengthen its commercial capability across a number of activities.

Option Three – Shared Risk Model

As noted within this report, there is a need to refresh the commercial strategy of YA and progressively build the internal capabilities and expertise of the organisation. A model which has demonstrated some success in similar sized NSOs combines a shared risk approach between the NSO and external provider in the development of commercial strategy and capability building (including staff mentoring and development). In return, the external provider receives exclusive rights to partner with the NSO to jointly build new revenue over a period of two to three years. An appropriate revenue share model is developed based upon the degree of upfront risk and support provided by the external partner in developing the commercial strategy and plan and support to YA staff.

In this model, YA would be responsible for the servicing of sponsors to promote a direct relationship, however the external organisation would be included in joint YA/Sponsor quarterly reviews to monitor and improve partnership outcomes.

The benefit of this model is that it accelerates the development of the commercial strategy and plan, builds organisational and people capability, keeps YA closely connected to the sponsor relationship, and carries with it a strong probability of bolstering revenue. The formative and development elements of this approach are consistent with the aims of the review and building towards self-sufficiency. The potential downside to this model is striking the appropriate level of upfront risk by YA to fund the internal strategy and capability building – there is no guarantee that the external organisation would deliver new sponsorship.

71

CONCLUSION

Commercial development of the YA business is showing evidence of improvement across two of the four core functions of the unit and a willingness to further develop self-generated new revenue streams through the recent introduction of new initiatives such as the licensing program. YA’s brand, communication, media and marketing activities have been slow to develop and investment is now required to progress previously developed strategies.

If YA is to improve its self-generated revenue objectives to bolster preparations for London 2012 and significantly improve its leadership and support towards community sailing initiatives, a more focused, forceful and better resourced commercial division is imperative.

The way forward does not require a complex strategy; it does however require investment today to reap reward in future years. YA must concentrate on getting the basics of its commercial activities operating soundly and resourced appropriately over the next 18 to 24 months, before pursuing more innovative new business development revenue streams which may be more realistic to develop and implement after 2009.

72

DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTDevelop the Brand, Communications, Marketing and Media Strategy for Yachting

To enable the evolution of the next stage of sailing’s consumer brand, media, communications and marketing strategy, it is recommended that in accordance with Recommendation One of this report, YA commission a national market research project to develop an informed insight and understanding of sailing’s existing customers and its potential customers. The study would ideally identify customer segments for sailing and identify a strategy to attract targeted new participants to the sport and provide guidance to develop the ‘sailing story’ as the key brand and communication asset of YA.

Following completion of the national market research study and strategic plan for yachting in Australia, it is recommended that:

Recommendation TwentyYA develop a joint YA/MYA strategic and tactical brand strategy aligned with yachting’s strategic plan objectives to ensure a consistent and coherent execution of sailing’s brand, story and values through the correct channels to connect to targeted audiences (media and consumers).

Recommendation Twenty- OneYA and the MYAs co-deliver and communicate the key research outcomes and associated consumer brand strategy to clubs to enable the sailing consumer brand and values to be brought to life.

Recommendation Twenty-TwoYA commit to an annual research program to measure the degree of positive movement towards sailing’s desired brand image and to enable the sailing story to be refined as required for targeted audiences.

The data emerging from this research will be of substantial and powerful benefit to YA’s:

current and prospective sponsors; the design of external marketing and communication campaigns; and participation development initiatives.

Grow the Profile of Sailing

YA’s media, communications and marketing activities need to be considered as an investment in the future – in other words, consumption deferred while the commercial infrastructure is built. YA’s commercial and participation development strategies share a strong interdependence with the success of raising sailing’s media profile. To be effective, YA require the assistance of external media and communications expertise to assist in the development of a media/comms strategy and provide tactical support which will provide sailing with the best return of its investment based on its available budget. Following the completion of the strategic plan for yachting and national market research project, it is recommended that:

Recommendation Twenty-ThreeYA with the assistance of an external expert consultant develop a clearly articulated media and communications strategy, which is aligned with the strategic plan and brand strategy (desired brand image and values) of yachting.

Subject to the available funding, it is also recommended that:

73

Recommendation Twenty-FourYA engage a media and communications consultant to provide tactical support to the YA marketing manager to implement the YA media/communications/marketing strategy and develop and manage media relationships on behalf of YA.

Collectively, YA management and the proposed YA commercial (see recommendation 26) and media consultants would collaborate to examine appropriate opportunities such as those described in Section 2.4.5 to build the television and online presence of the sport.

YA Commercial StrategyThe marketing and sponsorship plan developed by the consultancy P4 Group in 2004 provides a solid blueprint for the YA commercial strategy which can, with some modification, be used as the template to create a three-year integrated commercial operations plan. It is recommended that:

Recommendation Twenty-FiveYA immediately refresh the Sponsorship and Marketing Plan and broaden the content of the plan to encompass and integrate all commercial development strategies and activities (YA and AST) into a YA national commercial operations plan for 2008.

The plan should be a fluid document which is reviewed in 2009 upon completion of the national research project and the strategic plan for yachting in Australia.

Building Commercial Capacity of YA

It is the reviewer’s opinion that of the options detailed in Section 2.4.7, Option 3 presents the most appropriate option for YA at this stage of its organisational development; however Option 2 offers the lowest upfront investment and is a superior option to current arrangements. It is imperative that a decision is made to implement either of these options as soon as possible to enable an appropriate window of time to review current commercial arrangements prior to the expiration of the current major sponsorship agreements. It is recommended that:

Recommendation Twenty-SixYA appoint an external commercial partner to implement Option 2 (outsourced sponsorship acquisition) or 3 (shared risk/reward model) as soon as practicable.

YA Sponsorship

Following on from the previous recommendation, once the delivery model, capabilities and resources of YA commercial operations are resolved, the approach to the YA sponsorship portfolio should be modified to strengthen the overall proposition to sponsors, MYAs and clubs. It is recommended that:

Recommendation Twenty-Seven YA Commercial Operations Plan contains specific financial and non-financial performance targets which benefit and foster the development of both High Performance and Community sailing initiatives. Sponsor investment and benefit to community sailing will only be possible through a collaborative approach between YA, MYAs and clubs. If this joint partnership model is not in place, sponsors will have no faith in the ability of the sport to deliver outcomes. It is recommended that:

Recommendation Twenty-Eight

74

YA, with the assistance of MYAs, conduct an audit of current and potential sponsorship properties which could be jointly aggregated, packaged and marketed by YA to current and prospective sponsors.

The majority of current sponsorship agreements are linked to the Australian Sailing Team and the four-year Olympic campaign cycle. Therefore, it is not surprising that the major agreements all expire within three months of each other in the period immediately after the 2008 Olympics. As recommendation 27 indicates, a concerted effort to jointly package Australian Sailing Team properties with community sailing properties should see greater flow-through benefit of sponsorship funding to the grass roots of the sport, and over time provide a greater buffer to the cyclical, non-staggered terms of the current agreements and bridge the 12 to 18 month gap in funding which emerges in the post-Olympic period.

While it is not easily managed, where possible YA should seek to develop a staggering of terms for the major sponsors (typically those associated with the AST) so that there is a more even spread of agreement expiration dates across the four-year Olympic cycle.

75

2.5 GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENTKEY PERFORMANCE DRIVERS

Governance and Constitution: Governance Model and Constitutional Arrangements (Legal Framework, Objects, Powers) Board (Independence, Alignment of Responsibility with Authority, Policies, Processes and

Reporting, Financial Accountability, and Performance Review)

Management: Accountability (Delegation and reporting across core business functions) Performance Management Systems (Planning, Execution, Relationships) Staff (excl. AST Coaches) Business Systems (Financial, HR/People Development, ICT, Membership)

2.5.1 Yachting Australia Governance Model and Constitutional Arrangements

Yachting Australia is recognised as the National Sporting Organisation for sailing by the ASC, Australian Olympic Committee (AOC), Australian Paralympic Committee (APC) and the International Sailing Federation (ISAF). YA is a federation of eight independent state and territory MYAs, consisting of more than 383 affiliated clubs, over 100,000 individual club members, 45,000 YA cardholders and 280 state and national class associations. Constitutionally, YA is an incorporated association pursuant to the Associations Incorporation Act 1984 (NSW) with responsibility for promoting competitive and recreational sailing. The YA national office is located in Sydney and there are incorporated associations in all states with the exception of Queensland where the state body is a company limited by guarantee.

The Federal Assembly comprises the President of the Federation and one delegate from each member association. The member associations are those bodies representing sailing in each state and territory. The annual meeting of the Federal Assembly is the AGM of the Federation. At meetings of the Federal Assembly, each delegate exercises one vote per person either in person or by proxy.

The Constitution provides for the YA Board to comprise five directors elected by the Federal Assembly and up to three independent (co-opted) directors who may be appointed by the elected directors. As soon as practicable after each AGM, the five elected directors elect one of their number to be President for the ensuing year and the President normally presides as Chairman at each meeting of the Board. The term of appointment for an elected Board Member is normally two years. The term for appointed directors is for a period determined by the Board, but does not exceed two years.

The reviewer considers the size of the Board as very workable in number. It is the skill sets of those on the Board which is of most importance.

76

Figure 6: YA Federal Assembly Structure

The Role of ISAFThe sport’s international governing body, the International Sailing Federation (ISAF), has responsibility across all disciplines of the sport from dinghy sailing, windsurfing, round the world yacht racing to the America’s Cup. The principal remit of ISAF includes:

The rules – controlling and publishing:o The racing rules regulating all racing at all levels to ensure international consistency.o The equipment rules, offshore special regulations and ISAF regulations.

Competitions and events – including:o The Olympic sailing competition, ISAF-owned events and ISAF graded events.o Sanctioning and granting international and world-class or special category status to

sailing and class events.o World sailing rankings (Olympic classes) and match race rankings.o Speed sailing records.o Scheduling international events.

Race officials: provision of education, training and certification of race officials, such as juries, umpires and on the water judges.

Technical: all areas of the sport including technical specifications and development and supervising the rules of international class associations which prescribe measurement criteria to ensure specific types of boat are ‘in class’.

Development: disabled sailing, training and development Olympic Solidarity, athlete participation programs.

Coaches: introduction and management of registration systems. ISAF Sailor: sailor classification, registration and database of active international sailors. Promotion: dissemination of information primarily by the ISAF website (www.sailing.org) and

marketing to publicise sport.

Andrew PlymptonPresident

Rupert LeslieElected Director

Nick HuttonElected Director

Adrienne CahalanAppointed Director

David KellettAppointed Director

John FlowerElected Director

Wally RantanenElected Director

Tom KingAppointed Director

David TillettISAF Council (ex-officio)

Yachting ACT

Yachting NSW

Yachting NT

Yachting QLD

Yachting Tasmania

Yachting SA

Yachting VIC

Yachting WA

77

ISAF governs the sport through its network of Member National Authorities (MNAs), which govern yachting and yacht clubs within each country and international class associations for each type of boat.

The Objects of Yachting Australia

The 2003 amended constitution states the objects (Rule 2) of the Federation shall be:

To promote and administer the sport of yachting in all its branches. To serve as a national body for the advancement of yachting throughout the

Commonwealth of Australia. To take such steps to affiliate with other International and National Associations as may be

required. To recognise as national classes such class of yachts, which may from time to time comply with

the requirements of the Federation.

The Board Powers (YA Constitution Clause 11.1)

RULE 11 - ADMINISTRATION

11.1 THE BOARD - POWERS AND MEETINGS Subject to the Act and these Rules the business of the Federation shall be administered and managed, and the powers of the Federation shall be exercised, by the Board. In particular, the Board as the managing authority of the Federation shall be responsible for determining and acting on all national issues and issuing policy directives in accordance with the objects of the Federation and shall operate for the benefit of the Federation, the Members, yachting and the sailing community throughout Australia. For these purposes the Board may, without limiting the generality of the foregoing: 11.1.1 Appoint special officers, establish Special Committees and appoint Delegates to the ISAF, the ORC, the AOC and CAS and any other associations or bodies, whether corporate or incorporate, with which the Federation is associated or affiliated or on which the Federation is or in the opinion of the Board ought to be represented; 11.1.2 Recommend the amounts of annual subscription and levies payable by members for consideration and decision by the Federal Assembly; 11.1.3 Determine that the Federation shall borrow such money from such banks and other lending institutions upon such terms as to payment, interest or otherwise as the Board thinks fit; 11.1.4 Determine that the Federation shall give any guarantee or indemnity for the due payment of money; 11.1.5 Invest the funds of the Federation in any investment permitted by law for the investment of trust monies in Australia; 11.1.6 Accept advance payment of the whole or any part of the annual subscription and levies payable.

2000 Review of Governance Model and Constitution of the Federation10

10 BoardWorks Intl, AYF Governance Review, (July 2000)

78

In 2000, Yachting Australia engaged Terry Kilmister of Board Works International to provide advice on its governance structure and the roles and responsibilities of the board, board committees, the CEO, the Federal Assembly, State Associations and their CEOs. Kilmister's report tabled 26 recommendations, of which 20 have been successfully adopted and implemented. Of the remaining 6 recommendations, 4 have not been adopted and 2 have been adopted but have been either only partially successful or not fully implemented. These recommendations and outcomes are summarised below.

Table 8: Kilmister Review of YA Governance Model (2000)Kilmister Recommendations OutcomeRecommendation 1The federation structure should be retained, at least in the immediate future, but the AYF board should instigate a thorough investigation into alternative organisational structures with a view to securing a strong future for the AYF in a rapidly changing sport marketplace.

The federal structure remains, however investigation into alternative governance or company structures has not been undertaken.

Recommendation 2The board should immediately address the issue of the purpose and customer base of the AYF and resolve the ‘sail only’ or ‘sail and motor’ question.

As stated in Section 2.1.2 of this report, the customer and business focus of YA has not been resolved.

Recommendation 7There should be a maximum term in office for all AYF directors of six (6) years. Upon conclusion of the sixth year in office directors must stand down for a year. After a one-year stand-down, retired directors are eligible for re-nomination to the board.

There are currently no limits on the terms for directors.

Recommendation 8AYF directors should not also be directors of MYA.

The constitution does not prohibit a YA director also holding office in a voting member organisation.

Recommendation 19Clause 11.7, requiring the board to present a budget for approval by the AGM, should be removed from the constitution.

This clause has not been removed.

Recommendation 24That in addition to its responsibilities for national and international competition, the AYF national system should focus on the delivery of Membership benefits identified by Members and able to be resourced.

Recommendations 24 and 25 are reflected in principle in the YA strategic plan and membership benefit documents. However, many of the proposed services and benefits to MYAs, clubs and individuals are compromised through resource constraints of the YA national office, passive resistance to implementation which requires interdependent delivery, and apathy towards the YA benefits and services value proposition.

Recommendation 25The provision of Member services and benefits should be expanded to include support to and strengthening of club activities. There must be the recognition that the future strength of the AYF rests with the future strength of clubs and their ability to respond to new sport market demands and attract fee-paying members or provide fee-paying services to casual users.

Progress of critical objectives of the strategic plan related to participation and club development have stalled due to the inability of YA and MYAs to agree on customer needs – largely because there is limited data to provide the evidence necessary to indicate what members are actually demanding and consequently how best to allocate the limited resources of YA and MYAs.

79

Federation Model versus Alternative ModelsDuring the Kilmister review process, debate was held on the pros and cons of the current federation model. The Kilmister review found that the current federation structure should be retained, at least in the immediate future; however the YA Board should instigate a thorough investigation into alternative organisational structures with a view to securing a strong future for YA in a rapidly changing sport and business marketplace. As noted in the previous table this investigation has not been undertaken although the pros and cons of the debate have continued throughout the current review.

The rationale for Kilmister’s recommendation to maintain the existing arrangements of the YA federal structure included:

Acknowledgment that the long history of voluntary contribution has created an army of ‘on-the-ground’ volunteer workers and has shaped a culture of ‘ownership’ of the Federation. It was expressed that a move towards a corporate holding company model may seriously threaten this culture;

The potential for the federal model to deliver stronger overall participation by organisation members as a result of them feeling that they can influence and be heard; and

The review discusses the potential to successfully address issues and deliver desired benefits within the sport via a successful federal structure, based on principles of good governance.

As stated in Kilmister’s report: ‘At the core of the federalist concept is the necessity for the centre and the parts each to give up some of their power to the other…Federalism attempts to find a balance of power within an organisation. It is a mix of small and large, of centralism and decentralism.’ The Kilmister review acknowledges that, in practice, successful federalism is difficult to achieve and that it requires ‘…much negotiation, goodwill and agreement around mutually interdependent goals that will often be achieved through independent action…When the goals are agreed to with the participation of the parts and the centre working together, there is a much greater likelihood that co-operative and collaborative strategies will be developed and agreed, mutual accountabilities and obligations met.’

Unfortunately, the aspirations of delivering a successful federal model in the period between the years 2000 and 2007 have not been achieved. While the changes to the YA constitution have provided incremental improvements to the professionalism, skill sets and independence of the YA Board, the performance of the organisation is heavily compromised by the sum of the parts and the centre still not working together effectively, and many of the issues identified in the 2000 Kilmister review still remain. The majority of these issues are linked to strategies and goals of the sport which require interdependence of YA, MYAs and clubs to be successfully delivered, particularly activities related to membership benefits, participation and club development.

A key factor impacting the performance and effectiveness of the YA federal model is the appropriate alignment of responsibility with authority. The YA Board and Management team spend too much of their time reacting to non-strategic issues of the FA rather than providing strong strategic leadership and getting on with running the sport. The FA often displays the behaviour of a board rather than a council and there is a need to change this culture to appropriately empower the YA Board and management to deliver the agreed objectives of the strategic plan. The result of this behaviour is a burgeoning FA-driven ‘wishlist’ which continues to add to the activities and deliverables of both the YA and MYA management teams which are simply not realistic and executable based on available resources. It also results in significant waste and duplication of these scarce resources on activities which may or may not reflect the true priorities of the sport and business. The role of the Federal Assembly is not well defined in the Constitution; however it should be contained to:

80

Electing the member directors of the YA Board that will govern the sport on behalf of all members of the sport over the coming year;

Making changes to the rules that govern the organisation as a whole at the AGM and SGM; Meeting annually to provide a strategic forum to contribute and influence the shape and overall

strategic direction of the sport and to monitor the performance of the YA Board against the deliverables and success measures of the strategic plan; and

Providing an effective two-way communication conduit between its members and the YA Board.

While it would be premature to recommend that YA move away from its current federated structure, there is an urgent need to alleviate some of the inefficiencies and compromises this structure presents to the delivery of strategic goals – while retaining the beneficial elements. The federation and its member associations should be provided the opportunity over the next few years to demonstrate their ability and commitment to move towards a more effective federalist ideal where the sum of parts and the centre can indeed work together effectively.

In Kilmister’s report it is suggested that this may best be achieved with the development of a documented memorandum of understanding or charter in which mutual obligations and reciprocal arrangements are enshrined. There have been recent attempts to develop a standardised service agreement between YA and MYAs, however this has been problematic as the ‘one-size fits all’ approach to documenting obligations and arrangements was not deemed possible by some MYAs due to the non-alignment of certain core areas of business. Notably the dilemma of business focus on sailing or boating remains an obstacle to the establishment of MoUs. A more practical and robust way forward may be achieved through the adoption of a Performance Management System (PMS), which provides for consistent performance measurement and reporting approach by YA and MYAs on highly specific and agreed initiatives which require interdependence to execute. The current and proposed PMS is further discussed in Section 2.5.3.

In his report, Kilmister also suggests a thorough investigation should be undertaken to review alternative organisational structures which may be more appropriate to secure a strong future for YA and its members in a rapidly changing marketplace. While the reviewers agree with this recommendation, the determination of a whole of sport strategy, YA business focus and cost consequences of the adopted business model should be the first order of reform before any structural changes to the constitution or company structures are enacted.

Notwithstanding the premise of strategy before structure, it would not be inappropriate for YA to immediately explore the advantages of moving away from an incorporated association to a company limited by guarantee. These benefits take into account the scale of trading activities (a company can do business anywhere in Australia without further registration), operational efficiency with clear and well-established obligations for an organisation’s decision-makers, regulatory efficiency and enhanced public perception and status.

Other benefits of a company structure for the organisation would include:

allow more room for the YA business to grow – a desired and stated intent of the current board; enable it to become more diversified and better able to adapt to an ever-changing community

service environment; allow easy national and international access to business opportunities; make the organisation’s operations and decision-making processes more transparent due to the

requirements for public disclosure of company finances, structure and decision-making processes;

the requirement for the use of the word ‘limited’ may be removed (on application to ASIC) – i.e. this allows the use of a ‘trading name’ as in the case of the day-to-day use of ‘Yachting Australia’ (State legislation usually requires the use of the word ‘Incorporated’ or ‘Inc.’ on all letterhead correspondence etc. This informs the public in the same way as the use of ‘Limited’ or Pty Ltd”

81

under the Corporations Act of 2001, that there is limited liability owed by the Association to the general public);

require directors to operate within the regulatory framework of the Corporations Act including specific obligations placed on directors contained in that Act;

attract high-quality candidates to the YA board; move YA to the preferred model of the ASC; and assist in the movement of YA further along the

continuum towards a professional business

The move to the company limited by guarantee structure would solve several of the current specific constitutional issues, redefine the role of the Federal Assembly and empower the Board. There are obvious added advantages in doing this at the same time as the development of a new strategic plan and YA business model, and any change would ideally be carried out at the end of the organisation’s financial year to avoid duplication of financial accounts.

Reform for Structural Impediments – The Way Forward

This report is based on the proposition recently advanced by the YA Board that it would like yachting to be delivered as a professional, commercially focused business in future years rather than delivered in a way more resembling that of a cottage industry – as has typically been the case throughout the history of the organisation.

The following options and subsequent recommendation at the end of this section apply the structure follows strategy principle. Even though YA’s future business strategy is yet to be finalised, the following options are designed to facilitate flexible adaptation of the governance structure to align with the evolving business strategy and YA’s evolving organisational capability.

All of the following options assume that the sport would operate a comprehensive, national PMS. Option 1: Unitary Model – State Advisory Boards

Option 1 envisages the delivery of sailing through a single national structure and constitution with state managers being responsible to the national CEO. Affiliated clubs would be direct members of YA and would enjoy proportional voting rights (through club delegates) at General Meetings and would elect a majority of the YA Board. State advisory boards would provide strategic advice to state managers and to the YA Board and would be comprised of the chairs of state technical committees. The YA Board would also be advised by national technical committees. The audited net equity of the MYAs would be held in trust by YA for the benefit of members resident in the relevant states.

A unitary structure would not affect funding to MYAs by state/territory governments provided that the MYAs have no objection to such a structure and subject to YA agreeing to a range of state government funding and asset accountability measures. For example, YA would need to provide guarantee that state/territory government funding would be spent in accordance with the conditions and for the benefit of local sport participants.

Option 2: Unitary Model – Elected State Councils

Option 2 also envisages the delivery of sailing through a single national structure and constitution with state managers being responsible to the national CEO. Affiliated clubs would be direct members of YA with one vote one value voting entitlements at General Meetings. State councils would be elected by affiliated clubs (one vote per member) and the state councils would elect a majority of the YA Board. The YA Board would also be advised by national technical committees. The audited net equity of the MYAs would be held in trust by YA for the benefit of members resident in the relevant states.

82

Option 3: Hybrid Model – Direct NSO Membership and Retention of State Associations

Option 3 retains the state associations but provides for direct membership by individuals and corporate entities (including MYAs) of the NSO on an equality of voting power basis for General Meetings and in the election of a majority of the YA Board. Agreed services would be contracted by YA and delivered by the state associations in return for receiving a proportion of membership fees, subject to achieving negotiated performance targets.

Option 4: Federated Model – Separate Entity for Olympic High Performance Program

Option 4 retains a federated structure incorporating the features outlined in Option 5 but with the additional feature of outsourcing the functions of the Olympic Sailing Program to a separate company limited by guarantee. The company would focus solely on high-performance outcomes and would be governed by a small board comprising no more than five non-executive directors (with a majority to be appointed by the YA Board) and possessing acknowledged expertise in delivering Olympic high-performance programs.

Option 5: Federated Model – Indirect NSO Membership and Retention of State Associations

Option 5 envisages the retention of a federated structure with affiliated clubs being direct members of MYAs and with MYAs being voting members of YA at General Meetings and in the election of a majority of the YA Board on a one vote one value basis. However, Option 5 also recognises the need to strengthen the federated arrangements considerably. This would be done primarily through clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of YA and the MYAs and through agreeing on an enforceable services contract specifying the respective obligations of the parties to the agreement. Under this arrangement, the YA Board would be responsible for national planning and for the execution of a range of national programs in collaboration with MYAs and other entities as the regional delivery agents. This approach is sometimes referred to as a federated structure but with many characteristics of unitary behaviour.

Assessment of Options

It is very important that structural change is implemented at a measured pace that leads, but does not get too far ahead of, the prevailing culture operating within the sport. At the same time, it is vital that a roadmap exists that plots out a preferred pathway for future structural development and to build a consensus that this roadmap is best able to support the sport’s evolving business model and organisational capability.

The main issue, therefore, is to determine which options are the most appropriate over the next six or seven years to facilitate progress towards YA operating more like a professional business and to provide a roadmap that is sufficiently flexible to allow the structure to be modified in light of the sport’s evolving business model and organisational capability.

As noted earlier, in the reviewer’s opinion the current federated structure is not working well and the present arrangements are compromising the ability of YA to deliver the sport nationally through the MYAs in a cost-effective manner. Notwithstanding these concerns, the reviewer believes that, for the time being at least, YA should retain a federated structure (but in a considerably strengthened form) on the basis that the sport should have the opportunity to demonstrate its assertion that it can make a federated structure work cost-effectively. If success is to be demonstrated in a credible way, however, it must be measured by setting and achieving targets linked to the key performance drivers and managed through a robust performance management system.

83

If the sport as a whole can demonstrate its ability to enact necessary changes and meet agreed targets over the next six to seven years through the adoption of a strengthened federated structure, there would be no need to change that structure unless the adoption of a new business model suggests that the current structural arrangements would hinder its execution.

YAs journey towards operating more like a professional business should be the subject of formal evaluation at key marker points set at approximately three-yearly intervals. There should be flexibility with these timelines for assessing progress against the three stages of the proposed structural reform roadmap. Should it emerge that there are compelling reasons to accelerate these timelines to accommodate the new business model or other unforeseen circumstances, the reviewer would caution that these changes be made at pace the sport can realistically accommodate as these activities will divert the attention and resources of YA and MYA core business.

2.5.2 YA Board

Skills and Performance

There is a perception by many of the sports stakeholders that further independent expertise is required for the YA Board in the areas of Commerce, Law, Consumer Marketing, and High Performance. Before such appointments can be considered, however they should reflect the strategic direction determined by the Board in consultation with members. The reviewers would suggest that the key skill gap of the current Board based on the current strategic plan is more correctly in the area of consumer marketing.

The current Board possesses a reasonably broad and appropriate set of skills, including formal qualifications in accounting, finance, architecture, commerce, and law. The three appointed YA directors deliver different and value-adding professional skill sets to complement those of the elected directors. The appointed YA directors all have strong and credible sailing backgrounds. While it is not unusual for national sporting organisations to attract and appoint directors from within the ranks of their respective ‘sporting families’, it can be beneficial to appoint appropriately skilled and dispassionate directors to further balance and promote the independence (both real and perceived) of an NSO Board. YA should consider the advantages of recruiting a director from outside the sailing family once the direction and strategy of the organisation is determined.

The basis for the YA Board to annually review and assess Board and director performance is contained within the Board’s Governance Process policies. However, performance assessments are not being undertaken in accordance with the Board’s policy which naturally makes it difficult for the Board to be fully transparent and accountable to the members.

Annual formal reviews should be undertaken as a minimum to assess the performance of the Board, individual directors, and the Chairperson. Performance should focus on the role of the Board in setting YA’s strategic plan, including performance tracking against short, medium and longer term outputs. The reviews should also provide clear direction on how exceptions to the plan are being managed by the Board and the CEO and, where appropriate, remedies to correct skill deficiencies and/or under-performance of individual directors.

The YA Board acknowledge that this process has lapsed and is not currently in accordance with YA Governance Process policies, and more broadly the failure to undertake annual performance reviews is inconsistent with best practice governance principles. The ASC has provided an offer to YA to utilise a proprietary review template developed for the ASC by an independent governance expert to conduct sport-specific performance assessment for NSO boards, directors and chairpersons.

84

A key role of the Board is to use their respective skills and experience to contribute to the overall mentoring and development of the CEO. An environment should be cultivated between the Board and the CEO which provides reciprocal trust, confidence and respect in the Board setting the strategic plan and the CEO and management team effectively delivering the strategies and vision of the organisation. The YA Chairman and CEO have an effective strategic working relationship, however it would be beneficial to the ongoing professional development and effectiveness of the CEO to more regularly tap into the skill sets and experience of the directors to assist in value-adding and problem-solving to the strategic and management challenges often confronted in isolation by a CEO.

The strong fiscal management of YA under the leadership of the current board should be acknowledged. Following the extensive drain on YA reserves as a result of legal expenses related to the tragic events of the 54th Sydney to Hobart yacht race in 1998, there has been a strong focus on rebuilding the reserves of YA. As of 30 June 2007, retained earnings were 11.3% of organisational turnover (optimal industry standards vary, however between 10-15% is considered desirable).

Board Decision Support Systems

The Board utilises a number of processes and reporting methods as part of its framework for tracking performance – however there are gaps in the processes for robust and accurate decision support systems. Current arrangements and proposed arrangements for the overall YA performance management system, of which decision support is a component, are described in more detail in Section 2.5.3. The primary decision support instruments utilised by the Board include:

Quarterly reporting against the annual YA Operational Plan. This report template is organised to report progress against the seven Key Result Areas of the YA Strategic Plan and provides a description of targeted objectives, annual outputs and specific initiatives, performance targets (often difficult to measure with accuracy), timeframes, progress to date and status. The operational plans do not provide descriptors of inputs such as staff and financial resource allocation, however funding allocation by business unit is provided in the consolidated annual budget.

Detailed financial reporting provided quarterly to the Board. These reports include whole-of-organisation annual budget summary, detailed business unit and Key Result Area budgets, and explanatory notes to accompany the various financial reports.

YA management spends a lot of time consulting, planning and reporting, probably more so than most other NSOs at this level. While the premise of consensus-building to improve decision-making through broad consultation is sound in principle, the method of building consensus is flawed, lacks evidence to support decision-making, and has been dominated by behaviour which is more reflective of the argument of force (e.g. dominant outspoken personalities are the most influential but often offering unsubstantiated opinion) as opposed to the force of argument – the latter supported by strong evidence and substantiated rationale.

The consequence of relying on talk and consideration of ‘issues’ without appropriate methods and evidence to assess and obtain quality decision-making against more robust criteria ultimately results in consequences which may have been avoided had a well-argued, democratic, inclusive and logical approach to consensus-building been adopted. The evidence from stakeholder consultations suggests that while YA is often highly consultative, it has at times been adversely influenced by the argument of force in its decision-making processes.

As highlighted in Section 2.1 of this report, the availability and currency of reliable national data sets and the understanding of customer needs is very limited and impedes the accuracy and certainty of the Board and Management to make decisions which appropriately reflect the demands

85

of YA’s customers. There are examples (such as those discussed in the Sport Development section) which suggest that there is an ad-hoc approach to decision-making and resource allocation within YA. There are also instances where detailed business case modelling has been developed, which considers the financial consequences and delivery implications of services/products offered by YA (e.g. the adoption of the RYA training scheme). In other circumstances there appears to be a more reactive approach which is supported by little more than anecdotal evidence to support the decisions and allocation of resources made by the organisation.

2.5.3 YA Management

YA employ 15 FTE staff, of which six are dedicated to high-performance outcomes. A further eight coaches are employed on a contractual basis by YA. Collectively, the eight MYAs employ another 20 full- or part-time staff. The current organisational structure and personnel provided by YA to conduct these activities and deliver services to the MYAs, clubs and individual members is provided in Appendix 4. The table below (Table 9) provides a summary of YA core business functions and business units derived from a YA staff induction document.

The efficiency and effectiveness of the YA management team is often compromised by reactive distractions generated by the non-alignment of purpose and priority by the FA and MYAs. In some instances, MYA management is not permitted to work towards a unity of purpose with YA management creating various adversarial forms of non-cooperation through open challenges to the YA Board and CEO or more passive forms of resistance and use of blocking tactics.

The Board needs to empower the YA management team to remain focused on the delivery of the agreed strategic plan priorities and performance targets. The structure of YA Management needs to evolve to reflect the new strategic plan and be enabled to stay focused and accountable to the organisational priorities and deliverables of the plan as directed by the YA Board.

Table 9: Current YA Business Unit and FunctionsTraining Sports Services Olympic Business

ManagementMarketing & Communications

Focus External with products normally aimed at general public. Commercial activity is central to success.

Internal to those already involved, normally in MYAs and clubs. Development, process and policy centred.

Specific on outcomes at Olympic Games in 2008 and beyond.

Support of delivery functions. Provides framework for organisation to deliver its key programs.

Marketing of key delivery functions and revenue generation

Funding Principles

User pays activities and sales of resources. Requires initial seed funding against plan.

Core services funded from membership traded revenues. Limited ASC support.

Entirely through grant support from the ASC, AOC, sponsorship and donations from the sailing community and other sources once secured.

Charges for services against delivery functions. Limited ASC support.

Core services funded by percentage of commercial and other revenue raised

Performance Management SystemThe current YA performance management framework purports to measure the achievement of objectives by individual staff, work groups and the organisation. The framework is underpinned by managers supporting and guiding staff to achieve specific goals and objectives. The current system involves establishing goals and objectives for Yachting Australia which cascade down the organisation and are reflected in each staff member’s job objectives and position descriptions. It can measure:

Performance results and feedback – the degree to which the employee’s objectives and planned outputs have been achieved. This aspect of the review evaluates performance against the employee’s position description and any pre-determined or agreed objectives.

86

Development – the degree to which various key skills and competencies required to effectively carry out the employee’s job have been mastered and the identification of appropriate professional development opportunities. This aspect of the review is focused on the professional development requirements of the job not the person concerned.

Summary – a summary of the actions agreed by both the employee and manager during the review process and a summary of overall comments by the manager on the work of the employee.

A diagrammatic overview of the YA performance management cycle currently used by the organisation is provided in Appendix 3. The YA board use this performance management framework and progress against the YA strategic plan to annually assess satisfaction of the CEO’s performance.

While the YA’s current approach to performance management is substantially stronger than many similar sized NSOs, there are gaps in the model which fall well short of a functional Performance Management System (PMS). A PMS should be developed around the framework of program logic principles (input-process-output-outcome) using key performance drivers of the sport and business to enable the detection of performance deficits and allowing for the diagnosis of the key components/elements to be fixed.

If the deficiencies of the current performance management approach are addressed, then this should facilitate significant immediate and longer term improvements in the performance of the business and the reduction of dysfunctional behaviours impeding the delivery of a successful federated model for the sport. Currently, the results of YA’s key performance drivers show that while almost all of the High Performance targets are being achieved, a significant number of other indicators of YA’s performance are either well behind target or have been delayed. The latter are typically initiatives and goals which require interdependence and cooperation between YA, MYAs and Clubs.

The current performance management approach also features a historical approach to reporting and does not focus the management or the board on future-orientated opportunities or challenges of the sport and business. This has further contributed to the development of a reactive organisational culture and behaviour within YA when presented with opportunities or threats. High performing businesses and people need to seek unique insights from within and outside of the organisation to fully understand the drivers which affect their business now and in the future. They see change coming before their competition and change their business models to create new markets as their competitive environment evolves. YA need to build its PMS to support, develop and reward its people for practising innovative behaviour.

The underperformance of most companies can be pinpointed to a breakdown between strategy and operations. Kaplan and Norton11 describe the need to forge tight linkages between strategy and operations using a five-stage closed-loop management system (see Appendix 3). Their findings identified that there are two basic rules to successful strategy execution: understanding the management cycle that links strategy and operations, and knowing what tools to apply at each stage of the cycle. The following summary is somewhat repetitive with other sections contained earlier in this report, however it is instructive to show how the links between YA’s strategy and operations are meant to work and to understand the ‘tools’ (PMS) to use within each stage of the closed-loop management system. Summary of the Closed-Loop Management System Linking Strategy and Operations (Kaplan–Norton)

11 Kaplan, R.S, Norton, D.P, The Execution Premium: Linking Strategy to Operations for Competitive Advantage (2008)

87

1. Stage one begins with a company developing a strategy statement.

2. Next, the strategy is translated into the specific objectives and initiatives of the strategic plan.

3. Using the strategic plan as a guiding tool, the company maps out the operational plans and resources required to achieve its objectives.

4. As managers execute the strategic and operational plans, they continually monitor and learn from internal results and external data on competitors and the broader business environment to see if the strategy is succeeding.

5. Finally, they periodically assess the strategy, updating it if they learn the underlying assumptions are out of date or faulty – thus starting another loop around the system.

The YA PMS should provide the toolkit to apply at each of the five stages of the closed-loop management cycle described above. The YA PMS should incorporate the following additional elements to strengthen the delivery of the sport in the future:

An input – process – output – outcome conceptual framework using program logic methodology; A business model description which provides a plain English narrative of how the input – process

– output – outcome execution and conversion process of the performance drivers of the YA business and how they work;

Strategic and business planning which is supported by underpinning assumptions and evidence-based data to appropriately manage the exposure of the organisation to risk;

Resource allocation which provides more detailed activity-based costing and fixed and variable costing;

Consistent national performance data collection protocols to enable evidence-based reporting and more rapid problem diagnosis and remedy of key performance drivers;

Currently, reporting is historically focused which impedes the ability of management and the board to be future-orientated and think more strategically and innovatively about the development of the sport and business; and

Establishing a monitoring system which provides for a more regular precise evaluation of exceptions to strategy implementation and facilitates quick modification to these exceptions to deliver the desired change in short, medium and longer term outputs and outcomes.

The benefits to be derived from the adoption of an enhanced PMS for YA will deliver both immediate and longer term results which will change the culture (over time) and behaviour of the organisation and accelerate the movement of YA along the professional business continuum more rapidly than any other intervention or recommendation described within this review. Should YA be able to successfully adopt and implement a superior PMS nationally, its capabilities and ability to execute key performance drivers of the business will shift quite dramatically.

The reviewers suggest that the opportunity exists for the ASC to play a strong value-adding role in assisting YA to build capability in its PMS. Collaboration between YA and ASC in implementing an enhanced PMS incorporating Program Logic Modelling should be amongst the top reform priorities of this review. At the time of finalising this review, the ASC were in the final stages of preparing a PMS resource, and has indicated that it is willing to make it available to YA and to assist YA in its application.

88

It would be highly beneficial once the PMS is implemented at YA to establish aligned systems and performance drivers at each of the MYAs, which is supported by the consistent collection of state and national data sets. A nationally consistent and aligned PMS would complement the use of well-designed service agreements between YA and the MYAs.

The proposed PMS delivers a highly accountable and integrated environment which links the interdependence of partners in the delivery network. A PMS is a confronting proposition for some managers – good managers embrace PMS, bad managers detest PMS. The beauty of a PMS is that when correctly designed it promotes and rewards strong performance – but naturally it also exposes poor performance. It should be the objective of any organisation which aspires and is committed to the creation of a high-performance business to embrace a more robust process to drive change, outputs and outcomes.

2.5.4 Communication: Internal and External

YA stakeholders have called for more communication and public articulation of what YA do to help promote the sport to the wider community. The recently developed brochure About Yachting Australia (described in Section 2.1.1) (released after the capital city consultation workshops were completed) is a positive start in communicating what YA do and how members are contributing and benefiting from these activities. It would be beneficial to track what impact this has had on the attitudes of members since its release in mid-2007.

The YA website www.yachting.org.au provides a comprehensive range of information, calendars, services and resources for clubs and members. The state MYA websites have been provided by YA and reflect the information of the national website as well as additional relevant information for clubs and individual members. However, the reality – as with many other sports – is that just because information is provided on the YA and MYA websites doesn’t necessarily mean people know that the resources exist or where to find them. The best way (while not necessarily as efficient) to communicate key initiatives and resources available to sailing stakeholders (clubs and individuals) is improved face-to-face briefings through the conduit of FA delegates and MYA directors and management. These types of activities occur regularly in Perth and Melbourne through the conduits of YWA and YV respectively, and have proven to be highly beneficial in strengthening upward and downward communications within the sport. If YA and MYA management teams are working seamlessly towards the same sport and business priorities then key messages to the sailing community can only be further improved.

A majority of those consulted in this review commented that a structured communication plan incorporating national marketing and media management strategies is required to help promote the sport to the wider community. This element is discussed and addressed in Section 2.4 of this report.

2.5.5 Stakeholder Relationships and Roles

MYAs are principally responsible for servicing the needs of their constituent members in their respective state or territory. In many instances the MYA acts as the local service centre for Yachting Australia, supporting affiliated clubs and classes in adopting Yachting Australia services and acting as a local agent for agreed national programs and initiatives. MYAs also manage the relationships with their respective state and local governments and their agencies by representing and advocating the interests of their member clubs.

The MYA Executive Officers report that they work very well together at operational level and this could be harnessed to broaden the ‘management team’ of the sport.

The majority of the MYAs and clubs are supportive of YA and have stated that they are looking for guidance, support and tools to improve the delivery of the sport to their members. They perceive

89

there is a need to clarify the roles and responsibilities of YA and the MYAs to ensure efficient development and delivery of the sport’s programs and policies. However, in some instances MYA management is not permitted to collaborate effectively with YA management. This will require a change in behaviour and commitment brought on by strong leadership from YA and a working environment of trust, open communication and unity of purpose. The federated structure can be a robust model for sport delivery – but only in an environment where the stakeholders have aligned vision and are committed towards a common goal of strengthening the sport.

An aligned PMS adopted by both YA and the MYAs will overcome the majority of these concerns. Increasing the regularity of joint YA and MYA strategy and operational forums will also further promote the trust, respect and overall togetherness of the management team.

We have summarised the feedback from the capital city workshop participants and personal interviews on what they believe should be the primary roles and responsibilities of both YA and the MYAs. This summary can be found in Appendix 8.

2.5.6 People Development (Excl. AST Coaches)

Following the development of the new strategic plan and refinement of the YA management structure to reflect the new plan and organisational deliverables, there would be a need to reassess the roles and responsibilities of each business unit and the staff accordingly. This process will enable YA to assist staff in better understanding their roles and to identify potential gaps in their skill sets that can be addressed in a number of ways, including through development or mentoring.

There is an opportunity for YA to take a further leadership role in assisting the MYAs with similar exercises in re-evaluating their own structures and the skills of their staff through the establishment of a consistent PMS. This would again contribute to alignment and a unified approach to delivering the sport nationally.

Consideration should also be given to developing the career pathway in sailing for MYA staff to build their skills and capacity. The AFL, Cricket Australia, Australian Rugby Union and Tennis Australia are strong advocates of identifying and developing management talent at state levels to transfer to their national bodies. There are multiple benefits to this approach for individuals and the overall organisational development and retention of corporate knowledge by YA and MYAs.

90

CONCLUSION

At the Strengthening Sailing Solutions Retreat on 21 September 2007, the YA Board were in agreement that the current structure and governance model is not assisting YA to deliver its goals and objectives, and the quest for an ideal model has begun. Following the design of the business strategy and model for YA, reform of YA’s current constitution and legal structure as well as a redefinition of the roles and responsibilities of YA’s voting members and stakeholders supported by a consistent Performance Management System will be required. This will translate to a Board that is truly empowered to govern the organisation nationally and supported by a seamless national management team empowered to manage the sport and deliver the goals and objectives of the new strategic plan.

However, for this to succeed there must be a commitment at all levels to a working environment of trust, high levels of accountability, open communication and unity of purpose. Importantly, it will require that the sport overcomes the current impediments of the federated structure in order for sailing to remain competitive in a changing marketplace.

91

DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS: GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT

There is a strong majority agreement that the current structure and governance model is not assisting YA to deliver its goals and objectives. The following table compares the key elements of the current YA model to that of the desired model to systematically progress YA along the professional business continuum.

Table 10: Comparison of Current and Desired Governance ModelsCurrent Model Desired Model (Professional Business)Business Focus, Strategic Plan and Business ModelBusiness focus is not well defined and there is non-alignment of business strategy and priorities between YA and the MYAs – resulting in nine strategic plans for the sport across Australia and selective MYA commitment to a national vision.

The current YA plan includes many operational/process initiatives. Performance targets are not measurable and therefore difficult to manage.

The YA business model is supply driven and the cost consequences of implementing business initiatives cannot be articulated.

Business Focus, Strategic Plan and Business ModelThe business focus and strategic plan is clearly defined and developed utilising evidence-based research which reflects the demands of targeted customers and is supported by a robust, demand orientated and costed national business model.

A single national strategic plan which is a future-orientated whole-of-sport strategic blueprint with highly specific objectives, strategies, performance targets and responsibilities will guide both YA and MYAs in strengthening the delivery of core business. Commitment and accountability by YA and MYAs to an agreed and aligned direction for the sport.

Constitution and Legal Structure Constitutionally, YA is an incorporated association pursuant to the Associations Incorporation Act 1984 (NSW).

The current YA constitution has no limit on the number of terms a director may serve – which conflicts with ASC governance principle 1.7.

Clause 11.7 of the constitution requires the board to submit an annual budget for approval by the Federal Assembly (FA) at the AGM. This is an inappropriate function of the FA and the AGM as an organisational budget is essentially a management tool rather than a governance tool.

The current constitution also provides for the annual election of the YA President by the five elected Board members for the ensuing year. This is not desirable as it creates an uncertain governance environment and inhibits continuity of business strategy.

The constitution does not provide a suitable provision for an independent board aimed at preventing conflicts of interest. For example, the constitution does not prohibit a YA director also holding office in a voting member organisation.

An incorporated association has limitations in the scale of trading activities (this can be overcome if the incorporated association becomes a registrable Australian body under ASIC).

Constitution and Legal Structure The constitution and legal structure adopted should enable YA to move away from the traditional institutional association towards that of a professional business. This adopted structure should enable YA to best deliver the objectives set out in the new Strategic Plan.

The YA Board should approve the annual budget.

The role of the voting members (FA) is contained to determining the elected directors of the Board at the AGM; meeting formally once a year in a strategic forum to review the direction and goals of the sport; and to act as an effective two-way communication conduit between the members and the YA Board (and to change the constitution if necessary).

The constitution should specifically prohibit a YA director to hold office in a voting member organisation.

The term of the President should be extended to facilitate continuity of business strategy and alignment with the Olympic cycle.

A change in structure to a company limited by guarantee would provide YA more room to grow and the ability to access national and international business opportunities. It would also attract higher quality candidates to the YA board and require directors to operate within the more robust and structured regulatory framework of the Corp. Act.

Current Model Desired Model (Professional Business)

92

Board An independent board empowered by the voting members as the managing authority responsible for exercising the powers of the Federation.

The board is often distracted by non-strategic issues of the FA rather than providing strong leadership and getting on with strategically guiding the organisation. The board also spends too much time on historical reporting and compliance rather than planning for the future.

The make up of the Board is a mixture of a majority of elected directors who are complemented by a minority of skill based appointed Directors. The skill base represented is overall appropriately mixed, however annual assessment of director’s performance and the appropriateness of skill sets has lapsed. A key skill gap which should be addressed is in the area of consumer marketing and research.

Board An independent board empowered by the voting members to govern the sport on behalf of all members of the sport, including non-voting members. The Board is future-focused and should confirm the broad strategic directions and objectives of the sport.

The make up of the Board is a mixture of a majority of elected Directors and supported by appropriately skilled appointed Directors determined by a Board Nominations Committee which makes recommendations to the Board on candidates it considers appropriate for appointment.

The Board undergoes regular (annual) assessment to ensure it has the best possible skill base and performance to deliver the business priorities and needs of YA members.

Management TeamYA and MYA management are collectively compromised through the inability to work as a seamless management team. It has created an environment (particularly with sport and club development activities) where resources are allocated inefficiently and business priorities and capabilities can vary dramatically.

Roles, responsibilities and obligations are unclear, resulting in blame shifting, duplication and diminished unity of purpose.

The process of change to the preferred performance-driven organisational culture and behaviour is overwhelming and ultimately difficult to execute without changes to governance behaviour.

Management Team The YA management team has a mandate and structure which reflects the strategic plan and is empowered by the Board to deliver the agreed goals and priorities with clearly articulated measurable performance targets. The MYA and YA staff are a united management team working seamlessly together to deliver the sport’s national programs and policies.

These agreements are reflected in a nationally integrated contractual performance management system (PMS) or service agreement which provides a clear understanding of the roles, responsibilities and commitments of each party. These agreements are regularly reviewed and adjusted as market conditions change or new opportunities arise.

Communication and Stakeholder RelationshipsThere are roadblocks to effective two-way communication between YA and its members and stakeholders.

There is a willingness between YA and MYA management to work more closely together, however there is not always support for this to occur and develop.

Communication and Stakeholder RelationshipsThere is a culture and working environment of trust, accountability, open two-way communication and unity of purpose.

The following recommendations are provided to guide the adoption of the desired governance and management model.

Legal Structure

The move to a company limited by guarantee structure is appropriate for sports as they grow and move away from the activities of the traditional association towards a professionally governed and managed organisation.

93

To support the growth and professionalisation of the business, YA require a legal structure which enables the organisation to carry out business in states other than that in which it is incorporated. To operate in this manner, YA would be required to be registered under the Corporations Act as a registrable Australian body. This registration does impose additional administrative requirements on an organisation; however the additional annual costs are not prohibitive (under $3,000 p.a.).

The more comprehensive legislation entailed within The Corporations Act 2001 (Commonwealth) provides for a very robust and structured platform for the operation of organisations and provides clarity in areas otherwise silent within The Association Incorporation Act.

The key governance role of the organisation under each of the Acts rests with the board of directors, who must act in accordance with the requirements of the relevant Act, within other federal and state laws, and the constitution of the incorporated body.

YA is now at a point on that continuum where the scale of its operations and the expressed intent to operate more commercially warrants a change to a new legal structure. Moreover, the recommended legal structure is encouraged within the ASC’s governance principles of best practice and is considered highly desirable and appropriate by the ASC in this instance. Therefore, it is recommended that: Recommendation Twenty-NineYA incorporate as a company limited by guarantee under the Corporations Act 2001 (Commonwealth).

Constitutional Reform

The reviewers support the overall findings of the Kilmister report and have reinforced the need to adopt and implement the outstanding recommendations of the 2000 report in the recommendations of the Strengthening Sailing Review. While the YA Constitution was modernised to a degree following the Kilmister review, it will require further review in relation to a few key points:

There is currently no limit on the terms for Directors (Recommendation 7 in the Kilmister Report);

The constitution does not provide adequate provision for an independent board aimed at preventing conflicts of interests. Specifically, the constitution does not prohibit a YA director from simultaneously holding office in a voting member organisation;

Annual election of the YA President is problematic in that it has the potential to create an uncertain governance environment and inhibits continuity of business strategy and corporate knowledge;

Clause 11.7 of the constitution requires the board to submit an annual budget for approval by the Federal Assembly (FA) at the AGM. This is seen as an inappropriate function of the FA and the AGM as an organisational budget is essentially a management tool rather than a governance tool. Neither the board nor the CEO should be constrained in their financial planning activity by an AGM (Recommendation 19 in the Kilmister Report);

Clause 11.1 describes the powers of the YA Board as the ‘managing authority’ responsible for exercising the powers of the Federation. The powers of the YA Board should be described and discharged as the ‘governing authority’ of the Federation which shall be responsible for itself determining and acting on all national issues and issuing of policy directives in accordance with the objects of the Federation; and

94

It may be problematic to align the state constitutions with the current YA Constitution (ASC governance principle 1.8 states that NSOs and SSOs should have aligned objects and purposes and a common strategic plan). Ideally, when the constitution of an NSO is reformed, the constitutions of SSOs should be realigned to reflect the national model. This then ensures ease of adopting national policies such as the member protection policy, anti-doping, and selection appeals and arbitration. If alignment of state constitutions is not possible, YA and the MYAs will need to agree on the key principles in service contracts that will allow the adoption of important national policies and programs at state level.

To enable the progression of YA along the continuum of a professional sport business, and to comply with the requirements under The Corporations Act 2001, it is recommended that YA make the following amendments to the YA Constitution:

Recommendation ThirtyThat the role of the Federal Assembly should be defined in the YA Constitution as:

determining the composition of the elected directors of the Board that will independently act in good faith on behalf of all members of the sport, including non-voting members;

making changes to the constitution in General Meeting as required; meeting annually at a strategic forum to contribute and influence the shape and overall

strategic direction of the sport and to monitor the performance of the YA Board against the deliverables and success measures of the strategic plan;

consider the financial statements and performance of YA at the AGM; and providing an effective two-way communication conduit between its members and the YA Board.

Recommendation Thirty-OneIn accordance with the requirements of The Corporations Act 2001, that clause 11.1 (The Board – Powers and Meetings) be amended to reflect that the YA board is the governing authority of the sport and is responsible for determining and acting on all national issues, determining and managing the operating budget, and issuing of policy directives in accordance with the objects of the Federation.

Clause 11.7 of the YA constitution is amended so that the YA board is empowered to approve the annual budget of YA.

Clause 11.1.2 of the YA constitution is amended so that the YA board is empowered to approve the amounts and decision of annual subscription and levies payable by members.

(ASC governance principle 1.6 states that it is the board’s responsibility to confirm the strategic direction. This means that the FA can have input, however it is the board, not the FA that should determine YA’s strategic direction.)Term of the YA President and Chairman

In order to nurture the development of the business and to prevent potential disruption during an Olympic campaign, the terms of the Directors and the President should be better aligned with the Olympic cycle. Therefore it is recommended that:

Recommendation Thirty-TwoThe term of the YA President/Chairman would be a two-year appointment* with a maximum of two consecutive terms.

95

* While an indicative two-year appointment has been recommended, the YA President and Chair must have the support of the Board to make the position tenable. Therefore, the recommendation of the two-year appointment is made with the provision for the President/Chair to be reviewed by the elected and appointed Directors from ‘time to time’.

It can also be argued – as other consultants conducting reviews of National Sporting Organisations have - that annual validation of the position of President/Chairman is the means by which a board signals its continued or discontinued support of the leadership of the Chairman - “the first among equals”. This assumes that the Chairman would only be able to serve for a maximum number of annual terms – say for 6 years subject to annual election by the board.

Terms and Nominations of Elected Directors

A rotation process would allow for half of the newly elected Directors on the first Board under the new model to serve only one term with the other half serving two terms. This would ensure continuity of knowledge in that only half the Directors could ever be replaced at any one time. It is recommended that:

Recommendation Thirty-Three Elected Directors be appointed for two-year terms with a maximum of two consecutive terms.

Nominees for the election of the position of Director should be made by those Directors who are not retiring in the year in question. It is recommended that:

Recommendation Thirty-FourAt the same time as notice is given convening the AGM at which the election is to occur, the non-retiring Directors would nominate up to three persons for each vacancy who possess skills which address identified gaps of the current board. Election of each Director would be determined by an exhaustive ballot

Terms and Nominations of Appointed Directors

Appointed Directors will be determined by a Board Nominations Committee to address skill gaps identified amongst the elected Directors. The Board Nominations Committee makes recommendations to the Board on candidates it considers appropriate for appointment. It is recommended that:

Recommendation Thirty-FiveConsistent with Clause 9.10 of the YA Constitution, the Board has the opportunity to appoint other Directors through the Board Nominations Committee process based on identified needs following a skills audit of the elected Directors. The terms of any Appointed Directors would be two years with the ability of these Directors to continue if required by the Board.

Independence of Directors

To provide suitable provision for an independent board aimed at preventing conflicts of interest, it is recommended that:

Recommendation Thirty-SixThe YA constitution be amended to prohibit a YA Director from simultaneously holding office in a voting member organisation.

Structural Reform - Implementation Steps/Recommendations

96

In many instances, it would be appropriate for organisations to immediately implement recommendations of major structural changes emerging from a comprehensive review of operations. However, due to the nuances of sport delivery in a federal model which consists of both professional and volunteer stakeholders, it is neither practical nor realistic to execute structural reform all at once. Cultural change is more gradual and requires an approach to reform which is incremental.

Implementation of structural and cultural reform should be carried out over three distinct stages, over an indicative period of six to seven years, with each stage subject to an annual evaluation. Should there be compelling reasons to accelerate the staged approach, then this should be at a pace that can be realistically managed by the sport.

To support the progression of YA’s movement towards a more streamlined and effective national sporting organisation, it is recommended that:

Recommendation Thirty-Seven

Stage One: 2007–08 to 2009–10In consultation with state associations, YA fully implement Option 5 between 2008–09 to 2009–10 incorporating the constitutional and behavioural changes outlined in this report that are needed to effectively implement YA’s business model (i.e. a federated structure with elements of unitary behaviour).This remains subject to this Option being evaluated annually to ensure that it remains the most appropriate structure to support the YA’s business strategy and agreed performance targets.

Stage Two: 2010–11 to 2012–13In consultation with state associations, YA adopt the hybrid model of governance set out in Option 3 from 2010–11 unless it can be shown otherwise that Option 5 remains the most appropriate structure to support YA’s business strategy and achievement of agreed performance targets.

Stage Three: 2013–14 onwardsThat YA, in consultation with state associations, adopt the unitary model of governance set out in Option 2 from 2013–14 unless it can be shown otherwise that the model then in place (either Option 5 or Option 3) is the most appropriate structure to support the YA business strategy and achievement of agreed performance targets.

In all of the above stages (1, 2 and 3), YA should maintain the option to possibly incorporate a provision for the Olympic High Performance Program being managed by either:

(1) An unincorporated structure (a division of YA) reporting to the CEO but with a high level of operational autonomy and advised by a strengthened Beijing Athlete Program (BAP) Committee. This would formalise existing arrangements and would make use of an existing committee structure. The BAP Committee would have the same terms of reference as the current Yachting BAP Committee but would have a particular responsibility to ensure that pathways planning and delivery at all levels worked optimally. The Committee would meet as required, but at least quarterly, in lieu of only twice per year as at present; or

(2) As a separate incorporated legal entity (i.e. a company set up as a controlled entity of YA) to employ the key program staff and where a small number of non-executive directors (up to five) with a majority having specialised expertise in running high-performance programs could oversee the program. This would leave YA directors to concentrate on the non-Olympic side of the sport.

There would not be significant additional costs with the first option. The key consideration in exploring these options is whether the cost–benefit of the second option is justifiable given that

97

significant additional expenditure may be incurred and whether the separation of the Olympic and non-Olympic components of the business would create an ‘us and them’ divide within the sport.

Board Skill Sets and Performance

As a result of the previous recommendations, the Board is required to have a sufficient blend of expertise and skills necessary to effectively carry out its role of providing leadership and setting direction on the strategic priorities of the sport and business, which reflect the needs of YA members. It is recommended that:

Recommendation Thirty-EightThe YA board undergoes an annual independent assessment process to ensure it has the best possible skill sets, terms of appointment and succession planning to confirm the broad strategic direction and priorities of the YA business.

Recommendation Thirty-NineThe YA board undergoes an annual independent assessment process which reviews and evaluates the performance of the Board as a whole.

The reviewer shared dialogue with the Steering Committee and the YA Board about the benefits of self-assessment versus independent assessment of skills and performance. While the reviewer recommends independent assessment as the preferred approach, the YA directors of the day should have the flexibility to make a decision themselves on a preferred assessment method. The key point to take away from recommendations 38 and 39 is that there must be a regular and robust form of skills and performance assessment, which satisfies the directors and nurtures the intent to be a high-performing business.

Roles and Responsibilities of YA and MYAs

Recommendations made in Sections 2.1 and 2.5 of this report address business strategy and structure. Recommendations 40 through 43 address how behavioural change may be enacted within the sport at national and state/territory levels.

There is a need for better collaboration and alignment to improve the health of the sport overall. Clarity is needed for the roles, responsibilities and obligations of YA and the MYAs and agreement on development and delivery of the sport’s programs and policies. This should be reflected in future service agreements or memoranda of understanding outlining the roles, responsibilities and commitments of each party. A Performance Management System (PMS) is the recommended mechanism to ensure appropriate alignment of responsibility and authority and improve accountability of deliverables by the partner network – a strengthened federated structure cannot work without this in place. It is recommended that:

Recommendation FortyAs part of the strategic planning processes, YA and the MYAs clearly define their roles and responsibilities and commit to documenting them in a jointly accountable and contractual national Performance Management System aligned with the desired strategic plan outcomes.

In addition to the development and implementation of a national PMS, YA and the FA may wish to consider enshrining the roles, responsibilities and obligations of YA and the MYAs within the YA constitution. Like many other NSOs, Athletics Australia and its state and territory organisations have experienced difficulties in clearly articulating the respective responsibilities of the national and state bodies. The approach adopted by Athletics broadly separates ‘National Programs’ and ‘State and Territory Programs’ and the respective responsibilities and obligations of the NSO and

98

members in the delivery of core business activities. The YA CEO should have an unambiguous leadership role in relation to national programs.

Management Team and Practices

To ensure the operational effectiveness of the YA management team to deliver the strategic plan for yachting in Australia, YA Management needs the support and the appropriate structure which reflects the new strategic plan and its associated expectations. It is recommended that:

Recommendation Thirty-Forty One

The YA Board empowers the YA management team and provides them with a structure that enables management to deliver the agreed goals and priorities of the strategic plan and provides them with clearly articulated measurable performance targets supported by a robust national Performance Management System.

Through its representatives on the Steering Committee of this review, the ASC has indicated its support to assist YA in the development and implementation of a PMS featuring a key list of common measures/data sets based on the sport’s key performance drivers. It is recommended that:

Recommendation Forty-TwoThe ASC should assist YA to construct and implement a Performance Management System (PMS) to improve the quality of decision-making by both the Board and management. Once established, the YA CEO and Board should seek to partner with all MYAs to consistently implement the PMS nationally.

Communication and Stakeholder Relationships

As stated in Recommendation 40, there is a need to clarify the roles and responsibilities of YA and the MYAs to ensure efficient development and delivery of the sport’s programs and policies. This will require a change in behaviour and commitment brought on by strong leadership from YA. A plain English agreement is required which outlines the broad parameters of how YA and the MYAs work together as a seamless management team with a shared vision, shared values, mutual respect and teamwork to strengthen the outcomes for the sport. It is recommended that:

Recommendation Forty-Three

YA and the MYAs commit to and document in a charter agreement a working environment of trust, accountability, open communication and unity of purpose in order to achieve the goals and priorities articulated in the new national strategic plan and national PMS.

99

Appendices

100

APPENDIX 1 I SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION

1. Capital City Consultations

BRISBANE

Participant’s Name Description of Role/Position in YachtingDayle Smith President, Yachting QueenslandNorman Fry Executive Officer, Yachting QueenslandGlen Sommervile Director, Yachting QueenslandOdile Anderson Director, Yachting Queensland (Officials)Haydyn Johns General Manager, Royal Queensland Yacht SquadronBarry Barnes Principal, Superyacht Career TrainingJohn La Commodore Noosa Yacht & Rowing ClubJennifer Kidd Technical Officer, Yachting QueenslandAdrian Finglas State High Performance Coach Queensland

ADELAIDE

Participant’s Name Description of Role/Position in YachtingBob Heywood President, Yachting SA, Past Club official (incl Commodore), Race

officer, Member of Adelaide SC

Wally Rantanen YA Board Member, Past YSA President, Past keelboat owner and sailor, CYCSA member and Class Committees

John Woollatt Executive Officer Yachting SA, Past club and class official, sailing and powerboat instructor, regatta manager, YSA Racing Rules committee, team umpire and judge, dinghy and keelboat sailor, Member of Largs Bay SC

John Johnston Snr VP YSA, President YSA Sailability, Instructor, Keelboat owner and sailor, Commodore of Port Adelaide SC

Christian Knott Former YSA Board Member, Club official, Class official, Dinghy sailor, Vice Commodore of Port River SC

Bernie Dunn National Official, YSA Racing Rules committee, Umpire and Race Officer, Club official and sailor, Member of Christies SC

Wayne Coonan Member CYCSA Race Committee, Keelboat owner and sailorJo Mitton Sailing Instructor SA Dept of Education & Club, Dinghy sailor, Mother

of two junior sailors, Member of Adelaide SC and Brighton & Seacliff YC

Catherine Shanks SASI HP Squad, Keelboat & dinghy sailor, member of CYCSA & Adelaide SC

Don Barnett Class Assoc. President, Assistant Instructor and dinghy sailor, Member of Adelaide SC

101

MELBOURNE

Participant’s Name Description of Role/Position in YachtingDavid Gotze President, Yachting VictoriaRoss Kilborn CEO, Yachting VictoriaPeter Bedgood Ex-President YV Royal Yacht ClubMark Taylor Ex-President, Sabot AssociationRohan Gillies Bendigo CommodoreAndy Griffin Ex- Commodore Somers YC & Tornado AssociationRichard Hewett CEO – Sandringham Yacht ClubKevin Ezard Chairman Boating VictoriaMark Turnbull OAM 2000 Olympic Gold Medallist and Chair Sail MelbournePaul Pascoe Chair YV Coaching Committee , International Coach and OfficialGraeme Ritchie Geelong Yacht Club and Skandia Geelong Week

PERTH

Participant’s Name Description of Role/Position in YachtingAlan Tough President, Yachting WA Rupert Leslie YA Board MemberTony Claydon General Manager Yachting WAChris Kelly Coach and Instructor – Hillarys Yacht ClubTrevor Whittle Development Manager – Royal Perth Yacht ClubGraham White Sailability – Royal Perth Yacht ClubAllan Johns Past Commodore, Perth Flying Yacht Squadron

CANBERRA

Participant’s Name Description of Role/Position in YachtingPeter Russell President, Yachting ACTMatt Owen Executive Officer, Yachting ACTCarolin Dasey Canberra Yacht Club Office ManagerGraham Giles Commodore Canberra Yacht ClubGraeme Dennett Club Captain YMCA Sailing Club

SYDNEY

Participant’s Name Description of Role/Position in YachtingLyndsay Brown President, Yachting NSWStephen Leahy Chief Executive Officer, Yachting NSWRoger Hickman Vice-President, Yachting NSWBrian Tyquin Vice-President, Yachting NSWFred Bevis Treasurer, Yachting NSWLister Hughes Chair Racing Rules Committee, YNSWDavid Kellett Director, Yachting AustraliaGeoff Davidson Director, Yachting NSW

102

HOBART

Participant’s Name Description of Role/Position in YachtingAlastair Douglas President, Yachting TASBob Silberberg Executive Officer, Yachting TASMurray Jones Events Manager, Yachting TASStephen Spaulding Treasurer, Yachting TASPeter Sluce Nth West Delegate, Yachting TASMike Webb Chairman State Qualification Panel, YTJonathon Rees Chairman Racing Rules Committee, YTMalcolm Stevens YT rep. YA Trailable/Sportsboat C'tteePeter Smith Secretary Manager, Bellerive Yacht Club, Bellerive.Andrew Davison Secretary Manager, Derwent Sailing Squadron, Sandy Bay

PERSONAL INTERVIEWS/MEETINGS

Yachting Australia

Phil Jones, Chief Executive OfficerAlastair Snell, General ManagerVanessa Wilson, Marketing ManagerGlen Stanaway, Sport Services Manager

Australian Sailing Team and Australian Paraylympic Sailing Team

Michael Jones, Olympic Program DirectorRob Brown, Operations ManagerGreg Omay, Head Paralympic Coach

Australian Sports Commission/Australian Institute of Sport

Dennis Hatcher, Assistant Director, Sports Science Sports Medicine – Australian Institute of SportRob Clement General Manager, Innovation and Best Practice, ASCPeter Sharpe Senior Sports Consultant, Sport Services, ASCDon Cameron Group Sports Manager, AISHamilton Lee Senior Sport Physiologist, AISCamilla Brockett Manager, High Performance Innovation, Management and Systems, AISJohn Armstrong Senior Sports Consultant, Coaching/Officiating, ASCMarcia Endacott Manager, Club Development, ASCJackie Fairweather Senior Sports Consultant, High Performance, ASC

Partners/Stakeholders/Industry

David Skipper, Sport and Recreation VictoriaPeter Wraith, CEO, Sportsbrand Media GroupDavid Pembroke, Director – The Content Group (Media Adviser to Brumbies Rugby, Rowing Australia, Australian Canoeing)

APPENDIX 2 I IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

103

18 Month Action Plan to be developed following presentation of draft report to stakeholders.

104

APPENDIX 3 I PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT CYCLE

The diagram shown below is the traditional (flawed) format that fails to draw upon the experimental research methodology (learning organisations) thinking of a true PMS. A proper PMS should be designed to test assumptions by adjusting the input mix in a measurable way in the belief that the changes produced in the relevant performance drivers will produce measurable effects in the outputs and outcomes.

YA Performance Management Cycle (Current)

The current YA system involves establishing goals and objectives for Yachting Australia which cascade down the organisation and are reflected in each staff member’s job objectives and position descriptions. Diagrammatically the current YA performance management cycle can be shown as follows:

Yachting Australia Mission

Yachting Australia Strategic Objectives determined

Annual targeted objectives developed and outputs planned

Staff responsibilities and resources allocated

Staff position descriptions updated and annual individual performance objectives developed to reflect overall YA targeted objectives and planned outputs

Periodic reviews (6 and 9 mths) of progress v plan completed, planned outputs and performance targets adjusted

Annual staff performance reviews completed

Annual review of progress v plan completed

Stakeholder reports of progress v plan distributed

Targeted objectives and planned outputs developed for subsequent year and cycle repeated

Timetable:Organisational objectives February to May annuallyAllocation of responsibilities May/June annuallyAnnual staff reviews June/July annuallyStaff performance objectives July/August annuallyPD amendments July/August annuallyStakeholder reporting August/September annually

105

FIGURE 7: CLOSED-LOOP MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (KAPLAN-NORTON MODEL)

106

APPENDIX 4 I YA ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE

FIGURE 8: CURRENT YACHTING AUSTRALIA ORGANISATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES

107

FIGURE 9: KEY PERSONNEL STRUCTURE OF YACHTING AUSTRALIA

PROPOSED ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE OF YACHTING AUSTRALIA

Logically, any proposed restructure should not occur until the full completion of the review and new Strategic Plan. However, an indicative structure consistent with the review recommendations will be developed following circulation of the final draft report to the Steering Committee.

108

APPENDIX 5 I CUSTOMER AND MARKET SEGMENTATION FOR SAILING

The Sweeney Sports Report

The Sweeney Sports Report is an annual survey conducted over the past twenty one years. The survey interviews 2000 people (1000 in winter, 1000 in summer) aged 16-65 years from all Australian capital cities (excluding Darwin). The report provides a comprehensive profile of trends in sporting interests and sponsorship throughout Australia.

The Sweeney Sports Report, Summer 2006/07: About the Study

Methodology Continuous telephone interviewing (approx. 170 per month)Timing of Interviews October 2006-March 2007Number of People Interviewed

1000

Age 16-65 years….split evenly across 16-29, 30-44 and 45-65 Gender Half of the respondents are male and half are femaleWeighting All raw data is weighted using ABS Census data to reflect the

actual population across the cities

Table 11: Snapshot Statistics for Sailing/Yachting (2006/07)

INTEREST 15% interest Ranks joint 33rd

most popular sport

CAPITAL CITIES Overall interest highest in Hobart (31%) and lowest in Adelaide (10%)

Highest participation, attendance and TV viewing in Hobart (16%, 10%, and 20% respectively)

PARTICIPATION Ranks joint 25th participation

6% sail

DEMOGRAPHICS Males and females equally likely to follow the sport (16% and 14% interest respectively)

Interest highest amongst the over 45s

ATTENDANCE Just 3% attend events

Joint 24th

LIFESTYLE GROUPS

Affluent types are the most likely followers – business travellers (22%), high income earners (20%), and investors (19%)

Extreme sports fans also express a high interest (19%)

TV VIEWING 10% watch Ranks joint 29th

SPONSORSHIP 16% aware of at least one sponsor

Rolex (5%) the only one above 1% awareness

109

Table 12: Interest by Demographics: Sailing/Yachting (2006/07)

Total Interest

%

Participate%

Attend%

Watch on TV

%

Listen on

Radio%

Read in Press

%

Search Internet

%

Total Pop. 15 6 3 10 1 2 1Males16-29 12 6 3 7 1 1 230-44 14 6 4 12 1 3 245+ 20 9 2 15 1 2 1Total Males 16 7 3 11 1 2 2Females16-29 10 4 4 6 1 3 130-44 11 6 2 6 0 0 045+ 21 6 2 16 0 2 0Total Females 14 5 3 10 1 2 0IncomeHigh 18 9 3 12 1 3 1Medium 10 6 2 7 0 1 1Low 14 4 1 10 0 1 0Marital statusSingle 14 6 3 9 1 3 1Married/no kids

16 6 2 11 0 2 0

Married with kids

14 6 4 12 1 2 1

110

Volvo Ocean Race 2002–03A study conducted for the Volvo Ocean Race 2002–03 by Sports Marketing Surveys used a combination of internet research and telephone interviews across the five key markets – UK, France, Sweden, Germany and the US – to assess race awareness. While the study does not include Australia, it does provide useful insight to glean the profile of the global sailing audience and demonstrates a high degree of consistency across the European countries and the US. It is reasonable to suggest that the Australian sailing audience would share strong similarities with the countries involved in this study.

The research splits the sailing audience into two groups: Sailing enthusiasts – people who participate in sailing and regularly follow the event through

the website. People interested in sailing.

The Sailing EnthusiastThe profile for the sailing enthusiast across the five key markets is characterised as follows:

High income - average salaries over US $60,000. .Predominantly male audience: males accounted for 83% versus just 17% females. Higher than average representation among the senior management and professional

sectors. Over 40% in the AB socio-economic (upper middle class, middle class) groupings on average

across the markets. High concentration of respondents aged 25 to 54.

Table 13: Socio-economic Demographics of Sailing Enthusiasts by Country (%)UK France Germany Sweden US

Sex Male 83 81 83 74 83Female 17 19 17 26 17

Age 24–34 18 19 17 26 1735–44 22 22 26 22 2645–54 24 21 26 26 29

Socio-economic Group

A 34 33 12 18 45

B 18 22 37 24 16C1 16 19 28 17 9

Source: Volvo Ocean Race

111

People Interested in SailingResearch conducted by Volvo indicated that awareness of the race stood at 39% of the population of the five territories surveyed. The demographic profile of interested followers indicated:

A larger group of predominantly ABC1 socio-economic grouping. Well educated with high disposable incomes. In the UK they are more likely to be based in London and southern England. Nearly 40% of women make up this group as compared with only 17% of women who

classed themselves as sailing enthusiasts. Age range is more evenly spread. Greater representation in the 15 to 24 age group, suggesting a slightly younger audience

than the sailing enthusiast.

Table 14: Demographics of Sailing Enthusiasts and People Interested in Sailing (%)People Interested Sailing

EnthusiastsSex Male 61 83

Female 39 17Age 15–24 17 10

25–34 16 1835–44 19 2245–54 20 24

Socio-economic Group A 6 34B 32 18C1 29 11

Source: Volvo Ocean Race

112

Customer and Market Segments identified at the FA Strategic Forum (Sep 2007)Guided by the workshop facilitator, participants representing the FA, YA Board, YA and MYA staff identified seven customer types that may provide new members for yachting, and key questions which need to be resolved in order to develop appropriate value propositions for each customer segment. These indicative customer types were identified as follows:

Table 15: Customer and Market Segments identified at FA Strategic Forum (2007)Segment Descriptor/Comments Key Question(s)People already in boating but not in sailing or clubs

i.e. Powerboat owners, social members, fishermen, kayakers, scuba divers.

‘What does the sport need to provide to attract powerboat owners/users?’

Training Participants Some may already be active club members and sailors; but what about the trainees who are not fully into sailing?

How does the sport convert (more of) this group to become active club participants?

Women Women are typically underrepresented in all parts of the sport.

Is it because they don’t feel welcome? Would provision of mentors assist in recruitment and retention? Do we know the key attractors and barriers for this group? Can other sports programs provide insights on how to recruit and retain this group?

XGen Many leave the sport and re-enter when family and work pressures allow.

Can the sport reduce the exodus during the family years? For example, would twilight sailing provide a solution for the ‘time challenged’? Also, how can the sport maintain its links with this group during the ‘time poor’ period?

YGen (Kids) One group made the comment that sailing has not been able to gain much support from the YGen. Possible solutions focused on finding a way for sailing to be ‘cool’.

Could a nationally consistent schools program bridge from trial of the sport to ultimately active club membership? Maybe a modified version that is short, sharp and exciting (i.e. close racing). Also the sport needs to overcome the (perceived) skill and high cost barriers to entry.

Zee Gen (Toddlers) Virtual sailing – JV/Alliance with EA Sport and Sony (Play station).

Retirees (Seniors and Baby Boomers)

They have cash and time. Again what do we know about recruitment and retention attractors and obstacles?

113

Current Customers of Yachting

The table below was also developed through the September 2007 planning forum and aims to describe the existing customer segments for the sport.

Table 16: Existing Customer Segments identified at FA Strategic Forum (2007)

WHO AGE Demographics

WHY THEY JOINED WHAT IS THE KEY TO RETENTION?

Learn to Sail (Dinghy)

Y & Z Gen Something NewTo learn new skillsSocial interactionQ – How important is the family tradition of sailing to this group?

They enjoyed their first taste and stayed.

Learn to Sail (Yachts)

SeniorBBXGen

As aboveTick the box of Life

As above

Club Dinghy Sailors

XGenYGenZGen

Fun EnjoymentPeer groupQ – How important is competition to this group?

LifestyleStill enjoying itFriendshipRewardPeer Pressure

Club One Design Sailors

SeniorsBBXGen

Tougher Competition LifestyleStill enjoying itFriendshipRewardPeer Pressure

Club Keel Boat Sailors

SeniorsBBXGen

Team effort LifestyleStill enjoying itFriendshipRewardPeer PressurePrestige

Recreational sailors (Cruising and fun off the beach)

SeniorsBBXGenYGen

RelaxationSocial

LifestyleStill enjoying itFriendshipRewardPeer Pressure

Ocean Racers

SeniorsBBXGenYGen

Challenge of coping with extremes Prestige/Reward

Elite Dinghy XGenYGen

Looking to reach the pinnacle and recognition

Not defined

Elite Yachts XGenYGen

Looking for reach the pinnacle and recognition

Not defined

Team Sailing YGen Team work attracted to team sports Not DefinedSchools YGen Part of syllabus Learn valuable skills, teamwork

Different learning environments

Commercial XGenYGen

Employment (Est. value of marine industry in Australia is in excess of $5b)

Lifestyle, Career progression

114

Yachting Australia Sponsorship Marketing Plan (2004) – Market Segmentation StrategyThe table below was developed by the sponsorship and marketing consultancy, the P4 Group, in 2004 following internal consultation and workshops with YA and immediate stakeholders. It describes key market segments for yachting, associated value proposition for each segment, and explores the best means for communicating with these segments. The segmentation methodology did not utilise quantitative or qualitative research methods to survey core target markets (existing and potential customers) nationally.

Table 17: P4 Market Segmentation Strategy (2004)Key Market Segments Value Proposition Best Means of Reaching Them1. Government Peak Body

Elite performance of sportGood governanceParticipation (broad-based and sustainable)

Australian Sports CommissionRegular contactSponsorship style reportingMinisterial contact

2. Active Members SocialSense of belongingTo race boats

Internal communicationWord of mouthPublic relations

3. Member Yachting Assoc. Intellectual propertyInsurance and riskManagementGuidance/adviceResourcesDispute resolutionVariety of administrative services

WebEmailDirect mailScheduled meetings/forums

4. Member Clubs (particularly Top 20 Clubs)

FunctionalSocial

WebElectronic newsletters

5. Youth (and their parents) – M & F under 20

Pathways to elite WebEmailFamily and friends

6. Elite (National Squads) Financial supportTrainingCoaching ResourcesOlympic access

EmailCoachesCamps

7. Masters (35+) SocialParticipationCompetition

EmailClubs

8. On-Board Participation Program

AccessPathways (simple)

ClubsEmailThird-party groupsMarketing publications

9. Training Education, vocation Training centresOn-board communicationsWeb

10. Social Members SocialFriendshipEntertainment

On-BoardClub publicationsDirect mail

115

APPENDIX 6 I OLYMPIC CLASSES AND AUSTRALIAN PERFORMANCES

Table 18: Olympic Classes and Australian Performance Summary (Fleet Racing)

Class Description Australian Olympic Success

Australian ISAF Top 25 Rankings (August 2007)

1. 470 (Men and Women) The 470 is a double-handed dinghy which has been an Olympic Class since 1976.Whilst men and women race against each other up to world championship level, Olympic competition is gender specific.

Australia has won three Olympic medals in the 470 Class: 2000 – Jenny Armstrong

and Belinda Stowell – Gold

2000 – Tom King and Mark Turnbull – Gold

1976 – Ian Brown & Ian Ruff – Bronze

Women10th – Elise Rechichi and Tessa ParkinsonMen1st – Nathan Wilmot and Malcolm Page5th – Mathew Belcher and Nick Behrens

2. 49er (Open) The 49er is the Olympic Class double-handed high-performance dinghy, appearing for the first time at the 2000 Olympic Games. The 49er is a slightly smaller version of the Eighteen-foot skiff, but with some major differences – it is one design and a double-handed vessel.

Nil 8th – Nathan Outteridge and Ben Austin

3. Finn The Finn is the Olympic Class men's single-handed dinghy first appearing at the Olympic Games in Helsinki in 1952. The Finn was designed specifically as the Olympic Class men’s single-handed dinghy.

1976 – John Bertrand – Bronze

13th – Anthony Nossiter15th – Brendan Casey

4. Laser (Men) The Laser was introduced to the Olympic Games in 1996 as an open single-handed dinghy event. Strict class rules guarantee that it is the sailor, not the equipment, which makes the difference.

2000 – Michael Blackburn – Bronze

1st – Tom Slingsby6th – Michael Blackburn

5. Laser Radial (Women) TO BE UPDATED 5th – Krystal Weir9th – Sarah Blanck

6. Star (Men) The International Star Class is a double-handed keelboat. The Class has been in the Olympic Games since the 1932 Games in Los Angeles. The Star is the oldest Olympic Class.

1972 – David Forbes and John Anderson – GOLD

1996 – Colin Beashel and David Giles – BRONZE

9th – Iain Murray and Andrew Palfrey

7. Yngling (Women) The Yngling was designed by Jan Linge in 1967 and first introduced to the Olympics in 2004. The Yngling is a keel boat designed to sail with 3 crew.

NIL 13th – Nicola Bethwaite, Karyn Gojnich and Angela Farrell

116

http://www.sailing.org/biog?memberid=38836

8. Tornado (Open) The Tornado was designed in 1967 specifically as the Olympic Class catamaran. The Tornado is a multihull, double-handed vessel.

2000 – Darren Bundock and John Forbes – Silver

1996 – Mitch Booth and Andrew Landenberger – Silver

1992 – Mitch Booth and John Forbes – Bronze

1984 – Chris Cairns and Scott Anderson – Bronze

1st – Darren Bundock and Glenn Ashby

9. RS:X (Men and Women)

The RS:X was chosen as the Olympic board in 2004 and will represent its first Olympic Games in Beijing, 2008. The RS:X can be raced in winds of 3 to 30 knots. The board begins to ‘plane’ in winds of 8 knots of wind and can reach speeds over 30 knots.

Women18th- Allison Shreeve MenNIL

117

APPENDIX 7 I SUMMARY OF YA PARTNERS AND SPONSOR ASSOCIATION

Table 19: Summary of YA/AST Sponsorship (SP) and Supplier (SU) Portfolio Organisation and Status Rights TermAudi Australia (SP) AST Olympic Class Major Co-

Sponsors One of a maximum of 5 Co-

Sponsors Rights to use the term: Audi –

Official Car of the Australian Sailing Team

3 years 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2009

Hamilton Island Limited (SP) AST Olympic Class Major Co-Sponsors

One of a maximum of 5 Co-Sponsors

Rights to use the term: Hamilton Island – Home of the Australian Sailing Team

3 years 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2009

OAMPS Insurance Brokers (SP) Yachting Australia Official Insurance Provider

Naming Rights to Australian Youth Championships

Naming Rights to Australian Youth Sailing Team

Naming Rights to Australian Youth Development Program

3 years30 September 2006 to 30 September 2009

Gill Australia (SU)Exclusive Clothing Partner, Exclusive Clothing Supplier, Official Technical and Casual Clothing Supplier, Official Technical Clothing Supplier, Official Technical Clothing Supplier, Official Clothing Supplier or Official Apparel Supplier of the Australian Sailing Team

AST Olympic Class Supplier at all major events including all Olympic Class regattas in Australia and internationally, Class World and European Championships and the Olympic Test events in 2006 and 2007

2 years1 July 2006 to 30 June 2008

Ronstan (SU)Official Supplier, Exclusive Sailing Hardware Supplier and/or Exclusive Supplier of the Australian Sailing Team for Ronstan and Official Supplier and/or Exclusive Rope Supplier through FSE Robline of the Australian Sailing Team

AST Olympic Class Supplier at all major events including all Olympic Class regattas in Australia and internationally, Class World and European Championships and the Olympic Test events in 2006 and 2007

2 years1 September 2006 to 31 August 2008

Adecco (SU) Official Provider of Temporary and Permanent Recruitment Services and Career Counselling Services to Yachting Australia Athletes

2 years14 December 2005 to 14 December 2007

118

Public’s Association with Sailing/Yachting Sponsors

The Sweeney Sports Report surveys its respondents on association of sports with brands and/or organisations. The survey results indicate that most of the general public’s association with sailing/yachting is linked to race and boat sponsors of the Sydney to Hobart yacht race. It is not an indicator of sponsor awareness/association amongst YA’s 45,000 current members and YA’s current or past sponsors.

Table 20: Sponsor Association with Sailing/Yachting (by Capital Cities)12

Sponsors National%

Syd%

Mel%

Bne%

Adl%

Per%

Cnb%

Hob%

Rolex 5 7 2 2 7 4 5 17Nicorette 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 5Nokia 1 1 1 1 3 0 0 1Telstra 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 4Tag Heuer 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0Ella Bache 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0Skandia 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

12 The Sweeney Sports Report, Summer 2006/07

119

APPENDIX 8 I ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (YA AND MYAs)

Table 21: Summary of Proposed YA and MYA Primary Roles and Responsibilities(collated from Capital City Workshops and Personal Interviews)

What should YA do? What should MYAs do?Governance/ManagementProvide strong national leadership and effective governance of the sport

Provide strong leadership and effective governance of the sport within the state/territory

Manage ISAF relations Support and contribute to the development of the national strategic plan for yachting.

Lead the process (in consultation with stakeholders) to develop a national strategic plan for yachting and also the development of national policies.

Implementation of the national plan and national policies for yachting.

Federal Government and agency liaison – representing the interests of sailing/boating

Representation and advocacy to state and local government and agencies

Provide expert standing committees Provide expert committeesProvide effective and responsive two-way communication to MYAs

Provide effective two-way communication between the clubs and MYAsBe responsive to the needs of its members – the clubs

Pathways, Training, Club ServicesDevelop and promote clear and consistent national pathways for sailing

Consistent delivery of programs in accordance with national pathways for sailing

Leadership role to support the growth and implementation of the National Training Scheme

Auditing of YA Training Centres

Provide templates and tools for National Programs to the MYAs

Assist clubs in the delivery of national and state programs

Develop templates and tools for Club Development (i.e. IT, training resources, ‘how to’ guides)

Provide training related to club development/improvement initiatives

Provide safety guidelines and rules of racing Provide support and expertise to clubs and classes conducting major national and international regattas.

Provide guidelines for the training and accreditation of Officials and volunteers

Training of officials and volunteers

Development and maintenance of appropriate rules, safety standards and support for boat measurement, registration and issuing of racing certificates.Assistance to clubs and class associations with protests and appeals.

High Performance, Athlete DevelopmentManage the High Performance Program (Olympics and Paralympics) and develop world class athletes (talent ID, financial assistance, expert coaching, sport science and sport medicine support). YA transfer knowledge to State HP Programs

Support the High Performance development squads (levels up to and below sub-elite) – this includes athlete development support in the forms of travel grants, coaching and funding of development camps/clinics.

Promotion of Sailing, Commercial Dev.Develop the brand (desired image) and profile of the sport nationally

Promotion of the sport in accordance with YA national brand/marketing and communication guidelines.

Maximise national revenue opportunities (government, sponsorship, business development) – where possible, securing opportunities which flow through to the MYAs

Secure, grow and retain funding from state government and agencies (primary) and sponsors (secondary)

Advocacy and support to secure significant international sailing events which boost the profile of sailing and competition for Australian sailors; manage national events/championships Undertake national research projects (regularly) to provide evidence and guidance to assist better targeting of new customer segments and retention strategiesMembership ServicesManage the national membership scheme and associated benefits. Collection of membership fees from MYAs

Manage the membership benefits to clubs and their members. Collection of membership fees from clubs

Provide cost effective (and adequate) personal accident insurance

Develop and provide sailing calendar and yearbook

120

APPENDIX 9 I FINANCIAL RESULTS AND 07/08 BUDGET

This section contains excerpts (income statement, balance sheet, statement of changes in equity of the audited financial report for Yachting Australia Incorporated for the year ended 20 June 2007.

Table 22: YA Inc. Income Statement 2007

121

Table 23: YA Inc Balance Sheet 2007

Table 24: YA Inc. Statement of Changes in Equity 2007

122

123

Table 25: Approved 2007-08 Yachting Australia Budget

Income Accreditations/Affiliations/Certifications $343,420Grants $4,458,400Cost Recovery $137,000Interest $63,000Membership $840,280

Other Income $514,200Sponsorship $695,000Sales $216,136Total Income $7,267,436

Expenditure Accreditations/Certifications $78,000Administration & Office $307,571Bank & Audit Fees $24,700Catering $134,100Cost of Goods Sold $64,372Consultants & Contractors $722,934Advances and Grants $1,697,785Shipping, Fuel and Hire $425,350Equipment R&D $0Insurance $319,600MYA Payments $319,587Postage & Print $187,437Purchases $39,180Staff Costs $1,972,427Telephone $70,950Travel $896,876Total Expenditure $7,260,868

Net Surplus (Deficit) $6,567

124

Table 26: 2006/07

Budget by Key

Responsibility Areas

TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

SPORT SERVICES

HIGH PERFORMANCE

OLYMPIC PROGRAM

TRAINING

A/c Code Account Name Approved 2006/2007 Budget

Estimated 2006/2007 Full

Year result as at 30/5/06

Draft 2007/2008 Budget





Draft 2007/2008

Budget

INCOME 1060 Accreditation Fees $ 108,758 $ 106,169 $ 134,820 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 134,820 1110 Advt Code / Cat C $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 1115 Affiliation Fees $ 3,600 $ 2,905 $ 3,600 $ - $ 3,600 $ - $ - $ - 1130 Appeal fees $ - $ 100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 1150 Certification $ 220,856 $ 208,952 $ 205,000 $ - $ 205,000 $ - $ - $ - 1160 Class Associations $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

1340 GRANTS 1340.2 APC $ 140,000 $ 140,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ - 1340.3 AOC $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 75,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 75,000 $ - 1340.4 ASC $ 2,839,200 $ 3,468,762 $ 2,877,000 $ 86,310 $ 215,775 $ 287,700 $2,287,215 $ - 1340 Grants-Other $ 1,337,148 $ 1,058,926 $ 1,406,400 $ - $ - $ - $1,406,400 $ - Total Grants $ 4,541,348 $ 4,892,688 $ 4,458,400 $ 86,310 $ 215,775 $ 287,700 $3,868,615 $ -

1350 COST RECOVERY 1350.1 Cost Recovery - general $ 2,000 $ 142,910 $ 27,000 $ - $ 2,000 $ 25,000 $ - $ - 1350.2 Cost Recovery - shipping $ - $ 57,790 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 1350.3 Cost Recovery - travel $ - $ 43,135 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

1350 Cost Recovery - other $ 100,000 $ 13,180 $ 110,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 110,000 $ - Total Cost Recovery $ 102,000 $ 257,015 $ 137,000 $ - $ 2,000 $ 25,000 $ 110,000 $ - 1380 Interest $ 66,000 $ 62,445 $ 63,000 $ 63,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -

125

1400 MEMBERSHIP SCHEMETOTAL TOTAL TOTAL BUSINESS

MANAGEMENTSPORT SERVICES

HIGH PERFORMANCE

OLYMPIC PROGRAM

TRAINING

1400.11 Gold Membership $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 1400.12 Silver Membership $ 749,160 $ 718,805 $ 760,200 $ 760,200 $ - $ - $ - $ - 1400.13 Youth Membership $ 81,900 $ 75,882 $ 80,080 $ 80,080 $ - $ - $ - $ - 1400.14 Gold Upgrade $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 1400.15 MTPL Insurance $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

1400Membership Scheme - Other $ - -$ 158 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Total Membership $ 831,060 $ 794,528 $ 840,280 $ 840,280 $ - $ - $ - $ - 1520 Other income $ 464,600 $ 327,350 $ 226,500 $ 46,500 $ - $ - $ 105,000 $ 75,000 1520.2 Expenses Recovered $ - $ 64 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 1620 Sales $ 142,107 $ 156,131 $ 216,136 $ 5,600 $ 18,713 $ - $ 45,000 $ 146,823 1650 Sponsorship $ 270,000 $ 360,000 $ 695,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 75,000 $ 520,000 $ - 1660 MYA Meeting Income $ - $ 7,674 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4999 Uncategorized Income $ 691,287 $ 500,000 $ 287,700 $ - $ - $ - $ 287,700 $ - TOTAL INCOME $ 7,441,615 $ 7,676,023 $ 7,267,436 $ 1,091,690 $ 495,088 $ 387,700 $4,936,315 $ 356,643 Cost of Goods Sold 5000 Cost of Goods Sold $ 61,964 $ 42,613 $ 64,372 $ - $ 3,875 $ - $ - $ 60,497 Total COGS $ 61,964 $ 42,613 $ 64,372 $ - $ 3,875 $ - $ - $ 60,497 GROSS PROFIT $ 7,379,651 $ 7,633,409 $ 7,203,064 $ 1,091,690 $ 491,213 $ 387,700 $4,936,315 $ 296,146

126

EXPENSESTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL BUSINESS


HIGH PERFORMANCE

OLYMPIC PROGRAM

TRAINING

2025 Accreditation $ - $ 298 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2030 FBT $ 1,000 $ - $ 10,429 $ 1,650 $ 2,508 $ 2,508 $ 2,508 $ 1,254 2040 Audit Fees $ 13,000 -$ 383 $ 13,000 $ 3,250 $ 2,600 $ 1,300 $ 3,250 $ 2,600 2060 Bad Debts $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

2065 BANK CHARGES 2065.2 Bank Fees $ 3,800 $ 6,287 $ 5,500 $ 1,100 $ 1,650 $ 550 $ 1,100 $ 1,100 2065.6 Card Merchant Fees $ 3,800 $ 5,791 $ 6,200 $ 2,200 $ 1,500 $ 500 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 2065 Bank charges - Other $ - $ 1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Bank Charges $ 7,600 $ 12,079 $ 11,700 $ 3,300 $ 3,150 $ 1,050 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 2070 Casual Staff $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2075 Catering - FBT $ - $ 2,070 $ 600 $ - $ - $ 600 $ - $ - 2076 Catering - Non FBT $ 92,650 $ 116,510 $ 133,500 $ 36,250 $ 8,250 $ - $ 89,000 $ - 2077 Certification Costs $ 71,400 $ 62,384 $ 78,000 $ - $ 78,000 $ - $ - $ - 2080 Cleaning $ 6,000 $ 6,171 $ 5,508 $ 1,100 $ 1,108 $ 1,100 $ 1,100 $ 1,100

2095 COACH ADVANCES Total Coach Advances $ 6,000 $ 24,925 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2140 Conference Fees $ - $ 3,084 $ 1,200 $ - $ 1,000 $ 200 $ - $ - 2150 Contractors $ 466,079 $ 535,066 $ 531,814 $ 15,900 $ 51,500 $ 17,000 $ 409,914 $ 37,500 2160 Consultants $ 133,000 $ 91,770 $ 191,120 $ 24,000 $ - $ 1,250 $ 165,870 $ - 2170 Depreciation $ - $ 21,309 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2200 Electricity $ 6,000 $ 3,658 $ 3,583 $ 700 $ 742 $ 700 $ 742 $ 700 2230 Fuel $ 19,200 $ 19,636 $ 31,240 $ - $ - $ 800 $ 30,440 $ - 2260 General /Sundry Expenses $ 39,046 $ 36,358 $ 25,750 $ 20,500 $ 500 $ 1,600 $ 2,650 $ 500

2275 GRANT PAYMENTS 2275.1 Accommodation $ 223,176 $ 175,727 $ 225,275 $ - $ - $ - $ 225,275 $ - 2275.10 Grants to others $ 380,000 $ 105,721 $ 385,496 $ - $ - $ - $ 385,496 $ - 2275.2 Air Travel $ 337,176 $ 292,983 $ 356,224 $ - $ 5,000 $ 45,000 $ 306,224 $ - 2275.3 Car Expenses $ 29,200 $ 21,069 $ 17,850 $ - $ - $ - $ 17,850 $ - 2275.4 Freight & Shipping $ 115,817 $ 51,199 $ 33,400 $ - $ - $ - $ 33,400 $ - 2275.5 Ground Travel $ 7,300 $ 21,222 $ 6,826 $ - $ - $ - $ 6,826 $ - 2275.6 Equipment $ 111,546 $ 538,876 $ 64,500 $ - $ - $ 3,500 $ 61,000 $ - 2275.7 Sports Science & Medical $ 20,550 $ 19,010 $ 26,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 26,000 $ - 2275.8 Daily Allowances $ 285,640 $ 513,436 $ 222,012 $ - $ - $ - $ 222,012 $ - 2275.9 Fees $ 110,735 $ 95,063 $ 64,702 $ - $ - $ 12,500 $ 52,202 $ - 2275 Grant payments - Other $ 215,413 $ 26,271 $ 295,500 $ - $ 50,500 $ 75,000 $ 170,000 $ - Total Grant Payments $ 1,836,553 $ 1,860,577 $ 1,697,785 $ - $ 55,500 $ 136,000 $ 1,506,285 $ - 2300 Hire $ 132,432 $ 133,182 $ 152,610 $ 5,400 $ 4,150 $ 1,400 $ 140,960 $ 700

127

2325 INSURANCE - GENERALTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL BUSINESS


HIGH PERFORMANCE

OLYMPIC PROGRAM

TRAINING

2325.1 AYF - Prof Indemnity $ 6,000 $ 3,563 $ 4,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 400 $ 1,200 $ 400 2325.2 Business Pack $ 11,500 $ 10,697 $ 11,000 $ 2,750 $ 2,750 $ 1,100 $ 3,300 $ 1,100 2325.3 Cch/Inst - Prof Indemnity $ - $ 16,787 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2325.4 Directors/Officers Liability $ 6,500 $ 4,864 $ 6,500 $ 1,625 $ 1,625 $ 650 $ 1,950 $ 650 2325.5 Equipment $ 12,000 $ 24,338 $ 21,000 $ - $ - $ 1,000 $ 20,000 $ - 2325.6 Member 3rd Party Ins $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2325.7 Member PA Ins $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2325.9 Travel $ 5,800 $ 8,999 $ 6,300 $ 800 $ - $ - $ 5,500 $ - 2325 Insurance - Other $ - $ 2,420 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Insurance - General $ 41,800 $ 71,668 $ 48,800 $ 6,175 $ 5,375 $ 3,150 $ 31,950 $ 2,150

2330INSURANCE - MEMBERSHIP

2330.1 Cch/Inst - Prof Indemnity $ 72,000 $ 49,599 $ 65,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 65,000 2330.2 Member 3rd Pty Ins $ - $ 6,427 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2330.3 Member PA Ins $ 223,155 $ 167,733 $ 205,800 $ 205,800 $ - $ - $ - $ -

2330Insurance - Membership - Other $ - $ 74 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Total Insurance -

Membership $ 295,155 $ 223,832 $ 270,800 $ 205,800 $ - $ - $ - $ 65,000 2400 Legal costs $ 18,000 $ 32,502 $ 19,950 $ 5,950 $ 4,000 $ 2,000 $ 6,000 $ 2,000

2550 PAYMENTS TO MYAS 2550.1 NTYA $ 10,500 $ - $ 7,500 $ - $ - $ - $ 7,500 $ - 2550.2 QYA $ 42,745 $ 15,470 $ 79,918 $ - $ 4,818 $ - $ 75,100 $ - 2550.3 TYA $ 24,549 $ 12,479 $ 16,418 $ - $ 3,014 $ - $ 13,404 $ - 2550.4 VYC $ 18,699 $ 22,121 $ 20,464 $ - $ 13,264 $ - $ 7,200 $ - 2550.5 YA ACT $ - $ 3,775 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2550.6 YA NSW $ 126,120 $ 115,689 $ 122,480 $ - $ 11,480 $ - $ 111,000 $ - 2550.7 YA WA $ 62,059 $ 66,945 $ 62,764 $ - $ 5,064 $ - $ 57,700 $ - 2550.8 YSA $ 8,343 $ 3,258 $ 8,170 $ - $ 3,670 $ - $ 4,500 $ - 2550 Payments to MYAs - Other $ 2,625 -$ 6,242 $ 1,875 $ - $ 1,875 $ - $ - $ - Total Payments to MYAs $ 295,640 $ 233,495 $ 319,587 $ - $ 43,183 $ - $ 276,404 $ -

2575POSTAGE AND

PROCESSING 2575.2 Freight $ 4,600 $ 16,553 $ 4,600 $ 1,375 $ 1,300 $ 350 $ 875 $ 700 2575.3 Postage $ 37,575 $ 27,671 $ 34,820 $ 23,820 $ 5,000 $ 750 $ 1,500 $ 3,750 2575.5 Mail House $ 34,800 $ 38,129 $ 39,900 $ 39,900 $ - $ - $ - $ -

2575Postage & Processing - Other $ - $ 8,930 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Total Postage &

Processing $ 76,975 $ 91,283 $ 79,320 $ 65,095 $ 6,300 $ 1,100 $ 2,375 $ 4,450

128

2600PRINTING AND

STATIONERYTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL BUSINESS


HIGH PERFORMANCE

OLYMPIC PROGRAM

TRAINING

2600.1 Art/Design $ 7,500 $ 3,728 $ 16,875 $ 7,000 $ 9,875 $ - $ - $ - 2600.3 External Print $ 22,500 $ 60,570 $ 43,500 $ 13,500 $ 22,500 $ 1,500 $ 4,500 $ 1,500 2600.5 Office Stationery $ 15,200 $ 25,779 $ 12,542 $ 2,500 $ 3,125 $ 1,250 $ 3,125 $ 2,542

2600Printing and Stationery - Other $ 21,000 $ 6,987 $ 35,200 $ - $ - $ 200 $ 35,000 $ -

Total Printing &

Stationery $ 66,200 $ 97,064 $ 108,117 $ 23,000 $ 35,500 $ 2,950 $ 42,625 $ 4,042 2620 PROVISIONS

2620.2 Annual Leave Provision $ - $ 28,608 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2620.6 Long Service Provision $ - $ 17,682 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2620 Provisions - Other $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Provisions $ - $ 46,291 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

2630 PURCHASES 2630.1 Equipment - General $ 270,500 $ 409,189 $ 7,750 $ - $ - $ - $ 7,750 $ - 2630.2 Unifors & Clothing $ 12,000 $ 35,700 $ 19,080 $ - $ - $ 8,500 $ 10,580 $ - 2630 Purchases - Other $ 322,936 $ 100,997 $ 12,350 $ 2,500 $ 4,000 $ 250 $ 5,600 $ - Total Purchases $ 605,436 $ 545,887 $ 39,180 $ 2,500 $ 4,000 $ 8,750 $ 23,930 $ - 2635 Equipment R & D $ 318,850 $ 207,155 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2650 Rent $ 75,000 $ 65,635 $ 129,396 $ 32,500 $ 25,396 $ 6,500 $ 52,000 $ 13,000 2660 Repairs & Maintenance $ 38,396 $ 41,204 $ 29,534 $ 300 $ 300 $ 150 $ 28,606 $ 178

2700 STAFF COSTS 2700.1 Allowances $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2700.2 FBT $ - $ 1,986 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2700.3 Salaries $ 1,497,559 $ 1,379,053 $ 1,744,506 $ 176,413 $ 320,678 $ 142,977 $ 998,128 $ 106,311 2700.4 Casual Staff $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2700.5 Staff Amenities $ - $ 1,776 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2700.6 Staff Replacement $ - $ 1,880 $ 7 $ - $ - $ 7 $ - $ - 2700.7 Training $ 17,765 $ 2,457 $ 18,252 $ 2,764 $ 3,014 $ 1,430 $ 9,981 $ 1,063 2700.8 Workers Compensation $ 63,874 $ 1,093 $ 28,044 $ 2,985 $ 5,927 $ 2,145 $ 14,972 $ 2,015 2700.9 Contractors $ - $ 50 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2700 Staff Costs - Other $ - $ 29 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Staff Costs $ 1,579,198 $ 1,388,324 $ 1,790,810 $ 182,162 $ 329,619 $ 146,558 $ 1,023,081 $ 109,389 2720 Stock Obselesence $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2725 Subscriptions & Fees $ 30,890 $ 37,195 $ 92,650 $ 25,200 $ 600 $ 300 $ 66,250 $ 300

129

2750 SUPERANNUATIONTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL BUSINESS


HIGH PERFORMANCE

OLYMPIC PROGRAM

TRAINING

2750.3 Employee Contribution $ - $ 12,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2750.4 Package Superannuation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2750.5 SGC Contribution $ 127,780 $ 139,247 $ 140,006 $ 14,627 $ 27,361 $ 12,118 $ 76,832 $ 9,068 2750 Superannuation - Other $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Superannuation $ 127,780 $ 151,747 $ 140,006 $ 14,627 $ 27,361 $ 12,118 $ 76,832 $ 9,068

2825 TELEPHONE 2825.1 Mobile phone $ 30,852 $ 16,009 $ 33,280 $ 2,400 $ 2,700 $ 500 $ 27,680 $ - 2825.2 Fixed Phone $ 21,000 $ 22,648 $ 18,100 $ 4,100 $ 4,375 $ 875 $ 7,000 $ 1,750 2825.3 Internet $ 14,100 $ 12,574 $ 17,820 $ 5,500 $ 2,000 $ 500 $ 8,820 $ 1,000 2825.4 Phone Cards $ 2,900 $ 1,652 $ 1,700 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,700 $ - 2825 Telephone - Other $ - $ 277 $ 50 $ - $ - $ 50 $ - $ - Total Telephone $ 68,852 $ 53,161 $ 70,950 $ 12,000 $ 9,075 $ 1,925 $ 45,200 $ 2,750

2840Transport/Shipping/Storage $ 62,060 $ 237,638 $ 241,500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 250 $ 240,250 $ -

2850 TRAVEL 2850.1 Accomodation $ 214,869 $ 203,349 $ 258,383 $ 20,700 $ 28,500 $ 10,450 $ 196,233 $ 2,500 2850.2 Air Travel $ 351,492 $ 287,246 $ 389,553 $ 69,800 $ 41,900 $ 3,710 $ 266,643 $ 7,500 2850.3 Car Expenses $ 48,410 $ 52,521 $ 64,640 $ - $ 500 $ 2,200 $ 61,940 $ - 2850.7 Ground Travel $ 29,650 $ 40,422 $ 20,890 $ 5,200 $ 3,850 $ 7,990 $ 3,850 $ - 2850.9 Subsistence $ 137,817 $ 95,360 $ 127,710 $ 7,750 $ 7,950 $ 8,700 $ 103,310 $ - 2850 Travel - Other $ 42,800 $ 13,119 $ 35,700 $ 18,550 $ - $ 1,400 $ 15,750 $ - Total travel $ 825,038 $ 692,017 $ 896,876 $ 122,000 $ 82,700 $ 34,450 $ 647,726 $ 10,000 2999 Tfr closing balance $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 6560 Payroll Expenses $ 30,633 $ 35,029 $ 31,183 $ 3,217 $ 4,479 $ 1,992 $ 18,267 $ 3,228 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 7,385,863 $ 7,179,821 $ 7,196,496 $ 813,076 $ 787,396 $ 387,701 $ 4,936,315 $ 272,009

Net Income -$ 6,212 $ 453,589 $ 6,567 $ 278,614 -$ 296,183 -$ 1 $ 0 $ 24,138

130

APPENDIX 10 I YA BUSINESS MODEL TEMPLATE

VALUE PROPOSITION

Provides an overall description of YA’s bundle of products

and services

CUSTOMER CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP

DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL

TARGET CUSTOMER

PROPOSITION Explains the relationships YA

establishes with its customers

Describes the channels to

communicate with YA customers

Describes the customers YA want to

offer value to and why

OFFERINFRASTRUCTURE

PARTNER NETWORK

CORE CAPABILITIES

VALUE CONFIGURATION

Outlines the capabilities required to run YA’s business

model

Describes the network of cooperative

agreements YA has with other

stakeholders & companies

Describes the arrangement of YA

activities and resources

131

COST STRUCTURE

REVENUE STREAMS

FINANCEOutlines the financial consequences to run

the YA business model

Describes the revenue streams

through which YA income is earned

The business model should describe what the YA business does and the value it offers to its various customers. The model should describe the capabilities of YA and its partners which are required to create, market and deliver this value with the objective of delivering profitable and sustainable income.

Business Model Component Description 1. Target Customer Segments Describes the customers a company wants to add value to.2. Value Proposition(s) Describes a company’s offering to the market. A company may have multiple value

propositions depending on who the company aims to offer this value to.3. Distribution Channels The communication and channels to reach targeted customers to offer the value

proposition.4. Customer Relationships Describes the relationships a company builds with its customers.5. Core Capabilities Describes what capabilities are required to make the business model possible.6. Configuration of Activities Describes what activities are required to implement the business model – (the network

of activities within the organisation required to create and distribute the products or services offered to customers).

7. Partner Network Describes the partners and their motivation for coming together to leverage and make the business model happen.

8. Revenue Streams Describes how the company makes its money9. Cost Structure Describes the costs resulting of the chosen business model.

132

COST STRUCTURE

REVENUE STREAMS

FINANCE

Outlines the financial consequences to run

the YA business model

Describes the revenue streams

through which YA income is earned

Documents

Strengthening Sailing · Web view72 DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 73 2.5 GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT 76 2.5.1 Yachting Australia Governance Model and Constitutional