Northbrook AC Annual General Meeting 2025
Proposals to be put before the Annual General Meeting
The Club Constitution requires that proposals to be put to the Club’s next Annual General Meeting be published in advance of the meeting.
The following proposals will be put before the Northbrook Annual General Meeting to be held on
WEDNESDAY 22nd JANUARY 2025 at 8.15pm.
Any proposed amendments to any of these proposals must be submitted by Wednesday 15 January 2025 to be considered.
Proposal 1
Proposal 2
Proposal 3
Proposal 4
Proposal 5
Proposal 6
Proposal 1 – Member Proposal
Amend the qualifying requirements for the Cross-Country Championships
Rationale
The Cross-Country Championships were introduced to increase a Northbrook presence across all the cross-country events, making team requirements more likely to be achieved and to reduce the stress on captains trying to fill teams, whilst ensuring individuals are not disappointed to be part of a team that does not qualify as a team due to lack of numbers.
Original Positives: the thinking was that everyone would have had to run the same course so it would remove different course issues that could affect pace.
Original Negatives: if a member could not attend on Wednesdays then the Summer Handicap was not possible for the individual to get an average handicap pace and hence not qualify for the cross-country championships.
Currently the Cross-Country Championships uses a baseline target pace calculated from the Summer Handicap series.
Proposed amendment
To take the 5k time of the (Race Championship) points table for the individual or the handicap time for the individual (whichever is quicker), and use that as a qualifying average pace to compare across the winter championship.
Comparing 107 men and 85 women recording 5K times on the (Race Championship) 2024 table (mainly parkruns) to 93 men and 58 women recording handicap times on the handicap over the season clearly shows that the possibility of capturing an individuals 5K/handicap time to use as a baseline for the Cross Country Championships is higher, if both 5k and handicap times are used.
If the times are taken from the (Race Championship) points table it would mean the fastest recorded time for everyone is used and would eliminate any times that may be affected by ie tail walking at parkrun. It would also mean that individuals have more races to target to challenge in the Cross-Country Championships.
In 2024:
5 women who did not complete a 5k recorded handicap times, and 34 women recorded a 5k time but not a handicap time.
12 men who did not complete a 5k recorded handicap times, and 27 men recorded a 5k time but not a handicap time.
Times are to be used up to the weekend of the 1st cross country race of the season.
Proposed by: Spencer Davies
Seconded by: Tim Hughes
Proposal 2 – Member Proposal
Introduce a Northbrook AC parkrun Grand Prix
Rationale
A new competition – parkrun Grand Prix (PGP) designed to
- maintain runners’ motivation during the winter
- build on the success of the summer handicap; and
- raise awareness of the club in Coventry and the local area.
This will encourage runners to try out other parkruns and enjoy the benefits of parkrun tourism.
Importantly, runners will be required to wear Northbrook kit, which will serve as an opportunity to market the club at our local parkruns1.
Proposed format
The PGP will consist of 8 handicapped runs at seven of the local parkrun venues as follows on the first Saturday of every “winter” month2.
- September – Coventry
- October – Holbrooks
- November – Bedworth
- December – Leamington
- January – Warwick
- February – Brueton Park
- March – Babbs Mill
- April – Coventry
Rules
- 5 ‘races’ to count out of 8
- Position based on Summer Handicap
- Handicap based on final Summer Handicap values
- Men’s and Women’s Competitions
- Northbrook kit to be worn
Notes:
1. We could amplify the messaging with leafleting at the end of each run.
2. During the Cross-Country season these may be moved to avoid clashes.
Proposed by: Rob Richardson
Seconded by: Tim Hughes
Proposal 3 – Member Proposal
Addition of a Social Media Officer non-Committee Role
Rationale
The task of promoting the club to an outside audience on social media is a difficult role. Not many people will step forward to take this role on. Because of this the task should be recognised and have one person responsible for the social media posts. Without having a person nominated into the role means that the clubs social media postings can be very limited.
Having a person in this role will ensure there is a consistent level of social media posts going out. This person could delegate the role to both male and female sub-leads. This is also a role that is recognised by England Athletics.
Proposed by: Tim Hughes
Seconded by: Rhys Robbins
Proposal 4 – Member Proposal
First, Second and Third places to be recognised in both Male and Female Miles Champs
Rationale
There has been a 30% increase in club membership to 260 members.
The present award system is limited to only 2 in 260. If first second and third places were recognised there would be an increased incentive for all levels of runners to enter races.
This would create a healthy competition for more runners to increase their mileage and promote the club as more members may enter races and club events.
Proposed by: Tracey Williams
Seconded by: Tracey Cox
Proposal 5 – Member Proposal
On Wednesday training, if a new person attends or a if a person moves up from another level, then the group leader should be able to nominate a buddy to assist and support that runner for the duration of the session.
Rationale
When a new runner comes to a running session, they are usually a little nervous, don’t know the format of the group or many of the other runners. This is also true of someone moving up to another level. The run leader obviously needs to supervise the whole group and new people can often take some of that focus.
At each session the run leader is notified of a new runner to that level.
They could then ask or nominate a regular member of that group to buddy or support the new person for the duration of the session. The buddy should be an experienced runner who is used to running with that group and understands the session planned. This will include explaining the session in more detail if required and ensuring the new person does not feel left out or get left behind. If there is more than one new person to the group a different buddy could be allocated to each person. This will be at the discretion of the run leader. This will free up the run leader to focus on the whole group.
Proposed by: Tracey Cox
Seconded by: Tracey Williams
Proposal 6 – Member Proposal
Trial a parallel run for alternative age category scoring during 2025 to run alongside the current race champs scoring.
Rationale
During a journey back from a recent race, the conversation turned to the race champs, and it was pointed out that there are some unfair aspects to how the current scores are calculated for age categories.
In the current format, you are not simply competing against other people in the same age category as yourself, as results posted by people in other age categories can directly affect
the results of unrelated age categories.
I have been exchanging a number of emails with Kevin, discussing these points, and he described them as a the “beauty and the ugliness of the Northbrook Race Champs”, and some people might say,
“Buts that’s how it is” and others might say “But it’s not entirely fair”.
After discussing the pro’s and con’s of alternative methods, he suggested that a proposal be put forward to trial a parallel calculation for age category scoring for 2025. This parallel run would not change how the 2025 results are calculated, but hopefully provoke conversation between everyone over the next 12 months, perhaps suggesting improvements, etc. (even if the consensus ends up being, leave it as it is).
To be clear, the 2025 Race Champs will be calculated exactly how it is today. This parallel run is for information only.
Example
Mr A and Mr B are in the same age category
In his 5 best races, Mr A is couple of points ahead of Mr B in 4 out of the 5 best races.
In one race (say, the 10k), Mr B is slightly ahead of Mr A by only a few points.
Overall Mr A is leading his age category, with Mr B in 2nd place slightly behind on points.
Then half a dozen people in completely different age categories, post 10k times which are slower than Mr B but faster than Mr A.
This means that Mr A loses a few points in the 10k, meaning overall Mr B is now leading the age category.
So essentially half a dozen people in a selection of different age categoroes have directly affected the results in an age category none of them are in.
Alternative Scoring
For the overall Race Champs, leave it exactly as it is today, but when scoring for age categories use a different “pot”.
e.g.
In the 10k, Mr A had 180 points in the main Race Champs contest, but in the age category champs (say, MV35) he has 199 points (because he has the 2nd best time for his age category, as Mr B has 200 points).
So when those half dozen people post 10k times better than Mr A, he loses 6 points in the main Race Champs contest, but still has 199 points in the age category contest because none of the half dozen people are in his age category. His time is still the 2nd best in his age category.
The result of this is that the age category scores are always calculated in isolation.
Conclusion
There are pros and cons of both methods; the current method does add in the option of a late curve ball result affecting results, which some people might consider as unfair, and favours people doing the less popular distances (20 miles, 10 miles and marathon), whereas the new method is more exact in that you are only competing against people in your own age category.
As a footnote, a real world example. In the current Race Champs, one of the age categories had 2 people tied for 3rd place. Kevin then discovered a result from a new member (in a completely different age category), a 5k race which had not been applied. That race resulted in one of the 2 tied people losing a point, and therefore losing their joint 3rd place in their age category as a direct result of someone in a different age category.
Proposed by: Alan Smith
Seconded by: Kevin Coughlan