It's an awful long time since I went to school, and I freely confess that Mathematics was definitely not one of my favourite subjects. At Prep school I was subjected, like many of my generation, to the introduction of "New Maths" which, I suspect, is the reason that I have an awful time even balancing the chequebook...

One person who has no fear of maths at all is Norman Brook, the BTA's Chief Executive, who has taken considerable issue with the comments made a few days ago under the First, count your chickens... headline. He claims that my statement is a mis-representation of what was said at the AGM and is factually incorrect. In a volume of email that has passed between us I have learned a great deal about the BTA and the way that it balances its funding, but I'm still not sure that I actually understand the mathemetics behind it.

Essentially, Norman claims that the statements he and Graeme Maw made at the AGM a) were to re-assure the attendees that the much touted 90% cut was very unlikely and that b) while the number of athletes on the programme was to be cut the actual amount of investment per head would probably increase. I can happily confirm that my notes agree and, if I implied anything else then I apologise. However, dear reader, this is where the fun really begins.

The BTA gets its funding from a number of governmental pots and each funding pot can only be used for the purpose that it is given: the ordinary members cannot, for example, benefit directly from the hundreds of thousands of pounds allocated to the WCPP athletes. Note that I say DIRECTLY because any improvement to the BTA's infrastructure could, potentially, be considered of benefit to all its members.

The fact is that the WCCP funding of £1.445 million for the four year Beijing Olympics programme HAS been cut by 22% compared to the Athens cycle. This, in anybody's maths, is a reduction. The reason for the cut is that the number of athletes allowed to be on the WCCP programme has been reduced from the pre-Athens level of 16 to just 8, or possibly 10, by October this year. Less athletes on the programme requires less money in the pot -- that's obvious. And, yes, Norman correctly predicted that the budget wouldn't be cut by the 90% mentioned in the press and, yes, the per capita funding for the remaining 8-10 WCCP athletes has increased in percentage terms simply because their numbers have been reduced by half while the pot of money has been reduced by 22% -- even my limited maths skills can work that one out! It's interesting that the number of support staff to maintain the programmes for the reduced number of WCCP athletes hasn't also been cut in line with either the 22% budget cut or the 50% athlete cut but then I never could understand why it took so many people in the first place...

However, and here's where the clever maths starts, other funding provided to the BTA by Sport England to provide a support and development programme for England's potentially elite triathletes and the preparation of an English team for the Commonwealth Games, has been increased by 11%. The announced figure is of £3.5 million "in principle" of which £876,000 is confirmed for 2005-2006. Apparently, and I'm buggered if I can work this out, this represents an overall increase in the amount of money available to the BTA (presumably over the next four years) of 4%.

So, while I'm happy to confirm that Norman and Graeme definitely did say that the projected cuts of 90% were not likely to happen -- and I never suggested otherwise, see my report on the BTA's AGM which drew not a murmur from HQ -- I still fail to see how a confirmed (see the BTA website's archives for Feb-02) 22% cut in the WCCP funding is anything less than a major reduction in elite funding. The fact that Sport England have upped the support ante for English Triathlon by 11% (see the BTA archives for Feb-01) is not relevant to the argument -- it's not for the same programme/athletes. While the BTA continually points out that it cannot take actual pound notes from one programme to use in another it does seem that they regard all the money coming in as being one sum for the purposes of statistics.

Perhaps if the BTA was less obscure in what funding it received and for who this funding was provided -- not to mention how many staff it needed to support all these programmes and what they actually do -- then it would be less easy to make the mistake of not understanding that a 22% cut in one programme could be offset by an 11% rise in another, un-related programme... Roll on the dismantling of the BTA at the end of the year and the setting up of british triathlon to manage the WCCP funding and triathlon england to manage the domestic sport. Then, hopefully, it should be much clearer to see who gets what and how that funding is used.