Home British baseball Further details on the Great Britain national team

Further details on the Great Britain national team

by Matt Smith

GbHlSqThe importance of the Great Britain national team within British baseball, including the potential benefits of a possible World Baseball Classic spot in 2013, is being argued as the British Baseball Federation (BBF) continues to consider its budget for the coming years.

It is now known that the recent proposals of, and resignations by, Great Britain’s General Manager Alan Smith and Head Coach Stephan Rapaglia were prompted by the BBF Board’s preliminary decision not to meet the funding commitments required to field a competitive national team for the foreseeable future.  Smith and Rapaglia were informed that the proposed 2010 national team budget would not be met and that the final year of Rapaglia’s four-year contract would not be honoured, although both were also informed that the Board wished for them to continue working with Team GB.

Smith and Rapaglia responded by submitting an alternative outline of how the BBF could continue to support the national team.  In this, the only contribution to the national effort from BBF membership money would involve redirecting part of the £5,000 that would be saved by Rapaglia’s removal from a salaried position to the European Championship and the junior team budgets, the latter seen as being a vitally important part of investing in the sport’s future. 

When no formal response was received from the BBF Board, the detailed proposal, referred to as a Statement of Intent, was submitted to the Board to be accepted or rejected, alongside the resignations of Smith and Rapaglia from their posts as of 28 February: the date of the BBF Annual General Meeting. 

A new plan for Team GB

Following the achievements of winning a silver medal at the 2007 European Baseball Championships and participating in last year’s Baseball World Cup, the BBF and those involved with Team GB are now facing difficult decisions on how to keep the team moving forward.  Recent funding has been exhausted and the World Cup campaign partly relied on scraping by on the last remnants of the Olympic Solidarity grant.  A new plan for the future of Great Britain’s national team is needed and therein lays the crux of the matter. 

In explaining their initial position, the BBF Board recognised the achievements of the national team under Smith and Rapaglia and reinforced this by expressing their desire for the pair to continue their involvement.  However, the Board proposed that this would be in the context of voluntary roles with a budget that restricts the team’s ability to be competitive, whilst requiring players to make substantial contributions to fund the team’s European Championship campaign.

Smith and Rapaglia responded by accepting that financial concerns lay at the heart of the BBF Board’s thinking, yet they urged them to reconsider.   They argue that the national team has made great strides recently and that these should be built on rather than left to go to waste.  Cutting the budget now is considered short-sighted, not least due to the very real possibility of Great Britain’s entry in the 2013 World Baseball Classic, which would be eliminated if Team GB’s international standing slips in the preceding years.  This looks a certainty if the national team is not adequately funded. 

Budget and quota

The most recent GB budget trailed that of their European counterparts, yet the team has been able to remain competitive and the hope is that, with hard work and support from all quarters, this can continue.  Smith and Rapaglia are not proposing to increase the budget and the proposals are framed within the realities of the limited funding that is available. In fact, only one of the ten proposed measures, that of redirecting Rapaglia’s salary, would involve using BBF membership monies. 

They accept that players would have to contribute to the European Championship budget without additional funding being sourced, although understandably they want this to be kept to a minimum due to the impact this would have on roster selection.  They also propose that players should be allowed to receive a commission on their own fund-raising efforts and to obtain guarantees that the funds would be used solely for the European Championship budget.

Once a budget has been set, the proposal requests that the Senior Team staff are then allowed to manage the team’s affairs as they see fit.  Smith and Rapaglia have included the provision of a quota that will ensure that “not less than 25% of the roster consists of Britain-based players”, which could be an important part of linking the national team with the BBF leagues.  Bearing in mind that the BBF should be encouraging its best players to better themselves by playing abroad and/or attending colleges in the States, it is hoped that “Britain-based” would be defined broadly so that players who are not currently in Britain due to seeking playing opportunities elsewhere would be covered by it. 

Team GB benefits

One of the most compelling reasons to maintain a national team of decent standing is that it gives young ballplayers, such as those now competing in places like Horsham and Herts, something to aspire to.  Seeing the national team fall back into the lower reaches of the European ranks simply due to a lack of funding therefore would be a bitter blow to the sport’s future.  The link between youth baseball and the national team would be reinforced under the new proposals, through the 25 per cent quota and the allocation of additional funds to the junior team programme.

A competitive international team also is the most effective way to promote the sport in this country on anything beyond a localised level.   It is frustrating that the sport’s profile, and the subsequent funding/sponsorship opportunities created, hasn’t increased much thanks to their recent tournament performances, except for the publicity afforded by Team GB’s games being broadcast on Eurosport2.  Promoting the national team is something that could be done more effectively than at present in a way that would benefit all baseball clubs, although this can only happen if the national team is performing at a competitive level.

What next?

The future of the national team will be discussed at the upcoming AGM.  The BBF Board’s position is financially motivated and in these tough economic times the need to question every bit of expenditure is not only welcome but essential.  However, further investigation has revealed that the proposals would keep BBF membership funding of the national effort to a minimum and that it is not a case of the Board needing to choose between funding the domestic game or the national team.  Nor should it be.  The two must go hand-in-hand for either to be successful in the long run. 

If the BBF Board decides not to help fund a competitive national team, they will need to show how they will successfully promote the sport and encourage development at youth levels with the relatively small amount of money saved, while the senior national team slips from its current position back into the lower levels of European competition.

You may also like

21 comments

Mark February 16, 2010 - 11:53 am

I disagree with that. A successful national team won’t improve the standard in the BBF leagues, as all the GB players play the game abroad. Most of them have never played for a BBF club.

The UK media will not be interested in a GB baseball team, successful or otherwise, as proved by the ’97 Euros. Two mentions in the Metro (with no players’ names) then nothing. As for last years WC, forget it – nothing.

A successful national team using “overseas” players is a false economy, it doesn’t give a true picture of the state of the game in the UK. Yes, GB were at the WC but at the same time Croydon, the oldest club in the South, can’t raise a team.

If we want media interest, we need to invest in a good quality domestic league, something similar to the Scottish Amicable of the ’80’s – get fans interested, somewhere for them to sit.

The media will never be interested in a national team that use overseas players and never play here anyway.

Reply
Eddie February 16, 2010 - 1:30 pm

This article is spot on and the most compelling point is that the National Team gives kids something to aspire to. Kids playing little league ball in the UK will not doing so with dreams of participating in the BBF leagues. Their asspirtaions are much higher: first, Williamsport, second the National Team and the WBC and third the Big Leagues. When a UK coach complimented my 8 year old son on his pitching and commented that if he practices hard, one day he might play for the GB team, my son’s response was, I don’t want to pitch for team GB, I want to pitch for the New York Yankees! Kids aspirations are limitless (if perhaps somewhat unrealistic) but UK baseball must give them something to aim for and at least for now, the UK National Team and the WBC, are impressive goals that will help maintain and excite their long term interest in the sport.

Reply
Matthew Crawshaw February 16, 2010 - 1:48 pm

The flipside of Mark’s arguement is that the UK media would be interested in British born players that succeeded in the MLB and also played for the National team (GB Basketball team now has some NBA players on board).

Perhaps the ‘budget’ should instead be diverted to the development of promising youth players who could potentially go to College in the US and become MLB stars of the future?

Either way, it looks like the pot of money available will be much smaller in the future or close to non-existent, and you wonder whether Team GB is luxury that we can afford?

Reply
Mark February 16, 2010 - 2:07 pm

I agree with that Matthew. The Metro newspaper had two full pages on the GB basketball team’s appearance at some international tourney.

Reply
Adam Brown February 16, 2010 - 6:03 pm

There’s not really much point in throwing even more money at developing young players if there is no league for them to play in once they get to a decent standard. The GB youth academy already does an excellent job in developing the top young talent, the problem is that they have to make the tough decision leave the country as soon as they finish school if they want to progress to the next level – either in a US college or in a European league. There is simply too great a jump between the BBF national league and international play.

The BBF leagues are then denied their best home-grown players, meaning that the standard never improves (and these GB developed, foreign based players no longer meet the “quota” requirements) Catch 22.

Too often in this country, we take the short term solution of attempting to improve our leagues by adding a handful of decent quality foreign imports to a handful of big clubs who stay for a few seasons then disappear again. The only sustainable way to improve the strength of the league is to make all the “average” players and the “average” clubs a little bit better, year by year. We also need to roughly double the number of clubs as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, this will take some time.

Reply
Matt Smith February 16, 2010 - 9:14 pm

Thanks everyone for your comments. The main reason for writing these pieces is really to put more information out there and to encourage a reasoned debate. We all want what’s best for British baseball, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we will all come to the same conclusions. If that produces different points of view and different ideas than that’s a positive thing, in my view.

This is perhaps stating the obvious, but I think the main point here is that there isn’t a simple answer, there is lots to do and taking one approach at the expense of others isn’t going to achieve a great deal. Certainly Mark and Adam’s comments about improving the national leagues, particularly in regards to facilities so that people might be encouraged to watch the game, have a lot of merit and I would completely support them. BaseballSoftballUK are taking forward a project to build 4 baseball/softball facilities so maybe that will help a bit.

My enthusiasm for Team GB is that they clearly have made strides in recent years and it wouldn’t be any benefit to British baseball if that was left to go to waste. A promising national team is not the answer on its own, but it should be part of the answer. They have been successful recently and if the funding isn’t overly burdensome then why not keep it going?

Reply
George Kurtzer February 17, 2010 - 5:14 pm

The GB National Teams and the domestic leagues (youth to NBL) need to be two completely separate entities with separate funding pools.

I have never met or even spoken to Coach Rapaglia but from playing against the GB Senior team in 1992 where my local BBF team lost by a measly 3-2 score I can tell you that Coach Rapaglia has put GB Baseball on a new level within the baseball world. He has made tremendous strides with bringing respectability to the GB National Baseball team. In the past, the GB team was just happy to play in a tournament and/or a game. Since Coach Rapaglia took over Team GB, the team is now looked at as a team that can upset any team on any given day. If the players on the GB teams meet European and International citizenship requirements and no rules are broken, that should be good enough for everyone. By dictating a certain percentage of GB based players make the team is limiting the opportunity of those GB based players to explore more competitive opportunities outside of Britain and possibly punishing those who have that opportunity.

To prevent this from happening again, create two separate Boards: GB Board and a Domestic Board. The GB Board would be responsible with every aspect of GB baseball from Juvenile to Senior. The Domestic Board would be responsible for every aspect of the domestic leagues from t-ball to the NBL.

Do not cut the funding of the GB national team. Free up money now to pay for Coach Rapaglia and his staff by asking all of the umpires to volunteer their services for the upcoming season.

No child sets their ultimate goal of playing for their national team (even in Cuba), they all dream of playing in the big leagues and make huge salaries.

Reply
Owen February 17, 2010 - 6:14 pm

http://www.mister-baseball.com picked up on the site today. Nice work!

1st. Thanks to both Stephan and Alan offering to work for nothing. This really shows the level of dedication they have to Team GB.

On the above BBF had said they would not pay the last year of Stephans contrect. I wonder how that would stack up in employment law?

The numbers it costs to run Team GB is very low when you compare to other countries in Europe. I am sure the Head Coach of the Netherlands earns more than the entire GB Team.

2nd. WBC and BBF is the same sentance should not even be considered. Having said this are the BBF thinking of the money?

Tournament Champion $2.7 million
Tournament Runner-Up $1.7 million
Eliminated in Semi-Finals (Two Teams) $1.2 million
Eliminated Round Two (Four Teams) $700,000
Eliminated Round One (Eight Teams) $300,000

The WBC to a point can decide who they want to invite. This is a revenue generating event and they want the best players playing. Who else in the world could play for Team GB? I can think of a few but not many. Teams like Greece or maybe even Germany have a better chance due to family ties. Should the WBC when they allowed Netherlands and Italy to play in 2009 told them to hand out $30,000 each to the rest of Europe?

3rd. BBF and Baseball World Cup. This event was played in many countries over Europe but not in England. Maybe someone could tell me/describe our 3 best fields? I stand by my comment it was harder not to qualify than not qualify from round 1.

4th. BBF and European Championships. Team GB have bounced between the A and B group many times. 2007 was a great performance when we finished 2nd but if we are honest how strong is baseball really in Europe? I read that Germany are putting in more seats for this years event. Am I missing something?

Moving forward baseball is sadly a very small minority sport in this country. The facilities really do not exist. Basketball 2 hoops hooked onto a pole. Small cost. What does it cost to build a proper baseball field? Until we have 5 or 6 of these in this country baseball is never going to get any better. Will the BBF be able to get any money for this? I really doubt it and that is the problem.

Team GB. I believe this should be run as a seperate company as such and they raise funds and control all budgets. It has been well documented that very few players come from the BBF league. Whilst this is not ideal I believe with no Olympic funding baseball can not achieve in this country.

Interesting times.

Reply
Owen February 17, 2010 - 6:20 pm

George,

Your comment

“No child sets their ultimate goal of playing for their national team (even in Cuba), they all dream of playing in the big leagues and make huge salaries.”

Your comment is not correct about Cuban children. Whilst yes some do leave for money, many playing for Cuba is the ultimate goal. If that was the case then players like Omar Linares, Pedro Lazo, Orestes Kindelan, Loudres and Yulieski Gourriel would have long left Cuba. For them playing for Cuba meant more than the millions these players would have earnt.

Reply
Chris February 17, 2010 - 7:57 pm

Most countries in Europe would be happy giving a MAXIMUM of 25% players that are NOT based in their respective countries a spot on the national team, as to not hurt the homegrown talent chances of being on a national team.

Having a national team with only six players from the UK on the national team, at the same time as the national league is among the worst in Europe, at the same time as virtually NO teams are participating in the European Cups, and at the same time as there are bigger needs for development within the country would seem like a huge waste of money to me.

And to hang up the whole idea on the very remote possibility of maybe, maybe, having a US-based World Baseball Classic team named GB… that is unserious…

I think that BSUK and the BBF have a few very interesting projects and have their priorities right. First a good base, good fields in which you can build a good national league experience, with well-maintained clubs who all have a youth program.

Then you have something that has a chance of long-term success, rather than pouring over thousands and thousands of pounds on a national team in which only SIX players from the UK can participate in.

Greece. GB. Who’s next?

Reply
John Clark February 17, 2010 - 11:04 pm

Have a look at the strongest nations in Europe and they also have the strongest leagues by a long way. If you cannot be one of the top teams or leagues in Europe then you had might as well forget the WBC.

There has to be something more to all these resignations happening lately then just money and personnel. Remember this is an amateur sport right now so some money from players has to be expected while the funds are not totally available. In my view there are better people for the coaching job or GM role then these guys. Appoint a coaching staff from within Great Britain someone who understands the system and send young players to the Euro Champs and next time around they’ll be more then ready.

If you want Britain based players then you have to develop them and coach them from within first. Also develop the fields we already have in the National League. It makes no sense to build new fields with a limited number of people using it. Herts is a great model as to how baseball facilities should be done and improvement is still needed there. London, Herts, Bracknell and now Horsham is where the kids are coming from and they should be given the best chance to improve.

Majority of the fields don’t even have a dugout, permanent outfield fences or adequate backstop and batting cages are few and far between. Have 1 or 2 fields with lights to play night games in the future and you can open up a whole new market. Make the fields good to look at and attract players while giving those who want to develop there game further the best chance they can.

Reply
Matt Smith February 18, 2010 - 8:42 am

Thanks again for your comments.

John, I agree with most of what you say, although I would point out that Alan Smith has been involved in the British game since 1979. He can provide the ‘British’ experience while Stephan Rapaglia can play a very important role of bringing a slight outsider’s perspective to it.

I’m completely behind the idea of developing better facilities and improving the standard of play in the British leagues, but it comes back to my point of why can’t we do that alongside funding a competitive national team as well?

There were 5 teams in the top tier of British baseball last year, one of those struggled to field a team in some games and obviously a number of the players that play in the NBL would not qualify for GB anyway. So currently there’s a very small talent pool of GB adult players at the highest domestic standard. We need to build that up and clubs are working hard to do that (better facilities would definitely help, not least as Mark mentioned with the idea of places where people could come and watch), but it’s going to take years to really get anywhere. Unquestionably that should be our aim and we need to do all we can to make it happen, but in the interim, for the money it costs, I think taking TeamGB forward in the current way makes sense because it keeps the country on the international map and gives opportunities to some Britain-based players that otherwise would simply not exist.

The GB proposal is looking for less than £5,000 from the BBF, so it’s not as though facilities and playing standards are compromised by that expenditure because, in terms of really making a difference, it would barely begin to make a dent in them.

Reply
Great Britain Head Coach and General Manager announce their resignations – Great Britain Baseball February 19, 2010 - 11:59 am

[…] and the future of the national baseball team is being discussed over on Matt Smith’s BaseballGB blog. Both men have served in their posts for six baseball seasons, 2004-2009 inclusive. Alan Smith […]

Reply
Tim February 19, 2010 - 3:12 pm

I’m of the opinion that British baseball needs to have an outward-facing strategy if it wishes ultimately to build a widely-accepted presence on the UK scene along the lines of a semi-professional (or, eventually, professional) league; notions which have at times been mentioned by the BBF Board over the years. This strategy would need to sit alongside the internal development one it currently has which focuses on increasing participation to grow the size of the sport, developing the calibre of coaches and players, creating player pathways and – to some extent – facility development.

I assume there is a very low limit to how much interest sponsors, advertisers and national media will ever take in baseball while it remains purely a participation sport seemingly played in the corners of parks or playing fields and with little interest from anyone other than the teams themselves. Start attracting enough numbers of spectators and maybe even ‘fans’ of clubs who care about, and want to follow, what teams and players are up to and suddenly there’s a lot more incentive for the press, advertisers and sponsors to get involved.

But in order to build fan, media and commercial interest you need to add a sense of ‘event’, spectacle and professionalism to baseball in this country to help promote it. Perhaps hardest of all, you would need to work out how to get the general public to embrace a sport they have very little experience of (or are even cynical about and see as a foreign sport) at a time when the country has had over a century to decide which professional/spectator sports it cares about and will devote time to.

If you believe in an outward-facing strategy then you might believe that a successful GB national team can be part of that promotion if it continues to emulate what it has achieved in recent years, even if it requires a substantial number of overseas-based players right now. The long-term, perhaps utopian view, would be that this lays the groundwork so that British-based players strive to meet the level of skill required to join the national team (rather than the other way around) and that a by-product of this is that their club and the league benefits from this increase in quality. Once deemed to have met that standard, they will join a team which has improved media and public attention (so their achievement in representing their country will be better recognised), a team that can attract funding and which gives its players the opportunity to play in the European A-Pool and the World Cup.

If this is this is to work, the ‘marketing’ of the GB team’s successes needs to improve (whether that’s led by GB management or by a BBF committee) in order to break through the national media’s general averseness to mentioning British baseball. Also, the domestic baseball community needs to start seeing evidence of the claimed rewards of GB’s success and to be able to feel closer ties with the squad which is representing the country. And, of course, the BBF and BSUK needs to lay the groundwork for improved quality in the domestic league.

As George Harrison once sang: “It’s gonna take time, a whole lot of precious time; it’s gonna take patience and time, ummm”.

However, it might be that this is all just pie in the sky and that a long-term vision is of no comfort to current players who feel they are missing out on an opportunity to play for Great Britain, at whatever level the team plays at. Perhaps the BBF Board and the baseball community simply wants to focus on the participation side and the here-and-now – that it’s about people in this country who want to play being able do that.

Reply
Ray Brownlie February 20, 2010 - 6:37 pm

This was posted on Mister Baseball Today

This is Stephan and Alan playing the game where they have actually presented three versions of their resignation to the BBF Board who by the way actually have provided more funds than they requested. Mr. Smith and Stephan have asked the BBF Board to provide funding for the next four years @ £30,000.00 per year. They have no clue but expect a Membership to accept this proposal?
It should be also mentioned that Liam Carroll before his resignation as National Teams Officer on the BBF Board actually voted in favour not to fund this request
The BBF Membership was hoodwinked into paying Repaglia’s contract as a service provider which was only found out last Feb. This contract was illegal because the BBF President Rob Rance and the BBF Secretary withheld this information from the rest of the BBF Board and it was presented to the Members as GB Funding which they agreed to help fund. If the BBF Member had of been asked to pay the Rapaglia contract , most likely the BBF Members would have rejected all Funding for a team that does nothing for the BBF Membership.
It is no surprise the BBF Board has had a rash of resignation’s of late and the Membership will have many questions for those people who quit only because they were found out.
Alan Smith and Stephan Rapaglia are hungry to feed their egos at the expense of the British Baseball Federation Members. The BBF does not benefit from this program and young players are leaving the game in numbers because they will not have any chances to play senior baseball for Great Britain, so why should the Members fund their dream? Who really cares about the WBC other than Alan Smith and Stephan Rapaglia because it will not improve the program?
Decide for yourself
Dear BBF Board Members,
Alan and I are writing this letter to follow up on our 24 January letter to the Board (a copy of which is pasted below for reference). We have not yet received a formal response from the Board, and it is our understanding from communications with individual members of the Board that a formal response may be difficult for the Board to timely generate as a result of (i) the fact that the Board is currently short-handed, (ii) the Board’s current focus on preparing for the impending AGM and (iii) differences of opinion within the Board regarding the future of the GB programme. Given these issues, Alan and I wish to make it easier for the Board to provide a quick response. Accordingly, at this time, we request that the Board simply adopt or reject the following statement of intent:
“While the BBF Board does not currently have sufficient funding available to commit significant monies toward the GB Senior team’s 2010 EC budget, the Board recognises that the continuing ability of the GB Senior team to compete at the highest levels of European and world baseball is of great importance to the development of domestic baseball within Britain. Accordingly, the Board is committed to supporting the GB Senior team’s efforts to compete at the highest levels of European and world baseball. More specifically, at this time, the Board is willing to agree to the following measures:
1. By eliminating the GB Senior team head coach’s salary, the Board will save £5,000 in 2010 alone. Of this savings, not less than £3000 shall be committed to the GB Senior team’s 2010 EC budget. Additionally, the £500 that Stephan Rapaglia previously allocated to the funding of scholarships for GB youth baseball players shall instead be allocated to the EC budget.
2. In the absence of sufficient external funding, Senior players will inevitably be required to contribute towards the cost of their participation in the 2010 EC. Such contributions shall, however, be limited strictly to the maximum necessary to cover the costs specific to those trips and shall not be used to fund any other elements within the GB programme or within the Board’s budget.
3. Subject to the commission concept set forth in item 4 below, any sponsorship/funding monies obtained from any sources in 2010 for the GB Senior team shall be used to reduce the required player contributions to the EC budget, until such player contributions have been reduced to no more than £250 per player.
4. Senior players and staff shall be allowed to earn commissions on any monies they secure through their own fundraising initiatives. The commission amounts shall be subject to a sliding scale dependent on the amounts raised. For example, a player or staff member may earn a commission of 25% on the first £1,000 that he raises, and 10% on any monies raised in excess of £1,000. More details will follow.
5. Once the Board has approved the 2010 EC budget, the Senior team staff shall be allowed the flexibility to make preparation and tournament plans without further Board approval, as long as the Board-approved 2010 EC budget is not exceeded.
6. The Board gives the Senior team GM discretion to manage GB Senior team assets, including, for 2010 EC budget purposes, the option to sell such assets as he/she deems appropriate.
7. The Board gives the Senior team head coach discretion to appoint his/her coaching staff for the 2010 EC.
8. The Board gives the Senior team head coach discretion to determine the roster for the 2010 EC, but the Board recommends that not less than 25% of the roster consist of Britain-based players.
9. The Board agrees that if the Senior team GM or any member of the Senior team coaching staff were to be dismissed by the Board prior to the end of the 2010 EC, a severance payment of £500 shall be provided to such dismissed individual.
10. The Board shall provide active assistance to the Senior team prior to the 2010 EC. Such assistance shall include, but not be limited to, the submission of subscription forms by the required deadlines, and active assistance in seeking sponsorship and/or external funding.”
To make it clear that Alan and I are proposing the foregoing solely for what we perceive to be the good of the GB programme, and also to provide the incoming Board with a clean slate in terms of Senior team staffing, Alan and I hereby resign from our respective positions as of 28 February, 2010.
If, however, the incoming Board wishes for either or both of us to remain involved with the GB programme after 28 February, each of us may be willing to (i) serve as a volunteer consultant/assistant to our successor in 2010, (ii) return to our position in 2011 and/or (iii) serve the GB programme in some other mutually acceptable role. Our willingness to do so is conditioned on the Board’s adoption of the statement above and on our approval of the Board-designated successors, interim or otherwise, to our respective positons.
In terms of the next Senior team head coach, regardless of whether the Board is interested in keeping us involved with the GB programme, we strongly recommend that the Board select solely from among the baseball-specific assistant coaches on the 2009 BWC staff (i.e., Brant Ust, Charlie Sullivan and Brian Cleary). Each of these men is extremely well-qualified for the position, and, given the excellent relationship that each enjoys with the players within the GB programme, each will have a better chance of preserving a strong roster for the 2010 EC than virtually any other candidate. Additionally, Brant, Charlie and Brian are all first-class individuals who will bring credit to the programme. If the Board wishes us to recruit any of these individuals as the next head coach of the GB Senior team, it would be our pleasure and privilege to attempt to do so.
Finally, Alan and I wish the outgoing and incoming BBF Boards much success in all endeavours relating to British baseball, and we each hope to have the opportunity to continue to serve the GB programme in the future.
Sincerely,
Stephan Rapaglia
Alan Smith
Dear Liam,
Thank you for the emails you sent to us individually. Since we have always worked closely together, and continue to share the same values and aspirations for the GB baseball programme and specifically for the GB senior team, we have decided to respond jointly to all items with the exception of the specifics of the reduced budget, which Alan has addressed separately.
First, we would like to thank the BBF for having appointed us to be part of the GB programme. We were honoured to have been given the opportunity to lead the senior team for the past six years and we are proud of the team’s achievements during that period. We also appreciate the board’s recognition of our service, but we are dismayed to note the board’s vision for the future of the programme.
We are particularly concerned about the board’s apparent willingness to give up on high-level international competition at the senior level. We understand that the board’s view is that there is simply no funding available, and that the board’s position merely reflects this reality. Our view, however, is that while such a position may seem practical, we consider it to be short-sighted and believe that other options should be explored.
One important reason for this belief is that the GB senior team stands a realistic chance of being selected to take part in the World Baseball Classic when it expands from 16 to 24 teams in 2013. Such selection would bring unprecedented exposure to British baseball and provide greatly increased opportunities for funding and/or sponsorship to the entire programme. And, if GB takes part in the WBC, all the costs will be supported by Major League Baseball, so this will be a win-win situation for the BBF and the sport in Britain. However, this will only happen if the team can remain sufficiently competitive through the European Championships this year to qualify for the next IBAF World Cup and retain or improve on its current world ranking of 21.
In part because of this very real possibility, we believe that the board should be willing to do whatever it takes to help the senior team continue to compete, at least for the immediate future, at the highest international levels. And, it is worth noting that we are not talking about huge sums. Many of our European competitor nations have much greater budgets, but based on our years of experience we believe that somewhere around £30,000 per annum would be sufficient for the senior team to sustain its momentum. After all, we have suffered from ever-declining funding over the last several years, but we have managed to move steadily forward nevertheless. The bottom line is that with modest financial support, the programme can (a) continue to compete successfully within Europe, (b) continue to earn international recognition including, potentially, a place in the next WBC, and (c) serve thereby to bring greater visibility and attention to the sport within Britain.
It is unfortunate that prior opportunities to take advantage of the senior team’s international standing to bring greater domestic visibility and attention to the sport and secure the funding necessary to sustain the programme have not been taken. However, such an opportunity still exists. GB’s recent advancement to the second round of the World Cup, its status as defending silver medallist in the 2010 EC, its current world ranking of 21, and above all the chance of securing a WBC place mean GB continues to enjoy a high profile that can still be exploited. We urge the board to seize this opportunity.
If, however, the board decides to maintain its current stance, we find it hard to see how this will result in any benefit to the GB programme or to the domestic game. Given this, we very much hope that the board will agree to try to find a way to provide the support mentioned above or some other way to allow the programme to go forward on a competitive basis. In light of the above, we urge the board to consider adopting the majority of the following proposals:
FINANCIAL
BBF funding: By eliminating the head coach salary, the board will save £5K in 2010 alone, some of which savings should be used to support the programme. The board has already suggested that it may fund one or two flights for the head coach, and the board should commit to funding these flights. Additionally, the £500 that Stephan previously allocated to the funding of scholarships could instead be allocated to the senior team budget for 2010. The goal behind these suggestions is to increase the possibility that a pre-EC preparation period could occur and/or that required player contribution amounts could be decreased. Furthermore, in recognition of its previously stated view that providing increased opportunities for GB youth is one of the justifications for altering the direction of the senior team, the board should also allocate a portion of that saving specifically to the junior team budget for 2010.
External funding: The first portion of any corporate or governmental sponsorship/funding should be used exclusively to reduce the required player contributions rather than be used to carry a surplus. Furthermore, any such funding in excess of the sum necessary to eliminate player contributions in any given year should be used to help provide some remuneration to the head coach and GM.
Player contributions: In the absence of sufficient external funding, senior players will inevitably be required to contribute towards the cost of their attendance at GB events. Such contributions should, however, be limited strictly to the maximum necessary to cover the costs specific to those trips and should not be used to fund any other elements within the programme or within the board’s budget.
Member fundraising: Senior players, staff and possibly ex-players should be allowed to earn commissions on any monies they secure through individual fundraising initiatives. The amounts they retain would be subject to an agreed sliding scale dependent on the amounts raised.
MANAGEMENT
Financial management: Once the board has approved the annual budget the senior team staff should be allowed the flexibility to make preparation and tournament plans without further board approval, as long as the board-approved draft budget is not exceeded.
Asset management: The board should allow the GM discretion to manage GB senior team assets including, for budget purposes, the option to sell such assets as he/she deems appropriate.
Coaching staff: The board should allow the senior team head coach discretion to appoint his/her coaching staff on an annual basis. In addition, the senior team GM and head coach should have some advisory input regarding the appointment of staff at youth levels in the national programme.
Rosters: The board should allow the senior team head coach discretion to determine the rosters for senior team events, and should not mandate player eligibility requirements for formal international events at the senior level, other than as dictated by event rules. N.B. The board, the senior team head coach and the senior team GM should work together to establish appropriate development-oriented guidelines for rosters for specific events.
Severance payments: The fact that the entire GB programme staff will henceforth serve on a volunteer basis means that the staff members will be at greater risk of arbitrary dismissal by the board. To provide some security against arbitrary dismissal, if any members of the programme staff were to be dismissed by the board prior to the end of any formal international event scheduled for any given year, limited severance payments (e.g., £500) and reimbursement of any previously-incurred expenses should be provided.
BBF support: The board should provide active assistance in seeking specific forms of support to the programme. This should include, but not be limited to, the submission of subscription forms and entry fees for international events by the required deadlines, and active assistance in seeking sponsorship and/or external funding. To streamline the process, and to reduce the workload of the NTO and the GB staff, the board should consider the formation of sub-committees (with delegated decision-making authority) to assist with such matters.
Ultimately, regardless of our continuing involvement with the GB programme, we strongly urge the board to reconsider its position. Either the board can make the tough choice and commit to supporting the programme at a competitive level and using it to benefit the domestic game, or the board can continue on its stated course, which is likely to seriously compromise the progress made to date and significantly lower the programme’s standing – and that of the BBF – in international baseball.
We look forward to receiving the board’s response so we can make an informed decision about whether or not we feel able to continue in our current positions.
Alan Smith and Stephan Rapaglia
Dear Alan,
During the BBF Board’s conference call of December 19, 2009, the Board recognised your contribution to the National Teams Programme and successes during international competition. The Board would prefer to retain your services as General Manager (GM) of the national team should you be willing to continue in the role as a volunteer with your expenses paid.
The Board recognises that your involvement with Great Britain Baseball has been based on a commitment to compete at the highest levels of international competition. It should be made clear that the ability of the programme to compete at such high levels as in recent years may be sacrificed in order that the BBF have no financial risks associated with the operation of the senior national team in 2010.
The Board has decided that due to financial restrictions it cannot support the budget you provided for 2010. Although a new budget has not as yet been finalised, unless external funding is found, player contributions of approximately £1,000 each have been tentatively agreed as the sole finances, meaning that the budget should equal approximately £24,000.
The Board, while wanting to send a strong team to the European Championships, recognises that the player contribution amount may limit the calibre of the team that can be assembled.
While the Board understands that preparation event(s) will increase the team’s chances of success at the European Championships, there is no confidence that a commitment can be made to the preparation event in Belgium considering the current financial status of the programme.
Considering the BBF’s decision to limit the budget as noted above, and that this will affect the operations of the programme, the Board requests that you confirm whether or not you are willing to continue in the role of GM.
If you have any questions about the information contained herein or separate, please let me know.
On behalf of the BBF Board,
Liam Carroll
National Teams Programme Official
British Baseball Federation
Dear Stephan,
During the BBF Board’s conference call of December 19, 2009, the Board determined that it will be unable to fulfil the contracted payment of £6,500 (of which £5k is from the BBF and £1.5K from the National Team.)
Therefore, the Board is seeking either termination or renegotiation of the contract. Recognising your contribution to the National Teams Programme and successes during international competition, the Board would prefer to retain your services as head coach of the national team should you be willing to stay in the role as a volunteer with some expenses paid – the Board has agreed to provide airfare for one or two trips, depending on finance, for the European Championships and possibly a preparatory event.
The Board recognises that your involvement with Great Britain Baseball has been based on a commitment to compete at the highest levels of international competition. It should be made clear that the ability of the programme to compete at such high levels as in recent years may be sacrificed in order that the BBF have no financial risks associated with the operation of the senior national team in 2010.
The Board has decided that due to financial restrictions it cannot support the budget Alan Smith provided for 2010. Although a new budget has not as yet been finalised, unless external funding is found, player contributions of approximately £1,000 each have been tentatively agreed as the sole finances, meaning that the budget should equal approximately £24,000.
The Board, while wanting to send a strong team to the European Championships, recognises that the player contribution amount may limit the calibre of the team that can be assembled.
While the Board understands that preparation event(s) will increase the team’s chances of success at the European Championships, there is no confidence that a commitment can be made to the preparation event in Belgium considering the current financial status of the programme.
Considering the BBF’s decision not to finance a paid head coach position in 2010, and the additional information that will affect the operations of the programme, the Board requests that you confirm whether you will renegotiate the contract, or if moves toward terminating the contract need to be made.
If you have any questions about the information contained herein or separate, please let me know.
On behalf of the BBF Board,
Liam Carroll
National Teams Programme Official
British Baseball Federation

Reply
Matt Smith February 21, 2010 - 4:38 pm

“Mr. Smith and Stephan have asked the BBF Board to provide funding for the next four years @ £30,000.00 per year. They have no clue but expect a Membership to accept this proposal?”

As stated in my article, and actually made clear in the correspondence copied above, Smith and Rapaglia are seeking less than £5,000 of funding from the BBF, of which £500 is money that Rapaglia was already pledging to put back into the system.

The budget of four years @ £30,000 is an approximation of the total budget needed. Again as is made clear in the correspondence, the majority of this will be made up of player contributions and sponsorship, not money from the BBF.

Reply
Ray Brownlie February 21, 2010 - 7:59 pm

They have sent three versions to the BBF so maybe this will help.
You will see they are asking for 30k from the BBF Membeship and BBF Board.

Thank you for the emails you sent to us individually. Since we have always worked closely together, and continue to share the same values and aspirations for the GB baseball programme and specifically for the GB senior team, we have decided to respond jointly to all items with the exception of the specifics of the reduced budget, which Alan has addressed separately.
First, we would like to thank the BBF for having appointed us to be part of the GB programme. We were honoured to have been given the opportunity to lead the senior team for the past six years and we are proud of the team’s achievements during that period. We also appreciate the board’s recognition of our service, but we are dismayed to note the board’s vision for the future of the programme.
We are particularly concerned about the board’s apparent willingness to give up on high-level international competition at the senior level. We understand that the board’s view is that there is simply no funding available, and that the board’s position merely reflects this reality. Our view, however, is that while such a position may seem practical, we consider it to be short-sighted and believe that other options should be explored.
One important reason for this belief is that the GB senior team stands a realistic chance of being selected to take part in the World Baseball Classic when it expands from 16 to 24 teams in 2013. Such selection would bring unprecedented exposure to British baseball and provide greatly increased opportunities for funding and/or sponsorship to the entire programme. And, if GB takes part in the WBC, all the costs will be supported by Major League Baseball, so this will be a win-win situation for the BBF and the sport in Britain. However, this will only happen if the team can remain sufficiently competitive through the European Championships this year to qualify for the next IBAF World Cup and retain or improve on its current world ranking of 21.
In part because of this very real possibility, we believe that the board should be willing to do whatever it takes to help the senior team continue to compete, at least for the immediate future, at the highest international levels. And, it is worth noting that we are not talking about huge sums. Many of our European competitor nations have much greater budgets, but based on our years of experience we believe that somewhere around £30,000 per annum would be sufficient for the senior team to sustain its momentum. After all, we have suffered from ever-declining funding over the last several years, but we have managed to move steadily forward nevertheless. The bottom line is that with modest financial support, the programme can (a) continue to compete successfully within Europe, (b) continue to earn international recognition including, potentially, a place in the next WBC, and (c) serve thereby to bring greater visibility and attention to the sport within Britain.
It is unfortunate that prior opportunities to take advantage of the senior team’s international standing to bring greater domestic visibility and attention to the sport and secure the funding necessary to sustain the programme have not been taken. However, such an opportunity still exists. GB’s recent advancement to the second round of the World Cup, its status as defending silver medallist in the 2010 EC, its current world ranking of 21, and above all the chance of securing a WBC place mean GB continues to enjoy a high profile that can still be exploited. We urge the board to seize this opportunity.
If, however, the board decides to maintain its current stance, we find it hard to see how this will result in any benefit to the GB programme or to the domestic game. Given this, we very much hope that the board will agree to try to find a way to provide the support mentioned above or some other way to allow the programme to go forward on a competitive basis. In light of the above, we urge the board to consider adopting the majority of the following proposals:
FINANCIAL
BBF funding: By eliminating the head coach salary, the board will save £5K in 2010 alone, some of which savings should be used to support the programme. The board has already suggested that it may fund one or two flights for the head coach, and the board should commit to funding these flights. Additionally, the £500 that Stephan previously allocated to the funding of scholarships could instead be allocated to the senior team budget for 2010. The goal behind these suggestions is to increase the possibility that a pre-EC preparation period could occur and/or that required player contribution amounts could be decreased. Furthermore, in recognition of its previously stated view that providing increased opportunities for GB youth is one of the justifications for altering the direction of the senior team, the board should also allocate a portion of that saving specifically to the junior team budget for 2010.
External funding: The first portion of any corporate or governmental sponsorship/funding should be used exclusively to reduce the required player contributions rather than be used to carry a surplus. Furthermore, any such funding in excess of the sum necessary to eliminate player contributions in any given year should be used to help provide some remuneration to the head coach and GM.
Player contributions: In the absence of sufficient external funding, senior players will inevitably be required to contribute towards the cost of their attendance at GB events. Such contributions should, however, be limited strictly to the maximum necessary to cover the costs specific to those trips and should not be used to fund any other elements within the programme or within the board’s budget.
Member fundraising: Senior players, staff and possibly ex-players should be allowed to earn commissions on any monies they secure through individual fundraising initiatives. The amounts they retain would be subject to an agreed sliding scale dependent on the amounts raised.
MANAGEMENT
Financial management: Once the board has approved the annual budget the senior team staff should be allowed the flexibility to make preparation and tournament plans without further board approval, as long as the board-approved draft budget is not exceeded.
Asset management: The board should allow the GM discretion to manage GB senior team assets including, for budget purposes, the option to sell such assets as he/she deems appropriate.
Coaching staff: The board should allow the senior team head coach discretion to appoint his/her coaching staff on an annual basis. In addition, the senior team GM and head coach should have some advisory input regarding the appointment of staff at youth levels in the national programme.
Rosters: The board should allow the senior team head coach discretion to determine the rosters for senior team events, and should not mandate player eligibility requirements for formal international events at the senior level, other than as dictated by event rules. N.B. The board, the senior team head coach and the senior team GM should work together to establish appropriate development-oriented guidelines for rosters for specific events.
Severance payments: The fact that the entire GB programme staff will henceforth serve on a volunteer basis means that the staff members will be at greater risk of arbitrary dismissal by the board. To provide some security against arbitrary dismissal, if any members of the programme staff were to be dismissed by the board prior to the end of any formal international event scheduled for any given year, limited severance payments (e.g., £500) and reimbursement of any previously-incurred expenses should be provided.
BBF support: The board should provide active assistance in seeking specific forms of support to the programme. This should include, but not be limited to, the submission of subscription forms and entry fees for international events by the required deadlines, and active assistance in seeking sponsorship and/or external funding. To streamline the process, and to reduce the workload of the NTO and the GB staff, the board should consider the formation of sub-committees (with delegated decision-making authority) to assist with such matters.
Ultimately, regardless of our continuing involvement with the GB programme, we strongly urge the board to reconsider its position. Either the board can make the tough choice and commit to supporting the programme at a competitive level and using it to benefit the domestic game, or the board can continue on its stated course, which is likely to seriously compromise the progress made to date and significantly lower the programme’s standing – and that of the BBF – in international baseball.
We look forward to receiving the board’s response so we can make an informed decision about whether or not we feel able to continue in our current positions.
Alan Smith and Stephan Rapaglia

Reply
Matt Smith February 21, 2010 - 9:56 pm

The text you have copied above is the initial joint response Smith and Rapaglia sent to the BBF board after separately receiving an e-mail from Liam Carroll on behalf of the BBF Board. It is included in the correspondence quoted in your previous comment. This was the general outline, in which they stated “we believe that somewhere around £30,000 per annum would be sufficient for the senior team to sustain its momentum”. As I explained in my comment, this was an approximation of the total budget needed. It irrefutably is NOT the funding being asked for from the BBF Board.

When the BBF Board did not send a formal response, Smith and Rapaglia sent a detailed ‘Statement of Intent’, which is the ten point proposal quoted in your earlier comment. The only direct BBF funding mentioned is what would have gone towards Rapaglia’s salary and the £500 that Rapaglia has donated back. The rest will be covered by external funding and player contributions.

Anyone in any doubt about this point should note that the BBF’s projected total income for 2010 is £27,278 (as stated in the AGM papers). This income needs to cover all expenditure, from admin to the National Baseball Championship costs to insurance.

Would Smith and Rapaglia have submitted a Team GB completely BBF-funded budget nearly £3k more than the total BBF income? Nope, and the facts show that this is not what they have done.

Reply
Darrin Muller February 22, 2010 - 10:11 pm

Matt,

I have pasted and copied Alan’s statement below, how can you say that he isn’t asking for £30k a year, nowhere does he state that he expects the BBF Board to only pay a portion of this. In fact he says the board should be willing to do what ever it takes to help the senior team continue to compete.

“we believe that the board should be willing to do whatever it takes to help the senior team continue to compete, at least for the immediate future, at the highest international levels. And, it is worth noting that we are not talking about huge sums. Many of our European competitor nations have much greater budgets, but based on our years of experience we believe that somewhere around £30,000 per annum would be sufficient for the senior team to sustain its momentum. After all, we have suffered from ever-declining funding over the last several years, but we have managed to move steadily forward nevertheless. The bottom line is that with modest financial support, the programme can (a) continue to compete successfully within Europe, (b) continue to earn international recognition including, potentially, a place in the next WBC, and (c) serve thereby to bring greater visibility and attention to the sport within Britain”

Regards,

Darrin Muller
BBF Board

Reply
Matt Smith February 25, 2010 - 7:08 am

I am stating it because these are the true facts.

The £30,000 reference is explained in my comments above. The statement that “the board should be willing to do whatever it takes” is clearly intended as a general commitment (hence the word ‘willing’) of support (in the wider sense, not strictly financial); no more, no less.

Readers should refer to the most recent article on this topic (https://baseballgb.co.uk/?p=6825) and the links referred to in the ‘Further Info’ section, in particular Smith and Rapaglia’s resignation statement in which they publicly and categorically state:

“Critics have argued that the Board should not prioritise the Senior Team because the membership’s monies can be better spent elsewhere. The truth, however, is that the type of Board support that we deem necessary has relatively little to do with the spending of membership monies. In fact, for 2010, the most the Board might spend on the Senior Team would be £3000-4000, all of which would go directly to the budget for the 2010 European Championships (and none of which wouldgo to salaries)”.

Reply
BaseballGB » Cobbette: New one September 1, 2010 - 9:49 pm

[…] its A-level results, and it involves someone who has posted a comment on BaseballGB. In comment #7 here, George Kurtzer refers to a game in which his “local BBF team lost by a measly 3-2 […]

Reply

Leave a Reply to Matt Smith Cancel Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.