In my previous post I let slip that my sad life has brought me to reading the Swimming New Zealand Annual Report while I wait for the arrival of midnight on New Year’s Eve. If you had the misfortune to be doing something else on New Year’s Eve, and missed Swimming New Zealand’s enthralling read, here is a look at some of their numbers.

It is probably worthwhile reminding ourselves of the reporting responsibility a Board has to its members. This is how Swimming New Zealand’s auditors explain that duty.

The Board of Directors are responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements and for such internal control as the Board of Directors determine is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

Now, that requirement is all to do with financial statements. But I would expect the same standard to apply to the non-financial content of an annual report. The report should be free from all “material misstatement”. I have already mentioned that, in my view, the claim that: “An astonishing 49 New Zealand swimming records were broken between July 2016 – June 2017, including six open records and forty three age group records” is a material misstatement. In fact, forty-nine records is the worst annual performance by New Zealand swimmers I was able to find – ever. It makes a mockery of a Facebook comment where New Zealand’s juniors are described as the best ever. Clearly a comment dangerously based on little knowledge and no research.

So what other gems did I find during my New Year’s Eve reading?

Well, if it was me, I’d be very worried about the drop in Swimming New Zealand’s income. The table below shows nine income streams where Swimming New Zealand has dropped income. There are only two or three items where income has gone up and they are the result of price increases, not added sales activity.

That table is serious stuff. Because the sport can’t win a swimming race, social welfare payments from the government are down by 16%. That is serious primarily because the sport is now fully dependent on government goodwill for its survival. It’s what Miskimmin wanted and it’s what he’s got; a suckling calf that can’t survive without its mother’s milk. Except, winter is coming and the milk is drying up. Cotterill and Johns must be on their knees praying for a new arrival in Brisbane.

The 2012 Moller Report recommended that Swimming New Zealand get rid of the education activity. But Swimming New Zealand decided to hold on to education. I have always believed that the decision to defy Moller was because education made some money, but primarily it allowed Swimming New Zealand to hit-up Water Safety New Zealand for a hefty annual grant. In 2017 the grant was $159,100. However of more concern is that the activity itself might be running into problems. The cost of providing the swimming education service went up by $20,000 and income fell by $115,000. That’s all wrong. Perhaps Swimming New Zealand should have sold the business when it was a financial asset.

I have no idea why membership fees have gone down. Swimming New Zealand’s decision to increase the cost of membership should have seen income go up. It must mean that the numbers of swimmers, or officials or non-swimming members are going down. The only obvious drop is the number of club swimmers. They have fallen from 6900 to 6100.

Grants from charities look like they have held up well from last year. That’s not true. Two huge grants from Auckland City, to fund a master’s competition, disguise a savage cut in funding from 21 of the 25 charities that supported Swimming New Zealand in 2016. Cotterill calls this a challenge. I sure agree with that.

Swimming New Zealand spent $83,000 more on putting on events. By putting up the entry charges they were rewarded by a $96,000 increase in income. They had a captive market of family and friends and they made hay while the sun shone. However there appears to be a huge discrepancy between the cost of putting on the meets and the income from entry fees. The numbers seem to say that in 2017 meets cost $709,000 and entry fee income was $427,000. If that is true Swimming New Zealand is the first organisation I have ever seen that can put on a swim meet and lose money. In the USA, swim meets are a club’s principle source of income.

And finally, the cost of Governance, I assume that’s air fares and lunch for the Board, has gone down by $500 (2%) from $23,258 last year to $22,746. Well done. Don’t spend the savings all in the one shop. Oh, sorry, you already have.