Local Sports Agreement 2.0 - Sport strengthens Opsterland
Following the local sports agreement 1, a recalibration took place from which the local sports agreement 2.0 arose. The core team will work on the 6 ambitions and also residents' initiatives are welcome. Will you help to put sports even better on the Map in Opsterland?
Directly arrange
Do you have a good idea or plan for an action in which you want to emphasize the importance of sport and exercise? Then fill out the 'Application action Local Sports Agreement'.
Request
Directly arrange
Do you have an idea that contributes to one or more themes of the 'Local Sports Agreement 2.0'? Or do you have a concrete plan for your sports club in cooperation with other parties in the neighborhood? Then fill in the form 'Request action Local Sport Agreement' (under the heading 'Directly arrange'). We may be able to help you and/or provide you with financial support.
Requirements
Do you have a concrete plan that contributes to at least one of the themes of the 'Local Sports Agreement 2.0'? Then check the table below to see what the plan must meet.
Game Rules
| game rule | 1 minus point | no points | 1 point | 2 points | 3 points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | The plan does not align with the ambitions of the Local Sports Agreement. | The plan has limited alignment with the ambitions of the Local Sports Agreement. | The plan has sufficient alignment with the ambitions of the Local Sports Agreement. | The plan aligns well with the ambitions of the Local Sports Agreement. | The plan is very much in line with the ambitions of the Local Sports Agreement. |
| 2. | Objectives and deliverables are unclear or lacking. | There is limited insight into the goals and outcomes to be achieved. | The objectives and deliverables are adequately understood. | Objectives and deliverables are well understood. | The objectives and deliverables are very well understood. |
| 3. | The plan of action is vague and not very concrete. | The plan of action is moderately concrete. | The action plan is sufficiently concrete and includes activities and actions. | The plan of action is well concrete and detailed. | The action plan is very concrete and includes detailed activities and actions. |
| 4. | There is no mention of collaboration with other parties or organizations. | There is limited mention of collaboration. | There is sufficient ( 1 party) mention of cooperation with relevant party or organization. | There is good record (2 parties) of cooperation with various relevant parties or organizations. | There is excellent mention (3 or more parties) of collaboration with various relevant parties or organizations. |
| 5. | There is no clear description of the organization and implementation of the plan. | The description of organization and implementation is limited. | The description of the organization and implementation is sufficient. | The description of the organization and implementation is good. | The description of the organization and implementation is very good and comprehensive. |
| 6. | The plan is not scalable to other places or organizations. | The plan has limited scalability. | The plan is reasonably scalable to other places or organizations. | The plan scales well to other places or organizations. | The plan is highly scalable and can be easily expanded. |
| 7. | There is no plan for securing the activity afterwards. | The plan for assurance is limited. | The plan for assurance and knowledge dissemination is sufficient. | The plan for assurance and knowledge dissemination is good. | The plan for assurance and knowledge dissemination is excellent and very detailed. |
| 8. | There is no mention of co-financing and financial assurance. | Mention of co-financing and financial assurance is limited. | The mention of co-financing and financial assurance is sufficient. | The mention of co-financing and financial assurance is good. | The mention of co-financing and financial assurance is very good and detailed. |
Additional assessment criteria
A score of insufficient on any of the eight game rules will result in the rejection of an application.
An application must have a minimum total score of 10 points to be considered for funding. The co-financing from the sports agreement is no more than 50% and the max is around €500, exceptions notwithstanding.
Collaboration and connection
Many sports associations in Opsterland have already joined the 'Local Sports Agreement 2.0'. The Neighborhood Sport Coaches of team FRL fulfill the leadership role and provide connection. The core team consists of a wide range of parties representing all inhabitants of the municipality.
Contact details chairman core group
- Jeltse Mud, Sports and Prevention Coordinator/ Neighborhood Sports Coach
- jeltse@sportfryslan.nl
- Phone 06 - 51 93 49 16
'Local Sports Agreement 2.0' core team
| Name | Organization | Represent |
|---|---|---|
| Justin van Zutphen | Team FRL | Clubs/Associations |
| Leon de Vries | Team FRL | Lifestyle Coaches |
| Allard Donker | Sport Fryslân | Local sports |
| Jorrit Dreijer | Vv Wijnjewoude | The associations |
| Remco Winter | LDODK | Top Sports |
| Albert van Dijk | MA Sports | Commercial sports |
| Lotte Kors | GGD Fryslân | GGD |
| Daniel Elzinga | GGD Fryslân | JOGG |
| Willem Jongsma | VCSO | The elementary schools |
| Rob van Holst | Code Hans | Youth(work) |
| Heleen Turkstra | Children's Forest | Childcare |
| Jitske de Boer | Children's Forest | Childcare |
| Inez Overwijk | Sunenz | Elderly |
| Robert de Jong | Municipality of Opsterland | Municipality |
| Ronald de Vries | Municipality of Opsterland | Accommodations |
