'New' Groups

Anything relating to the clubs associated with Cycling UK
byegad
Posts: 3232
Joined: 3 Sep 2007, 9:44am

Postby byegad » 28 Mar 2008, 9:02am

glueman wrote:Cycle Magazine, April-May '08 ; Page 43, Ordinary Resolutions - point 10.
Any comments, especially on council's response to the proposal?


Nothing surprising there. I feel CTC HQ seem to have lost the way on this one. The basic DA structure was fine for 1908 and 1958 but has been creaking more and more as people have started to drive to a ride start. We can discuss the ecological implications if you like but the fact is that a lot of people do drive a fair distance for a ride. They have had a 'good idea' i.e. Members Groups, but then seem to have restricted the idea with the same local focus of the old DAs.

On communicatuions I feel newsnet is not the way to go. What's wrong with a MG section of the forum dedicated to ride announcements. Threads would be headed Recumbent Trikers rides July-September 2008, October-December 2008, etc.

I've asked on CTC forum and other fora I frequent for an expression of interest. So far there has been a few respondees.

glueman
Posts: 4354
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 1:22pm

Postby glueman » 28 Mar 2008, 10:13am

byegad wrote: They have had a 'good idea' i.e. Members Groups, but then seem to have restricted the idea with the same local focus of the old DAs.


I've pretty much given up on this one. The idea would work if say, three or more people could get together to announce 'we are the x CTC group' and invite anyone with a interest to join through the magazine or website. It would more truly represent divergent cycling interests and provide the CTC with a thriving, disparate grass roots network.
What's happened is the club are pretending traditional DAs can service the interests of all cyclists which is patently untrue or it would have already happened.

If even promoting Member Groups is seen as controversial, a burgeoning bottom up network of specialist clubs is out of the question.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15183
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Postby Si » 28 Mar 2008, 10:17am

The concil's response did mske me wonder what their probem was. It's unfortunate that they did not respond to each point raised by Simon on an individual basis so that we could see exactly what they were against.

My personal feeling is that it might be to do with the money request and with the regionalisation of NewsNet.

Their lack of specifics does go to fuel the disquite felt by those that have maintained that HO are trying to distance the DAs (Member Groups) from the rest of the club. Something that goes back to when the DA news was removed from the mag I believe.

byegad
Posts: 3232
Joined: 3 Sep 2007, 9:44am

Postby byegad » 28 Mar 2008, 10:29am

Si wrote:The concil's response did mske me wonder what their probem was. It's unfortunate that they did not respond to each point raised by Simon on an individual basis so that we could see exactly what they were against.

My personal feeling is that it might be to do with the money request and with the regionalisation of NewsNet.

Their lack of specifics does go to fuel the disquite felt by those that have maintained that HO are trying to distance the DAs (Member Groups) from the rest of the club. Something that goes back to when the DA news was removed from the mag I believe.


I think you may be right in that a request for money disquiets most bureaucracies.
My plan for a NATIONAL Members Group for Recumbent Trikers would require no money.
Communication would be via the forum and emails. Alex Geen has contacted me to offer help, but the official requirement to hold a LOCAL meeting is a symptom of the narrow idea of MG=DA thinking. Alex has agreed we could meet at York Rally so things seem to be moving, but I'm beginning to think that the subsequent need for AGMs will force us to request funds so an idea for a loose group slowly sets into a much more formal entity. I'm a member of BHPC who are thinking of affiliating to CTC this year and maybe this is an easier solution to the problem of communication and organisation. They already organise the odd Social ride so an expansion of these is an alternative.

glueman
Posts: 4354
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 1:22pm

Postby glueman » 28 Mar 2008, 10:30am

Si wrote:My personal feeling is that it might be to do with the money request and with the regionalisation of NewsNet.

That was the only unnecessary part of Simon's proposal IMO. Anyone wanting to set up a new group, which would most likely be modest in ambition and size at first, would be unlikely to begrudge a few postage stamps and phone calls to get the thing moving. OTOH it gave head office all the ammo to sit on its hands and do now't.

The demise of DA news as an intrinsic part of the CTC magazine was a pointer to future attitudes, I agree Si.

User avatar
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

Postby Simon L6 » 28 Mar 2008, 3:55pm

glueman wrote:Cycle Magazine, April-May '08 ; Page 43, Ordinary Resolutions - point 10.
Any comments, especially on council's response to the proposal?


:oops:

by money we're not talking vast sums - but a few quid for the hire of a room over a pub, or for business cards to put in local bike shops, for a modest website, or for printing letters to be put up in doctor's surgeries, or colleges, or, again, bike shops, would be a good thing.

You've got to bear something in mind. The CTC's membership encompasses people on six figure incomes and penniless students. Very often DAs gain a hidden subsidy from officials simply not putting in expenses claims. For some new groups this might not be an option.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15183
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Postby Si » 28 Mar 2008, 4:23pm

glueman wrote:The demise of DA news as an intrinsic part of the CTC magazine was a pointer to future attitudes, I agree Si.


Could I just point out that I was relaying what I've heard from others re the DAs, not necessarily expressing my own opinion there 8)

--

Anyhow, that reply to Simon's motion have prompted me to fetch the proxy form out of the recycling and try to work out how to use it.

glueman
Posts: 4354
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 1:22pm

Postby glueman » 28 Mar 2008, 4:37pm

Simon L6 wrote:by money we're not talking vast sums - but a few quid for the hire of a room over a pub, or for business cards to put in local bike shops, for a modest website, or for printing letters to be put up in doctor's surgeries, or colleges, or, again, bike shops, would be a good thing.


Absolutely correct. My views are clouded by time served at the power point face of the guru racket. Ask for money up front and it'll never happen, insist on your share of a programme already running and it's harder for the powers that be to refuse.

User avatar
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

Postby Simon L6 » 28 Mar 2008, 5:59pm

glueman wrote:
Simon L6 wrote:by money we're not talking vast sums - but a few quid for the hire of a room over a pub, or for business cards to put in local bike shops, for a modest website, or for printing letters to be put up in doctor's surgeries, or colleges, or, again, bike shops, would be a good thing.


Absolutely correct. My views are clouded by time served at the power point face of the guru racket. Ask for money up front and it'll never happen, insist on your share of a programme already running and it's harder for the powers that be to refuse.


the purpose of the AGM is to decide what's what.

glueman
Posts: 4354
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 1:22pm

Postby glueman » 29 Mar 2008, 8:35am

Let's hope opinions from the hoi polloi still have a place. It may be water dripping on a rock but given a few thousand years who knows what could happen? :wink:

atoz
Posts: 426
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 4:50pm

Postby atoz » 29 Mar 2008, 12:17pm

I hope that the changes will encourage more people to become involved with us.

I'm concerned that we get new people to join us. Too many of the people I ride with are no younger than me- I'm in my 40s. If the groups thing encourages more people, well and good. If not, then people need a good hard think.

That's my opinion, for what it's worth..

Andrew Mills
Posts: 52
Joined: 25 Jan 2007, 6:26pm

Postby Andrew Mills » 1 Apr 2008, 12:52pm

The new groups policy is agood idea but hows it going to work?

Take for instance the National Trike Recumbents GFroup idea

CTC sent the old DAs a list of all members in their area by post code. This could be used to contact members covered by the DA and also to claim the subscription allocation at the start of the year.

To start and run a Membergroup you need an elected Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Registration Officer and Welfare Officer and to have an AGM.

I'm not against the group I just don't see how to make it work.
I have a Recumbent (2wheels) and ride and organise rides for Recumbents However many wheel just not as CTC rides

glueman
Posts: 4354
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 1:22pm

Postby glueman » 1 Apr 2008, 1:42pm

Andrew Mills wrote:
To start and run a Membergroup you need an elected Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Registration Officer and Welfare Officer and to have an AGM.


Completely barmy, imho. All any group needs is an organiser and an assistant.

thirdcrank
Posts: 30812
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Postby thirdcrank » 1 Apr 2008, 1:49pm

glueman wrote:Completely barmy, imho. All any group needs is an organiser and an assistant.


My first thoughts were 'This isn't the sort of thing you should take lying down. Then I thought..... :wink:

glueman
Posts: 4354
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 1:22pm

Postby glueman » 1 Apr 2008, 2:36pm

A number of CTC groups only muster three cyclists on a ride (or less!), insisting on five individuals just to start a new MG seems OTT. While those traditional roles would be nice to have, and may well be necessary in a large club, a niche cycling group would surely just need some publicity, a contact person and enough folk to hold an agm and set rides, or am I missing something?
Insisting on formalities too early on might be enough to smother the initiative at birth.