Result in

A place to discuss the issues relating to the proposed change in the national CTC’s structure.
Ellieb
Posts: 712
Joined: 26 Jul 2008, 7:06pm

Result in

Postby Ellieb » 17 Jan 2011, 7:59pm

75/25% in favour of the motion.
Pretty decisive I would've thought. Any chance at all that those against are going to accept it ? :roll:

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Result in

Postby meic » 17 Jan 2011, 8:03pm

I would agree that it is decisive enough to settle motion 8.

The power of Gore jackets. :lol:

However the constitution still stands. So no Charity yet.
Yma o Hyd

Regulator
Posts: 523
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 10:13am

Re: Result in

Postby Regulator » 17 Jan 2011, 8:29pm

And this year's accounts have to be published before there can be a vote on the Constitution... they'll make 'interesting' reading for those who voted for.

Plus we'll get to find out how much the membership fee will be next year - something has to top up the forthcoming cuts in the Trust's income, as the Government and third party grants run out....

User avatar
Yorkshireman
Posts: 352
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 6:59am
Location: North Hykeham, Lincoln.
Contact:

Re: Result in

Postby Yorkshireman » 18 Jan 2011, 10:24am

So, the 'Charity/Trust' is not (possibly) financially self supporting, but the 'Club' is?
Colin N.
Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... but the wind is mostly in your face!
http://www.freewebs.com/yorkshireman1/

Regulator
Posts: 523
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 10:13am

Re: Result in

Postby Regulator » 18 Jan 2011, 11:15am

At present the Trust requires a substantial 'balancing payment' (as the formerly named 'subvention' is now known) in order to balance its books. This in addition to the payments made by the Club to the Trust for services provided by the Trust on behalf of the Club.

Last year the balancing payment was £453,000. This year it will be even more. We won't know until the accounts are published - and we understand that this may happen later than usual.

The Club makes a profit each year. The Trust doesn't - effectively without the balancing payment it would make a huge loss each year.

Combine the two and the results could be disastrous if the Trust isn't forced to reign in its spending and 'cut its cloth' accordingly, particularly now that its major sources of funding are beginning to dry up.

John Catt
Posts: 113
Joined: 21 Dec 2009, 6:08pm

Re: Result in

Postby John Catt » 18 Jan 2011, 1:27pm

Regulator wrote:At present the Trust requires a substantial 'balancing payment' (as the formerly named 'subvention' is now known) in order to balance its books. This in addition to the payments made by the Club to the Trust for services provided by the Trust on behalf of the Club.

Last year the balancing payment was £453,000. This year it will be even more. We won't know until the accounts are published - and we understand that this may happen later than usual.

The Club makes a profit each year. The Trust doesn't - effectively without the balancing payment it would make a huge loss each year.

Combine the two and the results could be disastrous if the Trust isn't forced to reign in its spending and 'cut its cloth' accordingly, particularly now that its major sources of funding are beginning to dry up.


I think Regulator over simplifies. The Trust does much more that just run government contracts. As I have tried to explain previously:
"the cost of management and membership services supplied to the Club by the Trust was £1,290K. Basically this was for all of the activities that were carried out that would have been within the traditional remit of the CTC before formation of the Trust. All but 4 of the staff are employed by the Trust and the Offices are owned by the Trust, so you can see that very little happens under the auspices of the original CTC. The services provided by the Trust include administration, I.T., the website, campaigning, information, volunteer support, media relations, marketing and fund raising.

These cost are covered by a direct charge to the "Club" of £407K, which is the figure for services which are not covered by the current charitable objectives of the Trust. Any costs that can be deemed within the charitable objects of the Trust are left with it. The balance of £883K is met by the subvention (some refer to it as a donation) from the Club to the Trust of £453K together with the funds generated by the Trust of £430K".


The CTC may well have to review its expenditure, but it will be across all aspects of it operations.

Karen Sutton
Posts: 608
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:18pm
Location: Greater Manchester

Re: Result in

Postby Karen Sutton » 18 Jan 2011, 2:19pm

Ellieb wrote:75/25% in favour of the motion.
Pretty decisive I would've thought. Any chance at all that those against are going to accept it ? :roll:



We have to accept it. It doesn't mean we will change our opinion though.

Karen Sutton
Posts: 608
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:18pm
Location: Greater Manchester

Re: Result in

Postby Karen Sutton » 18 Jan 2011, 2:34pm

John Catt wrote:
Regulator wrote:At present the Trust requires a substantial 'balancing payment' (as the formerly named 'subvention' is now known) in order to balance its books. This in addition to the payments made by the Club to the Trust for services provided by the Trust on behalf of the Club.

Last year the balancing payment was £453,000. This year it will be even more. We won't know until the accounts are published - and we understand that this may happen later than usual.

The Club makes a profit each year. The Trust doesn't - effectively without the balancing payment it would make a huge loss each year.

Combine the two and the results could be disastrous if the Trust isn't forced to reign in its spending and 'cut its cloth' accordingly, particularly now that its major sources of funding are beginning to dry up.


I think Regulator over simplifies. The Trust does much more that just run government contracts. As I have tried to explain previously:
"the cost of management and membership services supplied to the Club by the Trust was £1,290K. Basically this was for all of the activities that were carried out that would have been within the traditional remit of the CTC before formation of the Trust. All but 4 of the staff are employed by the Trust and the Offices are owned by the Trust, so you can see that very little happens under the auspices of the original CTC. The services provided by the Trust include administration, I.T., the website, campaigning, information, volunteer support, media relations, marketing and fund raising.

These cost are covered by a direct charge to the "Club" of £407K, which is the figure for services which are not covered by the current charitable objectives of the Trust. Any costs that can be deemed within the charitable objects of the Trust are left with it. The balance of £883K is met by the subvention (some refer to it as a donation) from the Club to the Trust of £453K together with the funds generated by the Trust of £430K".


The CTC may well have to review its expenditure, but it will be across all aspects of it operations.



When you say "very little happens under the auspices of the original CTC", and considering the definition of auspices to be 'guidance or control' I take it that you are saying that the Club no longer has any control over the day to day running of the organisation. I would agree with you. However I cannot agree that the trust provide Volunteer Support. I would like to know whether the Trust are going to reduce the bill presented to the Club for "Volunteer Support" now that the staffing for this role has been considerably reduced.

It is my understanding that Council will now try to find a way for the Trust to take complete control of the Club, without making changes to the Mems and Arts. of Association.

As one of the volunteers within a CTC Member Group which is "supported" by the Trust I will stay around long enough to give the new set up a chance. That's as much as I can do.

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 43027
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Result in

Postby Mick F » 18 Jan 2011, 3:12pm

Karen Sutton wrote:
Ellieb wrote:75/25% in favour of the motion.
Pretty decisive I would've thought. Any chance at all that those against are going to accept it ? :roll:

We have to accept it. It doesn't mean we will change our opinion though.
We don't have to accept it. Just leave the CTC.

If the 25% who voted NO - including me - all left, what then?

The vote would be 100% YES. Then you could all accept it.

This is the problem with Majority Rule. If the minority was small, say 10% or less, then fine. 25% is by no means a small minority. It means that a quarter of the membership are disenfranchised and ignored.
Mick F. Cornwall

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Result in

Postby meic » 18 Jan 2011, 3:20pm

It was only 4,000 who voted no, I think high command might well be happy to see those 4,000 gone so they can modernise unhindered.
Yma o Hyd

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 43027
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Result in

Postby Mick F » 18 Jan 2011, 3:40pm

How many abstained?
4,000 NO's are a considerable number.
Mick F. Cornwall

Regulator
Posts: 523
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 10:13am

Re: Result in

Postby Regulator » 18 Jan 2011, 3:42pm

Mick F wrote:
Karen Sutton wrote:
Ellieb wrote:75/25% in favour of the motion.
Pretty decisive I would've thought. Any chance at all that those against are going to accept it ? :roll:

We have to accept it. It doesn't mean we will change our opinion though.
We don't have to accept it. Just leave the CTC.

If the 25% who voted NO - including me - all left, what then?

The vote would be 100% YES. Then you could all accept it.

This is the problem with Majority Rule. If the minority was small, say 10% or less, then fine. 25% is by no means a small minority. It means that a quarter of the membership are disenfranchised and ignored.


Arguably, more of the membership is disenfranchised and ignored. I think it is important to note only 16,587 members - just over 1/4 of CTC membership - voted.

Why didn't they vote? Perhaps because they thought they couldn't make a difference. When I was on Council I argued that we should do more to engage with members, such as holding meetings in different parts of the country (not just London and Manchester), so that members could attend and see what was happening. But The Cabal didn't like that idea...

If CTC were a union, then questions would be raised over the validity of the decision.

meic wrote:It was only 4,000 who voted no, I think high command might well be happy to see those 4,000 gone so they can modernise unhindered.


I'm sure that they would - except they can't afford to lose any members because every penny is needed to prop up The Empire.

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 43027
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Result in

Postby Mick F » 18 Jan 2011, 3:47pm

PS:
Answered my own question.

Only 26.6% bothered to vote!
How can a motion be carried with such a low turn out?

75/25 is not a valid result when the 75/25 came from an electorate that 73.4% of them didn't vote!

I reckon it should be done again. :shock:
Mick F. Cornwall

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Result in

Postby meic » 18 Jan 2011, 3:59pm

It is a much better turn out than last time.

Goretex works wonders!

I think that 75% to 25% settles it, there is little doubt that the others do NOT care and that is how the other 75% voted:- "I dont care...whatever." They have voted to leave it to the rest of us to sort out.
Yma o Hyd

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

Re: Result in

Postby glueman » 18 Jan 2011, 4:17pm

Unlike last year I didn't bother to vote. Actually I did fill in the form but with the envelope addressed and ready to send I received another communication which said it was invalid and I couldn't be bothered filling it in again. My impression was they'd keep asking until they received the answer they wanted so it's easier to let membership lapse. That's four fewer members next time. It would have been thirty years this year but if a more relevant national cycling organisation comes along they'll get my subs.