Result in

A place to discuss the issues relating to the proposed change in the national CTC’s structure.
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13897
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Result in

Postby gaz » 25 Jan 2011, 7:28pm

sadjack wrote:It would be good for everyone if we could just have one final vote, get as many people as possible to cast their vote one way or another and then just abide by whatever the result is and get back to riding our bikes :D


To improve voter turnout perhaps we could offer more Goretex Jackets. :wink:
2020 : To redundancy ... and beyond!

sadjack
Posts: 47
Joined: 11 Sep 2008, 6:19pm

Re: Result in

Postby sadjack » 25 Jan 2011, 8:29pm

LOL :D

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

Re: Result in

Postby Karen Sutton » 26 Jan 2011, 9:50am

Pondering the issue I wonder whether the Motion to convert The Cyclists' Touring Club to a Charity and to merge with the CTC Charitable Trust should not have been two motions? That would have given more options. If the Motion to convert to a Charity had been passed then fine. You could have one without the other. My objection is merging with the Trust, not with the Club becoming a Charity.

If the Cyclists' Touring Club was an independent charity it could campaign wherever desirable, (As it has done for over 125 years), without biting the hand that feeds it. It could also receive the leftovers if the Trust closed down (as a 'charity with similar aims'). It could also qualify for the seemingly important Gift Aid. It could then make donations which it could afford to the Trust as it saw fit.

Also, it would be preferable for those running the two organisations to be different people. Perhaps those Councillors who are interested in running a Club for Touring and Leisure Cyclists could run the Club, and the rest could run the Trust. I reaslise that the majority of the staff are working for the Trust. A fair payment could be made to the Trust by the Club for admin/staff work. It should be fair though; with adjustments made when staff working mainly for the Club leave and are not replaced. (As in the case of the Local Group Support Officer).b The accounts for both should be clearly presented so that members can understand them.

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

Re: Result in

Postby meic » 26 Jan 2011, 4:17pm

It seems like a good idea but I can see one flaw.

If the CTC club was run by a committee dedicated to "Touring and Leisure Cyclists" that committee would probably not see the reason to be as generous with their money as the other charity would like.

It would however have had the advantage of splitting the "No" vote and have been acceptable to enough people to get the constitution changed.
Yma o Hyd

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

Re: Result in

Postby Karen Sutton » 26 Jan 2011, 6:29pm

That would depend on the proposed changes to the Constitution. If it was to allow the Club to merge with the Trust I'd still vote against it.
If it was to convert the Club to a charity that would be OK.

Regarding donations from the Club to the Trust: the finances may not allow very large donations. I have heard that the Club is not bringing in enough income to cover its running costs. If that is the case then either the subscriptions will have to go up by a considerable amount, or the Club stops making large "subventions" to the Trust.

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

Re: Result in

Postby Regulator » 27 Jan 2011, 7:11am

Karen Sutton wrote:That would depend on the proposed changes to the Constitution. If it was to allow the Club to merge with the Trust I'd still vote against it.
If it was to convert the Club to a charity that would be OK.

Regarding donations from the Club to the Trust: the finances may not allow very large donations. I have heard that the Club is not bringing in enough income to cover its running costs. If that is the case then either the subscriptions will have to go up by a considerable amount, or the Club stops making large "subventions" to the Trust.


Those proposing the merger are suggesting this as a smokescreen. It is total BS and the opposite is the case - the Trust does not make enough money to cover its costs whereas the Club makes a profit.

The Trust will be losing most of its funding streams over hte next year. It will become even more dependant on the Club to prop it up. But even the profit-making Club doesn't have enough income to cover all the Trust's costs (unless there was to be some serious rationalisation at the Trust).

Which is possibly why there was a proposal at the last Council meeting that the membership fee should go up to £42 this year - a 13½% increase!