Cycling UK Forum

roubaixtuesday wrote:

reohn2 wrote:This is what happens when a club owned and run by it's members is turned into a so called "charity" and run as a business and it's members become donors.

What happens? You get professional leadership in place? Why is that a bad thing?

reohn2 wrote:

roubaixtuesday wrote:

reohn2 wrote:This is what happens when a club owned and run by it's members is turned into a so called "charity" and run as a business and it's members become donors.

What happens? You get professional leadership in place? Why is that a bad thing?

What was so bad before when the club(now a "charity")was run and owned by it's members?
How much better is it now than then?
How much more has the "charity" achieved since it's "charitable" status?
It now receives money and tax relief from the very structure it campaigned against with the threat of withdrawal of those benefits and "charitable" status if it makes too many of the wrong noises.
No I'm sorry but the CTC,CUK as it now terms itself,is a "charity" in name only,it was hijacked some time ago and now like so many other so called "charities" has become a business with it's donorship seeing little "charity" or any more benefit as a result.

reohn2 wrote:

roubaixtuesday wrote:

reohn2 wrote:This is what happens when a club owned and run by it's members is turned into a so called "charity" and run as a business and it's members become donors.

What happens? You get professional leadership in place? Why is that a bad thing?

What was so bad before when the club(now a "charity")was run and owned by it's members?
How much better is it now than then?
How much more has the "charity" achieved since it's "charitable" status?
It now receives money and tax relief from the very structure it campaigned against with the threat of withdrawal of those benefits and "charitable" status if it makes too many of the wrong noises.
No I'm sorry but the CTC,CUK as it now terms itself,is a "charity" in name only,it was hijacked some time ago and now like so many other so called "charities" has become a business with it's donorship seeing little "charity" or any more benefit as a result.

Tinpotflowers wrote:
Members of the CTC voted to be charity moving away from a member-focused member lead organization to one focusing on promoting cycling generally and being led by selected talented people who aim to create a thrusting go ahead and forward-looking organization.

reohn2 wrote:I'm objecting to a cycling club being stolen from under the noses of it's membership and turned into a business masquerading as a "charity".
I realise it's a contentious issue for some,but I can't see what it's achieved anymore than when it was member owned and run,for all the over inflated salaries being paid to it's top executives toeing a government line with a threat of losing their salaries if they don't!
There's also been much money spent on rebranding and repackaging.
It used to be a CYCLE TOURING CLUB it's not that anymore and is the worse for it IMHO.
YVMV mine won't,it lost my membership when it was hijacked and became what it never was before.

Tinpotflowers wrote:

reohn2 wrote:I'm objecting to a cycling club being stolen from under the noses of it's membership and turned into a business masquerading as a "charity".
I realise it's a contentious issue for some,but I can't see what it's achieved anymore than when it was member owned and run,for all the over inflated salaries being paid to it's top executives toeing a government line with a threat of losing their salaries if they don't!
There's also been much money spent on rebranding and repackaging.
It used to be a CYCLE TOURING CLUB it's not that anymore and is the worse for it IMHO.
YVMV mine won't,it lost my membership when it was hijacked and became what it never was before.

You mean "Cyclists' Touring Club"

Cyril Haearn wrote:R2: What are the right noises and wrong noises? How could it lose charitable status?

I think some staff members have been there many years, under old and the new regimes

Whatabout the rspb? It has enormous power, wealth, influence

reohn2 wrote:I'm objecting to a cycling club being stolen from under the noses of it's membership and turned into a business masquerading as a "charity".
I realise it's a contentious issue for some,but I can't see what it's achieved anymore than when it was member owned and run,for all the over inflated salaries being paid to it's top executives toeing a government line with a threat of losing their salaries if they don't!
There's also been much money spent on rebranding and repackaging.
It used to be a CYCLIST'S TOURING CLUB it's not that anymore and is the worse for it IMHO.
YVMV mine won't,it lost my membership when it was hijacked and became what it never was before.

roubaixtuesday wrote:

reohn2 wrote:I'm objecting to a cycling club being stolen from under the noses of it's membership and turned into a business masquerading as a "charity".
I realise it's a contentious issue for some,but I can't see what it's achieved anymore than when it was member owned and run,for all the over inflated salaries being paid to it's top executives toeing a government line with a threat of losing their salaries if they don't!
There's also been much money spent on rebranding and repackaging.
It used to be a CYCLIST'S TOURING CLUB it's not that anymore and is the worse for it IMHO.
YVMV mine won't,it lost my membership when it was hijacked and became what it never was before.

Sure, you preferred how it was in the past.

But it isn't like that now, like it or not.

So what's your specific objection to the advert for an interim CEO? It's not at all clear to me.

Bonefishblues wrote:Was there ever a splinter group - actual or proposed? (Just interested)