The CTC - is it vulnerable?

[glueman]

I agree it's all fixable. Whether there's the will to challenge the current line of thinking within the membership remains to be seen. A large number of riders I know have other organisations as their primary interest - AUK, Tandem Club, RSF, mountain biking, racing - but maintain their CTC membership for old time's sake, rather than any quantifiable return on their subscription.

That may be why those cyclists don't take a keener interest in club affairs, something the directorate are aware of and consequently feel free to follow their instincts. If the idea that 'somebody is doing something' for cyclists is enough and CTC doesn't offer grassroots contact the game is up and the club will become a contractor/pressure group.

[workhard]

ime orgs that have "The Director" at the top of the pile, a sole individual at the top of the pyramid, tend to recruit to the role those who are directorial and directive in their behaviour. There is a lot of this in the not-for-profit sector, single charismatic dynamic driven and driving individuals.

Many organisations have seen the flaw in this approach and instead have adopted the Cabinet / Board of Directors model under the leadership of a CEO and /or managing director. Then when one individual wants to take the organisation off in any one direction there is a board of others, whose livelihoods are affected by the outcome, they must persuade cajole etc to join them.

Our council appears to be a board of trustees who actually make operational decisions, e.g. who does the audit, which are more properly left to the paid executives or are used to rubber stamp Directorial decisions. But who has determined the Directors decisions on strategy are fit for purpose. No doubt the Director would argue council have. I'd suggest that is not the case.

All in all it suggests to me the operational management structure is not correct.

If my Chief Exec wanted to consult stakeholders in our organisation and suggested we modify an existing web forum to do it, she would face push back, a strong concerted push back, from various people in the org. She could not direct someone to JFDI because the org. recognises and values of others expertise. A debate would be had and a consensus or compromise reached. She would not do it anyway becuase she isn't in to micro management and could teach delegation at degree level.

Having worked in both models in my book that is the way to do it.

[manybikes]

Why stay in the CTC? (to paraphrase).
Well I ride usually twice weekly with my DA- I'm afraid we do not call ourselves an MG - we've been a DA for donkey's years. BUT we subscribe to the organisation's rules - viz. to ride with the group you have to be a member. That seems to me to be fair because non members would be subsidised by the members in providing insurance etc and the insurers would withdraw cover if they thought more riders were frequently riding than they have been paid for by NO.

So - I want to continue to ride with my friends and aquaintances in the club (am I allowed to still call it that?) and unless this very large body of people all get themselves together to make alternative arrangements and pull out of CTC (which I very much doubt) then I will continue to pay my subs so I can do so.

Now I suspect that I am not alone in this - I expect many in DAs and MGs are long term members with (tested) loyalties to "our club". We are constantly reminded by NO that we are a small part of CTC but is it possible do you think that the executive are aware of these sentiments and feel that they can ignore our protestations confident that when push comes to shove we will continue to pay subs to be able to ride with like minded people?

[manybikes]

Why stay in the CTC? (to paraphrase).
Well I ride usually twice weekly with my DA- I'm afraid we do not call ourselves an MG - we've been a DA for donkey's years. BUT we subscribe to the organisation's rules - viz. to ride with the group you have to be a member. That seems to me to be fair because non members would be subsidised by the members in providing insurance etc and the insurers would withdraw cover if they thought more riders were frequently riding than they have been paid for by NO.

So - I want to continue to ride with my friends and aquaintances in the club (am I allowed to still call it that?) and unless this very large body of people all get themselves together to make alternative arrangements and pull out of CTC (which I very much doubt) then I will continue to pay my subs so I can do so.

Now I suspect that I am not alone in this - I expect many in DAs and MGs are long term members with (tested) loyalties to "our club". We are constantly reminded by NO that we are a small part of CTC but is it possible do you think that the executive are aware of these sentiments and feel that they can ignore our protestations confident that when push comes to shove we will continue to pay subs to be able to ride with like minded people?

[Edwards]

Manybikes you make some very good points about why you and your friends in the DA part of the club remain in the CTC.
The point I think people are trying to make is, how much lack of interest and non support before the larger DA's do indeed say enough is enough. Then start looking for something else that gives better support for the people who ride and their friends.

[manybikes]

I understand the sentiments expressed above but I wonder how real is the likelihood of DAs pulling out? I think the executive may exploit this reluctance.
My DA is large and active in terms of riders but is not a campaigning one - it is conservative (with a small c) in its outlook. The lack of the precept was noted as unusual at the AGM but I have heard no follow up discussions. We predominantly engage in day rides and some cycle B&B and camping tours. I have heard no discussion on the merits or otherwise of the charitable merger and little enthusiasm to dig deeper. So how dissimilar are we to other Das?

[glueman]

I understand the sentiments expressed above but I wonder how real is the likelihood of DAs pulling out? I think the executive may exploit this reluctance.

I think you're right.

[thirdcrank]

Presumably, nobody really knows what the future will bring. If things stayed pretty much as they are for the typical member, I don't suppose most people would care if were to be a charity or a closed religious order. If the promised harvest were to be reaped in terms of oodles of Lottery £££ and similar to promote cycling everybody would be happy and the doubters would be shown up. OTOH, even if only a few of the gloomiest predictions were shown to be correct, with subscriptions rising to subsidise a failing charity, how long would those loyal members continue loyally to cough up? Nobody knows. And as we are often told, people regularly riding with a CTC group are only a relatively small part of the membership.

[workhard]

My DA don't appear to know I exist any more. They've not contacted me in years and though I've emailed them a couple of times about a couple of issues more recently, and went on a couple of rides and gave them my then details, I've never had a reply or follow up. A cycling club sprang up in our town a couple of years ago. They seem to do exactly the sort of social non competitive riding the DA does but they have no affiliation to the CTC that I know of. The main difference between the DA and this club seems to be the DA bikes have mudguards and racks and the local club folk ride sportive/race style bike and wear lycra.

The CTC is highly vulnerable to these types of new local club taking away potential members. No stuffy image, no significant overheads, little baggage or politics. But if the CTC really only budgets for the DA to get 18p per local member per year, well, a DA can't really compete can it?

[Simon L6]

they may not have your e-mail address. It could be that simple.

[DurableAce]

I think that the CTC is vulnerable. Consider:

- The amount of disagreement between those who appear to be Councillors or closely involved in the running of the club. Whilst disagreement and debate can be healthy to a point, the fact that these debates are being had on internet forums and are not being resolved through the normal management channels is disheartening.

- In general, my opinion of the management is that it is ineffective for the above situation being allowed to be created and persist.

- Reported elsewhere on here (which I'm relying upon unless someone will say to the contrary), Councillors have signed off significant financial transactions at very short notice with little or no understanding of the implications. It strikes me that inappropriate people are holding positions of responsibility.

- The increasing threat from Everyday Cycling, backed by significant financial funding from Sky. If ever the CTC needed to focus on what it is and what it offers, it is now. I'm not suggesting that there is an anti-CTC agenda on the part of Everyday Cycling as I don't know that much about it, but if they were reading this forum, it would be very clear that they would not need to try too hard should they wish to pursue one.

- Whilst I've never had a membership problems, the Membership Services debacle should have been resolved by now.

I'm sure I will be very at odds with many in holding these opinions, but they summarise the feelings I've built up since I started reading these online discussions.

CTC is vulnerable. It's a shame.

[thirdcrank]

... - The increasing threat from Everyday Cycling, ...

I don't think I'd ever heard of Everyday Cycling (not that I'm exactly up-to-speed with cycling trends.) I checked their www and it's now closed and linked to the BCF site. You have to enrol to enter the site to find out what it's all about, so at this stage it doesn't look as though they are actively welcoming anybody. What would it take? A few appearances from Sir Chris urging people to join? Rebecca R and Victoria P in tasteful artistic poses?

AFAIK CTC Racing Ltd.,is still a dormant company - it was set up a few years ago when it looked as though the BCF was going to go belly up. I don't suppose anybody from the racing arm of the sport would have qualms about doing the same thing in the other direction.

[Karen Sutton]

When Everyday Cycling started up I was a DA Secretary. It was seen by CTC Council as being a possible threat as it was aimed at Leisure Cyclists and provided Third Party Insurance.

I had also just become a National Councillor at the time. One of the first things BC did under the Everyday Cycling banner was to contact the the CTC DA Secretaries in the big conurbations (I was Secretary of Manchester DA) to ask us to write some family friendly rides in the city. They were going to make these rides into maps and also publish them on their new "Everyday Cycling website". Bearing in mind that the Chair of CTC National Council had just left the CTC to take up a paid position with BC it was rather galling. Our DA Secretaries collectively refused to cooperate with BC on this, especially when I asked BC if the CTC were to be given published credit for the routes and they said no.

But our fears were unfounded. Everyday Cycling made no difference to the CTC. And as mentioned above, it has been discontinued by BC, and absorbed into the general umbrella of BC. The Everyday Cycling membership is now called "Ride" Membership and is therefore still available under its new name. I suspect this has happened to fit in with "Go Ride"

[workhard]

they may not have your e-mail address. It could be that simple.

but if I've emailed them, they have.

[Simon L6]

they may not have your e-mail address. It could be that simple.

but if I've emailed them, they have.

point taken entirely.