Cycling UK Forum

We might also ask: "Is cycling vulnerable?"

Do we know how long Sky have guaranteed to pump money into cycling for before they move onto the next money earner (dunno why, but for some reason I get the feeling that they aren't in it for the sake of cycling ). If BC do manage to become the leading player and then suddenly lose they backer and their publicity machine - what happens then?

The CTC being well over 100 years old has weathered a number of storms and always come back. BC, on the other hand, is relatively new and unproven in their field. By following the lure of wonga it may be that it's not just the CTC that we are putting in danger. Simon suggests that in putting all of its efforts into securing govt money the CTC is now suffering due to the drying up of that money - could the same thing happen to cycling as a whole if BC becomes the guiding light and then loses its incentive to carry on?

Yes, all total speculation I know. And I would hate to be known as a conservative, but just like I won't ride a carbon frame until they've got at least another ten years of development built into them, I think that I will not be throwing all of my backing behind BC for some time yet.

Si wrote:... BC, on the other hand, is relatively new and unproven in their field. ...

I thought that BC was just a rebranding of the BCF? If so, IIRC, the BCF was formed in the late 1950's when the NCU and the BLRC decided to merge.

Cycling as an activity is too attractive to be vulnerable. Road cycling in the UK is extremely vulnerable, which is what I keep banging on about.

Edwards wrote: In the last year what have the campaigns achieved that got into the press.
So that is going to be hard to sell, recent campaigning with no obvious results.

Press coverage and result are slightly different things as can be seen from the recent IAM tat.

But I have to say that I think I've seen more of the CTC on TV in the last year than all previous years put together. Mostly on the news answering rabid-tabloid-clarckson type accusations of cyclists misbehaving, and doing an OK job of it. Haven't noticed BC/Sky stepping up to do this yet (and one fears that if they do then their stock answer might be that if we all put helmets on then it will all be OK ).

thirdcrank wrote:

Si wrote:... BC, on the other hand, is relatively new and unproven in their field. ...

I thought that BC was just a rebranding of the BCF? If so, IIRC, the BCF was formed in the late 1950's when the NCU and the BLRC decided to merge.

Yes, as I said relatively new. People only rebrand when the previous incarnation has stopped working properly.

wise words, Si, but my estimation is..

Sky may go under. Who knows? They are in a far faster-moving world than the CTC can ever inhabit, and they're now old media rather than new. Equally, the GB cycling team may simply drop away due to a drying up of talent, and Sky may decide to end their interest. And, yes, that would probably blow a hole in BC somewhere close to the waterline.

But..........all kinds of companies can come and go very rapidly. Banks, IT companies, comparison websites, greetings card companies, consultancies, manufacturers of chocolate and steel are swallowed up and reborn. That's because customers are better informed and more footloose than ever before. One can only plan for the future on the basis of a diversity of customers and the retention of those customers, who will look for value and service, and be held by a strong brand. And that's the problem.

Council thinks in terms of a hundred years, but they've entered a world that measures survival in ever shorter time spans. One minute your best market is bobbling along nicely - the next minute some big competitor comes in and you're up against it.

thirdcrank » Wed May 16, 2012 10:23 am wrote

Cycling as an activity is too attractive to be vulnerable. Road cycling in the UK is extremely vulnerable, which is what I keep banging on about.

I would be interested to hear more details if possible.

Steady rider wrote:thirdcrank » Wed May 16, 2012 10:23 am wrote

Cycling as an activity is too attractive to be vulnerable.

I would be interested to hear more details if possible.

1. Cycling as an activity is too attractive to be vulnerable.

I thought the joys of cycling were self-evident to any cyclist, but in a nutshell, people buy roofracks and shove their bikes on the car roof. What they do when they unload their bikes is one example of what I meant by cycling as an activity. And it's thriving.

2. Road cycling in the UK is extremely vulnerable

I'm talking about cycling as a transport mode. IMO the heady days of the National Cycling Strategy are gone. A transport minister can say - with impunity - that cyclists shouldn't be on main roads. Cyclists are demonised by the media, traffic enforcement is minimal and falling fast, and as I wrote it's "what I keep banging on about." My embarrassingly high post count denotes a lot of banging on, much of it on these themes.
.

Thank you thirdcrank for the extra info.

I've just joined BC and I doubt that I'll renew my CTC membership, but I'll most certainly renew my Audax membership.
My experience over the past five or six years as a CTC member has brought me into contact with a most insular, small-minded, unhelpful and in one case untruthful group of people. Of course, there have been notable exceptions!

Rand.

Noticed the discussion about BC. Think their annual report for the year ending 31 March 2011 may be of interest. It can be seen here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2bA7Hjs4Zl-MW9CR3dZTEtQcFE

Think this quote gives some perspective:

The Group has most of its grant revenue set for a four year period, and the Group should make surpluses initially, then deficits later in the four year cycle to balance the budget over 4 years. The Group is in line with hitting its obligations and targets.

The Federation has secured £1m of Sports England funding for a new national series of bike rides, led by women for women, name Breeze.

The Group's principal risks are those of overhead control, and maintenance of public funding and self generating revenues. The Group is aware of its obligation to give value for money, and while its lottery revenues are currently secure, its exchequer funding post April 2012 and the post Olympic settlement remains a risk.

Of course their ordinary membership has no involvement in how they are run, as their Directors are elected by representatives of the clubs - it remains the British Cycling Federation.

The Federation has secured £1m of Sports England funding for a new national series of bike rides, led by women for women, name Breeze.

So, if I've understood that correctly, the principal governing body for cycle racing in the UK has secured £1m to organise leisure cycling.

Their "Whole Sport Plan 2009-13" also makes interesting reading - http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/media/bc_files/vacancies/Whole_Sport_Plan_2009-13.pdf

And exactly what, John, has CTC done for leisure cycling recently? What investment has it made in developing its member groups to attract new members and support local initiatives?


(I think you'll find the answer is bu**er all!)

John Catt wrote:Their "Whole Sport Plan 2009-13" also makes interesting reading - http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/media/bc_files/vacancies/Whole_Sport_Plan_2009-13.pdf

British Cycling Vision for 2009-2013 is to:-
“Inspire participation in cycling as a sport, recreation and sustainable transport through
achieving worldwide success’’

Sounds good to me. What's CTC's vision been for the last few years, other than to force the charity option on the membership?