Page 8 of 10

Re: Name Change

Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 2:52pm
by ribblerouser
Yes, what I meant was that although called that CTC, my understanding is that Cyclists Touring Club was still the legal name, thus implying that it was a club exclusively for tourers, what I was trying to say was why can't the Cyclists Touring Club be replaced with CTC in the same way that British Aerospace became BAE Systems where the BAE is not an abbreviation anymore since they are involved in other areas such as ship building.



Re: Name Change

Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 3:00pm
by gaz
Either Council felt that eliminating the title of Cyclists' Touring Club completely really would have been a step too far and readily seen as consigning our heritage to the dustbin or ...

Council weren't confident that they'd get a 75% majority on an AGM vote required to change the name of the legal entity.

Re: Name Change

Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 3:04pm
by robgul
gaz wrote:Either Council felt that eliminating the title of Cyclists' Touring Club completely really would have been a step too far and readily seen as consigning our heritage to the dustbin or ...

Council weren't confident that they'd get a 75% majority on an AGM vote required to change the name of the legal entity.


... or more likely is that changing the legal entity name would have impacted on the (dubious :twisted: ) charity registration and involved a load of paperwork to change it.

Rob

Re: Name Change

Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 3:08pm
by ribblerouser
Yes, I agree with that, when I first joined the CTC I was a touring cyclist, after a lapse I rejoined and am now more of a day tourer, utility cyclist etc. and the CTC had changed as well, representing all cyclists, basically the whole rebranding seems a bit of a shambles upsetting and confusing .



Re: Name Change

Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 3:12pm
by ribblerouser
VOTE ? ........as my mother always told me "if you don't ask, you don't find out"



Re: Name Change

Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 3:15pm
by gaz
robgul wrote:... or more likely is that changing the legal entity name would have impacted on the (dubious :twisted: ) charity registration and involved a load of paperwork to change it.

Charities can and do change their names, e.g. Macmillan Cancer Support has been around since 1911 but has only been known by that name since 2006.

There would be some legal paperwork and associated costs, I can't imagine any grounds for objection from the Charity Commission.

Re: Name Change

Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 3:20pm
by robgul
gaz wrote:
robgul wrote:... or more likely is that changing the legal entity name would have impacted on the (dubious :twisted: ) charity registration and involved a load of paperwork to change it.

Charities can and do change their names, e.g. Macmillan Cancer Support has been around since 1911 but has only been known by that name since 2006.

There would be some legal paperwork and associated costs, I can't imagine any grounds for objection from the Charity Commission.


There was no suggestion of an objection ... just the PITA of doing it (and being "on the inside" with knowledge of Macmillan's change from "Relief" to "Support" - my wife was on the re-brand team - there was quite a bit of legal stuff)

Rob

Re: Name Change

Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 3:44pm
by JohnW
My personal stance is that I'm as upset about certain matters and recent happenings involving the erstwhile CTC as a lot of other people are; but, CTC or CUK has a lot of things to do apart from fight it's supposed friends, and sworn enemies about it's change of name, however important that is to us.

Make no mistake about what I'm saying, the name CTC and the 'Winged Wheel' are part of my background and part of my life but what's done is done, and we have to get on with it. I don't like it all, I don't like the (sinister and cynical?) secrecy, and if the council's Motion No.5 is won by them, and if Motion 6 is lost to them, I'd personally like it even less - but we still have to get on with it.

Bearing in mind the hatred towards us from some (quite a lot in fact) of the motoring fraternity, the utter contempt shown towards us by Planners and Highways Authorities and the often reported indifference of police authorities, CPS and even the courts, CUK has a lot to do - a heck of a lot - and for our own sakes we should be supporting that which we can support and swallowing what we can't support. We need for authorities, 'principalities and powers', and drivers to consider us as valid human beings and CUK can't campaign to achieve that it we're squabbling about a name.

It's all very well trying to sabotage a ship from within, but then it sinks - and then......................

Re: Name Change

Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 4:07pm
by Psamathe
JohnW wrote:...
Bearing in mind the hatred towards us from some (quite a lot in fact) of the motoring fraternity, the utter contempt shown towards us by Planners and Highways Authorities and the often reported indifference of police authorities, CPS and even the courts, CUK has a lot to do - a heck of a lot - and for our own sakes we should be supporting that which we can support and swallowing what we can't support....

And there are some excellent motions submitted for the AGM - and the Council disagrees with them all. All Council initiated motions are about internal admin. Motions like getting motor vehicles to give us descent passing clearance the CUK Council wants killed-off.

So I agree there is a lot to be done and I also now think CUK is NOT the organisation to achieve it. If they could quietly sit in the corner and debate their admin motions and let other more proactive organisations get on with the important work then fine. But their seeking donors and seeking government grants is using money that would be better spent fighting to make things better for cyclists.

And still nobody know how much this disaster of a rebrand has take in time and money - time and money that should really have been spent trying to and campaigning to make things better for cyclists (rather than PR consultant meetings, focus groups, marketing meetings, etc.).

As the expression goes "<work removed> or get off the pot".

Ian

Re: Name Change

Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 4:19pm
by honesty
Psamathe wrote:And there are some excellent motions submitted for the AGM - and the Council disagrees with them all. All Council initiated motions are about internal admin. Motions like getting motor vehicles to give us descent passing clearance the CUK Council wants killed-off.

Calling the passing distance motion excellent is ignoring a very long thread with a number of people arguing the opposite...

Re: Name Change

Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 4:31pm
by Mick F
JohnW wrote:Bearing in mind the hatred towards us from some (quite a lot in fact) of the motoring fraternity, the utter contempt shown towards us by Planners and Highways Authorities and the often reported indifference of police authorities, CPS and even the courts, CUK has a lot to do - a heck of a lot - and for our own sakes we should be supporting that which we can support and swallowing what we can't support. We need for authorities, 'principalities and powers', and drivers to consider us as valid human beings and CUK can't campaign to achieve that it we're squabbling about a name.

It's all very well trying to sabotage a ship from within, but then it sinks - and then......................
John.
I was all for quitting the CTC/CUK ............. I've said it before.
Last year, I prevaricated, but payed up late.

This year, I was going to basically tell them to get lost, but what you say and the way you said it, has made me rethink.
I'm going to carry on with them.

Thank you.

PS:
Just renewed.

Re: Name Change

Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 4:37pm
by gaz
Psamathe wrote:And there are some excellent motions submitted for the AGM - and the Council disagrees with them all.

Incorrect. Council supports motion 7 and motion 9, both submitted by ordinary members. I suppose it's possible that you feel motion 7 and motion 9 are not excellent motions by virtue of the fact that Council agrees with them :wink: .

Psamathe wrote:All Council initiated motions are about internal admin.

There are two motions from Council and yes they are both about internal admin. Motion 4 is about subscription rates, which are proposed by Council every year. Motion 5 is about governance changes.

Motions 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were proposed by ordinary members and are all about the running and administration of CTC. If you view the editorial policy in Cycle as part of the running and administration of CTC then Motions 16 and 17 fall into the same category. Seems to me that the members must agree that how their Club is run is of considerable importance and I see no reason to criticise Council for bringing administrative motions to the AGM.

Re: Name Change

Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 6:03pm
by Psamathe
gaz wrote:
Psamathe wrote:And there are some excellent motions submitted for the AGM - and the Council disagrees with them all.

Incorrect. Council supports motion 7 and motion 9, both submitted by ordinary members. I suppose it's possible that you feel motion 7 and motion 9 are not excellent motions by virtue of the fact that Council agrees with them :wink: .

Psamathe wrote:All Council initiated motions are about internal admin.

There are two motions from Council and yes they are both about internal admin. Motion 4 is about subscription rates, which are proposed by Council every year. Motion 5 is about governance changes.

Motions 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were proposed by ordinary members and are all about the running and administration of CTC. If you view the editorial policy in Cycle as part of the running and administration of CTC then Motions 16 and 17 fall into the same category. Seems to me that the members must agree that how their Club is run is of considerable importance and I see no reason to criticise Council for bringing administrative motions to the AGM.

Sorry. When I looked through I focused on those motions that would help cyclists rather than the admin ones.

So I suppose I should have said that all those motions that could help cyclists and cycling the Council disagrees with (rather than who submitted them).

Ian

Re: Name Change

Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 7:36pm
by gaz
In a little over a weeks time we'll find out what the members think of them.

Re: Name Change

Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 9:47pm
by Bicycler
ribblerouser wrote:Yes, what I meant was that although called that CTC, my understanding is that Cyclists Touring Club was still the legal name, thus implying that it was a club exclusively for tourers, what I was trying to say was why can't the Cyclists Touring Club be replaced with CTC in the same way that British Aerospace became BAE Systems where the BAE is not an abbreviation anymore since they are involved in other areas such as ship building.

I don't think the legal name of the club is likely to have any significant effect upon how the club appears to the wider public. The companies behind many well known brands are fairly anonymous. As Si says, the CTC has not used the full version of its name for day to day purposes for many years, so to all intents and purposes the touring word hasn't been in there for a long time.