Cycling UK Forum

Labrat wrote:

gaz wrote:The Minutes for the Council Meeting of 19 July 2014 show you were present.

10 Brand Refresh
There was some discussion on consistency within the paper on prices quoted and some thought needs to the given to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Council fully support and noted this paper and agreed for the requested sum of £10,000 be released from reserves.

In the light of the Minutes I cannot accept your statement that the cost of re-branding was never discussed by Council.

Funny you should mention that, because I noticed this from January 2014

Screen Shot 2016-04-07 at 22.03.26.png

Look who seconded the motion, with no mention of the membership having to vote on it!

read my previous answer.


Mark Waters
Yesterday at 12:51am · Godalming
Apologies to Richard Stubbs and 'Labrat' for not accepting their request to join this group. Your Fb pages say nothing about you and we want to avoid possible troublemakers (if that's the right word).
LikeShow more reactionsCommentShare
3You, Bob Halliwell and Peter Grimes
1 share
Comments
View 1 more comment
Chris Smith
Chris Smith I'm sure some people would think we are troublemakers just by being in the group!
Like · Reply · 1 · 17 hrs
Peter Grimes
Peter Grimes Richard is a committee member of S Herts CTC and a thoroughly good chap.
Like · Reply · 14 hrs
Charles Shand
Charles Shand I'm here to be troublesome about changes to my Club that nobosy in its management thought fit to advise me about before making those changes ......
Like · Reply · 1 · 11 hrs
Philip Benstead

Write a comment...

Before the rebrand was announced you invited forum members to join a Facebook group to contribute to open debate.

I am aware that Mark Waters was CTC Touring Officer for many years. I appreciate that you are neither the founder nor the gate keeper for the group.

Does the above comment originate from the same Facebook Group?

Psamathe wrote:Idea: Rather than attack the person, lets discuss the ideas. Too much attacking the person going on in some quarters..

I have proposed the idea that when the Minutes of a Council meeting document the approval of expenditure of £10,000 on the re-brand project, it is not compatible with a statement that the costs of the rebrand were never discussed at Council.

You have pointed out previously that the Minutes of a Council meeting are not the same as a transcript, a point I am in complete agreement with. The Minutes do not show that any other discussion on costs took place, nor have I ever claimed that they did. Do I think it reasonable to believe other discussions took place? I'll keep my own counsel on the matter.

The question has also been asked on another thread that if the minutes were so different, did PB sign and approve the minutes or not. This has not been answered.

gaz wrote:I have proposed the idea that when the Minutes of a Council meeting document the approval of expenditure of £10,000 on the re-brand project, it is not compatible with a statement that the costs of the rebrand were never discussed at Council.
...

I interpreted

10 Brand Refresh
There was some discussion on consistency within the paper on prices quoted and some thought needs to the given to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Council fully support and noted this paper and agreed for the requested sum of £10,000 be released from reserves.

as being the approval of £10k from reserves. The way I read it it could have been "this is going to cost us £100k but we have only £90k in the budget so I request £10k from reserves". Not saying that was what happened but from the minutes as I read the quoted section it was release of reserves that was approved NOT an overall/total expenditure (which could have been coming from other budgets.

Ian

To clarify further, I don't interpret £10,000 as being the total costs and would agree it relates to unanticipated expenditure. I feel the rebrand process has proved considerably more complex than Council had originally anticipated.

Was it time and money well spent?

I'm sure there are a broad range of opinions on that one and I'm under no illusions that so far as the forum debate is concerned my view is in the minority.

gaz wrote:To clarify further, I don't interpret £10,000 as being the total costs and would agree it relates to unanticipated expenditure. I feel the rebrand process has proved considerably more complex than Council had originally anticipated.

Was it time and money well spent?

I'm sure there are a broad range of opinions on that one and I'm under no illusions that so far as the forum debate is concerned my view is in the minority.

We need to be told exactly how much the re-brand cost and have these costs itemised, so it is clear how members money has been spent and precisely what it has been spent on. Will anyone that has been involved in these decisions come onto this forum and tell us when this information will be published to members? Or will they continue to remain silent?

Well, choosing a new name/brand and associated abbreviations can indeed be tricky as the example of the George Mason University in Virginia showed when it (almost) renamed its law school the 'Antonin Scalia School of Law'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35975832



EC

I'm still at a loss to what CUK could stand for.
Just found this site.
http://acronymsandslang.com/CUK-meaning.html
Maybe the Catholic University of Korea may be complaining or maybe Chysler UK?

Mick F wrote:I'm still at a loss to what CUK could stand for....

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cuk
Ian

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

Why don't re-branders think about acronyms?
Maybe there's too many out there.

Mick F wrote:Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

Why don't re-branders think about acronyms?
Maybe there's too many out there.

It makes me think of "Cuke" from IT Crowd.



Cycling UK Europe

Nah, far too controversial and aggravating.

OK then what about...

Cycling UK and eBikes

Because we all know eBiking isn't really cycling.

CUK is the forum home of bored IT contractors.

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?q=cuk%20forum

PH wrote:I don't think they've read the rules - ...

CTC Shropshire haven't followed the don't use CUK rule.

Come ride with us – your local CUK Group!!

Midweek Wayfarers CTC have read the rules but appear to have rejected the rebrand .

I expect there are other examples out there.

gaz wrote:

PH wrote:I don't think they've read the rules - ...

CTC Shropshire haven't followed the don't use CUK rule.

Come ride with us – your local CUK Group!!

Midweek Wayfarers CTC have read the rules but appear to have rejected the rebrand .

I expect there are other examples out there.

Thanks, that brightened my afternoon.
Shropshire have certainly embraced it, they can't be faulted for their enthusiasm. The wayfarers made me laugh, I bet they're a fun bunch to go cycling with,