Velocio wrote:ukdodger wrote:'CUK'. I wonder if they considered that abreviation.
...see the thread: Don't mention the CUK
It does rather lend itself to 'bleep' the CUK.
Bmblbzzz wrote:Dragging back on topic: In the end I feel or at least hope that the charitised CUK might be able to act upon government to bring about some sort of change which wouldn't have been possible by a club. Not sure I like the process but... we'll see.
gaz wrote:CTC has been campaigning as a Charity (CTC Charitable Trust) since 2004. The Trust was merged into the Club after the 2012 Charity Conversion.
Bicycler wrote:gaz wrote:CTC has been campaigning as a Charity (CTC Charitable Trust) since 2004. The Trust was merged into the Club after the 2012 Charity Conversion.
Quite. A lot of the opinions voiced on this topic relate to wider issues rather than the specific brand change. Primarily:
1. "I don't like the rebrand because I don't want my club to be a charity" - the brand change doesn't alter the charitable status of the club in any way.
2 "The rebrand is necessary because the word 'touring' doesn't accurately describe what the charity does" - The rebrand doesn't remove the word 'touring' which hasn't been part of the brand name for many years. The brand name was "CTC - The National Cycling Charity" and is now "Cycling UK". The rebrand doesn't change the official name of the club, which remains the Cyclists' Touring Club.
The CTC, like it or not, has an image of consisting of curmudgeonly bearded men in sandals (readers of this thread might find that stereotype reinforced...).
bikercolin wrote:I have thought the re brand needed to happen for a few years, we have become the retired cycling society.
Caulkheader wrote:I have been a member off and on since the mid 80's and have worked in the public sector with local and national government departments.
I have a life long interest in cycling history and on a personal level was disappointed to see the rebrand. But on balance I can see that change was necessary. In the past I have come across the CTC in consultation processes and to be honest it was embarrassing, no professional presence whatsoever and several missed opportunities to influence transport policy. The organisation would have been lost in the wilderness if it didn't change.