It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club

Discussion of the re-branding of CTC as Cycling UK.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club

Postby Bicycler » 5 Mar 2016, 9:43am

gaz wrote:
reohn2 wrote:But where are the results for cyclists? :?

Outlined in the annual report: http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... unts_0.pdf

Out of interest what is the story behind CTC Cycle Racing Limited (mentioned on pages 3/4)?

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14111
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club

Postby gaz » 5 Mar 2016, 10:05am

Incorporated 5 September 1996. 2006 accounts also described it as "dormant". Council continues to appoint directors as/when required.

I've no knowledge of why it was set up, or if it ever traded.
Missing, presumed fed.

Steady rider
Posts: 2269
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club

Postby Steady rider » 5 Mar 2016, 10:44am

http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-pa ... le/1335060

Top 100 charities.
It looks like charities are really businesses. income from about 50 million to 700 million
The top pay about 310k from income of 87m, 0.35%

With an income of about £1.75 million the CTC is down the order by some way.
At 75k from 1.75 million income, about 4% going to one job.

It looks like they can really only afford a middle to senior management type figure. A youngish person perhaps with a cycling background.
My approach would be different to the current approach.

beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club

Postby beardy » 5 Mar 2016, 10:53am

It looks like charities are really businesses. income from about 50 million to 700 million

Yes, the battle was lost a few years ago, the members' cycling club was taken over (hostile to my mind) to be a charity. Now people must be paid much more to run it. No use crying over spilt milk.
Like most official charities the choice benefits are for the professionals between the donators and recipients.

User avatar
Velocio
Posts: 264
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 4:22pm
Location: Southsea
Contact:

Re: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club

Postby Velocio » 5 Mar 2016, 11:02am

...this is not good...

http://tinyurl.com/j5zrko4

...why weren't we all consulted...??

Is there another Cycling Touring Club we can join ...that doesn't reflect mountain biking ...cyclocross ...stuntbiking ...and all the other 'inclusive' types of cycling this new outfit ...Cycling UK ...wish to pander to...??

It was bad enough when we had to become a cycling 'charity' instead of a cycling club ...maybe this is the final nail in my membership 'coffin'...!!

Those in power at CTC HQ should be ashamed of themselves

Not happy!!! :(
...ever cycle ...ever CTC

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14111
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club

Postby gaz » 5 Mar 2016, 11:06am

Steady rider wrote:... With an income of about £1.75 million the CTC is down the order by some way. ...

Except that's not CTC's income, that's just the membership subscriptions (donations). Total income for 2014 was £5.5 million.
Missing, presumed fed.

User avatar
honesty
Posts: 2575
Joined: 16 Mar 2012, 3:33pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club

Postby honesty » 5 Mar 2016, 11:29am

Velocio wrote:...this is not good...

http://tinyurl.com/j5zrko4

...why weren't we all consulted...??

Is there another Cycling Touring Club we can join ...that doesn't reflect mountain biking ...cyclocross ...stuntbiking ...and all the other 'inclusive' types of cycling this new outfit ...Cycling UK ...wish to pander to...??

It was bad enough when we had to become a cycling 'charity' instead of a cycling club ...maybe this is the final nail in my membership 'coffin'...!!

Those in power at CTC HQ should be ashamed of themselves

Not happy!!! :(


You were consulted, extensively. Even the cycling weekly story you link references the most recent consultation. Sorry, but you really can't get uppity about something that's been going on and known about for years. Personally I think the new logo it's a bit crap, a little too like Macmillan, and losing the history is a shame, but really demanding it doesn't "pander" to other lesser cycling styles (as inferred in your post) is silly. Things change over time. Men only clubs have to accept women. White only clubs now accept all humans. The CTC accepts mountain bikes and is inclusive (you say this as if accepting disabled people is a bad thing, I disagree). Get over it.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14111
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club

Postby gaz » 5 Mar 2016, 12:05pm

Velocio wrote:... Is there another Cycling Touring Club we can join ...

The Touring Cyclists Club - gauging interest since May 2010. Still something of a fledgling organisation.
Missing, presumed fed.

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club

Postby TonyR » 5 Mar 2016, 12:10pm

beardy wrote:Yes, the battle was lost a few years ago, the members' cycling club was taken over (hostile to my mind) to be a charity.


How can it be hostile when it was put to a vote of the membership that overwhelmingly endorsed it?


Now people must be paid much more to run it.


We've just done that. The people that now run the charity are paid no more in real terms than those that ran the club.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good moan. :roll:

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club

Postby TonyR » 5 Mar 2016, 12:16pm

Velocio wrote:...this is not good...

http://tinyurl.com/j5zrko4

...why weren't we all consulted...??


You were - or rather the membership was.


Is there another Cycling Touring Club we can join ...that doesn't reflect mountain biking ...cyclocross ...stuntbiking ...and all the other 'inclusive' types of cycling this new outfit ...Cycling UK ...wish to pander to...??


You mean that. the membership wish to pander to. What is happening is the result of asking the membership what it wanted. Cycle touring wasn't a high priority for them.

It was bad enough when we had to become a cycling 'charity' instead of a cycling club ...maybe this is the final nail in my membership 'coffin'...!!


You mean the charity that the membership voted overwhelmingly to become?

Those in power at CTC HQ should be ashamed of themselves


What for not prioritising your wishes over the wishes of the vast majority of the membership?

Psamathe
Posts: 11545
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club

Postby Psamathe » 5 Mar 2016, 12:30pm

Barred1 wrote:
TonyR wrote:
gaz wrote:Philip Benstead recently suggested the CEO receives £81,000.


And Kevin Mayne and Gordon Seabright?


... and don't forget the on-costs of employer's National Insurance and doubtless an employer pension contribution . . .

B1

We always used to use an employee cost as double their salary (at ALL company levels - people at the top make more/higher expenses claims, need/get more expensive computers, etc.).

Ian

Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club

Postby Bicycler » 5 Mar 2016, 12:53pm

TonyR wrote:
Velocio wrote:...this is not good...

http://tinyurl.com/j5zrko4

...why weren't we all consulted...??


You were - or rather the membership was.

No we weren't - or at least I wasn't. Were you? Were any of the other members on here consulted on changing the name to Cycling UK?

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club

Postby TonyR » 5 Mar 2016, 12:54pm

Psamathe wrote:We always used to use an employee cost as double their salary (at ALL company levels - people at the top make more/higher expenses claims, need/get more expensive computers, etc.).


Right answer, wrong reason. There are some on costs which are proportional to salary - NI, pension contribution etc. But the rest typically comes not from adding up all the costs for each employee, but from adding up the costs for all employees - rent, rates, heating, IT, etc - and allocating it in proportion to the direct labour costs. Doesn't mean they cost more, its just an artefact of the way the accountants like to account for it.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14111
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club

Postby gaz » 5 Mar 2016, 1:00pm

Psamathe wrote:We always used to use an employee cost as double their salary (at ALL company levels - people at the top make more/higher expenses claims, need/get more expensive computers, etc.).

Quote from another thread:
Philip Benstead wrote:... CTC Rebranding Chair Statement - Philip Benstead Reply

DC = David Cox
PB = Philip Benstead
...
DC However, the last time we conducted a poll of the whole club, the cost of the process was approximately £14,000. In terms of what this means to our charity, that is enough to employ a staff member for over 5 months to offer full time support to Member Groups.
PB That works out has £33,000 over one year with additional add on costs comes to £66,000 per year. Is that a cast iron comments? I think not.
...

£14,000 / 5 x 12 = £33,600 not £66,000. I wondered where Philip Benstead had come up with the accounting assumption of take the number you can show to be true and double it.

TonyR wrote:... Doesn't mean they cost more, its just an artefact of the way the accountants like to account for it.

Thanks for clearing that up.
Missing, presumed fed.

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club

Postby TonyR » 5 Mar 2016, 1:14pm

gaz wrote:£14,000 / 5 x 12 = £33,600 not £66,000. I wondered where Philip Benstead had come up with the accounting assumption of take the number you can show to be true and double it.


Its not a real number. In reality if you add a member of staff, you usually don't rent extra office space or use extra heating. You use what you already have. In accounting terms though the cost of the extra member of staff is calculated assuming their full share of all those overhead costs. But since the overhead costs are quasi-fixed, the cost of all the other staff drops because the fixed overhead cost is now allocated across n+1 staff rather than n. So in accounting terms it might come out at £66k but in actual incremental cost terms its more likely to be £33,600 + 30%. (NI & pension contribution) which is £43,680.

I think this goes a long way to underline the point about having people doing the job who know all this stuff from experience otherwise they could quite easily have no idea of what their operating costs really are and how to manage them.