Philip Benstead wrote:IMHO this was immoral
If you thought what Council did was immoral did you take the only honourable course of action open to you and resign from Council?
Thought not!
Philip Benstead wrote:IMHO this was immoral
smuggers wrote:Not wanting to get involved in the rights & wrongs of the re-branding, I do think it's quite shocking that the majority of our club members, knew nothing about the change of name at our clubroom slideshow last Thursday.. This cant be right & some of our elder members felt let down by the CTC..
TonyR wrote:smuggers wrote:Not wanting to get involved in the rights & wrongs of the re-branding, I do think it's quite shocking that the majority of our club members, knew nothing about the change of name at our clubroom slideshow last Thursday.. This cant be right & some of our elder members felt let down by the CTC..
I think you need to recognise that what has happened was unlikely to be the plan of HQ but the result of the changes being leaked prematurely. Unfortunate but these things happen sometimes
TonyR wrote:smuggers wrote:Not wanting to get involved in the rights & wrongs of the re-branding, I do think it's quite shocking that the majority of our club members, knew nothing about the change of name at our clubroom slideshow last Thursday.. This cant be right & some of our elder members felt let down by the CTC..
I think you need to recognise that what has happened was unlikely to be the plan of HQ but the result of the changes being leaked prematurely. Unfortunate but these things happen sometimes
gaz wrote:In my opinion you are very much mistaken in your recollection because I know that you would not deliberately misrepresent the matter.
It was Motion 1 of the 2012 AGM at Sheffield that finally sealed the Charity Conversion. I wasn't there, but this isn't the first time that I've linked the ERS records for the vote which suggest the room was strongly in favour (90%) as were the majority of returned voting forms that gave directed proxy votes.
If the Chair's undirected proxy votes had been left uncast the result would have been 3978 For, 646 Against (86% in favour). If the Chair had then cast the undirected proxies against the mood of those who'd expressed an opinion the motion would have been lost. Unsurprisingly he cast them in favour.
AndyK wrote:TonyR wrote:smuggers wrote:Not wanting to get involved in the rights & wrongs of the re-branding, I do think it's quite shocking that the majority of our club members, knew nothing about the change of name at our clubroom slideshow last Thursday.. This cant be right & some of our elder members felt let down by the CTC..
I think you need to recognise that what has happened was unlikely to be the plan of HQ but the result of the changes being leaked prematurely. Unfortunate but these things happen sometimes
If by "prematurely" you mean "several months later than they should have been", then yes. Otherwise, no.
TonyR wrote:Philip Benstead wrote:IMHO this was immoral
If you thought what Council did was immoral did you take the only honourable course of action open to you and resign from Council?
Thought not!
smuggers wrote:Not wanting to get involved in the rights & wrongs of the re-branding, I do think it's quite shocking that the majority of our club members, knew nothing about the change of name at our clubroom slideshow last Thursday.. This cant be right & some of our elder members felt let down by the CTC.. Some with 40+ years of loyalty towards the CTC.. Personally I shall be watching developments & if I feel the CTC is heading in the wrong direction I will look elsewhere to meet my needs as a touring cyclist... I probably need to have a good sit down and read the reams of posts & information online.
RickH wrote:smuggers wrote:Not wanting to get involved in the rights & wrongs of the re-branding, I do think it's quite shocking that the majority of our club members, knew nothing about the change of name at our clubroom slideshow last Thursday.. This cant be right & some of our elder members felt let down by the CTC.. Some with 40+ years of loyalty towards the CTC.. Personally I shall be watching developments & if I feel the CTC is heading in the wrong direction I will look elsewhere to meet my needs as a touring cyclist... I probably need to have a good sit down and read the reams of posts & information online.
I was forwarded an email with details on 24th that had been sent out by David Cox the previous week (week beginning 15th Feb - I don't currently have the precise date) to a CTC group I have links with. Delays in passing this on are therefore probably due to communication delays internal to the CTC group - I presume all CTC groups will have been sent the same info at the same time.
Rick.
smuggers wrote:Seems to be lots of infighting within the CTC & think I'll just stay away from here for a while & ride my bike more.
TonyR wrote:Ah you miss the point though that the 4 people who voted against in person at the meeting should be allowed to trump the 8,000 who voted for by post
Philip Benstead wrote:... CTC Rebranding Chair Statement - Philip Benstead Reply ...
TonyR wrote:AndyK wrote:TonyR wrote:
I think you need to recognise that what has happened was unlikely to be the plan of HQ but the result of the changes being leaked prematurely. Unfortunate but these things happen sometimes
If by "prematurely" you mean "several months later than they should have been", then yes. Otherwise, no.
What's your timeline for this then. AIUI the consultants presented the final proposals at the October 2015 meeting and the final decision to go ahead was made at the 23 January 2016 meeting where it was the major item of discussion but was too late to get into the February/March 2016 issue of Cycle so will presumably be in the April/May issue. The new logo leaked on 17 February So where do you manage to fit in "several months later than they should have been" into that timeline.
AndyK wrote:I would have expected some wider consultation on the preliminary proposals, which were presumably worked through prior to October.
Yes, many people knew a rebrand was being considered. Those who cared were doubtless sitting patiently expecting to be shown the options and consulted on them, because that's what happens in a membership organisation.
Instead the planned timescale was designed to make sure it was a foregone conclusion, revealed too late for anyone outside of Council to object to the final choice or even ask what the alternatives were.