Cycling UK Forum

This weeks CTC Cycle Clips seems to indicate a change of name for the CTC next week. Is this correct or have I misunderstood something? If true it's a sad day - I'm sure the marketing / branding people will be behind this and perhaps marks the beginning of the end like the YHA. As a lifelong member it's the first I have heard of this and don't remember being consulted.

From the CTC Cycle Clips today "Watch out for a brand new look for CycleClips next week with CTC officially becoming Cycling UK from next Tuesday 5 April. More information about the new brand and the reasons behind it will be in the next issue of Cycle magazine, which should be on your doorstep on or around the same time."

Yep, they're really pushing ahead with this. See the other discussions on this forum

mjr wrote:Yep, they're really pushing ahead with this. See the other discussions on this forum :(

How can they when the change is subject to a vote of the membership. To push ahead anyway would make it a fait accompli and in effect invalidate the vote of the membership (which is now required according to their Articles). Even I don't believe the organisers will disregard their own Articles to such an extent.

Ian

I knew nothing about this until I received today's cycleclips - I thought it was in the same vein as the pothole filling proposal!

For me, it'll be like British Steel and a few others - change the name, it'll be "Cycling what?" - yet another bit of heritage that becomes anonymous.

Ah well, that's progress I suppose.

It's just occurred to me that today is April 1st.

That's another story.

Psamathe wrote:

mjr wrote:Yep, they're really pushing ahead with this. See the other discussions on this forum

How can they when the change is subject to a vote of the membership. To push ahead anyway would make it a fait accompli and in effect invalidate the vote of the membership (which is now required according to their Articles). Even I don't believe the organisers will disregard their own Articles to such an extent.

Ian

I do believe it, the council has disregard their orders in council until I made a fuse regarding election of committee chairs etc.

Article 11 provides that any action taken before the petition is presented remains valid until the vote happens.

11.4 Provided always that any action taken upon such resolution prior to receipt of such petition shall be valid.

The brand was registered before the Poll was received so that action is valid until the vote.

Council appear to have taken a position that the subsequent use of the registered brand after receipt of the petition is valid.

YMMV.

Can we merge all these threads? My head hurts more than it did 257 'copy and pastes' ago. My broadband provider has rung up and complained that I'm using too much of Britain's available bandwidth on the CTC / CUK issue.

Thank you for considering my mental health...b

If you think there's a lot of threads now, just wait until Cycle starts hitting doormats .

gaz wrote:Article 11 provides that any action taken before the petition is presented remains valid until the vote happens.

11.4 Provided always that any action taken upon such resolution prior to receipt of such petition shall be valid.

The brand was registered before the Poll was received so that action is valid until the vote.

Council appear to have taken a position that the subsequent use of the registered brand after receipt of the petition is valid.

YMMV.

So they can(have) register)ed) the brand but in now having a public launch they are taking further steps that are taking place after the petition was submitted and accepted. They could register as many brands as they like, but having a public launch is something that has not happened or been done yet and thus will be happening after the initiation of the petition process.

I suspect/have reason to believe that people will be going to the Charity Commission if the new brand launch goes ahead (as is being suggested here). People in part know what a charity is about as it has safeguards. People can join and/or donate because of the security of the organisation's Articles specifying how they act. For a Charity to disregard those Articles is pretty serious. And I suspect it would at best taint the new brand - all those stories following the brand launch in the press with postscripts about a members vote that might overturn the brand, about (possible) complaints about the process being made to the Charity Commission. Sort of detracts from the brand (particularly how the press loves scandal and controversy). And the cycling press are already well aware of the petition as they have already been reporting about "some of the membership being unhappy" and the organisation of the petition. They would be better to stick to their Articles, sort out the membership vote and then, if it gets the go ahead have an un-tainted brand launch.

Ian

gaz wrote:That's another story.

And this one thanks to DaveP for the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSZPNwZex9s

Psamathe wrote:So they can(have) register)ed) the brand but in now having a public launch they are taking further steps that are taking place after the petition was submitted and accepted. They could register as many brands as they like, but having a public launch is something that has not happened or been done yet and thus will be happening after the initiation of the petition process.

The decision/action to launch the new brand was taken at the January 25 Council meeting and I would fully expect that to be followed in the next day or two with authorisation to Cycle, the web designers and the host of others involved in the rebranding to go ahead given the publishing time constraints for the April issue of Cycle with the launch. The petition did not arrive at HO until 5 February. So all those actions to start the rebrand will have happened before the petition was received and will therefore still be valid to go ahead.

I suspect/have reason to believe that people will be going to the Charity Commission if the new brand launch goes ahead (as is being suggested here). People in part know what a charity is about as it has safeguards. People can join and/or donate because of the security of the organisation's Articles specifying how they act. For a Charity to disregard those Articles is pretty serious.

I doubt that will get very far. The Charity Commission has already told the CTC in strong terms that the s11 membership poll clause must go because its incompatiblewith the legal obligations of the charity and its Trustees. [/quote]

The Council meeting was 23 January 2016. Philip Benstead reported the Motion as: "to replace the existing “Cyclists` Touring Club or CTC” and associated logo(s) and heritage marks with “CYCLING UK” or another branding name and logo(s)".

Philip Benstead reported that the petition was received on Friday 4 March. The successful petition requires that the Motion shall be put to a Poll of the Whole Club.

The action "to replace the existing “Cyclists` Touring Club or CTC” and associated logo(s) and heritage marks with “CYCLING UK” or another branding name and logo(s)" was completed before the poll was submitted. The Articles provide that actions taken before submission of the petition remain valid.

The issue remains should CTC refrain from the use of validly registered trademarks berfore the result of the Poll is known. Clearly National Office are using them and I'd expect the action they have taken has been guided by legal advice to Council.

gaz wrote:The issue remains should CTC refrain from the use of validly registered trademarks berfore the result of the Poll is known. Clearly National Office are using them and I'd expect the action they have taken has been guided by legal advice to Council.

I think the Charity Commission advice to the CTC on what it should do if it did receive a s11 petition for a membership poll is pertinent. They basically said if they had taken a decision in the best interests of the charity they should stick with that decision. If they didn't they needed to document very carefully the reasons why they had changed their mind and the new course of action was now in the best interests (and a s11 membership poll request was not a sufficient reason)