Cycling UK Forum

.

If there was some sort of revolution within the CTC and a decision was made to require repayment of the loan, it's not easy to see where the readies would be found.

Gaz

- why was the loan not in the published accounts when the expense was incurred?
- how on earth would the loan ever be paid back? (apologies to Thirdcrank)
- £388,000 for the office fitout? And isn't the fitout a depreciating asset?
- and, apart from Campaigning, which is in the Trust for perfectly sensible reasons, the £1million pound worth of activity is Trust activity. Why do you need 'working capital' for CTC staff who were previously working for the Club?

.

The terms of the loan mean CTC Council could ask for the loan to be repaid at any time, thus ensuring a cash flow back to the Club accounts. However as the Trust continues to carry out up to £1million of activity that would otherwise be carried out by the Club it has been decided by Council that the loan should remain in place. The decision to renew the loan is voted on by Council annually.

Errr... when? I can't remember much in the way of discussion about this - and I'm a member of Council.

gaz wrote:I thought it worth linking to the official explanation of the "loan" (at least there is one). It's not really a surprise to me that it prompts further questions.

point taken, Gaz. Thankyou

Regardless of the loan, it is a very good idea to review auditors regularly and check whether CTC can get a better deal (not just lower cost). Although long standing auditors get to know an organisation well, they can get a bit careless and new auditors often pick up mistakes previously missed.
I'm a trustee of a charity that recently reviewed auditors and decided to change when we realised what an improvement in service we would get. So far they have been excellent.

.

Jimmy The Hand wrote:There seems to be a lot of insinuation of wrong doing in regards to the accounts, if anyone has proof that the accounts are being mismanaged then that is something that sholud be reported to the Police/Companies House/Charity Commission.

On the other hand if it is a matter of an individual not liking the way things have/are being done then can we preface any statement to that effect with the words "in my opinion".

In my opinion, a regular change of auditors is just a matter of good practice.

In my opinion, if it is done at regular, predetermined intervals, the change can occur as a matter of routine and go almost unnoticed.

In my opinion, to do otherwise leaves anybody suggesting a change open to these sorts of allegations, and ironically, the longer these cosy arrangements persist, the harder it becomes to suggest change without it becoming a big deal.

In my opinion, those who allowed this cosy arrangement to persist so long should reflect on their lack of foresight.

.

In my opinion,

The result of the vote for charity status was so close (2%for and 2%against) that very small changes could swing the result either way.

In which case why is the CTC so loyal to its auditors?

Whereas many people (like myself) rejecting the charity did so out of broad principles , the "SavetheCTC" group are quite willing to go charity at a later date, when the financial side of things is cleared up enough for their liking.
Like most members I dont understand the financial workings but it appears to me that the simple act of replacing the auditors would be enough to satisfy the majority of those doubting the financial workings.

The simple act of changing the auditors would have cleared the way for a "Yes" vote at the next AGM.
So it would have been expedient for the supporters of charity status to abandon the loyalty to the auditors in order to move forward.

Of course, if like me you dont want charity status (and dont read the accounts anyway ) then it is equally expedient to keep the present auditors.
I was surprised to see that they were retained at the AGM but maybee I was just a bit slow on the uptake.

.

what happened was this...

I've voted against the resolution to re-appoint for the last few years, but we didn't push opposition to resolution 4, because we wanted to concentrate on the one thing.

Howerver, quite a few members appointing us as proxies made a point of saying that they wanted us to oppose resolution 4, which we did. Those who nominated the chair and opposed 8, 9 and sometimes 10 didn't, by and large, make a choice on resolution 4 - so those members voted in favour of the resolution.

I did have a word with Peter Jackson prior to the AGM, said that there would be some votes against, and suggested that we nominate another practice, but he said that would be disruptive and that, in the event of resolution 4 being defeated, the matter would revert to Council, who would re-appoint the same auditors.