Cycling UK Forum

Edit : I've decided to withdraw my comments here. I'm supposed to keep well out of it.

I find it interesting that in his blog John Catt is suggesting that those opposing the current proposals from Councilor, a number of whom are Councillors themselves, want to 'split' or 'divide' the Club from the Trust. He then suggests that such a spilt would be disastrous:

I must just emphasise that I think a split would be disasterous. The "CTC" would be a small enfeebled "club" without the mass to get economies of scale in its organisation and I don't believe that active members would get any discernibly better service from it, than from a combined charity.

I'm afraid that this is spin on an extraordinary scale, as well as being a gross misrepresentation of the position of those opposed to the proposed merger.

There is already a division between the Club and the Trust - they are two separate organisations, although they are jointly administered. This is in part why some Councillors and National Office are seeking a merger. If the CTC were the unified organisation that John suggests then there would be no need for a merger.

What those opposed to merger are saying is that the current structure should be made to work properly. There are numerous examples of organisations that work well with the dual company/charity structure (including most of the national charities in the UK who have commercial arms). We have made a number of constructive suggestions, such as the introduction of a proper project accounting system and improved governance, but these have been nostly ignored by those who are determined to push on blindly with their 'grand project'.

CTC as it is can be made to work properly - if there is the will amongst Counillors to take their responsibilities as directors and elected representatives of the membership seriously - and put in place the proper governance and oversight that is required. Simply merging the two organisations and ignoring the woeful lack of proper governance will merely mean that the merged organisation is unfit for purpose.

I find it bemusing that the response of those proposing the merger to the questions raised is to attack those raising the questions, rather than to actually answer the questions. Examples include Arthur Spurr's intemperate rant against Simon Legg and John Catt's own assumption that a member who asked questions was a 'sceptical member' rather than a concerned member.

Regulator wrote:CTC as it is can be made to work properly - if there is the will amongst Counillors to take their responsibilities as directors and elected representatives of the membership seriously - and put in place the proper governance and oversight that is required. Simply merging the two organisations and ignoring the woeful lack of proper governance will merely mean that the merged organisation is unfit for purpose.

Anyone who has read the materials avaialable would conclude a number of things (membership system/admin, relationship with and expenditure on local groups, governance and accountability of club and trust, project accounting, lack of transparency, etc., etc..) have been and continue to be in a mess. Merging Club and Trust at this stage will not result in clarity it will simply result in a merged mess.

The 'nay' camp are not saying never they are saying not now and are suggesting that the 'messy' matters are addressed with structures 'as is' before practically irreversible changes are made. Seems a sensible approach to me and will win my proxy vote as a result.

The question then is, if the 'nay' camp carry the day, what can be done to ensure the 'messy' matters are addressed? Does the Club rulebook allow for special resolutions to be passed in respect of specific issues and are these binding on council?

Regulator wrote:I find it interesting that in his blog John Catt is suggesting that those opposing the current proposals from Councilor, a number of whom are Councillors themselves, want to 'split' or 'divide' the Club from the Trust. He then suggests that such a spilt would be disastrous:

I must just emphasise that I think a split would be disasterous. The "CTC" would be a small enfeebled "club" without the mass to get economies of scale in its organisation and I don't believe that active members would get any discernibly better service from it, than from a combined charity.

I'm afraid that this is spin on an extraordinary scale, as well as being a gross misrepresentation of the position of those opposed to the proposed merger.

There is already a division between the Club and the Trust - they are two separate organisations, although they are jointly administered. This is in part why some Councillors and National Office are seeking a merger. If the CTC were the unified organisation that John suggests then there would be no need for a merger.

What those opposed to merger are saying is that the current structure should be made to work properly. There are numerous examples of organisations that work well with the dual company/charity structure (including most of the national charities in the UK who have commercial arms). We have made a number of constructive suggestions, such as the introduction of a proper project accounting system and improved governance, but these have been nostly ignored by those who are determined to push on blindly with their 'grand project'.

The only example that savethectc have given as far as I am aware is the RYA.

I have covered that here : http://witherthectc.blogspot.com/2010/02/ctc-v-rya.html

John Catt wrote:

Regulator wrote:I find it interesting that in his blog John Catt is suggesting that those opposing the current proposals from Councilor, a number of whom are Councillors themselves, want to 'split' or 'divide' the Club from the Trust. He then suggests that such a spilt would be disastrous:

I must just emphasise that I think a split would be disasterous. The "CTC" would be a small enfeebled "club" without the mass to get economies of scale in its organisation and I don't believe that active members would get any discernibly better service from it, than from a combined charity.

I'm afraid that this is spin on an extraordinary scale, as well as being a gross misrepresentation of the position of those opposed to the proposed merger.

There is already a division between the Club and the Trust - they are two separate organisations, although they are jointly administered. This is in part why some Councillors and National Office are seeking a merger. If the CTC were the unified organisation that John suggests then there would be no need for a merger.

What those opposed to merger are saying is that the current structure should be made to work properly. There are numerous examples of organisations that work well with the dual company/charity structure (including most of the national charities in the UK who have commercial arms). We have made a number of constructive suggestions, such as the introduction of a proper project accounting system and improved governance, but these have been nostly ignored by those who are determined to push on blindly with their 'grand project'.

The only example that savethectc have given as far as I am aware is the RYA.

I have covered that here : http://witherthectc.blogspot.com/2010/02/ctc-v-rya.html

John, John, John...

The RYA was given on the Savethectc web-site as an example of membership organisation that has a similar structure to CTC which has chosen not to become a charity.

My comment above is that "there are numerous examples of organisations that work well with the dual company/charity structure". Name a majority charity in the UK, e.g. Oxfam, Save the Children, NSPCC, and you'll find that they have both charitable and commercial arms. They see the advantages of retaining a dual strucure, which was the point being made.

and once again, John, can you please think of a single reason not to isolate the risk of contracting and trading from members subs. And once again I point you in the direction of Holidays and Tours