Cycling UK Forum

Without wishing to be indelicate, I'm interested in how those predisposed to vote No intend to proceed in the event of a Yes vote. Will you accept a democratic decision and carry on paying your subs as usual? Will it be a change too far and do you intend leaving the club in the event of charitable status? Is there room for a national non-competitive cycling member's club?
I assume those intending to vote yes will not resign on the back of a no vote as it'll mean business as usual, but if that assumption is mistaken please add your concerns.

glueman wrote:Without wishing to be indelicate, I'm interested in how those predisposed to vote No intend to proceed in the event of a Yes vote. Will you accept a democratic decision and carry on paying your subs as usual? Will it be a change too far and do you intend leaving the club in the event of charitable status? Is there room for a national non-competitive cycling member's club?
I assume those intending to vote yes will not resign on the back of a no vote as it'll mean business as usual, but if that assumption is mistaken please add your concerns.

You could ask the same of electors in the forthcoming general election. If I were to vote and the party/candidate I'd chosen were to be unsuccessful then I'd not emigrate, I may feel like the world had come to an end, but I'd tough it out. Same with the CTC - were I to vote.

With the CTC and the Government, will the man/woman in the street (or on the saddle) see much REAL difference?

I should have thought most people's decisions will be affected by what they experience after the decision, rather than the decision itself. If the experience of the typical member is unchanged, then they will carry on, or not, much as before.

OTOH, I think quite a lot of the people I come into contact with have had their eyes opened when they have read some of the background stuff and the apparent attempt to railroad it through, which just makes people even more suspicious. I suppose attitudes to what the people involved say depends on how much they support the speaker's POV. Having said that, some of the personal denigration I've seen has been unworthy. Spinning out of control....

It's been said that after the pro-councillors' email lobbying of the on-line membership, that two 'anti' councillors were unable to do something similar addressed to their own constituency. In general, I'm more a believer in cockups than conspiracies, but if somebody in authority within the CTC has taken a decision to censor them in this way, then they should hang their head in shame as well as recognising that it tends to be counter-productive anyway.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~##
Just seen this

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=35643&p=285835#p285835

glueman wrote:Without wishing to be indelicate, I'm interested in how those predisposed to vote No intend to proceed in the event of a Yes vote. Will you accept a democratic decision and carry on paying your subs as usual? Will it be a change too far and do you intend leaving the club in the event of charitable status? Is there room for a national non-competitive cycling member's club?
I assume those intending to vote yes will not resign on the back of a no vote as it'll mean business as usual, but if that assumption is mistaken please add your concerns.

What about the people and committee members who vote Yes, will they leave if the No vote is carried? My membership runs out at the end of this month so, if I want a say in the future of the club I will have to renew so that my 'No' vote will count. If the motion to become a charity is won it will be my last year as a member. Like many people over the last year or so I have had a big reduction in my financial income so I am looking at all expenditure. CTC will be a very expensive luxury that I can live without.

I am an active member of a Christian charity and there are no benefits for members - all money and activity goes into the work of the charity and its outreach programme. I joined the Cyclists' Touring Club for the benefits it would give me (selfish perhaps but why else did most of us join?) not to "win souls for cycling". The CTC has lost its way and although clubs and organisations need to keep up to date, changing to a charity to benefit non-members is not the club I joined or want.

I'm undecided whether to continue my membership or not if the yes vote wins. Like Thirdcrank I find some of the pro-campaign tactics pretty appalling and would pay my subs without any great enthusiasm, knowing I'd be sponsoring precisely the kind of unsavoury/professional (delete for conscience) business that won out.
OTOH I doubt there'd be a noticable change as the kind of brinkmanship we've seen from the CTC is hardly a new phenomenon. What's been surprising is the ease with which current administration has labelled any questions as dissent and the questioners as trouble makers trying to hold the club back. The club clearly needs re-democratising and if the no vote wins I hope it will see an increase in grass roots involvement and the re-birth of the CTC. If it's a yes then it would be good to see a new national club emerge with its members supporting the CTC cycle charity's work, or not, as finances and inclination permit.

glueman wrote:I'm interested in how those predisposed to vote No intend to proceed in the event of a Yes vote.

I think more to the point is what I will do if the proposal to increase the subs gets a 'yes' vote? I already pay subs to my local cycling club, and frankly wonder why CTC is asking for even more money at a time when most people including me are tightening our belts.

I've voted no. I also voted against the subscription increase. Whether I stay will depend on who remains on Council, unlike Si I see no harm in getting rid of the opposition and I will vote to unseat if I get the chance, regardless of which way it goes.
That isn't an ungentlemanly attitude by the way, simply old fashioned politics.

PW wrote:I've voted no. I also voted against the subscription increase. Whether I stay will depend on who remains on Council, unlike Si I see no harm in getting rid of the opposition and I will vote to unseat if I get the chance, regardless of which way it goes.
That isn't an ungentlemanly attitude by the way, simply old fashioned politics.

Nice to see that despite not even contributing to the thread it seems I'm still being misquoted in it I've made no comment on whether or not I'd get rid of members of council should the chance arise, so am unsure why you are dragging me into this issue?

But, as you have....... As you cannot vote a councillor out, you can only vote a different one in, I can't see how you intend to unseat your councillor before the next election. Come the next election, chances are, given past form, that your councillor may well stand unopposed. In which case your only option would be to abstain. Like it or not, a good number of the council will probably continue well after the AGM, which ever way the vote goes.

So what do the no-voters do then? Leave the CTC? Stay in but go on fighting the council's every move over a lost cause (thus polarising and entrenching views further)? Or try to work with them and guide them, to make the CTC as good as it can be under the circumstances, salvage what can be salvaged, and then hope that someone who is more representative of the SaveTheCTC views opposes them in the next election? Whatever the grievances over the AGM issues and the charity vote campaign, the latter option must surely be best for the CTC? After all, if the charity vote comes out as a 'no' would you be happy if the 'yes' supporters to launch a campaign to oust the SaveTheCTC people from the club?

I think that even if the Yes campaign does win, they've been very much surprised by how they have misjudged the campaign and by the response of the membership. One would hope that they, thus, will be more open to listening to the membership after the AGM....because unlike the other election, they don't have another four years until the next AGM, or until they have to defend their council seats.

Yes. When people like the snivelling Parris misjudge cyclists it's sort-of understandable. Cycling is what children do, therefore cyclists must be childish. OTOH you might think that people with the depth of experience of cycling and cyclists we are talking about here would know that to make an informed choice to cycle in a country like the UK often takes somebody with a lot of positive qualities (unless they are barmy ) Whatever the outcome, treating the membership of he CTC as a mob of numpties does nobody good.

thirdcrank wrote: treating the membership of he CTC as a mob of numpties does nobody good.

Sadly, that is the way the public at large are treated all too often by organisation both public and private

Nice to see that despite not even contributing to the thread it seems I'm still being misquoted in it I've made no comment on whether or not I'd get rid of members of council should the chance arise, so am unsure why you are dragging me into this issue?

>> snip

I think you will find that the "Si" referred to may be Simon Legg (he clearly likes to retain the "mon"!) who made relevant comments in another thread.

Rob

With a degree of magnanimity - something along the lines that of course there are genuine concerns about the future of the CTC and we'd like to hear all sides before reaching a decision - I expect council could have passed the motion for charitable status at a canter, as indeed they may well yet do. What entrenches opinion are assertions from David Robinson that 'It's important that minority voices are heard..' but '..'our internal discussions have to be conducted professionally and with authority, basing our case on solid evidence' without addressing any of the issues the no campaign have raised.

The subtext is basically trust us, it'll all turn out okay. The trouble is there's no going back. Members can't say two years down the line it didn't work out, we'll have our old club back, thanks, because it won't be our club anymore. To raise a modest and entirely notional revenue stream that's a very big gift members are making and to whom? - A few people who've decided charitable status is the way 'forward'. So far as one can tell the counter argument has been officially sanctioned to the tune of one magazine page by Simon Legg, and the content was quickly dismissed and a spam shot undertaken to rubbish his concerns. I'm afraid that sets alarm bells ringing with me. The CTC has been around for well over a hundred years, it won't wither and die if we don't become a charity this year or next, nor will members leave in droves.
If with full member consultation the decision is made after a prolonged period of debate to become a charity, so be it. But bouncing such a momentous decision through on the back of spam emails and spin is just managerialism.

Hello
In very simple words (I hope) I will remain a Member of CTC if it is a No vote.
I only wish to be a member of a Club for cyclists. Not a Charity.
I am very saddened by this turn of events.
John.

I'll be voting 'No' via proxy.

If Team Yay carry the day I'll remain a member for the foreseeable future, because of the insurance, the mag, and the other benefits, but I will also watch closely and take note of what other members/councillors do and will be influenced by them. Baaaaa!

Si, I was reading between the lines of your post in the "KM resigns...." thread.
As I said, I see no harm in some vengeful voting in due course, you appear to differ. If I misunderstand your attitude to that then I'll apologise.