Cycling UK Forum

Eton.

That's all I'll say.

[quote="Regulator"]...why does [the Trust] then need another £453,000 donation from the Club on top of the £417,000 paid by the Club for services to balance its books? John Meudell and I , and others have asked these and other questions multiple times and they have not been answered.[/quote]

And how can a failure (refusal?) to answer this question possibly be accompanied by a proposal to increase subscriptions? The effrontery of it is astonishing. It says, in effect: "Yes, we'll take your money - as much of it as we can get away with - and spend it as we see fit, and we won't consider ourselves obliged to tell you how we spent it".

My renewal is due soon; the CTC has one more issue of its magazine with which to persuade me that it is an organisation deserving of my support. Its chances are looking pretty slim.

At the moment I'm still a member because of the insurance. If I could get that elsewhere at a similar price, I'd be off

It does seem that a lot of the people who are talking about leaving are those who voted 'No.' Somebody somewhere may be hoping that they'll all sling their 'ooks and the 75% thing will go away with them. Of course, that's believing the spin that the vast majority want charitable status. The thousands who didn't vote may just as easily decide not to renew, now that they've read all about it. They may have even decided already. Nobody's ever paid that much attention to non-renewals in the past, there's no focus groups, no opinion polls, just some assumptions from the from the bridge. It's unknown territory.

.

precise figures please

number of members =

yes vote total =

directly voted yes =

votes yes via chair =

directly voted no =

Give us a professional service with a proper account of the results.

Steady rider wrote:precise figures please

number of members =

yes vote total =

directly voted yes =

votes yes via chair =

directly voted no =

Give us a professional service with a proper account of the results.

Send HO an email I'm sure they will tell you. This is an unofficial offical forum so I doubt anyone from HO will stop by to give you the answers

.

I thought I read that Head Office were going to monitor this part of the forum. I remember reading on the CTC pages being referred to this part of the forum for answers.
Kevin Maine did reply here to some questions about the change.
Has all that cooperation stopped now the votes have been cast?

gaz wrote: ... The "No" bridge : 94% of members did not vote, clearly they do not support change.

The "Yes" bridge: 94% of members did not vote, clearly they do not object to change. ... .

To stick with the Titanic imagery - there's only one bridge, staffed by the 'Yes' people. Perhaps the 'no's' are the grumpy mob down in the engine room and elsewhere, covered in muck and grumbling about all and sundry. The apparently uncommitted majority are the passengers, not out for a free ride, of course, because they are paying handsomely for the privilege of being on of one of the finest vessels of its type in the world, even if it's still steam-powered, rather than using nuclear fuel.

Perhaps some of the passengers are intrigued by the chuntering they hear, or they may have 100% confidence in the skipper and his team. Perhaps in future decades, historians will record that the fancy binocculars for the look-out never came oot of their locker because somebody had forgotten they key.....

.

Edwards wrote:I thought I read that Head Office were going to monitor this part of the forum. I remember reading on the CTC pages being referred to this part of the forum for answers.
Kevin Maine did reply here to some questions about the change.
Has all that cooperation stopped now the votes have been cast?

Yep, NO/council have been looking in, although I doubt that they have trawled through every post I think that they will have gathered a general gist of feeling.

I'm informed that they have played a minimal role in discussions for a couple of reasons:
- trying to answer every post in this section of the forum would have taken a hell of a lot of time (in the case of paid staff that would have been time when they might have had other duties allocated to them, in the case of Council - many have real world jobs outside of the CTC that they need to devote time to). They believe that issues have been answered on the CTC website (linked to in this forum) and in Cycle.
- the risk of getting involved in repetitive and unproductive argument that had the potential to become abusive (we have had this before on the forum - once bitten....). Although when Mr Catt contributed this did not seem to happen.

I'm not sure to what extent these worries actually hold up - for instance councillors have invited people to email concerns to them so that too would have taken up their time, plus Reg seems to have managed a fair amount of input. Perhaps we need a better or more formal system for Council/NO staff participation in the forum? Also, I hope that the moderation has been fair on the forum and has meant that when councillors/NO staff have decided not to participate it was not because they were worried about the abuse that they would receive.

I know of at least one Yes-vote supporting councillor who is still very interested in members' opinions and is happy to discuss what has gone on....so I'm sure that this section of the forum is still being read.

As an aside this split vote: also gets us out of a tricky decision on what to do about this section of the forum after the AMG

gaz wrote:

Edwards wrote:I thought I read that Head Office were going to monitor this part of the forum. I remember reading on the CTC pages being referred to this part of the forum for answers.
Kevin Maine did reply here to some questions about the change.
Has all that cooperation stopped now the votes have been cast?

I believe the National Office approach has been to publish information on the CTC website for members to find. The Charity Debate Forum was set up as a place for members to discuss or debate the issues and I've been disappointed at the relative lack of involvement from National Office on the forum thereafter.

In terms of "official" comment from the "yes" team, I'm aware of two councillors posting; John Catt, 60 posts and redspoke, 1 post. Kevin Mayne has 6 posts.

Frankly there seem to be very few "yes" supporters on here at all.

Re: the above in bold.... but will they publish the information on the actual votes? I too would like that information. Somehow I think we may be more likely to find it on the SaveTheCTC website. It shouldn't be that way.

gaz wrote:... FWIW I think that pursuing points about the number of discretionary votes cast either way is a bit of a red herring. ...

I agree. We know what was passed and what wasn't and that's the important info, IMO. Beyond that, it's the huge majority who did not vote, because nobody knows if they are happy, unhappy, or quite indifferent.

thirdcrank wrote:

gaz wrote:... FWIW I think that pursuing points about the number of discretionary votes cast either way is a bit of a red herring. ...

I agree. We know what was passed and what wasn't and that's the important info, IMO. Beyond that, it's the huge majority who did not vote, because nobody knows if they are happy, unhappy, or quite indifferent.

Based upon my very small sampling of the huge majority it is a combination of: indifference [1], happiness [2] and not understanding the issues [3].

[1] it's not that they don't care, so much as they don't really see the link between this vote/what happens on a national scale and their own experience of the CTC.
[2] they seem very happy with the way that their local group is run locally.
[3] I think that we all have to admit that it's a very complex issue and extremely hard to get a balanced view from the sheer quantity of info and discussion to be found. Wouldn't we all rather be out on our bikes than having to wade through it: whether or not you think the proposal is a good or bad thing I don't think that any one has enjoyed the debate concerning it.