CI AGM 1 November 2014

RobFowl

Beasty wrote: »

Just on the accounts, it looks a little odd that Northern Ireland only provides around 10% of the grants received with the Irish Sports Council providing around 90%. Does anyone know if Sport NI provide any direct funding, perhaps to Cycling Ulster? I guess at the "elite" level they also have to provide support for those representing GBR and will also have funded the Commonwealth Games team this year, but their overall contribution does appear quite low in comparison to what is provided from the ISC.

The SCNI do provide funding directly to CU and also directly to athletes and support staff, don't always run it through CI.
A big difference there is they focus quite a lot on the Commonwealth games.

Lusk_Doyle

OT here but isn't the term "Commonwealth" a massive misnomer?!?!

RobFowl

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

OT here but isn't the term "Commonwealth" a massive misnomer?!?!

Better than the "Empire Games" as they used to be known...

wav1

Good luck to all going tomorrow..sorry to be missing it this year

Beasty

Well I guess someone has to break the silence!!

Today's events were "interesting" to say the least. Perhaps more interesting for those of us who attended as I'm not going to go into too much detail over some of the more controversial "incidents"

Firstly though the attendance was very impressive given that virtually everyone had to travel some distance. Hopefully this is a sign of better engagement with and by the grass roots membership (although I am sure some will beg to differ on that). They had to bring extra chairs in and there must have been 100+ there in total, including quite a sprinkling of boardsies (and that's just those I know!). The meeting itself lasted for nearly 5 hours after taking away the lunch break

The first part of the meeting was largely focussed on a "discussion" of the board elections last year and what appears to have been some extended discussion over the election of Pat O'Shaughnessy and whether that was for a full 2 year term. I'll stick to reporting the facts which were that Pat was not up for re-election and essentially there was an election for his "vacant" position. There was some discussion over certain legal advice taken by Pat and the Board, but again I won't go further into that here. Carl Fullerton was standing for all 3 board vacancies but ended up withdrawing his candidacies before the elections took place meaning Jack Watson and Sam McArdle were re-elected unopposed. We still had a vote for the 3rd vacancy between Siobhan O'Connor and Terry O'Neill, and I'm delighted to report that we now have a female Board member - something that really has been missing in recent years, so congratulations Siobhan - I hope though that some of today's "shenanigans" don't put you off in any way!!

In terms of the other business:

• The proposals for minimum RR distances were withdrawn ahead of a vote and the proposed maximum distances passed
• The various proposals from the Women's Commission were either passed or it was agreed they would liaise with the Board to ensure the proposed rules were workable
• The proposals for non cycling membership received quite a bit of feedback, but in the end they did not get through.
• The proposal for mandatory next of kin details when applying for licences was supported by the Board who indicated this would go ahead but in addition details would be required on sign-on sheets
• I think there was some confusion over exactly what the South Dublin CC proposals were aimed at and what they would actually achieve. Hence none of these got through
• Closest vote of the day was on the Orwell Wheelers proposal to make optional upgrading a permanent rule - this was carried 38-36
• The proposal to award points for TTs failed
• There was extensive discussion on the Bikeworx proposal to introduce a €2 one-off levy on racing licences to help fund the Junior Tour. This was not passed but it looks like there will be a dedicated sportive to raise funds for this event. It appears that without additional funding this event will not take place next year, but I'm certainly hopeful that the sportive idea along with other initiatives will allow it to proceed

buffalo

I'm only just home now. Long aul' day, and shocking weather on the way back up. Congrats to Siobhán!

daragh_

That was a long long day.

I'm looking forward to seeing the full Strategy Document. Some very ambitious goals were outlined today.

Great to see Siobhan on the Board.

One other item was the new max distance for A4. 120k. Really hope someone runs with that. I'll be the first to sign up.

Donegaler

Beasty wrote: »

Well I guess someone has to break the silence!!

Today's events were "interesting" to say the least. Perhaps more interesting for those of us who attended as I'm not going to go into too much detail over some of the more controversial "incidents"

Firstly though the attendance was very impressive given that virtually everyone had to travel some distance. Hopefully this is a sign of better engagement with and by the grass roots membership (although I am sure some will beg to differ on that). They had to bring extra chairs in and there must have been 100+ there in total, including quite a sprinkling of boardsies (and that's just those I know!). The meeting itself lasted for nearly 5 hours after taking away the lunch break

The first part of the meeting was largely focussed on a "discussion" of the board elections last year and what appears to have been some extended discussion over the election of Pat O'Shaughnessy and whether that was for a full 2 year term. I'll stick to reporting the facts which were that Pat was not up for re-election and essentially there was an election for his "vacant" position. There was some discussion over certain legal advice taken by Pat and the Board, but again I won't go further into that here. Carl Fullerton was standing for all 3 board vacancies but ended up withdrawing his candidacies before the elections took place meaning Jack Watson and Sam McArdle were re-elected unopposed. We still had a vote for the 3rd vacancy between Siobhan O'Connor and Terry O'Neill, and I'm delighted to report that we now have a female Board member - something that really has been missing in recent years, so congratulations Siobhan - I hope though that some of today's "shenanigans" don't put you off in any way!!

In terms of the other business:

• The proposals for minimum RR distances were withdrawn ahead of a vote and the proposed maximum distances passed
• The various proposals from the Women's Commission were either passed or it was agreed they would liaise with the Board to ensure the proposed rules were workable
• The proposals for non cycling membership received quite a bit of feedback, but in the end they did not get through.
• The proposal for mandatory next of kin details when applying for licences was supported by the Board who indicated this would go ahead but in addition details would be required on sign-on sheets
• I think there was some confusion over exactly what the South Dublin CC proposals were aimed at and what they would actually achieve. Hence none of these got through
• Closest vote of the day was on the Orwell Wheelers proposal to make optional upgrading a permanent rule - this was carried 38-36
• The proposal to award points for TTs failed
• There was extensive discussion on the Bikeworx proposal to introduce a €2 one-off levy on racing licences to help fund the Junior Tour. This was not passed but it looks like there will be a dedicated sportive to raise funds for this event. It appears that without additional funding this event will not take place next year, but I'm certainly hopeful that the sportive idea along with other initiatives will allow it to proceed

Just for the record.
I withdrew from the election due to.
1.Not being made aware that the vacant position was controversial. I work with PS on the Ras and felt bad about his treatment which I only became aware of today at the Agm.
2.I was unhappy about the alleged 30k.cost of giving non-cyclist event volunteers a piece of plastic to say that they were now CI members. I had my hand up a number of times to ask for elaboration of how the board had arrived at this cost but was ignored by DT. They used the crafty ploy of saying that this imaginary cost would be borne by the Cyclist members. It worked!
3.I was disappointed that the attendance chose to dismiss the reasonable request for 2 euros per competitive rider per annum for 1 year to help the Junior Tour,one of our Iconic races survive on 2015.Run a dance or a sportive was hardly the appropriate answer.CI gets off easy when it comes to throwing their weight and sufficient budget behind events like the JT.

I put my name forward in the belief that I had something to offer. I believe that I have sufficient qualifications,a healthy interest in most aspects of cycling,lots of energy and a passion for cycling which takes no prisoners when it meets mediocrity.
Till we meet again.....

buffalo

Also have to say, for all their faults and failings and flaws - to which much attention is drawn - well done and thanks to everyone on the board and the CI office for another year's work!

Beasty

buffalo wrote: »

Long aul' day,

T'was a long day alright, but I still managed to get home well before you having headed off to Liffey Valley on the way home to do some grocery shopping and have a coffee - were you stuck in a bar somewhere??:)

GMCI

A long day all round. The early outbursts set the tone for a tense and highly strung day throughout.

As one of many dedicated volunteers who would invest so much personal time in the sport for the good of the sport, I certainly wasn't inspired with confidence or have a feel good factor leaving today in relation to the direction CI is going or how their affairs have been managed or communicated so far.

There were bits of information that only became apparent today for the first time, in the middle of different conversations, like Crit/hill climb championship bundles being rotated through the provinces. Dunno where that came from. Going to take time to try and figure out what actually happened today.

Yes A4s, the 80km distance limit is now lifted yo a maximum of 120km. But don't jump to the same conclusion as half the room today, your races will not all be smack bang 120km. It just gives leeway as to whether an organiser wants to increase A4 race distances or not. The overreaction today was unreal

buffalo

GMCI wrote: »

There were bits of information that only became apparent today for the first time, in the middle of different conversations

I never knew that volunteers signed on to help at CI events were covered by CI insurance until today. I think we've always given them one-day licences.

Beasty

buffalo wrote: »

I never knew that volunteers signed on to help at CI events were covered by CI insurance until today. I think we've always given them one-day licences.

I think my club only discovered this fairly recently in connection with a specific query raised with CI

I do think though there appear to be a number of grey areas in connection with exactly what is and what is not covered by the insurance. I know they try and cover some of this on the website, but that could do with a bit more detail to clarify for everyone's benefit (2 "cycle" cover before being required to join CI was mentioned today for example whereas CI have confirmed directly to some it is 3, but I am not aware of anything on the website covering this off and making it clear (as was not the case for at least one club represented today) that people must sign-on to avoid any risk of a "debate" over whether they were covered at an organised event

GMCI

buffalo wrote: »

I never knew that volunteers signed on to help at CI events were covered by CI insurance until today. I think we've always given them one-day licences.

This is the ruling:
All persons riding a race or carrying out any function, in connection with any team, or with the organisation of any race, will hold a current licence from their National Federation, save marshals or other persons who are assisting in the running of the race, but who are not the race organisers. The organiser will be able to identify these non-licence holders if requested by the Chief Commissaire.

Some clubs interpreted it to be that the marshals signed a sign on sheet. But this wasn't always the case as the question arose years ago of Jimmy mc who lives on the other end of circuit, comes out from his house to marshal the junction outside it each year without fail before returning inside (believe me these people exist). This is why the ruling says once the organiser can identify the person. It has never said anything about signing on and is something that clubs have gradually introduced and now have the board even thinking its gospel

QueensGael

Thanks all, looking forward to an interesting 24 months ahead!

Harrybelafonte

What exactly were the "outbursts" and why did they cause tension? Why can't these meetings be held with some level of decorum?

Harrybelafonte

Did my question shut down this conversation?

After 14 pages or so of discussion pre AGM, we only have a page on the meeting itself, which sounds more like some odd heckling match going by all the inverted commas used in descriptions of the proceedings. Did it really take 5 hours to make those decisions or was most of the time taken up by finger pointing and legal debate?

I'm left with the same impression of Cycling Ireland I've had since the McQuaid debacle and my experiences with them in the last two years, a bunch of troglodytes, who are in a minority running the show and a swathe of dedicated volunteers whose voices seem to be ignored or marginalised.

In all the talk about this AGM and how many could or couldn't go, I don't understand why all members can't vote by proxy on matters as you would at the AGM of a stock listed company. Maybe I'm missing a basic point to why not, but surely our dedication to what happens in an organisation which purports to look after our sport's best interest shouldn't come down to whether we're free to sit in a conference room for five hours while the legalities of someone's election are discussed.

I'd say the Cycling Ireland dinner is gonna be a laugh.

Beasty

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

What exactly were the "outbursts" and why did they cause tension? Why can't these meetings be held with some level of decorum?

Because some members basically want to use it to get whatever they can, warranted or unwarranted, off their chests. Others, as has already been suggested, seem to like the sound of their own voice and seem to believe it should be heard above all others. Anyone who was there can, I am sure, think of a few individuals who fall into these categories

Beasty

And just to add I was at the point at one stage of asking for one individual to be removed. However I think the general consensus was he probably did his cause more harm than good from the way he conducted himself

Lusk_Doyle

This is better drama than Fair City reading this thread!

CramCycle

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

What exactly were the "outbursts" and why did they cause tension? Why can't these meetings be held with some level of decorum?

Its the same at every meeting like this in Ireland from GAA minor AGMs in a small community up to national federations. I can't tell you why but I can tell you that you are not the only one whose skin it gets under.

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

After 14 pages or so of discussion pre AGM, we only have a page on the meeting itself, which sounds more like some odd heckling match going by all the inverted commas used in descriptions of the proceedings. Did it really take 5 hours to make those decisions or was most of the time taken up by finger pointing and legal debate?

Sounds like it did, we had some debate on here about some of the proposals, one of these is in another thread but the truth is that most of the proposals were straight forward IMO, yes no or amended before passing. While I wasn't there, these should have taken no longer than 90 minutes to get through.

I'm left with the same impression of Cycling Ireland I've had since the McQuaid debacle and my experiences with them in the last two years, a bunch of troglodytes, who are in a minority running the show and a swathe of dedicated volunteers whose voices seem to be ignored or marginalised.

Pretty much every national group in Ireland then.

In all the talk about this AGM and how many could or couldn't go, I don't understand why all members can't vote by proxy on matters as you would at the AGM of a stock listed company. Maybe I'm missing a basic point to why not, but surely our dedication to what happens in an organisation which purports to look after our sport's best interest shouldn't come down to whether we're free to sit in a conference room for five hours while the legalities of someone's election are discussed.

It will certainly be a proposal for next year. I know other national cycling groups that do this with ease. I received a proxy vote from AUK via e-mail last week. They know that not everyone can make it and that voting on such a scale would be problematic at best. Cycling Ireland already have their own log in web portal I see no reason why they could not add this in. I think the only issue of contention is that some matters may not see reasoned debates. This could easily be solved by the proposer sending out an e-mail why they think the motion is necessary and a pre moderated forum on the cycling Ireland website could be used to allow opinions in favour or against to be posted without petty arguing coming into it.

morana

CramCycle wrote: »

Its the same at every meeting like this in Ireland from GAA minor AGMs in a small community up to national federations. I can't tell you why but I can tell you that you are not the only one whose skin it gets under.

Sounds like it did, we had some debate on here about some of the proposals, one of these is in another thread but the truth is that most of the proposals were straight forward IMO, yes no or amended before passing. While I wasn't there, these should have taken no longer than 90 minutes to get through.

Pretty much every national group in Ireland then.

It will certainly be a proposal for next year. I know other national cycling groups that do this with ease. I received a proxy vote from AUK via e-mail last week. They know that not everyone can make it and that voting on such a scale would be problematic at best. Cycling Ireland already have their own log in web portal I see no reason why they could not add this in. I think the only issue of contention is that some matters may not see reasoned debates. This could easily be solved by the proposer sending out an e-mail why they think the motion is necessary and a pre moderated forum on the cycling Ireland website could be used to allow opinions in favour or against to be posted without petty arguing coming into it.

the proxy vote was something we mentioned before for the EGM. I dont understand it myself its easy to implement.

CramCycle

morana wrote: »

the proxy vote was something we mentioned before for the EGM. I dont understand it myself its easy to implement.

I suppose there are a few things to look at in this regard, it could even be used to get the un attached members a vote which was a big complaint at the EGM although, AFAIK they were offered time to talk by several clubs. It certainly could be used as a fake club in that all non attached members votes could be compiled to represent one club.

Certainly it would open the floor up to far better voting in that it could go two ways. Clubs could have their delegates hands tied in that the vote will have taken place by the members and a simple majority on the online system pushes the clubs votes. Unlike what happened at the EGM whereby at least one club member voted against his clubs wishes, not that it had an effect.

Suppose the only issue is to how to implement it but then we are paying a Scottish IT company to deal with this (nothing against the Scottish, just annoyed it was never put out to tender), may as well get them to do it as well, not that we wouldn't have highly skilled IT graduates who could have done as good a job for far less money but that's just me.

Beasty

Firstly a change would require a resolution to be passed at an AGM or EGM, by those present (ie under the existing rules). Would those that go to the trouble of turning up really want to allow those who don't an equal say?

Secondly it would mean members would take their decision without hearing or having an opportunity to contribute to the debate. Indeed it would then be possible to orchestrate votes via the likes of Boards to push through certain agendas and binding resolutions.

It clearly also links into the whole delegate process and whether to move to one member one vote

In my view though moving to proxy voting would be a very dangerous precedent

Chips Lovell

It's set up as a federation of clubs, not individuals. I definitely wouldn't support moving in the other direction.

RobFowl

Beasty wrote: »

In my view though moving to proxy voting would be a very dangerous precedent

Eligibility is one issue for CI members unattached or in new clubs (I for example couldn't attend as a delegate this year) but agree that proxy voting would be a dangerous way to go.
Bottom line is if you can't be bothered to turn up on the day and listen to the pros/cons then you shouldn't have a say....

Harrybelafonte

RobFowl wrote: »

Eligibility is one issue for CI members unattached or in new clubs (I for example couldn't attend as a delegate this year) but agree that proxy voting would be a dangerous way to go.
Bottom line is if you can't be bothered to turn up on the day and listen to the pros/cons then you shouldn't have a say....

That's pretty sanctimonious RF and Beasty. "Bothered"? I couldn't go for various reasons and after what was described here I see no basic attraction in going. Five ****ing hours to pass a few simple changes.

That's fine. I'll never "bother" going to any others either. I don't particularly give a **** whether A4 is 120km or not, nor do I care about the rest of the "issues" that came up.

I'll let the "dedicated" members deal with the big issues.

Harrybelafonte

Actually, do you know what you're saying? Volunteer all year or help out if you can some how. Turn up and pay to do every race you can, maybe Marshall when possible but you don't have a voice if you don't show up for a five hour ****fest in a conference centre somewhere?

buffalo

Voting by proxy is essentially already in place. Those who aren't/can't be present have a say through their club delegates.

If you can't or don't want to attend, make sure your club delegates know your feelings and articulate them on your behalf.

Chips Lovell

The reason it was five hours long is that, for the most part, it did facilitate everyone there having their say.

I'd love if it was only an hour or two, but that's the nature of the beast. You might be interested in only one or two agenda items, but you've got to realise there are other people who have their own priorities and they're just as entitled to have their issues discussed.

If you can't make it yourself, make sure your club sends someone else as a delegate.

Harrybelafonte

The bad language is deliberate by the way as it seems to be the way to be heard.

No, I don't take the point regarding club delegates. I believe each individual should be given the opportunity to vote. Simple as.

CramCycle

Beasty wrote: »

Firstly a change would require a resolution to be passed at an AGM or EGM, by those present (ie under the existing rules). Would those that go to the trouble of turning up really want to allow those who don't an equal say?

Again a common error here is that people think that a club not turning up is because no one is bothered. It's a reasonable distance to travel, and is not beyond the realms of possibility that it is financially stressful for some to go. I realise some will say that their clubs should pay but I can see why some might not want to do this. I didn't go this year as my child was sick but despite being employed, the cost of the bus down (cheapest option) would be too much for some.

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

It's set up as a federation of clubs, not individuals. I definitely wouldn't support moving in the other direction.

The proxy voting could be done for clubs only via the Secretarys log in.

RobFowl wrote: »

Eligibility is one issue for CI members unattached or in new clubs (I for example couldn't attend as a delegate this year) but agree that proxy voting would be a dangerous way to go.
Bottom line is if you can't be bothered to turn up on the day and listen to the pros/cons then you shouldn't have a say....

But alot of clubs might have their AGMs just before this and tie the hands of the delegates anyway so that makes no difference. The pre moderated forum on cycling Ireland idea helps with this issue of people not having their say.

The downside to proxy voting is that it will potentially lead to lower numbers turning up on the day. I am unsure how a balance could be struck bar devolving such decisions to the provinces.

RayCun

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

No, I don't take the point regarding club delegates. I believe each individual should be given the opportunity to vote. Simple as.

Do you think an individual voting online should get one vote and someone there representing their club get one vote?
Or the individual one vote and the delegate as many votes as their club has members?
Do you ban amendments on the day? Amendments at any time?

Chips Lovell

CramCycle wrote: »

The proxy voting could be done for clubs only via the Secretarys log in.

I don't think proxy voting is workable, at least under the current system. Motions are frequently amended on the day or withdrawn entirely. What happens then to votes cast in advance? Plus, votes are being cast before the motion is debated, which is also problematic.

Harrybelafonte

RayCun wrote: »

Do you think an individual voting online should get one vote and someone there representing their club get one vote?
Or the individual one vote and the delegate as many votes as their club has members?
Do you ban amendments on the day? Amendments at any time?

One person. One vote. No club voting.

No amendments.

Resolutions worded clearly. Up to voters to educate themselves.

I don't go to my voting station during referenda and debate with other voters, nor do I assign someone else my vote. I go to vote as educated about the topics as I can be and cast my vote.

You may pick faults with that system but IMHO none would counter the issues I have with how the AGM is conducted.

RobFowl

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

That's pretty sanctimonious RF and Beasty. "Bothered"? I couldn't go for various reasons and after what was described here I see no basic attraction in going. Five ****ing hours to pass a few simple changes.

That's fine. I'll never "bother" going to any others either. I don't particularly give a **** whether A4 is 120km or not, nor do I care about the rest of the "issues" that came up.

I'll let the "dedicated" members deal with the big issues.

I didn't go this year for various reasons and don't have a problem with those who did having a say.
The AGM is more than just motions, it's also a summary of the various reports from the many braches of CI as well as the accounts (not too long ago there were real worries re the financial stability of the organization).
The AGM is the one time a year when clubs can have a direct influence on issues. They can and do make a difference and push through changes not supported by the board.
Maybe "bothered" was too flippant a phrase to use but there are a lot of important and far reaching decisions to be made and they do need to be debated. Allowing proxy voting would encourage Clubs not to send delegates and ultimately create a greater disconnect between the board and the grassroots.

buffalo

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

I believe each individual should be given the opportunity to vote. Simple as.

Every individual has an opportunity to vote at club level.

Harrybelafonte

buffalo wrote: »

Every individual has an opportunity to vote at club level.

Except those that are unattached?

Harrybelafonte

RobFowl wrote: »

I didn't go this year for various reasons and don't have a problem with those who did having a say.
The AGM is more than just motions, it's also a summary of the various reports from the many braches of CI as well as the accounts (not too long ago there were real worries re the financial stability of the organization).
The AGM is the one time a year when clubs can have a direct influence on issues. They can and do make a difference and push through changes not supported by the board.
Maybe "bothered" was too flippant a phrase to use but there are a lot of important and far reaching decisions to be made and they do need to be debated. Allowing proxy voting would encourage Clubs not to send delegates and ultimately create a greater disconnect between the board and the grassroots.

Sorry, I had a needlessly long reply to this. I've just realised that if I want there to be proxy voting I'll have to put it forward as a motion for debate at the nest AGM so wasting time arguing it here.

RobFowl

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Sorry, I had a needlessly long reply to this. I've just realised that if I want there to be proxy voting I'll have to put it forward as a motion for debate at the nest AGM so wasting time arguing it here.

It's probably worth debating at the next AGM. You do need a club to put it forward and then 2 delegates will have to attend to propose and second it.

Certainly the issue of non club members needs to be looked at ...

Chips Lovell

Wouldn't favour changing the structure to give votes to individual riders. Cycling Ireland's a federation of clubs, not an association of individuals. The clubs are the ones running events and it should be they who decide how the sport is run.

I think we should be providing more incentives, not less for people to join a club.

morana

Every agm I attended a quorum has never been present when the meeting was scheduled to start. We used to have the ridiculous scenario of the meeting being suspended and suspended and suspended again. To avoid this the quorum has been dropped to 5%. Yes there may be drawbacks to proxy voting but its nothing that cant be working thru but maybe in the end of it all we could get more participation.

I also dont see why a stream as somebody mentioned earlier cant be available so people could listen in at least.

Beasty

morana wrote: »

so people could listen in at least.

Christ - that could be the worst of all worlds. Probably incredibly frustrating for some. Maybe quite entertaining for others.....

Web links do though still work for "spectating".I'm really not sure about voting as I suspect there could be a major danger of fraudulent voting.

buffalo

Beasty wrote: »

Web links do though still work for "spectating".I'm really not sure about voting as I suspect there could be a major danger of fraudulent voting.

I find it amazing that the clubs don't give the list of delegates to CI for validation on the day. As a member of Club X I can show up and take one of the delegate spots without any fuss if I get there early enough.

RobFowl

buffalo wrote: »

I find it amazing that the clubs don't give the list of delegates to CI for validation on the day. As a member of Club X I can show up and take one of the delegate spots without any fuss if I get there early enough.

They were fairly strict at the EGM

buffalo

RobFowl wrote: »

They were fairly strict at the EGM

Aye, I nearly wasn't admitted because I had been upgraded during the season!

But it was the same issue - on the sign-on form is "X Club" and so many empty spots beside it. Anyone from that club can sign on, whether the club nominated them as a delegate or not.

CramCycle

As a matter of interest what was the reasoning behind the junior tour level being rejected. 2 as there a flat out refusal or no attempt at alternatives?

Was it beaten by alot or a little.

Raam

The no points for TTs seems odd. Wonder why that got rejected.

Beasty

Raam wrote: »

The no points for TTs seems odd. Wonder why that got rejected.

They mentioned the situation in Ulster where there are a lot more TTs run with perhaps a lot more opportunity to rise up the rankings based on TTs alone. I blame the guy who spoke proposing it though - he clearly could not make a convincing argument (I would contrast him to the one speaking in favour of continuing with the upgrade option - he managed to swing the day by a couple of votes):pac:

Beasty

CramCycle wrote: »

As a matter of interest what was the reasoning behind the junior tour level being rejected. 2 as there a flat out refusal or no attempt at alternatives?

Was it beaten by alot or a little.

There was certainly general support for the event coming from all corners. I think it was partly to do with setting a precedent for one event when there are a few more out there that maybe are equally warranting such support. Having seen what has happened during and following the meeting though I have no doubt those voting took the best decision.

Can't remember too much about the vote on that one though. Think after the discussion there was a lot of doubt in many delegates minds

A more general point though. CI had already set a grant level for the event. Having spoken to one or two people though I'm not sure the application process is particularly transparent, with some people being oblivious to amounts awarded to other events until the list was published last week (which did at least improve the transparency compared to prior years). It would appear that this year organisers (or at least some of them) were not asked how much they needed but the grants were largely based on last years awards