Cycling Ireland Increasing 1 day insurance from €2 to €10

lennymc

Leroy42 wrote: »

It has been mentioned a number of times that Leisure riders should come to the AGM to highlight their areas of interest etc but is it not the case that to be heard at the AGM, or to put a motion forward you need a certain number of clubs to go in behind you?

No. Any club can make submissions for motions.

CramCycle

Beasty wrote: »

At the last AGM the issue of getting 6 members to form a club was raised as it was felt it was being abused with some organisations setting themselves up as cycling clubs to allow them to run an event under the CI umbrella (benefiting from CI's insurance), only to disappear once the event was over

I am sure it does happen, but to what extent, is it really that large an issue that it needs a solution. If it does happen but one in two of these clubs promote cycling, if only once a year, then I think its worth leaving. Audax Ireland barely got the 6 people needed, 3 of them left their own clubs (on paper) and now, from the last AGM, they had almost a third as many people showed up as turn up to the entire CIs AGM. Very few are racers but they are passionate.

CI would do well to remember that this sleeping giant is a friend and not one to be abused.

I am sure that the act was not malicious or in badness, but it was ill thought out, if nothing else. It has done one good thing though, it may (or may not), activate a large portion of our membership into getting involved at a higher level. This can only be a good thing.

Leroy42

WIth the massive growth in the leisure side of cycling the old racing orintated set-up is starting to become obsolete.

Whilst it may be true that many leisure cyclists are members of clubs, they are not in the same sense that racing members are. They, at least in my club, are more about the social aspect (not to infer that they don't take the cycling seriously just that winning etc is not what its about, its about the club spins, the sportives, the social aspect etc).

I would wager that many Leisure cyclists aren't really to worried about AGM rules, delegate conferences, provincial set-ups, UCI affiliation etc. especially in a set-up that many believe is very much focused on racing and therefore not much in there for them. There needs are fairly simple. They don't need finish line equipment, national competitions, jerseys, international teams etc, they just want to be able to partake in an activity they enjoy.

I would think, though, that any move to significantly increase the costs for this section, with little or no justification, risks alienation them and possible make them look at the point of it at all.

A few have said on here that leisure cyclists need to make they feelings known at the AGM, which of course they need to go through a club to do, but why can't CI initiate a process to get their views? They know the make-up of the organisation has changed considerably in recent years but seem to be waiting for someone else to do anything about it.

Leroy42

Beasty wrote: »

At the last AGM the issue of getting 6 members to form a club was raised as it was felt it was being abused with some organisations setting themselves up as cycling clubs to allow them to run an event under the CI umbrella (benefiting from CI's insurance), only to disappear once the event was over

This was being looked at and it's possible that changes will be introduced to the way in which clubs are recognised to discourage this sort of thing

Why is this considered to be a problem?

If they undertake the necessary paperwork, pay whatever the joining fees are and comply with the rules whilst they are 'clubs' then why would CI care if they lasted a week, a year or 100 years?

CI's remit is to increase the participation in cycling, the club structure, which was designed based on racing, was a way of doing that but with the growth in other areas which are less like 'teams' then this set-up is less useful and CU should be encouraging as many to get involved rather than looking to only get those that are 'serious' involved.

Chips Lovell

Not every club is the same. Mine has a massive leisure membership. Leisure members are active on the comittee, turn out in force at the club AGM and play as much a part as competition members in deciding the club's position on motions before the Cycling Ireland AGM.

People have this impression of leisure cyclists only being interested in sportives and coffee stops and it isn't really true.

Beasty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why is this considered to be a problem?

If they undertake the necessary paperwork, pay whatever the joining fees are and comply with the rules whilst they are 'clubs' then why would CI care if they lasted a week, a year or 100 years?

CI's remit is to increase the participation in cycling, the club structure, which was designed based on racing, was a way of doing that but with the growth in other areas which are less like 'teams' then this set-up is less useful and CU should be encouraging as many to get involved rather than looking to only get those that are 'serious' involved.

I personally don't see it as a major poroblem, but some at the CI AGM clearly did.

I guess part of it is about having sustainable growth and a fly by night operation does not achieve that. Secondly they are "taking advantage" of the cheap insurance offered by CI, but arguably are not putting anything back into the sport. Also events put on like this risk being done in a shambolic way due to lack of experience in the individuals involved and possibly leaving CI to pick up the pieces. Have organisers undertaken a full and proper risk assessment for example? (CI simply do not have the resource to check them all, but evcen if they did there is no way to police actual implementation of what is included except perhaps via random sampling of those that are submitted)

CramCycle

Leroy42 wrote: »

A few have said on here that leisure cyclists need to make they feelings known at the AGM, which of course they need to go through a club to do, but why can't CI initiate a process to get their views? They know the make-up of the organisation has changed considerably in recent years but seem to be waiting for someone else to do anything about it.

All it takes is one club to make the right motion at an AGM, although I thought there was workings on this two years ago to form a leisure commission (or whatever it would have been called) but I am not sure if this was moved forward or not.

This said, it looks positive that CI have listened and are not increasing the fees for awhile yet.

jamesd

Got confirmation vi email from CI this morning that the 2 is staying for now but with a rise to 5 then 10 on the way.

CramCycle

Leroy42 wrote: »

A few have said on here that leisure cyclists need to make they feelings known at the AGM, which of course they need to go through a club to do, but why can't CI initiate a process to get their views? They know the make-up of the organisation has changed considerably in recent years but seem to be waiting for someone else to do anything about it.

All any leisure cyclist needs to do is get a club to put forward a motion that addresses this issue, put together a clear and concise reasoning. Get the club to submit it for them and then make sure the reasoning is well advertised to all clubs before the AGM. Many clubs with a large Leisure base will most likely vote in favour via their own AGM processes before the CI AGM.

jamesd wrote: »

Got confirmation vi email from CI this morning that the 2 is staying for now but with a rise to 5 then 10 on the way.

Again, something to submit to CI as a motion that it be capped.

Beasty

CramCycle wrote: »

Again, something to submit to CI as a motion that it be capped.

Just to be clear on this -although it is the type of thing that is often raised at AGMs, it's really not "company business" (unlike CI subscriptions) and really should not be subject to a popular vote to determine whether it geos ahead. A discussion maybe if sufficient members want that but they should not (and technically cannot) be binding the Board on things like this (even if I am one of those shouting loudest that I think the leisure side should be heard)

Having said all that probably half the stuff voted on at CI's AGMs is technically non-binding

CramCycle

Beasty wrote: »

Just to be clear on this -although it is the type of thing that is often raised at AGMs, it's really not "company business" (unlike CI subscriptions) and really should not be subject to a popular vote to determine whether it geos ahead. A discussion maybe if sufficient members want that but they should not (and technically cannot) be binding the Board on things like this (even if I am one of those shouting loudest that I think the leisure side should be heard)

Having said all that probably half the stuff voted on at CI's AGMs is technically non-binding

This is why the road and leisure commission need to be reinstated and set up, respectively. The majority of things brought up at the AGM are not what it is there for AFAIK. I do remember you saying this several times before, and you are right. The AGM has effectively become the road commission

1. Motion to set up a leisure board or commission

2. Until such time as such a board is operational/functional, that the subscription fee for leisure members be frozen or maybe a direction to the board that unless the cost of insurance for leisure events rises, that there will be no rise in such costs to one day licenses for leisure events i.e. an effective cap unless costings rise, at which point they could be reviewed and raised proportionately.

Obviously far more detail and thought to be put in to both

morana

CramCycle wrote: »

This is why the road and leisure commission need to be reinstated and set up, respectively. The majority of things brought up at the AGM are not what it is there for AFAIK. I do remember you saying this several times before, and you are right. The AGM has effectively become the road commission

1. Motion to set up a leisure board or commission

2. Until such time as such a board is operational/functional, that the subscription fee for leisure members be frozen or maybe a direction to the board that unless the cost of insurance for leisure events rises, that there will be no rise in such costs to one day licenses for leisure events i.e. an effective cap unless costings rise, at which point they could be reviewed and raised proportionately.

Obviously far more detail and thought to be put in to both

CI were looking for people to go on a leisure commission but couldnt find anyone. SO if a group of ppl wanted to set it up now i am sure a note to geoff and a meeting would be enough to get it going.

CramCycle

morana wrote: »

CI were looking for people to go on a leisure commission but couldnt find anyone. SO if a group of ppl wanted to set it up now i am sure a note to geoff and a meeting would be enough to get it going.

Certainly plenty of people making noise. As a matter of interest, my understanding of the commisions is minimal. Would they just gather and make recommendations to the board as well as argue against board decisions they felt unfair?

Or would they be given autonomy in regards the development of leisure cycling in Ireland?

morana

CramCycle wrote: »

Certainly plenty of people making noise. As a matter of interest, my understanding of the commisions is minimal. Would they just gather and make recommendations to the board as well as argue against board decisions they felt unfair?

Or would they be given autonomy in regards the development of leisure cycling in Ireland?

both. They would be responsible for the development of leisure. if they wanted setup a lesiure league etc. They would also have a budget to conduct their business promotions etc.

in short the leisure side would be their responsibility.

The Ging and I

morana wrote: »

both. They would be responsible for the development of leisure. if they wanted setup a lesiure league etc. They would also have a budget to conduct their business promotions etc.

in short the leisure side would be their responsibility.

IMO the real solution would be getting 1/2 people on the committee.
CI should be totally involved in "cycling" in all its variants. Setting up a leisure group with a budget is not coming close to a CTC or FFCT structure.
If the leisure side is generating most of the money thats where it should be spent.
In the 80s I effectively was the touring secretary. I put a calendar to geather that was sponsored by Hardings bicycle shop- no cost or real interest from the then ICF. When Hardings closed the calendar went with it.

morana

The Ging and I wrote: »

IMO the real solution would be getting 1/2 people on the committee.
CI should be totally involved in "cycling" in all its variants. Setting up a leisure group with a budget is not coming close to a CTC or FFCT structure.
If the leisure side is generating most of the money thats where it should be spent.
In the 80s I effectively was the touring secretary. I put a calendar to geather that was sponsored by Hardings bicycle shop- no cost or real interest from the then ICF. When Hardings closed the calendar went with it.

Yes the board is made up of all racers and all male now. we need a more diverse group but people have to put themselves forward for the positions.

Beasty

morana wrote: »

Yes the board is made up of all racers and all male now. we need a more diverse group but people have to put themselves forward for the positions.

Siobhan has stepped down

Senan is still there I guess, but it's looking very dominated by male (road) racers now.

Beasty

CI have circulated this email

Dear club officials and event promoters,

Cycling Ireland has deferred the decision to increase the Leisure Event Insurance Fee from €2/£2 to €10/£9 for 2016 after receiving constructive feedback from event organisers. In 2009 the fee of €10/£9 was approved at the AGM as the Leisure Event Insurance Fee (formerly One Day Licence), but had not been enforced since 2013. The decision regarding increasing this fee for 2017 will be reviewed at the 2016 AGM on the 12th November.
Regards,

The Cycling Ireland Team

lennymc

At least we all know well in advance when the agm is on......

afishyfish

I love the term they used....... "constructive feedback"

Eamonnator

Have Cycling Ireland increased the One Day licence for charity cycles to €5?
It says on this poster, that €5 is to cover one day insurance

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057604404

greenspurs

Eamonnator wrote: »

Have Cycling Ireland increased the One Day licence for charity cycles to €5?
It says on this poster, that €5 is to cover one day insurance

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057604404

As far as i know, the "one day Licence" cost is €2 per rider for non members, well thats what i charged in a cycle i organised in April, but i have seen some cycles charge more ...

CramCycle

greenspurs wrote: »

As far as i know, the "one day Licence" cost is €2 per rider for non members, well thats what i charged in a cycle i organised in April, but i have seen some cycles charge more ...

It is 2euro from CI but some organisers add more to cover admin or just to make more money, or even just to put off non members so that they have less paperwork

Beasty

CramCycle wrote: »

It is 2euro from CI but some organisers add more to cover admin or just to make more money, or even just to put off non members so that they have less paperwork

Equally it's possible they went to print before the recent announcement reverting to €2

afishyfish

Beasty wrote: »

Equally it's possible they went to print before the recent announcement reverting to €2

Or they may have private insurance for non CI members.

CramCycle

Beasty wrote: »

Equally it's possible they went to print before the recent announcement reverting to €2

Doesn't add up with the 5euro charge (as opposed to the 10euro charge CI had put out). I think the most obvious is convenience as well for the organiser, nice round off to the nearest 5, not a huge jump, extra bit of cash for the charity or organiser.