CI AGM 2016

JK.BMC

robyntmorton wrote: »

Im not a member of CI, but I am considering it. I am not, nor will I ever be a racer. I am a leisure cyclist, who may do more sportive cycling in the new year. My difficulty is in seeing exactly what leisure CI membership gives.

I can as a result understand why someone on the inside may be feeling disenfranchised.

The licence fee increase today is to be directed towards improving supports around leisure cycling and coaching/leadership in the provinces of Leinster and Ulster. Repeatedly, leisure cyclists have been asked 'what do you want?' for the price paid and as I mentioned above, the evidence from today is that some want a fee reduction and to be allowed into certain races. Not a lot of vision or inspiration there; maybe this 'disenfranchisement' is a false outrage; who exactly is kicking up and how many?
What do they want? I have heard those 4 words umpteen times in the last 5 years.

if in doubt

JK.BMC wrote: »

The licence fee increase today is to be directed towards improving supports around leisure cycling and coaching/leadership in the provinces of Leinster and Ulster. Repeatedly, leisure cyclists have been asked 'what do you want?' for the price paid and as I mentioned above, the evidence from today is that some want a fee reduction and to be allowed into certain races. Not a lot of vision or inspiration there; maybe this 'disenfranchisement' is a false outrage; who exactly is kicking up and how many?
What do they want? I have heard those 4 words umpteen times in the last 5 years.

There wasn't actually an increase to the leisure fee today though, there were 2 motions to reduce it back to last year's rate which were didn't go through. Assume if they did go through it would have had a direct negative affect on the two regional roles.

What do leisure members want?

Well the other 2 provinces had money available to clubs but nobody came looking for any of it apparently.

Cheaper licences? I'm sure racers would want that too.

Entry to competitive events? Then that removes the need to have a competitive licence.

ednwireland

JK.BMC wrote: »

The licence fee increase today is to be directed towards improving supports around leisure cycling and coaching/leadership in the provinces of Leinster and Ulster. Repeatedly, leisure cyclists have been asked 'what do you want?' for the price paid and as I mentioned above, the evidence from today is that some want a fee reduction and to be allowed into certain races. Not a lot of vision or inspiration there; maybe this 'disenfranchisement' is a false outrage; who exactly is kicking up and how many?
What do they want? I have heard those 4 words umpteen times in the last 5 years.

no licence fee increase for leisure riders

certainly there is talk of ensuring more consistency in sportive offerings, and possibly value for money. (funny because i think the an post events this year weren't value for money this year with the cost - in fact to the point that i dont think i will do one again i beleive they are partnered with cycling ireland)

edit: also most sportives in the country are run by cycling ireland affiliated clubs

JK.BMC

ednwireland wrote: »

no licence fee increase for leisure riders

certainly there is talk of ensuring more consistency in sportive offerings, and possibly value for money. (funny because i think the an post events this year weren't value for money this year with the cost - in fact to the point that i dont think i will do one again i beleive they are partnered with cycling ireland)

Yes; sorry, no increase. My mistake.
In fact there was so much talk about it that you would think it was the Universal Social Charge or something like it!

wav1

JK.BMC wrote: »

Yes; sorry, no increase. My mistake.
In fact there was so much talk about it that you would think it was the Universal Social Charge or something like it!

Well one speaker from the leisure sector did refer to the leisure licence fee as being akin to water charges.
From 2017 there will be a e5 levy on non licence holders at sportives.This was passed at AGM.Only right I feel that they pay more than a licence holder.So if a non licence holder intends to ride at least 9 per year they are already saving money by paying the e40 licence fee.
As suggested already and referred to at meeting there is need/plans/budget etc for a leisure commission but at the end of the day,people still have to stand up and do it from within the sector and theres where the problems start.
New non appointed board member seems to be anxious to get it going as his background is leisure..Hope it goes ahead as it is needed.

CramCycle

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/was-it-fair-to-take-leinster-road-title-away-from-u16-rider/

What a crock, guess sportsmanship is dead for some people.

JK.BMC wrote: »

Attended the AGM this year and must say it was an interesting experience. I never knew such small detail could evoke such elongated debate and conjecture.

It is alas the same with almost any AGM which is sport related. Possibly more tedious due to it being the national body over a club.

Finally, it seemed to me that of those attending, the overwhelming number (90%?) were from a racing background. Perhaps this is the norm

Yep, Moy understanding is that other disciplines don't see the point and keep their stuff to their commission.

The apathy from predominately leisure clubs arises IMO from the fact that years ago they felt that any requests to CI were ignored. Most who have been around long enough now decry the thought of asking CI for help as that view still persists. Which is a pity as it seems for the first time in a long time if leisure related items were brought up with clubs there to back them they would go through.

This said I was not there, and as such, can hardly complain.

jinkypolly

if in doubt wrote: »

Delegates from both the Connacht and Munster commissions said they wanted to use the money generated by the increased by putting it back into cycling in the province. They both made funds available to clubs but nobody came looking for any.

This isn't true. The club I'm in applied.

Beasty

There's no reason Ulster and Leinster could not do something similar with some of that incremental funding. As Treasurer of a club in Leinster I would certainly be interested in applying for something that could be put towards bikes for youth members for example (that would remain club property but could be passed on to others as kids grow out of them)

morana

let me fly this one!

In this day and age i think some form of proxy voting should be allowed. Now i would have been in the camp of if you dont turn up you dont vote. Apart from elections which i think you should be there to vote on 50% of a clubs votes should be allowed to be submitted in advance of the meeting.

Also, I think there needs to be separation of the racing/Hp from all the other cycling and it should be self sufficient.

CramCycle

morana wrote: »

let me fly this one!

In this day and age i think some form of proxy voting should be allowed. Now i would have been in the camp of if you dont turn up you dont vote. Apart from elections which i think you should be there to vote on 50% of a clubs votes should be allowed to be submitted in advance of the meeting.

Also, I think there needs to be separation of the racing/Hp from all the other cycling and it should be self sufficient.

I agree with the proxy voting although I remember the reason this got shot down before was issues with ammendments etc. There could be ways round this via alterations and a later vote of yes, no and yes without the alterations. Live casting of the event via Skype or similar could also cover this.

Something to put forward for next year.

The racing/HP should eventually separate with the formation of the road commission and eventually most of the submitted proposals would be referred to the relevant commissions as a matter of course.

wav1

jinkypolly wrote: »

This isn't true. The club I'm in applied.

h
Here lies the problem.You read about this on here and comment accordingly.
If you or your club were represented at AGM you could have taken this up on the day and bring it to the attention of the meeting.As it is you will have to wait another 364 days to address it.Hence the need for ALL clubs to make the effort to attend.

Beasty

wav1 wrote: »

h
Here lies the problem.You read about this on here and comment accordingly.
If you or your club were represented at AGM you could have taken this up on the day and bring it to the attention of the meeting.As it is you will have to wait another 364 days to address it.Hence the need for ALL clubs to make the effort to attend.

In this particular example it really should not be a CI AGM matter. The club in question can now contact their Province and sort it out at that level

guanciale

I think some people here are being a tad unfair in leisure cyclists. I would imagine that a sizeable number of leisure cyclists are not in a club and cycle by themselves (or with a small group of mates) and do perhaps leads than 10 events on the CI calendar. For these people the license is an economically questionable expenditure. I am one of these folks and the only reason that I have a license is to get an event on the CI calendar (& I have no issue with that given event insurance etc).
However it is unreasonable I feel to suggest that if they don't turn up then they should put up/shut up. Turning up requires club membership and many don't have it or want it - it might be nice but should be compulsory as cycling isn't that type of sport.
I think that an online voting system of all members should be facilitated as this is a reasonably fair way to ascertain membership needs and wants.

JK.BMC

guanciale wrote: »

I think some people here are being a tad unfair in leisure cyclists. I would imagine that a sizeable number of leisure cyclists are not in a club and cycle by themselves (or with a small group of mates) and do perhaps leads than 10 events on the CI calendar. For these people the license is an economically questionable expenditure. I am one of these folks and the only reason that I have a license is to get an event on the CI calendar (& I have no issue with that given event insurance etc).
However it is unreasonable I feel to suggest that if they don't turn up then they should put up/shut up. Turning up requires club membership and many don't have it or want it - it might be nice but should be compulsory as cycling isn't that type of sport.
I think that an online voting system of all members should be facilitated as this is a reasonably fair way to ascertain membership needs and wants.

You lost me there somewhere- who or what is unfair? It's hard to ascertain opinions/agendas of people who don't turn up/speak up etc.

JK.BMC

guanciale wrote: »

I think some people here are being a tad unfair in leisure cyclists. I would imagine that a sizeable number of leisure cyclists are not in a club and cycle by themselves (or with a small group of mates) and do perhaps leads than 10 events on the CI calendar. For these people the license is an economically questionable expenditure. I am one of these folks and the only reason that I have a license is to get an event on the CI calendar (& I have no issue with that given event insurance etc).
However it is unreasonable I feel to suggest that if they don't turn up then they should put up/shut up. Turning up requires club membership and many don't have it or want it - it might be nice but should be compulsory as cycling isn't that type of sport.
I think that an online voting system of all members should be facilitated as this is a reasonably fair way to ascertain membership needs and wants.

Am I correct?

10 events x 5euro a pop for non CI riders = 50euro

Cost of CI Leisure Licence = 40euro

????????

Eamonnator

JK.BMC wrote: »

Am I correct?

10 events x 5euro a pop for non CI riders = 50euro

Cost of CI Leisure Licence = 40euro

????????

Yes, and you also get 3rd party and personal insurance, included, with your licence.

RobFowl

JK.BMC wrote: »

You lost me there somewhere- who or what is unfair? It's hard to ascertain opinions/agendas of people who don't turn up/speak up etc.

Non club members don't have a vote at the AGM.

JK.BMC

RobFowl wrote: »

Non club members don't have a vote at the AGM.

Yes. Which is the way any organisation would run its affairs I would think.

cython

RobFowl wrote: »

Non club members don't have a vote at the AGM.

JK.BMC wrote: »

Yes. Which is the way any organisation would run its affairs I would think.

I may be misinterpreting RobFowl's post, but I think he may be suggesting that non-club riders with a CI license have no vote (i.e. unattached), as opposed to non-members of CI? If this is the case, then that's a bit ridiculous, IMHO, and after a fashion results in their license being worth less. I really hope you are not suggesting that the scenario I have described has no issues?

CramCycle

There are several clubs who would allow reasonable requests for motions on the behalf of non affiliated cyclists. This said if a few people volunteered and ran the vaunted leisure commission they could sort it out there and have them bring concerns forward in a more structured fashion.

Eamonnator

cython wrote: »

I may be misinterpreting RobFowl's post, but I think he may be suggesting that non-club riders with a CI license have no vote (i.e. unattached), as opposed to non-members of CI? If this is the case, then that's a bit ridiculous, IMHO, and after a fashion results in their license being worth less. I really hope you are not suggesting that the scenario I have described has no issues?

Members of C.I., who are not members of an affiliated club,do not have a vote at the A.G.M., nor does every member of a club. Each club can nominate a number of delegates, who have voting rights. The number of delegates is based on the size of a club.

if in doubt

cython wrote: »

I may be misinterpreting RobFowl's post, but I think he may be suggesting that non-club riders with a CI license have no vote (i.e. unattached), as opposed to non-members of CI? If this is the case, then that's a bit ridiculous, IMHO, and after a fashion results in their license being worth less. I really hope you are not suggesting that the scenario I have described has no issues?

Should CI go down the same route as Athletics Ireland and make it a requirement that members join a club?

guanciale wrote: »

I think some people here are being a tad unfair in leisure cyclists. I would imagine that a sizeable number of leisure cyclists are not in a club and cycle by themselves (or with a small group of mates) and do perhaps leads than 10 events on the CI calendar. For these people the license is an economically questionable expenditure. I am one of these folks and the only reason that I have a license is to get an event on the CI calendar (& I have no issue with that given event insurance etc).
However it is unreasonable I feel to suggest that if they don't turn up then they should put up/shut up. Turning up requires club membership and many don't have it or want it - it might be nice but should be compulsory as cycling isn't that type of sport.
I think that an online voting system of all members should be facilitated as this is a reasonably fair way to ascertain membership needs and wants.

Maybe I'm picking this up wrong but are you saying the only reason you have club membership is so the club adds an event to the calendar for you? Or that you're only a member to get the event insured and you have a club you're not a member of add it to the calendar for you?

If it's the latter then why not just join the club? Also if they're already accommodating an event for you then I'd imagine they might be open to the idea of putting forward any motion you might have at an AGM.

RobFowl

cython wrote: »

I may be misinterpreting RobFowl's post, but I think he may be suggesting that non-club riders with a CI license have no vote (i.e. unattached), as opposed to non-members of CI? If this is the case, then that's a bit ridiculous, IMHO, and after a fashion results in their license being worth less. I really hope you are not suggesting that the scenario I have described has no issues?

My point exactly.

CI members who are not members of an affiliated club as well cannot vote at or bring motions to the AGM.

RobFowl

Eamonnator wrote: »

Members of C.I., who are not members of an affiliated club,do not have a vote at the A.G.M., nor does every member of a club. Each club can nominate a number of delegates, who have voting rights. The number of delegates is based on the size of a club.

I should have added Members of CI who are not members of a club cannot be a delegate either.

JK.BMC

RobFowl wrote: »

I should have added Members of CI who are not members of a club cannot be a delegate either.

Yes, and I agree with that.
Who would 'delegate' them and who exactly might they be representing, other than themselves?

The sport is based upon local/regional/national organisation via clubs; is there such thing as unattached leisure members? I understand unattached to be a convenience for some competitive cyclists who don't affiliate with a club. And once again, who are these people exactly who might feel disenfranchised or whatnot, and where are they? Where are the 'independent' outsiders, the Mick Wallace's/Healy-Rae's of cycling in Ireland who feel hard done by? Or as I have suggested above, there isn't really much issue here at all, since such business doesn't make its way onto AGM agendas etc

guanciale

RobFowl clarified my point re non club members. CI is as I see it largely a national authority representing racing cyclists but is part funded by leisure cyclists (seemingly suffering from inertia). It is difficult to see what leisure cyclists get from CI (that said it is difficult to see what most cyclists get from CI), unless you are (1) an elite funded athlete or (2) have to claim on your insurance.
This won't change unless leisure cyclists turn out and vote. But unless they are members of a club (which is unnecessary for leisure cycling) then they can't make their voice heard at ATM time. A way around this is an online ballot system of one member one vote (maybe with the option of club cyclists ceding the vote to a club sec to vote by proxy). Just an idea.

ednwireland

458 clubs (i think ) and around 70 people at the agm not even a majority of clubs send anyone !

overhead someone say 20 years ago there were 4000 members and 400 people turning up to an agm. CI would get a shock if that percentage turned up now !

JK.BMC

guanciale wrote: »

RobFowl clarified my point re non club members. CI is as I see it largely a national authority representing racing cyclists but is part funded by leisure cyclists (seemingly suffering from inertia). It is difficult to see what leisure cyclists get from CI (that said it is difficult to see what most cyclists get from CI), unless you are (1) an elite funded athlete or (2) have to claim on your insurance.
This won't change unless leisure cyclists turn out and vote. But unless they are members of a club (which is unnecessary for leisure cycling) then they can't make their voice heard at ATM time. A way around this is an online ballot system of one member one vote (maybe with the option of club cyclists ceding the vote to a club sec to vote by proxy). Just an idea.

I understand where you are coming from and this critique of CI is going on for years.
But everybody who owns a bike should not feel that CI should do something for them. It's like saying everybody who owns a horse or pony and registers their pedigree should have a stake in Horseracing Ireland for example. Which is daft.
Yes, CI mostly deals with bike racing and to a large extent they are right to do so. I do hope the Leisure Commission will now finally take on the valid points floating for years- it is in everybody's interest. And maybe dispel some of the righteous outrage that turns up at AGM time from people who feel neglected or who don't have a 'voice' or vote

RobFowl

ednwireland wrote: »

458 clubs (i think ) and around 70 people at the agm not even a majority of clubs send anyone !

overhead someone say 20 years ago there were 4000 members and 400 people turning up to an agm. CI would get a shock if that percentage turned up now !

That was bollocks

Turnout always crap at AGM's unless there is something contentious....

PMQ cough cough cough

JK.BMC

RobFowl wrote: »

That was bollocks

Turnout always crap at AGM's unless there is something contentious....

PMQ cough cough cough

The Irish love a good lynching. We gave the English language the word.
Not a sign of half those delegates since I bet!