Dear All,
I am concerned about a development that took place at Anglesey which seems contrary to our constitution items 10 and 11.
SEE BELOW
Quote
10. Application of profit
No money or property of the Club or any gain arising from the carrying on of the Club may be applied otherwise than for the benefit of the Club as a whole or for some charitable or benevolent purpose or purposes chosen by resolution of a general meeting.
11. Commission
11.1. No one may at any time receive at the expense of the Club or any member of the Club any commission percentage or similar payment on or with reference to any purchases made by the Club.
11.2. No one may directly or indirectly derive any pecuniary benefit from the activities of the Club and apart also from any benefit which a person derives indirectly by reason of the supply giving rise to or contributing to a general gain from the carrying on of the Club unless approved by a resolution of a general meeting.
[/u]
I understand all those who raced at Anglesy paid their entry fee to BARC but subsequently received a £180 cheque from the club.
As a paid up club member I don't remember voting that those who raced at Anglesey would get a subisdy (or 'application of profit').
I also do not recall this sudsidy being publicised to all members before the race to 'encourage' entries.
If this subsidy HAD been voted through at the AGM and given to those who entered all the races at the end of the season (as the BARC scheme), then perhaps there would be more cars out this season? At least everyone would have known of the opportunity in advance.
Whilst all those at Anglesey are hardly going to say 'no I don't want a subsidy' I kindly suggest the favoured 15 may have turned a blind eye to the rest of the members interests.
Are there not more effective ways to use the funds accumulated over the preceding years to benefit all, existing and future members, and safeguard the club?
Ainslie
Hi Ainslie, it strikes me that this part of what you've quoted is the relevant one - "No money or property of the Club or any gain arising from the carrying on of the Club may be applied otherwise than for the benefit of the Club as a whole" - Trevor was trying to get a reasonably-sized grid so that the race wasn't cancelled which would reflect badly on the club as a whole.
I paid my entry fee months beforehand because of my plan for the year (astounding - I actually had a plan...) and the partial refund was a pleasant surprise. If it comes to it, I'll give it back.
Hi Derek,
Glad you and Nessie have a plan! (Is it as cunning as a cunning fox who has had a double helping of cunning for breakfast this morning?)
Just one query on your comment.
Could the subsidy have an effect on the number of entries for Anglesey, (to ensure we had a reasonably-sized grid so that the race wasn't cancelled,)
if no one knew about it before hand?
As far as I know, it was quite a late thing introduced to sway a few possibles into being definites, then applied to all other entries for even-handedness' sake.
Cunning doesn't have a look in (my sister used to buy that) - it's bloody daft, that's what it is. Having said that, I'm almost in the single figures bit of the championship table which is a bit odd but quite fun.
Whilst I have several issues with the subsidy, to do with timing and communication, I do think that this is a good use of the clubs cash.
Derek bought his entries in advance and thereby strengthened the clubs reputation within BARC. I always seem to be last minute and don't do all the races, thereby to an extent weakening the club's reputation within BARC. It must be sensible for Derek's behaviour to be rewarded and encouraged at the cost of some of my club dues.
Ben
The subsidy was given, i believe to benefit the club in the long run, by keeping a race on the calendar that due to the number of cars on the grid we didn't really deserve. If grid numbers stay down then the championship will fold, that seems a simple assumption to make doesn't it? I know that the subsidy was mentioned on the forum & what would habe been the point in sending it out to all the members via post when half of them only want to race in the 24hr & then forget about us until next year, thats a waste of club resources in a bad way were as making sure an event goes ahead is a good use of club funds, surely?
The message is a simple one which has been said over & over again in the past few weeks
IF YOU DON'T WANT THE CLUB SPENDING YOUR MONEY - COME OUT TO PLAY!
te="Ainslie Bousfield"]Dear All,
I am concerned about a development that took place at Anglesey which seems contrary to our constitution items 10 and 11.
SEE BELOW
Quote
10. Application of profit
No money or property of the Club or any gain arising from the carrying on of the Club may be applied otherwise than for the benefit of the Club as a whole or for some charitable or benevolent purpose or purposes chosen by resolution of a general meeting.
11. Commission
11.1. No one may at any time receive at the expense of the Club or any member of the Club any commission percentage or similar payment on or with reference to any purchases made by the Club.
11.2. No one may directly or indirectly derive any pecuniary benefit from the activities of the Club and apart also from any benefit which a person derives indirectly by reason of the supply giving rise to or contributing to a general gain from the carrying on of the Club unless approved by a resolution of a general meeting.
[/u]
I understand all those who raced at Anglesy paid their entry fee to BARC but subsequently received a £180 cheque from the club.
As a paid up club member I don't remember voting that those who raced at Anglesey would get a subisdy (or 'application of profit').
I also do not recall this sudsidy being publicised to all members before the race to 'encourage' entries.
If this subsidy HAD been voted through at the AGM and given to those who entered all the races at the end of the season (as the BARC scheme), then perhaps there would be more cars out this season? At least everyone would have known of the opportunity in advance.
Whilst all those at Anglesey are hardly going to say 'no I don't want a subsidy' I kindly suggest the favoured 15 may have turned a blind eye to the rest of the members interests.
Are there not more effective ways to use the funds accumulated over the preceding years to benefit all, existing and future members, and safeguard the club?
Ainslie[/quote]
quote="Trevor Williams"]Anglesey Entries:
Confirmed: Me, Sammie, Phil, Helen, Aubrey, Derek, Wayne, Matt, Neil, Steve P, Andy Smith, Graham Harper.
Going to Enter: Peter Rigg, Darren Baker
That makes 14. One more and they definately cannot cancel it.
All the above will be receiving their subsidy at the track.
If you dont like the club spending your money going racing, ENTER THE BL**DY RACES!
Trevor[/quote]
NO BODY QUESTIONED THIS POST AT THE TIME .IT HAD ALREADY BEEN SUGGESTED THAT A SUBSIDY WAS FORTHCOMING .
Get off your high horse and get your car out.
Quote from: Ainslie BousfieldDear All,
the favoured 15 may have turned a blind eye to the rest of the members interests.
Excuse me, but the "favoured 15" were the ones of us who actually bothered to make the trek to Anglesey, in the interests of having a good weekends racing & keeping the club alive- surely thats in other members interests? And I paid the entry before the subsidy was even thought of, so it wasnt a bribe!
Mmmm,
Its the issue of endurace races, most drivers double up which halves the grid and longer races increasing cost.
I was going to double up with the Ginger Prince, but as I knew of the refund from the club ( In advance ) and lack of numbers I took my own car.
So originally it would of cost me £555 /2 = £277.50 as there was no refund.
Actual cost with refund £555-180 = £375 plus petrol/transport for extra car.
But it made it affordable. That said nobody else made the same decision!
As a newcomer to the club, but not to motor sport, it seems to me that the subsidy was a perfectly sensible thing to do.
When the Morgan series encountered similar problems with filling grids, the small nucleus of regular and reliable competitors all contributed money from their own pockets to put into a fund which enabled us to buy grids when entries fell below the organiser's mimimum.
The intention to pay the subsidy was made in advance and no adverse comment was made at the time. When unpaid club officials are struggling to keep the club going we should be grateful that they use their initiative on our behalf.
Quotemost drivers double up which halves the grid
Perhaps this is the root of the problem. You have the same number of competitors to draw from but you reduce the number of cars on the grid.
Not having been a party to the discussions leading to this way of doing things I am not qualified to comment. No doubt I will incur the wrath of those who were but it does seem to me that if you only have one driver per car you could potentially have twice the number of cars on the grid.
For once, no wrath in your direction! :D You are right in the fact that we could have twice the number of cars on the grid, but due to the enduro format which is in place (which i like by the way) then our races are a little more expensive to enter but laps per pound are more cost effective, some drivers share a car because like me, dont have one of their own or because they don't have the funding to compete alone.
Mary ,you would think that this would be the case wouldn't you? But at anglesey there was only one car driven by two drivers in which the second driver owned another car ,and he had his caterham there and was competing in the caterham races as well .
Paul, as I have no knowledge of how the 2CV racing scene has evolved over the years can you tell me what it was like before and why it was decided to change to the current format?
It seems very odd that it should change so quickly from what appeared to be a thriving and enthusiastic set-up to the current apparently apathetic and fragmented situation.
All I can suggest (from a self-confessed position of complete ignorance) is that each registered racing member is circulated either by email or in writing (or both) with a dire warning about what is happening and that if they don't support it now it will die.
Clearly the forum is an area where a few active and interested members take part in debate but my guess is that the silent majority are in blissful ignorance of what is happening and how serious things are becoming. It is typical of most of us that unless we are individually given a short sharp shock we assume that all will be well and that others will sort things out.
Who knows a volunteer or two might even emerge from the woodwork!
Done that too many times over the past few years
Had enough of banging my head against a brick wall
So do you think there is now no hope at all?
In the late nineties we changed from a sprint only to sprint and a 1 hour race ,this was well supported for quite a few years ,however as entry fees rose members started comment on how expensive the racing was becoming(£2000 plus per driver).We reduced the number of rounds and kept a level ish entry going .
In the past 3 years we have seen a steady decline in entries as have a lot of championships and we have reduced the number of rounds to give more time for fettling between races and to reduce the annual entry cost.
The move to enduro's only was to give better value for money and should have seen entry fees of less than £1000 per driver for the season ,for whatever reason this did not occur and entry fees are more like £1300 .
The 24hr race always seem to attract around 30 / 35 cars and has remained this way for the past ten years.Unfortunately a lot of them nowadays race in other series and have bought cars just to do the 24hr(no i'm not criticising just stating fact) There are somewhere in the region of 55 cars out there, we need less than half to race on a regular basis, we are only just getting a quarter of them .
What we do next year will have to be down to the majority and not the minority as it is at the moment.If the majority don't want to race that is what we will have to do.
Mary,
No, just sick and tired of doing what I can and just receiving criticism
Time for someone else to have a go
Trevor
Trevor,
I really do sympathise with you. I have been involved in organising events and trying to drum up entries and it does make you wonder why it is such hard work trying to persuade people to do something which they say they enjoy doing.
ainslie your right, what a shame a racing club has spent its cash on RACING, you know cos it would be so much better sat in the bank as the series collapsed,
As we have all seemed to have calmed down I feel I should clarify my position which may have been misrepresented by other posts.
Firstly, lets assume for sake of arguement that we all like 2Cv's, love racing, enjoy each others company and want the club to grow.
Secondly, for those that dont know I have been racing 2cv's for 10 years now and usually only miss one meeting a year although I havent had my own car out for 4 years. I am only explaining this to give those that dont know me some background.
For clarity I will also explain my opinions further.
The members of the club are key to its survival. The members that race are those that keep the championship alive and must be supported completely, but not exclusively.
Every member should see it as his duty to the club to attend the AGM. I see this as critical, as decisions are taken at the AGM that effect our championship. If you want to have a say in the direction of the club you have to attend.
The majority voted for the Endurance only format. It was a small majority but once decided upon, all those at the AGM agreed to support the format for the year and then review it at the end of the season. It must also be said that I believe all those that voted in favour of endurance races have supported the format very well. Unfortunately though, only 13 people voted in favour at the AGM for endurances and this seems to be the number of cars we attract to the meetings
Regarding finances.
I am fully aware we are a racing club not a savings club
Again for those that are not aware and for background information I can speak quite concisely on these as Tracey Dixon complied the club accounts for the AGM.
Many figures are thrown about regard how much money the club does or does not have. These were published at the AGM but for those that were not there, at the end of year we had £14,761 in total. This compares to £6,898 at the end of 2002. This equates to a typical growth (or 'profit') of £1,965 per year.
This year so far we have made additional investments in stock for the club shop and promotional items for sale. ( I do not have a figure for these and understand it will be self funding once the stock has be realised.) We have also supplied stickers for car livery. (last year these amounted to £1,600.)
There has also been a subside paid to the entries at Anglesey of approximately £2,500. which is were I started.
At present the costs this year would conservatively reduced our funds to that of 2004. Again just a statement. IF the subside was also give at 2 further races this season this would then be take the balance close to zero.
I understand that due to the excellent job that the 24 hour committee did in organising the event and also in negotiations with BARC that this may prove to supply a significant increase in club funds, and although we are a racing club not a savings club I am sure that we would all agree this would be excellent news. BUT until we get a final figure from BARC and have taken all the costs of the event in to account such as food, trophies, stickers etc we must remain cautiously optimistic on the results and not spend what we do not already have.
With reference to future championship structures, it has been discussed we buy track time from BARC up front for the season to obtain a better deal and racing format for the club. With this proposal it should be noted that the club will need sizeable funds to achieve this prepayment. Obviously if successful this will give maximum benefit to racing members whilst recovering costs as the season proceeded.
So there you go. No doubt others will disagree, but to condense this down.
We must keep the club going for the benefit of all members. We should not allocate funds until we know exactly how much we have got. We should all go to AGM. We should all have a vote on our future.
PS If it was not too late for proposal for the AGM. Why not start with a proposal such as 'all racing members of the 2CV racing clubs will have their membership refunded at the end of the season if they have entered their car in all the races of that season'.
Ainslie i do beleive it's only technical matters that have to be submitted before 1st of july so you can propose this.
However i believe the club should run on its membership fees and any income earned from the 24hr race should be put into subsidising the following seasons racing .
I'm sure this has probably been done - but what about putting a regular advert in the 2cvgb news. Its very cheap!
Or Autosport or Motoring news etc. I know the Caterham's did a thing - a years entry, Ards, all kit for I think about £20K plus a free car.
Just trying to help
Rich
Visit www.dontworktoohard.com
2cv gift shop