Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

CI AGM 1 November 2014

Options
124678

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    buffalo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,052 ✭✭✭buffalo


    ragazzo wrote: »
    I am not sure if the sportives have brought any sustainable advantage to Irish cycling in general. They are fine for raising money for various charities and other sports clubs. The leisure side of the sport is growing and this can be seen on our roads at the weekends. You will always pass groups of cyclists whereas you might not have seen any in the past.

    This growth in numbers does not seem to have helped domestic cycling or any racing discipline.
    There is a big increase in racing licences but this does not seem to translate to numbers actually racing.
    Perhaps this is not a bad thing because if all competition licence holders turned up to race then the structures across the various venues would probably not accomodate them.

    To me, it's about CI - and its members - deciding where its priorities lie. Much like running, we're seeing a massive upsurge in people taking part for general fitness reasons, and the participation based events are booming. How do we use that to our advantage - or increased cycling an end goal in itself?

    Should we harness those people and their subscriptions to fund high performance athletes on their way to the Olympics? Or lower level professionals trying to secure a contract? Lobby authorities for better cycling infrastructure? Is that cycle paths, greenways or a velodrome? Should we help the amateur scene? Boost women's cycling? Or run more leisure events, and keep the population fit and healthy?

    When the goals are ranked, it might turn out that racing is not the be all and end all of CI. I'm very interested to hear the results of the consultation surveys and town hall meetings (even if I didn't get to attend).


  • Options
    #93
    ragazzo
    Registered Users Posts: 298 ✭✭ragazzo


    buffalo wrote: »
    To me, it's about CI - and its members - deciding where its priorities lie. Much like running, we're seeing a massive upsurge in people taking part for general fitness reasons, and the participation based events are booming. How do we use that to our advantage - or increased cycling an end goal in itself?

    Should we harness those people and their subscriptions to fund high performance athletes on their way to the Olympics? Or lower level professionals trying to secure a contract? Lobby authorities for better cycling infrastructure? Is that cycle paths, greenways or a velodrome? Should we help the amateur scene? Boost women's cycling? Or run more leisure events, and keep the population fit and healthy?

    When the goals are ranked, it might turn out that racing is not the be all and end all of CI. I'm very interested to hear the results of the consultation surveys and town hall meetings (even if I didn't get to attend).

    Good points buffalo and you are correct. Racing, definitely domestic road racing, is not the be all and end all of CI.

    But, for me as a member of CI, racing and especially road racing is the be all and end all.
    This is probably a selfish point of view but is also as legitimate as any other.


  • Options
    #94
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,344 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    ragazzo wrote: »
    Good points buffalo and you are correct. Racing, definitely domestic road racing, is not the be all and end all of CI.

    But, for me as a member of CI, racing and especially road racing is the be all and end all.
    This is probably a selfish point of view but is also as legitimate as any other.
    It's definitely as legitimate as any other. However CI has a wider remit, which is summarised here

    Hence although there is no harm in lobbying for additional racing support and CI can certainly consider such lobbying when deciding how to allocate its limited resources, we also need to recognise that there are plenty of "interested parties" that actually are not interested in racing and CI must consider the desires of those members also


  • Options
    #95
    QueensGael
    Registered Users Posts: 694 ✭✭✭QueensGael


    According to the Sports Council, "The promotion of the sport must be the core and primary objective" of the National Governing Body of any sport. I guess the question is how do you define this particular sport, when it's also a means of transport and a non-competitive leisure activity, as well as an Olympic discipline.

    Anyways, I can't remember how we got to this discussion and my brain is fried, mañana amigos!


  • Options
    #96
    morana
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭morana


    CI has a strategy document which outlines their priorities. Its a five year plan. All the answers are there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Lusk_Doyle
    Registered Users Posts: 4,338 ✭✭✭Lusk_Doyle


    morana wrote: »
    CI has a strategy document which outlines their priorities. Its a five year plan. All the answers are there.

    How very Stalinist of them.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_for_the_national_economy_of_the_Soviet_Union


  • Options
    #98
    wav1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,904 ✭✭✭wav1


    Beasty wrote: »
    It's definitely as legitimate as any other. However CI has a wider remit, which is summarised here

    Hence although there is no harm in lobbying for additional racing support and CI can certainly consider such lobbying when deciding how to allocate its limited resources, we also need to recognise that there are plenty of "interested parties" that actually are not interested in racing and CI must consider the desires of those members also
    You're right in that everyone has to fight their corner,within a very congested system.At present CI is a victim of its own success.The 17000 or 18000 new members in the last five or six years are hugely welcome,but they are not generating enough income to CI to pay for the extra staff etc required for the huge membership now enjoyed.Thats one of the reasons for things being tight I think.With all the increase in numbers,you know its still the same core that appears to be organising stuff[including leisure]BTW it took 5 yrs to get a leisure rep on to the Leinster committee.


  • Options
    #99
    wav1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,904 ✭✭✭wav1


    ragazzo wrote: »
    Good points buffalo and you are correct. Racing, definitely domestic road racing, is not the be all and end all of CI.

    But, for me as a member of CI, racing and especially road racing is the be all and end all.
    This is probably a selfish point of view but is also as legitimate as any other.
    Every corner has to be selfish.Road racing is certainly not the essence for everybody and I appreciate that,but if there wasn't a core calendar of road events,i wonder what type of association we would be left with.


  • Options
    #100
    ragazzo
    Registered Users Posts: 298 ✭✭ragazzo


    Beasty wrote: »
    It's definitely as legitimate as any other. However CI has a wider remit, which is summarised here

    Hence although there is no harm in lobbying for additional racing support and CI can certainly consider such lobbying when deciding how to allocate its limited resources, we also need to recognise that there are plenty of "interested parties" that actually are not interested in racing and CI must consider the desires of those members also

    We should not need to lobby for the support of the Board in legitimate racing issues. CI is the NGB and should be supportive of its racing membership. (By CI I mean the Board and employees as I understand that the total membership makes the organisation).

    By support, I do not necessarily mean financial aid but also the back up and help for difficulties faced in general racing matters.
    Presently, there seems to be major issues surrounding road racing in Leinster with Fingal being a no go area.
    The Phoenix Park was let go without a whimper.
    I am racking my head to think of any open races in the Dublin area. Balbriggan is all I can think of and that was lucky to go ahead this year.
    What does next year hold?

    These are the issues facing road racing and the CI Board should be making representations on behalf of its road racing membership and also keeping that membership updated.

    Lest anyone forgets, we pay for our racing licences and they are not subsidised by the 17000 leisure members.
    Surely the NGB should be supporting us and road racing in general. It is not like we have a choice in the organisation we join unless, of course, age allows membership of the IVCA.


  • Options
    #101
    morana
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭morana


    ragazzo wrote: »

    These are the issues facing road racing and the CI Board should be making representations on behalf of its road racing membership and also keeping that membership updated.
    Surely they have been involved in the fingal issue as the treasurer is from the swords club. I know they have met with the park people hence the alternative circuit a few years back.

    From my perspective I would like to see them look at things completely away from racing and HP. I think too much money goes on HP. What was it 40% of budget on 40 people iirc...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Harrybelafonte
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,450 ✭✭✭Harrybelafonte


    If things look bad for road racing funding-wise, how about MTB, BMX or track? When people here speak of racers, are these categories included?


  • Options
    #103
    wav1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,904 ✭✭✭wav1


    morana wrote: »
    Surely they have been involved in the fingal issue as the treasurer is from the swords club. I know they have met with the park people hence the alternative circuit a few years back.

    From my perspective I would like to see them look at things completely away from racing and HP. I think too much money goes on HP. What was it 40% of budget on 40 people iirc...
    All aspects of the sport should be catered for and aided,but next to impossible to achieve at present.Others know more than me,but my info is that the Fingal type of problem is far from reaching a resolution.

    One thing that strikes me here is that will the suggestions,discussion etc on here,is that come the AGM 90% of the talks will be road related.90% of the delegates will be road related and almost all the board are from a road background


  • Options
    #104
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,344 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    One of the points is that CI did put resource into the track, and more is likely to be required if the velodrome proposal proceeds. Money was certainly well invested in Corkagh Park. BMX is possibly not getting any direct subsidy but I know CI are trying to help move a few projects on around the country

    Bottom line is though that racing in Ireland across all disciplines relies heavily on subsidy, be that the time and efforts of volunteers, one or two generous sponsors and even a few supporters who will help with some direct funding support. I actually think Ireland is remarkably lucky in the variety and standard of cycling opportunities available give the severely limited resources available


  • Options
    #105
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,344 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    wav1 wrote: »
    my info is that the Fingal type of problem is far from reaching a resolution.
    The resolution is reached even if it may not be particularly palatable - racing is only permitted on fully closed roads or with the Gardai directly supporting the event in the way they support the Ras (which is going to be impractical at club league level and probably with Open races also). This will not change unless there is a change of approach within the Gardai, and there has been no sign of any such change. TTs done entirely within the RoTR (which means observing yield and stop signs for example) have though resumed


  • Options
    #106
    Harrybelafonte
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,450 ✭✭✭Harrybelafonte


    Still think it's ridiculous that MTB is not better funded considering the boon other countries have shown it can be for tourism etc if supported properly.


  • Options
    #107
    Lusk_Doyle
    Registered Users Posts: 4,338 ✭✭✭Lusk_Doyle


    morana wrote: »
    Surely they have been involved in the fingal issue as the treasurer is from the swords club. I know they have met with the park people hence the alternative circuit a few years back.

    From my perspective I would like to see them look at things completely away from racing and HP. I think too much money goes on HP. What was it 40% of budget on 40 people iirc...

    How long now since club and open races happened in Fingal? Three years? Not much help there from ci. Swords reduced to racing in Meath. Pathetic in my opinion and that is not a slur against the club committee in any way.


  • Options
    #108
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,344 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Lusk_Doyle wrote: »
    How long now since club and open races happened in Fingal? Three years?
    Just to clarify Open races took place in Fingal this year on open roads. I do not expect the same to happen next year though and I do not believe CI have any say on the matter


  • Options
    #109
    GMCI
    Registered Users Posts: 103 ✭✭GMCI


    While 17% of clubs only promote in Leinster, am I right in saying that on the Road calendar, you could count the number of weekends with no events, on one hand and have fingers left over?
    I know Ulster complain that they have too many events and struggle to resolve calendar clashes.
    Munster and Connacht are the provinces with the majority of free weekends with no racing.

    In terms of the Nationals, I will agree that CI involvement is minimal from an organisation point of view and only supply a pathetic grant of a couple hundred Euro. This year was a little different as a result of the Saturday accident in that CI did pick up a lot of the expenses for the Commissaires who travelled and worked on the event on both occasions. Yes the cost is stated of being in the region of 20k - for the June weekend only, but do the maths and workout the intake in entry fees across the board plus any sponsorship received also. If there wasn't the re-run, the losses would not have been that great, if any at all with such a professional promotion by Lakeside Wheelers.

    When people say about the lack of CI representation in resolving racing matters in certain areas such as when it came to the crunch meeting for the Phoenix Park, only the volunteer organiser was present with the CI representative a no-show after committing to the meeting. Meetings in relation to Fingal apparently have been represented at times by Paid members of staff with no Cycling Background or full appreciation for what would be at stake at these meetings.

    But when people say CI should do more for the domestic calendar, could you specify exactly what they could do? Rule out finances beyond what is already made available. What else could CI do to assist race organisers in the promotion of their event? I know that even if CI got their act together and provided worthwhile support for Organisers, a lot of organisers simply wouldn't trust them and opt to go it alone anyway.

    It will be interesting to see how the HP budget fairs out at the AGM. In the last 2 AGMs the HP budget has been overspent. For 2012, the Olympics was the excuse. Last year it overspent by just over 30k, no excuse was given. More interesting is the CEO is also the HP director, so who answers to who when justifying running over budget?


  • Options
    #110
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,344 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    GMCI wrote: »
    More interesting is the CEO is also the HP director, so who answers to who when justifying running over budget?
    The CEO must answer to the Board for any overspending. They are ultimately responsible for the allocation of funds


  • Options
    #111
    wav1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,904 ✭✭✭wav1


    TBH I think there are some unhappy campers on the board at present,who feel they are beating their head off a wall.Its a thankless job anyway,and I think going forward in yrs to come,places on the board will be harder to fill.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    wav1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,904 ✭✭✭wav1


    Beasty wrote: »
    Just to clarify Open races took place in Fingal this year on open roads. I do not expect the same to happen next year though and I do not believe CI have any say on the matter
    Some have been applied for,in the hope I suppose that there will be further advancements.I really hope there are.


  • Options
    #113
    ragazzo
    Registered Users Posts: 298 ✭✭ragazzo


    GMCI wrote: »
    While 17% of clubs only promote in Leinster, am I right in saying that on the Road calendar, you could count the number of weekends with no events, on one hand and have fingers left over?
    I know Ulster complain that they have too many events and struggle to resolve calendar clashes.
    Munster and Connacht are the provinces with the majority of free weekends with no racing.

    In terms of the Nationals, I will agree that CI involvement is minimal from an organisation point of view and only supply a pathetic grant of a couple hundred Euro. This year was a little different as a result of the Saturday accident in that CI did pick up a lot of the expenses for the Commissaires who travelled and worked on the event on both occasions. Yes the cost is stated of being in the region of 20k - for the June weekend only, but do the maths and workout the intake in entry fees across the board plus any sponsorship received also. If there wasn't the re-run, the losses would not have been that great, if any at all with such a professional promotion by Lakeside Wheelers.

    When people say about the lack of CI representation in resolving racing matters in certain areas such as when it came to the crunch meeting for the Phoenix Park, only the volunteer organiser was present with the CI representative a no-show after committing to the meeting. Meetings in relation to Fingal apparently have been represented at times by Paid members of staff with no Cycling for what would be at stake at these meetings.

    But when people say CI should do more for the domestic calendar, could you specify exactly what they could do? Rule out finances beyond what is already made available. What else could CI do to assist race organisers in the promotion of their event? I know that even if CI got their act together and provided worthwhile support for Organisers, a lot of organisers simply wouldn't trust them and opt to go it alone anyway.

    It will be interesting to see how the HP budget fairs out at the AGM. In the last 2 AGMs the HP budget has been overspent. For 2012, the Olympics was the excuse. Last year it overspent by just over 30k, no excuse was given. More interesting is the CEO is also the HP director, so who answers to who when justifying running over budget?

    It is the bolded section that I wonder about.
    Why would the National Governing Body for cycling act in this manner. Do the Board and CEO believe that burying their heads in the sand and ignoring the issues will solve the various problems that face road racing.
    Do they represent the discipline of road racing at all? Although road racing is the largest discipline there is no need for a road racing commission?


  • Options
    #114
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,344 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Having been involved in one of those meetings with Fingal when CI sent their CEO and a Board member was in attendance, I can assure you it would not have made any difference if the full Board, Stephen Roche, Sean Kelly and Paul Kimmage had turned up


  • Options
    #115
    GMCI
    Registered Users Posts: 103 ✭✭GMCI


    ragazzo wrote: »
    It is the bolded section that I wonder about.
    Why would the National Governing Body for cycling act in this manner. Do the Board and CEO believe that burying their heads in the sand and ignoring the issues will solve the various problems that face road racing.
    Do they represent the discipline of road racing at all? Although road racing is the largest discipline there is no need for a road racing commission?

    As Beasty says it really does seem like CI are going off on a tangent versus the wishes of the membership through the Board. Just seems like bad management, but also a tricky situation when CI have to answer to and satisfy the Irish Sports Council and they tend to only want to listen to Paid contracted staff rather than a Board of volunteers.

    The Board generally represent the issue of Road Racing. The paid staff represent the Company element. So other disciplines suffer without representation on the Board. The Road Commission failed because whenever it made recommendations to the Board, they were either shot down or the Board did their own thing. The Commission are meant to be the experts in relation to a discipline. But the Board are in the majority, road orientated and so are effectively the Road Commission.

    Im sure there are plenty of Leisure & Commuter members of Cycling Ireland on Boards. What would they like to see from Cycling Ireland that justifies their €25 euro membership fee?


  • Options
    #116
    rab!dmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 629 ✭✭✭rab!dmonkey


    Having read the AGM final notice (and CI's technical regulations), I must say that I am SHOCKED and APPALLED at their flagrant abuse of SI prefixes and unit symbols. No spaces between the quantity and the unit symbol, capital 'K' used to indicate 'kilo', unit symbols being pluralised: they run the gamut of transgressions. It's almost as though they've never read the SI Brochure! If I were Secretary, I would reject any non-SI-compliant motions. Alas, I have other callings…

    Leaving aside those most egregious errors for a moment, there's the issue of CI seemingly elevating the business of road racing to the level of the AGM - a dedicated commission for the discipline being beneath them, apparently.
    Harrybelafonte wrote: »
    Still think it's ridiculous that MTB is not better funded considering the boon other countries have shown it can be for tourism etc if supported properly.
    To be fair to CI, it's not generally NGBs who fund MTB infrastructure. It usually comes from government at some level (local/regional/national). The whole public liability issue is a major stumbling block which is largely outside of CI's hands. That said, on all of the evidence I've heard from my well-informed sources, CI's top brass has shown no interest in fighting the corner of MTB when it comes to interaction with the state/semi-state bodies.


  • Options
    #117
    QueensGael
    Registered Users Posts: 694 ✭✭✭QueensGael


    Related to earlier posts about how many volunteers and sponsors it takes to run a major cycling event - this is hot off the press from the good folks at Rás na mBan. Even as one who is close to (but not involved in) the Rás, I'm amazed at just how many people and organisations are behind it - chapeau a tout!
    http://ht.ly/CKyj5


  • Options
    #118
    morana
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭morana


    GMCI wrote: »
    It will be interesting to see how the HP budget fairs out at the AGM. In the last 2 AGMs the HP budget has been overspent. For 2012, the Olympics was the excuse. Last year it overspent by just over 30k, no excuse was given. More interesting is the CEO is also the HP director, so who answers to who when justifying running over budget?

    well its simple really the HP/CEO answers to the board. They have responsibility to ensure that this overspend doesnt happen.


  • Options
    #119
    fortis
    Registered Users Posts: 87 ✭✭fortis


    wav1 wrote: »
    All aspects of the sport should be catered for and aided,but next to impossible to achieve at present.Others know more than me,but my info is that the Fingal type of problem is far from reaching a resolution.

    One thing that strikes me here is that will the suggestions,discussion etc on here,is that come the AGM 90% of the talks will be road related.90% of the delegates will be road related and almost all the board are from a road background

    Because I think the essence of the sport is racing. And CI is principally a sports organisation.

    The leisure end is kind of self sustaining in that people do a few events a year in the summer and these are generally run for profit (like the Sean Kelly series).

    People using bikes in general for communting etc (which more an more do thanks largely to the btw scheme and the rental bike sceheme in Dublin) is a kind of separate issue akin to infrastructure, health promotion, carbon reduction etc etc in general and it is debatable if CI should be the ones tasked with this as it's more general day to day government/council/governance/policy issues.

    I think if you did a straw poll of the general population and asked them what they thought "Cycling Ireland" was for they would probably say bike racing. Same as if you asked same question of "Athletics Ireland" the response would probably be promotion of athletics.

    And the focus of the AGM backs this up (it's all racing based as those are the people who care/are interested).

    So if that's where the interest is, that's where the money should go (would agree with Morana that there is perhaps too much focus on the high performance aspect tho) .

    Maybe the focus of the organisation is far too broad as it is and the cycling promotion/health aspect parts should be spun off for the government to take care of as they should be doing anyway? Who knows!


  • Options
    #120
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,344 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    fortis wrote: »
    I think if you did a straw poll of the general population and asked them what they thought "Cycling Ireland" was for they would probably say bike racing. Same as if you asked same question of "Athletics Ireland" the response would probably be promotion of athletics.
    A "poll" was taken of the CI membership earlier this year. Around 10% of the membership participated and the overriding conclusion was that more focus should be away from racing, and that CI should for example become more involved in lobbying for cyclists interests

    fortis wrote: »
    Maybe the focus of the organisation is far too broad as it is and the cycling promotion/health aspect parts should be spun off for the government to take care of as they should be doing anyway? Who knows!
    A change in focus would probably require a vote amongst the members. Not only that but CI is dependent on the Sports Council and a similar body in NI for some of its funding. They would certainly have a say on such a matter, and I cannot see either government being prepared to accept responsibility in such an area (and to be clear British Cycling has a similar remit for GB, making it difficult to imagine the UK government would support a significantly different approach in NI which probably already benefits from more of a "racing" focus than it's GB equivalent)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    wav1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,904 ✭✭✭wav1


    Beasty wrote: »
    A "poll" was taken of the CI membership earlier this year. Around 10% of the membership participated and the overriding conclusion was that more focus should be away from racing, and that CI should for example become more involved in lobbying for cyclists interests



    A change in focus would probably require a vote amongst the members. Not only that but CI is dependent on the Sports Council and a similar body in NI for some of its funding. They would certainly have a say on such a matter, and I cannot see either government being prepared to accept responsibility in such an area (and to be clear British Cycling has a similar remit for GB, making it difficult to imagine the UK government would support a significantly different approach in NI which probably already benefits from more of a "racing" focus than it's GB equivalent)
    What is the remit of cycling GB?Do they put much emphasis on the lobbying of Gvt etc on behalf of the greater cycling fraternity or is their focus more racing minded generally.Just curious for comparissions


Advertisement