McQuaid nominated unanimously by Switzerland (read warning post #78)

Beasty

fondriest wrote: »

The advice from from Roche and Kelly was for a start way too late . Most clubs would have had their EGM's about this issue in the last few weeks and delegates would have arrived today with their clubs decision already made .
Roche and Kelly only gave their views in the last couple of days . Too little too late . They surely should have known that .

TBH I think it was planned this way as McQuaid was hoping for apathy from his opponents given the Swiss situation. It was always pretty clear that the vast majority knew which way they would vote well before the EGM, but the big unknown was how many would actually turn up.

He probably realised late on that things were not going his way and sought these favours in an attempt to encourage more of his own supporters to attend. I also do not believe either Kelly or Roche would have carried much weight with many of the club votes - most were heavily in favour of a no vote and would not have been swayed by their comments

tfrancer

The EGM process was inherently flawed. If delegates' voting intentions were already determined, what was the point in having a debate?

fondriest

Beasty wrote: »

TBH I think it was planned this way as McQuaid was hoping for apathy from his opponents given the Swiss situation. It was always pretty clear that the vast majority knew which way they would vote well before the EGM, but the big unknown was how many would actually turn up.

He probably realised late on that things were not going his way and sought these favours in an attempt to encourage more of his own supporters to attend. I also do not believe either Kelly or Roche would have carried much weight with many of the club votes - most were heavily in favour of a no vote and would not have been swayed by their comments

Sounds about right .

fondriest

tfrancer wrote: »

The reality is that every vote today against PMcQ strengthened Brian Cookson's position. I respect British people ......they wouldn't have undermined PMcQ in the way that was done here.

If Brian Cookson is the right man for the job he could be from Mars and it wouldnt matter to me.

morana

tfrancer wrote: »

The EGM process was inherently flawed. If delegates' voting intentions were already determined, what was the point in having a debate?

I agree. I asked for the egm to be cancelled on the basis the Swiss had nominated him....but I think we all know that's not being confirmed and I would think its not the case.


but your point is a good one. why could we not havehad a poll on cyclingireland.is where any club member could vote. it would be easy to build in checks and balances. let's move worth the times.

aindriu80

I'm glad McQuaid did not get the backing from Irish Cycling. No matter what he said about doping he could have done a lot better.

Eamonnator

tfrancer wrote: »

The EGM process was inherently flawed. If delegates' voting intentions were already determined, what was the point in having a debate?

Yeah, let's have another EGM.
Keep having them, 'till we get the correct result .

RobFowl

tfrancer wrote: »

The EGM process was inherently flawed. If delegates' voting intentions were already determined, what was the point in having a debate?

The aim of the EGM is to have a vote. It was held openly and according to the rules.The vast majority of clubs had held meeting and discussions in depth already. Not matter how much you dislike the decision it was democracy in action...

Personally I want the best person in the job as UCI president, not simply having an Irish man there, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Casati

PeadarCo wrote: »

What has to be remembered about Irish cycling is that it has grown massively over the last number of years. But it takes time for all these new people to work their way into the cycling Ireland system and become aware of how they can influence it. I can understand some of the old guard/long time members complaining about many people not turning up to AGM's before. But I'd say most of these new people only started cycling relatively recently and this was the first issue that got them actively involved in the administration of cycling Ireland.

I dont think we need fear about Irish riders not getting chances to race abroad- having brought teams overseas, inc Irish teams I have some insight to how the process works and having PMcQ in the top job is not essential.

Invites are generally granted on a reciprocal basis to race organizers with teams also invited based on their ability to talk a foreign organizer into inviting them. Placing our riders with foreign teams is more focused on the riders race and lab results and other factors inc the riders commitment and desire etc.

CramCycle

Casati wrote: »

I know some people were upset but comments questioning why so many people turned up when they are not to be seen at AGM's, and I think this is a valid point- I left the meeting thinking that because so few people turn up for the AGM's is a root cause behind why the EGM was called, and why the nomination was voted against.

It is a fair point and one which could have been talked about more but it probably would have went straight off topic. I was pretty sure it was reported that this was brought up at the AGM and was sidebarred by the chair but that is from memory of reports and could be wrong.
5 years ago I had never heard of Cycling Ireland and had been cycling for 20 years. 4 years ago I heard of Audax and went on a few spins. 3.5 years ago I had joined C.I. as it saved me money and meant I was covered by Insurance (which is what I thought they done). 3 years ago I was am member of a club. 2 years ago I didn't hear about the AGM before hand (or I wasn't paying attention), no idea what goes on, no idea why I should attend, no idea, ignorance is bliss. 1 year ago, I know a good deal more, want to head to the AGM, got stuck in work in a 14 hour shift, no way to travel there to make it in time. This year, I finally know that it is important, I had kind of realised after the reports from the last AGM. I can ensure you that barring injury or family I will be at the next one. Hopefully i will provide something useful, but if not, I'll still be there.

I am sorry that people were so annoyed that I* turned up today instead of a few months ago, believe me, so am I.
*obviously not me but it is a generalisation, people seem to love unfair generalisations nowadays.

pprendeville wrote: »

Thought Jack Watson's speech today was long winded and didn't help the cause whatsoever especially as he was being interrupted by Rory Wiley and Sam McArdle which seemed to undermine him.

Which was unfortunate, he had a few good points but he made it to personal, which casted doubt on his good points in my eyes.

In contrast Anto Moran's talk was concise and had a bit of humour. I wonder are all activists entitled to a free haircut?

It was, he stuck to the points, the humour eased everyone in the room, regardless of their view or preference. I'll be honest, I kind of expected an explosion after the build up, it speaks volumes to the man that he was so concise, gave credit to PMQ for his work in the past etc.

I personally feel there is a disconnect between a group who are close to PMcQ and the relatively newer generation of cyclists which includes myself. Seemed like most who spoke who supported him were of the old brigade and closely associated with him one way or another while those who were against the motion were weighing up the evidence objectively.

I don't think it was a disconnect as such, more of a lack of an initial connect. I spoke up, poorly, after a comment was made about people never having been seen before. I have my reasons, none of them strong. I formulated them in my head, planned to articulate them well and them warbled like a fool when I stood up. I don't think I insulted him but i did say I was offended by his comments. He walked upto me after the meeting and put out his hand for a shake before saying a word. He apologised if he caused offence, it was not his intention. I told him, it seemed implied, and that I wasn't going after him. He told me he had never seen me before, in fact most of the faces in the room, and he had been there awhile, maybe that's the way things are now.

We shook hands again, and I look forward to talking to him in the future, I hope he gets to know me. He seemed like a nice guy.

One Tiernans/South Dublin (cant remember which) guy put it well that McQuaid never listened to the Irish when it came to Emma O'Reilly, Paul Kimmage and David Walshe and he was spot on. This countered an earlier argument about supporting an Irish candidate if I remember correctly. That better the divil yoo know was not a very strong argument.

That had to be the quote of the meeting for me.

12 sprocket

RobFowl wrote: »

So we should nominate someone the majority of Irish cyclists feel is not up to the job so a "Brit" might not get the job!

Rob
your statement that "the MAJORITY of irish cyclists feel that Pat Mc Quaid is not up to the job" is factually incorrect and I think in a much earlier post you admitted that your self.. Here are some facts, My own club, a club of 350 members had 35 people attend the pre CI club EGM.

From a possible 779 Votes at the CI meeting yesterday 188 or 24% of the possible electorate attended to take up the option of voting.

THe no vote was 11.6% of the possible electorate.

THis was after a media and lobbying campaign by the no side for a very extended period of time.

So the figures clearly show that Pat Mc Quaids nomination either way was not a major issue for the majority of clubs and members. and I would suggest that its very wrong and unfair to Pat Mc Quaid to state that the majority of irish cyclist are against Pat Mc Quaids nomination..

LeoD

fondriest wrote: »

Roche and Kelly only gave their views in the last couple of days . Too little too late . They surely should have known that .

Sean Kelly backed Pat McQuaid on RTE Radio 3-4 months ago.

AstraMonti

12 sprocket wrote: »

So the figures clearly show that Pat Mc Quaids nomination either way was not a major issue for the majority of clubs and members. and I would suggest that its very wrong and unfair to Pat Mc Quaid to state that the majority of irish cyclist are against Pat Mc Quaids nomination..

Unless you re planning to redesign democracy, the results clearly say that the majority does not want McQuaid in that spot. Which ever way you coat it, it's still the same result.

LeoD

Inquitus wrote: »

This, however, was a global cycling issue that will impact our sport for many years to come, things like this don't come along often, and as such it was always likely to galvanise the membership at large to make their voice heard on matters they were passionate about.

I agree that this is/was a global issue but due to the democratic decision taken yesterday that some are so proud of, Ireland has decided for every international cycling federation that PM will not serve another term as UCI president. Instead they will have to accept the only other candidate that has put themselves forward for election. That doesn't seem very democratic to me.

Mcofferon

12 sprocket wrote: »

Rob
your statement that "the MAJORITY of irish cyclists feel that Pat Mc Quaid is not up to the job" is factually incorrect and I think in a much earlier post you admitted that your self.. Here are some facts, My own club, a club of 350 members had 35 people attend the pre CI club EGM.

From a possible 779 Votes at the CI meeting yesterday 188 or 24% of the possible electorate attended to take up the option of voting.

THe no vote was 11.6% of the possible electorate.

THis was after a media and lobbying campaign by the no side for a very extended period of time.

So the figures clearly show that Pat Mc Quaids nomination either way was not a major issue for the majority of clubs and members. and I would suggest that its very wrong and unfair to Pat Mc Quaid to state that the majority of irish cyclist are against Pat Mc Quaids nomination..

This is why ad men and marketeers love statistics:rolleyes:

With 91 votes out of the 165 registered votes the no vote was just over 55%

Or if you prefer to use your skew on the stats - comparing actual votes cast to the potential maximum - the Yes camp only gets 9.5%

If you think you've been hard done by - what about those of us CI members denied a voice altogether? Individual (not affiliated to any club) CI members got no say at all.

It's time for - don's his miners helmet - One member, One vote.

el tel

LeoD wrote: »

I agree that this is/was a global issue but due to the democratic decision taken yesterday that some are so proud of, Ireland has decided for every international cycling federation that PM will not serve another term as UCI president. Instead they will have to accept the only other candidate that has put themselves forward for election. That doesn't seem very democratic to me.

It's not unlike most elections, for example the US presidential election, in that the party elects their nomination who the may run for presidential election. Do you think that's undemocratic also? What utopian solution do you propose?

I think that by exercising democracy CI membership have done what they can to prevent PMQ being foisted upon the sport for another term as it's unsuitable leader.

morana

LeoD wrote: »

I agree that this is/was a global issue but due to the democratic decision taken yesterday that some are so proud of, Ireland has decided for every international cycling federation that PM will not serve another term as UCI president. Instead they will have to accept the only other candidate that has put themselves forward for election. That doesn't seem very democratic to me.

And that was Irelands right. Ireland finally said no to gombeenism, cute-whoorism and "sure he is irish" you know that mentality that has ****ed up the country it can be summed up by the phrase "ah sure he fixed the road"

He asked for the nomination from Ireland and submitted himself to the process. Had CI board done things correctly he would be going forward for election. if you want to blame somebody I suggest you start there and not at "the new faces" etc. who engaged in a democratic process.

He was judged on his record, not what he will do- 8 years of a record and CI decided it wasnt good enough.

Casati

LeoD wrote: »

I agree that this is/was a global issue but due to the democratic decision taken yesterday that some are so proud of, Ireland has decided for every international cycling federation that PM will not serve another term as UCI president. Instead they will have to accept the only other candidate that has put themselves forward for election. That doesn't seem very democratic to me.

How does Ireland's vote yesterday stop any of the other 200+ national federations nominating their own candidate?

ROK ON

I'm calling bullsh1t on this nonsense.

Clubs and commissions had the vote, not individuals. It is a con to say that only 9.5% or whatever rejected McQuaid.
Even if you are dumb enough to believe that, fewer people actually supported him.

If you deduct the CI block votes for commissions/provinces, then the majority of those at the egm that represented ordinary cyclists voted no.

People can believe what they want but those that believe that there was some sort of shennanigans afoot will only serve to create bitterness and diviide where there should be none.

The egm has spoken. Lets move on.

Junior

Mike Plant withdraws support for Pat McQuaid, after compiling a dossier on him ..

http://www.insidethegames.biz/sports/summer/cycling/1014687-mcquaid-warned-ethics-must-be-constant-and-unwavering-as-plant-withdraws-his-support

pelevin

LeoD wrote: »

I agree that this is/was a global issue but due to the democratic decision taken yesterday that some are so proud of, Ireland has decided for every international cycling federation that PM will not serve another term as UCI president. Instead they will have to accept the only other candidate that has put themselves forward for election. That doesn't seem very democratic to me.

It's not that at all. Irish people voted on the Irish candidate. Ridiculous to think we have to take responsibility for every other federation & whether they put forward or not a candidate. It's just a ludicrous way of having to think - "Well what will the rest of the world do if I do this? Jaysus the responsibility is too big, I'd better sit on my arse and do nothing."

You're describing a group (in this case the Irish at the egm) behaving in a democratic manner as "That doesn't seem very democratic to me."
If democracy isn't very democratic, I'm stumped as to what is.

RobFowl

12 sprocket wrote: »

Rob
your statement that "the MAJORITY of irish cyclists feel that Pat Mc Quaid is not up to the job" is factually incorrect and I think in a much earlier post you admitted that your self..

The majority of representatives who turned up to vote rejected him. The level of those who were club delegates was far higher.
Lets accept the democratic result and move on.
There are too many people including you who have too much to offer Irish cycling that we can't afford to lose over this.

Beasty

Cycling Ireland Structure posts moved to this thread

wav1

Just a comment re the voting en bloc of commissions,provinces etc.In fairness there was no pressure brought to bear on any of these committees.The province that i am part of voted totally independently as did our club.Just wanted to clear that one up.

buffalo

CI notice:

At todays' Cycling Ireland EGM, there were 60 clubs in attedance with 188 delegate votes.

Those in favour: 74
Thse against: 91

What happened to the 23 other votes? Does anyone know of any clubs or commissions that decided to abstain?

12 sprocket

RobFowl wrote: »

The majority of representatives who turned up to vote rejected him. The level of those who were club delegates was far higher.
Lets accept the democratic result and move on.
There are too many people including you who have too much to offer Irish cycling that we can't afford to lose over this.

Rob
I have absolutely accepted the democratic process and result of the day. my post and statistcs were to point out the spin (which i thought was unfair) that was being put on the result and I stand over that.

THeres certainly no question of me bailing out of cycling, I enjoy it far too much, and have learned from a great man when I first came into the sport that you have to take the bad days and the good days and that tomorrow will be another day!

RobFowl

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/14797/Swiss-Cycling-reaffirms-support-for-McQuaid-while-acknowledging-legal-challenge.aspx

The Swiss have confirmed they are still backing McQuaid

Chips Lovell

Kieron McQuaid has a pop at clubs like Tiernans and the Chain Gang Tralee.

don’t run open races. So we would not want to depend on them for inspiration or commitment to the cause

And also says:

The motion was defeated by people who know more about the ins and outs of social media and its influences than they do about running cycling; either in this country or internationally.

Inquitus

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Kieron McQuaid has a pop at clubs like Tiernans and the Chain Gang Tralee.



And also says:

Link doesn't work for me but based on your quotes he can go........

buffalo

It's done. Can we move on and get back to cycling?