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

CramCycle

Leroy42 wrote: »

I now know why he to didn't bother coming over for the EGM, he would has lost the vote by a bigger margin.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Bear in mind he put himself forward for the interview and that is the best he could come up with!

This bit was cringe worthy, he is the head of the UCI, to think that he either is not provided with a PR person or team, or given the general disapproval in the air, he would not have hired his own is shocking. The only thing I can think is that he genuinely believes that the work he has done, and continues to do, is beyond reproach and that this would be self evident. If I walked into a meeting at work that unprepared, I'd be walking out with my pinkslip in hand.

Ger really nailed him about the John Fahy quote, he made Pat out to be a complete liar. Car crash stuff really.

He seemed genuinely shocked about this, as if he had never heard the full speech or someone had quoted this to him as fact.

Finally, for all those that support him, I think Pat was quite dismissive of the rank & file when he said that nobody knows him in Ireland anyway.

Very much so, considering the main defence of him in Ireland was that he done alot for Ireland, we should support him because he is Irish, he seems quite happy to ignore his own country be they for or against him. Any PR person worth their salt would have had him coached to acknowledge this support, to thank those who stood up for him and that he would be eternally grateful/touched etc.

Beasty

CramCycle wrote: »

Very much so, considering the main defence of him in Ireland was that he done alot for Ireland, we should support him because he is Irish, he seems quite happy to ignore his own country be they for or against him. Any PR person worth their salt would have had him coached to acknowledge this support, to thank those who stood up for him and that he would be eternally grateful/touched etc.

To be clear though McQuaid was correct with his response on this one. There should be no special deal for his own federation. It was those who sought to support him on such a premise that should probably be considered misguided (I would estimate around 74 of them were in the room )

CramCycle

There should be no special deal for his own federation. It was those who sought to support him on such a premise that should probably be considered misguided (I would estimate around 74 of them were in the room )

Of course not, and it would have been misguided if that was the thinking. My point was, he could have said thank you, not give any special privilege, just an acknowledgement that he knows he was supported and was thankful. Not for any prize, or reward, or some idea that there is something owed but just manners, say thank you. Those people, who I did not agree with, still stood up for him when alot of people and general opinion were weighing in against him in his position as the head of UCI. Anyone running for a position in any organisation, win or lose, would still say thank you to those who supported them.

I just thought it was poor form. This is nothing to do with his role of head of UCI though.

RobFowl

Beasty wrote: »

To be clear though McQuaid was correct with his response on this one. There should be no special deal for his own federation. It was those who sought to support him on such a premise that should probably be considered misguided (I would estimate around 74 of them were in the room )

74 votes not people ! From memory a lot of his supporters had 2 or even 3 votes.

Dermot Illogical

Were there any delegates who didn't vote?

letape

RobFowl wrote: »

74 votes not people ! From memory a lot of his supporters had 2 or even 3 votes.

Presumably 1 vote represents more than one person - you are suggesting that he has fewer than 74 supporters; which (with respect) is ricidulous!!

RobFowl

letape wrote: »

Presumably 1 vote represents more than one person - you are suggesting that he has fewer than 74 supporters; which (with respect) is ricidulous!!

I not suggesting anything, I'm clearly saying that less than 74 people voted for him at the EGM as quite a few had double and treble mandates. Compare this to most unaffiliated members of CI who were not allowed any representation.

buffalo

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Were there any delegates who didn't vote?

CI notice:

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

Those in favour: 74
Thse against: 91

That means 23 didn't vote.

Dermot Illogical

buffalo wrote: »

CI notice:


That means 23 didn't vote.

I thought I saw that somewhere, but didn't think it could be right. Why go and not cast a vote? Protest? No mandate? Heard a convincing argument and shifted position? I'm a bit puzzled by that.

CramCycle

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

I thought I saw that somewhere, but didn't think it could be right. Why go and not cast a vote? Protest? No mandate? Heard a convincing argument and shifted position? I'm a bit puzzled by that.

There could have been a vote either way by the club so they abstained instead of casting one for and against.

cdaly_

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

I thought I saw that somewhere, but didn't think it could be right. Why go and not cast a vote? Protest? No mandate? Heard a convincing argument and shifted position? I'm a bit puzzled by that.

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

Would that be a case of 60 clubs had 188 delegate votes between them but not enough delegates turned up to cast those votes?

RobFowl

cdaly_ wrote: »

Would that be a case of 60 clubs had 188 delegate votes between them but not enough delegates turned up to cast those votes?

No all the delegate votes at the EGM were handed to club, commission or regional reps. Those that didn't vote were there but just didn't cast a vote.

Junior

So for instance Dungarvan CC had 4 Votes available but we had only two delegates go to vote so we had only two votes, and were counted as two votes. Not Counted as 4 but only two voting.

Beasty

I suspect some went with due mandate, got their name on the attendee list to prove they turned up then decided not to vote (for whatever reason and from either "camp"), in addition to those who were free to decide on the day and chose to abstain. There is, of course, no record of who voted which way.

shaka

[QUOTE=Beasty;. There is, of course, no record of who voted which way.[/QUOTE]

Mahhhhaaaaaahahahaha he who shall not be named is all seeing
(Sorry couldn't remember correct voldermort reference form Harry potter):D

RobFowl

Beasty wrote: »

I suspect some went with due mandate, got their name on the attendee list to prove they turned up then decided not to vote (for whatever reason and from either "camp"), in addition to those who were free to decide on the day and chose to abstain. There is, of course, no record of who voted which way.

My main recollection was the fact that the board voted unanimously in favour of Pat.

Lumen

RobFowl wrote: »

My main recollection was the fact that the board voted unanimously in favour of Pat.

I heard that one of the members of the board was threatened with the sack if he didn't vote for Pat, against the explicit directions of his club.

I'm several times removed from the source though, and the issue would be complicated by the fact that he had more than one vote. Perhaps he voted both ways.

RobFowl

Lumen wrote: »

I heard that one of the members of the board was threatened with the sack if he didn't vote for Pat, against the explicit directions of his club.

I'm several times removed from the source though, and the issue would be complicated by the fact that he had more than one vote. Perhaps he voted both ways.

All votes from the board went for Pat.

CramCycle

shaka wrote: »

reference form Harry potter):D

Get your coat

Lumen wrote: »

I heard that one of the members of the board was threatened with the sack if he didn't vote for Pat, against the explicit directions of his club.

Have this persons club said anything? That's a pretty wild statement if there is any truth to it.

I'm several times removed from the source though, and the issue would be complicated by the fact that he had more than one vote. Perhaps he voted both ways.

No one on the board voted both ways from memory, all voted in favour.

Lumen

CramCycle wrote: »

That's a pretty wild statement if there is any truth to it.

Well, that would depend on the accuracy of (a) the rumour I heard, and (b) this:

CramCycle wrote: »

No one on the board voted both ways from memory, all voted in favour.

morana

I seem to recall that only Mr Watson had 2 votes and voted in favour of the motion. The rest had 1 and also voted in favour.

Somebody threatened with the sack? Surely CI cant sack a board member! would never have happened in my day!

RobFowl

morana wrote: »

I seem to recall that only Mr Watson had 2 votes and voted in favour of the motion. The rest had 1 and also voted in favour.

Somebody threatened with the sack? Surely CI cant sack a board member! would never have happened in my day!

Thought at least one other had 2 (paracycling??)

Beasty

To be clear it is not possible for the Board to sack one of its members. Only the membership could do that (which would require an EGM or AGM)

I heard a similar rumour and did check with CI. It was made perfectly clear to me that no such "threat" was made

12 sprocket

Beasty wrote: »

To be clear it is not possible for the Board to sack one of its members. Only the membership could do that (which would require an EGM or AGM)

I heard a similar rumour and did check with CI. It was made perfectly clear to me that no such "threat" was made

THeres no doubt but Some of Yis are great men /women for rumours opinions and allegations..

and heres a fact that the board certainly can or at least at one time can/ could get rid of a board member if the board member didn't attend a certain amount of board meetings without good reason or notification.
I seen this happening first hand some years ago.

Lumen

12 sprocket wrote: »

THeres no doubt but Some of Yis are great men /women for rumours opinions and allegations..

Thanks!

ktz84

12 sprocket wrote: »

THeres no doubt but Some of Yis are great men /women for rumours opinions and allegations...

Well it was the investigation of rumours, opinions and allegations that lead to the admissions by Lance Armstrong so I'll not worry too much if somone would rather that the world only discussed facts even when those that are charged with the responsibility of finding those facts is derelict in its duty

morana

12 sprocket wrote: »

THeres no doubt but Some of Yis are great men /women for rumours opinions and allegations..

and heres a fact that the board certainly can or at least at one time can/ could get rid of a board member if the board member didn't attend a certain amount of board meetings without good reason or notification.
I seen this happening first hand some years ago.

Its 3 meetings.

Beasty

morana wrote: »

Its 3 meetings.

That's 3 consecutive meetings. And it's not a board decision. It's automatic under Article 37 (as is disqualification for bankruptcy). The only decision for the Board is whether to grant a reprieve under the "due cause" get out. The board can appoint directors but have no power to remove them.

Raymzor

when are the swiss going to make a decision?

RobFowl

Raymzor wrote: »

when are the swiss going to make a decision?

They already have and have confirmed it. It is being appealed by members but that has no finish date and the process won't finish anytime soon.