The future direction of CI

12 sprocket

Beasty wrote: »

That's all well and good, but CI are not all about McQuaid and his nomination. I disagree with the Board on this particular issue, but feel they have a difficult job to do with limited resources (and none of the Board get paid for their services)

I would be careful what you wish for here, unless you/your club are prepared to put forward people who you can trust to do a better all-round job than the current Board. The danger is CI loses any continuity and are left with a Board that is less able than the current one.

Of course the President is due to step down at the forthcoming AGM - that will provide an opportunity for someone to step forward and perhaps give the organisation a bit of new direction.

Do you think it needs a change of direction Beasty? If you were president what change of direction would you make.

Beasty

12 sprocket wrote: »

Do you think it needs a change of direction Beasty? If you were president what change of direction would you make.

Actually I don't and you will see from the post you are quoting that other than on the McQuaid issue (which let's face it is a one-off) I am generally supportive of the efforts the Board make

I was simply indicating that if people do want change they really have to step up to the plate and not leave it to others

EDIT - I do think this is a topic worthy of it's own thread though, rather than being lost within (or confused with) the McQuaid issue.

morana

12 sprocket wrote: »

Do you think it needs a change of direction Beasty? If you were president what change of direction would you make.

I would look at making it more relevant to the vast majority of members who are non racing. Maybe split the organisation into a more CTC type body and a HP/dev side of it. I dont think its correct that a vast amount of the budget is spent on a tiny minority of riders.

What can CI do for a non-racing type of rider? Leisure League, more lobbying for cycling amenities such as Royal/Grand canal towpath upgrades etc...I dont honestly know. I think the HP side is a little easier re facilities,calendar etc.

Beasty

New thread started and posts moved from the McQuaid thread

endacl

I haven't been a member since I last raced as a junior. Loooooong time ago.... TBH, CI only pops up on my radar when I stumble across a thread on here. Granted, if you race, you're kinda tied to them out of necessity. On the other hand, unlike many other sports where membership of an organisation is a necessary prerequisite, for the overwhelming majority of leisure, fitness and commuting cyclists, CI is an irrelevance. I doubt many of the 'new adopters' have even heard of them. Maybe CI need to focus on making themselves more relevant?

CheGuedara

morana wrote: »

I would look at making it more relevant to the vast majority of members who are non racing. Maybe split the organisation into a more CTC type body and a HP/dev side of it. I dont think its correct that a vast amount of the budget is spent on a tiny minority of riders.

Well thats it, you have my vote for the top job! A more equitable future Cycling Ireland - don't know if it will it happen in our days but we can dream!

It's is unsurprising that as people are finding themselves will less and less money that more and more leisure cyclists are asking what their membership affords them/their cycling & what their licence fee actually goes towards. That these non-competitive members (those CI has previously grouped as those holding leisure and club competition licences) who contribute most in terms of membership (and so presumably also in terms of affilliation fees) are so comparatively poorly supported by Cycling Ireland and its provincial executives is very disappointing.

To be fair, maybe poor leisure support isn't true for all provinces but has certainly been so in Munster. While support for competitive events has never been in question it has taken substantial efforts to bring some level of transparency to where & how funds are used and to see some (any!) go towards supporting leisure clubs & events in the province. The CM chairman has even said at previous CM AGMs when the topic of supporting leisure cycling was brought up that he doesn't "like leisure cycling, doesn't know anything about leisure cycling and doesn't want to know anything about leisure cycling!" - thats a verbatim quote !! Clearly if a plan of more equitable support across the different cycling activities/disciplines is to happen it is unlikely to come easily or quickly and is likely to need top down instruction/direction from CI to see implementation.

morana

budget allocations to commissions was based on what they actually did. They provinces get a capitation afaik from every member that signs up to CI from their province but what is that used for? Capitation should be based on all facets of cycling being promoted mtb,leisure,youth,women etc.

Thats not having a go at the provinces and I know they cant do it themselves provide grants for clubs to do it. There is no point in accruing money in a bank and having a stash of cash unless its being used to get a long term plan for facilities. if its there spend it.

Beasty

morana wrote: »

budget allocations to commissions was based on what they actually did. They provinces get a capitation afaik from every member that signs up to CI from their province but what is that used for? Capitation should be based on all facets of cycling being promoted mtb,leisure,youth,women etc.

Thats not having a go at the provinces and I know they cant do it themselves provide grants for clubs to do it. There is no point in accruing money in a bank and having a stash of cash unless its being used to get a long term plan for facilities. if its there spend it.

Absolutely.

Provinces should not be holding significant funds for a "rainy day". CI should be managing funds centrally for capital projects. Any surplus cash held by the provinces should be returned to CI.

smacl

morana wrote: »

What can CI do for a non-racing type of rider? Leisure League, more lobbying for cycling amenities such as Royal/Grand canal towpath upgrades etc...I dont honestly know. I think the HP side is a little easier re facilities,calendar etc.

Absolutely agree. I'm not currently a CI member, and the only time I ever encounter CI is for a 1 day license for the occasional sportive or audax. I'd have no problem joining if I thought they were working to improve leisure cycling infrastructure and access. Holidaying in rural France last year, every small forest seemed to be crisscrossed with cycling tracks for every level of ability, with signage on how to get from one village to the next, maintained by VTT. We just don't have that here, even though the countryside would be ideally suited. Given the amount of l-roads with minimal traffic and coilte tracks, even something as simple as adding cycle signage with graded and documented routes would be a significant step forward.

As an outsider, CI seems very much an organisation serving the needs of road cycling clubs with a focus on cycling as a sport. Purely guessing, but I'd say as many people as not that cycle regularly aren't part of this demographic and never will be. If you look at an event like to ROK, how many people took part, and how many were CI members?

couerdelion

What is the stated aim of Cycling Ireland as an organisation?

I'd like to see them become more involved in lobbying government for better cycling infrastructure and even acting in an advisory capacity to planners/councils when they decide to put cycle infrastructure in/alongside new developments.

Beasty

couerdelion wrote: »

What is the stated aim of Cycling Ireland as an organisation?

Its main objects are

To encourage, develop and organise cycling on the island of Ireland including, but not exclusively, racing, touring, mountain biking, physical education and any activity or business pursuit connected with or ancilllary to the activity of cycling

Split Link

I agree in broad terms with a need for continuity in C.I. However the current continuity has evolved into a cosy consensus with a concentration on one activity - competitive high performance cycling - with almost complete disregard for the other aims of the organisation.
Of even more concern is that the consensus has developed without proper (any?) regard for matters of governance. I am aware of a number of instances in the last 4-5 years where the Board has failed to observe proper governance in its dealings with member clubs. Indeed one sub-committee of the Board has very vehemently, adamantly and publicly put on record its determination not to familiarise itself with the objectives, rules ans regulations that govern its activities!
Morana makes a very good point with the suggestion to split C.I. into two seperate subsidiary companies - one to deal with and manage non-competitive and off-road cycling, the other to deal with and manage competitive road (and track?) cycling. It would then be clear where financial resources are generated and applied in both sectors. With the free movement of goods and services within the E.U., an alternative might be for the non-competitive sector to affiliate to the English-based C.T.C., thus letting the other disciplines develop without the present irritating drag from "leisure baggage"! This is certainly worth further exploration.
In relation to current structures - surely the Provincial executives are completely archaic at this stage! They are a throw-back to a quasi-nationalist era when, to be fair, communications were not as well developed as they are now. I.M.O. they should be abolished and the resources thus saved applied to support properly structured Commissions in the delivery of focussed services to the relevant disciplines.
C.I. also fails in the area of communications with its membership. The website is in no way friendly and is counter-intuitive in many respects. For instance, the ultimate governance document - Memo & Articles is located in the TECHNICAL section! By way of futher example there is a small tab to C.I. Feedback. Feedback from whom and on what issue? The link is here www.cyclingireland.ie/Home/CI-Feedback.aspx and it might be a good place for those interested to start the reform process! Yes. I know the closing date is passed but I understand it is still taking submissions. I wonder is there anyone home at the other end!

morana

Split Link wrote: »

C.I. also fails in the area of communications with its membership.

Would have to agree with this. I came across this when I logged into the website. Now I will only login once a year at licence renewal time so there is no point in sticking it there and I may have missed it but after a search of the site I couldnt find it on their website.

"Did you know that we’ve partnered with O2 and as a member of the Irish Cycling Federation.......etc."

Harrybelafonte

As someone who started back cycling in the leisure cycling section I wasn't aware of CI except as a logo on posters and leaflets so I don't really feel that element should be the one worked on most. I feel that any benefits leisure cycling would gain from CI would involve a level of political lobbying aimed at infrastructural change etc.

On the other hand, those with MTB licences are almost ignored by CI, regarded as trespassers by Coillte and I believe they should be supported more considering how popular MTB is and the financial advances CI could make off the promotion of MTB for tourism, etc.

ROK ON

I think it is worth keeping in mind that CI exists for cycling as a sport. Sport by it's very nature is competitive. In this regard CI does a reasonably good job.

It might be te case that the predominantly leisure based clubs and Audax Ireland set up an organisation for insurance and promotion purposes that is maybe allied but not part of CI. This way CI caters for those that want to race and be involved in racing.
All else join the leisure based organisation.

At the beginning of each year if you plan on racing you take out a CI license and if not you take a license from the leisure based organisation.

The advantages are
Specific bodies to cater and promote the events and type of cycling that they are really set up for and where their hearts lay so to speak,
Prevents the cross subsidisation of one cohort of members by another - funds are spent exactly in the interests of members.

Dsadvantages
Twice the work for club secretaries
Would have to think about the access to leisure events by those with a racing license.

Just a thought.

As it stands it is difficult to see how the funds raised by non racing members are spent in the best interests of those members.

I have had a non comp license in the past and a racing license presently. When I do leisure events and the odd Audax event I have yet to see any in involvement from CI other than the insurance provided by my license.

morana

yes I think from a competitive perspective the last few years have been very good so credits where its due to the board pre April 2013

Split Link

ROK ON wrote: »

I think it is worth keeping in mind that CI exists for cycling as a sport. Sport by it's very nature is competitive.

ROK ON is otherwise SPOT ON! - except that he starts from the wrong premise!
Cycling Ireland does NOT exist for cycling as a sport. It "exists to encourage, develop and organise cycling on the island of Ireland". Sport cycling (competition) is only one aspect of this purpose. It is precisely this lack of understanding and appreciation of this fundamental tenet of governance that has the organisation in the confused state that it is in today.:eek:

Beasty

I'm not sure of it's origins but it is recognised as cycling's representative body by the Government and needs to encompass all aspects of cycling unless we are to have 2 national bodies (which may then be competing for any available funding)

It's actually primarily an association of it's clubs (that's the way the current voting structure works), and those clubs encompass almost all aspects of Cycling in Ireland. I don't think it can be completely split into two independent organisations. The way it is set up CI should oversee leisure and competitive cycling, but most of the clubs have a significant focus on competitive cycling. This could change if the voting structure was changed to accommodate unattached members (who are currently pretty much disenfranchised)

One are they do need to have a look at is off-road cycling at both competitive (MTB and BMX) and non-competitive levels. I get the feeling feel a bit marginalised by what appears to be an overwhelming focus of CI on road (and to a lesser extent track) racing and leisure events

2 Wheels Good

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

As someone who started back cycling in the leisure cycling section I wasn't aware of CI except as a logo on posters and leaflets so I don't really feel that element should be the one worked on most. I feel that any benefits leisure cycling would gain from CI would involve a level of political lobbying aimed at infrastructural change etc.

On the other hand, those with MTB licences are almost ignored by CI, regarded as trespassers by Coillte and I believe they should be supported more considering how popular MTB is and the financial advances CI could make off the promotion of MTB for tourism, etc.

To add to that. I was, and still am annoyed and extremely disappointed we didn't have any mountain bikers at the London Olympics. From what I've seen we couldn't even manage a team to try and qualify, anyone who is cycling at an Olympic level is self funded.

How hard would it have been to try and get 2 qualifiers for London! As has been mentioned elsewhere many times we should be focusing on less mainstream sports like this to get our numbers up at the Olympics.

Split Link

Here are the Roles and Responsibilities for the good old antiquated Provinces.


3. Roles and Responsibilities

3.1 Provincial Executives are responsible for:
• Arranging Provincial championships;
• Collating the Provincial competition and non-competition calendar;
• Assisting clubs with their development;
• Assessing demand for and arranging educational courses;
• Targeting geographical areas that do not have a cycling club;
• Appointing a Provincial Grading Officer to liaise with the National Grading Officer;
• Liaising with the various Commissions to ensure the Province is represented on National Development Squads;
• Communicating regularly with their members and clubs particularly through the Cycling Ireland website;
• Ensuring that their Province is represented as required at meetings arranged by Cycling Ireland;
• Tasks as outlined in the “General Administrative Regulations, Technical Regulations and Procedures”.


I wonder how many executives address this remit and confine themselves to it!

CramCycle

Split Link wrote: »

• Ensuring that their Province is represented as required at meetings arranged by Cycling Ireland;

This follows on nicely from my point in the PMQ thread about the organisation of transport and/or subsidies for bus tickets or car pooling to AGMs and EGMs.
It is both time consuming and costly to some to attend these meetings and it is something I feel should be addressed at the AGM.

Split Link

CramCycle wrote: »

This follows on nicely from my point in the PMQ thread about the organisation of transport and/or subsidies for bus tickets or car pooling to AGMs and EGMs.
It is both time consuming and costly to some to attend these meetings and it is something I feel should be addressed at the AGM.

Of course! But you can bet your last dime that the executives will maintain that they alone will "represent the province as required".

This is one of the many reasons why root and branch reform of C.I. is required, especially since at least one unit has publicly refused to familiarise itself with its responsibilities!

Beasty

That's all well and good, but this is not simply a matter of voting for change. It needs people who are prepared to accept responsibility and commit to deliver that change.

This was the problem with last year's AGM - if members are not prepared to actually attend, seek to influence the decision making process and help deliver that change at local, provincial and national level they have little basis for complaint if the status quo remains

From what I have seen there is a core of the "old guard" who actually help hold the sport together in Ireland, and a small number of the "new guard" who do have the commitment to try and deliver change, together with the apathetic majority who will call for change but do very little when it comes to delivering it