CI Presidency

Beasty

Just a general point here, but given the above post is referring to youth riders please do not provide names - expanding on the wider issue(s) is fine

Thanks

12 sprocket

hammerheadjack wrote: »

following the discussion with interest and dont want to sidetrack from the main topic, but feel I can add some first hand experience of the youth development situation at the moment. As the father of a rider who will be riding first year junior next year I would have to agree with Wav 1 and disagree with 12 sprocket that the narrow focus for youth is working. It is my belief that the focus of the 2020 squad is far too narrow. having attended many of the U16 races this year there are perhaps 12 riders out of all the starters (say 50 odd) who can stick the pace and are always there or thereabouts at the business end of the race. The split usually happens very quickly after the start, and this qroup of 12 or so race each other. It highlights a huge gulf in the U16 ranks. There are say 40 riders who need work at a provincial level to get them to the level of the 12 stronger guys, and then there are the 12 competitive riders ( I could name them for you) who are at a national development level. Out of these 12, there are I think only 5 on the 2020 talent team. The other 7 are left to fend for themselves. Despite this the magnificent 7 regularly took podium spots ahead of the talented guys and there really is nothing between them when you consider rates of development. I was told that the criteria to get on the 2020 development was to beat the encumbants. The encumbants remain however firmly encumbant. I cant for the life of me understand why these 12 riders cannot be developed together. How much extra would it cost? Does Brian Nugent even know the names of the seven who will not be invited to travel to learn track skills in Mallorca. Is there a potential track racer amongst these 7, I guess we may never know. To achieve the victories and performances I witnessed these riders pull off this year with nothing only their own determination to support them, should be enough to warrant their inclusion in any youth or junior development programme. They dont all have to travel, if the cost of that is an issue, but it would cost nothing to have them all attend training sessions in ireland at the very least. The narrow focus is whittling an already small pool of talented riders.

I actually agree with most of what you have written and the more riders get good coaching the better. What I meant was that the system now in place that has been developed over the last few years is producing better riders than has been produced for a good few years.
It can be improved and there is a case to be made for broadening the base at the younger levels. However it does need good planning and really good coaching to make the difference.

Beasty

And the winner is......




.....going to be announced after a late lunch

Beasty

OK - it's a tie!!

Casting vote goes to Denis Toomey

RobFowl

Beasty wrote: »

OK - it's a tie!!

Casting vote goes to Denis Toomey

Close one and two very good candidates.

Good luck to Denis and I think he'll do a great job.

kumate_champ07

hammerheadjack wrote: »

following the discussion with interest and dont want to sidetrack from the main topic, but feel I can add some first hand experience of the youth development situation at the moment. As the father of a rider who will be riding first year junior next year I would have to agree with Wav 1 and disagree with 12 sprocket that the narrow focus for youth is working. It is my belief that the focus of the 2020 squad is far too narrow. having attended many of the U16 races this year there are perhaps 12 riders out of all the starters (say 50 odd) who can stick the pace and are always there or thereabouts at the business end of the race. The split usually happens very quickly after the start, and this qroup of 12 or so race each other. It highlights a huge gulf in the U16 ranks. There are say 40 riders who need work at a provincial level to get them to the level of the 12 stronger guys, and then there are the 12 competitive riders ( I could name them for you) who are at a national development level. Out of these 12, there are I think only 5 on the 2020 talent team. The other 7 are left to fend for themselves. Despite this the magnificent 7 regularly took podium spots ahead of the talented guys and there really is nothing between them when you consider rates of development. I was told that the criteria to get on the 2020 development was to beat the encumbants. The encumbants remain however firmly encumbant. I cant for the life of me understand why these 12 riders cannot be developed together. How much extra would it cost? Does Brian Nugent even know the names of the seven who will not be invited to travel to learn track skills in Mallorca. Is there a potential track racer amongst these 7, I guess we may never know. To achieve the victories and performances I witnessed these riders pull off this year with nothing only their own determination to support them, should be enough to warrant their inclusion in any youth or junior development programme. They dont all have to travel, if the cost of that is an issue, but it would cost nothing to have them all attend training sessions in ireland at the very least. The narrow focus is whittling an already small pool of talented riders.

there was an u16 track cyclist last year who was left out and they sent road riders to compete overseas who never even did track!, this kid won a major track comp that year and was national champion on the road this year..

hammerheadjack

12 sprocket wrote: »

I actually agree with most of what you have written and the more riders get good coaching the better. What I meant was that the system now in place that has been developed over the last few years is producing better riders than has been produced for a good few years.
It can be improved and there is a case to be made for broadening the base at the younger levels. However it does need good planning and really good coaching to make the difference.

You are correct in saying that the 5 riders already selected to represent the country in the 2020 olympics are responding well to the coaching they receive. It is a testament to the other 7 that they can keep up at all.

wav1

a good varied AGM in general.Forums at the end a bit pointless as the most of the delegates had left after the elections.Good luck to Denis going forward.Dissapointed on the way home though,as i feel the commissions are finished and i dont think the board sees any future for them.At least theres no on line entry for the races next year.

Lusk_Doyle

wav1 wrote: »

At least theres no on line entry for the races next year.

What was the reason for this decision?

RobFowl

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

What was the reason for this decision?

There is on line entry but we passed a motion (from Wav's club afair) which means it won't be mandatory as had been planned.

Was one of those who left "early" at 3:30 as had to get home (orders from the boss).

wav1

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

What was the reason for this decision?

Probably noisy vocal opposition from yours truly. Our club opposed the on line entry and about 80% of the delegates agreed.

Beasty

There were getting on for 50 there for the later discussion - not far adrift from the 74 or so delegates last year. Yes a lot had left, which was unfortunate, but the overall attendance was excellent (almost a case of standing room only). Those who stayed clearly had an interest in the topics being discussed. Some of those who left maybe did not, but certainly missed a decent discussion.

If it had been done the other way round there may still have been people leaving after lunch - the meeting had been running for 4 hours at that stage and there is going to be a natural "attrition" given the break in proceedings

I don't see it as the end of the Commissions though - the clear aim is to keep what is good and hopefully deal with some of the issues that have made a couple of the Commissions ineffective over the past year or two. Hopefully a few new ideas will help sort it out and deliver effective governance at Board level without the concerns of "interference" within the Commissions themselves.

I also think the proposals to split the "company" and "operational" issues (by having an AGM and separate Congress albeit on the same day) will help - the problem then is how you do accommodate discussions in both areas without creating the sort of issue evidenced today with over half the delegates heading off after the first section of the meeting

Beasty

To be clear there is to be no compulsory online entry - it remains optional (and indeed to all intents and purposes compulsory in Northern Ireland)

Lusk_Doyle

RobFowl wrote: »

There is on line entry but we passed a motion (from Wav's club afair) which means it won't be mandatory as had been planned.

Was one of those who left "early" at 3:30 as had to get home (orders from the boss).

wav1 wrote: »

Probably noisy vocal opposition from yours truly. Our club opposed the on line entry and about 80% of the delegates agreed.

Cheers fellas.

While I do like that idea of moving with the times, etc, sometimes you simply don't know until the last minute if you will be able to make a race and the pre-reg online then removes this choice form you completely. I have to say that I agree that it shouldn't be mandatory. I like being able to come home from work on a Monday evening and saying to the missus "Mind if I head to Donore tonight for the race?" because life gets in the way of early decision making and this I feel would reduce the numbers interested out there if you had to decide a few days in advance.

wav1

Beasty.Really hope you're right re the commissions.
They rolled out a lot of good stuff today re the coaching etc for the youths.but believe me when i say,if theres nobody driving this [whether it be a commission or not]then our kids will disappear.Happened too many times in the past when great batches of juniors were followed by a huge gulf.I still feel that its the end of commissions as we know them,and i feel it will be more down to us at provincial level to do our thing,without a structured system at national level.Brian Nugent is a good guy and he has some ideas of his own in this regard and i look forward to engaging further with him going forward.

Beasty

The new President seems open to direct communication (as indeed was the old one, but perhaps a lot of people were generally unaware of this)

He also has the benefit of a bit more time to devote to the role

My suggestion Wav1 is that if you feel something really is failing, get in touch with him and make sure he is aware of your concerns. Clearly I would not encourage people to approach the President on day to day matters that can be handled by CI staff, but for strategic stuff, or where people feel there is some fundamental issue that really needs looking at at Board level, I do feel Denis is prepared to listen to concerns raised

Brian came across well and I am sure will also engage on issues particularly in connection with youth and junior development. He acknowledged his main personal focus has been more at the elite level, but that makes it even more important that people who are on the ground and know exactly what is going on communicate any concerns to him

killalanerr

Wher their any changes for the masters

CramCycle

killalanerr wrote: »

Wher their any changes for the masters

Slightly in that the Kilorglin motion passed and there will be 3 Masters categories for the National Road Race, Time Trial and Hill climb but at nothing else.

Beasty

Yep - they've disqualified you as you are too old ...:pac:


For 2014 there should be age-based championships for Road, TT and Hill-climb - probably 45-54, 55-64 and 65+

The fine print is to be confirmed (could be 40-49, 50-59, 60+ for example).

These will be full championships but the intention will be to review it at the end of the year

RobFowl

killalanerr wrote: »

Wher their any changes for the masters

Yes but No if that makes sense!

There were the changes made as Beasty says but "subject to the technical rules being compatable". College of comm's not happy with changes so won't be surprised if they don't see the light of day!

mark kiernan

-"subject to techinical rule " sounds familiar

Beasty

RobFowl wrote: »

Yes but No if that makes sense!

There were the changes made as Beasty says but "subject to the technical rules being compatable". College of comm's not happy with changes so won't be surprised if they don't see the light of day!

Not quite - the College of Comms asked for the proposed wording of the change in regulations. It was then pointed out that the precise wording had already been provided with the original resolution, but the proposers had been requested not to include it in the resolution for fear of confusing the proposal.

From what I understand Kanturk have gone to quite a bit of trouble to make sure they got this right, and I think the Comms may have some difficulty if they are looking to pick holes in it...

buffalo

Was there for the morning, would've liked to have stayed for the discussion fora, but not possible today. Was impressed with your speaking wav1, and points from most speakers were generally well made.

I only saw more evidence of a disconnect between the board and the rank and file though. A lot of questions not answered, cut short, or a perfunctory "we'll take it on board". Seems like the AGM is the only time that ordinary members can communicate with the board in an open forum, and there wasn't a lot of leeway for discussion.

Also, coming from a Scouting background, I don't understand why the awards night isn't on the same day as the AGM. The SI AGM is a weekend - come down on Friday if you want to catch up with old friends, AGM business all day Saturday, then a dinner, keynote address by a guest speaker and awards, and finishing business on Sunday. It mixes the positive (awards and pro stars) with the negative (a lot of valid complaints made this morning), and makes it far more social and allows for plenty of craic in the evening. Which means you'd get a lot more people turning up, imho.

RobFowl

buffalo wrote: »

.

Also, coming from a Scouting background, I don't understand why the awards night isn't on the same day as the AGM. The SI AGM is a weekend - come down on Friday if you want to catch up with old friends, AGM business all day Saturday, then a dinner, keynote address by a guest speaker and awards, and finishing business on Sunday. It mixes the positive (awards and pro stars) with the negative (a lot of valid complaints made this morning), and makes it far more social and allows for plenty of craic in the evening. Which means you'd get a lot more people turning up, imho.

They used to hold them on the same day but found people tended not to stay on. Having the awards dinner on another date seems to actually increase the turnout!
PS sold out this year already.

buffalo

RobFowl wrote: »

PS sold out this year already.

I didn't even realise they were selling tickets to the AGM! :P

RobFowl

buffalo wrote: »

I didn't even realise they were selling tickets to the AGM! :P

You have to keep the riff raff out some how :cool:

Beasty

RobFowl wrote: »

You have to keep the riff raff out some how :cool:

Another failed initiative then Rob ....

(although tactics did work for the after lunch session)

RobFowl

Beasty wrote: »

Another failed initiative then Rob ....

(although tactics did work for the after lunch session)

YNWA Monsieur le 666

CramCycle

I thought it went well, good numbers, great points, Pat who was sitting beside me was so passionate in his questions that I was afraid to ask my boring ones. Instead I settled for asking stupid ones at the forums after.

If I had one complaint is that the forums should have been on earlier, and maybe a time limit on the talks so as to focus and speed them up. It was good to see the work that we miss sometimes, as well as, IMO more honest opinions from the higher ups.

Captain Havoc

I thought it was a little disappointing half the room left for the forums. I also wanted to ask a long winded question (much of which Valerie said) but ended up asking a short one. I didn't think your questions were bad.