CI AGM 1 November 2014

Beasty

This year's AGM is being held at the Shearton Hotel, Athlone, at 11.00am on Saturday 1 November

Standing Orders and Agenda here

Delighted to see Siobhan O'Connor has been nominated for a place on the Board by the Women's Commission. We really do need some women's representation on the Board and this has been seriously lacking in recent years. Hopefully there will be more womee prepared to have their names put forward in future years. There are due to be elections for Secretary, Treasurer as well as one more Board place with Carl Fullerton being proposed for all 3 vacancies by Donegal Bay Cycling Club, agaist the incumbents Jack Watson and Sam McArdle for the specific roles and Siobhan and Terry O'Neill (Blarney Cycling Club) for the general Board place

The Womens Commission has also proposed separate grading for women which makes sense to me particulary given the recent pick up in women's racing in Ireland. Maybe that could help encourage more to get involved in racing as well as having sensible targets in terms of rankings

There are various resolutions put forward by a number of clubs. Not sure why South Dublin CC are proposing the abolition of the over 50 (Masters) category - it's only typically used in Ulster and I am not sure what they think the benefit of it's removal will be. They are also proposing that unplaced results pick up points - that could mean automatic regrading simply based on the number of races ridden in a year, which cannot make sense.

There are also a couple of proposals to introduce non-cycling membership at reduced rates, which seems sensible enough to me

I also note with interest the Cycling Ulster proposal that next of kin details should be included when applying for a licence - I definitely think this should be the case, and may well be the "reason" Cycling Ulster decided to put this forward:pac:

Inquitus

Beasty wrote: »

They are also proposing that unplaced results pick up points - that could mean automatic regrading simply based on the number of races ridden in a year, which cannot make sense.

How does that "not make sense", if you are 1st unplaced A4 or whatever in a handicap race you have beaten all your peers in the race. 3/2/1 points for results like that more than makes sense.

wav1

The unplaced thing I would agree with.Not sure if Beasty has misread the proposal,but it means if you are winner of u/p A2 A/3 etc in an open race you get 1 ranking point towards upgrade.
After reading all the motions I find it mind boggling that after probably hundreds of discussions,suggestions,etc on here and elsewhere about A4 races,and the amount of crashes,rider behaviour,lack of experience etc etc,theres not a SINGLE motion in relation to same.I've said it before and i'll say it again guys come on to forums and rant away in the heat of the moment,but when the time comes to suggest change,what do we get.Nothing.

Inquitus

wav1 wrote: »

The unplaced thing I would agree with.Not sure if Beasty has misread the proposal,but it means if you are winner of u/p A2 A/3 etc in an open race you get 1 ranking point towards upgrade.
After reading all the motions I find it mind boggling that after probably hundreds of discussions,suggestions,etc on here and elsewhere about A4 races,and the amount of crashes,rider behaviour,lack of experience etc etc,theres not a SINGLE motion in relation to same.I've said it before and i'll say it again guys come on to forums and rant away in the heat of the moment,but when the time comes to suggest change,what do we get.Nothing.

I upgraded to A3 this year and tbh there's not a huge amount of improvement in the riding imho. I don't think it's an A4 issue, I think its a more widespread issue.

Beasty

I did misread it - I had assumed it would mean a mimimum of a point simply for taking part. Makes more sense now though thanks to wav1's explanation

Kurtosis

Am I correct in my reading that the board of CI are proposing changes to the maximum and minimum distances for races of various categories? Whatever about increasing the maximum, but increasing the minimum distances seems quite prescriptive and places an extra burden in terms of marshalling etc. on clubs organising races.

wav1

Inquitus wrote: »

I upgraded to A3 this year and tbh there's not a huge amount of improvement in the riding imho. I don't think it's an A4 issue, I think its a more widespread issue.

You're possibly correct,but the issues have always been about new and inexperienced riders showing up in A4s and just racing without any type of formal introduction or accreditation and the crashes.Not one motion to change or improve things.That was my point.

Lusk_Doyle

What came as a result of the survey for el presidente?

wav1

penguin88 wrote: »

Am I correct in my reading that the board of CI are proposing changes to the maximum and minimum distances for races of various categories? Whatever about increasing the maximum, but increasing the minimum distances seems quite prescriptive and places an extra burden in terms of marshalling etc. on clubs organising races.

Am not fully understanding that one myself,but I think the minimum refers to multi day/stage race events,as its kind of 2 x different motions.

Beasty

wav1 wrote: »

After reading all the motions I find it mind boggling that after probably hundreds of discussions,suggestions,etc on here and elsewhere about A4 races,and the amount of crashes,rider behaviour,lack of experience etc etc,theres not a SINGLE motion in relation to same.I've said it before and i'll say it again guys come on to forums and rant away in the heat of the moment,but when the time comes to suggest change,what do we get.Nothing.

This is perhaps where the demise of the Road Commission comes in. I would presume that in the past that would have been the forum to discuss road racing (including for example the ranking points issue already mentioned as well as the women's ranking proposal). These really should not be the type of thing to be discussed at the CI AGM level, but at preesent there appears no other forum for such discussion (outside of the likes of Boards;)). In practice though I suspect the Board (of CI!) may reserve ultimate decsions to be taken at some kind of committee level (as happened last year with the Masters/Vets proposals put forward by Tom Daly/Kanturk)

ragazzo

penguin88 wrote: »

Am I correct in my reading that the board of CI are proposing changes to the maximum and minimum distances for races of various categories? Whatever about increasing the maximum, but increasing the minimum distances seems quite prescriptive and places an extra burden in terms of marshalling etc. on clubs organising races.

It is a strange one. If it is as it reads then I cannot see it working.

Does the minimum distance apply to any day or just Sunday?

Many hours of extra work for organising clubs and probably a workload too far for some.
Minimum distance 80k for A4 races and 120 for A3 Senior races?
Perhaps the CI Board are going to take on the responsibility of organising these minimum distance races. Hopefully it sorts out the many issues presently facing the road racing scene and gets stuck in at the grass roots level.
Maybe the Board will attempt to organise the re-opening of the Phoenix Park to cycle racing events. That would be a nice idea.

Anyway, best of luck to them in their new role of race organising and I look forward to participating in these new longer events.
Probably necessary for those riders on the way up but I do not think it would suit A4 novices or those who wish to enjoy an odd weekend gallop but have not sufficient time to train for longer and more difficult events. With the average age of the CI membership being on the wrong side of 30, it seems stange that the Board wishes to impose minimum distances on them.
Perhaps the Board is slightly out of touch with the reality of the situation or maybe the majority of racing members have to suffer for the benefit of the few.

The AGM is the place to air your views and cast your vote. No point in failing to attend and crying in March!

lennymc

penguin88 wrote: »

Am I correct in my reading that the board of CI are proposing changes to the maximum and minimum distances for races of various categories? Whatever about increasing the maximum, but increasing the minimum distances seems quite prescriptive and places an extra burden in terms of marshalling etc. on clubs organising races.

ditto. it looks like they are stating there is a minimum race distance for the various catergories.

wav1

Have to hold my hand up here and say/admit that I will be missing my first CI AGM in along time as I will be in the Big Apple on a pre arranged trip with my long suffering wife for her birthday.After going through the motions theres feck all juicy ones anyway.Me being absent will probably move the meeting along quicker and reduce the decibel levels anyway.

Beasty

ragazzo wrote: »

Does the minimum distance apply to any day or just Sunday?

As currently it states it applies to "single day races". Unless there is some definition specific to Sundays it would appear to apply equally to Friday evening races. Clearly that makes little sense and I suspect this has simply not been thought through. Another reason we need something akin to the Road Commission to come up with and thoroghly investigate such proposals before they see the light of day. I also suspect in this case we may well see an amendment proposed before November 1st

wav1

Beasty wrote: »

As currently it states it applies to "single day races". Unless there is some definition specific to Sundays it would appear to apply equally to Friday evening races. Clearly that makes little sense and I suspect this has simply not been thought through. Another reason we need something akin to the Road Commission to come up with and thoroghly investigate such proposals before they see the light of day. I also suspect in this case we may well see an amendment proposed before November 1st

Im sure an amendment can be put forward on the day.As worded its unworkable.To be honest if the minimum distance was applied to all races after July most of the current races that happen at that time of the year would be illegal as none of them reach that requirement and TBH I don't think there would be much appetite among riders for such events at certain times of the year including the very very early season road races.As Beasty said not thought out properly[again].At the end of the day CI run nothing and are at the mercy of the 17% of clubs who do run open road races to maintain a calendar for them.Unworkable and promoters will do as they always did[this one anyway]

Inquitus

Are minimum distances that bad an idea? Most promotions have an A1/2 race of 120+km if the rest of the races ran up to that distance it adds no extra burden re marshalls etc.?

wav1

Inquitus wrote: »

Are minimum distances that bad an idea? Most promotions have an A1/2 race of 120+km if the rest of the races ran up to that distance it adds no extra burden re marshalls etc.?

''Most''but not all and only at certain times of the year.For instance if my reading of the motion is correct the Saturday evening ''gallops'' such as Ballivor,Robinstown,Kilmessan,Mountnugent,Man O War,Stamullen etc etc would all have to meet the minimum distance requirement.Unworkable as they wouldn't finish early enough to have the presentation in the local pubs as they would be closed.
I feel theres wording missing somewhere in the motion as I have a suspicion that they are meant to refer to a National League type of thing which is on the horizon for resurection

Inquitus

wav1 wrote: »

''Most''but not all and only at certain times of the year.For instance if my reading of the motion is correct the Saturday evening ''gallops'' such as Ballivor,Robinstown,Kilmessan,Mountnugent,Man O War,Stamullen etc etc would all have to meet the minimum distance requirement.Unworkable as they wouldn't finish early enough to have the presentation in the local pubs as they would be closed.
I feel theres wording missing somewhere in the motion as I have a suspicion that they are meant to refer to a National League type of thing which is on the horizon for resurection

Totally agree on that front, the Stamullen Friday night race early in the season was one of the most enjoyable I raced all year.

Beasty

There is an argument I guess for perhaps reduced points for shorter races - say half points for a Friday evening 40km race and full points for a 150km Sunday afternoon one. However there's also an argument for a root and branches review of the points and re-grading system. I'm not sure tinkering at the edges will help, and based on our very brief discussion here already could actually have unintended consequences

wav1

Beasty wrote: »

There is an argument I guess for perhaps reduced points for shorter races - say half points for a Friday evening 40km race and full points for a 150km Sunday afternoon one. However there's also an argument for a root and branches review of the points and re-grading system. I'm not sure tinkering at the edges will help, and based on our very brief discussion here already could actually have unintended consequences

Beasty that's already in place.Theres a points category for Up to 50km 50/100km and over 100km EG The winner of a race up to 50km gets 3pts from 50/100 8pts and over 100k 10pts

Beasty

wav1 wrote: »

Beasty that's already in place.Theres a points category for Up to 50km 50/100km and over 100km EG The winner of a race up to 50km gets 3pts from 50/100 8pts and over 100k 10pts

I'd forgotten about that - would those minimum distances make sense if they related to the awarding of full points then, with the lower points still kicking in for shorter races?

wav1

Beasty wrote: »

I'd forgotten about that - would those minimum distances make sense if they related to the awarding of full points then, with the lower points still kicking in for shorter races?

Possibly...Im still guesing it refers to a National League set up though.
Maybe we wont know until AGM unless its clarified if its a typo

Beasty

Inquitus wrote: »

Are minimum distances that bad an idea? Most promotions have an A1/2 race of 120+km if the rest of the races ran up to that distance it adds no extra burden re marshalls etc.?

Just thinking a bit more about this - minimum distances increase the chances of different races on the same circuits getting intermingled. It may well make it impossible to run DMSs on some previously used circuits as the A1 race may catch the A4 race. Then the only alternative becomes something that does happen a bit in Ulster - running the races consecutively which means the marshalls, commissaires etc end up being there all day.

Inquitus

Beasty wrote: »

Just thinking a bit more about this - minimum distances increase the chances of different races on the same circuits getting intermingled. It may well make it impossible to run DMSs on some previously used circuits as the A1 race may catch the A4 race. Then the only alternative becomes something that does happen a bit in Ulster - running the races consecutively which means the marshalls, commissaires etc end up being there all day.

Not likely to happen unless the circuit is shorter than any I have raced on. Donore is the only one that springs to mind.

Lusk_Doyle

Inquitus wrote: »

Not likely to happen unless the circuit is shorter than any I have raced on. Donore is the only one that springs to mind.

Harry Reynolds?

Chips Lovell

It does happen. I've seen races pulled in a few times to let A1/A2 bunch pass.

wav1

One other motion refers to a new [non cycling] licence,which is not really new as it was there before.Logic behind it appears to be,that folk who don't ride their bike can get a cheaper type of licence to cover them whilst helping at events etc.
Point of interest here,but if a promoter gets unlicensed helpers to sign on, on a separate CI sheet,they get the same cover as a licence holder for the duration of the event anyway,for free.

Beasty

wav1 wrote: »

One other motion refers to a new [non cycling] licence,which is not really new as it was there before.Logic behind it appears to be,that folk who don't ride their bike can get a cheaper type of licence to cover them whilst helping at events etc.
Point of interest here,but if a promoter gets unlicensed helpers to sign on, on a separate CI sheet,they get the same cover as a licence holder for the duration of the event anyway,for free.

I had seen that mentioned somewhere. Does it apply equally to non Open race events such as sportives and club races?

Beasty

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Harry Reynolds?

Isn't Harry Reynolds a CP?

wav1

Beasty wrote: »

I had seen that mentioned somewhere. Does it apply equally to non Open race events such as sportives and club races?

AFAIK it applies for any C I approved event.

wav1

With longer distances mentioned,and possibly 4 races on a circuit at the same time,any circuit shorter than 18/20km would be in big danger of races getting mangled in each other and theres lots of race circuits that fits that bill.Our own Coombes Connor circuit [14km]is constantly in danger of it happening as it is.with the distances as they are now.Seen it happening in Bohermeen[16k]Boyne GP[12K]

Beasty

Even at 20 km and the fastest race at say 42km/h and the slowest at 37km/h over 4 laps you will have problems

wav1

Good man Beasty...I knew someone would be able to work out the maths...
So in an 80k race with 5kph difference between fast and slow we could have a bunch of 350 crossing the line at exactly the same time on a 20k circuit and no one would know what race they are in...Lovely

Beasty

Actuallly my maths was sligfhtly awry in terms of the fact the fastest race would gain just over half a lap over 2 hours, but when you take into account the gaps between the fastest race setting off first and the slowest last you get to pretty much the same conclusion. Add to that the possibility of breaks who can then end up with a bit of a pull as they catch up with dropped riders from the slower races and it would be as potential recipe for disaster

buffalo

Beasty wrote: »

I also note with interest the Cycling Ulster proposal that next of kin details should be included when applying for a licence - I definitely think this should be the case, and may well be the "reason" Cycling Ulster decided to put this forward:pac:

I wrote to CI in mid-2013 to suggest this should be included on a licence, never even got an acknowledgement.

Donegaler

Is it not the turn of Connaght to host the Agm?

wav1

buffalo wrote: »

I wrote to CI in mid-2014 to suggest this should be included on a licence, never even got an acknowledgement.

Mid 14?Wouldn't have got to that email yet.

wav1

Donegaler wrote: »

Is it not the turn of Connaght to host the Agm?

If the 4 province cycle is still in place you're correct.But if you remember the last time [2010] it was in Connaght it was also in Athlone,albeit on the western side of the Shannon.

buffalo

wav1 wrote: »

Mid 14?Wouldn't have got to that email yet.

haha! I meant 2013. Would they have gotten to those? :P

Donegaler

wav1 wrote: »

If the 4 province cycle is still in place you're correct.But if you remember the last time [2010] it was in Connaght it was also in Athlone,albeit on the western side of the Shannon.

TO HELL OR TO CONNAGHT.
Maybe Co.Westmeath has been annexed by Connaght.
Queens Maeve has form for doing that type of thing.
Would love see CI consider Westport,Castlebar or Galway as being worthy of hosting an Agm.

slow

The wording of most of the motions is a bit suspect, to be honest. I'm presuming the over 50 thing refers to the fact that over 50s have the option not to be upgraded? If that's the intention of this motion, the actual technical regulation in question should be named with the alternative wording proposed.

The Chairman will have no choice, but to rule some of these motions out of order, like the classic motion which was submitted to the Clonmel CI AGM written in 'text messagese'.

morana

slow wrote: »

The wording of most of the motions is a bit suspect, to be honest. I'm presuming the over 50 thing refers to the fact that over 50s have the option not to be upgraded? If that's the intention of this motion, the actual technical regulation in question should be named with the alternative wording proposed.

The Chairman will have no choice, but to rule some of these motions out of order, like the classic motion which was submitted to the Clonmel CI AGM written in 'text messagese'.

they usually give the proposer an opportunity to amend the wording on the day.

@Donegaler. I think you are right it would be great to have the agm in the likes of westport or galway or even donegal town. I still like the idea of a bus being hired to bring people if people wouldnt travel because of mileage...and the craic would be great. Maybe if you get in you could work on this!

slow

If you remember back to the Sneem AGM, there was a low turnout. You'd get a few diehards who'd love an adventure to the ends of the country. But for the rest of those with families, etc., if it ain't accessible, the numbers won't turn up.

Beasty

I am hoping following last year's meetings (and the build-ups thereto!) a few more members/club delegates are actually engaged in the CI workings and will make the effort to head to Athlone on 1 November

wav1

morana wrote: »

they usually give the proposer an opportunity to amend the wording on the day.

@Donegaler. I think you are right it would be great to have the agm in the likes of westport or galway or even donegal town. I still like the idea of a bus being hired to bring people if people wouldnt travel because of mileage...and the craic would be great. Maybe if you get in you could work on this!

They were great when they were a 2 day affair.Fight all day Saturday,have a session Saturday night and fight again on Sunday.Great craic altogether.

Donegaler

slow wrote: »

If you remember back to the Sneem AGM, there was a low turnout. You'd get a few diehards who'd love an adventure to the ends of the country. But for the rest of those with families, etc., if it ain't accessible, the numbers won't turn up.

I remember Sneem.Not a bad turnout there but as usual there was an adjournment to try to get a quorum. It even happened at tha Dublin Agms.
Best turnout ever was in Monaghan in 2013.Almost 100 delegates.no problem with quorums nor was there any in Cavan in 2009 even though there was only a handful of CI members in that County at that time.
Donegal will host the CI Agm in 2017 as far as I know.(You heard it first here).Some families will be well reared by then.!!
Provincial Executives should pick the venue for CI.

wav1

I wonder how the motion proposing to levy racing licences by e2 each,to help try and ensure/maintain that the junior tour goes ahead,will go down with delegates.Interesting one.I do know that the organisers have been struggling for yrs financially with no title sponsor,but im sure its going to meet a mixpeed response.It will depend totally on themix of delegates gathered IMO.

Inquitus

wav1 wrote: »

I wonder how the motion proposing to levy racing licences by e2 each,to help try and ensure/maintain that the junior tour goes ahead,will go down with delegates.Interesting one.I do know that the organisers have been struggling for yrs financially with no title sponsor,but im sure its going to meet a mixpeed response.It will depend totally on themix of delegates gathered IMO.

I don't see how you can mix motions to reduce spending on races with motions to levy racers for the Junior tour, as I pointed out above roughly half the license fee money comes from racers even though in the minority, so a reduction in race spending coupled with an increase is race license fees seems a tad harsh!

That said I'd happily pay 2 for the junior tour.

wav1

Inquitus wrote: »

I don't see how you can mix motions to reduce spending on races with motions to levy racers for the Junior tour, as I pointed out above roughly half the license fee money comes from racers even though in the minority, so a reduction in race spending coupled with an increase is race license fees seems a tad harsh!

That said I'd happily pay 2 for the junior tour.

There is no motion to reduce spending on races,That was something that was being mooted by CI last week and wouldn't require to go to AGM as theres no regulation in the rules in this regard.This motion re junior tour levy is the only motion in that regard.

Beasty

Is the junior tour promoted by a club, or is this something CI itself puts on. perhaps via the youth commission? How much would the €2 levy raise?

I presume there will be trophies awarded. Is there any prize money for this event?

wav1

Beasty wrote: »

Is the junior tour promoted by a club, or is this something CI itself puts on. perhaps via the youth commission? How much would the €2 levy raise?

I presume there will be trophies awarded. Is there any prize money for this event?

JT is promoted by a club as is indeed the ras and all other events,but I suppose is seen as one of our National events.Just like the ras it depends on a host of volunteers to put the show on the road as no one club could possibly come up with the bodies required.There is a prize fund[relatively modest] and yes there are trophies for various things along the way.
Don't have exact figures of how much it would raise,but I think theres approx 4k adult racing and limited competition licences,so approx 4000 x e2
About 8k if that's the situation.Figures I heard mentioned earlier this year suggested it costs 30k to put on.Others on here may be able to give a more definitive answer.Youth commission never had any input as their remit finishes at U16 level.