Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Is it time for Pat to go?

1…457910

Comments

  • #182
    Diarmuid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭Diarmuid


    wav1 wrote: »
    How can anybody say what the position of the membership is?
    They can't. That includes the board of CI.

    Looks like CI are rounding up the round up the wagons to protect Pat.


  • #183
    Diarmuid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭Diarmuid


    ROK ON wrote: »
    Valid.
    While I have expressed my view, it is a personal view. Geoff Liffey or anyone else is entitled to an entirely different view..
    Geoff Liffey should have issued a personal statement then


  • #184
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,484 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    They are entitled to issue that statement if a majority of the Board support it. On that basis, I think you can assume that some of the guys that have been voted into office are wholeheartedly in support of the statement. Anyone looking for my vote on re-election would be expected to indicate whether they personally support that statement.


  • #185
    hardCopy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭hardCopy


    el tel wrote: »
    CI membership jumped by 8000 to 14000 between 2009-2012. With such serendipitous growth perhaps the CI board don't give two ****s about what some members might think about their apparent apathy for the resignation of Pat McQuaid?

    With such a growth in numbers, the CI board may have no idea how the huge minority of newer members are likely to feel or vote.

    I'm not a CI member (TI membership is enough for me) so I won't mail morana but fair play to him for putting his details up here and offering to pass on people's concerns.


  • #186
    Go2Guy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 90 ✭✭Go2Guy


    I'm new to cycling. I love the sport, mainly because the people who do it at the highest level suffer to a degree that can't but impress.

    I'm not so sure the Irish Cycling body should be pubicly calling for the head of the Irish UCI president. Suppose Mr McQuaid does resign, the most likely candidate to put his name forward is that British doper who thinks that because he is now on some crusade that he is a hero. Is it David Millar?

    Anyway, I'm just throwing this in. It's not cronyism or misplaced loyalty, I just tried to take a look at the potential consequences of this motion.

    And one other point:
    The poll is flawed as the only 2 options are to call for his resignation or say he's doing a great job.

    PS I think we would benefit more if we were to call for CI to lobby Mr McQuaid to bring a grand tour stage or a classic to our little island.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,490 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Go2Guy wrote: »
    I'm not so sure the Irish Cycling body should be pubicly calling for the head of the Irish UCI president. Suppose Mr McQuaid does resign, the most likely candidate to put his name forward is that British doper who thinks that because he is now on some crusade that he is a hero. Is it David Millar?

    Anyway, I'm just throwing this in. It's not cronyism or misplaced loyalty, I just tried to take a look at the potential consequences of this motion.

    LOL, are you seriously invoking if-we-turn-on-our-own-the-Brits-will-get-us as an argument?


  • #188
    Diarmuid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭Diarmuid


    Go2Guy wrote: »
    I think we would benefit more if we were to call for CI to lobby Mr McQuaid to bring a grand tour stage or a classic to our little island.
    head-in-the-sand1.jpeg


  • #189
    Diarmuid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭Diarmuid


    Any CI member here should really take Anto up on his offer.... Venting here will only go so far


  • #190
    morana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,106 ✭✭✭morana


    Diarmuid wrote: »
    Any CI member here should really take Anto up on his offer.... Venting here will only go so far

    and non CI members are welcome also


  • #191
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,672 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    Beasty wrote: »
    They are entitled to issue that statement if a majority of the Board support it. On that basis, I think you can assume that some of the guys that have been voted into office are wholeheartedly in support of the statement. Anyone looking for my vote on re-election would be expected to indicate whether they personally support that statement.

    Well Beasty there are at least 2 votes going at the agm.....


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Go2Guy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 90 ✭✭Go2Guy


    Yes it's a Black n tan type thing!

    I suppose we are looking for "Real change" in cycling so a a convicted doper would fit the bill.

    Good luck with the witch hunt so!

    @ Diarmuid that's some great copy-and-pasting there...great contribution.


  • #193
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,136 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Hate to say I told you so, but I made the point earlier that the AGM would be a waste of time on this issue as CI would hide behind procedures etc. I was calling for CI management to take a stand on this issue and was told that they had to listen to their members.

    Then they come out with this? So the board can make decisions without having to have an agenda point, but they can't put forward a motion for EGM? Classic political spinning.

    Morana I do not include you in this. You have at least shown a willingness to listen. However, my understanding is that you are a member of the board and as such you tacitily agree to that CI statement, so I will take from that that you are happy with P McQuaid as president.

    All that nonesense about me and others heading down to AGM, shouting etc was just the usual bluster and nonesense. The decision has already been made.


  • #194
    Diarmuid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭Diarmuid


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Morana I do not include you in this. You have at least shown a willingness to listen. However, my understanding is that you are a member of the board and as such you tacitily agree to that CI statement, so I will take from that that you are happy with P McQuaid as president.

    All that nonesense about me and others heading down to AGM, shouting etc was just the usual bluster and nonesense. The decision has already been made.
    How did you come to that conclusion?


  • #195
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,484 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Morana I do not include you in this. You have at least shown a willingness to listen. However, my understanding is that you are a member of the board and as such you tacitily agree to that CI statement, so I will take from that that you are happy with P McQuaid as president.
    I think it's a bit unfair to put any individual Board member on the spot in this forum. All members of the Board would be expected to go along with the majority vote on this issue (in the same way as I would go along with a membership-wide vote at either the AGM or an EGM, whichever way it goes). It is possible under the constitution of CI for a Board resolution to get through with only a couple of supporters and none of us (other than morana) is privvy to what has actually gone on behind the scenes - I would not expect anyone to reveal what happens in what are in effect private meetings here.

    I think the Board as a whole, can be challenged though - they do need to be able to back up their collective decision.


  • #196
    fat bloke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,131 ✭✭✭fat bloke


    Just on rte. case against kimmage suspended


    http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/other/2012/1026/1224325777481.html


  • #197
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,136 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Diarmuid, CI just issued a statement backing Pat, so it's clear their decision is made. Do you think they will let the members express a different view and so retract the statement? why not wait for the AGM to discuss it.

    Beasty, I'm not calling Morana out, I did say I didn't include him. But he could, if he felt strongly enough, asked to be mentioned as a desenting vote. maybe its not important enough to make that call but he has tacitly backed the position.


  • #198
    Diarmuid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭Diarmuid


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Diarmuid, CI just issued a statement backing Pat, so it's clear their decision is made. Do you think they will let the members express a different view and so retract the statement? why not wait for the AGM to discuss it.

    You said "you are a member of the board and as such you tacitily agree to that CI statement, so I will take from that that you are happy with P McQuaid as president"

    I cannot see how you could come to such an unfair conclusion based on what Anto has said in this thread.


  • #199
    morana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,106 ✭✭✭morana


    I have no problem with what Leroy says. I am a member of the board and stand behind what has been issued and my name is on it...

    I am glad we didnt release the first iteration :)


  • #200
    noddy69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 107 ✭✭noddy69


    At this point ? is there something in the review that would lesd you to call for his resignation at a later point ? Pat is head of the UCI. The UCI is making an embarrassment of itself and cycling and its handling of the Lance issue was nothing short of shambolic. That in itself is enough to call for his resignation.

    The UCI ,no matter what else they have done for the sport have made a mockery of what happened. They have refused to accept any responsibility whatsoever and made ridiculous contradicting statements to the press. In any industry this is when changes happen and cycling should be no different.

    And yet cycling Ireland see nothing ?........sounds like the sport I know !


  • #201
    CheGuedara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,032 ✭✭✭CheGuedara


    Just going back to the AGM/possible EGM to discuss the matter of confidence in McQuaid. Does the final point of the Standing Orders for the AGM not allow for a motion (in this instance a proposal to suspend the standing orders so that the meeting can consider a motion of no confidence in Pat McQuaid) be raised from the floor at the AGM if seconded and supported by a 2/3 majority of those present? The substantive motion (of confidence in McQuaid) would then go to the room.

    If reading it right, and I'm open to correction, this would obviate calling a subsequent EGM on the matter.

    The text is as follows
    The meeting shall, on a motion duly moved and seconded, and with the consent of not less than two-thirds of the delegates voting, suspend such provisions of these Standing Orders as shall be specified by the motion. In moving any such motion, the mover shall state the purpose for which the suspension is sought and the motion shall be put to the meeting without discussion.
    - taken from here.

    It would appear that this piece of text is present specifically to allow for an eventuality such as the present one.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,484 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    I believe it is possible for a motion to be put at the meeting, but I also believe the Chairman of the meeting has discretion on whether such a motion can be heard. I have sought clarification of whether this is actually the case but as yet have not received it.

    One thing that has been clarified is that the Chairman will not allow such a motion on this particular topic to be put at the AGM, which is the sole reason an EGM is now being talked about.


  • #203
    CheGuedara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,032 ✭✭✭CheGuedara


    Beasty wrote: »
    I believe it is possible for a motion to be put at the meeting, but I also believe the Chairman of the meeting has discretion on whether such a motion can be heard. I have sought clarification of whether this is actually the case but as yet have not received it.

    One thing that has been clarified is that the Chairman will not allow such a motion on this particular topic to be put at the AGM, which is the sole reason an EGM is now being talked about.

    Ah, I see. We'll have to see if CI can show where in the Arts of Association, Technical Rules or Standing orders that enables the Chairman to do that.

    If the Chairman's authority to refuse a correctly framed motion under the last point of standing orders isn't present in those texts (and I can't find that it is) it would seem that if people really want to make this vote all they have to do is turn up in numbers enough and raise their hands to make it happen.


  • #204
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,484 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    CheGuedara wrote: »
    Ah, I see. We'll have to see if CI can show where in the Arts of Association, Technical Rules or Standing orders that enables the Chairman to do that.

    If the Chairman's authority to refuse a correctly framed motion under the last point of standing orders isn't present in those texts (and I can't find that it is) it would seem that if people really want to make this vote all they have to do is turn up in numbers enough and raise their hands to make it happen.
    If I don't get an answer before the meeting I will ask the question at the meeting. The response will then dictate what further action is taken (unless they agree to an EGM, in which case the question becomes largely redundant);)


  • #205
    sheepfield
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 97 ✭✭sheepfield


    paulmcquaid wrote: »
    Ah I have to reply to sheephead. Dude, are you totally completely and utterly incapable of separating the two cases, (USADA/Lance & Pat and the UCI suing Kimmage)?? Clearly you are so let me explain. Pat is suing Kimmage for 'calling him corrupt'. Simple. And Kimmage got the letter from Pat's lawyers, IN JANUARY last! I'll repeat that, Kimmage got the letter from Pat's lawyers informing him he was being sued, in January. How you can link the two is beyond me. Sure, Kimmage was correct about Lance. But that is completely separate to Pat taking umbridge to being called, 'corrupt'. Can ye not get that...?!? You guys crack me up!


    Just on another note: I think I now might counter-sue for defamation - my name is NOT Sheeephead, and I hate being called "DUDE" :D (stifling an inner sense of triumph on hearing the latest news...)


  • #206
    wav1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,978 ✭✭✭wav1


    morana wrote: »
    I have no problem with what Leroy says. I am a member of the board and stand behind what has been issued and my name is on it...

    I am glad we didnt release the first iteration :)
    In fairness this is a classic dammed if you and dammed if you dont situation for morana.
    Frankly regardless of anybodys position on this matter I feel its not going to make one iota of difference to any one of us involved in the sport here at grass roots level,whether a motion of no confidence is successful or not.
    The grading issues are far more important going forward at a local level.They are the things that will effect real people on their bikes.


  • #207
    High Nellie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭High Nellie


    morana wrote: »
    I am a member of the board and stand behind what has been issued and my name is on it...

    I am glad we didnt release the first iteration :)

    Does this mean in plain English that you back MCQuaid?


  • #208
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,484 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    wav1 wrote: »
    The grading issues are far more important going forward at a local level.They are the things that will effect real people on their bikes.
    TBH, that's actually a discussion I'm looking forward to at the AGM - hopefully we will have a good attendance and healthy debate on this as well as the McQuaid issue


  • #209
    High Nellie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭High Nellie


    wav1 wrote: »
    In fairness this is a classic dammed if you and dammed if you dont situation for morana.
    Frankly regardless of anybodys position on this matter I feel its not going to make one iota of difference to any one of us involved in the sport here at grass roots level,whether a motion of no confidence is successful or not.

    True in a way but, with all due respect, that's also a cop-out. Board members seek responsibility and they must act as such and 'Represent' the members. There is a clear choice here. Does he represent us or the vested interests that have the sport in the state it is in?
    He can't ride both horses on this issue. If he backs the Board he has, by extension, nailed his colours to McQuaid's/Armstrong's mast.
    No more fudge and ambiguity on this please....


  • #210
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,484 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    High Nellie wrote: »
    True in a way but, with all due respect, that's also a cop-out. Board members seek responsibility and they must act as such and 'Represent' the members. There is a clear choice here. Does he represent us or the vested interests that have the sport in the state it is in?
    He can't ride both horses on this issue. If he backs the Board he has, by extension, nailed his colours to McQuaid's/Armstrong's mast.
    No more fudge and ambiguity on this please....
    The duty of members of the Board is not to "represent the members", but to run the organisation in accordance with it's constitution (its Memorandum and Articles of Association). Members can seek to remove directors (or vote against their re-election) or change the constitution if they wish. Boards take collective responsibility for their actions. That's the way Boards work and individual director's positions become pretty much untenable if they fail to support Board decisions.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    High Nellie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭High Nellie


    Talk about corporate BS


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement