| Author | Message | ||
     Geoff Atkins Member Username: Gatkins Post Number: 4 Registered: 06-2007 |
Mike, I do not disagree with your second paragraph and with that in mind I confined my activities to reading for three days, however, the discussions were becoming increasingly acrimonious and I do feel very strongly that the parties to the disagreement – Wilf and Council – should sit down and resolve the matter. So long as a resolution is reached it is no concern of mine or, I would suggest, any other member what outcome was agreed but at this stage it appears to me that an agreement must be reached which is satisfactory to both parties. So far as access to the forum and to the Facebook page are concerned I am aware of two entirely separate issues in the past year which have involved vociferous and repeated posts by persons who appear to have nothing whatsoever to do with our organisation but in both cases the result has been considerable unpleasantness which in my view has been to the detriment of our sport and its governing body. Whilst I appreciate your enthusiasm for open discussion and availability of information we must also be aware of the harm which can accrue to our struggling sport if our disagreements are made public. Maybe we should have a “private” forum and a public one and you, as moderator, should have the opportunity to move contentious discussions to the private area. | ||
| Mike Watts Member Username: Mikew Post Number: 166 Registered: 01-2007 |
Geoff, I agree with you that more than anything we need a solution. Regarding access to this forum, I understand why people want to air these issues, but I personally would be happier if people didn't feel they have to use this place to try to decide a controversial largely internal matter of whether money should or shouldn't be paid over as in this case, although if a solution resulted, great. This forum is open to anyone interested in horse driving trials - it is used by people interested in finding out what's going on, getting information or getting started in the sport, supporters and club members who are not (yet) members of BC, finding training, buying and selling and so on. Eacdg publish their event and training schedules on here, and it is very useful for volunteers, friends and competitors as well as potential members to see the event info and times ... I'd like to see more information published like that (all event timetables and details could be posted...) rather than restricting access. We need to reach more people rather than fewer - let's not allow the occasional difficult matter to interfere with that. | ||
| Carole Redgrave Member Username: Caroleredgrave Post Number: 104 Registered: 03-2008 |
Well said Geoff. I agree with everything you say. | ||
| Geoff Atkins Member Username: Gatkins Post Number: 3 Registered: 06-2007 |
Thus far I have read the various threads on the forum and Facebook with interest, amazement and not a little dismay as I watch our tight knit organisation unravelling. I think I understand why Council will not concede the principle of start fees being returned to BC, however Wilf and Zoe do seem to have some justification for their belief that the fees would be retained by the 2013 NC event. Sadly both sides failed to ensure that a clear written agreement was in place so all that remains is recollection and hearsay - not a good foundation for an agreement. It seems clear to me that this situation cannot be resolved without compromise and by that I mean compromise on both sides. It is a long established fact in the world of negotiations that there can be no such thing as a win / lose outcome, only win / win or otherwise the inevitability of lose / lose. What is needed is for Council and Wilf to declare a truce and start talking with a view to arriving at a compromise which will improve the situation on both sides. Wilf is a respected member of BC and (currently) ex-member of Council. It should not be impossible for all parties to bury the antagonism of the past few days and sit down together with a view to resolving issues. With a compromise agreed I suggest it should be entirely for Wilf and Zoe to decide whether they wish to organise further national events at Ashfields - every organiser has the absolute right to stand down whenever they wish. Finally, and as a result of the public airing of opposing views, I would like to suggest that all access to the Forum and to the Facebook page be restricted absolutely to paid-up members of BC. It seems to me that much of the bad feeling resulting from the issues has been created by two individuals of whom nobody appears to have any knowledge. If they do not take part in our sport in some capacity and are not members of the Association then they should not be allowed access to our private discussions. | ||
| Wilf Bowman Ripley Member Username: Wbr Post Number: 7 Registered: 03-2014 |
Dear Mr Harrison I feel obliged to answer some of your question, I really didn’t want to have to reply to this on a forum or social media, but would like to thank everyone for their support of Ashfields 1.Was Wilf at the meeting when the agreement for him to run Ashfields was taken - YES Yes I was in attendance at the council meeting and was asked to stay out of the room when Ashfields was discussed. 2.Was Wilfs misunderstanding about start fees corrected well before he ran the event – YES No misunderstanding on my part, all income means all income my offer was never corrected or discussed and was gladly excepted by the BC council. 3.Did Wilf as a council member sign off the annual accounts – YES. Yes all council members signed accounts. 4 Was WIlf clear that start fees were not part of the champs event income before he ran the event = YES No the start fees were never discussed, I made it quite clear that I would take all the income or any losses, I would have expected if anything was to the contrary I would have received this in writing, this never happened. 5, Did WIlf run an Ashfields event in 2014 with no mention of start fees - YES Ashfields was a normal National event in May 2013 and 2014 Ashfields happily paid the start fees for these two events as this is the normal procedure. Ashfields rescued the NC in 2013 this was a last minute rescue package so very different circumstances. 6. Did Wilf wait until after bc ran a sussessful champs to start the issue over Ashfields – YES No I have mentioned frequently at council meetings the outstanding fees as stated in the BC council letter issued by the executive officer on the forum. I also agree a very successful 2014 Cirencester NC. 7. Did WIlf have sponsors in 2013 for obs - arenas - rosettes - plaques - and overall title sponsor - Yes Yes all work to organise the 2013 NC was completed by myself and my team with no help from BC . Many thanks went out to all the members that helped support and sponsor the show. 8. DId WIlf have 127 entires in 2013 - YES No the final starting list was 113 competitors. 9. Did Wilf have obs already in place - YES Yes existing obstacles were maintained, decorated to a high standard and all painted with ground works up graded substantially at my own cost after the May National event in 2013. Also unfortunately due to the poor weather at these championships there were ground repair fees to be paid after the event. 10. Given all the income he had and low outgoings is there any way the event could have lost money if sensibly managed - NO Mr Harrison we did not receive all the income from the NC and we do not have low outgoings, bearing in mind I do not own Ashfields and I am responsible for the ground maintenance which has substantial costs if I wish to run another event at Ashfields from the land owners. 11. Does anyone in their right mind still think Wilf is entitled to the bc members money as start fees - surely not !!!!! The forum, FB and private messages reflect that my team must have done something right in 2013. To make it clear the BC had a special meeting on the morning of the AGM to discuss Ashfields and back protectors, I was told when they discussed Ashfields I was to leave the room, they were offered the start fee money to give to Ashfields by a member to cover the cost of the start fees to secure Ashfields 2015, the council rejected this offer, who in their right mind rejects this sort off offer. Mr Harrison I hope this has answered all your questions, if you have any other questions please feel free to give me a call . | ||
| Wendy Miles Member Username: Wendy_miles Post Number: 1 Registered: 10-2014 |
this is how it is…… The Council are now posting as Simon Harrisson, that way they can pump their propaganda without having to answer our questions, thats a given! Surely they should be trying to get Ashfields and Lowther back on the calendar as this is clearly what most members want. The Council are ducking all the awkward questions and issues, and the answer from certain parts of the membership is “if you can do better then stand for council”. the fact that you’re doing a job at your own expense does not in anyway excuse you doing it badly, spitefully or illegally! remember BC is a limited company and as such has to be run according to law. Which leads me to my next point we are entitled to call an EGM (Extraordinary General Meeting) at the aforementioned meeting we can elect new council members (I believe there were two who put there names forward too late, maybe more now plus Tim).And we can ask the questions they are trying so hard to avoid. I propose we private message ourselves to get this in place. see below the details for calling an EGM. Members' power to require directors to call general meetings (sec303 - sec304) The directors must call a general meeting if so requested by the holders of 10% of the voting shares (or 10% of the voting rights if no shares). If at least 12 months have elapsed since the last general meeting called under this section, the request may be made by 5%. The request for the meeting must state the general nature of the business to be dealt with and may include the text of a resolution to be moved at the meeting (provided the resolution would not be ineffective (e.g. under the Act or because contrary to the company's articles, etc., and provided it is not defamatory, frivolous or vexatious). If the request is properly made, the directors must within 21 days call the meeting for a date not more than 28 days after the date of the notice calling the meeting. If the request included a proposed resolution, that must be included in the notice, which will then be part of the business that can be conducted at the meeting. (If it is a special resolution, the notice of the meeting must say so, in accordance with sec283, above.) #powertothepeople | ||
| Bryan Gauson Member Username: Stevenson Post Number: 27 Registered: 02-2008 |
SIMON HARRISON/THE COUNCIL MEMBER WHO IS HIDING DONT TAKE THE MEMBERS FOR FOOLS. AM I TO BELIEVE THAT THE FULL COMMITTEE IS GIVING PERMISSION FOR THIS SIMON HARRISON CHARADE TO GO ON I DONT THINK SO. I AM HAPPY TO MEET WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND SITE OPERATOR TO INSPECT THE FILE OF MR SIMON HARRISON TO BE PROVED WRONG LETS CHECK MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION FILE AND EMAIL ADDRESS. LETS HAVE ALL REMAINING COUNCIL MEMBERS POST OUT A STATEMENT GIVING THE TRUTH TO THE MEMBERS WHY WE HAVE THIS MESS AND WHY MR TIM BRADFORD MADE A DECISION TO STAND DOWN AS CHAIRMAN SO SUDDENLY. STOP HIDING. UNFORTUNATELY DAVID THE COUNCIL IS BEING MADE TO LOOK VERY FOOLISH INDEED. | ||
| Wendy Embleton Member Username: Bwemble Post Number: 12 Registered: 07-2009 |
Possibly some answers Simon Harrison, maybe more questions! As you know unless it is written down, what was said, what was meant, when and how change dramatically to suit the claimant after the event, particularly if money is involved. It seems to me that is not whether or not Ashfields made a profit or loss but a principle. That is, from Ashfields point of view, what was agreed should be honoured. The question is who's start money is it.? Clearly, the deal Wilf offered was gratefully and wholly accepted by the council, it guaranteed there would be no further losses to B.C as all risks remained with Wilf and Zoe. Surely, exactly what BC wanted. B.C. Council's own statement sent to clarify the issue regarding Ashfields states that: 'Wilf was to take ALL the National Championship income through entry fees, donations, sponsorship, catering concessions, sale of merchandise etc' . No mention of NOT including the starting fees, very clear don't you think, therefore ALL receipts go to Wilf. They may argue that they didn't say they WERE included, which is true, but the adding of 'etc' means the list was not concise so they were aware there were further receipts to come, although they were not listed, these receipts would also go to Ashfields as part of the deal. Obviously, there was no reason for Wilf not to request the starting fees as they are part of ( all income) which formed part his original deal, and as they were not specifically excluded by the council AT THE TIME of agreeing the deal, they should be paid. Zoe's statement is very clear, but it appears to have been verbal rather than written at the time, but it states quite categorically ' all income and fees' if that is what was said, then entry AND starting fees should be theirs. Just because B.C. always had the starting fees in the past is irrelevant and no reason to believe they should have them in the future, in this case the circumstances were totally different, B.C. had got their backsides well into the mire and needed any help they could get, Wilf's offer meant it was the first totally outsourcing of N.C by B.C. so history didn't apply and resolving the financial problems was priority, which Wilf's deal did. Any individual discussions after the council's agreement were personal views, it was very unprofessional, and not representative of the council as a whole, and therefore irrelevant, they were aware Wilf had the agreement of the council and should not have been trying to change things. Clearly, there is a lack of appreciation, Wilf and Zoe did give them a solution to very difficult situation and I feel that B.C. have, both a factual and moral obligation to them and should pay up. B.C. Will loose a extremely good and well respected venue, run with extremely knowledgeable and world class people, it creates one of the better financial incomes for them, surely they can see that, having just scraped out of one financial disaster they seem he'll bent in getting back in again, obviously their history indicates they need all the help they can get, and loosing Ashfields probably means their management judgement should be questioned. They claim they want to move forward and losing Ashfields hardly seems a move in that direction, what's the matter with them, maybe it is a question of there are' none so blind as those who do not want to see' What are Wilf and Zoe intending, as B.C. does provide access to the major and world events, as well as through competitions bring competitors to Ashfields. It is always very difficult to deal with larger organisations, they think they can do what they like and there is always some 'clever dick' that thinks they know better, particularly after the problems are sorted out. This is a bit like 'War and Peace ' in length, I hope the above helps a little, I have tried to be factual as I see it, Maybe a lesson learnt! I hope Wilf and Zoe get it sorted out and get all the support they need. Mr Aubrey Mallows | ||
| Simon Harrison Member Username: Simon_harrison Post Number: 2 Registered: 10-2014 |
SOme questions to ask yourselves - 1. Was Wilf at the meeting when the agreement for him to run Ashfields was taken - YES 2. Was Wilfs misunderstanding about start fees corrected well befor he ran the event - YES 3. Did Wilf as a council member sign off the annual accounts - YES 4 Was WIlf clear that start fees were not part of the champs event income before he ran th event = YES 5. Did WIlf run an Ashfields event in 2014 with no mention of start fees - YES 6. Did Wilf wait until after bc ran a sussessful champs to start the issue over Ashfields - YES 7. Did WIlf have sponsors in 2013 for obs - arenas - rosettes - plaques - and overall title sponsor - YES 8. DId WIlf have 127 entires in 2013 - YES 9. Did Wilf have obs already in place - YES 10. Given all the income he had and low outgoings is there any way the event could have lost money if sensibly managed - NO 11. Does anyone in there right mind still think Wilf is entitled to the bc members money as start fees - surely not !!!!! Just think about it before you all believe what you read or are told. | ||
| TERRY BAILEY Member Username: Vegman Post Number: 7 Registered: 10-2010 |
Great his our £50 | ||
| john ripley Member Username: Nobby Post Number: 13 Registered: 08-2011 |
I will 2nd that here is £50.00 too | ||
| avril munson Member Username: Avrilmunson Post Number: 21 Registered: 06-2011 |
I will start the pot off with £50 79 more drivers and we have £4000 hopefully that should do it! Who wants to hold the fund? |