Racing Pigeon Post
The content (content being images, text, sound and video files, programmes and scripts) of this website is copyright of Racing Pigeon Post. All rights expressly reserved.
Posts
The B.I.C.C. Committee Meeting 26th October 2008
I went to the BICC Committee meeting on 26th October 2008 and left with mixed feelings. I was of course very disappointed that they decided to reduce the race programme, this was not what I wanted, it was not what a lot of members want and as far as I could make out it was not what most of the Committee wanted either, but that is what they voted for, just, and it remains to be seen whether it will survive further scrutiny. The most disturbing thing however was not the decisions themselves but the way they were arrived at. Considering this was the meeting to decide where the Club goes post Brian Long, considering this was the meeting to make decisions about costs in the absence of his continued support, considering this was the meeting to set the costs for 2009 you would no doubt expect that they would have before them a detailed set of accounts and financial analysis. Actually they had nothing at all, not even a scrap of paper. Added to that not one Committee member asked for this detail either. How on earth anyone can reach such important decisions without being armed with the facts is quite beyond me. I find this such a staggering state of affairs that I am forced to the conclusion that this committee, in its present form, is, in that popular phrase, not fit for purpose.
The meeting opened, with what I thought was a very fair statement from the Chairman on behalf of himself and the Secretary to the effect that they could not cope with the high volume of work that was entailed in a five race National programme and that unless the Club decided to reduce that programme by one race they would not be able to continue. If it did reduce the programme then they would continue for a few more years. They then left the room for the Committee to discuss the matter. What the Committee should have then considered was what was in the best interest of the Club, its members and the sport as a whole. There were various discussion and suggestions about ways in which the Secretary could be helped with the workload and some of these were taken out to them but their view was that they wanted to do it all, or rather part of it all, or nothing. Not once did the Committee consider the possibility of a new secretary. Why not? I know not. The Committee eventually put it to a vote and that vote was even. So the Chairman was called back to make a casting vote upon something in which he had a deep personal interest. That frankly was quite wrong.
I have no intention of going into the rest of the discussions in detail, which were lengthy and rambling. While several people had been asked to attend in order to assist with particular knowledge on particular points, which is commendable, there was a general absence of detailed information available to the Committee. For instance the route to the race points has been changed. Now the convoy will sail from Portsmouth rather than Dover. This entails a different routing on pickup and different marking times at various stations which will have far reaching consequences. While I feel that this may be a correct thing to do there was no analysis available to show the detail of each against the other. There was no proper detail upon which the Committee could make an informed decision. When it came to establishing the race programme it was dealt with in a similar way. It was by sheer luck that one member, who had been to the Tours race point, mentioned that it was unsuitable and so they decided not to use it again. No prior information had been sought on which to base an informed decision.
Another aspect, which, as an observer, I found intriguing, was the rise in birdage charges and deduction of Marking Station costs. There was of course no data available on which to base such a rise in charges, but I wont go on any further about that as it is an across the board problem, it was simply an arbitrary figure plucked from the air but the marking Station charges was something else. From this rise, 20p per bird will be deducted by the Marking Station to cover their costs. It seems that in the past some Stations have charged the Club for a variety of things while others have not. It seems there had been no consistent policy on this and that it has actually been entirely inconsistent. The prime reason however for introducing this concept was to alleviate the Secretary of the onerous task of paying these expenses out. Clearly such costs have to be met somewhere by someone but surely the question that should have arisen and been addressed is by who and when, rather than something merely to suit the convenience of the Secretary.
The question of the Press Officer and his payment also arose. Apparently this is matter, which had been attended to privately. What should we pay a Press Officer? Up to now he/they have apparently been receiving £2,500 per annum. Most thought this was much to much and while most agreed that the Race Reports had been effective there were those who pointed out that the Press Officer had done little work to achieve them and that it was bad that you had to go to the private web site or column of the Press Officer to read anything about the BICC. I totally agree with the second point and it is something that must stop. Negotiations will no doubt go on and we will hopefully have better information for the AGM.
The last two points are not really in any way linked except that I will link them. It was asked whether the Club should have its own web site. Views were diverse. Many seemed to want to deny the existence of technology altogether, one member saying something to the effect that he would not allow a computer into his house. This I found quite interesting, as the main argument for the biggest change in the Club’s recent history was that of overwork and overwork due to computer input. We pigeon fanciers are a really peculiar bunch. We now have Electronic Timing for instance and when you mark a pigeon all its details are logged in digitally, ring number, loft, colour, sex, secret code everything you could wish to know there in the marking clock ready to be sent almost instantaneously over the Internet, at no cost to the secretary and directly into the Club computer. Is that what we do? No of course not, we are pigeon people after all. What we do is take that digital format and print it out onto a piece of paper, something you can touch and feel and tear and screw up and hopefully someone might be able to read. Then we send it by post, at a cost and over several days, to the Secretary so that he/she can sit down and type that information, that was in a digital format, into a new digital format in the computer, and at each stage risk mistakes. That of course is not the fault of the BICC, it is the fault of the RPRA, but mainly it is the fault of pigeon people mentality. Here we also saw pigeon people mentality at work as some thought that a web site was a total waste of time, some I am sure didn't really know what a web site was while others thought it was an essential in this day and age. So the Committee gave it the go ahead and committed up to £500 a year to the task. Without any figures or estimates or anything before them they sanctioned £500 for something that I would have (past tense) been happy to do for £15-20.
What has that got to do with the next item, just money. Budgie Crathorne came all the way from Manchester to the meeting. His message was short. He had organised the Manchester Marking Station which he believed had great potential and had already been a reasonable success. He would be unable to continue with it next year unless he got some assistance from the Club. Already his members were paying £7.50 each towards transporting the pigeons down to Grove but due to work commitments and other things he would be unable to continue unless the Club helped. What did the committee do, explore possibilities? No. He was quite simply told that it was uneconomic to send the transporter to Manchester and so until he could arrange for a sufficient number of birds to warrant that there was nothing they could or would do. Why couldn't they spend £100 on a web site, or less, and £400 towards Manchester marking? Frankly, after the effort he has put in, I thought Budgie was dealt with quite shabbily.
There was a very short discussion towards the end about a topic that has appeared on IPRR recently, the suggestion that the British Barcelona Club may wish to race the Barcelona International. Very briefly Nigel Rigiani explained that the BBC had been losing money on the Palamos race and in view of that there was a proposal, and it is no more than that at this stage, that they should race the Barcelona International instead. Until the BBC establishes what it wants to do there is little to discuss within the BICC however John Nicholson who was present was quite concerned because he wanted the Palamos race as well as the Barcelona International. I can quite understand his concern but in the short term that is a matter for him and the BBC. All I have to say on this topic is that gradually and perhaps more quickly than that more and more organizations are going to find this problem. As numbers contract and expenses rise options decrease. This is a main reason why I have stated elsewhere that the BICC cannot do it alone, it must get together with other groups. If we do this now we have some chance of managing the changes that are inevitable. If we don’t we will be forced into changes that will probably destroy the sport altogether.
Do not despair, we still have the AGM to come where these actions can be called to account. Will you be there?
Nigel Lane
Provisional 2009 Race Programme (Provisional because already some race points are in doubt.)
Birdage £2.50 for Falaise and Alencon £3 for Angers and Limoges.
2nd May Falaise
16th May Alencon
30th May Angers
13th June Limoges
19th June Pau International
3rd July Barcelona International
7th July Tarbes International
18th July Marseilles International
1st August Perpignan International
I went to the BICC Committee meeting on 26th October 2008 and left with mixed feelings. I was of course very disappointed that they decided to reduce the race programme, this was not what I wanted, it was not what a lot of members want and as far as I could make out it was not what most of the Committee wanted either, but that is what they voted for, just, and it remains to be seen whether it will survive further scrutiny. The most disturbing thing however was not the decisions themselves but the way they were arrived at. Considering this was the meeting to decide where the Club goes post Brian Long, considering this was the meeting to make decisions about costs in the absence of his continued support, considering this was the meeting to set the costs for 2009 you would no doubt expect that they would have before them a detailed set of accounts and financial analysis. Actually they had nothing at all, not even a scrap of paper. Added to that not one Committee member asked for this detail either. How on earth anyone can reach such important decisions without being armed with the facts is quite beyond me. I find this such a staggering state of affairs that I am forced to the conclusion that this committee, in its present form, is, in that popular phrase, not fit for purpose.
The meeting opened, with what I thought was a very fair statement from the Chairman on behalf of himself and the Secretary to the effect that they could not cope with the high volume of work that was entailed in a five race National programme and that unless the Club decided to reduce that programme by one race they would not be able to continue. If it did reduce the programme then they would continue for a few more years. They then left the room for the Committee to discuss the matter. What the Committee should have then considered was what was in the best interest of the Club, its members and the sport as a whole. There were various discussion and suggestions about ways in which the Secretary could be helped with the workload and some of these were taken out to them but their view was that they wanted to do it all, or rather part of it all, or nothing. Not once did the Committee consider the possibility of a new secretary. Why not? I know not. The Committee eventually put it to a vote and that vote was even. So the Chairman was called back to make a casting vote upon something in which he had a deep personal interest. That frankly was quite wrong.
I have no intention of going into the rest of the discussions in detail, which were lengthy and rambling. While several people had been asked to attend in order to assist with particular knowledge on particular points, which is commendable, there was a general absence of detailed information available to the Committee. For instance the route to the race points has been changed. Now the convoy will sail from Portsmouth rather than Dover. This entails a different routing on pickup and different marking times at various stations which will have far reaching consequences. While I feel that this may be a correct thing to do there was no analysis available to show the detail of each against the other. There was no proper detail upon which the Committee could make an informed decision. When it came to establishing the race programme it was dealt with in a similar way. It was by sheer luck that one member, who had been to the Tours race point, mentioned that it was unsuitable and so they decided not to use it again. No prior information had been sought on which to base an informed decision.
Another aspect, which, as an observer, I found intriguing, was the rise in birdage charges and deduction of Marking Station costs. There was of course no data available on which to base such a rise in charges, but I wont go on any further about that as it is an across the board problem, it was simply an arbitrary figure plucked from the air but the marking Station charges was something else. From this rise, 20p per bird will be deducted by the Marking Station to cover their costs. It seems that in the past some Stations have charged the Club for a variety of things while others have not. It seems there had been no consistent policy on this and that it has actually been entirely inconsistent. The prime reason however for introducing this concept was to alleviate the Secretary of the onerous task of paying these expenses out. Clearly such costs have to be met somewhere by someone but surely the question that should have arisen and been addressed is by who and when, rather than something merely to suit the convenience of the Secretary.
The question of the Press Officer and his payment also arose. Apparently this is matter, which had been attended to privately. What should we pay a Press Officer? Up to now he/they have apparently been receiving £2,500 per annum. Most thought this was much to much and while most agreed that the Race Reports had been effective there were those who pointed out that the Press Officer had done little work to achieve them and that it was bad that you had to go to the private web site or column of the Press Officer to read anything about the BICC. I totally agree with the second point and it is something that must stop. Negotiations will no doubt go on and we will hopefully have better information for the AGM.
The last two points are not really in any way linked except that I will link them. It was asked whether the Club should have its own web site. Views were diverse. Many seemed to want to deny the existence of technology altogether, one member saying something to the effect that he would not allow a computer into his house. This I found quite interesting, as the main argument for the biggest change in the Club’s recent history was that of overwork and overwork due to computer input. We pigeon fanciers are a really peculiar bunch. We now have Electronic Timing for instance and when you mark a pigeon all its details are logged in digitally, ring number, loft, colour, sex, secret code everything you could wish to know there in the marking clock ready to be sent almost instantaneously over the Internet, at no cost to the secretary and directly into the Club computer. Is that what we do? No of course not, we are pigeon people after all. What we do is take that digital format and print it out onto a piece of paper, something you can touch and feel and tear and screw up and hopefully someone might be able to read. Then we send it by post, at a cost and over several days, to the Secretary so that he/she can sit down and type that information, that was in a digital format, into a new digital format in the computer, and at each stage risk mistakes. That of course is not the fault of the BICC, it is the fault of the RPRA, but mainly it is the fault of pigeon people mentality. Here we also saw pigeon people mentality at work as some thought that a web site was a total waste of time, some I am sure didn't really know what a web site was while others thought it was an essential in this day and age. So the Committee gave it the go ahead and committed up to £500 a year to the task. Without any figures or estimates or anything before them they sanctioned £500 for something that I would have (past tense) been happy to do for £15-20.
What has that got to do with the next item, just money. Budgie Crathorne came all the way from Manchester to the meeting. His message was short. He had organised the Manchester Marking Station which he believed had great potential and had already been a reasonable success. He would be unable to continue with it next year unless he got some assistance from the Club. Already his members were paying £7.50 each towards transporting the pigeons down to Grove but due to work commitments and other things he would be unable to continue unless the Club helped. What did the committee do, explore possibilities? No. He was quite simply told that it was uneconomic to send the transporter to Manchester and so until he could arrange for a sufficient number of birds to warrant that there was nothing they could or would do. Why couldn't they spend £100 on a web site, or less, and £400 towards Manchester marking? Frankly, after the effort he has put in, I thought Budgie was dealt with quite shabbily.
There was a very short discussion towards the end about a topic that has appeared on IPRR recently, the suggestion that the British Barcelona Club may wish to race the Barcelona International. Very briefly Nigel Rigiani explained that the BBC had been losing money on the Palamos race and in view of that there was a proposal, and it is no more than that at this stage, that they should race the Barcelona International instead. Until the BBC establishes what it wants to do there is little to discuss within the BICC however John Nicholson who was present was quite concerned because he wanted the Palamos race as well as the Barcelona International. I can quite understand his concern but in the short term that is a matter for him and the BBC. All I have to say on this topic is that gradually and perhaps more quickly than that more and more organizations are going to find this problem. As numbers contract and expenses rise options decrease. This is a main reason why I have stated elsewhere that the BICC cannot do it alone, it must get together with other groups. If we do this now we have some chance of managing the changes that are inevitable. If we don’t we will be forced into changes that will probably destroy the sport altogether.
Do not despair, we still have the AGM to come where these actions can be called to account. Will you be there?
Nigel Lane
Provisional 2009 Race Programme (Provisional because already some race points are in doubt.)
Birdage £2.50 for Falaise and Alencon £3 for Angers and Limoges.
2nd May Falaise
16th May Alencon
30th May Angers
13th June Limoges
19th June Pau International
3rd July Barcelona International
7th July Tarbes International
18th July Marseilles International
1st August Perpignan International
Response from the B.I.C.C. Chairman and Secretary.
Your views on the meeting.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions on meeting's and if it comes to that anything else to do with the sport because it is our hobby. However from time to time people do go off at a tangent and do not submit a fair reflection on what is actually going on. In this case it is the Newsletter from Mr Lane that if published in any other sport or hobby would be classed as bringing the game into disrepute.
Fact, when I took over the job of Secretary we had approx 600 members and a carry over figure of £23,000, the figures now stand at approx 1200 members with a carry over figure of approx £90,000 (sorry for being so incompetent but I have not had the books audited yet) Where have I gone wrong? Where has the Committee gone wrong? Anyone can come along to the A.G.M. and be voted on to the Committee but the majority of the members appear to be satisfied with the running of the Club, except of course Mr Lane.
Mr Lane has gone to great lengths to publish his newsletter but does forgot to mention a few things, i.e. the time allowed for verification is also for security reasons. Manchester marking station not being picked up was also about the time factor for the drivers to get around and to get to the ferry port on time.
As far as I am concerned Mr Lane's comments are purely his take on the meeting and as for his call for me and my husband to resign, it was the job of Secretary and not Chairman that was in dispute and that was how it would have stood. Mr Lane obviously has no idea what the work load for running two races in one weekend entails and as for getting more staff, then we end up with even higher birdage costs. So as we are an International club first and foremost Pau took preference over Tours .
At the end of the day, we feel that Mr Lane's attacks on the Committee and ourselves are totally unwarranted. He distorted the facts to suit his own agenda. We had all the details as regards Bank deposits etc. on the desk before us. We had done our homework on which ferry ports to use and pickup times with our convoyer, Trevor Cracknell, prior to the meeting and then these facts were put before the Committee. As for the race programme we have raced Falaise, Alencon and Tours for the last several years. We had made investigations with Yvan Eeckhout as to a good liberation site and he suggested Limoges which they use.
We did our homework therefore the question needs to be asked how come Mr Lane didn’t do his. We see this as a slanderous attack on ourselves and the Committee just because he couldn’t get another race and also on the R.P.R.A. for his own reasons that are none of our business.
"What is your overall objective in writing all this?"
Jan & Albi
Secretary & Chairman
B.I.C.C.
Your views on the meeting.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions on meeting's and if it comes to that anything else to do with the sport because it is our hobby. However from time to time people do go off at a tangent and do not submit a fair reflection on what is actually going on. In this case it is the Newsletter from Mr Lane that if published in any other sport or hobby would be classed as bringing the game into disrepute.
Fact, when I took over the job of Secretary we had approx 600 members and a carry over figure of £23,000, the figures now stand at approx 1200 members with a carry over figure of approx £90,000 (sorry for being so incompetent but I have not had the books audited yet) Where have I gone wrong? Where has the Committee gone wrong? Anyone can come along to the A.G.M. and be voted on to the Committee but the majority of the members appear to be satisfied with the running of the Club, except of course Mr Lane.
Mr Lane has gone to great lengths to publish his newsletter but does forgot to mention a few things, i.e. the time allowed for verification is also for security reasons. Manchester marking station not being picked up was also about the time factor for the drivers to get around and to get to the ferry port on time.
As far as I am concerned Mr Lane's comments are purely his take on the meeting and as for his call for me and my husband to resign, it was the job of Secretary and not Chairman that was in dispute and that was how it would have stood. Mr Lane obviously has no idea what the work load for running two races in one weekend entails and as for getting more staff, then we end up with even higher birdage costs. So as we are an International club first and foremost Pau took preference over Tours .
At the end of the day, we feel that Mr Lane's attacks on the Committee and ourselves are totally unwarranted. He distorted the facts to suit his own agenda. We had all the details as regards Bank deposits etc. on the desk before us. We had done our homework on which ferry ports to use and pickup times with our convoyer, Trevor Cracknell, prior to the meeting and then these facts were put before the Committee. As for the race programme we have raced Falaise, Alencon and Tours for the last several years. We had made investigations with Yvan Eeckhout as to a good liberation site and he suggested Limoges which they use.
We did our homework therefore the question needs to be asked how come Mr Lane didn’t do his. We see this as a slanderous attack on ourselves and the Committee just because he couldn’t get another race and also on the R.P.R.A. for his own reasons that are none of our business.
"What is your overall objective in writing all this?"
Jan & Albi
Secretary & Chairman
B.I.C.C.