BC: members organisation or governing body?

[Big 'n Daft]

I ask because the Eastway relocation seems to be a dodgy to me. The only statement I can find on the website is


Dave Cockram, National Facilities Officer for British Cycling, the internationally recognized governing body for cycling in Great Britain, said: ?We are delighted to support the London Development Agency?s proposal of Rammey Marsh as the temporary home of the Eastway Cycle Circuit. British Cycling is currently looking at the option of maintaining the Rammey Marsh cycling facility permanently, in addition to the Eastway circuit when it is reinstated after the Games.?

However I have yet to hear anything from a gras roots BC member that says they are "delighted" with the Rammey Marsh proposal.

My understanding is that my/ your BC membership subs go to fund people like Dave Cockram so why is there a cloak of secrecy over why Rammy Marsh is so great? (if something is on the website please point it out to me) and the alternative so impractical? Or is there some form of "done deal" because of the new velodrome?

Why is there nothing on the BC subs funded website to keep us in touch with BC thinking.

I only race at Eastway once a year but its a great facility, you will never see me at Rammy Marsh and I can see an opportunity being missed due to agendas that are not being shown to the members.

Hence my question BC: members organisation or governing body?
_________________
six bikes, no talent

[Rich Hill]

Can't comment in more depth but I would say more Gov body than membership org.


Rich
_________________
Imagination is the war against reality....

[Hans Datdodishes]

To be fair to BC and Dave Cockram, as a non-land owner BC are unfortunately in a position of little/no legal power when it comes to facilities, and have to rely on the effective goodwill etc of the facility owners.
In some circumstances BC might feel it prudent not to comment on developments until all the legals have been sorted out?

[IainW]

Considering the big picture it's not just Eastway that is at stake. The Olympic Games and the development of that area will have many groups of people wanting to have their say in what is happening there, Dave, representing us, is just one of them. It will most probably end up with something not perfect but a compromise. The main priority is the Olympics and having the facilities completed on time. There'll come a time when the talking has to stop and a spade goes in the ground. It's a go-live date that cannot be moved. Everything else will have to fit in with that.

Sometimes you just have to trust people and beleive what they're doing is for the best.

I'd say governing body, but it listens to and looks after the best interests of the membership.

[Hans Datdodishes]

And slightly off-topic, we lost a lot of facilities thanks to the lack of a dedicated BC official - Harvey Hadden track being a scandalous example of total incompetence. Since Davids appointment I've seen a lot more good being done with the upgrading/saving of facilities.

[Richard Kennedy]

I've added a 3rd option to the poll, as I think it's both a membership organisation AND a governing body!
RK

[IainW]

[Big 'n Daft]

I have to say that I am not directly critising David, the problem is that the BC seems to want to cherry pick what it is. I therefore am looking at the organisational culture which seems to be disfunctional

For example:

to be able to input into the debate on coaching the line seems to be that if you are not a BC member you can not contribute

For Eastway it seems to be BC are the governing body and know best

cyclists are an awkward bunch to represent at the best of times but BC seem to have a wider "sport politics" agenda that might not fit with members views/ desires
_________________
six bikes, no talent

[KJ]