 Poster: A snowHead
|
[/quote]
Trevor Campbell Davis stated in his report that he could find no evidence of fraud. Obviously, you have been extremely rude about Trevor Campbell Davis, so I doubt you'll take his word for it.[/quote]
Well fraud and embezzlement are not quite the same thing, however you know as well as I do that money was spent in secret and without controls (ie unlawfully) by people that 'feathered their own nest' - simple example: the ludicrous and way to generous terms on which Holt was employed, in direct breach of the Clubs articles. Effectively a private deal - fwiw I do think that is actionable, if anyone can be bothered. When TCD joined he first dithered over acting on the failing CEO (he soon realised this was a mistake) and gave a generous settlement - extra £60k of members money wasted. In the same way TCD watered down action on the silly lease Holt had signed (already £100k's wasted) - so that the club spent perhaps £400k MORE getting out of that silly contract more than it needed to (this was up to Council, but TCD made the decision for them) ... TCD didn't want this type of thing in the open. Hardly a members club if members don't know what is going on, their money is chewed up by insiders either acting incompetently or in their own interests. Members have a right to oversight from their robust elected representatives - but this gets unconstitutionally undermined when I am ousted to protect the control needs of an incoming - and unelected - Chairman. Again SCGB have a Council tamely accepting they are beholden to the Chairman and painting rosy pictures to the membership. A key point of company law the Chairman is appointed by and answerable to the Board, an equal member of the Board, not somehow above it. Council needs to take responsibility for turning the club around or it will never happen. Blaming others has to stop - its not my problem any more, but I am still allowed to care for the Club for what it once was, and perhaps can be again.
In terms of the "TCD report" this is a key point. Following the 2019 debacle and attempted vote rigging of Council election to keep things in the hands of a few, members were promised an independent report. Instead TCD wanted to do it (so he could control the outcome, not wanting too much dirty washing in public) - I offered to work with him on it and he didn't want this, nor did he want my input on the finance committee (despite having previously been an Audit Chair), so he made his infamous 'him or me' speech at Council, the second time he had threatened Council to do as he said or he would walk. So I go and we get a carefully worded and far from independent report, lacking robust oversight, which does the easy bit and blames past failings (without being desperately open about them). Sadly it completely fails to address what needs to be done to ensure robust oversight and governance going forward. Not least because TCD believes in his personal control of Council to do what he felt was right. The Club is still in the hands of a Chairman - for good or bad - not answerable to a strong Council elected and accountable to members.
In terms of negative views on TCD - Gerry do you want me to quote your whatsapp message to several Directors again? You accused him of being controlled obsessed and vowed to take a stance.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Mon 17-01-22 19:40; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Hamilton Academical wrote: |
| @Dave of the Marmottes, the reality is that you’ve got nothing to worry about but there’s no way you’ll take up Angus’s offer, not in a million years. |
I'm quite happy to have a call with him if he really wants - he simply has to message me here. Not sure what he would want on the agenda though. I'd be less happy about having you involved in any "helpful" capacity as I'm pretty sure that would only detract from any quality in such a conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
@pisteoff, well, embezzlement normally involves fraud. Far enough, fraud doesn't always involve embezzlement, though. So I see your point.
Anyway, I like TCD and I don't think he is any of the negative things you claim. But then you have claimed that I'm an arse licker and a coward.
Ultimately it was your idiotic clumsiness, coupled with your incomplete knowledge of employment law what caused an issue that you refused to own. That led to you wanting the Club to take a big gamble to save yourself from embarrassment.
No worries though because in here you will be totally believed no matter what.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Hamilton Academical wrote: |
| @Dave of the Marmottes, the reality is that you’ve got nothing to worry about but there’s no way you’ll take up Angus’s offer, not in a million years. |
I'm quite happy to have a call with him if he really wants - he simply has to message me here. Not sure what he would want on the agenda though. I'd be less happy about having you involved in any "helpful" capacity as I'm pretty sure that would only detract from any quality in such a conversation. |
He wants to have a Q&A session with you lot from snowHeads. If any of you are interested just go to Tom's Facebook group and sign up for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
If he wants that the sensible thing would be to come here and arrange it himself rather than transact through some minder/enforcer and a third party platform. Perhaps he could pick up the phone to @admin in the first instance if he is sore afrit of computers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
I think a zoom call with Angus (effectively Chairman elect for SCGB) is a positive thing, and would encourage it. Not sure who would attend for who though. Perhaps just a phone call @admin with Angus is a good start? If a wider zoom I would happily attend if helpful. My view is that the two organisations can and should coexist harmoniously, they both have something to offer skiers, and that's the point isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| If he wants that the sensible thing would be to come here and arrange it himself rather than transact through some minder/enforcer and a third party platform. Perhaps he could pick up the phone to @admin in the first instance if he is sore afrit of computers. |
Why are you getting all precious about which platform it's arranged via? Anyway, I'll pass your demands on to Angus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not my demands yours/ his it would seem. That's why I would suggest him calling admin without your assistance/interference is probably the best starting point to ascertain what it is he wishes to achieve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Not my demands yours/ his it would seem. That's why I would suggest him calling admin without your assistance/interference is probably the best starting point to ascertain what it is he wishes to achieve. |
I think Angus has a point that you can cover more ground in a shorter time in a Zoom meeting. And, BTW, what Angus has done is offer a meeting rather than demand anything. The demands and obstacles seem to be coming from you.
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Mon 17-01-22 19:42; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like " I'm truly sorry about that trademark thing. It really should not have happened. Yes I understand Tony's apologexcuse sounded fishy but he really is that dim"
Maybe 30 seconds tops.
Let's be crystal clear - I'm not demanding anything. I simply don't care enough. I've made a number of observations over time re what seems to be going on at SCGB and asked what seem to me to be sensible questions about where it is going and whether it remains long term viable. It wouldn't take much for Angus to prune a selection of points and questions from those on this thread and make a post answering them with evidence if he wanted.
But unfortunately you seem to have built it up in your mind to some superhero battle where SuperGus with at his right hand Tileboy defeats the forces of evil, just as you've wanted this thread to be about friction and past grudges. I'm suggesting that's not the best bang for buck on his precious time and he'd be better with an open AMA that might actually attract potential new members or at least stem the tide of leavers.
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Mon 17-01-22 19:58; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
Like " I'm truly sorry about that trademark thing. It really should not have happened. Yes I understand Tony's apologexcuse sounded fishy but he really is that dim"
Maybe 30 seconds tops. |
I don't think you understand.
You keep moaning that the Ski Club doesn't listen to you, so what Angus has done is offer a zoom meeting where you and the others who regularly post in here can ask him questions.
Maybe you would be more comfortable if pisteoff dealt with the arrangements, if such a meeting was to go ahead?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
Let's be crystal clear - I'm not demanding anything. I simply don't care enough. I've made a number of observations over time re what seems to be going on at SCGB and asked what seem to me to be sensible questions about where it is going and whether it remains long term viable. It wouldn't take much for Angus to prune a selection of points and questions from those on this thread and make a post answering them with evidence if he wanted.
But unfortunately you seem to have built it up in your mind to some superhero battle where SuperGus with at his right hand Tileboy defeats the forces of evil, just as you've wanted this thread to be about friction and past grudges. I'm suggesting that's not the best bang for buck on his precious time and he'd be better with an open AMA that might actually attract potential new members or at least stem the tide of leavers. |
In reply to your edit.
Ok, I told him you'd never be interested. I'm not sure there was ever a plan for me to be involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems to be a few olive branches being proffered here. From a laymans perspective this call appears to be a pragmatic way for grievances to be aired. I think both sides would need to be honest about their motivations though. SCGB want to remain relevant seemingly, what do Snowheads want/need from it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Hamilton Academical wrote: |
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
Let's be crystal clear - I'm not demanding anything. I simply don't care enough. I've made a number of observations over time re what seems to be going on at SCGB and asked what seem to me to be sensible questions about where it is going and whether it remains long term viable. It wouldn't take much for Angus to prune a selection of points and questions from those on this thread and make a post answering them with evidence if he wanted.
But unfortunately you seem to have built it up in your mind to some superhero battle where SuperGus with at his right hand Tileboy defeats the forces of evil, just as you've wanted this thread to be about friction and past grudges. I'm suggesting that's not the best bang for buck on his precious time and he'd be better with an open AMA that might actually attract potential new members or at least stem the tide of leavers. |
In reply to your edit.
Ok, I told him you'd never be interested. I'm not sure there was ever a plan for me to be involved. |
It seems bizarre that rather than actually reading what is being said here he's relying on your stellar comprehension and interpretation of it as a conduit but whatevah!. BTW I'm but a single poster unwise enough to engage with you. I don't speak for all snowheads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
SCGB want to remain relevant seemingly, what do Snowheads want/need from it?
|
Does that question makes any sense? SCGB is a legal individual, an organisation with a structure, Directors, money (or lack of it). Snowheads isn't. I don't understand the history, the individuals, or the arguments. It's easy to infer there's a long history, if only from Gerry's tiresome, constant, insulting, misogynistic, playground-level comments. If it mattered to me, I'd be concerned, trying to understand, but honestly, I don't give a FF. The SC is completely irrelevant to me, and I imagine to many - perhaps most "Snowheads" if by that we just mean people who follow and contribute to the forum. I only read the SCGB thread when I'm really bored. I did sometimes contribute to the SCGB forum - I think I had their insurance, but never went on any holidays. Was once doing an early season ski course in Tignes at the same time as a group of would-be SC reps were being trained. Our instructor called them the South Croydon Gas Board, I remember. I do remember that instructor's name, and he's still in the business, but perhaps best not to mention it here, given the vituperative atmosphere. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| pam w wrote: |
| Quote: |
SCGB want to remain relevant seemingly, what do Snowheads want/need from it?
|
Does that question makes any sense? SCGB is a legal individual, an organisation with a structure, Directors, money (or lack of it). Snowheads isn't. I don't understand the history, the individuals, or the arguments. It's easy to infer there's a long history, if only from Gerry's tiresome, constant, insulting, misogynistic, playground-level comments. If it mattered to me, I'd be concerned, trying to understand, but honestly, I don't give a FF. The SC is completely irrelevant to me, and I imagine to many - perhaps most "Snowheads" if by that we just mean people who follow and contribute to the forum. I only read the SCGB thread when I'm really bored. I did sometimes contribute to the SCGB forum - I think I had their insurance, but never went on any holidays. Was once doing an early season ski course in Tignes at the same time as a group of would-be SC reps were being trained. Our instructor called them the South Croydon Gas Board, I remember. I do remember that instructor's name, and he's still in the business, but perhaps best not to mention it here, given the vituperative atmosphere. |
How is Phil? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Wasn't Phil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
What I didn't express well in that post was that any suggestion of a "Snowheads view", or consensus, makes no sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@pam w, what I mean is, SCGB are a business which is losing customers. They want to regain customers from the UK skiing contingent and I sense they look on with some envy at Snowheads impressive outreach and participation.
To rephrase - what is in it for Snowheads?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
…
but honestly, I don't give a FF. The SC is completely irrelevant to me, and I imagine to many - perhaps most "Snowheads" if by that we just mean people who follow and contribute to the forum. I only read the SCGB thread when I'm really bored…
|
+1
Same for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
a "Snowheads view", or consensus,
|
He’s been pushing the ‘us v them’ narrative for so long, he actually believes his own bollox!
The fatal flaw in his bullensheisse is that, on here, “we’re all individuals!” and not the enemy SnowBorg he has in his mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Csb123 wrote: |
@pam w, what I mean is, SCGB are a business which is losing customers. They want to regain customers from the UK skiing contingent and I sense they look on with some envy at Snowheads impressive outreach and participation.
To rephrase - what is in it for Snowheads? |
Actually, it's a club that's owned by its members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Csb123, Probably absolutely nothing.
tbh, apart from clearing the air over a couple of misunderstandings, can't see SCGB getting much out of it either.
The open forum method that works so well for Snowheads wouldn't work for SCGB under the current management structure, where dissent is considered unacceptable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| brianatab wrote: |
@Csb123, Probably absolutely nothing.
tbh, apart from clearing the air over a couple of misunderstandings, can't see SCGB getting much out of it either.
The open forum method that works so well for Snowheads wouldn't work for SCGB under the current management structure, where dissent is considered unacceptable. |
Hold on there. Any criticism of snowHeads here is most unwelcome. For example, Goldsmith had his posting rights reduced to one every 23hrs, iirc. Some would even claim that sH is so perfect as to be beyond any form of criticism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hamilton Academical wrote: |
| For example, Goldsmith had his posting rights reduced to one every 23hrs, iirc. |
How often did he get to post on the SCGB forum?
The SCGB might get the benefit of being able to try out their sales pitch here and get some feedback. I wouldn't bother joining a Zoom meeting, needing to register interest somewhere else would make that less likely still.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
Any criticism of snowHeads here is most unwelcome
|
Unwelcome to whom? What would "criticism of Snowheads" look like? Moaning at admin? There's plenty of criticism of people who participate in Snowheads - some quite unpleasant arguments about all kinds of stuff, especially politics, and especially Brexit. Some people go off in a huff, some people accuse us of ganging up on them and being horrid, words like "echo chamber" are used by people who feel got at. There isn't a tangible "thing" or "entity" to criticise. Nobody can complain of poor value for money - all payments are voluntary. Most people who go on SH bashes enjoy them. Where things haven't worked well, or could work better, people say so and admin seems open to suggestions. And there has certainly been some criticism/moaning from time to time, though usually outweighed by people who are appreciative. Many people get a lot of useful information, many give it, there's a lot of mutual support. All of us who participate a lot have been criticised or argued with. I guess that's why we do it. The place isn't actually an "echo chamber" and it's not monolithic.
Apart from Goldsmith, what other example could you come up with to prove that "criticism is unwelcome"? What does that even mean, when it comes to a free forum? Gerry's contributions have not been censored, have they? I doubt if they've much bothered people. All communities have their Gerrys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Quote: |
Actually, it's a club that's owned by its members
|
Eh? That's not what Companies House says. A club owned by its members doesn't have Directors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
There isn't a tangible "thing" or "entity" to criticise.
|
Apart from a few servers, some software and hamster hours.
They’re so focused on “The ski club” bit, they still don’t get the 2.0 bit.
Come to think of it, I’d be interested to hear about the infrastructure that’s involved in keeping  running.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| pam w wrote: |
| Quote: |
Actually, it's a club that's owned by its members
|
Eh? That's not what Companies House says. A club owned by its members doesn't have Directors. |
In effect it’s still a club, being a company limited by guarantee. It’s the normal legal entity for non-tiny clubs, societies, charities and community projects.
The directors perform the same role as a club’s committee members.
This protects the people running it personally from debts should it become insolvent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I think it's time that snowHeads stopped banging on about everything that the Ski Club is allegedly doing wrong - let their own members do the criticising if they want to, it's really not' 'our' business. Similarly, the agenda which Gerry Aitken is pushing here (the purpose of which entirely escapes me, since it's so obviously not in the interests of the Ski Club) also needs to stop. These are two businesses which are run in an entirely different manner and people are free to join whichever they prefer. I used to have Ski Club membership, now it is of no interest to me at all and surely that's true of many snowHeads.
There is no point in the two organisations cosying up, as pisteoff seems to be implying would be nice, they are too different. However, what would be nice would be a proper clearing of the air, before they each disappear their separate ways, between admin and whoever at the Ski Club (not Gerry, obviously) regarding the trademark incident. If admin has not yet received at least an unqualified apology, then it's time he had one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
@Hurtle, +1M. This is the most incredible tedious thread. It's like a primary school playground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Oh OK, thanks for that explanation. I am more familiar with "unincorporated associations" like our very wealthy local sailing club - I had to rapidly learn about that when they threatened me with expulsion for making a fuss about them pocketing Government covid grants when far from having been financially impacted by lockdown, they'd saved a fortune.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Snow&skifan wrote: |
| pam w wrote: |
| Quote: |
Actually, it's a club that's owned by its members
|
Eh? That's not what Companies House says. A club owned by its members doesn't have Directors. |
In effect it’s still a club, being a company limited by guarantee. It’s the normal legal entity for non-tiny clubs, societies, charities and community projects.
The directors perform the same role as a club’s committee members.
This protects the people running it personally from debts should it become insolvent. |
I'm not sure that is correct. The members are protected from debts, I don't think the directors are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
[quote="Hamilton Academical"]
| Csb123 wrote: |
Actually, it's a club that's owned by its members. |
Not really. That's what its meant to be, but it operates as a Company (limited by guarantee) through a Board - with the vast majority of its operations - in both value and attention terms - being a tour operator.
The Board Directors have fiduciary duties to the Company (Ski Club GB Ltd) and have a heavily loss making business to deal with, with employment and other challenges. Almost all the staff are focussed on running the TO and marketing / partnerships etc ... then a finance and admin overhead which is more to do with the Company than the club. No clubhouse for example.
This is the core challenge the Board need to wrestle with. They are elected as Council members, then serve as Directors - volunteers often with little experience and varying levels of commitment and time - after all why should they spend time and take on onerous legal duties for free which are not really about a 'fun club'.
How can SCGB once again become a members club - run by the members for the members? To thrive (or at least stop the rot) it needs to again be a club where members want to share how good it is and recruit other members - few can make a compelling case now.
I'd love to hear from you Mr HA how you see SCGB's future - can it once again have a compelling membership offer, attractive to a new group of skiers? How?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And, tbh, this does seem an odd place for two Ski Club members to be having a discussion/argument about their Club. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Hurtle,
They can't do it on the KGB forum can they
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| I think it's time that snowHeads stopped banging on about everything that the Ski Club is allegedly doing wrong - let their own members do the criticising if they want to, it's really not' 'our' business. . |
Fair point, however this is an excellent forum for sharing views, and SCGB just doesn't have that. There have been some excellent and insightful posts here - less so the recent zoom meeting bun fight though.
My (hardly secret) view is that there is a role for ski club which could have tens of thousands of members, but SCGB is not serving it. This is in large part because it is organisationally broken, and too "proud" to address the challenges. I would like to be able to be a member of such a club once someone sorts it out - hence my interest in exercising the debate.
There are those that argue that Snowheads covers most of the ground, and it is a thriving community. They have a point, but SH is not a club in the way SCGB used to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@pisteoff,
| Quote: |
SH is not a club in the way SCGB used to be
|
True, but
1) it is indeed a community in which firm real life friendships (and marriages!) are made;
2) group holidays are taken, though the financial model is very different from Freshtracks, to put it mildly;
3) it is managed pretty well, considering management consists of one ageing hippie and a few hamsters;
4) the membership fee is voluntary, though benefits accrue if you pay it;
5) there's a lively forum in which all kinds of useful information is exchanged;
6) there are no overheads, employees, salaries or debts for members to worry their little heads over.
What more do you want?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
