Censorship and free speech...

[JayneToyne]

Now it takes something to astound me, but today my jaw hit the floor.
After the stalin like censorship I really have to speak out about this brain dead mentality with regards to membership and friends of Addiscombe.

For some reason there's this huge emphasis on numbers of members, bums on seats on a saturday club run etc. it feels like its becoming a social club. ITS NOT... its a cycling club...
Discluding someone from this forum, a training holiday abroad or the club run, simply because they are not a member is plain stupid, to disclude people who are qualified coaches, nutritionlists, racers, champions etc.. those who have been forced to find other clubs who will assist with their racing endeavours because Addiscombe is currently not able to meet their needs, I find it totally unacceptable to see our forum closing its doors to anyone but paid up members.

Its about time someone spoke up and said something about the fact that all the good potential racers are leaving, or thinking of leaving the club because Addiscombe is becoming all club run and no trousers.

There's such an emphasis on wearing the yellow club kit, being a part of this so called super club run, that the whole point of being in a cycle club in the first place seems to be getting forgotten.

We should be friends with people from other clubs, we should welcome them to join us on our club runs and join discussions on the forum, we should join other clubs on their club runs, we should encourage racing for the new members.

lets allow true discussion on the forum without this dictator like censorship.

[Elliot M]

I agree 100%

Elliot

[Alex P]

Whilst I cmpletely disagree with censorship I would like to put another side to the argument of including or excluding non club members in club events.

As a club we organise many events for general good of cycling and for like minded people to meet up and partake in cycling. The money that is received from the membership goes, in the main, to funding many of these events. If we relax any requirements of being a member to partake in these events what point is there in joining the club because everybody can do anything without it. Then, slowly, the club will fall into decline and our ability to organise events will reduce as the funds reduce, key people will lose interest and we can end up the same as so many clubs have.

Who loses out in the end but cycling and those who partake in the 'sport' in the community that we live.

We may be described as now being a social club but in reality it is a social club of cyclists, with cycling being the key factor and there is nothing wrong with that.

The club run is a successful part of the club, but why? we do not market the club run any differently from other clubs, we do not demand that you have to be a club member to join, (in fact I'm sure most of them are not club members) and we do not insist that you have to be of racing calibre.

I think the reason why this is because we are a group of friendly individuals willing to help others enjoy cycling and welcome anybody into that group. Many never come back but a lot do and go on to expand their cycling horizons and I'm sure that the club run does not frighten off any potential world champions.

Jayne, you put a lot into this club for the good of those that want to get on and ride a bike but I don't think it is that exclusive and it could be a lot worse.

Apologies for ranting on, just folding my soap box away now....

[Elliot M]

[edited by me -- Elliot]

Ok those are fair points too re membership. However,

We have had issues with MTBing where people who turn up every so often for rides have flat out said they definitely would not if they had to join.

Fair enough you may say, we're better off without them, but I would contend that MTBers in general rely on a network of friends of friends etc to find new routes and provide local knowledge, provide lifts, lend bikes, etc etc and this conflicts with the traditional club model.

This is further eroded by a long decline in XC racing which is the only branch of the sport with ties to clubs -- Eastway being run by a coop of clubs is getting pretty unique these days -- and an rise in privately run and often big money sponsored endurance events which require no club affiliation.

The benefits of being a member are obvious to me because I do club runs, Eastway, track practice, the odd TT but what can we offer the 90% of MTBers who wouldn't be seen dead in club jersey?

I don't have any easy answers... but should we push the £7 social membership harder?

[LUDWIG]

As a newcomer to cycling in general and Addiscombe CC in particular, one thing that struck me after turning out for a few club runs ,is the almost evangelical fervor with which the senior members of the club like to bang on about how many people they can get out on a club run and whether or not ACC will be the biggest, 2nd biggest or whatever, cycling club in Britain. On my first few rides, I thought I was joining some religious cult, that had cycling on it's list of precepts. All it needed was some short prayer meeting at CSS before we all set out and I would have shaved my head and made a robe out of a couple of old ACC jerseys.

Also, this 'agreeable' tag is hardly amusing (as I suppose it is intended to be) for a newcomer. Whatever it's origins, I'm sure it must have been a hoot for those few people who shared the humor in the epithet when it was first conceived, but to a newcomer it just smacks of a clique , an inner sanctum, if you will, of those that are privy to it's relevance and ideology. For me ,as a relative newcomer, it?s just bemusing. Ok, the club might be friendly and 'agreeable' ,but does this word really have to be paraded about like some secret Masonic handshake?

In short, whilst the club has some very good things going for it, it does appear to be quickly disappearing up it's own backside by believing it's own hype. Who really cares how many people are out each week, what jerseys they wear or whether they are members?

This is just a cycling club ,or was I right about the cult thing?

[Climber]

You've hit the nail on the head Ludwig.

[Climber]

How many other people feel this way?

I think now's the time to have your say

[DavidKennett]

Shouldn't cycling be about riding with other people who have the same interests as you? regardless of club, colour of jersey?

[James Cushtie]

Hmm. I think the name 'Agreeables' is rather an irrelevancy to this; what difference would it make if we were the Addiscombe Wheelmen / Riders / whatever you want to call it. At least it alliterates.

But then it seems hypocritical to call yourselves Agreeables if you go round in a huff excluding people.

I think the problem is with what the club is meant to be; surely there has to be some social aspect, but that can't be all there is to it; otherwise all you'd do is go and play ping pong and drink tea on a Wednesday night. But then what mix is there to it?

It's more confusing to us MTBrs what the benefit is: if I go to a race there's no different pricing for club members compared to the general public, and since the membership doesn't include insurance any more, it's hard to see what I get out of my £20. [There's a good case to say that us DH people aren't cyclists at all in the traditional sense - there's an awfully big difference between a road bike with slicks and drops on the one hand, and a 50lb bike with 9" of suspension at both ends on the other - do they both fit in the same place?]

[Elliot M]

As far as cold hard cash benefits go, how about (and these are just ideas for discussion)

(1) a formally agreed 10% or 15% off at Butlers + BikePlus + Evans? Would that be a big draw? Stick it on a membership card in writing so its in no doubt. With 200+ members that sort of deal should be discussable

(2) Group policy insurance with BCF or whatever as part of subs - different levels as required for racers and non racers, but 100% admin done through club, you are covered from the word go.

[DarrylAnderson]

Good idea. That could persuade MTBers to join, as the other club benefits (coaches, training regimes etc) aren't needed.

[simonfrench]

Comments on the various issues...

I was rather disturbed at first by the evangelical attention paid to numbers on the club run - but I think this is because different people are coming from different places.
As far as I understand it the more senior members who took the club from 10 people or so a few years ago wanted the club to be big enough that there were planty of different abilities, speeds etc so everyone has someone to ride with, people to share lifts with, etc. i.e. Lots of worthy aims.. The size of the club now is the measure of this success - so I can understand them being proud of it, even if to new poeple it's not so important.

The important thing is that numbers aren't the end aim - they're a measure that the club are doing the right things. As long as it concentrates on 'the right things' (whatever they may be - and this discussion I hope helps) rather than just the numbers on club runs then it'll be a success.

Membership fee
I don't mind payign a fee - I see some of that going to keep this forum live and some of it to time trials etc. I don't do them, but I don't grudge a bit of tax going on something I dont use.

MTB?Members of other clubs?
I don't do anything MTB with the club - it's more of a mates thing weekends away etc. I suppose it's up to the 'only MTB'ers to decide what they want.
Is it fair that non members who use this site to organise stuff should perhaps contribute a couple of quid? Associate membership or something might be a solution.

Club kit.
I don't think anyone should feel pressured to wear it. Those that are competing for the club will probably to choose to - after all you have to wear something.

Agreeable.
It's a bit off putting for new people. We want those new people. Therefore ...
We should stress it less?


Hope my views are of use.

Simon

[AodanH]

Just joining this late, so first of all, I agree with Jane's original post and then also that yesterdays reponse to Hannah's post was just rude and if that is the commitee's official view then it needs to have a serious look at itself. I not sure that any other club in the country (regardless of how big they are) would have made a similar response.


Aodan.

[the other Steve Dennis]

Hello all.

The size of the club run has actually been one reason I am not on it often.

And certainly we should be welcoming riders from other clubs to ride with us on club runs in the same manner I would expect a warm welcome from any other club I pass. The club organising races in NYC was more than happy to accomodate me in their events even without the proper league membership etc. Why? I guess because I am a cyclist, my passion to ride (which dwindles occasionally at the sight of cake and duvets), my competing, my offers of help and the money I pay to race or in subscriptions to my club all help cycling as a sport. If someone from Kingston, for example, joins our club run they are funding our sport.

Interms of riders not in clubs then I would suggest that there may be an issue regarding insurance, responsiblity and safety but thats not my field.

Socially? It would seem strange to exclude friends if they dont 'belong', but I wouldnt expect us to take Aunty Joyce so she can soak up the sun on the beach at cheap rates.

[LUDWIG]

Talking of welcoming riders and being 'agreeable', there was a surreal and heated exchange of views on the club run at CSS a couple of weeks ago.

A chap turned up who seemed to be some kind of head honcho of the club (don't know his name, sorry) and whilst we (probably around 50 of us) were waiting to depart, he decided to hold a public inquest, in sub-zero temperatures, into why some other guy was trying to ride with us.

Apparently this other guy had been 'banned' from club runs for reasons which weren't made clear. How exactly you can be banned from cycling on the road, wasn't made clear either. Anyway, his crime must have been serious since the head-honcho was so insistent that this guy couldn't ride with us, he started gesticulating wildly and trying to stand in front of his bike (presumably to stop him from cycling in a forward direction) .My guess is that ,from the reaction this guys presence engendered in the Head-honcho, he must have at least killed untold numbers of orphans or possibly been responsible for the atrocities in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq or maybe all 3.At the very least I'm sure he must have killed a puppy or a kitten at some point..Despite this fact, he did seem reasonable and in control, none of which could be said about the head honcho who was becoming more and more incensed and erratic in his demands.
A public inquest was held there and then where other members were quizzed as to whether they had invited this pariah into our midst. All denied the charges, although it was difficult to keep track of proceedings since one person's voice, no matter how wildly he gesticulates, doesn't carry that well in an open air car park. At one point, for reasons that escaped me, the head honcho asked everyone who was a member to raise their hands, which most people did, bemusedly. At another point, the unwanted cyclist, who I was feeling desperately sorry for by this stage, was told that he must phone someone to prove that he had been invited on the club run. Absurd ? well ,yes. But by this stage the whole episode had become a pantomime and was more than mildly amusing.
I swear that if public hanging had been brought back, a noose would have been tied to the nearest lamppost. To this guys credit he didn't back down and skulk away in terminal embarrassment. He stood his ground in what was by comparison to his accuser , some dignity.


Now, forgive me for not knowing the details but my perspective is one of an outsider who has just joined this friendly and 'agreeable' club. I turn up one Saturday and find a witch hunt going. I can't imagine what newcomers on their first ever club run must have thought.