SNFC 2009 AGM

[me]

 

Where you at the meeting yesterday "me"???

 

No Alf did'nt make it but if I had been and some of my fellow members walk out it would have been a concern to "me". Glad of your reassurance that it was all rumours.  

 

[me]

 

Wondered at that myself. Know that there was a 'run out'  though at one point      SVP offered an intermission, hall decided no, but he needed to go, and others in the hall too, so there was a mass exit to 'le loo'. Jim O'hara commented on business continuing during this, but that (apparently) was what the member's wanted.

 

That was a bit naughty Bruno lad if a "comfort break" was offered and accepted by some of the members the meeting should have been delayed to allow their return, still it seems like no harm was done.

 

 

[ALF]

 

Wondered at that myself. Know that there was a 'run out'  though at one point      SVP offered an intermission, hall decided no, but he needed to go, and others in the hall too, so there was a mass exit to 'le loo'. Jim O'hara commented on business continuing during this, but that (apparently) was what the member's wanted.

 

I think maybe that is where it is coming from Ian? As when Phil Lynch said he needed the toilet we had been at the meeting for a while and a lot of us just wanted it over with at that stage as we had been there for a while but certainly no walk out because of any decisions made at the meeting that i seen!!! But a lot of people took the chance to go to the toilet at the time....

[alec guinness]

 

That was a bit naughty Bruno lad if a "comfort break" was offered and accepted by some of the members the meeting should have been delayed to allow their return, still it seems like no harm was done.

 

 

dr lynch chaired the meeting very well,onwards and upwards for the snfc.

[Guest IB]

That was a bit naughty Bruno lad if a "comfort break" was offered and accepted by some of the members the meeting should have been delayed to allow their return, still it seems like no harm was done.

 

Was offered, but meeting did not want it. As Alf says, meeting had been going on for 3? hours and most want to get on with it, and get it finished. SVP handed over to JVP, and meeting continued as members had wished.

 

 

[JADE]

yes but i think it was wrong as several memebrs went to the toilet or for a smoke at this point. a 5 minute break should have been declared. the business which was carried out during this period included the subscription and birdage chsrges which was rushed through in my view. after the comments during the discussion on the accounts it surprised me that there was not a proposal of an increase. even a £1 increase in fees would have brought in an extra £1000 plus  

[Guest IB]

yes but i think it was wrong as several memebrs went to the toilet or for a smoke at this point. a 5 minute break should have been declared. the business which was carried out during this period included the subscription and birdage chsrges which was rushed through in my view. after the comments during the discussion on the accounts it surprised me that there was not a proposal of an increase. even a £1 increase in fees would have brought in an extra £1000 plus  

 

I can't remember where in 'Resolutions' the non-break happened. But I agree with you that in the face of a loss 'status quo' was the questionable order of the day. Was not alive to method used to decide race programme - voting on individual race points - until first 3 had been decided. Realised they were doing exactly as before even although Accountant had pointed out that losses were in the race account and down to our own decisions over last 3 years; I pointed out we were going down the same road that caused previous years losses, and sowed seed of joint convoying to joint race points far too late in the meeting; but meeting did take that method up for Tours. But really in hindsight the actual race points should have been left to committee, based on flexibility to get the best deals available to get members the races at the distances they want. Will maybe need a motion to be put in for that next year.    

[The Grass Cutter]

 

According to the outgoing President's statement at yesterday's AGM, clubs lawyers say that threat ends in 2010.

 

Ian the president was corrected.   The 3 years he quoted applies to injury or damage not libel or slander . You obviously had difficulty hearing this as you were seated at the other side of the hall.

[Guest IB]

 

Ian the president was corrected.   The 3 years he quoted applies to injury or damage not libel or slander . You obviously had difficulty hearing this as you were seated at the other side of the hall.

 

Agree with what you say, but the President then re-affirmed the legal advice he was given (and which the club paid for) was 3 years.

 

Tomorrow I am going to try again to get a 'second opinion' from the legal team where I work. The question I asked one of them today (wrong specialism, couldn't answer) was 'the time limit for bringing a civil case alleging defamation'. So what was the legal basis for the litigation against the club? What was the man's complaint?  

[knoxjn]

so even though this joker is out of the game he still has a hold over the club

[Guest IB]

so even though this joker is out of the game he still has a hold over the club

 

No seems to be a question mark over that now? Can't be sure, but looks like period is actually 1 year and club is now outwith that period?

 

If so, we need to get our money back from that solicitor and retain another legal firm.

[knoxjn]

thanks again mate for the reply