Forum / Boardroom Changes

[Norman Verona]

The problem with legal actions is most people assume they are clear cut. Party A sues Party B due to a breach of contract or goods are unfit for purpose.

In practice some organisations use the law as a battering ram. They do not need a clear breach or fault to issue summons. They know that "small" people will pay up rather than have the expense and time of a court case.

The case about the brakes (see above) was the one cited to me when I had counsels opinion on the BB. The point is if you potray yourself as an "expert" you are supposed to check everything.

Gadgetman raises a good point. Lets for a moment paint a picture. John Speed gets his infill and fits it. A week later whilst driving along a twisty B road and on a bend his engine seizes. The car slews across the road into a Micra coming the other way, The 2 adults and 2 children in the car are killed. The Police and Insurers investigate and find the cause of the engine seizure was the infill plate. (it matters not at this stage if it was faulty goods or fitting). They look into the BB and find it's difficult to determine who's responsible but decide to sue the club. The clubs insurers decide they are not liable as they did not endorse the BB. They (insurers not the club) then "join in" the organizer of the BB on the basis that he has put himself forward as an expert on infills and he should have done more research into the product he commissioned.

Far fetched? Maybe. Never happen? I wouldn't say that, it can and has happened.

You see it doesn't matter whether there's a case to answer, you have to go through the time and expense of a trial to establish that.

[Norman Verona]

Forgot to add that most BB's work because the supplier can sell a quantity of items for one payment. They do have to rely on numerous people getting in touch to make payment.

If I were a retailer responding to an enquiry from someone who said they thought they could get at least 10 buyers I would say "Fine, give me a ring when you have collected at least 10 payments and we'll go ahead". If I had to check on a forum to see what was happening and deal with over 10 people for individual payment it would not, to me, be a bulk buy. It would be 10 (or more) people buying one each.

[Blatman]

What does the £120 give me then if I am organising a bulk buy? by inference the Club is underwriting/endorsing the validity/quality of the products I have for sale, as I can see there is no other benefit.

If there is no benefit to me as a seller or the people buying my products why charge £120 ?

It doesn't make any sense to me, but then again not a lot does these days

Individual member bulk buys are FREE

Here's what you do.

1. Identify a company who want to do a bulk buy in the usual way. So sound them out, propose discounts etc etc.

2. Tell the Committee you'd like to organise a bulk buy.

3. If the committee say yes, they will add a link to the company on the links page. Your bulk buy post should point to this link.

4. Members buy at the preferential rates subject to there being enough orders in the specified time limit to satisfy the supplier.

That's it...

Edited to add...

This of course opens up bulk buys to *anyone* reading the bulk buy thread so it probably should be in a members only area. I forget if this has been mentioned and addressed already...

[ACW]

Just to add, for any bulk buy to be approved - There are at least two criteria that would need to be met as far as i am concenred, above and beyond that of the item and details. These would be that all members benefit equally from the bulk buy and substantially, and that all contract of sale was with the company involved directly.

BTW - Havent yet had time to read in detail all the other pages and answer any more questions yet. TBH you lot seem to be worried about the legal aspects too much - this is just one side of the concerns with bulk buys as a free for all without any control.

[ACW]

Ok. Answers to questions that I gleaned above. Applogies if ive missed any big ones:

how long does life membership last?

My understanding is that it is between 1 and 5 years depending on level of service. These are normally brought up at committee meetings and approved thier. These are for folks that have helped the club. The only life member I am aware of that has exceeded this time is Chris Smith (founder and former owner of Westfield).

In future I think that one committee member should post up the changes and field the questions and comment.

IMHO input from Scott was not helpfull and confused the issue (not just for me either) and that is genuinely not a dig at you Scott.

One message from one committee member is much easier to understand and comment on.

This is exactly the approach we wanted for this thread. Only Scott has commented when things needed to be clarified. He knows (becasue the committee speak to each other regularly and continually on email) like the rest of the committee that I was away working long hours out of the country. So to avoid complaints of 'the committee' ignoring the thead, others have commented.

Can we allow member bulk buys like we used to please and can members sell in parts for sale and cars for sale non members stuff?

No, non member adverts will be only in a new section. Regardless of if started by a non member, or by a member. This is so it is clear that these items are advertised outside of the club as already mentioned. I make the effort to read all your stuff, please oblige me the same. For the avoidance of doubt, this will be an advert not necessarily an off site link.

OK. Let me try again to make clear trade membership and BB. If a company wishes to do a builk buy, they will be strongly encouraged to take ip trade membership for 1 year at a current cost of £120. This is levied at a cost to differentiate it from normal membership as well as from sponsorship. Larger companies will be encouraged in due course to upgrade to sponsorship. This fee is very low in comparison to anything a company might do to obtain such as captive audience for thier products.

Where possible we would prefer trade members to offer WSCC members special pricing on a per member, per product basis. It makes sense for companies to do this as it helps attact people to thier products and services. With most companies the largest part of thier gross margin costs is used brining customers in (advertising / marketing / slaes people etc)

Where there are special circumstances the committee will consider allowing bulk buys without trade membership. However there must be something exceptional about the offer.

In all cases BB will be between the WSCC and the company or legal entity providing the service. The offer will be made equally to all members to benefit from that company and no 'freebies' or other inducements will be made to any club member.

I hope this is clear ? The club is liable to risk from all sorts of sources, as are we all. Where possible liability insurance is held, however this cant alwasy be the case. For example if the club were to try to mitigate the risk of running the forum by insurance, whilst we might afford the costs, no one on this thread would like the conditions of cover and how that would chance our relatively laise faire attitude. (This is why so many forums are member only). It doesnt matter if your right ot wrong, the cost of defence would like destroy the club. It therefore does make sense for the committee to ttempt to reduce the likelyhood of a defense been necessary.

[ACW]

Also - MHC sorry it looks like your mickmade account wasnt take of pre-mod. Ive now fixed this.

[Norman Verona]

Where there are special circumstances the committee will consider allowing bulk buys without trade membership. However there must be something exceptional about the offer.

This is what confused me. If I approach a company for a BB price (say minimum of 10) it's my request not the company's offer that's generating the BB. I may be nitpicking but it just misleads me when the word OFFER is used.

To go further, (that's something new for me!) I consider a true BB to be generated by a request from a member to a supplier. The supplier then responds to that request with a price for a "bulk buy" (not a bulk sale). If a company offers, without an approach from a member, a special price then in my view, this is just that, a "special offer".

In conclusion I see the Trade Members forum being a series of special offers by trade members. BBs as defined above, being the same as always other then being "adopted" by the club.

For clarity is this correct?

[chazpowerslide]

There are now three questions that should be answered, the first two I have asked and have not been answered.

The last question ought to be answered on for the benifit of the membership.

1. When and in what way and under what circumstances were either the WSCC or a member compromised legally and/or financially when conducting bulk buys on the WSCC boardroooms, How many times has this happened. This was a reason given by both Scott and ACW for the changes. I have trawled through the search function and had access to the moderator records when acting as a moderator. I can see no evedence of what has been given as a reason for change. Where is the proof of what was given as a reason for change? The only bulk buy issues I am aware of are those of a few members reapeatedly attempting (and succeeding) to circumvent the commercial posting rules by selling products through the for sale sections of the boardrooms.
   
2. What specific protection over and above the UK sale of goods act is the club providing members who participate in WSCC bulk buys? Enhanced protection for members participating in bulk buys was given as a reason for change.
   
3. Why were the membership not consulted over what they felt that the changes should be and how they should be implimented? It's their club afterall. This should have been done via the AO group to the members, there should have been a period of consultation with the members and the AO community should have had the opportunity to pass feedback and views back up the line. Many of the members I have spoken to since the changes were announced on the general boardrooms feel that the committee has "ridden slipshod" over them. Could not these changes have waited untill the next AGM where at least some discussion could have taken place all be it to a limited audience.
   

Chaz

[ACW]

Chaz,

Let me try to answer these questions the best that I can. I am sure your have the clubs best interest to heart. However just because this is the way its been doesnt mean things cant and should not change. In addition whatever the change there will always be those that disagree. I am answering for committee decision, I am not the committee. If you have any issue with me or the way any of the committee have behaved or are behaving in contrary to the club constitution then you should raise that. Frankly I for one am happy to stand down on a member vote online and not wait till an AGM.

1. When and in what way and under what circumstances were either the WSCC or a member compromised legally and/or financially when conducting bulk buys on the WSCC boardroooms, How many times has this happened. This was a reason given by both Scott and ACW for the changes. I have trawled through the search function and had access to the moderator records when acting as a moderator. I can see no evedence of what has been given as a reason for change. Where is the proof of what was given as a reason for change? The only bulk buy issues I am aware of are those of a few members reapeatedly attempting (and succeeding) to circumvent the commercial posting rules by selling products through the for sale sections of the boardrooms.
   

There have been a host of reasons given why the committee came to its decision. No one is specifically higher than another. It is this thread that has highlighted the legal aspects not the committee. In fact interestingly this thread has brought up more legal issues that the committee has previously considered. I think I in light of this would personally ban bulk buys, but that is not the committees agreed way forward. Anyway I digress, the reasons include but are not limited to:

a. Attempts by people to circumvent commercial posting rules. Since these are now allowed via trade member (which lots of people agree is a good thing - I think you do to? - not closed house etc. benfit of members etc.) it makes sense that bulk buys by companies should be done as trade members.

b. The committee does not want members involved in the flow of monies between companies and members for all sorts of sensible reasons.

c. The committee does not like the approach of some previous bulk buys where the member are paying for one free for the organiser or where the organiser benefits in some pecuniary way. This is not the way the club works. We put in time for the benefit of the club as is it the right thing to do not to make a quick buck. Therefore bulk buys should be direct to remove this issue in the committees opinion. The benefit of a bulk buy should be the same for all members.

d. Bulk buys have been successful and have failed in the past. The committee wants to have companies offering member discounts rather than bulk buys which has worked well for people in the past and therefore doesn't depend on making numbers. Also this means bulk buys can benefit the whole membership though some small funds to the club as well as discounts to the members.

Remember Ive never smashed my car up on the road, but I still buy insurance and dont drive like a dick, because I want to keep it that way. Are you suggesting your would prefer the committee to sit down and wait for issues then knee jerk. Not my idea of responsible behaviour and fortunately not the way the committee works. There have been issues in the past of the nature of the above and were acting to prevent larger ones in the future and aligning bulk buys with the other changes.

2. What specific protection over and above the UK sale of goods act is the club providing members who participate in WSCC bulk buys? Enhanced protection for members participating in bulk buys was given as a reason for change.

We are not. As a club we cant afford to cover all liabilities. I suspect our insurance may give some protection. Rather we try to limit our liability. By having members deal direct with trade members and prevent monies going via members reduces risk to members (both buyer and bulk buy organiser). It does not remove it. However most commercial organisations will carry insurance and depending on the way you purchase the goods and the value you may also be covered by items like Section 75. If you buy through a member in most cases you will not be covered by any section 75 or similar cover. (this is just an example please dont discuss the benefits or otherwise of section 75 for pages please). You can see the extremes of opinion (and they are just opinion) on liabilities from there arent any through to if my Verona jack hurts me I get a free Gite.

3. Why were the membership not consulted over what they felt that the changes should be and how they should be implimented? It's their club afterall. This should have been done via the AO group to the members, there should have been a period of consultation with the members and the AO community should have had the opportunity to pass feedback and views back up the line. Many of the members I have spoken to since the changes were announced on the general boardrooms feel that the committee has "ridden slipshod" over them. Could not these changes have waited untill the next AGM where at least some discussion could have taken place all be it to a limited audience

I guess the members need to decide what the powers of the committee should have. These are defined in the club constitution. These changes have come about after years fo discussion with the members. The biggest and expected upset is from Forum Users, who couldnt attend an AGM anyway. The AGM is so poorly supported to date I can only assume that people are relatively happy or dont care about the WSCC. Since these threads prove the latter not to be the case, I can only assume that the committee is generally considered to be doing a good job. These changes were announced ahead of here on the AO forum. This was to make sure that the committee hadnt missed any angle as far as discussion goes. Nothing we hadn't already considered was raised. This isnt a right or wrong answer debate. I just get the fun job of been Nasty Web man making changes. If the committee have to bring changes to AGM the club wont last. Were not taking the club in or out of the EU. Were not a dictator - were explaining why.

The club need members, a website does not a club make. The club is made up of the other events, the local areas, massive national events like Stoneliegh as well as like minded individual coming together. We have to prioritise the rights of members over non members, the committee would be negligent to the members if that wasnt the case. The committee has to look at ways of getting the best for members, but for the long term viability of the club we have to attract people to become members. That has more to do with the events and areas that the web site. However through the online membership of the website, combined with the efforts of the committee and especially Scott the Membership Sec (who literally puts in hours each day) a decine in membership has thus far been reversed.

If it turns out were wrong on this one, then necessary changes will be made, and we wont be waiting till the AGM to fix the issues, but we will discuss and agree by vote as a committee.

Chaz - I sincerely hope this addresses your concerns. Lets look what the outcome is after a few months and if the committee have got it wrong you can have my head, and if it turns out to be bearable you can buy me a pint.

[Norman Verona]

Sounds good to me.

Now can we move on and give it a try.

[Captain Colonial]

I'd like to thank Adrian personally for the way and manner in which he has answered all these points in his posts in this thread, and for all his hard work behind the scenes. I entirely agree with and could not improve upon his posts and wouldn't dream of even trying. Well done, sir!

You simply cannot imagine how hard Adrian works behind the scenes to not only make the boardroom the smooth running and beautiful thing it is, but also protect it from the big bad Internet baddies as well. The club would be deep in the mire without Adrian, and that man should never have to purchase a drink at a club function, ever. The club owes him a debt of gratitude that cannot be measured.

I'm with him as well on the offer he made - I'm happy to stand down as MemSec at any time on a member vote online and not wait for an AGM. I have always, after examining all the evidence and opinions as best as I can on any matter, tried to do what I believe in my heart is best for the club and its members as a whole. If the members or the rest of the committee ever feel that what I'm doing isn't right or good enough, for the sake of the club I would graciously and without malice step aside and smoothly pass the baton to a successor.

As Adrian says, if we in the committee get it wrong, my head is there for the taking and you can gladly have it. If the changes turn out to be bearable, you can buy Adrian a pint.

[chazpowerslide]

Thank you for your reply Adrian.

I now think that all of the questions that caused me concern have been adequately explained and stand for what they are, good or bad.

As you say this was never a right or wrong answer debate.

I have no intention of starting a debate on the Uk SOGA (unless you really want to )

I think that you and the rest of the committee know that I am committed to the WSCC and have it's best interests at heart.

As I said I was not questioning/probing for the purpose of being a thorn in the side of the committee.

That's one of the reasons why I have plugged away on this as I believe all of the angles should be covered/explained to the membership.

I have no doubt that the committee has acted in accordance with the club's constitution as it presently stands and what they feel is in the best interests of the WSCC and it's membership.

I do not believe that I have indicated otherwise, there is no accusation from me of wrong doing by the committee with regard to this.

If there is disagreement on how the changes have been done (and there appears to be) in line with the current constitution (little or no discussion with the members for example) then its the mechanism of change (the constitution) that may need to be revised to make the process of change more inclusive rather than allowing the committee alone to make changes as they see fit, in isolation and on their own vote whilst allowing them the freedom to act in cases where there is imminent danger of damage to WSCC.

I along with most of the membership (I suspect) have never seen the WSCC constitution and are therefore unaware of it's contents and how they govern how the club is run.

It would be a good idea if the WSCC constitution was published on-line and in WW in the future so all members were aware of it's contents and the implications for them as members.

Personally I have no desire for yourself of any of the other committee members to stand down on the strength of an online vote (or otherwise) now prior the AGM next year as I believe this would be detrimental to the club between now and then and possibly damage the WSCC thereafter.

As you know, many of our members choose not to use the WSCC forums for various reasons.

I do not think an online vote at the present time would be truly representative of the membership as a whole as there is currently no agreed method/infrastructure for an online vote to take place in a way that it would be inclusive to all members.

I do not believe that at any time I have disrespected the work and commitment that either you, the other committee members, the AO community or the many other members how actively help out put onto the WSCC and neither would I.

This is after all our hobby and one which we work hard to pay for.

If we were not passionate there would be no debate.

"The club need members, a website does not a club make. The club is made up of the other events, the local areas, massive national events like Stoneliegh as well as like minded individual coming together. We have to prioritise the rights of members over non members, the committee would be negligent to the members if that wasn't the case. The committee has to look at ways of getting the best for members, but for the long term viability of the club we have to attract people to become members. That has more to do with the events and areas that the web site. However through the online membership of the website, combined with the efforts of the committee and especially Scott the Membership Sec (who literally puts in hours each day) a decline in membership has thus far been reversed."

Adrian, there is little to disagree with in this statement, particularly your praise for Scott, who has worked hard in his administrative and organisational role within committee as Membership Sec to pull the membership side of things together which has obviously had an overall positive effect on the club for all to see.

However the committee must engage with the membership to ensure the the changes they bring in are acceptable and inclusive and beneficial to as much of the membership as possible.

I never was and never will be after yours or anybody else's head for that matter and I'll gladly buy you a pint whichever way things work out.

Chaz.

Edited to amend crappy grammar and frighteningly bad spelling...........

[chazpowerslide]

I have no objection to buying you a pint too Scotty.

Chaz.

[Captain Colonial]

Chaz, I'll gladly buy you one as well. You have worked tirelessly for the club for many years and no one respects that more than I do. While we might not agree on everything, and we might have ways of expressing things that are not always in sync, the club and its members owe you a debt of gratitude and our thanks. Your passion is admirable and all too infrequent amongst many others - cheers.

Scott

[langy]

Time for a group hug