Transfer of ACUS assets

[anotouter]

So. The assets of the now-defunct ACU&S are to be transferred to the ECB organisation.

How many former ACU&S members have declined the invitiation to join the ECB organisation because it is not something that they wish to be a part of?

Should not a proportion of the assets relative to the number of dissenters be given instead to a cricketing charity (the primary club, or taverners spring to mind)?

[TrueDub]

Why don't you propose this at the SGM, and see what the meeting's opinion is?

[anotouter]

I am considering it, but thought I'd canvas opinion here first!

[jaybee]

anotouter
This is a very good idea although there's a big but.

Under the Constitution (no longer available on the old ACUS site and by-passed in other respects - but that's a different story) an EGM can consider only what is on the agenda. It might be argued that, even if you had proposed a formal amendment to the resolution the only option would be to vote down the GC's motion. Without access to the wording of the Constitution (I'm working from memory here as I don't have a copy of it) it may be that the motion only needs a simple majority rather than the 2/3rds needed for a dissolution motion.

Can anyone clarify or point me to a copy of the Constitution anywhere?

John B

[TrueDub]

I'm not convinced at all. The way I see it, a vote was taken, where every member was entitled to express their opinion, on a simple Yes or No proposition.

By taking part in that vote, or declining to take part by not bothering to return a ballot, people are bound by that result. That's democracy, I'm afraid.

So a course of action has been approved, and the group must move forward on that basis. We cannot row back by deciding to split things up.

[anotouter]

I don't see the connection. The 'simple Yes or No' proposition that we voted on was effectively to disband or continue the organisation. I don't argue with the outcome of that vote. Surely the manner of disposal of the assets of the democratically dissolved association is a separate issue?

[TrueDub]

anotouter said:

I don't see the connection. The 'simple Yes or No' proposition that we voted on was effectively to disband or continue the organisation. I don't argue with the outcome of that vote. Surely the manner of disposal of the assets of the democratically dissolved association is a separate issue?

That's a reasonable point.

I would question whether it's a good idea, though, to split assets based on the results of that vote, as you suggest. Just because x% voted against, I don't think it follows that they wanted to pass on x% of the assets to a different body if their vote failed. They may do, but we've no way of knowing.

The only place for discussion of this is at the SGM.

Incidentally, I'm against what you're proposing. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't propose it & see what people think.

[umpire50]

I am yet another member who didn't vote for the 'takeover' of the ACU&S by ECB OA. It is interesting to note that that I have only actually met three or four people who actually voted for the motion. Nonetheless we must acept the will of the membership on this matter.

With regard to the transfer of assets, it is being presented in the trademark dictatorial way in which Messrs Lowden and Wood operate. It would have been more democratic to offer the membership some options - transfer the assets to the ACU&S Trust (which will continue to operate), transfer the funds to ECB ACO, transfer the funds to ICUS (although that wouldn't be at all popular, it is an option), or share the assets out equally amongst the affiliated Associations (so that the grass roots rather than the centre benefit are some that spring to mind. But their masters at ECB couldn't contemplate the possibility of not getting their grubby paws on what remains of ACU&S assets - so we are left with the one option.

It is very convenient that Lowden and Wood had the website taken down so suddenly; they clearly did NOT want members to have access to the Constitution.

However if you don't want the assets transferred to ECB you will have to attend the SGM and vote the proposal down.

[anotouter]

nobody seems that bothered, and I certainly can't be bothered to go down to London.

/thread

[swerveman]

umpire50 said:

I am yet another member who didn't vote for the 'takeover' of the ACU&S by ECB OA. It is interesting to note that that I have only actually met three or four people who actually voted for the motion. Nonetheless we must acept the will of the membership on this matter.

I didn't vote for the takeover of the ACU&S by ECB OA. I voted for the formation of a new Association combining the best attributes of the ACU&S with the undeniable "clout" of the body governing cricket in England and Wales. I very much hope that our overseas colleagues can be accommodated in a really productive way, but the home arena must come first.

I actually know quite a few people who voted the same way as I, and I find it hard to believe that you feel we are in the minority.

I believe Messrs Lowden and Wood are doing what they can to ease the transition to the new organisation, and have the best interests of cricket, and, in particular, umpiring and scoring, at heart.

[johnfgolding]

I would agree with Swerveman in that the majority of my collegues who actually belonged to either organisation generally were in favour of the single organisation under the ECB umberella for exactly the reasons mentioned by him.

This raises an important point which is the large number of umpires who do not belong to any organisation. What about them?

I believe, I posted on this form at the beginning of this sad affair that in my opinion most members of the organisations were there for the training programmes and to get insurance.

[keighly]

Jaybee
The ACU&S Constitution is very clear on this matter.

Q(7) At a Special General Meeting, no business may be conducted save for that of which Notice has been given.

F(2) At an Annual or Special General Meeting, all members of the Association present at the meeting shall have one vote except as laid down in Clause Q(9).

Q(8) The quorum for an Annual or Special General Meeting shall be 50 paid-up members of the Association.

Q(9) refers to voting at an Annual General Meeting.

Q(10) At a Special General Meeting, a two-thirds majority of those present and voting shall be required to carry a motion.

It would appear that you will have to attend in order to vote and you are not able to propose a motion from the floor.

Regards Donald