Yeah, total shit-show. No surprise.
The train-wreck of the finances is a risk inherent when you attract managers to build an opaque empire in a 'glamorous' (using the definition very loosely!) - read 'expensive' - niche like elite sport, funded/incentivised with 'free' money unconnected to the department's own profit & loss; while trying to combine that kind of setup within a decent, boring, steady-income, historic grass-roots member's organisation reliant for funding on members subs. It was bonkers to mesh the two together as I've said for the last 5 years. The two ethos are unlikely to mix well. It seems like merging organisational oil and water. Even less likely to succeed when any financial oversight of the flashy expensive full-time professional part is mostly done by part-time volunteers from the boring steady mundane voluntary part. Madness.
Btw..
Throughout this debate Offwidth was attempting to obstruct progress of Shark's proposals and bewilder with his usual pomposity and political BS'ing, by claiming Shark's proposed motions shouldn't be allowed due to '
being founded in a misrepresentation of the facts' (or words to that effect). Even I didn't expect any such 'misrepresentation' to actually turn out to be an
underestimation of the deficit.
The MC failed in their role to: '
act as a representative body of the members, consulting with and constructively challenging the Board of Directors, and holding the Board to account on behalf of the members.
While the board utterly failed in their role: '
responsible for overall operation of the organisation, as well as setting and implementing organisational strategy in consultation with Members' Council.'
Without resignations to signal accountability it's an unavoidable MONC isn't it?
Recent Posts