MattyB

Posted by john stones 1 on 29/06/2015 16:28:17: So how many on here are sending someone to the EGM, will there be standing room only or a large echo when someone speaks ? Every club I have spoken to in my area is sending someone or has agreed a proxy, but then we are relatively close to Nottingham (~100 miles away). I suspect the deciding factor will be how many of the more remote clubs are represented either in person or by proxy; the bigger the number, the lower the chance of the proposal being approved. Posted by Derek Stevenson on 29/06/2015 16:30:47: Only a tiny minority in my ckub voted 5 for and 4 against. Most couldn't be bothered to take part. I can just here the non voters if the fees go up in the future to finance it! At least it won't be my fault Indeed, those who are ambivalent now are likely to regret it later when the begging bowl comes round... Edited By MattyB on 29/06/2015 17:44:11

Posted by john stones 1 on 29/06/2015 14:51:56: Votes not close at our club, LLf was quite close so that's not the issue nor are the financials, if i'm honest the majority are just not interested in it. Which way will the vote go ? I have no idea, you would think the turnout would be big on this but I feel the opposite may be the case. When you say "Votes not close at our club", do you mean everyone supported it, or everyone was against? Posted by Area 51 on 29/06/2015 14:03:25: Two clubs I am member of have not even contacted me / members to mention there is a need to vote or consider this proposal as a part of the national membership.. and we think members are apathetic.. this lack of activity covers around 120 modellers... That is worrying. In some clubs I have been a member of in the past I have seen committees that have a tendency to believe they can do whatever they want, probably exactly because of member apathy. However, both the BMFA clubs of which I am currently a member have polled their members online (though not F2F - we didn't have a meeting scheduled within that timeframe), but this is not perfect as not everyone has email. Had the BMFA given people a reasonable amount of time to read the info and respond to their clubs by multiple methods this would have been so much fairer and easier. Edited By MattyB on 29/06/2015 15:30:46

Posted by Phil Green on 29/06/2015 13:17:07: HH seems to work in a similar way to Dyson (vacuum cleaners). They expect plasticky parts to break, and supply plenty of free spares so everyone thinks their service is excellent! I have no particular axe to grind, with the project work & repairs I use almost every available brand from the big names to the cheapest of cheapies, but to an outside observer Spek seem to be the only brand that needs a frequent supply of spares. What I dont follow is why this could be a reason to specifically avoid Futaba! Cheers Phil Indeed, HH clearly have some marketing geniuses in their midst - they have priced in all this "free" support and as a result made a fault into a customer reputation and profitability virtue! I have flown for ~30 years, and only once have I required service of the Futaba,Hitec, Multiplex and now FrSky TXs I have used, and that was my own fault (an unscheduled trip off the kitchen table!). I would far rather have a better, cheaper product with a ready supply of well priced spares available that I can fit myself than a gold plated mail in service, hence why i use FrSky. I can appreciate others will have a different view though.

Blimey, quiet round here innit! So the vote of the first (very small) club I am a member of is in, and it was roughly 25% for the proposal, 75% against. This club is a silent flight club ~60 miles from the LLF site that has now been discounted, so within reasonable range of the targeted area for an NFC. The vast majority of responses seemed to be split into two groups... Those who would like to see us lay down a legacy to future fliers, and who trust the BMFA to sort the details voted yes; Those who evaluated the numbers in detail, saw the variable rate mortgage and funding gap for phase 2, and voted no. I guess the question is whether that split and the balance of votes will be represented everywhere? We might imagine that the nearer you are to the proposed site the more likely you are to fall into group 1, but I have talked with plenty of people who do live close enough to attend the site but who think the financials (particularly for phase 2) are simply fanciful. The only certainty seems to be that this is going to be close - it may all come down to how many of the more distant clubs have been able to arrange representation at the EGM. My personal feeling though is that a small majority in favour of the project would be the absolute worst outcome for the BMFA - the land purchase could then be made, but a large and vocal minority would then be ready to oppose the project at every turn, and potentially even withdraw their support from the BMFA. PS - There was one other universal theme in the feedback from the voting at this club and another of which I am a member... Country members and Club members alike are not impressed at Country members being disenfranchised from the decision making process. Yes it may have been in the BMFA handbook for years, but it's still coming as a big surprise to the vast majority of members of both types. I have even had a conversation with one member who is joined through a club, but who did not want to vote because his Country member peers could not. As a result I am now convinced there will be a push for a change to the Articles of Association in the aftermath of this EGM in order to make the BMFA more democratic. Whilst I understand this will not be easy, it cannot be impossible to come up with a governance structure that avoids the issues set out in previous pages whilst taking into account the views of the 1/3 of members who do not join through a club. It does not have to be perfect, just fairer and more representative than what we have now. Edited By MattyB on 29/06/2015 14:16:08

Posted by Ben Kelly on 26/06/2015 15:00:50: Thanks for the answer Matty, I assumed this would be the case and what with the cost of FrSky receivers being pretty cheap in comparison to my old Futaba Fasst ones it would certainly benefit me to change them all, Yep. at the very worst you will gain telemetry for free, and you might even make a profit! Edited By MattyB on 26/06/2015 15:13:02

No, not unless you get a FASST module for the slot in the back of the Taranis. You are better off selling your FASST RXs and replacing them with FrSky ACCST ones.

There is definitely a digital only subscription here in the UK - I have one, it's great! Here you go... Edited By MattyB on 21/06/2015 20:47:49

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 17/06/2015 14:32:46: Indeed Keith the BMFA is for all of us, we are all members and equal just that some are more equal than others as Mr Orwell said Yep, and Fellows are VERY equal - according to the handbook they get 5 votes each! Edited By MattyB on 17/06/2015 15:06:22

Indeed - think of the number you first thought of...!

Posted by Dizz on 16/06/2015 16:28:58: Thanks Andy - and thank you Mr Chairman That maybe the case Dave, but that is the way it currently works. I know the one member, one vote has been looked at before, which resulted in the move in that direction for elected officials at the AGM. There were sound reasons for not rolling it out further at the time, but unfortunately I can't remember what they were right now. Hopefully the NFC debate will re-invigorate the process. Pete Agreed, thanks to the BMFA for clarifying a poll vote will be held - it is certainly necessary in this case to ensure everyone is represented. Posted by Dizz on 16/06/2015 15:34:39: There are approximately 10,000 country members. Wow, based on that I think it is pretty likely there will be a interest in moving to one member one vote and including country members shortly after this decision is made! PS - Under "Voting" on pg 10 of the Handbook I found this interesting entry; it appears that there is provision for one member one vote postal votes should the Full Council wish to use it in this instance, with no obvious restrictions over what it can be used for (I have not read the whole docuemnt to check though; governance information is quite spread out across the doc, so there may be a rule countermanding this elsewhere): "(2) VOTING RIGHTS IN POSTAL BALLOTS are decided by BMFA Council each year. Depending on circumstances, all BMFA members may be eligible to vote in the postal ballot and voting forms will be distributed as required." Edited By MattyB on 16/06/2015 18:00:02 Edited By MattyB on 16/06/2015 18:05:06

Your constant refrains of "read the rules" and "attend your area meetings" do nothing but confirm the BMFA and it's leadership are living in the past and have their heads in the sand. This is a hobby, not a mortgage application - most of us have more than enough small print in our lives, we read the required sections on safety but we don't want to spend our valuable free time studying a draconian governance structure on the off chance the Exec committee use it to push through a decision against the will of the membership. Anyway, writing something down in a dusty rule book does not make it right - why should country members have no right to vote, they pay the same subs as affiliated club members? Shocking I know, but things do change occasionally in the modern world and this issue has thrown a light on a governance structure that clearly works fine for deciding the type of biscuits at the AGM, but falls down when faced with £1m plus infrastructure projects. Change is required. All most members want is for our voice to be fairly and proportionately heard in this important matter. The leadership have the ability to grant that by postponing the EGM for a month and by putting forward a simple EGM proposal allowing one member one vote on this occasion, but we all know they won't because it would dramatically increase the likelihood of the motion being defeated. The illusion of democracy presented by the current system has clearly been studied carefully, and is being leveraged to deliver the leaders desired result. Edited By MattyB on 16/06/2015 01:38:23 Edited By MattyB on 16/06/2015 01:39:49

Yep, I think there will be a lot of country members who are both surprised and disgruntled when they realise they have zero say in this decision. Over time the lack of rights for country members will become more of an issue as fewer newcomers of whatever age choose to be members of clubs; many parkflier and multirotor pilots simply don't see the point in clubs but still want to be insured. There are also plenty of clubs who require BMFA insurance but are not affiliated; those members are likely to be particularly grumpy! Edited By MattyB on 16/06/2015 00:46:43

I do not personally doubt the BMFA works in our interest, but that was never the question here - this is about how the Association operates. The only reason people started discussing leaving in this thread is because they feel disenfranchised by a governance structure that in their (and my) opinion does not serve the democratic needs of the membership for such an important decision. Offer more time (at least 6 weeks) for member review and consultation and postal votes to country members and clubs that cannot attend and I think everyone will be happy to go along with whatever decision is reached. Forge ahead with minimal consultation and a decision to proceed on July 4th and a vociferous minority are likely to be formed who will oppose progress towards an NFC and generally make the BMFA's life a pain in all respects. Edited By MattyB on 15/06/2015 19:55:54

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 15/06/2015 16:50:05: Matty, I'm not hiding behind the anything. Clubs make up the Committee in an Area. If your Club does not attend Area meetings, which it has to be said that apparently the majority do not, then that is a great pity. It's a bit like voting in a General Election - if you don't go along and vote you are not well placed to complain about the outcome. One of my clubs does attend every month, the other does not. However, we DID attend last months, and what did we get? A discussion about a report that was not released and could not be discussed by those who had read it . Were there financials, a business plan, a risk analysis or any additional details that we could share and discuss with members of our clubs? No, just an uninformed (because there was no real data) vote to determine how our area should vote at full council, and the instruction that we needed to wait and see what came out of the full council meeting on the 16th. How is that supposed to help rank and file members to come to a conclusion? They can only do that now the materials have finally been released, with only 3 weeks to the EGM. Besides, from looking at the Articles of Association I do not believe there is anything to stop the Full Council proposing to the EGM that that such a key matter be approved or rejected using one member one vote system on a one off basis, and having the assembled throng of BMFA club reps vote on that proposal - I am not aware of any organisation that has been criticised for introducing too much democracy (well, not one outside of the direct influence of a V.Putin anyway... ) Posted by Peter Jenkins on 15/06/2015 16:50:05: Every BMFA Handbook provides a precis of the Articles of Association at the very front and makes it crystal clear how the BMFA is constituted and run. It is clear on the point that Clubs form an Area that elects a representative to attend Council and that representative is the link between the Clubs and Council. If you, or others wish to change the system, then I have not seen any evidence of that. Writing your thoughts on a forum is not the way to achieve change since I could argue that I am always surprised at how few of my fellow clubmates actually look at any forum regularly including this one, other than the BMFA Classifieds. No-one has suggested it should be changed previously because it seemed to work. Only now that a major decision with huge financial implications is being taken is it clear that there is an issue with the governance structure. Is the fact that rank and file members like me have not engaged to understand the Articles of Association part of this? Undoubtedly. However I strongly suspect that in the aftermath of this decision (whichever way it goes) there will be governance changes proposed by one or more areas who want a "one member one vote" system for all important decisions in teh future. Posted by Peter Jenkins on 15/06/2015 16:50:05: Yes, there now doesn't seem to be the urgency for holding the EGM given the decision not to proceed with the purchase of LLF. However, the flip side is that what happens if another opportunity pops up in a month's time? We'd be back to square one. I think having waited >10 years to get this far 4-8 weeks more delay probably isn't too much of a risk for the sake of haing a full an transparent consultation based on the facts at hand... Posted by Peter Jenkins on 15/06/2015 16:50:05: I think the issue of land valuation should not be confused with property valuation. There is much more volatility in the latter. Land is finite but our population continues to grow, as was only too evident in the recent discussion in the run up to the General Election, and will need to be fed and housed. You also need to remember that the income to the BMFA on its invested funds is paltry in today's financial climate, as many who are in the same position will testify. Had a field been bought 5 years ago, we'd be sitting on a pretty profit. That's not going to change any time soon and to suggest otherwise is wishful thinking. We are buying land not property, and the source I linked above shows clearly that agricultural land has gone up and down in relatively long term cycles (~5 years up, 5 years down) in the recent past. Land may well have risen in the last 5 years and in the very long term (>15 years) remains a good investment, but how can we be certain we are buying on the upslope rather than the down? We can't, just like we don't know what will happen with interest rates (which remember are at an all time low and can only really go one way). If you wish to add credibility to your views please point us to some research that shows us land is guaranteed to rise for the forseeable future... Edited By MattyB on 15/06/2015 17:31:51

Peter, nobody is questioning the need for an EGM, only why it has been held at such short notice and without any option for clubs & country members who are unable to attend in person to participate by post or online. Hiding behind the Areas and Full Councils having met to discuss previously is no excuse - do not forget that the news of the projected LLF purchase was only released on the website on May 5th after many of them had conducted their monthly meetings. Those that did discuss the topic at meetings between the 5th and 15th had a difficult time - the committee members that had seen the feasibility study were not allowed to comment on it's contents! Manny and the Exec Council have pleaded with the membership for patience since then re: the release of the materials and minutes (which I notice are still not available on the website for the May 16th Full Council meeting). Despite this a snap EGM is called with the bare minimum of time for members to view the materials and two days before they are even released up on the website - why? No committee member of a club can represent their members at the EGM before they have talked to them and listening to their views, but until Friday there was no detailed information to hold a conversation about. Perhaps this is cultural - the upper levels of the BMFA are probably so used to low levels of engagement from the core membership (which I admit is our fault as much as theirs) that they have gone about this in exactly the way that has worked for years for more minor decisions. Put simply why could the EGM not occur in late Aug or Sep, giving time for full consultation and representation to be completed? What is the downside given there is now no site currently identified for purchase in the short term? It all has the air of a proposal which is being rushed past the membership before they have had time to review and form their opinions based on the data presented. Edited By MattyB on 15/06/2015 16:29:17

Posted by Tomtom39 on 15/06/2015 14:41:01: Or profit! Maybe, though quite a lot of professional data suggests this is apparently unlikely - an interesting post from the RCMF thread on the NFC... [quote author=PDR] ...Finally it drums out this old line about "we will always be able to get our money back on this land because property value rises faster than inflation". I'm not sure this is actually true - the various data on agricultural land prices from the ONS suggest that the underlying values reached a high in 1997 and have tended to decline since (see here, and read the whole piece to understand the weightings), but of course we would only recover the net land cost. We would need a price rise of around 20% before we fully recovered all the costs associated with the purchase when accounted in the normal manner. Edited By MattyB on 15/06/2015 14:53:57

Posted by Colin Leighfield on 15/06/2015 14:02:05: Hi Matty. All that I am saying is that I am prepared to wait a bit longer to hear a detailed proposal. When it happens, I will criticise it if necessary. There isn't enough information yet to form a clear view and I wouldn't expect there to be. In the position of those leading this project I wouldn't be saying much at this stage. There are a number of ways that it could be funded and I don't see much risk of it being a burden for members, hopefully quite the opposite. However, I will give those who have the responsibility for the task the benefit of the doubt for a bit longer. OK, fair enough Colin - that is your opinion and I respect it. All I would say is that as far as anyone can tell at this is the only chance members will get to support or oppose the motion; there will be no more detailed proposal prior to the vote, and if passed the BMFA committee will have the right to spend in the region of ~£1.3m of funds, raising £860k via a mortgage. We will all be welcome to form opinions and criticise from the sidelines later, but the BMFA will not be obliged to consult members again - they will either forge forward or sell up if phase 2 & 3 funding cannot be found, potentially at a loss after costs have been accounted for. Edited By MattyB on 15/06/2015 14:55:39

Keith/Peter, thanks for the clarifications on the voting system, much appreciated. Posted by Colin Leighfield on 14/06/2015 12:25:43: I'm sure that other insurance arrangements are possible, but I think it would be a mistake to fragment our representation by splitting away from BMFA. We are a small enough band as it is and we badly need a national organisation with the recognition to defend and advance our position. If the insurance is the key binding mechanism, fair enough. I agree, it would be bad if large numbers of members/clubs left the BMFA and fragmented our voice, and I recognise that the BMFA does more than jsut provide insurance. However, fragmentation is exactly what is likely to happen if the BMFA are not seen to consult widely and openly and give all club members at least (and ideally country members too) the chance to be represented in the vote. If they are seen to rush this through with minimal engagement, things go wrong and the begging bowl has to come out those members and clubs who are ambivalent now will not be - if they believe (incorrectly) that insurance is the only value proposition the BMFA provides to them they will act in their own self interest and vote with their feet. Posted by Colin Leighfield on 14/06/2015 12:25:43: Some of the criticisms I see are perhaps understandable, but even so the idea of trying to run something like this as a democratic organisation is unrealistic, nothing would ever get done. We need a professional team to get on with it and make decisions on our behalf. Most flyers I know are only concerned with the security of their local field and the cost of membership and insurance. They are probably generally happy to let others work behind the scenes in their best interests. I have no problem with the BMFA following the governance process set out in the Articles of Association for normal decisions, and I don't diasagree that if the membership give them a mandate to proceed they need the ability to move quickly IF the right site comes up. However, I would like them to go the extra mile and try and give everyone a chance to be represented in the vote that decides if BMFA leadership should be given that mandate. Giving members and clubs barely 3 weeks to come up with a concensus within their club and organise attendance/a proxy vote is totally unnecessary given there is no candidate site they wish to move on at this time (and yes, I have posted this very point to the thread on the BMFA site). Posted by Colin Leighfield on 14/06/2015 12:25:43: I appreciate that a number of forumite colleagues commenting are basing their opinions on their own business experience, which I respect. However, that is something that I have got a lot of as well and still do, in the UK and also overseas. In that case can I ask whether any organisations that you have been a part of would make the decision to move ahead based on the financials and the general unlikeliness of external investment for phases 2 and 3? I am not trying to point score, I am interested to see if you believe the case is compelling based on what has been presented to date. Personally no organisation I have been part of would proceed based on the data presented so far - they would either comission further due diligence to look at (for instance) the impact of interest rate rises and generate detailed options on how the funding gap for phases 2 and 3 might be filled, or can the whole project. Edited By MattyB on 15/06/2015 10:45:04

Quite correct - it is not just 35k modellers we are pooled with for insurance purposes, it is also other sporting and hobby organisations (things may have changed, but I am pretty certain the national bodies for equestrianism and windsurfing were part of the same collective with the BMFA in the recent past, and there were others too). Edited By MattyB on 14/06/2015 00:27:21

Posted by Keith Lomax on 13/06/2015 21:39:04: Just to clarify on the voting and proxy processes. These are set in the constitution (Articles of Association). Keith, can I ask a clarifying question re: proxy votes? If my club is against the motion but cannot attend and nominates a proxy club, what happens if that club supports the motion? Can they vote one way for their own club and in the other direction for the club they are representing by proxy? Or do all the votes they are carrying have to be placed in a single block, either for or against? Edited By MattyB on 14/06/2015 00:06:54

Posted by john stones 1 on 13/06/2015 23:10:19: If they break their word it's simple for me Matty...go elsewhere for the insurance. John Yes and no - I agree in principle, but as TomTom points out it may be difficult to get equivalent cover at a similar price. Even if we can, many sites/clubs demand BMFA insurance - I am a member of 3(!) such clubs currently, so leaving the BMFA means losing access to 75% of the sites where I regularly fly. I am therefore tied into the BMFA whether I support this proposal or not. Edited By MattyB on 14/06/2015 00:02:30

Posted by john stones 1 on 13/06/2015 20:11:38: Hmm I asked quite a few pages ago is the way BMFA works fit for 2015....took a while for an answer I have to agree though it's a fair old trek for some, why not go the whole hog and have votes for individuals, seems the obvious thing to add. I have just gone back and read the report again with a more detailed eye. It's clear to me now we can see the information that this has been a consultation in name only - the decision has been made by BMFA leadership that a NFC will be established, irrelevant of what the data suggests or the majority of rank and file members think. The debate about the establishment of such a facility has gone on for many years, probably more than a decade, yet despite no suitable site having been identified yet and grim predictions for the funding of phases 2 & 3 the members are being urged to support the endeavour. Not only that, members are getting the absolute minimum time to form and communicate their views and get them represented using the BMFAs cumbersome and bureaucratic governance structure. To me the promises of "no fee rises" have the air of the infamous Lib Dem tuition fee promise - they can be rowed back on swiftly as soon as interest rates rise or external investment for subsequent phases is not forthcoming ("We can't let this slip away now, for just £xx per member the future of the NFC a can be secured")... When it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Edited By MattyB on 13/06/2015 21:19:34

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 13/06/2015 06:10:25: As I red it the proposal is now watered down to simply buying a plot of land with the possibility of building something at a later date given the cost of employing one person on minimum wage is just over £13,000 the sum of £9700 Annual Costs to me indicates that there would be virtually nothing there except a field. Indeed - and given that there will be little or nothing there that the average modeller doesn't already have at his local club, getting sufficient footfall to hit the predicted income numbers looks challenging. Posted by Cuban8 on 13/06/2015 07:52:46: The two clubs that I'm a member of will not be sending anyone on a four hundred mile round trip to the EGM because of cost and inconvenience - so that's over two hundred rank and file BMFA members effectively silenced. This is 2015 for goodness sake, why is not a postal/electronic vote from clubs not acceptable? For the same reason the bare minimum of time has been given between the release of the information and the EGM - the fewer clubs that attend from a long way from the proposed NFC, the better chance the BMFA leadership have of getting this approved.  Edited By MattyB on 13/06/2015 10:24:30

From an initial look it is clear a lot of good work has been done, but to my eyes there is still no clear vision as to what the centre is there to do, and there are a number of major issues in the financials. In particular there is no discussion of what happens if and when interest rates rise, no detailing of how the £9700/pa initial running costs were calculated (seems very low to me), and calculations on income generation seem plucked out of the air and very optimistic. Even more worryingly there is no risk analysis or "do nothing" option presented alongside the proposal to buy and run an NFC site. The motion proposed for the EGM is also very general - if passed the members are giving full council license to spend an unspecified amount on land purchase without any further review with the members, and there is no expiry date on this authority. They could spend a decade looking before spending the money without any further member consultation. Sorry, but I am a long way from sold if this is all the evidence in the "Yes" corner. Edited By MattyB on 13/06/2015 01:38:42

Posted by Danny Fenton on 11/06/2015 20:50:21: Hi Ben you are wise to hold one first, they are heavy, and they aren't as compact as say my old JR but having said that i love mine. I know it makes no difference but a friend commented that my flying was smoother with it. Cant see why. Nobody is going to say that they spent a grand on a tx and it was a wrong choice To be honest the Taranis is just as capable if not more so. However the feel of the sticks on the Jeti imo is streets ahead of anything else, if that's important to you, and it isn't to everybody. Agreed - the sticks cannot be beaten, they are a work of art. They will not be the only Hall effect metal gimbals for much longer though - FrSky are releasing the Horus this year which will have them plus most/all (tbc) of the Jeti functionality plus a big colour touch screen, all at half the cost... Ps - I do know someone who spent £1k on a DC16 and thought it was the wrong choice, so he traded it in for... a DS16! Edited By MattyB on 12/06/2015 01:21:23