BMFA National Flying Centre

[Erfolg]

I will be asking for comments from our clubs members on Monday, when I have formulated a concept of the issues and making members aware of the BMFA postings.

The information made available is in essence the covering component of a full report, the appendices, where all the detail is, currently is not available to the general membership, or that is what appears. This may appear to be critical, yet, it does ensure that gain a broad over sight, better understanding the broad issues and some potential opportunities and pitfalls.

In a commercial organisation, the idea would have been kicked into touch, as not being viable, that the gain is limited. Yet from the perspective of a hobby where the basic resources (flying sites) are increasingly in short supply, particularly while the population of England has exploded, in recent years, the driver is one of having a valuable resource to aeromodelling, where many of the sensible constraints are not as relevant.

The general thrust is true, land is not being made anymore. It is also true there is an issue does aeromodelling have any future.

For my part, I am encouraged that the grandiose "Vanity" project as originally put forward is dead.

The down side, there really are a lot of major issues to be overcome, even with this far more modest proposal.

I envisage a site, for some competitions. I can imagine that camping and caravanning, is probably a sensible phase 2.

It does seem that potentially the BMFA could just about get phase 1 up and running. I still have concerns, is the interest rate fixed for 5 years. Why would our insurance agent/company want to give us any money at all, particularly if our insurance is competitively priced.

If the BMFA can make this less ambitious project be made to work, good on them. I still have reservations and concerns.

One major concern is that the BMFA is at present focused on modellers. Will the BMFA loose focus if they try to become a fund raiser, or even more worrying, an organisers of business and exhibition venues. One of the major issues that I have, is that we seem to be slowly dieing as a movement. How much will this reduce, or stop, or reverse the the trend in the UK.

I will give the BMFA credit for doing something, although I am still not sure why (what is being achieved).

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

If they break their word it's simple for me Matty...go elsewhere for the insurance.

John

[Tomtom39]

Be interesting to see if you can get the Insurance at the price we pay as members!

[MattyB]

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

[MattyB]

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

[Tomtom39]

I used to be a member of the MPA at one point - I have a feeling I got it through one of the Mags (still have the documents somewhere).

Some years ago we looked at an alternative Insurance provider for our club and members (the landlord at the time wanted us to carry a higher Indemnity level for Public Liability Insurance). I contacted six brokers and the cheapest quote I got back was in excess of four times that of the BMFA subs (this by the way was on the same level as BMFA cover at the time - think it was £5 Million) So it does pay to be able to mass purchase!

[MattyB]

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

[John C]

Another important aspect of BMFA insurance is that it protects the club and its committee if sued for negligence.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Firstly I don't agree you cannot get adequate insurance elsewhere I think BEB already showed that to be wrong.

Our own clubs also had quotes which are under the current BMFA price and I don't understand why some insist on numbers like £5m either but be my guest and start the Armageddon comments.

Yes other clubs demanding you have BMFA is a killer Matty, it's got me over a barrel as well. But if you think the BMFA is doing the EGM in a manner that will ensure a small turn out to get this passed and you're worried fees will go up later then you're back to my comment " the only say I feel I have is my £32 ". So what do you do ?

I only care that the members have a say in this, whichever way it go's i'm good with it. If we vote yes and down the road they need to raise a few quid and they go about it openly and tell us why, I won't have a problem paying a bit more.

It's a 100 mile round trip for our club much more for some others and it'll be costly for some of you, I don't know why you can't vote by post or online as this is a long term project anyway. Get yourselves on the BMFA comments thread and make your feelings known.

John

[Colin Leighfield]

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.

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 certainly am and can't go along with some of the negative observations that I see here. With no disrespect, I think they reflect a number of personal experiences and axes to grind that I don't share, perhaps I've been fortunate. There's nothing wrong with criticism though as long as it's constructive and some of it is clearly of that sort and intended to be helpful. However, I also know that there are people at the end of this who are probably doing their best and we need to remember that.

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. Personally, I don't share the dim view of some others on the way that it has been managed so far. I've seen it before in the early stages of a project and it's understandable. I will patiently wait to see the flesh grow on this and see if I can say anything useful then.

[Tomtom39]

Hello John, I'd be very interested to learn where your club obtained quotes below those of BMFA (via Dobsons) . We also tried Perkins Slade (RSA?) who I understand were the previous brokers/Insurers (I think that they still act for the LMA ). As to the limit for Public Liability Insurance I'm not sure what point it is that you are making. In our case our landlord insisted on us carrying £10 million pounds of Indemnity (per member) . The previous BMFA cover was for £5 million which I understand has now been increased to £25 Million . One of the clubs I fly with is not BMFA affiliated so  looking to save a bob or two (for those members that don't subscribe to the BMFA cover)

I assume (I've not really looked into this) that approx 40%/50% of our £32 sub goes towards the Insurance . The balance towards admin/news etc (not bad value really).

The other two BMFA affiliated clubs that I belong to are sending reps along to the meeting so will await to hear outcome in due course.

Edited By Tomtom39 on 14/06/2015 13:53:29

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

First off I am not advocating leaving the BMFA, it was addressed at what if this or that happens and you feel hard done by. If your landlord insists on £10m then that's what you have Tom ours doesn't. If our club went independent and the cover was £2m I would lose no sleep over it, I drive a car daily and I have no idea as to the limit of the cover and it's a far bigger deal than model flying in my opinion. One of our previous Presidents sourced the insurance the members rejected it and I have no intention of getting into a tennis match by saying which company it was, other than it was a major national insurer, they gave a quote for the club as a whole third party only and a quote including personal injury this only applied to flying at our field (that's why it was rejected).

Like Colin I respect every ones right to their view and right to express it and I don't want a say in everything the BMFA do's, this one's different for me though.

I do voluntary work for the BMFA myself TomTom, I collect fees and keep members informed at £0 annually (not bad value really)

John

[Tomtom39]

Point taken. Too tired to play tennis today (hard at work at pub last night and still feeling the effects!).

[Peter Jenkins]

Worth making the point that the BMFA doesn't just provide insurance. It also provides a highly successful liaison with the CAA (for example, CAP 658 which governs the way model aircraft use national airspace was mostly drafted by the BMFA), works with other airspace users to challenge proposals to increase controlled airspace, works to help clubs to gain and retain their flying fields and works to maintain our rights to continue to use 2.4 GHz to name but one key activity. If you just look at the BMFA from the viewpoint of it just being a provider of insurance then you are not considering how your use of the land you fly from and the airspace you fly in is being protected by a body with considerable expertise in these aspects. There is also the recently released update to Up and Away called Flying Start which has been well received, as far as I am aware. I doubt that any insurance companies would be interested, or have the specialist expertise, in taking these fundamental functions forward. If the BMFA were to be deserted by many then it can only be to the many's ultimate loss as they get trampled underfoot by other vested interests with stronger national representation. To whom would you turn if a Local Authority unilaterally banned model flying in their areas and who would pick up the legal bill that would be incurred in such actions?

There is also the BMFA's role as the link through the Royal Aero Club to the FAI, the governing body for air sports. While a very small number of BMFA members fly in international and national competition, without the input from a national body like the BMFA the UK would not have a voice when competition rules are being developed or amended. Many forumites may not be aware that in RC Scale and Control Line Speed, the UK has a long history of coming first in World Championships.

[Colin Leighfield]

John, you do a darned sight more than I do, can't argue with that. Peter, thank you, you are reflecting the broader view of what BMFA does that to me is most important.

[Tomtom39]

to that . I'm not sure that we would have been able to keep our club site without the BMFA's help .

[Keith Lomax]

Posted by MattyB on 14/06/2015 00:01:51:

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

Matty,

There is nothing written down one way or the other - there is no reason why this would not work.

The process of the vote is that the chairman calls in turn for each of for, against and abstain. People are expected to hold their card when doing so, to show their entitlement to vote. In this case your proxy carrier could hold one card aloft for each of the two categories.

If the outcome is then very obvious the chairman would then declare a majority either in favour or against. If, however, the outcome is not clear, which is subjective as at that time you do not know the size of each card, then either the chairman will declare a card vote, or there is the ability for a number (I think it is 20, but would have to check the articles to confirm) of people present demand one then it can also go to a card vote.

In terms of the point above about not knowing the size of each card, it is fair to assume that if the vote is overwhelming either way, then the other point of view will not be all vary large clubs.

For a matter as important as this, it would probably be called as a card vote even with a fairly large split on a show of hands, just to be 100% sure (but that is my opinion and not laid down).

If it goes to a card vote, then we set up two queues one each side of the room, As you vote, the number of votes is recorded but not the club number, and the card is marked to prevent duplicate voting. At this point your proxy can cast one vote on one side and then go to the back of the queue on the other (I would recommend that he either gets there quickly to get to the front of one queue, or if unable to do that then join the shortest first.)

The votes are then added up and verified, .before the result is declared.

In my time involved with the BMFA I've attended 27 AGMs and 2 EGMs. I think that I have seen 3 or 4 card votes in that time, the most recent of which was the AGM around 3 or 4 years ago when there was a proposal from the floor to increase the subs more than I had recommended, as Treasurer. On the show of hands it looked like it was slightly in favour of my recommendation, but too close to be sure and the card vote was declared by the Chairman. In the card vote is was about a 55% to 45% split in favour of the alternative proposal.

Keith

[Peter Jenkins]

I've just checked the Articles of Association and I have pasted the relevant sections below:

5.7.6. Votes may be given on a poll either personally or by proxy. On a show of hands only members present in person shall be entitled to vote. Proxy votes, given by one member to another shall be taken into account only in a poll.

5.7.7. Members entitled to vote may give proxies to any other member entitled to vote, subject to a maximum of five proxies to any one member. Proxies must be in writing and lodged with the Secretary of the Society at least twenty-four hours before the allotted time of the meeting.

 

5.9.1. A poll on a resolution may be demanded:

5.9.1.1. in advance of the general meeting where it is to be put to the vote;

5.9.1.2. or at a general meeting before a show of hands on that resolution.

5.9.2. A poll may be demanded by:

5.9.2.1. the Chair of the meeting;

5.9.2.2. the Council;

5.9.2.3. five or more Voting Members present in person or proxy having the right to vote on the resolution or, if less, a person or persons representing not less than one-tenth of the total voting rights of all the members having the right to vote on the resolution.

 

As I see it then, a proxy is only valid when a poll vote is taken and a poll vote has to be called before the show of hands at the very latest. I would suspect that the reason a show of hands does not include a proxy is that it might cause some confusion as to the actual number of votes being cast - how do you vote for 5 with only 2 hands? For a poll vote you have to be in possession of the Club's card which you will be given on the day when you register for the meeting. The card also includes the number of votes for that Club, Seems like a poll vote will be the sensible way to go.

[MattyB]

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

[Dizz]

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 14/06/2015 20:57:41:

I've just checked the Articles of Association and I have pasted the relevant sections below:

5.7.6. Votes may be given on a poll either personally or by proxy. On a show of hands only members present in person shall be entitled to vote. Proxy votes, given by one member to another shall be taken into account only in a poll.

5.7.7. Members entitled to vote may give proxies to any other member entitled to vote, subject to a maximum of five proxies to any one member. Proxies must be in writing and lodged with the Secretary of the Society at least twenty-four hours before the allotted time of the meeting.

 

5.9.1. A poll on a resolution may be demanded:

5.9.1.1. in advance of the general meeting where it is to be put to the vote;

5.9.1.2. or at a general meeting before a show of hands on that resolution.

5.9.2. A poll may be demanded by:

5.9.2.1. the Chair of the meeting;

5.9.2.2. the Council;

5.9.2.3. five or more Voting Members present in person or proxy having the right to vote on the resolution or, if less, a person or persons representing not less than one-tenth of the total voting rights of all the members having the right to vote on the resolution.

 

As I see it then, a proxy is only valid when a poll vote is taken and a poll vote has to be called before the show of hands at the very latest. I would suspect that the reason a show of hands does not include a proxy is that it might cause some confusion as to the actual number of votes being cast - how do you vote for 5 with only 2 hands? For a poll vote you have to be in possession of the Club's card which you will be given on the day when you register for the meeting. The card also includes the number of votes for that Club, Seems like a poll vote will be the sensible way to go.

 

Peter

Having been abroad the last week on business I have been out of the loop since the EGM called. Agree with your view on the meeting requirements and have just sent an email to HQ seeking clarification if a poll vote has been called yet or not (under 5.9.2.1).

In theory, with a little planning and using car sharing, 4 club delegates could attend with each representing 5 clubs = 20 club votes in total and travel costs reduced.  BTW, it is a 620+ mile round trip from down here and I have already agreed to carry 5 proxies.

See you on the 4th!

Peter

 

Edited By Dizz on 15/06/2015 11:51:42

[Derek Stevenson]

I'm a member in Northern Ireland and our club is affiliated to the BMFA. It is my opinion the BMFA is a far away organistion which I would have to get on an aeroplane to visit.. They supply insurance which I see as a necessity for flying models, I would not want the personal responsibility on trying to sort insurance for myself or club. As for a centre of eexcellence, I can't see any advantage to me or our club. If the fees go up to complete it, I will have to pay for something which may benefit some members who are within travelling distance but as for us on the edge of the UK of no signafinince.

[Colin Leighfield]

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.

[Erfolg]

I am not sure how the subject of insurance has come up. Although the contention that insurance cannot be obtained for lower cost or broadly similar cost is not true. How can I be so sure, that is because one of my clubs had independent insurance for many years, where our insurance cost of the club and subscriptions were much lower than the BMFA. The club voted to join the BMFA, principally to allow members to compete at BMFA events, this is essentially irrelevant now. There is nothing to fear, if threats are made to influence the voting.

However I would not advocate any club seeking independent insurance, for the sake of it.

I am increasingly shocked at the very notion that the BMFA should not be democratically run. In some instances the argument has been made that there are to many of us. The latest is that nothing would get done. I equally strongly disagree. It is essential that all major decisions are decided by the membership. Once it is decided what is acceptable, then the implementation of the decision can be implemented by an individual or a team, within the boundary that the membership supports.

At present i can personally support phase 1, the purchase of land, preferably better located. It is both doable, has some potential benefit for a narrow group, locals to the site and as a national competition venue.

As for further phases, I have a lot of doubts.

Why bother with an archive? What is its purpose, who would use it and why, at what cost?

I have a similar view with respect to a museum, who is interested, how much to run, etc.

Potentially you could sell me on a large shed for model flying. Then I start to worry, what would the rates be on such a building, could it really be made to pay for itself by flying alone? Letting out to other activities, dilutes the focus of the BMFA staff, from concentrating solely on supporting and progressing modelling interests.

I still have concerns on where about 20-40% of the money will come from and why beyond broad headings. I hope greater detail will be provided here. What does Sponsorship mean, Is it the AXA NFC? Or something else. What is an insurance franchise? Probably my greatest concern then revolves around after the first 5 years fixed interest loan expires, how is it intended to deal with a high probability that interest rates will rise.

Will I  and others be voting in supporting phase 1, or does the vote included everything.

Although I think our club will support Phase 1 (I am awaiting responses on this). I am not convinced that there will be support for the whole;e of the broader project, particularly with the scant understanding of what is actually envisaged beyond headings.

PS There was an interesting news item on the BBC which stated that there are 30% more people in the current definition of the "Northern Powerhouse" than there is in the South East and London. Yet the capital investment in this region is a small fraction of the current spend in London.

Edited By Erfolg on 15/06/2015 14:17:48

Edited By Erfolg on 15/06/2015 14:18:37

Edited By Erfolg on 15/06/2015 14:20:50

Edited By Erfolg on 15/06/2015 14:22:33

Edited By Erfolg on 15/06/2015 14:24:47

[MattyB]

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

[Tomtom39]

Or profit!