What Do You Think Of These Acu Proposals That Will Possibly Affect Us All?

[old trials fanatic]

I have just received an e mail from the local ACU East Midlands Secretary and i just had to respond. I have included my reply but i would be very interrested in others reactions? I have removed the e mail addresses by the way.

Peter i will probably not be able to attend the AGM due to prior work commitments however i feel i must protest the proposals as i feel they are probably some of the daftist ones i have heard for a long time, believe me i have heard some daft ones in my time.

1. The reason some clubs are "suffering financial hardship caused by falling entries" is simply because the clubs concerned are putting on events that riders do not want to ride in. It's as simple as that. It's not rocket science. Some events continue to be ignoring the majourity of the riders wants but do the clubs take any notice of the riders views? NO!!! they keep on laying out for the chosen few who expect to be supported, financially, by the dissafected many. If that is the clubs attitude then they deserve to fold. Good financial acumen states "give the people what they want and they will buy it". If they dont give the punters what they want they wont have any. This applies to Tesco as much as it applies to a Trials Club. Or do you think there should only be one supermarket per town and everybody has to shop there wether they like the products or not ? If not they can starve.

2. Widthdraw priority to historical dates. Oh let me guess? So some Clubs who have the ear of the ACU can "cherry pick" the best dates?????

Let me make another suggestion. You introduce the above and i wonder how many clubs will say "sod it lets join the AMCA" problem solved!

I know the ACU dont take much interest of the non racing orientated clubs, actually wonder if sometimes they take any notice of any of the licence holders views, but for once i felt so angry about this i had to write back.

Regards

Original e mail below.

To all Centre Clubs

Please see the proposal below from the Sutton Falcons MCC.

The item will be discussed under Board Meeting business - Trials matters.

Peter Beardmore

Secretary

East Midland Centre ACU

Subject: RE: East Midland Centre AGM

Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:29:00 +0000

Proposals from the Sutton Falcons Motor Club for the Annual General Meeting 24th January, 2010.

Trials Fixtures 2011

1 That the number of Sunday Trials Fixtures be limited to a maximum of 7events per club. This restriction will not apply to British Championship Events run Under National Permits or above.

2 To withdraw the present priority system whereby a Club is able to object to another Club coming onto

[big john]

Well thank goodness we don't have much of that up our way, clubs are now taking riders feedback very seriously in Scotland as do the SACU Trials Committee.

As a direct result the SACU have introduced a new championship in 2010 to cater for riders who can't do the fancy stuff and that is just a start (watch this space!)

As you say, give the customer what he/she wants and they will keep buying your product... put on offer them something they don't like and the inevitable happens!

Sure we get clashes of dates sometimes, but these are usually resolved by having championships being given first priority then nationals then club events in a time honoured pecking order or importance. seems to work quite well.

Big John

[02-apr]

East Midlands must be well off for ground if clubs have been running more than 7 events, not to mention willing organisers.

[chewy]

I agree entirely with you it seems worth noting (Iwas going to say observing) your comment regards ACU / Non racing (trials) clubs & events. It would seem that whoever came up with this idea has no idea of how and why dates work historically...unlike the race tracks, we have to beg borrow or bribe our way onto landowners property at thier whim, it just wouldn't work any other way. I rightly or wrongly think that the mission statement of the ACU is to facilitate motorcycle sport. The moment they get involved with squabbles of well meaning clubs and individuals they will have lost the plot. I guesse from thier perspective they must try to be seen as a democracy. I think the ACU would be more able to hold on to its ACU trials registrations income by negotiating with insurance underwriters, landowners, local councils , tv companies, magazines, (farmers weekly perhaps). PR in general etc. rather than just taking the money and letting the "children play". For local trials it is simply getting nearer the time to go AMCA. Unfortunatly for international representation it appears that the ACU is part of what appears to be a cartel by being affiliated to the FIM. Regards your position with this latest set of daft ideas you like all of us have the choice to either leave them to it or to point out practical reasons why they will do more harm than good. Good luck

[sdc]

You seem to be missing the point.

This NOT a proposal by the ACU or by the East Midland Centre, it is a proposal by one East Midland Centre Club and is open to discussion at the AGM where all East Midland Centre Clubs are eligible to vote - I think that is called a democracy!

[trialsnutterman]

East Midlands must be well off for ground if clubs have been running more than 7 events, not to mention willing organisers.

One club is running 4 events in one month, good on them for running them but I can kind of see that it is a little to much.

[pete_scorpa3]

A few years back we ran nine trials (including two Nationals) but to some extent it's self limiting.

We found that it's generally the same small group of workers who put on the events, after a while we lost some of our enthusiasm so we've dropped a couple of club trials.

I don't know how organisers find the motivation to run loads of events every year.

[rabie]

as above;

a) its a ***proposal*** to your centre's AGM, where you can vote against / for it

because it's your local centre, there not a lot the rest of the ACU can do about it and it's your local issue (ie respect local democracy)

c) the more philosophical issue is the fundamental problem/issue about how should a centre as the permit issuing authority arbitrate over dates. should they restrict the "market" (centre area) to one centre trial per weekend (or other variations as per), and whatever decision you make in this respect will upset someone.

d) the alternative to this is a free for all advocated by some (which given that a club could just run the same event under another federation eg AMCA is very real), which will leave to the survival of the fittest, however this does have down sides - in the process you'll have (as the original email mentions) lack of observers as events clash, land lost as less successful clubs fold, clubs on the periphery (geographically remote) will suffer low entries (leading to less events, etc), while riders will get bored of riding the same venues in the middle/easy to reach areas all the time.

e) as to traditional dates, yes many clubs have a date that works for them for a variety of reasons, and we know that some of these clubs may need a bit of a wake up call, but at the same time, tipping them off a date perhaps forgets the complex reasons why they arrived at that date in the first place. the fixed rigid nature of bits of the trials calender (ie knowing the x trial is the 3rd Sunday of y month)

thus the balancing act to be struck is hard (wisdom of solomon). it is easy for outsiders sitting in their own centres where they may think things are all rosy and the different ways of doing things elsewhere seam strange (and thus wrong) but let's respect their own decisions to make.

[tricky dicky]

The problem is in the east midland centre is that the club running 4 trials in 1 month is running approx 22 trials next year, it may be more. The people that run the club are also the permit secretaries for the centre. The trouble is with the centre is that it covers a vast area and each area has its own set of riders as such. Many riders would travel from Derbyshire to Lincolnshire regularly to compete and vice versa but the trouble is is that there are far too many trials on. Surely it would be better to have a 3 lap 15 section trial with 15 observers and 100 riders than 5 clubs having 5 trials each with 20 riders and 2 observers each resulting in riders having to observe themselves. It isnt a case of having the product that people want whatsoever. I know that peak classic and midland classic clubs cater for the old bikes. No problem but they dont cater for anybody else other than old bikes. The clubs that are in question are the clubs that cater for everybody and not just old bikes so I dont see that Old trials fanatics view is very relevant at all. The fact of the matter is that in the centre there could be 5 trials running on the same day within 20 miles of each other. If this is limited and everybody gets a fair bite at the cherry then its more fair. After all, trials is never going to make any money, its a participant sport not a business although some seem to see it as a business!

[malcra]

if you take a look at the Western Centre calendar for 2010 you'll see there are no dates with two trials on in Centre. However, there are four neighbouring centres (especially to Herefordshire), where there are competing events. However....

I made some comments on this following the WVAC's John Langford trial back earlier in the month. We had only 30 entries for a trial with two routes at new venue in the very good trials country around Craswall in Herefordshire. There was a nearby event (at Pontypool, in East South Wales, at the excellent Cwrt Henllys), but as I mentioned at the time, the main issue is demographics. Herefordshire is the least populated English county, and with only one trials club, Wye Valley AC and therefore they aren't many riders. Those riders that there are can choose between (relatively) nearby events in Midland, Mid-Wales, East South Wales and in a lot of cases, the 'in-centre' events are the furthest away.

WVAC could run more events, but this would prevent members riding themselves even more, and there is now the emergence of Ledbury club trials and the 2 or 3 Herefordshire Classic Trials club (AMCA) events (next one at Clyro on 3rd Jan btw), there will be 8 local events. For me, a club should consider the following for an event:

1 good venue, ie good lap, with the right type of sections

2 type of trial, classic/modern, severity, number of routes

3 observers and organisation

4 entry on the day for most events (this is an interesting one for WVAC...to be debated at the upcoming AGM).

Also, all riders are different, both on their skill, the bikes they ride and how far they want to travel. Its therefore difficult to cater for everyone. For me the 2008 Trevor Hunt Trial was excellent, but its inclusion in the 2009 Traditional Championship made it some different; not just harder (in my case) but also the atmosphere. Its back to a standalone Classic event for 2010 and I think this is a good.

[robin m. s/c]

The problem is in the east midland centre is that the club running 4 trials in 1 month is running approx 22 trials next year, it may be more. The people that run the club are also the permit secretaries for the centre. The trouble is with the centre is that it covers a vast area and each area has its own set of riders as such. Many riders would travel from Derbyshire to Lincolnshire regularly to compete and vice versa but the trouble is is that there are far too many trials on. Surely it would be better to have a 3 lap 15 section trial with 15 observers and 100 riders than 5 clubs having 5 trials each with 20 riders and 2 observers each resulting in riders having to observe themselves. It isnt a case of having the product that people want whatsoever. I know that peak classic and midland classic clubs cater for the old bikes. No problem but they dont cater for anybody else other than old bikes. The clubs that are in question are the clubs that cater for everybody and not just old bikes so I dont see that Old trials fanatics view is very relevant at all. The fact of the matter is that in the centre there could be 5 trials running on the same day within 20 miles of each other. If this is limited and everybody gets a fair bite at the cherry then its more fair. After all, trials is never going to make any money, its a participant sport not a business although some seem to see it as a business!

Have to agree with you there.

It would be better to have less events and then allow clubs to run 'quality' trials with a full quota of officials.

As for the Old Trials Fanatic statement of give the riders what they want then the rule will go someway towards that.

Presently clubs cannot get a good date when all officials are available and it doesn't clash with nationals that the good centre riders go to as certain clubs 'own' certain dates in the calender and run 12+ events per year.

Make it fair for all clubs.

It would be impossible for a new club to start and get any dates at all unless they specifically catered for a specific class such as pre65 / twinshock only.

[fivemeister]

The problem is in the east midland centre is that the club running 4 trials in 1 month is running approx 22 trials next year, it may be more. The people that run the club are also the permit secretaries for the centre

Be sure to tell them not to be so enthusiastic next time you see them Richard.

[tricky dicky]

I have no problem at all with the club running 22 trials in the year or whatever amount it is and I do support the club. I know that they are very very enthusiastic and I can only credit them for this. I do think that some clubs run trials and clash when there aren't land issues and there could be 5 trials on one sunday then the next sunday there is nothing on. As a rider this baffles me as I do like to ride every week and to have a choice one week then no choice the week after its an odd situation. I think some more planning needs to go into the dates and locations of the trials so everybody gets a fair crack and then the numbers will increase. This is the problem to me. I have ridden no end of trials lately and there has been a very poor entry due to other events being on locally and riders are having to observe themselves. To me this is fine if it is done properly but I know for a fact I observed approx 10 riders through a section and fived quite a few of them and when the scores came out surprise surprise there were no fives. This however wouldnt happen with a better entry and a full house of observers.

[old trials fanatic]

Might just be me then but i have always believed in freedom of choice. I shop where i want to shop i ride where i want to ride, mainly because i like the people and the severity or lack of of the course, if the clubs i currently ride at are forced to restrict their number of events then i can assure you that will NOT make me ride at an event i dont like. After all there are more things to do on a Sunday than waste your time and money doing something you dont enjoy isnt there?

I still feel this proposal is being brought forward because some clubs seem to think they have a god given right to have a larger entry than they are currently getting but never ask why they are getting a low entry. Even if i found there was an events clash, sometimes there is, i will ride and support the club that gives me what i want.

If more people voted with their feet this way then maybe just maybe we might get the events and sections and consideration we the silent majourity of riders deserve.

Had a reply to my response to the proposal from the sender and he assures me that his club wont be supporting the proposal either. Perhaps there are more out there who can see the "proposal" LOL for what it really is.

Finally can someone explain to me why the Classic Club i am involved with keeps getting so many requests from riders of modern bikes to come and ride at our events as guests on a no awards basis when there are so many "modern" events on the same day? Often events put on by the club who made the proposal or another club situated not a million miles away from them ?

[fivemeister]

The problem is

I have no problem

Yep, I see what you mean........