Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Non member view and thoughts about the Gauge O guild


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

No it wasn't. The ASLRM was formed by 3  O Gauge (and above) modellers of which 2 have since died. But some of the big hitter O Gauge manufacturers of the time were (and some still are)  involved in the set up. 

 

Baz

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
10 hours ago, Jack Benson said:

At some stage, Companies House should be involved, the sum of £246,784 has been spent on 'Other costs' and no one is prepared to explain where the money has gone will be of interest to them and HMRC, if not the GoG membership.

Words such as embezzlement and negligence may not be welcome or appropriate but they may allegedly have some relevance.

It just takes one letter to start the process and this link might help.

 

Stay Safe and Tuck in your Vest

I cannot imagine that the o gauge guild could spend even a tenth of that on other costs. The 2019 accounts show a total turnover of 240k with a 10k trading loss. Where on earth does 246k come from? There just doesn't seem to be enough money in the system. What on earth is going on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Barry O said:

No it wasn't. The ASLRM was formed by 3  O Gauge (and above) modellers of which 2 have since died. But some of the big hitter O Gauge manufacturers of the time were (and some still are)  involved in the set up. 

Baz

 

 

 

 

Barry, my understanding as a regular GOG member has always been that the ALSRM start-up was triggered by a row  in the Guild higher ranks and then the broader scale interests followed on.  Certainly one of the big names discontinued Guild members' sales discounts at the same time.

Jason

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If this was the case and the same row caused the split with the ALSRM, in 1999, this is not something that is new! And the split is looking like the Treaty of Versailles or a 20 year ceasefire.

Marc

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, jasond said:

Barry, my understanding as a regular GOG member has always been that the ALSRM start-up was triggered by a row  in the Guild higher ranks and then the broader scale interests followed on.  Certainly one of the big names discontinued Guild members' sales discounts at the same time.

Jason

It may be what the Guild higher ups say but it wasn't like that. I am getting rather tired of some of the "truths" being spouted by the Guild..always check the real facts...

 

Baz

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of us were there at the time. The reason there are so many versions of all this is the Guild has always spoken to its ordinary members cryptically, and is still trying to do so to this day. The corporate arrogance and secrecy is one of the reasons many of us got so fed up and are no longer members. 

 

ASLRM was formed as a result off the split, there is no doubt about that whatsoever. It was Slaters who then stopped the discount to Guild members. The current Secretary has been a board member since the 1990s. You can see who was involved and when they resigned on the Companies House record for 'The Gauge 0 Guild Ltd'.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies to Sir Douglas, he started this thread for non-GOG members views, it's just that some of the comments are irrelevant to today's recent financial puzzles.  Anybody else tried swapping software at the same time as changing the real world's application requirements?

 

Today's O-gauge scene, apart from the supposed Guild battle: are potential O-gaugers 'modern image' or 'steam' modellers (BTW I think the answer's Yes :mellow:) is which online environment do you prefer:  Fb - ask a specific question - try the suggestion - didn't work - reword the question - etc, or a forum - I'm thinking of doing this, can anybody tell me how they did it.  Guild members can do both and I enjoyed an obvious top tip - testing your DCC chip installation after soldering the wires on ... put it in a small polybag to stop shorting horrors - which was in a forum thread discussing Class 37s.

 

Anyway, with the right people, the Gauge O Guild can be made the focal point for the best scale.  I'll shut up now.

Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Jason D ..when I said I was there I have since been told that I was one of the events committee kicked out of the Guild due to our taking a freebee or two. This is nothing but an outright lie.. indeed an area rep has said the same to me as part of this thread. I would suggest this goes no further as this is becoming a legal issue.

 

Baz

Edited by Barry O
  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

That will be it for me. I won't put up with the lack of transparency nor the lack of dialogue from the current bunch. There are a couple of exceptions, but the majority are out of touch and are only concerned with keeping things as they are.

 

Terry

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
53 minutes ago, CUTLER2579 said:

Too many people not really interested as less than 20% voted. It will be interesting to see how many people choose not to renew their Membership come  1st March 2021.

Feel very sorry for the Four candidates.

 

That is how a certain President got elected, if many take the view that other candidates aren't 'good enough', that's what happens!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I haven't seen the numbers or even know if they have been published but was it close?

 

It is no good arguing that it is not democratic because of the low turnout. That is democracy at work. Maybe many are not keen on the present board but don't like a hostile coup either, so chose not to vote rather than go vote for something they are not a fan of.

 

Hopefully the newly elected board will see this as an opportunity to change things for the better, having had a bit of a "wake up" call. It seems that the biggest financial problem, Telford, has been addressed. Perhaps a bit more information about how subs are spent will go a long way to calming things down.

 

Even if they didn't get elected, I hope the reform group's efforts to bring about change achieve something positive.

 

I will be renewing my subs next year. The Guild may not be perfect but it is, in the words of a late friend of mine, "Better than the one we haven't got".

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
12 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

It is no good arguing that it is not democratic because of the low turnout. That is democracy at work. 

 

No, it isn't. No democracy (or in this case supposedly democratic organisation) can work properly with such a low turnout.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jack Benson
4 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

No, it isn't. No democracy (or in this case supposedly democratic organisation) can work properly with such a low turnout.

May I suggest that the low turnout is indicative of a failing organisation, maybe not next year or even in ten years but the lack of engagement and demographic are part of an inevitable failure.

 

Stay safe 

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

No, it isn't. No democracy (or in this case supposedly democratic organisation) can work properly with such a low turnout.

 

20% isn't a bad turnout for an election like this. I wonder sometimes what the turnout is like for elections to my pension fund's board of directors, I certainly put the notice through the shredder soon after it comes as I don't recognise any of the names.

 

I wonder what the turn out was in previous years

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
14 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

No, it isn't. No democracy (or in this case supposedly democratic organisation) can work properly with such a low turnout.

 

Nonsense! If the reform group had won in such a low turnout, the people crying "foul" would have been very happy to accept the result.

 

If you have a simple "most votes wins" system, then you cannot say a result is undemocratic because not enough people voted.

 

Since posting, I have joined the GOG forum so I could look for myself.

 

For those who haven't seen, it was fairly close. The Guild chose to split non specific proxy votes equally, which seemed quite a fair thing to do. I have seen other such votes where that didn't happen and all the votes went to the ones wielding the power.

 

I just hope that we see some changes that go towards addressing what the Reform Group was raising.

 

What is needed now is reconciliation and progress, not more bitter recriminations.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 minutes ago, whart57 said:

 

20% isn't a bad turnout for an election like this. I wonder sometimes what the turnout is like for elections to my pension fund's board of directors, I certainly put the notice through the shredder soon after it comes as I don't recognise any of the names.

 

I wonder what the turn out was in previous years

 

The turnout in previous years has been much lower. This year was almost treble last year.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I stood as Chair for the Guild Reform Group. None of us were elected. That is not a surprise, given the tactics certain officials resorted to. however the turnout did increase and the resolution for an external independent audit was passed. The results are below.

 

My aim was to give people a choice, which we did, and the share of the membership who voted have chosen. None of the problems which the Guild faces have gone away and I wish the new Directors the best of luck in addressing them.

 

Annual General Meeting 2020

Results of the voting

Total Number of Votes Received               =             943

Of which:                             Online Votes      =             528

Directed Proxy Votes      =             382         (includes 34 to nominated proxies)

Undirected proxy votes =               27          (proxy is Chairman of the meeting)

Spoilt Votes        =               6

Votes cast for each resolution are as follows (including the Chairman’s use of the undirected proxy votes):

1. To approve the minutes of the Annual General Meeting held on 1st September 2019      

For                         691        
Against                 10          
Abstain                 219

2. To appoint the Accountant and authorise the Directors to fix his or her remuneration.

For                         763                        
Against                40                          
Abstain                 117

3. Chairman, appointment of

John Birch (2928)              513                                        
David Rae (17432)            410

4. Treasurer, appointment of

Malcolm Hector (21265)                572                        
Richard Williamson (16287)          347

5. Secretary, re-appointment/appointment of

Richard Clark (3448)              553                 
James Snowdon (11210)         370

6. Technical Committee Chairman, appointment of 

James Aitken (9628)               463                 
Chris Basten (5253)                458

7. Events Committee Chairman, appointment of Jackie Kneeshaw (18510) 

            For                         898                        

Against                 11          
Abstain                 18

8. Membership and IT Director, appointment of Geoffrey Goddin (22066)

For                         861                        
Against                 20          
Abstain                 41

9. To appoint Jim Hollom (3921) as an Honorary Member

For                         747                        
Against                 26                          
Abstain                 146

10. Resolution 10 External audit of the companies accounts for the year 2019/20.

            For                         557                        

Against                 252        
Abstain                 107

  • Thanks 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...