PPA versus CSA

[ccc2]

Gerhardvd - you are arguing with people who don't event realise that the ppa summer league was (is) being organised by the csa.

the ppa went to court because if they become an affiliate of the csa again they will be under sascoc which means they will be a sporting body. they don't want that (i was in the meeting when this was whispered) becos apparently sascoc are going to be publishing a white paper (whatever that means) for the running of sport in the rsa and the ppa exco don't agree with the structures proposed in the white paper. so in effect the judgement says the ppa are now an events organiser who are not answerable to any sports body.

[ricochet_rabbit]

Gerhardvd - you are arguing with people who don't event realise that the ppa summer league was (is) being organised by the csa.

the ppa went to court because if they become an affiliate of the csa again they will be under sascoc which means they will be a sporting body. they don't want that (i was in the meeting when this was whispered) becos apparently sascoc are going to be publishing a white paper (whatever that means) for the running of sport in the rsa and the ppa exco don't agree with the structures proposed in the white paper. so in effect the judgement says the ppa are now an events organiser who are not answerable to any sports body.

 

wow, maybe sascoc have grabbed the bull by the horns and are stepping in to assist and change the current failing structures as it seems that both ASA & CSA are happy to spend more of their finances on court appearances and lawyers fees than investing it in their respective sports.

[carbon29er]

Lovely thread. 3 gents with an axe to grind against PPA as PPA won't fund their version of cycling utopia where many are taxed for a few to benefit, through either being sent to Worlds or through prize money in league races. And only 1 of these 3 has bothered to sit down and draft a discussion paper that might add value to the process when PPA sits down and works out how best to continue to boost the cycling.

 

In the mean time, PPA's biggest single expense is the ride safe campaign, Stay Alive at one point five. Only an imbecile would argue that improving the safety for ALL cyclists on our roads is not a worthy goal for a voluntary organisation representing recreational cyclists.

 

PPA constitution states at paragraph 3:

“The main purpose and object of the association is to promote cycling and the interests of cyclists. Without limiting the generality of the aforegoing, the association shall have the following ancillary objectives:

 

(a) to be a representative body for the furtherance of the interests of cyclists;

(b) to promote cycling as a recreational activity, a sport and as a means of transportation;

© to improve conditions for cyclists with particular regard to their safety;

(d) to arrange and organise cycle tours, fun rides and outings;

(e) to co-ordinate cycle tours, fun rides and outings organised by other bodies and to assist them in their efforts;

(f) to establish contact and liaise with and where appropriate affiliate with other organisations having similar or alike interests and objectives.“

 

If you would like the funding of pro cycling, sending riders to worlds or big increases in prize money, I suggest you get the PPA through general meeting attendance of a majority of the in excess of 20,000 members to change the constitution to suit yourselves. A bit like CSA did.

 

But as it stands right now, PPA is not permitted to spend members funds on the select few.

[Thug]

Correct me if I'm wrong but my take on all of this is as follows:

 

- CSA are only recognising PPA as 1 out of X (10?) affiliates.

- PPA's voting right at CSA is the same (1 out of 10?)

- PPA represent more than 50% of the registered cyclists (be they fun or otherwise) on CSA's database

- PPA would contribute that same >50% of licence fees to CSA.

 

In my opinion, PPA are quite correct in telling CSA to shove it. On what basis do you contribute the largest stream of revenue but have the same say as some who contributes sweet fa?

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Correct me if I'm wrong but my take on all of this is as follows:

 

- CSA are only recognising PPA as 1 out of X (10?) affiliates.

- PPA's voting right at CSA is the same (1 out of 10?)

- PPA represent more than 50% of the registered cyclists (be they fun or otherwise) on CSA's database

- PPA would contribute that same >50% of licence fees to CSA.

 

In my opinion, PPA are quite correct in telling CSA to shove it. On what basis do you contribute the largest stream of revenue but have the same say as some who contributes sweet fa?

 

Lol. Quite interesting that this argument, when applied to elections on the governmental side of things and the tax paying public, is met with an entirely different reaction.

 

Just an observation.

[Thug]

Lol. Quite interesting that this argument, when applied to elections on the governmental side of things and the tax paying public, is met with an entirely different reaction.

 

Just an observation.

 

Correct. Imagine if we all withheld our hard earned ZAR's from SARS.....

[Witkop]

I think the elephant in the room is SASCOC, the regulator of "sport" in South Africa. It seems that where ever their name is mentioned disaster is not far behind.....

[Seepglad]

and all of this came to a head when Greg Till tried to have two AGM's in one year, to have himself retire as President, early. M Mahomed at Sascoc intervened, and they forced Till to remain in the seat, push an AGM out by a few more months, and adopted this current constitution.

 

So, none of you know wot happened I was in the middle, and still paying the price.

[kosmonooit]

I think GP needs a PPA.

[Seepglad]

Think about this

• ABSA Cape Epic - run by company under CSA umbrella
  
• Nedbank Wealth Sani2sea - run by company under CSA umbrella
  
• Pick n Pay Argus Cycle tour - was run under CSA umbrella
  
• Etc.
  

No, no, all of these events are privately owned and operated, and were forced to comply to UCI reg's, incl those licensed riders who were invited - or paid - to ride same.

 

No other relationship, whatsoever. Now, no event in the country need comply with particular rule re participation, or any other rule of UCI.

 

Last year, I was banned from organising races - then ban was lifted, earlier this year - guess we all knew what was coming. Oh, I was banned 'cos I insulted the prez of CSA, privately.

[DJR]

................

So, none of you know wot happened I was in the middle, and still paying the price.

 

The Hub won't complain if you tell us more of what happened behind the scenes.

[GoLefty!!]

Do you really want to know. It may frighten you to understand just how incompetent CSA really is

[Seepglad]

The Hub won't complain if you tell us more of what happened behind the scenes.

I insulted the pres, in an email to Pat McQuaid and Brian Cookson, who I know, and had met with just before the emailed insult. Both of them believed CSA was voting in their respective favours.

I copied William, so he knew I was talking behind his back, then they suspended me as VP of WCcycling and Pres of Boland. Pending a disciplinary that never happened. On a rule that does not exist.

Then, they campaigned against me as event organiser, a part-time private activity.

They succeeded. Then they suspended me as event organiser, formally, since I owed them money. After a month, of asking for the related documentation, they lifted my suspension as organiser.

 

Now what?

[TALUS]

I insulted the pres, in an email to Pat McQuaid and Brian Cookson, who I know, and had met with just before the emailed insult. Both of them believed CSA was voting in their respective favours.

I copied William, so he knew I was talking behind his back, then they suspended me as VP of WCcycling and Pres of Boland. Pending a disciplinary that never happened. On a rule that does not exist.

Then, they campaigned against me as event organiser, a part-time private activity.

They succeeded. Then they suspended me as event organiser, formally, since I owed them money. After a month, of asking for the related documentation, they lifted my suspension as organiser.

 

Now what?

Sounds to me you should keep on doing what you are doing...