Guys, as I was filling out the BMF show application I noticed that once again the ticket allocation had been reduced for clubs
Somewhat miffed I sent the following to the BMF group ( this includes a massive list of BMF liaison club officers plus a few of the BMF council members:
Nice that the ticket allocation for club stands in the club village has been reduced and the cost of extra tickets increased massively..
At least one club I represent will not be showing this coming year.. In fact I have just contacted the chairman and he is putting it before the council that the club does not rejoin the BMF this coming year because of these issues
I will be honest and say I expected no real reaction..
Boy was I wrong...
I have just had the following mail, quoting my email, sent to everyone on the list plus the rest of the BMF council, from Richard Bergman, a long standing and highly respected council member:
OPEN LETTER TO ALL MEMBERS, CLUBS, BMF CHAIRMAN, MARKETING DIRECTOR, BMF COUNCIL & THE MULBERRY GROUP.
From Richard Bergman, BMF Structure Progress Group (SPG) & National Convener TLZone.net, National Club.
The changes to the terms and conditions, meaning the allocation of free tickets and the 20% increase to the cost of additional tickets for member clubs constitute a fundamental and substantial change.
The Mulberry Group, The BMF Chairman and/or the Marketing Portfolio do not have the authority to make this change.
A substantial and fundamental change such as this can only be recommended by the BMF Council and ratified by the BMF AGM. I know of no such recommendation or ratification.
I therefore call upon the BMF Chairman, the BMF Council, the Marketing Portfolio and the Mulberry Group to remove these changes and notification of such to be sent to the recipients of this e-mail as was the original unconstitutional fundamental and substantial change made without authority.
Should any of these persons and/or bodies wish to have these fundamental and substantial changes reinstated then they should present such proposals to the BMF Council for consideration.
Once more this is an example of a commercial organisation seeking to improve its position and our bottom line at the expense of the general membership. Commercial organisations need to learn that our membership is more important to us than the bottom line. We can cut our cloth to suit our pockets but alienating the clubs will lose us much more. Our clubs, our membership and our numbers are a great benefit when carrying out our primary role of lobbying. We must tend and Shepard these numbers, particularly in these difficult times. Although the Marketing Portfolio appears complicit, is more likely poorly informed of the constitution and the procedure required for such a change.
The BMF is a membership organisation used for mutual support and is for the membership. It is important to maximise our income but not at the expense of the membership. Change will happen at the pace dictated by the membership and not commercial organisations.
Twice before to my knowledge this has occurred, the second time was when the allocation of free tickets was reduced last time.
The first time was when the Marketing portfolio announced at an AGM that they were proposing to charge for under age attendances to the BMF show(s).
This was rejected and the charge removed.
The discussion then began as this change was imposed without proper investigation and evidence. Although the Marketing portfolio professed that substantial numbers of individuals were gaining entrance to the shows and increasing the workload of the officers and volunteers alike. It was also suggested the BMF were missing out on a substantial amount of income.
When called for no evidence or investigation had occurred or was available. The portfolio was reminded that that the BMF always demand from other bodies that any changes should be supported by proper investigation and evidence and not arbitrarily imposed. The Marketing portfolio was told “NO” and to use the forthcoming year to gain evidence to support their submission and to re-apply. Perhaps due to lack of evidence to support their point no submission was subsequently made and under 14’s still have free access to our shows.
In this case if 50 clubs buy the 2 additional tickets that will generate a percentage of £500 for the BMF. (With the Mulberry Group no doubt taking their cut). This value does not in any way mitigate the animosity it generates from the clubs. I urge the Chairman, the Marketing portfolio and the Mulberry Group to correct this mistake.
Richard Bergman.
Please feel free to use this e-mail address and to distribute this e-mail as you wish.
richard.bergman at ntlworld.com
Somewhat miffed I sent the following to the BMF group ( this includes a massive list of BMF liaison club officers plus a few of the BMF council members:
Nice that the ticket allocation for club stands in the club village has been reduced and the cost of extra tickets increased massively..
At least one club I represent will not be showing this coming year.. In fact I have just contacted the chairman and he is putting it before the council that the club does not rejoin the BMF this coming year because of these issues
I will be honest and say I expected no real reaction..
Boy was I wrong...
I have just had the following mail, quoting my email, sent to everyone on the list plus the rest of the BMF council, from Richard Bergman, a long standing and highly respected council member:
OPEN LETTER TO ALL MEMBERS, CLUBS, BMF CHAIRMAN, MARKETING DIRECTOR, BMF COUNCIL & THE MULBERRY GROUP.
From Richard Bergman, BMF Structure Progress Group (SPG) & National Convener TLZone.net, National Club.
The changes to the terms and conditions, meaning the allocation of free tickets and the 20% increase to the cost of additional tickets for member clubs constitute a fundamental and substantial change.
The Mulberry Group, The BMF Chairman and/or the Marketing Portfolio do not have the authority to make this change.
A substantial and fundamental change such as this can only be recommended by the BMF Council and ratified by the BMF AGM. I know of no such recommendation or ratification.
I therefore call upon the BMF Chairman, the BMF Council, the Marketing Portfolio and the Mulberry Group to remove these changes and notification of such to be sent to the recipients of this e-mail as was the original unconstitutional fundamental and substantial change made without authority.
Should any of these persons and/or bodies wish to have these fundamental and substantial changes reinstated then they should present such proposals to the BMF Council for consideration.
Once more this is an example of a commercial organisation seeking to improve its position and our bottom line at the expense of the general membership. Commercial organisations need to learn that our membership is more important to us than the bottom line. We can cut our cloth to suit our pockets but alienating the clubs will lose us much more. Our clubs, our membership and our numbers are a great benefit when carrying out our primary role of lobbying. We must tend and Shepard these numbers, particularly in these difficult times. Although the Marketing Portfolio appears complicit, is more likely poorly informed of the constitution and the procedure required for such a change.
The BMF is a membership organisation used for mutual support and is for the membership. It is important to maximise our income but not at the expense of the membership. Change will happen at the pace dictated by the membership and not commercial organisations.
Twice before to my knowledge this has occurred, the second time was when the allocation of free tickets was reduced last time.
The first time was when the Marketing portfolio announced at an AGM that they were proposing to charge for under age attendances to the BMF show(s).
This was rejected and the charge removed.
The discussion then began as this change was imposed without proper investigation and evidence. Although the Marketing portfolio professed that substantial numbers of individuals were gaining entrance to the shows and increasing the workload of the officers and volunteers alike. It was also suggested the BMF were missing out on a substantial amount of income.
When called for no evidence or investigation had occurred or was available. The portfolio was reminded that that the BMF always demand from other bodies that any changes should be supported by proper investigation and evidence and not arbitrarily imposed. The Marketing portfolio was told “NO” and to use the forthcoming year to gain evidence to support their submission and to re-apply. Perhaps due to lack of evidence to support their point no submission was subsequently made and under 14’s still have free access to our shows.
In this case if 50 clubs buy the 2 additional tickets that will generate a percentage of £500 for the BMF. (With the Mulberry Group no doubt taking their cut). This value does not in any way mitigate the animosity it generates from the clubs. I urge the Chairman, the Marketing portfolio and the Mulberry Group to correct this mistake.
Richard Bergman.
Please feel free to use this e-mail address and to distribute this e-mail as you wish.
richard.bergman at ntlworld.com