British Cycling and Shell

imposter2.0

pblakeney said:

Your choice, and fair enough but I don't follow the logic. Are you boycotting everything with ties to the petrochemical industry? Seems petty to target a single organisation.

This whole thread is about BC partnering with Shell. Nothing more. I think it's a little unfair to imply hypocrisy simply because people disagree with BC's decision, but still happen to drive a car.

Not driving a car is not really an option for many people currently - most people don't really have much of a choice.

However, BC partnering with one of the world's largest fossil fuel producers is a conscious choice they didn't have to make.

gethinceri

pblakeney said:

gethinceri said:

I'm a BC member for the legal support, and have made use of it when involved in a particularly nasty accident. I will not be renewing my membership when it's due in July and will look for an alternative with equivalent, or superior, benefits.

Your choice, and fair enough but I don't follow the logic. Are you boycotting everything with ties to the petrochemical industry? Seems petty to target a single organisation.

My action is not based on any form of boycott, I'm going to find an alternative with equivalent, or superior, benefits.
Where that organisation secures its funding might be a factor, might not.

ugo.santalucia

So, let's assume that BC backtracks and lose that funding and doesn't manage to secure equal funding from a different sponsor... as a result they need to let go of a few coaches and cut the track program funding a bit to manage the budget... as a result we have a number of unemployed coaches and a handful fewer medals in Paris... is this a good outcome, one that would make people happy?

imposter2.0

ugo.santalucia said:

So, let's assume that BC backtracks and lose that funding and doesn't manage to secure equal funding from a different sponsor... as a result they need to let go of a few coaches and cut the track program funding a bit to manage the budget... as a result we have a number of unemployed coaches and a handful fewer medals in Paris... is this a good outcome, one that would make people happy?

Depends how high on the list things like dignity and integrity are, I guess. Success is always nice, but not necessarily at any price.

Good coaches will always find employment. Poor ones, not so much.

ugo.santalucia

imposter2.0 said:

ugo.santalucia said:

So, let's assume that BC backtracks and lose that funding and doesn't manage to secure equal funding from a different sponsor... as a result they need to let go of a few coaches and cut the track program funding a bit to manage the budget... as a result we have a number of unemployed coaches and a handful fewer medals in Paris... is this a good outcome, one that would make people happy?

Depends how high on the list things like dignity and integrity are, I guess. Success is always nice, but not necessarily at any price.

Good coaches will always find employment. Poor ones, not so much.

SO, going back to the previous comment, I read that Shell employs 86,000 people... would you say they are all folks with low integrity?
Apparently, just in the US, there are nearly 10 million people employed in the oil and gas industry... clearly all people of low morality.

imposter2.0

ugo.santalucia said:

SO, going back to the previous comment, I read that Shell employs 86,000 people... would you say they are all folks with low integrity?
Apparently, just in the US, there are nearly 10 million people employed in the oil and gas industry... clearly all people of low morality.

That's a strawman argument if ever there was one. You haven't really understood any of this, have you.

Again, this is a thread about BC and its decision to partner with Shell. If you want to talk about the wider morality of the fossil fuel industry, then go start a new thread in Cake Stop. I don't care who works for Shell and I don't care how low you would sink to seek gainful employment either.

The 'morality' in question here is BC's. It might help you to have another read of the thread.

ugo.santalucia

imposter2.0 said:

ugo.santalucia said:

SO, going back to the previous comment, I read that Shell employs 86,000 people... would you say they are all folks with low integrity?
Apparently, just in the US, there are nearly 10 million people employed in the oil and gas industry... clearly all people of low morality.

That's a strawman argument if ever there was one. You haven't really understood any of this, have you.

Again, this is a thread about BC and its decision to partner with Shell. If you want to talk about the wider morality of the fossil fuel industry, then go start a new thread in Cake Stop. I don't care who works for Shell and I don't care how low you would sink to seek gainful employment either.

The 'morality' in question here is BC's. It might help you to have another read of the thread.

I have followed the thread, I was the first to reply. I haven't changed my mind... people complaining seem to be those who either don't have any affiliation with BC and just like to complain about things they don't like, or they have joined BC for the wrong reasons, thinking it is a green organisation promoting carbon free living. In reality, they are an outfit promoting competitive as well as organised recreational cycling, that might or might not come with a reduced carbon footprint, as compared to karting for instance. It depends how far you need to drive for your race.
There are a number of outfits that promote cycling as a way of living motor free, the London Cycling Campaign, Sustrans come to mind and those indeed should steer clear of Shell's funding.

imposter2.0

I really don't think you've understood anything that's been said here, Ugo. What you just wrote above pretty much confirms that.

If your only argument is "if you don't like it, then leave", then you could have just said that and avoided missing the point of the last three pages of discussion.

ugo.santalucia

imposter2.0 said:

I really don't think you've understood anything that's been said here, Ugo. What you just wrote above pretty much confirms that.

If your only argument is "if you don't like it, then leave", then you could have just said that and avoided missing the point of the last three pages of discussion.

Well, I don't accept that because BC deals with cycling, then they need to be more accountable than another organisation that deals with kicking a ball around. I don't accept that their image has to be associated with green living and therefore cannot be mixed with the oil and gas industry...
I just don't accept it and it's my opinion... obviously it's up to BC to decide and they might well decide that it's not worth upsetting their customer base and that is fine too.

pblakeney

imposter2.0 said:

pblakeney said:

Your choice, and fair enough but I don't follow the logic. Are you boycotting everything with ties to the petrochemical industry? Seems petty to target a single organisation.

This whole thread is about BC partnering with Shell. Nothing more. I think it's a little unfair to imply hypocrisy simply because people disagree with BC's decision, but still happen to drive a car.

Not driving a car is not really an option for many people currently - most people don't really have much of a choice.

However, BC partnering with one of the world's largest fossil fuel producers is a conscious choice they didn't have to make.

I simply don't get the antagonism with Shell. I guess BP is out too? INEOS?
Who else? It's a long road to go down.

crescent

Just wondering who other potential sponsors, if there were any, might have been? I don't know how these things work but can't see it being like a tendering process where an organisation invites offers. I imagine a company approaches an organisation offering sponsorship. Would it be prohibitively expensive for BC to withdraw from the agreement if that's what they decide to do? What other companies might have similar financial clout and "more acceptable" credentials? Not necessarily looking for answers from anyone, just some of my own musings on it.

I find it very interesting because my sole source of income is working for an oil company (not Shell currently, but have in the past) and have had a few discussions with cycling companions about it. Several are up in arms while I can't really have any quarrel given that I am also funded 100% by an oil company.

ugo.santalucia

crescent said:

I find it very interesting because my sole source of income is working for an oil company (not Shell currently, but have in the past) and have had a few discussions with cycling companions about it. Several are up in arms while I can't really have any quarrel given that I am also funded 100% by an oil company.

There are exceptions, some disagree with BC and that is fine, but those who are up in arms and very vocal on social media tend to be always the same demographic... who always find a reason to be outraged, except they rarely come up with alternative ideas or plans... they would easily shred your cycling club to pieces because it's not diverse enough, not enough of this or that, cause a trail of destruction and then leave, without ever taking any positive step towards achieving their utopia. We do have such elements... they strongly object to the way things are run, but they don't even take part in them... they want them changed, but if they were to change, they wouldn't take part anyway...

imposter2.0

pblakeney said:

imposter2.0 said:

pblakeney said:

Your choice, and fair enough but I don't follow the logic. Are you boycotting everything with ties to the petrochemical industry? Seems petty to target a single organisation.

This whole thread is about BC partnering with Shell. Nothing more. I think it's a little unfair to imply hypocrisy simply because people disagree with BC's decision, but still happen to drive a car.

Not driving a car is not really an option for many people currently - most people don't really have much of a choice.

However, BC partnering with one of the world's largest fossil fuel producers is a conscious choice they didn't have to make.

I simply don't get the antagonism with Shell. I guess BP is out too? INEOS?
Who else? It's a long road to go down.

The incredulity is with BC's decision - not with Shell being a fossil fuel producer. Anything else is hypothetical.

imposter2.0

crescent said:

Just wondering who other potential sponsors, if there were any, might have been? I don't know how these things work but can't see it being like a tendering process where an organisation invites offers. I imagine a company approaches an organisation offering sponsorship. Would it be prohibitively expensive for BC to withdraw from the agreement if that's what they decide to do? What other companies might have similar financial clout and "more acceptable" credentials? Not necessarily looking for answers from anyone, just some of my own musings on it.

I find it very interesting because my sole source of income is working for an oil company (not Shell currently, but have in the past) and have had a few discussions with cycling companions about it. Several are up in arms while I can't really have any quarrel given that I am also funded 100% by an oil company.

I speculated earlier that BC probably weren't awash with potential partners. I doubt if it is the result of some kind of 'tendering' process - that's not generally how these things work. In terms of withdrawing from such an agreement early - that's exactly what HSBC did - the original deal was supposed to run for another eight years.

pangolin

ugo.santalucia said:

imposter2.0 said:

ugo.santalucia said:

SO, going back to the previous comment, I read that Shell employs 86,000 people... would you say they are all folks with low integrity?
Apparently, just in the US, there are nearly 10 million people employed in the oil and gas industry... clearly all people of low morality.

That's a strawman argument if ever there was one. You haven't really understood any of this, have you.

Again, this is a thread about BC and its decision to partner with Shell. If you want to talk about the wider morality of the fossil fuel industry, then go start a new thread in Cake Stop. I don't care who works for Shell and I don't care how low you would sink to seek gainful employment either.

The 'morality' in question here is BC's. It might help you to have another read of the thread.

I have followed the thread, I was the first to reply. I haven't changed my mind... people complaining seem to be those who either don't have any affiliation with BC and just like to complain about things they don't like, or they have joined BC for the wrong reasons, thinking it is a green organisation promoting carbon free living. In reality, they are an outfit promoting competitive as well as organised recreational cycling, that might or might not come with a reduced carbon footprint, as compared to karting for instance. It depends how far you need to drive for your race.
There are a number of outfits that promote cycling as a way of living motor free, the London Cycling Campaign, Sustrans come to mind and those indeed should steer clear of Shell's funding.

^ This is not accurate. Yes they do those things but their own mission statement gives a wider brief than that.

We are the nation's largest cycling organisation and the national governing body for cyclesport. Our mission in life is to deliver international sporting success, grow and effectively govern cyclesport and inspire and support people to cycle regularly.

British Cycling is one of the world’s leading national governing bodies thanks to our ability to harness mass participation from international success.
The organisation oversees all forms of cycling in Britain. Whether you are a competitor in one of the six sporting disciplines, (BMX, mountain bike, cyclo-cross, road, track and cycle speedway) a personal challenge rider, a commuter or a leisurely weekend rider, we are committed to helping you enjoy cycling.

British Cycling has set the standard by which elite sporting success in this country is measured with unparalleled Olympic, Paralympic and major championships success, cementing our status as one of the strongest nations in competitive cycling.

We administer the sporting calendars in all domestic cycle sport and oversee cycling’s development across all disciplines, helping to ensure those who want to race can do so in a competitive and compelling environment.

Away from competition, we continue to encourage millions of people to ride their bikes throughout recreational programmes, all suited to meet an individual’s preferred form of cycling. We are also working hard to inspire the next generation of cyclists through our work with schools and community clubs to ensure that more young people are taking up the sport than ever before.

All of this is against a backdrop of increased political influence as we look to represent our 166,000 -strong membership. We lobby local and national government to make a sustained and resolute commitment to improving conditions for cyclists in order to ensure that Britain becomes a true cycling nation.

Aside from that a lot of people, like me and others on the thread, are members mainly for the insurance and legal support.

ugo.santalucia

I think the mistake BC made is not that of accepting sponsorship from an oil giant, but it's that of selling membership for purposes that are not related to competing in cycle sport. BC is the main governing body for cycle sport (the other being CTT) and they should do just that.
By selling memberships to individuals who seek third party insurance, or simply seek to be part of an organisation which (they think) represents sustainable living, they have shot themselves in the foot, having to carry around a very opinionated amount of dead weight.
I am glad CTT hasn't gone that route... they are fringe but at least they don't have to deal with people waving their 20 quid membership as some kind of right to dictate agenda driven policies, which have nothing to do with the mission of the organisation itself

imposter2.0

ugo.santalucia said:

I am glad CTT hasn't gone that route... they are fringe but at least they don't have to deal with people waving their 20 quid membership as some kind of right to dictate agenda driven policies, which have nothing to do with the mission of the organisation itself

You don't think an organisation's membership should have any input to how that organisation is run..?

pangolin

ugo.santalucia said:

I think the mistake BC made is not that of accepting sponsorship from an oil giant, but it's that of selling membership for purposes that are not related to competing in cycle sport. BC is the main governing body for cycle sport (the other being CTT) and they should do just that.
By selling memberships to individuals who seek third party insurance, or simply seek to be part of an organisation which (they think) represents sustainable living, they have shot themselves in the foot, having to carry around a very opinionated amount of dead weight.
I am glad CTT hasn't gone that route... they are fringe but at least they don't have to deal with people waving their 20 quid membership as some kind of right to dictate agenda driven policies, which have nothing to do with the mission of the organisation itself

Quite the post, complaining about people dictating the agenda whilst... dictating the agenda.

Explains why you are struggling to see the issue too.

pblakeney

imposter2.0 said:

pblakeney said:

imposter2.0 said:

pblakeney said:

Your choice, and fair enough but I don't follow the logic. Are you boycotting everything with ties to the petrochemical industry? Seems petty to target a single organisation.

This whole thread is about BC partnering with Shell. Nothing more. I think it's a little unfair to imply hypocrisy simply because people disagree with BC's decision, but still happen to drive a car.

Not driving a car is not really an option for many people currently - most people don't really have much of a choice.

However, BC partnering with one of the world's largest fossil fuel producers is a conscious choice they didn't have to make.

I simply don't get the antagonism with Shell. I guess BP is out too? INEOS?
Who else? It's a long road to go down.

The incredulity is with BC's decision - not with Shell being a fossil fuel producer. Anything else is hypothetical.

Quite possibly BC are not awash with potential sponsors. Certainly not enough to be fussy. Accept Shell, or accept lesser funding. I'm guessing that's the choice and people would get upset at less funding.

imposter2.0

pblakeney said:

imposter2.0 said:

pblakeney said:

imposter2.0 said:

pblakeney said:

Your choice, and fair enough but I don't follow the logic. Are you boycotting everything with ties to the petrochemical industry? Seems petty to target a single organisation.

This whole thread is about BC partnering with Shell. Nothing more. I think it's a little unfair to imply hypocrisy simply because people disagree with BC's decision, but still happen to drive a car.

Not driving a car is not really an option for many people currently - most people don't really have much of a choice.

However, BC partnering with one of the world's largest fossil fuel producers is a conscious choice they didn't have to make.

I simply don't get the antagonism with Shell. I guess BP is out too? INEOS?
Who else? It's a long road to go down.

The incredulity is with BC's decision - not with Shell being a fossil fuel producer. Anything else is hypothetical.

Quite possibly BC are not awash with potential sponsors. Certainly not enough to be fussy. Accept Shell, or accept lesser funding. I'm guessing that's the choice and people would get upset at less funding.

You may be right - and I guess those discussions were had in BC's offices before the announcement. One of those options is the lesser of two evils. I'm just not sure which one.

ugo.santalucia

imposter2.0 said:

ugo.santalucia said:

I am glad CTT hasn't gone that route... they are fringe but at least they don't have to deal with people waving their 20 quid membership as some kind of right to dictate agenda driven policies, which have nothing to do with the mission of the organisation itself

You don't think an organisation's membership should have any input to how that organisation is run..?

The way I see it is if BC only sold racing licences, then those members should be entitled to have a say on how the organisation is run. By selling "third party insurance" dressed as a membership, they muddled things for the sake of a couple of quid... there really isn't a lot of money in it. 170,000 members, shall we say that once you cover the costs, there are a couple of millions in it, which is about 6-7% of the total revenue. HSBC provides about £10 m per year, or 30% of the total revenue.

So they have two streams... those who are interested in racing and those who just see the membership as a lifestyle choice... inevitably, the two have conflicting views.
If Shell could pay for more and better racing, giving youngsters more opportunities, then the racing members would have to gain, but the lifestyle members don't like that, because they don't want their name to be associated with oil and gas... hence the problem.

CTT has no paid for membership, you only pay a levy when you race... therefore you can be sure that those who have paid are the same who have an interest in the racing side of things. Governance of CTT could be improved, but that's a different matter.

imposter2.0

ugo.santalucia said:

By selling "third party insurance" dressed as a membership, they muddled things for the sake of a couple of quid... there really isn't a lot of money in it. 170,000 members, shall we say that once you cover the costs, there are a couple of millions in it, which is about 6-7% of the total revenue. HSBC provides about £10 m per year, or 30% of the total revenue.

So they have two streams... those who are interested in racing and those who just see the membership as a lifestyle choice... inevitably, the two have conflicting views.
If Shell could pay for more and better racing, giving youngsters more opportunities, then the racing members would have to gain, but the lifestyle members don't like that, because they don't want their name to be associated with oil and gas... hence the problem.

CTT has no paid for membership, you only pay a levy when you race... therefore you can be sure that those who have paid are the same who have an interest in the racing side of things. Governance of CTT could be improved, but that's a different matter.

FFS.

Firstly, BC is not 'selling' insurance. Insurance is a membership benefit - or one of them.

Your CTT comment is laughable - but not in a good way. You praise CTT for having no membership and in the next sentence you say the organisation's governance could be improved. Do you actually read what you write?

ugo.santalucia

pangolin said:

ugo.santalucia said:

I think the mistake BC made is not that of accepting sponsorship from an oil giant, but it's that of selling membership for purposes that are not related to competing in cycle sport. BC is the main governing body for cycle sport (the other being CTT) and they should do just that.
By selling memberships to individuals who seek third party insurance, or simply seek to be part of an organisation which (they think) represents sustainable living, they have shot themselves in the foot, having to carry around a very opinionated amount of dead weight.
I am glad CTT hasn't gone that route... they are fringe but at least they don't have to deal with people waving their 20 quid membership as some kind of right to dictate agenda driven policies, which have nothing to do with the mission of the organisation itself

Quite the post, complaining about people dictating the agenda whilst... dictating the agenda.

Explains why you are struggling to see the issue too.

All I said is that they were better off sticking to their original mission, rather than trying to become the voice of cycling in the UK... in fact, a few weeks ago they thought they were the Tzars of cycling, telling people to stay home... they've clearly overshot and lost sight of things

ugo.santalucia

imposter2.0 said:

ugo.santalucia said:

By selling "third party insurance" dressed as a membership, they muddled things for the sake of a couple of quid... there really isn't a lot of money in it. 170,000 members, shall we say that once you cover the costs, there are a couple of millions in it, which is about 6-7% of the total revenue. HSBC provides about £10 m per year, or 30% of the total revenue.

So they have two streams... those who are interested in racing and those who just see the membership as a lifestyle choice... inevitably, the two have conflicting views.
If Shell could pay for more and better racing, giving youngsters more opportunities, then the racing members would have to gain, but the lifestyle members don't like that, because they don't want their name to be associated with oil and gas... hence the problem.

CTT has no paid for membership, you only pay a levy when you race... therefore you can be sure that those who have paid are the same who have an interest in the racing side of things. Governance of CTT could be improved, but that's a different matter.

FFS.

Firstly, BC is not 'selling' insurance. Insurance is a membership benefit - or one of them.

Your CTT comment is laughable - but not in a good way. You praise CTT for having no membership and in the next sentence you say the organisation's governance could be improved. Do you actually read what you write?

I do, I said it has no PAID for membership. Governance needs to be improved in terms of participation Often things are decided by very few for the very many with not enough scrutiny (see compulsory helmets and lights).

BC non racing memberships are in essence third party insurance, that's why people buy them... I mean, some might buy them to get discounts at Halfords, but that makes it even worse... imagine somebody having a say on an organisation they joined to get a discount voucher... it would be a bit like giving gammons the right to decide about EU membership... oh wait...

imposter2.0

ugo.santalucia said:

BC non racing memberships are in essence third party insurance, that's why people buy them... I mean, some might buy them to get discounts at Halfords, but that makes it even worse... imagine somebody having a say on an organisation they joined to get a discount voucher... it would be a bit like giving gammons the right to decide about EU membership... oh wait...

So people who buy at Halfords are the wrong type of member. Got it.

ugo.santalucia

imposter2.0 said:

ugo.santalucia said:

BC non racing memberships are in essence third party insurance, that's why people buy them... I mean, some might buy them to get discounts at Halfords, but that makes it even worse... imagine somebody having a say on an organisation they joined to get a discount voucher... it would be a bit like giving gammons the right to decide about EU membership... oh wait...

So people who buy at Halfords are the wrong type of member. Got it.

If that’s the reason to join BC, then yes, they are

ugo.santalucia

Watching the track worlds now, they are already all Shelled up with lovely logos on their arms… 😂

webboo

ugo.santalucia said:

imposter2.0 said:

ugo.santalucia said:

BC non racing memberships are in essence third party insurance, that's why people buy them... I mean, some might buy them to get discounts at Halfords, but that makes it even worse... imagine somebody having a say on an organisation they joined to get a discount voucher... it would be a bit like giving gammons the right to decide about EU membership... oh wait...

So people who buy at Halfords are the wrong type of member. Got it.

If that’s the reason to join BC, then yes, they are

So you see people who shop at Halfords as being different, inferior, lacking in moral judgement, lacking in taste, lacking in intelligence or is it something else
Or would you like to spell it for those of us who don’t get what you are saying.

ugo.santalucia

webboo said:

ugo.santalucia said:

imposter2.0 said:

ugo.santalucia said:

BC non racing memberships are in essence third party insurance, that's why people buy them... I mean, some might buy them to get discounts at Halfords, but that makes it even worse... imagine somebody having a say on an organisation they joined to get a discount voucher... it would be a bit like giving gammons the right to decide about EU membership... oh wait...

So people who buy at Halfords are the wrong type of member. Got it.

If that’s the reason to join BC, then yes, they are

So you see people who shop at Halfords as being different, inferior, lacking in moral judgement, lacking in taste, lacking in intelligence or is it something else
Or would you like to spell it for those of us who don’t get what you are saying.

I don’t give a toss where you shop, but if you join BC just to get a discount at Halfords and then you get outraged because they get funded by Shell, maybe you should have a hard look at the mirror…

orraloon

Strange thread. But to toss in an info bite, CyclingUK also provide insurance, legal assist, discount at Halfords and I don't think they are sponsored by Shell. HTH, if it rocks your boat.

There are more important issues in the world right now...