Forum Access Changes 2

[Misfit]

Andy, some are suggesting the MT wish to close the Forum, I don’t think that is true, it takes away from the real charging issue, and the suggested effect it will have on the forum and club, which most seem to be concerned about. 

On the other hand Mr Smith for one made a pertinent post to the point and covers much if not all of the majority forum posters feelings, It doesn’t confuse the issue. 

I believe it’s not about unnecessary MT bashing, it’s an attempt to ask them to find a better solution. Maybe my post confuse the issue too so I opologise and I’ll leave it there.

Regards Derek

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jase]

On 1/16/2025 at 8:51 PM, PodOne said:

Yes it is but the proposed changes will destroy the very asset that may attract potential members!

Andy 

100% Andy, if the forum didn't exist I don't think I would continue my membership. Without the support and enthusiasm of a worldwide community the TR world suddenly becomes the four walls of your garage. I would also like to highlight the incredible advice all contributors make, members or not, we all share the same love and enthusiasm for these cars.

It will be a very sad day if you exclude non members or close the forum down which will in turn affect larger events such as international weekends as I am sure out of principle many people will not commit to  

Edited January 19 by Jase

[RogerH]

Hi Derek,

when you were on the MT there was not an issue of the forum costing £££££.

The MT spokesman is now quoting vastly incorrect forum registered member number 14,000+  but is nearer to 1000.

Now we are looking at many £££££ due to a stupid error

The MT appear to have lost control of the computer upgrade costings.   Do they actually know what they are doing.

 

Roger

[roy53]

3 hours ago, Jase said:

100% Andy, if the forum didn't exist I don't think I would continue my membership. Without the support and enthusiasm of a worldwide community the TR world suddenly becomes the four walls of your garage. I would also like to highlight the incredible advice all contributors make, members or not, we all share the same love and enthusiasm for these cars.

It will be a very sad day if you exclude non members or close the forum down which will in turn affect larger events such as international weekends as I am sure out of principle many people will not commit to  

+1 Jase

i feet the same as you regarding membership 

[Misfit]

22 hours ago, RogerH said:

Hi Derek,

when you were on the MT there was not an issue of the forum costing £££££.

The MT spokesman is now quoting vastly incorrect forum registered member number 14,000+  but is nearer to 1000.

Now we are looking at many £££££ due to a stupid error

The MT appear to have lost control of the computer upgrade costings.   Do they actually know what they are doing.

 

Roger

Roger I will reply as it was a direct post to me: 

I don’t know why the MT have taken the decision they have, an error? Like most individuals on here I haven’t been party to all the advice received or discussions leading up to this, or which numbers is actually correct.

Maybe they made a decision which they felt worked for their members, those that contribute? Maybe they felt it would encourage others to join and contribute too? Maybe they felt that it was a reasonable assumption, by reducing footfall to just members, it provided the members with  a service / benefit that would be affordable, and met their criteria? May be.

I’m not saying they got it right, clearly they haven’t correctly read the feelings of so many of our forum members that financially contribute, let along those that don’t. I suggest Roger they’re not the first board members to have miss read the room, or perhaps made fools of themselves. Yes it appears they got it wrong, certainly based on the comments here. If though they ask members, the large majority, the outcome might be different, perhaps those will feel they got it right. We don’t know, I accept the management rightly needs to take into consideration the minorities interests too.

I do know it’s easy to attack management and it seems to me there are those, even prominent members, perhaps do so to frequently, it might make one think they have an agenda, angry at past decisions maybe and would like to see all existing management replaced? So far though the membership feel they haven’t found suitable replacement, maybe. Signing off

Derek

Edited January 20 by Misfit

[Chris Hale]

Well said Derek

[John Morrison]

Yes Derek there is much here with which I find no argument 

John

[SuzanneH]

3 hours ago, Misfit said:

 

I do know it’s easy to attack management and it seems to me there are those, even prominent members, perhaps do so to frequently, it might make one think they have an agenda, angry at past decisions maybe and would like to see all existing management replaced? So far though the membership feel they haven’t found suitable replacement, maybe. Signing off

Derek

Why do you consider Rogers posts as always an attack on the management, they are not an attack but constructive criticism for a club he belongs to and cherishes. He is trying his best for the club to do the right thing for the members as he did in the past when an EGM was called.

I think it was that debacle that has lead Roger to be looked on as the baddy, when in fact it was others that brought this to the attention of the club and forum members. Roger was later asked to attend the arbitration meeting because one of the members who was supposed to attend was unable to attend the meeting. Roger becoming the “ fall guy” and attacked by the three arbitrators for asking one simple question.

You always seem to be implying Roger does not help with the club but he was for a long time the London Group Leader followed by the Area Coordinator. During his time in these positions, and before,  he helped, to the exclusion of all else, on the London Group Bring and Buy Stall at all the Internation Week Ends for many years. We also took someone, called Derek, place on the gate at an international at Lincoln. Fall Guy again as we had to tell anyone too early to go away, the following year they had a holding field.

You accuse Roger of attacking the MT but did you ever notice the way Mick Forey always replied on this Forumn  in a very aggressive manner, I notice in the last couple of months his manner has softened.

As for this forum being a much better place than it used to be, have any of the current moderators ever come across Gareth somebody or other? You haven’t moderated if you haven’t encountered him, he took up more time than all the spammers you get now…..!!!

There I’ve had my say and I hope I have put a few of your thoughts straight.

Please think about what I have had to say as I feel a lot more moderating on individuals level is required here to maintain THE TRUTH here.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dale Moore]

Well said Sue.

Dale

 

 

 

[cvtrian]

1 hour ago, SuzanneH said:

Why do you consider Rogers posts as always an attack on the management, they are not an attack but constructive criticism for a club he belongs to and cherishes. He is trying his best for the club to do the right thing for the members as he did in the past when an EGM was called.

I think it was that debacle that has lead Roger to be looked on as the baddy, when in fact it was others that brought this to the attention of the club and forum members. Roger was later asked to attend the arbitration meeting because one of the members who was supposed to attend was unable to attend the meeting. Roger becoming the “ fall guy” and attacked by the three arbitrators for asking one simple question.

You always seem to be implying Roger does not help with the club but he was for a long time the London Group Leader followed by the Area Coordinator. During his time in these positions, and before,  he helped, to the exclusion of all else, on the London Group Bring and Buy Stall at all the Internation Week Ends for many years. We also took someone, called Derek, place on the gate at an international at Lincoln. Fall Guy again as we had to tell anyone too early to go away, the following year they had a holding field.

You accuse Roger of attacking the MT but did you ever notice the way Mick Forey always replied on this Forumn  in a very aggressive manner, I notice in the last couple of months his manner has softened.

As for this forum being a much better place than it used to be, have any of the current moderators ever come across Gareth somebody or other? You haven’t moderated if you haven’t encountered him, he took up more time than all the spammers you get now…..!!!

There I’ve had my say and I hope I have put a few of your thoughts straight.

Please think about what I have had to say as I feel a lot more moderating on individuals level is required here to maintain THE TRUTH here.

 

 

 

 

 

Well said Sue, and I would add that it was I who last called an EGM with enormous member and forum support when a conscientious TRR member was being made an example of for challenging the way the local groups were managed. The quorate number was easily achieved but this EGM was "postponed" as an "independent" panel was appointed to adjudicate, sadly with an outcome that did the club no favours but which had previously been agreed we would not challenge - but that is a a whole different story. Roger, along with others, have maintained their integrity and kept to that commitment.
Derek (misfit) you were the only one to apologise to me in person for the disgraceful antics of another board member at the time, and later I received a written apology from Alan Westbury.
Roger Hogarth is one of the most genuine and honest people I have met, and it is a privilege to work alongside him in the Spares Development Fund. His behind the scenes work efforts with MOSS and the TR Shop, along with other organisations, may go un noticed but the benefits are for all TR owners (not just the TR Register as some would have preferred) His actions speak louder than words. His forum contributions are knowledgeable and often humerus, not many people have made more posts than he has.
So others who may chose to criticise Roger may well take a long look in the mirror
Ian

[Rod1883]

Well said Ian (and Sue previously).

Not sure about the humerus comment - I'd have a bone to pick with you on that

Edited January 20 by Rod1883

[SuzanneH]

30 minutes ago, Rod1883 said:

Well said Ian (and Sue previously).

Not sure about the humerus comment - I'd have a bone to pick with you on that

[Peter Cobbold]

53 minutes ago, cvtrian said:

Well said Sue, and I would add that it was I who last called an EGM with enormous member and forum support when a conscientious TRR member was being made an example of for challenging the way the local groups were managed. The quorate number was easily achieved but this EGM was "postponed" as an "independent" panel was appointed to adjudicate, sadly with an outcome that did the club no favours

And that is the reason I let my membership lapse.

Peter

[Chris Hale]

3 hours ago, SuzanneH said:

 

You accuse Roger of attacking the MT but did you ever notice the way Mick Forey always replied on this Forumn  in a very aggressive manner, I notice in the last couple of months his manner has softened.

 

Unfortunately Sue the very  manner in which you accuse Mick Forey of using is exactly how Roger comes across when he is posting about the Committee/Board (as was) and the current Management Team. His manner is entirely different when he is posting technical content.

[cvtrian]

1 hour ago, Rod1883 said:

 

Not sure about the humerus comment - I'd have a bone to pick with you on that

Ooopppsss - humorous..........

[Kiwifrog]

4 hours ago, SuzanneH said:

Why do you consider Rogers posts as always an attack on the management, they are not an attack but constructive criticism for a club he belongs to and cherishes. He is trying his best for the club to do the right thing for the members as he did in the past when an EGM was called.

I think it was that debacle that has lead Roger to be looked on as the baddy, when in fact it was others that brought this to the attention of the club and forum members. Roger was later asked to attend the arbitration meeting because one of the members who was supposed to attend was unable to attend the meeting. Roger becoming the “ fall guy” and attacked by the three arbitrators for asking one simple question.

You always seem to be implying Roger does not help with the club but he was for a long time the London Group Leader followed by the Area Coordinator. During his time in these positions, and before,  he helped, to the exclusion of all else, on the London Group Bring and Buy Stall at all the Internation Week Ends for many years. We also took someone, called Derek, place on the gate at an international at Lincoln. Fall Guy again as we had to tell anyone too early to go away, the following year they had a holding field.

You accuse Roger of attacking the MT but did you ever notice the way Mick Forey always replied on this Forumn  in a very aggressive manner, I notice in the last couple of months his manner has softened.

As for this forum being a much better place than it used to be, have any of the current moderators ever come across Gareth somebody or other? You haven’t moderated if you haven’t encountered him, he took up more time than all the spammers you get now…..!!!

There I’ve had my say and I hope I have put a few of your thoughts straight.

Please think about what I have had to say as I feel a lot more moderating on individuals level is required here to maintain THE TRUTH here.

 

 

 

 

 

Sue 

I am an ex member of the TR Register and as yet still a forum member. As far as I am concerned with all Roger has done for the register including the spares development fund, the work for local groups and being a likeable enthusiastic ambassador for the club he is a club hero and should be receiving accolades not criticism!

Alan

[james christie]

37 minutes ago, cvtrian said:

Ooopppsss - humorous..

I'll shoulder you.....

james

[Misfit]

3 hours ago, cvtrian said:

Derek (misfit) you were the only one to apologise to me in person for the disgraceful antics of another board member at the time. 

Ian

You made the above comment Ian, enlighten me, please provide the name of the person you have now alleged I apologised for.  As I have no recollection of any such apology or any such  disgraceful antics by a board member.  

Secondly, are there now also suggetions that the appointed independent approve panel, appointed by those acting on behalf of the members and the management, that, that panel, (one that I had no input in), did not show due diligence.

Having undertaking the task to which they were appointed to. Made a recommendation to the removal of such individual. because he just questioned how a group was run. That recommendation was not challenged as a result of those members integrity. Is that until now Ian.

i suggest Ian and Susanne you reread my posts. Nowhere did I suggest dishonesty I’m sure, although I am aware of an allegation made which was later retracted and subsequently an offer of an apology given as it was factually incorrect.

Lastly I can categorically state that I don’t recall at any time being asked at Lincoln to man the gate not this Derek. Furthermore I do not doubt that Roger has in the past given his time and  offers useful technical information to TR Owner and TRR members, that he is and has been a conscientious loyal member of the Spares development Fund, who’s activities has and does provides them with a regular income. 

if there is any doubt I too am interested in the truth and prepared to defend it. Can I suggest that if this is the direction this post is taking we do so elsewhere.

Derek (misfit)

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 20 by Misfit

[cvtrian]

12 hours ago, Misfit said:

Ian

You made the above comment Ian, enlighten me, please provide the name of the person you have now alleged I apologised for.  As I have no recollection of any such apology or any such  disgraceful antics by a board member.  

Secondly, are there now also suggetions that the appointed independent approve panel, appointed by those acting on behalf of the members and the management, that, that panel, (one that I had no input in), did not show due diligence.

Having undertaking the task to which they were appointed to. Made a recommendation to the removal of such individual. because he just questioned how a group was run. That recommendation was not challenged as a result of those members integrity. Is that until now Ian.

i suggest Ian and Susanne you reread my posts. Nowhere did I suggest dishonesty I’m sure, although I am aware of an allegation made which was later retracted and subsequently an offer of an apology given as it was factually incorrect.

Lastly I can categorically state that I don’t recall at any time being asked at Lincoln to man the gate not this Derek. Furthermore I do not doubt that Roger has in the past given his time and  offers useful technical information to TR Owner and TRR members, that he is and has been a conscientious loyal member of the Spares development Fund, who’s activities has and does provides them with a regular income. 

if there is any doubt I too am interested in the truth and prepared to defend it. Can I suggest that if this is the direction this post is taking we do so elsewhere.

Derek (misfit)

 

Derek, pm sent
Ian

[Misfit]

Thank you for your PM and reminding me. You haven’t mentioned the persons name on this open forum so I won’t either, for good reason plus he is no longer on the board or for all I Know with us.  What you were referring to was correspondence sent to a selected few, which I understood was subsequently  distributed to a wider TR population by it seems the very people that were complaining, which is how I got sight of it, It had nothing to do as I recall with the reason the EGM, was called.  As such I did not bring it to mind in the context of the post. 

As you have said in your PM it was considered by many intended as a joke. but I accepted it was in poor taste and felt it should not have been sent. The fact as I see it, you were implying that they were linked, as I believe was incorrectly linking Derek on the gate with me, perhaps not. 

Regarding the reason for EGM referred to in recent post, it wasn’t a good period, you state you don’t want to re open that period, well can I suggest don’t.

but to clarify I believe I did everything I could to appease individuals and keep both parties working together until it was clear I could not and had widened to involve other areas, so other members on the board/MT took over and the outcome was the outcome.

Finally Ian I do not believe in my posts I pointed my finger at any specific individual, it’s my belief that there is a link with the many attempts to undermine the management which to often seems to occur when a AGM is approaching, some justified some not, and it’s my opinion the separation between the TR Register the spares development fund has a baring. I know people make mistakes perhaps even by those currently pointing fingers I suggest, can I ask let’s try and work together and come up with an acceptable solution.

Regards Derek.

Edited January 21 by Misfit