Whats happening at the ACA ?
Posted 10 December 2004 - 07:13 PM
I could be mistaken, but the name of a solocitor who now carries out work for, and on behalf of its membership, used to take on work for the ACA.
[ 10. December 2004, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: wearyone ]
Posted 10 December 2004 - 07:24 PM
The current situation means that everyone loses: The ACA, Bob James and Jane James. Which, if there is an innocent party (or parties) here, seems very unfair.
I doubt that we'll ever get to learn the whole, unvarnished truth about this sorry saga.
ACA, R.I.P. I fear.
Posted 10 December 2004 - 08:50 PM
LOL, Very interesting !!
ROFL, well I thought it was interesting lol.
[ 10. December 2004, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: PeterK ]
Posted 11 December 2004 - 12:23 AM
Graham Elliot posed;
"You could always consider starting something up Lee?"
With the chance of 75 grand severance pay might well be worth it? Nah. Aside from my ACA lfe membership, I'm a member of numerous other organisations where my contributions aid support for watery environments.
That said, I share Jim's concern that this episode if not handled and laid out properly before the ACA membership,might have dire consequences. Clarity is what is needed now, not only for the existing ACA members, but for all those prospective members out there.
NAFAC membership carries an extra option for public liability insurance doesn't it?? If I'm correct here it's a different option? But I might be mistaken.
That said, NAFAC for me at any rate (whilst we/I am on the subject), is demonstrative of just how good an angling political organisation can be. But also demonstrative, is the low amount of anglers in this country that bother to join it? The very same can be said for ACA membership? SAA membership? NFA individual membership?
The thing that has always struck me however, is the fact that these and other organisations of a similar nature, always suffer from the same afliction in terms of gaining members. Given the fact that nearly all such organisations have really good people working for them, its a crying shame that more don't join up.
Thats why we simply can't allow the ACA to fall by the wayside and why those that run the ACA should take possitive steps now to listen to any concerns the membership have.
Posted 11 December 2004 - 12:26 AM
Thanks Jim for all the positive things you said about Allen Edwards, he was my oldest friend in both meanings of the word oldest. I am passing your kind comments on to Helen his widow.
Posted 11 December 2004 - 12:57 AM
I would suggest that £75k severance payment to two senior Executives, is not a large sum.
I suspect it represents one years salary (each)in lieu of the typical notice period, of someone in that position.
If I was wrongly accused and lost my job, it would cost an Employer more than payment in lieu of my contractual notice period.
People would be wise to consider that.
Posted 11 December 2004 - 03:06 AM
As a matter of interest, if you don't mind telling me PeterK, what motivated you to go delving into ACA accounts?
I wonder why the run of the mill member was unaware of an ACA holding company.
Posted 11 December 2004 - 03:18 AM
I believe that the ACA applied for charitable status in the early 80's but of course the political climate back then was not very responsive to an organisation that was a positive pain in the thingy to the supporters of the Mad Woman of Grantham
Mathew, I would say that it is all three, but primarilly number two.
Re Charity status, interesting point. If it isn't, then why not? If it is, then perhaps the Charities Commision should check it out and help put it back on the straight and narrow.
Posted 11 December 2004 - 06:08 PM
I should be fairly safe from the old bat as I now live in the Irish Republic and I can't see it as one of her favourite destinations!
The Mad Woman of Grantham lives on. Be warned!