• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

somerley estate

James Martin said:
The CAC committee have recently added the following post to their website home page via a link 'Website and Forum use' -> (Dave may have fallen foul of this - I don't know).

"The Committee, who are all unpaid volunteers, appreciate that emotive subjects such The Somerley Lease do generate strong opinions on the Forum, however this does not mean that the sort of posts that are currently being seen in which individual members of the Comittee are singled out for abuse are acceptable . The Forum was created for like minded anglers to share their experiences , it seems now that a few members are using it as a soapbox to berate the Committee. Any club member has the right to attend a Committee meeting and raise his or her concerns or questions directly to the Committee , the office door is open and the phone number is on the website. Lorraine will happily take your details. The Committee have taken the decision that any future posts of a personal nature will be removed."
Best keep anything personal over here! They seem a sensitive bunch.
Click to expand...

James,

Yes, that was why my forum access was disabled last July although I never had the courtesy of an explanation of the decision, despite a letter being promised. It will also be the reason why John McGough (and a number of others) have been silenced.

On a technical note, although all Committee members are volunteers, the Executive Committee members (Chairman, Treasurer, Secretary and Fishery Management Officer) all receive honoraria from Club funds, so they are not strictly "unpaid".


Dave
 
David Clewer said:
For whatever reason, the Committee, led by the Chairman, had decided that they did not want to pay the rent demanded (which had previously been agreed by the Committee before Ian May came back on board) and that the Club would be better off without the Somerley waters.
Click to expand...

Dave, that strongly suggests that the decision to drop Somerley was basically driven by the opinion of one individual?

Shouldn't the members have been at the very least given the chance to direct the committee as to what they, the members, wanted on such an important issue regarding their club?
 
Last edited:
I personaly don't much like airing the dirty washing on a public forum as there should be room to do all that on the in-house forum,[if allowed!!] This now seems to have become a little difficult if 'some posts' are going to be deleted. I have been surprised that the posts regarding the 'loss' of Somerley on the the CAC forum have in the main been constructive, moderate and have shown nothing but a deep concern for the wellbeing of this once great angling club.
If I were part of the CAC committee, I would be glad that so many ,..often silent members,..were showing how passionate they were about their fishing and the future of their club, instead of the usual appathy that is laid bare with the poor attendance at general meetings.
The committee should be embracing this surge of interest from members and leading the way rather than being seen to regard it as an uprising amongst the natives!
 
Last edited:
With regards to the lease my understanding, which may be wrong, is that relinquishing the long lease at Ibsley, at what appears to be an undervalue and a shortening of the notice period that the Estate can give the club in the future from a year to six months, is fundamental to the Estates position. Plus, I'm sure most would agree that the quality of the fishing on the estate is not what it was, so should be reflected in the rent payable.

The crux seems to be that now the Estate is on a firm financial footing it wants to bring all its assets under closer control and possibly doesn't need the fisheries income from the club. They also seem to have forgotten how the club helped them out in the past, which led to the long lease being granted for Ibsley.

Just my opinion pieced together from the various forum posts on the subject.
 
Nigel Gray said:
Dave, that strongly suggests that the decision to drop Somerley was basically driven by the opinion of one individual?

Shouldn't the members have been at the very least given the chance to direct the committee as to what they, the members, wanted on such an important issue regarding their club?
Click to expand...

It seems extraordinary to me Nigel.

Surely the committee are duty bound to act in the interests of the membership, and therefore the voluntary relinquishing of a water should be voted upon by the membership. After all, the waters that a club controls are the very reason an individual joins in the first place.
 
Tim, the fishery isn't being given up voluntarily, the Estate have given the club notice, due to not getting there own way on the Ibsley lease. Even if the club agreed to these terms what's to say that the Estate wouldn't then give notice anyway, to fit in with the plan outlined in the Avon Diary.
 
Garry Lee said:
Tim, the fishery isn't being given up voluntarily, the Estate have given the club notice, due to not getting there own way on the Ibsley lease. Even if the club agreed to these terms what's to say that the Estate wouldn't then give notice anyway, to fit in with the plan outlined in the Avon Diary.
Click to expand...

Garry, the club had the option to continue on new terms. Not agreeing to those new terms amounts to the same thing as voluntarily relinquishing the water in my book.
 
Nigel Gray said:
Shouldn't the members have been at the very least given the chance to direct the committee as to what they, the members, wanted on such an important issue regarding their club?
Click to expand...

Nigel,

I always believed that the issue of the possible loss of Somerley was a fundamental one and should have been put before the membership, rather than the decision being made by the Committee. However, they believed that they knew best and carried on without even consulting the membership, who were kept in the dark (the scraps fed at the GMs never amounted to much more than 'negotiations are continuing') until after the event. Of course, some members knew what was going on, but the vast majority knew nothing until after the recent General Meeting.


Dave
 
Garry Lee said:
Tim, the fishery isn't being given up voluntarily, the Estate have given the club notice, due to not getting there own way on the Ibsley lease. Even if the club agreed to these terms what's to say that the Estate wouldn't then give notice anyway, to fit in with the plan outlined in the Avon Diary.
Click to expand...

Garry,

Can I just clear a couple of things up.

First, although the Estate were keen to buy out the long lease of the Ibsley complex, it was not fundamental to the deal and they made it clear that they would be happy for the Club to retain this alongside a new lease of the rest of the waters.

Second, the Estate were happy with CAC as the holders of the fishing rights on the Estate although there were some disagreements over issues such as maintenance and access. It is very rare for there to be no problems with such a major undertaking! They were keen to consolidate all the leases and that was part of the rationale behind the new lease but the surrender of the Ibsley lease was not fundamemntal to the satisfactory conclusion of the negotiations.

From memory, it had been agreed that in the event of the Estate terminating the new lease for any reason, the notice would expire on the following 14th March - not necessarily 12 months but enabling the Club to complete the coarse fishing season.

The Estate had offered concessions in respect of the rent payable under the new lease if the Club agreed to give up the Ibsley lease and although these were not generous, the Committee had previously agreed to accept these before it decided to try to renegotiate the terms at a very late stage in the proceedings. Remember that these negotiations had been under way for almost 3 years and in the Spring of 2013, the Estate thought that a deal had been agreed so it is not really a surprise that they took such a hard line when the agreement was withdrawn by the Club, who sought to renegotiate the terms.

Finally, Tim is right, it was not a case of the Estate forcefully taking the water back, they had no choice. The Club had rejected the terms on offer and they had only one option - to terminate the agreement by serving Notice to Quit.


Dave
 
Hi Dave C.
I have added a thread to the Questions For Committee forum asking members what questions and points for discussion they would like raised at a possible EGM.
Bearing in mind you don't currently have access to the forum,
what questions would you like asked?
all the best,
Tim
 
Tim,

I'll PM you rather than air on this forum but the Special General Meeting has to be called for a specific reason or reasons, which would have to be incorporated in the request for the SGM, duly signed by at least 60 members.

Careful you too don't get barred for encouraging dissent!!


Dave
 
Dave,

Thanks for the reply, just a couple of clarifications

"From memory, it had been agreed that in the event of the Estate terminating the new lease for any reason, the notice would expire on the following 14th March - not necessarily 12 months but enabling the Club to complete the coarse fishing season."

So the Estate could have given less than a month's notice, provided it was before 14th March?

"The Estate had offered concessions in respect of the rent payable under the new lease if the Club agreed to give up the Ibsley lease and although these were not generous, the Committee had previously agreed to accept these before it decided to try to renegotiate the terms at a very late stage in the proceedings."

The new lease appears to have included giving up a substantial asset at an undervalue, to my mind a poor commercial decision. Was any professional advice taken on the value offered by the Estate? Perhaps the committee members who decided to accept the offer should give some background? Had the lease been signed, would an explanation have been given on the value given up?

"Finally, Tim is right, it was not a case of the Estate forcefully taking the water back, they had no choice. The Club had rejected the terms on offer and they had only one option - to terminate the agreement by serving Notice to Quit."

I disagree, in my opinion the Estate did have an option and chose to give notice, nowhere have I seen any reference to the Club telling the Estate that they wished to relinquish the lease.

This is just my take on how things appear and how I'd view them if I had to look at this situation in my day job.
 
Garry,

I can't remember exactly what was agreed in terms of notice but there was definitely a provision that it would end on 14th March. There was a minimum notice period but I can't remember how it would have fitted in with the season end date.

A valuation of the long lease was in hand at the time that I resigned so I do not know what that valuation was. The original perception was that the lease was not worth a great deal but after the Club's solicitors had reviewed the draft lease, they raised concerns which was why a valuation was sought. However, the original belief was that the lease included the fishing on the east bank of the main river, which it did not. This makes a big difference to the value of the fishing rights and consequently that of the remaining lease. One also has to discount the value of the potential future income flow (from the rents that would be receivable were the lease to be sublet - the basic means of valuing the remaining term of the lease) which would not have been that great given that it is only the three ponds plus the trout stream. A significant six figure sum was talked about when the river fishing was erroneously included but without this, the value would have been much lower and the offer made by the Estate could have been reasonable, it being unlikely that there would have been many other takers for what was actually available.

We'll have to agree to differ on the termination of the existing agreement. The Estate could have taken a much harder line had they seen fit. The previous lease had in fact expired in 2009/10 (not sure of precise date but the lease was granted in 1999 for a period of ten years) and the Estate were merely allowing the Club to continue paying rent under the terms of that agreement until a new one was agreed. Had they felt so inclined, the Club could have been served with much shorter notice. In any event it was the Club that rejected the terms offered and therefore they who effectively ended the agreement.


Dave
 
Jamie,

Disciplinary was "postponed" at the last minute as the Committee had too much else to deal with (can't imagine why!!). So that's me out of Christchurch, as my membership ran out in December and I certainly have no intention of renewing now.

I might consider coming back into the fold if there is a major overhaul of the Committee but if there isn't, then I fear for the future of this once mighty Club.


Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top