LCGB - BLOA - Concessionaires......confusion

[gaz_powell]

I m a long time LCGB member and am happy to support the committee in their actions regarding BLOA along with the rest of those in attendance at the AGM. The support of the floor (circa 300) followed a statement by the committee, who again were voted back in unanimously.........those who attend the AGM(s) by their support shows the belief in committee and what it does.

[Chris in Margate]

Well spoken up guys.

[Doom Patrol]

Sounds like a Momentum meeting.

[a.j]

I was at the AGM, as it was presented to the attendees, this BLOA sounds like some fella outside old Trafford selling unofficial merchandise and trousering the profits.

[Timbo]

Well I went, it was my first AGM and the BLOA issue was discussed in some depth both inside and outside the meeting and I now feel I have a better understanding of what is happening and was happy to join with others in giving the LCGB committee support and backing to defend the use of the BLOA name and logo

Are you able to elaborate....Tim

[Steveshipley]

interesting isn't it.... I didn't go to the AGM but a couple of blokes from our club did. this topic fostered a more heated debate than brexit at our club!!!
Mr frankland was presented as some dodgy profiteer, who was out to make money from the sacred name like some backstreet counterfeiter. I asked the two who went how they felt about funding the legal action and they weren't overly concerned because the lcgb would get all the costs back when they win!! also they spoke about the lcgb barrister opinion on that. (sounds expensive). They also said Mr Walsh had suggested some middle ground between the lcgb and Mr frankland but had been booed silent.

just reporting what the discussion in our club was and not claiming any of this is factual. I'm a paid member of both lcgb and bloa.

[coaster]

The booing must have been when I popped out for a pee (couldn't hold on any longer ) as I did hear the suggestion from Mr Walsh I think that he might be receptive to an offer to drop it Have to say that the vast majority didn't think that was an option. As I said earlier, I didn't know the ins and outs of this and probably never will but my impression was that Kev Walsh seems to have been doing some negotiating with Mr Frankland without the knowledge of the committee unless I miss interpreted what he was saying.

Regardless of whether or not Martin Frankland has obtained copyright or not (LCGB says not) if there is a market out there for a Lambretta club offering something different to the LCGB then that is completely fine. What is NOT fine is hi-jacking a logo which is undeniably historically linked to the LCGB. I have to ask myself why do that? Why not come up with a completely original name? The new club (so I understand) is actually a limited company registered to Mr Franklin and his wife, that in itself seems rather strange and certainly makes me think that this move is at least in part, a commercial venture. Anyway, that's my take on it, I dare say others might have differing views but I just hope they are based on an objective look at the facts rather that the like or dislike of members of the committee who I feel get a lot of undeserved flack

[Steveshipley]

well if he has formed a Ltd company that might be a smart move if the lcgb are pursuing this with a fervour and are prepared to follow up at any cost.

anyway, just making observations and not critising either party.

[a.j]

The booing must have been when I popped out for a pee (couldn't hold on any longer ) as I did hear the suggestion from Mr Walsh I think that he might be receptive to an offer to drop it

He wasn't booed, just a loud murmuring of emphatic 'No's'.

Anyway, I just wanna ride me feckin' scooter!

[hendy]

Anyway, I just wanna ride me feckin' scooter!

Aye.