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

[corrado]

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.

+ 1

I find it ironic that the "slagging" given to LCGB at a committee level [from certain quarters] will be replaced by a single owner "family and friends" dictatorship where you won't have a say. ...... or a vote ..... or an AGM with balance sheets.

I too like the "old time" rally theme and I'm sure that the LCGB would oblige if this was asked for.

[Timbo]

+ 1

I find it ironic that the "slagging" given to LCGB at a committee level [from certain quarters] will be replaced by a single owner "family and friends" dictatorship where you won't have a say. ...... or a vote ..... or an AGM with balance sheets.

I too like the "old time" rally theme and I'm sure that the LCGB would oblige if this was asked for.

No doubt the members of BLOA will vote with their feet if they feel they are not getting value for money.....something that doesn’t affect the LCGB.....give the guy a chance and see how well attended the rally’s are. I believe he is offering the cheapest dating certificates, not the action of someone wanting to make a quick buck...

[bolzenanker]

I couldn't get to the AGM this year, but it sounds like the LCGB are serious in their actions, and have the members and finance behind them to see it through. None of which would have happened if the BLOA name hadn't been used. It just seems like a lot of wasted time, money and trouble for the sake of a name that I believe the LCGB have historical rights to, and if the BLOA changed it's name would vanish in an instant.

I still hope this gets sorted out amicably and at the lowest cost, the LCGB can afford it but I'm sure would rather spend the money on other things. Whether the BLOA can afford it I do not know, maybe the members (including me) will be asked to contribute to a fighting fund? Good luck with that.

One thing I've noticed though, none of the scootering press have picked up on this story (that I'm aware of), not Scootering, SULK etc.

[GTFOMWSC]

Not sure who is wrong or who is right and personally don't care a jot,but one thing i wonder is IF the LCGB are adamant they are right and have no fear about losing and prepared to spend it's members money on it(i am not and never will be so don't care if they spend the money) what happens if they lose?.Will the junta fall on it's sword and offer all their resignations? somehow i wouldn't think so, what would it's members attitude then be?.

It's hyperthetical as no decision has been made but there has to be an outcome where there is a winner and loser.I can only summise that the LCGB have been lapse if anything in not protecting it's ownership of names etc etc as like the example with slazenger and the likes where that sporting company bought them all up and then proceeded to make garments with their logo/names on.Think this might be a similar situation of sorts and has to go the legal route to clarify ownership.

One thing very noticable is the fact that a lot of riders who don't want to be part of the LCGB have registered interest in this new BLOA and quite considerable numbers since all this blew up.I registered interest myself as i want nothing to do with the LCGB never have since the 80's same with VCB as i own vespas as well so it's not just a lammy biase thing.I'm going to the Sywell rally to check it out.

I'll make it clear i'm not siding with either party on this but it is a wake up call to the LCGB that not everyone is with them and there are more lambretta owners not in it than are.

[Sach]

One thing I've noticed though, none of the scootering press have picked up on this story (that I'm aware of), not Scootering, SULK etc.

I’m very sure they are aware of it.

[EddieStone]

If the LCGB 'owned' BLOA then why didn't they use it rather than LCGB? If Vespa owners have the choice of two clubs, the VCB and VOC, then why can't Lambretta owners?

Personally I object to the LCGB spending thousands on legal rights to a name they've been careless about. It seems a staggering waste of time and money and of no benefit to any of the membership.

I see no reason why BLOA and LCGB can't co-exist side by side and the Lambretta owner choose whether to join either, both or neither.

[GTFOMWSC]

If the LCGB 'owned' BLOA then why didn't they use it rather than LCGB? If Vespa owners have the choice of two clubs, the VCB and VOC, then why can't Lambretta owners?

Personally I object to the LCGB spending thousands on legal rights to a name they've been careless about. It seems a staggering waste of time and money and of no benefit to any of the membership.

I see no reason why BLOA and LCGB can't co-exist side by side and the Lambretta owner choose whether to join either, both or neither.

Have to agree with every word you say here,i saw a picture of the banner the LCGB used for their AGM and suddenly they've used BLOA on it, wonder if they had it on it on last years or even the years before that.

[Muttley McLadd]

I see no reason why BLOA and LCGB can't co-exist side by side and the Lambretta owner choose whether to join either, both or neither.

Maybe it's more to do with cock waving than catching up on their own tardiness.

[Sach]

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

Who is Martin Frankland?

[mick1]

He runs BOLA.......