BASC Exceptional Costs re "Staffing Issues".

enfieldspares

Well-Known Member
First I am a current BASC full member and intend to remain as such. So this isn't intended as "BASC Bashing".

Yet at the same time in the current May/June BASC magazine the financial repercussions of the recent debacle are only found if the accounts are read line by line.

I would have hoped for better openess.

So read page 79, the accounts, under 6 OPERATING RESULTS. And I see "Exceptional costs - legal fees £149,474.

And underneath this ONE HUNDRED AN FORTY-NINE THOUSAND POUNDS the note:

"Exceptional costs incurred during the year relate to the investigation of staffing issues involving serious breached of the Association's policies and procedures".

So there it is.

Or is it?

For on page 80 under 20 CONTINGENT LIABILITIES it says:

"The Association is aware of a potential liability related to two employment tribunal claims...liability for one of these claims is likely to be £ 80,400; while amounts relating to the second employment claim cannot be reliably measured at this time..."

Now it does add the suggestion that in relation to those sums that these claims should be recoverable by insurance reimbursements".

Let us hope so!

In the Chairman's introduction to those accounts that Peter Glenister makes no mention of these sums.

It is disappointing that this is so and it is only by a reading of those accounts that the figures are apparent.

Any comments from BASC as to why it should be left for members to see these figures are most welcomed.
 
Last edited:

Pedro

Well-Known Member
enfieldspares, what you say is true. It's obvious that BASC don't want to crow about their "staffing issues", but would you really expect any different?

I assume you have got your copy of the BASC magazine. John Thornley (vice chairman) in the first article in the magazine (page 3, "Insight") does refer to their, as he calls them "difficult times" and "rocky ride of late". He also refers the reader to their accounts that are printed later in the magazine. So it's all there for anyone to read, even if it does take a bit of wading through.

I can understand how they wouldn't want to repeatedly draw attention to it, because, if nothing else, it's drawing attention away from what they should be doing. It's also human nature. If you have a great day out shooting, you will be enthusiastic to talk about it and remember it. If you walked for miles in the rain, with no result, it'll be forgotten a bit quicker.

I think that they should have been more open about it, especially earlier on. But apart from ongoing potential employment tribunal costs, which I guess they have little control over, it's in the past now.
 

Greymaster

Well-Known Member
There is a statutory/regulatory framework for how the accounts are presented and I find no problem with the presentation outlined by the original poster. The contingent liability is evaluated in two parts: The amount specified is £80,400, with a further amount of contingency not being enumerated. In both cases it does state that the specified and the unspecified sum will be covered by insurance.

The Exceptional costs are also clearly stated.

This is an accounting document and the format is standard. What is missing compared with a typical corporate style "annual report and accounts", is something akin to a chairman's statement or directors' report. The best we get is an allusion in the editorial of the magazine.

The effects on staff morale could be assessed in the positive and the negative. The alleged tyrannical behaviour would have been extremely negative and an unnecessary distraction, but the resolution of same will have had positive effects.

It is the membership which has suffered financially from this folly. Their membership organisation has suffered a massive dent to its credibility. The magazine goes on to state that membership at 148,000 is at an all time high. How many members were lost due to the debacle is not disclosed.
 

kes

Well-Known Member
I would be interested to know where the costs of continuing to pay those who were under disciplinary process (following suspension) are 'revealed'.
The cost above seems simply to be legal fees.I wonder if that includes the legal whitewash carried out by Mr Ali and the then Chairman.
I would therefore expect a further £150K plus to be 'somewhere else'. I can imagine a lot of senior time has been poured in to making the case etc and thats just probably quoted under 'staff costs'.
'What may be more worrying is whether there is any unsuitable candidates/nepotism, hidden under the refilling of posts, also whether the CE's job is to be filled satisfactorily.
Sorry, thats BASC bashing isnt it ?? Thats some 4000 members fees as an absolute minimum given over to failings which should have been avoided.

One cant help thinking about those staff members who work hard, have little prospect of a pay rise and believed the spin, under the past 2 CEO's

I wont be one of those paying for the expansive failures, sorry but then I never could understand the waste in 'reinforcing failure'.
 
Last edited:

JTO

Well-Known Member
Reading this thread, I am tempted to open the BASC envelope that arrived recently, instead of binning it as soon as it comes through the door.
 

Wills

Well-Known Member
Ultimately BASC is a business and they have employment law costs, like any other organisation does. I too am a BASC member, have been for many years and continue to be so.
If you really want to wind yourself up, do a bit of research on charity executives pay - but probably stay away from your nearest and dearest afterwords, for at least a day.

No, on balance, I am happy with BASC. Only thing that does niggle is a certain staff member all over social media, using BASC for as far as I can see, personal gain.. or at least that is the impression it gives.
 

Pedro

Well-Known Member
I think of BASC as a trade union, with similar type people at the top.
Hadn't thought of it like that, but now you mention it, it is very similar in what it does and how it goes about things. Very observational there, JTO.
 

kes

Well-Known Member
Ultimately BASC is a business and they have employment law costs, like any other organisation does. I too am a BASC member, have been for many years and continue to be so.
If you really want to wind yourself up, do a bit of research on charity executives pay - but probably stay away from your nearest and dearest afterwords, for at least a day.

No, on balance, I am happy with BASC. Only thing that does niggle is a certain staff member all over social media, using BASC for as far as I can see, personal gain.. or at least that is the impression it gives.

Sorry, I dont do social media - who is the personality of which you speak ?
 

Wills

Well-Known Member
Sorry, I dont do social media - who is the personality of which you speak ?
I would recommend you join the Book of Face and have a look for shooting types with BASC at the end of their name. If you do, you may form a similar or different opinion than I. You then may discover their alter ego and note similar postings (in terms of time, content, location). Im curious as to what this individual recovers as "business expenses". May be nothing, may be something..

I note there is the Chief Exec position being advertised in this months mag, Im wondering who will get this role.
 
Last edited:

mealiejimmy

Well-Known Member
Excuse me? You don't do social media? What do you think that the SD is then? :rofl:
You make a good point, I had always thought of social media as Faceache and Twatter, and personally I have no time for that particular pair of places where people announce to the world that they're going for a s**t, and then feel the need to tell everyone how many pieces of paper they used to wipe their a**e
From all the evidence that's not SD and like Kes I don't regard it as social media

Cheers

Bruce
 

Dexter

Well-Known Member
You make a good point, I had always thought of social media as Faceache and Twatter, and personally I have no time for that particular pair of places where people announce to the world that they're going for a s**t, and then feel the need to tell everyone how many pieces of paper they used to wipe their a**e
From all the evidence that's not SD and like Kes I don't regard it as social media

Cheers

Bruce
I know what you and Kes were saying Bruce but the fact remains that SD is Social Media! Definition: websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking.

Anyway, after having a chicken madras for dinner last night I am feeling the need to visit the little boys room. I will be back soon to report lengths, girths and time taken! :lol:
 

rodp

Well-Known Member
You make a good point, I had always thought of social media as Faceache and Twatter, and personally I have no time for that particular pair of places where people announce to the world that they're going for a s**t, and then feel the need to tell everyone how many pieces of paper they used to wipe their a**e
From all the evidence that's not SD and like Kes I don't regard it as social media

Cheers

Bruce

You don't know what you're missing Bruce, you can wind them sky high and they still don't ban you. You have to treat fb like an adult comic, it's mostly fiction written by dreamers. :thumb:
 

kes

Well-Known Member
You don't know what you're missing Bruce, you can wind them sky high and they still don't ban you. You have to treat fb like an adult comic, it's mostly fiction written by dreamers. :thumb:
In that comparison, which is clearly not mine, I dont see SD as "mostly fiction written by dreamers"
I therefore fully agree with rodp's assessment !
 

Coddy

Well-Known Member
I know what you and Kes were saying Bruce but the fact remains that SD is Social Media! Definition: websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking.

Anyway, after having a chicken madras for dinner last night I am feeling the need to visit the little boys room. I will be back soon to report lengths, girths and time taken! :lol:
Same as Bruce and Kes. Not into all that Faceplook and Twatter rubbish.

Regarding the Madras. If it indeed was a good Madras, i doubt there will be much Length, Girth or time to report.
More like Spray pattern, sound, and definitely rolls, rather than sheets of paper.
 

Dexter

Well-Known Member
Same as Bruce and Kes. Not into all that Faceplook and Twatter rubbish.

Regarding the Madras. If it indeed was a good Madras, i doubt there will be much Length, Girth or time to report.
More like Spray pattern, sound, and definitely rolls, rather than sheets of paper.
:rofl: You are indeed correct Coddy. Fortunately I had put some wet wipes in the fridge in advance. This helped with the ring sting!
 

nun_hunter

Well-Known Member
I would be interested to know where the costs of continuing to pay those who were under disciplinary process (following suspension) are 'revealed'.
You can't refuse to pay someone while you're investigating them as they haven't yet been found guilty of anything so this is pretty irrelevant. If you didn't pay them or botched the investigation because you rushed it to save a few quid paying them then you'd only end up paying more once they appeal and win.
 

Top