# Banzai headline car



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

If you haven't seen March's edition of *Banzai magazine* then here is a clue to one of the cars featured: 










:squintdan


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

Congrats


----------



## davewilkins (Jun 30, 2001)

Is that an R34


----------



## gtroc (Jan 7, 2008)

I think it's a 324


----------



## EPRacing (Jul 3, 2007)

Saw the mag in Tescos today and I just have to buy it.  and it's a good read.  worth the £4.50


----------



## SPEED MERCHANT (Jun 5, 2006)

Dam!

I mean't to mention this last week as I subscribe through my iPad, well done John, looking far more tidy than when you had it at J.A.E last year :thumbsup:


----------



## xxfr (Apr 28, 2009)

Seems like a 32.4. The BeeR badge in front rather confirms it, IMO.


----------



## wardy88 (Jul 20, 2009)

xxfr said:


> Seems like a 32.4. The BeeR badge in front rather confirms it, IMO.


+1 on that


----------



## FeastJapan (Oct 21, 2008)

Hmmm looks very close to the one Bee-R had in Japan, the one with the ORC blower attached.


----------



## FeastJapan (Oct 21, 2008)

Never mind, that car was not fully 34 converted, just the face and with different grill mesh.


----------



## Thrust (Jun 8, 2004)

Well done that man! :thumbsup:


----------



## LiamGTR (Nov 26, 2006)

Who's is it ?


----------



## SPEED MERCHANT (Jun 5, 2006)

LiamGTR said:


> Who's is it ?


A genuine BEE-R 324 that FUGGLES now owns, but read the article and all the info is there :thumbsup:


----------



## akasakaR33 (Oct 10, 2005)

Awesome, congrats John!


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Mmmmmmmmmmmm what more can I say as my thread got removed !!! I suppose facts hurt. No spcec on it either.


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Steve said:


> Mmmmmmmmmmmm what more can I say as my thread got removed !!! I suppose facts hurt. No spcec on it either.


 Is there some sort of story behind this that I've missed??

TT


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

It's the Elephant in the room Buddy


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Steve said:


> It's the Elephant in the room Buddy


Care to elaborate?? Seems there's gossip I've missed out on (and I DO love a good gossip!!)

TT


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

As Dot Cotton says "I am never one to gossip"


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

without crapping up this thread too much, if it was a NON-RUFUNDABLE deposit and that was made clear then tough titties. You should at least have a reciept for it though.

Mook


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Hi Mook

LOL, it wasn't "non-refundable" when the pressure was applied to pay a deposit before the end of October to secure "a refund from our sponsors" Only when we received the T&C***8217;s in November was it made apparent. 

As I say I didn***8217;t and don***8217;t want to do the dirty washing in public, however the way John acted with sending my Niece an email was and is despicable and insulting thinking that we wouldn***8217;t communicate with each other. To this day he hasn***8217;t called or apologised.

Also, there are extenuating circumstances which I would have thought that a respected member of our community would have bent over backwards to help "us" out with. The money, a £1000-00 was to have been used for my Niece and her fiancée to put a deposit on a Maisonette and to help pay for their wedding in May. They have now lost the Maisonette. And, no, still no proof as to what the money was used for ***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;


----------



## shh! (Nov 9, 2008)

opcorn:


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Steve - so what I'm getting is that you had intended to buy the car at some point and had paid £1k towards it??? So where does your niece and Fuggles fit into the story??

Intrigued...

TT


----------



## SPEED MERCHANT (Jun 5, 2006)

Mods can we delete this crap or if necessary lock this thread please, it's been done to death already in the past - Thankyou.


----------



## jpl2407 (Mar 16, 2011)

SPEED MERCHANT said:


> Mods can we delete this crap or if necessary lock this thread please, it's been done to death already in the past - Thankyou.


Is this the GTROC looking after its own, lol. Last time I checked this was the GTR Register, open to all, not the OC's forum.


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

SPEED MERCHANT said:


> it's been done to death already in the past - Thankyou.


Really! I cannot recall ANY of this!!!

Any links so I don't have to post any more on this thread??

Just interested to read about what (allegedly) went on surrounding this car...

TT


----------



## bobwoolmer (Mar 27, 2007)

Steve said:


> Mmmmmmmmmmmm what more can I say as my thread got removed !!! I suppose facts hurt. No spcec on it either.



????????????


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

SPEED MERCHANT said:


> Mods can we delete this crap or if necessary lock this thread please, it's been done to death already in the past - Thankyou.


You & me is gonna fall out Emil !

Yeah, go on lock it AGAIN, what ever happened to freedom of speech?

Nope TT, why would I want to buy a mongrel I have two pedigrees LOL (only joking for any of the mods & rockers) The story goes back to last October AND NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PURCHASE OF THIS CAR (by me)

I’ll rest my case and see if John has the decency to make contact ??


----------



## JapFreak786 (Aug 29, 2003)

Steve said:


> You & me is gonna fall out Emil !
> 
> Yeah, go on lock it AGAIN, what ever happened to freedom of speech?
> 
> ...


Steve that isn't me mate :bawling:


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Oops sorry Bud, got carried away waiting for the phone to ring LOL


----------



## JapFreak786 (Aug 29, 2003)

Steve said:


> Oops sorry Bud, got carried away waiting for the phone to ring LOL


:thumbsup:


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

JapFreak786 said:


> Steve that isn't me mate :bawling:


Poor Emil...

:chuckle:

TT


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

As I understand it this relates to a GTROC event. Steve, suggest you take it up with them directly and stop spamming unrelated multiple threads as we are going to start moderating it.


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

Steve said:


> I***8217;ll rest my case and see if John has the decency to make contact ??


Steve, I guess you're discounting the dozen or so PMs and emails that you sent all of which (save the last where i prior said I would not continue) have been responded to and the questions dealt with. In fact the same questions every time.

The tour in question had a non-refundable deposit. This was clearly stated in the shop item itself. As regards a receipt that is provided by email as soon as you boo. There was an incentive if you booked early as this helps with cashflow when booking airlines and hotels. You, of your own choice, took advantage of the book early offer. You later changed your mind and wanted a refund. As the deposit was non-refundable it follows that no refund was due. Had you not rushed in to get the financial incentive then you could have made a decision not to go and no deposit would have been lost. It's really that simple.


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Hi John

Yep, I suppose you could look at it with the cold hard salesman ***8220;facts***8221;. So as tour organiser and you run Auto Mission what was our £1000-00 spent on? I believe my niece asked you to provide proof or evidence, which you have failed to do. The non refundable deposit bit was at the bottom of the spiel that was used to sell the trip on, and then there was the ***8220;incentive***8221;, so all in all who is going to read to the bottom ? We had no intention of ***8220;changing our minds***8221; we didn***8217;t change our minds, we would have loved to have gone, however, as life sometimes throws untimely things up and as I, and my niece explained to you something unexpected happened and they found a house, which you dismissed by YOU as YOU didn***8217;t believe it !

I and my niece were just totally taken aback by the lack of human kindness as I assured her that you were an honourless man and I knew you from the past and in fact supported you on the tour in 2007 and have run GTROC events for you.

It***8217;s almost adding insult to injury to see you parading around in your new car when my niece and I gave you in all good faith, £500-00 each. As I said previously, even if I lose my £500, you could have at least found it in your heart to refund hers***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;***8230;...


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Steve said:


> I assured her that you were an honourless man


:chuckle::chuckle:

TT


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

LOL, well as it happens .................................


----------



## SPEED MERCHANT (Jun 5, 2006)

tarmac terror said:


> Poor Emil...
> 
> :chuckle:
> 
> TT


OY! Poor me ... he was calling me Emil :chuckle:
( Love ya really Mr J.Freak  )


----------



## Thrust (Jun 8, 2004)

Back on thread for just a second, will we be seeing much of this car any time soon?


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

without wanting to go over old ground, if the deposit was paid to the GTROC, what has this got to do with "Auto Mission" or are you insinuating John spent GTROC funds on his own car?

Thats Out of order if you ask me. (the accusation)


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

Every penny spent on buying, shipping and putting the car on the road and everything else was from my own pocket.

AutoMission run tours, including trips to Japan. The GTROC ran the shop for this particular tour and the deposit was paid to the GTROC who then send it on to AutoMission (less handling charge).

The two items are not related


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

It's really very simple. The item in the shop was for a non-refundable deposit. The deposit did not have to be paid until near the event but if you paid it early then Y10,000 was refunded to those going on the tour upon arrival at Narita. Steve decided to take advantage of the early booking offer and then changed his mind and wanted a full refund knowing it was non-refundable. Had Steve decided not to try and save a few quid he could have waited until he knew for sure he would be going and then not had to as for a refund.

All this has been communicated to Steve on multiple occasions in response to his emails and PMs. Even Steve's niece asked the same questions, and all emails and PMs from them both were dealt with in a professional and curteous manner; save the last messages to which i did not respond having previously stated I would not continue answering the same questions again and again. The GTROC Treasurer was even asked by Steve to act as 'mediator'. To the best of my knowledge the Treasurer pointed out the terms and explained the process of non-refundable. He asserted his understanding to be exactly as mine.

Since before the tour there have been several 'snipes' about this on this forum over a matter that is simple, cut and dried. The non-refundable deposit was paid and the travellers changed their minds. It's non-refundable and that was stated at the time. It's really that simple


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Mookistar said:


> without wanting to go over old ground, if the deposit was paid to the GTROC, what has this got to do with "Auto Mission" or are you insinuating John spent GTROC funds on his own car?
> 
> Thats Out of order if you ask me. (the accusation)


No accusation, just that the money was paid "through" the GTROC shop to Auto Mission who run the tour and John runs Auto Mission, work it out !!

Yeah, yeah, yeah, true colours now tho, can't be arsed anymore - just thought that you were a nicer HUMAN being and person John. 

It's a shame that someone who was once respected has totally alienated someone who once had trust and faith in that person.


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Fuggles said:


> It's really very simple. The item in the shop was for a non-refundable deposit. The deposit did not have to be paid until near the event but if you paid it early then Y10,000 was refunded to those going on the tour upon arrival at Narita. Steve decided to take advantage of the early booking offer and then changed his mind and wanted a full refund knowing it was non-refundable. Had Steve decided not to try and save a few quid he could have waited until he knew for sure he would be going and then not had to as for a refund.


In fairness it _would seem_ that Steve was 100% commited when the deposit was paid and something came up last minute. Thats a world away from someone paying tentatively and then deciding they cant be arsed and backing out. 
Anyway it seems both positions are clear and immoveable so anything said on here is moot. Just an observation though...

TT


----------



## shh! (Nov 9, 2008)

So......Who's actually ended up with the £1000??


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

shh! said:


> So......Who's actually ended up with the £1000??


Ah, now someone understands the dilemma!!! 

I and my Niece have asked on MORE THAN ONE OCCASSION for a receipt as proof of what the £1000-00 was spent on!!! (if it was)


----------



## yodookie (Oct 22, 2012)

Does it matter what it was spent on? 


You paid for something that was non-refundable. That means you don't get it back, what's complicated to figure out? Instead of crapping on peoples threads, maybe you should look to where the blame really should go?


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

yodookie said:


> Does it matter what it was spent on?
> 
> 
> You paid for something that was non-refundable. That means you don't get it back, what's complicated to figure out? Instead of crapping on peoples threads, maybe you should look to where the blame really should go?


AOL!


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

yodookie said:


> Does it matter what it was spent on?
> 
> 
> You paid for something that was non-refundable. That means you don't get it back, what's complicated to figure out? Instead of crapping on peoples threads, maybe you should look to where the blame really should go?


Tell ya what, I bet you would want to know what your £1000-00 was spent on ?

Oh yeah, pal, it matters !!! BIG TIME !!!


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

Steve said:


> Tell ya what, I bet you would want to know what your £1000-00 was spent on ?
> 
> Oh yeah, pal, it matters !!! BIG TIME !!!


Do you have any evidence of the original booking that specifies (or not) that it was a non-refundable deposit?

Without that it's just your word against someone elses. Obviously, I'd be pissed off if I was relieved of a grand but if it was clear at the outset it was non refundable, you really haven't got a leg to stand on. Sorry.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

Steve said:


> Ah, now someone understands the dilemma!!!


Steve, as I see it, there are 2 issues here, one clear cut and the other not so.

The first is that you paid £1000 deposit which was non-refundable, sorry mate but that's clear and you're not in the right with this one fella and not likely to get anyone to back you up.

The second is a little different however; from what you're saying, the Chairman of the GTROC owns and operates the company you paid your deposit to for the GTROC trip. In my eyes, and those of every company I have worked for, that is a conflict of interest and I would have concerns over that too. 

Just my 2p and not taking anyones side!


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Tell you what Tazzmaxx

Have a read of the above about how I, and more importantly my Niece, were relieved of the £1000-00 and the circumstances of why we had to cancel and tell me if you don't think that even with the small print at the very bottom of the sales pitch and the "respected" member of our community it is a fair situation to be in. 

As I have indicated, yes if you***8217;re going to be a cold, hard nosed, unsympathetic, uncaring Tour operator then I suppose you could say read the small print and fcuk you. 

However, I would have thought that there would have been some modicum of decency in our community.


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

matt j said:


> Steve, as I see it, there are 2 issues here, one clear cut and the other not so.
> 
> The first is that you paid £1000 deposit which was non-refundable, sorry mate but that's clear and you're not in the right with this one fella and not likely to get anyone to back you up.
> 
> ...


Yes, Matt, it's the second one which is the one which concerns me too


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

Can see both sides to this i guess,

As far as that 1000£ if it WASNT Johns own company, would you still expect it back? 

If it wasnt his company you think they would entertain e-mails asking about where deposits were spent?

Probably not. Ignorance of a stated Terms and Conditions doesn't help anyone's case. Just because you are friends with someone, doesn't give you the _right_ to ask for money back that they have taken from you _fairly_ just 'because we are friends'.

I find it odd John is running a company so linked to the Club, but at the same time as someone who has worked with and away from personal relationships in business, I can tell you, I would NEVER get in to business with a friend, and expect them to treat me differently and put their business at a loss just because I know them.

If people are not comfortable with risking loss, don't risk it. If its fairly lost, its a sour tastes, but it was always a possibility. It would have been NICE if John gave you back that money, but he doesn't have to, nor as a business owner does he have to entertain your request for transparency, unless he wants to, or unless you are about to audit him lol.

As far as Johns connection between the club and the tour company, well, that is his own big risk to take. He obviously has many already established relationships in Japan/Globally with many people and places that all directly relate to our common love of Skylines/GTRs and I can see the reason why he would charge for his time, as he has spent his own time and effort to develop those lines of communication and access to otherwise some very exclusive areas. It is only natural to try and monetize all that while also providing the club with a (probably, haven't gone on one yet) great experience. Im sure when he got in to this he may have known the 'friend' card was something that may come up. 

His decision to not provide you with an answer as to where the money went is not one that i would personally make, BUT as i said, in the end its his company his rules. 

Thats how I look at this, Steve, I do not know you or John for that matter, but I DO know the club as a whole, normally looks out for its members. As far as i can tell anyway, hopefully you guys can work it out if not financially, at least somewhat on a personal level. Good luck i guess.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

Ryan, in the main I agree but as a member of the club, I'm not so sure with certain aspects which I would like official club clarification on TBH.



Rain said:


> I find it odd John is running a company so linked to the Club


Odd indeed.


Fuggles said:


> AutoMission run tours, including trips to Japan. The GTROC ran the shop for this particular tour and the deposit was paid to the GTROC who then send it on to AutoMission (less handling charge).


It could be questioned what single source justification was used to derive the chosen tour company and if not, on what grounds were others rejected and by whom.


Rain said:


> As far as John's connection between the club and the tour company, well, that is his own big risk to take.


Without dragging it out any further and with business ethics and conflicts of interest aside, as a member, for transparency I can't remember receiving notification of the chairman's connection to the company or intent to solely use the company for future tours. 

It therefore raises many questions and concerns as to why it wasn't communicated; you only have to look at _any_ business sector to see that in every case, it is clearly not tolerated. If it has been communicated then it obviously negates this but I can't remember reading it?

Again, I'm not taking sides but feel that there is more to this than was first portrayed. With that said, irrespective of the relationships or finer details, if it is clearly stated that the deposit is non-refundable then it closes that issue as I see it.



Steve said:


> Yes, Matt, it's the second one which is the one which concerns me too


Steve, in your line of business and dealing with contracts, I'm sure you're well aware of all of this so I think you have to be clear on what you want or expect to achieve as I very much doubt you'll receive a refund that you're not entitled to mate.

Edit: Back on topic, nice car by the way John, good to see you back in another GTR after the 33


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

I will clarify just a few points.

The tours are open to more than GTROC members.
I am one shareholder/Director of the company and we have many other customers beyond just offeriing tours to Japan.
There is a shop arrangement with the GTROC to make it simpler for people to order.

Steve paid his deposits on the very last day of the incentive so he could benefit from the discount, that was entirely his choice. He has been going on about this ever since and is determined not to let it go regardless of the plain and simple facts.

Any company that offers non-refundable deposits sticks by their offer, otherwise what would be the point of stating non-refundable? As regards the company itself, there are mutliple vendors offering events to the club and this forum and some of them also have direct assocations with the club/forum and are commercially run; such as MLR, Apex Track Days, and every other event we attend whether at a track, on the strip or at a show event. We are do different. I accept I have a role within the club but have never used this for any personal or professional gain in all the ten years that I have held a role here. I can cite multiple examples where I was offered something and handed it to members of the club or offered it out to anyone. My conscience is clear and if there was an issue we have a very professionally run Board that would pull me up on this. 



matt j said:


> Edit: Back on topic, nice car by the way John, good to see you back in another GTR after the 33


Thank you


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

Still dont agree with your choice John...




















shouldhaveboughta34


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

I did have one for a while. Does that count? 
And my daily drive is a 4-door R34 GTV. Does that count also?


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

Showoff


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

Fuggles said:


> I will clarify just a few points.
> 
> The tours are open to more than GTROC members.
> I am one shareholder/Director of the company and we have many other customers beyond just offeriing tours to Japan.
> ...


I'm sorry, I can't resist the urge to post here. I've mentioned this before and I'll say it again. it's a car club. Designed to benefits its members. It's not a "company" other than in law. It's non-profit so has the members best interests at heart.

Regardles of auto-missions involvment, the key question is, has the club or auto mission been directly left out of pocket by Steves withdrawel, or is the money being held as a matter of principal.

If the deposit was to secure a lower rate on the flights or booking and without his contribution, would result in everyone else paying more, then thats fair enough.

But if that £1000 is sitting in the GTROC or Auto-Mission coffers, then regardless of the small print, it should be given back.

The club is a club. Steve has been to hundreds of meetings I would guess, and imagine he's done the japan trip a few times. he's not a messer, he paid with the full intention of attending and circumstances mean this didn't happen.

If that money hasn't been used to recover losses caused by his withdrawel, them I'm pretty sure the rest of the clubs members would like to see it returned to him.

Mike


----------



## glensR33 (Apr 7, 2008)

return the £1000 or show us the cool pix of what you bought with it hehe


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Rain said:


> Can see both sides to this i guess,
> 
> As far as that 1000£ if it WASNT Johns own company, would you still expect it back?
> 
> ...


If it were a £50 quid deposit no, however £1000-00 is a lot of money in anyone’s eyes, and not only that, but half of it was from a young lady who was saving for her wedding and house. Even if my £500-00 wasn’t returned, I would have thought after explaining why there had to be a change in circumstance and with the milk of human kindness the young ladies could have been.

Yes, I know and understand what you are saying about “friends” and business, but it was the way to whole “business” was conducted and the under hand way John then dealt with me and my family.

I think we, you, and anybody should have every right to understand what their deposit was spent on so it can be validated, but in this case it can’t and wasn’t, or so we are led to believe. 

There was no ignorance about the stated T&Cs, other than we were encouraged to pay an early deposit, which we did in good faith as John was trying to get early involvement and to get bigger discounts with the airline and hotels. It works both ways.

I find your next paragraph rather entertaining, however it is still sad that even as business and a GTROC member there isn’t / wasn’t any leniency, but I guess that is just way John is. 

I am sorry but I won’t be leaping to his defence or help in future. 

John you seem to have a short memory about Japan 2007 and Japfest, but again I guess that is just you and your selective memory and I suppose also money alters your perception of reason. I don’t want to audit him or his business, just would like a rational explanation as to where and what our £1000-00 was spent on and to date nothing has been given. 

The next part about “his” love of Skylines is apparent to all of us otherwise we wouldn’t be in this “club” and as a lifetime member and
a person who went to Japan to witness the release of the new GTR in 2007 and purchased one and my ownership of an R33 for 14 years and I have had an R34 GTT and a Nissan 350Z S Tune, I don’t think you can question my love of the Skyline and its derivatives either. 

I also do a fair amount of behind the scenes work and support our club also. Some of that is also my free time. 

Yes, I know the club, our club; the GTROC club, looks out for its members, but what about another club, Auto Mission???

And anyone thinking this is crapping a thread, then yes, I suppose it is, but there is a valid reason and No, it’s not just because of his new car


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Mookistar said:


> I'm sorry, I can't resist the urge to post here. I've mentioned this before and I'll say it again. it's a car club. Designed to benefits its members. It's not a "company" other than in law. It's non-profit so has the members best interests at heart.
> 
> Regardles of auto-missions involvment, the key question is, has the club or auto mission been directly left out of pocket by Steves withdrawel, or is the money being held as a matter of principal.
> 
> ...


Thank you


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

Mook,

The GTROC is n-f-p. Companies tend on the whole to be run otherwise. The deposit was used to secure group rates on the airlines and hotel. It was also spent on other things more generally such as gifts for clients (traditional in these matters), calls, bank transfer fees etc. Any business that offers a deposit that is non-refundable stands by that. This is no different and it was Steve's choice to pay at that time when the money was not needed for a month. He chose only to pay then to take advantage of an offer to et a few quid back. No-one made him pay early he did it through choice. If it's his desire to benefit by paying early then he did so knowing full well the status of the deposit.


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

Just giving my perspective as an outsider Steve, as I said, I dont know you or John enough to get in to any of the 'nitty gritty' so to speak.

I only say I know both sides of this kind of situation as ive been in both sides one way or the other, like you ive lost friendships and connections I held dear to me due to it. 

Its the reason I mentioned being transparent, I think today with the way people watch their money any company willing to provide that transparency can only benefit from a more loyal set of customers.

Also like to say, never was questioning your loyalty to the club or anything like that, if it came of that way.

You obviously have enough roots in the community and its apparent enough. 

Again, all the best Steve and John.


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

Steve,

I'm not going to dither about into responding to your points but will comment that your remarks about how much you do for the club pail into insignificance compared to a significant number of people who have held or do hold posts for the GTROC or do other work on a voluntary basis. As regards your comments on the prior trip to japan yes indeed you did attend, as did many others. However I do not recall you actually doing any work prior to or on the trip only enjoying it. Indeed this is the way it should be on any organised trip and for your first trip you got the whole thing at less than cost (exchange rates, changes to plans, no-exposure agreement with the club etc.). However, i don't ever recall your "milk of indness" offering to compensate me for this nor for the hours and hours and cost invested in these trips. I have never asked for any but now that it is being run commercially you seem to want compensation for a decision you alone made. And you only paid on the last day of the offer so your motives were apparent, it wasn't about the tour, it was about how you might save some money!


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

Fuggles said:


> As regards the company itself, there are mutliple vendors offering events to the club and this forum and some of them also have direct assocations with the club/forum and are commercially run.


I'm failing to see how referring to these relationships as the norm counters any claim of conflict of interest John, could you elaborate please?



Fuggles said:


> I accept I have a role within the club but have never used this for any personal or professional gain in all the ten years that I have held a role here.


Then there would be no reason to withhold the information Steve is requesting surely?
Company receipts and invoices should take seconds to print if needed, if nothing else, just to appeas Steve of where his deposit was spent.



Fuggles said:


> My conscience is clear and if there was an issue we have a very professionally run Board that would pull me up on this.


Working with contracts and a legal advisory team with multibillion dollar companies, I'm not so sure that holds water with me. There is a definite conflict of interests here and I'm extremely surprised it hasn't been brought to your attention as yet.



Steve said:


> Yes, I know the club, our club; the GTROC club, looks out for its members, but what about another club, Auto Mission???


Can you not seek clarification from the board members Steve, if nothing else, you can voice your concerns at the AGM with a vote of no confidence should you really feel so aggrieved?

Just race for slips, that should sort it


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

So to clarify. The deposit has been spent on The trip.


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

matt j said:


> I'm failing to see how referring to these relationships as the norm counters any claim of conflict of interest John, could you elaborate please?
> 
> Then there would be no reason to withhold the information Steve is requesting surely? Company receipts and invoices should take seconds to print if needed, if nothing else, just to appeas Steve of where his deposit was spent.
> 
> ...


I don't see there is a conflict. I do a lot of work for the club in my spare time. Just getting a stand at this year's Autosport for example took meetings, phone calls, lots of lobbying etc and started a long time ago. Just by example this afternoon i received confiormation that we are booked in for next year's show. This is not a trivial exercise, like many of the other achievemnts that I have personally undertaken to deliver. Organising trips to Japan takes a lot of time and effort. These trips are open to anyone to go on, not just GTROC members. There can be no conflict when people not even associated with the club can benefit equally. If anything the club members do gain as they get loads of extra bits for free. By and large it's an advantage to be a member but not a conflict.

If you lost a deposit with a company would they provide the same to you? Of course not. My accounts are audited and are private (that's why it's a private imited company). I'm not avoiding the question just trying to understand why? Do you really expect me to get my cell-phone itemised bill and highlight every call to Japan, as well as the ones from landlines? What about my time? What rate woiuld you like me to charge that in at? £60/hour? £160/hour?

Steve has yet to attend one AGM in all the ten years that he has been a member


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

Mookistar said:


> So to clarify. The deposit has been spent on The trip.


Putting a trip together likes this involves hours and hours of time. Phone calls, emails, letters, merchanidise/gifts, skype-calls, meetings with suppliers, research, etc. Try it


----------



## Eadon (Dec 14, 2012)

Why do you keep banging on about what you do in your spare time for the club? That's not what is being discussed. As you keep saying.. that was _your_ choice to get involved with the club.


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

who? me or him? 
My comments were about the trip, not the club stuff. My only comments about club stuff was to point out that there is a separation between the two: the cub stuff (for free and in my own time) and the other stuff which is not. Sorry not 'baning on' just trying to explain the difference


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Fuggles said:


> I don't see there is a conflict. I do a lot of work for the club in my spare time. Just getting a stand at this year's Autosport for example took meetings, phone calls, lots of lobbying etc and started a long time ago. Just by example this afternoon i received confiormation that we are booked in for next year's show. This is not a trivial exercise, like many of the other achievemnts that I have personally undertaken to deliver. Organising trips to Japan takes a lot of time and effort. These trips are open to anyone to go on, not just GTROC members. There can be no conflict when people not even associated with the club can benefit equally. If anything the club members do gain as they get loads of extra bits for free. By and large it's an advantage to be a member but not a conflict.
> 
> If you lost a deposit with a company would they provide the same to you? Of course not. My accounts are audited and are private (that's why it's a private imited company). I'm not avoiding the question just trying to understand why? Do you really expect me to get my cell-phone itemised bill and highlight every call to Japan, as well as the ones from landlines? What about my time? What rate woiuld you like me to charge that in at? £60/hour? £160/hour?
> 
> Steve has yet to attend one AGM in all the ten years that he has been a member


Hmmm, your memory is fading ol chap, think you'll find I was at Silverstone when discussing lifetime membership ???!!!! 

Maybe that the reason my £1000-00 is missing, you have forgotten where you put it !!!


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

Silverstone was an EGM, not an AGM.


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

Fuggles said:


> Putting a trip together likes this involves hours and hours of time. Phone calls, emails, letters, merchanidise/gifts, skype-calls, meetings with suppliers, research, etc. Try it


Playing devils advocate then, was it clear the the trip was being organised by Auto mission and the GTROC were merely invited or was it sold as the regular GTROC trip?


----------



## FUDR33GTR (Apr 30, 2008)

Sorry to change the subject! But the car looks awesome John.


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

Mookistar said:


> Playing devils advocate then, was it clear the the trip was being organised by Auto mission and the GTROC were merely invited or was it sold as the regular GTROC trip?


A fair question but a moot point all the same; sorry. No tour has ever been a GTROC event. They have been organised by me either personally or as part of a business. They never make a profit, even more so if you factor in all my own time, expenses and costs and any/all losses are covered by me or the business not by the GTROC.


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

FUDR33GTR said:


> Sorry to change the subject! But the car looks awesome John.


Thank you. 
You're not changing the subject; other people are


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Fuggles said:


> Silverstone was an EGM, not an AGM.



LOL, still my time, effort, fuel etc. etc. etc. which YOU keep banging on about!

John, I would love to call you Fat Boy Slim and PRAISE you.

I don't want to get into semantics here, but to see a grand again would be nice!


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

Any more pics of the car? Build thread? 

Looks good......


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

grahamc said:


> Any more pics of the car? Build thread?
> 
> Looks good......


It was purchased from Imai-san himself so no build pics as it's a genuine tuner built Bee*R R324. matty did a superb job of photographing it and is sending me all the pictures so there will be plenty more to see - I will post them up when I get them. It will also be at some events so available then to look at.


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Fuggles said:


> A fair question but a moot point all the same; sorry. No tour has ever been a GTROC event. They have been organised by me either personally or as part of a business. They never make a profit, even more so if you factor in all my own time, expenses and costs and any/all losses are covered by me or the business not by the GTROC.


errrr b*ll*cks, why do we all HAVE to and have branded GTR clothing made then ?

Sorry John, but now you are getting into contradicting yourself !


----------



## FUDR33GTR (Apr 30, 2008)

Great looking car! And does this really need to be on this thread??


----------



## FUDR33GTR (Apr 30, 2008)

OK here is a question! Can I have a go in it?? only up the A3 once?? What da ya say john??


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

Fuggles said:


> It was purchased from Imai-san himself so no build pics as it's a genuine tuner built Bee*R R324. matty did a superb job of photographing it and is sending me all the pictures so there will be plenty more to see - I will post them up when I get them. It will also be at some events so available then to look at.


Thats a shame, but still a stunning car!!


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

Moot indeed but had Steve not paid the deposit, those calls, gifts etc would still have been made and paid for using the other participants funds. 

So Steves funds effectively go on the bottom line of auto mission?


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

Steve said:


> errrr b*ll*cks, why do we all HAVE to and have branded GTR clothing made then ?
> 
> Sorry John, but now you are getting into contradicting yourself !


You don't. It's part of the pacage offered to GTROC members (as distinct from non) and at no extra charge (see my earlier comments). In 2012 there several non-GTROC members on the tour who did not get Tour Shirts


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

FUDR33GTR said:


> OK here is a question! Can I have a go in it?? only up the A3 once?? What da ya say john??


Anyone that knows me will tell you I'm pretty open to that. I think something like 20+ people drove my white R33 before it's final "totting up" and demise


----------



## Stevie76 (Dec 17, 2009)

Nice read this thread....

Surely the costs of the flights, hotels, tours, gifts etc could be totalled up against what was paid and everyone can then see what was left for incidentals like calls/time/profit etc?

I do think there's a conflict here....and would have thought despite non refundable that any reasonable company if presented with 'acceptable' extenuating circumstances would have waived the non refundable element on that occasion.


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

grahamc said:


> Thats a shame, but still a stunning car!!


Thank you. The really cool thing is I have all the original Japanese paperwork including the full service history, log book etc.


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

Stevie76 said:


> I do think there's a conflict here....and would have thought despite non refundable that any reasonable company if presented with 'acceptable' extenuating circumstances would have waived the non refundable element on that occasion.


Thank you. As for extenuating it was purely because Steve's niece decided to buy a house and Steve wanted to lend her some money towards it. Hardly a crisis of health or bereavement etc.


----------



## Stevie76 (Dec 17, 2009)

Fuggles said:


> Thank you. As for extenuating it was purely because Steve's niece decided to buy a house and Steve wanted to lend her some money towards it. Hardly a crisis of health or bereavement etc.


Well have to agree house purchase does not fall into what I would consider extenuating circumstances.....

On a related note I think it would be worth having a thread about which individuals on the forum (board members etc) are involved either directly or indirectly with the forum/shop etc etc....apologies if this has been posted before and I have messed it.


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

That's my point. If it was advertised as an auto mission trip and not a GTROC one then Steves expectations would have been different. Perhaps he assumed, wrongly it seems, that a certain amount of discretion could be applied and any excess funds returned as a gesture of good will.


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

Oh. And could Steve have sold his place on?


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

Yes he could. I did even make him aware of this.


----------



## Cris (Sep 17, 2007)

If it's any help to anyone I organised a GTROC trip some time back. I was left seriously out of pocket when people who had committed to go decided not to bother.

I wish that I had had the foresight to ensure that there was a non-returnable deposit. Had I done so I might have been bothered to go to the effort for subsquent events, but once bitten twice shy.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

yodookie said:


> Does it matter what it was spent on?
> 
> 
> You paid for something that was non-refundable. That means you don't get it back, what's complicated to figure out? Instead of crapping on peoples threads, maybe you should look to where the blame really should go?


exactly what i was gonna type, e non refunable deposit is non refundable and thats it, if thats not acceptable then the deposit shouldnt of been paid.


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

Cris said:


> If it's any help to anyone I organised a GTROC trip some time back. I was left seriously out of pocket when people who had committed to go decided not to bother.
> 
> I wish that I had had the foresight to ensure that there was a non-returnable deposit. Had I done so I might have been bothered to go to the effort for subsquent events, but once bitten twice shy.


Sadly all too often people say yes and then duck out. Even for small meetings where it's only a few quid. I think people realise little how much effort goes into doing somethinbg as simple as booking a stand at a show. But, if you fancy having another go the GTROC is always on the look out for more helpers


----------



## nismoman (Jul 13, 2004)

Not wanting to take sides on this one ,but i think a non refundable deposit says it all NON REFUNDABLE 
I think one off the big problems when people get friendship involved with business is the customers always think they should get something for nothing or special treatment from that business and when there's money involved that clouds the issues even more.No one wants to loose a £1000 but the terms of the contract were laid out at the time of business when the contract was entered into ,so to me that's clear cut NO refund ,so if the friendship or moral card is played that's up to the business digression as to the outcome ,and im sure any one in business would not make a refund and be out of pocket and i cant think of any situation ware a company would show there costings regardless of the customers demands .
As someone who has attended the Japan trip the euro trip, track days and was involved in the auto sports show negotiations one thing NEVER ceases to amaze me ,and that,s the amount of time and effort put into the organisation of all these events so as members and non members can enjoy and share there passions for the GTR and me personally if these people were getting payed to organize all these events i don't have a problem with this 
If John or Auto mission did,nt take a active roll in this believe me the club would do nothing and would just end up a internet club
NOT TAKING SIDES JUST SAYING IT, HOW I SEE IT AS SOMEONE WHOS SEEN THE EFFORT PUT IN BY THE GTR BOARD


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Fuggles said:


> Yes he could. I did even make him aware of this.


Not quite true John, I asked and I did try to offer our places, but over Christmas it was obviously difficult for someone to have taken our places. 

Any circumstance which requires an individual to change a plan is circumstantial, and as you, some of you, may be aware, house purchasing in this climate is difficult and John just didn’t believe she had found a house in her price bracket that was empty and available if they were able to move fast. I still have your extremely rude and dismissive email John ! 

Anyway some future clarity for EVERYBODY is required as there seems to be some strange Mason like handshakes going on somewhere.


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

nismoman said:


> Not wanting to take sides on this one ,but i think a non refundable deposit says it all NON REFUNDABLE
> I think one off the big problems when people get friendship involved with business is the customers always think they should get something for nothing or special treatment from that business and when there's money involved that clouds the issues even more.No one wants to loose a £1000 but the terms of the contract were laid out at the time of business when the contract was entered into ,so to me that's clear cut NO refund ,so if the friendship or moral card is played that's up to the business digression as to the outcome ,and im sure any one in business would not make a refund and be out of pocket and i cant think of any situation ware a company would show there costings regardless of the customers demands .
> As someone who has attended the Japan trip the euro trip, track days and was involved in the auto sports show negotiations one thing NEVER ceases to amaze me ,and that,s the amount of time and effort put into the organisation of all these events so as members and non members can enjoy and share there passions for the GTR and me personally if these people were getting payed to organize all these events i don't have a problem with this
> If John or Auto mission did,nt take a active roll in this believe me the club would do nothing and would just end up a internet club
> NOT TAKING SIDES JUST SAYING IT, HOW I SEE IT AS SOMEONE WHOS SEEN THE EFFORT PUT IN BY THE GTR BOARD



Without wishing to repeat the whole story as to how we were sold the trip, and the early engagement incentive and that we didn’t decide not to go on a whim, let me just suggest one thing to protect ALL members and non members in future. 

LETS PUT THIS IS A NON REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT AT THE TIOP OF THE PAGE and not hide it at the bottom ***61514;

oh and who is actually running the tour, trip, track day, event etc


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

nismoman said:


> Not wanting to take sides on this one ,but i think a non refundable deposit says it all NON REFUNDABLE
> I think one off the big problems when people get friendship involved with business is the customers always think they should get something for nothing or special treatment from that business and when there's money involved that clouds the issues even more.No one wants to loose a £1000 but the terms of the contract were laid out at the time of business when the contract was entered into ,so to me that's clear cut NO refund ,so if the friendship or moral card is played that's up to the business digression as to the outcome ,and im sure any one in business would not make a refund and be out of pocket and i cant think of any situation ware a company would show there costings regardless of the customers demands .
> As someone who has attended the Japan trip the euro trip, track days and was involved in the auto sports show negotiations one thing NEVER ceases to amaze me ,and that,s the amount of time and effort put into the organisation of all these events so as members and non members can enjoy and share there passions for the GTR and me personally if these people were getting payed to organize all these events i don't have a problem with this
> If John or Auto mission did,nt take a active roll in this believe me the club would do nothing and would just end up a internet club
> NOT TAKING SIDES JUST SAYING IT, HOW I SEE IT AS SOMEONE WHOS SEEN THE EFFORT PUT IN BY THE GTR BOARD


Nobody doubts the efforts of the board, the main issue here is the context of the event and the organisation.

Being seemingly organised by the GTROC, there would be a certain level of reason and compassion expected to be given to any circumstance of change. 
I don't believe Steve wants his money back at the cost of the club or the members, but to organise an event through a club full of "Friends" and then to withhold a deposit of that size with no direct explanation of WHY it won't be returned, seems a little hard nosed. 
Even if only half of it came back it would show an element of grace that is currently absent.
The "non-refundable" element of this is simply not in keeping with the spirit of a car club and this forum. Had it been something completely separate from day one, then nobody would question Johns stance. But that's not what the club is about. It's supposed to be a chance to have fun and hang out with your peers.

So to discover the event is being organised by a profit making business and the GTROC are merely "re-sellers" for this business muddy's the waters.

It's not a club meet. It's not a group of like minded people giving their time up to create something special. It looks a lot like a tour operator using the GTROC as a revenue stream.

Steve paid his deposit to make a saving of about £100, and paid it to the Club as he had every intention of attending and knew the funds would assist the cashflow when booking the event.

Had he not paid the deposit, the event would still be going ahead. Whatever the event costs today is the same as what it would have cost had Steve not paid his deposit. All the phone calls, the gifts etc etc, would all have taken place regardless.

So, the question remains, is the entirety of his deposit accounted for through costs directly related to his absence or is it being used as a chance to receive a little extra for all the hard work that has gone into organising the event. Something which, until this thread, the majority thought was done on a voluntary basis via the GTROC and not through another company.

Final point. If me and my mates booked a holiday, and I rounded up deposits, then a mate bailed, I would endeavour to return his deposit so long as it didn't cost the others any extra. I certainly wouldn't pocket it regardless and would certainly make it clear to him what it had to spent on if in fact we couldn't get it back. 


Mook


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Mookistar said:


> Nobody doubts the efforts of the board, the main issue here is the context of the event and the organisation.
> 
> Being seemingly organised by the GTROC, there would be a certain level of reason and compassion expected to be given to any circumstance of change.
> I don't believe Steve wants his money back at the cost of the club or the members, but to organise an event through a club full of "Friends" and then to withhold a deposit of that size with no direct explanation of WHY it won't be returned, seems a little hard nosed.
> ...


You address a few of the things that I was thinking about there Mike....

Specifically...


> Had he not paid the deposit, the event would still be going ahead. Whatever the event costs today is the same as what it would have cost had Steve not paid his deposit. All the phone calls, the gifts etc etc, would all have taken place regardless.


This is very true and is a reason why a modicum of transparency should be provided. Some feel that no transparency is needed but I think its only fair to ask the question. Has the 1K been accounted for in 'admin'?? By that I'm referring to the phone calls and associated legwork that John alludes to? If so, then I would suggest that such a figure is somewhat disproportionate (IMHO)
I believe the issue here is that (and correct me if I'm wrong) Steve is querying where the deposit went and simply requests clarification. John has stated previously that Steve paid early in order to save a few quid and seems to attach great significance to that. Its usually the case that early birds, so-to-speak, are generally of benefit to the organiser as it provides greater stability and predictability. As an example, holiday companies generally offer certain incentives to folks to book well in advance in order for them to have greater certainty in numbers,
That ALL of this 1K deposit is non-refundable is rather unusual as well....companies, and I refer back to my holiday example above, generally offer a staged refund i.e cancel well in advance and get 90+% back...cancel the day before and get zilch!!! To retain ALL of it just doesn't sit right TBH.

TT


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

Fuggles said:


> I don't see there is a conflict.


I don't share your view on this John as it would appear your position as chairman of the GTROC and director of Auto Missions is a conflict of interest not only in Steve's case but in general.

A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in another.

You clearly identify that the Japan trips are GTROC events; so it's safe to presume all, including me, understood that a non-profit organisation was organising these events.
http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/127647-gtr-owners-club-benefits-membership.html

I fail to see any mention of Auto Missions or that a for-profit company (your own) would be handling the events. Therefore as it stands, it would appear that you have used your position as the Chairman of the GTROC to ensure the use of your own for-profit company to arrange the event and in doing so have directly benefitted from it and that is definitely a conflict of interest.


----------



## SPEED MERCHANT (Jun 5, 2006)

nismoman said:


> Not wanting to take sides on this one ,but i think a non refundable deposit says it all NON REFUNDABLE
> I think one off the big problems when people get friendship involved with business is the customers always think they should get something for nothing or special treatment from that business and when there's money involved that clouds the issues even more.No one wants to loose a £1000 but the terms of the contract were laid out at the time of business when the contract was entered into ,so to me that's clear cut NO refund ,so if the friendship or moral card is played that's up to the business digression as to the outcome ,and im sure any one in business would not make a refund and be out of pocket and i cant think of any situation ware a company would show there costings regardless of the customers demands .
> As someone who has attended the Japan trip the euro trip, track days and was involved in the auto sports show negotiations one thing NEVER ceases to amaze me ,and that,s the amount of time and effort put into the organisation of all these events so as members and non members can enjoy and share there passions for the GTR and me personally if these people were getting payed to organize all these events i don't have a problem with this
> If John or Auto mission did,nt take a active roll in this believe me the club would do nothing and would just end up a internet club
> NOT TAKING SIDES JUST SAYING IT, HOW I SEE IT AS SOMEONE WHOS SEEN THE EFFORT PUT IN BY THE GTR BOARD



Amen ...


Plus as for the part that says :



nismoman said:


> I think one of the big problems when people get friendship involved with business is the customers always think they should get something for nothing or special treatment from that business and when there's money involved that clouds the issues even more.


Nail - head - hit it ... spot on :thumbsup:


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

matt j said:


> I don't share your view on this John as it would appear your position as chairman of the GTROC and director of Auto Missions is a conflict of interest not only in Steve's case but in general.
> 
> A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in another.
> 
> ...


err there is a bigger problem here Kriss, please read the above and try to understand.

No one wanted something for nothing, unless of course you are referring to Auto Mission taking a £1000-00 and not giving anything back? No special treatment requested either!

I have also attended plenty of Organised trips, Track days (1 a month for the last 20 years) European and UK tours and there is always some point where you have an option to get your deposit back even by a decreasing % amount.

I truly do not believe that if John dropped dead tomorrow the club would cease doing and having events. There are plenty of other good / great people in our club.


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

I think you miss the point Kriss. Its gone beyond the money at this point...
There are simply questions being asked in regard to COI as well as a straightforward account of how the deposit money was utilised.

As Mike mentioned earlier, as a car club of enthusiasts etc, while in no way expected, i think Steve was perhaps looking at it from a more human view...that is...some sort of gesture of goodwill and not simply annonymous big-business style cut-throat ethics. I agree that Johns entitled to keep the money as part of the non refundable deposit status however, morally i dont think its so easy.
As an analogy, lets look at Jimmy Carr...villified by public and media for having his money in a LEGAL scheme to offset a chunk of tax. Nothing wrong there but public opinion said otherwise....telling that he removed himself from the scheme despite doing nothing illegal!! He was more than entitled to keep his money where he wished yet decided to play fair morally and 'do the right thing' eventually.

Just food for thought.....

TT


----------



## Cris (Sep 17, 2007)

Mookistar said:


> Nobody doubts the efforts of the board, the main issue here is the context of the event and the organisation.
> 
> Being seemingly organised by the GTROC, there would be a certain level of reason and compassion expected to be given to any circumstance of change.
> I don't believe Steve wants his money back at the cost of the club or the members, but to organise an event through a club full of "Friends" and then to withhold a deposit of that size with no direct explanation of WHY it won't be returned, seems a little hard nosed.
> ...


As I mentioned before I was in exactly this situation. I took bookings for a trip, some of those going were friends even. I bought the tickets etc from the various sources and then asked for payment. Some of the people on the trip decided that for personal reasons they didn't want to go so didn't pay me. I'm sure that all of their reasons were valid within themselves.

I suppose from their perspective all was well - they didn't pay anything, they didn't get to go on the trip.

However I was left with a stack of non-returnable tickets/passes.

Had I secured payment up front or at least some sort of deposit then I would have had somewhere to go. As it was I operated under good faith and this was misplaced.

I should point out that all I was doing was organising three different tickets/passes. I wasn't doing flights or multiple visits to different locations. Glad I wasn;t to be honest - that sounds like a nightmare.


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

matt j said:


> I don't share your view on this John as it would appear your position as chairman of the GTROC and director of Auto Missions is a conflict of interest


That there are separate interests served here does not de-facto make it a conflict. Through my own contacts and associaions I have managed to secure discounts on airlines, hotels etc. We even manage to get VIP passes for things such as the D1 display this year and press passes. All through hard work. If we were to separate the two then these benefits would not be passed on to those on tour surely? The benefits accrued to members are as a result of a number of things. On every tour I have paid my own way out of my own pocket and for every tour organised I have never claimed one penny of expenses from the club. Had I done so then I would accept there may be a cause to discuss how the two mix but, as that is not the case I will settle for there being two interests but that they are equally served and the club benefits significantly


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

Steve said:


> I truly do not believe that if John dropped dead tomorrow the club would cease doing and having events. There are plenty of other good / great people in our club.


Absolutely and completely agree. The sum of the parts are far more significant than each part on its own. I have always championed the team and highlighted all the great work everyone does. Not just today but right back to the beginning ten years ago and the foundation blocks that were laid then. 

For 2013 we have a busy year starting off with Autosport. A large team of people made that happen both before and on the day. Nissan came along to see and were genuinely, hugely impressed by what they saw. So much so conversations are well advanced about how we can do more of this and how we can get more support from them. But it doesn't stop there, we are already planning 2014 (yes really!). All of this is as a result of everyone that makes it happen, some more than others, but a team nevertheless


----------



## SPEED MERCHANT (Jun 5, 2006)

Steve said:


> err there is a bigger problem here Kriss, please read the above and try to understand.
> 
> No one wanted something for nothing, unless of course you are referring to Auto Mission taking a £1000-00 and not giving anything back? No special treatment requested either!



The problem is only bigger Steve as some people in this world (and forum) don't seem to understand that if you purchase something that clearly states *A DEPOSIT IS NON REFUNDABLE* then its not refundable !?!! That is it plain and simple, black and white, end of. As a wise person once said rules are for fools and the guidance of wise men. Whether its in big letters at the top of a page or in small writing at the bottom where terms and conditions normally go. If people cannot be bothered to read and understand the small print before signing a contract and agreeing to something, then the only person to blame in this world is that person and on this occasion that person was you Steve.

I cant find the right words without upsetting someone on here but people have been quoting freedom of speech so sod it ...

Basically you have been going on about this for months on many threads, many posts with little snipes, jibes and comments here and there waving your little arms trying to get attention. You got attention before and this was done to death, now when John posts a picture of his pride and joy you decide to have another go, people bite and the merry go round is off again. All I see on here cutting through it all is an adult who is having a kids tantrum throwing their toys out of the pram. The the wise man, the adult would have sort legal advice from a solicitor and kept things low key. Or did you fo this, get told the same thing so throw some toys out the pram anyway!?

Many people on here know I speak my mind and I dont do diplomacy 
I hate corporate bo**ocks and those type of people who thrive on this and Ive always been happy to speak to people face to face if they are not happy. If I thought for one minute something underhand, illegal or norty was going on with John, the GTROC or this forum I would be the first to defend you Steve as well as do something about it. At the end of the day nothing and I mean NOTHING wrong has been done. You can dress it anyway you like involving the club, Automission or John but contract law is contract law. You made a request, a decision was made, accept it, learn from it and move on. It may give a bitter after taste but thats life in the real world and not the fishbowl that 80% of the people live in.


----------



## MIKEGTR (Jul 8, 2005)

If you took this issue to court Steve, you WOULD win, regardless of the non refundable issue. Unless of course your booking prevented someone else from going, which by all accounts it did not. 

I would have thought that a percentage offer on the deposit would be forthcoming also, i.e. if cancelled 1 month before then you get 50% of the deposit back, seems rather bad for a 'club'


----------



## SPEED MERCHANT (Jun 5, 2006)

MIKEGTR said:


> seems rather bad for a 'club'


The club as you put it was nothing to do with the trip as previously explained.


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

Interesting Mike but I am not so sure. If he paid something and got T&Cs stating non-refundable, he's agreed to them, tough titty really. This is a case of someone thinking they are not subject to the T&Cs they agreed to because of personal relationships IMHO. Indeed, you might argue this is a good example to set, it shows that NOBODY is above the T&Cs.

It's difficult mixing friends, family and money IMHO and I try to avoid it where possible. It's never a happy outcome.


----------



## MIKEGTR (Jul 8, 2005)

SPEED MERCHANT said:


> The club as you put it was nothing to do with the trip as previously explained.


The 'club' as YOU put it (being the GTRO'Club') sold this through their shop, using a company run by the GTROClub chairman - as I said if it went to court, Steve WOULD win


----------



## SPEED MERCHANT (Jun 5, 2006)

tonigmr2 said:


> It's difficult mixing friends, family and money IMHO and I try to avoid it where possible. It's never a happy outcome.


:thumbsup:




MIKEGTR said:


> The 'club' as YOU put it (being the GTRO'Club') sold this through their shop, using a company run by the GTROClub chairman - as I said if it went to court, Steve WOULD win


And?

The club sells many products through its shop but it doesnt mean to say if one of them has a problem the club is liable does it? If someone buys a CTEK charger which is faulty for example, the product comes from CTEK not the GTROC. The club will of course assist in helping someone getting a replacement or refund, but the club is not liable.


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

The club IS liable. Sale of goods act dictates any fault under warranty is the retailers liability. 

It's clear the issue here is the business like nature of the transaction in an environment where such a hard nosed approach is unexpected. 

Like I say. Did Steves absence "cost" £1000?


----------



## MIKEGTR (Jul 8, 2005)

tonigmr2 said:


> Interesting Mike but I am not so sure. If he paid something and got T&Cs stating non-refundable, he's agreed to them, tough titty really. This is a case of someone thinking they are not subject to the T&Cs they agreed to because of personal relationships IMHO. Indeed, you might argue this is a good example to set, it shows that NOBODY is above the T&Cs.
> 
> It's difficult mixing friends, family and money IMHO and I try to avoid it where possible. It's never a happy outcome.



The court will ask:

Was anyone prevented from going because of Steve's commitment?
By Steve not going was the actual cost to the operator £1,000?
Would this trip not have been able to go ahead if Steve had been refunded his deposit?
Was Steve's money used to purchase items/services on his behalf in preperation of the trip (i.e. flights/rooms - were they cancelled/filled)?
Did Steve provide reasonable notice that he would not be able to attend (i.e not the week before)?

From what I've read and having been involved in a few court cases through work, I'm 99% sure Steve would at least get a partial refund if not 100% regardless of any small print - which in all essence means nothing anyway.


----------



## SPEED MERCHANT (Jun 5, 2006)

Mookistar said:


> The club IS liable. Sale of goods act dictates any fault under warranty is the retailers liability.


Hence what I said that we will assist the customer/club member get a replacement or refund. Plus when I want my new TV thats why I'm coming to see you Mook 

You have however hit it on the head Mook, it was a business transaction and thus has been treated like such.


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

MIKEGTR said:


> The court will ask:
> 
> Was anyone prevented from going because of Steve's commitment?
> By Steve not going was the actual cost to the operator £1,000?
> ...


I am sure it wouldn't be too difficult to 'prove' rates etc. were achieved which could not have been with fewer people. I'd suggest a company if they were prepared could easily demonstrate that....

I have been left out of pocket before due to buying tickets people said they would pay for then pulled out to a show. It annoyed me so much I don't do it anymore. So I can see both sides really.


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

SPEED MERCHANT said:


> You have however hit it on the head Mook, it was a business transaction and thus has been treated like such.


And therein lies the crux. Is such a businesslike approach appropriate for a friendly car club?


----------



## glensR33 (Apr 7, 2008)

hurry up and give the man his money back before toni gets a cut of the 1000 and locks this thread like the others haha


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

Mookistar said:


> And therein lies the crux. Is such a businesslike approach appropriate for a friendly car club?


What is it with "friends"? Sorry but this is a club/forum of like-mided individuals. Some of us would consider some others friends but otherwise we are all just fellow enthusiasts. That is a long way from true, genuine friendship. 

This was a business transaction, the terms explained and, the bit everyone seems to forget, Steve paid eary of his own will to take advantage of something that he later changed his mind on. It was his decision to book, his to cancel. No-one elses. The only reason he booked early was to benefit from an offer. In fact he paid on the very last day the offer applied.

I can accept that we are not all going to agree on this and believe I have put my point across multiple times both now and at the time via PM and email to Steve and his niece. I will therefore withdraw further from this debate as I believe there is nothing more I can offer the discussion.


----------



## glensR33 (Apr 7, 2008)

you could offer a 1000 to steve


----------



## MIKEGTR (Jul 8, 2005)

Fuggles said:


> What is it with "friends"? Sorry but this is a club/forum of like-mided individuals. Some of us would consider some others friends but otherwise we are all just fellow enthusiasts. That is a long way from true, genuine friendship.
> 
> This was a business transaction, the terms explained and, the bit everyone seems to forget, Steve paid eary of his own will to take advantage of something that he later changed his mind on. It was his decision to book, his to cancel. No-one elses. The only reason he booked early was to benefit from an offer. In fact he paid on the very last day the offer applied.
> 
> I can accept that we are not all going to agree on this and believe I have put my point across multiple times both now and at the time via PM and email to Steve and his niece. I will therefore withdraw further from this debate as I believe there is nothing more I can offer the discussion.


John, out of interest, before you errrr go, what about a quick answer of the questions I put in my last post?


----------



## SPEED MERCHANT (Jun 5, 2006)

Mookistar said:


> And therein lies the crux. Is such a businesslike approach appropriate for a friendly car club?


MOOK at the end of the day a line surely has to be drawn?

How many times have I had rows with people who have bought tickets to an event that the GTROC is attending where the club has outlaid hundreds of pounds to prepurchase tickets for an event for someone to then demand a refund that they can't go? As a friendly car club we take the financial hit - or ask them to resell it on now which works for everyone but thats besides the point.

Not that I've ever organised a Japan trip but just the little I've picked up seeing and overhearing stuff a lot if money IS initially outlaid to make sure those going have the best time with no problems or hitches. Flights, transfers, travel, hotels it all adds up - plus with the ever changing and terrible exchange rate to boot ...
The club does not have the funds for initially funding the trip and for years John organised the trips on his own with no payment, favour or freebie to himself. John also went along having paid his own way as did all those that went.
This particular trip that Steve pulled out of was organised by John again but through Automission - hence as stated it was not just excluively for GTROC members to attend. However those that did got the t-shirt and did things and extras that non GTROC members did not get. So again, nothing personal to Steve, but business is business ...




glensR33 said:


> hurry up and give the man his money back before toni gets a cut of the 1000 and locks this thread like the others haha


 :chuckle:




glensR33 said:


> you could offer a 1000 to steve


Why? Reasons have already been stated ...


----------



## MIKEGTR (Jul 8, 2005)

glensR33 said:


> you could offer a 1000 to steve


:chuckle::chuckle:

Or indeed a partial refund, but as I said if it were me, I'd go to court.


----------



## alpeag (Dec 1, 2006)

MIKEGTR said:


> :chuckle::chuckle:
> 
> Or indeed a partial refund, but as I said if it were me, I'd go to court.


And if it went to court where would that leave the 'club'? deeper in conflict than it already is??

imho a lot has been said in this thread and it appears that very little new points/information will come from continuing it. John and Steve need to sort it out between themselves.


----------



## MIKEGTR (Jul 8, 2005)

alpeag said:


> And if it went to court where would that leave the 'club'? deeper in conflict than it already is??


In conflict with who exactly?

A decision in law would have been made, there is no conflict (except perhaps the involvement of the chairman in a not for profit company, putting business through his own company, which we can pressume is out to make a profit).


The best way to look at this, is how would you feel if it were your bag


----------



## glensR33 (Apr 7, 2008)

Why? Reasons have already been stated ...[/QUOTE]

yes but he paid and then the next month got the [email protected] :chairshot
plus the honourable thing would be to refund also to save abit of face for auto mission :nervous:
Before they get brought to court and have to return it anyway :thumbsup:


----------



## moleman (Jun 3, 2002)

Steve,

Maybe he's saving up to buy this....

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/168050-vrn-g7roc.html

FPMSL


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Fuggles said:


> Steve paid eary of his own will to take advantage of something that he later changed his mind on. It was his decision to book, his to cancel. No-one elses. The only reason he booked early was to benefit from an offer. In fact he paid on the very last day the offer applied.


WHY he booked early really has no bearing on the situation. Why does paying on the last day of the offer have any relevance?? Its a date, nothing else!!

Also, the reason WHY he changed his mind seems to be a factor in your eyes too! Question is, did he knowingly book the trip WITH THE EXPECTATION of cancelling somewhere down the line prior to departure. From what has been said that is clearly NOT the case. An unexpected situation occurred whereby he needed to cancel and use the funds for other purposes. This doesn't seem like a situation which could have been forseen.

Again, its unusual that a staged refund was not available with proportional amounts based on time to departure. Clearly this is something future customers need to bear in mind when booking trips.

TT


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

So who's going to pay me a grand?


----------



## blitzer_bhoy (May 26, 2007)

Fuggles said:


> If you haven't seen March's edition of *Banzai magazine* then here is a clue to one of the cars featured:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think I may have seen this car...actually I'm positive.. but I don't think it was in the UK


----------



## glensR33 (Apr 7, 2008)

tarmac terror said:


> Clearly this is something future customers need to bear in mind when booking trips.
> 
> TT


and be told at the beginning its non refundable


----------



## MIKEGTR (Jul 8, 2005)

glensR33 said:


> and be told at the beginning its non refundable


I don't think that the issue, as he was told that - albeit in small print. However, in court, that would mean very little if the defendent was unable to prove it resulted in a financial loss


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Nice car.


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

I still don't see actual justification for withholding the the deposit bar semantics.


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

tonigmr2 said:


> So who's going to pay me a grand?


Not me as I don't have any more cash to give!!!! (Nor does my Niece)

Well John has recoiled into back his shell again with his comment below

“I can accept that we are not all going to agree on this and believe I have put my point across multiple times both now and at the time via PM and email to Steve and his niece. I will therefore withdraw further from this debate as I believe there is nothing more I can offer the discussion”

I have also put my point across several times and am still facing a hardnosed, cold blooded, unforgiving businessman. As many have said this is not in the interest of US the GTROC, and US, as members to treat each other in such a way, especially by a business run by the chairman of the GTROC. Some of you have stated the conflict of interest here. I agree, not that was my initial intent.

Kriss, again if it was a pair of tickets for Santa Pod, no sh*t, I wouldn’t be worried, but I am sure if it were your £1000-00 I expect that you would be …………………………. 

Oh and back to the main point………………..Where has the money gone ??


----------



## MIKEGTR (Jul 8, 2005)

Mookistar said:


> I still don't see actual justification for withholding the the deposit bar semantics.


What have jews got to do with this :chuckle:


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Didn't know that John was Jewish ??


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Maybe this could be split.
The B324 car thread and the non-refundable deposit thread.

At least my wrap thread that went on and on was actually about the wrap!


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

errr, or they could be linked ???


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Your non-refundable deposit would have gone into the company running the trip as income.
Not an employee of that business's car.

To suggest it went straight into the car means you'll logically bring this up every time Fuggles ever buys anything?

IMO.


----------



## glensR33 (Apr 7, 2008)

Originally Posted by tonigmr2 
So who's going to pay me a grand?

your brown envelope?


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

CT17 said:


> Your non-refundable deposit would have gone into the company running the trip as income.
> Not an employee of that business's car.
> 
> To suggest it went straight into the car means you'll logically bring this up every time Fuggles ever buys anything?
> ...


Too many assumptios there mate as we just don't know the facts


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Steve said:


> Too many assumptios there mate as we just don't know the facts


Possibly.

Depends if you paid the company organising the trip or the GTROC.
Because the GTROC is not a company, like some car clubs are. It's something else.


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Not going to go over everything again, BUT

This trip was advertised and bought through the GTROC shop. There was even GTROC branded clothing, i.e. would you have thought that a company called Auto Mission was organising and running the trip? Especially as it was the chairman of the GTROC who was also championing the cause. 

See the thread from Matt J


----------



## moonshine (Feb 13, 2012)

dont see how conflict of interest can be denied?????
booked through club..
advertised on club...
payment taken through club shop...
all profits to the club chairman through his company(auto mission)
one simple question,did fuggles make extra profit from not refunding the deposit.

(not a legal question,just one of integrity)


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

moonshine said:


> dont see how conflict of interest can be denied?????
> booked through club..
> advertised on club...
> payment taken through club shop...
> ...


:bowdown1:


----------



## SPEED MERCHANT (Jun 5, 2006)

There is no conflict of interest ... really some people on this forum ...














moleman said:


> Steve,
> 
> Maybe he's saving up to buy this....
> 
> ...


Loving the shameless plug there Moley :clap: :thumbsup:
Awesome!


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Yep maybe he is and I wouldn't blame him either - but could he please do it with his own money !!!


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

The conflict is that if this was a GTROC event the members could appeal for a more detailed breakdown of how it was spent. As it stands all we have is "it was non-refundable" and "it was used to pay for things other people had paid for anyway"

Sorry to keep going on about it but I just don't see justification for withholding it myself.


----------



## SPEED MERCHANT (Jun 5, 2006)

Mookistar said:


> The conflict is that if this was a GTROC event the members could appeal for a more detailed breakdown of how it was spent. As it stands all we have is "it was non-refundable" and "it was used to pay for things other people had paid for anyway"
> 
> Sorry to keep going on about it but I just don't see justification for withholding it myself.


Mook ... you keep changing the so called conflict!?!!

Firstly its about Steve
Then its about a no refund policy.
Then we move to something else - I can't be arsed to look back.
Then its a GTROC problem ...
Now its about your lack of seeing justification for information withheld ...

Even though its not a GTROC matter as you stated above for the record all GTROC Members see the break down and explanation of the GTROC accounts and finances after every AGM for the club. If people don't attend the AGM then they are normally emailed or posted out this breakdown or can request it from the clubs accountant and any questions will be more than happily answered by the Treasurer.

We seem to forget that underneath the whole thing is actually about a grown man throwing his toys out the pram as he didn't get a refund on a NON RETURNABLE DEPOSIT ...

*I* dont see what is so difficult about that


----------



## MIKEGTR (Jul 8, 2005)

SPEED MERCHANT said:


> Mook ... you keep changing the so called conflict!?!!
> 
> Firstly its about Steve
> Then its about a no refund policy.
> ...


As a gtroc member I am officially asking to see detail of this. U have my email


----------



## SPEED MERCHANT (Jun 5, 2006)

Then contact IMS who is the treasurer Mike, I run events not the finances ...
I will forward your PM / email to him as well ...


----------



## MIKEGTR (Jul 8, 2005)

Much appreciated


----------



## moonshine (Feb 13, 2012)

SPEED MERCHANT said:


> Mook ... you keep changing the so called conflict!?!!
> 
> Firstly its about Steve
> Then its about a no refund policy.
> ...


do you think you could be "ARSED" If it was your £1000 pounds,thats the point its not a couple of quid,how long did the steve guy have to work for that £1000, for to be told hes throwing his toys out pram,seems a case of ime all right jack,the only person of authority looking at the BIG picture is mookistar.....why is that ????


----------



## moonshine (Feb 13, 2012)

never in any owners club /forum ive been involved in through out the years,have i known a club chairman to organise a trips for his own personal profit.


----------



## Alexinphuket (Jan 25, 2012)

Can't believe this thread is still going on. 

Non refundable deposit = No refund

It's not really that hard to understand.


----------



## alpeag (Dec 1, 2006)

MIKEGTR said:


> In conflict with who exactly?
> 
> A decision in law would have been made, there is no conflict (except perhaps the involvement of the chairman in a not for profit company, putting business through his own company, which we can pressume is out to make a profit).
> 
> ...


Well if it was 'my bag' i would be aware of the t&c's and know where I stand. I have booked many flights,ferries etc were to get a cheaper rate the cost it non-refundable and you accept the risk.

What about a compromise between both parties. The remaining amount left from Steve's deposit put into a GTROC account for some future event?


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

It's the context.

Its a ****ing car club supposedly run by volunteers. The club is NON-PROFIT so unless the £1000 can be accounted for then he should have it back.

But no, it was not a GTROC event, it was an Auto-mission event which basically negates the "not for profit" aspect of the GTROC philosophy. 

Had it been a GTROC event it would have to have been given back if it hadn't been spent.

The "non-refundable" aspect is moot as there should never be such a clause within a car club unless the costs incurred by the non attendance can be shown. something we haven't seen.

Just show us the bit that says "buy 10 flights for £2000 or 9 flights for £2500 each and it'll be fine.

Mike


----------



## irinaangel (Oct 31, 2010)

Not sure why it's 11 pages discussion - it's non-refundable means NO REFUND


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Mookistar said:


> It's the context.
> 
> Its a ****ing car club supposedly run by volunteers. The club is NON-PROFIT so unless the £1000 can be accounted for then he should have it back.
> 
> ...


:clap::clap:
Spot on...




irinaange said:


> Not sure why it's 11 pages discussion - it's non-refundable means NO REFUND





Alexinphuket said:


> Can't believe this thread is still going on.
> 
> Non refundable deposit = No refund
> 
> It's not really that hard to understand.


For crying out loud, the conversation evolved past the actual cash PAGES ago. You really must keep up!!:chairshot

TT


----------



## shh! (Nov 9, 2008)

Mookistar said:


> It's the context.
> 
> Its a ****ing car club supposedly run by volunteers. The club is NON-PROFIT so unless the £1000 can be accounted for then he should have it back.
> 
> ...


:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## yodookie (Oct 22, 2012)

So answer me this...


Would it be OK if Fuggles had bought the tickets and had them in hand when Steve decided he didn't want to go and got a refund? Fuggles would have lost out on a lot of money, would it be fair to leave a "club member" holding the bag like that?


----------



## Stevie76 (Dec 17, 2009)

I do think its dodgy having things in the shop for sale which are actually profit making for GTROC board members....this should be clear at the outset....would the trip still have happened if not arranged via Fuggles company and how do we know it represented good value....what vendor selection criteria etc. GTROC absolutely liable given purchase made through shop.

I'm more concerned re above than the non refundable elements of this thread however agree that in court likely money or a part of it would end up being refunded.


----------



## Cris (Sep 17, 2007)

Stevie76 said:


> I do think its dodgy having things in the shop for sale which are actually profit making for GTROC board members....this should be clear at the outset....would the trip still have happened if not arranged via Fuggles company and how do we know it represented good value....what vendor selection criteria etc. GTROC absolutely liable given purchase made through shop.
> 
> I'm more concerned re above than the non refundable elements of this thread however agree that in court likely money or a part of it would end up being refunded.


You are aware that many of the items in the GTROC shop are sold for profit by the originator.


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

yodookie said:


> So answer me this...
> 
> 
> Would it be OK if Fuggles had bought the tickets and had them in hand when Steve decided he didn't want to go and got a refund? Fuggles would have lost out on a lot of money, would it be fair to leave a "club member" holding the bag like that?


thats the point. If that had happened Fuggles could say "sorry steve, already bought the tickets, they cannot be cancelled, sorry mate"

As it stands there's nothing bar Johns time and effort which, had it been the GTROC event we all assumed it to be, would have been free. If it can be shown that real costs were incurred by his non-attendance then I'll back down, but I just cant see where that £1000 has actually gone.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Cris said:


> You are aware that many of the items in the GTROC shop are sold for profit by the originator.


Yes, I've seen the prices.
But you'd hope profits go into GTROC coffers to keep the club ticking along.


----------



## Stevie76 (Dec 17, 2009)

Cris said:


> You are aware that many of the items in the GTROC shop are sold for profit by the originator.


Sold for profit sure....but sold for profit with the originator being a board member. Not saying that's a bad thing but think it should be advertised. Suspect other traders can't just sell things through the GTROC shop so its not exactly like for like with other traders is it?? Special dispensation being board member??


----------



## nismoman (Jul 13, 2004)

if, and there is people on here who knew about auto mission and the set up ,why did,nt you question the association at the time ??? why were you happy to take all the benefits and advantages of there services ,and there is huge benefits from there connections in the travel industries ,seems another case of people wanting all the benefits ,on there terms when it suits them .IF the company (auto mission ) was used as a contractor because of there expertise in this field ,there terms and conditions was the basis of the contract of business ,so i cant understand how people can say that when the terms and conditions are unforced there unfair ,we all do business every day with companies that have unfair terms and conditions ,so we have a choice if we don't like them don't enter into a binding legal contract .:thumbsup:


----------



## SPEED MERCHANT (Jun 5, 2006)

moonshine said:


> do you think you could be "ARSED" If it was your £1000 pounds,thats the point its not a couple of quid,how long did the steve guy have to work for that £1000, for to be told hes throwing his toys out pram,seems a case of ime all right jack,the only person of authority looking at the BIG picture is mookistar.....why is that ????


Firstly I'd be arsed to read the T&C's before I got involved in anything, if the T&C's stated there is a non refundable deposit then so be it - its non refundable.

Secondly a more important point I wished I'd remembered days ago now ... before Steve made his sniping comment on FUGGLES posting about his new car which sparked all this ........ John purchased the car BEFORE Steve paid any deposit :chuckle:
So the accusation of Steves deposit buying or going towards FUGGLES new car is wholly inaccurate (even if it was sarcasm on Steves part) as it was the previous Japan trip when the car was secured and paid for ... :chuckle:

Thirdly he is throwing his toys out the pram for months now as Steve has been laying sniping comments after there has already been a thread on this!

Fourthly the GTROC, its board, managers, reps, those that help out are all top people as are many of the members of the club too. If at the end of day people don't like the club then please exercise your right of freedom and liberty to go elsewhere as their are plenty of other clubs out there all with their own positives and negatives.
There is nothing sinister or dodgy about anything the club or any of its representatives do and I stand by that. If anyone disagrees feel free to come and find me at any of the events or shows I attend, we'll have a coffee or beer and after ten minutes you'll see I was right all along.
If ANYTHING suspect was taking place there are certain people on the GTROC board and management (myself included) who would act to deal with it even if it meant involving the authorities ... and by god I would let our members know too ...

I'm going to post this now before I say too much and really upset the apple cart, but I will stress this once more -

* NOTHING ILLEGAL OR SUSPECT HAS TAKEN PLACE

* IF STEVE STILL FEELS AGGRIEVED THEN GO SEEK THE ADVICE OF A SOLICITOR AS AT THE END OF THE DAY IT IS A CIVIL MATTER AND STOP THE WITCH HUNT.




CT17 said:


> Yes, I've seen the prices.
> But you'd hope profits go into GTROC coffers to keep the club ticking along.


Exactly ... thats what profits are used for and are plain to see on the yearly reports available for all members ...
MEMBERS 

PS - Knowing Steve ... £1000 is about a weeks wages


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

SPEED MERCHANT said:


> There is no conflict of interest ... really some people on this forum ...


There is a clear conflict of interest here, perhaps your understanding of a COI differs from that of people who deal with it daily. Simple question, did John benefit from Auto Missions (a for-profit company he directs) in any way via his position as the Chairman of the GTROC, (Who all the events are claimed to be run by in his members benefits thread) the answer is absolutely YES.



SPEED MERCHANT said:


> all GTROC Members see the break down and explanation of the GTROC accounts and finances after every AGM for the club. If people don't attend the AGM then they are normally emailed or posted out this breakdown or can request it from the clubs accountant and any questions will be more than happily answered by the Treasurer.


This has nothing to do with the conflict of interest, transparency is expected from the GTROC. The point being made is that there was no transparency with the Chairmans sideline business.



SPEED MERCHANT said:


> Fourthly the GTROC, its board, managers, reps, those that help out are all top people as are many of the members of the club too. If at the end of day people don't like the club then please exercise your right of freedom and liberty to go elsewhere as their are plenty of other clubs out there all with their own positives and negatives.


A very strange response when all that is being asked is clarity don't you think?



SPEED MERCHANT said:


> There is nothing sinister or dodgy about anything the club or any of its representatives do and I stand by that.


Then there would be no hesitation to provide evidence of how the funds were used and end this debacle.



SPEED MERCHANT said:


> If ANYTHING suspect was taking place there are certain people on the GTROC board and management (myself included) who would act to deal with it even if it meant involving the authorities ... and by god I would let our members know too ...


Apologies but as I see it, you've then failed to advise the connection.
Can you please now advise the GTROC members here as to which board members and management are also directors of for-profit companies being used by the GTROC for ANY services?

Can you also advise why Auto Missions has not paid for a banner add when they are clearly using the forum for trade purposes?

Thanks.


----------



## SPEED MERCHANT (Jun 5, 2006)

matt j said:


> Apologies but as I see it, you've then failed to advise the connection.
> Can you please now advise the GTROC members here as to which board members are also diectors of for-profit companies being used by the GTROC for ANY services?


Matt,

draft an email to [email protected] and you will be kindly obliged with the information that you require. This also stands for any member on here seeking answers or information.




matt j said:


> Can you also advise why Auto Missions has not paid for a banner add when they are clearly using the forum for trade purposes?


I can't as I don't work for the GTR Register (GTR - Owners Club) which is run as a for profit business and I don't work for AUTOMISSION either. May I suggest you contact AUTOMISSION and or the owner of this site (Cem) to answer this.

As someone mentioned earlier though in all the years that the Japan trip was organised no one questioned any of the benefits or discounts that they received. The one year the trip is organised where for a change John and the club were not left in deficit and someone expects a refund on a non refundable deposit all hell breaks loose ???




matt j said:


> A very strange response when all that is being asked is clarity don't you think?


Not really to be honest!?


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

matt j said:


> There is a clear conflict of interest here, perhaps your understanding of a COI differs from that of people who deal with it daily. Simple question, did John benefit from Auto Missions (a for-profit company he directs) in any way via his position as the Chairman of the GTROC, (Who all the events are claimed to be run by in his members benefits thread) the answer is absolutely YES.
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with the conflict of interest, transparency is expected from the GTROC. The point being made is that there was no transparency with the Chairmans sideline business.
> ...


Here here:clap::clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Originally posted by moonshine 

do you think you could be "ARSED" If it was your £1000 pounds, hats the point it***8217;s not a couple of quid, how long did the Steve guy have to work for that £1000, for to be told he***8217;s throwing his toys out pram, seems a case of ime all right jack, the only person of authority looking at the BIG picture is mookistar.....why is that ???? AGREE

Firstly I'd be arsed to read the T&C's before I got involved in anything, if the T&C's stated there is a non-refundable deposit then so be it - its non-refundable. T&C***8217;s DEBARCLE EXPLEAINED SEVERAL TIMES ***8211; PLEASE READ AND RE READIF YOU DON***8217;T UNDERSTAND!

Secondly a more important point I wished I'd remembered days ago now ... before Steve made his sniping comment on FUGGLES posting about his new car which sparked all this ........ John purchased the car BEFORE Steve paid any deposit. NO SNIPPING COMMENT, JUST UTTER SURPSISE AT A ***8220;LOOK A ME AND MY NEW CAR THREAD***8221; *edited by admin*.

So the accusation of Steve***8217;s deposit buying or going towards FUGGLES new car is wholly inaccurate (even if it was sarcasm on Steve***8217;s part) as it was the previous Japan trip when the car was secured and paid for ... HOW WOULD YOU KNOW THAT ***8211; I COULD SAY PROVE IT, BUT I DON***8217;T REALLY CARE.

Thirdly he is throwing his toys out the pram for months now as Steve has been laying sniping comments after there has already been a thread on this! NOT TRUE, BUT I THINK A £1000-00 BUYS ME A LOT OF TOYS AND BIG PRAM TIME.

Fourthly the GTROC, its board, managers, reps, those that help out are all top people as are many of the members of the club too. If at the end of day people don't like the club then please exercise your right of freedom and liberty to go elsewhere as there are plenty of other clubs out there all with their own positives and negatives. YEAH, THAT MAKES US MEMBERS (SOME WHO HAVE BEEN HERE A LOT LONGER THAN YOU) FEEL REALLY GREAT PAL

There is nothing sinister or dodgy about anything the club or any of its representatives do and I stand by that. If anyone disagrees feel free to come and find me at any of the events or shows I attend, we'll have a coffee or beer and after ten minutes you'll see I was right all along. HMMMMMM, MIGHT BE A LONG MEETING

If ANYTHING suspect was taking place there are certain people on the GTROC board and management (myself included) who would act to deal with it even if it meant involving the authorities ... and by god I would let our members know too ... NOPE, YOU FAILED ON THAT ONE THEN.

I'm going to post this now before I say too much and really upset the apple cart, but I will stress this once more -

* NOTHING ILLEGAL OR SUSPECT HAS TAKEN PLACE

Sorry Kriss, but ***8220;something***8221; suspect has / is taking place and I would now call into question the Chairman of the GTROC being involved in a profit (HIS) making company using the GTROC as a vehicle for his funds.

* IF STEVE STILL FEELS AGGRIEVED THEN GO SEEK THE ADVICE OF A SOLICITOR AS AT THE END OF THE DAY IT IS A CIVIL MATTER AND STOP THE WITCH HUNT.

I was rather hoping that this could be resolved in gentlemanly fashion, and in fact if John had done an honourable thing in the beginning and at least offered my Niece her £500-00 back maybe we would not be here.


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

Apart from that post being completely unreadable Steve, if you start throwing around accusations without proof it will lead to a thread lock.


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Yes, sorry about that I don't undersatand why the Web page dosen't like a word doc copied and pasted ???

No accusation on my part as down £1000-00 and no proof as to where it has gone.

Oh and please don't start locking threads that are really important to ALL of US members


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

Discussing the association between tour operator and club is one thing, but to imply money is stolen quite another. I have edited your post in the interests of the forum. Please bear in mind you cannot go throwing accusations about in a public forum without proof.


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Not implying, just want to know where it has gone, as if no proof then, and you are the first one to use that word, stolen ??? I HAVE NOT


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

The wordage I have removed is only used in those situations. If I see it again I will lock the thread in the interests of the forum. Please bear this in mind.


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

LOL, you amaze me, you sit out of everything which is really important here and then threaten to lock the theard because of the wording in a sentence. 

Maybe we should all look at the deeper meaning about this thread and the really worrying aspect of it.


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

I am simply saying you cannot just roll up and throw accusations about without proof.:chairshot

Keep it to your concerns and what HAS happened and you have no worries.


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

OK I'll try and be a good boy from now on


----------



## glensR33 (Apr 7, 2008)

aw lots of posts deleted  thanx for my private msg mod,


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

Steve said:


> LOL, you amaze me, you sit out of everything which is really important here and then threaten to lock the theard because of the wording in a sentence.
> 
> Maybe we should all look at the deeper meaning about this thread and the really worrying aspect of it.


Steve,
I'm all for fighting your corner on this but implications of theft and essentially embezelment are way out of line.

NOTHING John has done, or the GTROC is "illegal" The conflict of interest is another debate but the suggestion funds have been stolen is way out of line and will see this thread REMOVED if they persist.

What "Automission" have done with your money is irrelevant as as a business transaction with a non-refundable deposit, it is THEIR money.

The moral and solcial aspects of this thread are what are key. I believe the deposit should be given back, so do many others, if it cannot be acocunted for, but that does not change the fact that technically it is non-refundable.

I'll fight your corner on JUSTIFYING why they should give it back, but to accuse John of theft is way out of line.


Seriously, don't make me kill this thread becasue I will.

Mook


----------



## ROG350Z (Jun 15, 2008)

Jesus god in heaven. I have been made aware of this and just spent the last 25 minutes of my life reading through.

Allow me (and I have to state I am a friend of John here for the record just in case anyone gets uppity).

A deposit was paid. It was none refundable. End of story (legally or otherwise and I checked with my lawyers).

The club finances are open book, and always have been (strictly to members of the club). For those attending the AGM they are always available.

John runs Auto Mission. Ok so a tour company (if we used another would make the bill far, far higher) books everything. Would the members prefer a pure commercial basis (and absolutely would not have got a refund) and put prices up as discussed.

I know John well and have only come into the club over the past three years. he has put in countless hours unpaid (as we all do) and I note that this thread suggests this is not relevant while, at the same time, suggesting people do the 'human' thing. You cannot have it both ways.

Steve you are bang out of order even suggesting John would use money for his own gain. We all work on/in the club and I have never, in the past three years I have been a member seen you at any event, helping organise nor doing ANYTHING to assist the club (you did turn up to the Asda day I will note) so please don't play that card (I am really quite angry about this).

The query upon this thread is now should John put his hand is his pocket and give Steve his money back out of courtesy - that is what it boils down too. My firm opinion (as backed by a large number of people on here) is absolutely and categorically not. The club is not here as a charity (though it sometimes appears so) and the members enjoy a great time in my experience.

I have to suggest my conflict of interest is that my web designer runs the GTROC website. I make no profit nor have any affiliation with his business but leverage my buying power to get better rates for work. I would be delighted to go out and get commercial rates and screw the club for money. I know other club members pay for their own hotel rooms on club run events (like Autosport show) to save the club a small amount of money - directly from their own damn pockets.

Steve you made a choice, you are pissed you didn't get your cash back and I think you are totally out of order casting aspersions about John's ethics. If you think, for one second, when you look at the commercials of time/effort etc that John puts in to a GTROC event that he makes a chunk of profit from the club running a Japan event then you are seriously deluded.

Mike wants to see the accounts - that is absolutely fine and am sure Ian will send them across - I am not sure what difference it will make as it will show that the club paid some money out (as it does to lots of people) to Auto Mission for the trip. Is John going to show us his company accounts - hell no and nor would I show anyone mine.

The point of this thread is: Some people think that some one should do 'the right thing'. That sets a precedent and I don't believe it is the right thing actually. Steve made a lifestyle decision having taken advantage of an offer and then decided to back out. Simple - no refund. The conflict of interest is entirely irrelevant as someone has to run these events and John happens too. If it was any other organisation they would be making a bigger profit (or they wouldn't do it) and wouldn't have all the benefits of John's contacts and things that cannot be quantified in money.

I have said my piece - I am sure people will disagree and frankly I couldn't care less. I love the club and the members but have far batter things too do in life than argue with people online about what 'they think they are owed'. If people disagree strongly then we would be delighted to have people stand for the board/management team and help put their stamp on the club.


----------



## ROG350Z (Jun 15, 2008)

Mookistar said:


> Steve,
> I'm all for fighting your corner on this but implications of theft and essentially embezelment are way out of line.
> 
> NOTHING John has done, or the GTROC is "illegal" The conflict of interest is another debate but the suggestion funds have been stolen is way out of line and will see this thread REMOVED if they persist.
> ...


Well said Mook. We will agree to disagree on this but I think that is allowed ;-)


----------



## MIKEGTR (Jul 8, 2005)

ROG350Z said:


> A deposit was paid. It was none refundable. End of story (legally or otherwise and I checked with my lawyers)..


This is so far from being correct lol, I'd check with your Lawyers again lol.

By law, you may be able to keep any monies that are considered reasonable costs - personally I can't see a bag being a reasonable cost - regardless of any clause


----------



## moonshine (Feb 13, 2012)

The point of this thread is: Some people think that some one should do 'the right thing'. That sets a precedent and I don't believe it is the right thing actually
what a statement !!!!!!!!!!!

The club is not here as a charity (though it sometimes appears so) and the members enjoy a great time in my experience.


thats the point not talking about club but auto mission


----------



## glensR33 (Apr 7, 2008)

MIKEGTR said:


> This is so far from being correct lol, I'd check with your Lawyers again lol.
> 
> By law, you may be able to keep any monies that are considered reasonable costs - personally I can't see a bag being a reasonable cost - regardless of any clause


:thumbsup:


----------



## ROG350Z (Jun 15, 2008)

moonshine said:


> The point of this thread is: Some people think that some one should do 'the right thing'. That sets a precedent and I don't believe it is the right thing actually
> what a statement !!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> The club is not here as a charity (though it sometimes appears so) and the members enjoy a great time in my experience.
> ...


That's fine I have said my piece and will back out gracefully - my opinion is on the record and isn't going to change so point arguing.


----------



## ROG350Z (Jun 15, 2008)

MIKEGTR said:


> This is so far from being correct lol, I'd check with your Lawyers again lol.
> 
> By law, you may be able to keep any monies that are considered reasonable costs - personally I can't see a bag being a reasonable cost - regardless of any clause


Note I am not a lawyer but I have paid hundreds of £thousands to them over the years!

Lawyers work for both sides so am sure both would argue each way for the appropriate fees


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

ROG350Z said:


> Well said Mook. We will agree to disagree on this but I think that is allowed ;-)


Mike et all, Yes, I said sorry for using the wrong word OK 


Rog you said 
"Steve you made a choice, you are pissed you didn't get your cash back" 

This is the part you don't seem to get Rog and any one else, it's not that I didn't get the cash back, although that is obviously the end goal. 

It's the fact that the money cannot or isn't being accounted for .................................. Here you go, here's a Grand ............. now what ?


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Steve said:


> Here you go, here's a Grand ............. now what ?


Thanks ?

:lamer:


----------



## MIKEGTR (Jul 8, 2005)

ROG350Z said:


> Note I am not a lawyer but I have paid hundreds of £thousands to them over the years!
> 
> Lawyers work for both sides so am sure both would argue each way for the appropriate fees


I've had a little bit of experience myself :thumbsup:


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

CT17 said:


> Thanks ?
> 
> :lamer:


Can't even remember being thanked for it either LOL:squintdan


----------



## SPEED MERCHANT (Jun 5, 2006)

MIKEGTR said:


> I've had a little bit of experience myself :thumbsup:


Does one swim in shark infested waters safely knowing one will not get bitten out of professional courtesy then :chuckle:


----------



## MIKEGTR (Jul 8, 2005)

SPEED MERCHANT said:


> Does one swim in shark infested waters safely knowing one will not get bitten out of professional courtesy then :chuckle:


Lets just say the law is slanted towards the consumer - but hey, who knows, try your luck


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

ROG350Z said:


> Allow me (and I have to state I am a friend of John here for the record just in case anyone gets uppity).


Rog, nobody is questioning friendships here, at least I am not but it would be wise not to let a friendship cloud your judgement.



ROG350Z said:


> A deposit was paid. It was none refundable. End of story (legally or otherwise and I checked with my lawyers).


Whilst I agree I would have probably written it off as per the T's and C's, I can understand why others would want to pursue; as has been stated by others, the legality of it is a percentage could be recovered, especially as no evidence as to what was done with the funds has been provided.



ROG350Z said:


> The club finances are open book, and always have been (strictly to members of the club). For those attending the AGM they are always available.


This keeps getting stated but the GTROC finances are not being questioned unless I'm missing something?



ROG350Z said:


> John runs Auto Mission. Ok so a tour company (if we used another would make the bill far, far higher) books everything. Would the members prefer a pure commercial basis (and absolutely would not have got a refund) and put prices up as discussed.


 So there we have it, a board member clarifying John's position; How can you possibly deny a conflict of interest in this situation, to do so is surely futile. As I see it, Auto Missions is a vehicle for John to be recompensed for his time/effort/expenses in arranging the tours and as such has been operated in conjunction with the GTROC, can John please clarify as I’m struggling to see it any other way? 



ROG350Z said:


> I know John well and have only come into the club over the past three years. he has put in countless hours unpaid (as we all do) and I note that this thread suggests this is not relevant while, at the same time, suggesting people do the 'human' thing. You cannot have it both ways.


I have made no such suggestion, it is well recognised that John has invested a great deal of his time and effort into the club; that was his choice (as it is with all members) in being involved in a non-profit organisation. To then operate a for-profit company that the GTROC solely uses for the tours is a conflict of interest and it effectively recompensed John, inclusive of Steve’s £1K deposit.




ROG350Z said:


> Steve you are bang out of order even suggesting John would use money for his own gain. We all work on/in the club and I have never, in the past three years I have been a member seen you at any event, helping organise nor doing ANYTHING to assist the club (you did turn up to the Asda day I will note) so please don't play that card (I am really quite angry about this).


It's not my business to discuss Steve's activity as a co-member of the club but I can fully understand the request to provide clarity regarding the usage of the deposit in the newly revealed light that the company that received the profit is Directed by the Chairman. And for the record, with regards friendship, I'm sure Steve will confirm via several occasions we don't exactly see eye-to-eye!



ROG350Z said:


> The query upon this thread is now should John put his hand is his pocket and give Steve his money back out of courtesy - that is what it boils down too. My firm opinion (as backed by a large number of people on here) is absolutely and categorically not. The club is not here as a charity (though it sometimes appears so) and the members enjoy a great time in my experience.


Rog, that is not the case; I don't think you'll find anyone asking John to put his hand in his own pocket, they're asking the company he directs which was appointed by him as the Chairman of the GTROC to 'reconsider' the necessity to withhold the full amount when no evidence is being provided that the full amount was utilised by the company and lost as Steve withdrew.



ROG350Z said:


> I have to suggest my conflict of interest is that my web designer runs the GTROC website. I make no profit nor have any affiliation with his business but leverage my buying power to get better rates for work. I would be delighted to go out and get commercial rates and screw the club for money. I know other club members pay for their own hotel rooms on club run events (like Autosport show) to save the club a small amount of money - directly from their own damn pockets.


Hardly the same as being the Chairman of the GTROC and Directing the Company in question.



ROG350Z said:


> If you think, for one second, when you look at the commercials of time/effort etc that John puts in to a GTROC event that he makes a chunk of profit from the club running a Japan event then you are seriously deluded.


Excuse me but John's time and effort again is free, as with any volunteer, that was his choice.
If this were a charity and the Chairman of the charity set up a company and solely used that company in this manner then what do you expect the outcome to be when it became public knowledge? 
Plus, If AUTO MISSION LTD Status Active - Newly Incorporated Company number 07943487 (Available freely on Companies House) is the said company then the Registration date of 09/02/2012 would suggest it was setup purely for this activity?



ROG350Z said:


> Mike wants to see the accounts - that is absolutely fine and am sure Ian will send them across - I am not sure what difference it will make as it will show that the club paid some money out (as it does to lots of people) to Auto Mission for the trip. Is John going to show us his company accounts - hell no and nor would I show anyone mine.


Agreed, GTROC accounts will be in order and are not being questioned.
As for the company accounts, the company which the Chairman set up to run at a profit; I don't think anyone actually expects John to disclose the full account details as per the GTROC but I do think he should clarify what the funds were utilised for in this instance.



ROG350Z said:


> The conflict of interest is entirely irrelevant as someone has to run these events and John happens too. If it was any other organisation they would be making a bigger profit (or they wouldn't do it) and wouldn't have all the benefits of John's contacts and things that cannot be quantified in money.


So you agree, AUTO MISSION was setup so that John could profit hence the conflict of interest.



ROG350Z said:


> I have said my piece - I am sure people will disagree and frankly I couldn't care less. I love the club and the members but have far batter things too do in life than argue with people online about what 'they think they are owed'. If people disagree strongly then we would be delighted to have people stand for the board/management team and help put their stamp on the club.


It is indeed a thankless task and for those who volunteer you have my thanks, should it mean anything.
I have to say though, I still have concerns regarding the way in which the relationship between the GTROC and AUTO MISSIONS exists.


----------



## moleman (Jun 3, 2002)

What if 10 members booked early and all were forced to pull out, no matter what the reason?

Would Auto Missions sit on the £10k?


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

Ok guys,
This is where I am at.

Both John and Steve have put forward their points. A number of GTROC members, and a few busybodies (me  ) have put our tuppence in and at this point it is clear that no conclusion is going to come from this thread. 
The GTROC members can debate the COI in a sepertae thread should they choose, but as John has left this discussion it's clear the Steve will not be getting the answer he wants.

So, unless anyone has anyhting to add that will change any of the above, I will lock this thread tonight.


----------



## LiamGTR (Nov 26, 2006)

I'd hope so. Non-refundable means non-refundable.

Deal with it.

@Moleman


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Liam GTR 

Your missing the point Buddy


----------



## moleman (Jun 3, 2002)

LiamGTR said:


> I'd hope so. Non-refundable means non-refundable.


Wow. Seems like a good business to be in.

Beats my hiring out monkey butlers idea hands down. Who'd have that would fail, lost so much money.


----------



## glensR33 (Apr 7, 2008)

looks like court time so, best of luck with that steve, we all know you'll get it sorted that way,its a shame it will have to go that way but enjoy your money when you get it back


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

moleman said:


> What if 10 members booked early and all were forced to pull out, no matter what the reason?
> 
> Would Auto Missions sit on the £10k?


Presumably so given the logic that has been shown earlier in the thread.....

Matt J has put forward a very robust challenge all of which I personally support. That some cannot see a COI exists is, quite frankly, absurd. 

No one disputes the amount of time and effort that volunteers put into the Club. I think it goes without saying that they are to be applauded for such efforts. I, myself, am an executive board member of a professional organisation so know the time and effort required to conduct duties in service of the organisation. However, this is done knowingly and without grudge...

I think the things that are of issue here are

Lack of clarity on what the deposits were used for
That Automission seems to have been selected as a supplier without appropriate process being followed
That John is a director of Automission AND Chairman of GTROC
That it was not made clear of the relationship between GTROC and Automission

The questions here go beyond Steves £1000, friendships and time devoted to Club.

TT


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Yeah, think I am going to start one called Auto Mansion !!!! At that rate it wouldn't be long before I had one !!!


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

Shame Steve couldn't have had a two for one deal and got TR and Fuggles in court at the same time:chuckle::flame::chuckle::flame::chuckle:


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

tarmac terror said:


> Presumably so given the logic that has been shown earlier in the thread.....
> 
> Matt J has put forward a very robust challenge all of which I personally support. That some cannot see a COI exists is, quite frankly, absurd.
> 
> ...


And THB, I didn't even want to get to this situation of calling John's involvement into question, however we know that smoke indicates fire and there is something hot burning somewhere!

Can "we" do anything about the points raised above and especially with Matt J's comprehensive breakdown of the situation and not just the loss of my £1000-00?


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

TAZZMAXX said:


> Shame Steve couldn't have had a two for one deal and got TR and Fuggles in court at the same time:chuckle::flame::chuckle::flame::chuckle:


ah, however, I now how the system works :clap::clap::clap:


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

Steve said:


> And THB, I didn't even want to get to this situation of calling John's involvement into question, however we know that smoke indicates fire and there is something hot burning somewhere!
> 
> Can "we" do anything about the points raised above and especially with Matt J's comprehensive breakdown of the situation and not just the loss of my £1000-00?


That's for you to discuss with GTROC separately, and whatever friends you muster. The register as you know is a separate entity and there is no 'we'.


----------



## LiamGTR (Nov 26, 2006)

moleman said:


> Wow. Seems like a good business to be in.
> 
> Beats my hiring out monkey butlers idea hands down. Who'd have that would fail, lost so much money.


Should have made it non-refundable:lamer:


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

matt j said:


> Rog, nobody is questioning friendships here, at least I am not but it would be wise not to let a friendship cloud your judgement.
> 
> Whilst I agree I would have probably written it off as per the T's and C's, I can understand why others would want to pursue; as has been stated by others, the legality of it is a percentage could be recovered, especially as no evidence as to what was done with the funds has been provided.
> 
> ...


Will put this in a new thread COI as Mook is going to lock this !


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

Mook, I have no issue with you closing the thread as this is not a GTR Register issue and it would also appear that the 'answers' being provided are merely opinions and not substantial enough to appease my concerns. I would also like to state that I have no axe to grind with either John or Steve but have merely expressed my concerns as a GTROC member regarding what I believe to be an unanswered case of 'conflict of interest' that I expected would be answered appropriately by those concerned.


----------



## Euroexports (Dec 14, 2011)

Alexinphuket said:


> Can't believe this thread is still going on.
> 
> Non refundable deposit = No refund
> 
> It's not really that hard to understand.


 +1 ....


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

this thread need to be closed, the conflict of interest issue ALONE needs to be addressed separately, the NON refundable deposit is as its stated, even if it was spent on bangkok ladyboys its completely irrelivant, it appears the terms where made clear from the start so theres nothing to discuss imo.


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

I think we have come to the end of this now.


----------

