les mcvay wrote:
It was also the Central members that voted and the Committee's in both companies gave the members a clear steer as to how/what to vote for and if i'm not mistaken (though i stand to be corrected on this) the Committee(s) also had the use of the proxy votes to vote in their favour.
answer
I am not sure what a clear steer as to what or what not to vote for would be. The merger presentation to both sets of members was done on a purely democratic basis. There were only a few proxy votes handed in from City Cabs members not attending. The actual number of proxy votes from a City Cabs perspective had little bearing on the final decision.
The study was done by a professional outfit at a substantial cost to both companies as presumably both companies wanted to see if it was deemed benficial from a commercial and business point of view.
The answer and recommendation was a resounding YES so why did City then deem it a non starter given that they had sanctioned and paid for the research in the 1st place on behalf of their membership ??????????????????????????
Again this statement is confusing. The exercise was carried out at a cost to the members. It was never deemed a non starter at any point. The full process was carried through to the final vote by both sets of members.
I do not recall them ever articulating why they wanted to go against the recommendation. The City Committe on behalf of their members chose to spend the money on the study and they then decided to ignore the findings and recommendations ?
Did someone mention 'self-interest ????
If City had any concerns at the outset they should have checked with their members prior to spending the members money on the research. Thats just simple business practice.
More scratching of the head. What do these statements mean. Who went against any recommendations. At the start of any fact finding exercise that will always probably be concerns. That is inevitable where two different ideas come together. The City Cabs committee did send out a letter to all of our members asking them if they approved of spending money on looking at a possible merger and the answer was yes. You are just plain wrong in your statement
Both Committees had the ability to influence the vote based on the YES recommendation but it would presumably have led to one committee, one call centre etc.
Great from a cost point of view, efficiencies etc.
Re the 'Super company' given the coverage and amount of cabs on call there would have been a pretty compelling story and proposition to sell/tell the top hotel chains and large companies in Edinburgh re coverage, expertise, transport hub access etc etc.
Its not alwasy about price, if you have a fantastic service offering, smart people in charge and a competitive price (not always the cheapest) then you will always be in with a great chance of winning and retaining business.
A great opportunity lost in my book but at least there are still lots of people employed (2 committees, 2 call centres, 2 sets of premises etc etc ) and being paid for via the Owners radio dues each month not to mention the carnage of the airport, hotels changing hands for reduced prices etc.
I wonder how many people would employ this as a business model or be allowed to walk away from a fantastic opportunity for the owners/drivers in both companies and still be in a position of influence 2/3 years down the line.
there is no denying a merger would have had the benefits that you state if it was handled correctly. The concerns our members had at the time caused them to vote against the idea. It was our members who voted against it after considering the same set of facts that was presented to both sets of members.The idea that the City Cabs Committee scuppered the merger is wrong.
We really are sleep walking in to oblivion and yet we still have Les having pops at Central and AN Othere about the state of the trade.
You are obviously upset that I have brought up the subject of hypocrisy regarding the Airport Tender. I am not having "pops" at Central but I do wonder just why anybody can justify the sums of money that has been spent on objecting to a service that they would have had to provide themselves if their bid had been successful
Its time for the owners and members to wake up and ask the difficult questions but I suspect there may be no real answers, lost in transaltion or a lot of white noise in response.
Jon
lost in translation and white noise could all be replaced by the summation made at the end of the hypocrisy link I posted previously. Perhaps a small positive step would be for us all to be prepared to put our names to what we post.
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 12:39 pm
Top
The only people who had something to lose by a merger was the committees - FACT. So one or both committees had to be working against these two companies pulling together as one - simples.
For Brutus (Les) is an honourable man; So are they all, all honourable men...
Oh and Jon is spot on...
Login
Register
FAQ
