Quote Originally Posted by Stick View Post

.....Strange also that the FRA chairman is the recipient of the ballot papers. A potential conflict of interest in that Tony is chair of the (main)committee which is recommending a particular way of voting. However, on this latter-point, I know Tony and he is a chap of the highest integrity so this, for me, is a non-issue (...but does take a perception risk). {And far better Tony than some UKA quango }.....

.....As to which way to vote, I'm sure we've all made our minds up. Let's hope we do get a large turnout.
Quote Originally Posted by brett View Post
This received from Tony Varley
Cheers Brett.

Tony; Stick and I (Neil Taylor) are the same! As I posted, I personally have no concerns with you acting as returning officer. But one of the roles of a chairman is to act as the casting vote in the event of a tied decision (not that I think that's going to be likely!). I just think that you being returning officer could potentially put you in an invidious position...'specially if there's only one vote in it

Total agree with you about need for good turnout though. My vote's going in the post tomorrow.

I think that this issue has generated a lot of bad feeling in our community. There is not one fell-runner I have ever met who I don't get on with well. And yet it's clear that there are strong emotions on both sides of this argument and, as witnessed by this thread and the old-forum equivalent, its polarising people. My best pal and I have differing views on this matter, but we agree to differ. So whatever way the vote goes, we should have the wisdom to accept the result.

I admit, I personally have a bit of a hang up...I keep thinking along the lines of "Why are we [FRA] in this position..?" and keep coming up with the same answer..."because of the actions of the UKA" each time; so I just cannot believe that we'd be better off staying with them. So, sorry Tony (and anyone else who takes a different view), but I will be voting against continuation of affiliation.