parchedpeas wrote:I don't see the problem with buying people out. It keeps the funds in the club, instead of reducing our holdings (and therefore disproportionately increase the charges per transaction). Did it even make it as far as a vote last time? I'd second anyone that proposed it, on the basis that multiple persons could contribute to the buy-out, no-one was excluded who wanted to purchase from a "leaver" (eg. Person A wants £200 of the chunk, person B £50, person C £10, the rest from club funds if needed etc.)

What is the rationale behind NOT doing this? The 'cashback only' aspect?

parchedpeas wrote:Or is the problem here Underdog?

richard@imutual wrote:

Thunderfog wrote:I propose a vote to change the CIC constitution to allow the units of a leaving member to be bought by an existing member.

In order for a vote to take place three needs to be three in total members wishing to vote on the subject matter.

What you should actually propose is that members are allowed to pay in their own funds and not just imutual cashback. Why make it dependent on the rare occasion when a member leaves?

It would be a change to the rules. not the constitution

It would require 75% of members to vote in favour

And it really would be best to start a new post in the CIC forum

I'm sure our secretary will be along soon to confirm the above. Oh, hang on ....

richard@imutual wrote:

Thunderfog wrote:I propose a vote to change the CIC constitution to allow the units of a leaving member to be bought by an existing member.

In order for a vote to take place three needs to be three in total members wishing to vote on the subject matter.

Why make it dependent on the rare occasion when a member leaves?

Thunderfog wrote:I propose a vote to change the CIC constitution to allow the units of a leaving member to be bought by an existing member.

In order for a vote to take place three needs to be three in total members wishing to vote on the subject matter.