I can see that there are arguments in favour of clubs becoming limited companies, and the limitation of liability is probably the strongest.
But why, then, is there such reticence to engage in such things as drive outs, exchange of technical information and all the other things that car clubs seem to do but which MSCC doesn't seem to want to engage in? It's not like the directors would be vulnerable, as their liability is limited?
As Colin points out, the case referred to was thrown out on appeal, and there seems a bit of a dearth of evidence of successful prosecutions?
Tim I completely agree. Whether a car club is Limited or not, it's purpose is to serve its members, that's is all those that pay subs. Those serving on the board (at there own choice) are there to ensure the club operates correctly and to ensure it satisfies the members wishes (within legal bounds). If they don't agree with what is asked by the membership (even if within the law) and refuse to represent the wishes of the members, then they should stand down in my view. Personally I hate politics and find it rather said that MSCC seems to have lost its way, and the fact it is a car club for all Morgan owners.
