KC chairman ‘surprised’ by lack of response to new legacy fund Discussions

Malka · Oct 31, 2014

THERE has been little response to the Kennel Club’s request for suggestions of land which could be developed into dog activity centres or for projects which could be paid for by the new legacy fund.

KC chairman Steve Dean said the lack of reaction to offers of money from the fund was even more surprising than the muted reaction to the call for sites.

Writing in the November Kennel Club Journal Prof Dean said he had expected ‘an avalanche’ of suggestions of properties and acreage for sale but that only a couple had been received. Even more surprising was the lack of response to the creation of the legacy fund, he said.

At a special meeting in December, KC members gave the go-ahead to buy sites up to the value of £4.5m to be used for canine activities. The centres – possibly as many as three – could be used for any purpose, including a general championship show, agility, obedience, and field trials training.

At the meeting, which was attended by only about 60 members, it was also agreed to buy a new freehold site in Aylesbury to replace the current leasehold one which houses the club’s registration and data services; to set up a legacy investment fund of up to £3m to fund projects suggested by dog people; and put £770,000 into the club’s pension scheme.

The money will be provided by the £12m the KC has received from the sale of its property in Clarges Street, Piccadilly, to developers British Land.

The objective of the legacy fund, of up to £3m, is to provide the dog-owning community with the opportunity to apply for grant funding for projects which support the KC’s aims and objectives ‘including but not restricted to health and canine activity-related projects’. At the time, Prof Dean said the General Committee wanted those eligible for the fund to be given ‘broad access’ to it, and ‘the widest options’ be made available.

Writing in the Journal, Prof Dean said that given the general concern about the availability of dog show and activity venues, it had been reasonable to anticipate an avalanche of suggestions highlighting properties for sale which might be suitable for development.

"Yet, apart from one or two from members, the response to the idea has been surprisingly muted,” he said. "The General Committee has agreed to some active searches for suitable properties, but it is local dog people who are most likely to become aware of land or premises for sale that would make good venues for all or some of our varied range of dog activities.

"Even more surprising is the lack of response to the creation of the legacy fund. The decision to accept the tax payment on a proportion of the money received from British Land was a significant one. It allowed a considerable sum of money to be set aside to stimulate projects that dog fanciers, clubs and societies might like to pursue. The concept of inviting applications for the financial resources to pursue innovative ideas to the benefit of our world of dogs assumed that there were many ideas in the wider dog community that did not fall under the remit of our Charitable Trust. Surprisingly, so far this has not proved to be the case and applications to the legacy fund have been very few in number.”

British Land’s £12m offered the opportunity for significant investment in the future for the KC and for dogs in general, he wrote. Purchase of freehold premises in Aylesbury to replace the existing one is going through, and the new offices in Clarges Street will be ready to move into, as scheduled, next year.

Discussions continue on how to expand the club’s membership, he went on, and on the subject of coat-testing the KC was still investigation the ‘application of modern science to the forensic examination of coat samples’.

"Once the task is completed we intend the solution to, as far as possible, close any technical loophole that offers opportunity for legal challenge,” Prof Dean wrote. "In the interim, the regulations regarding the preparation of a dog’s coat remain in place and it is largely for judges to penalise dogs believed to have been subjected to alterations or treatments which seek to mask faults or improve quality, condition or colour.

"In the medium term, coat testing will return with robust processes intended to discourage those who persist in attempting to obscure the natural coat with artificial, chemical or physical enhancement.”
Click to expand...

http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.p...tm_source=Campaign Monitor&utm_term=Read more

Does anyone have any thoughts on the above?

KC chairman ‘surprised’ by lack of response to new legacy fund Discussions

Malka Member

KC chairman ‘surprised’ by lack of response to new legacy fund

Share This Page

Official threads