A lot of people refer to the CH Club as if it was a failure; for example, a recent entry on this forum says:
sejintenej wrote:Surely this is a new body - the successor to a body which nearly (if not actually) failed.
This is extremely unfair; I want to explain why and I hope that the critics will have the decency to read what I have to say.
Two years before it disbanded the CH Club had just under 5,000 subscribing members, figures which 99 percent of other old pupils organisations around the country with subscribing members were extremely jealous of. The CH Club had just over £300,000 in the bank, returned an operating surplus
every year, presented at least one pupil to the school, published the Blue and helped the school fund the production costs for their part of The Blue. It also regualrly gave money to the school for various activities (eg, supporting the South African tour), and organised and paid for Old Blues days, etc. It also paid for one full time administrator, Wendy. I would be very interested to know how that can be defined as "failure."
It is said of the Club that it did not fully engage younger members. This may be correct, but it is true of virtually every other old pupils club in the country. It is an inescapable fact that the great majority of old pupils go through university and then have to find their way through about twenty years of working intensely hard at their career, repaying loans, building up capital, starting and raising a family, seeing their children through school, gaining professional qualifications, and so on. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that they do not have very much time to spare for their old school. There are, of course, individual and very honourable exceptions, but not many. There are also some post-school clubs, such as the CHRFC, which not only provide a sporting focus but also foster an "old school" ethos, but not many join them. Thus, it is simply a fact of life - what the Americans would call a "given" - that the great majority of Old Blues will not, indeed are not able to re-engage with CH until their late 40s/early 50s when at last they have a little spare time, energy and money. I consulted a number of other old pupils clubs about 3 years ago and all have exactly the same experience.
Clubs also depend on those who are prepared to give their time and effort to organise and run things. The last secretary of the CH Club served for about ten years; he enjoyed doing it, but I am sure that he would have been only too delighted to stand aside from what was a very onerous task, had someone offered to take over, but nobody did. Paddie Drake serrved as editor of The Blue for many years. He appealled regularly for a replacement but, until John Hopgood stepped forward, he asked in vain. That was despite the fact that he suffered a series of family disasters (I know the details but see no reason to advertise them) and was himself suffering from the cancer which led inexorably to his death. Despite all that he remained cheerfull and produced the Old Blue section of The Blue on time every time, and oversaw the introduction of new technology.
The posts of the Club officers, such as chairman, secretary, treasurer, magazine editor, and events organisers, are very demanding. They require regular attendance at committee meetings, attendance at major events, evening/weekend work on their task, and probably one or two other visits each year on tasks specific to their office. Even for a committee member without a particular office it is necessary that he/she attends the committee meetings and the events. Without volunteers these posts will not be filled and the club will collapse.
I know that a succession of Club chairmen/women struggled to make the Club more attractive to younger Old Blues. They set up working parties, engaged consultants, studied US-style alumni associations - you name it, they tried it. Old Blues Day 2003 was a great success; some 400 turned up, there was a full programme of events, even including a flypast by the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. But, although there were some younger old Blues present, the average age was still probably in the late 40s/early 50s.
Oh yes, and I should add that the CH Club was democratic, with every member having a vote. There was an annual general meeting and all posts except for the Administrator were filled by election. The accounts were rigorously maintained, audited annually and the audit published for all to read and comment on if they wished. The AGMs were always very lively until the chairman asked for volunteers to join the committee, when there was always a long silence and a shuffling of feet, and if someone did volunteer they were immediately voted in by acclamation.
Some are saying now that "if only the Club could have set up something like this Forum." Maybe so, but the fact is that the technology to do so has only recently become available and the great majority of people have only recently acquired the equipment and expertise to take part. Returning to my "volunteers" theme, I would point out that the Forum depends utterly on two people and if either of them were to withdraw it would probably collapse. The Forum is, however, not really an offspring of the CHA (which offers vocal support only) but has been created by two individuals and could equally well have been an offspring of the CH Club (which would, in all probability, have been delighted to support it financially, as well).
I am not knocking the CHA and people are, of course, perfectly entitled to say that the Club was a failure, if that is what they feel, but I suggest that a detailed examination of the Club's record, as outlined above, will show that it was a far, far greater success than it was ever given credit for. I would also suggest that the handfull of volunteers who gave freely of their time, energy and money to run it deserve much greater credit than they have received so far.
