What is wrong with the NOC?

Status
Not open for further replies.
swooshdave said:
https://andover-norton.co.uk/en/news/

If I was a member I’d be livid. When a club is detrimental to the hobby they need to go.
Click to expand...

Over the years, I've seen club members and Norton enthusiasts run the gamut from extremely open to extremely "exclusive" to use a polite term so as not to anger anyone, although it probably will anyway. The problem is, they take their hobby and themselves much too seriously and act way too self-important, as if they alone have the cache of interest the marque needs to stay viable. People need to take a step back and realize they're talking about obsolete consumer products that the larger population of motorcycle enthusiasts and the outside world in general pay little or no attention to. Fanaticism is when you redouble your efforts after you've forgotten your original purpose.
 
This seems to be (some of) what the other lot say:


Submitted by Peter White on Sat, 22/12/2018
This article has been reprinted from Roadholder 373 January 2019 - From Tim Harrison

I am bringing to your attention recent events which have potentially serious implications for our club. The issues revolve around a legal threat from Andover Norton International Limited (ANIL) and the framework under which we are organisationally established.

The NOC was set up in 1959 by a group of enthusiasts at a meeting in Eric Oliver's Motorcycle shop. A set of rules and constitution were written and have been built upon over the decades since. We are what is known as an 'unincorporated body'. In effect, this means that the sole liability for the club rests with the members of the Executive Committee at the time. This has worked well in the past and encourages a friendly and co-operative way of running the club.

In 1991, the NOC purchased a significant number of blueprints of Norton factory drawings from Joe Francis, a motorcycle dealer in South London. We have, since that time, kept the drawings safely and made one electronic copy because the condition of the paper drawings was deteriorating with age.

The club initially received a request for certain drawings from ANIL. The Executive Committee was concerned that we should be even handed in our approach to suppliers and we were also considering commissioning the manufacture of the relevant parts ourselves.

Members will be aware the club is under considerable pressure to get 'hard to come vby' spares made. The drawings requested were not handed over to ANIL, although they were subsequently offered and declined.

ANIL made claims to all of the drawings, the copyright and intellectual property rights, thereby challenging our right to own, copy or make parts from the drawings. The Club believes that our ownership of the drawings is clear. We are not in a position to know who owns the copyright and the intellectual property rights. We are advised that UK and European law entitles us to make parts but we do not, and have never stated, that the parts we commission are original or sold under the 'Norton' name.

The Club has received solicitors' letters from two firms acting on behalf of ANIL,both of which threaten the Club with legal action. The normal possibilities would be to settle by agreement or to fight in Court. Our problem is that as an unincorporated body, any claim is against named members of the entire Executive Committee. They are therefore the only people who can reach a settlement and, quite frankly, this will be difficult to achieve. ANIL has offered an agreement which requires undertakings and commitments that in the future, the signatories may not be in a position to enforce. This leads to the issue of how we can best protect the current and future EC members and limit the liability of the Club.

Following research and taking advice, the Executive Committee has concluded that the only way forward is to convert the Norton Owners Club into a limited liaibility trust or company. Accordingly, the Executive Committee will be submitting a formal proposal at the next AGM. It will not be the intention to remove any aspects of the Club's democracy. The NOC Constitution will be incorporated into the Articles of the new organisation; members should not notice any difference.

The Executive Committee will be making the proposal purely to protect it's officers and their personal assets from the threat of legal action. There is absolutely no intention to change the club in any other way.

We hope to be able to reach agreement with Andover Norton but this will require give and take and their recognition that we are, and wish to remain, a Club serving our members, not a commercial competitor.



Tim Harrison

Chairman
 
Last edited:
Triton Thrasher said:
we were also considering commissioning the manufacture of the relevant parts ourselves.
Click to expand...
but have you done so?
Triton Thrasher said:
They are therefore the only people who can reach a settlement and, quite frankly, this will be difficult to achieve.
Click to expand...
why is that?
Triton Thrasher said:
Following research and taking advice, the Executive Committee has concluded that the only way forward is to convert the Norton Owners Club into a limited liaibility trust or company. Accordingly, the Executive Committee will be submitting a formal proposal at the next AGM. It will not be the intention to remove any aspects of the Club's democracy. The NOC Constitution will be incorporated into the Articles of the new organisation; members should not notice any difference.

The Executive Committee will be making the proposal purely to protect it's officers and their personal assets from the threat of legal action. There is absolutely no intention to change the club in any other way.
Click to expand...
hmmm one wonders where this will lead.
 
The idea of incorporating should have been advanced before the club decided to purchase the drawings. As an unincorporated entity, they have opened themselves (the executive board, as I understand it) to all sorts of personal legal entanglements and as a non-profit, they likely don't have the assets to deal with such issues in the first place. I can understand the motivation of the purchase, which was to preserve the drawings for future reference, but without a viable plan to actually use them, they have twice put the cart before the horse. A proper structure and legal advice/planning would have included research into the rights of the seller to even possess the drawings and the legality of the sale by which THAT entity or person came into possession, and so on and so forth back to the original owner(s). Now they are being backed into a corner and forced into action, something nobody wants or appreciates, but was likely inevitable given the interest in the products that could result from proper use of the drawings. If you look at all the financial and legal hurdles Kenny Dreer had to overcome to gather all the intellectual property only to be forced into selling, you can see that even doing things according to Hoyle doesn't always guarantee a good result.
 
Just try to find a decent Dominator barrel.
My 650ss is already at 60 thou over, so I've been looking for a decent spare barrel for years.
After seven years of searching I found one.
What amazes me is that AN is interested in making Dominator barrels.
I'm happy that they are, now NOC get out of the way!

Glen
 
Surely the presence or absence of drawings should not prevent a capable company in the manufacture of parts. In another thread - Nourish Engineering - it is stated that IP rights can be owned by more than one party. ANIL could use modern CNC techniques along with drawings made from existing parts to construct new replacements. Any “new” replacement parts are not going to be “genuine” Norton parts but will help to keep bikes in good order.
Is this really about wanting to make parts or is it something else?
Both parties are being bloody stubborn.
 
My membership is up next Month, will have to way up if its worth re-newing
 
If you think individual parties are stubborn, wait until the lawyers get involved. I've never met one who didn't have a huge, overblown ego. If it's not about the ability to make parts, it may have fallen into the category of egomaniac conflict already.
 
Eljahara said:
Surely the presence or absence of drawings should not prevent a capable company in the manufacture of parts. In another thread - Nourish Engineering - it is stated that IP rights can be owned by more than one party. ANIL could use modern CNC techniques along with drawings made from existing parts to construct new replacements. Any “new” replacement parts are not going to be “genuine” Norton parts but will help to keep bikes in good order.
Is this really about wanting to make parts or is it something else?
Both parties are being bloody stubborn.
Click to expand...

You are 100% wrong. You cannot use existing parts to make a drawing from and expect it to be absolutely correct.

And if you are the original parts suppler and you make more parts you are as genuine as it gets.

Prove me wrong.
 
Danno said:
If you think individual parties are stubborn, wait until the lawyers get involved. I've never met one who didn't have a huge, overblown ego. If it's not about the ability to make parts, it may have fallen into the category of egomaniac conflict already.
Click to expand...

Bringing the lawyers in was a last ditch effort to get the NOC to get off their asses.
 
Triton Thrasher said:
This seems to be (some of) what the other lot say:


Submitted by Peter White on Sat, 22/12/2018
This article has been reprinted from Roadholder 373 January 2019 - From Tim Harrison

I am bringing to your attention recent events which have potentially serious implications for our club. The issues revolve around a legal threat from Andover Norton International Limited (ANIL) and the framework under which we are organisationally established.

The NOC was set up in 1959 by a group of enthusiasts at a meeting in Eric Oliver's Motorcycle shop. A set of rules and constitution were written and have been built upon over the decades since. We are what is known as an 'unincorporated body'. In effect, this means that the sole liability for the club rests with the members of the Executive Committee at the time. This has worked well in the past and encourages a friendly and co-operative way of running the club.

In 1991, the NOC purchased a significant number of blueprints of Norton factory drawings from Joe Francis, a motorcycle dealer in South London. We have, since that time, kept the drawings safely and made one electronic copy because the condition of the paper drawings was deteriorating with age.

The club initially received a request for certain drawings from ANIL. The Executive Committee was concerned that we should be even handed in our approach to suppliers and we were also considering commissioning the manufacture of the relevant parts ourselves.

Members will be aware the club is under considerable pressure to get 'hard to come vby' spares made. The drawings requested were not handed over to ANIL, although they were subsequently offered and declined.

ANIL made claims to all of the drawings, the copyright and intellectual property rights, thereby challenging our right to own, copy or make parts from the drawings. The Club believes that our ownership of the drawings is clear. We are not in a position to know who owns the copyright and the intellectual property rights. We are advised that UK and European law entitles us to make parts but we do not, and have never stated, that the parts we commission are original or sold under the 'Norton' name.

The Club has received solicitors' letters from two firms acting on behalf of ANIL,both of which threaten the Club with legal action. The normal possibilities would be to settle by agreement or to fight in Court. Our problem is that as an unincorporated body, any claim is against named members of the entire Executive Committee. They are therefore the only people who can reach a settlement and, quite frankly, this will be difficult to achieve. ANIL has offered an agreement which requires undertakings and commitments that in the future, the signatories may not be in a position to enforce. This leads to the issue of how we can best protect the current and future EC members and limit the liability of the Club.

Following research and taking advice, the Executive Committee has concluded that the only way forward is to convert the Norton Owners Club into a limited liaibility trust or company. Accordingly, the Executive Committee will be submitting a formal proposal at the next AGM. It will not be the intention to remove any aspects of the Club's democracy. The NOC Constitution will be incorporated into the Articles of the new organisation; members should not notice any difference.

The Executive Committee will be making the proposal purely to protect it's officers and their personal assets from the threat of legal action. There is absolutely no intention to change the club in any other way.

We hope to be able to reach agreement with Andover Norton but this will require give and take and their recognition that we are, and wish to remain, a Club serving our members, not a commercial competitor.



Tim Harrison

Chairman
Click to expand...

ANIL has done everything possible to accommodate the NOC and yet they still drag their feet. If the Club thinks they are going to get rich selling 650SS barrels they are dumber than I thought.
 
swooshdave said:
You are 100% wrong. You cannot use existing parts to make a drawing from and expect it to be absolutely correct.

And if you are the original parts suppler and you make more parts you are as genuine as it gets.

Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...


It has been done for many years now.

 
The Vincent Spares Co had parts that were copied from other parts for years.
It got to the point that parts supplied in the 80s were considered to be " Useful lumps" rather than ready to use parts
You needed a mill and a lathe plus good machining skills to make the " Useful Lump" into an part which would be fit for purpose.
Finally in the early 2000s the Spares Co built a complete Black Shadow from their parts shelves.
They found out just how bad the copied parts were and how good the parts made from original drawings were.

Today almost all of their parts are from the drawings.

Dave is right on this one.

Glen
 
Hortons Norton said:
It has been done for many years now.
Click to expand...
When you use an existing part to make a copy you are incorporating any errors in the existing part in the copy. Without a drawing one does not know the tolerances, how close to the tolerances the existing part is or even if it is in tolerance. The part in the video could very well work just fine, but if you are making a batch of parts there will be variations and with out a drawing and tolerances some may very well not work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top