"All the clubs represented (19 out of 20) voted unanimously to join AusCycling," a statement published on the Cycling Tasmania website says.
"This represents a huge show of confidence in the cyclists of Tasmania, who were clearly in support of the model, as the opportunity to unify and grow the sport we all care so deeply about."
"Over the past six months and in particular the last few weeks, clubs have been rigorous in their questioning of the model and this has resulted in a series of commitments from AusCycling that protect and and enhance the aspects of cycling in Tasmania that are crucial to the history and future of the sport here.
"We thank the clubs for their deep engagement that has resulted in these commitments and the unity of purpose by all the clubs and represented cyclists that will hold us in good stead as we move into the future.
"The Cycling Tasmania Board is delighted that we will have even more resources and opportunities to grow the sport and associated events."
The bodies governing track and road in NSW (Cycling NSW), Western Australia (WestCycle) and Tasmania (Cycling Tasmania) voted no the AusCycling model at Cycling Australia's Extraordinary General Meeting March 2020.
Cycling Australia (CA)'s bylaws required a 75 per cent majority, or 6 of the 8 voting bodies to wind up CA and move to the unified cycling model, with now just WestCycle and Cycling NSW the two outliers.
Tasmania's vote today could see the formalisation of the AusCycling model on September 19, with a General Meeting requested by the five other 'yes' votes states to reconsider the resolutions.
That could also face opposition, with WestCycle voicing their concerns about the process and stating that the meeting should be cancelled.
WestCycle sent out a AEST), opposing both AusCycling and Cycling Australia's process in calling the meeting citing a lack of information provided in both cases.
"The notice has raised some serious concerns around the process that has been followed by Cycling Australia and information that has been provided in relation to the Special Resolution to wind-up Cycling Australia and to join AusCycling," the statement says.
"Significantly, no supporting information has been provided with the Notice to explain the purpose and effect of the Resolutions, and the “what next” for CA, AusCycling, CA Member States and their Clubs.
"We have highlighted this to Cycling Australia, and advised them that the Notice of General Meeting is defective, not in accordance with the Corporations Act, and as such the General Meeting must immediately be cancelled until they provided the appropriate details to ensure members can vote with all relevant information before them."
Cycling NSW was also a 'no' vote at the March 27 meeting, and the board reconsidered whether to hold a new vote by Cycling NSW member clubs at a board meeting on September 8. Similar to WestCycle, Cycling NSW are seeking clarification on a few issues before they call for a new vote. Cycling NSW which details their concerns.
"The Cycling NSW board is not opposed to joining AusCycling, but cannot encourage members to vote for AusCycling until further questions are answered."
In addition to the already established 'no' votes making their objections clear, information provided to Cycling Central indicated that ten Victorian cycling clubs yesterday requested the Cycling Victoria board to convene a Special General Meeting for the clubs to decide whether to become part of the new Auscycling structure.
In a statement circulated by Martyn Hughes, president of Southern Masters Cycling Club, they outline similar concerns about the lack of update to financial information that could affect the AusCycling proposal.
"Should Victoria become part of Auscycling, Cycling Victoria would cease to exist and all its assets would be transferred to the new entity. No new information has been provided in regard to the implications of the current economic situation on Auscycling’s implementation or viability."
Even if Cycling Tasmania change their vote to a 'yes' vote, there could be more hurdles for Cycling Australia, either from WestCycle's call for the meeting to be cancelled or a potential re-vote in Cycling Victoria, to navigate ahead of achieving a move to the unified AusCycling model.
Cycling Central a proponent of the AusCycling proposal which details some responses to the above, but clearly aren't as detailed as those seeking information would prefer.
