Ntsa Agm 2006

rrpc

Yes it does, unless you're suggesting I take it on myself to appoint myself as an official Irish Team equipment control judge.

There's a world of a difference between offering to do equipment control for your fellow shooters, and appointing yourself equipment control officer. As an example of this, we have offered the use of our ranges for squad training purposes. We have not appointed ourselves as squad trainers or for that matter dictated as to who should or should not take part in squad training sessions.

On the other hand, since none of the Wilkinstown subset of the Zagreb contingent apparently had trouble with equipment control, presumably you carried out equipment control for them before their departure, without offering it to the rest of the squad. What's that about?

tireur

Sparks wrote:

I may have reproduced the list here tireur, but the fact is that the list is a document submitted not by me but by the Wilkinstown club,

Sparks, it is clear to all that you are using this club as a vehicle to express your own strange views. It is also clear that , if you were not in this club, then they might still have valid views on how the NTSA should perform, but they would not be expressed in such an immature and spitefull manner. Please go through the list and highlight the points which you had no input to.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Where on earth are you getting that one from?

That the NTSA committee explain the sudden and unprecedented rise in the number of subscribed members of the NTSA immediately prior to the 2006 AGM and the subsequent lack of participation in any NTSA competition during the year by these members.

I presume you mean the 2005 AGM, but even if you didn't, a goodly proportion of that unprecedented increase was down to us (in both years) due to technical and adminstrative snafus.

I am reading between the lines that you believe these increases to be artificial, which in our case is not true, we have had a big increase in membership.

But it is insulting to assume that people who don't take part in NTSA competitions should have no interest or for that matter any right to take part in or vote in NTSA meetings.

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

There's a world of a difference between offering to do equipment control for your fellow shooters, and appointing yourself equipment control officer.

Indeed. Here's the thing though - had they asked, we'd have helped. There was no WTSC subset, don't forget - the entire team was from WTSC. What possible reason would there be for us to refuse? But they didn't ask, not until there was about 22 hours left before they all got on a plane - not enough time to do equipment control. So why ask me to do it when I couldn't possibly get it done? And who'd be blamed if they ran into problems with equipment control in Zagreb after I'd gone through their kit with a quarter of the time you'd need to do it right? And if it would have been so hard to ask me to do it earlier, why didn't the NTSA ask to borrow the equipment to do it themselves? They have a judge on the board, and they use our target scoring machine for every air rifle match going, and we've never refused it. Why would they think that we'd refuse them equipment when we'd be the ones to benefit?

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

I am reading between the lines that you believe these increases to be artificial, which in our case is not true

In rathdrum's case, rrpc, I never thought it was.
But if you can tell me a good reason as to why the vice-chairman's parents are on the register of members, you'll have done something no-one else in the sport has been able to thus far, including NTSA board members.

But it is insulting to assume that people who don't take part in NTSA competitions should have no interest or for that matter any right to take part in or vote in NTSA meetings.

First off, that's not a question you want to raise emotions over because at it's heart is a serious question as to who should say which way the company goes, who has more invested, and whether or not that investment even should constitute a greater right than simple membership.

Secondly, it's not a question being raised, except by you. But I would care to know how the NTSA can represent ISSF and NSRA shooters if every other shooter in country joined up and decided that the NTSA should exert more effort on wildfowling than on 50m prone rifle, for example.

Sparks

tireur wrote:

Sparks, it is clear to all that you are using this club as a vehicle to express your own strange views. It is also clear that , if you were not in this club, then they might still have valid views on how the NTSA should perform, but they would not be expressed in such an immature and spitefull manner.

*snort*
I'm sorry tireur, I guess you might think that that's actually possible - but only if you didn't know anyone in Wilkinstown very well.

Please go through the list and highlight the points which you had no input to.

Be glad to. At the AGM. In public and on the record. See you there.

tireur

Sparks wrote:

Be glad to. At the AGM. In public and on the record. See you there.

What a cop out, surely going through the list here is on the record and in public, especially as the attendees at the AGM have better things to do than humour you.

Sparks

Not a cop out. This list here is in public, yes, but it's also anonymous, so it's not the definitive record of a public company like the NTSA (which isn't to say less of here - it's just to say that you wouldn't use a screwdriver to make a souffle). So I'll stand up in public and answer that question with people taking notes if you want. How's that a cop-out?

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Not a cop out. This list here is in public, yes, but it's also anonymous, so it's not the definitive record of a public company like the NTSA (which isn't to say less of here - it's just to say that you wouldn't use a screwdriver to make a souffle). So I'll stand up in public and answer that question with people taking notes if you want. How's that a cop-out?

The NTSA isn't a public company.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

In rathdrum's case, rrpc, I never thought it was.
But if you can tell me a good reason as to why the vice-chairman's parents are on the register of members, you'll have done something no-one else in the sport has been able to thus far, including NTSA board members.

I can't because I don't know them. But it could be for many reasons not least the idea of supporting their son's sport financially.

First off, that's not a question you want to raise emotions over because at it's heart is a serious question as to who should say which way the company goes, who has more invested, and whether or not that investment even should constitute a greater right than simple membership.

And I say that founder members should still be entitled to their say, even if they no longer are physically able to take part in the sport. And I love the way you are going with this, are you implying that there are greater members and lesser members?

Secondly, it's not a question being raised, except by you. But I would care to know how the NTSA can represent ISSF and NSRA shooters if every other shooter in country joined up and decided that the NTSA should exert more effort on wildfowling than on 50m prone rifle, for example.

Well maybe I'm raising it because I can see farther than my nose. The people concerned will certainly see it as it impacts directly on them.

I hardly expect wildfowlers to join the NTSA, nor should you. That's just a rank exaggeration and does not advance your argument one whit. But I doubt that it's there to advance your argument, just to belittle mine.

rrpc

Getting back to Zagreb; Are you saying that because you didn't get a specific request directly to yourself or your club, you didn't carry out equipment control checks on your members equipment even though you had the facilities and wherewithal to do so?

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

The NTSA isn't a public company.

Yes it is. Ask the CRO.

And I say that founder members should still be entitled to their say, even if they no longer are physically able to take part in the sport.

I'd agree. Of course, we do know how much value the NTSA places on it's founder members. See motion 5 in the first post.

And I love the way you are going with this, are you implying that there are greater members and lesser members?

No, I'm asking whether or not we should ask that question. And I'm doing so here. The motions do not raise that issue.

rrpc wrote:

Getting back to Zagreb; Are you saying that because you didn't get a specific request directly to yourself or your club, you didn't carry out equipment control checks on your members equipment even though you had the facilities and wherewithal to do so?

I'm saying that there was no official equipment control check carried out on the Irish Team's equipment prior to their departure for Zagreb. That's purely the responsibility of the National Governing Body, and they failed utterly to live up to it, and sent off a team comprised mostly of juniors, to the World Championships, representing Ireland, without checking to ensure that their gear met all the latest ISSF rules and regulations (some of which were less than a year old and thus had to affect their equipment), despite previous Irish teams having their equipment fail equipment control, with all the attendant stress that adds to someone already trying to prepare for a major international match. Obfuscation simply will not make that point invalid, nor incorrect.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Yes it is. Ask the CRO.

Really?, I didn't know that. What exchange is it listed on?

I'd agree. Of course, we do know how much value the NTSA places on it's founder members. See motion 5 in the first post.

I didn't know that Paddy Ashe was a founder member.

No, I'm asking whether or not we should ask that question. And I'm doing so here. The motions do not raise that issue.

The motion implies the question. Anyone with half a brain would see it.

I'm saying that there was no official equipment control check carried out on the Irish Team's equipment prior to their departure for Zagreb. That's purely the responsibility of the National Governing Body, and they failed utterly to live up to it, and sent off a team comprised mostly of juniors, to the World Championships, representing Ireland, without checking to ensure that their gear met all the latest ISSF rules and regulations (some of which were less than a year old and thus had to affect their equipment), despite previous Irish teams having their equipment fail equipment control, with all the attendant stress that adds to someone already trying to prepare for a major international match. Obfuscation simply will not make that point invalid, nor incorrect.

Funny you should use the word obfuscation, seeing as you didn't answer my question. It was quite simple, do you want me to restate it?

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

Really?, I didn't know that. What exchange is it listed on?

No "company limited by guarantee without a share capital" can be traded on an exchange for obvious reasons rrpc. The NTSA is a public company, because it was founded as such. No share capital, seven founding members, etc.

I didn't know that Paddy Ashe was a founder member.

He was. His name is listed in the original incorporation document and it was on the Register of Members for a decade or so, and he was active in competitions up until very shortly before his death. (If you're trying to say that because you didn't know him personally, the point is that the NTSA board *did* know of him, who he was, and that he had passed away. And they did nothing. Not even a mass card.)

The motion implies the question. Anyone with half a brain would see it.

The question is not asked by the motions, nor do the motions require that it be asked.

Funny you should use the word obfuscation, seeing as you didn't answer my question. It was quite simple, do you want me to restate it?

No, I want you to recognise that an official team is the responsibility of the NGB. And to note that had they asked at a point where I could actually get the time to do it, I would have done the official equipment control checks gladly, because these were our shooters going abroad.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

No "company limited by guarantee without a share capital" can be traded on an exchange for obvious reasons rrpc. The NTSA is a public company, because it was founded as such. No share capital, seven founding members, etc.

Sparks, if you knew what you were talking about, why did you have to ask the question on the legal discussion board?.... I'll quote it here to save people going to have a look

Sparks wrote:

on the Legal Discussion Board
Guys,
Can someone tell me whether a company limited by guarantee and incorporated under the 1963 Act is referred to as a limited company, a public limited company, or a private limited company?

And by the way, the phrase you used was "Public Company" not "Public Company Limited by guarantee" which is a completely different animal entirely. "Public Company" is used to describe PLC's which are listed on the stock exchange. What the NTSA is, is a private company (unlisted) regardless of the use of the word "Public" in the title. Your correspondent on the legal discussion board said as much himself. "A public company may be formed afresh or a private company may be converted to a public company"

The question is not asked by the motions, nor do the motions require that it be asked.

It's a single motion, and it implies that anyone who has not taken part in NTSA competitions is not entitled to be a member. If you didn't want to imply that, then you should have left out the phrase "and the subsequent lack of participation in any NTSA competition during the year by these members"

No, I want you to recognise that an official team is the responsibility of the NGB. And to note that had they asked at a point where I could actually get the time to do it, I would have done the official equipment control checks gladly, because these were our shooters going abroad.

I am not suggesting that it is not the responsibility of the NTSA, where did I suggest such a thing to have you banging on so much about it? I merely asked; and I'll repeat the question: "Are you saying that because you didn't get a specific request directly to yourself or your club, you didn't carry out equipment control checks on your members equipment even though you had the facilities and wherewithal to do so?"

I'll add to that, seeing as you have alluded to it: If you would have done it gladly, why did it not occur to you to do it "because these were our shooters going abroad". What's the point of having the equipment otherwise?

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

Sparks, if you knew what you were talking about, why did you have to ask the question on the company law terminology board?

First off, it's the Legal Discussion board. Secondly, because you seemed so sure I thought that for the sake of accuracy I'd double-check the terminology I was using to make sure I wasn't confusing the issue by using the wrong words (and it turns out I was, but not the way you thought. It's not a public limited company, it's a public guarantee company according to that response you quoted). Are you going to berate me for ensuring the correctness of my facts?

Thirdly, you're not quoting the part of the reply that's most pertinent:

a private company limited by guarantee must have a share capital.

The NTSA does not have a share capital, was founded by 7 people, and -by the way- has had over the legal limit (for a private company) of 50 members for over a decade. It is a public (guarantee) company.

"Public Company" is used to describe PLC's which are listed on the stock exchange.

Are you completely sure that that's not "Public Limited Company" that you're thinking of? Here's the full answer from the other thread, just to save you having to go look for it:

The liability of the members of a guarantee company is limited to the guarantee amount, usually a nominal sum. The guarantee company’s constitutional documents are its Memorandum and Articles of Association. It consists of members who normally elect a board of directors to conduct the affairs of the company and to whom the executives will report. It is possible to have either a public or private guarantee company. There are two key differences between public and private guarantee companies. Firstly, a public company limited by guarantee must have a minimum of 7 members with no upper limit on the number of members. In contrast, a private company limited by guarantee can have only a single member up to a maximum of 50 members. Secondly, a public company limited by guarantee is prohibited from having a share capital, while a private company limited by guarantee must have a share capital.


A private limited is a company with a share capital, a board of directors and members who hold shares in the company which may be transferred and which may carry particular rights e.g. voting rights. This is the typical basic private company that most people are familiar with. The private company limited by shares may have a maximum of 50 members.

A public limited company is one that offers its shares to the public. It must have a minimum of seven members but, unlike a private company limited by shares, it may extend its membership beyond 50. A PLC may offer its shares directly to the public or sell them through the Stock Exchange and float the company in this way.

A public company may be formed afresh or a private company may be converted to a public company where it wishes to increase its membership and/or raise additional capital. The formation of a PLC is typically a commercially motivated and expansionist move on the part of an organisation.

It's a single motion, and it implies that anyone who has not taken part in NTSA competitions is not entitled to be a member. If you didn't want to imply that, then you should have left out the phrase "and the subsequent lack of participation in any NTSA competition during the year by these members"

Bullcrap. The motion reads That the NTSA committee explain the sudden and unprecedented rise in the number of subscribed members of the NTSA immediately prior to the 2006 AGM and the subsequent lack of participation in any NTSA competition during the year by these members. It is asking for an explanation from the NTSA of the rise in membership and the subsequent lack of a rise in competition entries. Are you suggesting that all those who joined from DRC and the Army and Fassaroe were too old to physically take part in competitions or that they had no time for competition (but did have time to cast their proxy vote in the running of the company)?

I am not suggesting that it is not the responsibility of the NTSA, where did I suggest such a thing to have you banging on so much about it?

That would be where you asked if I carried out an equipment control inspection, with the obvious inference that had I done so as a club official that it would somehow count as being "as good as" the NGB inspection. It wouldn't be. Simple fact rrpc, is that the NGB had a responsibility to do this, they were told repeatedly for years that they needed to do this, we saw at least one Irish shooter get put through the mill over equipment control before Zagreb, the chairman of the NTSA himself was formally instructed in an ISSF judges course that this was something that had to be done, and despite all this, they didn't do it.

I'll add to that, seeing as you have alluded to it: If you would have done it gladly, why did it not occur to you to do it

Because the NTSA wrote to us telling us that this (the Zagreb trip) was an NGB affair and we not only played no official part in it, but were not even entitled to notification of any of the details of it. So we had no idea who was doing the equipment control (other than that the NTSA was saying it was handling the trip and they had an ISSF judge to use), or when those checks would happen. We assumed that after Moscow, we would be asked for a loan of the necessary gauges and the like, and we were going to hand them as soon as asked (as we do for every air rifle match with the scoring machine). As time ran on, we got concerned that we'd heard no such request and that we'd not heard of the checks being run from our shooters. So we asked the NTSA. We didn't get a reply until it was too late to do anything, and that reply said that they expected us to do it. Not on. Not after telling us that we had no part in it earlier.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

First off, it's the Legal Discussion board.

And you'll see that I've amended that.

Secondly, because you seemed so sure I thought that for the sake of accuracy I'd double-check the terminology I was using to make sure I wasn't confusing the issue by using the wrong words (and it turns out I was, but not the way you thought. It's not a public limited company, it's a public guarantee company according to that response you quoted). Are you going to berate me for ensuring the correctness of my facts?

I'm not going to rehash all the stuff you quoted from the other board. Suffice it to say, that you did not know the correct terminology, otherwise you would never have used the phrase "public company". Anyone who knows anything about company law, always uses that phrase to describe a Public Limited Company. In fact as I pointed out in my previous post, your correspondent used that exact same phrase in the exact same way, and I quoted it.

Thirdly, you're not quoting the part of the reply that's most pertinent: The NTSA does not have a share capital, was founded by 7 people, and -by the way- has had over the legal limit (for a private company) of 50 members for over a decade. It is a public (guarantee) company.

because it's not pertinent, you never described either the number of members nor the share capital issue, when you stated that the NTSA was a public company. And you obviously still don't understand what you were told on the Legal Discussion Board, because "a public company limited by guarantee must have a minimum of 7 members with no upper limit on the number of members."

It's tedious getting into this with you, because you really don't seem to understand what you are being told. A guarantee company (which the NTSA is) although technically a public company (because of the requirement for a minimum of 7 members) is effectively a private company as it does not offer it's shares to the public. We could also discuss other differences such as having or not having a share capital, or whether members are required to be shareholders or not. (in the NTSA's case they are not), but really we're getting completely off-topic.

This is so typical of you Sparks, I make what to my mind was a slightly pedantic but completely tongue in cheek post about your usage of Company Law terminology and you immediately march off to check whether it's true or not. You then regurgitate what you've been told by a company secretary (yes I know the man, hence my PM to him), without actually understanding it.

Are you completely sure that that's not "Public Limited Company" that you're thinking of? Here's the full answer from the other thread, just to save you having to go look for it:

FYI, the correct term is 'Guarantee Company'. It's an important distinction, because the members liability in the event of a winding up is limited to a guarantee amount specified in the M & A of A. The 'public' part of the name in the case of a Guarantee Company without share capital is very seldom used, as it causes confusion with a public limited company which as I pointed out earlier is a very different animal.

Bullcrap. The motion reads That the NTSA committee explain the sudden and unprecedented rise in the number of subscribed members of the NTSA immediately prior to the 2006 AGM and the subsequent lack of participation in any NTSA competition during the year by these members.

I'm still not sure which AGM you're referring to here, but assuming it's the 2006 one, as you keep quoting that date, how can you make that assumption when we haven't had a years shooting yet?. And is not the increase in membership just before tha AGM. more to do with the fact that club secretary's suddenly realise that they haven't registered yet, and do so in a rush so that their clubs have a vote at the AGM?

That would be where you asked if I carried out an equipment control inspection, with the obvious inference that had I done so as a club official that it would somehow count as being "as good as" the NGB inspection.

How could there be an NTSA inspection if they don't have the gear? so good or bad is a moot point. In any event you have the gear and you have the qualification to use it, so why sit on your hands when there is an obvious need. You still haven't told me btw whether or not you checked your members gear (officially or unofficially).

that reply said that they expected us to do it. Not on. Not after telling us that we had no part in it earlier.

That sounds very petty.
A bit like the kid with the soccer ball telling the rest of the kids they can't play unless he can pick the team.

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

A guarantee company (which the NTSA is) although technically a public company (because of the requirement for a minimum of 7 members) is effectively a private company as it does not offer it's shares to the public.

Firstly, it has no shares to offer. Secondly, it is a public company. Beyond that, I think we're getting way off-topic over my misunderstanding of what you've just said was a tongue-in-cheek post (I had thought it was in earnest, hence my double-checking of the terminology).

I'm still not sure which AGM you're referring to here, but assuming it's the 2006 one, as you keep quoting that date, how can you make that assumption when we haven't had a years shooting yet?

Blat. No, that's a typo. Should read 2005. I'm annoyed we missed that. The correction's been sent to the NTSA.

And is not the increase in membership just before tha AGM. more to do with the fact that club secretary's suddenly realise that they haven't registered yet, and do so in a rush so that their clubs have a vote at the AGM?

That's a valid explanation, but we don't know if it's the NTSA's explanation. Hence the motion.

How could there be an NTSA inspection if they don't have the gear?

They use our equipment for every airgun match they run (the target scoring machine, which is worth far more than all our equipment control gauges put together by a margin of a few hundred percent). It's never been a problem, nor would it have been this time. They just didn't do it. And even if - despite the evidence to the contrary - it was so onerous to ask us to help, they have €18,000 or so sitting in the bank account waiting for use. There's no way that anyone could say it was improper for the NGB to spend a hundred or so euros of their money on equipment that would be used for the national team. But they didn't.

You still haven't told me btw whether or not you checked your members gear (officially or unofficially).

Because it's not relevant! You've said yourself, it was the NTSA's responsibility to do equipment control checks. The NTSA said it themselves to us at the time that the team was their responsibility. We specifically asked them about equipment control checks. So what bearing has your question on the specific point that the NTSA did not run the checks?

That sounds very petty.

Horse hockey. There's got to be one standard here rrpc - either you work within the NGB structure (which we were trying to do, despite misgivings) or you don't. You can't say that we're being petty if we try to work with the NGB and follow their directions. There's more to this anyway, and we'll go through it at the AGM; but I'm not seeing the point in doing it here as we're going round in circles. The fact was, the NGB told us to stay hands off, and then turned around and laid the responsibility for something pretty critical at our door with no chance to get it done right when they had ample forewarning that it was critical. And that's not on.

tireur

Sparks wrote:

*snort*

I wonder if the members and officers of Wilkinstown really appreciate what you have done in their name Sparks? By behaving in the immature way you have , in putting forward such a ridiculous list of motions, you have devalued any serious content. I much admire the Wilkinstown club and believe that they make a major contribution to ISSF shooting in Ireland. It is a serious club with dedicated members. What a pity then that you have led them astray, masquerading your hatred of the NTSA under the guise of "only doing what is good for the sport". WTSC may have some good ideas and suggestions about how to move ISSF shooting forward but as they are lost in your diatribe, they will not get discussed when all of the motions are thrown out en masse. This means that in this case, as in general, your involvement in trying to change anything results in exactly the opposite happening. If you really want to change things and you want WTSC's ideas to get a hearing, then I suggest you disassociate yourself from a much reduced and hopefully seriously meant list of proposals which are then presented by other members of WTSC. Somehow , I don't think you will be able to do this.

Sparks

Tireur, are you - who just posted yesterday an intent to sabotage a list of motions drafted, debated and approved by the entire WTSC committee - going to seriously sit there and blame me for a motion you yourself want to submit? Exactly who do you think you're fooling by blaming the X-ray for the broken bone?

If you're so worried about the baby Tireur, get your hand off the bathplug chain.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Firstly, it has no shares to offer. Secondly, it is a public company. Beyond that, I think we're getting way off-topic over my misunderstanding of what you've just said was a tongue-in-cheek post (I had thought it was in earnest, hence my double-checking of the terminology).

They are not required to issue shares, but they can! And it's not a public company by common usage. You restating that as a fact does not make it one.

That's a valid explanation, but we don't know if it's the NTSA's explanation. Hence the motion.

So surely that's a question rather than a motion? Shouldn't a more valid motion set a deadline for members to be enrolled?

They use our equipment for every airgun match they run (the target scoring machine, which is worth far more than all our equipment control gauges put together by a margin of a few hundred percent). It's never been a problem, nor would it have been this time.

It depends on the circumstances, for example if the competition were held in Wilkinstown, and the target scoring machine is there, then it would be a simple matter of "can we use the target scoring machine?". If the competition were elsewhere a phone call would suffice to request the presence of the machine. In the case of the equipment control gear, both it and the shooters were all present in the same place at training sessions, so why wasn't it used?

it's not relevant! You've said yourself, it was the NTSA's responsibility to do equipment control checks. The NTSA said it themselves to us at the time that the team was their responsibility. We specifically asked them about equipment control checks. So what bearing has your question on the specific point that the NTSA did not run the checks?

Sorry, I think it is relevant. If Rathdrum has electronic targets, and the NTSA knows we have electronic targets, wouldn't it be safe for the NTSA to assume that we are using the electronic targets? And I didn't state that equipment control checks were the responsibility of the NTSA....

rrpc wrote:

I am not suggesting that it (official team) is not the responsibility of the NTSA, where did I suggest such a thing to have you banging on so much about it?

horse hockey. There's got to be one standard here rrpc - either you work within the NGB structure (which we were trying to do, despite misgivings) or you don't. You can't say that we're being petty....

So what you are saying is that you will work with the NTSA within very strict limitations, if it isn't asked for, regardless of it's importance or it's obvious need, you are not going to voluntarily do it and to hell with the consequences.

Unless of course you are saying that the NTSA specifically asked you not to do equipment control checks.

tireur

Sparks wrote:

Tireur, are you - who just posted yesterday an intent to sabotage a list of motions drafted, debated and approved by the entire WTSC committee - going to seriously sit there and blame me for a motion you yourself want to submit? Exactly who do you think you're fooling by blaming the X-ray for the broken bone?

If you're so worried about the baby Tireur, get your hand off the bathplug chain.

I think you are losing it again Sparks. I can make no sense of the above statement.. The motions you put forward are self sabotaging as I have already explained. I knew you had Svengali like influence on WTSC but only you would have the time, obsessive interest and self interested motivation necessary to put together such a diatribe,
You are a hoot Sparks in your efforts to avoid the issue. If I was not such a Christian person, I would not offer to help you find inner peace and WTSC actually achieve some of their goals. Go on, look inside yourself, forget your track record with the NTSA, step back from the details you are so compulsive about and see the damage you are causing.

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

They are not required to issue shares, but they can!

No, they cannot. They were incorporated without share capital.

And it's not a public company by common usage.

Common usage does not dictate the rules the company must operate under. And we are back off-topic again...

So surely that's a question rather than a motion?

And yet, it is a motion. Why? Because we tried asking the NTSA in private and got no explanation. If we don't have that avenue, then we use whatever's left to us. And this happens to be it.

Shouldn't a more valid motion set a deadline for members to be enrolled?

That's an excellent motion rrpc, but it's nothing to do with what our motion was about. Yours, taken in the context of being a replacement for our motion, implies that fault was found with the 2005 AGM's arrangements and as a result, we should now bring in measures to try to prevent that problem happening next year - or more accurately, that it happen before a set date before the AGM next year. Which doesn't so much solve the problem as ensure everyone knows what's happened going into the AGM. That's not meant as a negative comment, by the way, I think it's a good idea. But putting it in now would mean we would be making a judgement before giving the NTSA a chance to explain matters. And yes, I have my own opinion on what happened - but that isn't sufficient reason to not go through the motions.

In the case of the equipment control gear, both it and the shooters were all present in the same place at training sessions, so why wasn't it used?

I don't understand what you mean by this. You're saying that just because we could assume a role of the NGB, we should?

Look, leaving aside the fact that the training sessions were not carried out in Wilkinstown, you're still saying we should have done the official checks without the knowlege or sanction of the NTSA and over their expressed position that it was none of our business. I've got a problem with how they do their jobs, but we still think that the structure of the NTSA is pretty close to right and is definitely something we can work with.

And I didn't state that equipment control checks were the responsibility of the NTSA....

No, you just said that they weren't not the responsibility of the NTSA:

rrpc wrote:

I am not suggesting that it is not the responsibility of the NTSA, where did I suggest such a thing to have you banging on so much about it?

So, to your mind, is it the NGB's responsiblity or not? Double negatives tend to be hard to figure out in such a context.

So what you are saying is that you will work with the NTSA within very strict limitations, if it isn't asked for, regardless of it's importance or it's obvious need, you are not going to voluntarily do it and to hell with the consequences.

No, I'm saying that when the NTSA specifically told WTSC that they had nothing to do with the trip to Zagreb, WTSC went along with it. Within the framework of the NGB system, that's what's meant the club was meant to do. I'll freely confess that the main reason we went along with it was actually so that the shooters would have the least stress going away that we could facilitiate, rather than from respect for head office - and that I think it was the wrong thing for them to do - but the fact remains that we did the right thing according to the way the NTSA wanted things done. But it meant we were trusting them to do the job right. Which they didn't.

Unless of course you are saying that the NTSA specifically asked you not to do equipment control checks.

No, I am saying that they specifically told us that the Zagreb trip did not come under our purview. That's the whole thing, not just one part of it.

Sparks

tireur wrote:

I think you are losing it again Sparks. I can make no sense of the above statement.. The motions you put forward are self sabotaging as I have already explained.
I knew you had Svengali like influence on WTSC but only you would have the time, obsessive interest and self interested motivation necessary to put together such a diatribe,
You are a hoot Sparks in your efforts to avoid the issue. If I was not such a Christian person, I would not offer to help you find inner peace and WTSC actually achieve some of their goals. Go on, look inside yourself, forget your track record with the NTSA, step back from the details you are so compulsive about and see the damage you are causing.

First off tireur, it's not me putting the motions forward. It's the Wilkinstown club.
Secondly, I do not have Svengali-like influence over anyone in Wilkinstown, and if you come to the AGM, you'll be able to make enquiries and ascertain that for yourself.
Thirdly, the motions are not self-sabotaging, you are sabotaging them, and frankly looking ridiculous in the process.

Finally, what's your motive here Tireur? What's your interest in the NTSA? Are you a member? If so, what do these motions cost you?

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

No, they cannot. They were incorporated without share capital.

You are confusing shares with share capital, you can have shares without share capital, for example in a partnership.

Common usage does not dictate the rules the company must operate under. And we are back off-topic again...

Just clearing things up for you, as you seem to be still labouring under a misapprehension You used the phrase "public company". The common meaning for that phrase is 'Public Limited Company' not as you would have everyone believe 'Public Company limited by Guarantee' for which the common term is 'Guarantee Company'. It's not a good idea to use that phrase with regard to the NTSA, as invariably anyone who heard you would assume that the NTSA was a listed company. I'm not being pedantic now, ask a company secretary what they would assume you were talking about, and they would say the same.

but that isn't sufficient reason to not go through the motions.

Pun intended?

I don't understand what you mean by this. You're saying that just because we could assume a role of the NGB, we should?

You keep coming back to this 'assuming roles' business. What's assuming roles in carrying out equipment checks, or phoning the chairman and asking does he want you to do it? In point of fact, why would you have the equipment if you were not going to use it until you were asked by the NTSA to do so? What role are you assuming by taking any of the above actions? You never answered my question as to whether you had in fact carried out equipment checks on your members gear, but I'm assuming you have done so, seeing as they did not appear to have any difficulty in Zagreb.

over their expressed position that it was none of our business.

so you were expressly told by the NTSA not to do the equipment checks?

No, you just said that they weren't not the responsibility of the NTSA:

The they I referred to was the official team. Re-read it if you are having problems. It's post No. 46

No, I'm saying that when the NTSA specifically told WTSC that they had nothing to do with the trip to Zagreb, WTSC went along with it.

in it's entirety it seems, to the letter, to the exclusion of all common sense.

No, I am saying that they specifically told us that the Zagreb trip did not come under our purview. That's the whole thing, not just one part of it.

Tell me exactly why the Zagreb trip could possibly come under your purview when it is a National Squad trip? Especially as you keep stating that WTSC is not an NGB.

I'm getting confused here, I ask a specific question, and you give a general answer. Then you keep restating the same mantra about the club not being an NGB, which it isn't, that's accepted, don't keep repeating it. This is not the GAA here, with an army of staff, and a real head office. Everyone has everyone elses phone number, you have accepted that the committee are under strength, and yet when there is an opportunity to help out, you seem to take the view that you can only do this if you are completely in control rather than a fellow shooter helping another one organise an important trip. Reading between the lines, you seemed to want to either organise the trip in it's entirety or not have any hand, act or part in it.

tireur

Sparks wrote:

Finally, what's your motive here Tireur? What's your interest in the NTSA? Are you a member? If so, what do these motions cost you?

My interest is for the good of shooting in Ireland-as opposed to your interest which is self aggrandisement!
I am a member of the NTSA.
The issue is not what these motions cost me but the effect they have on the appearance and running of ISSF shooting in Ireland. As I have said before, they are naive, immature, destructive and to use your own word ridiculous.

Perhaps we should consider the alternative to throwing out the motions. Maybe we should let you and WTSC take over the running of the NTSA, split from the SSAI and seek recognition from the sports council and the International bodies. Maybe this is a good idea. Naturally you would be the chairman of the NTSA. Maybe this would keep you quiet and keep you from interfering in the running of the other aspects of shooting in Ireland. The downside is that I do not think anything will keep you quiet as you are an expert on everything and as we have seen on other threads, you are prepared to sacrifice the interests of other disciplines in order to further your own aims.

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

In point of fact, why would you have the equipment if you were not going to use it

We've had the equipment since the 2004 10m Nationals, where it was used to run equipment control for the competition. We've used it since for the same purpose for domestic competition. You can't run a real competition in air pistol without at least a trigger weight gauge, for example.

Tell me exactly why the Zagreb trip could possibly come under your purview when it is a National Squad trip? Especially as you keep stating that WTSC is not an NGB.

Precisely. I'd have no business going about the National Team, checking their gear and telling them to change bits here and there.

Everyone has everyone elses phone number

Precisely. And failing that, we had their emails. Which is why, a week ahead of time, we emailed head office to ask what the story was with the equipment control checks. There was no answer until 22 hours before the team was due to leave, by which time it was far too late to do anything. The facts are that we were told to stay hands-off by the NTSA. We would have helped if asked, and we've a track record of doing so without fail no matter how bad disagreements got. And when we got worried something important wasn't being done, we asked what was going on with it, but head office didn't bother to reply to the email.

you seem to take the view that you can only do this if you are completely in control

No, I take the view that if I'm asked to go check someone's gear, I'll do it; but that walking up to the national team unbidden and telling them to lop bits off their kit and so forth, after being told that that was the NGBs job and not anyone else's, is not something that will result in a peaceful outcome. It'll end in a shouting match, which is precisely what we wished to avoid.

you seemed to want to either organise the trip in it's entirety or not have any hand, act or part in it.

Nope, you've got the wrong end of the stick. I wasn't impressed with the NTSA's handling of it, but we sat down as a club at the start of the process and agreed that we'd let the NTSA take the lead because to do otherwise would start an argument that would do nothing for the team's performance, so ultimately we'd be hurting our own people. We didn't deviate from that. We helped out whereever we could. And frankly, I think that making us out to be petty and small-minded given how much we put into the process is a very petty thing to do.

Sparks

tireur wrote:

I am a member of the NTSA.

Good. See you at the AGM then.

the effect they have on the appearance and running of ISSF shooting in Ireland.

As I said before, you're blaming the xray for the broken bone.

Perhaps we should consider the alternative to throwing out the motions.

Perhaps you should get your head out of the sand and realise that throwing out the motions would be telling WTSC that their input is not required. I wouldn't recommend that. I mean, if you're so worried about the appearance of ISSF target shooting in Ireland, would you want to spit in the face of the club that - according to you yourself - has done so much for it in the past few years?

tireur

Sparks wrote:

throwing out the motions would be telling WTSC that their input is not required.

Would it Sparks? Or would it tell them that following your advice and letting you be their mouthpiece will achieve nothing?

Sparks

Tireur, I could sit here for a month telling you that I don't have my entire arm up Wilkinstown's backside, but frankly you wouldn't believe me. So show up to the AGM and ask.
See you there.