Ntsa Agm 2006

Sparks

Clash wrote:

I agree you had your shoulder to the wheel alright Sparks, but you were pushing in the opposite direction. Isn't that why you were voted off the committee?

Nope. Reread the original threads. A threat of legal action by the NRPAI precipitated the NTSA EGM. Which is another reason to disassociate from them, but one that most would think to be a personal reason of mine - which ignores the fact that the NRPAI went after an NTSA officer acting as an NTSA officer, but anyway.

So, if you can't play the ball, you'll just play the man. Most of the votes that I saw at the AGM were won by a 2:1 majority or thereabouts, are you suggesting that one third of the membership is false?

False or misrepresentative. I heard from at least one other club member informally that he was certain from what he'd been told that he could either vote for his club (run by members of the NTSA board) or find another club, for one example; the registering of uninvolved family in the NTSA to build up proxy numbers I've already commented on.

In any event, all the members of the committee were returned unopposed, which means that not one person who felt that they were not doing their job even attempted to oppose them to push the decision to a vote. And nobody put themselves forward for an appointed position either.

Because at that point it was obvious to us that the fix was in. Why enter into something in good faith if it's obvious noone else is doing so?

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

That was 2004 Sparks

Correct. Noone bothered to volunteer to serve on the 2005 committee after the events of 2004, because of the events of 2004.

Although I was told afterwards that nobody volunteered for the new posts that were created in 2005, which bears out his point.

I was told that someone did volunteer, though an NRPAI man, not a WTSC man, and was never invited to so much as a single meeting for the past year. But that's not yet confirmed.

A true Kerryman wouldn't be on here right now, they'd be up in Croke Park watching the match

A true Kerryman already knows the result
Besides which, getting tickets for today was harder than getting the NRPAI to follow it's own rules...

Clash

Sparks wrote:

Nope. Reread the original threads. A threat of legal action by the NRPAI precipitated the NTSA EGM.

I don't have to re-read the original thread, I was at that meeting and the reason you give was only one of the reasons, and not the most discussed at the meeting by any means. The fact that you were snowing your fellow committee members under with mountains of emails, and wanting every decision reached by vote of the committee revisited ad nauseam ad infinitum was the main one.

I'm seeing a pattern here by the way, if you don't like a decision, you continue to harrass and press your point in the belief that you know best and everyone else is misguided. Shades of Dev anyone?

Because at that point it was obvious to us that the fix was in. Why enter into something in good faith if it's obvious noone else is doing so?

So why keep banging in more motions, if you want these motions to succeed why have you not discussed them with anyone else outside your club? Furthermore, you're accusation is insulting to the other (as you would put it) bona fide members of other clubs, who cast their votes on how they felt about the motions, who also voted for many of your motions and carried them. If it was (as you suggest), that the ballot was stuffed, why were so many of your motions carried, if the committee was so set against you, and had their pockets filled with proxies to carry each vote as they wanted?

For the record: 29 motions were put to the 2005 AGM, 17 were carried. Some fix!

You could still have put people forward for appointed positions, and if they had been rejected you would at least have been able to say with some justification (if the position wasn't filled) that the committee was acting against the membership. But you didn't, you had over half your motions passed at the AGM, you could have put forward a couple of names for positions, and quite probably have got someone elected. But to contend that the ballot was stuffed when a sizeable proportion of your motions were passed, insults the general membership of the NTSA and implies that (like Dev) only you can look into your heart and tell what we need.

Again for the record, the highest vote against one of the WTSC motions at the 2005 AGM was 69. Sparks would have you believe that those 69 votes represented toadies and faimily members of the NTSA committee, or alternatively other poor benighted souls who were threatened with expulsion from their clubs. Hilarious

tireur

Sparks, where is the Wilkinstown open letter thread?

Clash

demonloop wrote:

Most of the motions put forward would, I would have thought, been standard practice of such a body. Most make common sense and I'm at a loss to see how they are not already part and parcel of the body.

On the face of it DL, you're right. There are a couple of reasons however why this is not the case.

The structure of shooting in Ireland places the NTSA as part of a larger umbrella organisation known as the SSAI (formerly the NRPAI). The SSAI is the body which is recognised by the ISC for grants etc., and certain of the functions that you would expect of an NGB are concentrated there in order to avoid duplication.

There is a separate argument as to whether the NTSA should be part of the SSAI, but I'm not going to go into that here. Suffice it to say that this is the situation as it pertains now, and that's what we are dealing with on this thread.

The second point is as you will have gathered from the posts to date, the NTSA has a very small membership in comparison to other sporting bodies that represent sport in Ireland. 100'ish people eligible to vote at the last AGM gives you an idea as to how small it is. A lot of the stuff in Sparks list of motions makes perfect sense if you are talking about organisations with thousands of members, but are IMHO completely OTT when you are dealing with just 100 odd participants.

To go back to an earlier point of mine, some of those motions call for a committee of 15 members, and three separate sub-committees. I'd call that too many chiefs, especially when you consider that a great proportion of the membership are no longer active in competitive shooting. So in effect you have 15 people legislating for at most another 30-40. (I'm being very optimistic here). When you take into account the fact that in that number we have two air disciplines, and up to four cartridge firearm disciplines (I may have missed something here), and you can see the kind of inertia that could develop with such top-heaviness.

Re-read those motions with both the structure of the organisation and the actual numbers in mind, and you get a completely different picture.

civdef

Sparks, where is the Wilkinstown open letter thread?

I've merged it with this thread. Really no need for two threads on the same topic.

tireur

Civdef, I suspect that not all of the WTSC members are automatically going to look at the NTSA thread so it would seem fairer to put it back onto the main board where they might notice it?

civdef

No, not really, if they're interested enough to read it, they can read through all the other crap related to the issue too.

tireur

But they would have to know it was there in order to be interested enough to read it!

civdef

Ye all seem very close to each other anyway, realistically how any people were you expecting to reach with it here? I think any member of WTSC who hangs around the shooting section at all (ie the ones you are trying to proseltise to) will have stumbled across the NTSA thread. if you think it's become far too full of crap for them too read, then I'm in full agreement with you, but I'm keen to keep all the bulllshyte localised in this one thread.

Funnily enough I suspect the great majority of shooters reading this section have about zero interest in the political in-fighting that seems to bedevil some sections of target shooting organisations. It can be annoying for them when the politics swamps the shooring section.

Sparks

Clash wrote:

I don't have to re-read the original thread, I was at that meeting and the reason you give was only one of the reasons, and not the most discussed at the meeting by any means.

Actually, the reasons which were given for that changed depending on when you asked head office. When the first meeting took place, one set was given; then at the EGM another set was given because the first didn't stand up (for example, it was said I was undermining relations with other NGBs - the ICPSA wrote a letter stating that I had done nothing but good for relations with them, and those at the top table had already said in public that the NRPAI was not fairly distributing Sports Council money allocated to the NTSA, so pot, kettle).

The fact that you were snowing your fellow committee members under with mountains of emails

Was not a fact, as pointed out on the day by RRPC by noting that it amounted to one email a day, which was reasonable for a national governing body.

So why keep banging in more motions, if you want these motions to succeed why have you not discussed them with anyone else outside your club?

I take it you missed the several references above to WTSC trying every other avenue available to it?

Furthermore, you're accusation is insulting to the other (as you would put it) bona fide members of other clubs, who cast their votes on how they felt about the motions, who also voted for many of your motions and carried them. If it was (as you suggest), that the ballot was stuffed, why were so many of your motions carried, if the committee was so set against you, and had their pockets filled with proxies to carry each vote as they wanted?

If so many voted independently, why then were the votes always the same in number?

But you didn't, you had over half your motions passed at the AGM

How many were followed through on?

you could have put forward a couple of names for positions, and quite probably have got someone elected.

We had two people on the top table. And we saw how it ran for several years. And we met in WTSC after the 2005 AGM and came to the conclusion that until there was a change in how the top table operated, we wouldn't waste our time trying to work from there, when all decisions were brought to the table as a fait accompli, and the objections of myself or the Air rifle coordinator were overridden summarily despite the merits of arguments. For example, the Nationals format. This was brought forward by the then-smallbore coordinator as a great idea he had while walking around Athens at the World Cup (his first ISSF match ever, it later turned out). Myself and the Air Rifle coordinator objected on the grounds that we did not have the resources to run a world cup style event, and that running three nationals back-to-back, even on the same range, was unworkable. We didn't have the manpower, and the shooters didn't have sufficient rest time to maintain scores. And even though this was the Air Rifle coordinator speaking with ISSF qualifications and years of experience running nationals behind him, and me with a decade of shooting and running competitions behind me, and even though the only clubs to officially comment on it in the time available both formally protested in writing against the idea, the idea went ahead. And in the two years it's been running, we've been proven right. Scores are down, shooters are exhausted by the weekend, the whole thing is failing to meet it's original goals. And it's not like we didn't try to come to a comprimise. The NTSA "Test Event" (which has now been run two years in a row :rolleyes: ) was our idea - to test the format to show how it would work before we committed a National Championships to it. We didn't believe it would work; the other side did; we suggested a trial run to show how it ran; they said "brilliant idea, we'll do that and do it for the nationals afterwards as well".

What's the point of trying to work under those conditions?

Again for the record, the highest vote against one of the WTSC motions at the 2005 AGM was 69. Sparks would have you believe that those 69 votes represented toadies and faimily members of the NTSA committee, or alternatively other poor benighted souls who were threatened with expulsion from their clubs. Hilarious

Have you checked the Register of Members from that point in time?

Clash wrote:

The structure of shooting in Ireland places the NTSA as part of a larger umbrella organisation known as the SSAI (formerly the NRPAI).

Misrepresented as the SSAI. The 2004 AGM where the NRPAI claimed to change it's name was invalid.

The SSAI is the body which is recognised by the ISC for grants etc., and certain of the functions that you would expect of an NGB are concentrated there in order to avoid duplication.

Except that they are not, and cannot be, according to both the NRPAI rules (though those are as much use as a chocolate coated frying pan) and according to the rules of the international bodies. Which have a tad more weight.

The second point is as you will have gathered from the posts to date, the NTSA has a very small membership in comparison to other sporting bodies that represent sport in Ireland.

Except that that's not the true number. Not every ISSF shooter is in the NTSA. All of the Northern Irish shooters have given up on it as a bad job and are now attached to the NSRA, even though two of our three olympians came from Northern Ireland and anyone up there is allowed to be in both the NSRA and the NTSA and may declare to shoot for the GB team or the IRL team in any ISSF match, or for the NI team in the commonwealth games and other matches. They're the best smallbore shooters in Ireland as the scores show every year - but rather than deal with the NTSA, they just walked away. Our loss, not theirs.
Then there's the college clubs. Hundreds of members, but how many students can throw €15 at the NTSA for nothing in return? Not many, and fewer would want to. When the question "What do I get for my money" has no answer, there's no reason for them to pay up. And if you think that only college students are careful with their money, you don't know the average Irish shooter very well.

A lot of the stuff in Sparks list of motions makes perfect sense if you are talking about organisations with thousands of members, but are IMHO completely OTT when you are dealing with just 100 odd participants.

Except that those 100-odd NTSA members are participating in an olympic sport, which is meant to strive for the highest ideals of fairness and sportsmanship, even if they weren't also in a sport where brutal, open honesty is the key characteristic of the sport. Not to mention the fact that the actual number in the sport in Ireland is at least four or five times the number in the NTSA.

To go back to an earlier point of mine, some of those motions call for a committee of 15 members

Actually, the motions just point out the situation, which is:
The committee has to have a chairman, secretary and treasurer for company law; a childrens officer, medical officer and an anti-doping officer for other legal reasons; coordinators for airgun, smallbore rifle, smallbore pistol and fullbore rifle for the sport; a PRO because otherwise we'd never know what's going on; a development officer so we can actually try to improve national facilities; ladies' and collegiate officers for reasons of common sense; and a fundraising officer and committee because we've seen time and again in the NTSA that the Sports Council won't give us all the money we need for a national team, so we need to fundraise.

And right now, all the other board members are saying they're too busy, and they're probably right. There's a lot of work to do - so you need to split it up into chunks and give it to a lot of people. Or would you think that trying to organise an olympic sport on a national level could be done without hard work?

Sparks

tireur wrote:

But they would have to know it was there in order to be interested enough to read it!

Tireur, did you miss the post where I told you the message had been sent by email to all the members of the WTSC?

tireur

And your e-mail list is perfect and comprehensive and includes parents, friends etc.?

Sparks

Oh completely. In that it includes everyone who has internet access in the club. But then, those who didn't have internet access wouldn't have been able to go to your message...

I guess the only thing for you to do Tireur, to ensure that everyone gets the message, would be to post it. But then, you'd have to identify yourself to do that, as we're not in the habit of handing out home addresses of club members to random anonymous strangers from the Internet, and somehow I don't think you'd like that too much.

Clash

The other reasons were also brought up at the EGM, they just weren't the main one discussed. And as far as I remember RRPC was answered that the emails brought to the meeting were a representative sample, that the majority were nit-picking in the extreme, (plenty of examples of that on here for that one to hold water), and long on verbiage. The printouts on the 'top table' made an impressive stack!

As for discussing your motions outside the WTSC, could you tell me then, what other clubs you approached with them?

If you are trying to suggest that there was block voting, then that's a sword you yourself must die by. The votes against your motions varied from 52 to 69 (a variation of 16% of the total votes), whereas the votes for your motions varied from 36 to 39 (a variation of 3%).

How many were followed through on?

How many did you volunteer to help on?, or provide the bodies to carry them out? If you were so invested in their success, why did you not put forward names to the committee to fill the posts created by your motions? Surely having drawn up a list of motions, you would have done some homework on the basis that they would be carried?

It appears from your inaction after the AGM, that you had no interest in these motions per se, and were using them purely as a stick to beat the NTSA committee over the head with. You didn't put people forward to help carry them out because you didn't want them carried out. You wanted to turn up at this AGM, and point out that fact and berate the committee for their failure.

This discussion is about the 2006 AGM, referring to the 2004 EGM just proves that you still haven't got over your expulsion from that committee, and proves the point I am making. This is not about improving things for shooters, it's just about your bruised ego, and taking some sort of puerile revenge. You quoted one of the members at that EGM; I also remember someone saying that the operation of the committee was dysfunctional and that you were all responsible for that situation.

Oh!, and I don't have the register of members. I suspect that the block that voted in so united a fashion for your motions wouldn't bear up to close scrutiny either.

I believe you yourself spoke against including NI shooters in the NTSA, saying it put back our endeavours in bringing on our own shooters. We hear about the 'hundreds of' college shooters every year, but never see more than a handful at competitions. They don't have to be members of the NTSA to take part, just that they won't win any prizes or be considered for squad places. Plus of course the fact that they wouldn't have to pay the NTSA levy, thereby saving themselves a couple of euro.

A lot of the posts you recommend are pure duplication of effort. I don't disagree that you need a children's officer, but they are hardly going to be overworked. The same goes for a Ladies officer and a collegiate officer. The numbers just don't support it, especially as you already have a co-ordinator for the different disciplines. Divide out the numbers, and you could have a chief to every five or six indians, most of them overlapping.

As for fundraising. That's the biggest joke ever. What has a fundraising officer got, to attract a potential sponsor: A minority sport without either television or national print media coverage, competing with far sexier and television friendly sports who are fighting it out for what's available. The Celtic League in Rugby has only managed to get a sponsor this year after many years of trying and that's a sport that has been covered on television extensively and attracts crowds in numbers that we could only dream of.

The most popular shooting sport in this country (ICPSA) has similar problems, and it was only through the efforts of one man who put his own money into it through a love of the sport, rather than any possibility of a payback, that has brought it to the stage it's at today. And ICPSA shooting attracts thousands of competitors, as opposed to the mere hundreds you suggest are taking part in ISSF shooting here, and incidentally is a more television friendly sport than ISSF shooting.

Ask around, see how many corporate heads or marketing departments would consider supporting a sport that will give nothing back for their investment.

Sparks

Clash wrote:

And as far as I remember RRPC was answered that the emails brought to the meeting were a representative sample, that the majority were nit-picking in the extreme, (plenty of examples of that on here for that one to hold water), and long on verbiage. The printouts on the 'top table' made an impressive stack!

Firstoff, the point was made when that stack was produced that this was the emails sent over a few months. But it was all the emails in that few months and it still amounted to one email a day. So "representative sample" doesn't mean that there was more than one email a day. And frankly, if one email a day is too much to read, you shouldn't volunteer to run the NGB of an olympic sport.

As for discussing your motions outside the WTSC, could you tell me then, what other clubs you approached with them?

We discussed our motions with the NTSA, not other clubs. The motions couldn't be implemented by other clubs because they pertained to the National Squad and the NGB itself. The NTSA board, however, represented several clubs so they would have been notified - and were, from comments we heard from ordinary shooters during that time. None of which, by the way, were negative.

If you were so invested in their success, why did you not put forward names to the committee to fill the posts created by your motions? Surely having drawn up a list of motions, you would have done some homework on the basis that they would be carried?

We had volunteers from several clubs all over the country for those posts. However, given the machinations which went on at the AGM, we knew putting those names in the public domain would be like painting bullseyes on them for the NTSA board. So we kept the names confidental, and intend to continue to do so while the current witch-hunting ethos remains in place.

It appears from your inaction after the AGM, that you had no interest in these motions per se, and were using them purely as a stick to beat the NTSA committee over the head with.

If you believe we were not active after the AGM, you've not been following WTSC's progress since. We put our efforts - with good success - into WTSC because the NTSA had shown that putting effort into the NTSA at that time was thowing it away.

This discussion is about the 2006 AGM, referring to the 2004 EGM just proves that you still haven't got over your expulsion from that committee, and proves the point I am making.

If you read back Clash, I didn't bring it up. You did.

Oh!, and I don't have the register of members. I suspect that the block that voted in so united a fashion for your motions wouldn't bear up to close scrutiny either.

Actually, all 39 were either shooters, coaches, club officers (meaning children's officers, fundraisers, and so forth) or otherwise were active in the club and the sport. All of them had been to major competitions. All of them had a genuine investment in ISSF shooting and moreover, a track record of being invested in it. And all of them had been briefed on the issues that were going to come up and had signed over their proxies only in cases where they couldn't be there in person.

I believe you yourself spoke against including NI shooters in the NTSA,

That's false and insulting. I never once said anything so ridiculous. And since I count a lot of shooters from up north as good friends, I'll thank you not to tell me I'm against them.

saying it put back our endeavours in bringing on our own shooters.

Oh, that was said at the top table allright. Just not by me.

We hear about the 'hundreds of' college shooters every year, but never see more than a handful at competitions.

For monetary and logistical reasons. In case you've not noticed, most students don't have cars and DURC doesn't own a bus. Neither does UCDRC. And with our ranges in the middle of nowhere in the wicklow hills and further afield, that makes it quite difficult for them to compete shoulder-to-shoulder. In postal matches, however, they not only compete - they've organised matches between here and the UK and Germany and won them. But the NTSA doesn't run a national postal match.

They don't have to be members of the NTSA to take part, just that they won't win any prizes or be considered for squad places.

So. €12 a head to enter; No car to get there and it's illegal to take firearms on public transport under the 1964 Road Traffic Act; they have a fair bit of work to organise a trip to the range and do the removal order paperwork and so forth for each trip and must have college range officers with them to supervise the new shooters; and they don't get to take a prize if they win. Yes, I see why they would turn up in droves to shoot on ranges that have facilities that are no better than in their own ranges, if not worse...

A lot of the posts you recommend are pure duplication of effort.

Well, if you think someone has the time to do three or four jobs at once, then go right ahead and recommend it. Having done a job in there, I can tell you that I think you're mistaken, unless you're willing to accept a half-assed job.

As for fundraising. That's the biggest joke ever. What has a fundraising officer got, to attract a potential sponsor: A minority sport without either television or national print media coverage, competing with far sexier and television friendly sports who are fighting it out for what's available.

WTSC pulls down up to €20,000 a year through local fundraising alone with a handful of people and a tiny catchment area comprising Wilkinstown and Navan. That's on top of the charity fundraising they do, which comes close to equalling that again. And there's no secret benefactor involved, no massive advantage no other club has. We just get out there and do it. Run BBQs, run raffles, pack shopping bags, direct cars in car parks - it's not glamorous or fun, but it pays for the largest teams to go abroad and win medals so we do it.

Given that, I don't think any further argument on this particular point (fundraising) is warranted. It would be like arguing that Irish shooters can't win ISSF world cup medals (which would be ignoring what the ICPSA ISSF shooters have been doing).

tireur

Sparks wrote:

Oh completely. In that it includes everyone who has internet access in the club. But then, those who didn't have internet access wouldn't have been able to go to your message...

As usual, everything you do is perfect. I must admit though that the speed with which the thread dissapeared(however it was removed) leaves me wondering about whether you might be feeling a little exposed by using WTSC as your ego-vehicle in your hunt for vengeance?

tireur

civdef wrote:

Funnily enough I suspect the great majority of shooters reading this section have about zero interest in the political in-fighting that seems to bedevil some sections of target shooting organisations. It can be annoying for them when the politics swamps the shooring section.

I totally agree Civdef. I should point out though, that one man,SPARKS, is responsible for the vast majority of the political rows on this board and if he was banned, then the Shooting board would be a much happier place. Any chance of organising this?

Sparks

tireur wrote:

As usual, everything you do is perfect. I must admit though that the speed with which the thread dissapeared(however it was removed) leaves me wondering about whether you might be feeling a little exposed by using WTSC as your ego-vehicle in your hunt for vengeance?

So now you won't believe me, you won't believe anyone from WTSC and you won't believe Civdef either. So whom will you believe Tireur?

tireur wrote:

I totally agree Civdef. I should point out though, that one man,SPARKS, is responsible for the vast majority of the political rows on this board and if he was banned, then the Shooting board would be a much happier place. Any chance of organising this?

Banned for disagreeing in a civil tone of voice by someone who reaches for personal insult as their first resort at every turn. Well, now we know what you stand for, tireur.

It ought to be noted, by the way, that that is precisely why boards.ie is anonymous.

Clash

sparks wrote:

And frankly, if one email a day is too much to read, you shouldn't volunteer to run the NGB of an olympic sport.

One a day from one person. I think I'm safe in assuming that the NTSA secretary's job isn't primarily to answer daily emails from the PRO.

The motions couldn't be implemented by other clubs

The master of the obvious as always Sparks. Presumably you don't feel other clubs would or should have any input on the subjects.

So we kept the names confidental, and intend to continue to do so while the current witch-hunting ethos remains in place.

This from the witch-finder general himself.

If you believe we were not active after the AGM

Oh you were active alright, 72 motions worth of activity!

If you read back Clash, I didn't bring it up. You did.

And I respectfully suggest that you did, in your reply to my first post on this thread

sparks post No. 89 wrote:

We got burned for it

You're so used to whinging about it, that you do it without even realising you are.

Actually, all 39 were either shooters, coaches, club officers (meaning children's officers, fundraisers, and so forth)

Which descriptions could be given to anyone without fear of contradiction. Perhaps other clubs should take note and designate their fundraisers (the more the merrier lads) as members of the NTSA.

For monetary and logistical reasons.

That's a matter of organisation within the colleges, not a matter for the NTSA. College clubs use coach hire to get to rugby matches etc. If the numbers are there, whats wrong with this approach?

it's illegal to take firearms on public transport under the 1964 Road Traffic Act

please quote section, this is news to me.

and they don't get to take a prize if they win. Yes, I see why they would turn up in droves to shoot on ranges that have facilities that are no better than in their own ranges, if not worse...

Oh well, with that attitude, I can see why they aren't travelling. Apathy rules O..... nice little snide barb you threw out at your fellow shooters facilities by the way.

WTSC pulls down up to €20,000 a year through local fundraising alone

Exactly my point, local fundraising. Tell me now, what's local to an NGB? I can see that BBQ now, with the crowds of locals queuing up for their burger: "Do you want fries with that?"

Given that, I don't think any further argument on this particular point (fundraising) is warranted.

Well I do. You might have other ideas, but I seriously doubt it when your first suggestion is local fundraising. I also see you aren't suggesting sponsorship, so what's left?

tireur

Sparks wrote:

Banned for disagreeing in a civil tone of voice by someone who reaches for personal insult as their first resort at every turn. Well, now we know what you stand for, tireur.

It ought to be noted, by the way, that that is precisely why boards.ie is anonymous.

I do not want to see you banned for disagreeing Sparks.Whatever gave you that idea? I just want to see you banned for the good of shooting in general. Wouldn't it be nice if you were encouraging and complementing the volunteers who keep things going. Wouldn't it be nice if you disseminated information without putting your slant on it. Wouldn't it be nice if you tried to heal wounds rather than cause them to suppurate
But I am always civil Sparks, you just do not like what I say because it is too close to the bone(the one you always want X-rayed).
You can't seem to make up your mind about anonymity Sparks. One minute you are demanding I give you my name, e-mail address, declare my interest or involvement,etc., the next you are singing the praises of anonymity.

Sparks

Clash wrote:

One a day from one person. I think I'm safe in assuming that the NTSA secretary's job isn't primarily to answer daily emails from the PRO.

Yup. Thing is, the emails were not all personal emails to the Secretary, they were emails to the internal NTSA mailing list and so would have been for different people, sent to all so everyone was kept informed as to what was going on.

The master of the obvious as always Sparks. Presumably you don't feel other clubs would or should have any input on the subjects.

Oh you were active alright, 72 motions worth of activity!

And the two largest ISSF teams ever sent abroad, medals won in Bisley, the team trained for the World Championships despite the NTSA, an ISSF judges accreditation,.a second training range being built, training done for the Irish Pony Club, which led to WTSC-trained shooters setting the Irish record in tetrathlon shooting several years running, local work done with the handicapped and a host of competitions run. Plus all the support work needed for all that. And that's just the summary. Putting our effort into WTSC instead of the NTSA was the right choice, but now we need the NTSA to clean its act up because it's limiting what we can do again.

And I respectfully suggest that you did, in your reply to my first post on this thread

If you go back to your second post on the thread Clash, you brought it up there for the first time: "I agree you had your shoulder to the wheel alright Sparks, but you were pushing in the opposite direction. Isn't that why you were voted off the committee?".

Which descriptions could be given to anyone without fear of contradiction.

Sure. If they actually did the work.

That's a matter of organisation within the colleges, not a matter for the NTSA.

Who said it was? You asked why you didn't see collegiate shooters at matches; not what the collegiate officer in the NTSA was for (and before you ask, his/her job would not be to get college students to matches, it would be primarily to ensure that college students remained in the sport after graduation by liasing with the college clubs and keeping contact details of those shooters who kept the sport up through college and then keeping them informed about shooting in Ireland thereafter so that those ex-students didn't have such an obstacle to overcome to get back into the sport.

College clubs use coach hire to get to rugby matches etc. If the numbers are there, whats wrong with this approach?

Money. Far more is given by college to rugby clubs than to shooting clubs. Despite the greater numbers in the shooting clubs. You may have heard that there's somewhat of a poor view of target shooting in general in this country.

please quote section, this is news to me.

My error, it's not the road traffic act, it's the 1963 road traffic regulations, section 18:

18. (1) Subject to sub-article (2) of this article, a person shall not cause or permit any highly inflammable, dangerous or offensive article to be carried in a public service vehicle.
(2) Sub-article (1) of this article shall not operate so as to prohibit the carriage in a public service vehicle of—
(a) fuel and lubricant necessary for the vehicle,
(b) any substance which is carried in containers so designed and constructed or which is so packed that in the event of an accident it is unlikely to cause damage or injury to the vehicle or to persons carried therein, or
(c) a firearm carried by a member of the Defence Forces or of the Garda Síochána.

Oh well, with that attitude, I can see why they aren't travelling.

Really? Little money, transport only as given by volunteers, time meant to be spent on academic work, all sacrificed for little reward, and you think that's apathy? How then, if they're so apathetic, do you explain the fact that the clubs have healthy participation levels and compete in postal matches every year? How do you explain the levels of training seen every year for the Intervarsities by DURC?
Answer: It's not apathy; it's actual problems with logistics and money.

nice little snide barb you threw out at your fellow shooters facilities by the way.

You're going to tell me that there are no worse facilities than in the colleges, are you? Now that is a nice snide little barb to throw in on top of the rest of the criticism of the collegiate shooters you just dished out.

Tell me now, what's local to an NGB?

Apart from the daftness of the question, have you any idea how many grants the NGB is entitled to go for, over and above it's ISC grant? Or how little effort was put into seeking commercial sponsorship over the past few years? What about national social events? Fun shoots for fundraising?

Well I do. You might have other ideas, but I seriously doubt it when your first suggestion is local fundraising.

The point was that if a tiny club in the middle of nowhere with a tiny catchment area can raise more than twice the ISC grant level every year with just local fundraising, then the NGB is more than able to raise money through national fundraising.

Sparks

tireur wrote:

I do not want to see you banned for disagreeing Sparks.

Of course not. :rolleyes:

I just want to see you banned for the good of shooting in general.

And I damage shooting in general by... disagreeing! Wow, that was so small a circle I'm feeling a tad dizzy.

I am always civil Sparks

Are you kidding? Or do you think that "civil" means only that you don't use salty language when committing an act of defamation?

You can't seem to make up your mind about anonymity Sparks. One minute you are demanding I give you my name, e-mail address, declare my interest or involvement,etc., the next you are singing the praises of anonymity.

Indeed I am - because I know if anyone who disagrees with head office outs themselves, they have being ostracised to look forward to. You, however, I am convinced are not entering into things in good faith and frankly I think if more people knew who you were, they'd judge what you say differently.

civdef

I do not want to see you banned for disagreeing Sparks.Whatever gave you that idea? I just want to see you banned for the good of shooting in general.

That isn't actually in the boards.ie guidelines as to why you can ban someone - robust, repetitive & infuriating it may be, it's still legitimate debate. Those of ye involved seem to wade enthusiastically in to it at every opportunity, so you needn't complain about others doing the same.

For the record, I have no sympathy or bias towards any side of this, but I've seen nothing bannable here so far. As soon as I do, I'll pounce on it, because it just might shut this noise up for a while!

(mods don't really get the luxury of just ignoring posts).

tireur

Civdef, what about giving democracy a chance. Put up a poll thread about banning Sparks--see what the readers think.

tireur

Sparks wrote:

And I damage shooting in general by...

.

Being yourself unfortunately.

civdef

Civdef, what about giving democracy a chance. Put up a poll thread about banning Sparks--see what the readers think.

That would be pointless:

this ain't a democracy. The unwashed masses don't get a say.

Seriously though, does what Sparks has to say challenge you so deeply that you feel a need to silence him? There is an ignore button, if he disturbs you that much.

Clash

sparks wrote:

If you go back to your second post on the thread Clash, you brought it up there for the first time: "I agree you had your shoulder to the wheel alright Sparks, but you were pushing in the opposite direction. Isn't that why you were voted off the committee

Why do I need to go to my second post?, I was clearly replying to your bleating about the hard work you had done on that committee and your "we were burned" remark. Unless of course you were referring to some other burning you received from the evil denizens of 'head office'.

I think I'll keep my posts shorter from now on, seeing as how you like to quote them out of context.

By the same token, I suspect that many of your allegations about the failings of 'head office' have omitted some salient details that may cast an entirely different light on what you post up here as facts. All will be revealed at the AGM I am sure.

toodle pip

rrpc

What's this about Sparks????

I have snipped this on the basis that it has been removed from the list of motions on this thread, and because Sparks will not engage in discussion on it until the AGM. But mainly because I do not want to be responsible (even indirectly) for a slur on a true legend of the shooting sports.

I only saw this tonight when I read the copy of motions sent to me by the NTSA, I then checked here and see that it is no longer on your list (edited on the 12th), but was certainly there on the 11th because I cut and pasted it into Word, so as I could print it out later.

Barry Dagger????

WTF!!!

I can honestly say I am sickened :mad:

demonloop

As an outsider I think this has gotten so childish that the real point has been lost.

Sparks list of motions might have been a little over the top but if my club or governing body had not got most of his points included from the very start then I'm afraid it would be in a shambolic mess. Most of the motions, 80% at least, is common sense.

I can't believe it has come to the stage that someone has had to put a motion on the table that board meetings have to be alcohol free, for example.

Common sense my friends.

I know none of the personalities involved here but I can see Sparks point on a lot of it.

Although in saying that my governing body the NSRA kept a thief in one of the highest positions in office for years!

At least he was sober though!!