Clay Shooting Ireland for those outside the ICPSA ***READ MOD WARNING IN POST 30***

tac foley

Sparks wrote: »

Why not the General Overall Board of Shooting and Hunting Including Those Elite Shooters?

THAT does it for me. : )

tac

Half-cocked

Just wondering, if this new clay shooting association is CAI affiliated, are the clubs now able to get insurance through CAI? A couple of years back a club I was involved with wanted to get club insurance with CAI but it wasn't available, only individual member insurance. When we looked closely at the situation, we realized that if the club as an entity was sued the clubs officers would be hung out to dry as there was no collective insurance. The ICPSA insurance only covers clubs who's membership is exclusively ICPSA, likewise the NARGC compo fund. Do IFA Countryside offer club cover? I'd be wary shooting in a club that doesn't have full cover - if there was an accident you could be a long time chasing individuals for compo. Its especialy true with clay shooting clubs where you could get hit by a clay or injured by a trap, which would definitely be a club liability. I suppose the same would apply in rifle/pistol clubs with richochets etc - club rather than individual is liable.

boardie29

as far as im aware the group is affiliated to Countryside Alliance Ireland. The CAI offer a group insurance for groups of 7 people or more at a discount rate.

Sparks

Is that their group discount rate, or actual group insurance? WTSC has the group discount rate but it's not the same as group insurance.

cavan shooter

TellinDeTruth wrote: »

Been watching and had to comment.
I know JWS and he is one of the top shooters in the country and is a bit close to the story so he cannot be blamed for being passionate?
He knows the damage these people have tried to do to the ICPSA over the last 5 years and he loves his sport so in turn feels strongly about what is going on.
Maybe if everyone knew what these people tried and still try to do things might be clearer.
They tried to take over the ICPSA through LCPSA and lost. They tried to take over the ICPSA at AGM and lost. They tried the high court and lost. The tried politicians and lost. So will they be more succesful this time?
BTW from what I hear the people involved in this new group all appear to be banned from the ICPSA for different things.
They are not the LCPSA and have not been involved in the LCPSA since they were thrown out by the members 4 years ago at an EGM.
Surprise to hear that the English CPSA are involved. Not surprised to hear that CA involved. Perhaps the new organisation will be putting the union jack in their emblem? We Irish have a long history of calling in England when we do not get our way with our stronger neighbours...
€20 for 50 birds is the same price as for an ICPSA event in sporting but without the chance of a class prize though as flappers only reward the top guys. €20 is a lot more than in trap ICPSA shoots. So what is the point?
The ICPSA has over 1000 members so it is hardly elitist and a look at the results on the web site will show that the events have people from AA to C shooting every weekend.
The world fitasc is in Italy this week. There is an Ireland Team but also lots of individual ICPSA members. Moral? ICPSA members do it for the sport.
JWS is a past international shooter and he knows what it feels like to pull on the green vest.
Lots of ICPSA members get to do the same every year. Good for them. A lot more do not and still go to ICPSA shoots week in and week out. Moral?
It would not be a surprise to hear that ICPSA members were at yesterdays shoot. They will be taking the lions share at next weeks NARGC shoot too. What does that tell us? The ICPSA has the best shooters? The ICPSA is the top body?

Thanks for the explanation regarding all of the above I can see you and from JW's posts your passionate about your sport as are all lads here or they wouldnt be doing it, and I would include lads that shoot with friend s on a Saturday in a bog or at a grounds, does it really matter once they are enjoying themselves.
Unfortunately for whatever reason clubs and associations have falling outs and when this happens the usual result is a break away club/association doing the exact same thing. "usually it can be down to personalities or The club going in a different direction that some members want to go/

Sometimes clubs and organisations can get to big and loose direction

I know of many game clubs that end up splitting and pistol and rifle clubs have split (I am sure someone will correct me) doesnt mean it's going to have a detrimental effect on the original association, other than questions asked regarding. "how did we end up in this mess, what did we do wrong"

It was the first time I saw an advertisement for an "open shoot" inviting lads to "have a go" and see would you be interested in getting involved.

In relation to CAI they saw an opportunity in ROI in relation to insurance because of the closed shop around getting into "Game clubs" they saw that there is a market out there to offer insurance to individual shooters who have permission to shoot on land but cant get into a club and get NARGC insurance. They are UK based, but they also have a base here and appear to be representing their members quite well as there ranks are steadily increasing with many NARGC members carrying CAI supporter cards as well.

Countryside Alliance cant be blamed for that, ditto in this case, for whatever reason(s) CSI (Clay Sports Ireland) has been formed, as difficult as it is for guys who are die hard ICPSA members their is little point jumping up and down screaming no fair, its happened I dont know why?, and as someone who is only an NARGC shooter not really bothered? better to say best of luck I hope it works out for ye.

Grizzly 45

After reading this thread..Which amounts to yet another Bitchfest in Irish shooting politics.I'm not surprised we get steamrolled on every and any bit of legislation that comes our way.:rolleyes:

pedroeibar1

Sparks wrote: »

Is that their group discount rate, or actual group insurance? WTSC has the group discount rate but it's not the same as group insurance.

CAI has a discounted premium rate for individuals who belong to a group scheme i.e. one with more than seven members. An insurance policy is issued by AIG (or whatever it has re-named itself) to the group, with the covered individuals named on it.

The benefit of the group scheme is a cost of 45 or? 50 euro instead of an individual at 70euro. It includes membership of CAI and there is an EL/PL cover element thrown in for staff and shoot organizers. Cover is more geared to shoots/syndicates than to SC clubs I think.

I'm in a CAI group scheme, thankfully never had to make a claim.
Collecting funds from everyone is a pain, as all has to be done through one contact person and on one payment date.
Rs
P.

target

cavan shooter wrote: »

It was the first time I saw an advertisement for an "open shoot" inviting lads to "have a go" and see would you be interested in getting involved.

The ICPSA has run open coaching days, particularly for the general public to introduce them to the sport and for novice shooters wishing to improve.

All of which were run free of charge to the public. Like most things in our sport, a lot of good work goes quietly unnoticed.

Some examples of ICPSA open days.

National Shooting Grounds

Esker Shooting Grounds

Ballinasloe Shooting Grounds

boardie29

target wrote: »

The ICPSA has run open coaching days, particularly for the general public to introduce them to the sport and for novice shooters wishing to improve.

All of which were run free of charge to the public. Like most things in our sport, a lot of good work goes quietly unnoticed.

Some examples of ICPSA open days.

National Shooting Grounds

Esker Shooting Grounds

Ballinasloe Shooting Grounds

And were are they advertised???

Sparks

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055662166
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055378631
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055293792

I'd say yes, given that this forum is as close to a national clearing-house for that sort of thing as we have. I think there were mentions in magazines as well, but I could be remembering that wrong.

boardie29

It would be great if we could have something like national shooting week in the UK here and advertise it in national papers etc. to entice the public. Surly there are enough clubs up and down the country to organise something similar.

target

boardie29 wrote: »

And were are they advertised???

Getting anything publicised relating to Irish shooting sports is a monumental and frustrating task. Even when we have great news of international success it still does not warrant much if any response from media circles.

Recently, we had Derek Burnett win a European Bronze in an Olympic Sport and prior to that in 2007, Philip Murphy with a silver at the Worlds. The ICPSA worked the phones and media contacts solidly in both cases to try and get coverage. The results, zero interest and zero coverage. Not a single column inch in any national or regional newspaper, not a sentence on any radio station or TV channel.

Success in shooting sports, no matter how good it is, does not make any significant connection with the Irish media.

Until we can afford a professional PR initiative on an ongoing basis, we can only look to advertise and get coverage for home grown events through our own websites, boards.ie and through the Irish Shooting Digest.

The sad part is, should our sport ever find itself in a position to afford the services of a PR agency, someone will stand up at an agm and decry it as a waste of money that would be better spent on grassroot shooters.

pedroeibar1

The shooting fraternity is multidiscipline and some of those disciplines are as dissimilar as golf and rugby. It is like saying ‘We need a PR campaign for ball sports.’ The effort needs to be specifically focussed for each particular shooting sport and broad based for shooting in general.

Each shooter on this board should be an ambassador for shooting. To make that work solid information is necessary. For example, I’m primarily a rough shooter. I do not know when I last looked at the Target Shooting board, I've no participative interest but I would be quite happy to help its PR. I’ve heard of Burnett, never heard of Murphy (no disrespect intended). That should not be so. We should have a sticky on the general shooting board that could be updated with a table with the following headings:

Result achieved
Competitor name
Event name
No. of entrants
No. of countries

The only thing I agree with is that the existing bodies do a crap job on PR. ('cept for RISE.) The appalling nonsense of the internecine feuding in some of the above posts is a typical example.
P.

cavan shooter

I have to agree with the Pedro in relation to the above, I think looking at various personalities etc (small ponds big fishes) you would never get a over all body for shooting sports (you would think it would be so easy, we all have a similiar approach "lift point pull trigger hit or miss target"

Also whether its a fear of putting ones head above the paprapit and getting it blown off, discretion etc, all associations seem to fail miserably on this front.

The NARGC has the all ireland this week in Ardee and not a peep from anyone.

I already made a comment in the above posts that in relation to CSI that it was the first time I saw an open invitation to a shoot to encourage new members. Only to be told that they where advertised on boards, but advertised where shooters are frequenting not in a wider manner to make the interest.

I suppose there is also the cost implication, a radio add costs a lot of money as does a tv and even an add in the indo or times (I dont read red tops);)

But surely a main reason for an association (even a club) to exist is to raise the profile of the sport locally and nationally or internationally as required, only yesterday I heard a radio interview with lads that are involved with "extreme frisbee",

I think in the eyes of the general public shooting doesnt exist as a sport or its always negative. Out of interest when was ICPSA or any of the associations on the radio or any sports program plugging the sport of shooting

Grizzly 45

I think in the eyes of the general public shooting doesnt exist as a sport or its always negative. Out of interest when was ICPSA or any of the associations on the radio or any sports program plugging the sport of shooting

You would have to have some reason to be on the radio or TV first.That means some sort of media outlet has to take an intrest in you first.Personally,I think the Irish media is 95% anti gun/fieldsports anyway,so you are fighting an uphill battle for a start.I mean did anyone hear that when IPSC was legal here Ireland brought home a Gold medal in an international competition????Of course not,but if it was in the over 65 tiddlywink race,we would have heard about it.Look at the RISE rally in Wford,RTE gives about 20secs to the thousand on the street and a minute to 12 scruffy antis hiding under a banner!!

Half-cocked

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

You would have to have some reason to be on the radio or TV first.That means some sort of media outlet has to take an intrest in you first.Personally,I think the Irish media is 95% anti gun/fieldsports anyway,so you are fighting an uphill battle for a start.I mean did anyone hear that when IPSC was legal here Ireland brought home a Gold medal in an international competition????Of course not,but if it was in the over 65 tiddlywink race,we would have heard about it.Look at the RISE rally in Wford,RTE gives about 20secs to the thousand on the street and a minute to 12 scruffy antis hiding under a banner!!

+1

Even within the wider sporting community shooting sports get the cold shoulder. I remember when Philip Murphy won a silver medal at the ISSF World Championships, there was no mention of it on the Sports Council website. Instead they had a big long piece about some runner who had come 15th or 16th in an event:mad: A former Irish times editor publicly stated that he didn't regard shooting as a sport and there would be no coverage of shooting events in 'his' paper.

The only time shooting associations are invited onto the TV/radio/print media is when they are asked to comment on gun crime etc. As if they are intimately involved in illegal shootings and can give an expert analysis of the latest gangland killing. Why? You don't see the chairman of Motorsport Ireland being interviewed about the latest joyriding incident or road fatalities. You won't see a spokesperson for the Golfing Union of Ireland being asked to comment when some thug beats another thug unconcious with a golf club.

In the eyes of the media, guns are evil, therefore their owners are evil. Other types of sporting equipment (and their owners) are not evil, they just sometimes get used for evil purposes. Guns just sometimes get used for non-evil purposes but the evil purposes make better headlines.

target

cavan shooter wrote: »

I think in the eyes of the general public shooting doesnt exist as a sport or its always negative. Out of interest when was ICPSA or any of the associations on the radio or any sports program plugging the sport of shooting

I've always been aware of a constant hum in the background from some shooters when it comes of actively participating and organising shoots, events, training, coaching, open days, education, PR etc.

That hum normally takes the shape of ".. not interested, I'm only here to shoot!"

I'm not taking a swipe at the general population of shooters here but merely pointing out that Spark's famous 2% rule really does exist and is alive and well in Irish shooting.

The 2% of volunteers can only do so much.

An organisation the size of the ICPSA and with as many responsibilities that it has, can only do so much with its limited resources. Take a good look around the ICPSA website, its got lots of content and is kept up to date on a daily basis. I don't know how much more an organisation can do to keep its own membership in the loop and project a positive image of shooting to the wider community.

Just because you don't hear about the ICPSA or Olympic Trap/Skeet/Sporting etc. shooting on the TV and radio does not mean that we are not contacting them and pushing our case. I don't see how a media organisation's refusal to engage with us can be seen as the sole failure of the NGB's. Remember, my earlier post. A lot of work in our sport goes on quietly in the background, not a lot of it gets rewarded but it is still gets done whether the TV stations pick it up or not.

Sparks

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The only thing I agree with is that the existing bodies do a crap job on PR. ('cept for RISE.) The appalling nonsense of the internecine feuding in some of the above posts is a typical example.
P.

I'd have to point out there that (a) RISE has far more money and a PR agency to use; and (b) RISE is far younger and aimed at a single, short-term goal. It's a good example of what can be done, but it's not fair to compare it to a long-term sports NGB, whose main duties are to the sport itself first and for whom PR is a component of its raison d'etre, not it's sole purpose.

If you're to compare like with like, look at RISE's campaign and the campaign against the hike in licence fees a few years ago.

Sparks

cavan shooter wrote: »

I think in the eyes of the general public shooting doesnt exist as a sport or its always negative. Out of interest when was ICPSA or any of the associations on the radio or any sports program plugging the sport of shooting

Quite a lot actually. The ICPSA got a lot of coverage during the last olympics and the NTSA's gotten tv coverage during their finals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8KdH69bm9g

And both have a lot of local and national press coverage. So have quite a few of the other NGBs but I don't follow them quite so closely so I can't tell you exactly when and where - but you do see them.

Sparks

Half-cocked wrote: »

A former Irish times editor publicly stated that he didn't regard shooting as a sport and there would be no coverage of shooting events in 'his' paper.

Former? When did Malachy quit?

The only time shooting associations are invited onto the TV/radio/print media is when they are asked to comment on gun crime etc.

Not quite true, but we do get calls for that kind of thing from time to time, especially when people start mentioning changing the law. As to how good a thing that is, it's pretty much 50-50. There is such a thing as bad press for us, but no press at all can be just as bad (well, depending on how bad the bad press is).

You don't see the chairman of Motorsport Ireland being interviewed about the latest joyriding incident or road fatalities.

But you would if they banned all cars, without exception, with a top speed over 120km/h. Which is pretty much where we wind up every time they change the firearms legislation in Ireland.

pedroeibar1

Sparks wrote: »

I'd have to point out there that (a) RISE has far more money and a PR agency to use; and (b) RISE is far younger and aimed at a single, short-term goal. It's a good example of what can be done, but it's not fair to compare it to a long-term sports NGB, whose main duties are to the sport itself first and for whom PR is a component of its raison d'etre, not it's sole purpose.

If you're to compare like with like, look at RISE's campaign and the campaign against the hike in licence fees a few years ago.

Being devil's advocate I take the converse view – for (a) is that associations have less support therefore less money partly because they believe that they do not need a PR Agency and the converse of (b) is that some associations are old and not focussed enough.

A few years ago I was not on this board and heard nothing about the campaign against the hike in licence fees.

One of the points I’m making is that people who are in lifetime jobs (paid or unpaid) make neither the best agitators nor spokespersons.
P.

Sparks

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Being devil's advocate I take the converse view – for (a) is that associations have less support therefore less money partly because they believe that they do not need a PR Agency and the converse of (b) is that some associations are old and not focussed enough.

Well, you'd be choosing the wrong person if you wanted someone to argue against NGBs doing more PR work

But RISE really isn't a fair comparison. It was set up purely to do one, single, easily-definable thing (stop the stag hunt ban), against an equally easily-definable enemy (namely the Greens, a group already hated by RISE's supporters). It had a lot of money at its disposal, far more than pretty much any NGB does (seriously, the annual budget of all the shooting NGBs put together is less than many of us pay in taxes in that year). And it's opponents were the current whipping boy of the media. So its job was a lot more clearly defined and had a lot more support than any NGB's job. (And for the record, they still failed to prevent the stag hunt and the dog breeding bill had fairly widespread support even in the RISE demographic anyway so it was never more than a secondary target). RISE was mainly PR, rather than substantive change; but the NGBs main performance indicator is substantive change.

Seriously, you cannot compare the two, any more than you can compare chalk and the 1954 spanish world cup soccer team.

A few years ago I was not on this board and heard nothing about the campaign against the hike in licence fees.

Which is a problem, but one that gets solved over time as more and more shooters show up here. In the meantime, that campaign was entirely distributed (no central body like RISE or an NGB directing it), it was entirely word-of-mouth (using here and other means to spread that word), and it was taken directly to the TDs in their clinics and on the doorsteps and by post and email and phone; and it succeeded.

One of the points I’m making is that people who are in lifetime jobs (paid or unpaid) make neither the best agitators nor spokespersons.

I think one of the main lessons we've learnt over the past few decades has been that agitators do more harm than good to be honest, at least with public relations. Getting people all shouty is pretty easy, but actually changing things for the better is a desperately hard, unsexy, and long-term undertaking. The ones doing the best things for us as a community tend to be the ones not doing the shouting (and half their job seems to be fixing the messes made by the shouty people).

pedroeibar1

target wrote: »

I've always been aware of a constant hum in the background from some shooters when it comes of actively participating and organising shoots, events, training, coaching, open days, education, PR etc.

That hum normally takes the shape of ".. not interested, I'm only here to shoot!"

I'm not taking a swipe at the general population of shooters here but merely pointing out that Spark's famous 2% rule really does exist and is alive and well in Irish shooting.

The 2% of volunteers can only do so much.

An organisation the size of the ICPSA and with as many responsibilities that it has, can only do so much with its limited resources. Take a good look around the ICPSA website, its got lots of content and is kept up to date on a daily basis. I don't know how much more an organisation can do to keep its own membership in the loop and project a positive image of shooting to the wider community.

Just because you don't hear about the ICPSA or Olympic Trap/Skeet/Sporting etc. shooting on the TV and radio does not mean that we are not contacting them and pushing our case. I don't see how a media organisation's refusal to engage with us can be seen as the sole failure of the NGB's. Remember, my earlier post. A lot of work in our sport goes on quietly in the background, not a lot of it gets rewarded but it is still gets done whether the TV stations pick it up or not.

That post really proves my point. We are talking about SHOOTING, not a specific discipline, and an ATTITUDE. Other than a few competitors who want to look at results, next event, whatever, most shooters don’t give a hoot about a website that is (justifiably) aimed at a specific membership, be it clays, gun club or target.

There is a captive audience here on Boards that is not being targeted. Try to educate other shooters first, e.g. by using the “result table” idea in my earlier post. For the message to be heard you need to create a demand for the message. Unless there is a demand, it will never be broadcast. Look at cricket and the PR & support the Irish cricket team got a few years ago. Or the Winter Olympics. The message has to be right, properly packaged and properly delivered by the right people in the right manner. That is not being done currently.

No one is demeaning the great work done behind the scenes, but that is not the point. It should not take place as you say “quietly in the background” but should be hailed and rewarded for what it is.

When you are up to your a$$ in alligators it is hard to realize that your primary objective is to drain the swamp. Shooting currently has a few guys in the swamp with teaspoons being watched by a crowd on the side. It needs to harness the watchers into a chain gang with buckets.
P.

target

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Being devil's advocate I take the converse view – for (a) is that associations have less support therefore less money partly because they believe that they do not need a PR Agency and the converse of (b) is that some associations are old and not focussed enough.

On the contrary, most NGB's are fully aware of the power of professional PR and equally as aware of the cost and transient nature of it. A few issues that must be taken on board when looking at PR.

• It's not cheap.
  
• You're paying for targeted access to the media, it does not guarantee that those same media outlets will continue with ongoing support. You might get a story out or a few photos, but that is no guarantee that they will take your press releases/results in perpetuity.
  
• The PR agency can't guarantee you, increased membership increased funding or increased influence. They can only get your message to a media outlet. They don't control the editorial process or programming schedules.

Borrowing your devil's advocate hat. Can someone show me a PR agency willing to take the shooting sports on as a client, pro-bono. They can get paid from a modest cut of the lucrative sponsorship opportunities that we as multi-medal winning sport can offer.

pedroeibar1

Sparks wrote: »

Well, you'd be choosing the wrong person if you wanted someone to argue against NGBs doing more PR work

But RISE really isn't a fair comparison. It was set up purely to do one, single, easily-definable thing (stop the stag hunt ban), against an equally easily-definable enemy (namely the Greens, a group already hated by RISE's supporters). It had a lot of money at its disposal, far more than pretty much any NGB does (seriously, the annual budget of all the shooting NGBs put together is less than many of us pay in taxes in that year). And it's opponents were the current whipping boy of the media. So its job was a lot more clearly defined and had a lot more support than any NGB's job. (And for the record, they still failed to prevent the stag hunt and the dog breeding bill had fairly widespread support even in the RISE demographic anyway so it was never more than a secondary target). RISE was mainly PR, rather than substantive change; but the NGBs main performance indicator is substantive change.

Seriously, you cannot compare the two, any more than you can compare chalk and the 1954 spanish world cup soccer team.


Which is a problem, but one that gets solved over time as more and more shooters show up here. In the meantime, that campaign was entirely distributed (no central body like RISE or an NGB directing it), it was entirely word-of-mouth (using here and other means to spread that word), and it was taken directly to the TDs in their clinics and on the doorsteps and by post and email and phone; and it succeeded.


I think one of the main lessons we've learnt over the past few decades has been that agitators do more harm than good to be honest, at least with public relations. Getting people all shouty is pretty easy, but actually changing things for the better is a desperately hard, unsexy, and long-term undertaking. The ones doing the best things for us as a community tend to be the ones not doing the shouting (and half their job seems to be fixing the messes made by the shouty people).

I see where you are coming from but I do not fully accept what you say. I have been game shooting for years and only recently came on Boards so I'm really an outsider to much of the inside knowledge that goes on here (where many even have names/faces for each other). I bring an outsiders ignorances and perceptions.

Any outsider who looked at the record of most of the promoters of shooting would seriously question their effectiveness. There are thousands like me out there, and their support should be gathered, not ignored. I met only once a guy who is an avid stalker. Evere since I've been getting RISE message texts from him. Ever work in a place where a few people were made redundant? Certainly focuses the mind, work-ethic, and results!;)
P.

pedroeibar1

target wrote: »

On the contrary, most NGB's are fully aware of the power of professional PR and equally as aware of the cost and transient nature of it. A few issues that must be taken on board when looking at PR.

• It's not cheap.
• You're paying for targeted access to the media, it does not guarantee that those same media outlets will continue with ongoing support. You might get a story out or a few photos, but that is no guarantee that they will take your press releases/results in perpetuity.
• The PR agency can't guarantee you, increased membership increased funding or increased influence. They can only get your message to a media outlet. They don't control the editorial process or programming schedules.

Borrowing your devil's advocate hat. Can someone show me a PR agency willing to take the shooting sports on as a client, pro-bono. They can get paid from a modest cut of the lucrative sponsorship opportunities that we as multi-medal winning sport can offer.

That is too defeatest. The same applies to all PR, when used for selling anything, be it nappies, make-up or driving lessons.

As for pro bono, have you made any enquiries about PR or advertising people who shoot? Why not find out and ask them? Most are on their uppers at the moment because of huge cutbacks in advertising budgets. Some might even have some free time. Anyway, who says that PR firms are best? Ryanair is probably the most successful exploiter of the media and they do their own stuff, using internal ordinary staff (who get changed regularly, to keep ideas fresh;))
P.

target

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Look at cricket and the PR & support the Irish cricket team got a few years ago. Or the Winter Olympics. The message has to be right, properly packaged and properly delivered by the right people in the right manner. That is not being done currently.

Interesting choice of sports. Cricket has done phenomenally well in getting itself coverage because they can tap into an already existing media friendly environment and sponsorship market.

Cricket is well covered by our British neighbouring media on TV, radio and print. Pick up any British tabloid or broadsheet and cricket is extensively covered with dedicated journalists. Recently that phenomenon has reached Irish shores with the creation of the Cricket Writers of Ireland. RBS sponsor the Irish cricket team, a British bank with a long history with cricket.

The late Irish Times columnist Alan Ruddock was an active cricketer and regularly supported them.

Irish Cricket now have a High Performance programme approved by the Irish Sports Council. They have 16 full time staff engaged to run it and their offices.

Winter Sports are TV friendly. If I could get Derek Burnett to wear a lycra bodysuit then perhaps we might get some coverage from Morning Ireland.

Seriously though, we cannot compare our lack of progress like with like against other sports. I've been fighting that battle for years and its stony ground.

Sparks

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

That post really proves my point. We are talking about SHOOTING, not a specific discipline, and an ATTITUDE. Other than a few competitors who want to look at results, next event, whatever, most shooters don’t give a hoot about a website that is (justifiably) aimed at a specific membership, be it clays, gun club or target.

Well, given that that specific membership pays for that website, their needs do have to come first there.

But the idea of just pushing SHOOTING as opposed to a specific sport isn't really a fully-explored one. For example, I'd take offence if some other NGB than the ICPSA or NTSA went off pushing shooting using the olympic stuff without working with the olympic NGBs (and it has happened in the past, and nothing but bad things came of it).

Everyone complains about fiefdoms in our sports and how NGBs don't work well together, but that's not actually how it is. Several NGBs have very close ties. NTSA shooters and clubs have been helping Pony Club shooters train for years, and then recruiting ex-Pony Club shooters after they finish with the Pony Club (one of the shooters we sent to the Olympics in Atlanta came to the NTSA that way). Similarly with the Modern Pentathlon folk. And there are fairly strong NTSA-ICPSA ties these days (they did lapse a little for a while, but they've been rebuilt in recent years). And the SSAI and NTSA have strong ties these days as well, now that the issues there were resolved (which was surprisingly easy, when the shouting was finally ignored and folk sat down to quietly work on it).

There are issues between different groups in our community, don't get me wrong. But there are precious few which are real, systemic issues, and even those are usually resolvable with a bit of work. The problems that cause ructions and that leave a foul taste in everyone's mouths and which cause all the drama and do the most damage, are invariably, in every singe case I've ever encountered or heard of, caused by individual people with over-developed egos and a dearth of actual ability. And in every case I've ever encountered, once those people step aside (or are stepped aside), the problems either go away with them, or become far more easily resolved.

There is a captive audience here on Boards that is not being targeted.

Okay pedro, what do you think the forum's not doing (or that the NGBs are not doing in the forum) that could help? And I mean specific ideas, even though general principles are helpful. A single, simple idea they could all do now would be useful.

Unless there is a demand, it will never be broadcast. Look at cricket and the PR & support the Irish cricket team got a few years ago.

The cricket thing wasn't down to their NGB, it was down to a slow news cycle and an odd news result. When Derek Burnett was lying in 4th place in the Athens games, the Tribune and a few other newspapers ran full-page spreads on him.
He's been all over the Tribune, the Herald, the Sunday Business Post, even the anti-gun Times, in fact, he's been in all the newspapers and had radio and TV coverage during the three Games he's been to. But that's dependant on an external event; it's harder to up the profile continually without that external event and when there's no money put up for large competitions.

That ridiculous Top Shot programme on the History channel, the Bianchi Cup challanges, the Airstrike match at the Bianchi Cup challanges, these things all have something in common that is the main reason why they succeed - money. $100,000 if you win Top shot and four- and five-figure sums for the others. You don't get that in any shooting matches in Ireland, so you don't get the kind of coverage they can get.

Look at it this way, 50 years ago, noone ever heard of golf. Today, it's one of the Big Five sports, and that's purely down to how much money you can win in a big match. Money leads to professional athletes and media interest and a healthier sport; but unless someone wins the euromillions and donates a literal shedload of banknotes to our sports, we're not going to be seeing that anytime soon.

No one is demeaning the great work done behind the scenes, but that is not the point. It should not take place as you say “quietly in the background” but should be hailed and rewarded for what it is.

Every time work is done quietly in the background, the shouty folk have a habit of shouting that there's a conspiracy going on...

It needs to harness the watchers into a chain gang with buckets.

If we could end the 2% rule that way, I'd be one of the happier people in our community. I just don't see how we can do that, when people tend to take very short-term views on things. For example, someone started a thread there recently commenting that €600 for a first year's membership in the Midlands was ridiculous. How many golf or tennis clubs can you join for €600 in your first year? How much land is there in the Midlands range? How many ranges have their level of facilities, with clubhouse, computerised attendance records, licenced ranges from 25m pistol to 1200yd rifle, and all the other stuff, and their general approach to the sport?

I know economic times are a nightmare, but lads, seriously. Either we don't have the money and have to accept that things in the sport will be fairly spartan for a few years; or we'll have to just accept that we're not going to get anything in this sport that we don't put hand in pocket for; and then put hand in pocket and get ourselves something nice. I'm personally sick of ROI ranges looking like ramshackle huts in the middle of nowhere while NI ranges look so spectacular, and I don't buy this common excuse that NI ranges get given big bundles of money for nothing by their government, because I've seen their work party system and that's the real reason that Comber looks like a well-maintained resort while some of our older ranges here look like places you wouldn't let your children go for fear of tetanus.

Sparks

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Ever work in a place where a few people were made redundant? Certainly focuses the mind, work-ethic, and results!;)

Yes, and it did focus the minds of those left behind... on (a) backstabbing and office politics to avoid going out the door next, and (b) polishing resumes and interviewing elsewhere as fast as they could.
End result was that one redundancy led to half the team (the senior, talented half) leaving and the company was left scrambling to cope with contracts and profits went through the floor.

People, especially ones you're trying to get to do a creative task, do not respond as well to the whip as you'd like to think.

Sparks

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Ryanair is probably the most successful exploiter of the media and they do their own stuff, using internal ordinary staff (who get changed regularly, to keep ideas fresh;))

I interviewed for Ryanair once, so I got an nice, up-close look at one part of their operation on the ground. If the rest worked as well as that part worked, their planes would explode in mid-air on a regular basis.
Seriously, the whip doesn't work the way you think it works, it just screws things up because people don't focus on the work, but on office politics and covering their own ass.