SSAI winds up

Sparks

From the SSAI website, the following announcement:

At the recent Annual General Meeting of the SSAI,
it was agreed to wind up the SSAI and to form a new
organisation with new values, and new goals
This organisation is called the:

Federation of Irish Shooting Associations

The SSAI as an organisation now no longer exists

cavan shooter

I wonder what happened there?

Sparks

The basic idea as I understand it CS, is that each of the constituent members will take over the chair and committee for a fixed period (I think it's three months) and then after that fixed period, it goes on to the next member, in order to try to prevent more internecine politics, which was getting out of hand under the old system.

bunny shooter

And how will changing the "Chair" periodically eliminate it

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

And how will changing the "Chair" periodically eliminate it

The idea is, why would you bother pulling strokes to get something you're going to have forced on you anyway in a few weeks or months? And why would you try to pull strokes and keep them quiet when you have to give up the chair in a few weeks or months afterwards and it'll all come to light/be rolled back then anyway? And how can you try to pin all the blame on some other group when you have to take your turn at the wheel in a few weeks or months yourself, or will just have done so a few weeks or months ago?

bunny shooter

An Irish solution to an Irish problem :rolleyes:

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

An Irish solution to an Irish problem :rolleyes:

I can't tell if you're praising or criticising there

cavan shooter

That seems odd as an outside looking in sounds a bit like the Northern assembly:D

hope it works out for them and best of luck, really need some sort of unified voice "united we stand divided we fall and all that".

A good organisation is only as good as the Council. They say the chair is just that a guiding hand.

Bananaman

As long as they repair the relationship with the Irish Sports Council I don't care who is at the wheel.

If there was work to do - rather than just arse licking, back slapping and generally telling each other how they are doing a great job fiddling as Rome burns - nobody would want it.,

There is far too much focus on "who is the chair" - who cares???

The chairman just chairs meetings - I can never understand why people bicker and moan about getting to chair meetings. They probably believe that they have "the power of grayskull" by being the chairman of something - bless their cotton socks.

As to frequently reshuffling - sound like a great idea - why would you have a group of people who know nothing of the skills for their role when you can root them out every few months and replace them with more people who haven't a clue.

Its far better to move incompetents in and out of roles before they are rumbled and fired rather than having to find someone who can actually do the job properly. :rolleyes:

God forbid we actually sought people with the requisite and relevant skills and followed their advice.

B'Man

Sparks

cavan shooter wrote: »

That seems odd as an outside looking in sounds a bit like the Northern assembly:D

There's a touch of that, albiet with less gravitas and dignity...

hope it works out for them and best of luck, really need some sort of unified voice "united we stand divided we fall and all that".

That's not what's happening here, as I understand it. The new body is a scaled-down, stripped-back one - it becomes basicly a paperwork entity for obtaining grants from the ISC. I don't think there is any plan to have it take on as much as the SSAI did. The new body seems to be similar in scope what one or two NTSA chairs suggested as a model for the SSAI before the NTSA left the SSAI - ie. two meetings a year, one to fill in the ISC grant form and one to hand out the cheques to the member bodies.

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

As long as they repair the relationship with the Irish Sports Council I don't care who is at the wheel.

There's a lot of work to do on that point, but to be honest and fair about it, the damage was not done by the SSAI committee, but by previous committees (and other third parties), and that was laid out to yourself and lots of other people at the meeting last October. You asked questions about it, you got answers - seems a bit disingenous to leave out the details after that.

If there was work to do - rather than just arse licking, back slapping and generally telling each other how they are doing a great job fiddling as Rome burns - nobody would want it.,

You'd think, and yet getting to have your name on the paperwork as the chair seems to have caused some an enormous amount of ambition and a complete dearth of common sense and decorum over the last decade or so.

It's a shame it never really engendered work ethics with quite the same vigor, really.

They probably believe that they have "the power of grayskull" by being the chairman of something - bless their cotton socks.

True. A far more accurate term would be "dogsbody" rather than chairman, really.

As to frequently reshuffling - sound like a great idea - why would you have a group of people who know nothing of the skills for their role when you can root them out every few months and replace them with more people who haven't a clue.

Well,

1. this isn't really what people would have wanted as an ideal, it's an attempt to fix a really desperate problem
2. the people coming in would be people who filled the same roles in their respective NGBs so they should have at least some clue - though I did say should...
3. it's funny how you never hear this line of logic when an AGM is being called for...

God forbid we actually sought people with the requisite and relevant skills and followed their advice.

We had them. And specific people did end-runs rather than accept that structure, repeatedly. If the people who are meant to accept the structure won't, then the structure isn't viable and you wind up here - losing the entire structure for everyone because of the acts of a small minority of people.

Next time someone says "we should have a single body over all shooting in Ireland so we can have a strong voice", remind them of this...

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

I can't tell if you're praising or criticising there

Indifference would be more appropiate

Thought the "roll eyes" gave it away :P

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

... to be honest and fair about it, the damage was not done by the SSAI committee, but by previous committees (and other third parties), ....

I agree - and my own view is that sort of stuff gets relegated to the history page on the website and left there.

Sparks wrote: »

... seems a bit disingenous to leave out the details after that.

I'm not involved in the SSAI or FISA so am not privy to the details.

Sparks wrote: »

getting to have your name on the paperwork as the chair seems to have caused some an enormous amount of ambition and a complete dearth of common sense and decorum over the last decade or so.

It's a shame it never really engendered work ethics with quite the same vigor, really.

In the politics of this game ambition is generally not a good thing - or at the very least it has not been.

Personally I would prefer to see roles defined based on the work that needs to be done - rather than predefined jobs such as chairman etc which have no predefined goals by which to judge the success of the individual in them.

I would prefer to see people who had the skills but a healthy degree of reluctance to be filling those roles.

When you come to the AGM, people will get re-elected or not based on their success at fulfilling their role. Then "who they are" is irrelevant - their name is not even relevant, their affiliations are not relevant - as the tasks are being completed - people interests are being looked after - member associations requirements are being fulfilled.
Who is doing it is not relevant - it is getting done.
We have spent far too long knowing who is not doing it.

I have often said that success is something that is rarely tolerated in the shooting sports - any sense of one branch of the sports doing well will invariably draw fire from the others.

I fear that should someone who actually did have the relevant skills, have the requisite degree of reluctance to hold the position, have the energy and ingenuity to get the job done. They would be attacked for it.
God forbid that they were not one of the "inner circle"

Sparks wrote: »

Next time someone says "we should have a single body over all shooting in Ireland so we can have a strong voice", remind them of this...

I think it is a laudable goal. I, personally would like to see it.

I would like FISA to rise above the internacine politics.
It should treat everyones petty squabbles as equally worthless.
If people cannot deal with each other then it should move them out of the way and find people who can.

I would like anyone who holds a committee position in any of the member associations to be prevented from running for election to the FISA committee, including the FCP seat.

I would like the member associations to have a specific forum for controlling what the FISA does - by making requests, seeking debate, seeking arbitration, etc. all of it in the public record.

i would like the curtain to be drawn back on the FCP. The FISA holds a seat on the FCP (which was allocated to the SSAI - although I suppose, so was the lats one) - all communications and contributions made of that seat should be put to the members and they should be required to in turn put it to their members. Lets get some "Consultation" in the "Firearms Consultation Panel"

I would like FISA to have the goals/tasks of each of its committee members, including the FCP seat, outlined at the AGM and have their success or failure at achieving those goals reviewed at the following AGM (or EGM, if they are completely useless and need to be rooted out sooner)

What has happened is not ideal - I am not a fan of it at all - but it is where we are.

What it is - is a clean break.

It is an opportunity to do it right this time. To draw a line under all the political waffling that has plagued the SSAI since before I came into these sports, which is all a bit boring and useless to be honest

Lets do that rather than bitching and moaning about it for another decade and whinging about what could have been in 2011.

B'Man

PS: Watch me draw fire from everyone for suggesting that we do it right. Down with that sort of thing.

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I agree - and my own view is that sort of stuff gets relegated to the history page on the website and left there.

Until the next time it happens. Which unfortunately for us, is usually within six months. I'm a fan of moving on when it's possible, but not so much of falling for the same crap time after time after time for decades...

I'm not involved in the SSAI or FISA so am not privy to the details.

You are privy to the details, because you sat not ten feet from me in that meeting and asked far more questions than I did and heard it all explained.
I still have the audio tape if you'd like a recap.

Personally I would prefer to see roles defined based on the work that needs to be done - rather than predefined jobs such as chairman etc which have no predefined goals by which to judge the success of the individual in them.

The problem is that those traditional roles evolved over hundreds of years. As in, they were the roles needed to get the job done, countless times. You always need a chair, you always need a secretary and you always need a treasurer in any organisation like this. The other roles were defined based on the work that needed doing.

I would prefer to see people who had the skills but a healthy degree of reluctance to be filling those roles.

They were, on many occasions over the years (though there were times when they weren't as well).
That wasn't the problem, however.
The problem was the people without that healthy degree of reluctance who wouldn't (or couldn't) accept that other people were selected for those roles and who worked to subvert the whole setup.

I have often said that success is something that is rarely tolerated in the shooting sports - any sense of one branch of the sports doing well will invariably draw fire from the others.

True...
...however, I've usually found that that fire only comes from one of the others. Or, more accurately, from a small minority of people who happen to all be in the same group at present.
It really is that small and petty and childish and ego-driven a problem, and how it's lasted this long in our little community is really rather remarkable.

I fear that should someone who actually did have the relevant skills, have the requisite degree of reluctance to hold the position, have the energy and ingenuity to get the job done. They would be attacked for it.

They were...
...many times, over many years and many committees...
...and always by the same people.
This is why we can't have nice things

I would like anyone who holds a committee position in any of the member associations to be prevented from running for election to the FISA committee, including the FCP seat.

So you'd like the member associations' grants to be the responsibility of someone other than those associations' committees?

Seriously, you can see the inherent potential for wrongdoing if some group of unelected people held the purse-strings to an NGB, right?

i would like the curtain to be drawn back on the FCP.

You mean, the curtain where they have had two public meetings (both recorded on here btw, and where questions put on here were brought to the meetings (despite objections at the time)), and where all proceedings of the FCP are minuted, FOI-able, and passed on to the various reps to pass on to the memberships (and you know from the meeting in October that the communications were failing at the level of the individual NGBs when their reps to the SSAI were briefed and then never passed on those briefing to the rest of their committees or their members)?
That curtain?

The FISA holds a seat on the FCP

No, it doesn't. The seat was allocated by the DoJ. It doesn't pass on to the FISA without the DoJ's say-so. Haven't heard if that's coming, but I don't think it is; I think that with the terms of reference for the FCP coming to a close, they're waiting to see will those terms be extended by the new Minister first.

Lets get some "Consultation" in the "Firearms Consultation Panel"

The "Consultation" in "Firearms Consultation Panel" technically referes to the Minister Consulting the FCP, not the members of the shooting panel consulting the FCP; however, that said, from what I've seen over the last few years, anyone who ever asked a question of the FCP reps got an answer. The problem lay with people who confused the concepts of "ask a question" and "expect someone else to read your mind".

I would like FISA to have the goals/tasks of each of its committee members, including the FCP seat, outlined at the AGM

I think you're still confused here B'man about what FISA is. It's not supposed to be a "real" body, but a paperwork entity to talk to the ISC and that's all.

We tried a real association for two decades; people weren't grown up enough for it to work.

What it is - is a clean break.

No, it's a winding up in such a way as to not leave everything hit a brick wall, as best as people can manage that.

It is an opportunity to do it right this time.

No, it's the end of the opportunity.
We had an opportunity for 20 years. It failed because people couldn't agree to follow the rules. It's over now, and we're back to just NGBs running things.

PS: Watch me draw fire from everyone for suggesting that we do it right. Down with that sort of thing.

Mess? What mess? What are you looking at me for???

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Bananaman wrote: »

I have often said that success is something that is rarely tolerated in the shooting sports - any sense of one branch of the sports doing well will invariably draw fire from the others.

True...
...however, I've usually found that that fire only comes from one of the others. Or, more accurately, from a small minority of people who happen to all be in the same group at present.

And that would be ?

B'man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

And that would be ?

That's in the public record on here, as you know. But don't be coy and time-wasting B'man, ask the real question you're musing over.

Bananaman

I don't have any question to ask.

I also don't read between the lines - it only leads to trouble.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I also don't read between the lines - it only leads to trouble.

But you don't need to read between any lines B'man, because it's all up here in black and white and there's even a search function.

Bananaman

Bananaman wrote: »

I have often said that success is something that is rarely tolerated in the shooting sports - any sense of one branch of the sports doing well will invariably draw fire from the others.

Sparks wrote: »

True...
...however, I've usually found that that fire only comes from one of the others. Or, more accurately, from a small minority of people who happen to all be in the same group at present.

Bananaman wrote: »

And that would be ?

B'man

Sparks wrote: »

That's in the public record on here, as you know. But don't be coy and time-wasting B'man, ask the real question you're musing over.

Bananaman wrote: »

I don't have any question to ask.

I also don't read between the lines - it only leads to trouble.

B'Man

Sparks wrote: »

But you don't need to read between any lines B'man, because it's all up here in black and white and there's even a search function.

I'm afraid I do not have the same encyclopedic knowledge of posts on boards as you - you have contributed just shy of 25,000 of them - so I don't know how to find the answer to the waffling above.

I'm not even sure I know what the question is.

B'Man

bunny shooter

Please............please.........I've a question...........So are NTSA joining this new paper entity??

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Please............please.........I've a question...........So are NTSA joining this new paper entity?

Can't speak for them, but I don't think so - the same ISSF prohibition would apply since the ITS is a member. Can't see any point to it either, to be honest - there won't be an ISC grant until the problems that were stalling the SSAI grant are resolved, and fixing those problems was a nontrivial task before and that's not changed any with this change.

I think it is, by the way, an open question as to whether or not the ISC recognition automatically transfers from the SSAI to the FISA, because as the announcement says,

it was agreed to wind up the SSAI and to form a new organisation

If it's a new organisation, the ISC might require them to re-apply. And since the ISC grant is the sole purpose for FISA... well, you get the idea.

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

II don't know how to find the answer to the waffling above.
I'm not even sure I know what the question is.

You must be really confused so B'man, since you're the one who asked the question - and you just quoted yourself asking it at that...

bunny shooter

If the SSAI is now defunct wouldn't all the NGB's have to technically reapply to join the new one? Otherwise what's the difference

What's the story with this prohibition?

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

If the SSAI is now defunct wouldn't all the NGB's have to technically reapply to join the new one? Otherwise what's the difference

Technically, they wouldn't have to reapply as they're the founding members.

What's the story with this prohibition?

The search engine is your friend...

bunny shooter

An Irish solution to an Irish problem ............. as I suspected

Checked the links I missed that first time around .............................

So .................. my original thought was correct
Nothing has changed..............except the title

Sparks

So .................. my original thought was correct :rolleyes:
Nothing has changed..............except the title

No, it's a new body, founded by the members of the old body. There's a significant difference between that and a change of name/constitution, because it means that whatever was attached to the old SSAI/NRPAI does not automatically - and without possible dispute - transfer to the FISA.

I know it looks like a small difference, but ffs bunny, there's only 19 thousandths of an inch between .223 and .204 and that seems to be enough to keep you occupied with that spoon of yours all day long...

bunny shooter

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.............it is a duck :P

Awwwwwww .............. the .204 ..................... what a brilliant round :cool:

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.............it is a duck :P

You have to consider the possibility that you have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on your hands, true. However, quite a lot of the time, you just think it walks like a duck and you actually have a platypus on your hands, complete with poison spur...

Awwwwwww .............. the .204 ..................... what a brilliant round :cool:

Meh. Only for folks who need those extra 27 thousandths of an inch because their aim's not so good :pac:

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

The search engine is your friend...

I just read some of this blurb for the first time - I tend not to read all the anti stuff.

Are you saying that the comments made by Herr Schreiber in a phone interview is the basis for the NTSAs not working with the SSAI/IPSA, SSAI/ITS and now the FISA/ITS.

63. Horst G. Schreiber, telephone interview by Philip Alpers.

"I know in France, a year or two years ago, this practical shooting federation tried to take over the Federation Francaise du Tir, our member federation. Some of the practical shooting federation's officials were sneaking in[to] the French federation. We warned them that we don't want any [practical shooting] officials dealing with us. We want to keep the [French] sport shooting federation recognized as our member, but if practical shooting takes over, we will not keep up recognition. We probably might exclude them. We might suspend membership."

Since then the FFduTir has hosted the IPSC European Championships and have not been suspended.
The Greeks are hosting the IPSC World Championships this year and have not been suspended.

Such toss.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I just read some of this blurb for the first time - I tend not to read all the anti stuff.

Funny that, some of those posts were in threads you were posting in and some were in response to questions you asked.
Either you've got a bad memory there B'man, or you're bull****ting us.

Are you saying that the comments made by Herr Schreiber in a phone interview is the basis for the NTSAs not working with the SSAI/IPSA, SSAI/ITS and now the FISA/ITS.

Seriously? I give you a link to the posts where I, and rrpc, and IRLConor all spell out the problem in black and white, where it's pointed out that there was a directive issued at the ISSF AGM, and you can't even read them, but instead go straight to making stuff up like it was real?

I mean, you didn't even wait for a few posts in the hope that people would be lazy and not read the full thread, you've quoted the answers in the same post there!

Since then the FFduTir has hosted the IPSC European Championships and have not been suspended.
The Greeks are hosting the IPSC World Championships this year and have not been suspended.
Such toss.

It is toss. Because the French ISSF member federation did not host the IPSC European Championships (as you were told before), and the Greek ISSF member federation are not hosting the IPSC World Championships, and several ISSF member federations were kicked out for not following the official directive from ISSF on this.

Seriously B'man, you're relying heavily on people being too lazy to read when you spout that line of crap. Especially when you quote links to the actual state of play in the same post!

bunny shooter