NASRPC's refusal to allow affiliation of clubs

ntipptop

Nothing you said my friend, i have been very busy on the work front. Well since we last exchanged our views or opinions nothing much has changed. Nothing will happen for another few weeks either some of the committee are in Germany at the international gallery shoot being held there. There's another point of fact the Gallery squad representing Ireland in Germany this weekend is not the correct squad. While most of the squad members qualified fair and square and are in Germany. Going into the last national qualifier here in Ireland the powers that be decided to change the scoring template to ensure they them selves made the squad. When questioned about this, reluctantly they agreed and decided to sort this problem out when they got home. Another absolute disgrace and a complete disregard for their fellow shooting enthusiasts.
But as we all know this committee dose not need our permission to do anything.

jeesuz the more i hear about "This committee" the more wrong doings are being shown up!!!!
How dare they change the scoring to suit themselves, Fair play to all who secured their place by honest shooting and scoring, to those, hold your heads held high, to those that "cheated" shame on you
Christ above ,this committee cant stay after all this, can they?????

If they "Fixed the scoring" what else is Fixed ????

And by the way i will be at any agm/egm to ask questions and to stand up for my sport, our sport!!!!

is this what your talking about vahalla ????
as you see by the first post quoted, there is a mention about changing a template of scoring and sorting it out when "They get back" ( bit like fixing the door after the horse has bolted) what would you call changing the template to suit???? fixing cheating ??
what i said was fair play to those that didnt need the new template to qualify

ntipptop

and shame on those who cheated, ok ,may have benefited from a change in scoring template to make the team, if there was no cheating then all can sleep easy :D

downrange

cra wrote: »

downrange I am happy to hear that you do not wish to see us excluded and you are entitled to your opinion on that letter. I have read it and reread it myself, of course I know the background to this letter being written and understand the anger and frustration that was felt by our members at the time due to the incident over the cheque and the email that habitformin alluded to so I am probably biased when I look at the letter.

You said that other people would not agree with us when we said the committee was "not fit for purpose", that's fair enough we were after all expressing our clubs opinion.

You are right about the last line when you said "Thems fightin words" and I do see where the committee might take issue with them but I disagree with you comparison between employee and employer, if anything its the other way around, I would see any of the member clubs as the employer and the committee as the employee after all we do elect them to do a job for us.

I have served on quite a few committees in my time and every club and association I served on had one thing in common, there was a procedure to disciplining or expelling a member, you know the sequence depending on the infringement from a slap on the wrist up to expulsion from the club or association. I never seen it happen so quickly with it looks like no procedures followed and no reason given and this is a national association so these things are even more important.

Part of the problem is that we do not know the reason for our exclusion, is it late payment, is it because of this letter or is it something else. We have written (a nice letter) to the NASRPC committee asking for the reason for our exclusion but to date have not received an answer. How can we move forward without this information, if its the letter then maybe something can be done but if its because of late payment we will have to disagree with the committee, if its because of something else then who knows.

cra, I agree, you should be informed of the reason for exclusion.

Why don't you write again, formally retract your letter, offer to pay the amounts outstanding and request reinstatement. Perhaps, withdraw your request for an EGM and allow the AGM to follow its course. I will understand if you do not like this advice but it might bring you back into the association and you would better off in than out. Compromise is needed on both sides.

cra

downrange wrote: »

cra, I agree, you should be informed of the reason for exclusion.

Why don't you write again, formally retract your letter, offer to pay the amounts outstanding and request reinstatement. Perhaps, withdraw your request for an EGM and allow the AGM to follow its course. I will understand if you do not like this advice but it might bring you back into the association and you would better off in than out. Compromise is needed on both sides.

While I see where your coming from what you suggest would not be compromise on both sides. I think the least the committee could do is give us the reason then we can make decisions as to where to go from there.

downrange

ntipptop wrote: »

and shame on those who cheated, ok ,may have benefited from a change in scoring template to make the team, if there was no cheating then all can sleep easy :D

Average scores are calculated based on best three results over twelve months and for some scores this resulted in decimal place rounding that might not have been there if it was calculated a different way.

e.g.
1455
1460
1466
Total 4381
Divide Total by 3 to get average = 1460.3333

It's the way it has always been done, it's that someone discovered the rounding issue, it's nothing more than basic maths. Nobody cheated and nobody fixed results.

The committee have already agreed to use a different formula next year to avoid rounding but they would not and could not agree to changing the formula mid-year and rightly so.

If you disagree with this and still insist that there was wrong doing, then without naming any names, please outline the exact scoring process that was changed, give an example and let us know when it was changed. Please also let us know exactly how many shooters (no names) were denied a place on the teams. Without some clarification, these accusations are worthless.

Wadi14

As a new person to the sport of Gallery Shooting this year I have to say I enjoyed going to a few shoots and seeing people there from all corners of Ireland, and I was in Hilltop the day the briefing was given too.
Be it right or wrong the SC and NASRPC's spat the dummy out and went their separate ways, which doesn't help anyone.
As shown by the An Riocht letter to NASRPC you weren't happy with the committee's decision, and how they handled it, but then your committee went and acted the exact same way, you spat the dummy out.

In your letter to the committee you say in no uncertain terms that you didn't want anything more to do with them, I'm guessing that's why you haven't received any correspondence back from them.

I like the vast majority of shooting around the country don't want to see your club or any other club deprived of our sport and competition.

So as far as I see it there are choices to be made, you can stay on here and stoke the fire or both side get off the high horse and think of people like me new to the sport and members and fellow shooters, who are going to be the big losers in the long run.

Grizzly 45

Looking back at some of the posts in the threads about the entire firearm situation in Ireland
This time last year we were a united front pushing like Hell to get our politicans and anyone else aboard.A year later we are back to traditional Irish infighting and splitting,while a much superior ememy is almost on our shores...... The more things change....:rolleyes:

habitformin

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Looking back at some of the posts in the threads about the entire firearm situation in Ireland
This time last year we were a united front pushing like Hell to get our politicans and anyone else aboard.A year later we are back to traditional Irish infighting and splitting,while a much superior ememy is almost on our shores...... The more things change....:rolleyes:

You are exactly right Grizzly it's a shame this is how we are.No one to blame except ourselves for solo runs back stabbing etc etc etc.

BattleCorp

downrange wrote: »

Average scores are calculated based on best three results over twelve months and for some scores this resulted in decimal place rounding that might not have been there if it was calculated a different way.

e.g.
1455
1460
1466
Total 4381
Divide Total by 3 to get average = 1460.3333

It's the way it has always been done, it's that someone discovered the rounding issue, it's nothing more than basic maths. Nobody cheated and nobody fixed results.

The committee have already agreed to use a different formula next year to avoid rounding but they would not and could not agree to changing the formula mid-year and rightly so.

This makes no difference to me other than curiosity but what other formula can you use to get the average of three scores without rounding in some situations?

Apologies if I'm being thick, but surely some form of rounding would be necessary if the total of the three scores didn't divide exactly by three?

What other formula can be used to give an average without rounding?

LB6

habitformin wrote: »

You are exactly right Grizzly it's a shame this is how we are.No one to blame except ourselves for solo runs back stabbing etc etc etc.

Wow solo runs? really? you were asked by the SC to make all efforts to talk to your ministers in your own locations. I made solo runs, am I to blame too? What about the next guy/girl.

Back stabbing??? that's just beautiful. You seem to have a one track mind and are not willing to give an inch.

It's time that you stopped spitting your dummy out of your pram and grew a pair!

Sorry but you keep spouting the same **** over and over and it's rapidy grating on my nerves.

:mad:

ntipptop

BattleCorp wrote: »

This makes no difference to me other than curiosity but what other formula can you use to get the average of three scores without rounding in some situations?

Apologies if I'm being thick, but surely some form of rounding would be necessary if the total of the three scores didn't divide exactly by three?

What other formula can be used to give an average without rounding?

Just to clear something up
I was commenting on another post about " score fixing" or whatever you want to call it. The way I saw it, I said it, as cheating as per the post.
However as you say ,its basic maths, then why are the committee coming up with a new formula that can do away with rounding, if as you say you have to use rounding in certain situations to get an average of three scores

clivej

On 2 seperate occasions I also went to see my TD. I did my bit with 'solo' runs.
Habitformin want did you do?
Instead of repeating hearsay provide real evidence of these 'solo' runs by the people your accusing. Publish it here so I can change my opinion of things.
Or zip it up

habitformin

clivej wrote: »

On 2 seperate occasions I also went to see my TD. I did my bit with 'solo' runs.
Habitformin want did you do?
Instead of repeating hearsay provide real evidence of these 'solo' runs by the people your accusing. Publish it here so I can change my opinion of things.
Or zip it up

Dear Clive,
I won't come on here naming names I believe it's not allowed.
However this is a fact and I will tell you in private in front of the person I am talking about. A certain individual told another that he did this solo run and that he was bound to secrecy before he disclosed the details. I have it as a fact that this happened .now I ran foul of the mods here already and I am not doing it again .
It's not like Chinese whisper it's a fact .so let's wait until the AGM shall we? I might go just to explain exactly who or hopefully speak to you on a range where it's less hostile at a friendly competition. And we can have a good laugh about all this. After all disarming the whole shooting community over he say she say is funny isn't it.again this should have been sorted already EGM was needed and should have been called if it was this thread wouldn't have happened.

BattleCorp

ntipptop wrote: »

Just to clear something up
I was commenting on another post about " score fixing" or whatever you want to call it. The way I saw it, I said it, as cheating as per the post.
However as you say ,its basic maths, then why are the committee coming up with a new formula that can do away with rounding, if as you say you have to use rounding in certain situations to get an average of three scores

Have you evidence of cheating or are you just taking the other poster's word as gospel?

If anybody has any proof of cheating whatsoever, please make the evidence public or at least raise the issue at the AGM.

I don't see how anybody can be accused of cheating if the rounding system has been used all year.

If a new system is to be used next year, then how is there cheating going on now? If the system was changed in the middle of a season, you could argue that the changes benefit some people and negatively affect others (possible cheating). But when the same system has been used all season, then you can't claim that it benefits anyone. Therefore it is not cheating.

habitformin

LB6 wrote: »

habitformin wrote: »

You are exactly right Grizzly it's a shame this is how we are.No one to blame except ourselves for solo runs back stabbing etc etc etc.

Wow solo runs? really? you were asked by the SC to make all efforts to talk to your ministers in your own locations. I made solo runs, am I to blame too? What about the next guy/girl.

Back stabbing??? that's just beautiful. You seem to have a one track mind and are not willing to give an inch.

It's time that you stopped spitting your dummy out of your pram and grew a pair!

Sorry but you keep spouting the same **** over and over and it's rapidy grating on my nerves.

:mad:

And it was Clivej who first started with the backstabbing not me.
I am sick and tired of this crap too . You come on here saying I am here with the same old stuff.LOL you obviously haven't changed your mind?why should I.I believe this current committee aren't fit for purpose.I believe they are tainted .and I know I am right.

LB6

habitformin wrote: »

LOL you obviously haven't changed your mind?why should I.I believe this current committee aren't fit for purpose.I believe they are tainted .and I know I am right.

Unbelievable.

Who are you to say what way my mind is? I could be sitting on the fence!! I never asked you to change your mind, I've said that you keep spouting the same old ding dong, day in day out, like it's going to make a blind bit of difference on a forum like this.

You're only showing yourself to be the proverbial dog with a bone and be damned if you'll give it up.

"You "believe" they are tainted" - you can believe all you like, prove it. I'm changing my name to Thomas. I'll have to stick my hand in the wound first before I'll believe.

"And I know I'm Right". Prove it, if you can, I'll shake your hand.
Bring all your proof to the AGM. I'd love to see it in person.

habitformin

LB6 wrote: »

habitformin wrote: »

LOL you obviously haven't changed your mind?why should I.I believe this current committee aren't fit for purpose.I believe they are tainted .and I know I am right.

Unbelievable.

Who are you to say what way my mind is? I could be sitting on the fence!! I never asked you to change your mind, I've said that you keep spouting the same old ding dong, day in day out, like it's going to make a blind bit of difference on a forum like this.

You're only showing yourself to be the proverbial dog with a bone and be damned if you'll give it up.

"You "believe" they are tainted" - you can believe all you like, prove it. I'm changing my name to Thomas. I'll have to stick my hand in the wound first before I'll believe.

"And I know I'm Right". Prove it, if you can, I'll shake your hand.
Bring all your proof to the AGM. I'd love to see it in person.

That's right I made all this up .I have nothing better to do than come on here and make up stuff that I could never prove. Seriously . Think about it LB ?why would I bother? I have nothing to gain . All I am doing is calling for unity.I see this committee as a problem and I have good reason to believe it. I don't want to change your mind, I couldn't even if I wanted to. Just ask yourself this if I am half right and unity in the sport is the way to go then how can this committee stand over leaving the Sports Coalition.this whole debacle is over rattles being thrown out okay but the committee did the throwing by pulling out of the SPORTS COALITION instead of knuckling down and carrying on. Funny thought there if they hadn't done that would we even be talking about them or would it still be business as usual?. After all that's the name of the thread.
tell you what let them stay ! !!
Enjoy the sport for what we have left of it . Without solid representation we won't be shooting for long more.the last best chance we had was the sports coalition . Warts and all it was working.

downrange

BattleCorp wrote: »

This makes no difference to me other than curiosity but what other formula can you use to get the average of three scores without rounding in some situations?

Apologies if I'm being thick, but surely some form of rounding would be necessary if the total of the three scores didn't divide exactly by three?

What other formula can be used to give an average without rounding?

Calculating the average score is not really necessary. Another option would be to total the three highest scores and don't calculate an average, just use the total of the three highest scores. That way, there would be no decimal places.

downrange

ntipptop wrote: »

Just to clear something up
I was commenting on another post about " score fixing" or whatever you want to call it. The way I saw it, I said it, as cheating as per the post.
However as you say ,its basic maths, then why are the committee coming up with a new formula that can do away with rounding, if as you say you have to use rounding in certain situations to get an average of three scores

Whatever score fixing or cheating that you allege, can you please provide this forum with an example? Otherwise, can we accept that this particular conspiracy theory is closed?

I have explained an alternative to rounding in my last post.

downrange

Why is it so important to some people that the NASRPC needs to re-join the Sports Coalition?

The Sports Coalition has served its purpose.

We got an SI and we got the FCP plus some other concessions from the DOJ. There is a lot more work to be done but the FCP is the only means to do that.

What good is the Sports Coalition going forward? The FCP is where it is at now.

Target shooters would be better off trying to unify the NASRPC and having a strong association to represent OUR needs, not fighting over re-joining another association that no longer has a mandate or a clear objective. The NASRPC should be able to stand on its own feet and with two seats on the FCP and two excellent representatives our sport can be represented very well.

The Sports Coalition appears to be controlled by the NARGC and with respect to that organisation they have different objectives other than just target shooting. Target shooters can represent target shooting better than anyone else and without being controlled by anyone else.

In industrial disputes there is often more than one Trade Union each representing a different group of workers. Shooting is no different, let the NARGC and others represent their needs and let the NASRPC represent OUR needs. We don't all have to be one happy family following one line of control.

We should strengthen the NASRPC from within and learn from this experience going forward.

The NASRPC does not need the Sports Coalition.

It is time to move on. What's done is done, MOVE ON.

badaj0z

We can only go forward if we trust the people leading us. This is not the case for many of us at the moment so it is time to review how we got here.
The people calling for a change of NASRPC leadership base their case on two issues:
1. How the NASRPC committee handled their responsibilities in their relationship with the SC.
2. How the NASRPC committee handled the management of the criticism of how they dealt with No.1.

The timeline and facts of the first issue are laid out in Des Crofton's letter to the NASRPC published on the SC website some weeks ago. Mentioning this name is like a red rag to a bull to some of you on here as they see all kinds of mysterious reasons why we should not take this statement at face value. What they may not have noticed is that, in addition to the NASRPC reps on the SC, there were 2 other SC reps(who are now also FCP reps) who are sporting rifle and pistol shooters, both of whom are also in the NASRPC because they are members of affiliated clubs, viz. Harbour House and MTSC. These same people were at the Hilltop meeting and attempted to mediate between the polarized views, ending with the instructions to the NASRPC committee to make peace with the SC. This did not happen, as you know. These same people, having been involved in the process all along, are at the forefront of the group looking for a change. They have no axe to grind and are making their judgements based on what they directly witnessed. They will state their positions as evidence at the AGM.
As regards the second issue, which has seen the number of "affiliated" clubs reduced from 15 to 10 by selective interpretation of the payment rules, this is truly shocking. So shocking that an NASRPC committee member resigned because of the way he was treated after asking questions relating to payment history. This will also be addressed directly at the AGM.
This reduction in affiliated clubs goes directly against one of the main objectives of the NASRPC and should be seen for what it is. a truly cynical attempt to manipulate the democratic process. An EGM was being called for, which would have given many of the posters on here what they are calling for, a forum to debate the issues. However, the voting rules at an EGM give each club a vote, not the floor and the odds were not in favour of the current committee, even with the reduced number of clubs. Instead, the committee has organised things in such a way that we have an AGM. They hope that they will get support from the clubs they are associated with and that the few remaining affiliated clubs are in the South and West and that their members will not travel. So it comes down to who will go to the AGM, who will set out their case and how this will be received by the attendees who can vote.
Many posters ask for facts.So then BillBen, clivej, downrange, Grizzly 45, hexosan, homerhop, LB6, you will get them at the AGM

clivej

I've got it on good advice, in black & white, that each committee member will step down at the AGM

homerhop

Has the NASRPC been in contact with any of the clubs involved?

cra

Wadi14 wrote: »

As a new person to the sport of Gallery Shooting this year I have to say I enjoyed going to a few shoots and seeing people there from all corners of Ireland, and I was in Hilltop the day the briefing was given too.
Be it right or wrong the SC and NASRPC's spat the dummy out and went their separate ways, which doesn't help anyone.
As shown by the An Riocht letter to NASRPC you weren't happy with the committee's decision, and how they handled it, but then your committee went and acted the exact same way, you spat the dummy out.

In your letter to the committee you say in no uncertain terms that you didn't want anything more to do with them, I'm guessing that's why you haven't received any correspondence back from them.

I like the vast majority of shooting around the country don't want to see your club or any other club deprived of our sport and competition.

So as far as I see it there are choices to be made, you can stay on here and stoke the fire or both side get off the high horse and think of people like me new to the sport and members and fellow shooters, who are going to be the big losers in the long run.

I appreciate you opinion Wadi14 and pointing out the similarities between the two predicaments, NASRPC/SC and An Riocht/NASRPC raises some interesting questions.

I must point out that I am on this forum as myself expressing my own opinions, while I am on the committee of An Riocht I am not necessarily expressing their opinions. The committee of An Riocht have to follow the wishes of its members and at the moment the members are very angry with the treatment they received from the committee of the NASRPC, initially they were not happy with the actions of the NASRPC committee in dealing with the Sports Coalition which turned to anger when we were unceremoniously dumped and then some frustration was added when we hear that the EGM that was called for by so many clubs was not going to happen. You see its not just one or two people you are advising it is a whole club so its not as simple as "get of the high horse" we have to represent the wishes of our members the same as I am sure your club would do for you. That being said we have written to the NASRPC committee and are awaiting a reply as to the reason for our exclusion.

cra

clivej wrote: »

I've got it on good advice, written, that each committee member will step down at the AGM

Hi Clivej, can you be more specific as to what you mean as committee members always step down at AGMs.

downrange

If presentations can be made at the AGM allowing all relevant parties to explain their positions with facts then that is to be welcomed and I for one will look forward to what I hope is a constructive AGM which will set the NASRPC on a positive course so that we can move into 2016 with only one thing in mind - "shooting".

I hope that each party is allowed to make their presentation with respect and courtesy.

Everyone on this thread, whether active or those that are only reading it, regardless of club or opinion, should remember that outside of this thread, we are probably all friends on the line, let's hope to keep it that way. The good spirit of our shooting community must not suffer.

ntipptop

downrange wrote: »

If presentations can be made at the AGM allowing all relevant parties to explain their positions with facts then that is to be welcomed and I for one will look forward to what I hope is a constructive AGM which will set the NASRPC on a positive course so that we can move into 2016 with only one thing in mind - "shooting".

I hope that each party is allowed to make their presentation with respect and courtesy.

Everyone on this thread, whether active or those that are only reading it, regardless of club or opinion, should remember that outside of this thread, we are probably all friends on the line, let's hope to keep it that way. The good spirit of our shooting community must not suffer.

HERE HERE

habitformin

downrange wrote: »

If presentations can be made at the AGM allowing all relevant parties to explain their positions with facts then that is to be welcomed and I for one will look forward to what I hope is a constructive AGM which will set the NASRPC on a positive course so that we can move into 2016 with only one thing in mind - "shooting".

I hope that each party is allowed to make their presentation with respect and courtesy.

Everyone on this thread, whether active or those that are only reading it, regardless of club or opinion, should remember that outside of this thread, we are probably all friends on the line, let's hope to keep it that way. The good spirit of our shooting community must not suffer.

Just one small detail downrange.
How can An Riocht members or committee make presentations if they had their renewal rejected.? That's an obstacle that somehow needs addressing ASAP .

downrange

habitformin wrote: »

Just one small detail downrange.
How can An Riocht members or committee make presentations if they had their renewal rejected.? That's an obstacle that somehow needs addressing ASAP .

I agree, and I did make some suggestions to cra regarding backtracking on the letter and at least attempting to come back into the association. I know there are two sides to the issue but someone needs to make the first move. There is still time to resolve it. Withdraw the EGM request and support the AGM, then have your say. Its worth a try.

Wadi14

cra wrote: »

I appreciate you opinion Wadi14 and pointing out the similarities between the two predicaments, NASRPC/SC and An Riocht/NASRPC raises some interesting questions.

I must point out that I am on this forum as myself expressing my own opinions, while I am on the committee of An Riocht I am not necessarily expressing their opinions. The committee of An Riocht have to follow the wishes of its members and at the moment the members are very angry with the treatment they received from the committee of the NASRPC, initially they were not happy with the actions of the NASRPC committee in dealing with the Sports Coalition which turned to anger when we were unceremoniously dumped and then some frustration was added when we hear that the EGM that was called for by so many clubs was not going to happen. You see its not just one or two people you are advising it is a whole club so its not as simple as "get of the high horse" we have to represent the wishes of our members the same as I am sure your club would do for you. That being said we have written to the NASRPC committee and are awaiting a reply as to the reason for our exclusion.

Thanks for the reply, Nothing wrong with a committee looking after its members views, There had to be a different way as it stands now they are being deprived of National competition, which isn't good. Your committee tied their colours to the mast which caused a back lash, I don't think that was a good idea, there was always going to be an AGM no matter if nothing happened during the year, maybe they could have waited to that them judged the mood and if necessary, call for an EGM at that meeting where it was open and transparent to see who was or who wasn't for it.
I know hindsight is a wonderful thing,

I don't know what's going to pan out from the AGM but everyone need to look at it from what's best for us the shooters, and I hope that all the people that want to shoot Gallery are allowed to.

One thing I have to ask cus I have thought about it for a long while reading this thread is, what do you guys do if the present committee are re-elected ?. Do you try and work with them or break away and form you own group ?