NASRPC's refusal to allow affiliation of clubs

LB6

downrange wrote: »

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.

So, has the NASRPC been in touch with any of the clubs, now in dispute, in the last couple of weeks?

Cass

I've already asked for the two issues (NASRPC/EU Proposed ban) to be kept separate otherwise both threads end up crossing to the extent they become unreadable.

Last two posts deleted, and please post in the appropriate thread.

habitformin

LB6 wrote: »

downrange wrote: »

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.

So, has the NASRPC been in touch with any of the clubs, now in dispute, in the last couple of weeks?

That's a very good question LB6 has the NASRPC tried to contact anyone in dispute? Or besides the letter from An Riocht (the nice one) Has anyone else in dispute contacted the organisation?

homerhop

habitformin wrote: »

That's a very good question LB6 has the NASRPC tried to contact anyone in dispute? Or besides the letter from An Riocht (the nice one) Has anyone else in dispute contacted the organisation?

I do believe a letter was sent by the NASRPC offering to meet clubs before Christmas at a location of their choice to try resolve things.

badaj0z

The meeting requested by the clubs, to resolve things Homer, was an EGM

badaj0z

habitformin wrote: »

Has anyone else in dispute contacted the organisation?

Yes, there has been polite correspondence from a representative of the clubs to the committee which achieved nothing.

LB6

So. If that's the case. All the club's have replied then? If not, why not?

Sound off if you've replied. If olive branches are being handed out. Grab them.

United we stand!

habitformin

badaj0z wrote: »

habitformin wrote: »

Has anyone else in dispute contacted the organisation?

Yes, there has been polite correspondence from a representative of the clubs to the committee which achieved nothing.

So the last correspondence was from the club's to the committee of the NASRPC ? And nothing since.
How long has passed since that last letter/message?
I know it's Christmas and people are busy with family and festivities, however we will run out of time very quickly.
Looks like that agm is the big event. Wonder should that be a pay per view event ? We might get a few bob off the new 10 per person charge .

homerhop

habitformin wrote: »

So the last correspondence was from the club's to the committee of the NASRPC ? And nothing since.
How long has passed since that last letter/message?
I know it's Christmas and people are busy with family and festivities, however we will run out of time very quickly.
Looks like that agm is the big event. Wonder should that be a pay per view event ? We might get a few bob off the new 10 per person charge .

I do believe the NASRPC contacted clubs within the last 2 weeks offering to meet those individual clubs at a location of their choice before Christmas, and have got no reply as of yet. Damned if they do and damned if they don't !

clivej

homerhop wrote: »

I do believe the NASRPC contacted clubs within the last 2 weeks offering to meet those individual clubs at a location of their choice before Christmas, and have got no reply as of yet. Damned if they do and damned if they don't !

And I was also told this today. To try a resolve maters.

Directly from the horses mouth so to speak.

Lads please do not bury your heads to everything. Unity is unity.
If clubs aren't affiliated then their members can't compete in the national comps. Do their members know this???
I see a split coming down the line that won't do our shooting and the clubs any good.

badaj0z

The last few posts on the issue of correspondence between the parties involved are to no avail. The die is cast, there will be no EGM and no other meeting between now and the AGM unless the NASRPC committee wants to resign in advance of the AGM. They had their chance to take the honorable way out, in the interests of unity, and did not take it. The issues will be debated at the AGM and we will see what happens. All of the discussion about who did what, when they did it, who knew about it, etc. etc.,is redundant. The outcome will be one unified organisation or two different organisations running the same kind of shoots. The issue will be decided by whoever is present on the day after they have listened to the arguments presented by both sides of the debate, despite the efforts of the committee to eliminate the votes of at least one third of the clubs in this country.

habitformin

clivej wrote: »

homerhop wrote: »

I do believe the NASRPC contacted clubs within the last 2 weeks offering to meet those individual clubs at a location of their choice before Christmas, and have got no reply as of yet. Damned if they do and damned if they don't !

And I was also told this today. To try a resolve maters.

Directly from the horses mouth so to speak.

Lads please do not bury your heads to everything. Unity is unity.
If clubs aren't affiliated then their members can't compete in the national comps. Do their members know this???
I see a split coming down the line that won't do our shooting and the clubs any good.

To Clivej,
What kind of rubbish is that "can't take part in national comps" this is pure Walter Mitty land? Clive you know only too well that all national comps are OPEN competitions . Anyone with a registered firearm within the category can shoot.
This kind of scaremongering is exactly the kind of double talk that has us here. If you don't know the facts Clivej I suggest you get up to speed before you make similar remarks.
One further point Clive I have been calling for unity throughout this whole thread and it's excellent to see you seem to agree with me . However remember who threw out the rattle first (leaving the SC because they didn't get the seat they wanted )and then made matters worse by kicking out affiliated clubs when called to task. The unity we seek is going to be extremely hard to find once shooting stars are on the committee . Dare not question their authority or you cannot shoot in Ireland again.
Seriously???
As Badaj0Z said .'there are those agree with the committee and those who do not' I am on the side which sees this sport encompassing everyone from air rifles to air soft we need to include all the others that have been left out by previous organisations .(that's if they will accept us after the way some have been treated ) The NASRPC is a grand organisation with excellent competitions but it isn't the only show in town.
After all knocking cans in an old quarry with a slingshot is fun too.
Back to basics ,yes Clivej, unity is needed talk to the committee and have them get off their podium. Time is running out .

LB6

So you've replied to the letter you've received there recently from the nasrpc habitformin?

habitformin

LB6 wrote: »

So you've replied to the letter you've received there recently from the nasrpc habitformin?

The club replied yes LB6
A nice letter was sent
In this nice letter the following relief was sought: Reasons for An Riocht's expulsion was sought before a further step could be taken .
No further correspondence was received to my knowledge to date.

LB6

So why didn't you take them up on their offer to meet at a place of your choice and hash all this out in person instead of going back and forwards with pointless paperwork, time wasting?

Tea drinker

LB6 wrote: »

So why didn't you take them up on their offer to meet at a place of your choice and hash all this out in person instead of going back and forwards with pointless paperwork, time wasting?

Because his agenda is not to work it out with the current leadership of NASRPC.

habitformin

LB6 wrote: »

So why didn't you take them up on their offer to meet at a place of your choice and hash all this out in person instead of going back and forwards with pointless paperwork, time wasting?

LB6
I am but a mere member of tho club.
I can only say this . Once tho matter of expulsion is not dealt with then there is nothing to discuss.
Committee's (NASRPC ) have to stick to their own rules.
You cannot do things like this.
And as I said earlier this NASRPC committee (at least one of them) has not only done that but prior to that stupid decision(the expulsion) they insult the whole club. They apologised / retracted the insult at Hilltop but then crapped all over the apology afterwards by kicking the club out.
How would you react ? I don't know but it's probably too late for mending this .its a pity really.

habitformin

Tea drinker wrote: »

LB6 wrote: »

So why didn't you take them up on their offer to meet at a place of your choice and hash all this out in person instead of going back and forwards with pointless paperwork, time wasting?

Because his agenda is not to work it out with the current leadership of NASRPC.

Seriously! unless a huge gesture is made by the committee of the NASRPC to prove they actually mean they want to fix this,then in my opinion they cannot be trusted at all and just want to lay blame anywhere they can.Let's see how they can be the bigger person.

Tea drinker

habitformin wrote: »

Seriously! unless a huge gesture is made by the committee of the NASRPC to prove they actually mean they want to fix this,then in my opinion they cannot be trusted at all and just want to lay blame anywhere they can.Let's see how they can be the bigger person.

They offered to meet wherever you want. You didn't take them up.
From your posts stance to the current leadership is obvious.
I'm not saying that's good or bad, just it's important we understand each others position we have a better chance of getting a result.

I've had too many good personal interactions with the crew to not believe there isn't some rational explanation. Maybe mistakes were made, we're all human, lets see what comes up in the AGM

habitformin

Tea drinker wrote: »

habitformin wrote: »

Seriously! unless a huge gesture is made by the committee of the NASRPC to prove they actually mean they want to fix this,then in my opinion they cannot be trusted at all and just want to lay blame anywhere they can.Let's see how they can be the bigger person.

They offered to meet wherever you want. You didn't take them up.
From your posts stance to the current leadership is obvious.
I'm not saying that's good or bad, just it's important we understand each others position we have a better chance of getting a result.

I've had too many good personal interactions with the crew to not believe there isn't some rational explanation. Maybe mistakes were made, we're all human, lets see what comes up in the AGM

And I know the crew over here,they are the best bunch of people I have come to know in quite a long time.
The back bone of any organisation.We journeyed hundreds of miles to take part in shoots. Good solid shooters . If this falls apart then it lies squarely at the feet of this current NASRPC committee . They ripped a hole in this. Unfortunately this is exactly what opponents of sports shooting want. Christmas comes early to them.

clivej

clivej wrote: »

And I was also told this today. To try a resolve maters.

Directly from the horses mouth so to speak.

Lads please do not bury your heads to everything. Unity is unity.
If clubs aren't affiliated then their members can't compete in the national comps. Do their members know this???
I see a split coming down the line that won't do our shooting and the clubs any good.

Oops got that bit wrong. Of course every comp. is open to all shooters.

homerhop

I'm seeing a lot of talk of unity in our sport and unity in the NASRPC as long as some individuals get their own way or else they threaten to set up a new organisation. So you get your way and the committee is replaced, what happens then? Do those of us who want nothing to do with the SC or their panel of self appointed chums storm off and as you are threatening, setting up a new organisation?
As those of you believe there are serious questions to be asked of the NASRPC committee, there are plenty like me who believes the SC committee have many questions to answer too.
For the record, I as an individual voiced my disagreement in having anything to do with an individual in the SC at club level and to the NASRPC, and it looks like my concerns were well founded.

habitformin

homerhop wrote: »

I'm seeing a lot of talk of unity in our sport and unity in the NASRPC as long as some individuals get their own way or else they threaten to set up a new organisation. So you get your way and the committee is replaced, what happens then? Do those of us who want nothing to do with the SC or their panel of self appointed chums storm off and as you are threatening, setting up a new organisation?
As those of you believe there are serious questions to be asked of the NASRPC committee, there are plenty like me who believes the SC committee have many questions to answer too.
For the record, I as an individual voiced my disagreement in having anything to do with an individual in the SC at club level and to the NASRPC, and it looks like my concerns were well founded.

Every day some one of us has to bite our lip and get on with the business in hand. I have reason to dislike some people in u if SC myself but that is my problem. It's a question of a coalition of totally different sports and similar sports working together . Love isn't ever going to a on the cards I almost agreed with a post earlier I think it was from downrange .something about job done move on. If that was the case then so be it . But it's not quite done yet is it? We have another thread going on that one. Ladies and lads . Whatever happens we have to keep trying.

homerhop

So people like me have to bite our lips and get on with it, but those who are not happy at the moment with the committee can say they will form a new organisation if they don't get what they want

cra

homerhop wrote: »

So people like me have to bite our lips and get on with it, but those who are not happy at the moment with the committee can say they will form a new organisation if they don't get what they want

Homerhop, I've looked back through this thread and can find no mention of people saying that if they do not get what they want they will form a new organisation. I and a few others have said that if this problem was not handled properly then that is the likely outcome. Look at how things stand, for whatever reason the NASRPC committee have ignored the wishes of 1/3 of its member clubs, if they stay doing this then it is obvious what will happen.

You were saying that the committee have written to the clubs involved, did they say how many clubs that was.

Just to clear things up, An Riocht sent a letter a few weeks ago in reply we received a short email suggesting we meet somewhere half way (geographicly) and discuss issues, An Riocht wrote back asking that the committee clarify the reason for our expulsion so that we could make a decision whether a meeting would be worthwhile (reasonable request I think). As yet we have received no reply.

homerhop

cra wrote: »

Homerhop, I've looked back through this thread and can find no mention of people saying that if they do not get what they want they will form a new organisation. I and a few others have said that if this problem was not handled properly then that is the likely outcome. Look at how things stand, for whatever reason the NASRPC committee have ignored the wishes of 1/3 of its member clubs, if they stay doing this then it is obvious what will happen.

You were saying that the committee have written to the clubs involved, did they say how many clubs that was.

Just to clear things up, An Riocht sent a letter a few weeks ago in reply we received a short email suggesting we meet somewhere half way (geographicly) and discuss issues, An Riocht wrote back asking that the committee clarify the reason for our expulsion so that we could make a decision whether a meeting would be worthwhile (reasonable request I think). As yet we have received no reply.

Ok it's been banded about that the possibility of a new organisation being formed if the outcome is not satisfactory to some.
You say the wishes of 1/3 of the clubs are being ignored. Now I know I may not be the most educated of people but that still leaves 2/3. Does anyone know for definite (not hear say or Johnny from down the road told me cos he heard it from a reliable source) what the other 2/3 of clubs feel. Have any of the clubs balloted their members to see if they want to stay with or leave the NASRPC?

Now can anyone answer my questions and not just tell me to bite my lip, for those of us who do not want to be part of the SC what middle ground is going to be sought for us?

habitformin

homerhop wrote: »

cra wrote: »

Homerhop, I've looked back through this thread and can find no mention of people saying that if they do not get what they want they will form a new organisation. I and a few others have said that if this problem was not handled properly then that is the likely outcome. Look at how things stand, for whatever reason the NASRPC committee have ignored the wishes of 1/3 of its member clubs, if they stay doing this then it is obvious what will happen.

You were saying that the committee have written to the clubs involved, did they say how many clubs that was.

Just to clear things up, An Riocht sent a letter a few weeks ago in reply we received a short email suggesting we meet somewhere half way (geographicly) and discuss issues, An Riocht wrote back asking that the committee clarify the reason for our expulsion so that we could make a decision whether a meeting would be worthwhile (reasonable request I think). As yet we have received no reply.

Ok it's been banded about that the possibility of a new organisation being formed if the outcome is not satisfactory to some.
You say the wishes of 1/3 of the clubs are being ignored. Now I know I may not be the most educated of people but that still leaves 2/3. Does anyone know for definite (not hear say or Johnny from down the road told me cos he heard it from a reliable source) what the other 2/3 of clubs feel. Have any of the clubs balloted their members to see if they want to stay with or leave the NASRPC?

Now can anyone answer my questions and not just tell me to bite my lip, for those of us who do not want to be part of the SC what middle ground is going to be sought for us?

Why are you so against the Sports Coalition?
I don't understand how someone could not want a united representation . Did they do something. You are not happy about or say something you didn't agree with? This is the information I am missing why is there such bad feeling between the SC and the NASRPC? Is it a Leinster versus the rest or what , now don't take this as a veiled attack it isn't . Just what is the core of the issue? It shouldn't be that hard to explain .?

homerhop

habitformin wrote: »

Why are you so against the Sports Coalition?
I don't understand how someone could not want a united representation . Did they do something. You are not happy about or say something you didn't agree with? This is the information I am missing why is there such bad feeling between the SC and the NASRPC? Is it a Leinster versus the rest or what , now don't take this as a veiled attack it isn't . Just what is the core of the issue? It shouldn't be that hard to explain .?

I do not agree with some of the individuals who are sitting on the SC panel. I do not believe they we good for shooting sports in this country. I would seriously question how some individuals have been appointed to the SC committee, and if I had the money belonging to others to use on a solicitor I would certainly be looking into meetings and messages that they have had to the detriment of other shooting bodies.

Now everyone seems to be avoiding answering my question.
What middle ground is going to be sought for those of us in the NASRPC who do not want the organisation to be part of the SC?

cra

homerhop wrote: »

Ok it's been banded about that the possibility of a new organisation being formed if the outcome is not satisfactory to some.
You say the wishes of 1/3 of the clubs are being ignored. Now I know I may not be the most educated of people but that still leaves 2/3. Does anyone know for definite (not hear say or Johnny from down the road told me cos he heard it from a reliable source) what the other 2/3 of clubs feel. Have any of the clubs balloted their members to see if they want to stay with or leave the NASRPC?

Now can anyone answer my questions and not just tell me to bite my lip, for those of us who do not want to be part of the SC what middle ground is going to be sought for us?

Homerhop I see where you might get confused by what I said as I assumed you would have read some of my other posts. The 1/3 I was talking about referred to the 5 clubs that seem to have been left on the sideline for what ever reason. The division is even more serious, of the 15 clubs that would normally be affiliated to the NASRPC 8 have requested an EGM that is more than 1/2 the clubs.

Its interesting that you think that clubs should ballot their members on whether they want to stay with or leave the NASRPC?

To try and answer your question, what middle ground? I'll go back to the beginning, some member clubs and some clubs that thought they were members disagreed with the committees actions regarding the SC, by actions I mean leaving the SC and the way they left the SC etc. these clubs were either ignored or dismissed (no middle ground there). What should have happened is that the EGM should have been called and the committee would have answered to the members and faced their critics, some form of debate would have followed and at the end a solution (some middle ground). But that is all shoulda, woulda, coulda and its probably to late now anyway the harm is done.

downrange

Can someone please list all clubs that are :-

(a) Fully Affiliated
(b) Recently excluded