Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
NASRPC's exit of the Sport Coalition.
Options
Comments
-
Er, you mean the last 3 months. Don't know where you're getting four weeks from. I've been asking since August.Gleefulprinter wrote: »It looks like answers were provided to the questions that Cass was asking for the last 4 weeks
The "answer" is a statement, supposedly by the nasrpc, and is in post #302 above. Still there and unedited by anyone.and then the answers were deleted.
Nope.Sparks is questioning the authenticity of the posts by Badajoz.
He is saying no person can come on and make a statement for any other person, group, company, etc. unless that person can show they have permission and/or are a representative of said person, group or company.
It's called a verified representative account and the nasrpc have one. Anything posted by that account has already been verified so can be taken as from them. Anything posted by any other account is a person's opinion and they cannot and should not make statement(s) as though they are talking on behalf of any person, group or company unless its through this account.
Anything posted via a non verified representative account which outlines a position of a group, when said group have released NO such statement is talking on their behalf. If it were left up and some or all of the points made in the post were not true we're liable for any defamation or slander actions that might result from it.OK so but why delete them?
For the moment people can read post #302 and judge for themselves. However i still have not gotten any official response via my rep, the method the nasrpc demand, so even that post is only what badajoz wrote until the nasrpc verify it. They have an account and have posted a few times in the last week yet have NEVER posted in this thread. Unless i can confirm the content of post #302 is actually from the nasrpc i'll have to assume badajoz wrote it himself and so delete it as speaking for a group without permission/authority to do so.Surely the readers here can be trusted to make their own decisions about the quality and relevance of Badajoz' posts .
Censoring is part of moderating. You seem to think censorship is the suppression of free speech. Let me clarify that for you. There is no such thing as free speech on a private forum. Boards.ie are legally responsible for the content, and removal of content, posted on it by the membership.This looks more like censorship than moderating.
Censorship is an official (in this case moderators) who examine posts/threads that are published and deletes any content/parts that are considered obscene, illegal, unacceptable, threatening, etc, etc. It's what a Moderator's job is about. It's also why there are more than one Mod per forum. In this case four Mods and three Cat Mods. So one person does not have the overall say on all the content of a forum.Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County
If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.
Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo
0 -
The answers to the questions were in post 309. The answers were deleted and just the intro was left. We have been over this ground but by your own action, the post should be reinstated. I did not claim to represent any one in answering these questions, I just stated my informed opinion on the attitude to the issues prevailing at the upper levels of the main target shooting bodies in this country. Cass thought it was good enough to warrant serious response until Sparks stepped in with his spurious logic. I suppose I should say sorry that my post was good enough to be taken seriously . If it was more wishy washy with more ambiguity, no clear answers would have been provided. By my analysis the vast majority of posts on serious contentious issues on these boards do not come through "official" channels. The real issue with my answers is not that they are correct. it is more that they bring to an end the hysteria in this thread about the policies of the organisation representing most target shooters here.0
-
It’s the policies of those organizations that is causing the hysteria. If you don’t know what the sports coalition is really about, you were either on another planet for the last 2 years or very very naive and gullible.The answers to the questions were in post 309. The answers were deleted and just the intro was left. We have been over this ground but by your own action, the post should be reinstated. I did not claim to represent any one in answering these questions, I just stated my informed opinion on the attitude to the issues prevailing at the upper levels of the main target shooting bodies in this country. Cass thought it was good enough to warrant serious response until Sparks stepped in with his spurious logic. I suppose I should say sorry that my post was good enough to be taken seriously . If it was more wishy washy with more ambiguity, no clear answers would have been provided. By my analysis the vast majority of posts on serious contentious on these boards do not come through "official" channels. The real issue with my answers is not that they are correct. it is more that they bring to an end the hysteria in this thread about the policies of the organisation representing most target shooters here.0 -
wirehairmax wrote: »It’s the policies of those organizations that is causing the hysteria. If you don’t know what the sports coalition is really about, you were either on another planet for the last 2 years or very very naive and gullible.
You misunderstood the post. The SC is a coalition of bodies representing many aspects of the shooting sports. I was referring to the NASRPC which represents many of the target shooting disciplines. BTW, the policies of the SC are not stated on many issues. This thread has blamed the SC for some "policies" on which it has made no statements. If and when, clear policy positions are annunciated by the SC, they will either have the backing of the organisations in the coalition or they will not, which implies some organisations will no longer be part of the SC. You need to be realistic about the politics involved in holding a coalition together, as you have seen at National Government level .The groups involved in a coalition make compromises in the interests of the greater good. If the time comes. when that is no longer possible, then the coalition has run it's course.0 -
The answers you gave were not your own opinion because you stated:The answers to the questions were in post 309.
That is you stating the position of the nasrpc through an unverified or personal account. Even if a committee member has a personal account they must use the verified account when making statements like the one you made.babajoz wrote:........the current position of the NASRPC is as follows
Again you did not. You stated it was the position of the nasrpc. Now if you are a committee member or someone able to speak on behalf of the nasrpc then you either have access to or can get access to their verified representative account. This one.. If you have no access or are not a member of the committee and thus unable to make such statements on behalf of the nasrpc then you shouldn't start your reply as being the position of the nasrpc. As i explained above we've had instances of people doing that over the years and the groups. persons, or organistions they "spoke for" were not best pleased. It's why the verified representative accounts were created.badajoz wrote:I did not claim to represent any one in answering these questions, I just stated my informed opinion
If it was your own opinion and not stated to be the position of the nasrpc then it would have been fine. You could have given the exact same post with almost the exact same content and said something along the lines of "its my opinion from knowing the new committee and being a member of the nasrpc that they would not endorse of bee complicate with such proposals". That is clearly a personal opinion from a personal account and cannot be misconstrued as statement of position on behalf of a group/organisation.If it was more wishy washy with more ambiguity, no clear answers would have been provided.
I hope you can see the danger of allowing people to come on here and make statements of behalf of any person or group without knowing if they are verified and have permission. You say you didn't do this but you clearly stated this to be the case as per the quote above.
You are correct, but none of them claim to be. You can say you did not claim either, but i refer you to the quote above from yourself. You say the current position of the nasrpc is as follows. That leaves absolutely no room for misunderstanding. Had it read something like "As far as i see" or "In my opinion" it would have been clear you were surmising but not talking for the nasrpc.By my analysis the vast majority of posts on serious contentious on these boards do not come through "official" channels.
Getting away from the sentence structure debate and back onto topic the nasrpc still have not answered anything. Nothing.The real issue with my answers is not that they are correct. it is more that they bring to an end the hysteria in this thread about the policies of the organisation representing most target shooters here.
3 months to answer yes or no and even that was done wrong. My Rep still has not gotten word and i had to ring him the morning you posted the notice above (post #302) and ask him why he never contacted me. He told me he received no reply. I haven't been contacted by the nasrpc on this thread or via PM, e-mail, etc to answer me either. I also have received no "confirmation" from anyone else that such a notice was sent out. I don't see anything on their website, and nothing on the so called coalition's website.
It took 3 months to get an answer, which again is only your post and due to lack of "official" reply is still not an answer, but i still it had to be asked. Why did the new committee not inform the clubs? Why was no vote taken about the rejoining? If a vote was taken can you show me the minutes of the AGM where and when this took place? (TIA)
The so called coalition put forward these proposals and the new committee of the nasrpc felt it ok to align to a group which called for bans on semi autos, short barrel pistols, night time shooting, etc. They did not seek or demand a revocation of the proposals in the form of denouncement of them.
You say the so called coalition are a new committee and not the one that proposed these. Well if that is the case why have they not "repealed" or tried to revoke those proposals? Why would the nasrpc still affiliate to the so called coalition with these proposals still lingering and effectively still active within the working group?
Where can a body get/see the committee list of so called coalitions committee? It would be useful to compare it now to what it was when the proposals were submitted. Why has the nasrpc not distanced itself from the proposals and made a point to the so called coalition that the pursuance of the proposals will result in the dissolution of the alliance between the so called coalition and nasrpc?
Every time the nasrpc has done something a new committee or altered committee has been voted in and the excuse of "it wasn't us, it was them" is trotted out. Its not good enough to be able to keep making complete cock ups and then blaming someone else, and go on to make more, then blame the last outgoing committee and continue this cycle.
Ideally i would love to see the nasrpc come out with a statement and say, however they word it but containing this points:- We have rejoined, without a vote from the clubs, the so called coalition. This decision was made at committee level for **insert reasons**. We did not inform the clubs or the membership because **insert reasons**.
- We absolutely DO NOT agree with or accept the proposals as submitted by the so called coalition regarding semi auto temp caps, banning of pistols under 5" and the curfew on night time shooting. (the other points can be listed, but these three i feel are the most important.)
- We will not accept any further proposals seeking such bans and demand transparent and informed debate on any future ideas.
- We will not support the so called coalition if they pursue these proposals separate to the nasrpc (IOW if the sc want to do and end run and do it alone)
- Each club within the nasrpc can "opt out" of supporting the nasrpc in any future endeavours that run contrary to the best possible direction of shooting sports. ( i say this because my club has already made it clear that their name is NOT to be used on any official or unofficial correspondence in conjunction with the so called coalition or any body that would give the idea my club supports the coalition).
Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County
If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.
Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo
0 -
Advertisement
-
I cannot agree/disagree with statements or policies that i don't know exist so that argument is moot.BTW, the policies of the SC are not stated on many issues. This thread has blamed the SC for some "policies" on which it has made no statements.
What i am disagreeing with are the proposals the so called coalition submitted and are still on their own website regarding semi auto rifles, pistols under 5", night time shooting, time lock safes, ballistic testing of firearms, graduated licensing, etc. I can only respond to what they propose so if there are "policies" that they have not submitted or released i cannot debate them.
As for policies they have made no statement on can you elaborate on which ones you mean please?
Again this is all i've ever sought to learn.If and when, clear policy positions are annunciated by the SC, they will either have the backing of the organisations in the coalition or they will not, which implies some organisations will no longer be part of the SC.
If the nasrpc agree with or disagree with a policy of the so called coalition then they need to be transparent and inform their membership. They could not even do this with regard to the rejoinging so what can i expect from serious issues.
If the nasrpc choose to support the so called coalition on matter such as a temp cap/ban on semi autos, etc. then i will not support it but at least i'll know where they stand. As it is now i don't and other than your say so i don't know that the proposals of the so called coalition are not being supported by the nasrpc or any of the other groups within the so called coalition.
Can you imagine how short this thread would have been if one week or so after my first question the nasrpc either through their account here or via their own site said: "Yes we have rejoined as we feel it best to show a supportive and united front against such a drastically changing climate in firearm ownership, but we do not support the previous proposals [listed] and will not support any future proposals of a similar format. Should the sc continue to push these proposals or ones of the same vein then the nasrpc will have to consider it's position within the sc ".
How much would that have helped? Enormously is what. I can still disagree with their decision to rejoin but i now know why they rejoined and what their mission goals are. Instead we have radio silence for months one end, and even then a tid bit posted by yourself and not in response to official requests.Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County
If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.
Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo
0 -
It took 3 months to get an answer, which again is only your post and due to lack of "official" reply is still not an answer, but i still it had to be asked. Why did the new committee not inform the clubs? Why was no vote taken about the rejoining? If a vote was taken can you show me the minutes of the AGM where and when this took place? (TIA)
.
It was one of the regular meetings of the club reps Cass. It took place in August last year to the best of my recollection. I was at the meeting. I will get the minutes but, as I recall, 18 or so clubs were there, 15 voted to rejoin, 2 against and 1 abstention. I will correct these figures, if necessary, when I see the minutes. Those who follow the NASRPC/GRPAI will correctly guess which club voted which way.
On a related topic, about where the 5 shot limit on pistol magazines came from, you should ask Sparks about the Olympic Coaches Association and the fact that Olympic style pistols all had a 5 shot magazine capacity 20 to 30 years ago.0 -
Just been on the nasrpc website. They have a news page, which was updated as recently as 12 november. A simple matter i would have thought to post the fact they did or did not join this blasted coalition ?
The fact they are saying nothing on here, on their own website, or to people who ask a reasonable, straightforward question, makes me wonder what they are hiding ?0 -
.
It took 3 months to get an answer, which again is only your post and due to lack of "official" reply is still not an answer, but i still it had to be asked. Why did the new committee not inform the clubs? Why was no vote taken about the rejoining? If a vote was taken can you show me the minutes of the AGM where and when this took place? (TIA)
Can you PM me, or post if you want, the name of your club and club rep and I will follow up. All clubs were circulated.0 -
If it was your own opinion and not stated to be the position of the nasrpc then it would have been fine. You could have given the exact same post with almost the exact same content and said something along the lines of "its my opinion from knowing the new committee and being a member of the nasrpc that they would not endorse of bee complicate with such proposals". That is clearly a personal opinion from a personal account and cannot be misconstrued as statement of position on behalf of a group/organisation.
.
its my opinion from knowing the new committee and being a member of the nasrpc that they would not endorse of bee complicate with such proposals
It is also my opinion that the answers they would give to the questions are shown alongside the proposals:
The proposals are:
1. Do you agree with a ban on semi auto centrefire rifle? No
2. Do you agree with a ban on 22lr pistols under 5 inches?No
3. Do you agree with a ban/curfew on night shooting as outlined above?No
4. Do you agree with graduated licensing?No
5. Do you agree with Ballistic testing?No
6. Do you agree with Time lock safes?No
7. Do you agree with mandatory courses (ran by the so called coalition groups)No0 -
Advertisement
-
Just been on the nasrpc website. They have a news page, which was updated as recently as 12 november. A simple matter i would have thought to post the fact they did or did not join this blasted coalition ?
The fact they are saying nothing on here, on their own website, or to people who ask a reasonable, straightforward question, makes me wonder what they are hiding ?
Nothing.0 -
On a related topic, about where the 5 shot limit on pistol magazines came from, you should ask Sparks about the Olympic Coaches Association and the fact that Olympic style pistols all had a 5 shot magazine capacity 20 to 30 years ago.
And Olympic pistols still have that magazine capacity.
And the policy still came from the Ballistics Department of the AGS.
And no ISSF group has ever asked for a magazine capacity limit to be imposed because why the hell would they bother? It's not something they need.
And on your opinions of what the NASRPC might answer given those questions, in the past that group - and please, until the people involved leave don't tell me it's a whole new day there - have answered in the affirmative (and outright suggested in written documents to the powers that be) to numbers 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7. In fact, numbers 2, 4 and 7 first show up in written NASRPC policy suggestions sent to the Minister and later discovered by the rest of us (because nothing stays secret in this country but some groups never learn this lesson).
So I'm not thinking a whole lot of positive things about the accuracy of your opinion, to be frank. It just reads like a defence of the indefensible by the ill-briefed.0 -
its my opinion from knowing the new committee and being a member of the nasrpc that they would not endorse of bee complicate with such proposals
It is also my opinion that the answers they would give to the questions are shown alongside the proposals:
The proposals are:
1. Do you agree with a ban on semi auto centrefire rifle? No
2. Do you agree with a ban on 22lr pistols under 5 inches?No
3. Do you agree with a ban/curfew on night shooting as outlined above?No
4. Do you agree with graduated licensing?No
5. Do you agree with Ballistic testing?No
6. Do you agree with Time lock safes?No
7. Do you agree with mandatory courses (ran by the so called coalition groups)No
Then why do the nasrpc top brass not issue a simple statement saying all that then ?0 -
And no ISSF group has ever asked for a magazine capacity limit to be imposed because why the hell would they bother? It's not something they need.
You have missed the point Sparks. It could have been something that they would agree to , with the power of the Olympics behind them, because it was all they wanted and anyone else, with 6 shot revolvers, or 10 shot pistol mags, could go hang.0 -
Except that they didn't, and we know who did suggest that and they weren't involved in any sport.You have missed the point Sparks. It could have been something that they would agree to , with the power of the Olympics behind them, because it was all they wanted and anyone else, with 6 shot revolvers, or 10 shot pistol mags, could go hang.
But while we're on the topic and dragging up history, could you tell us badaj0z who it was that explicitly told the DoJ that the Olympics used 9mm pistols in its events? I've always wondered about that one myself...0 -
-
-
Except that they didn't, and we know who did suggest that and they weren't involved in any sport.
But while we're on the topic and dragging up history, could you tell us badaj0z who it was that explicitly told the DoJ that the Olympics used 9mm pistols in its events? I've always wondered about that one myself...
No idea Sparks, never even heard that before. Clearly someone who knew nothing about Olympic shooting events.0 -
-
No idea Sparks, never even heard that before. Clearly someone who knew nothing about Olympic shooting events.
Funny how these details get lost in time, isn't it?
I mean, the fact that the NASRPC were the group last in the door to the Department before we heard that gem is probably a massive coincidence.0 -
Advertisement
-
Funny how these details get lost in time, isn't it?
I mean, the fact that the NASRPC were the group last in the door to the Department before we heard that gem is probably a massive coincidence.
As I said, news to me and did you mean the NASRC as I do not know what dates you are referring to. Who is "we" BTW?0 -
-
-
-
Let me stop you there. You misread my point and did not read the proposals as submitted by the so called coalition.On a related topic, about where the 5 shot limit on pistol magazines came from, .............
They sought a ban on any 22lr pistol with a barrel of less than 5 inches, and included/likened Olympic pistols. Here is the proposal:so called coalition wrote:In relation to the .22 handguns which are currently licensed, this matter must be resolved by a new S.I. before the 2015 renewal date. The terms of resolution could restrict the licensing of such firearms to .22 calibre short firearms suitable for competition under ISSF rules (which include Olympic competitions), but with a barrel length of NOT LESS than 5 inches, and NOT LONGER than 30cm and with a magazine capacity NOT EXCEEDING 10 rounds.
No offense intended, but as you're not a committee member of the nasrpc, and i don't know you, i'll leave the details with my rep and keep the pressure on him to keep it on the nasrpc for answers. As a regular member of the nasrpc you won't get any more answers than i will.Can you PM me, or post if you want, the name of your club and club rep and I will follow up. All clubs were circulated.
As the so called coalition proposed these and you have not answered me regarding the committee then and the committee now it's a safe bet to assume the same people are involved. As such the people that proposed the above are still in the driving seat of the so called coalition so the nasrpc joining them will be seen as support for them.The proposals are:
1. Do you agree with a ban on semi auto centrefire rifle? No
2. Do you agree with a ban on 22lr pistols under 5 inches?No
3. Do you agree with a ban/curfew on night shooting as outlined above?No
4. Do you agree with graduated licensing?No
5. Do you agree with Ballistic testing?No
6. Do you agree with Time lock safes?No
7. Do you agree with mandatory courses (ran by the so called coalition groups)No
Remember that these proposals are still active. They have been taken on board by the working group and some have even been discussed with a view to implementing them.
I would like to see the so called coalition release a statement declaring their intent to repeal/revoke/denounce these proposals. Any failure is agreement by silence and if what you say is true then the nasrpc must walk if the so called coalition refuse to act to undo the damage they done with them.Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County
If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.
Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo
0 -
Now that is the funniest thing I have seen on this thread. Which clubs do you think will join the lonely one?
You are not getting much support in your defence of the NASRPC so what do you do, make a dig at a club that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
It might pain you to hear this but the 'lonely' club are doing just fine. (My own opinion, I'm not talking on behalf of anyone).0 -
BattleCorp wrote: »You are not getting much support in your defence of the NASRPC so what do you do, make a dig at a club that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
It might pain you to hear this but the 'lonely' club are doing just fine. (My own opinion, I'm not talking on behalf of anyone).
I said nothing about a club other than it is lonely. I am glad for any club to develop and grow, even lonely ones. I would not expect much support on this forum, let alone this thread. Both are mainly populated by the supporters of the old regime who clearly think that they were robbed of their birthright.0 -
The "NASRPC" Verified Representative Account is only to be used in the Target Shooting Forum for publicising events and results. There is a strict "No Politics" rule in that forum.
We do not comment in the Shooting forum with the verified Representative Account - as we do not have anyone to continuously monitor boards.ie to see what is being discussed.
As far as I am aware, none of the members of the National Executive have access to the shooting forum on boards.ie so cannot comment on whatever is being discussed.
However, plenty of the members of the NASRPC do.
I think it is worth pointing out to anyone who believes otherwise that the club members, through the clubs ,ARE the NASRPC.
There is no "politburo" in a smoky room making decisions for the clubs or the sports.
There is nothing being done by the NASRPC that was not first ok'd by the members.
Not only does it not happen now - but it cannot.
All decisions are now made by the Governing Body - which is made up of the members.
The National Executive can make recommendations - e.g. Match Calendar, Rule changes, Adopting new sports, Accepting new members, Proposing New Affiliations - but have no power to enact any of them without the consent of the members.
Every decision made over the last two years was made in this way.
In 2016 that system was used, informally, via the Quarterly meetings and it was formalised when the constitution was updated at the start of 2017.
"The NASRPC" IS the clubs
The National Executive IS NOT the NASRPC
It is simply elected by the Governing Body to do the day to day work of the Association - which is primarily Competitions, Rules, Classifications, Championships, Leagues, Affiliations, etc. - i.e. THE SPORT and to
report, at least quarterly, on the day to day work of the Association and implement any changes decided by the Governing Body.
Political Representation of the Clubs and the Sports is done at FCP. We do not get involved in any other "politics", as we simply do not have the time, manpower or any people with any interest in it.0 -
As the so called coalition proposed these and you have not answered me regarding the committee then and the committee now it's a safe bet to assume the same people are involved. As such the people that proposed the above are still in the driving seat of the so called coalition so the nasrpc joining them will be seen as support for them.
There have been changes in personnel on the SC. There has also been major changes in links between groups. As I said in an earlier post, it is the nature of such groups that they are ever evolving, for good or bad depending on your perspective. My opinion is that it would be very difficult to get a policy statement from the SC on any major issues at present. They would have to agree on something before that could happen.0 -
Advertisement
-
The "NASRPC" Verified Representative Account is only to be used in the Target Shooting Forum for publicising events and results. There is a strict "No Politics" rule in that forum.
That's their own rule. They are free to change it and post in the main forum any time they like.
Hang on. Are you expecting me to believe that the National Executive have no access to the shooting forum on boards.ie? Seriously? Of course they can have access, sure haven't you said above that plenty of members of the NASRPC have access to it.We do not comment in the Shooting forum with the verified Representative Account - as we do not have anyone to continuously monitor boards.ie to see what is being discussed.
As far as I am aware, none of the members of the National Executive have access to the shooting forum on boards.ie so cannot comment on whatever is being discussed.
However, plenty of the members of the NASRPC do.
Yet the clubs voted to take the vote from club members. Strange that.I think it is worth pointing out to anyone who believes otherwise that the club members, through the clubs ,ARE the NASRPC.
^^^^^^^There is no "politburo" in a smoky room making decisions for the clubs or the sports.
There is nothing being done by the NASRPC that was not first ok'd by the members.
But then you go on to say
Lets be real here. The members are whoever controls the 16/18 votes at play here, and that's usually the range owners. The members of the clubs don't get a vote.
All decisions are now made by the Governing Body - which is made up of the members.
When, where and what date was the meeting held in the last two years where all the members got a vote on rejoining the SC?The National Executive can make recommendations - e.g. Match Calendar, Rule changes, Adopting new sports, Accepting new members, Proposing New Affiliations - but have no power to enact any of them without the consent of the members.
Every decision made over the last two years was made in this way.
Yawn.
"The NASRPC" IS the clubs
The National Executive IS NOT the NASRPC
It is simply elected by the Governing Body to do the day to day work of the Association - which is primarily Competitions, Rules, Classifications, Championships, Leagues, Affiliations, etc. - i.e. THE SPORT and to
report, at least quarterly, on the day to day work of the Association and implement any changes decided by the Governing Body.
Political Representation of the Clubs and the Sports is done at FCP. We do not get involved in any other "politics", as we simply do not have the time, manpower or any people with any interest in it.0
Advertisement