GRPAI

Cass

Really!!!!!!

That is a can of worms and kinda blows the whole thing open.

I was working on the basis that the NASRPC are the NGB for Gallery rifle. To hold this status they must have recognition from the international governing body and then from the ISC. If the IGRF are saying they don't recognise either then is it a safe bet to assume the NASRPC don't hold NGB status? That then leads to the question have the ISC recognised them as the NGB?

Then finally if they (NASRPC) are not the NGB, who is?

If no one is, then it's going to be a race to the finish line for both groups to try and gain it. Only one can hold NGB status which means one of thwo things:

• The GRPAI will disappar if the NASRPC are successful
• The NASRPC will no longer exist in its current fomat if the GRPAI are successful

BillBen

It looks like the IGRF don't want to and won't get involved in the politics of the current situation. Either way it doesn't really look good that there has been such a major split. Hopefully it will be sorted soon.

jb88

Cass wrote: »

Never got to speak to the lads yesterday about this. Was having a little too much fun, but there were lads i could have spoken to, to get more information on it.

Has anyone else gotten anything more?

;-) Cass That's because we have nothing to say, the Elephant in room there was the fact that the NASRPC wants to rejoin the Sports Coalition and lots of people are not happy with this turn of events. A vote which will be taken by all the clubs 2 representatives in two days. After which it will all be useless.

The NASRPC will be part of the sports coalition, they will go on to influence and change legislation via the FCP which will have every shooter in the country paying for some future courses covered via some future enacted legislation.
Its all a business and now all shooters are going to be forced to pay in many ways because, madness took over at the AGM not reason and elected the wrong official Mod edit

If you want any governance over your own sport going forward, turn up and vote against rejoining the Sports Coalition or just give up.

Cass

BillBen wrote: »

It looks like the IGRF don't want to and won't get involved in the politics of the current situation. Either way it doesn't really look good that there has been such a major split. Hopefully it will be sorted soon.

From my limited experience in dealing with international bodies i've found they don't get involved in "taking sides".

They'll accept applications from any party and if deemed sufficient to run the sport they award it to the appropriate group. What i did not know, and it might be an issue, might not be, is the fact they don't already recognise the NASRPC as the governing body. I, and i'm sure the majority of people, thought they were.

@ jb88 - As you know i'm not a member so i only have what i've read and been told to go on. The recent AGM was not wanted/liked by many people on both sides of the aisle. For their own reasons.

I've spoken to you in person about my thoughts on the sports coalition and you know where i stand on that.

As i said at the start of this thread i'm not attacking the GRPAI nor am i defending the NASRPC. From my view point, albeit with the information i had up to this morning, it seemed as though a new group was trying to "muscle in" on NGB status which they were not entitled to. Now that seems to NOT be the case and it's up in the air.

The NASRPC were quick to dismiss the GRPAI's claims of NGB status. They once again reaffirmed their status as the NGB for the sport. However, and once again basing this on information provided to me, that assertion may not be correct as IGRF have said they don't recognise either group as the official body.

Just raises more questions than it answers.

BattleCorp

jb88 wrote: »

If you want any governance over your own sport going forward, turn up and vote against rejoining the Sports Coalition or just give up.

Is this meeting open to everybody or is it just two nominated people from each club?

BillBen

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is this meeting open to everybody or is it just two nominated people from each club?

Just the two nominees from each club

jb88

Now Im for the just give up as many Gallery friends are, and want no part of the SC as you know, you have made that clear.

But if two representatives from each club don't go to this meeting then the motion will be carried. The NASPRC will be given their mandate and that's it to rejoin the sports coalition.


Its been cleverly designed, personally I support in the main the NASRPC and the GRAPI as their general ethos is good and so are many of the members as they are all good people.

This whole issue hinges on rejoining the SC a "Business grouping", now not a shooting group. As this has been already stated, but no one reads this so the wake up call will come too late for many clubs and shooters around the country.

You will have a cleverly articulated presentation put in front of you and you as representatives will be asked to vote on the most important vote you have ever taken, choose wisely clubs, as the moaning will continue for years if this is passed.

Everyone in the country may have to take "tests or competency courses", for one, designed and passed by the incompetent, oh and pay for the fun of it as well.

Clubs vote NO, have all attendees lobbied by your members.
If you don't know something vote against it, im sure like the government there will be another vote for you to change your mind down the line ;-)

BattleCorp

jb88 wrote: »

The NASPRC will be given their mandate and that's it to rejoin the sports coalition.

I honestly don't see what advantages there are for the NASRPC rejoining the Sports Coalition.

Maybe someone here could "enlighten" me as to the benefits of rejoining?

By the way, there was a mandate from the AGM not to change the NASRPC FCP representative but they went ahead and did that anyway.

BillBen

The way the Nasrpc is being run now they will do anything they want. <SNIP>

Tinybelle

I've heard on the grapevine that all NASRPC Competitions will have mandatory pre registrations.
While it will be a pain to keep looking up their web site for registration dates, I would think it would be difficult if not impossible for some shooters, especially those with little or no access or experience to the Web, to register for their competitions.
Seems to me as not very inclusive nae alienating to some of our loyal competitors.
Can anyone confirm this.

Valhalla18

The shoot in Mourne was pre registered, even so there was a few no shows. To have all shoots pre reg would not work.

BattleCorp

Valhalla18 wrote: »

The shoot in Mourne was pre registered, even so there was a few no shows. To have all shoots pre reg would not work.

While Mourne is a very nice range (I only saw the pics, I wasn't actually there), it can't accommodate very many shooters so that's why it was a pre-reg job. Otherwise loads of people would have turned up and some would have left disappointed when they didn't get to shoot what they wanted.

Pre-registration is a good idea but not everybody is up to speed with computers etc. You would have needed to be quick off the mark to get registered for Mourne.

Boxer1

jb88 wrote:

But if two representatives from each club don't go to this meeting then the motion will be carried. The NASPRC will be given their mandate and that's it to rejoin the sports coalition.

jb88 wrote:

Now Im for the just give up as many Gallery friends are, and want no part of the SC as you know, you have made that clear.

jb88 wrote:

Its been cleverly designed, personally I support in the main the NASRPC and the GRAPI as their general ethos is good and so are many of the members as they are all good people.

jb88 wrote:

This whole issue hinges on rejoining the SC a "Business grouping", now not a shooting group. As this has been already stated, but no one reads this so the wake up call will come too late for many clubs and shooters around the country.

jb88 wrote:

You will have a cleverly articulated presentation put in front of you and you as representatives will be asked to vote on the most important vote you have ever taken, choose wisely clubs, as the moaning will continue for years if this is passed.

jb88 wrote:

Everyone in the country may have to take "tests or competency courses", for one, designed and passed by the incompetent, oh and pay for the fun of it as well.

jb88 wrote:

Clubs vote NO, have all attendees lobbied by your members. If you don't know something vote against it, im sure like the government there will be another vote for you to change your mind down the line ;-)

jb88 have you seen an agenda for Wednesday evening or is this just your opinion on the SC issue ?? As far as I am aware no such agenda exists. On the issue of IGRF recognition I have just looked at the igrf.org website and there is only one NGB in Ireland both you and I know this to be fact. I am also aware that the current chair of the IGRF has been acting on their own and not informing the other member countries of their decision. The decisions are being aided by a person very close to home. But that has been rectified. So jb88 I suggest you might validate your information before you start making wild accusations.

BillBen

Boxer1 wrote: »

jb88 have you seen an agenda for Wednesday evening or is this just your opinion on the SC issue ?? As far as I am aware no such agenda exists. On the issue of IGRF recognition I have just looked at the igrf.org website and there is only one NGB in Ireland both you and I know this to be fact. I am also aware that the current chair of the IGRF has been acting on their own and not informing the other member countries of their decision. The decisions are being aided by a person very close to home. But that has been rectified. So jb88 I suggest you might validate your information before you start making wild accusations.

What I hear is it was a 50-50 split between the committee members of IGRF And one of the committee hadn't decided. If this is true they were clearly talking to one another and have now decided that they want nothing to do with it.

Sparks

jb88 wrote: »

Everyone in the country may have to take "tests or competency courses"

"Have to"?
We don't have to at the moment, because the law does not demand it. Are people thinking of lobbying the Minister to make the Firearms Act more restrictive or something?

jb88

Boxer1 wrote: »

jb88 have you seen an agenda for Wednesday evening or is this just your opinion on the SC issue ?? As far as I am aware no such agenda exists. On the issue of IGRF recognition I have just looked at the igrf.org website and there is only one NGB in Ireland both you and I know this to be fact. I am also aware that the current chair of the IGRF has been acting on their own and not informing the other member countries of their decision. The decisions are being aided by a person very close to home. But that has been rectified. So jb88 I suggest you might validate your information before you start making wild accusations.

IGRF Did I mention that? Nope.
NGB did I mention that? Nope.
Wild accusations, if they are that wild why are you questioning them.

The rest of the above????

Validate what, there will be validation enough when the NASRPC rejoins the Sports Coalition. Unless the representatives of the clubs vote against it

Boxer1

jb88 wrote:

IGRF Did I mention that? Nope. NGB did I mention that? Nope. Wild accusations, if they are that wild why are you questioning them.

jb88 wrote:

Validate what, there will be validation enough when the NASRPC rejoins the Sports Coalition. Unless the representatives of the clubs vote against it

jb88 wrote:

The rest of the above????

jb88 oops!!! : ) see you on the line bye for now O by the way love the conspiracy theories

Cass

Guys & Gals.

The rule about accusations against named or easily identified people has been skirted and even broken.

There are to be no accusations of a defamatory/slanderous nature (or any type for that matter) against named or easily identified people.

This will be enforced strictly.

Cass

jb88 wrote: »

If you want any governance over your own sport going forward, turn up and vote against rejoining the Sports Coalition or just give up.

I've been asked about this vote and where/when it is happening as, and i'm paraphrasing here, "there is nothing on the books for any vote".

To me that means there is no vote scheduled. Do you have a schedule for the meeting? Is there a vote on the NASRPC rejoining the SC listed definitely listed?

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

I've been asked about this vote and where/when it is happening as, and i'm paraphrasing here, "there is nothing on the books for any vote".

To me that means there is no vote scheduled. Do you have a schedule for the meeting? Is there a vote on the NASRPC rejoining the SC listed definitely listed?

Agenda for 16/3/2016 Meeting


Welcome
Report on our first two months (Gerry)
Money matters (money distribution to clubs) and affiliation (Mike)
International and Competition update (Declan)
Plans for FCP participation (Declan)
Interfacing with clubs (Jeff)
Club input and suggestions from the floor
AOB

That's taken from the NASRPC website so they don't directly say anything about a vote on rejoining the SC. There is the AOB section so possibly it might or might not be mentioned there.

badaj0z

The main reason the old NASRPC committee was replaced at the AGM was because of the way they left the SC. More people at the AGM wanted them to rejoin than wanted them to stay out. Hence the vote has already been taken. Why should any one be surprised at this?(Except perhaps the sour apple brigade who are always lurking in the undergrowth)

BattleCorp

badaj0z wrote: »

The main reason the old NASRPC committee was replaced at the AGM was because of the way they left the SC. More people at the AGM wanted them to rejoin than wanted them to stay out. Hence the vote has already been taken. Why should any one be surprised at this?(Except perhaps the sour apple brigade who are always lurking in the undergrowth)

Correct me if I'm wrong but if memory serves me right, there was no discussion at the AGM on rejoining the SC. There certainly wasn't a vote on the matter.

There was however a discussion on the FCP representative and it was made clear that MH was to remain that representative. That decision was ignored and he was replaced shortly afterwards.

badaj0z

BattleCorp wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but if memory serves me right, there was no discussion at the AGM on rejoining the SC. There certainly wasn't a vote on the matter.

There was however a discussion on the FCP representative and it was made clear that MH was to remain that representative. That decision was ignored and he was replaced shortly afterwards.

The whole AGM was about leaving the SC against the wishes of the majority of the members and the behaviour which followed this departure. The key vote, you will recall, was the one that did not accept the Chairman's report. Everything else followed from this including the new committee. If more people had voted for the status quo then you would have got your wish and stayed out of the SC. This is called democracy. You and your supporters do not want to accept this so you keep regurgitating the meeting and hoping it was all a dream.

Sparks

badaj0z wrote: »

The whole AGM was about leaving the SC against the wishes of the majority of the members and the behaviour which followed this departure. The key vote, you will recall, was the one that did not accept the Chairman's report. Everything else followed from this including the new committee. If more people had voted for the status quo then you would have got your wish and stayed out of the SC. This is called democracy. You and your supporters do not want to accept this so you keep regurgitating the meeting and hoping it was all a dream.

That doesn't exactly answer Battlecorp's question.

It does rather raise the point nobody has mentioned loudly yet, which is that the NASRPC legally is an unincorporated association and as such is not bound by anyone to follow their own rules. Which you seem to be endorsing by ignoring Battlecorp's point about their elected FCP representative.

Which is great, when they're doing what you want. It's rather less great when that's not the case, so it's not really behaviour to encourage. The idea is that by the time you get to NGB level, you're representing everyone, including people you really don't agree with at all, and you have a duty to represent their interests fairly. Hey, if you want to be pragmatic about that tree-hugging hippie notion, just think of it as being cheaper than the high court cases that follow the alternative (some of the legal costs racked up in other sports on that point would pay for us to build the midlands over again. Inside the M50).

Hence all the paperwork and procedures and voting and hence why you shouldn't just ignore those things. It just saves you pain in the long run.

badaj0z

Sparks wrote: »

That doesn't exactly answer Battlecorp's question.

. Which you seem to be endorsing by ignoring Battlecorp's point about their elected FCP representative.
.

The NASRPC rep to the SC was appointed by the old committee, not elected. The AGM agreed to leave him in that position.
However, it became clear at the first FCP meeting after the AGM that it was in the interests of all shooters and the NASRPC members in particular to appoint a new rep to the FCP. I will not elaborate on this.
Other than this, I agree with your sentiments.The new NASRPC committee came into being with the expressed intention of representing all their shooters and disciplines fairly at national level. So far , they seem to be doing this. The most disgruntled of the supporters of the old committee will have to agree that they have shown energy and effectiveness in running the national level Gallery programmes and competitions which have been fully supported by shooters. I have to ask some of the naysayers on here whether they have been to any of these competitions?

BillBen

badaj0z wrote: »

The NASRPC rep to the SC was appointed by the old committee, not elected. The AGM agreed to leave him in that position.
However, it became clear at the first FCP meeting after the AGM that it was in the interests of all shooters and the NASRPC members in particular to appoint a new rep to the FCP. I will not elaborate on this.
Other than this, I agree with your sentiments.The new NASRPC committee came into being with the expressed intention of representing all their shooters and disciplines fairly at national level. So far , they seem to be doing this. The most disgruntled of the supporters of the old committee will have to agree that they have shown energy and effectiveness in running the national level Gallery programmes and competitions which have been fully supported by shooters. I have to ask some of the naysayers on here whether they have been to any of these competitions?

Some of us naysayers tried to register but there were no places left. Last year we didn't have that problem. At the risk of repeating myself I attended every shoot last year bar one. I will still support the Nasrpc if I can some how get to shoot in a competition

badaj0z

BillBen wrote: »

Some of us naysayers tried to register but there were no places left.

BattleCorp wrote: »

While Mourne is a very nice range (I only saw the pics, I wasn't actually there), it can't accommodate very many shooters so that's why it was a pre-reg job. Otherwise loads of people would have turned up and some would have left disappointed when they didn't get to shoot what they wanted.

Pre-registration is a good idea but not everybody is up to speed with computers etc. You would have needed to be quick off the mark to get registered for Mourne.

There is your answer BillBen. You can not blame the NASRPC for involving small as well as large ranges in order to get a good geographic spread or for you leaving your registration too late if it was at a busier venue.

BillBen wrote: »

I will still support the Nasrpc if I can some how get to shoot in a competition

Really?

BattleCorp

badaj0z wrote: »

The NASRPC rep to the SC was appointed by the old committee, not elected. The AGM agreed to leave him in that position.
However, it became clear at the first FCP meeting after the AGM that it was in the interests of all shooters and the NASRPC members in particular to appoint a new rep to the FCP. I will not elaborate on this.

Nobody was elected to the FCP. Everybody was appointed by their organisations.

Thanks for agreeing with me that the AGM agreed to leave him in the position.

It's a pity that you won't elaborate because clearly you must have more information than I have regarding how things panned out.

Would the reason he was replaced be because he corrected a senior member of the SC at the January FCP meeting because, in the absence of a valid reason, that's what it looks like.

I've no problem with the new committee and I'm not being awkward for awkwards sake but I do have a problem with what I mentioned above and being told that the AGM was about rejoining the SC.

The AGM was to elect a committee and discuss motions. There was no motion to rejoin the SC so therefore your claim about the AGM being about that is incorrect.

I'm also still waiting for someone to spell out the benefits of rejoining the SC. What can be achieved in the SC that can't be achieved when not a member of the SC?

BillBen

badaj0z wrote: »

There is your answer BillBen. You can not blame the NASRPC for involving small as well as large ranges in order to get a good geographic spread or for you leaving your registration too late if it was at a busier venue.



Really?

1) The first gallery rifle and pistol shoot of the year should have taken place at a bigger range. If they had bothered to look at last years first shoot they would have seen every bay in Munster was full.

2) what I meant to say was that I will support what the Nasrpc stands for NOT the people running it.

jb88

badaj0z wrote: »

The main reason the old NASRPC committee was replaced at the AGM was because of the way they left the SC. More people at the AGM wanted them to rejoin than wanted them to stay out. Hence the vote has already been taken. Why should any one be surprised at this?(Except perhaps the sour apple brigade who are always lurking in the undergrowth)

Lets separate fact from fiction.
Its all really down to how things were conducted in relation to club memberships in the previous months. With that cleared up and its sad to say I have the greatest respect for the past committee and 90% of the new one.
Its a thankless task doing all of this work and they deserve to be commended. Emotions are running high right now and bad communication isn't helping. Lots of ego's from committee members past and present.

But facts are the NASRPC is not the National Governing body for anything in Ireland according to Sports Ireland. The NGB executive stated this via email. If you don't believe that fact ring them yourself.