GRPAI

Sparks

jb88 wrote: »

But facts are the NASRPC is not the National Governing body for anything in Ireland according to Sports Ireland.

Just to add in some more confusion, that doesn't actually mean what you might think it means.

So:

1. You actually mean the Irish Sports Council, because Sport Ireland will be them and a group of other bodies that aren't focussed on how sports are administered so much as facilities management in adamstown, coaching courses and so on. The part that deals with NGBs on an admin and paperwork level probably won't essentially change.
   
2. While the ISC (and the OCI) can recognise an NGB as being an NGB, they can't designate an NGB - they just recognise an existing status (and they have some minimum standards before they'll grant funding to a recognised NGB, but that's at least nominally separate). Don't misunderstand me - the ISC recognition is quite important, but more because with it comes (a little) funding (with a lot of strings) and far more importantly, access to things like PACE, coaching resources, the ability to run FETAC-accredited courses, the sports institute, and other admin-level things which tend to mainly be important when dealing with the Irish government or state bodies, and which tend to be mostly irrelevant when looking to international competition (this gets a little hazier around the Irish Olympic team logistics and such, but essentially remains similar - OCI recognition is important within Ireland, but the value of that recognition suffers a short sharp drop at the border). You want a standard recognised coaching accreditation where anyone can run the courses instead of the inevitable commercialisation and de facto monopolies that tend to arise in unregulated areas? This (FETAC accreditation) is a very big part of how you do that. And the other stuff is equally important, both from an admin point of view and a sports performance point of view.
   
3. Far more important than ISC recognition when deciding who the NGB is, for most of our sports, whether they be gallery or benchrest or F-class or ISSF, is the international body's recognition. Without ISSF recognition the NTSA is effectively purposeless for example, and the same applies to every other NGB in the country and their respective international bodies (where those exist -- when they don't, well, I don't know actually, I was never motivated to go find out). So generally we take the lead from that international body; but applying for their recognition is generally a process that starts with doing the actual work on the ground at home (you don't just get the NGB recognition first and then go do the work, there's more bootstrapping involved in general, and it tends to be ill-defined in comparison to other procedures because it's not supposed to be done all that often).

TL;DR - The ISC might say the NASRPC isn't the NGB for anything, but that doesn't actually mean very much. They've been the NGB for sporting rifle for longer than I've been wishing I knew nothing about all of this, for example, and anyone who says they're not pretty much has an uphill battle to face in order to convince anyone of that. For other sports, and specifically for gallery, well, I dunno. The question may be more open there, given the nature of this split and the people involved. I'm no expert on this area, I never had enough interest to go learn about it. But the ISC had even less interest. They never recognised any shooting NGB other than the ICPSA - on the rifle and pistol side, they forced us to create the NRPAI (later SSAI, later FSAI) so they didn't have to remember more than one contact point, but that was not an NGB (it had rules in all of its incarnations that said it couldn't be an NGB because it was an umbrella body that only had other NGBs as members and if you have no people as members, then you can't have a sport, or be an NGB - you're purely an administrative body, a paperwork vehicle to make some ISC wonk's life a bit easier while creating twenty years of divisive and useless politics on our side of the fence).

So what the ISC says about who is and isn't a shooting NGB is something you have to take with an almighty grain of salt.

badaj0z

BattleCorp wrote: »

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.

Were you at the same meeting that I was at? If you really believe this then either you did not understand what was going on or you are in denial.From your perspective, the AGM was intended to re-elect the old committee to office but that did not happen, did it?
As I said earlier "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, yes or no, was there an actual vote, put to the floor and voted on, to rejoin the SC?

jb88

badaj0z wrote: »

Were you at the same meeting that I was at? If you really believe this then either you did not understand what was going on or you are in denial.From your perspective, the AGM was intended to re-elect the old committee to office but that did not happen, did it?
As I said earlier "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"

Democracy, oh yes for two people who turned up and were told to vote for the way of munster and only involved in shooting a couple of weeks, not a firearm between them and not even members of Munster. Rent a crowd yes.

And what happened as soon as the new members were elected and the new committee took a few min break, all those democratic supporters left.
When the motions were before the new committee 60% of the people who had turned up to vote out the old committee left. That's not democracy, its mob rule.

Most of the rent a crowd didn't even know what they were voting for, or against. Then shooters like myself are left to deal with the repercussions and yet more fallout.

NASRPC - Now

Problems with scoring and who qualified to shoot many other things at national championships. Many issues here .. Lots of people not happy.

Problems with registering to compete at the recent National competition , which excluded many regular competitive shooters. Many didn't go who normally compete around Ireland.

Rejoining the SC - Many people not happy over this

Oh sure the NASRPC Can usurp their power and vote out the Democratically elected person on the FCP. Replace them when at the AGM everyone wanted the existing FCP rep to continue and he did, only when he made some clarifications at an FCP meeting to the SC was he replaced.

The NASRPC - What next the Squad votes on the team Captains, declaring their election by all squad members invalid and attempting to elect new captains. Good luck with that. (Completely un democratic)

A member of the committee creating a bogus facebook page - Childish

NASRPC - Declaring itself the national governing body when it is NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN. (very Democratic)

Want me to go on here, "something is rotten in the NASRPC",

Where were you while all of this was going on, oh behind the Keyboard.

I Could go on and on and on.

The membership only exists and people support an organization because they believe in it. If you have no confidence in something, why continue to support it.

But I will continue to support the NASRPC - Its almost like voting Fianna Fail because your grandfather campaigned for Dev in the 1930's. You continue to support it


Its a MESS pure and simple, cop on here no one is happy over any of this.
Certain members of the NASRPC controlling everything while good members do the best they can for the organization under difficult circumstances.

If this keeps up there will be lots of clubs, only no members competing and paying into the NASRPC.

Sparks

jb88 wrote: »

That's not democracy, its mob rule.

Actually, that's pretty much the definition of democracy. If they didn't break the written rules and didn't have a vote worth more than anyone else, then, well, tough. "Democracy" doesn't mean "Fair" it just means "Everyone gets one vote and we do what the majority wants"*. Doesn't mean that your concerns are bogus, doesn't mean everything's grand, just means that things are not organised the way you think. You get a vote, not a veto.

The other things you've raised, well, this is why the other sports groups in the country don't ignore AGM rules, use things like Roberts Rules, have procedures they follow, tend to incorporate to give legal structure and weight to things, have very well-defined voting rules and generally do things by a book, rather than saying "Ah, that's just all nonsense, just use common sense and you'll be grand".

See, common sense... well...



It's also why most of them will try not to pull boneheaded stunts or try to do stupid-ass things in the first place, not that they all succeed in that attempt, but they've been bigger for longer and therefore have had more opportunities to learn that "we can get away with it if nobody posts about it on boards" is not actually a viable plan and hasn't been for a very long time. Sooner or later, someone with enough cash finds a solicitor who doesn't mind getting involved in a messy sports dispute and now you have a decade-long court case (yes, this is not a hypothetical, there are several examples of this in sport in Ireland).

Hell, even if you don't go to court things get expensive. Ask anyone in the NRAI about the NGB status row with the LRRAI and find out how much it cost in phone bills alone, let alone travel and manhours devoted to rowing instead of building stuff.

It'd almost make you think that people should set up some third party body that sports groups could use in disputes like this to settle things in a practical fashion...

(*subject to whatever law is applicable, at least in most places, and there are other similar nuances, but you know what I mean, your milage may vary, the value of stocks may fall as well as rise, yadda yadda yadda)

badaj0z

jb88 wrote: »

I Could go on and on and on.

You already have. Just imagine the cheek of those people who turned up to vote at the AGM. How dare they cast a vote at your meeting. How dare the new committee change some of the practices of the old even though the majority voted for them to do just that. How dare they change the NASRPC FCP rep in order to more effectively represent the NASRPC. I could go on and on and on.

BattleCorp

badaj0z wrote: »

You already have. Just imagine the cheek of those people who turned up to vote at the AGM. How dare they cast a vote at your meeting. How dare the new committee change some of the practices of the old even though the majority voted for them to do just that. How dare they change the NASRPC FCP rep in order to more effectively represent the NASRPC. I could go on and on and on.

There is no need to go on and on. Just answer Sparks question. Was there a vote put to the floor at the AGM to rejoin the Sports Coalition?

I wouldn't mind an answer as to why the FCP rep was removed against the clear wishes of the people who were at the AGM.

I would also like for someone to tell me some of the benefits of rejoining the Sports Coalition? Things like what can be achieved as part of the Coalition that can't be achieved outside of it.

Rimfire Shooter

Seems things are black & white after all have a look at the NASRPC website.

Seems NASRPC ARE recognised by international body

I can't post links

Sparks

How dare they change the NASRPC FCP rep in order to more effectively represent the NASRPC

Yeah, but the thing is, that's a general principle you're talking about there - specifically, "Can the elected committee overrule AGM votes at will?"

And for the NASRPC and all other unincorporated associations, the answer is effectively yes. Which is not a good thing. Hypothetical example: you vote for one chairman and he's elected to the office. A week later, the committee, on their own, decide to replace him with a small trained goldfish, and then decide to sell all the associations assets at cost and use the money for a gold-plated goldfish bowl filled with water distilled from glaciers. Can they do that? Er, yes, actually. Unincorporated associations cannot be held to their rules legally. Their assets are owned by individuals, not by the association (because the association has no legal entity with which to own assets). That's why most NGBs and many large clubs incorporate - it's more work, but it gives a better end result and it protects the long-term interests of the club/NGB and its members.

So don't ask "how dare they replace the FCP rep?" - ask "would I be comfortable with the committee having that kind of authority if the side I voted for had lost?"

Sparks

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

Seems things are black & white after all have a look at the NASRPC website.

Seems NASRPC ARE recognised by international body

I can't post links

http://nasrpc.ie/igrf-charter/
The thing is, that seems at odds with the statement made on http://grpai.ie/ngb-status/

The former appears to be making an argument citing the existed, published charter of the IGRF; but the latter appears to be quoting a recent statement from the IGRF made after that charter was signed, on the specific question of who the recognised Irish NGB was.

All of this seems disjointed to an outside reader. The IGRF should know its own membership list and charter, so why would they say there was no NGB in Ireland? Why is the cited Irish contact in the NASRPC on the IGRF page that the NASRPC is linking to actually on the GRPAI committee?

It looks like a confused mess. The IGRF probably could make it black and white readily. It just doesn't look like they've done so yet.

Rimfire Shooter

Thanks for adding link.

Sparks wrote: »

Why is the cited Irish contact in the NASRPC on the IGRF page that the NASRPC is linking to actually on the GRPAI committee?

I know you've figured it out already

To an outsider & onlooker it looks like someone can't accept that they've been replaced.

Sparks wrote: »

It looks like a confused mess.

It certainly does !

badaj0z

BattleCorp wrote: »

There is no need to go on and on. Just answer Sparks question. Was there a vote put to the floor at the AGM to rejoin the Sports Coalition?

As you keep trying to deny, the vote put to the floor was the acceptance or rejection of the Chairman's statement. This included an explanation of why they left the SC. The statement was rejected hence implying the reversal of the decision to leave the SC.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I wouldn't mind an answer as to why the FCP rep was removed against the clear wishes of the people who were at the AGM.

Why don't you ask him or anyone else who as that FCP meeting who could comment objectively on what he said?

BattleCorp wrote: »

I would also like for someone to tell me some of the benefits of rejoining the Sports Coalition? Things like what can be achieved as part of the Coalition that can't be achieved outside of it.

One organisation representing the vast majority of shooters.Unity, not division and conflict. It is that simple. Mod snip : Folks, rule one is be civil. This is an administrative disagreement for feck's sakes.

Rimfire Shooter

badaj0z wrote: »

One organisation representing the vast majority of shooters.

It does not. It's supporting commercial interests only. I've contacted, as a shooter, the NARGC about the FCP & they still haven't answered me !

badaj0z

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

It does not. It's supporting commercial interests only.

Please explain why you say this.

Sparks

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

I know you've figured it out already
To an outsider & onlooker it looks like someone can't accept that they've been replaced.

...but it's on the IGRF website, not the GRPAI's.

Sparks

badaj0z wrote: »

The statement was rejected hence implying the reversal of the decision to leave the SC.

That's not how AGMs actually work. They're designed to be highly specific for a very good reason (namely, this one, that people who were there can't otherwise agree on what got decided).

One organisation representing the vast majority of shooters

Er, that would be the ICPSA if you're just going by numbers :P
(You really need to qualify that "shooters" bit)

Rimfire Shooter

Sparks wrote: »

...but it's on the IGRF website, not the GRPAI's.

Sorry not with ya.

The way I see it this new org is those disgruntled after the NASRPC agm or am I reading it all worong?

Sparks

That's how it looks, but the GRPAI have said that the international body have said there's a question over who the NGB is. The NASRPC have cited the international body's charter. My point is that on the pages the NASRPC link to, the Irish contact is one of the GRPAI committee, so it seems those pages are out of date. And that might mean that the GRPAI's post about there being a question over accreditation isn't trumped by the NASRPC pointing to the IGRF's webpage and charter because those might be out of date too. But you can't tell from here. It's messy.

BillBen

I believe the Nasrpc committee are having a meeting tonight in order to have a vote of no confidence in the two gallery rifle team captains just because they are pro GRPAI. My god these guys are making the rules up as they go along

Rimfire Shooter

badaj0z wrote: »

Please explain why you say this.

There was a small hint in the rest of my post that you've quoted from.

NARGC, more or less a commercial entity at this stage providing whats tantamount to insurance to it's members.

Range operators assoc. most if not all ranges are commercial entities.

dealers assoc. represents commercial businesses.

Apart from ICPSA, which i don't know how many members it has the NARGC makes up the biggest "membership". Thing is I emailed them as a member & got no reply. So how dors it purport to represent it's members when it doesn't even answer their emails?

Sparks

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

I emailed them as a member & got no reply.

How long did you give them to reply?

Rimfire Shooter

Sparks wrote: »

That's how it looks, but the GRPAI have said that the international body have said there's a question over who the NGB is. The NASRPC have cited the international body's charter. My point is that on the pages the NASRPC link to, the Irish contact is one of the GRPAI committee, so it seems those pages are out of date. And that might mean that the GRPAI's post about there being a question over accreditation isn't trumped by the NASRPC pointing to the IGRF's webpage and charter because those might be out of date too. But you can't tell from here. It's messy.

Ah I'm with ya now.

Terrible the way these things always end up.

Sparks

It's almost always a lot of wasted time, effort, person-hours, money, and lost opportunities, yeah.

Rimfire Shooter

Sparks wrote: »

How long did you give them to reply?

Just checked email account. 8 weeks & counting

Rimfire Shooter

BillBen wrote: »

I believe the Nasrpc committee are having a meeting tonight in order to have a vote of no confidence in the two gallery rifle team captains just because they are pro GRPAI. My god these guys are making the rules up as they go along

Are there any existing rules?

Sparks

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

Just checked email account. 8 weeks & counting

That does seem well beyond the normal week or two you'd give people when they're running an NGB as well as holding down a day job to pay the mortgage with. I'd ping them again if that was me talking to the NTSA.

BillBen

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

Are there any existing rules?

The squad vote in the captains not the committee. I voted for the current captains not the committee.

badaj0z

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

There was a small hint in the rest of my post that you've quoted from.

NARGC, more or less a commercial entity at this stage providing whats tantamount to insurance to it's members.

Range operators assoc. most if not all ranges are commercial entities.

dealers assoc. represents commercial businesses.

Apart from ICPSA, which i don't know how many members it has the NARGC makes up the biggest "membership". Thing is I emailed them as a member & got no reply. So how dors it purport to represent it's members when it doesn't even answer their emails?

Thanks for that but there are many non commercial members including the ICPSA who you mentioned. Remember that the NARGC is an association of "Game Councils" which themselves are groupings of Gun Clubs. These are nearly all game shooters and not commercial. Also involved are the Target shooters in the WA1500 and the NSAI and the NASRPC. Most ranges are still run by members' clubs although the Commercial ones tend to be larger. The dealers are there but even the dealers and commercial ranges have enough in common with the individual shooters to act together. All in all, the weight of representation is with the shooters and there is no denying that the united stand taken by the SC proved very effective with the Justice committee and with the Garda and DOJ.

Rimfire Shooter

BillBen wrote: »

The squad vote in the captains not the committee. I voted for the current captains not the committee.

I think the squad should vote for their captain or maybe the shooter with the highest qualifying score if that's how the squad is picked. I'd agree the committee shouldn't be able to usurp the squads decision in a case like this.

Rimfire Shooter

badaj0z wrote: »

Thanks for that but there are many non commercial members including the ICPSA who you mentioned. Remember that the NARGC is an association of "Game Councils" which themselves are groupings of Gun Clubs. These are nearly all game shooters and not commercial. Also involved are the Target shooters in the WA1500 and the SSAI and the NASRPC. Most ranges are still run by members' clubs although the Commercial ones tend to be larger. The dealers are there but even the dealers and commercial ranges have enough in common with the individual shooters to act together. All in all, the weight of representation is with the shooters and there is no denying that the united stand taken by the SC proved very effective with the Justice committee and with the Garda and DOJ.

I note what you're saying & agree to a point.

As a shooter, I don't feel represented though. To me, and many others, it looks like commercial interests are being looked after more so than individual shooters.