NARGC

Walter Mittys Brother

cavan shooter wrote: »

......What the Duck was 1.835 million being spent on...prior to the new regime.

Probably all the stuff to do with pistols and such?

gunny123

Anyone i know who had a pistols or large calibre rifle case in the district court, or higher courts, paid for it out of their own pockets. The only thing the nargc might have paid for was the Brophy case, long time ago now.

cavan shooter

gunny123 wrote:

Anyone i know who had a pistols or large calibre rifle case in the district court, or higher courts, paid for it out of their own pockets. The only thing the nargc might have paid for was the Brophy case, long time ago now.

I thought the NARGC paid for that.

Walter Mittys Brother

Oh they paid for LOTS of cases including some they lost ........... in the beginning

Perfectstorm

What is going on in Cork?

Most of us only know what we read here or get half a story elsewhere.

It seems amazing with 3 separate cases last year only 90k was spent ..I say that only in the context of the fees we read about in the papers and what we have all been charged for buying selling house etc...30k per case!!

1.9 million spent in total is an utter disgrace.that's like 2 years total income for the assoc..the wheels badly needed to come off that wagon

gunny123

Perfectstorm wrote: »

1.9 million spent in total is an utter disgrace.that's like 2 years total income for the assoc..the wheels badly needed to come off that wagon

And replace it with what ? The pistol cases are all very old news at this stage, and the committee must have changed many times in between.

bluezulu49

Perfectstorm wrote: »

What is going on in Cork?

It seems amazing with 3 separate cases last year only 90k was spent ..I say that only in the context of the fees we read about in the papers and what we have all been charged for buying selling house etc...30k per case!!

1.9 million spent in total is an utter disgrace.that's like 2 years total income for the assoc..the wheels badly needed to come off that wagon

I find it very difficult to believe that 3 cases have only cost 90k. In the two high court cases of which I heard, NARGC lost and would be liable for two sets of costs. One of these cases ( the employee one) lasted at least two days. I do not know how long the egm injunction case lasted but given that was initially ex parte and was then contested, it must have lasted at least two days
Google suggests high court costs in 2006 ran at a rate of 40k per day. If this 40k covered both sides (doubtful ) the two high court cases should have cost a minimum of 160k. I wonder if there is a hope that taxed costs will be reduced below 2006 levels.

Perfectstorm

@gunny I was speaking in the past tense in my last post and not suggesting another change.

I don't see 1.8 million spent since 2012 when looking at the financial reports for the relevant period. If 1.8 million is the total that might be spent finising every case off then that would make sense...still a mind blowing amount

berettaman

bluezulu49 wrote: »

I find it very difficult to believe that 3 cases have only cost 90k. In the two high court cases of which I heard, NARGC lost and would be liable for two sets of costs. One of these cases ( the employee one) lasted at least two days. I do not know how long the egm injunction case lasted but given that was initially ex parte and was then contested, it must have lasted at least two days
Google suggests high court costs in 2006 ran at a rate of 40k per day. If this 40k covered both sides (doubtful ) the two high court cases should have cost a minimum of 160k. I wonder if there is a hope that taxed costs will be reduced below 2006 levels.

AS I understand it the above covers the NARGC side of the costs only. The other side will be provided for in the accounts at the year end if it is not finalised by then.

Fees for the other side are gone for taxation I believe at the moment.

Under current regime there is no payment without an invoice and legal fees go through independent legal cost accountants/taxation.

It take time to turn the thing around.

berettaman

Perfectstorm wrote: »

@gunny I was speaking in the past tense in my last post and not suggesting another change.

I don't see 1.8 million spent since 2012 when looking at the financial reports for the relevant period. If 1.8 million is the total that might be spent finising every case off then that would make sense...still a mind blowing amount

My reading of accounts are:

2012 €766K
2013 €7K
2014 €8K
2015 €1,201K
2016 -€148K

Total €1,834K

Grizzly 45

Am No accountant.But those figures are weird as hell.

2012 €766 K
2013 €7K
WTF happened in a year to lose over 759K????

2014 €8K

2015 €1,201K [Is this figure correct?? 1million two hundred and one thousand?]

2016 -€148K [Is this correct going by the minus sign,they are on hundred and fourty eight thousand in the red???]

Total €1,834K???

Either NARGC has the most recklessly criminally incompetnt accountants who dabble in drug dealing on an industrial scale to have a set of accounts like that:eek:,or the figures are wrong or taken out of context. I seriously hope it's the latter.

berettaman

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Am No accountant.But those figures are weird as hell.

2012 €766 K
2013 €7K
WTF happened in a year to lose over 759K????

2014 €8K

2015 €1,201K [Is this figure correct?? 1million two hundred and one thousand?]

2016 -€148K [Is this correct going by the minus sign,they are on hundred and fourty eight thousand in the red???]

Total €1,834K???

Either NARGC has the most recklessly criminally incompetnt accountants who dabble in drug dealing on an industrial scale to have a set of accounts like that:eek:,or the figures are wrong or taken out of context. I seriously hope it's the latter.

It is the latter I would say.

2012-legal fees were €762K, that is in the accounts. This was the cost of successful legal cases. Fees were paid pending a receipt of costs from the state.

2013 and 2014 were low but remember after 2012 legal fees were a hot topic within the Association so it stands to reason.

Y/E 2015 legal fees were €200K plus a provision for a €1 million more for additional legal fees claimed by former solicitor (which was challenged by the Association) but still had to be provided for. Around this time we have a sort of Regime Change going on.

Y/E 2016 Legal fees were about €377K, plus settlement of €475K LESS the provision of €1million being reversed. This leaves -€148K
This is normal accountancy practice and it is normal to have reversal of provisions etc.

All this is in conjunction with audited accounts and is above board.
The quantity is correct.

The WHY is another matter.

You can see why a change had to happen and a refocussing of the Association had to occur.

cavan shooter

A couple of points:
1. If that's the cost of winning cases, remind me never to take one on that I may loose.  Its quite obviously that winning cases we should never have been taken, and paying handsomely by the looks of it.
2. I remember a certain man at an AGM in Cavan (yes I was there) free lunch.......NOT ....saying it would cost €1800 for an appeal to the courts.  I remember saying to myself "thats a great way of controlling Firearms by making it beyond the affordability of a pleb to be able to pay for it"
3.  Have the lads reeled in the spending now as in any cases for AK47 and rocket launchers out there that lads really need and will go to court over and never get

Perfectstorm

No substantial change to the Cork executive is what I heard. .a new vice chair but the chairman was reelected

deeksofdoom

Perfectstorm wrote: »

No substantial change to the Cork executive is what I heard. .a new vice chair but the chairman was reelected

The crowd going for election were worse than the crowd in power at the moment.

cavan shooter

deeksofdoom wrote: »

The crowd going for election were worse than the crowd in power at the moment.

feel for ye....

Backbarrel

So I made it to Tullamore for the meeting last Saturday..

Some interesting points:

1 Layout of meeting was ****e but couldn't be helped.
2. A lot of work being done to stop this night time shooting ban..though very few contributors from the floor..
3. I think the Hon Treasurer is being "targeted" by a certain element but in fairness, the accounts are solid and he seems well able to answer questions..

cavan shooter

Yeah heard it was civil(ish)..any more on the Sports Coalition of vested interests. I heard one of our fellas laid it on the line regarding NARGC involvement with that shower.

wirehairmax

cavan shooter wrote: »

Yeah heard it was civil(ish)..any more on the Sports Coalition of vested interests. I heard one of our fellas laid it on the line regarding NARGC involvement with that shower.

There hasn't been a peep out of them in the last 3 weeks, nothing on facebook, no statements on their website. Usually whenever the NARGC release a statement, they come back with a dirty dig or something antagonising or imflammatory. But this time nothing, makes you wonder whether they realise they that they misjudged the mood and the anger that these proposals would bring. But then again, knowing who's involved, they're too ignorant and thick to consider that and too greedy to let it go. The silence is now worrying me.
Snakes and cowards is too good a description for them.

cavan shooter

They haven't gone away you know....

wirehairmax

cavan shooter wrote: »

They haven't gone away you know....

And thats whats worrying me:mad:

Perfectstorm

It was a right quick gb meeting..2hrs!!

Delegates ask questions of the treasurer and the rest to ensure good governance. I would be more concerned if no one was asking questions that a few asking hard ones. The fact the members of the exec keep saying the treasurer won't let them at the purse strings probably focuses attention on him

I amnt sure how solid the accounts are. The association has loads of money but it is still spending like it is limitless.

It will need to cut back further given today's resignation and the implications for the main court battle...

cavan shooter

Perfectstorm wrote: »

It was a right quick gb meeting..2hrs!!

Delegates ask questions of the treasurer and the rest to ensure good governance. I would be more concerned if no one was asking questions that a few asking hard ones. The fact the members of the exec keep saying the treasurer won't let them at the purse strings probably focuses attention on him

I amnt sure how solid the accounts are. The association has loads of money but it is still spending like it is limitless.

It will need to cut back further given today's resignation and the implications for the main court battle...

Sooner all those cases are over with the better....get down to only being involved in shooting stuff.

wirehairmax

Perfectstorm wrote: »

It was a right quick gb meeting..2hrs!!

Delegates ask questions of the treasurer and the rest to ensure good governance. I would be more concerned if no one was asking questions that a few asking hard ones. The fact the members of the exec keep saying the treasurer won't let them at the purse strings probably focuses attention on him

I amnt sure how solid the accounts are. The association has loads of money but it is still spending like it is limitless.

It will need to cut back further given today's resignation and the implications for the main court battle...

So its true then? He's gone, resigned??

cavan shooter

wirehairmax wrote: »

So its true then? He's gone, resigned??

That's a pity, He did the NARGC some service, (a bit like CJ/Othello et al) He was a bit like Marmite, maybe it was time for him to leave the stage, things turned sour towards the end.

Perfectstorm

That's what I hear..I suppose serve out his notice like any employment so going rather than gone. ...

Perfectstorm

cavan shooter wrote: »

That's a pity, He did the NARGC some service, (a bit like CJ/Othello et al) He was a bit like Marmite, maybe it was time for him to leave the stage, things turned sour towards the end.

It is a sour note at the end of any career. .Hopefully he will enjoy retirement.

Backbarrel

Perfectstorm wrote: »

It was a right quick gb meeting..2hrs!!

Delegates ask questions of the treasurer and the rest to ensure good governance. I would be more concerned if no one was asking questions that a few asking hard ones. The fact the members of the exec keep saying the treasurer won't let them at the purse strings probably focuses attention on him

I amnt sure how solid the accounts are. The association has loads of money but it is still spending like it is limitless.

It will need to cut back further given today's resignation and the implications for the main court battle...

I agree, it is great to have people asking questions, it is great for the Association. The Hon. Treasurer is a Chartered Accountant and well able to discuss the figures of the Association.

I would say is that some of the people asking questions were very quiet in previous years when Money was being spent like water.

I suppose the climate at the time wasn't suitable for those that wanted to ask questions..

How solid are the accounts? I am no accountant but there is a major turnaround in the accounts, like from -400K last year to +400K this year.

I mean what more can he do?

As his predecessor pointed out on Saturday, he is mandated by the Gov body to spend on certain things..

If you need change then propose a reduction in bird subsidy...go on, I dare ya!:D

cavan shooter

Backbarrel wrote:

If you need change then propose a reduction in bird subsidy...go on, I dare ya!

I'll say it stop spending money on bird subsidy to feed foxes. Spend the money on vermin program.

Grizzly 45

Perfectstorm wrote: »

It is a sour note at the end of any career. .Hopefully he will enjoy retirement.

Happens all the time when somebody is the big chief for too long in any organisation.

cavan shooter

Grizzly 45 wrote:

Happens all the time when somebody is the big chief for too long in any organisation.

I disagree in so far as it happens all the time. Directors take organisations so far and then they move on. The average life span (Employment in a Company) for a Marketing Director is 5 years.

I agree about the Big Chief comment.

Grizzly 45

Politics and family run business are plauged with it.Especially here.

Perfectstorm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Happens all the time when somebody is the big chief for too long in any organisation.

True if happens often enough that we can all think of other examples.
I assume the other employee will slot in there and someone else be recruited to replace him on the insurance side.

cavan shooter

Perfectstorm wrote:

True if happens often enough that we can all think of other examples. I assume the other employee will slot in there and someone else be recruited to replace him on the insurance side.

I hope not he does a good job where he is.
Not so sure we need another "National Director"

Perfectstorm

cavan shooter wrote: »

I hope not he does a good job where he is.
Not so sure we need another "National Director"

In my view someone is needed to handle the daily business and the attendance at meetings with the nwps,garda etc.

All people on the executive are there in a voluntary capacity and may not have the time to attend to all aspects in a way that provides full coverage for members.

Just so long as the person is not paid an excessive salary....

grassroot1

Perfectstorm wrote: »

In my view someone is needed to handle the daily business and the attendance at meetings with the nwps,garda etc.

All people on the executive are there in a voluntary capacity and may not have the time to attend to all aspects in a way that provides full coverage for members.

Just so long as the person is not paid an excessive salary....

and is on a 3 year contract

Grizzly 45

And limited to 3 terms of office.;)

cavan shooter

Let the National Chairman of the day and the executive do it. Im not being smart but many other organisations do it that way.
Why do we need a full time person. If you need lobbying hire a lobbiest?

cavan shooter

Grizzly 45 wrote:

And limited to 3 terms of office.

I don't think that would work.

Grizzly 45

Never know until you ask.:)

Why do we need a full time person. If you need lobbying hire a lobbiest?

A good lobbyist would cost you more in six weeks work than the chairman's salary.
The thought of giving some slimy creep like Haughy's little bitch, Mara who has trousered enough in the times they were in power and now want more money to maybe clean up the crap they made while in power should repulse anyone.

Perfectstorm

cavan shooter wrote: »

Let the National Chairman of the day and the executive do it. Im not being smart but many other organisations do it that way.
Why do we need a full time person. If you need lobbying hire a lobbiest?

The association needs a level of staffing that can deal with members queries, keep up to date with legislation and best practise , communicate with the members and support the executive. It would in my view be a huge step back wards and discourage people to run for the executive if they were taking on a second job for which they are not and cannot be paid a salary

cavan shooter

Perfectstorm wrote:

The association needs a level of staffing that can deal with members queries, keep up to date with legislation and best practise , communicate with the members and support the executive. It would in my view be a huge step back wards and discourage people to run for the executive if they were taking on a second job for which they are not and cannot be paid a salary

There is nothing you have said there that still warrants a full time Employee. The more important job is the Fund Administrator.

Remind me what does the Executive do in the NARGC..? They get expenses too.

Many people volunteer for the love of it and most local clubs and Regions are all doing good work for the love of it and from this side there are more ordinary shooting men that know more about what's going in the ahooting world than a " so called National Director".... take the 95k + expenses + whatever and use it to develop the Volunteers.

Walter Mittys Brother

95k:eek:

I'll do it for half that :P

cavan shooter

Walter Mittys Brother wrote:

I'll do it for half that

Walter Mittys Brother wrote:

95k

Just an estimate Company Director salary of a SME with a similar turnover.

Perfectstorm

cavan shooter wrote: »

Just an estimate Company Director salary of a SME with a similar turnover.

I agree a 100k salary isn't required. Being an enthusiastic ordinary member is not the same as being experienced enough to go and negotiate with the depth of justice, or advise members of queries etc.

Perfectstorm

Anyone hear the final cost of the 5 counties case..I heard legal fees that the nargc has to pay are settled around 90k. .seems there is another case listed for some day next week too

grassroot1

Really Wow where did you hear about that was it from the 5 counties legal team?

berettaman

Perfectstorm wrote: »

Anyone hear the final cost of the 5 counties case..I heard legal fees that the nargc has to pay are settled around 90k. .seems there is another case listed for some day next week too

Jaysus..that is some reduction in fees if so.

An expensive day out for sure but at least the five counties took full advantage and made a great case for themselves on the day of the EGM-NOT!

They made a right tit of themselves and since then no one could explain why they couldn't wait like the other 23 counties.:rolleyes:

Backbarrel

berettaman wrote: »

Jaysus..that is some reduction in fees if so.

An expensive day out for sure but at least the five counties took full advantage and made a great case for themselves on the day of the EGM-NOT!

They made a right tit of themselves and since then no one could explain why they couldn't wait like the other 23 counties.:rolleyes:

They made tools of themselves right enough.

I heard that they were offered an egm on day one of trial!
Maybe they were not let take up that offer...wink wink nudge nudge...🀔

Perfectstorm

berettaman wrote: »

Jaysus..that is some reduction in fees if so.

An expensive day out for sure but at least the five counties took full advantage and made a great case for themselves on the day of the EGM-NOT!

They made a right tit of themselves and since then no one could explain why they couldn't wait like the other 23 counties.:rolleyes:

They are not the only tits..😂😂😂😂..what possessed the exec to take the case in the first place..even at half the price it is an expensive ego trip for all involved