Sports Council Grants for National Governing Bodies

Sparks

badaj0z wrote: »

I did, and you did not answer.

I did; it's not my fault you're not understanding the situation.

Interesting. But, why is this not reflected in the official report?

And with this question you highlight the reason behind (a) my earlier question of whether or not you are sure about the timing of when the report was written and when the specific case occurred; and (b) my earlier point about how the report itself did not speak to anyone in the organisations involved and how that failing can cause a lack of accuracy and omitted details; accuracy and details which would not be lost in the case of a more involved relationship, such as there was between the Department and the SSAI, who were, if not bosum buddies, at least talking to one another regarding the administration of the sport.

So what has this to do with our debate.

I wouldn't characterise this as a debate. You've said some incorrect things and I've corrected you on the events as they actually happened; something which several people could have done by the way, I just happened to be the one over here.

The FISA non existence officially

Sorry, no, that's not a thing.
FISA is extant.
The people supposed to be running it may not have done any visible work in far too long, but that is insufficient to cause it to cease to exist.

For a start, the DoAST aren't interested - and never have been which is why the NRPAI was in the role it was in in the first place - in dealing with anything other than an umbrella body. They were notified of FISA's creation. FISA is that umbrella body.
This is not a bad thing. It means there's an existing structure. There doesn't have to be a long setup process, it's all done.
Granted, it's much sexier to start from a blank sheet, but in this case that sexiness costs three years of non-funded operation for no reason, along with - quite frankly - reintroducing the level of strife and petty internecine crap that the FISA was set up to stop in the first place.

You are still trying to evade the point of this thread. How do we, the clubs, the shooters and shooting organisations work together to get access again to the funding that is available?

We don't.
That's the entire point of this thread.
To get access to the funding, the DoAST want FISA to produce the receipts they asked for six or seven years ago.
Those receipts relate to the period of time when the NASRPC were running the SSAI; FISA is now being run by the NASRPC; therefore there is no obstacle to the NASRPC producing those receipts and sorting out the mess.

The average shooter has no role here, nor does the average club - this is purely an administrative accountancy task. That is why these organisations exist - to handle this sort of humdrum boring paperwork so the clubs and shooters can get on with shooting.

Are you capable of setting your biased history aside and suggesting some positive actions?

I'm sorry, this is on me now, how exactly?
I've explained - several times, at length - what the problem is. I'm not the first to do that; it's been done, in person, face-to-face, with several of the current NASRPC board's members, six years ago.
How to fix the problem has also been explained, here and back then, at length, several times.
Who has to fix the problem and through what channels, is well established.

What remains is for those people to roll up sleeves and do the job that has been sitting around for years without any action, while somewhere north of a hundred thousand euro in funding has been lost through inaction on their part.

A little less of the "all row in together" is needed and a lot more of "do your damned job".

badaj0z

Sparks wrote: »

And with this question you highlight the reason behind (a) my earlier question of whether or not you are sure about the timing of when the report was written and when the specific case occurred; and (b) my earlier point about how the report itself did not speak to anyone in the organisations involved and how that failing can cause a lack of accuracy and omitted details; accuracy and details which would not be lost in the case of a more involved relationship, such as there was between the Department and the SSAI, who were, if not bosum buddies, at least talking to one another regarding the administration of the sport.

And with this answer you show your misunderstanding of how things work in Government and related bodies. Whatever you may think of the report and how it was developed, it exists. It says what it says and the promised changes, made by the SSAI in response need to be carried out to move forward

Sparks wrote: »

I wouldn't characterise this as a debate. You've said some incorrect things and I've corrected you on the events as they actually happened; something which several people could have done by the way, I just happened to be the one over here.

I am the only one who has provided documentary proof so far in this thread Sparks. All you have done is state your opinion to be fact and added bluster—just like Trump

Sparks wrote: »

Sorry, no, that's not a thing.
FISA is extant.
The people supposed to be running it may not have done any visible work in far too long, but that is insufficient to cause it to cease to existFor a start, the DoAST aren't interested - and never have been which is why the NRPAI was in the role it was in in the first place - in dealing with anything other than an umbrella body. They were notified of FISA's creation. FISA is that umbrella body.
This is not a bad thing. It means there's an existing structure. There doesn't have to be a long setup process, it's all done.
Granted, it's much sexier to start from a blank sheet, but in this case that sexiness costs three years of non-funded operation for no reason, along with - quite frankly - reintroducing the level of strife and petty internecine crap that the FISA was set up to stop in the first place.

I say it does not exist and has been this way since 27/4/2011 .Sport Ireland agree with me as it is not shown on their list of NGBs As you are so adamant that it does exist, please show proof. The first last and only Chairman of FISA, for the one hour of it's existence, gave you a thumbs up earlier in this thread. Why do you not ask him to provide documentary evidence such as meeting minutes, especially AGMs, accounts, correspondance and elections?

Sparks wrote: »

We don't.
That's the entire point of this thread.
To get access to the funding, the DoAST want FISA to produce the receipts they asked for six or seven years ago.
Those receipts relate to the period of time when the NASRPC were running the SSAI; FISA is now being run by the NASRPC; therefore there is no obstacle to the NASRPC producing those receipts and sorting out the mess.

Risible nonsense! There you go again making up your own reality. Please prove your assertion. If DoAST want such a thing, show evidence. Also, the NASRPC never ran the SSAI. It was run by it’s elected officers from a variety of organisations. The chairman for the two years in question was from the NRAI who had clear views on who was running it. You show increasing paranoia about the NASRPC. What did they ever do to you to deserve such emotion.

Sparks wrote: »

The average shooter has no role here, nor does the average club - this is purely an administrative accountancy task. That is why these organisations exist - to handle this sort of humdrum boring paperwork so the clubs and shooters can get on with shooting.

These administrative accountancy tasks are done by volunteers, average shooters from average clubs . What affect do you think your regular scornful criticism will have on any shooters who are thinking of doing their bit for the sport .This is a good example of your negative effect on our sport.

Sparks wrote: »

I'm sorry, this is on me now, how exactly?

The last paragraph above answers this question well.

Sparks wrote: »

I've explained - several times, at length - what the problem is. I'm not the first to do that; it's been done, in person, face-to-face, with several of the current NASRPC board's members, six years ago.

Do you mean the previous NASRPC board’s members? I only know of one possible member of the current board who was on the previous board. Your memory is failing Sparks.

Cass

I gave a warning on the other thread to stop taking personal jibes and making derogatory remarks about groups that have no bearing on this thread and whose members have not posted here.

Ignore this final warning and you'll enjoy a holiday.

badaj0z

I had a lovely day on two club ranges today Sparks. It was the Christmas shoot for each club and I am lucky enough to be a member of each of them. I was reminded of what a fine sport this is as I fired 50 Metre Rimfire rifle and 12g at sporting clays. I fact,I was reminded about what nonsense a lot of this thread has been. In the real world, logical people accept logical arguments. In the real world real evidence is accepted as being germane to the ideas being developed. Not so here with you. You have really developed your technique in the Trump era. Facts you do not like are denied. Your standard approach to losing a point is to restate it, louder than ever. I suspect that the "neutral" readers on here are wondering what we are arguing about. Your supporters club, will go on giving you "likes" because you maintain them in their unreal world view.This is my last post on this thread. You will no doubt get in the last statement but I will leave the keyboard alone again until my tolerance is once again pushed beyond it's limit.

ezra_

As a neutral party here (I've no idea who the NASRPC even are), I'll give me €0.02 on what I'm seeing:

1. There is a lot of crap and bad blood involved here (no surprise, this is Ireland) but both of 'ye seem willing to get over that
2. I don't know much about the NASRPC, I've seen some **** stirring posts on here from other organisations (which are easy and clear to ignore), but I've also seen what appear to quite valid questions being asked and 'odd' answers coming back to say the least. So some question marks would be raised based on these
3. Minutiae aside (and I really don't care if its SSAI/FISA or whoever is needed to get the show back on the road) it seems to come down to a question of receipts from past funding. As someone who has been involved with public money before, this makes sense. Those bodies need to account for their spend, and therefore recipients need to account for where their money goes

So really, it would seem to come down to two questions:

Why haven't the receipts been provided (there are many, many valid reasons why not)?

Can they be provided?

If these two questions can be answered, it would seem to be easier to build back towards getting funding and support for shooting.

But if they can't be (to the satisfaction of the Dept. Sport), then all the rest is just whistling dixie.

Sparks

ezra_ wrote: »

But if they can't be (to the satisfaction of the Dept. Sport), then all the rest is just whistling dixie.

This. Until they are provided, the entire process is stalled out, and the Department feels no obligation to get it moving again. As far as they are concerned, the next step is - and has been for years - FISA's to take, and until FISA takes it, they're perfectly happy to go on dealing with the other NGBs because they're set up to deal with actual professional paid staff, not part-time amateurs like us who have day jobs and who have to carve out time for this stuff from the blocks of time usually reserved for family or other hobbies.

So if we never went back to them and never got another penny in grant monies, then not only are they fine with that, they probably won't ever notice.