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
[Sept. 10] NTSA AGM
Options
Comments
-
tireur wrote:a self belief that you are the only one who knows how to run the NTSA, yet you do not seem willing to do any of the work?0
-
Sparks wrote:The Colleges are shut out of the Nationals again;the clubs are looking at another year with no help from the NTSA and left with the question once more of "what do we get for our affiliation fee?";membership is still made too expensive for students so that the attrition rate for college club graduates will remain at well over 90%;scores shot in international competitions still remain ineligible to keep a shooter in the National Squad (so that it's entirely possible for a shooter to put in an MQS score in Bisley or Intershoot, and not be eligible for selection for the National Team!);show up to a registered shoot and the wind is at gale force your score still counts to your average (even though others at shoots with better weather will have an unfair advantage over you)club PROs will have to be part of the "in crowd", or they may find they're being left out in the cold by those that are meant to be working to support them;and clubs won't have a formalised means to get a voice in how their disciplines are administered at a national level (which, again, means you have to be a part of the "in crowd" to get a good hearing).And while much has been promised, and I have confidence in two or three of the committee to actually try to do something,I have no confidence that they'll be able to get past the obstacles that will be thrown up in their way. And from the grins and smug looks at the time of voting, I'm fairly pessimistic about the odds of those initiatives ever being implemented, despite how badly they're needed.0
-
Sparks wrote:Poppycock. Two years on the NTSA committee, seven years running or helping to run DURC, two years helping to run WTSC. Anyone who says I haven't been willing to do work doesn't know what they're talking about.
AS you seem to have very strong views on how to run it, why are you not on the NTSA committee now Sparks? Did anyone from DURC or WTSC speak in support of your motions at the meeting?0 -
Sparks wrote:
2. "My" list of motions (allmost all of which can be traced back to those who were sitting at the top table) amounts to a stated desire from a significant portion of the members of the company as to how they want things run in their name and with their money to those who volunteered to do so. This isn't some private club we're talking about here; this is a limited company, under the 1963 companies act. Our tax money is sent to them via grants, and we pay money to them directly in dues and levies. And one of the complaints I occasionally heard at the top table was that we never knew what shooters wanted. This time, there's a list of things shooters want. And what happened? It's stomped all over, not just for the competitive shooters who train for international matches and invest huge amounts of time, money, blood, sweat and tears into the sport; but also the recreational shooters, the guys and girls who just shoot because it's a fun sport to be involved in and a relaxing way to spend a sunday morning. This time both groups lost out. And I'm still trying to figure out whose interests were served.
You have not addressed my question SPARKS, If a majority voted against the failed motions then your comment above is irrelevant. What shooters want, as expressed by the majority vote at the meeting, is not to support your views. You do not seem to want to follow the logic of any argument. You prefer to go off on emotional tangents illustrated with words like "stomped" or "blood sweat and tears". Please stick to the point so that we can expose the shaky basis of your arguments all the quicker and bring this thread to a close.0 -
rrpc wrote:Well, to be fair the coaching initaitive is a move in the right direction.Sorry, I'm fed up with hearing about this one, club membership is not expensive. Certainly not when compared with other sports. Even field sports subs are as expensive or more expensive than shooting.
And the NGB membership fee is too high to get more than a tiny handful of the active shooters in the colleges to join. Students just don't have money - anyone who's done a college course knows this, but somehow manages to forget it when it becomes time to collect money from students...If this was allowed, you would get a vicious circle of a closed shop, where international shooters stay international shooters because they are shooting more competitions and have therefore a better chance of getting an MQS. And aspiring shooters have to contend with much poorer conditions to try and compete for a place.Hence my argument above, and an MQS is not an average, it's a score in a qualifying competition. In the past, international shooters never turned up to local competitions thus creating a two tier system.Objection!, argumentative . How out in the cold?.Well, I would be encouraged by the fact that so many motions got through, at least there appears to be a forum for expression of ideas.Well let them on with it and lets see how they do. We, at least have a set of benchmarks to measure them against vis a vis the motions carried. Don't prejudge them, we have to give them a chance.0 -
Advertisement
-
tireur wrote:AS you seem to have very strong views on how to run it, why are you not on the NTSA committee now Sparks?Did anyone from DURC or WTSC speak in support of your motions at the meeting?tireur wrote:You have not addressed my question SPARKS, If a majority voted against the failed motions then your comment above is irrelevant. What shooters want, as expressed by the majority vote at the meeting, is not to support your views.You do not seem to want to follow the logic of any argument. You prefer to go off on emotional tangents illustrated with words like "stomped" or "blood sweat and tears".Please stick to the point so that we can expose the shaky basis of your arguments all the quicker and bring this thread to a close.0
-
You really can not stick to the point of any argument can you Sparks. The issue here is that some motions were put to the NTSA Agm and all of the contentious ones were defeated by a significant majority of votes cast by or on behalf of members. This is democracy in action. You are unwilling to accept the result and try to divert the debate into emotional and subjective areas of your judgement. You attempt to regurgitate the poor reasons you put forward at the meeting and based on past threads I have looked at involving your arguments, you are prepared to go on forever doing this. Either you do not understand the sound basis for your defeat or you do not want to accept it as it would be a major blow to your self esteem. Which is it?0
-
That's not a bad attempt at spin tireur, but you haven't done what you said you would, namely to expose the shaky basis behind funding clubs and accrediting coaches and encouraging participation in competition and making those competitions fairer.
I am glad, however, to see that you have identified that you were present at the meeting. At least now we know that you did in fact vote on those motions; and thus you must have had your reasons for doing so. Since the votes were cast openly, you therefore would have no reason not to tell us which motions you voted against and why you felt it was important to not pass them, is this not so?0 -
Would I perhaps be right in guessing that some people are taking all this very personal - hardly uninterested observers, I suspect.0
-
Sparks wrote:That's not a bad attempt at spin tireur, but you haven't done what you said you would, namely to expose the shaky basis behind funding clubs and accrediting coaches and encouraging participation in competition and making those competitions fairer.
I said I would expose the shaky basis of your argument I did not say I would humour you by trying to follow your repeatedly faulty logic... You attempted to divert the argument yet again. At the risk of seeming pedantic to those already bored with the discussion, your basic argument, hoever poorly expressed , is that you and the people who support you, are the only ones who understand the issues and have the true interests of all target shooters at heart. You keep coming back to detail issues about how you would like the sport run and your motions primarily concerned these details. All of your arguments on this thread continue in this vein.You keep ignoring the fact that after open debate, a voting process took place as a result of which a substantial majority of NTSA members disagreed with you. They do not want to run the sport the way you want it run. But you do not want to hear this, you portray yourself as the lone crusader, misunderstood by those you are trying to help and conspired against by the "vested interests" Please, please get a grip on yourself before you become truly delusional.0 -
Advertisement
-
tireur wrote:I said I would expose the shaky basis of your argument I did not say I would humour you by trying to follow your repeatedly faulty logic...
funding clubs
By running supported shoots where the NTSA pays the club's costs, the club makes money and is encouraged to run competitions. Why is this bad?
accrediting coaches
Why is it bad to have an accredited and trained coach in every NTSA club? Won't this drive up scores, and thus increase the sense of satisfaction felt by all shooters?
encouraging participation in competition
How is this a bad thing? Do we have too many shooters?
and making those competitions fairer.
Why is it bad to want fair competitions?You attempted to divert the argument yet again.you and the people who support you, are the only ones who understand the issuesYou keep coming back to detail issues about how you would like the sport run and your motions primarily concerned these details.They do not want to run the sport the way you want it run.But you do not want to hear this, you portray yourself as the lone crusaderPlease, please get a grip on yourself before you become truly delusional.0 -
I am despairing of your ability to understand any argument. You again descend into the detail. I suspect that this is because you know you have already lost the high level debate so you are trying to obfuscate the issues .The argument on the detailed motions is over. To follow your style let us take it slowly then
1. You proposed many detailed motions on how the NTSA should be run.
2. Despite what you said earlier in the debate, no-one from the clubs you were representing spoke for the motions.
3. Many people spoke against the motions.
4. A vote was taken.
5. All of the contentious motions failed to pass.
6. The debate is over. The NTSA committee wil run the organisation in accordance with the wishes of the majority.
Why don't you realise this and perhaps try to work with the committee again. If you really have the interests of the shooters from DURC and WTSC at heart, perhaps you will recognise that your championing of their cause might have achieved the opposite effect to that intended.0 -
This thread started off quite enjoyable to read, but has now become unbearable. You're like two babies in a playpen arguing over who gets the toy.
We are all aware of the results of the AGM. There is no point in arguing back and forth, non-stop over something that cannot be rectified again till the next AGM. Grin and bear it and make the best of what has come out of it.
We are all shooters on this forum. Both competitive and for fun. You've begun to take the kick out of it. Just my 2c worth!0 -
I agree with you LB6 Your second paragraph neatly sums up my argument
Quote
"We are all aware of the results of the AGM. There is no point in arguing back and forth, non-stop over something that cannot be rectified again till the next AGM. Grin and bear it and make the best of what has come out of it."0 -
tireur wrote:You again descend into the detail.I suspect that this is because you know you have already lost the high level debate so you are trying to obfuscate the issues.The argument on the detailed motions is over.To follow your style let us take it slowly then
1. You proposed many detailed motions on how the NTSA should be run.2. Despite what you said earlier in the debate, no-one from the clubs you were representing spoke for the motions.
How could you not know these people tireur? Surely it has not been that long since you were at a competition?3. Many people spoke against the motions.4. A vote was taken.
5. All of the contentious motions failed to pass.
6. The debate is over. The NTSA committee wil run the organisation in accordance with the wishes of the majority.Why don't you realise this and perhaps try to work with the committee again.
And that was in just eight months. Sorry, no. Not 'till there's a sea change.If you really have the interests of the shooters from DURC and WTSC at heart, perhaps you will recognise that your championing of their cause might have achieved the opposite effect to that intended.0 -
Sparks wrote:Is it that hard to follow? Let's take it slowly then.
funding clubs
By running supported shoots where the NTSA pays the club's costs, the club makes money and is encouraged to run competitions. Why is this bad?.accrediting coaches
Why is it bad to have an accredited and trained coach in every NTSA club? Won't this drive up scores, and thus increase the sense of satisfaction felt by all shooters?That the NTSA commit to have at least one club-level coach accredited by the NTSA and NCTC in each NTSA club within two years; and that at least one club-level coach be accredited by the NTSA and NCTC in each new NTSA club within two years of the club affiliating to the NTSA.Passed
Going back to your previous reply to my post regarding MQS's, I still believe that it is fairer that everyone competes on the same ranges at the same times as other potential national squad members. I know, if given the choice between the Malcolm Cooper Range in Bisley and DRC's range in Blessington, which one I'd get the better score on. And I know that in the past, national squad members hardly ever turned up at local competitions until the Registered shoot system was introduced.
As it is, only after the intervention of the National Coach and TR coordinator, have any national squad members started shooting indoors, as indoor shoots are not registered, never have been, and probably never will be.0 -
Because the clubs already make money from competitions, providing enough competitors turn up.
I'm just a tad puzzled though - what club is so rich that it can't find a use for more money? Do all clubs have an array of club rifles and jackets and gloves and scopes and stands and mats and trousers and boots and all the other gear for beginners to use, in a range of sizes and makes? Did we all win the Lotto while I wasn't listening to the news?btw, the use of bad/good is subjective, making any argument against the motion inherently bad rather than well-reasoned or with any merit.
Bad for the sport: leads to a decline in same.
Please forgive my assumption that this was understood.Going back to your previous reply to my post regarding MQS's, I still believe that it is fairer that everyone competes on the same ranges at the same times as other potential national squad members.
It's a bit, well, uneven, isn't it? Not to mention that it does bad things to our medal prospects!I know, if given the choice between the Malcolm Cooper Range in Bisley and DRC's range in Blessington, which one I'd get the better score on.Was this not passed?0 -
Sparks, why don't you listen to LB6? You want to continue to debate your lost causes and I want you to recognise that they are lost causes and perhaps learn from the experience but I think that this aspiration is a lost cause .0
-
Ah, lost causes. Can't help it tireur, lost causes are a favorite topic of mine.
Lost causes like promoting a sport that involves firearms in a country with 30 years of terrorism in its recent history and all the negative public image that goes with that. Lost causes like sending teams abroad to win medals, not just to say that we sent someone. Lost causes like coaching and training and competing.
You know tireur, the stuff you've been doing for - how long has it been now?0 -
Sparks wrote:But sometimes not enough do turn up. Which can lead to clubs being worried over the finances of a shoot. This way, that is eliminated, at least for one shoot during the year, and the club gets a measure of financial support in the bargain. And after seven years of running and helping to run competitions in DURC, I can tell you that we never made much of a profit off of shoots, and we did lose money more than once.I'm just a tad puzzled though - what club is so rich that it can't find a use for more money? Do all clubs have an array of club rifles and jackets and gloves and scopes and stands and mats and trousers and boots and all the other gear for beginners to use, in a range of sizes and makes? Did we all win the Lotto while I wasn't listening to the news?Good for the sport: leads to a rise in participation and performance;
Bad for the sport: leads to a decline in same. Please forgive my assumption that this was understood.And if they can't, but can train on a local range in scotland or surrey or wales or france or wherever they find themselves? Do we say "tough luck, you couldn't get a job at home and had to emigrate and now we rule that you're not eligible to represent the country you were born in and hold a passport for - but the lads from up North get to represent Ireland even though they're in another jurisdiction, because they hold Irish passports".
It's a bit, well, uneven, isn't it? Not to mention that it does bad things to our medal prospects!And yet, every member of the GB squad was complaining about the Cooper range and its diabolical wind only a few years back, and refusing to shoot on it lest they drop their averages.Not disagreeing with you, mind, I know where I'd rather shoot too ; but would I fly from Ireland to the UK every day to shoot in Bisley and then return home? Could I afford to?Passed with the caveat that if noone came forward, then it was out of their hands. The point, you see, was to go out and actively seek out people and encourage then to become coaches; and given that people have been turned down in their requests for accreditation courses, I'm pessimisitic as to the prospects of the idea. But I could be pleasantly surprised, I suppose.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sparks, you have an odd idea of what constitutes a lost cause but I have to say in your favour, that for the first time in this debate, you are showing that you do recognise what defines a strategic objective as opposed to the detailed tactics used to achieve it. If you developed this thinking into analysing what happened at the AGM you would realise that it is just this issue which prevented your first motion from being carried.0
-
I have to say that as an objective outsider, Sparks seems to be producing an articulate and reasonable discourse. It may be partisan, but it's not ill-reasoned. Tireur, on the other hand, seems to be ripping into him, not his arguements. Tireur clearly has the vocabulary of a grown up, but not the maturity. It's a shame that, in shooting, people such as this are often the most vocal, instead of the sensible, thoughtful and reasonable participants.
Are you involved in shooting at an administrative level, Tireur?
With regard to qualifying scores, I quite agree that national squad qualification should include the scores obtained at international matches. The arguement that it leads to a closed shop is only valid in the light of the poor standards of facilities available in Ireland (which are getting better by the day with Rathdrun and Dungannon opening soon). However, if any shooter is serious about representing their country, not just about getting into the national squad, then they will have to be prepared to travel and compete elsewhere. Not just with the team, but personally, in their own time, with their own money, to build up enough experience to be competitive internationally. Anyone who is not prepared to do this shouldn't be thinking about the national team.0 -
Thankyou for your observation StevenW. Like Sparks, you seem to have missed the point about the level of the debate. It should be about how, all of us together. move shooting forward in this country. What SPARKS displayed in his write up on the AGM( which is what brought me into the debate) was a divisive and selfish view of what had happened because he could not understand the broader issues at stake. His arguments are all about the administrative details of running target shooting in this country without recognising the damage he is doing by being an external critic instead of an internal contributor.0
-
tireur wrote:What SPARKS displayed in his write up on the AGM( which is what brought me into the debate) was a divisive and selfish view of what had happened.
When all the failed motions were defeated pretty much 69 to 38 everytime i can't fail to see how anyone could not have a divisive view of the agm. Maybe only a certain amount of club reps and those who shoot four registered shoots a year should be allowed vote as they are the most active members of the organisation and should have the say in the NTSAs future.0 -
phantom_lord wrote:Maybe only a certain amount of club reps and those who shoot four registered shoots a year should be allowed vote as they are the most active members of the organisation and should have the say in the NTSAs future.
In any event, there appears to be a whiff of childish foot stamping and throwing toys out of the pram about this discussion to the extent that nobody appears to be listening to anybody elses arguments in any kind of reasonable way. It might be better to take some of the motions from the list and debate them seperately as rrpc appears to be doing, rather than counting votes and coming up with conspiracy theories.
I pointed out earlier that over 50% of motions carried was a pretty good innings for any AGM, and yet people seem to be harping on about the ones that failed. Surely, it would be better in the interests of the NTSA, to ensure that the ones that were passed are carried through, and then perhaps revisit the ones that failed, after a mature debate on their merits or demerits on this board.0 -
I'd be quite uncomfortable at that idea as well PL, even though, having seen who was voting, I'd acknowlege that some system is needed to prevent abuse of the register of members of the Association - otherwise, a larger group could simply buy up votes in the Association, then pass a motion to dissolve it and spread the proceeds amongst themselves, and to prevent it, you'd have to call in the ODCE or the High Court under article 205 and that would be rather a lot of trouble to go to.
And yes Clash, we did get some motions passed; but the ones that were the most important were not passed, and the damage that will do to the NTSA and its competitive shooters is serious in both the short and long terms.0 -
I wish to compliment Sparks on putting the motions onto the agenda and bringing into the open for debate a number of topics which were and have been for too long left festering in the background and in the shadows of formerly smoky bars.
I wish to thank Sparks too for getting so many new people and some not so new to attend at the AGM. For in the case of many organisations this is the meeting to miss - boring speeches and god forbid you might get a job!
That the debates on the day were not great and the voting did seem to go in blocks is a bit disappointing. But is was encouranging to hear from the top table that the fears and misgivings of 30% ish will have to be addressed. And that while the wording of some of the motions which were defeated or withdrawn may have been the main reason why they failed. Those on the top table did agree that the spirit of many of these motions were genuine and would be taken account off. Lets hope that those who are charged with the running of the organisation for the next year will endeavour to bring together the various points of view that are so necessary to the vitality of the group. That there are disagreements is given but every family has its rows, doesn't make them any less of a family. That there is passion is good too.
I wish also to congratulate Sparks for almost single handedly (if that is a word) nearly doubling the membership of the NTSA and if that figure is incorrect then he can be congratulated for getting all the membership fees paid on time.0 -
I guess that is an upside allright. With 120-odd members on the books, and 108 of them actively involved in how the association is run, the next few competitions should be absolutely full past capacity. No more competitions with only 20 or 30 people showing up! Huzzah!0
-
I agree with Clash above about the need for mature debate within the NTSA on the points raised by the AGM.
I hope that Sparks is right too in that this renewed intrest in the affairs of the NTSA will be reflected on to the firing lines where our disciplines are shot.
Regretabally, the Rathdrum match was maybe too close to the AGM and that might be a reason for such a small turn out. Ah but who picked the date for the AGM? ..... 39ers 1 head office utd 0 - the game has only started and who is keeping score? Here we go again!0 -
Advertisement
-
And yes Clash, we did get some motions passed; but the ones that were the most important were not passed, and the damage that will do to the NTSA and its competitive shooters is serious in both the short and long terms.Sparks wrote:That the NTSA immediately withdraw from the NRPAI and seek independent recognition from the Irish Sports Council, the Federation of Irish Sports, the Department of Justice and other relevant bodies; but that our withdrawl not be contingent on such recognition.
Not PassedThat the minutes of all NTSA committee meetings be published on the website and made available to all NTSA members with the exception of the AntiDoping and Disciplinary committees, whose meetings should not be held concurrently with other meetings.
Not PassedThat the NTSA change its membership policy from a club based system to an individual system, with the following fees:
Club Affiliation fee: €50 per annum
Individual Membership:
- First year, through an NTSA club: free
- First year, not through an NTSA club: €2 student / €5 adult
- Subsequent years: €2 student / €5 adult
- Individuals may not serve on committee nor vote in the AGM during their first year.
Optional extras:
- Newsletter: €15 per annum or €2 per copy
- Insurance: As per Insurance policy details
Not PassedThat the system of registered shoots be abolished and replaced with;
- A list of recognised shoots whose scores can be used for the purposes of maintaining national averages, rankings and classifications; and
- Supported Shoots, one per discipline per NTSA club, where the NTSA pays for all operational costs of the competition from targets to prizes to advertising and the club keeps all entry fees.
Not PassedThat the NTSA institute formal review meetings following all National Championships, International Matches in which the NTSA send Irish shooters to compete, and all Supported Shoots. Minutes of these meetings to be made available to all NTSA members via the website.
Not PassedThat a maximum wind velocity be set for outdoor matches beyond which scores will not be counted for national ranking purposes.
Not PassedThat the NTSA appoint an Anti-Doping Officer.
Not PassedThat the NTSA appoint a Children's Officer.
Not PassedThat the NTSA create a network of club PROs who are in contact with one another and the national PRO.
Not PassedThat the NTSA schedule seperate 10m Airgun and 50m Rifle National Championships at the end of their respective seasons from next year onwards.
Not Passed
Phew! that's it, I know I've been a bit flippant on some of these , but then again maybe that was deserved. I approached them with an open mind and was quite surprised at how many I didn't agree with, or was not convinced about their supoosed positive effect. Some, I thought were drawn up with a particular constituency in mind (students), and although that's understandable considering Sparks background in student shooting, there would of necessity be a different viewpoint held by non student shooters. That's the one I espoused here, make no apologies for, and makes it no less valid. Other motions like the PRO and Children's officer one, would be perfectly fitting, were the NTSA a larger organisation with a far greater number of members (IMHO).
Anyway, kevlar on and sitting in my nuclear shelter waiting for the brickbats0
Advertisement