IAA Purpose

N.O.I.P.

The pupose of the IAA

The declared purpose of the IAA is to provide a representative body for the sport of Airsoft in genral and Ireland specifically.

When authorities, government, media, concern roups etc need information or explanation for Airsoft practices, games and the like they can contact the IAA for an official answer and line of enquiry. The IAA will also act as a nexus of communication between players throughout the Island of Ireland.

The benefit of the joining the IAA, aside from the personal insurance, is that members can be assured that any developments or information regarding the legality of Airsoft or news about development of the sport in Ireland will be made available to them through either the website, mailing list or news letter. It means that players will have the peace of mind that there is an organised body of people representing their intrests to the public and to the authorities.

Members of the IAA will also have the option to address grievences with other players through the IAA and will have a voice in terms of influencing the direction of the sport in Ireland.

For the time being the IAA has no short term plans to organise or hold competitions, however, this is one of the long term goals. The plans linclude a league event between clubs from around Ireland and several MilSim events.

The IAA cannot offer discounts to its members for play sites, it is up to the sites to approach us regarding concessions – we cant demand these things because the sites are outside the remit of the IAA. This does not mean that the IAA are not open to the idea and would very much appreciate the support of venues to make membership as appealing as possible.

Eventually the IAA will be in a position to register sites as “IAA Approved” based on criteria such as amenities, value for money, quality of the games and action zones and the ability of the staff on site. This is of benefit to players because it means that players themselves have checked out these areas and sites and will reflect the issues fairly.

Membership in the IAA will also mean that players will be seen by authorities to be willing to register themselves in order to protect the sport as a whole. In otherwords it means that when little Billy Jones shoots a schoolmate in the eye with some springer he bought in Spain for a fiver – the average Airsoft player will not be lumped in with the criminal types and we will be able to draw a distinction between “idiots” and “players” far more easiy. The same way that a hurley player isnt condemned for owning a hurley stick when some thug batters a granny with one.

Again, right now, things are very much at a basic level which we are hoping to expand on but the most important thing we can do is come together as a group and demand the right to play our game and pusue our sport as we see fit. The IAA will allow us to do that.

Dave!

Damn you Billy Jones!

Cheers for that.

I'm of the opinion that rather than being 'IAA approved', that we try to establish IAA recognition as a prerequisite for a skirmish site being registered as a sports site. That way we have alot more control over the direction the sport takes in the country, in that we can enforce fundamental rules such as eye protection, and we can actually be taken seriously as an organisation.

If we just establish ourselves as a kinda of representative body, then we're no longer taking the route of being a governing body. We can function as both of course, but that requires a more pro-active approach to things like having sites register with us. If we provide an incentive for registration, then we can as I said, have alot more governing power, and actually control the sport better. If all the sites and members are united under the umbrella organisation of the IAA, then if for some crazy reason one particular site decides they want to modify the sport and ban eye protection (for example ), then if we don't have authority over them, they'll drag the sport down somewhat in that we control them as much as the other legitimate sites, and so there's nothing distinguishing them from the rest.

If we have all the sites register with us, then if this sort of thing happens, we can impose sanctions for example, like we'll expel them from the IAA, we won't provide the advertisement that other sites get through us, we won't recognise them as a sport facility, we might ban members from using the site.... These are examples of course, I'm not saying banning members is the best idea.

Anyways that my opinion on it. If we are to establish the IAA as a major governing body for the sport, then we have to do it from the start and have everything require recognition through us. Not in a mean way like we'll go up to site owners wearing suits and DEMAND they join us, but we explain the situation and that we want the sport to go in the right direction and I would think the majority of airsoft players want the same. I wouldn't like the IAA to just represent players, and have another body for sites -- I'd like the IAA to be the top level, with all other organisations and clubs being subsidiary.

What ye think?

ps. I like the idea of competitions; I actually got that idea last night and turned on the light to write it down, 'the IAA open' , in case I forget! Good to see others like the idea.

Hivemind187

DaveMcG wrote:

Damn you Billy Jones!

Cheers for that.

I'm of the opinion that rather than being 'IAA approved', that we try to establish IAA recognition as a prerequisite for a skirmish site being registered as a sports site. That way we have alot more control over the direction the sport takes in the country, in that we can enforce fundamental rules such as eye protection, and we can actually be taken seriously as an organisation.

If we just establish ourselves as a kinda of representative body, then we're no longer taking the route of being a governing body. We can function as both of course, but that requires a more pro-active approach to things like having sites register with us. If we provide an incentive for registration, then we can as I said, have alot more governing power, and actually control the sport better. If all the sites and members are united under the umbrella organisation of the IAA, then if for some crazy reason one particular site decides they want to modify the sport and ban eye protection (for example ), then if we don't have authority over them, they'll drag the sport down somewhat in that we control them as much as the other legitimate sites, and so there's nothing distinguishing them from the rest.

If we have all the sites register with us, then if this sort of thing happens, we can impose sanctions for example, like we'll expel them from the IAA, we won't provide the advertisement that other sites get through us, we won't recognise them as a sport facility, we might ban members from using the site.... These are examples of course, I'm not saying banning members is the best idea.

Anyways that my opinion on it. If we are to establish the IAA as a major governing body for the sport, then we have to do it from the start and have everything require recognition through us. Not in a mean way like we'll go up to site owners wearing suits and DEMAND they join us, but we explain the situation and that we want the sport to go in the right direction and I would think the majority of airsoft players want the same. I wouldn't like the IAA to just represent players, and have another body for sites -- I'd like the IAA to be the top level, with all other organisations and clubs being subsidiary.

What ye think?

ps. I like the idea of competitions; I actually got that idea last night and turned on the light to write it down, 'the IAA open' , in case I forget! Good to see others like the idea.

Well Dave, as it stands at the moment the IAA is being set up as a representative body for the players of the game. It is not our place to dictate the running procedures of any venue that we do not actually own.

We can, however, advise our players and members about particular venues that do mad things like banning eye wear or demanding all players be nude in the safe zone. We arent Nazi's. We want to provide the information for people to make educated decisions.

N.O.I.P.

DaveMcG wrote:

Damn you Billy Jones!

Cheers for that.

I'm of the opinion that rather than being 'IAA approved', that we try to establish IAA recognition as a prerequisite for a skirmish site being registered as a sports site. That way we have alot more control over the direction the sport takes in the country, in that we can enforce fundamental rules such as eye protection, and we can actually be taken seriously as an organisation.

If we just establish ourselves as a kinda of representative body, then we're no longer taking the route of being a governing body. We can function as both of course, but that requires a more pro-active approach to things like having sites register with us. If we provide an incentive for registration, then we can as I said, have alot more governing power, and actually control the sport better. If all the sites and members are united under the umbrella organisation of the IAA, then if for some crazy reason one particular site decides they want to modify the sport and ban eye protection (for example ), then if we don't have authority over them, they'll drag the sport down somewhat in that we control them as much as the other legitimate sites, and so there's nothing distinguishing them from the rest.

If we have all the sites register with us, then if this sort of thing happens, we can impose sanctions for example, like we'll expel them from the IAA, we won't provide the advertisement that other sites get through us, we won't recognise them as a sport facility, we might ban members from using the site.... These are examples of course, I'm not saying banning members is the best idea.

Anyways that my opinion on it. If we are to establish the IAA as a major governing body for the sport, then we have to do it from the start and have everything require recognition through us. Not in a mean way like we'll go up to site owners wearing suits and DEMAND they join us, but we explain the situation and that we want the sport to go in the right direction and I would think the majority of airsoft players want the same. I wouldn't like the IAA to just represent players, and have another body for sites -- I'd like the IAA to be the top level, with all other organisations and clubs being subsidiary.

What ye think?

ps. I like the idea of competitions; I actually got that idea last night and turned on the light to write it down, 'the IAA open' , in case I forget! Good to see others like the idea.

Well if all players and sites had to register with the IAA, what would happen if somebody was kicked out of the IAA (say they forgot to pay their dues) would this mean that they couldn't play on an IAA registered site ie: every site in the country. By this logic anyone who wasn't in the IAA couldn't play so that would close the sport to those under 16, I don't really feel like denying anyone their hobby. Im in this to protect the hobby for everyone.

As far as sites registering with us goes, I have already said that I think there should be a representative body for sites and suppliers and I think this group should be affialiated with the IAA. I don't think that sites should have to seem our approval before they can open, who are we to tell people how to run their businesses. We can speak for the players as we are all players ourselves I think its best if a seperate body set up by retailers looks after this themselves

Hivemind187

By the way ... this was already outlined in the constitution.

Article 5

The IAA makes no special demands on Airsoft venues other than basic levels of safety and hygiene and considers the rules and regulations of the venue (including official rules of engagement) to be the sole proviso of the venue operators. The IAA also makes no special demands of manufacturers; retailers etc and consider the operation of their business to be separate and sovereign from the IAA’s charter.
a)The IAA reserves the right to advise venues, manufacturers and retailers upon request in regard to issues of health & safety, game types, current opinion within the IAA etc and will do so where it is deemed proper.
b)The IAA reserves the right to inform members of venues whose health and safety measures are below minimum standards in the interest of their protection.

Dave!

N.O.I.P. wrote:

Well if all players and sites had to register with the IAA, what would happen if somebody was kicked out of the IAA (say they forgot to pay their dues) would this mean that they couldn't play on an IAA registered site ie: every site in the country. By this logic anyone who wasn't in the IAA couldn't play so that would close the sport to those under 16, I don't really feel like denying anyone their hobby. Im in this to protect the hobby for everyone.

As far as sites registering with us goes, I have already said that I think there should be a representative body for sites and suppliers and I think this group should be affialiated with the IAA. I don't think that sites should have to seem our approval before they can open, who are we to tell people how to run their businesses. We can speak for the players as we are all players ourselves I think its best if a seperate body set up by retailers looks after this themselves

I wasn't saying airsoft participants must register, I was saying that we could provide incentives to encourage them to register, eg. discounts. If a player is expelled they can still play but they just won't get discounts, so they're not being denied anything really.

If our interest is to see the sport develop in a safe way then of course we should try and 'tell' people how to run the sites, by applying minimum standards of safety, and having set rules, eg. eye protection, compulsary chronographs before skirmishes, etc.

We originally set about establishing a governing body akin to the FAI for football, and somewhere along the way it was changed into a representative body.

Do we want to regulate the sport or not? Because if we do then we're going to have to get some sort of grasp on the skirmish sites in order to standardise certain rules and regulations, and the best way to do that is by providing incentives for them such as advertisement, a 'stamp' of approval from a NGB, alot of traffic (ie. participants) once we get competitions going (by using their site as a location)..... If they want to venture out on their own and not avail of these advantages, then that's their perogative, but it's alot easier to just join the IAA and abide by minimum standards outlined by us, which aren't exactly extravagent.

It's the same way that the FAI require minimum standards and abideance by their rules in order to partake in leagues and competitions that they organise. It's a good way to stop any crazies from forming their own clubs, training on the street, and killing people on the pitch. Those who agree to be regulated are open to taking part in competitions and receiving recognition and awards, thus increasing their own marketability and making more money for them.

Hivemind, I don't know where you get the impression that imposing minimum safety standards on sites is 'Nazi-like'.

Hivemind187

The problem is Dave that you are trying to impose rules on venues instead of making suggestions and making people aware. In other words, if you read the constitution, it provides for the ability of the IAA to tell its members that a site is unsafe and not worth playing at if it falls below a certain standard - which in and of itself should be enough without have to "demand" things. The sites will comply because the bad publicity they ill get isnt worth it.

We cant just set up the IAA and suddenly say "Oi, You Mr Venue Operator - do this or else!" - what kind of authority do we have over them? None what so ever.

The only leverage we will have is with our own people.

And the down side of being expelled from the IAA is that you would be black listed and your name given to any affiliated sits and venues which could result in you being prevented from playing. It think thats nasty enough dont you?

Dave!

I am suggesting imposing minimum safety standard on a venue in exchange for free advertisement, increased traffic, involvement in organised leagues (which would mean regular turnouts for them instead of some weekends having 1 or 2 people turn up), legitimisation by providing membership to an organised association rather than have them seem like crazies who play war games in their back yard, etc. It's not like we're coming in and telling them they do what we say in exchange for nothing. It's a case of, you agree to abide by our charter and we'll provide these benefits for you and help your venue to get set up properly. If you don't join us then you'll be making it harder for yourself.

We don't at the moment have any authority over venues, but the point is that we should be trying to establish ourselves as an authority, and that's how we do it -- by getting people to join and by getting venues to register. We're not doing this for the laugh: we're doing this because we want to be able to say to Helen Lovejoy that;

(i) We're an organised association
(ii) We require registration and abidance by certain standards for a skirmish site to be approved
(iii) If a venue is deemed unsafe, we will no longer recognise it, and we will cease to advertise it, as well as not including it in organised competitions and leagues

Same deal with maybe participants who for the laugh decide to blind everybody in the safe zone... Maybe we'll inform our registered venues of the reckless person, dunno whether or not they'd be required to not let him in, that can be decided. But we wouldn't let them take part in competitions, join registered regional clubs, etc.

I'm gonna PM Sparks with a link to this thread, cos I'm interested in his opinion on this.

Hivemind187

I understand your sentiment Dave but I am suggesting the softly softly approach - especially in terms of advertising as leverage. The IAA CANNOT be seen to favor or be influenced by the interests of commercial ventures above those of its members. Hence the reason we are trying to encourage an association of venues and retailers in affiliation with the IAA.

Demanding that venues follow our rules is not the same as advising them of our specific standards. The end result is the same but the approach is different, less antagonistic and more conducive to future relations rather than appearing as some ogre into the world of airsoft. If we start demanding things with an "or else" policy we would be almost guilty of racketeering.

Lastly. Its a CONSTITUTION, not a charter. You can change a constitution you cant change a charter.

Dave!

I don't really see how we'd be seen to be favouring or being influenced by commercial ventures, to be honest. We're acting for the interests of our members by "imposing" (to use an ugly word) minimum standards on the venues.
From the perspective of the members, IMO it would appear that WE are the ones with the power in that situation, since we'll be organising competitions and excluding non-compliant venues, and advertising for those who meet the standards. The venues don't really have much power in that situation, so I don't see the conflict. If we're establishing an association for members and an association for venues, then what, will they have equal standings? In the event of a conflict, who gets to say what goes? There would have to be a group further up the ladder to mediate between the two. I suggest cutting out the middle men and having the IAA look after both, or perhaps have 2 internal groups, one for members and one for venues, with a grand council (sounds very fancy, lol). I'll take a look at other similar organisations and find out how they're structured.

And again I want to reiterate that we're not DEMANDING the venues comply with safety standards; we're presenting them with a handsome offer: we'll be organising leagues in the future, and we'll be providing free advertisement and support for venues that register with us. If you register with us, you can avail of these offers. There's no "or else" -- we can't do anything to them if they don't join. It's not a threat, it's an offer.

The 'softly softly' approach doesn't exactly reek of organisation or structure to me. That's what we're trying to promote, not word of mouth recommendations. Also if we start telling members not to attend certain venues, then I'd say we'd be heading into some legal difficulty in the future. It's better to say we recognise a, b, and c -- than to say we do not recognise d. If ya know what I mean.

Sparks

Hivemind187 wrote:

Demanding that venues follow our rules is not the same as advising them of our specific standards.

Again, this is from the target shooting perspective, but safety isn't something you can take a softly-softly approach to really. There have to be hard, enforced rules. Softly-softly diplomacy is rarely appreciated by the blinded party.

From the ISSF rules (the ISSF is the international governing body for olympic shooting, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to read through their setup for ideas to poach):

6.2.0 SAFETY
SAFETY IS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE.

6.2.1 ISSF Rules state only specific safety requirements which are required by the ISSF for use in ISSF Championships. Necessary and special safety regulations for ranges differ from country to country. For this reason no details are stated within these Rules. The safety of a shooting range depends to a large extent on local conditions, so additional safety rules may be established by the Organizing Committee. The Organizing Committee must know the principles of range safety and take the necessary steps to apply them. The Organizing Committee bears the responsibility for safety. Team officials and shooters must be advised of any special regulations.

6.2.2 The safety of shooters, range officials and spectators requires continued and careful attention to gun handling and caution in moving about the range. Self-discipline is necessary on the part of all. Where such self-discipline is lacking, it is the duty of range officials to enforce discipline and the duty of shooters and team officials to assist in such enforcement.

6.2.3 Ear Protection

Notices must be prominently displayed and hearing protection must be available for ALL persons in the range area. All shooters and other persons in the immediate vicinity of the firing line are urged to wear ear plugs, ear muffs, or similar ear protection. Hearing protection in the form of ear plugs or muffs (not plain cotton) must be provided for all range officials whose duties require them to be near the firing line during shooting (i.e. Register Keepers, Range Officers, Jury Members etc.). Ear protectors incorporating any type of receiving devices are not permitted for shooters.

BTW, on the purpose of rules:

6.1.1 Objective and Purpose of ISSF Rules
The ISSF establishes Technical Rules for the sport of shooting to govern the conduct of shooting events recognized by the ISSF (see ISSF General Regulations Article 3.3.1). The objective of the ISSF is to achieve uniformity in the conduct of the shooting sport throughout the world to promote the development of the sport. ISSF Technical Rules are provided to help achieve this objective.

6.1.1.1 ISSF Technical Rules include rules for range construction, targets, scoring etc. for all shooting disciplines. Discipline Rules apply specifically to the four shooting disciplines: Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun and Running Target.

Spitfire666

Thats what donal from predator was talking to me about,
Getting a marshall and owner of each site involved on the committe so that we CAN set out rules and have the same rules (safety wise anyway) for all sites both north AND south of the boarder.

It would also be good should the government try ban the sport in that the commitee will not only be defending the players right to play, but defending the buisnesses set up to allow players to play.

Hivemind187

Again you are reading something which is written by an organisation running its own stuff.

I dont know how many times we can say this but THE IAA CAN NOT TELL PRIVATE COMPANIES NOT AFFILIATED WITH IT WHAT TO DO NOR CAN IT DEMAND THAT ALL SUCH VENUES AND RETAILERS BE MEBERS BEFORE OPERATING IN IRELAND.

It has to be the way we have set it out already because if we start dictating tovenues what should be common sense then we are guilty of using our position to manipulate businesses which have the right to run their business as they see fit.

We CAN however, make suggestions and inform people of venues and product we believe to be unsafe. It is a softer approach but none the less effective without appearing to be "throwing our weight around".

Right now the IAA is being set up to bring players together so that they can form an association of players and clubs and have a voice to protect and support their sport. After that initial goal has been achieved we will look at things like safety standardisation and working with venues to improve the way things are run.

There is, however, nothing stopping a venue or business from joining the IAA and developing its site and games around the principals of the IAA.

Lastly, there is an official safety statement in the process of being drafted which all members of the IAA will be required to read and sign before joining - it will cover all of th major safety aspects of the sport and indicate the duty of players to make others aware of significant dangers they find on venues or with certain products.

I do appreciate the reaserch you guys are doing and the effort you are putting in.

[--SC(+)PE--]

It would also be good should the government try ban the sport in that the commitee will not only be defending the players right to play, but defending the buisnesses set up to allow players to play

wise council that

Hivemind187

Spitfire666 wrote:

Thats what donal from predator was talking to me about,
Getting a marshall and owner of each site involved on the committe so that we CAN set out rules and have the same rules (safety wise anyway) for all sites both north AND south of the boarder.

It would also be good should the government try ban the sport in that the commitee will not only be defending the players right to play, but defending the buisnesses set up to allow players to play.

Hmmm ... food for thoguht that. the trouble is that we are trying to develop the "players and individuals" element first before including businesses. that said, the guys running these thigns tend to be players to so there is nothign stopping them from joining in that capacity until we can organise either a separate but affiliated group or can organise the IAA to include business interests.

Sparks

Getting a marshall and owner of each site involved on the committe so that we CAN set out rules and have the same rules (safety wise anyway) for all sites both north AND south of the boarder.

If I understand correctly there already is an IAA in N.Ireland; what you should be doing is sitting down with them at a meeting of equals to decide on rules you can both stand behind in terms of safety and in terms of gameplay, technical aspects, etc.

On that point, you would want to make it a priority to open up communications with them and to make preserving and using that communications channel an IAA priority because if both North and South have the same rules and easy travel from one side to the other, then you'll see cross-border matches, and those are a good thing. First off, you get knowlege transfer from the more experienced shooters in the North, secondly you get more competitiors, thirdly you can claim to be boosting tourism in grant applications, and there are other reasons as well.

Sparks

Hivemind187 wrote:

Again you are reading something which is written by an organisation running its own stuff.

Actually, you're not. The ISSF does not own the ranges, nor does it control the national organisations that run the matches, nor the clubs that run the lower level matches that make up 99% of the sport.

However, it does set out the rules, and the clubs and national bodies go with that because it makes more sense to use one body of rules that are well thought out and publicly available. It saves time and money and lets people compete in the one sport at all levels rather than one sport in this county and another over here, and yet another over there, and an altogether different one at international level and so on.

I dont know how many times we can say this but THE IAA CAN NOT TELL PRIVATE COMPANIES NOT AFFILIATED WITH IT WHAT TO DO NOR CAN IT DEMAND THAT ALL SUCH VENUES AND RETAILERS BE MEBERS BEFORE OPERATING IN IRELAND.

On the contrary, it can and must do the former, the penalty for non-compliance being that company being de-affiliated. That's the reality of being a governing body; you have to enforce the rules you codify. As to the latter, the way it works in target shooting is that if you want to go to the Olympics, you have to be in the ISSF structure. If you don't, if you want to shoot gallery rifle for example, well then off you go, but you won't be involved with ISSF.

Who's the international governing body for Airsoft and who do they recognise as the Irish National Governing Body right now?

Lastly, there is an official safety statement in the process of being drafted which all members of the IAA will be required to read and sign before joining

Which will be meaningless if you don't enforce safety standards from day one.
Seriously, a governing body has to set out the rules with the best interests of everyone in mind, but if it does so and one member flouts them, then the best interests of everyone demands that the governing body enforce the rules with rulings and sanctions if needed.

CrazyRabbit

We need to decide (by vote??) if the IAA is to a governing body or a representative body.

If it's a governing body, then it should enforce minimum safety standards on sites. This is to protect it's members and the sport in general (a serious injury due to inadequate safety would be bad press). There is a duty of care to it's members by the IAA.

When I say 'enforce', I don't mean run in demanding x, y & z. Instead, any site not adhering to the minimum safety standards would not be recognised by the IAA, would receive no advertising and IAA members would be warned about the site. Sites can still run their business as they like, but they should be made to do so without sacrificing the health and safety of the players.

While everyone prefers the softly softly approach, it is not be the best approach when dealing with safety. And leaving safety up to individuals can be dangerous. Just look at the Stardust tradegy and similar to see what I mean. Safety is important and is something that should be enforced...even on site owners. I seriously doubt any site owner would have any problems with the minimum safety standards be proposed so long as they are kept reasonable. Of course, site owners would also have input into these safety standards.

If the IAA is to be a representative body, then it should recommend a set of minimum safety standards to sites and perhaps offer incentives for the sites to adopt these standards. However, the IAA would not be in a position to punish sites for not adhering to the safety standards. The IAA would be limited to just warning it's members about the site.

I would recommend that the IAA be a Governing Body. As the sport is in it's infancy here, it needs strong leadership and not just someone to represent some of the players.

Before there is any more discussion about this topic, I suggest that the owners of the current sites (Barrage, HRTA & Predator etc) work together to see if they can come up with a defined set of safety standards that could be adopted by the IAA. That way, nobody is forcing anything on them.


Just one final thought to consider. If you were the manager of a soccer club, would you allow your under 13's team to play on a soccer pitch that had broken glass on it? No, you would demand that the owner of the pitch clean it up. If they didn't, you would take your business elsewhere. Now, if you are a NGB for airsoft, would you let your members play at an unsafe site, or would you force the owners of the site to make it safe by threatening to take your business (and members) elsewhere?

Dave!

I think as was mentioned, it all comes down to whether we want to be a representative union of airsoft participants, or a national governing body for airsoft in the country. I was under the impression from the start that we were going for the latter.

Spitfire666

CrazyRabbit wrote:

Before there is any more discussion about this topic, I suggest that the owners of the current sites (Barrage, HRTA & Predator etc) work together to see if they can come up with a defined set of safety standards that could be adopted by the IAA. That way, nobody is forcing anything on them.

That is exactly what i was getting at. thats what the guys from predator/frv/sg1 are looking to do. A meeting is going to be aranged soon somewhere near dundalk to try give southern players/marshalls/site owners a chance to attend the meeting as opposed to holding it on site further up north.

Hivemind187 wrote:

I dont know how many times we can say this but THE IAA CAN NOT TELL PRIVATE COMPANIES NOT AFFILIATED WITH IT WHAT TO DO NOR CAN IT DEMAND THAT ALL SUCH VENUES AND RETAILERS BE MEBERS BEFORE OPERATING IN IRELAND.

but we CAN if the IAA committee is made up of both players AND site owners/marshalls alike.



And sparks, i dont think there is any form of governing body in the North yet either as that seems to be whats is being attempted at the minute and thats why we should all north AND south try to set up ONE organisation for both sides of the boarder.