NASRPC's refusal to allow affiliation of clubs

Tackleberry.

habitformin wrote: »

I have it on good authority that the chairman Micheal Tope has received the required five letters from current affiliated clubs.
Why hasn't Micheal Tope called an EGM.
He has to call one or he is outside his own rule book.
As chairman Micheal Tope is obliged to do this once the required numbers call for it.
What excuse is there for this delay.
An EGM is what is needed now to deal with this specific issue. All other stuff can wait for the AGM .

Also heard the above, the letters where actually handed to him so he could not refuse ever getting them, the EGM needs to be called now or is there going to be a amended constitution apper ,,,,,

cra

What Habitformin and Tackleberry say is true, the constitution of the NASRPC (either of them) state that if at least 1/3 of member clubs look for an EGM one has to be called. There are at the moment 10 clubs fully affiliated to the NASRPC of which 5 have written to the committee and requested an EGM. This is not rumor or hearsay it is fact and it's very damning that the committee are not only ignoring the will of its members it is ignoring the very constitution that governs the association. Whether it is better to have an EGM or AGM is irrelevant, an EGM has been requested by at least half of the members so why is it not called, if the committee were doing their job properly they would postpone the AGM and have the EGM in its place.

As a matter of interest when you look at the figures there are 19 clubs listed as members but we know 4 of them do not exist anymore, of the other 15 only 10 are still affiliated so what has gone wrong, why has the NASRPC lost 1/3 of its members, what does this say for the future of our sport?

garrettod

cra wrote: »

...There are at the moment 10 clubs fully affiliated to the NASRPC of which 5 have written to the committee and requested an EGM.

Hi,

Have those five clubs all publically acknowledged that they have called for an EGM and if so, could you please list them (sorry, perhaps I've missed this here, but can't see to find the list of names if I have) ?

habitformin

garrettod wrote: »

Hi,

Have those five clubs all publically acknowledged that they have called for an EGM and if so, could you please list them (sorry, perhaps I've missed this here, but can't see to find the list of names if I have) ?

It's time the committee started answering a few questions . This should be put to chairman <SNIP> Micheal Tope.
After all isn't he the one started all this by pulling up out of the sports coalition after giving an undertaking to stay? Seek your answers there.

BattleCorp

habitformin wrote: »

It's time the committee started answering a few questions . This should be put to chairman <SNIP> Micheal Tope.
After all isn't he the one started all this by pulling up out of the sports coalition after giving an undertaking to stay? Seek your answers there.

Calling anyone names isn't going to do you any favours.

If you have a problem with how things are being run, put forward a motion to be discussed at the AGM. Motions have to be forwarded in writing at least 21 days before the AGM so anybody with anything to complain about had better get writing quickly.

Below is an extract from the NASRPC Constitution that I googled.

Motions submitted for consideration .
All motions should be submitted in writing to the Secretary at least 21 days before the date of the General Meeting. In the event of such a motion being submitted, the Secretary shall, not less than 14 days before a General Meeting, circulate the motion along with the agenda of the General Meeting to the membership of the NASRPC. Any motion submitted in writing for consideration by the Committee shall be discussed at the meeting. Any motion should be proposed and seconded by two affiliated Clubs of the NASRPC present at the meeting. The decision on the motion shall be by simple majority of those affiliated members present.

Like I said in earlier posts, I'm not sticking up for the Committee so if, like you say, 1/3 of clubs have formally requested an EGM, then the Committee will have to answer for not holding the EGM if the rules say that they should have held one.

Did 1/3 of the clubs officially ask for an EGM in writing?

There are a few people on boards here saying that 5 clubs have asked for an EGM. I've no idea if that's true or not. Is it 5 clubs, or lads from 5 clubs because there is a difference. A member of a club can't call for an EGM, it must be formally requested by the club in writing.

I guess all the facts will come out at the AGM.

habitformin

BattleCorp wrote: »

Calling anyone names isn't going to do you any favours.

If you have a problem with how things are being run, put forward a motion to be discussed at the AGM. Motions have to be forwarded in writing at least 21 days before the AGM so anybody with anything to complain about had better get writing quickly.

Below is an extract from the NASRPC Constitution that I googled.




Like I said in earlier posts, I'm not sticking up for the Committee so if, like you say, 1/3 of clubs have formally requested an EGM, then the Committee will have to answer for not holding the EGM if the rules say that they should have held one.

Did 1/3 of the clubs officially ask for an EGM in writing?

There are a few people on boards here saying that 5 clubs have asked for an EGM. I've no idea if that's true or not. Is it 5 clubs, or lads from 5 clubs because there is a difference. A member of a club can't call for an EGM, it must be formally requested by the club in writing.

I guess all the facts will come out at the AGM.

It is true,5 clubs have submitted requests ask Micheal tope .
And as for name calling if the cap fits he will have to wear it .
It appears to be a case of Constitutions are for those that we rule over? Not those who affiliate to us to make us all stronger.that is a dictatorship. So yes in my opinion chairman Mao fits nicely .

BattleCorp

habitformin wrote: »

It is true,5 clubs have submitted requests ask Micheal tope .
And as for name calling if the cap fits he will have to wear it .
It appears to be a case of Constitutions are for those that we rule over? Not those who affiliate to us to make us all stronger.that is a dictatorship. So yes in my opinion chairman Mao fits nicely .

I'm not one for name calling so I'll drop out of this discussion now if that's ok.

Cass

I've edited some posts, and removed others.

Name calling is NOT okay regardless of hat/cap size. It's derogatory, and possibly defamatory and will not be allowed on this forum.

If someone wants to call names they can ring or contact the person via some other means and fight it out among themselves.

No further warnings will be given. Any more instances of it and posts will be removed as will the offending persons ability to post.

cra

Like I said in earlier posts, I'm not sticking up for the Committee so if, like you say, 1/3 of clubs have formally requested an EGM, then the Committee will have to answer for not holding the EGM if the rules say that they should have held one.

Did 1/3 of the clubs officially ask for an EGM in writing?

There are a few people on boards here saying that 5 clubs have asked for an EGM. I've no idea if that's true or not. Is it 5 clubs, or lads from 5 clubs because there is a difference. A member of a club can't call for an EGM, it must be formally requested by the club in writing.

I guess all the facts will come out at the AGM.

To answer your question Battlecorp yes 5 clubs did request an EGM in writing, not individuals but clubs and no garrettod those clubs are not on a list in this thread but they did put in the letters and as Battlecorp said it will all come out at the AGM but unfortunately it will probably be to late then as the damage will be done at that stage.

habitformin

Just to say this . Will one of the committee make an announcement to deny or confirm the call for an EGM this is vital. Can someone who knows these guys talk to them and get them to face reality. Then through whatever channels they choose make the flipping announcement. But this time make it the correct announcement.
1,they are rejoining the sports coalition as requested and agreed to by them, or
2. They have postponed the AGM and called an EGM.or
3.there is no call for an EGM.

garrettod

Hi,

We have a number of people on this thread claiming that five clubs have formally requested an EGM and their requests have been ignored and yet, we are not being told which clubs have called for an EGM. Why hide if this is all legit ?

How am I (or anyone else here for that matter) expected to even consider doing anything to support a call for an EGM, when I have absolutely no evidence that these five clubs have made any formal request ?

habitformin, telling me to go and ask Michael Tope is hardly going to get me the answer you want me to have, because either:

A) the man has disregarded the EGM requests, as some people here are claiming, so obviously would not engage with me on the issue (if it's actually true).

or

Because the man simply won't have the answer, in the event that it's not true about the five clubs having made a formal request for an EGM.

Personally, I reckon this is a case of people having to either back up some of the claims being made with proof, or else stop making such claims.




.

badaj0z

The clubs calling for an EGM are are Munster TSC, Lough Bo, Dublin Rifle Club, BRC, Mourne.. Other clubs that have called for an EGM but whose requests have been disallowed because they "did not pay in time" are:
An Riocht, ECSC, Gorey. Clubs that have not called for an EGM, because they are waiting to see what happens at the AGM are Suirside, Eagles, IPAP, Fermoy. Clubs that support the current committee are Harbour House, HIlltop, Bracken and Donegal. This is a snapshot of a moving situation and can obviously change at any time.
In summary, 8 clubs want the committee out, 4 clubs want them to stay and 4 clubs are waiting to see what at happens at the AGM. I believe that, once the issues are aired at the EGM/AGM, then the support for the current committee will fall away. All it will take to achieve this is for only one of the undecided to decide for a change.
This is a very sorry state and reflects very badly on the committee that brought this about. Far from uniting and growing our sport, they have achieved the opposite and this fact alone should be enough to make them resign in shame.

habitformin

Now there's the names and numbers in black and white.Excellent
I believe it's the secretary's job to call the EGM isn't that Will Danaher?
Let's get this AGM put off until this is dealt with and get the required EGM on immediately .
Will the secretary not call the EGM now.if he doesn't he would want to have a bloody good reason.
This catastrophic division has to end now once and for all.

Scalachi

I can tell you for a fact, that several of the 5 clubs listed have not applied, completed forms or sent any monies to the NASRPC for affiliation this year, at any point.

habitformin

Scalachi wrote: »

I can tell you for a fact, that several of the 5 clubs listed have not applied, completed forms or sent any monies to the NASRPC for affiliation this year, at any point.

Name them.

SVI40

Scalachi wrote: »

I can tell you for a fact, that several of the 5 clubs listed have not applied, completed forms or sent any monies to the NASRPC for affiliation this year, at any point.

Was a renewal notice sent to any of the clubs to remind them that monies were due?

cra

Scalachi wrote: »

I can tell you for a fact, that several of the 5 clubs listed have not applied, completed forms or sent any monies to the NASRPC for affiliation this year, at any point.

Hi Scalachi, glad to hear from someone with obvious connections to the current NASRPC committee. If what you say is true can you be more specific as in, is it a club or two or more that you believe have not paid their affiliation. If its only one then the call for an EGM is still valid as 4 clubs would fulfill the 1/3 condition. If as you imply more than one club have not paid say 2 for example then the quota is reduced again, my information is that there are only 10 clubs currently affiliated to the NASRPC the five listed above included so if 2 off those a not affiliated then that leaves 8 and 3 calls for an EGM is still legitimate.

What is more concerning is that if what you say is true then the NASRPC is shedding more and more clubs which is a very serious situation and I am sure you are as concerned as I am, what good is a NASRPC that does not represent the majority of clubs in the country and what good is a national association that can only shoot on a couple of ranges, I suppose they could take the word national out of their name and leave that to someone else.

clivej

I've been bitting my tongue since reading all this sh1t about the NASRPC.
I haven't seen Des Crofton's name mentioned once.

habitformin

Hi Scalachi,
Just a query, exactly how many clubs are actually affiliated to the NASRPC all of them .
And how many of the named clubs/ranges that you know for a fact are not affiliated with the NASRPC did the NASRPC hold competitions on this year and walk away with the takings? Under the special arrangements that the NASRPC was allowed access to the range/club for the good of shooting by affiliated members? How can they(the NASRPC ) claim to be the representative authority of shooters in this country when they conduct yourselves in such an unprofessional manner?
This is getting truly comical.!
This current committee is running this organisation like some episode of mock the week!

cra

clivej wrote: »

I've been bitting my tongue since reading all this sh1t about the NASRPC.
I haven't seen Des Crofton's name mentioned once.

Why would his name be mentioned what has he got to do with it this is an internal matter for the NASRPC, at least 8 clubs that have been affialated have called for an EGM this has not happened that is the discussion, Des Crofton does not come into it.

Tackleberry.

Threads called " NASRPC's exit of Sports Coalition " was more about the points that the NASRPC gave for there exit.
As the OP I'd like to say, having enjoyed shooting at NASRPC shoots, Its a pity that things are the way they are right now, but no matter who was going to be on the FCP someone or body would of had a problem and that's fact given the history of our attempt at getting a FCP to function.
The argument that has evolved in this thread has a lot of he said she said, but at the hilltop shoot I know because I was there that MTope was asked to get back to talks and find the happy medium that would get the NASRPC back into the SC. The NASRPC committee are supposed to function in its members interests, we know now this did not happen and why.
The members (not all) rightfully now are not happy and are asking for a EGM, The constitution allows for one to be called meeting certain criteria, which has been achieved, I also know that these 5 EGM requesting letters where handed to MTope by a very respected member of shooting, there should now be a EGM.

Scalachi if you can tell us for a fact, that several of the 5 clubs listed have not applied, completed forms or sent any monies to the NASRPC for affiliation this year please do.. I mean why hide it, more of the he said she said...

badaj0z

Scalachi wrote: »

I can tell you for a fact, that several of the 5 clubs listed have not applied, completed forms or sent any monies to the NASRPC for affiliation this year, at any point.

At this stage of events, as the NASRPC seems to be shrinking on a daily basis, perhaps it would be easier if you told us which clubs are "affiliated". I do realise that this is a moveable feast, as you seem to find a new reason to disenfranchise a club if it shows any likelihood of voting against you.
I would hope that any members of the clubs listed as "undecided" in my earlier post have been following this thread and drawing the attention of fellow club members to it.

habitformin

Below please find a link to the country side alliance website.
The last line shows clearly their attitude to certain types of firearms not a very positive one I would say.
Now the PRO of the NASRPC holds the seat on the FCP for country side alliance. This whole debacle with these attitudes to any type of firearm in my opinion is pretty damning.
So a few more questions need answering
Country side alliance are the only competitor for business in shooting sports in Ireland .competitors that is with the NARGC.
The NASRPC has at least one member of its committee working very closely with the committee of countryside alliance and seem to be dead set against the NARGC.
What other links are there? Is there something else going on behind the scenes that isn't apparent? This countryside alliance sister organisation did sfa when they banned all sorts of sporting firearms in the UK.
And here we have them again publicly stating that they agree with banning firearms of certain types in this country.last question..does the NASRPC agree with this opinion and if it does why is it still pretending to represent all shooters in this country?
Me thinks something is afoot.

badaj0z

I wonder how many of you readers took note of this little beauty from the 2014 AGM of the NASRPC?

Membership Rates for 2016
Based on amendments agreed in the 2014 AGM.
€ 10 per person member per affiliated club.

This means that big clubs will be paying over €3000, medium clubs over €1000 and small clubs over €400. If we assume that the current "difficulties" are sorted and that all the clubs affiliate in 2016, assuming an average membership of 80(pure guess) then the NASRPC is looking for over €12800 in fees from the clubs next year compared with €200 x 16=€3200 this year. What are they going to do with the money? I expect most clubs are spending all they have on range improvements and the like and the members will not appreciate a hike in fees to cover the new charges. This will need reversing at the AGM in January so you know how to vote if you want to keep the money in your club.

habitformin

http://countrysideallianceireland.org/ie/shooting/tell-europe-what-you-think-about-their-firearms-proposals
This link is the one which gets you to the page I meant .
Remember it's one at a time then nothing left.
If this goes through everything changes.

targetx

badaj0z wrote: »

I wonder how many of you readers took note of this little beauty from the 2014 AGM of the NASRPC?

Membership Rates for 2016
Based on amendments agreed in the 2014 AGM.
€ 10 per person member per affiliated club.

This means that big clubs will be paying over €3000, medium clubs over €1000 and small clubs over €400. If we assume that the current "difficulties" are sorted and that all the clubs affiliate in 2016, assuming an average membership of 80(pure guess) then the NASRPC is looking for over €12800 in fees from the clubs next year compared with €200 x 16=€3200 this year. What are they going to do with the money? I expect most clubs are spending all they have on range improvements and the like and the members will not appreciate a hike in fees to cover the new charges. This will need reversing at the AGM in January so you know how to vote if you want to keep the money in your club.

What is the big deal with this? This motion was discussed at the last AGM and democratically voted in. The €10 per member is intended to be paid by individual shooters by way of a levy in addition to their club membership fee, and not intended to be paid by clubs directly. It was described at the time what the money would be used for, which included day to day operations, public relations, legal fund, grass roots development etc. €10 each is a small price to pay to develop the sport.

SVI40

targetx wrote: »

What is the big deal with this? This motion was discussed at the last AGM and democratically voted in. The €10 per member is intended to be paid by individual shooters by way of a levy in addition to their club membership fee, and not intended to be paid by clubs directly. It was described at the time what the money would be used for, which included day to day operations, public relations, legal fund, grass roots development etc. €10 each is a small price to pay to develop the sport.

So how does that work? If the individual member pays, is the individual person a member of the NASRPC. or is it still the club? How about members who don't shoot competition, or are shotgun only members of a club, and have no wish to pay €10? Does that mean, as some club members did not pay the fee, the club is not affiliated, unless they pay for the members who did not wish to pay out the €10?

targetx

SVI40 wrote: »

So how does that work? If the individual member pays, is the individual person a member of the NASRPC. or is it still the club? How about members who don't shoot competition, or are shotgun only members of a club, and have no wish to pay €10? Does that mean, as some club members did not pay the fee, the club is not affiliated, unless they pay for the members who did not wish to pay out the €10?

No the club is still the member but individuals within the club are contributing to the association. I can' t answer all your questions except to say that all this was discussed in detail at the last AGM and voted in. The next AGM is the place to discuss it again and put forward a motion to change it.

Trigerguard

I was just wondering if the club can only affiliate does that mean that only the club can vote at the AGM or any person can walk in to meeting and vote.
Ho would collect this surcharge for the Nasrpc.

habitformin

Sounds like another grab for the cash to me.I'll not be giving this committee one Red cent. Not after this debacle.
The club's can run shoots at least as well if not better.
I've been to centerfire rifle shoots down in An Riocht the Midlands, been to pistol comps all over,to clubs and ranges with no sign of the NASRPC. And I know when I pay that few bob goes directly to the club God knows they need support. What does the central committee want more money for? do the last remaining clubs know that on top of the use of ranges now their members are being taxed by the Central committee. Haha. Good luck with that .