NASRPC's exit of the Sport Coalition.

Tackleberry.

NASRPC Communication
From
Will Danaher

Dear NASRPC Members
We are writing to inform you that at a meeting of our National Executive on Saturday the 24th of October, we made a decision to withdraw from the Sports Coalition.
We have reluctantly come to this decision for a number of reasons, including the following:
* Our right to effectively represent you, our members through the coalition has been denied.
* The lack of objectivity and transparency of the selection process for representation on the FCP.
* The ratification of the Sports Coalition representatives for the FCP without the approval of all coalition members.
* The failure to notify the NASRPC of the agenda item for the meeting on Monday the 5th of October; that was the selection of the Sports coalition representatives for the FCP.
* Our disappointment at the lack of our direct representation on the Firearms Consultative Panel through the Sports coalition.
* Lack of direct communication and consultation on the selection process for the FCP sports coalition representatives.
* Communication from the Sports coalition legal representative threatening to summons a member of the NASRPC committee and the Minister for Justice to court.
* Our final effort to resolve the situation prior to the first meeting of the FCP, scheduled for the 29th of October did not yield a positive result.
We recognise the invaluable contributions the Sports Coalition has played in bringing Shooting Sports to where we are today, but as we move to the next phase of this process, we believe that our decision is in the best interests of you, our affiliated members and clubs.
In our continuing efforts to achieve the best possible representation for you, we are actively exploring all option to continue to have your voice heard, including directly on the Firearms Consultative Panel and elsewhere.
Accountability is important and to this end, We are now and always available to discuss with any group, club or individual any aspect of our decisions and how we got here.
To this end we are organising an information forum, which will be open to all affiliated clubs, on Sunday 1st of November at 11.00  - venue to be confirmed.
Regards,
Will Danaher
Secretary
National Association of Sporting Rifle & Pistol Clubs
 

bpb101

Tackleberry. wrote: »

NASRPC Communication
From
Will Danaher

Dear NASRPC Members
....
* Communication from the Sports coalition legal representative threatening to summons a member of the NASRPC committee and the Minister for Justice to court.

....
Regards,
Will Danaher
Secretary
National Association of Sporting Rifle & Pistol Clubs

Probable for the best. A lot of people here starting to get pissed off with them.


The bullet point left in the quote. What are they on about, does anybody know?

Big Bangstick

There's been enough dirty laundry washed here over the years which has given the powers that be information they shouldn't have had access to. There is a meeting on Nov 1st. If you're a member of an NASRPC club why not go and ask your questions there or email the person who sent the email? If you're not a member of an NASRPC does it actually affect you?

Seems the fcp is once again being done behind closed doors with no input from those it actually affects.

Sparks

Mod Note: Big bangstick, don't back-seat mod. People can ask whatever questions and discuss whatever topics they want here within the forum charter.

And speaking as me: if we'd washed our laundry a bit earlier or even just done it properly, we'd all be better off today.

Cass

Big Bangstick wrote: »

Seems the fcp is once again being done behind closed doors with no input from those it actually affects.

What a load of bollix. According to the notification above, one group does not want to share information/representation with the other groups within the "coalition" so this, in your mind, means the FCP is at fault and not the groups within this "coalition".

The FCP consists of representatives from the various shooting bodies, An Gardaí and the DoJ. The NRAI, NTSA, Pony Club, etc will all send representatives (duly elected and known to the members of those groups). It would appear the NASRPC want to do the same but because of the "hierarchy" at the "coalition" they feel they are not getting this opportunity. So they are announcing their intention to leave the farce that was the "coalition" and send their own representatives. The fact they have sent out this notification informing their members would fly in the face of your "behind closed doors" theory.

Perhaps the one you should be focusing on is the remaining group(s) within the "coalition". You know, the one that is actually to blame.

It does raise an interesting point though. If these remaining groups are doing things behind the backs of their fellow "coalition" members then what are they doing to the other shooting groups not in the "coalition", and what have they been at all this time that we don't know about (not counting the messes they created that we do know about).

bpb101

Big Bangstick wrote: »

There's been enough dirty laundry washed here over the years which has given the powers that be information they shouldn't have had access to. There is a meeting on Nov 1st. If you're a member of an NASRPC club why not go and ask your questions there or email the person who sent the email? If you're not a member of an NASRPC does it actually affect you?

Seems the fcp is once again being done behind closed doors with no input from those it actually affects.

No , I am not an affiliated members. But going down this line of "it dosent concern me", is exactly what fûcks us.

Just because I'm not an affiliated member dosent mean I am un effected.
If I don't shoot semi auto centre fires, should't i still care that they are trying to take them off people who have spent thousands of euros on their sport?

grassroot1

Can anyone tell me the coalitions legal representative is that William Egan?

cw67irl

Yes he is

Deaf git

Time for this incarnation of a Sports Coalition to close it's doors and quietly go away.

clawback07

Deaf git wrote: »

Time for this incarnation of a Sports Coalition to close it's doors and quietly go away.

At Birr game fair I was approached by a member of a main group in the S.C to sign their petition . I told this person that regrettably I had signed the petition on line , and asking me what I meant I told them that their apparent u turn on .22 barrel length and semi auto centre fire flew in the face of their duty as a Sports Coalition . The reply I was given was that there were a lot of mischief makers out there trying to undo the the good work of the Sports Coalition and not to believe everything I read ! By jayzuz some leopards can change their spots !

Cass

I read your reply about an hour ago and this point in particular:

clawback07 wrote: »

The reply I was given was that there were a lot of mischief makers out there trying to undo the the good work of the Sports Coalition and not to believe everything I read ! !

,made me think of some posts on this thread so i went back to read a few and it still scares me.

That there are those that still believe everything they are told. That they, without question or hesitation, believe that what is being done or was being done was not only the right way but the best way.

Some of the posts were so steadfastly blinkered that when i quoted the SC's statement, gave a link to THEIR website and then posted a screenshot of their comments the poster still said it was not them that said that.

In the face of such blind dedication it's best to walk away.

clawback07

Cass wrote: »

I read your reply about an hour ago and this point in particular:

,made me think of some posts on this thread so i went back to read a few and it still scares me.

That there are those that still believe everything they are told. That they, without question or hesitation, believe that what is being done or was being done was not only the right way but the best way.

Some of the posts were so steadfastly blinkered that when i quoted the SC's statement, gave a link to THEIR website and then posted a screenshot of their comments the poster still said it was not them that said that.

In the face of such blind dedication it's best to walk away.

Which is exactly what some of these people want those who might question their aims want you/us to do ,I.e give up and go away ! I would replace " steadfastly blinkered " in your post with 'orchestrated " ! I'm a little tired at this stage of any query to some of these groups being then portrayed as having an axe to grind with them and close ranks and ice the " complainant " out of the big picture ! So thank f##k for this forum !

Tackleberry.

From :Mark Maguire
NASRPC Communication - FCP Representation

Dear Shooters,

We have been very busy recently, working hard to safeguard the future development of our sport. These efforts have been somewhat successful and we are pleased to inform you that Martin Hayes (NASRPC Vice Chair) will represent the NASRPC on the Firearms Consultative Panel with Declan Byrne as his Alternate. Furthermore, Martin will be supported in matters of mutual interest by Mark Maguire (NASRPC PRO) who will be representing Countryside Alliance Ireland. We have also received offers of support by other shooting groups attending – but more on that later.

We are now satisfied that our views will be directly represented – a situation only made possible by the decisions taken by the committee last weekend. Finally we would like to thank all of those who offered messages of support at this critical time.

Thank You

The NASRPC Committee

badaj0z

The NASRPC committee may be proud of their achievement in resigning from the Sports Coalition and getting their "own" seats on the FCP but they have done the shooters of Ireland a great disservice. They have caused the first major split in the united front which the shooting sports have presented when faced with changes in legislation which would have been bad for our sport. They have even gone against the expressed will of the vast majority of their members present at a meeting in Hilltop 2 weeks ago, that they should reach an agreement with the Sports Coalition in the interests of all the shooting sports. This refusal to act as agreed with their members has resulted in many of the clubs, affiliated to the NASRPC, meeting this week and agreeing to formally request an EGM of the NASRPC. The motion for this EGM calls for the removal of the committee and their replacement by a new committee which will act in the best interests of the membership as a whole.
The history of the reasons for the breakdown of the relationship between the NASRPC and the Sports Coalition makes for very interesting reading but that is another story.

Witcher

badaj0z wrote: »

The history of the reasons for the breakdown of the relationship between the NASRPC and the Sports Coalition makes for very interesting reading but that is another story.

Same as always.

'I know x and y but I can't share it.'

Load of bollocks.

BillBen

In a nut shell. The Nasrpc who represent a vast majority of target shooters where not given a seat on the fcp which is absolutely crazy. To me it looks like friends of friends got a seat. Personally I'm glad that target shooters will be represented by fellow target shooters

Sparks

The NASRPC signed up with the SC. The SC got the seat.
This is the NRPAI/SSAI thing all over again.
This time, the NASRPC got their own seat. Grand so.
Only now the NASRPC clubs want to fire their board for getting their own seat?

Well. At least it's not like the FCP actually has work to be getting on with, so there's that at least...


(btw BillBen, the NASRPC don't represent a majority of target shooters. They represent a *lot*. The majority, depending on how you look at it, either aren't in any NGB, or are in the ICPSA. In both cases, by a healthy margin. The NASRPC might have represented a majority of the target shooters in the SC, but that's about the only context in which that statement would be correct).

Big Bangstick

Has anyone a breakdown of who is on the FCP and from what organisations they represent on the shooting side of things? From what I hear that will make interesting reading!

Tackleberry.

Sparks wrote: »

The NASRPC signed up with the SC. The SC got the seat.
This is the NRPAI/SSAI thing all over again.
This time, the NASRPC got their own seat. Grand so.
Only now the NASRPC clubs want to fire their board for getting their own seat?

Well. At least it's not like the FCP actually has work to be getting on with, so there's that at least...


(btw BillBen, the NASRPC don't represent a majority of target shooters. They represent a *lot*. The majority, depending on how you look at it, either aren't in any NGB, or are in the ICPSA. In both cases, by a healthy margin. The NASRPC might have represented a majority of the target shooters in the SC, but that's about the only context in which that statement would be correct).

But the NASRPC ain't seeing eye to eye with the SC now, and have gone lone wolf looking for there own seat at the ministers table. Fair enough now there on the FCP but that's now only a platform to heckle from, the NASRPC members that happened to be at there shoot in Hilltop encouraged,asked and told M Tope to get back talking to the SC and there would be a seat there for them, Gerry McCarthy from WA1500 and Declan Keogh all encouraged M Tope to not turn away from the SC, apparently that ended up as an email sent by the NASRPC a week later which the SC did not get the time needed to be answered ...Followed very shortly by another only to say that that NASRPC would not be part of the SC, hence the meeting last week and a call for a EGM from its members.

Big Bangstick

How many seats did the SC get allocated and was nasrpc allocated one of them?

Witcher

Thank fcuk I didn't bother going in to that meeting when it was in Hilltop, load of fcuking waffle and ****eing on as usual. Staying out on the range added half an hour to my life anyway.

I have a lot of time for most of the NASRPC lads but I can't listen to it all anymore.

badaj0z

The substantive issue between the SC and the NASRPC committee was not about seats at the FCP. It was about trust. The NASRPC failed to comply with the undertakings that all of the members of the SC agreed to on setting it up. They then did not go to SC meetings to explain themselves and tried to negotiate through third parties. Hence when the SC was offered 4 seats and as there were issues of trust and lack of communication with the NASRPC, they were not offered a seat. They then threw their toys out of the pram and resigned and continued their solo runs at the DOJ,which had caused much of the original problem. The affiliated clubs, who make up the NASRPC, believed this behaviour to be less than acceptable, especially as the committee had agreed to reenter discussions with the SC and then did the opposite, hence the call for a change of leadership.

Sparks

Mod Note: I'm not going to repeat myself about back-seat modding. Next person gets a holiday to cool off.

Wadi14

badaj0z wrote: »

............................ The affiliated clubs, who make up the NASRPC, believed this behaviour to be less than acceptable, especially as the committee had agreed to reenter discussions with the SC and then did the opposite, hence the call for a change of leadership.

Is it all the affiliated clubs ?
Did the committee agree to go back into talks when at Hilltop ?
Was the call for change of leadership, or committee members to step down not made prior to Hilltop ?

Can you clarify these, as like a lot of people its hard to know what is going on

badaj0z

Wadi14 wrote: »

Is it all the affiliated clubs ?
Did the committee agree to go back into talks when at Hilltop ?
Was the call for change of leadership, or committee members to step down not made prior to Hilltop ?

Can you clarify these, as like a lot of people its hard to know what is going on

So far a majority of the affiliated clubs have decided to support the call for an EGM. The others are discussing the issue with their committees and members and will decide soon.
Taking points 2 and 3 together, the meeting at Hilltop was organised by the eleven clubs that were most unhappy with the relationship between the NASRPC committee and the SC with the expressed intention of bringing about a change at committee level. The meeting was mediated by 2 prominent members of the shooting community and the committee agreed to reopen discussions with the SC. What they did is in the public domain. They sent the SC a letter demanding an FCP seat or they would resign. No direct attempt was made to set up a meeting or to talk . The letter gave the SC 7 days to reply but the committee issued their public resignation letter after only 5 days, before the SC had replied.. The SC reply refuted in detail, all of the points made and referred to the "trust" issue at the heart of the problem.
A meeting of the NASRPC affiliated clubs was held on Wednesday last, the 28th Oct, which concluded with the clubs present agreeing to individually formally request an EGM in writing as specified in the NASRPC constitution. This is ongoing and it is expected that the NASRPC secretary will have to set up a date and venue within 30 days after receiving the requests.

Tea drinker

Based on knowing Martin Hayes and Declan Byrne, on that experience alone I would support them. They aren't irrational guys and I believe would only follow this course of action if it was necessary - my 0.02c

garrettod

Tea drinker wrote: »

Based on knowing Martin Hayes and Declan Byrne, on that experience alone I would support them. They aren't irrational guys and I believe would only follow this course of action if it was necessary - my 0.02c

While I only know the two lads a little, any direct experience I have had has been very good. As such, I'd be of a very similar view to you Tea Drinker.

That said, it frustrates me to see even more "cracks" appearing within the shooting community, we will always be far stronger if we stand together, but that requires proper organisation, everyone honouring agreements and good leadership. When it comes to Ireland (be it in terms of our sport, in politics etc.), sadly we can't seem to stick to our agreements on anything for long and instead end up fighting amongst ourselves and not fully focusing on the core issue(s).

badaj0z

Strider wrote: »

Same as always.

'I know x and y but I can't share it.'

Well looks like you are wrong. If you follow this link you will get the full story of what happened between the NASRPC and the Sports Coalition.
All target shooters who are members of clubs who are(or were, considering how fast the NASRPC is expelling clubs at the moment), should read this and weep. Ask yourself this question, do I want to be represented at national level by a committee who behaves in this manner?

http://www.sportscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Des-Crofton-Response-to-NASRPC-resignation-261016.pdf

You will find the full correspondence exchange here:

http://www.sportscoalition.org/nasrpc-resignation-from-the-sports-coalition/

Witcher

badaj0z wrote: »

Well looks like you are wrong. If you follow this link you will get the full story of what happened between the NASRPC and the Sports Coalition.
All target shooters who are members of clubs who are(or were, considering how fast the NASRPC is expelling clubs at the moment), should read this and weep. Ask yourself this question, do I want to be represented at national level by a committee who behaves in this manner?

http://www.sportscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Des-Crofton-Response-to-NASRPC-resignation-261016.pdf

You will find the full correspondence exchange here:

http://www.sportscoalition.org/nasrpc-resignation-from-the-sports-coalition/

Wrong about what? I never made any claims or statements to be wrong about.

I directly quoted your 'oh I know x and y but I can't talk about it' act. Either say what you know at the time or stay quiet.

homerhop

Ah the Sepp Blatter of the shooting community. I would rather take my guns cut them in two and join ICABS then be part of any organisation that he is involved in.

badaj0z

As the main unofficial apologist for NASRPC Homer, you can do better than that.

homerhop

badaj0z wrote: »

As the main unofficial apologist for NASRPC Homer, you can do better than that.

I am entitled to my opinion,I don't need an organ grinder unlike some

Cass

Keep it civil, and on topic.

First and ONLY warning on this.

badaj0z

Let us hear your opinion of the issues at the heart of this debacle then Homer. Why do you think that the NASRPC committee broke their agreement not to do solo runs at the DOJ/Minister? Why do you think they did not go back to the SC to explain themselves when they were found out? What was so compelling about the "Apprentice scheme" that it was worth sundering the coalition to attempt to get it adopted? This last one is the most puzzling. A similar scheme was mooted a while ago by the NASRPC committee and was soundly rejected by the shooting community at large.

Tackleberry.

badaj0z wrote: »

What was so compelling about the "Apprentice scheme" that it was worth sundering the coalition to attempt to get it adopted? This last one is the most puzzling. A similar scheme was mooted a while ago by the NASRPC committee and was soundly rejected by the shooting community at large.

I was told Mick Tope and Mark Maguire had started a business together to accommodate this apperentice scheme ... Not a big venture I would think but if it was pushed true the SC/FCP, it would be lining there own pockets if it was true..a conflict of interest also I would think myself..

homerhop

Tackleberry. wrote: »

I was told Mick Tope and Mark Maguire had started a business together to accommodate this apperentice scheme ... Not a big venture I would think but if it was pushed true the SC/FCP, it would be lining there own pockets if it was true..a conflict of interest also I would think myself..

You mean the company they have started that makes electronic circuitry for car parts? This was also one of the many rumours addressed at the meeting held by the NASRPC, along with mark being a member of fg, spending 12 thou euro on tent and committee members earning thousand.

cra

Hi Homerhop, can you please expand on these rumours as I have been involved in this debate and this is the first I've heard of them. There are always rumours about any organisation but those rumours are not the problem here, the problem is the committee of the NASRPC are railroading over some of there members that are disagreeing with them. Now I know that some of their members do agree with them but that does not make it right to ignore the rest, all we asked for is an EGM which is well within our rights and all we want is our questions answered, now you could say why didn't we go to the Manor hotel last Sunday, personally I didn't go because it was the first of November and I was hunting as I always do, but having said that it was badly advertised there was a small post on facebook and that was it. I recieve an email about every NASRPC shoot why was there no email notification.

badaj0z

badaj0z wrote: »

Let us hear your opinion of the issues at the heart of this debacle then Homer. Why do you think that the NASRPC committee broke their agreement not to do solo runs at the DOJ/Minister? Why do you think they did not go back to the SC to explain themselves when they were found out? What was so compelling about the "Apprentice scheme" that it was worth sundering the coalition to attempt to get it adopted? This last one is the most puzzling. A similar scheme was mooted a while ago by the NASRPC committee and was soundly rejected by the shooting community at large.

Shall we stay out of the realm of speculation Homer and stay in the realm of actual happenings? Opinions awaited.

homerhop

badaj0z wrote: »

Shall we stay out of the realm of speculation Homer and stay in the realm of actual happenings? Opinions awaited.

I really wish people would. I haven't forgot to reply to you, was out last night and my head isn't in it today

grasncov

There seems to be a lot of he said she said with posts and he said she said e mails. To be quite honest you don't know who to believe. You think that EVERYONE involved, would sit in a room with proof of what is going on and show their hands? This country is to small for the shooting community to be fighting against each other. People shouldn't be trying to give up one thing for the sake of another, especially if what they are wanting to give up doesn't affect them. I for one am ****ing pissed of listening to grown adults bickering over something that will affect us all if they don't cop the **** on. If you want your name in lights and a pat on the back **** off to Hollywood.

cra

grasncov wrote: »

There seems to be a lot of he said she said with posts and he said she said e mails. To be quite honest you don't know who to believe. You think that EVERYONE involved, would sit in a room with proof of what is going on and show their hands? This country is to small for the shooting community to be fighting against each other. People shouldn't be trying to give up one thing for the sake of another, especially if what they are wanting to give up doesn't affect them. I for one am ****ing pissed of listening to grown adults bickering ov
er something that will affect us all if they don't cop the **** on. If you want your name in lights and a pat on the back **** off to Hollywood.

Exactly all in a room and sort it out sounds like an EGM.
Don't really understand what the rest of your post has to do with this problem.

badaj0z

badaj0z wrote: »

Let us hear your opinion of the issues at the heart of this debacle then Homer. Why do you think that the NASRPC committee broke their agreement not to do solo runs at the DOJ/Minister? Why do you think they did not go back to the SC to explain themselves when they were found out? What was so compelling about the "Apprentice scheme" that it was worth sundering the coalition to attempt to get it adopted? This last one is the most puzzling. A similar scheme was mooted a while ago by the NASRPC committee and was soundly rejected by the shooting community at large.

It would help if one of the NASRPC committee members came on here and answered these questions. There is no dispute about what happened. What is not clear is why it happened.

NicholasF

I understand that a meeting was held by membership at Hilltop where a debate was held as to weather or not to continue to engage in talks with the Shooting Sports Coalition (SSC). At that meeting it was decided by all of the membership their, to remain in talks with SSC.
This did not happen, why.

Thank god the resent work on behalf of NARGC and the Shooting Sports coalition has been fundamental in the cohesion that we have all enjoyed, the outcome of which is meaningful negotiations with the state bodies to bring forward fair and balanced regulation.

The government have kindly put forward an opportunity that people within the shooting community are able to make representation to formulate laws that govern our sport.

The sum of Irish Shooting Sports experience is greater then one group, NASRPC for example, the information relating to the actions of NASRPC committee should be held up for scrutiny by its members.
All of us should be putting forward information which will help the policy makers understand or needs, and forget about the individual, and work for the group.

The NASRPC need to have a meeting and explain to its membership what has happened.

My question to the NASRPC members is why would anyone walk out of a discussion and do the membership object, my feeling is that they do and would.
It makes no sense to be outside the discussion.

NicholasF

I have little if any confidence in the NASRPC committee and it is sad to see the actions which have followed.

I would work from a club level to organise and call for an EGM so as to be able to put to the committee the questions which have come up, rather then be fed like mushrooms and kept in the dark.

Leaving it to January for an AGM would be wrong, its almost akin to tribunal :-)

Your seeing little bits and pieces being said online .......but nothing substantive, the big questions

Why leave the Discussion with SSC

Why Have meetings behind the SSC

Why did they go against the memberships decision to stay in negotiations with SSC

To say that certain members of the NASRPC decision making is not in the interest of shooting sports, is I feel is a valid one

In my experience truth all ways wins out, I have no doubt that all though this comes at a bad time for the NASRPC, the rest of the shooting community will not let them down.

It is such a monumentally bad decision.

And maybe some alternate way may be brought forward to seek representation of there individual sporting requirements and interests through the SSC.

I have no confidence in NASRPC and this why I feel and EGM needs to be called

Nicholas F

badaj0z

That is a long list of points, none of which address the main issues which are :
---Why did the NASRPC committee break their agreement not to do solo runs at the DOJ/Minister?
--- Why did they did not go back to the SC to explain themselves when they were found out?
----What was so compelling about the "Apprentice scheme" that it was worth sundering the coalition to attempt to get it adopted? This last one is the most puzzling. A similar scheme was mooted a while ago by the NASRPC committee and was soundly rejected by the shooting community at large.

Now, to address their statement:


The NASRPC has received two requests for an EGM by Affiliated clubs,
this falls short of the requirements detailed in the constitution, but recognising the need to resolve outstanding issues the NASRPC Executive Committee has decided to call the AGM forward to the first reasonable date.

There is no time limit on requests for an EGM. Other requests are inbound so the committee does not have the right to ignore them and wait for an AGM
An explanation is called for here so that all readers will know what is going on. There are 19 clubs shown as affiliated on the NASRPC web site.

An Riocht Co. Kerry

Bracken Gun Club Co. Tyrone

BRC Shooting Club Co. Dublin

City of Dublin Pistol Club Co. Dublin

Donegal Target Club Co. Donegal

Dublin Rifle Club Co. WIcklow

Eagle Rifle & Pistol Club Co. Dublin

East Coast Shooting Club Co. Wicklow

East Coast Sports Shooting Club Co. Wicklow

Fermoy Rifle Club Co. Cork

Gorey & District Rifle & Pistol Club Co. Wexford

Harbour House Sports Club Co. Kildare

Hilltop Shooting Club Co. Wicklow

Iarthair Tir Chonaill Co. Donegal

International Police Association Pistol Club Co. Louth

Lough Bo Shooting Club Co. Sligo

Munster Target Shooting Club Co. Limerick

Phoenix Sports Club Co. Kildare

Suirside Target Sports Co. Tipper





3 of these clubs no longer exist. 5 clubs are listed who have not yet paid their annual fee or who have had their fee sent back, such as An Riocht.In any previous year, these clubs would have a vote but not this year. That leaves 11 clubs who can vote, hence 4 requests(one third of the affiliated members) justify an EGM. At least 4 currently affiliated clubs have sent requests. We expect another 3 will follow. In addition, 3 clubs that would be considered “affiliated” in any other year, have sent request for an EGM. This justifies an EGM which should be called immediately. Please explain how many clubs do you believe have valid affiliations according to your new rules and how many of these have sent letters.




. The NASRPC executive committee did not ask the clubs permission to
join the Sports Coalition, and therefore did not seek their permission to leave it.

You knew the prevailing mood of the members was to join the SC and hence joining was an obvious thing to do. But the opposite is true about your leaving. You knew the prevailing view of the members expressed at the Hilltop meeting was not to leave the SC, but you went directly against it. You statement here is frankly laughable.


. The NASRPC Executive has never expelled any club from the NASRPC.

Maybe not. But you have refused renewals, such as the An Riocht one because it did not suit you.


. The NASRPC Executive consider every application for affiliation
submitted (in the prescribed format) in detail before any decision is taken.

Of course you do-in the current situation you consider whether letting a club renew suits your purposes or not.

. No member of the NASRPC Executive is part of any Training company
and does not stand to benefit financially from any current or future legislation.

Is that a rumour? Thanks for sharing

. The NASPRC did not spend 15k on a tent in Birr.

See above.

. The NASRPC have every year at the AGM, made available all
accounts including every Invoice/receipt/expense/cheque for review and scrutiny.

Of course you do.

. The NASRPC Executive does not get paid for the time/effort in
fulfilling its duties. All members fulfil their roles on a voluntary basis.

See above.

. Every action taken by the NASRPC executive has been for the
benefit of shooters - such as direct recognition/representation at the FCP.

How can you say this when the overwhelming view of the member clubs is that your actions vis a vis the SC are not in the interests of shooters and your motivation for so doing is unclear.

. The NASRPC did not make any "Solo Runs" - Three members of the
sports coalition were fully aware of any and all representations made and actively encouraged same.

You told these people after you had your solo meetings so how could they encourage you? You did not tell them the contents. Your admissions were shared with the other members of the SC and confirmed what they had heard from the DOJ. You did not attend any more SC meetings or offer any explanation for your behaviour and you still do not offer any explanation.

You are desperately wriggling to avoid an EGM because you know you will be voted out of office. You are offering the AGM to buy time in the hope that it will all go away.

NicholasF

garrettod wrote: »

I would think that the fact that we are getting close to Christmas party season and many venues might be booked out, could play a part.

Likewise, for all we know, some of the committee may be out of the country this month or next, so the date in January might have been the best they could facilitate.

We are all very busy at this time of year; really, that is not a reason

But remember the constitution is the constitution and if 4 clubs request an EGM
Then it does not matter if one or two members of the committee are away, the meeting will be held 30 days after the request.

Besides the committee should not be worried, they will get the chance to have there say, and can if they wish put them self s forward for re election.


From what some people have said there are some good people on it, and some who have questions to answer

Role on EGM

Cass

Okay lads and ladies.

I've split all the discussion posts relating to the NASRPCs exit from the SC from the Gardaí proposals to ban firearms thread into it's own thread here.

habitformin

Okay how do I vote to NOT be represented by the NASRPC . Is there a poll or something where I can opt out of being represented by people I think they have no right to represent me. What was and is their mandate? Is it from the club's and range owners. A lot of people on here feel the same. A united front is and Always was our best front . Leaving the coalition was a bad move an egotistical move .and when an affiliated club dares to raise it's head call for resignations and asks questions .They get booted out ?what the hell is that all about? This carry on is absolute rubbish.
what or who made the decision to leave the sports coalition .and why?clarity now please.

LB6

Go to the AGM in January and get your answers there

habitformin

LB6 wrote: »

Go to the AGM in January and get your answers there

Again this needs answers now .the AGM too far away.you simply cannot allow this kind of behaviour to go unanswered until January. Is it an affiliation of clubs?or a dictatorship where we do as we want and you shut up or get out?
Come on LB6 you cannot be serious,

habitformin

Clarity and openness is what is required nothing else will fix this.