[Sept. 10] NTSA AGM

Sparks

Since it's not a competition, I've not put it in the This Weekend's Events sticky thread, but it's important enough (for NTSA shooters!) to note:

From targetshootingireland.org:

Location of the AGM
Notice of the 2005 AGM was posted out last week. Further to this the exact location is in the Montrose Hotel, Belfield, Dublin 4.
The Montrose Hotel is situated directly opposite the main entrance to UCD on the Stillorgan Dual Carriage Way (N11)

If for any reason you have not received notification of the AGM please contact the NTSA Secretary Immediately (details below). However if you are a member of WTSC or DURC please contact Leslie Fagan or Iain Nash respectively as some peoples' membership has been processed recently.

NTSA Secretary email: anto_corb_2@o2.ie

It's scheduled for 1400 this Saturday for those who didn't receive notice.

The agenda is, roughly (I'm transcribing it here, excuse any misspellings please):

1. Minutes of last AGM
2. Matters Arising
3. Directors Reports
4. Accounts
5. Appointment & renumeration of Auditors
6. Motions
7. Election of Directors and Officers
8. Any Other Business

The Motions on the agenda are as follows:

1. That the NTSA immediately withdraw from the NRPAI and seek independent recognition from the Irish Sports Council, the Federation of Irish Sports, the Department of Justice and other relevant bodies; but that our withdrawl not be contingent on such recognition.
   
2. That the agenda of all NTSA committee meetings be published on the website at least 3 days before committee meetings.
   
3. That the minutes of all NTSA committee meetings be published on the website and made available to all NTSA members with the exception of the AntiDoping and Disciplinary committees, whose meetings should not be held concurrently with other meetings.
   
4. That the NTSA institute a programme of pistol safety courses for its members.
   
5. That the NTSA appoint a dedicated cartridge pistol coordinator for smallbore and fullbore pistol events; and charge him with the oversight of the reestablishment of pistol shooting in the republic.
   
6. That the NTSA commit to publishing a monthly newsletter.
   
7. That the NTSA change its membership policy from a club based system to an individual system, with the following fees:
   Club Affiliation fee: €50 per annum
   
   Individual Membership:
   - First year, through an NTSA club: free
   - First year, not through an NTSA club: €2 student / €5 adult
   - Subsequent years: €2 student / €5 adult
   - Individuals may not serve on committee nor vote in the AGM during their first year.
   
   Optional extras:
   - Newsletter: €15 per annum or €2 per copy
   - Insurance: As per Insurance policy details
   
8. That term limits be defined for each committee position as follows;
   - Chairman: 2 terms
   - Other committee position: 3 terms
   - each term to be one olympic cycle.
   
9. That the system of registered shoots be abolished and replaced with;
   - A list of recognised shoots whose scores can be used for the purposes of maintaining national averages, rankings and classifications; and
   - Supported Shoots, one per discipline per NTSA club, where the NTSA pays for all operational costs of the competition from targets to prizes to advertising and the club keeps all entry fees.
   
10. That the NTSA institute formal review meetings following all National Championships, International Matches in which the NTSA send Irish shooters to compete, and all Supported Shoots. Minutes of these meetings to be made available to all NTSA members via the website.
    
11. That a maximum wind velocity be set for outdoor matches beyond which scores will not be counted for national ranking purposes.
    
12. That outdoor and indoor prone rifle shooting averages, rankings and classifications be maintained seperately.
    
13. That a subcommittee be appointed with representatives from all NTSA clubs to review the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the NTSA, it's final recommendations to be made available to all NTSA members.
    
14. That an internal appeals process be instituted for cases where formal complaints are made to the committee.
    
15. That the NTSA appoint an Anti-Doping Officer.
    
16. That the NTSA appoint a Children's Officer.
    
17. That the NTSA appoint a Ladies' Officer.
    
18. That the NTSA appoint a Collegiate Officer.
    
19. That the NTSA commit to building a National Shooting Centre and to that end appoint a dedicated Development Officer.
    
20. That the NTSA commit to have at least one club-level coach accredited by the NTSA and NCTC in each NTSA club within two years; and that at least one club-level coach be accredited by the NTSA and NCTC in each new NTSA club within two years of the club affiliating to the NTSA.
    
21. That the NTSA discipline coordinators convene subcommittees comprising representatives from each club which shoots their discipline; said representatives to be active shooters at at least club level in that discipline.
    
22. That the NTSA create a network of club PROs who are in contact with one another and the national PRO.
    
23. That the NTSA allocate a realistic budget for Public Relations.
    
24. That the NTSA actively pursue corporate sponsorship for the National Squad.
    
25. That the NTSA itself apply for a grant under the Capital Grants Scheme to purchase equipment that can be used nationally, such as electronic target scoring machines, equipment control gauges and so on.
    
26. That the NTSA schedule seperate 10m Airgun and 50m Rifle National Championships at the end of their respective seasons from next year onwards.
    
27. That the NTSA committee, at its first post-AGM meeting, publicly state its goals for the coming year and how they plan to achieve these goals.
    
28. That from next year's AGM, nominees for committee posts must be submitted to the committee prior to the AGM notice being sent to NTSA members; that a deadline for this be made publicly known and listed in the offical calendar; and that such candidates be permitted to submit a brief written note (of up to 200 words) regarding why they feel they are the best choice for the post; and that the list of nominees and their submissions be circulated as part of the AGM notice to the NTSA members.

MP

Sparks wrote:

Since it's not a competition, I've not put it in the This Weekend's Events sticky thread, but it's important enough (for NTSA shooters!) to note:

From targetshootingireland.org:


It's scheduled for 1400 this Saturday for those who didn't receive notice.

The agenda is, roughly (I'm transcribing it here, excuse any misspellings please):

1. Minutes of last AGM
2. Matters Arising
3. Directors Reports
4. Accounts
5. Appointment & renumeration of Auditors
6. Motions
7. Election of Directors and Officers
8. Any Other Business

The Motions on the agenda are as follows:

1. That the NTSA immediately withdraw from the NRPAI and seek independent recognition from the Irish Sports Council, the Federation of Irish Sports, the Department of Justice and other relevant bodies; but that our withdrawl not be contingent on such recognition.
   
2. That the agenda of all NTSA committee meetings be published on the website at least 3 days before committee meetings.
   
3. That the minutes of all NTSA committee meetings be published on the website and made available to all NTSA members with the exception of the AntiDoping and Disciplinary committees, whose meetings should not be held concurrently with other meetings.
   
4. That the NTSA institute a programme of pistol safety courses for its members.
   
5. That the NTSA appoint a dedicated cartridge pistol coordinator for smallbore and fullbore pistol events; and charge him with the oversight of the reestablishment of pistol shooting in the republic.
   
6. That the NTSA commit to publishing a monthly newsletter.
   
7. That the NTSA change its membership policy from a club based system to an individual system, with the following fees:
   Club Affiliation fee: €50 per annum
   
   Individual Membership:
   - First year, through an NTSA club: free
   - First year, not through an NTSA club: €2 student / €5 adult
   - Subsequent years: €2 student / €5 adult
   - Individuals may not serve on committee nor vote in the AGM during their first year.
   
   Optional extras:
   - Newsletter: €15 per annum or €2 per copy
   - Insurance: As per Insurance policy details
   
8. That term limits be defined for each committee position as follows;
   - Chairman: 2 terms
   - Other committee position: 3 terms
   - each term to be one olympic cycle.
   
9. That the system of registered shoots be abolished and replaced with;
   - A list of recognised shoots whose scores can be used for the purposes of maintaining national averages, rankings and classifications; and
   - Supported Shoots, one per discipline per NTSA club, where the NTSA pays for all operational costs of the competition from targets to prizes to advertising and the club keeps all entry fees.
   
10. That the NTSA institute formal review meetings following all National Championships, International Matches in which the NTSA send Irish shooters to compete, and all Supported Shoots. Minutes of these meetings to be made available to all NTSA members via the website.
    
11. That a maximum wind velocity be set for outdoor matches beyond which scores will not be counted for national ranking purposes.
    
12. That outdoor and indoor prone rifle shooting averages, rankings and classifications be maintained seperately.
    
13. That a subcommittee be appointed with representatives from all NTSA clubs to review the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the NTSA, it's final recommendations to be made available to all NTSA members.
    
14. That an internal appeals process be instituted for cases where formal complaints are made to the committee.
    
15. That the NTSA appoint an Anti-Doping Officer.
    
16. That the NTSA appoint a Children's Officer.
    
17. That the NTSA appoint a Ladies' Officer.
    
18. That the NTSA appoint a Collegiate Officer.
    
19. That the NTSA commit to building a National Shooting Centre and to that end appoint a dedicated Development Officer.
    
20. That the NTSA commit to have at least one club-level coach accredited by the NTSA and NCTC in each NTSA club within two years; and that at least one club-level coach be accredited by the NTSA and NCTC in each new NTSA club within two years of the club affiliating to the NTSA.
    
21. That the NTSA discipline coordinators convene subcommittees comprising representatives from each club which shoots their discipline; said representatives to be active shooters at at least club level in that discipline.
    
22. That the NTSA create a network of club PROs who are in contact with one another and the national PRO.
    
23. That the NTSA allocate a realistic budget for Public Relations.
    
24. That the NTSA actively pursue corporate sponsorship for the National Squad.
    
25. That the NTSA itself apply for a grant under the Capital Grants Scheme to purchase equipment that can be used nationally, such as electronic target scoring machines, equipment control gauges and so on.
    
26. That the NTSA schedule seperate 10m Airgun and 50m Rifle National Championships at the end of their respective seasons from next year onwards.
    
27. That the NTSA committee, at its first post-AGM meeting, publicly state its goals for the coming year and how they plan to achieve these goals.
    
28. That from next year's AGM, nominees for committee posts must be submitted to the committee prior to the AGM notice being sent to NTSA members; that a deadline for this be made publicly known and listed in the offical calendar; and that such candidates be permitted to submit a brief written note (of up to 200 words) regarding why they feel they are the best choice for the post; and that the list of nominees and their submissions be circulated as part of the AGM notice to the NTSA members.

Phew! Seems like NTSA members may need to bring food and sleeping bags or else book a room as it has the makings of a very long AGM :rolleyes:

jaycee

Some excellent proposals though..! :cool:

Sparks

MP wrote:

Phew! Seems like NTSA members may need to bring food and sleeping bags or else book a room as it has the makings of a very long AGM :rolleyes:

Not really - those motions are just the things we've been talking about and thrashing out and brainstorming over in pubs and ranges and meetings and so on for the past decade. There's stuff in there that predates my starting shooting!
This is just a chance for us to actually bring a decision to the table rather than just talk for another year about the vague idea of changing stuff we know could work better.

Sparks

jaycee wrote:

Some excellent proposals though..! :cool:

I wish I could take the credit the NTSA have afforded me by tagging my name to them, jaycee, but the truth is that only two or three are my own - the rest, like I've said, have been knocking about in discussion for years. I just wrote them down on a letter and sent them into the committee to be put up for a decision.

phantom_lord

jaycee wrote:

Some excellent proposals though..! :cool:

Is that why they weren't passed?

Sparks

Afraid not PL. Many were passed; but the most important ones were not, and I feel I have to apologise for that.

To the Junior shooters putting their guts into training for international competitions; to the collegiate shooters who put every spare moment into keeping our largest clubs run to a more professional standard than many supposedly more experienced clubs, despite less funding and more restricitions and less support from the NGB than anywhere else; to those senior shooters who genuinely train with an eye to the international scene and who do their best to qualify despite the strong odour of an old-boys network at almost every turn; and to those running clubs who, despite the amount drained from them in the process, are never afraid to actually try to improve things and who as a result earn loyalty and dedication from their members the likes of which others only whinge about not having; I'm sorry.

I didn't make our case well enough, I wasn't politically experienced enough or well-connected enough and as a result I failed and we have seen our sport sold to those who will destroy it without thinking. They spoke of unity in a sport; but we know they mean unity with a group who do not have our interests at heart, nor the will to leave us pursue our goals without interference. Even when we told them of that interference, we were ignored, derided, often by those who should have known better from bitter experience, and whose motives still puzzle me. We saw those who have dedicated enormous amounts of effort to junior shooters snubbed in front of us all and for that, there are some whom I will never forgive - are you listening? You know who you are. You have crossed a line and if there is a way back, I've yet to see it.

To those on the new committee; some of you I hold in high regard and frankly I feel sorry for the wear and tear you're about to embark upon; and if you succeed in improving our lot it will be a pleasant suprise indeed, and one for which you will receive praise; but it will nonetheless be a surprise. My advice is to watch your backs because those with whom you work are not all as dedicated as you. You have run clubs and been good shooters and one of you in particular has been a model, an inspiration to more people than he knows; but the morass you're about to land in is unbelievably fustrating.

To those who stood and spoke against us, our sport, and even plain logic in some cases, feel ashamed. You have callously thrown away the dreams of those younger than you to rest upon the falsely described laurels of others in the blind hope that they will not discard you like mud from their boots, and you will not be the ones to pay the price. We had an opportunity to stand as an independent, autonomous governing body, to pursue goals other than "taking the fight to the man", and you have given that opportunity to those who not only have in the past proven that they do not care for us, but who will prove it again in the future.

For myself, I will continue to shoot and train and coach where I can. I will continue to work with and for those whom I trust in this sport and maybe one day, I'll get to see our dreams realised. But to those who stood and damaged us so badly this weekend, I say this: it will be despite your actions and despite your efforts, not because of them. And I fear it may well be the next generation of shooters before we see this happen, thanks to you.

Sparks

And for the record; phrases like "accountability only stymies the system" need only one response: Molann an obair an fear.

Sparks

Those passed and not passed, for the record:

1. That the NTSA immediately withdraw from the NRPAI and seek independent recognition from the Irish Sports Council, the Federation of Irish Sports, the Department of Justice and other relevant bodies; but that our withdrawl not be contingent on such recognition.
   Not Passed
   
2. That the agenda of all NTSA committee meetings be published on the website at least 3 days before committee meetings.
   Passed
   
3. That the minutes of all NTSA committee meetings be published on the website and made available to all NTSA members with the exception of the AntiDoping and Disciplinary committees, whose meetings should not be held concurrently with other meetings.
   Not Passed
   
4. That the NTSA institute a programme of pistol safety courses for its members.
   Passed
   
5. That the NTSA appoint a dedicated cartridge pistol coordinator for smallbore and fullbore pistol events; and charge him with the oversight of the reestablishment of pistol shooting in the republic.
   Passed
   
6. That the NTSA commit to publishing a monthly newsletter.
   Passed
   
7. That the NTSA change its membership policy from a club based system to an individual system, with the following fees:
   Club Affiliation fee: €50 per annum
   
   Individual Membership:
   - First year, through an NTSA club: free
   - First year, not through an NTSA club: €2 student / €5 adult
   - Subsequent years: €2 student / €5 adult
   - Individuals may not serve on committee nor vote in the AGM during their first year.
   
   Optional extras:
   - Newsletter: €15 per annum or €2 per copy
   - Insurance: As per Insurance policy details
   Not Passed
   
8. That term limits be defined for each committee position as follows;
   - Chairman: 2 terms
   - Other committee position: 3 terms
   - each term to be one olympic cycle.
   Withdrawn
   
9. That the system of registered shoots be abolished and replaced with;
   - A list of recognised shoots whose scores can be used for the purposes of maintaining national averages, rankings and classifications; and
   - Supported Shoots, one per discipline per NTSA club, where the NTSA pays for all operational costs of the competition from targets to prizes to advertising and the club keeps all entry fees.
   Not Passed
   
10. That the NTSA institute formal review meetings following all National Championships, International Matches in which the NTSA send Irish shooters to compete, and all Supported Shoots. Minutes of these meetings to be made available to all NTSA members via the website.
    Not Passed
    
11. That a maximum wind velocity be set for outdoor matches beyond which scores will not be counted for national ranking purposes.
    Not Passed
    
12. That outdoor and indoor prone rifle shooting averages, rankings and classifications be maintained seperately.
    Passed
    
13. That a subcommittee be appointed with representatives from all NTSA clubs to review the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the NTSA, it's final recommendations to be made available to all NTSA members.
    Passed
    
14. That an internal appeals process be instituted for cases where formal complaints are made to the committee.
    Passed
    
15. That the NTSA appoint an Anti-Doping Officer.
    Not Passed
    
16. That the NTSA appoint a Children's Officer.
    Not Passed
    
17. That the NTSA appoint a Ladies' Officer.
    Passed
    
18. That the NTSA appoint a Collegiate Officer.
    Passed
    
19. That the NTSA commit to building a National Shooting Centre and to that end appoint a dedicated Development Officer.
    Passed
    
20. That the NTSA commit to have at least one club-level coach accredited by the NTSA and NCTC in each NTSA club within two years; and that at least one club-level coach be accredited by the NTSA and NCTC in each new NTSA club within two years of the club affiliating to the NTSA.
    Passed
    
21. That the NTSA discipline coordinators convene subcommittees comprising representatives from each club which shoots their discipline; said representatives to be active shooters at at least club level in that discipline.
    Withdrawn
    
22. That the NTSA create a network of club PROs who are in contact with one another and the national PRO.
    Not Passed
    
23. That the NTSA allocate a realistic budget for Public Relations.
    Passed
    
24. That the NTSA actively pursue corporate sponsorship for the National Squad.
    Passed
    
25. That the NTSA itself apply for a grant under the Capital Grants Scheme to purchase equipment that can be used nationally, such as electronic target scoring machines, equipment control gauges and so on.
    Passed
    
26. That the NTSA schedule seperate 10m Airgun and 50m Rifle National Championships at the end of their respective seasons from next year onwards.
    Not Passed
    
27. That the NTSA committee, at its first post-AGM meeting, publicly state its goals for the coming year and how they plan to achieve these goals.
    Passed
    
28. That from next year's AGM, nominees for committee posts must be submitted to the committee prior to the AGM notice being sent to NTSA members; that a deadline for this be made publicly known and listed in the offical calendar; and that such candidates be permitted to submit a brief written note (of up to 200 words) regarding why they feel they are the best choice for the post; and that the list of nominees and their submissions be circulated as part of the AGM notice to the NTSA members.
    Withdrawn

Sparks

BTW, In regard to the rather blatent threat from one of the speakers against the first motion, the NRPAI cannot act to take the NTSA's ISSF recognition away from it. From the ISSF constitution:

1.3.3 Membership is open to one Federation from each country. Countries with two member federations recognized prior to 1989 may retain dual membership, but no new applications for membership must be accepted from more than one federation per country;

We currently have two federations: the NTSA and the ICPSA. Should either cease to be recognised, then the other immediately gains full recognition as the sole ISSF member federation for Ireland. Should the NRPAI apply for recognition, they simply would not have the application entertained. Should the NTSA close down, recognition would devolve to the ICPSA, and should the NRPAI then wish to seek recognition, they would have to take the recognition for all ISSF shooting, including olympic shotgun events, from the ICPSA.

Frankly, the odds of that happening are low enough that I'd wager that we'd be hit by a metorite right on the Spike in O'Connell street first.

tireur

The role of moderator is to moderate debates on these boards. How can Sparks be the moderator for a discussion on how to run the NTSA when he is one of the main antagonists involved in the debate? The write up on the NTSA Agm was a dreadful piece of self pity, self justification and self glorification.

civdef

I think you're misunderstanding the role of moderator here, no act of moderation has occurred on this thread.

If you disagree with something just say so in a post. Moderators are fully entitled to post on subjects as the mood strikes them. Unless they were deleting or editing other people's threads, which isn't happening here, then the moderator status is beside the point.

tireur

According the the Oxford English Dictionary, a moderator is someone who is "go between in disputes" or a "mediator". Are you saying that " moderators" on these boards are not moderators

Sparks

The idea of the forum, tireur, is to be an open forum for discussion with only basic rules regarding civility and the like. There is more than just the one moderator precisely so that you won't get a little fiefdom springing up. Civ and I don't agree on anything and we'd probably disagree strongly on some stuff; and further moderators as appointed will be equally independent and bound only to enforce the board's charter; and the moderators watch each other; and there are avenues for those with a complain to put it forward publicly, in the feedback forum , or privately by reporting the post with the little icon to the left of each post (the red triangle with the exclaimation mark in it:

If those on the other side of the debate want to put their views forward in public, they've every bit as much freedom to do so as I do. I very much doubt they will, but they have the option.

If you think you can come up with a fairer system, let us know...

And if you think for a moment that I ought to feel some kind of regret for being passionate about my sport and that I ought to just shut up and go stand in a corner, please do learn to cope with that emotion, because you're going to have to live with it for quite some time.

And try to ask yourself as well - do you really want people to be apathetic about the sport?

Sparks

tireur wrote:

According the the Oxford English Dictionary, a moderator is someone who is "go between in disputes" or a "mediator". Are you saying that " moderators" on these boards are not moderators

At the top of the page is a blue bar with a few links in it: User CP, Members List, etc. The second link is the "FAQ", or Frequently Asked Questions link, tireur. Click that, then search for "Moderator" and you'll get this :

Moderators oversee specific forums. They generally have the ability to edit and delete posts, move threads, and perform other manipulations. Becoming a moderator for a specific forum is usually rewarded to users who are particularly helpful and knowledgeable in the subject of the forum they are moderating.

Does this answer your question?

tireur

Thankyou for your helpful explanation of what you do Sparks. Now that I understand that you can say what you want, without having to be balanced or fair, it helps me understand the viewpoints you have expressed . What a pity you seem unable to direct your passion for the sport into improving the facilities and organisation available to target shooters . Instead, you seem to be achieving the opposite without really understanding why. Maybe this explains your failure to achieve your goals at the AGM?

civdef

Now that I understand that you can say what you want, without having to be balanced or fair,

I don't think you're getting it tbh, this applies to everyone on the board. The moderators job is to step in where things get out of hand, not to be some sort of forum blue helmet impartial observer.

Generally speaking also, mods agree that if they are involved in an argument, they'll leave moderating that thread to another mod. I'm not sure what else we can do to allay your concerns - any suggestions?

tireur

OK CIVDEF, good idea. Looking back over the threads to do with the organisation and politics of shooting in this country, I agree with you that it would be a good idea if you were the moderator and not SPARKS, It would be helpful also if SPARKS was not described as a Moderator when he posts on such threads.

Sparks

You feel we should not be able to say what we want tireur? Sorry, I disagree.

You feel that I should direct my passion for the sport into improving the facilities and organisation available to target shooters? What a pity that you are so ill-informed; that's what I've been doing this past seven years.

You want to know why we didn't achieve our goals at the AGM? You'd better watch the small details, like who spoke against us, who suddenly disagreed with the records kept in signed written minutes, who suddenly forgot about written letters asking for information, and you might get a clue as to the general trend from the comments made along the way, with threats of our organisation being taken over by force should we attempt to stand independent, and comments about how committees operate best in secrecy, without accountability to get in the way...

I can assure you tireur, I fully understand the motivations behind, and consequences of our goals; and I remain convinced that they are what we should be striving for; and I'm more than happy to explain why to anyone who doesn't understand why they're a positive thing.

Sparks

Tireur, Civdef is a moderator, with the same rights and abilities as me and the other moderators. There is no hierarchy.

tireur

Sparks ,are you implying that there was a conspiracy against you? Why don't you join the committee of the NTSA and work with them .

Sparks

A conspiracy against me personally tireur? Don't be daft.
But were there sides and quiet chats in the hall before the meeting and did people suddenly show up from nowhere and did the register of members suddenly nearly double in the space of two weeks? Well, that's a matter of record really, isn't it?

tireur

That's quite an impressive list of coincidences Sparks. It sounds like there was some organised opposition to your ideas. Is this the case and if so why do you think it happened? Was there any voting on the motions and if so how were the votes cast?

tireur

CIVDEF, any response to your idea of becoming the moderator for this and other related threads?

civdef

Eh, I already am....

Sparks

Organised opposition tireur? I'd have to say yes. I can't think of an explanation that makes more sense. What I can't understand, however, is that those motions, as I said, weren't really mine; for example, the first motion, to get out of the NRPAI, was first put to me by the Chairman of the NTSA several years ago (who is now the Vice-Chair of the NTSA). And, in all the years since, at every match, in every chat in the pub after a match, the same line was put forward; if we didn't get out of the NRPAI, we'd be shafted (a rather prescient opinion, as it turned out). So those voting against the motions (and representing many others via proxy), were actually voting down motions they'd supported for years.

And it struck me as odd, that at the start of the meeting, we agreed that the money (and it is a reasonable sum) in the bank could be used better than just sitting there; and the point was made by a man who was later awarded honours for his work with UCD over the years that that money should be used for supporting the clubs, not decorating our bank account; and yet when the proposal for Supported Shoots (where the NTSA would pay for the operational costs - targets, prizes, etc - and the club would keep the entry fees, thus encouraging competitions to be run and financially supporting the grassroots in one move) was brought up, it was voted down by those same people who only moment before were expressing the opinion that the money shouldn't just sit there.

And what struck me as contemptable, was that when it was pointed out that the current arrangements with the Nationals were both unnecessary if a Festival event was desired and made it impossible for colleges to field teams, it was said that this was the fault of the college shooters for not being committed enough. This, in the same breath as acknowleging that the Colleges are one of the most important sources of new shooters we have, and thus one of our most important resources. But instead of agreeing to return the Air Nationals to a date that made it possible for colleges to attend, it was suggested that the Intervarsities should instead be the concern of the students. Despite the fact that the NTSA's ignored it for years. Despite the fact that an NGB's job is to drive both performance and participation up. And despite the only formal response to the change in scheduling - from any club in the NTSA - being a formal written protest from DURC at being cut out of the Nationals.

Frankly, I'm left puzzled and confused and hugely disgusted. Why vote against your own motions? Why vote against helping clubs? Especially when you're running them? Why vote against making it more equitable for shooters to try out for national squads? Why vote against strengthening the organisation? Why vote against all the things the committee are meant to be volunteering to work to support?

Well Tireur? Any idea?

Clash

Passed

Not to dampen down a good argument with facts or anything, but it seems that 15 of the 28 motions were passed, of those 13 remaining, 3 were withdrawn, leaving 10 not passed. That's a pretty good AGM to my mind, getting a disparate bunch of people to agree to over 50% of motions submitted.

I'd have to say, if I was facing into an AGM with 28 motions before it, apart from the normal agenda, I think I'd stay at home and wash my hair

Sparks

By numbers Clash, it's grand. But when you look at the actual motions themselves, it's a much more depressing story. The Colleges are shut out of the Nationals again; the clubs are looking at another year with no help from the NTSA and left with the question once more of "what do we get for our affiliation fee?"; membership is still made too expensive for students so that the attrition rate for college club graduates will remain at well over 90%; scores shot in international competitions still remain ineligible to keep a shooter in the National Squad (so that it's entirely possible for a shooter to put in an MQS score in Bisley or Intershoot, and not be eligible for selection for the National Team!); if you show up to a registered shoot and the wind is at gale force your score still counts to your average (even though others at shoots with better weather will have an unfair advantage over you) - so clubs running shoots outdoors have yet another reason to fear bad weather on the day as noone who wants to have a high average will risk the shoot; club PROs will have to be part of the "in crowd", or they may find they're being left out in the cold by those that are meant to be working to support them; and clubs won't have a formalised means to get a voice in how their disciplines are administered at a national level (which, again, means you have to be a part of the "in crowd" to get a good hearing).
And while much has been promised, and I have confidence in two or three of the committee to actually try to do something, I have no confidence that they'll be able to get past the obstacles that will be thrown up in their way. And from the grins and smug looks at the time of voting, I'm fairly pessimistic about the odds of those initiatives ever being implemented, despite how badly they're needed.

tireur

Taking an overview of what has been said so far raises some questions in my mind,viz.
1. I get the distinct impression that Sparks does not like the people on the NTSA committee and hence does not communicate with them. You did not answer my question Sparks,about joining the NTSA committee but surely dialogue and communication inside the organisation is better than trying to ambush them at the AGM
2. Your list of motions amounts to instructions to the committee on how to run the organisation. Were all of the motions debated and voted on? If so then a majority of people must have disagreed with your ideas on the failed motions? Surely this is democracy in action?

tireur

Sparks wrote:

Frankly, I'm left puzzled and confused and hugely disgusted. Why vote against your own motions? Why vote against helping clubs? Especially when you're running them? Why vote against making it more equitable for shooters to try out for national squads? Why vote against strengthening the organisation? Why vote against all the things the committee are meant to be volunteering to work to support?

Well Tireur? Any idea?

Perhaps it is the way you worded the motions or the way you organised your support. Perhaps it is because you demonstrated the same attitudes at the meeting that you display on this board, i.e. a self belief that you are the only one who knows how to run the NTSA yet you do not seem willing to do any of the work?

Sparks

1. I served for two years on the NTSA committee tireur. There are some whom I would never again work with, and there are some with whom I'd break my back working. But believe me when I say that a lack of communications is not the problem. Hell, I've been hauled up in the past for communicating with them too much. And this was not an "ambush", they had those motions for over six months - they were submitted back in April.

2. "My" list of motions (allmost all of which can be traced back to those who were sitting at the top table) amounts to a stated desire from a significant portion of the members of the company as to how they want things run in their name and with their money to those who volunteered to do so. This isn't some private club we're talking about here; this is a limited company, under the 1963 companies act. Our tax money is sent to them via grants, and we pay money to them directly in dues and levies. And one of the complaints I occasionally heard at the top table was that we never knew what shooters wanted. This time, there's a list of things shooters want. And what happened? It's stomped all over, not just for the competitive shooters who train for international matches and invest huge amounts of time, money, blood, sweat and tears into the sport; but also the recreational shooters, the guys and girls who just shoot because it's a fun sport to be involved in and a relaxing way to spend a sunday morning. This time both groups lost out. And I'm still trying to figure out whose interests were served.

Sparks

tireur wrote:

a self belief that you are the only one who knows how to run the NTSA, yet you do not seem willing to do any of the work?

Poppycock. Two years on the NTSA committee, seven years running or helping to run DURC, two years helping to run WTSC. Anyone who says I haven't been willing to do work doesn't know what they're talking about.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

The Colleges are shut out of the Nationals again;

I'd like to see the rationale for that one.

the clubs are looking at another year with no help from the NTSA and left with the question once more of "what do we get for our affiliation fee?";

Well, to be fair the coaching initaitive is a move in the right direction. As well as a couple of the other ones.

membership is still made too expensive for students so that the attrition rate for college club graduates will remain at well over 90%;

Sorry, I'm fed up with hearing about this one, club membership is not expensive. Certainly not when compared with other sports. Even field sports subs are as expensive or more expensive than shooting.

scores shot in international competitions still remain ineligible to keep a shooter in the National Squad (so that it's entirely possible for a shooter to put in an MQS score in Bisley or Intershoot, and not be eligible for selection for the National Team!);

If this was allowed, you would get a vicious circle of a closed shop, where international shooters stay international shooters because they are shooting more competitions and have therefore a better chance of getting an MQS. And aspiring shooters have to contend with much poorer conditions to try and compete for a place.

show up to a registered shoot and the wind is at gale force your score still counts to your average (even though others at shoots with better weather will have an unfair advantage over you)

Hence my argument above, and an MQS is not an average, it's a score in a qualifying competition. In the past, international shooters never turned up to local competitions thus creating a two tier system.

club PROs will have to be part of the "in crowd", or they may find they're being left out in the cold by those that are meant to be working to support them;

Objection!, argumentative . How out in the cold?.

and clubs won't have a formalised means to get a voice in how their disciplines are administered at a national level (which, again, means you have to be a part of the "in crowd" to get a good hearing).

Well, I would be encouraged by the fact that so many motions got through, at least there appears to be a forum for expression of ideas.

And while much has been promised, and I have confidence in two or three of the committee to actually try to do something,

Well let them on with it and lets see how they do. We, at least have a set of benchmarks to measure them against vis a vis the motions carried.

I have no confidence that they'll be able to get past the obstacles that will be thrown up in their way. And from the grins and smug looks at the time of voting, I'm fairly pessimistic about the odds of those initiatives ever being implemented, despite how badly they're needed.

Don't prejudge them, we have to give them a chance.

tireur

Sparks wrote:

Poppycock. Two years on the NTSA committee, seven years running or helping to run DURC, two years helping to run WTSC. Anyone who says I haven't been willing to do work doesn't know what they're talking about.

AS you seem to have very strong views on how to run it, why are you not on the NTSA committee now Sparks? Did anyone from DURC or WTSC speak in support of your motions at the meeting?

tireur

Sparks wrote:

2. "My" list of motions (allmost all of which can be traced back to those who were sitting at the top table) amounts to a stated desire from a significant portion of the members of the company as to how they want things run in their name and with their money to those who volunteered to do so. This isn't some private club we're talking about here; this is a limited company, under the 1963 companies act. Our tax money is sent to them via grants, and we pay money to them directly in dues and levies. And one of the complaints I occasionally heard at the top table was that we never knew what shooters wanted. This time, there's a list of things shooters want. And what happened? It's stomped all over, not just for the competitive shooters who train for international matches and invest huge amounts of time, money, blood, sweat and tears into the sport; but also the recreational shooters, the guys and girls who just shoot because it's a fun sport to be involved in and a relaxing way to spend a sunday morning. This time both groups lost out. And I'm still trying to figure out whose interests were served.

You have not addressed my question SPARKS, If a majority voted against the failed motions then your comment above is irrelevant. What shooters want, as expressed by the majority vote at the meeting, is not to support your views. You do not seem to want to follow the logic of any argument. You prefer to go off on emotional tangents illustrated with words like "stomped" or "blood sweat and tears". Please stick to the point so that we can expose the shaky basis of your arguments all the quicker and bring this thread to a close.

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

Well, to be fair the coaching initaitive is a move in the right direction.

Has there been a change in the coaching setup? Last I checked it was the same as it's been for the last decade - a weekend a month with a high-end coach, who doesn't get to see the shooters enough to put a structured training plan in place.

Sorry, I'm fed up with hearing about this one, club membership is not expensive. Certainly not when compared with other sports. Even field sports subs are as expensive or more expensive than shooting.

Not club membership, NGB membership. When college shooters graduate, they scatter to the four winds; the NGB is the natural choice to get them to join up to, so the NGB can pass around details of clubs and where to go to continue the sport and what they'll need to do so and so on and so forth.
And the NGB membership fee is too high to get more than a tiny handful of the active shooters in the colleges to join. Students just don't have money - anyone who's done a college course knows this, but somehow manages to forget it when it becomes time to collect money from students...

If this was allowed, you would get a vicious circle of a closed shop, where international shooters stay international shooters because they are shooting more competitions and have therefore a better chance of getting an MQS. And aspiring shooters have to contend with much poorer conditions to try and compete for a place.

Unlikely to happen - we have better wind conditions here than in the LRC. And it costs too much to train abroad exclusively; unless you're already living abroad. We already have one air rifle national champion living and shooting in the UK because that's where the work is; but she can't qualify to represent us internationally without coming home four times a year to shoot in a club match, even though she might be putting in scores that were well above the standard we'd like to see our shooters put in. And shooters from here who go abroad for college courses or the like, even if they're putting in MQS scores left, right and centre, those scores don't count. That's just not fair.

Hence my argument above, and an MQS is not an average, it's a score in a qualifying competition. In the past, international shooters never turned up to local competitions thus creating a two tier system.

And a two tier system is precisely what we have now with the Registered Shoots system. The only difference is that it's an unfair two-tier system, which handicaps those who can't dedicate their entire lives to training because they have jobs and families and other committments; if you can only make it to four registered shoots a year, and the wind speed at one is insane and the scores are lower across the board, well that's you stuffed. In international competition, and the point was made by an international shooter at the AGM, if everyone can't shoot at the same time, under the same conditions, then you have eliminator rounds where you have two or three groups where everyone shoots under the same conditions; you take the top X shooters from each group and go on to do the competition. That way, if the first group have awful conditions to shoot in, they're not competing against the second group, but against each other, under the same conditions. Now we can't do that for our national average, and we can't sink a few million into upgrading all the ranges with windnets and so on, but we can at least say "look, the weather was stupidly savage, past the point of being fair - the scores don't count". In fact, we have said so in the past - the DURC Air Rifle Open six years ago was deregistered because the equipment (the old horsebox mobile targets) were failing too often. So if we can do it for that, why can't we do it for something equally as handicapping?

Objection!, argumentative . How out in the cold?.

Not being notified of upcoming events, not being notified of upcoming training weekends, not being notified of upcoming team qualifications (the club PRO isn't just external media relations, he's meant to ensure communications of that sort of thing to the club members too), not having their own events acknowleged or promoted by the NGB, that sort of thing. All of which have happened over the last few years to those out in the cold...

Well, I would be encouraged by the fact that so many motions got through, at least there appears to be a forum for expression of ideas.

I'd be encouraged by something that went beyond appearances.

Well let them on with it and lets see how they do. We, at least have a set of benchmarks to measure them against vis a vis the motions carried. Don't prejudge them, we have to give them a chance.

I won't prejudge the performance of this year's committee, but I fully reserve the right to be pessimistic based on past perfomances, and not to rely on them for things the club needs. Last year's committee, however, can't be prejudged, only judged on their performances over the 18 months (and I still haven't heard a logical reason why the AGM was delayed so long).

Sparks

tireur wrote:

AS you seem to have very strong views on how to run it, why are you not on the NTSA committee now Sparks?

Because I don't believe I could get anything done. I think it would be the same as it was last year - any new initiative taken was opposed; and external people who were not members of the NTSA had more control over the direction of the committee than the NTSA members.

Did anyone from DURC or WTSC speak in support of your motions at the meeting?

Yes, several of those who could make it there.

tireur wrote:

You have not addressed my question SPARKS, If a majority voted against the failed motions then your comment above is irrelevant. What shooters want, as expressed by the majority vote at the meeting, is not to support your views.

I would point out that that majority vote was comprised of a large contingent of shooters who haven't been seen at NTSA shoots in several years and who suddenly came out of the woodwork in the space of a fortnight when the NRPAI was mentioned. Whereas those voting for the motions comprised the people who've been bringing home medals for Ireland, and making up the majority of the people on the firing line, and running the competitions, and doing the coaching over the past few years.

You do not seem to want to follow the logic of any argument. You prefer to go off on emotional tangents illustrated with words like "stomped" or "blood sweat and tears".

Emotional tangents? That's a bit desperate for a line of argument, isn't it? I've said already that the motions were in the best interest of the clubs and shooters. Read them yourself - how can funding clubs be bad for clubs? How can making competitions fairer be bad for shooting? How can giving everyone a voice in the running of the disciplines they shoot be bad for shooting? How can making the decisions of the committee public be bad for shooting? How can encouraging participation in competition be bad for shooting?

Please stick to the point so that we can expose the shaky basis of your arguments all the quicker and bring this thread to a close.

By all means tireur, expose the shaky basis behind funding clubs and accrediting coaches and encouraging participation in competition and making those competitions fairer. I can't wait to see your reasoning.

tireur

You really can not stick to the point of any argument can you Sparks. The issue here is that some motions were put to the NTSA Agm and all of the contentious ones were defeated by a significant majority of votes cast by or on behalf of members. This is democracy in action. You are unwilling to accept the result and try to divert the debate into emotional and subjective areas of your judgement. You attempt to regurgitate the poor reasons you put forward at the meeting and based on past threads I have looked at involving your arguments, you are prepared to go on forever doing this. Either you do not understand the sound basis for your defeat or you do not want to accept it as it would be a major blow to your self esteem. Which is it?

Sparks

That's not a bad attempt at spin tireur, but you haven't done what you said you would, namely to expose the shaky basis behind funding clubs and accrediting coaches and encouraging participation in competition and making those competitions fairer.

I am glad, however, to see that you have identified that you were present at the meeting. At least now we know that you did in fact vote on those motions; and thus you must have had your reasons for doing so. Since the votes were cast openly, you therefore would have no reason not to tell us which motions you voted against and why you felt it was important to not pass them, is this not so?

civdef

Would I perhaps be right in guessing that some people are taking all this very personal - hardly uninterested observers, I suspect.

tireur

Sparks wrote:

That's not a bad attempt at spin tireur, but you haven't done what you said you would, namely to expose the shaky basis behind funding clubs and accrediting coaches and encouraging participation in competition and making those competitions fairer.

I said I would expose the shaky basis of your argument I did not say I would humour you by trying to follow your repeatedly faulty logic... You attempted to divert the argument yet again. At the risk of seeming pedantic to those already bored with the discussion, your basic argument, hoever poorly expressed , is that you and the people who support you, are the only ones who understand the issues and have the true interests of all target shooters at heart. You keep coming back to detail issues about how you would like the sport run and your motions primarily concerned these details. All of your arguments on this thread continue in this vein.You keep ignoring the fact that after open debate, a voting process took place as a result of which a substantial majority of NTSA members disagreed with you. They do not want to run the sport the way you want it run. But you do not want to hear this, you portray yourself as the lone crusader, misunderstood by those you are trying to help and conspired against by the "vested interests" Please, please get a grip on yourself before you become truly delusional.

Sparks

tireur wrote:

I said I would expose the shaky basis of your argument I did not say I would humour you by trying to follow your repeatedly faulty logic...

Is it that hard to follow? Let's take it slowly then.

funding clubs
By running supported shoots where the NTSA pays the club's costs, the club makes money and is encouraged to run competitions. Why is this bad?

accrediting coaches
Why is it bad to have an accredited and trained coach in every NTSA club? Won't this drive up scores, and thus increase the sense of satisfaction felt by all shooters?

encouraging participation in competition
How is this a bad thing? Do we have too many shooters?

and making those competitions fairer.
Why is it bad to want fair competitions?

You attempted to divert the argument yet again.

No, I'm pretty much sticking to the point of the motions; making the sport better. I'm asking you why, as a person who was there and voted against them (presumably you voted against them, given your argument to date), you think they were a bad idea.

you and the people who support you, are the only ones who understand the issues

Nonsense. First of all, this was not an election; those who voted as I did on the motions were not doing so to support me, but to support the motions. Secondly, as I've already said, those who did not vote for the motions included most of the original authors of these motions. Therefore, others understood the issues, but chose to vote against fixing them.

You keep coming back to detail issues about how you would like the sport run and your motions primarily concerned these details.

Indeed. That way, we're arguing on specific points and you can explain to me and everyone else why it is that I'm incorrect and you are in fact the voice of reason and wisdom in all of this.

They do not want to run the sport the way you want it run.

I would argue that the voting pattern indicates they do not want to run it at all, since they've devolved much of their responsibilities to another body...

But you do not want to hear this, you portray yourself as the lone crusader

Again, nonsense. You were there tireur, you know as well as I do that I was not a lone crusader. Having been there, you will remember hearing the committee acknowlege that a very sizable portion of the membership (and again, I'll point out that of the competitive members, it was a majority) are unhappy with the actions of the NTSA committee.

Please, please get a grip on yourself before you become truly delusional.

Alas tireur, I find that I need your assistance in this. Please explain to me how these motions were in error, that I might benefit from your point of view and your many years of hard work within the target shooting community, and your innate grasp of the needs and wants of that community.

tireur

I am despairing of your ability to understand any argument. You again descend into the detail. I suspect that this is because you know you have already lost the high level debate so you are trying to obfuscate the issues .The argument on the detailed motions is over. To follow your style let us take it slowly then
1. You proposed many detailed motions on how the NTSA should be run.
2. Despite what you said earlier in the debate, no-one from the clubs you were representing spoke for the motions.
3. Many people spoke against the motions.
4. A vote was taken.
5. All of the contentious motions failed to pass.
6. The debate is over. The NTSA committee wil run the organisation in accordance with the wishes of the majority.
Why don't you realise this and perhaps try to work with the committee again. If you really have the interests of the shooters from DURC and WTSC at heart, perhaps you will recognise that your championing of their cause might have achieved the opposite effect to that intended.

LB6

This thread started off quite enjoyable to read, but has now become unbearable. You're like two babies in a playpen arguing over who gets the toy.

We are all aware of the results of the AGM. There is no point in arguing back and forth, non-stop over something that cannot be rectified again till the next AGM. Grin and bear it and make the best of what has come out of it.

We are all shooters on this forum. Both competitive and for fun. You've begun to take the kick out of it. Just my 2c worth!

tireur

I agree with you LB6 Your second paragraph neatly sums up my argument
Quote
"We are all aware of the results of the AGM. There is no point in arguing back and forth, non-stop over something that cannot be rectified again till the next AGM. Grin and bear it and make the best of what has come out of it."

Sparks

tireur wrote:

You again descend into the detail.

It's hard to descend into what you never left.

I suspect that this is because you know you have already lost the high level debate so you are trying to obfuscate the issues.

On the contrary tireur, I strive here for clarity. Obviously there is some gap between my understanding of the needs of target shooters in Ireland and yours; come, let us reason together and determine the source of that gap. Answer the question.

The argument on the detailed motions is over.

Ah, tireur - there's a slightly more constitutional aspect to boards. If you don't answer a question, we tend to ask it again.

To follow your style let us take it slowly then
1. You proposed many detailed motions on how the NTSA should be run.

Technically, correct. However, I don't wish to take undue credit; I must cede authorship of most of those motions to many others, including those who were sitting at the top table.

2. Despite what you said earlier in the debate, no-one from the clubs you were representing spoke for the motions.

Tireur! You disappoint me. I was sure you were a well-known and knowlegable individual with many years work in serving the community behind you. And yet, you don't remember the dapper-looking gent in the business suit who stood behind where I was sitting and spoke for the motions? (DURC shooter, a chap with several national championship medals in smallbore and in air rifle shooting to his credit and who represented Ireland internationally many times). The chap seated two seats to my left who spoke? (Again, DURC, and again, a national champion in smallbore rifle shooting) The fellow at the end of the row (again, a national champion from DURC). What about the gentleman from the back (a national coach, accredited by ISSF, whose shooters have represented Ireland time and again and brought home more medals than any other group, whose work with Junior shooters in this country is the nearly seen as magic by some, and who served for some record-setting years as a discipline coordinator on the NTSA committee).
How could you not know these people tireur? Surely it has not been that long since you were at a competition?

3. Many people spoke against the motions.

Actually, only two or three. A 'new' member of the NTSA (though with a long history in other disciplines, he left the NTSA after a brief stint in air rifle which showed some potential), an old member of the NTSA (who had not been seen in over a decade at competitions or meetings), and the committee, for the most part.

4. A vote was taken.
5. All of the contentious motions failed to pass.
6. The debate is over. The NTSA committee wil run the organisation in accordance with the wishes of the majority.

Interesting points those, for reasonse we'll look at later. Yet, I still remain perplexed and need your help. Why were those motions contentious? Why were they bad for shooting?

Why don't you realise this and perhaps try to work with the committee again.

Because examining the cost/benefit viewpoint, more has been accomplished since quitting the NTSA committee than was ever accomplished within it, though those accomplishments are at best grudgingly accepted. A 19-man team sent to Bisley which took home medals from the British Airgun Open and which impressed the NSRA shooters at all levels; the first ISSF judging course undertaken (and the first in the world with the new ISSF 2005 rules); a junior team trained for the Bisley Jr. International; and a few other odds and ends.
And that was in just eight months. Sorry, no. Not 'till there's a sea change.

If you really have the interests of the shooters from DURC and WTSC at heart, perhaps you will recognise that your championing of their cause might have achieved the opposite effect to that intended.

Indeed? Now, we're getting closer to our answer, no? Please tireur, tell us your reasoning on this?

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Is it that hard to follow? Let's take it slowly then.
funding clubs
By running supported shoots where the NTSA pays the club's costs, the club makes money and is encouraged to run competitions. Why is this bad?.

Because the clubs already make money from competitions, providing enough competitors turn up. btw, the use of bad/good is subjective, making any argument against the motion inherently bad rather than well-reasoned or with any merit.

accrediting coaches
Why is it bad to have an accredited and trained coach in every NTSA club? Won't this drive up scores, and thus increase the sense of satisfaction felt by all shooters?

That the NTSA commit to have at least one club-level coach accredited by the NTSA and NCTC in each NTSA club within two years; and that at least one club-level coach be accredited by the NTSA and NCTC in each new NTSA club within two years of the club affiliating to the NTSA.Passed

Was this not passed?

Going back to your previous reply to my post regarding MQS's, I still believe that it is fairer that everyone competes on the same ranges at the same times as other potential national squad members. I know, if given the choice between the Malcolm Cooper Range in Bisley and DRC's range in Blessington, which one I'd get the better score on. And I know that in the past, national squad members hardly ever turned up at local competitions until the Registered shoot system was introduced.

As it is, only after the intervention of the National Coach and TR coordinator, have any national squad members started shooting indoors, as indoor shoots are not registered, never have been, and probably never will be.

Sparks

Because the clubs already make money from competitions, providing enough competitors turn up.

But sometimes not enough do turn up. Which can lead to clubs being worried over the finances of a shoot. This way, that is eliminated, at least for one shoot during the year, and the club gets a measure of financial support in the bargain. And after seven years of running and helping to run competitions in DURC, I can tell you that we never made much of a profit off of shoots, and we did lose money more than once.

I'm just a tad puzzled though - what club is so rich that it can't find a use for more money? Do all clubs have an array of club rifles and jackets and gloves and scopes and stands and mats and trousers and boots and all the other gear for beginners to use, in a range of sizes and makes? Did we all win the Lotto while I wasn't listening to the news?

btw, the use of bad/good is subjective, making any argument against the motion inherently bad rather than well-reasoned or with any merit.

Good for the sport: leads to a rise in participation and performance;
Bad for the sport: leads to a decline in same.
Please forgive my assumption that this was understood.

Going back to your previous reply to my post regarding MQS's, I still believe that it is fairer that everyone competes on the same ranges at the same times as other potential national squad members.

And if they can't, but can train on a local range in scotland or surrey or wales or france or wherever they find themselves? Do we say "tough luck, you couldn't get a job at home and had to emigrate and now we rule that you're not eligible to represent the country you were born in and hold a passport for - but the lads from up North get to represent Ireland even though they're in another jurisdiction, because they hold Irish passports".
It's a bit, well, uneven, isn't it? Not to mention that it does bad things to our medal prospects!

I know, if given the choice between the Malcolm Cooper Range in Bisley and DRC's range in Blessington, which one I'd get the better score on.

And yet, every member of the GB squad was complaining about the Cooper range and its diabolical wind only a few years back, and refusing to shoot on it lest they drop their averages. Not disagreeing with you, mind, I know where I'd rather shoot too ; but would I fly from Ireland to the UK every day to shoot in Bisley and then return home? Could I afford to?

Was this not passed?

Passed with the caveat that if noone came forward, then it was out of their hands. The point, you see, was to go out and actively seek out people and encourage then to become coaches; and given that people have been turned down in their requests for accreditation courses, I'm pessimisitic as to the prospects of the idea. But I could be pleasantly surprised, I suppose.

tireur

Sparks, why don't you listen to LB6? You want to continue to debate your lost causes and I want you to recognise that they are lost causes and perhaps learn from the experience but I think that this aspiration is a lost cause .

Sparks

Ah, lost causes. Can't help it tireur, lost causes are a favorite topic of mine.
Lost causes like promoting a sport that involves firearms in a country with 30 years of terrorism in its recent history and all the negative public image that goes with that. Lost causes like sending teams abroad to win medals, not just to say that we sent someone. Lost causes like coaching and training and competing.
You know tireur, the stuff you've been doing for - how long has it been now?

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

But sometimes not enough do turn up. Which can lead to clubs being worried over the finances of a shoot. This way, that is eliminated, at least for one shoot during the year, and the club gets a measure of financial support in the bargain. And after seven years of running and helping to run competitions in DURC, I can tell you that we never made much of a profit off of shoots, and we did lose money more than once.

As have others no doubt, but in cases like that you cut your cloth according to your measure. And if people are not turning up, you ask why. Like I'm asking now why only seven people turned up to the Rathdrum Open on Sunday?????

I'm just a tad puzzled though - what club is so rich that it can't find a use for more money? Do all clubs have an array of club rifles and jackets and gloves and scopes and stands and mats and trousers and boots and all the other gear for beginners to use, in a range of sizes and makes? Did we all win the Lotto while I wasn't listening to the news?

Of course a club can use more money, but would the NTSA be the first source for that?. I don't think so, if it hasn't enough money to send people to international shoots properly supported. I'm not going to start down the line of where the NTSA spends it's money, but clubs are supposed to be self-financing and self-running. If they can't manage to make ends meet without going to the national association with cap in hand, then they really would need to look carefully at how they are financed.

Good for the sport: leads to a rise in participation and performance;
Bad for the sport: leads to a decline in same. Please forgive my assumption that this was understood.

You used the word bad, not 'bad for the sport'. In any event, the use was pejorative implying that any argument against the motion is bad (of course now that you've explained it so clearly to silly old me) a contrary argument is now also 'bad for the sport'. This is George Bush logic; "If you're not with us, you're against us", or just plain Orwellian; "Four legs good...."

And if they can't, but can train on a local range in scotland or surrey or wales or france or wherever they find themselves? Do we say "tough luck, you couldn't get a job at home and had to emigrate and now we rule that you're not eligible to represent the country you were born in and hold a passport for - but the lads from up North get to represent Ireland even though they're in another jurisdiction, because they hold Irish passports".
It's a bit, well, uneven, isn't it? Not to mention that it does bad things to our medal prospects!

For every rule, there is going to be an exception. There may well be people in England, France and Spain clamouring to get on the National Team, but do you then exclude all home based competitors, because they have to shoot on a windswept range in the back-end of nowhere in competition with someone who gets to put their scores in on electronic targets or gehmann boxes on a nice sheltered range in Munich?. Picking on Northern Shooters is unfair, as at least we can shoot on their ranges, and they on ours. There is no ruling that a foreign based shooter is not eligible, just that they have to shoot here at least once a year to be eligible. With cheap filghts, it's not such a tough ask if the prize is representing your country.

And yet, every member of the GB squad was complaining about the Cooper range and its diabolical wind only a few years back, and refusing to shoot on it lest they drop their averages.

Cossetted bunch of whimps!

Not disagreeing with you, mind, I know where I'd rather shoot too ; but would I fly from Ireland to the UK every day to shoot in Bisley and then return home? Could I afford to?

Probably not, but I can't see your bank statement from here. However, most of us could afford to go there at least once a year for a weekend.

Passed with the caveat that if noone came forward, then it was out of their hands. The point, you see, was to go out and actively seek out people and encourage then to become coaches; and given that people have been turned down in their requests for accreditation courses, I'm pessimisitic as to the prospects of the idea. But I could be pleasantly surprised, I suppose.

Yes, but it was passed. If no-one comes forward, do you think approaching people is going to produce committed, dedicated coaches?. This smacks of hair-splitting. The NTSA have committed to do this. It's up to the relevant clubs to put people forward. We are not all children that need to have their nappies changed and told when to go to bed!