[Sept. 10] NTSA AGM

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!

tireur

Sparks, you have an odd idea of what constitutes a lost cause but I have to say in your favour, that for the first time in this debate, you are showing that you do recognise what defines a strategic objective as opposed to the detailed tactics used to achieve it. If you developed this thinking into analysing what happened at the AGM you would realise that it is just this issue which prevented your first motion from being carried.

stevenw

I have to say that as an objective outsider, Sparks seems to be producing an articulate and reasonable discourse. It may be partisan, but it's not ill-reasoned. Tireur, on the other hand, seems to be ripping into him, not his arguements. Tireur clearly has the vocabulary of a grown up, but not the maturity. It's a shame that, in shooting, people such as this are often the most vocal, instead of the sensible, thoughtful and reasonable participants.

Are you involved in shooting at an administrative level, Tireur?

With regard to qualifying scores, I quite agree that national squad qualification should include the scores obtained at international matches. The arguement that it leads to a closed shop is only valid in the light of the poor standards of facilities available in Ireland (which are getting better by the day with Rathdrun and Dungannon opening soon). However, if any shooter is serious about representing their country, not just about getting into the national squad, then they will have to be prepared to travel and compete elsewhere. Not just with the team, but personally, in their own time, with their own money, to build up enough experience to be competitive internationally. Anyone who is not prepared to do this shouldn't be thinking about the national team.

tireur

Thankyou for your observation StevenW. Like Sparks, you seem to have missed the point about the level of the debate. It should be about how, all of us together. move shooting forward in this country. What SPARKS displayed in his write up on the AGM( which is what brought me into the debate) was a divisive and selfish view of what had happened because he could not understand the broader issues at stake. His arguments are all about the administrative details of running target shooting in this country without recognising the damage he is doing by being an external critic instead of an internal contributor.

phantom_lord

tireur wrote:

What SPARKS displayed in his write up on the AGM( which is what brought me into the debate) was a divisive and selfish view of what had happened.

When all the failed motions were defeated pretty much 69 to 38 everytime i can't fail to see how anyone could not have a divisive view of the agm. Maybe only a certain amount of club reps and those who shoot four registered shoots a year should be allowed vote as they are the most active members of the organisation and should have the say in the NTSAs future.

Clash

phantom_lord wrote:

Maybe only a certain amount of club reps and those who shoot four registered shoots a year should be allowed vote as they are the most active members of the organisation and should have the say in the NTSAs future.

That's just plain bull%$*t! What you are saying in essence is that we can make an arbitrary rule as to who can vote and who can't based on a subjective opinion of each person's 'worth' in an organisation. Let's do that for general elections too!. I'm sure the government of the day would be well qualified to judge who can vote and who can't :rolleyes:

In any event, there appears to be a whiff of childish foot stamping and throwing toys out of the pram about this discussion to the extent that nobody appears to be listening to anybody elses arguments in any kind of reasonable way. It might be better to take some of the motions from the list and debate them seperately as rrpc appears to be doing, rather than counting votes and coming up with conspiracy theories.

I pointed out earlier that over 50% of motions carried was a pretty good innings for any AGM, and yet people seem to be harping on about the ones that failed. Surely, it would be better in the interests of the NTSA, to ensure that the ones that were passed are carried through, and then perhaps revisit the ones that failed, after a mature debate on their merits or demerits on this board.

Sparks

I'd be quite uncomfortable at that idea as well PL, even though, having seen who was voting, I'd acknowlege that some system is needed to prevent abuse of the register of members of the Association - otherwise, a larger group could simply buy up votes in the Association, then pass a motion to dissolve it and spread the proceeds amongst themselves, and to prevent it, you'd have to call in the ODCE or the High Court under article 205 and that would be rather a lot of trouble to go to.

And yes Clash, we did get some motions passed; but the ones that were the most important were not passed, and the damage that will do to the NTSA and its competitive shooters is serious in both the short and long terms.

foresight

I wish to compliment Sparks on putting the motions onto the agenda and bringing into the open for debate a number of topics which were and have been for too long left festering in the background and in the shadows of formerly smoky bars.

I wish to thank Sparks too for getting so many new people and some not so new to attend at the AGM. For in the case of many organisations this is the meeting to miss - boring speeches and god forbid you might get a job!

That the debates on the day were not great and the voting did seem to go in blocks is a bit disappointing. But is was encouranging to hear from the top table that the fears and misgivings of 30% ish will have to be addressed. And that while the wording of some of the motions which were defeated or withdrawn may have been the main reason why they failed. Those on the top table did agree that the spirit of many of these motions were genuine and would be taken account off. Lets hope that those who are charged with the running of the organisation for the next year will endeavour to bring together the various points of view that are so necessary to the vitality of the group. That there are disagreements is given but every family has its rows, doesn't make them any less of a family. That there is passion is good too.

I wish also to congratulate Sparks for almost single handedly (if that is a word) nearly doubling the membership of the NTSA and if that figure is incorrect then he can be congratulated for getting all the membership fees paid on time.

Sparks

I guess that is an upside allright. With 120-odd members on the books, and 108 of them actively involved in how the association is run, the next few competitions should be absolutely full past capacity. No more competitions with only 20 or 30 people showing up! Huzzah!

foresight

I agree with Clash above about the need for mature debate within the NTSA on the points raised by the AGM.

I hope that Sparks is right too in that this renewed intrest in the affairs of the NTSA will be reflected on to the firing lines where our disciplines are shot.

Regretabally, the Rathdrum match was maybe too close to the AGM and that might be a reason for such a small turn out. Ah but who picked the date for the AGM? ..... 39ers 1 head office utd 0 - the game has only started and who is keeping score? Here we go again!

Clash

And yes Clash, we did get some motions passed; but the ones that were the most important were not passed, and the damage that will do to the NTSA and its competitive shooters is serious in both the short and long terms.

In your opinion, here's mine on the failed motions. Maybe this can start a debate, so everyone put away your prejudices and let's do this like adults

Sparks wrote:

That the NTSA immediately withdraw from the NRPAI and seek independent recognition from the Irish Sports Council, the Federation of Irish Sports, the Department of Justice and other relevant bodies; but that our withdrawl not be contingent on such recognition.
Not Passed

OK, I'm not sure on this one, there are serious risks inherent on either side of this argument. My view is this would require a meeting all to itself, with a lot more input and information than I have at my disposal right now. Can we leave this to a seperate thread?

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

OK, this is a bit like the discussion over publication of cabinet meeting minutes. On that argument, I felt that the possibility of publication probably would lead to a less than frank exchange of views and create a dysfunctional atmosphere, where business would be second to self-preservation.

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

In view of the accusations of the meeting being stuffed, wouldn't it be even easier (and cheaper) under those rules? I don't know what the net effect on the NTSA budget would be, but I would have thought that the affiliation fee was quite low as it is. Anybody?

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

Again, not sure about this one. Would having a shoot supported by the NTSA be any better attended than ones not supported? If that's the point that is. And if it's to support club shoots, perhaps a better approach would be to find out what is reducing support and tackle that, rather than giving money to clubs to keep them in funds.

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

The purpose being?

That a maximum wind velocity be set for outdoor matches beyond which scores will not be counted for national ranking purposes.
Not Passed

This is starting to sound like the cricket forum

That the NTSA appoint an Anti-Doping Officer.
Not Passed

I thought there was one

That the NTSA appoint a Children's Officer.
Not Passed

Not much point if there are no children in the association! I know technically 16 year olds are children, but how many of them are there for one whole officer to be appointed for?

That the NTSA create a network of club PROs who are in contact with one another and the national PRO.
Not Passed

Is this not a bit OTT? According to reports there are only about 120 members of the NTSA, that's less than most clubs in the UK!

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

Agreed, what was the rationale for those opposing?

Phew! that's it, I know I've been a bit flippant on some of these , but then again maybe that was deserved. I approached them with an open mind and was quite surprised at how many I didn't agree with, or was not convinced about their supoosed positive effect. Some, I thought were drawn up with a particular constituency in mind (students), and although that's understandable considering Sparks background in student shooting, there would of necessity be a different viewpoint held by non student shooters. That's the one I espoused here, make no apologies for, and makes it no less valid. Other motions like the PRO and Children's officer one, would be perfectly fitting, were the NTSA a larger organisation with a far greater number of members (IMHO).

Anyway, kevlar on and sitting in my nuclear shelter waiting for the brickbats