What I've gotton from this whole cluster f@ck is the below
Employee vs employer dispute
Nargc asked members not to talk online as advised by their solicitors as it would interfere with above dispute
Member of the nargc body was leaking and info to said employee above
"Distant 5" counties didn't act own their own they where puppets being used to stir **** and pull a coup
I'd say we are at least on 600K for legal fees if not double that

Went to a clay shoot today and found out that DC is sick in Hospital. Hope he gets well soon as there is a process he is involved in and I'm sure the independent investigator still needs to chat with him.

Actually I what I really want to say is does it not strike you strange that on the weeks coming up to him having to be interviewed by the idependant investigator he is sick.........and yes I am a conspiracy theorist.

cavan shooter wrote: »

Went to a clay shoot today and found out that DC is sick in Hospital. Hope he gets well soon as there is a process he is involved in and I'm sure the independent investigator still needs to chat with him.

Actually I what I really want to say is does it not strike you strange that on the weeks coming up to him having to be interviewed by the idependant investigator he is sick.........and yes I am a conspiracy theorist.

No i think that his being in a medically induced coma is usually as bad as it sounds........

Just to post a reply to Bettermans posting , sorry about the delay was off stalking and glad to say filled the freezer for this year. Also to highlight the latest incident in the making. Looks like more dosch down the tubes. Cannot figure out how to highlight my reply or show it in a different font to make it easier to read, sorry

Berettaman wrote:

This is misleading as this Executive has done more to rectify the finance of the Association than any previously

I completely disagree with you here, the writing above tells what happened at the time, and nothing has changed up until the meeting last weekend when some information was provided. The new executive may have tackled the finances as you claim but without solid and cohesive information coming out to the general membership in a timely manner then the vacuum will exist. I cannot remember any executive who within a year of taking over actually LOST Potentially the NARGC such an amount of money. The potential legal cases are mounting together with the attendant costs. Take the most recent incident created last weekend. I am given to understand that the annual report apparently contains a grave accusation against William Egan which he considers defamatory. All annual reports issued are asked by him to remain unissued and any issued are to be returned. Failure to do so will result in legal action.
Another probable case which will drain our coffers. it further cements what I regard as the unsuitability of the present executive to remain. You have heard of penny wise and pound foolish. I think personally that describes the present executives approach to our finances and I am not happy with that. It is one episode after another so yes I am pi---d off. If this is what is called managing our finances then we have had enough of it.

This is a misleading statement. The former solicitor of the Association threatened the Chairman with legal action if the Governing Body meeting was held, (because of 12 days’ notice instead of 14).(Why bother I wonder?) Finance would have been presented and discussed at the Governing Body Meeting. Instead just an EGM was held and Finance was not discussed at the EGM. In any event we had no Treasurer at the time.(Finance duties were being shared by Comp Fund administrator and former Treasurer in a caretaking capacity.)

I do not believe what I wrote is misleading

1. The EGM was held
2. No financial information was provided
3. The Governing body did endorse the Executive

Nothing untrue or misleading at all there.
I agree with you when you suggest it was daft to stop the Governing body meeting going ahead, have not a clue why either.

But lets return to point 2 No financial info was provided at the EGM. When asked the Chairman’s first response was “ you are not entitled to a financial statement” What a thing to say to the governing body, says a lot about what is thought of the governing body does it not. After a bit of back and forward chat that was moderated to none could be presented due to the lack of a treasurer at the time.. Now please Think on what you have just written, You have just said that the financial information could have been presented to the governing body meeting if it took place on that day but was withheld from the EGM. Read your post

The Executive have the power to act for the Association between Governing Body Meetings. The Executive granted authority to the Litigation Committee due to “confidentiality” issues. Anyone in attendance on the 6th of August will know why.

Again completely Incorrect. The motion that was passed by the governing body ensures that any legal case being considered has first to be given approval by that body. There are no confidentially issues around that at all. The Executive or part of the Executive did not have authority to give a go ahead over the express wishes of the governing body.

Likewise the Executive did what they did based on legal advice to protect the interests of the Association They too also acted, always properly, within the constitution, they did their job

Incorrect, they exceeded their authority, see previous point.
I have raised valid questions about the legal advise given. As can be seen from the court findings that advise has cost someone dearly and has resulted I suggest in further widening a rift within the Association.
Look at the court decision. While I cannot post the exact wording here is the jist of just 2 paragraphs.
The court was of the view that the injunction application and proceedings were completely FLAWED. The application was so poor it would not even get to the stage where the courts could apply even the standard test for the granting of an injunction.
The suggestion that a discussion on legal cases a group were party could either constitute contempt of court or could not be discussed by the governing body was daft and incorrect.
If the executive are taking poor legal advice then it is incumbent on the organisation to change that. Yes I do believe that the NARGC solicitors should and must attend the AGM to answer questions on their performance or lack of it. Obviously the executive are not doing it.

Your estimation. We shall see. Way out I think.

I hope for someone’s sake that you are correct, As another post suggests it may be much higher. We really do not know. NARGC does know their costs to date and it would be easy for them to get the other sides estimation so someone could put together a ball park figure. As the next court date is the 6th Oct on costs the data should be available for the EGM. I expect an estimate anyway. That is if the AGM happens given the recent incident.

Again there is context here to what was happening to the recordings of meetings.
as per presentation 6th August.

I agree with you however there is also the fact to consider that at many meetings the minutes are queried as to accuracy and that is why the recording by only one person was decided on with the recording being destroyed after the minutes were adapted.
In any event it is not relevant anyway as the motion was passed to allow recording by one person by the governing body at a previous meeting and that instruction can only be altered at a similar meeting. It cannot be altered at an EGM.

Also at that EGM the first and most important point was the financial report. This Executive has worked very hard along with the Finance Committee to bring order to the Associations finances. There was no Treasurer in situ. If the Governing Body meeting had gone ahead a financial report would have been issued.

Again conflicting statement that suggests wrongdoing in my estimate. You are saying that the financial report could not be given to one meeting but could and would be given to one about an hour later.

Can you imagine what the five counties would have said/done if the EGM that they fought for in court was deferred pending appointment of a Treasurer? Seriously? We would be in court the following day? More money, more waste!

I agree with you on more money, more waste, you have I think given the five counties something to ponder on though given that they fought through the courts to get the EGM and its main point of getting proper financial information was denied at the EGM. My personal opinion stands though that without the financial info the EGM was a waste of time.

Incorrect. Independent Investigator appointed and worked steadily on the task in hand. The time frame offered was based on her initial estimation of delivery date. Due to work load/summer holidays the delivery date has been pushed back. Not the fault of the Chairman or Executive but used as a stick to beat them with anyway.

Completely disagree with you
Actually the original is a correct statement. If the correct information was provided to the members and correct updates on progress then there would not be any issue. The process is required and must go on but members must be kept informed. Not sure what you mean by someone using it as a stick to beat the Officers with but if you mean that I personally think that accurate information flow to members is not happening then yes I am guilty of that.

As a former officer of the Association you should know how the Association works. Financial Reports distributed at the last Governing Body meeting prior to the AGM. (The various RGC took away their boxes on Saturday).The detailed financial report is given at the AGM by the Treasurer and is confidential to members. This was the way it was done when the last Treasurer was there.

Lets not make assumptions, a former officer of the association I am not. Neither am I taking one side or the other.

Bang on. Rumours. I heard rumours that many costs are down on prior years. Rumours. Audited accounts at the AGM. Full financial disclosure.

Look forward to it, warts and all. Great to know exactly where we stand finally.

Interesting, are you talking about the guys that derailed the gravy train, cried stop to some of the unnecessary spending and shone a light where there was none or are you talking about the members of the Executive that had their antics detailed in the presentation on the 6th of August? I know which way I am voting.

Actually everyone at executive level that breaks the Association rules and does not abide by the constitution full stop. Executive members and Officers should give best example and show best practice and need to be competent at their job..

Also, folks, believe me when I say I understand the cynicism being expressed sotto voce and otherwise about an individual's health, but knock it off please. The specific infectious disease being cited (and that gossip is doing the rounds about someone's specific healthcare details is pretty ****ty by the way) is actually out there at the moment, a member of my family has just been hospitalised recently with it (happily now fully recovered) and it's not a laughing matter, it really is a life-threatening illness.

mannlicher666 wrote:

That is if the AGM happens given the recent incident.

Go on ye good thing....after the EGM in August I put a E50 bet on with one of our County Delegates that there will be no AGM that a rabitt would be pulled from someone's arse and an injunction sought on some spurious reason.....drinks on me!!!.....get in there..

Backbarrel wrote: »

Had a chat today with an offaly lad that was at the meeting last Saturday.. he said he wanted the ground to open up and swallow him. He was mortified at the antics of you know who.
He said he won't go again until a couple of the rgcs change delegates..

The abuse the executive and. Chairman got was awful disrespectful..

Was there a complete lack of respect shown to the Chairman before the meeting yes.
Was there a small minority that had nothing good to say. Yes.

But it is vital that as many members go to meetings and ask questions. If your delegates don't know get the contacts off the website and ring some of the lads on there.

The abuse is because this group know the game is up..end of story..

Just a question here lads, god forbid happens Mr Crofton and I mean that I wouldn't want to see anyone go through what's happening to him now but if he doesn't make what happens to the reports / judgments etc etc . A bit morbid but it was brought up tonight and thought never crossed my mind

richiedel123 wrote:

What I would like to know here is how mannlicher has this information before anybody else gets it?

I got my information from my delegate who received the mail/letter.I understand all County Bodies got a letter. I did not post until i had seen same with the attendant delays before posting. I may have been the first to post but certainly was not the first person who posts on this forum to know about it so suggesting i got my info before anyone else is ridiculous. Incedentally the Executive has still to the best of my knowledge not issued instructions as to what to do with all the Annual Reports, Something like that needs to have controls put in place right away not days later.

Also I was talking to my county secretary today when I seen this come up today and he said he received a letter this morning with no name on it just a post mark. In it was photocopied private e mails between 2 parties. i don't want to know how they got a copy of these private e mails but surely there is some sort of informer out there leaking them

Perhaps you might let us know the gist of what the the other letters were, there are rumblings that all counties again got them but cannot comment until i see them.

To me in my opinion it looks like somebody is trying to stop the agm and derail the organisation by causing a huge split in it

I think that your opinion about someone trying to de-rail the AGM is incorrect. Nothing to be gained i believe and stupid to do. if you are talking about the snafu regarding the daft insertion of a potential defamatory item in the Annual Report i would think that it was picked up on immediately and nothing more than that. Something like that should never pass an Executive review. If you are talking about other events i have no present knowledge of same so please enlighten us.

On a different matter, the Injunction Costs, i seem to remember that the decision as to who was to pay was scheduled to be up for mention today, anyone know what happened?

Just checked the court services web site.

The following info appears
05/10/2016 ADV MS JUSTICE MURPHY 0035 Order

Looks like an order was made assigning costs, anyone have details?

mannlicher666 wrote: »

Just checked the court services web site.

The following info appears
05/10/2016 ADV MS JUSTICE MURPHY 0035 Order

Looks like an order was made assigning costs, anyone have details?

Given that it is so recent how can we hope to have any details yet?

I am sanguine about this. Those 5 counties, misguided or not thought they were doing the right thing. The Executive thought the same. It is only right that the costs will be picked up by the Association-as the judge remarked- you appear to be suing yourselves..

Two thoughts:
1. Any costs incurred will be heavily scrutinised by an independent cost accountant no doubt.
2. If the case had gone the other way do you the 5 counties would have been left hanging? I do not believe that would have been allowed.

All change is difficult. This Association has gone through major changes in the last 18months and is all the better for it. There has been much dialogue with members of the 5 counties..a lot of good is coming from that.

As an Association we are getting there-and some don't like it!;)

Cavan Shooter you are correct on spending a small fortune

I believe that the most recent NARGC High Court Case is over. That is the one where William Egan believed that a defamatory article was contained within the Annual Report. I understand that he personally took a case against the Chairman of the NARGC. The outcome appears to be that William Egan won once again [mod snip on the grounds that this information seems to have been inaccurate and therefore some of the post could be considered defamatory]

I also understand that at the general meeting on the 6th Oct members of the committee and of the governing body were working from at least 3 different iterations of the NARGC’s constitution. That then resulted in up to date copies being issued by post afterwards. In this instance I would have expected that they would have been told that the constitution on the web site was the most recent one and they could download it from there. A saving on both the print and the postage. Ridiculous anyway that at that level of our management a snafu of that sort should arise. I would call this depletion of our finances rather than minding and reducing them.
Another motion that was adapted I understand at the general meeting on the 06th Oct is related to disciplinary action. A suggestion was made that should several members who are going for election be successful in that election of officers then they would be disciplined. What sort of dangerous politics are we playing at, that sort of crap is what leads us to the High Court. If a member or officer has committed an offense that requires a disciplinary procedure to be brought under our constitution then they should be disciplined and the process started immediately. Threats like that based on a what if inevitably lead to Court and once again NARGC would be on the back foot given that history I would expect.
I notice that no one has posted on what the letters posted anonymously to a large group of NARGC members were about. I also understand that this was mentioned at the meeting on the 6th Oct where one of the letters was produced but the Chairman ruled it out of order and it was not discussed. The e mails or letters contained in that mailing seem to be about differences of opinion between the NARGC Chairman and our Director’s solicitor about whether additional access is given to our Directors files and offices. My understanding is that on one hand our Chairman wishes access which is understandable if files are contained within, that concern ongoing and urgent NARGC business. On the other hand our Director is very sick and in an induced coma thus not capable of giving direction and his solicitor has already asked for a list of the cases that our Chairman requires access to but has received no information back. My personal view is that the present situation not be aggravated further at all. I believe that it would both be in bad taste and a decision that could have large legal ramifications. These e mails originated prior to the last general meeting and should have been discussed under correspondence.
Interestingly I understand that the Governing body at the last meeting gave the Chairman and Executive full permission to handle this as they deemed fit. Over a year ago that same Governing Body was going hell for leather about the Executive having too much power and now they are increasing their powers.
Hopefully today at the AGM we will get a full financial disclosure and update. It is a pity that one could not have gotten a preview of the financials to study beforehand and formulate questions.

mannlicher, you appear to be posting about several items which took place at a meeting which was not public. If you are speculating on what transpired, then those comments are probably over the line of what would be considered defamatory. Can you either remove them or confirm you actually have copies of minutes or transcripts of this meeting or were present. I normally would not ask, and I'm not asking you to identify yourself, but the environment at the moment is exceptionally litigious, even by the standards of Irish sport and that has to be kept in mind when reading posts like that.

Where is the agm this year