Perfectstorm wrote:

Once solicitors letters start flying the ball is rolling one way only

It's very hard to get off that train once those boys get involved....it kinda runs away on you.

Perfectstorm wrote: »

Is it fair to say that whatever is going on in cork is in an internal issue and does not have anything to do with any other rgc or the national associated?

According to my mate...there ripping themselves apart sad when you think of it cork looks like the famous scene from life of brian when you look at all the different clubs and federations.....Peoples front of Judeah, Judean Peoples front even "Splitters"

pfizer wrote:

There not ripping themselves apart in cork its straight crucifixion for anybody who is trying to stop the dictatorship

I don't know that much about it....but from chatting to lads neither does anyone else outside the Executive.
Lads down there tried to make changes there was a lad from Cork on here posting about the issues a while back.

Was down in Cork the last while. **** hitting the fan I hear big time with 6 Clubs now wanting to breakaway and there going this week talk of a RGC in an RGC kind crap.

cavan shooter wrote: »

Was down in Cork the last while. **** hitting the fan I hear big time with 6 Clubs now wanting to breakaway and there going this week talk of a RGC in an RGC kind crap.

That's 7 clubs wanting to breakaway. I take it that if the first 6 don't get their people on the top table they will split and form their own RGC. .... and I don't think the notion of a rgc in an rgc is crap.

Although some of the potential replacement candidates are as bad as the ones they want to replace.

The 7th club however is definetly hitting the road, good luck and thanks.

Going to be interesting to see what happens. If the current exec get reelected the Clubs seeking to replace them either accept the vote or leave the RGC. Same for the Clubs supporting the current exec of course.

What happens if the unsuccessful group seeks to establish their own county structure.?

Can anyone see the national association taking them in?

If they did would it set a precident for all counties where a minority group want to run the county ?

What point in having rgc's at all if the above occurs?

cavan shooter wrote: »

In Cavan a club recently affiliated and as long as it was accepted by the other Clubs by majority there was no hassel. Im sure as long as the other lads in Cork have the backing and swing it with the Governing Body of the NARG then it shouldnt be a problem. The existing Cork lads can sit on it and swivel...as I said affiliate to Tipperaery, theres nothing in the rules to say

It makes no sense while I accept you say there is no rule..i would go further and say it would be the final nails in the coffin...

cavan shooter wrote: »

My mate said that some monopoly money figures given out and people were shocked by it.

The answer given on the night was:
Per the accounts Legal fees from 2012 to date are €1.909m

Legal fees for "prior regime" represent about 1.835m of that.

Safe to say there has been a turnaround.

I heard that the guy asking about it might have been trying to embarrass the lads that went their that night. I think it backfired!

pfizer wrote: »

What is going on in cork federation is absolutely disgraceful it wouldn't be tolerated in any other county but be under no illusion cork federation is owned and ruled by one man and has the backing of 95% of executive and who will turn the blind eye to everything that is going on the other 5% are only troublemakers that want to bring the dictatorship to a end this man won't stopped until he gets his hands on that Holy Grail ?

You know what to do. Get organised, make the calls and line up who is running for whatever position. It takes a lot of effort but it can be done.

The people trying to change things are often called all sorts of names..it proves that the other side are scared..Change is good..

gunny123 wrote:

Anyone i know who had a pistols or large calibre rifle case in the district court, or higher courts, paid for it out of their own pockets. The only thing the nargc might have paid for was the Brophy case, long time ago now.

I thought the NARGC paid for that.

What is going on in Cork?

Most of us only know what we read here or get half a story elsewhere.

It seems amazing with 3 separate cases last year only 90k was spent ..I say that only in the context of the fees we read about in the papers and what we have all been charged for buying selling house etc...30k per case!!

1.9 million spent in total is an utter disgrace.that's like 2 years total income for the assoc..the wheels badly needed to come off that wagon

Perfectstorm wrote: »

What is going on in Cork?

It seems amazing with 3 separate cases last year only 90k was spent ..I say that only in the context of the fees we read about in the papers and what we have all been charged for buying selling house etc...30k per case!!

1.9 million spent in total is an utter disgrace.that's like 2 years total income for the assoc..the wheels badly needed to come off that wagon

I find it very difficult to believe that 3 cases have only cost 90k. In the two high court cases of which I heard, NARGC lost and would be liable for two sets of costs. One of these cases ( the employee one) lasted at least two days. I do not know how long the egm injunction case lasted but given that was initially ex parte and was then contested, it must have lasted at least two days
Google suggests high court costs in 2006 ran at a rate of 40k per day. If this 40k covered both sides (doubtful ) the two high court cases should have cost a minimum of 160k. I wonder if there is a hope that taxed costs will be reduced below 2006 levels.

bluezulu49 wrote: »

I find it very difficult to believe that 3 cases have only cost 90k. In the two high court cases of which I heard, NARGC lost and would be liable for two sets of costs. One of these cases ( the employee one) lasted at least two days. I do not know how long the egm injunction case lasted but given that was initially ex parte and was then contested, it must have lasted at least two days
Google suggests high court costs in 2006 ran at a rate of 40k per day. If this 40k covered both sides (doubtful ) the two high court cases should have cost a minimum of 160k. I wonder if there is a hope that taxed costs will be reduced below 2006 levels.

AS I understand it the above covers the NARGC side of the costs only. The other side will be provided for in the accounts at the year end if it is not finalised by then.

Fees for the other side are gone for taxation I believe at the moment.

Under current regime there is no payment without an invoice and legal fees go through independent legal cost accountants/taxation.

It take time to turn the thing around.