Resistance is futile wrote: » I heard from a guy in leitrim that if any club or county wants the chairman and his committee down they only have to ask,but they won't be ordered to go anywhere , he seems an approachable enough fella . There was a big round of applause at the laser shoot making money . Nobody thought it possible
cavan shooter wrote: » The 15th December is National Tea Day. I heard the savings is quite good and there was a failed attempt to get the Treasurer by saying his savings are false as he didn't put the clay subcommittee cost under that category. 20K for a sub committee is a long stretch. I did hear the cops where set up on the road right outside the hotel breathalising everyone ileaving. Haven't a clue about the charity stuff, Our Delegates said it was a fairly benign event everything was run of the mill. The Dublin and Kildare "divilment" was non existent as usual they couldn't get off the blocks. Does anyone know when the County by County meetings are going to happen with the National Chairman and the Executive. If its true thats a great idea, finally the unwashed get to talk to the head sheds.
Backbarrel wrote: » So, did anyone at the AGM find out what the obsession was with 15th December 2017 for Dublin resolutions?:D Did anyone find out why Darth Fiscal couldn't spend an extra €20K on the national clay shoot like others did previously?:D Did anyone find out what "be careful on the way home lads" meant?;) Did anyone find out how much was collected for charity this year?
cavan shooter wrote: » Is it true we now have €750 towards a court case or appeal as part of the fund cover. Heard about the hens alright. Still no harm talking about it it's what AGMS are for.
cavan shooter wrote: » Is it true we now have €750 towards a court case or appeal as part of the fund cover. .
cavan shooter wrote: » How did the meeting go anyone there?
Perfectstorm wrote: » Fair play. How many birds does your club get? Poults or adults? How many active members
cavan shooter wrote: » 50: 50 cock and hens with us. Don, t do bag limits but i have two wild clutches near me.
Perfectstorm wrote: » My club releases hens every year. I have not heard about wild clutches in a few years despite this. Do clubs have bag limits. ..am thinking of the Facebook pictures that will appear with one lad having shoot 4 ,5,6 plus birds on a day... Release hens for a few years and then maybe put them on the order
Resistance is futile wrote: » And in regard to the hen pheasants issue it appears to be an issue at every game development meeting, vermin control meeting and G.B and agm and probably every gun Club meeting in the country that pheasant numbers are at an all time low. That might have something to do with only cock birds/ majority cock birds being released . For a healthy pheasant population there has to be some encouragement for clubs to buy hens so a balance can be reached . Hens are being shot on estates ,private shoots and little syndicates all over Ireland already . Again I think this proposal has been explained under the proposal according to a guy I was discussing it with . Nice to see a few proposals on shooting issues that strike a chord with hunting men .
cavan shooter wrote: » That Cavan resolution goes in every year going back to 2014/2015 when we were being told how broke the Association was and the ex treasurer standing up bemoaning how he didn't get an increase since 19xx. In fairness and talking to my neighbor last night who is a delegate of long standing what the main aim of that resolution is to ensure if ever there was a suggestion of an increase that a portion of the increase is ring fenced to member services and not fall into what used to be the balck hole. I also see that Cavan actually explain the reason behind there resolutions in plain language underneath, so if you have a copy of the resolutions you would see that.
Perfectstorm wrote: » Might well be time to agree to disagree on the recent past. In my view both sides could have acted better...... instead debate why some want an increase in the fees and hen pheasants on the open order
Perfectstorm wrote: » I don't think an increased is justified with so much money already in the bank account..more is being banked then spent
Resistance is futile wrote: » A debate needs to be started on quite a few things I think a portion of the increase is suggested to be ring fenced towards members services . Lots of increases recently in rebates to members/associated members
Perfectstorm wrote: » It seems the High court judge didn't agree with the legal opinion and then with an unknown amount of training the egm passed by defamation free...hindsight is always marvellous though
cavan shooter wrote: » Thank fcuk for this answer, Jesus I was about to loose it again.
Sparks wrote: » I'm sorry, but the idea that you can take someone - even from a demanding profession like, say, a doctor - and just have them wade into a situation where they would need legal knowledge and possibly training in relation to the Defamation Act which they do not have, and not consider it a risk -- that's just unconscionable and reckless. Almost unethical. It would expose any association or group to serious losses from any subsequent legal action. I'm deeply unsurprised at the legal advice they got, given the context where the decision got made.
berettaman wrote: » This has been done to death. The advice give to the Executive (The people charged with running the Association between Governing Body meetings) was that there was a huge risk of defamation arising if an EGM was allowed to take place. Hence the need to stop the EGM. As you will have read in Justice Murphys judgement a by product of the case was that the Assoc could be allowed to discuss its business in a meeting without fear.. Happy Days as the Exec had loads to say. (If you were at the EGM you would know what I mean.) If you are going to ask why the Executive had to take the legal advice, that rule was brought in under a previous regime so there ya go..
Perfectstorm wrote: » i did not intend to suggest that their individual professions on which their income depends is that of "professional delegate"
bluezulu49 wrote: » There was nothing untoward discovered by the EGM. Due to the refusal of the top table to answer questions / provide information?.
bluezulu49 wrote: » Those calling it had a list of questions and they did not even finish asking all of them. I do not know if this is correct as I was not there. However given that it has been reported that the questions they did ask were stonewalled by the top table they may have seen that it was futile to continue.There was nothing untoward discovered by the EGM. Due to the refusal of the top table to answer questions / provide information?.
