NSRA consultation on membership

[Rutty]

I'd be interested to have a legal opinion on this proposal. Intuitively I doubt if requiring people to become members of an organisation could be enforced.
If imposed the result could be airgun clubs disaffliiating. I also doubt if other shooting insurance providers would be happy as they would doubtless loose business.

Nearly every other sport enforces it, shooting is a rare exception. If you don’t want to join you don’t have to, just leave and do your own thing.

Rutty

[Unframed Dave]

Nearly every other sport enforces it, shooting is a rare exception. If you don’t want to join you don’t have to, just leave and do your own thing.

Rutty

Is that right, in the past I have played rugby, badminton, canoed, fished and others. Never had to join anything.

Dave

[Unframed Dave]

Also we appear to have 3 different threads on the same subject. That and a reluctance for some posters to declare their link to the NSRA.

I have to stress that all my dealings with them have been very positive, but this when balancing all 3 threads seems to be very unpopular.

Dave

[Frog]

Nearly every other sport enforces it, shooting is a rare exception. If you don’t want to join you don’t have to, just leave and do your own thing.

Rutty

What I'm saying is I'm already a member of a club and already have insurance. I can not see how the NSRA would make me pay them for membership and for their insurance. I would say they can not enforce it. The NSRA does not write law.
The only thing they could do is tell clubs you are not affiliated to us unless you require your members to pay us for membership and you can not take place in our comps unless your members pay up - i.e. they would have to have the club be their enforcers rather than enforce it themselves. Some clubs might say 'no thanks' and the whole thing could backfire.
They need to be really careful. The motivation for this appears to be they are a failing organisation in terms of membership and income. The long term answer to that is not to try to make people pay it is to do things people want to pay for and probably to cut waste. I'm a non NSRA member but belong to an affliated FT club (for insurance purposes I think).

[Powderfinger]

It is unfortunate that there are two threads running on this and that has stalled the debate.
Whilst it is true that in some sports, club membership requires organisational membership that is not always true. In the case of shooting, there are so many disciplines that there are several organisations and many shooters feel that NSRA only focusses on certain aspects and neglects others. Neglect of FT was one of NSRAs biggest mistakes.
This proposal has perturbed many club shooters because they feel they might suddenly have to pay fees to an organisation that does not cater for them and is using the fees to prop up a declining body. Volunteer club officials will have another admin burden and some tense meetings to explain this to members. I have always found the admin staff at NSRA to be helpful and their two ranges are good but I think it lost its way and the proposal is not the best way forward.

[T 20]

It is unfortunate that there are two threads running on this and that has stalled the debate.

With that in mind, both threads are now merged into this one with a redirect from the FT section directly to this thread.

Hope this helps ?



All the best Mick

[Unframed Dave]

True, the debate has stalled. I've lost interest as my request for people to identify their relationship with the NSRA has been ignored along with my comment above.

Reading everyone's comments it appears there's an awful lot of history and the financial problems of the NSRA are not the responsibility of the shooting public at large.

The comment that all other sports support a representing body is nonsense and the proposer of the suggestion hasn't replied with any argument to support it. I'm all for facts, but arguments being bandied about need to be accurate.

I'm out of the debate from here on in. It's a no from me and if it goes ahead someone, from one of the clubs will find alternative insurance arrangements and that will be the opening of the gate. I doubt this proposal will do much good for the financial position of the NSRA.

Also, bear in mind that the majority of people involved in the running of clubs are volunteers. We don't need any further administrative tasks imposed upon us.

Dave

Dave

[Hemmers]

What I'm saying is I'm already a member of a club and already have insurance. I can not see how the NSRA would make me pay them for membership and for their insurance. I would say they can not enforce it. The NSRA does not write law.
The only thing they could do is tell clubs you are not affiliated to us unless you require your members to pay us for membership and you can not take place in our comps unless your members pay up - i.e. they would have to have the club be their enforcers rather than enforce it themselves. Some clubs might say 'no thanks' and the whole thing could backfire.
They need to be really careful. The motivation for this appears to be they are a failing organisation in terms of membership and income. The long term answer to that is not to try to make people pay it is to do things people want to pay for and probably to cut waste. I'm a non NSRA member but belong to an affliated FT club (for insurance purposes I think).

That's exactly the proposal. The NSRA makes it a condition of affiliation that the club registers all members. Just as RFU Clubs (even down the bottom at Lvl 12) have to register their players and ArcheryGB sign up all members automatically (at a cost of £47/head).

Your club has the choice to go off and affiliate to NRA if it prefers. It is a choice for the club to make - if the majority of the club vote in favour of it then you have the choice to go along with the group or find another club - just as if the committee proposed a £35 increase in subs and the AGM approved it. You would have the choice to pay the raised subs or find a new club. Of course the NRA may follow suit, in which case you simply get a choice of which way to affiliate.

Some clubs might say 'no thanks' and the whole thing could backfire.
They need to be really careful. The motivation for this appears to be they are a failing organisation in terms of membership and income. The long term answer to that is not to try to make people pay it is to do things people want to pay for and probably to cut waste. I'm a non NSRA member but belong to an affliated FT club (for insurance purposes I think).

The clubs that would say "no thanks" are likely ones with few to no individual members already anyway. Club Affiliations account for less than 25% of the NSRA's "Membership Income". Losing a few club affiliations is not a problem if they sign up sufficient members at other clubs.

They have ~800 affiliated clubs at the moment. My back-of-a-napkin maths suggests that they only need ~300 clubs to sign up to this to break-even with their current income (which shows just how pitifully they are being funded by the community at the moment).

Given that this is a preliminary proposal and requires refinement, there's a lot of scope for developing buy-in. FT Clubs are basically unaccounted for at the moment and I agree entirely that the NSRA do a very poor job looking after FT (though they obviously also need to avoid stepping on the toes of the BFTA, it's a unique arrangement of being separate but cooperative which is not working quite right at the moment). If they sat down and were able to work out a sensible and mutually-acceptable deal with the BFTA then that's immediately 70-odd clubs signing up their membership. There are a few gaping holes in their plan which - if filled - make the whole endeavour look fairly sensible. If BFTA want to go off and do their own insurance again, then they can - but they stopped doing it precisely because it was a PITA and the NSRA were able to get them a better deal. I've seen a few comments along the lines of "the NRA and NSRA does sod all for clubs". As far as cartridge shooting goes, your clubs would not exist without the NRA and NSRA because you wouldn't have insurance-acceptable range construction/maintenance guidelines, which means you wouldn't be able to get insurance, which means no sane person would ever volunteer to run a club and personally shoulder the liability risk!

I fully agree the NSRA have taken rather a stick (not carrot) approach over the last few years and been woefully uninventive and uninspiring. I have reason to be tentatively hopeful that this is changing given some recent significant changes on the Board of Management though I continue to have doubts about the CEO. Obviously they need to walk the walk and prove themselves to the community and I continue to beat them with a stick on a regular basis.

But I also think this is the way forward for the sport. You can't expect to be represented in Parliament or have the NSRA fight off airgun licensing if you don't join them. The sport has to pay for that. YOU AND I have to pay for that.

[Phil Russell]

In years gone by when we used to travel around to shoot HFT at different clubs we were only visitors, not club members so I wonder how the NSRA and/or clubs will manage that? A drastic rise in the cost of a shoot as a visitor? No doubt this would increase the admin load already taken by the volunteers. I can see clubs losing members and visitors if this all comes about. Let's hope common sense prevails and the proposal is dropped.
Cheers, Phil

[Rutty]

In years gone by when we used to travel around to shoot HFT at different clubs we were only visitors, not club members so I wonder how the NSRA and/or clubs will manage that? A drastic rise in the cost of a shoot as a visitor? No doubt this would increase the admin load already taken by the volunteers. I can see clubs losing members and visitors if this all comes about. Let's hope common sense prevails and the proposal is dropped.
Cheers, Phil

It’s very straightforward, if you are a member of an affiliated club you will have a NSRA Membership number. Subject to local rules and payment of a visitor’s range fee you will be able to shoot at other affiliated clubs. Clubs that choose not to affiliate will have to make their own arrangements.

Rutty

[Phil Russell]

Quote: '£35 a year to participate in your chosen pass time is negligible ...' Maybe, but maybe not if it is in addition to the club membership fee.

As for having an NSRA Membership number from your own club ... what about people who are not members of any club but just turn up as a visitor? Is the plan that all shooters must be NSRA members and that a club membership fee has to include the NSRA fee as well? If so, I can see clubs losing members and casual shooters. Which in the long run could begin to hit (no pun intended) organised competitions, the airgun trade and possibly the magazines devoted to airguns.

I am not asking for detailed answers, just putting down my own first thoughts on matters that will need clarification.

Cheers, Phil

[Rutty]

Quote: '£35 a year to participate in your chosen pass time is negligible ...' Maybe, but maybe not if it is in addition to the club membership fee.

As for having an NSRA Membership number from your own club ... what about people who are not members of any club but just turn up as a visitor? Is the plan that all shooters must be NSRA members and that a club membership fee has to include the NSRA fee as well? If so, I can see clubs losing members and casual shooters. Which in the long run could begin to hit (no pun intended) organised competitions, the airgun trade and possibly the magazines devoted to airguns.

I am not asking for detailed answers, just putting down my own first thoughts on matters that will need clarification.

Cheers, Phil

The problem is that we just cannot go on as we are. The old blokes may bump their gums about an extra £35 but they won’t be around for long anyway. I can say that as I am older than most and have been shooting for 60 years. Those coming in will just accept it as it is what happens in other sports.

The membership number will not be from your club, it will be from the NSRA. You will now be a member of the association that is the National Governing Body (NGB) of the sport, i.e. it is recognised as such by Sport UK. If someone is not a member of an affiliated club, or any club, there’s nothing to stop them taking out individual membership of the NSRA. They will then have the benefits of membership, be supporting the sport and will be able to participate in the activities of affiliated clubs as a visitor or casual shooter; subject to the normal provisos. To put it simply, no pay, no play; the days of the free ride are over.

Anyone who doesn’t want to support the sport in a tangible way is quite a liberty to go and make their own arrangements with like minded bodies and individuals, no one will stop them. As for the airgun trade and magazines, the last time I looked they were in business to make money, it’s in their interests to support the NGB.

It’s time to face reality and accept that if we don’t support the NGBs financially (i.e. NSRA, NRA or CPSA; BASC is not a NGB) then we run the risk of sport shooting becoming unviable.

Finally, why should those of us who have been NGB members for many years continue to subsidise those who can’t be bothered?

Rutty

[bezzer]

Quote:

I am not asking for detailed answers, just putting down my own first thoughts on matters that will need clarification.

Cheers, Phil

Such as what exactly is "Bronze Membership" ?? their website only mentions their normal annual membership, pay your money and you are just a payment number on the balance sheet?

[Hemmers]

Hemmers, what you say is all well and good but the NSRA are pretty much coming at his from the argument of

“ we’ve performed poorly, planned badly, not communicated well, so you’re going to have to give us your money and trust us”

Not a good message.

I don't believe they have. It is true they have performed poorly, planned badly and not communicated well (although I would ask you to look at the sea-change over the past 18months. They used to update the website once every six weeks. Now it's multiple times a week. They use Facebook. But they also still have their knickers in a twist over GDPR and thinking it stops them sending emails).

This is one change in a raft of proposed changes that are coming through the pipeline now that certain people are no longer on the BoM.

My support for the NSRA and the LRC went out the window when i enquired about having some one to one coaching , it was as if i’d asked for a night of physical excess with the female family members of all at the nsra.

Sorry, I don't understand. Why would you ask the NSRA for 1-to-1 coaching? That makes no more sense than asking BritishCycling for some 1-to-1 time with Chris Hoy. Surely you would ask your local club for some coaching?

There is really no argument for having the NRA and the NSRA, i’ve only used bisley regularly as an NRA member for the last 10 years, i think the place has changed for the better, but the predictable and endless response from those that have much more history with the place is that it should be as it was 30 years ago and with that the shutters come down.

I agree fully. As Rutty has mentioned, there have been numerous attempts to merge. These have generally been shut down or sidelined by the NRA, not the NSRA. Make of that what you will.

Quote: '£35 a year to participate in your chosen pass time is negligible ...' Maybe, but maybe not if it is in addition to the club membership fee.

As for having an NSRA Membership number from your own club ... what about people who are not members of any club but just turn up as a visitor? Is the plan that all shooters must be NSRA members and that a club membership fee has to include the NSRA fee as well? If so, I can see clubs losing members and casual shooters. Which in the long run could begin to hit (no pun intended) organised competitions, the airgun trade and possibly the magazines devoted to airguns.

As you say, we don't know do we. We're just people on the internet. That's why this is a preliminary proposal and they need (constructive) feedback with suggestions

For most NSRA clubs (.22) people wandering in isn't a thing - there are conditions of Home Office Approval, Probationary periods, Guest Days, etc. You might have members who are plinkers, but not so much "casual shooters" who wander in and shoot on a one-off basis.

By contrast, FT/HFT (and Bell Target) are able to operate in a much more casual/flexible manner by virtue of being airgun and not having HOA Conditions to abide by. They can set their own rules and operating procedures. So that needs to be pointed out to them along with suggestions as to preferred approaches. Incidentally, if you want to keep it that way, then the NSRA needs the resources to oppose Airgun Licensing and the imposition of Home Office Approval on "Approved Airgun Clubs" in England and Wales... As a back-of-a-napkin calculation, if the average club affiliation is £150 and there are ~70 FT clubs in the UK, that's an annual income of £10,500. What precisely does anyone expect the NSRA to achieve with that sort of money? You can't employ an intern with that, much less a full-time PR person or policy advocate.

Such as what exactly is "Bronze Membership" ?? their website only mentions their normal annual membership, pay your money and you are just a payment number on the balance sheet?

It's one of three proposed membership tiers included in a presentation that was made to Shooting Council. It won't be in the membership section of the website because it doesn't exist and wouldn't be offered until at least 2021. But it would be the basic tier of membership, eligibility for NSRA competitions, vote at AGMs, liability insurance and a small level of kit insurance and funding representative PR/Political work. The basic stuff that all participants should be contributing to (whether NRA, NSRA or BASC).

I've stopped reading everything in full now, but what I am getting overall is some real arrogance from those that seem to be supporting this move. I especially object to the suggestion that the over sixties can go and swivel as they'll soon die anyway. It is offensive and objectionable. I'm not over sixty for the record.

If you are indeed involved with the NSRA, because it appears that we're supposed to be able to tell, you are doing them no favours whatsoever.

Shooting is rife with snobbery, and in this day and age it needs removing. We're all in it for the same reasons and should be supporting each other.

As I've said, I'm very new to this and not aware of the history behind the organisation. The staff I've dealt with that administer the club affiliation and look after us have been excellent.

Perhaps it's time for a sweep and they were left to deal with the bigger picture, they certainly seem to have better people skills.

Dave

I don't know if you're referring to any of my comments but there is no intention at snobbery.

There is a major issue with the NSRA that once upon a time it just dealt with .22. Over the years it has piecemeal acquired Airgun, Pistol (when the NPA collapsed after 1997), Match Crossbow and now has a cooperative relationship with FT/HFT where clubs affiliate for insurance but BFTA/UKHFT actually run the disciplines. The delegation of duties is possibly not as well-defined as it could be. It has generally lost focus and is now doing a lot of things badly (or not at all) as it struggles to keep all the plates spinning. A combination of embezzlement ~2004 and some dubious management decisions over the past 20 years have left them in a sorry state (the NRA of course were no better until Mercer started putting noses out of joint).

I have criticised the NSRA relentlessly. I have this suspicion they have a dartboard with my face on it in the HQ.

But I also recognise that it is nonsensical for people to say "The NSRA and NRA do naff all for us" but then expect those bodies to go and oppose things like airgun licensing. Someone has to pay for that work, and currently that someone is a mere 15k of the 60k club shooters. As in most sports, everybody should contribute to one of the NGBs.

I don't have an issue with old shooters. I do have an issue with carpetbaggers who would be quite happy to run their clubs down, cash-out for personal profit and then join another club down the road because they only shoot once a month anyway. Yes, they exist (in small numbers). Yes, I've come across them. Funnily those people tend to leave clubs when they become CASC and there is no prospect of assets being divided amongst members... The clubs seem to run a lot smoother and more positively without them as well! IME those people do tend to be over 60 and should FOAD - their membership fee is easily replaced by new members when their toxic influence is removed. But we also have plenty of retirees who put enormous effort into running and improving clubs. My issue is with carpetbaggers, not over-60s. Those groups just happen to overlap quite heavily on the Venn Diagram.

Regardless of age, if someone doesn't think the sport has more than 10years in it and consistently votes against improving their club or investing in facilities then I have to ask why they're still hanging around. We don't need them.

I want the NSRA to buck up their ideas and actually represent the disciplines they claim to. I want them to modernise. I also recognise that needs finance and they don't have a bunch of tenants to beat up like the NRA do!

If people don't want to buy into that then they are free to join another Association or set up their own. Unlike Archery, there is a choice! I think it would be an enormous shame if the FT clubs decided that BFTA needed to go and source insurance for them again so they could go their own way - but it's also possible that the split might leave FT with a dedicated organisation serving it's members better and the NSRA might be able to focus on it's remaining clubs better to mutual benefit. That's a situation that should be avoided. We need to consolidate - but two bodies doing a really good job in their respective fields is arguably better than one body doing a really bad job and at the end of the day, the NSRA answers to its members - not the people opting out. If the members decide they no longer want to subsidise people who are opting not to contribute... then that's entirely their right. And you can have your voice heard by joining!

Don't get me wrong, I beat up the NSRA at every opportunity. They need to offer a lot more carrot along with the stick. I would love to see them own their failings - I see a lot of excuses "It's very difficult, we're understaffed". Yeah whatever, it's always difficult, it's always a busy year. I want to see them admit "Yeah, okay. We have failed, we have woefully underserved the sport for 20 years... but this is how we're going to get to where we need to be".

But the current situation is not sustainable so anyone who wants to keep trying the same thing over again is barking up the wrong tree. Only 25% of shooters contribute to their bodies I cannot fathom why anyone thinks that is okay. Pay peanuts, get monkeys (not a reflection on individual staff, merely the reality of running an NGB on less than a shoestring and the resultant overall quality of service). They're trying to do something different and it's not just this. There are other changes in the air - this just happens to be the one that got leaked

[Steyr]

It’s very straightforward, if you are a member of an affiliated club you will have a NSRA Membership number. Subject to local rules and payment of a visitor’s range fee you will be able to shoot at other affiliated clubs. Clubs that choose not to affiliate will have to make their own arrangements.

Rutty

If you are not a member of a club... them.private insurance such as BASC or SACs etc will probably cover this activity so you need to check or ask before you take cover.
If they are insured for the activity then this is all that is required.