The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Came across the attached newsletter when having a clean out.
Would anyone from the NRA, CPA or the NSRA care to give and explanation as to what happened to this initiative and why.

The shooting sector received a substantial amount of money to from Sport England, our money, to take forward the development of a national body (NATSS). Workshops were held and we were informed of progress via newsletters like the one I attach here. But then all went quiet and I seem to recall a vague references from various bodies.

What happened to the £750,000 from Sport England? It would seem the the three governing bodies need to agree on how it would be spent for it to be drawn down. Was there an inability to agree? If so what was it that couldn't be agreed on and why?

Here was an an initiative that a national body should be behind and certainly one I applauded the NRA and the others for at the time but it just seemed to fade away into nothing with no explanation and no sight of the Sport England 3/4s of a million pounds.

wtfwtf


Surely as members of these associations we should have a detailed explanation on this initiative's failure.



These are the last announcements I could find on the subject on the NRA website announcements from the NRA website.


NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TARGET SHOOTING SPORTS
(Working Title)
PRESS RELEASE
May 2008
The Steering Group of the National Association of Target Shooting Sports (NATSS – promoted and
sponsored by the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association, the National Small Bore Rifle Association and
the National Rifle Association) has met recently to consider the results of a Survey of UK Target
Shooters having received over 2,200 full responses and the results of 9 Workshops, held UK wide,
with representatives of all sectors of target shooting sport.
The predominant response (88% of the internet survey), fully endorsed at the Workshops, has been
for a desire for the formation of an entirely New Body to govern UK Target Shooting Sport.
Members considered that such an amalgamated Body could provide improved strategic vision and
direction. Further it would enhance opportunities for the sport of Target Shooting to improve
protection of the sport, to enable the enhancement of media relations and increase membership with
more being done in schools and in the National Curriculum. The following have emerged as
overriding features:
1. The preservation of the heritage of the existing Governing Bodies
2. To maintain a role for Home Country associations.
3. Governance by a Board which is primarily skills - based, but which will delegate most
shooting matters and organisation to a Shooting Council along shooting sector/discipline
lines.
4. Freedom within a constitutional framework for all sectors and aspiring sectors of UK
Target Shooting sport to participate in their chosen shooting disciplines under the aegis
of the new Governing Body – subject to paramount adherence to Standards of Conduct.
The Steering Group is now engaged with its sports advisers, ‘Performance Matters’ to develop a
draft constitution and financial model to consider with the Boards of the 3 promoters enabling
the management boards of over 40 UK shooting discipline sector bodies to contribute to the
final proposals to be put to their Members in due course.




NATSS Update
The attached briefing note from Performance Matters on the NATSS discussions is a note from them as consultants to the process. A briefing note on behalf of the NRA about NATSS will be posted on our web site early in 2009. For now, it is appropriate to mention that some of the NATSS work stalled in the latter part of this year as attention was focused on the bid to Sport England for funding. A pre-requisite for consideration being given to our application for such funding was that the bid had to be delivered on behalf of the sport of Target Shooting as a whole and not by individual governing bodies. You have probably heard that we have been awarded £750,000 over a 4 year period which will be available for distribution from next spring, by which time we shall need to have agreed with our colleagues in the NSRA and CPSA how it should be allocated. Alongside this development you may have also seen that Bisley is back in the frame as a potential venue for the Olympics and work on this will also be taking up much time for the NRA/NSRA and CPSA in the early part of 2009 - as it did in the latter part of 2008.

download here

Updated: 05-Jan-09 (Original posting: 05-Jan-09)




CPSA Press Release re NATSS and GBTSF (3 Aug 09)
Following the CPSA Board meeting held on the 22nd of July Chairman Terry Bobbett, on behalf of the CPSA Board of Directors, with regret advised Ken Nash, Vice Chairman of the NSRA and Robin Pizer, Chairman of the NRA, that due to the slow progress of the National Association of Target Shooting Sports (NATSS) project and the end of the funding to continue with same, the CPSA has decided to withdraw from this project for the foreseeable future. The CPSA Board regrets that it will now be unable to participate in the Sport England development programme.

However, the CPSA Board will continue to work with the NRA and NSRA on joint working initiatives to benefit target shooting sports and will work with these National Governing Bodies, as it has done in the past, to present a common voice for the future of all Target shooting sports.

A lot of the money was spent on fat cat salaries.

As a member of NRA staff I attended two meetings held at the NSRA. A lot of hot air was talked.

None of the speakers conveyed any enthusiasm for, or encouragement to, the different disciplines to pull together.

I felt, from some quarters, open hostility and left one meeting disheartened, disgusted and angry.

No one, it appeared, was willing to surrender their little bit of empire or 'play second fiddle'

No agreement was even reached about a proper name, certainly the working title didn't have enough bite for me.

The failure of this initiative was, in my opinion, a contributing factor to the goverments deliberate decision not to leave an Olympic shooting legacy.

"None of the speakers conveyed any enthusiasm for, or encouragement to, the different disciplines to pull together.

I felt, from some quarters, open hostility and left one meeting disheartened, disgusted and angry."

Who were these people John? Were they representing any of the National bodies?

None of the senior staff openly expressed hostility but at grass roots level there was no fraternisation.

At the time it was 'common knowlege' that NSRA were struggling financially (little did we know then that the NRA's position was not as strong as it was purported to be) I have to admit that this led me to the opinion that I did not want my NRA to take on a 'lame dog'

There was disagreement over one membership fee because of the disparity in amounts and associated benefits, there were problems with insurance, reciperocal rights etc. There were concerns expressed that those with the largest membership would 'swamp' the smaller and so it went on.

I can't remember any communication down to my level in my last two years, indeed, I has completely forgotten about NATS until your post.

I don't even know what happened in the end.

Slightly off subject but I do know that one very senior member of the NRA said that he would like to change the name NRA because it was similar to NRA America which was too right wing and political.

I said at the time that I quite liked the motto 'Out of my cold, dead hand'. This was met with scorn as he wanted a softer approach.

The trouble is, as a divided sport, we will never be strong enough to fight for our cause. As long as the different disciplines are led by people less than willing to compromise we are all in danger of going under.

The wish to remain ' my own self' extends down to the grass roots throughout our sport. Look, as I have in the last 24 hours, at the disparity in membership criteria on various club's websites.

Legalities aside, ask at your club if they would be willing to offer free association and reciperocal access with every other club in the land and see what resistance you meet.

Therein lies the problem.

Imagine, one national shooting body, one 'membership' fee distributed amongst all the clubs, mutual benefits etc?

Not, I fear, in my lifetime.

The following have emerged as
overriding features:
1. The preservation of the heritage of the existing Governing Bodies
2. To maintain a role for Home Country associations.
3. Governance by a Board which is primarily skills - based, but which will delegate most
shooting matters and organisation to a Shooting Council along shooting sector/discipline
lines.


about sums it up sign01

greenshoots

Thanks for the reply John.

Couple of issues from your post.

Firstly the attitude of staff in the organisations reflects on the leadership of the organisations.

Also are the staff there for the organisations members or do the staff see the membership as being there for them.

The issue of reciprocal use of facilities is interesting but to some extent a red herring. Firstly use of facilities I do not see as such a problem at a local level I'm sure that most clubs would subscribe to it so long as it was supported by a national and regional strategic approach to support and develop the clubs. People will only change if they can see an improvement from changing.

Secondly on a national level if the facilities were separated to trading arms to function on a sound business level, I know the NRA tried this and it didn't work which I believe is nore a function of the NRA's ineffective governance structure and a flawed belief in growing Bisley before a national membership, and then have a national body doing things along the lines of that which was outlined in the Performance matters document. The findings of this document was driven by what shooters not national body employees thought.

"The majority of those attending (54.7% of
workshop attendees) want the new body
established as soon as possible with the
following remit:
1. It should offer to oversee all the target
shooting disciplines.
2. It should be of UK significance.
3. It should be primarily strategic.
4. It should have a small, competency
based Board led by someone of
appropriate stature and experience (not
necessarily from shooting).
5. It should be business like and
professional in its approach.
6. Its main work should be focused on the 5
strategic priorities emerging from the
online survey - legislation, public
relations, shooting on the school
curriculum, membership, protecting the
sport’s heritage.
7. It should retain Home Country identities
to make communication to devolved
administrations and funding bodies
easier.
8. It should be the ‘one voice’ for the sport
both in terms of lobbying Government,
representing UK interests internationally
and enhancing its profile with the media."

Another question for the NRA, can anyone tell me if if any of the Council and trustees who were in post during this shambles are still in post presiding over the current shambles?

greenshoots wrote:The following have emerged as
overriding features:
1. The preservation of the heritage of the existing Governing Bodies
2. To maintain a role for Home Country associations.
3. Governance by a Board which is primarily skills - based, but which will delegate most
shooting matters and organisation to a Shooting Council along shooting sector/discipline
lines.


about sums it up sign01

greenshoots

You are right of course, and I would wish such a body into existance, but people, being people, are unwilling to 'surrender' unless there is sufficient motivation. There is none.

It is like asking the political parties to form, willingly, one coalition, for the mutual good; can you see that happening?

I know from first hand experience that there are some local clubs in this country with little Hitlers at the steering wheel. They are not going to let go of the power they have.

You don't need everyone you just need enough.

Certainly personal ego's are a big problem in every walk in of life however their positions are only supported by their memberships and alternatives can change that support.

I have to say I find the "its they way we are so nothing will change" attitude amongst shooters as debilitating as those who are overtly and covertly against change.