Discussion in 'Hunter (HFT) & Field Target (FT)' started by RobF, Dec 4, 2019.
Dan, the annual accounts have been commented on by the auditors for years.
Not all Clubs Colin. I know one it doesn't charge.
The Lords shooting Club or something I bet.
Either way if this is just about insurance then Clubs should maybe look to getting alternative insurance with BASC or similar.
No idea either, tried to find out from their website what they did for HFT and gave up. Slide 7 sums it up.
No reference to FT / HFT - no photos, comps, results ......
what does bronze membership get you ?
But the NSRA is not the national governing body for FT and HFT. It doesn't have domain over BFTA or UKAHFT as far as I can see.
True. However there's things that the NSRA does which the BFTA doesn't. The BFTA didn't present directly to the reviews on air 'weapons' to the committees responsible for them, the NRA and NSRA did. The EFTA consulted with both of them. The NSRA also constructed and run recognised qualifications for range officers, instructors and coaches. The BFTA only adopt their output in terms of schemes and certification which is administered by the NSRA anyway. The NSRA come up with (or implement) child protection and other policies, the BFTA adopt them. Etc.
If all you want from an NGB is a competition format then that's one thing. If you want more then it has to come from somewhere and at some point that requires more than some bodies can offer. Hence the tiered structure.
My comment wasn't about what you want from the NSRA as your governing body, my comment was what do you want from your governing body. If there's certain things you're not concerned about then one may fit the bill better than the other. Personally I think the sport does need a media and lobby savvy voice, a legal opinion, and expertise in insurance. I've had to call on all these things and it's a hell of a task to get them done well. With the best will in the world the BFTA or UKAHFT isn't ever going to be able to offer that. It requires professional expertise and professionally qualified expertise to boot. I'm not saying the NSRA meets that entirely but it's a step beyond what FT's national governing body would be capable of. HFT doesn't really have a governing body but has an accepted dominant format.
But if that's not what you want then things get simpler. In some respects it's why things like DSRPA exist because you can just join the league, pay your money, and shoot the format. It's simple. But DSRPA does nothing beyond that. (or not that I can see).
This is part of the problem is that focus has moved to delivering formats but there's little control or ownership of them. At least the BFTA can now tell a region what to do, the autonomy of regions was removed because otherwise the BFTA couldn't be insured as a governing body. The regions can vote with their feet of course, but then it could be argued the BFTA have ownership of FT and so regions that don't abide by it's rules actually don't do FT, they'd have to call it something else. With 10m, bench, etc the rules are quite loose and no-one really can claim ownership, so people can slip between leagues and formats as they desire. Don't want ISSF, shoot NSRA, don't want to shoot NSRA targets shoot a different league etc.
Arguably beyond what it costs to run X comp for X months there are costs which not many see. Arguably what should happen is there should be a collaborative effort between organisations to reduce overlap and strengthen weaknesses. That's been tried before. So now it seems if NSRA's costs can't be reduced and the money can't be found then it will do less. If this is something that other NGB's can't bear either then it's a domino effect and only the strongest will survive. Great if they do what you want, if they tell you want to do and that's not what you want, not so much.
the mathmatics are wrong.
IF 52,000 picked the bronze that brings in £1,820,000 minimum.
IF 52,000 picked the £85 package then that brings in £4,420,000
the hypothetical amount should be between £1.820,000 to £4,420,000
Yes. Others clubs have always used other insurance.
Nfu i think is one.
The plan seems to be - massively increase income, assume those increases will not cause clubs and members to leave in droves, then think about ways to spend all that lovely free money - including promoting Crossbow shooting in the National Smallbore 'RIFLE' Association
They should invest in a copy of this :
If I read it correctly, their income potential calculation goes from a 100% take up, with the split 85% bronze, 10% silver and 5% gold, right down to only 75% take up with the same % split between bronze/silver/gold.
I think there are going to be some very surprised officials when they realised they missed a decimal point....
A proper SWOT analysis would have considered this (Brian's) point.
I agree with RobF that the sport needs a competent governing body that does more than retail an insurance package. I think it's very unlikely for that to happen if the body is manned only by well-intentioned volunteers. It needs professionalism and competent staff and they need to be paid. The current question is how to generate the income to afford them.
I think this is pretty much the nail on the head Rich, everyone wants a professional sport but...
It's a horse and cart question but it needs laying out along the lines of 'IF' thousands FT/HFT shooters suddenly took up bronze membership what would the NSRA do for them / the sport in general. From what I can see they have enough trouble with the various small-bore disciplines without taking on fringe derivatives like FT/HFT.
We asked the NRA exactly what the £1k (roughly) per Club was going to be used for and just got a deafening silence.
Bottom line is that people don't mind paying for something if they can see some merit in it, so far there seems to be nothing on the table regarding value for money.
Rob thanks fro bringing this to our attention, what a bit of a mess
Again like others I may have missed something, i think that for a HFT/FT club to continue to be insured thru NSRA, the club requires each memeber to go get bronze membership and from what i read this was done via the members (so as not to overload the club secretaries / membership secretaries). How would a club now monitor each memeber has actually done it without range officers having to inspect membership cards / certs each shoot? What position is a club member in if they have not done it, sorry you are a club memeber but not fully insured, so cant shoot ?
Good point. I'll mention that in my War & Peace length email...
The club also needs to have liability insurance too. It's not enough to have every member insured.
Yes the open ended question about how clubs affiliate still is open.
How about the EFTA takes a lead in this? The EFTA becomes the governing body for FT in ENGLAND and negotiates a block insurance tailored to suit airgun only clubs, which with very few exceptions is how FT is shot, by airgun clubs and not by smallbore clubs.
The BFTA then ends up with three maybe four members, EFTA, WAFTA, Scotland and NI.
EFTA would have under its umbrella something close to a hundred clubs. That's twenty grand of premiums if not more, hopefully the insurers would find some flavour in that.
Those of us who have the pleasure of filling in the NSRA insurance forms every year soon understand how airgun - other than 10m - is a side issue, almost an outside issue.
From what we see is FT clubs gets very little for their coin other than insurance. Now clubs charge membership which a portion goes towards the clubs insurance which is still going to be required, the individual will then have to have individual membership at an additional fee. For the FT hard core they will likely feel this is acceptable given the cost of kit and the insurance added in, the casual shooters and plinkers will not likely see this benefit.
Having been managing contracts for years what you can not do with a declining contract base is up costs to cover the attrition. This only opens the gates to shopping around and subsequently increases attrition.
You need to fix the problem of attrition at its root cause and increase the benefits of your service with added value.
I would go as far as to place a bet they will lose members to other insurer's should they decide to up membership by insisting on individual membership as opposed to addressing the root causes of their attrition.
With our club the vast majority are plinkers and dont shoot GPs or WAFTA competitions, they are not going to likely be paying individual membership.