SNFC /RPRA

[Guest]

but this needs to pass first bart i was just trying to get the feel if members of snfc will vote it in??

[frank-123]

i would vote yes to allow any union as long as they lived in scotland

[jimmy white]

maybe i should have made this a poll for or against feel free to do this mods i dont know how

 

maybe  worth a try frank,, shall set up a poll

[jimmy white]

hear we go again,the shu wont wear it.,get real and stop hiding behind governing bodies,it has nothing to do wth the shu,ITS UP TO THE MEMBERS.

 

most things in pigeons, are  often  decided with a few die hards on either sides,,      

it is definately up to the members to decide on this , and in my opinion , the members should think for themselves ,,,and really that means , be counted ,, and vote at any meetings ,,,in my opinion .........................,rpra/snfc  opens up old wounds , this should be sorted out first ,, as this is simply loosing fanciers on either side ,their , just simply packing up :-/, [fanciers that have kept pigeons for years] due to the aggro,that can often go on , so, in my opinion,, any organisation loosing  members ,, should be resonsible for the pigeon fancy,, and its future,, as in the main ,,, no fanciers - no organisations ,,so,  in my opinion pigeon  fanciers should be attracted to the sport in general, rather than be frightened off by arguement ,, which is happening , if members of the snfc/rpra could manage any compromise , in my opinion would help a dying sport

[johno]

anyone with a loft located within the boundaries of scotland is eligible to join the snrpc. this has always been the case. no changes or votes needed.

[Guest]

well done bart you have said what you would vote for but your the only snfc member to do that so it doesnt look good for the vote when it comes i wonder if the snfc com. have thought the rules thing through because that is what the critics will go at and its easy just affilicate to both shu and rpra job done

[frank-123]

i an going to start a new poll then we may find out

but please bear in mind not all snfc members have access to a computer and  non snfc can vote as well

[Guest]

yes bart ask that only snfc members vote if that hapens we will get an idea how people might vote just simple will you vote for or against

[Guest Gareth Rankin]

 

Harry,

Read my post- no 8. Its time to move forward not look back, and resolve things. It doesn't matter whose right and wrong, it's dinosaurs like you thats stopping progress being made. Being an SNFC member I will concede that at the present time its leaders are CRAP>>

 

Spot on with all points made Andy, still unbelievable how someone who threatens litigation against the SNFC can be the PRO even under the present climate were he is at the centre of new pending allegations.

 

Sport stinks at present on many different fronts.

 

 

[johno]

unbelieveable that members can ridicule and label the committee or leaders of the snfc as being "crap" on this site and the powers that be say nothing. a forum open to worlwide viewing. this not the first time either. fairness and equity seem to be selective depending on who is involved.  

[andy]

unbelieveable that members can ridicule and label the committee or leaders of the snfc as being "crap" on this site and the powers that be say nothing. a forum open to worlwide viewing. this not the first time either. fairness and equity seem to be selective depending on who is involved.  

Johno,

I'm a fully paid up member of the SNFC and entitled to my views and freedom of speech on this debate. As a member I'm not happy with the current top table (not all the delegates) but the so called leaders and will be voting against their re-election providing there is suitable nominees.

 

[johno]

i am all for airing grievances and i fully support your right to have your say. i find it strange though that certain people only react when it suits. the secretary of the snfc and the senior vice president sat in on a meeting that banned me for ten year for using less destructive language than has been directed at the snfc president and pro on this site. that is my point.

[maverick]

Johno,

I'm a fully paid up member of the SNFC and entitled to my views and freedom of speech on this debate. As a member I'm not happy with the current top table (not all the delegates) but the so called leaders and will be voting against their re-election providing there is suitable nominees.

 

Well said ANDY      ANY LOFT IN SCOTLAND CAN FLY WITH THE S.N.F.C IF NOT SUSPENDED ONLY HAVE TO JOIN THE S.H.U.  Alot of the fanciers who made the noises about joining the R.P.R.A AND Bringing about the split have already done this just the sheep to follow now

[alex wight]

I,m reading this with great interest, as i,m relativley new to the sport. I,ve said it in the past and i,ll say it again, members who think they own either the snfc or snrpc are so very wrong. If we are to go forward as a joint venture, we ALL need to cut some slack. I joined the year the split took place, not a good start for me, but i joined the snfc, solely because i knew they had been going for some years. However i,m looking at this committee, and ask myself, do i realy want to give my support and money to this committee. So as nationals go, i,m not sure what the future has in store for myself. I would love to race against the whole of scotland .

[Guest IB]

I'm not that sure that there is anything to be gained by bringing personalities into this debate. 'I don't like that committee' just won't wear because (1) committees can be changed at AGMs and (2) few can be liked by all.

 

I never did understand why the split took place, it appeared to because of dislike in the way the SHU was being run (personalities).

 

But why that was allowed to break apart the SNFC? How would that solve the issues some had with the SHU?

[Novice]

I'm not that sure that there is anything to be gained by bringing personalities into this debate. 'I don't like that committee' just won't wear because (1) committees can be changed at AGMs and (2) few can be liked by all.

 

I never did understand why the split took place, it appeared to because of dislike in the way the SHU was being run (personalities).

 

But why that was allowed to break apart the SNFC? How would that solve the issues some had with the SHU?

 

IB the text on the SNRPC home page entitled "how the SNRPC was formed" is a reasonable explanation of the split but I think your understanding was correct and I believe there may be a disputed balance sheet at the centre of proceedings.

 

 

[Guest]

ian to ans your ques. regarding what the shu had to do wth the snfc its simple some fanciers my self included no  longer  wanted to be part of the shu and went to snfc meeting to try and change the rule that stoped us from racing in the snfc (must be a member of shu ) when we lost the vote dispite having the magority however we fell short of the two thirds maj. that was the rulling at that time  we could no longer be members of the snfc so had to find an alternative to race long distance but i have no grevance with the snfc and wish them all the best

[ALF]

Lets all be honest with each other here for the past few years the SHU has been a complete and utter shambles with 1 man trying to run the show ( even though he has'nt been the president for a few years now ) What has happenned this year regards the suspension of the Lanarkshire fed president from the SHU council is a disgrace!

 

 

 

[Guest]

he must have been against there proposals   alf so he had to be removed because he must have threatened what they needed to pass by his oppision how dare he thats not what they meetings were for sory off topic

[Chairman]

The SNFC has always been redeemed as the best national, the radius, the geographical terrain and the club adorn's some of the best distance flyers in the world within its ranks. Along with this the club has a great history associated with it going back over a long period of time."Time Awaits No Man" and although history suggests that we embrace change for the better, you also have to saviour the long history of this club and what it stands for, you ask yourself before making change, would those early founder pioneer's have wanted the club to go down this path? Would change be better or worse for the club? Maybe I am a bit nostalgic  trying to protect the past and reluctant to embrace the future, but the great traditions of everything associated with this club in my opinion I think that whatever happens the members of the SNFC should decide its future, whether you pay fees to the rpra / shu or any other organisation that too, is up to the members to decide upon, bearing in mind the club is the most prestigeous club in Scotland, so why are you paying fees to an english organisation, these fees should be payable to your own Union, the Scottish Homing Union, I may have tread on someone's toes here, it was not my intention to do so, it is only my neutral opinion of the way that I see it.

[johno]

maybe a lot in what you say chairman, but i think we should also ask what the early founders would say, when fanciers of long standing the likes of dennis dall, john ellis, peter virtue, jim benvie, john proctor, pete patrick, kerr stainthorpe, stuart mullan, davie elliot, ken buchanan, wilson and jack, and many others too numerous to list, decided to walk away from the snfc. for anyone who is thinking in any way they must ask why?

[Guest IB]

 

IB the text on the SNRPC home page entitled "how the SNRPC was formed" is a reasonable explanation of the split but I think your understanding was correct and I believe there may be a disputed balance sheet at the centre of proceedings.

 

 

Thanks. For my and other's info, the text reads:-

 

Throughout Scotland many fanciers, for various reasons, became disaffected with the SHU, but having exercised their right of choice and transferred to membership of other Unions due to an archaic rule they then found themselves effectively denied the right to fly in the SNFC.

 

Although unanimously recommended by the SNFC Management Committee to their membership at the 2005 AGM, the meeting narrowly failed to give the required two-thirds majority in favour of changing Rule 3 of the Constitution. This would have allowed membership to “a member of any recognised Union†instead of only to “a member of the SHUâ€. The votes were for the status quo 128 (38%) for the amendment 208 (62%). The consequence of this was that hundreds of respected distance fanciers were effectively barred from participating in national racing. Many of these had been life-long members of the SNFC, contributing in no small way to the strong financial position the SNFC was in and, in many ways, the backbone of the club.

 

 

[stoolpigeon]

KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS THE S.N.R.P.C. DNT NEED THE S.N.F.C

 

[naedoos]

KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS THE S.N.R.P.C. DNT NEED THE S.N.F.C

 

The S.N.F.C. don't need the S.N.R.P.C. either, it just seems a fair number of fanciers wish to see one national :-/

[stoolpigeon]

SAYS WHO ITS LIKE THE S.N.F.C WANT THE R.P.R.A GUYS TO JOIN THEN