me Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 it is called freedom of choice Tammy and if some guys send their bests doos to the national then some other guys might find it a bit easier to win some of that splendid sponsorship cash the fed got for this race. Which to me is the more important point. A generous sponsor comes forward and then without his knowing the race he thought he was sponsoring gets completely swamped by duplication into a different race. Hardly going to encourage future sponsorship is it.
ALF Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 is called freedom of choice Tammy and if some guys send their bests doos to the national then some other guys might find it a bit easier to win some of that splendid sponsorship cash have the fed got for this race. Which to me is the more important point. A generous sponsor comes forward and then without his knowing the race he thought he was sponsoring gets completely swamped by duplication into a different race. Hardly going to encourage future sponsorship is it. SO "ME" ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU'LL BE FLYING FOR THAT SPONSORSHIP CASH THIS YEAR???
THE FIFER Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 SO "ME" ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU'LL BE FLYING FOR THAT SPONSORSHIP CASH THIS YEAR??? ???????????????????
me Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 SO "ME" ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU'LL BE FLYING FOR THAT SPONSORSHIP CASH THIS YEAR??? It's another fortnight before the fishing season starts Alf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Guest Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 Tammy is the Maidston race not one of the big races for the social circal that would make a big difference yous boys like to compete for that hope yous get a good birdage tammy but remember the birdage goes down every year for all of us so dont be put off if its slightly down you just need to empty your hut for that one thats where your average could be won!!!!!!
Guest Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 NOT SO BRUNO,AS I SAID IF THE INTERFERING FOLK HAD KEPT OUT OF SOMETHING THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM THEN MAYBE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN A FAIR CHANCE, BUT OUTSIDERS WERE TRYING HARD AS THEY COULD TO ARRANGE WHO LANARKSHIRE WERE GOING WITH, AND YOUR POST IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF COMMENTS ABOUT LANARKSHIRE THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU, IF YOU AND YOUR FED ARE GOING FINE THATS UP TO YOU BUT THERE WAS NOT ONE SINGLE DELEGATE REPRESENTING OVER 500 MEMBERS THAT ASKED FOR LANARKSHIRE TO GO WITH THE SNFC, EVERY SINGLE ONE AGREED TO A NO VOTE, AND AS YOU SEE THERE ARE OTHER FEDS TURNING DOWN THE SAME THING, ARE THEY CUTTING OFF THEIR NOSE AS WELL ? I think your reply backs up my feeling on it, Tammy. Had there been no perceived 'outside interference' the proposal might have had a fair hearing. It was basically killed off because of that perception, not on grounds of economy or efficiency, or even a good / bad idea. And yes, it is nothing to do with me, but your post does raise issues of 'do what I say rather than do what I do', when e.g. you state delegates representing 500 members decided, ALF has already posted up elsewhere that he has never ever been called to a club meeting to instruct his club's fed delegate. So who really decided on this issue, and why?
Guest TAMMY_1 Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 I myself have raised the question Bruno with the heads of Lanarkshire as to why the delegates are allowed to make decisions that affect all the members without the members actually having instructed the delegates on which way to vote and I will continue to argue this point that if there is to be a major decision being voted on by delegates it should be made in advance so that club members decide and instruct the delegates what the club wants, as I have just started attending these meetings through invitation I have seen a lot of things that I am not happy with and will continue to ask questions about them. And your next question about who really decided about maidstone , it was the delegates who ultimately made the decision, why , well there were various reasons being put up by delegates , most did not want to go but in the end it was halted by a technicality regarding marking and rubbering the birds, something along those lines and ultimately all the delegates rejected the option of going with the SNFC. Would just like to clarify Bruno I believe that the delegates have absolutely no right making decisions without the say of their club members and it was the same for yesterdays meeting with the SHU i believe again the same should have been done with the SHU delegates when they should have had instructions from their feds as to what way they should have been voting as to who runs the SHU, to many votes are cast to suit individuals because of their feelings towards other delegates instead of doing what either clubs or feds would have wanted
THE FIFER Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 I myself have raised the question Bruno with the heads of Lanarkshire as to why the delegates are allowed to make decisions that affect all the members without the members actually having instructed the delegates on which way to vote and I will continue to argue this point that if there is to be a major decision being voted on by delegates it should be made in advance so that club members decide and instruct the delegates what the club wants, as I have just started attending these meetings through invitation I have seen a lot of things that I am not happy with and will continue to ask questions about them. And your next question about who really decided about maidstone , it was the delegates who ultimately made the decision, why , well there were various reasons being put up by delegates , most did not want to go but in the end it was halted by a technicality regarding marking and rubbering the birds, something along those lines and ultimately all the delegates rejected the option of going with the SNFC. Would just like to clarify Bruno I believe that the delegates have absolutely no right making decisions without the say of their club members and it was the same for yesterdays meeting with the SHU i believe again the same should have been done with the SHU delegates when they should have had instructions from their feds as to what way they should have been voting as to who runs the SHU, to many votes are cast to suit individuals because of their feelings towards other delegates instead of doing what either clubs or feds would have wanted 100% again tammy, its the only way, as i say if delegates officials are doing what they want its the members to blame, and its the members who should put them there not the delegates. all the best.
Guest Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Agree with you Tammy, and with Fifer. Truly hope that this is the start of the members taking back the running of clubs etc.
THE FIFER Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Agree with you Tammy, and with Fifer. Truly hope that this is the start of the members taking back the running of clubs etc. i have been on about this for years but i think its more in the line i am sorry to say that the members have been in the past too lazy to go to meetings, but now they realise things are going wtong letting delegates do what they want, the members must run their organisations if they want all to go well.
JADE Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 i have been on about this for years but i think its more in the line i am sorry to say that the members have been in the past too lazy to go to meetings, but now they realise things are going wtong letting delegates do what they want, the members must run their organisations if they want all to go well. Fifer if you had been a delegate at yesterdays meeting would you have abstained in the vote for president. I believe nobody was aware before the meeting who would be nominated as president so how could delegates go with a mandate
me Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 THE ONLY FAIR WAY TO ELECT THE PRESIDENT IS BY THE MEMBERS AT THE AGM AND THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN TRUST "ME"
THE FIFER Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Fifer if you had been a delegate at yesterdays meeting would you have abstained in the vote for president. I believe nobody was aware before the meeting who would be nominated as president so how could delegates go with a mandate should any matter br brought up at a council meeting which is not on the agenda but which is according to the ruling of the chairman, competent business,delegates will have power to vote according to their discretion, this happens, and as far as nominations for president well it can still be discussed as to wether an organisation wants the present president voted in again or directed to vote for getting him out, but this is another subject, i think nominations for posts should be in before hand and not taken from the meeting, because as u say hoe can delegates be mandated, because the other way then its the delegates that are putting someone in office not the members, which in my view is wrong, i have delt with committees in social clubs etc and this is how it goes , but nowadays most times there is no opposission to posts
Guest Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 As Moderator: In my opinion this thread has run its course.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now