2016 Su Life Rings

[bibendium]

Just got my clubs rings last night, poorest quality ever, realy sharp edges , poor finish to plastic covers.

[Kyleakin Lofts]

Never noticed that on mine when I was sorting them out to distribute to clubs, Charlie. I also haven't had any negative feedback either. If you are unhappy, report your findings to either Ian Noble, Colin Nicol or Jim Savage, so they can bring it up at council. There have been problems in the past. 2013 white rings, the plastic is now cracking, 2014 rings were of irregular size. I have heard no complaints against 2015 rings and now this. If your rings are not a rogue batch, perhaps it is time that SHU went back to Happsleaugh and paid for decent quality rings, but the increase in cost will be moved on to fanciers.

[We man]

Just got my clubs rings last night, poorest quality ever, realy sharp edges , poor finish to plastic covers.

Aye Charlie nothing better than the old metal rings,never had to file them round the edges.

[bibendium]

Cheap chinese imports

[Kyleakin Lofts]

Life rings are too important to scrimp on the quality. I think the extra cost is well worth it. Buying cheap from China is not a saving when your pigeon can no longer be raced after 3 or 4 years because the ring has cracked and become illegible or has to be cut off because it has become too tight. Complaints regarding the standard of the rings have been made to the supplier, but if they are still problematic, then we have to return to Happsleaugh and pay the price. This is my opinion on the matter.

Nothing will be done by Council or SHU unless the Delegates know of the problems and raise the complaints. This is where it comes to fanciers to complain to their Secretary and for the Secretary to complain to the Federation which should then complain to the SHU via their Delegates. If the complaint is substantial enough, then action would have to be taken.

[showman]

What would be the saving to fanciers, between Chinese / Haspeslagh rings ?

[Ian McKay]

Never noticed that on mine when I was sorting them out to distribute to clubs, Charlie. I also haven't had any negative feedback either. If you are unhappy, report your findings to either Ian Noble, Colin Nicol or Jim Savage, so they can bring it up at council. There have been problems in the past. 2013 white rings, the plastic is now cracking, 2014 rings were of irregular size. I have heard no complaints against 2015 rings and now this. If your rings are not a rogue batch, perhaps it is time that SHU went back to Happsleaugh and paid for decent quality rings, but the increase in cost will be moved on to fanciers.

 

 

WHY!! another union can sell at 15p each?????

[Novice]

What would be the saving to fanciers, between Chinese / Haspeslagh rings ?

There is no saving to the fancier in Scotland. We are charged a preset price irrespective of quality or purchase price.

[Dooheed 5]

Just got my clubs rings last night, poorest quality ever, realy sharp edges , poor finish to plastic covers.

Thought the same mate when I got mine also !!

[Kyleakin Lofts]

WHY another union can sell at 15p each?????

 

It seems to me that all the complaints are arising since the SHU moved from Happsleaugh to the Chinese supplier. This would indicate either the machinery that the Chinese are using is past its best, probably why Happsleaugh got rid, if it was there cast off, or the material being used is substandard. I know that the SHU have made complaints and no doubt could do yet again, but will this have the effect of improving the quality?

The RPRA can buy and supply rings from Happsleaugh cheaper than the SHU can supply the Chinese ones solely due to their buying power. I do not know where the NWHU buy theirs that makes them able to sell for 15p.

It would seem to me that the best method would be central purchase, possibly through the Confederation.

My point is not to do with cost, but to do with quality. There is no saving in placing a sub-standard Life Ring onto a pigeon. That ring must be capable of surviving the life of the pigeon which has been 20 years and more in some cases, notwithstanding BOP.

Pricing policy within the SHU is one for the Members, but I am assured only 1 ordinary Member turned up to the SHU AGM, the rest were Delegates. This means the SHU is a Delegates Club and one wonders why Members complain.

[Kyleakin Lofts]

I have not been a Delegate long enough to get my head round the workings of the SHU, but my RPRA Membership is £8 whereas my SHU Membership is £17-50. I accept that this may be because of the difference in number of Members.

At first look the Life rings are being sold at an extortionate price. The cost of purchase is £4632 and the sales income is £29924 which gives a profit of £25292. This is around a 646% markup.

If the rings were to be sold at a more reasonable cost this shortfall would be required to be made up from somewhere, but as yet, I do not know where the shortfall arises.

[DJL]

Just had a look at my federations rings and they look OK to me. I compared them to a 2010 ring which I think was from the old supplier and the only difference I can see is the overall external diameter is very slightly smaller which I think is because the metal part is thinner. As far as the price goes ring sales have been a major part of the SHU income for as long as I have been a delegate and as Andy says if the mark up is reduced the shortfall would have to be addressed by an increase in subs or in some other way. However the prices of rings etc are voted on at the AGM which all members can attend and vote

[JohnQuinn]

Just had a look at my federations rings and they look OK to me. I compared them to a 2010 ring which I think was from the old supplier and the only difference I can see is the overall external diameter is very slightly smaller which I think is because the metal part is thinner. As far as the price goes ring sales have been a major part of the SHU income for as long as I have been a delegate and as Andy says if the mark up is reduced the shortfall would have to be addressed by an increase in subs or in some other way. However the prices of rings etc are voted on at the AGM which all members can attend and vote

 

Ave got no issue with prices and as you point out the members have voted these prices in over the years, well them that turn up tae the meetin set it, but if the quality is poor again this year we( the members) have to insist they go back to the original supplier regardless of cost. Pricing of life rings is imo about the fairest way tae share the financial burden across the membership and IMO should Not be altered.

[REDCHEQHEN]

I wonder if the SHU get their rings from the same place as the NEHU?

 

Really rough on the bottom edge of the life rings - poor quality very disappointing, and we pay 22p - 25p

[Walter swanston]

I have not been a Delegate long enough to get my head round the workings of the SHU, but my RPRA Membership is £8 whereas my SHU Membership is £17-50. I accept that this may be because of the difference in number of Members.

At first look the Life rings are being sold at an extortionate price. The cost of purchase is £4632 and the sales income is £29924 which gives a profit of £25292. This is around a 646% markup.

If the rings were to be sold at a more reasonable cost this shortfall would be required to be made up from somewhere, but as yet, I do not know where the shortfall arises.

 

Is the SHU fees not £17 which includes the 50 p for medical research

[Kyleakin Lofts]

SHU Fee 2016 is £17-50 which includes the 50p for research.

 

If the ring cost was dropped to 15p then the Membership would have to be increased to £20 to cover the loss and meet break-even.

 

No matter the financial manoeuvres, we would still be complaining about sub-standard rings. I don't think reducing our ring cost to comply with other Unions makes one iota of a difference to the quality of the ring and it is the quality of the ring that is the important and salient point.

 

If the rings are sub-standard, this must be reported to your Club Secretary, then Federation Secretary and to the SHU via your Delegates. This is the only manner in which the Council can become informed. Once this process has taken place Council will discuss the matter and take remedial steps. I have to agree with Davy, I found no problem with the rings when preparing them for the clubs. I was dealing in the main with packets and as such didn't handle many rings, so there could be a problem, The Club Secretaries would notice this when splitting them further to make up fancier bundles, but the fancier would certainly notice once breeding season starts and they are being placed on legs.

 

Do not complain about the quality of the ring, then try to tie it into the cost you are paying. Sort the quality so it is "fit for purpose", then deal with cost as a separate issue.

 

Returning to cost, £20 Membership would increase far quicker than ring costs as the membership drops, bearing in mind we are an ageing population. Accepted, that once our membership is small enough we can lose the office and one employee and just run the "penny ante" set-up from the employee's house, once suitable payments are agreed. This would cut the overheads, they being the only place cuts could be made. We are not yet in this position, so costs have to be met and I see no reason why our income set-up should be changed due to gripes in regard to Life Ring costs.

[airdrie2]

I have not been a Delegate long enough to get my head round the workings of the SHU, but my RPRA Membership is £8 whereas my SHU Membership is £17-50. I accept that this may be because of the difference in number of Members.

At first look the Life rings are being sold at an extortionate price. The cost of purchase is £4632 and the sales income is £29924 which gives a profit of £25292. This is around a 646% markup.

If the rings were to be sold at a more reasonable cost this shortfall would be required to be made up from somewhere, but as yet, I do not know where the shortfall arises.

thats to make linda brooks wage up, the 646% mark up

[leslie24williams49]

a top quality life ring must be a basic requirement surely...

[Kyleakin Lofts]

thats to make linda brooks wage up, the 646% mark up

 

There are two employees of the Union, all others are volunteers. If the organisation is to be taken seriously, it must operate from legitimate premises and pay its employees a proper wage. There should be no dispute about that. It should be accepted as fact. Council take their responsibilities seriously, however the two ladies that are full time employees are the engine of the organisation. Without the engine, the machine goes nowhere.

There is an income requirement to meet our necessary outlay. This funding must be raised in some manner. It has been stated that historically this has been done through the sale of Life Rings. It would appear that the Members made these decisions, so why complain now?

Finance is a matter which can be dealt with although my short experience within the pigeon fancy educates me in that fanciers like to complain just about everything, but will grudge parting with a penny piece to support their hobby. The rings could be cheaper, but the finance has to be made up elsewhere and that would have to be Membership. If that is the direction that the Members wanted, it would happen, but otherwise, why change something just for the sake of it?

In regard to Life Rings, finance is not the problem, quality is the problem, or is it?

[Walter swanston]

I have just finished making up the members financial commitments for this year.A member who buys 50 rings with the addition of club fees,federation fees and SHU fees has to part with £94.50.

This equates to £7.87 per calendar month.

Obviously it costs more for more rings and for partnerships.

I have no comment to make on this other than to point out that membership of my pigeon club compares favourably with membership of golf clubs or bowling clubs and the like.

Interestingly while preparing for our AGM ,presenting a balance sheet and all the other tasks which fall to a club secretary I sometimes reflect on my friends and colleagues who make a close examination of the floor at their feet when the call goes out for fanciers to fill positions of office in clubs and federations.

[airdrie2]

There are two employees of the Union, all others are volunteers. If the organisation is to be taken seriously, it must operate from legitimate premises and pay its employees a proper wage. There should be no dispute about that. It should be accepted as fact. Council take their responsibilities seriously, however the two ladies that are full time employees are the engine of the organisation. Without the engine, the machine goes nowhere.

There is an income requirement to meet our necessary outlay. This funding must be raised in some manner. It has been stated that historically this has been done through the sale of Life Rings. It would appear that the Members made these decisions, so why complain now?

Finance is a matter which can be dealt with although my short experience within the pigeon fancy educates me in that fanciers like to complain just about everything, but will grudge parting with a penny piece to support their hobby. The rings could be cheaper, but the finance has to be made up elsewhere and that would have to be Membership. If that is the direction that the Members wanted, it would happen, but otherwise, why change something just for the sake of it?

In regard to Life Rings, finance is not the problem, quality is the problem, or is it?

yes there is two wages i know the way the pigeon game is going we wont need any soon 2 in an office 12 mths of the year ? 40 hr week ?

[Kyleakin Lofts]

yes there is two wages i know the way the pigeon game is going we wont need any soon 2 in an office 12 mths of the year ? 40 hr week ?

 

Don't know if they are both full time, but we do have 12 months cover, 33 hours a week.

[bibendium]

There are two employees of the Union, all others are volunteers. If the organisation is to be taken seriously, it must operate from legitimate premises and pay its employees a proper wage. There should be no dispute about that. It should be accepted as fact. Council take their responsibilities seriously, however the two ladies that are full time employees are the engine of the organisation. Without the engine, the machine goes nowhere.

There is an income requirement to meet our necessary outlay. This funding must be raised in some manner. It has been stated that historically this has been done through the sale of Life Rings. It would appear that the Members made these decisions, so why complain now?

Finance is a matter which can be dealt with although my short experience within the pigeon fancy educates me in that fanciers like to complain just about everything, but will grudge parting with a penny piece to support their hobby. The rings could be cheaper, but the finance has to be made up elsewhere and that would have to be Membership. If that is the direction that the Members wanted, it would happen, but otherwise, why change something just for the sake of it?

In regard to Life Rings, finance is not the problem, quality is the problem, or is it?

I put up the opening post , and never gave a thought to costs, but poor quality.

[Kyleakin Lofts]

I put up the opening post , and never gave a thought to costs, but poor quality.

 

There has only been one other complaint on this thread. The reason I introduced cost is because the complaints have only arisen since changing to the Chinese suppliers and that was done for cost reasons.

[philg50]

Christ there's nae problem with the longevity of the rings ,up here yer lucky if you can keep a doo into its 3rd year LOL.