Catamong Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 Well, some hot news from my spy at the CPSA AGM, the ballot has taken place and the result is: For the name change to "Target" 282 votes. Against the name change 503 votes. Therefore there will be no name change to "Clay Target Shooting Association" A clear example of member power voting against the PC brigade..?? Cat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagsy Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 Brilliant news....common sense prevails at last. Perhaps things can get back to normal now and we can concentrate on shooting clay pigeons again! Well done to all who voted!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 And what of the wasted cost. I suppose the Board will now do the decent thing and all resign? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catamong Posted March 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 Mungler, Not too sure whether they will, they could see from the number of proxy forms that were coming in that they going to be defeated a week or so ago, no doubt that's given them time to prepare a politicians style answer, and turn a defeat into a "victory"..?? Cat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosspot Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 785 votes in total how many members does the CPSA have? apathy nearly could've won the day there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webber Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 I'm not a member, and doubt that I ever will be; but I am glad that democracy and common sence has prevailed. webber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catamong Posted March 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 785 votes in total how many members does the CPSA have? apathy nearly could've won the day there Yes, my thoughts exactly, total membership of well over 20,000, and fewer than 1000 bothered to vote. Cat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 Yep, I reckon they will bounce it back for another vote - dunno what the constitution says. If it isn't allowed then they will dress it up as something else. I can see the headlines in next month's Pull: "19,000 plus don't give a monkeys". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagleye Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 19000 non voters where i used to work it was excepted any non voters agreed with what ever changes = 19000 in favour eagleye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poacher Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 Well done to all those who voted, definately the correct result. Hopefully its a done deal 19000 non voters where i used to work it was excepted any non voters agreed with what ever changes = 19000 in favour eagleye They may still do this, it depends on how much money they've spent already on re-branding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 They can't, they stated what would be required and it wasn't met. Personally I think the mis-management regards spending (near enough that makes no difference £70k) on "re branding" prior to the vote makes the positions held by the current board untenable. A vote of no confidence in the chairman and the rest of the board should be called for and an EGM held as per the rules of association and let the membership decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 I'm not a member, and doubt that I ever will be; but I am glad that democracy and common sence has prevailed. webber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonsey Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 There was a lot of talk at the AGM on the cost of rebranding. They hadn't spent any money yet on the name change, they'd run all their existing stock down yes but actually not spent a penny on the name change. They had ear marked some money should the name change have gone ahead in this coming years finances. I will say one thing, this may surprise some of you it certainly did surprise me. I just hadn't thought of this at all. The board of directors could certainly have swung the vote in their favour by simply recruiting proxy FOR votes. This is a pefectly legal thing to do, they are all individual members of the CPSA and therefore they also have a vote. They took a stand not to do this, they thought the result should come from the feeling of the members that cared enough to vote. Less than 5% of members did actually vote. How sad. Anyway the result that matters is the name change will not go ahead. I don't suppose they'll try this again for another couple of years. That's all, it's been a very long day and I'm going to tuck into a bottle of wine now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catamong Posted March 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 Jonsey, Don't forget the cake..!! Cat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 I'm not a member of the CPSA either, but I am pleased to see some commonsense prevail. A lot of members Organisations (especially those with wage earning staff), become so out of touch with their members, that conflict is almost inevitable at some point. Some of the recreational sea fishing Organisations are now in the same boat (pun intended) , after having talks with Defra and almost suggesting a sea fishing licence and bag limits, in exchange for better inshore fishing (something that Defra can never guarantee, but the licence and bag limits will come). There is now a tremendous backlash from their membership, as Defra have sent out their draft proposals, including the licence charge and bag limits, saying it is broadly supported by the recreational sea fishing Organisations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurch Posted March 25, 2007 Report Share Posted March 25, 2007 For the name change to "Target" 282 votes. 282 rsoles then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkield Posted March 25, 2007 Report Share Posted March 25, 2007 For the name change to "Target" 282 votes. 282 rsoles then. that voted that is, christ knows how many more there are :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitebridges Posted March 25, 2007 Report Share Posted March 25, 2007 I'm not a member of the CPSA either, but I am pleased to see some commonsense prevail. A lot of members Organisations (especially those with wage earning staff), become so out of touch with their members, that conflict is almost inevitable at some point. Some of the recreational sea fishing Organisations are now in the same boat (pun intended) , after having talks with Defra and almost suggesting a sea fishing licence and bag limits, in exchange for better inshore fishing (something that Defra can never guarantee, but the licence and bag limits will come). There is now a tremendous backlash from their membership, as Defra have sent out their draft proposals, including the licence charge and bag limits, saying it is broadly supported by the recreational sea fishing Organisations. I'm not a member of the CPSA but it's good news there has been no change. Changing words does nothing to enhance a sport or organisation. The CPSA has an important part to play for those that just want to shoot clay pigeons but also countrymen who want to improve their marksmanship and kill live quarry as humanely as possible. The spin merchants don't like this connection but fundementally this is why most people shoot the stuff out of a trap. Long may the CPSA prosper. :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P03 Posted March 25, 2007 Report Share Posted March 25, 2007 I'm not a member of the CPSA either, but I am pleased to see some commonsense prevail. A lot of members Organisations (especially those with wage earning staff), become so out of touch with their members, that conflict is almost inevitable at some point. Some of the recreational sea fishing Organisations are now in the same boat (pun intended) , after having talks with Defra and almost suggesting a sea fishing licence and bag limits, in exchange for better inshore fishing (something that Defra can never guarantee, but the licence and bag limits will come). There is now a tremendous backlash from their membership, as Defra have sent out their draft proposals, including the licence charge and bag limits, saying it is broadly supported by the recreational sea fishing Organisations. Just like the Labour Government then Being one of the few who did bother to vote (against!!) even if it was by proxy I am elated at the outcome but really disappointed by the indolence of the membership....... 19,000 non voters :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catamong Posted March 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2007 Yes, I was absolutely amazed by the low numbers that actually voted. Cat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin Posted March 25, 2007 Report Share Posted March 25, 2007 With the apathy which could be assumed by the CPSA board, given the low turn out, no wonder they go off and do things without asking the members - apparently less than 1% care what they do :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismpullbang Posted March 26, 2007 Report Share Posted March 26, 2007 one thing I feel I must point out is that there is a fair few of those who couldn't vote as they are U18 (myself included) which although it doesn't make a major difference to the 19000 who didn't vote, it's still a fair few who couldn't vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted March 26, 2007 Report Share Posted March 26, 2007 Well that is wrong in itself, you are a member despite your age. I know you cannot vote in general and local elections until you are 18 but there should have been no restriction on the CPSA vote. They still take your money each year and you are allowed a shotgun so why not a vote. I would have challenged that one straightaway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismpullbang Posted March 26, 2007 Report Share Posted March 26, 2007 i did, i sent a number of e-mails into the cpsa but every time i was told that I couldn't put a valid vote forward which peed me off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catamong Posted March 28, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 There is now a message on the CPSA website to the effect that the name change will not go through, it says "surprisingly only 3% of members took the time to vote" and "80 members attended the meeting", by my reckoning that's about one and a half coach loads. I had visions of hundreds of disgruntled members literally swamping the hotel to make a personal protest, obviously it didn't happen. When you consider that a good few of the 80 that turned up were CPSA staff, Regional Reps, ground owners and others that would have gone anyway, it was indeed a very low turnout. Cat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.