rpra report now on line
-
George and Morgan
- Posts: 2471
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2022 8:59 am
- Location: west Oxford
- Gender:
good luck to it i'm not a member now
-
CHARLTON34
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2024 5:34 pm
- Gender:
If they don't vote for the revamped Hall Report which Devo kindly put up for me & the regions / Councillors don't go for it then I can't see how it will carry on to be fair. Estimated membership are around 15k, but could be as low as 13k, so from this point as with any business you need to set a budget, so I would say that they will probably be run at a loss again as this will prove the overheads will be more than the income generated.
Reading that got to be fair they've done a good job steadying the ship from the absolute dire situation of last year. Given where the sport in this country is now its never gonna be great reading, but they'll have been a hell of a lot of work going on to get back to this point so fair play to those involved.
Agree Goose much better nowgoose1 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 6:32 pm Reading that got to be fair they've done a good job steadying the ship from the absolute dire situation of last year. Given where the sport in this country is now its never gonna be great reading, but they'll have been a hell of a lot of work going on to get back to this point so fair play to those involved.
I don't think they have. They've just bought themselves time. If they don't change, and I doubt they will, you can expect another rise in subs. The stance of the RPRA is 'as it loses members, the rest will pay more to maintain the status quo'.goose1 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 6:32 pm Reading that got to be fair they've done a good job steadying the ship from the absolute dire situation of last year. Given where the sport in this country is now its never gonna be great reading, but they'll have been a hell of a lot of work going on to get back to this point so fair play to those involved.
-
CHARLTON34
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2024 5:34 pm
- Gender:
Got to agree with you King in your post, not fit for purpose 2016 was a missed opportunity & it will again at the AGM when it comes around. What's the matter with these people, I wouldn't mind if they tried to do something positive to take us forward, & this isn't ,this is to little to late. Just take a look at YouTube clip from Ian Evan's & Mark Larford he has his own YouTube channel 1st November watch this & tell me again everything is alright.king wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 7:23 pmI don't think they have. They've just bought themselves time. If they don't change, and I doubt they will, you can expect another rise in subs. The stance of the RPRA is 'as it loses members, the rest will pay more to maintain the status quo'.goose1 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 6:32 pm Reading that got to be fair they've done a good job steadying the ship from the absolute dire situation of last year. Given where the sport in this country is now its never gonna be great reading, but they'll have been a hell of a lot of work going on to get back to this point so fair play to those involved.
Neither am I
Sadies Lofts home of decent birds just a useless loft manager, and now a confirmed loser but proud 
-
Diamond Dave
- Posts: 321
- Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2024 7:05 pm
The system is archaic. Ian Evans' proposals are simply designed to do away with the regions and the reduction of the council.
The regions were probably justified some 20-30 years ago, when there were 40-50 members in most clubs but not now. They have become an unneccesary and very expensive burden on the RPRA. For any of them to let the Hall report slip away is nothing less than disgusting and totally self indulgent. Whether they voted against or abstained, they are party to the current and on-going demise of our union.
The regions were probably justified some 20-30 years ago, when there were 40-50 members in most clubs but not now. They have become an unneccesary and very expensive burden on the RPRA. For any of them to let the Hall report slip away is nothing less than disgusting and totally self indulgent. Whether they voted against or abstained, they are party to the current and on-going demise of our union.
Council have used rule 142 to set the subs and fees for next year which are £35 subs for full members of which £31 goes to HQ and £4 is retained by the regions, i say retained as it is the Regions or more accurately the Region secretaries that collect the subs and forward them onto HQ this is in itself saves a tremendous amount of time and cost to HQ
I think that the admin of HQ is top heavy for the work involved and that further cost savings should be considered to avoid a year on year increase.
As membership falls which is inevitable and unavoidable, the organisation must charge what is necessary to cover its costs and to survive.
However a lot of people must be asking why the subs are what they are when the NEHU subs are only a third?
I think that the admin of HQ is top heavy for the work involved and that further cost savings should be considered to avoid a year on year increase.
As membership falls which is inevitable and unavoidable, the organisation must charge what is necessary to cover its costs and to survive.
However a lot of people must be asking why the subs are what they are when the NEHU subs are only a third?