RPRA Rule Changes

[Bowbroom]

As I said, of course overheads have to be met but is it really necessary to treat the administration of Pigeon Racing as though it were a PLC? I don’t believe that it is, but that’s only my view

[king]

As I said, of course overheads have to be met but is it really necessary to treat the administration of Pigeon Racing as though it were a PLC? I don’t believe that it is, but that’s only my view

Most PLC's run this way would have gone bust. Where LARGE amounts of money are involved, you can't have a cavalier approach to finance. Would you rather have, the books don't balance, let's put up subs? Cause they just did that.

[Ian Evans]

There's 2 points I'd like to address from the content above.

The RPRA needs to be run as a business but a social business with its core aims and objectives to be to provide the basis for pigeons racing and the advancement of pigeon racing. There are plenty of social business that operate on this basis. I've worked with and helped develop over 100 such social business. They are 'not for profit' with any surplus reinvested into the community. In this case the pigeon racing community.
The RPRA is a business. It employs staff, owns assets, pays corporation tax etc etc.

The second is the point as to whether these proposals have something to do with 'scores being settled ' . My question is what scores and by whom ??

Let's for the record put one thing straight. I personally am not.motivated by settling scores. My core aim is to get the RPRA on a Prosperous setting and the sport in general. Anyone who knows me will know this. Those of you who don't please take the time to listen to the You tube interviews. Everything I have included in the proposition is what I have believed is right since 2016 when I took the job. The only thing that has changed during that journey is the timing of removing the regions.

[Diamond Dave]

As I said, of course overheads have to be met but is it really necessary to treat the administration of Pigeon Racing as though it were a PLC? I don’t believe that it is, but that’s only my view

I fear that you may be one of the dinosaurs Bowbroom who wants to keep everything on pen and paper.
30 years ago when there were 30-40 members in a club and 3 or 4 clubs in every town. the regions were obviously justified but not now and with automation, mechanisation, electronics all so easy to apply, you wont have to worry who is doing the work of the regions because they will be totally unnecessary. This will have an immediate effect on lightening the financial burden on the RPRA.
Further to all that has been said so far, one of the biggest issues for me is "transparancy".
The RPRA is our union yet they (council) just do their own thing. There is no communication with us the members, infact the CEO has publicly stated that he doesn't want to communicate with us.
If you want to communicate something to them, you could have to wait a year to go through the archaic procedures and then another year for anything to get done. The entire process of so-called "governance" is pathetic.
The Hall report would have saved all of this but the council was too busy looking after their own interest to listen to the advice that they themselves called for.
"Jobs for the boys" springs to mind!
- Nothing personal Bowbroom, we all have a different outlook and like you said in a previous post "we will find out soon enough"
Good luck to you Ian and thanks for the mammoth efforts you and everyone else have put into this to try to save the RPRA from sinking into oblivion.

[goose1]

There's 2 points I'd like to address from the content above.

The RPRA needs to be run as a business but a social business with its core aims and objectives to be to provide the basis for pigeons racing and the advancement of pigeon racing. There are plenty of social business that operate on this basis. I've worked with and helped develop over 100 such social business. They are 'not for profit' with any surplus reinvested into the community. In this case the pigeon racing community.
The RPRA is a business. It employs staff, owns assets, pays corporation tax etc etc.

The second is the point as to whether these proposals have something to do with 'scores being settled ' . My question is what scores and by whom ??

Let's for the record put one thing straight. I personally am not.motivated by settling scores. My core aim is to get the RPRA on a Prosperous setting and the sport in general. Anyone who knows me will know this. Those of you who don't please take the time to listen to the You tube interviews. Everything I have included in the proposition is what I have believed is right since 2016 when I took the job. The only thing that has changed during that journey is the timing of removing the regions.

How did you come to leave your employment with the RPRA? Totally understand if it's not something you want to put on an open forum I'm just curious. My previous comment about settling scores certainly wasn't aimed at anyone in particular so I find your response interesting

[Ian Evans]

There's 2 points I'd like to address from the content above.

The RPRA needs to be run as a business but a social business with its core aims and objectives to be to provide the basis for pigeons racing and the advancement of pigeon racing. There are plenty of social business that operate on this basis. I've worked with and helped develop over 100 such social business. They are 'not for profit' with any surplus reinvested into the community. In this case the pigeon racing community.
The RPRA is a business. It employs staff, owns assets, pays corporation tax etc etc.

The second is the point as to whether these proposals have something to do with 'scores being settled ' . My question is what scores and by whom ??

Let's for the record put one thing straight. I personally am not.motivated by settling scores. My core aim is to get the RPRA on a Prosperous setting and the sport in general. Anyone who knows me will know this. Those of you who don't please take the time to listen to the You tube interviews. Everything I have included in the proposition is what I have believed is right since 2016 when I took the job. The only thing that has changed during that journey is the timing of removing the regions.

How did you come to leave your employment with the RPRA? Totally understand if it's not something you want to put on an open forum I'm just curious. My previous comment about settling scores certainly wasn't aimed at anyone in particular so I find your response interesting

So if your comment isn't aimed at anyone what does my leaving the employment of the RPRA have to do with anything ?

[Bowbroom]

I have not expressed an opinion on the propositions either way, simply just commented.you have made erroneous assumptions again.
Despite me being from the Jurassic period, I have no objection to change in fact I welcome it as long as it’s justified, is of benefit and done in an orderly fashion.
If these propositions carry and Council and Regions are made redundant at a stroke then we will find out if there is or isn’t an additional workload imposed, do you seriously think that someone would be able to wave a magic wand or more appropriately flick a switch to painlessly and seamlessly transition from one system to the other? If not handled correctly it has the potential to lead to chaos.

[Diamond Dave]

If you read the proposals Bowbroom, you will see that a period of "transition" has been included in the rule changes.
The proposals are designed to assist with a change over.

[Bowbroom]

I must have missed that, could you point me to the relevant proposition please?

[Bowbroom]

Had another look and still can’t find any transition references?