Post by northdeeps on Apr 27, 2006 13:09:58 GMT -5
Things have been a bit quiet of late and it seems this debate has fizzled out. However, I’m not ready to give up yet. I have a series of proposals that I would like you to take back to your respective clubs over the next month or so. If there is enthusiasm for any of them, I will look at ways of having them brought up at committee level effectively and discussed at the AGM.
My first proposal is to have the annual national competition opened up to individuals within the organization. I spoke to a few people including committee members and fishery managers and it seems the want is there, but the will isn’t. I already did some calculations and here are some of those figures – and yes, they are up for debate.
It is possible to process 10,000 individual anglers through the system over a twelve-week period that would consist of four days fishing in each of those weeks (I suggest Mon – Thurs).
To accomplish this we would need the following:
Registration of individual members within clubs and individual fees paid direct to the competitions section – more on this one later;
At least four competition standard fisheries capable of providing 25 boats for each session;
A local organizer employed at each venue co-opted onto the competitions section capable of running and organizing each event locally over the twelve weeks;
A registration system capable of handling and organizing such large numbers, and possibly a sub-committee set up to oversee and run the competition; and
The will to make it work.
What are the benefits?
Massive increase in revenue for the organistaion – more on that later;
Elimination of the shameful practice of registering clubs that don’t exist;
An additional £65,000 revenue each year for the fisheries involved, and that’s just from the competition fees. Fisheries would also generate revenue from practice days; tackle sales; food sales etc. Now we can say we’re beginning to work for the benefit of fisheries;
A system that so many are against is being changed for the benefit of individual members. Now we’re doing what our members want; and
Fisheries would be expected to meet a certain standard, which would be subjected to an approval process. This would give fisheries the opportunity to bring their venues up to standard for inclusion on the SANA competitions’ approved list. Now we’re beginning to tackle the problem of sub standard venues.
What are the drawbacks?
The whole thing becomes more difficult to organize and the systems and resources we have in place at the minute are inadequate;
Some see individual inclusion into the national as the death knell for clubs; and
The will doesn’t seem to be there for one reason and another.
What time scale would be involved?
I suggest making it a five year plan, allowing us to:
Debate the finer points and consult with member clubs and associate members for their input;
Consult with individual fisheries and get their input as to the best way forward;
Draft up a plan that includes a clear set of objectives and any financial requirements;
Organize additional funding from members that allows us to generate adequate revenue;
Set up the systems and infrastructure capable of handling such a massive undertaking – create a database networked to the individual fisheries and set up the SANA website for electronic application forms and registration etc;
Set up the human resources required: sub-committee; area organizers; fishery organizers etc;
Training of fishery organizers and the sub-committee;
Obviously this is the shortened version and only covers a limited number of points. I suggest you lot tear this proposal to bits over the next few weeks and we can widen the debate. I don’t mind contrary arguments and points of debate, but please refrain from infantile comments.
northdeeps
My first proposal is to have the annual national competition opened up to individuals within the organization. I spoke to a few people including committee members and fishery managers and it seems the want is there, but the will isn’t. I already did some calculations and here are some of those figures – and yes, they are up for debate.
It is possible to process 10,000 individual anglers through the system over a twelve-week period that would consist of four days fishing in each of those weeks (I suggest Mon – Thurs).
To accomplish this we would need the following:
Registration of individual members within clubs and individual fees paid direct to the competitions section – more on this one later;
At least four competition standard fisheries capable of providing 25 boats for each session;
A local organizer employed at each venue co-opted onto the competitions section capable of running and organizing each event locally over the twelve weeks;
A registration system capable of handling and organizing such large numbers, and possibly a sub-committee set up to oversee and run the competition; and
The will to make it work.
What are the benefits?
Massive increase in revenue for the organistaion – more on that later;
Elimination of the shameful practice of registering clubs that don’t exist;
An additional £65,000 revenue each year for the fisheries involved, and that’s just from the competition fees. Fisheries would also generate revenue from practice days; tackle sales; food sales etc. Now we can say we’re beginning to work for the benefit of fisheries;
A system that so many are against is being changed for the benefit of individual members. Now we’re doing what our members want; and
Fisheries would be expected to meet a certain standard, which would be subjected to an approval process. This would give fisheries the opportunity to bring their venues up to standard for inclusion on the SANA competitions’ approved list. Now we’re beginning to tackle the problem of sub standard venues.
What are the drawbacks?
The whole thing becomes more difficult to organize and the systems and resources we have in place at the minute are inadequate;
Some see individual inclusion into the national as the death knell for clubs; and
The will doesn’t seem to be there for one reason and another.
What time scale would be involved?
I suggest making it a five year plan, allowing us to:
Debate the finer points and consult with member clubs and associate members for their input;
Consult with individual fisheries and get their input as to the best way forward;
Draft up a plan that includes a clear set of objectives and any financial requirements;
Organize additional funding from members that allows us to generate adequate revenue;
Set up the systems and infrastructure capable of handling such a massive undertaking – create a database networked to the individual fisheries and set up the SANA website for electronic application forms and registration etc;
Set up the human resources required: sub-committee; area organizers; fishery organizers etc;
Training of fishery organizers and the sub-committee;
Obviously this is the shortened version and only covers a limited number of points. I suggest you lot tear this proposal to bits over the next few weeks and we can widen the debate. I don’t mind contrary arguments and points of debate, but please refrain from infantile comments.
northdeeps