What is the VRA doing?

[Hoghunter9mm]

I'm disgusted to see a post the Face Book saying they want to separate from the NRAA.
How many shooters will this affect? How do the VRA think that they are can to do this? What does this look like for competition with other states?
From what I have been told the membership was never asked what they think of this idea and how it will affect them and the NRAA was even left out of the discussion. This though is now happening across other states and it can only be at the sports detriment.
I said months ago that the sport was dying and that people here didn't care about the sport.
How true my words would be. The forum is a ghost town and now the stsas are talking about leaving the NRAA.
Rumors are said that 2 coucilors were asked to resign last year because they were cuasing problems and creating division. If they can be stood down then others need to be as well.
The NRAA needs to get the VRA council in line and do their jobs or they prove that the states do arnt needing them and can do whatever they want.
Its time to wake up and fight for our sport. Albo in again its only a matter of time because the gun grabbing will start and without a proper Australian orfanisation we will be left to be picked off one by one.
Absolutely boggles the mind that this is where the sport now is.

[AlanF]

Have just had a chat with a VRA Councillor about this. Reading the NRAA letter, this could penalise ALL VRA members with exclusion from competing in any NRAA organised events such as National Teams, National Kings and Australian Teams. I don't believe the VRA Council has a mandate to cause this to happen. If this had occurred when I was competing in these sorts of events, I'd have been devastated, so can imagine how it must feel for the current Vic shooters who are serious competitors. All I can say is that hopefully sanity will prevail, and a sensible compromise is reached.

[Old Trev-39]

Divided we fall. Wake up people.
Trevor.

[Weairy]

At last check, the VRA has circa 1000 members.
Look at the prize meeting attendance.
Stawell - 49
Rosedale - 35
Port Campbell - 53
Easter Monday Glenrowan - 34
Easter Glenrowan - 45
VIC Kings - 78 VIC Shooters
Keep in mind not all of those are Victorian shooters.

Let’s be generous and round it to a neat 50 competitors at each prize meeting. That represents 5% of the VRA. The other 95% of members pay so that 5% can shoot?

The VRA’s idea of a more financially-viable membership is fair and reasonable, and by the numbers, justified. The NRAA response is basically “to hell with you for taking away our income stream, now we’ll screw everyone and throw the toys out of the cot”.

[Potshot2023]

In addition to Wearily's post, some of us may remember that 25 years ago both NSWRA and WARA did exactly what VRA is pushing now. Back then, those members of NSWRA and WARA who were involved in interstate PMs, state and international teams paid their NRAA subscriptions while the remaining 95% paid their locally organised insurance. The NRAA didn't penalise the 5% as the current Board seems intent on doing. In the end, common sense and fair play were employed and both Associations rejoined, albeit with a softer approach by NRAA than now seems to be the case.

[Martin]

I think we are at the point where the administrative structures that grew up to support long range target shooting when we had many thousands of members are no longer fit for purpose. Good on the VRA for having a crack at trying to change things to benefit their grassroot members.
It reflected poorly on the NRAA when they dropped B grade and Sporter from their Kings programme and their handling of this matter only confirms that we are overdue for a review of how our sport is administered with regard to creating a system that is more cost effective and that actually supports clubs moving forward.

[AlanF]

"The VRA’s idea of a more financially-viable membership is fair and reasonable, and by the numbers, justified. The NRAA response is basically “to hell with you for taking away our income stream, now we’ll screw everyone and throw the toys out of the cot”.

I understand that the VRA is desperate to increase numbers, but what would they think about a VRA affiliated Club that proposes to make VRA membership optional for their members who only want to shoot locally? They would oppose it very loudly I'd suggest. Surely there are better ways of reducing fees for members than this.

[Magpie3]

"The VRA’s idea of a more financially-viable membership is fair and reasonable, and by the numbers, justified. The NRAA response is basically “to hell with you for taking away our income stream, now we’ll screw everyone and throw the toys out of the cot”.

I understand that the VRA is desperate to increase numbers, but what would they think about a VRA affiliated Club that proposes to make VRA membership optional for their members who only want to shoot locally? They would oppose it very loudly I'd suggest. Surely there are better ways of reducing fees for members than this.

That’s not quite it. They want to make VRA membership exactly that; membership to the VRA. Not membership to the NRAA. Shoot local, shoot in Victoria. You can shoot at your home club, you can shoot at prize meets, you can shoot in your district Pennant. And then have the OPTION to pay the large amount extra if you want o compete at a Kings or shoot teams or interstate.

So many of these members are happy just going out to their club to have a social shoot or be able to test and load dev for other disciplines etc, they don’t need that full level NRAA membership.

It’s not about creating a division, but rationalising what the average VRA member actually needs from their membership.

[AlanF]

...So many of these members are happy just going out to their club to have a social shoot or be able to test and load dev for other disciplines etc, they don’t need that full level NRAA membership...

Yes, in my discussion with the Council member it was put in the same way, but I'm saying if many only want to shoot at their own club, why can't they pay a club membership fee only? The VRA fee component is higher than the NRAA component. This suggestion is tongue in cheek, because it couldn't be as simple as that, but it seems that this is as much about the VRA wanting to increase their own importance as it is about reducing membership costs.

Agreed that something needs to be done to reverse the membership numbers trend, but this going-it-alone anti-NRAA approach is not the way to do it, particularly if the other STAs aren't on board.

[saum2]

...So many of these members are happy just going out to their club to have a social shoot or be able to test and load dev for other disciplines etc, they don’t need that full level NRAA membership...

Yes, in my discussion with the Council member it was put in the same way, but I'm saying if many only want to shoot at their own club, why can't they pay a club membership fee only? The VRA fee component is higher than the NRAA component. This suggestion is tongue in cheek, because it couldn't be as simple as that, but it seems that this is as much about the VRA wanting to increase their own importance as it is about reducing membership costs.
/quote]


So are you suggesting that to reduce costs we take out the middle man (VRA) and have a National membership? Like SSAA.

[AlanF]

So are you suggesting that to reduce costs we take out the middle man (VRA) and have a National membership? Like SSAA.

No, as I said that was a tongue in cheek comment. I would far prefer to see both the NRAA and STAs continue in their current roles. Better if all 3 tiers, being clubs, STAs and NRAA can get together and agree to a more flexible and fairer fee structure from all 3 levels of the organisation. It shouldn't be that hard to do, just a preparedness to have a sensible discussion.

[JB]

You can shoot at your home club, you can shoot at prize meets, you can shoot in your district Pennant.

This is not correct, you can only shoot at your own Club.
From the VRA email.
5) Club only membership excludes competitions specifically: Pennant, Medal/Spoon, CoC/DRA teams, OPM, State and National Kings meetings.

[Martin]

STAs and NRAA can get together and agree to a more flexible and fairer fee structure from all 3 levels of the organisation. It shouldn't be that hard to do, just a preparedness to have a sensible discussion.

Currently we have only 6500 members nationally that have to support 10 sets of bureaucracies of various sizes at state and national level. To save serious money you need to remove administrative duplication from the entire structure. To do this is difficult as everyone guards their patch. A new model needs to gain the economies of scale that are available whilst preserving existing local control structures that members value.

[Weairy]

...So many of these members are happy just going out to their club to have a social shoot or be able to test and load dev for other disciplines etc, they don’t need that full level NRAA membership...

Yes, in my discussion with the Council member it was put in the same way, but I'm saying if many only want to shoot at their own club, why can't they pay a club membership fee only?

Insurance is the key issue I think. Each club would need to hold their own insurance if you were a member specifically of just THAT club and not the VRA/NRAA. From what I understand, the VRA is putting insurance in separate to that of the NRAA for this purpose.

[Magpie3]

You can shoot at your home club, you can shoot at prize meets, you can shoot in your district Pennant.

This is not correct, you can only shoot at your own Club.
From the VRA email.
5) Club only membership excludes competitions specifically: Pennant, Medal/Spoon, CoC/DRA teams, OPM, State and National Kings meetings.

Huh, there you go, I missed that line. But again, many of the members don’t shoot those things so it mightn’t matter. I feel Pennant and CoC/DRA teams should be part of the Club level membership.