The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

3 Questions:

Just looked at the NRA website frontpage, two positions are up for grasp, members have been sent the jobs advertised in an email.

One is the Chief Executive position, basically a person to run the whole show, it says in the job description that "the successful person will have a track record of building strong commercial organisations"
Pay is a 6 figure sum.

Two is Head of Membership and Training, to build membership, very business orientated. Pay is about 50k.

Both of the positions: "Experience of shooting or other sports is advantageous but not essential."

I have shortened the job description a lot for each (I have added both pdfs) however what I would like to ask is the following:

Which one of the two jobs are worth most to the NRA in the light of the current situation?
Are we as members comfortable to pay the salary for each position?
Finally, why is experience of the shooting world not a must?

I'd say that a sound knowledge of running a successful business is far more important than being a gun nut.
I bet the Trustees interfere in how ANY successful candidate runs the job.

I'd like to know what their goals and targets are with timescales and a description of what the NRA vision, what it aspires to be and to be doing and delivering in 5 years time and for whom.

It is the councils role to set this out clearly and tangibly and the CEO's job to set out how they will do it resource it and then deliver on it.

Without that the positions and organisation are meaningless beyond making Bisley shooting ground a commercial success and promoting target rifle.

Good business sense is a must but also understanding guns, shooting and shooters in the UK situation is also a must for a leader of a governing body and an "aspiring" "national" membership organisation.

strong commercial organisations

I thought the NRA was a charity?

Most well known charities are are big business, often quoted is the fact that for every pound donated less than 15 pence goes to the coal face whilst the rest is used for administration (business types out to line their own pockets).

Evening ,

I'd go along with Dromia's point

The lack of shooting knowledge is to my mind no great problem, the current staff have this.

A fresh viewpoint of a business/commercialy orientated professional with no shooting/bisley bias, would hopefully highlight good/bad points and new opportunities. Talent costs , so I've no problem with the salary,so long as a good candidate is selected then held to task.

I would prioritise this over a head of training.

Despite being a charity the NRA needs to be competitive to make the most of its charitable status.

Fingers crossed , in 5 years we look back and say "well done that man/woman"

have a good evening, phil

artiglio wrote:Evening ,
The lack of shooting knowledge is to my mind no great problem, the current staff have this.

Gee thanks mate :shock:

love

karen

John MH wrote: The lack of shooting knowledge is to my mind no great problem, the current staff have this.

Eh?, the staff have the knowledge? - or the staff have the lack of knowledge?

Heehee...

SIX FIGURE SALARY!!!!!!!!!

How many actual workers were made redudant to fund that?

Anyone asked for the job spec? Could do with a new job... sign01 sign01

desparado wrote:

John MH wrote: The lack of shooting knowledge is to my mind no great problem, the current staff have this.

Eh?, the staff have the knowledge? - or the staff have the lack of knowledge?

Heehee...

I didn't write that, check your quotes or you'll be facing lible action. :-P

Suggest you amend your post or issue a retraction.