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

All I can say Karen is that those options were not available to us via the NRA or the assessor the last time I resat the RCO course. We were told to have a classroom for one day and a range for the other day. Like a lot of things communication is key and its not a NRA strength.

It also doesn't address my point of the benefit non Bisley get from their membership fee in relation to the benefit Bisley shooters get.

The NRA itself used to recognise this in the past with a reduced fee for people certain distance from Bisley but if I recall correctly this was in breech of your charitable status or some such thing so the NRA was forced to discontinue it.

dromia wrote:

dodgyrog wrote:Whilst Dromia and I are in the same Club and shoot together, we don't always see eye to eye.

Yes we do!

Oh no we don't.

TattooedGun wrote:A. Overseas members get it £2000 cheaper, when its a UK national body...
B. Its £250 more expensive to pay for it over the 7 year period (Interest? when you're paying such a HUGE amount for membership?)
C. Its the equivalent cost of 71+ Years of membership at full standard cost.

What extra are you paying for to be a life member, because it doesn't look very appealing from where I'm sitting :/

I could not agree more. It is not just a huge rip-off, but the NRA has proved time and time again that it is incapable of managing its finances, so it is all wasted anyway. Only in the past decade NRA has lost nearly £2million at the time of the last Commonwealth Games and again £600K in 2010 and another huge loss last year. And is the annual membership any more appealing? It has no financial value or any benefits whatsoever.

The only way to keep NRA in the black is to pay membership fees monthly and thus deny them funds for more crackpot ideas. clapclap

dromia wrote:It also doesn't address my point of the benefit non Bisley get from their membership fee in relation to the benefit Bisley shooters get.

The NRA itself used to recognise this in the past with a reduced fee for people certain distance from Bisley but if I recall correctly this was in breech of your charitable status or some such thing so the NRA was forced to discontinue it.

Well, Dromia, I am a Bisley shooter and I can assure you that I get no benefits whatsoever from my membership. I dare anyone to go down the list of benefits "claimed to be available to members" and put a financial value agaist any of them.

I agree that more should be done to encourage people living some distance away to come to Bisley and if the charitable status prevents that, then NRA should cease to be a charity. Other sports manage well without it, so why cannot we!

It is all but impossible these days to cease to be a charity. You cannot retain the assets - they have to be handed over to some other organisation with as similar charitable aims as possible. In other words, the NRA could only give up being a charity if it gave the National Shooting Centre Bisley and all the trophies (the two things of real value it owns), to .... another charity.

Alexham,

I personally feel that the ability to book a target and shoot at bisley is by itself worth the NRA membership fee, advice and support from staff also has a value, though you may not want or require their help.
I'm fortunate to live close enough to make good use of Bisley, it is easy to understand the lack of appeal of NRA member ship to those unable to access Bisley on a regular basis. I would think that if the NRA were able to offer ranges offering shooting from 100-1000 yds on the same basis throughout the country, say within a 3 hour journey , they would have the patronage of a vast majority of UK shooters. Unfortunately this is not the case.
With regard to lifetime membership, it seems to me that setting a reasonable fee ( for arguments sake remaining years to age 75, at 15% off current rate) could bring in a reasonable lump sum to make positive improvements, attracting more members ( a loss leader if you will). If the NRA's charitable status precludes this , then so be it.
I don't know the reasons for the current financial state, beyond the claims of mismanagement. It really makes no difference, what's done is done, surely its more important to make sure the mistakes are not repeated and direct all efforts to moving forward.


All the best Phil

artiglio wrote:Alexham,

I personally feel that the ability to book a target and shoot at bisley is by itself worth the NRA membership fee, advice and support from staff also has a value, though you may not want or require their help.

Well, Phil, the majority of members would and do dissagree with that. Privilege has value only if enough people want to buy what it offers and I know very few that are prepared to take a 3 hour journey (say, £80 for return trip); hire a target + marker (£150) and shoot all day by themselves even if the ammunition was free!

I'm fortunate to live close enough to make good use of Bisley, it is easy to understand the lack of appeal of NRA member ship to those unable to access Bisley on a regular basis. I would think that if the NRA were able to offer ranges offering shooting from 100-1000 yds on the same basis throughout the country, say within a 3 hour journey , they would have the patronage of a vast majority of UK shooters. Unfortunately this is not the case.

Certainly agree with that and if the losses that the NRA incurred (needlessly) over the past 10 years were used to buy another range in, say, Midlands it would have doubled its "area of influence". The only flaw in that argument is that NRA cannot manage the ranges under its nose , so how could it manage something at a distance!

With regard to lifetime membership, it seems to me that setting a reasonable fee ( for arguments sake remaining years to age 75, at 15% off current rate) could bring in a reasonable lump sum to make positive improvements, attracting more members ( a loss leader if you will). If the NRA's charitable status precludes this , then so be it.
I don't know the reasons for the current financial state, beyond the claims of mismanagement. It really makes no difference, what's done is done, surely its more important to make sure the mistakes are not repeated and direct all efforts to moving forward.

People that do not do anything cannot be accused of incompetence and that means that the staff are primarily responsible for the losses, especially those in management and supervisory positions. Some of them are still there and should be sacked! Also, the council has consistently appointed "technical specialists" to command positions, where they latched onto problems that enabled them to practice their technical skill, whilst leaving the management of people to look after itself. The outcome is that NRA staff is like an orchestra without a conductor. That is where the losses are made and the staff continue to go through the motions in a totally uncoordinated fashion. No lessons have been learned from the past and we are about to repeat it all again. Why do we need a head of training?

When you have an organisation that cannot manage its affairs effectively over time, the last thing you want to do is give it lump sums disguised as life membership. That only creates a class of membership whose contribution has been lost, yet they continue to enjoy the "benefits"!

There's a misunderstanding here - the NRA should represent all of the shooters in the UK in all things Politic, not just be a shooting club with a military range they can use!

The NRA have a new 'Head of Membership' and a new Chief Exec. Neither have shooting backgrounds so hopefully they will have a fresh look at things.

They won't even know of the Fullbore list but maybe Karen or Heather will direct them to it - several pertinent comments have been made on the list over the last year or so.

Vince, do you mean the Fullbore list or the Full-Bore forum? Certainly the new Head of Membership is aware of this forum as he has corresponded with Christel.

Many UK forums discuss the NRA and Full-Bore is just one of them however we do seem to have more NRA members than other forums and certainly some strong views have been expressed in the past along with what I feel were very good suggestions. The downside is it was suggested that this forum and it's content was insignificant by senior people in the NRA earlier this year. A very dismissive and arrogant view in my opinion. Hopefully the new management structure will have a more open approach to suggestions and comments from the NRA membership and will take some of the ideas on board.