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

In reality, how busy was Short Siberia during the week? I've been there on winter weekends and it's not been that busy.

But the Century 300 yd parking area will need to be enlarged somewhat.

Whilst I perfectly understand the need for revenue and how opportunities such as these no doubt need to grasped to try and mitigate the years of mismanagement we have suffered and I don't knock the management for doing so. However I have to say poor communication has helped the NRA once again shoot itself in the foot. What should have been a good news story and an example of decisive management by the new lot, on whom the jury is till out, has become a source of dissatisfaction with the very people they are employed to serve, the membership.

With a supposedly membership centric organisation good communication is the key and the NRA is still failing miserably in this crucial department. Lack of good and timely comms make the membership feel that they are being treated with contempt. Its not just a matter of letting people know for the sake of it, clubs and no doubt individuals will be making there range plans now for the coming year and stuff like this should be out there in a timely fashion.

Typical NRA one step forward two steps back

ovenpaa wrote:The NRA have already said this is an invaluable revenue stream and every penny they can bring in is a good thing right now. They have also announced that the ground works for the 100/200 ranges on Century are about to start to cater for the shooters that want to shoot weekday as well as weekends.

Roll on the AGM and release of accounts as they will probably publish details of the rental revenue and prove once and for all that it made good financial sense.

I cannot see what there is to be worried about.

Clearly, you do not shoot on Short Siberia. I am not holding my breath for the publication of accounts. Last time they could not manage that. The new range on Century is not an improvement but a sop. It will be a disaster.

We have a large number of new shooters entering the sport as recreational shooters and they start at short range, mainly on Short Siberia. They are not competitive and, whilst they will abide by the range safety rules, they neither need nor want a national shooting body. Eventually, some might take up a recognized shooting discipline, so they are no less important than the rest of us.

You do not expect anyone passing by a gunshop to be suddenly struck by an urge to spend £4,000 on a match rifle and take it to 1200yds to see if he likes it! But give a man a cheap military rifle and he might be tempted to have a bang.

If money is justification for everything, why not sell Barton Road for housing development, or Stickledown? Surely, giving people a home is a higher aim in life than just discharging firearms. The purpose of NRA is to promote shooting sport and provide shooting facilities for its members. What nuclear police are doing is not a sport and they are not members and even if the answer was Yes to both, we still cannot have one group of "members" being given preference over others.

I think you should make an effort to listen to those that are affected by this change.

I'm really pleased the NRA consulted members over the use of our facilities.

I have spoken at length with many shooters who use Short Siberia and they are all of the opinion that the NRA are working in the interests of the membership and that the revenue that the CNC bring in and the improvements being made are justified.
The words that several used at the weekend to describe Alex (as that is your name) would get me banned if I posted them here. The kindest that one person said is that Alex is a malicious pain and is best ignored. He brings little to shooting just whinges and whines, yet will not step up to the plate when asked to help.

I have known Alex for nearly twenty years and have had enough of his attitudes. His posting on this thread and the one about target boards has just shown what a malicious person he is.

Surname deleted

TJC wrote:I'm really pleased the NRA consulted members over the use of our facilities.

If you read the original thread you would know that the NRA did not have the time to do that. If they had consulted the members the timescale would have got out of control and the CNC would probably gone elsewhere and the NRA and its members would have lost out on a serious amount of badly needed income.

Steve E wrote:

TJC wrote:I'm really pleased the NRA consulted members over the use of our facilities.

If you read the original thread you would know that the NRA did not have the time to do that. If they had consulted the members the timescale would have got out of control and the CNC would probably gone elsewhere and the NRA and its members would have lost out on a serious amount of badly needed income.

Two things.

1. i don't care who you have talked to (don't know you obviously but the point is illustrative) but i care instead who the NRA has formally talked to.

2. effectively, you are saying a quick decision was needed because there is no process for a consultation and the CNC would have gone elsewhere. Quite frankly, that is a lame argument but one I would buy for now if the NRA agrees to put in place a policy to consult on all future issues that might result in the loss of facility use by members. I think that is a perfectly reasonable request. You also make the rather bold assumption that quick = good. I tend to believe a careful, thougtful and intelligent approach which takes on board a variety of views produces the best outcome for the most members. Pushing something through fast for a quick buck isn't ever a good way to run a business.

TJC wrote:

Steve E wrote:

TJC wrote:I'm really pleased the NRA consulted members over the use of our facilities.

If you read the original thread you would know that the NRA did not have the time to do that. If they had consulted the members the timescale would have got out of control and the CNC would probably gone elsewhere and the NRA and its members would have lost out on a serious amount of badly needed income.

Two things.

1. i don't care who you have talked to (don't know you obviously but the point is illustrative) but i care instead who the NRA has formally talked to.

2. effectively, you are saying a quick decision was needed because there is no process for a consultation and the CNC would have gone elsewhere. Quite frankly, that is a lame argument but one I would buy for now if the NRA agrees to put in place a policy to consult on all future issues that might result in the loss of facility use by members. I think that is a perfectly reasonable request. You also make the rather bold assumption that quick = good. I tend to believe a careful, thougtful and intelligent approach which takes on board a variety of views produces the best outcome for the most members. Pushing something through fast for a quick buck isn't ever a good way to run a business.

No, but being able to make a good business decision swiftly when a useful opportunity arises is a not a sign of poor management.

Prove it was a good business decision if you feel that it was.

TJC wrote:Prove it was a good business decision if you feel that it was.

possibly more pertinent if you prove that it was a bad one! the NRA have secured much needed income, yes they could have been more open perhaps, but even so the info was out in the public domain a long time ago. you cannot get the income needed to run even SS from the numbers of people I have seen there some Sundays, let alone the rest of the ranges!