F
Fred Bonney
Guest
The voting forms are out for the merger and change of name
I've not yet seen the wording as I'm still here in Paris - home tonight though.
One thing that I am finding a little disconcerting is that all of the constituent bodies are still offering 'membership' on their web sites.
Surely if the January 'fusion' is to go ahead then there should be a moritorium on new members now? Otherwise people could be joining only to find that the group they thought they had joined has ceased to exist.
One thing that I am finding a little disconcerting is that all of the constituent bodies are still offering 'membership' on their web sites.
Surely if the January 'fusion' is to go ahead then there should be a moritorium on new members now? Otherwise people could be joining only to find that the group they thought they had joined has ceased to exist.
P
Peter Waller
Guest
I resigned from the ACA a year or two back as a protest against their pike championships, nevertheless I still hold them in high regard. Of all the groups involved in this welcome amalgamation I do feel that the ACA should retain its independence, stick to doing what it does best. Be an interesting, albeit unlikely scenario if the members veto the amalgamation!!
J
John H Member of THE C.S.G.. & The A.T.
Guest
They are Peter (J) All the different groups advised members (individual and club/associations)to renew as normal and memberships will be transferred to the A.T./Fish Legal as appropriate when/if the merger takes place.
Although I didn't work in France Peter, I used to hate the weekend trek back home. Some might enjoy it, but long stretches working away does nothing for family life.
South Shields in the early 70's on a wet cold Thursday evening was not to be recommended.
Although I didn't work in France Peter, I used to hate the weekend trek back home. Some might enjoy it, but long stretches working away does nothing for family life.
South Shields in the early 70's on a wet cold Thursday evening was not to be recommended.
W
Wolfman Woody
Guest
I am very confused about the whole set up and I heard much from one of the AT directors the other Monday evening.
.
1st question - Membership to the new Angling Trust has been set at £20, but I'm still not sure whether this includes membership to Fish Legal. Presumably it does/would, but how will they separate the funds for Fish Legal's operation?
2nd question - (follows on from Peter's) if someone joins two or three organisations, say ACA (£20), SAA (£10) and NAFAC (£15) they will have paid far more than will be necessary to join the new Angling Trust? Isn't it a bit unfair and (like Peter asks) shouldn't there be a moritorium on memberships until the new body is fully formed?
3rd question - Why has the mebership fee been set so high at £20? Some will argue it isn't high compared with the individual memberships of all the merging organisations, but I thought the object of the new AT was to represent as many anglers as possible. I don't see the queues already growing to join this new organisation at £20 and all they're hoping for (if memory serves me well) is 75,000 in the second year, which should net £1½m. Surely it would be far better to aim for 300,000 at just £5, the amount collected would be the same, but with four times as many members being represented.
4th question - This is in three parts and one I should be asking our own group, I suppose. I represent the Thames Valley Angling Association (formerly Middle Thames) on the TFCC, which in turn is an official part of NAFAC, but it is wholly sponsored by the EA Thames Region hence the reason the TVAA are in as we are not members of NAFAC.
5th question - Supposing an angler or club wishes to support the ACA, but doesn't want any truck with the Angling Trust on principle (like Peter so far). How can he/she continue their support fro Fish Legal without association to AT?
.
There are many other questions that have not yet been answered by the press releases nor in the voting documents, questions such as those that haven't yet been asked.
Sounds like a bit of Westminster double-speak I know, but how do we know what to ask until we have seen the entire thing fit together? I don't say I have any doubts about having one body to represent us, but I do ask how the people who devised got to be there and serve on it even on a pro-temore basis and how do they qualify to organise what will be considered to be a much larger, more pro-active and grander body.
Because of my growing doubts, I have asked the ACA to remove my membership, at least for the time being or until the dust settles and more answers come forward.
.
1st question - Membership to the new Angling Trust has been set at £20, but I'm still not sure whether this includes membership to Fish Legal. Presumably it does/would, but how will they separate the funds for Fish Legal's operation?
2nd question - (follows on from Peter's) if someone joins two or three organisations, say ACA (£20), SAA (£10) and NAFAC (£15) they will have paid far more than will be necessary to join the new Angling Trust? Isn't it a bit unfair and (like Peter asks) shouldn't there be a moritorium on memberships until the new body is fully formed?
3rd question - Why has the mebership fee been set so high at £20? Some will argue it isn't high compared with the individual memberships of all the merging organisations, but I thought the object of the new AT was to represent as many anglers as possible. I don't see the queues already growing to join this new organisation at £20 and all they're hoping for (if memory serves me well) is 75,000 in the second year, which should net £1½m. Surely it would be far better to aim for 300,000 at just £5, the amount collected would be the same, but with four times as many members being represented.
4th question - This is in three parts and one I should be asking our own group, I suppose. I represent the Thames Valley Angling Association (formerly Middle Thames) on the TFCC, which in turn is an official part of NAFAC, but it is wholly sponsored by the EA Thames Region hence the reason the TVAA are in as we are not members of NAFAC.
- Will the TFCC body become a part of Angling Trust?
- Will it still receive funding from the EA so it can represent all clubs in Thames Region?
5th question - Supposing an angler or club wishes to support the ACA, but doesn't want any truck with the Angling Trust on principle (like Peter so far). How can he/she continue their support fro Fish Legal without association to AT?
.
There are many other questions that have not yet been answered by the press releases nor in the voting documents, questions such as those that haven't yet been asked.
Sounds like a bit of Westminster double-speak I know, but how do we know what to ask until we have seen the entire thing fit together? I don't say I have any doubts about having one body to represent us, but I do ask how the people who devised got to be there and serve on it even on a pro-temore basis and how do they qualify to organise what will be considered to be a much larger, more pro-active and grander body.
Because of my growing doubts, I have asked the ACA to remove my membership, at least for the time being or until the dust settles and more answers come forward.
Ray Daywalker Clarke
Well-known member
I am all for one body, but only individual membership.
As I understand it, the ACA will remain doing what they do, just under another name, why? dont ask. The ACA should keep the name as it is, everyone knows who they are. As they are staying a single body (even though they are part of AT) I think you can still join as a member, this would help them with their funding. If its not this way then I fear for the ACA.
Interesting to see what John had to say,<blockquote class=quoteheader>John H . The Wearyone. C.S.G. wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>
They are Peter (J) All the different groups advised members (individual and club/associations)to renew as normal and memberships will be transferred to the A.T./Fish Legal as appropriate when/if the merger takes place.</blockquote>
IF, IF the merger takes place, didnt this happen at the game fair. Many may think it didnt as the publicity from AT was very poor to say the least.
Anglers thinking of joining this group want some facts up front before they join. There is not enough information, and if this group are still trying to work out how they are going to work, then they are way behind, January 1st is not far off. We have had all the HYPE, they should be ready and waiting by now.
As I understand it, the ACA will remain doing what they do, just under another name, why? dont ask. The ACA should keep the name as it is, everyone knows who they are. As they are staying a single body (even though they are part of AT) I think you can still join as a member, this would help them with their funding. If its not this way then I fear for the ACA.
Interesting to see what John had to say,<blockquote class=quoteheader>John H . The Wearyone. C.S.G. wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>
They are Peter (J) All the different groups advised members (individual and club/associations)to renew as normal and memberships will be transferred to the A.T./Fish Legal as appropriate when/if the merger takes place.</blockquote>
IF, IF the merger takes place, didnt this happen at the game fair. Many may think it didnt as the publicity from AT was very poor to say the least.
Anglers thinking of joining this group want some facts up front before they join. There is not enough information, and if this group are still trying to work out how they are going to work, then they are way behind, January 1st is not far off. We have had all the HYPE, they should be ready and waiting by now.
N
Nigel Connor(ACA ,SAA)
Guest
For the price of a couple bags of bolies it seems a fair bet without all this nit picking and soul searching.Pay you money , influence the direction from within.No brainer really.There are no other horses in the race.It is alright theorising about what the perfect organisation may be, but unless you are going to form it yourself where is it going to come from? My voting forms for the ACA went off today with a tick in the Yes box and the same will be the case for my SAA forms. I would urge all other members to do the same.If this does not work, then angling representation will be set back decades and the legacy for angling going forward disastrous.
J
John H Member of THE C.S.G.. & The A.T.
Guest
I agree entirely Nigel.
I see that guy at BUBA is still flogging his dead horse, he's even managed to recruit some disgruntled ex NFAguy. Keith Arthur this morning gave his reasons for his disassaciation with NUBA.
There IS only one way foeward and that is with the Angling Trust.
The last NAFAC meeting is on the 6th December, hopefully no more 5am starts after then.
I see that guy at BUBA is still flogging his dead horse, he's even managed to recruit some disgruntled ex NFAguy. Keith Arthur this morning gave his reasons for his disassaciation with NUBA.
There IS only one way foeward and that is with the Angling Trust.
The last NAFAC meeting is on the 6th December, hopefully no more 5am starts after then.
J
John H Member of THE C.S.G.. & The A.T.
Guest
<blockquote class=quoteheader>Ray Daywalker Clarke wrote (see) <blockquote class=quote>
Interesting to see what John had to say,<blockquote class=quoteheader>John H . The Wearyone. C.S.G. wrote (see) <blockquote class=quote>
They are Peter (J) All the different groups advised members (individual and club/associations)to renew as normal and memberships will be transferred to the A.T./Fish Legal as appropriate when/if the merger takes place.
IF, IF the merger takes place, didn't this happen at the game fair. Many may think it didn't as the publicity from AT was very poor to say the least.
Again Ray, you only see what you want to see, suggest you go BACK<a href="http://anglingunity.co.uk/2008/10/22/angling-trust-agreement-signed/" title="Permanent Link to Angling Trust agreement signed">Angling Trust agreement signed</a>
<!--post time-->Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008 <!--optional excerpt or automatic excerpt of the post-->
The Chairmen of all of angling’s representative bodies yesterday signed the merger agreement which, <u>subject to various conditions being met</u>, will see them become a single new organisation to represent all anglers from 5 January 2009:</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
Interesting to see what John had to say,<blockquote class=quoteheader>John H . The Wearyone. C.S.G. wrote (see) <blockquote class=quote>
They are Peter (J) All the different groups advised members (individual and club/associations)to renew as normal and memberships will be transferred to the A.T./Fish Legal as appropriate when/if the merger takes place.
IF, IF the merger takes place, didn't this happen at the game fair. Many may think it didn't as the publicity from AT was very poor to say the least.
Again Ray, you only see what you want to see, suggest you go BACK<a href="http://anglingunity.co.uk/2008/10/22/angling-trust-agreement-signed/" title="Permanent Link to Angling Trust agreement signed">Angling Trust agreement signed</a>
<!--post time-->Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008 <!--optional excerpt or automatic excerpt of the post-->
The Chairmen of all of angling’s representative bodies yesterday signed the merger agreement which, <u>subject to various conditions being met</u>, will see them become a single new organisation to represent all anglers from 5 January 2009:</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
Ray Daywalker Clarke
Well-known member
Yes John we know all that, but they where not very quick at getting the sign up at the game fair into the media or on their own website were they.
And IF you are so sure about AT why bother posting, If the merger takes place.
The problem you have at the moment is those running the groups agree, but the members have yet to vote, it would have been best to do it the other way round.
Egg on a lot of faces if the members turn it down, we know that wont happen, before themembers vote.
Tell me why the ACA have to change their name?
And IF you are so sure about AT why bother posting, If the merger takes place.
The problem you have at the moment is those running the groups agree, but the members have yet to vote, it would have been best to do it the other way round.
Egg on a lot of faces if the members turn it down, we know that wont happen, before themembers vote.
Tell me why the ACA have to change their name?
Steve Spiller
Well-known member
My membership is due for renewal in December, I've decided I will be sending my cheque for £20 and putting a tick in the yes box.
Surely it's better to give it a chance than to just right it off?
Surely it's better to give it a chance than to just right it off?
Ray Daywalker Clarke
Well-known member
Dont know anyone who has written it off, only a few wanting to know some more information.
Steve,
Theres a new Angling club setting up, dont know where their waters will be, they dont have any yet, dont have any members yet, dont know how they are going to be funded or whos doing what, only £20, want to join? think about it.
If it was someone telling you all this on the phone you wouldnt give £5 let alone £20.
Steve,
Theres a new Angling club setting up, dont know where their waters will be, they dont have any yet, dont have any members yet, dont know how they are going to be funded or whos doing what, only £20, want to join? think about it.
If it was someone telling you all this on the phone you wouldnt give £5 let alone £20.
Mark Wintle
Well-known member
Ray and Steve,
If you'll just send me your £20 I'll take you to a stretch of river thatproduces 4lb roach...
On a serious note, I currently pay the ACA (£20? can't remember?) and SAA (£10?) so I'm not sure what I'll end up with? Nothing from the SAA yet. Am I due a letter?. Do I cancel both DDs? Or wait?
I understand the Fish Legal to be an organisation for clubs and fishery owners to insure their waters against pollution and similar legal disputes, therefore no point in having individual members.
If you'll just send me your £20 I'll take you to a stretch of river thatproduces 4lb roach...
On a serious note, I currently pay the ACA (£20? can't remember?) and SAA (£10?) so I'm not sure what I'll end up with? Nothing from the SAA yet. Am I due a letter?. Do I cancel both DDs? Or wait?
I understand the Fish Legal to be an organisation for clubs and fishery owners to insure their waters against pollution and similar legal disputes, therefore no point in having individual members.
J
John H Member of THE C.S.G.. & The A.T.
Guest
Ray, The very fact that you ask the questions you do suggests to me you have no involvement with any of the participating organisations...so why waste your energy...and everyone elses time.
To suggest that clubs/associations should have no say or involvement in a 'single unified representative organisation' is as laughable as it's naive.
To suggest that clubs/associations should have no say or involvement in a 'single unified representative organisation' is as laughable as it's naive.
"To suggest that clubs/associations should have no say or involvement in a 'single unified representative organisation' is as laughable as it's naive."
Equally naive is to hope and expect individual anglers to pay for it too, unless of course it is set-up on a one man (or club) one vote arrangement.
I am still contemplating my position, but I am leaning towards the same route as Jeff.
I still cannot see why these groups could simply not agree to come together, if and when necessary, to represent angling towards; government, polluters, antis etc, but continue as individual groups - especially the ACA.
Nigel,
I don't see the same armagedon syndrome as you I'm afraid.
If this doesn't work then the constituent bodies will simply revert to their previous guises. Unless they are totally brain-dead, then they should have already have formulated their fall-back position.
Mark,
Regarding Fish Legal, it is the old ACA; that many individual anglers took pride in supporting through both individual membership, and legacy in their Wills, so if the ACA needed this revenue stream then why shouldn't Fish Legal?
Generally:
It seems that the ?20.00 per annum membership fee is going to the figure, from various sources and meetings, so I still have a problem seeing how these combined groups will even maintain their previous (combined) budgets given this lower fee.
Equally naive is to hope and expect individual anglers to pay for it too, unless of course it is set-up on a one man (or club) one vote arrangement.
I am still contemplating my position, but I am leaning towards the same route as Jeff.
I still cannot see why these groups could simply not agree to come together, if and when necessary, to represent angling towards; government, polluters, antis etc, but continue as individual groups - especially the ACA.
Nigel,
I don't see the same armagedon syndrome as you I'm afraid.
If this doesn't work then the constituent bodies will simply revert to their previous guises. Unless they are totally brain-dead, then they should have already have formulated their fall-back position.
Mark,
Regarding Fish Legal, it is the old ACA; that many individual anglers took pride in supporting through both individual membership, and legacy in their Wills, so if the ACA needed this revenue stream then why shouldn't Fish Legal?
Generally:
It seems that the ?20.00 per annum membership fee is going to the figure, from various sources and meetings, so I still have a problem seeing how these combined groups will even maintain their previous (combined) budgets given this lower fee.
J
John H Member of THE C.S.G.. & The A.T.
Guest
The NUBA is still 'live' Peter, just. Could Mr Suttie and his deciles be more your cup of tea?
Fred started this thread to alert members/viewers of FishingMagicthat the ACA was starting is voting procces / EGM on the merger, not to go over the old (and increasingly tiresome) arguments.
I'm sure those who are members of themember groups making up FACT have had ample time to discuss the pros and cons before now.
As I see it we/you have two options, join or don't join. If sufficient of those who do join are not content then there will be the opportunity to make changes. Not join and there is SFA you can do. Its a no brainer to me.
Fred started this thread to alert members/viewers of FishingMagicthat the ACA was starting is voting procces / EGM on the merger, not to go over the old (and increasingly tiresome) arguments.
I'm sure those who are members of themember groups making up FACT have had ample time to discuss the pros and cons before now.
As I see it we/you have two options, join or don't join. If sufficient of those who do join are not content then there will be the opportunity to make changes. Not join and there is SFA you can do. Its a no brainer to me.
F
Fred Bonney
Guest
Well, I've decided to say no!
I'm a paid up member of the ACA but, it just is not clear enough to me the benefitsto the ACA, of being part ofthe mass organisation.
In the meantime, Iwill continue to be a member of the ACA until I can see the wood for the trees.
I would prefer the option of the ACA being totally outside the group, and when the group tell me, the individual, what they are all about, I'll join them as well.
I'm a paid up member of the ACA but, it just is not clear enough to me the benefitsto the ACA, of being part ofthe mass organisation.
In the meantime, Iwill continue to be a member of the ACA until I can see the wood for the trees.
I would prefer the option of the ACA being totally outside the group, and when the group tell me, the individual, what they are all about, I'll join them as well.
I too have decided no at this point in time, for a number of reasons that some appear to deem 'tiresome, but others consider as important information necessary to make an informed decision.
"I would prefer the option of the ACA being totally outside the group, and when the group tell me, the individual, what they are all about, I'll join them as well."
My sentiments entirely Fred!
"I would prefer the option of the ACA being totally outside the group, and when the group tell me, the individual, what they are all about, I'll join them as well."
My sentiments entirely Fred!
N
Nigel Connor(ACA ,SAA)
Guest
PJ says
I don't see the same armagedon syndrome as you I'm afraid.
If this doesn't work then the constituent bodies will simply revert to their previous guises. Unless they are totally brain-dead, then they should have already have formulated their fall-back position.
Precisely,Peter andequally as fragmanted,lacking the impetus and lobbying clout to take the sport forward.No future there.You have in numerous posts laid outa very eloquent case for the need for a unified angling body yet when the opportunity presents it self, you are shying away.I thinkI need a trip to Wiltshire armed with a bottle of armagnac to show you the error of your ways!
I really cannot see the point of principle at stake here.They are not asking you to stake your house on the outcome but in contrast to the amount we must spend on our sport each year, a paltry amount.OK the information may not be crystal clear as to how things will pan out in detail but you surely cannot disagree with end point of an effective, unfied angling representative body.Isn't it a little precious of those doubters in waiting for the perfect organisation to turn up whilst benefitting from what the AT will deliver.What happens in the interim? It s no good waitng to see if it is a success before joining.There will not be that luxury.If caring and thinking anglers do not join, then failure will be self fulfilling both from a lack of funds and the loss of the contribution those anglers can make to the organisation.
I don't see the same armagedon syndrome as you I'm afraid.
If this doesn't work then the constituent bodies will simply revert to their previous guises. Unless they are totally brain-dead, then they should have already have formulated their fall-back position.
Precisely,Peter andequally as fragmanted,lacking the impetus and lobbying clout to take the sport forward.No future there.You have in numerous posts laid outa very eloquent case for the need for a unified angling body yet when the opportunity presents it self, you are shying away.I thinkI need a trip to Wiltshire armed with a bottle of armagnac to show you the error of your ways!
I really cannot see the point of principle at stake here.They are not asking you to stake your house on the outcome but in contrast to the amount we must spend on our sport each year, a paltry amount.OK the information may not be crystal clear as to how things will pan out in detail but you surely cannot disagree with end point of an effective, unfied angling representative body.Isn't it a little precious of those doubters in waiting for the perfect organisation to turn up whilst benefitting from what the AT will deliver.What happens in the interim? It s no good waitng to see if it is a success before joining.There will not be that luxury.If caring and thinking anglers do not join, then failure will be self fulfilling both from a lack of funds and the loss of the contribution those anglers can make to the organisation.
Nigel,
You know that you have an open invitation, anytime, and especially if armed with a decent Armagnac.
It is not the amount of cash, which as you say is paltry (which is a point of great concern to me) together with the sorry lack of information available just a few short weeks before caring and thinking anglers will be asked to take this flying leap of faith.
If this were the purchase of; a new rod, reel or even a spool of Shimano Technicum (about ?30 these days) then you would be asking a lot more questions, and doing an awful lot more research.
I don't disagree with the ultimate goal, as you say I have championed it for a long time.
What I do object to is the total lack of any meaningful details regarding individual membership coupled with the uninformed 'cheerleading' from various sources, together with the taunts and insults one receives whenever you ask, question or, God forbid, have the temerity to criticise.
I still cannot see why the ACA cannot continue under its proud name in its' "associated" role, the conspiricy theory however might go along the lines of competition for members and donations?
You know that you have an open invitation, anytime, and especially if armed with a decent Armagnac.
It is not the amount of cash, which as you say is paltry (which is a point of great concern to me) together with the sorry lack of information available just a few short weeks before caring and thinking anglers will be asked to take this flying leap of faith.
If this were the purchase of; a new rod, reel or even a spool of Shimano Technicum (about ?30 these days) then you would be asking a lot more questions, and doing an awful lot more research.
I don't disagree with the ultimate goal, as you say I have championed it for a long time.
What I do object to is the total lack of any meaningful details regarding individual membership coupled with the uninformed 'cheerleading' from various sources, together with the taunts and insults one receives whenever you ask, question or, God forbid, have the temerity to criticise.
I still cannot see why the ACA cannot continue under its proud name in its' "associated" role, the conspiricy theory however might go along the lines of competition for members and donations?