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.
- 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.