Dear All,

I have submitted the following to Pull and Clay sporting.com following innacurate reporting of my position on prize money in the AGM report in Mays PULL! 

Dear Editor,
I should like to take issue with the accuracy of your AGM , in particular the details of the discussion that was held in regard to prize money,  which appeared in May's edition of PULL! 

Whilst I appreciate that the report in no way constitutes minutes of the meeting, which I am SURE will be factually correct, it is, nevertheless, the first "official" news of the events of the meeting and as such carries much weight with those that have read it.  For the report to misrepresent the views that were expressed from the floor in such an inaccurate way is therefore significant and indefensible. 

For the record I would like it noted that the actual course of events are more accurately reported thus;
John Taylor (105431) made a very carefully worded statement which in which he acknowledged that the board had discussed the issue of prize money and in particular the practice of donating prize money to "charity" and that they (the board) felt that they were unable to offer any leadership in this area.  The statement then went on to invite any member of the board to join him in making a further statement which condemned this practice, particularly in the absence of any clear and prominent signage to say that uncollected prize money would become the property of the shoot owner after a specified period of time.

In the discussion that followed the point was repeatedly made from the floor that at no time was the prize money the property of any ground owner and therefore at no point is it the grounds' to do anything with other than make sure that it gets to the person that has won it.  Throughout the discussion not a single Director present agreed to make a statement offering guidance or an opinion in this area other than to say that grounds can do what they want, since they are commercial operations and that the board or HQ is powerless to enforce the associations rules as published in booklet 5.  Mr Boakes suggested that if shooters didn't like it they should "vote with their feet".

Having had some time to digest the discussion since the meeting it would seem to me that any ground that wishes to run CPSA shoots agrees to the rules of the association under which auspices said shoots run.  Therefore it follows that the board of that organisation  and, by extension, its appointed employees at HQ have the wherewithal to enforce the rules the ground owner agrees to.

Presumably the directors of the CPSA feel able to ensure that other rules in the technical booklet about e.g. target presentation, the wearing of safety glasses etc. can be and indeed are enforced, so what is so different about this one then?

Perhaps we should all do as Mr Boakes suggests and avoid those dodgy grounds, publicise which grounds they are so that others can do the same and go to those grounds which play by the rules.  Thanks for your leadership board members.

John Taylor (105431)

cc:
Tony Pay (Beds Secretary)
Colin Butler (EM Secretary)
Nicola Heron (SE Regional Director)
Brian Curtis (EM Regional Director)
Terry Bobbett (Chair CPSA)