CPSA Majors “Competition Only”

[Richard59]

I would add that in some cases, mine included, gambling on a win in a competition has a very low probability of success.

I can understand the CPSA decision, and I would simply pay the additional money. I don't however shoot to win anything but for the grading and feeling of progression so, unless forced, its birds only for me & my daughter. I do look at the results and find the same names often appearing at the top of the scores - they are all good people I am sure, and all have worked hard to get to the level they are at (and thus deserve their success) but the CPSA may have to look at carefully at how their decision affects the numbers attending at the bottom of the grades if it is implemented on a wider basis.

The problem with some organisations - and I'm not saying the CPSA is at that level by any means - is that they can start to treat the sport they manage as a business and the high profile events are run for profit and not for the members. The most important members are not those who have been shooting for some time - or won on a regular basis - but those still learning. In my view it's essential that those who are just starting can enter the same competition, and shoot at the same time, as those with a chance of winning.

This “competition only” is, as far as aware only being set for the English & British majors? these aren’t compulsory events to enter, and  “profit” from such an event is not dependent on the competition entry fee element. Now I’m of the opinion that yes the CPSA should be looking to turn a small % profit from the relatively small entry at its blue riband / flagship / majors and not at a loss to be covered by the vast majority that won’t be competing. No one’s barring, preventing or making entry difficult to any of the membership, and we all have a chance of winning in our class, yes the title will be tussled over by international superstars, the vast majority of entrants however will only be competing in their class / cat be it AAA AA A B C, ladies juniors colts etc, the prize monies stay in class, so unless your in AAA your £10 won’t be fought over by the big girls & boys, it’s a competition between shots of a similar standard, and in past this payout has been transparent. Me, I’m a plodder and always dip my toe, the odd win is most welcome. 

Having found and read the CPSA meeting minutes it is clear that this change is only for CPSA Major Championships and NOT Minor Championships & other Registered Shoots, would advise any CPSA member that has concerns / reservations that this change may in future be rolled out further you express these to your CPSA county committee who can forward on your behalf.

 

[philmoss]

I would add that in some cases, mine included, gambling on a win in a competition has a very low probability of success.

I can understand the CPSA decision, and I would simply pay the additional money. I don't however shoot to win anything but for the grading and feeling of progression so, unless forced, its birds only for me & my daughter. I do look at the results and find the same names often appearing at the top of the scores - they are all good people I am sure, and all have worked hard to get to the level they are at (and thus deserve their success) but the CPSA may have to look at carefully at how their decision affects the numbers attending at the bottom of the grades if it is implemented on a wider basis.

The problem with some organisations - and I'm not saying the CPSA is at that level by any means - is that they can start to treat the sport they manage as a business and the high profile events are run for profit and not for the members. The most important members are not those who have been shooting for some time - or won on a regular basis - but those still learning. In my view it's essential that those who are just starting can enter the same competition, and shoot at the same time, as those with a chance of winning.

The CPSA is a business, it employs staff, has overheads & has to make a profit to continue !

All registered/commercial shooting grounds are businesses & once again, without profit there is no reinvestment or finances to cover overheads.

Clubs are usualy self funded & operated by a small few with no financial gain or return....Thats why they are clubs.

Dont bite the hand that guides us through the pitfalls of the sport if you wish it to continue please.

 

[ehb102]

Dont bite the hand that guides us through the pitfalls of the sport if you wish it to continue please.

What does that mean?

 

[philmoss]

In relationship to the final paragraph of Freddypip's post

 

[ehb102]

In relationship to the final paragraph of Freddypip's post

I am still not sure what you mean, unless it's "Don't question, don't criticise".

 

[philmoss]

Well, your wrong in your assumption. Maybe read & diggest the comment in their last paragraph.

Never mind, thats my final comment !

 

[Freddypip]

I understand entirely that many grounds are privately owned businesses and as such they can run competitions entirely as they see fit. Many though align to the CPSA hence any changes in prize money etc are worthy of some discussion hence the thread. The same is true of clubs, many of whom may, entirely reasonably, decide to run a profit for a rainy day. i accept its all supply & demand.

It is not my intention to "bite the hand" of the CPSA whatsoever, just to make a point about a policy change in a wider context and I think my point has been well answered and added to by GlawsterCodger and perhaps a a few others may wish to chip in.

Are you saying that all entrants should contribute to the prize fund. If so could you explain your reasoning. It would be helpful to have the perspective of a ground owner and whether it would help in running events or not.

Finally it is my understanding is that the CPSA is an Association and not a business. This is quite an important distinction.

 

[ehb102]

Well, your wrong in your assumption. Maybe read & diggest the comment in their last paragraph.

Never mind, thats my final comment !

Don't be so rude. You're the one being obtuse. If you can't articulate your viewpoint so it can be understood, you might as well stop commenting. 

 

[philmoss]

I understand entirely that many grounds are privately owned businesses and as such they can run competitions entirely as they see fit. Many though align to the CPSA hence any changes in prize money etc are worthy of some discussion hence the thread. The same is true of clubs, many of whom may, entirely reasonably, decide to run a profit for a rainy day. i accept its all supply & demand.

It is not my intention to "bite the hand" of the CPSA whatsoever, just to make a point about a policy change in a wider context and I think my point has been well answered and added to by GlawsterCodger and perhaps a a few others may wish to chip in.

Are you saying that all entrants should contribute to the prize fund. If so could you explain your reasoning. It would be helpful to have the perspective of a ground owner and whether it would help in running events or not.

Finally it is my understanding is that the CPSA is an Association and not a business. This is quite an important distinction.

The association is limited by its members. The association still has to return a profit !!.....to cover wages, costs, etc. That is a very basic fact !.

As a competitive shooter, i personally always enter competition in place of birds only....occasionaly (very occasionaly now days), i have a bit of luck & win a few ££, thats my personal choice.

The post relates to "MAJORS ONLY"..... NOT usual weekday/weekend registered shoots, thats the main differance & birds only option currently remains for these.

Personally at my shoots, i see 15/18% of the enties are birds only, the remainder are competition entries across all classes.

So YES i am saying that all entrants should contribute to the prize fund of a English or British championship.

As a well known & respected shot once said........."There are NO birds only in the Olympics" & he won a Gold medal !!

Don't be so rude. You're the one being obtuse. If you can't articulate your viewpoint so it can be understood, you might as well stop commenting. 

Who are you talking to in that manner ??........ i replied to your answer & the other poster understood the reply.You obviously didnt or wanted to make more of it.

Are you still a cpsa member & would you enter these events if you were ??

I have no further comments or replies on this matter,good night.

 

[philmoss]

Don't be so rude. You're the one being obtuse. If you can't articulate your viewpoint so it can be understood, you might as well stop commenting. 

Who are you talking to in that manner ??........ i replied to your answer & the other poster understood the reply.You obviously didnt or wanted to make more of it.

Are you still a cpsa member & would you enter these events if you were ??

I have no further comments or replies on this matter,good night.

 

[Freddypip]

Phil Moss – I interpreted your answer in the same way as ehb102, I just thought it would be more polite to bite my tongue, clarify what I had said, and ask for your further opinion. 

The CPSA is not a business. They may run some of their activities in a businesslike manner but they are an Association with regulatory responsibilities – the Articles of Association can be found here and in terms of profit I would refer to Para 5 which makes the position clear - https://www.cpsa.co.uk/about-us/governance/association-articles).

By stating they are a business you are proving the point you took such objection to.

You make an interesting point regarding the percentage of ‘birds-only’ entries. If the 20% you quote is common – and I see no reason it would not be – then the (really good) point raised by Perazman doesn’t work out – if everybody was on a competition basis the prize levy would need to be £4 as opposed to £5 which is not really worth fussing over. Further the prize levy was kept the same the prize fund would only rise by 25% which again might not make a material difference. In short its not a case of the prize levy halving etc.

If there are 20% birds only I can understand why the admin would be a pain in ass - for any shoot. If the percentage is lower for the Open etc then I can understand entirely the CPSA’s decision on admin grounds alone to stop them from taking part.

Finally, I was fully aware that the OP referred to the 'majors' and I commented, to some extent, about those taking part in local shoots. I did so to make the point that once you start with one or two events it is easy to apply the same principal to 'major' local events, and the all CPSA shoots, thinking that success at the majors have shown it to be a good idea.

 

[Will Hewland]

Just looking at the last EJC reg shoot, 35% were Birds Only. Mostly due to a high percentage of the B and C class folk not going comp. 8 comp entries from 28 entries in B!

 

[ehb102]

Once again I ask Phil to clarify what he is saying and get more bluster in return. *Shakes head sadly* I am used to that now. 

For an extension post, thanks to  @Freddypip

 

[TRINITY]

I have only dabbled in a few registered shoots but look at the results of the grounds near me. Some get pretty full but many are sparsely attended. If by making them competion only and entrants numbers dropped even further, I am sure ground owners would soon be complaining. Commercial grounds exist to make money by selling Clay's and if by tempting more people to shoot them by offering a targets only option then that is what will happen.

 

[Will Hewland]

I have only dabbled in a few registered shoots but look at the results of the grounds near me. Some get pretty full but many are sparsely attended. If by making them competion only and entrants numbers dropped even further, I am sure ground owners would soon be complaining. Commercial grounds exist to make money by selling Clay's and if by tempting more people to shoot them by offering a targets only option then that is what will happen.

Are you in the north? ESP shoots are rammed full in the mid / south area. 100 entries is a low number, 250 isn’t unusual. 

 

[perazman]

Just looking at the last EJC reg shoot, 35% were Birds Only. Mostly due to a high percentage of the B and C class folk not going comp. 8 comp entries from 28 entries in B!

15 C class entries at Churchills Swinton today. 12 of them were birds only!

I suppose it's motivation to improve as you'll win about tuppence in C class.

PM.

 

[TRINITY]

Are you in the north? ESP shoots are rammed full in the mid / south area. 100 entries is a low number, 250 isn’t unusual. 

I am Will. 

But the CPSA is a national organisation so surely it has to consider its memembers nation wide. Also some grounds put on many registered comps other than ESP.

However, I am no expert but my initial comment is only based on local observations. But I am sure if grounds would prefer all comps maxed out even if a small percentage are T/O

15 C class entries at Churchills Swinton today. 12 of them were birds only!

I suppose it's motivation to improve as you'll win about tuppence in C class.

PM.

Yes only 61 entries in total , I am sure if it was comp only that figure would fall and not increase. 

 

[Freddypip]

I'm in the Midlands and there has been no negative feedback about shooting birds only - in fact having only shot 10 registered shoots I am still advised not to enter the competitions !!!

Hopefully Phil Moss will confirm where he is and whether demand is such that those willing to pay for competition entry are being displaced by those shooting birds only. His numbers would suggest so.

 

[TRINITY]

Like I say, I am a novice. But if prize money is the motivating factor for shooters, then I think adding a few quid to entry is quite pathetic really. Why not make it a 'big boys' game , Add £50 or £100   then winner takes all. That would sort the men from the boys.  Wonder how many would enter then

 

[Deleted member 230]

None . Its been tried.