43 replies to this topic

[trial153]

Carl Post, on 23 July 2011 - 11:21 AM, said:

Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.
~George Bernard Shaw~

If the NEBGF wants to be a leader in long term betterment for the sport it should go out on a limb and mandate One licensed trial per club per year. If a club goes against the rule and has two trials, none of their trials for the next year will count towards any derby, All-Age or consistency awards. Basically use the economic threat of reduced entries to enforce the rule. 57 clubs each holding one licensed trial annually should more than fill out the 44 week February to November licensed schedule. I project the NEBGF would also add several clubs if the dissolution of the associations was instituted in exchange for direct membership in the federation. Institute a 300 mile rule only for All-Age trials that run same class dates as licensed trials but encourage opposite day class All-Age trials at nearby clubs of the licensed trial. Even have one weekend not scheduled with any trials to accommodate whichever clubs corresponding dates lands on the floating Easter holiday that year.

Great idea Carl, makes the point that we have to start thinking outside the box. We see our federation going along for the ride so to speak, people more concerned about how we are viewed by the other federations rather then being concerned with bettering out position for our sustainability. The Grand FC is a good point in this, we conform for appearances but forget what the members wanted.

[Dan Lang]

I dont like the words...threat....and mandate.......If we are trying to unite has a federation, I think I would leave those words out.....and pretty much after i see those words, I dont read much into the statement......you might has well use DICATOR...!!...

...i still dont agree with the one licsend trial.....I dont think reducing to one lic trial is gonna do anything...and there are clubs that like the idea of 2 lic. trials. If a club wants to have one lic trial..,. thats great, then have whatever else you want, if anything else at all.
I really could give a rats ass what the UBGF..DEEP SOUTH..or any other association does..i am not looking to compete with them ..My comments on the federation is who we could improve and streamline things going forward.

[DJC]

I think looking at what other federations do is usefull. Even if we don't want to compete with or have the same goals doesn't mean we can't learn from there practices or policies. Its just studying a successful business structure you may choose to take peices that fit your goals, change some, and not use some. But when looking for ideas for helping make our federation stronger where better to look then other federations.

I think the idea of being about the federation and dissolving associations is a good idea in theroy, but at this juncture the federation is way to weak, and clubs belong to the feration because there association does. If we drop the associations several clubs will not join the federation, maybe this is good or maybe this is bad, but I think the federation needs to get clubs and members vested and show them what the federation does and does for them, and then maybe it works.

[gibble1]

Dan Carr---excellent post!