THIS IS THE UKPBA STATEMENT OF WHY THEY HAVE SET UP
This the reason they have made there own body can the people who they mention come on here and please tell me what they are taking about "the golden circle" or are they just using this as a ploy for us to belive they say that df funding started them off but they now have nothing to do with the ukpba. please do you really think that df would invest money in some thing like that if they werent some thing in it for them
if the people who are mentioned in this do not read it can some one forward it to them because the way i read it, it sound's like slander to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:33 pm Post subject: Answers to UKPBA questions from other forums
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:33 pm Post subject: Answers to UKPBA questions from other forums
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further to the questions posted on an internet forum:
1. Paintball operators may not have joined the UKPSF, for a variety of reasons:
a. They may object to the ‘for profit’ nature of the UKPSF.
You do the maths (figures approximate):
Membership:
300 sites each paying £250* = £75,000
Trade show
300 delegates each paying £45 = £13,500
Income from exhibitors = £10,000
Accreditation
Campaign/NPG/ a few others = free of charge
Others 10 x £250 = £2,500
Insurance commissions = ?
Advertising = ?
Total = £101,000
The UKPSF is not good value.
Much more than £100,000 in annual income. In return for which operators get a ‘logo’ and a novelty gift.
* Since the UKPBA went ‘public’, membership of the UKPSF has fallen to £100. That’s the free market economy for you!
b. They may object the undemocratic constitution of the UKPSF
It’s a ‘closed shop’. The UKPSF is a trade body controlled by five of the larger paintball operators – Niall Squire of Campaign, and Doug Setters of NPG amongst them. The interests of other members (outside the ‘Golden Circle’ of five) are not represented. If your business competes with that of a Golden Circle member – forget it!
The UKPSF acts in the interests of the ‘Golden Circle’ only. Accreditation is one way to spot a ‘Golden Circle’ member – very few sites have paid for that qualification.
What do you think are the chances of a safer/ better-equipped/better-run/ less expensive site next door to one owned by a Golden Circle member, being allowed to become “Accredited”?
c. They may feel that UKPSF does not serve the best interests of the industry. When the UKPBA phoned the Information Officer at the Sports Council, and asked why paintball wasn’t recognised as a sport – the answer came back that it was because the activity lacked a ‘governing body’ that was non-profit making, and democratically constituted.
In other words – paintball is not recognised as a sport precisely because of the UKPSF.
The ‘aim’ of the UKPSF has, over these many years, been expressed as having paintball recognised as a sport by the Sports Council – yet this could never happen as long as the UKPSF posed as it’s ‘governing body’!
The UKPBA feels it is vital that the activity be recognised as a sport by the government, if it is to thrive and prosper in the future.
2. The aims and objectives of the UKPBA are clearly spelt out on it’s website. Amongst others, they are:
a. To have the activity recognised by the Sports Council.
b. To establish a non-profit making ‘governing body’. In order to be recognised as a sport – the ‘governing body’ must be ‘non-profit making’ (and that also means no large ‘management fees’ to any Chairman/members of an executive committee). The UKPBA will go further still – it will actually be free to members.
c. To make the governing body of paintball truly democratic (ie: open to all). Again this is a pre-requisite for the sport to be recognised.
d. To give a voice to all persons involved in the sport of paintball - not just those inside the ‘Golden Circle’ (of 5 operators).
e. To freely, and equally, promote the business of all trade members.
f. To professionally represent the sport to the outside world (media, authorities etc), rather than simply represent the limited interests of the few.
3. Minimum age for playing. With proper safety systems in place – it is fully acceptable for 11 year olds to play. The proper safety systems include full headguard (incorporating goggles and chin straps), a touch check of headguards before each game, proper safety zones, separate games for children, and more. Without these additional precautions – an age limit of 12 would seem more appropriate.
4. All paintball operators are free to promote themselves as they see fit. The UKPBA does not condone ‘slagging’ in any shape or form. It is hoped that the UKPBA (trade section) will provide a forum within which member sites can amicably resolve any problems as they arise.
5. Difficulties accessing the website. The internet platform is now up and stable. Many apologies for the difficulties experienced last week.
6. The UKPBA will not act as an agency. Trade members may join for free – they then simply post details of their site/shop/products, and publish their own contact details in full. Customers can then contact them directly.
7. Planning permission for sites is hard to come by these days. PP has no implications for the safety, or the enjoyment, of players. Campaign (UKPSF ‘Accredited’) traded without planning permission for 16 years, before gaining it, last year, by default (expiry of time) against the wishes of the Local Planning Authority. Campaign has since erected further buildings without planning permission. This is clearly not a matter of concern for the UKPSF, neither would it be for the UKPBA. The UKPBA will help it’s trade members gain planning permission, and has a database of ecologists, landscape architects, town planners, highways engineers, environmental health officers, and so on – available to help.
The UKPSF does not limit membership to sites with planning permission, neither will the UKPBA.
8. Legislation concerning propellant. Current legislation covering the use of C02/air in the UK is quite complex, and a number of legislative documents cover it’s use. TPVR 2001, TPED 2003, BSEN 1802 all apply. It would take a long time to set out everything that applies. This is not the correct time and place for a full exploration of these issues.
9. The UKPBA has access to the resources (R&D/safety departments) of most of the major manufacturers of paintball equipment. Anyone with a specialist question is requested to post it on the forum, or email the UKPBA directly – if we don’t know the answer we will find out ASAP.
10. Independence of the UKPBA. It is envisaged that after an initial set-up period the organisation must become democratically constituted (if it is to achieve it’s aim of having paintball recognised by the Sports Council). The UKPBA is already non-profit making. A constitution will be prepared (one that meets the Sports Council’s democratic criteria). The constitution will be in place by January 2006.
‘Governance’ of the sport is not brain surgery. Perhaps there will remain room for partisan organisations, such as the UKPSF, that may provide better forums for internecine bickering. All the industry needs from a governing body, is professional representation (a public face), no cost membership, free compliance and H&S documentation/guidelines, support in dealings with the authorities, purchasing power in the insurance marketplace, and a bit of free advertising. In an industry as large, fragmented, and entrepreneurial as paintball, dictation is neither possible nor desirable.
It may be that a safety inspection, and review, would in the future, be desirable (and/or required by insurers). The best person to carry out this task would be an Environmental Health Officer employed by the Council in whose administrative area the site to be inspected is located. This inspection is free, and impartial. Nothing is more important than safety. As far as ‘quality’ goes the market will decide this – good sites will get a lot of business, and bad ones will not. Market forces are the best way to control ‘quality’ – there can be no question of one operator dictating terms to another.
11. Ownership of the UKPBA. It will not, and need not, be ‘owned’ by anyone. It will simply exist for the benefit of it’s members.
12. The constitution will need to protect all members from abuse. In an industry with so many vested interests it is not acceptable for one organisation, nor five organisations, nor indeed one hundred organisations, to dictate terms to any other.
13. First AGM. No date has yet been set. Would the members like one? If so, would they like it be along the lines of the UKPSF’s (ie: with a trade show – in which case a degree of forward planning will be necessary)?
14. Annual conference. This seems like a good idea, but again, it will be subject to demand. Members are invited to make suggestions.
15. Public Liability Insurance. One of the harmful effects of the UKPSF having a closed shop has been to make insurance harder to find, at competitive rates.
Basically, it was heading towards a situation where a site couldn’t get insurance unless it was a member of the UKPSF – if that circle truly closed, then it might be that site operators would be faced with paying a ‘membership fee’ of thousands of pounds per year. There would be no alternative but to subscribe.
The UKPBA will not allow this to happen. And it is certainly not in the consumer’s interest that this happen. So long as the UKPBA exists, site operators will never again be held over a barrel as regards insurance – or any other issue. As to dictating terms to site operators, this is not something with which the UKPBA would like to become involved – please see paragraph 12 above.
Answers to questions posed in subsequent posts:
1. It is not anticipated that the UKPBA will share it’s information with third parties.
2. The details of site membership (ie: a list of all trade members of the UKPBA) is freely available to anyone accessing the website – in exactly the same way as one can access a list of all trade members of the UKPSF. As to the details of other persons actively joining the UKPBA (as opposed to players at sites that passively joined) – it would be best if the UKPBA adopted the policy of denying access to this list, for marketing purposes, to all trade members. Again – if any member has strong views on this subject, please feel free to air them. Now is the time to get the model right for the future.
3. It is not reasonable (nor probably lawful) for any site operator to access, nor to demand access to a list of players that have attended a competitor’s sites. This type of information must of course remain confidential.
4. Delta Force has provided the initial seed money to take the UKPBA ‘public’. For years, all players attending Delta Force sites, were granted free membership of the UKPBA – hence there are hundreds of thousands of members. During these early years, the UKPBA did little but accumulate members. The aims and objectives of the UKPBA have changed, and in future, Delta Force will have no more, nor less, say than any other trade member. Unlike the UKPSF the UKPBA will be an independent body.
5. Insurance. The UKPBA will approach insurance companies, once it’s trade membership has risen to it’s anticipated maximum level (basically, everyone other than the ‘Golden Circle’ – though they will be welcome to join if they wish). The UKPBA will seek to obtain the lowest quotations for it’s members (without retaining a brokerage fee, or commission).
I hope this has cleared some things up. Please feel free to pose more questions; otherwise we look forward to working with you all.....
