NWHU – RPRA: Email’...
Clear all

NWHU – RPRA: Email’s / Communications update 6th April 2019

1 Posts
1 Users
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 88
Topic starter  

News & Correspondence – keeping the members informed.
Please note: in respecting the wishes of others and in the sprite of cooperation between the NWHU and RPRA: The RPRA have noted their objection to their original emails being published in full on this website therefore an overview of their emails are provided. If any member of the RPRA wishes to see the RPRA emails in full then respectfully suggest you make such a request to Mr I Evans CEO RPRA.
NWHU – RPRA: Email’s / Communications
Terry Dawber - Dorothy Hadley 29th Oct 2018
Subject: Re: North West Homing Union Boundary
On 2018-10-29 14:24, Dorothy Hadley wrote:
NEHU Boundary - attachment refers.
Dorothy Hadley (Mrs)
Secretary to CEO
Hello Mrs Hadley,
I received your e mail, which refers to 'NEHU Boundary'. (?) This
Letter will be put in to our next Union meeting in November.
I would require the full details of the proposition to effect this new
condition and, of course, to see the appropriate changes to any RPRA
rules which cover this - in print, for all to see.
T Dawber
Secretary NWHU

Ian Evans – Terry Dawber 30th Oct 2018
Email informing Terry Dawber that a revised letter with error corrected attached.
Contents refers to NWHU boundaries and full details of the proposition in said letter.
Proposition to remove the NWHU from approved unions list if it fails to comply with the request.

Please note: There is a really important difference between the email and letter surrounding the use of the word Request (email,) Requires (letter)
Request: an act of asking politely or formally for something
Required: to order or demand something, or to order someone to do something




Terry Phifer – Ian Evans 18th Dec 2018
Firstly, thank you for your time earlier it’s always good to talk.
At the recent North West Homing Union AGM, I was elected president after the sad loss of Mr Geoff Bennett earlier this year. One of the items discussed at the meeting was the situation that has evolved between the RPRA and the NWHU. I took the action to try and start a dialogue with your good-selves.
As we discussed this situation if allowed to continue or deteriorate, could be damaging to both organisations and certainly isn’t in the best interests of the membership and fancy as a whole.
If it can be arranged, I think we were both in agreement that a meeting between officials of both the RPRA and NWHU to find some common ground on which to build and reach an agreement and hopefully resolve our differences would be a step in the right direction. As discussed, if there could be an opportunity during the Blackpool Show of The Year this may be the ideal time as the people required to make the most out of this opportunity could be there.
Certainly believe dialogue between our respective organisations is the best way forward to find an accommodation that helps safeguard the wellbeing of our members and the sport.
Terry Phifer
President NWHU
Ian if you wish to use any of the above in the BHW please feel free as it could provide the fancy with a degree of assurance that both organisations are communicating and making progress.
I'll be hopefully submitting an introduction to the Racing Pigeon and the NWHU website that will include development's as we progress.

Ian Evans – Terry Phifer 2nd Jan 2019
Confirmation of meeting request with the RPRA President and attendees and the wish to limit attendees to 3 for each organisation. Noted venue, at winter gardens Blackpool during the Show of the Year.

Terry Phifer – Ian Evans 2nd Jan 2019
Thanks Ian and all the best to your good self for the new year.
Sunday morning would be great in-fact that's a lot better for me thankyou, it saves me having to rush on the Friday also the wife and daughter are accompanying me again this year so works better with them and my daughters school (not sure they'll see like that, they like shopping while I'm busy with the pigeon stuff).
Totally agree as discussed we don't need a cast of thousand's a few good men and all that, I'll follow up with a call to confirm.
Look forward to meeting you.

Terry Phifer

Ian Evans – Terry Phifer 10th Jan 2019
Confirmation of change of venue for the joint meeting at Blackpool
Terry Phifer – Ian Evans 24th Jan 2019
Sorry for not getting back sooner but I've been non stop since getting back from Blackpool with home improvements / repairs (who needs heating this time of year?), work backlog and when possible pigeons.
Just want to say thankyou to yourself, David and Gary for taking the time to meet us on Sunday I know the Blackpool weekend is a very busy event for you all, so please pass on my thanks to them.
I think it was a very positive and constructive meeting conducted in a professional and gentlemanly manner which was very much appreciated.
Could I please ask if you have any more information with regards the confederation or if you could direct me to where I could find out more about it, I've picked up snippets in the past but could do with understanding more about it any help would be gratefully received.

Terry Phifer

Ian Evans to Terry Phifer 25th Jan 2019
Confirmed the meeting at Blackpool was professional and respectful. Enquired what information about the Confederation was required.
Terry Phifer – Ian Evans 25th Jan 2019
Thanks Ian
Any information would be welcomed regarding the Confederation do they have any terms of reference / constitution or minutes that are available on-line? one question are all the other home unions members? I do think it could be a good forum for the unions to work together in a constructive way to help the sport.
These things usually have a person or some people that are driving forces behind them so if there's anyone you can think of that it may be beneficial for me to contact I'd be happy to learn more off them.


Terry Phifer to Ian Evans 31st Jan 2019
Just a quick note to let you know what's happening since the meeting at Blackpool, I've pulled together a few notes from the lads that accompanied me to the meeting checked against my own and I've complied a brief and sent to them to check and I'm waiting their replies.
The NWHU is holding a meeting on the 9th Feb to allow us to provide feedback and to get a steer on the way forward from the committee. I understand that your next opportunity to take things back to your council will be the AGM at the end of the month.
Once I've got the notes back I'll share them with you if you wouldn't mind reviewing them with David and Gary and feeding back any comments it would be appreciated.

Terry Phifer

Ian Evans – Terry Phifer 1st Feb 2019
Acknowledge the notes taken by the NWHU at the Blackpool meeting and requested a share of the notes: Confirmed the next RPRA council meeting was 22nd February 2019.
Also confirmed to the Confederation secretary that the NWHU was interested in learning more about the organisation.
Terry Phifer – Ian Evans 3rd Feb 2019
Please find attached notes from our meeting at Blackpool, could you please share with David and Gary any feedback would be welcomed.
Once more please thank David and Gary not forgetting your self for meeting us at Blackpool I hope you all found it to be as positive and constructive as we did.


The notes as follows
Meeting between representatives the RPRA and the NWHU took place at the winter gardens 20th Jan 2019 at 11.00 am.
In attendance Mr D Bridges President of the RPRA, Mr I Evans C.E.O. and Mr G Cockshott Vice President of the RPRA, Mr T Phifer President of the NWHU, Mr M McAlinden & Mr J Pawson vice presidents of the NWHU. The meeting had been instigated by the NWHU following a letter from the RPRA saying that if by the 1st February 2019 the NWHU had not reverted to its original boundaries then it would be de-recognised.
After brief introductions the main purpose of the meeting was discussed and established.
The purpose was to establish communication between the two organisations to find a way of dealing with discord that has developed over time for the benefit of the members and the sport.
Boundaries, the issue of boundaries were discussed with both parties expressing their views with regards the changes to the NWHU since its establishment 1969 and from the time of recognition 1996. The boundaries as published in the NWHU rules had been decided by its membership over the last 50 years and to go back to the boundaries that existed 50 years ago would not be possible nor practicable. The old counties had been dissolved or changed and replaced, Cumberland, Westmorland, Lancashire and Cheshire had been changed to Cumbria, Lancashire, Merseyside, Manchester, and Cheshire during the changes part of West Riding had been absorbed as well has other changes to the boundaries. The Addition of Flintshire and Denbighshire had been done at the request of its membership many years ago. The RPRA were still concerned about the boundaries however accepted that the existing declared boundaries couldn’t really be altered but concerns remained that the NWHU were accepting affiliated members and organisations from outside these declared boundaries.
Membership: the issue of membership was discussed, and it was established that the NWHU could not and would not force any of its existing membership organisations or individuals to leave irrespective of their current location. The NWHU stated that since the Oct report there had been a number of organisations and individuals from outside its boundaries that had resigned. The RPRA delegates accepted that the NWHU couldn’t expel members and didn’t expect it to.
The NWHU understood the concerns of the RPRA and would look at the second part of its boundaries rules which deals with the use of management discretion over accepting organisations / individual members outside its boundaries. There were a number of options discussed surrounding this rule from suspension of the rule, rewording it. The NWHU representatives would have to take this back to their management committee.
It was recognised that a large proportion of the membership within the NWHU were actually dual members of both organisations and the current actions if continued could not be of benefit to the members nor the sport, hence the need for dialogue between the two organisations.
Stray birds issue was discussed with the NWHU taking this issue very seriously, they were alarmed to read in the RPRA October Meeting report that there could an issue. It was noted that the NWHU’s telephone line did have a problem at one time during the 2018 season which didn’t help. There is an online facility on the NWHU web site for reporting strays. The NWHU requested more information from the RPRA ie, the numbers reported areas reported and what the follow up with the NWHU was? This information would be helpful in aiding to mitigate / improve this situation in the future as with all unions the NWHU takes this subject very seriously.
Confederation: NWHU membership of the confederation was discussed, it had been a member at one time. The NWHU would consider membership so long as it was more than just a talking shop; Mr Bridges informed the meeting that he had been impressed after attending a meeting recently. Mr Phifer noted he had only picked up snippets of information about the Confederation and wanted to know more. His, own point of view was that a forum / corporative organisation that all the home unions could use to help drive improvements for the sport could be an asset.
Concern was raised that even after the use of even more discretion / suspension of the NWHU rule allowing membership outside its boundaries that new members could join via existing clubs / federations. It was discussed that neither the RPRA nor the NWHU as an association / union could determine or control who clubs / federations allow too join them nor make changes to their radius. These types of organisations are self-determining with regards to their radius and membership. It was noted that at fed level no-one from outside a fed could join another, which is the way it is at that level of management, however the association / union could not within their constitutions dictate that level of control over member organisations.
The meeting concluded that there had been a positive and constructive discussion with reasonable views of each party’s opinions aired. It was further realised that each would have to feed back to their respective councils / committees.
Post Meeting Note: the meeting was conducted in a professional and gentlemanly manner which was much appreciated.



Terry Phifer to Ian Evans 18th Feb 2019
Hope your well
The NWHU held a management committee meeting Saturday 9th February which allowed me and the other two representatives Mike and Jim to feedback what was discussed with your good selves at the Blackpool meeting.
We used the notes that I shared with you following that meeting as the basis for the discussions. All the main items / areas were discussed and debated with all delegates approaching it with open minds and common sense. The delegates agreed that the meeting was a move in the right direction and its hoped that further collaboration between our two organisations will lead to an improved relationship for the benefit of our shared members and the sport.
The subject of the confederation was discussed, and the general feeling was the delegates needed to understand more about its future direction.
Real concern was shown with regards the issue of strays, its hoped that all unions can work together to improve the sports image in this area.
The committee understands that you also must provide feedback to your own council and respond according to their deliberations.
I know that this is a very busy time for your organisation with regional meetings and your own AGM on the horizon, however look forward to further dialog with you once these events are out of the way.
Terry Phifer

Terry Phifer to Julia Field RPRA 25th Feb 2019
Terry Phifer here from the North West Homing Union, I believe your the person to contact for information regarding the Confederation of unions / associations. I'm after any information you may have that well let me see what it is? who's in it, how much it costs etc. I've only ever picked up snippets about it in the in the past.
Does it have a constitution or set of rules? at a recent meeting with RPRA representative's including the president David Bridges he told me he was impressed with the areas and topics covered would it be possible to see any minutes or notes from a past meeting.
Possible NWHU membership was discussed at a recent internal meeting but the attendees like my self wanted to know more about it. There is another meeting coming up towards the end of March that I'd like to feedback to if possible.
Any help would be much appreciated.

Terry Phifer
President of the NWHU

Ian Evans – Terry Phifer 26th fed 2019 9.42hrs
NWHU informed that at the RPRA AGM the RPRA council decided that de-recognition of the NWHU is suspended till 1st January 2020.
That all NWHU rings to be eligible to race / shown under RPRA rules must be registered with the RPRA by the 1st April 2019.

Ian Evans to Terry Phifer 26th Feb 2019 10.05hrs
Informing NWHU that the RPRA registration of NWHU rings to attract a levy of 30p per ring
Terry Phifer – Ian Evans 26th Feb 2019
Thankyou Ian for the update, I'll give you a bell later to discuss, could be later this afternoon I'm tied up in meeting.

Terry Phifer – Ian Evans 27th Feb 2019
Sorry for not getting back yesterday it was late last night by the time I got settled. Again thankyou for your feedback, do I take it it's just NWHU rings that have to be registered and attract a levy or does this also apply to other non RPRA issued rings? Is there any guidance available on how this is to be achieved in the timescale or will you be publishing guidance? It would be helpful in case any of the members come back to the NWHU for more information. Just to clarify from a NWHU position the RPRA's demands for the ring registration requirements and levy while disappointing for the sake of the ordinary fancier and the sport is at the end of the day down to the RPRA's own internal judgement and management.
There will be another NWHU meeting towards the end of March it's spring meeting, I've emailed Julia for any information she can furnish me with regards the current configuration and constitution of the Confederation. I'll give you a bell in the next couple of days to discuss negotiations between our respective organisations that I believe should continue for the well being of our dual members and the sport.

I Evans – T Phifer 4/3/2019 12.54
Recognition of the correspondence between the CEO of the RPRA Mr I Evans and NWHU had been published on the NWHU website, the CEO of the RPRA had not given permission, there is no objections to publishing an overview of what’s going on but not in full from the CEO of the RPRA who would be crateful if it could be removed and replaced with something more appropriate.


T Phifer – I Evans 5/3/2019 5.16
On 2019-03-05 05:16, TERRY PHIFER wrote:

What a nightmare of a weekend we’ve getting some home improvement
done, now heavy rain and a leak not a small one in one of the ground
floor roofs doesn’t make for a great couple of days off.

To the subject must admit I’m a bit disappointed with your comments
regarding the publication of our respective communications I don’t
think I’ve ever hidden the fact that I was going to publish our
communications. I have said that I believe that transparency for the
fancy and my members is important. Looking over the notes they are a
full reflection of what has been passed between our organisations, I
don’t find any of them disrespectful or inflammatory in any manner
and believe our dialog has been open and positive, they are just a
record of what has been communicated. If you would like to review the
communications and offer overviews no problem. It’s just I’m not
comfortable altering other people wording / correspondence. However,
your concern is noted and will be taken onboard in the future.


Terry Phifer __

Ian Evans – T Phifer 5/3/2019 9.28
Reviewed previous email an overview more than appropriate.

I Evans – T Phifer 5/3/2019 9.29
RPRA CEO No permission to publish future emails on any open forum.

D Bridges – T Phifer 5/3/2019 13.18
The following an overview of an email received from David Bridges (DB) President of the RPRA it’s a difficult communication to provide an overview but hopefully the main points are covered and conveyed. DB had been following correspondence between NWHU & RPRA CEO and found it puzzling. It was DB that pointed out to the RPRA CEO that correspondence had been printed in full on the NWHU website and was out of order.
DB noted that the RPRA understanding was that the NWHU representatives had agreed to comply with RPRA request about boundaries. The RPRA did not agree that the NWHU could not control who their affiliated organisations could allow to join them and become members of the NWHU.
The RPRA noted that the other unions would support them, and the confederation may consider NWHU membership if it complied with RPRA requests.
DB noted that none of the above appeared in the meeting report sent to the RPRA CEO.
The NWHU seem to assume it will be able to join the confederation.
The ball is with the NWHU that should take responsibility for its actions over the years instead of blaming it all on the RPRA.

T Phifer – D Bridges 8/3/2019 15.27
With all due respect and please don't take this wrong way but if your puzzled by the communications that have been posted then I’m just plain confused by your email.
Clearly remember at Blackpool saying that notes and communications would be published, so the members and fancy know what’s happening.
Going back to the Blackpool meeting I didn't not notice any of your good selves taking notes which did seem a little odd for such a meeting. The notes that where taken and collated by the NWHU attendees where actually submitted to the RPRA 3rd Feb 2019 via Ian Evans to give your selves an opportunity to provide feedback on, no such feedback was provided or has been since until your email. With no feedback the notes of the meeting were understood
as an accurate record of what had been discussed. If you review the Blackpool notes I believe they are clear with regards any future membership of existing NWHU clubs / feds and the level of control that a ruling union / association can realistically exercise to dictate the actual membership of clubs / federations. Please correct me if I’m wrong by directing me to your own rules that allow the RPRA direct control over clubs / federations actual individual membership? Is it not standard rules of clubs / federations that fly under the rules of a union to expect / insist their members also join the ruling union?
With regards confederation membership it should be clear again from the notes that provided it was more than just a talking shop which you assured me it was by your own remarks after attending one of the meeting.
My own option is that an organisation that allows all the home unions to work together on issues that impact the whole sport and effect our respective members duel or other wise is a positive and should be used to its upmost, why wouldn’t you?
As for taking responsibility for the NWHU actions of the past and the ball being in the NWHU court. Believe that the NWHU in instigating communications and the meeting between our respective organisations to deal with issues and try finding a way to work together for the
benefit of our dual members and the fancy in general was a first step in trying
to look and build for the future and not dwell on the past.
It’s hoped that future negotiations can continue in the same open and respectful manner demonstrated thus far.
Not a big fan of ping pong emails and find it a lot better to talk, what would be the best
number to call you on please David and would you mind it being early evening.
D Bridges – T Phifer 11/3/2019 11.29
David Bridges noted: thanks for the reply, no mention of the NWHU agreeing in principle to only take future members within the NWHU declared boundaries. It was understood that the NWHU representative had to report back to their committee but failed to declare decisions.
Confederation – DB would like to see the NWHU join and realised that boundaries had changed over the years and would hope the RPRA and confederation could be willing to find these acceptable.
T Phifer – D Bridges 11/3/2019 11.40
Thanks for getting back David I'll give you a call if that's ok, sure there is common ground on which we can move forward.
T Phifer – D Bridges 13/3/2019 5.44
I'll give you a call Thursday evening if that's still ok for you.
D Bridges – T Phifer 13/3/2019 7.46
Fine with that arrangement.
Please Note: the following is a note regards a telephone call between my self Terry Phifer and David Bridges
I had a talk with David Bridges President of the RPRA: It was a good open and frank discussion with David, initially it was in response to an email I received from him, mainly about the NWHU listing full communications between the NWHU & RPRA. We covered a number of subjects and areas. Both of us expressed our concerns at the current challenges facing both unions and the sport in general. We also discussed negotiations and I must admit I expressed my disappointment that I believe the RPRA council had been informed that these had failed when to us in the NWHU they were still on-going. It was hoped that the RPRA and NWHU could continue negotiations after the RPRA representatives had reported back to council at their AGM. The NWHU after its management committee meeting in early February had been prepared to reach agreement on a number of items and issues but understood that the RPRA representatives needed time to report back to their council and act on their deliberations. I was more than a bit bemused and disappointed for the sport and our joint members at their reaction. It was however good to talk to David who has a difficult job on his hands as we all have at present now, I’m sure we’ll talk again over the coming weeks / months for the benefit of our members and the sport.