Jump to content

Blanket Banning

Guest davidP

Recommended Posts

Guest davidP

This is something I meant to bring up last week, but as it still appears to be in the news I'll raise it anyway.


Much has been written about the loss of the Kickles Farm stretch of the Great Ouse by Newport Pagnall and the fact that it's now a syndicate water. Thus far the story would appear to be that the owner was unhappy with the situation, declined to renew the lease with Newport Pagnall and then approached various regulars to see if they'd like to have it on a syndicate basis. He has quite categorically stated that he was not approached with a view to making it a syndicate - that was something he decided for himself.

OK, this is fine by me. Sure it's a sad state of affairs that it should come to this and it pisses people off but it's his perogative to do with his venue as he will.


Anyway, the bit that I'm concerned about is the fact that the 10 guys who've accepted the owners offer of a syndicate are now threated with instant bans and expulsions by practically every club in the area. Now I could understand Newport Pagnall banning them, although even this is dodgy ground when the owner has stated the situation, but what possible grounds could clubs not actively involved in this particular stretch have for banning the syndicate members?? It sounds like the politics of envy to me. It also sounds like all the clubs are effectively branding the owner a liar by working on the assumption that the anglers instigated the change rather than believing what the owner has said. Perhaps there is more info available than has been published, but having been involved in angling administration for a few years at one point you soon learn that 90% of what you hear is complete fabrication based on rumour, half-truths and outright lies. It would seem to me that the clubs are convicting these anglers without even the benefit of even a show trial, and that cannot be good for anybody except a few suffering from bruised egos.


Anyway, anybody else care to share any thoughts/insights/death-threats on this subject??

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Graham E

Only that if they had not taken it on would the owner have accepted the loss of revenue or possibly leased it to a club again?


The worry for clubs is that this action could set a trend. I know that if my club lost one particular water the membership would go down by 75pc and the club would not be viable. Of course the few anglers that syndicated it would be happy. Then again....that's life nowadays isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bruno Broughton

Newport Pagnell members can no longer fish at Kickles, and the syndicate (with or without the owner's blessing) is effectively banning them from the stretch. So why should Newport Pagnell let them continue to fish on its waters?


As for other neighbouring clubs, there are those who believe that the same stunt (as they see it) could be pulled on them, if the fish are big enough.


Unfortunately, if you make your bed in this way, you also have to lie in it.




Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Alan Roe

Methinks that this ammounts to a goodly ammount of sour grapes though given the frailties of human nature an understandable though immature response

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith
Originally posted by Bruno Broughton:

Newport Pagnell members can no longer fish at Kickles, and the syndicate (with or without the owner's blessing) is effectively banning them from the stretch. So why should Newport Pagnell let them continue to fish on its waters?





reluctant as I am to question the wisdom of "The Great And The Good" smile.gif , I tend to think that Graham is on the money here.


My local club recently lost out to the "other club" up here, to a water we were both chasing (and Bruno, you know how thin on the ground decent waters are up here).


That club has a closed membership (a bit like a syndicate, really), but one thing we didn't do was ban all members of that club from joining our club; and we didn't kick out anybody who was already in both clubs.


And yet - in a lot of ways - that seems to be what's happening over the Kickles Farm carry-on.


Seems to me, anyway... I could be wrong - I can't figure out barbel anglers at the best of times!













Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest trent.barbeler



As for what actually happened at Kickles Farm, only the farmer and the ten know the truth. Perhaps the truth is how the farmer tells it. Perhaps not.


I very much doubt if the farmer, or any farmer for that matter, is going to lie for the benefit of ten anglers. For what purpose? I cant see any good reason why this man should tell lies about something that is at the end of the day, his business.


This proposed ban that may be inflicted on these ten anglers is, in reality, not a punishment for them but a warning to others.


Obviously, the Great Ouse has great potential as a barbel venue. Not just Adams Mill and Kickles Farm but the whole river.


Those clubs wanting a ban are concerned with protecting their own members interests.


I have to say, in reality, their interests are or should be, already protected if they are members of the NFA.


All of the fishing clubs that I belong to have a rule within their constitutions that say if any member tries to obtain their fishing leases then that member shall be expelled from the club and that they shall be reported to the NFA.


I would be very surprised if the neighbouring clubs on the Great Ouse dont already have some sort of alliance formed already to protect each others fishing rights.


As for banning the ten from fishing on other Ouse club waters, I have grave reservations.


If the ten are innocent of certain charges being made, an injustice will be served on those anglers. If the farmer did approach the anglers first with an offer, who could honestly blame them for taking up such an invitation.


Frankly, I have no interest what so ever in fishing on the Great Ouse anywhere. I could care less about Kickles Farm or Adams Mill as a barbel fishing venue for myself. I am strictly a Trent barbeler. To those who fish anywhere on the Great Ouse, good luck to you.


But; I strongly feel that before any ban takes place, the truth, if it is not already, must be known. Only then, can punishment be meated out by those who feel that punishment is required.


"Truth is all. Everything else is just cheap whiskey".


(I nicked that saying from a poor film by the way. Best line in it)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DerwentBob

Trent.Barbeler:If the farmer did approach the anglers first with an offer, who could honestly blame them for taking up such an invitation.


DerwentBob: Well I could for one, doesn't loyalty count for anything anymore. I honestly KNOW that in the same situation I would refuse. By showing water owners that the same revenue can be gained from a small syndicate as leasing to a large club the anglers are setting a dangerous precedent irrespective of who approached who. There are frequent calls for anglers to stick together but these ten have shown that they couldn't give a fig for their fellow clubmembers. Their own self-interest rules the day therefore I cannot condemn the clubs for sticking up for their existing members and I applaud the fact that they have come together to make a protest about the situation.


If you are wondering why I am so vehement in my opposition to the syndicate, I was in a similar situation sometime before. I used to play golf at a little course close to my home and one day a club was set up and I could no longer buy a season ticket. All the former players applied to the club thinking that it would simply be a change of ownership but the club turned us down as they were trying to keep it small, the result: I and many other people no longer play golf.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dave Hill

Up until now I thought the clubs were wrong to ban the ten members... That was until Trent.Barbeler pointed out that there will most likely be a clause in the mebership agreement promising a ban if any member attempts to obtain the lease to any of the clubs waters!


If such a clause existed, then it really doesn't matter who approached who... they should be banned.


Just because a product is offered for sale, the potential customer still has to decide whether or not to buy it. If the clause existed, this is the point at which the ten members broke their contract with the club!


Just my opinion...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...