New proposal

[monkey]

Does the 3 that wanted it changed back include the Peterborough team that did not enter?
In addition the rest of Steve's argument seems legitimate to me.

[Steve McCann]

Let's also recognise that Stu didn't vote in favour of changing it back. Dale asked him if the old format could work using a stopclock (which was supposedly the case last year), and over 2 tables. Stu agreed with that and that was the height of his involvement.

While I'm sure he could be easily talking into voting the old system back, he wasn't asked to vote.

Monkey: Yes, the non-entering Peterborough team got a "vote".

[poolking100]

An absolute farce! You cant call a meeting with no agenda then change the rules that were set out at a "proper" meeting. I think Mickeys will be pulling out. We are having a vote on Thursday, if we do we will be wanting a full re-fund as the rules were changed after we had paid.

Steve I agree whole heartedly with you and wish I was at the meeting as I would have had quite a bit to say about a second vote!

[dad - AKA Onespin]

P'boro did not get a vote. They did previously tho (last proper meeting).

This is why Dale said the vote shouldn't stand, because P'Boro voted for it, and they aren't even part of the league.

It was a bit odd. Going into the meeting I never thought the format would be voted on again unless we needed 6 teams, and to try and accommodate p'boro.

As far as i knew it was to discuss if we could have a league of less than 6, to discuss Mickey's not going to yarmouth, and to sort out dates for the new season.

All very odd

[Dan]

Ok Gaz, but what I don't understand is that there were 6 teams. For the original vote to be passed through, there must have been a 4 to 2 majority. So even without Peterborough's vote, there should still have been a majority, or, ignoring "Cambridge"'s vote as they were not there, a split vote.

"26. Any alterations to the Constitution or General rules can only be done by majority vote in favour at a General Meeting"


So, we'll see everyone up CSC for the first matches of this season.

[dad - AKA Onespin]

ok..........on the original vote it was 3-2

P'boro were for
Mickeys were for
St Neots were for
Ely were against
CWMC were against
CSC did not vote

If you take P'boro out that makes it 2-2, and therefore no change. Dale argued that P'boro should not come into it, as they aren't in the league. Therefore it was changed.

It was not changed via the correct procedure as such, however if you take P'boro vote out, it stands at 2-2 therefore no change. Or if revoted on, which kind of happened then St Neots didnt vote as such, still leaving at 2-2, therefore no change.

The whole thing came about simply because P'Boro dropped out, and it was felt their vote shouldn't count

[monkey]

Jan 11, 2010 0:00:07 GMT monkey said:

It was decided that Monday evenings were still the best time to have it. However some teams did not wish to play on 10 ocassions to take part in the league. As such, if the same number of teams enter it will be reduced to 5 evenings. This will be done by playing two matches on each match night. To enable this all matches will be played at CSC.
Not sure if this is the right way to go but 4 out of the 6 interleague captains voted in favour.

?

[monkey]

Jan 12, 2010 10:04:15 GMT monkey said:

The Workies and Ely voted against.

Peterborough, Mickey's, St Neots and CSC voted for.

Taking Peterborough out still leaves 3-2.

[dad - AKA Onespin]

Apr 27, 2010 13:48:04 GMT monkey said:

Jan 12, 2010 10:04:15 GMT monkey said:

The Workies and Ely voted against.

Peterborough, Mickey's, St Neots and CSC voted for.

Taking Peterborough out still leaves 3-2.

CSC didn't vote mate - this was confirmed on Monday night

[monkey]

How was it confirmed on Monday night and by who? Do we have minutes from either of the meetings?

[Dan]

Dale does like to argue! I would have to strongly disagree here. The vote at the time included P'Boro, and therefore that should stand; end of story. The second "vote"/Discounting of P'boro is completely irrelevant as it was not done at their AGM. That should be that.

I think you should argue the case, Gaz. If they wont accept it, complain to whoever the higher authority is! Make it happen! It's in the CAPL's interests for the Committee to follow it up as thoroughly as possible as the result of this whole fiasco directly affects, I would imagine, at least 12 or 13 of it's players, plus possible Yarmouth representation.

To be honest, I'm far less interested in playing now, partly because of this, but partly because the best two teams wont be playing. That's surely what Interleague is all about? Playing the best players, getting the odd scalp. Yeah I guess it means there is a better chance of qualifying, but we still wouldn't have beaten the teams we should have had to to qualify. That takes the shine off of it for me.

They take entries after the AGM every year, so the only consistent way is to get last seasons teams to vote anyway. For example, I could turn up next year, inform them im setting up a team at the plough, get a free vote and then not enter my team, and, low and behold, the exact same situation arises next season.

[dad - AKA Onespin]

I recall no minutes were taken at the last meeting at which you were present. I also recall that Dale said how the voting went at Friday's meeting, and he mentioned that CSC abstained from the vote, to which everyone agreed

I do remember Steve abstaining from the vote, as Ian was trying to get him to vote his way, and he didn't vote

[Steve McCann]

The original vote isn't what is important, when the original vote (at the correct time) was made, this was before any entry forms had been sent off or any money taken.

At that time, the vote was passed. Peterborough were eligible to vote at the general meeting as they had entered a team in the previous year. (That's the only criterion to allow teams to vote, you can't allow "future" entrants a vote as they "may" enter).

CSC abstained as myself and Monkey (remember, you were there) believed there would be people for and against the change within the team.

The issue is, that 60+ players have signed up for teams based on the rules and formats voted in at the general meeting, and now a few individuals have decided they don't want it that way and turned the league on its head.

Ron told us that there used to be 14 teams in the league. I think it is occurances like this which have ensured that the number of teams entering has been dropping rather than increasing in the last 10 years.

[Steve McCann]

Ron also did not believe the Peterborough vote should be discounted at the meeting.

However, I heard the words to the effect of "Peterborough haven't even entered a team so there vote should be null and void" as well as "We want Peterborough in the league and if we change the format they may come back" about 6-7 times each which made it look very much like anything and everything would be said that may change Ron's mind. It was a joke meeting.

[dad - AKA Onespin]

Yea the county meetings are a bit like that. V different to what u are used to. It's up to Ron to control these better tho, and not get swayed by the ones that shout loudest.

They've now put themselves in an awkward position, and are looking at refunding players who already paid under the last vote.

I'm sure they'll learn from this though moving forward, so that voting is structured, and can't be gone back on at a later date

[monkey]

One further point. "If you don't have two tables the away team can request a move to another venue that has two tables"

Will Ely, St Neots and the CWMC be happy paying £35 entry fee and getting possibly two home fixtures?

[Steve McCann]

I know for sure that my team won't want a late night in either Ely or St. Neots so will be demanding two tables. That is, provided my players are still interested in playing.

[dad - AKA Onespin]

Speaking for CWMC, the players have paid the fee, and I wont be asking CWMC to pay it back for this season.

All of this comes down to the County committee's decision to override the original vote. This was Ron's decision alone, and probably the wrong one, even if the original decision was the wrong one in the first place based on P'boros vote or whatever.

I did mention to Ron before the meeting in my league capacity that any change would cause issues in players that have signed up to the format, which he agreed with. This was when if we needed 6 teams we would have to try and accommodate P'boro.

However he made the decision to override that.

I will ensure that Cambridge players will get a refund of their £8 if they want to, through the county.

[Dan]

Or a late night in the CWMC, for that matter, Steve! It seems like an illogical rule to me anyway, why not just make the teams play at a venue with two tables.

[Steve McCann]

That's what the rule used to be, and that's what Ron wants.

However, the rule was changed (by vote, no doubt) some time in the past as many teams which attempted to enter did not have 2 table venues and the county want as many inter-league teams as possible.

I don't see why players wouldn't want to give the 2 matches a night at CSC idea a go, it means they get more pool and there would be a greater atmosphere as all teams would be at the same location for the match nights.

Then again, it is hard to know to get an idea of what the players want when you turn up to a meeting with no agenda. I don't even think the captains had any right to vote again without discussing it with their teams (myself included).