Niko
Potter
Mickeys (A)
Posts: 62
|
Post by Niko on Apr 27, 2010 23:48:09 GMT
This is an interesting debate. The comments about poor organization of the interleague maybe hold some truth but remember nobody is getting paid to run the interleague setup. I am sure all offers of help would be gratefully received... In my experience the CAPL is the exception, not the rule. To run a league as well as the CAPL is run takes a lot of effort and time by those involved. Perhaps you Cambridge lads are a little lucky having such a fine setup ;D I am a little confused about the Peterborough vote (first time around) as it looks like they voted 'for' the 'new proposal'... but it seems that they aren't entering a team because of the 'new proposal' being adopted. What have I missed ? When the interleague was resurrected all the teams entering did so because they were keen to play all over Cambridgeshire, against new players, in new venues. All those entering did so knowing that it meant travel and some late nights. That is the nature of interleague. Initially the matches were played on 2 tables but that requirement was dropped when the players realised that playing matches on 2 tables was pretty rubbish really and that more teams would enter the interleague if playing on just one table was possible. The league expanded to 14 teams during this time. There were matches played in Kings Lynn, Wisbech, Ely, Peterborough, St. Ives, St. Neots, Cambridge, Haverhill etc It was a good laugh and very competitive. Now I am reading a comment "demanding" that St Neots and Ely provide 2 tables so as to avoid a late night. This is from a Cambridge player who will have 1 fixture to play in Ely (14 miles?) and 1 fixture in St. Neots (18 miles?) The other 6 fixtures will be in Cambridge. A St. Neots player will have 1 visit to Ely and 3 to Cambridge with 4 at home. ie. 4 possible late nights. An Ely player will be similar to St. Neots. The 'new proposal' would mean Cambridge based players being able to stroll to the pub every fixture whilst the rest of the county would have a "late night" every fixture. I guess some of you good people wouldn't have been interested in an away fixture in Peterborough, Wisbech, Haverhill, Kings Lynn , Ely, St. Neots etc which is a shame because it was good fun late nights or not. There seems to be a bit of a divide between.... .... those who enjoy the interleague for what it is, a league, a chance to get away from your domestic league and meet new faces, a chance to turn over another league on the table of their choice, good fun sometimes, a bit of a grind at other times, a chance to qualify for the greater prize and go to the interleague finals.... .... and those who see the interleague as an inconvenience, just a method of qualifying for Yarmouth, something to be got out of the way as soon as possible. I can understand the frustration at the rules being changed after money is taken, that seems a very fair criticism but what is it that Mickeys (or Cambridge) object to with the normal standard league format ? Why must it all be at CSC ? Is it the number of fixtures that causes the problem or the distances involved ? Would Mickeys (or Cambridge) have voted for the 'new proposal' (ie. 2 matches per night over 5 nights) if it was to be played in Peterborough or St. Neots or Wisbech rather than at CSC?
|
|
|
Post by orrible on Apr 28, 2010 10:11:13 GMT
I have just read alll this, this morning after seeing Monkey's e-mail to Ron (which I'm sure he'll share on here?).
I e-mailed Izzy yesterday having received the minutes of "that" meeting.
I'm suprised there were any minutes at all. it seemed a complete farce. I explained a number of things....
1. No agenda for the meeting. 2. Meeting short notice and no reason given for holding one. 3. The fine was agreed (somehow) under "A.O.B" without speaking to Mickey Flynns captain for an explanation. 4. I also mentioned what is so evident, that a vote (if you can call it that) cannot take place without the meeting being described as "emergency" or "special." None of that was done! 5. I said Will scott would get feedback from the players regarding whether they still wanted to enter? So far 3 players out of 4 spoken to, are not interested. It doesn't look as though we will have a team!
I also said that they could not vote to change it with only 3 members present but mostly (as has been mentioned), monies have been taken, having been sold the new format. You can't take money and then change the rules. My players were happy as it was and not happy as it is and wouldn't have entered.
As things stand, we will not be entering and requesting full refunds and appealing the fine. This is very sad!
|
|
|
Post by Steve McCann on Apr 28, 2010 10:41:06 GMT
What if a Peterborough team doesn't come out of the woodwork; they did miss the registration deadline after all?
With Mickeys possibly dropping out, then you have 4 teams. This is not enough for a league to qualify for Yarmouth and so will the other teams maintain interest; this could turn things into a complete mess!
|
|
|
Post by orrible on Apr 28, 2010 10:59:38 GMT
Taking Peterborough out still leaves 3-2. CSC didn't vote mate - this was confirmed on Monday night Steve did vote to change it.
|
|
|
Post by orrible on Apr 28, 2010 11:00:12 GMT
Just sent........
Hi Izzy
I just spoke to Will Scott and the majority of the team members have been spoken to and it is becoming unanimous.
I can now confirm that due to the changes made to the fixture format on Friday, "Cambridge" (ex Mickey flynns) withdraw from the league We would therefore request a full refund of entry fee's and affiliation fee's.
It is very dis-appointing to say the least.
If the meeting of 23rd April 2010 is "null and void" (as suggested), we will still have a team. if not? We don't.
Kind Regards
Ian Norris
PS How did Peterborough get a vote? Were there votes or discussions? It is all vey confusing?
|
|
|
Post by orrible on Apr 28, 2010 11:06:43 GMT
this could turn things into a complete mess! It will. I think Ron was right to hold a meeting but wrong to give such short notice. To hold it on a Friday is ridiculous too. I didn't get the letter to attend (not being Captain any more) so I don't know what it said? I think it is obvious that votes were made that shouldn't have been made.Also once apologies were sent from St Neots and Cambridge, it should have been obvious that a proper vote could not take place! Especially a vote from peterborough FFS!! This is the same woman who was very vocal at the last meeting!
|
|
|
Post by orrible on Apr 28, 2010 11:11:08 GMT
Do we have minutes from either of the meetings? Inter-League Meeting 24 April 2010 (it was the 23rd Actually)at Cambridge Snooker Centre Coldhams Road, Cambridge, CB1 3EW At 8.00pm Attended Ron Nesbitt (RN) Chairman Stephen McCann (SM) Cambridge Snooker Centre Izzy Tyers (IT) Secretary / Treasurer Garry Browne (GB) Cambridge Bruvs Lynne Bridger Peterborough Dale Parson Ely Apologies Will Scott (WS) Cambs Micky Flynns Stuart McPherson (SM) St Neots Niki Bayes (NB) Inter-League Secretary 1. Roll Call RN opened the meeting at 8.00pm. 2. Minutes No Minutes were provided as none had been taken at the last meeting on Sunday 10m January 2010. 3. Matters Arising None 4. Inter-League Rules No changes 5. Inter-League Fixture Dates A discussion about fixtures took place. At the last meeting it was decided that 2 games are to be played on 2 tables at Cambridge Snooker Centre on a Monday evening, therefore cutting down the number of evenings used. This didn’t seem to be acceptable to some teams as this still wouldn’t cut down the time of play. After a long discussion a decision was made that the fixtures would revert back to Home and Away at each venue with 2 tables to be used if possible. If a venue has only one table then the away team can request that the match be played at a neutral venue which has 2 tables. Stop Watches are to be used at every match whether 2 tables or one are used. (cont.) 6. Inter-League Secretary It was decided that LB take over the Inter-Leagues duties as NB hasn’t got a computer because the Laptop that the CPA provided her with has malfunctioned and therefore cannot be used. NB has told RN that she will bring the Laptop to the next County Match to be brought back to Peterborough so that RN or IT can get it repaired by their contact. 7. Any Other Business a) RN stated that he is still waiting to be qualified as the official Cambridgeshire CRB Checker. The EPA are dithering about as the Secretary and other Officials do not understand the procedures or the necessity of these checks. Every Captain / Adult that does an activity with youths / vulnerable adults more than 5 times a month must be CRB checked from 26 July 2010. Each person checked will be given a number for life which is lodged with the ISA, therefore making it much easier to recheck people in the future. The EPA can become an Umbrella Body as they would have more than the minimum number of 100 adults checked and it would only cost them £300. This could be recouped by charging each person £2-£3 each person checked. b) RN said that Cambridge Mickey Flynns team dropped out of the Finals in Yarmouth at short notice. Again a discussion took place about this and the decision was that Mickey Flynns £50.00 Bond, which normally carries forward to the following year, will be forfeited and the new team will need to pay the £50.00 for this year. c) IT said that the Registration Forms were very slow in coming in and for Cambridgeshire to have an Inter-League she had to register players on-line before receiving their forms. She stressed that this is not acceptable and she will definitely not do it next year. There being no other business RN thanked everyone for attending and wished them a safe journey home, he closed the meeting at 9.05pm
|
|
|
Post by Steve McCann on Apr 28, 2010 11:13:03 GMT
The county have shot themselves in the foot if the "Cambridge" team pull out as they are a team in the inter-league who have a really good chance of doing well!
|
|
|
Post by Steve McCann on Apr 28, 2010 11:16:49 GMT
"After a long discussion a decision was made that the fixtures would revert back to Home and Away at each venue with 2 tables to be used if possible. If a venue has only one table then the away team can request that the match be played at a neutral venue which has 2 tables."
If decisions are made by taking what is said the loudest and most times, then this minute is incorrect. If a venue has only one table then the home team would willingly go to the away team's home venue for the match. That is what was discussed, neutrality of venue was never discussed.
But that is inconsequential to the bigger picture.
|
|
|
Post by orrible on Apr 28, 2010 12:08:30 GMT
It's very frustrating to hear about what went on. It must have been excrutiating to have been there Steve, going by your posts?
By the way, Peterborough did not know about the meeting and did not send a representative. Lynne Bridger is not part of Peterborough pool association and has no right to attend, never mind a vote. So I suppose my question is; Who told her about the meeting?? Why was she allowed involvement?
|
|
|
Post by Steve McCann on Apr 28, 2010 12:19:50 GMT
It was basically the same as the last meeting but without Stu, Andy Mear and yourself Ian in attendance (which were 3 who voted for the change).
The time for discussing the format had long since passed and any arguments that were put forward meant nothing, in my opinion, as the format had been set as 5 nights, 2 matches per night.
Unfortunately, you can get far in this day and age by completely ignoring the issue at hand and blindly ranting about commitment. The county made a commitment to us when the vote was passed at the first meeting and now have gone back on their word.
|
|
Niko
Potter
Mickeys (A)
Posts: 62
|
Post by Niko on Apr 28, 2010 12:40:27 GMT
It looks as though Andy Mear (Peterborough) was one of those who voted 'for' the new proposal.
However, Peterborough have now decided not to enter a side.
I am trying to understand this situation but it doesn't make sense.
Why have Peterborough not backed a proposal that they voted for ?
|
|
|
Post by Becks on Apr 28, 2010 12:47:54 GMT
Sitting on the outside I can see both sides of the argument ref teams travelling to away matches and Cambridge having all the home matches, I can also see that it is wrong to take an entry fee to the league after agreeing a playing format then to change it by going back on a decision that was voted in and then only to be reverted back to the original format after snap meeting where all parties was not informed is a sham.
I don’t know why you lot don’t break away from Cambridgeshire all together and form your own “Cambridge superleague” under the CAPL, I’m sure you’ll get a better turnout than the present 4 -6 teams at present. You have 3-4 venues that have 2 tables available Mickey’s, Rathmore, Fulbourn Inst & CSC that could be used if you need 2 tables.
Or call an SGM to sort this mess out quickly as the only loser’s here is going to be all you pool players.
|
|
|
Post by orrible on Apr 28, 2010 13:00:02 GMT
It looks as though Andy Mear (Peterborough) was one of those who voted 'for' the new proposal. However, Peterborough have now decided not to enter a side. I am trying to understand this situation but it doesn't make sense. Why have Peterborough not backed a proposal that they voted for ? P/Boro wanted to play on 3/4 Sundays! Inc K/O cup comp! In the end the 2 matches on a Monday was a compromise for them because Mickeys (Cambridge) were not going to enter playing so many fixtures and neither were they! Latey, the players decided option 2 was no good either. Mondays and so many fixture is the issue! John Roe being over committed didn't help matters when he qualified for England. "Cambridge" will still play if the format they bought into is replaced.
|
|
Niko
Potter
Mickeys (A)
Posts: 62
|
Post by Niko on Apr 28, 2010 13:16:36 GMT
Thanks for the comprehensive explanation Orrible that makes a lot more sense now.
I have another question.
If the new format (2 matches per night over 5 monday nights) was adopted but was based at a venue in Peterborough or St.Neots or Wisbech etc or indeed it was rotated between these venues, would the Mickeys team enter ?
|
|
|
Post by orrible on Apr 29, 2010 8:31:02 GMT
Couldn't be done! Work out a fixture list and see if you can get the right teams to the right venue? Impossible! There is no other venue that has enough tables to accomodate all on one night!
|
|
Niko
Potter
Mickeys (A)
Posts: 62
|
Post by Niko on Apr 29, 2010 20:00:45 GMT
I am not talking about the practicalities.
I am asking whether, if it were possible, whether Mickeys would enter a side. Theoretically speaking, if you will.
|
|
|
Post by Becks on Apr 30, 2010 0:02:07 GMT
This is an interesting debate. The comments about poor organization of the interleague maybe hold some truth but remember nobody is getting paid to run the interleague setup. I am sure all offers of help would be gratefully received... In my experience the CAPL is the exception, not the rule. To run a league as well as the CAPL is run takes a lot of effort and time by those involved. Perhaps you Cambridge lads are a little lucky having such a fine setup ;D It’s because we listen to our members, All 800+ of them! & may I add unpaid with no expenses to any committee member with all funds going back in to C.A.P.L. Confused? All the other teams did vote for the “new proposal” You should ask Peterborough but as they haven’t entered can’t vote now surely. The teams have voted for a change, it may be for the better or not, but they do want a change hence the vote! If the matches were initially on 2 tables, then went to 1 & now teams would like 2 tables again, Why not? If players can avoid a late night you may get more teams to enter. Work must come first in these hard times. But the teams voted to hold every fixture in Cambridge, so how can a vote for the change be over turned after taking their entry fee? This is your opinion & should not distract you or cloud your judgement from what the county set out to achieve from pool players in Cambridgeshire or what has been voted in by a majority vote at meetings. It’s not to say change is correct but sometimes force upon us which may be improved to achieve success. Will they be refunded if they decide to pull out now the new playing format that was voted in has been reversed? From what I can make out it was everything, too many fixtures being the main problem, Therefore the change to reduce this by using a venue that could accommodate all teams with a good number of tables for all. Is there any where else that could do this within Cambridgeshire? Hence CSC was voted as the venue at the time of the vote. I can see why all are angered by changing, reversing a decision that was voted on then paying their entry for that playing format only to be told sorry were going back to the old format which they voted out by the majority. I feel you all need to get together with all teams that wish to enter and come to some agreement how you wish to proceed as time is not on your side or this is going to fold which does not benefit anyone. I suggest a pub in Huntingdon as this is central to all, Ely, Cambridge, St Neots & Peterborough & thrash it out. Good luck
|
|
|
Post by poolking100 on May 1, 2010 17:02:12 GMT
The bottom line of all this is that 12 guys were read and raring to go. Also every other team was (otherwise they would mot have paid their entry fees). As a result of a meeting that changed the rules those 12 players are no longer ready and raring to go. Dale I do agree with you about pretty much everything you have said and yes you are right we would not have ebtered a team if the venue had been Peterborough. However after the decision was made for it to be over fewer nights and on more tables at a venue close to home we did enter. The format change has put paid to that now. I paid £40 out of my own pocket to register other players. It is only fair now that we are re-funded in full as the terms we enered on have now changed.
|
|
|
Post by orrible on May 4, 2010 11:14:05 GMT
It has been confirmed that all our monies paid will be refunded.
Izzy (more than likely cohersed by another official?) has stated that the January meeting should not have changed the format!
You couldn't make it up!!
Peterborough set a proposal - it is discussed by 100% attendance - a compromise is made - vote is carried! The second meeting is idiotic and poorly planned "IMO".
It is very sad. I for one was looking forward to putting right our last visit to Yarmouth and now because of this mess, it won't happen.
I don't think this will end here. The CAPL committee are discussing a couple of complaints received ....
|
|