|
Post by Box on Mar 20, 2013 19:18:17 GMT
As a quick example............... If we'd have relegated all teams just 1 division, then that would have meant the following: Div 4: 5 relegations Div 5: 6 relegations - including teams that had 18 & 20pts Div 6: 7 relegations - including teams that had 19pts Div 7: 6 relegations - including teams that had 18 & 24pts Keeping it as 2 relegations for some teams meant it looked like this: Div 4: 5 relegations Div 5: 4 relegations - most amount of points gained by a relegated team was 15pts Div 6: 5 relegations - most amount of points gained by a relegated team was 17pts Div 7: 4 relegations - most amount of points gained by a relegated team was 14pts As you can see if we relegated 1 division at a time it meant multiple teams getting relegated, and the bottom 2 teams playing the same teams as last season, and in effect not being relegated to play teams below where they were. It also means much less relegations, and not relegating teams above 17pts. I'm glad you didn't go for option A. Relegating HBL from 4th in Div 7 with 24 points would of been a complete kick in the teeth for all lower league teams who devote a lot of hours and money to field a team all season would be thinking.... if playing in the CAPL league is how we are going to get treated after trying our best then it is NOT worth bothering with again!! My suggestion would have been for curbing the team count in the CAPL at 80 and say to 2 of the new teams (after a fair ballot) sorry, try again next season... without upsetting the majority, having Prem and Div 1-7 and moving just a few teams in the correct directions ...
|
|
|
Post by Craig Benstock on Mar 20, 2013 19:34:02 GMT
I agree with you that it should be limited to 80 teams btw.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Mar 20, 2013 23:14:05 GMT
The constitution states that the committee will place a team based on their ability. Our team consists of 3 players who finished 3rd in the Premier league with the old boys this season, three players who played in division 4 this season, all above 50% and Andy Bowles who won the division two hotshots I think the season before this.
While I agree that other teams should not generally be relegated if a new team is formed, at the same time I don't think it's fair to place us in one of the bottom couple of leagues and (in my opinion) taking away the chance for another team of winning the league...
It was an awkward number of teams that have entered this season and it has meant the committee have had limited flexibility in the format of the leagues, which is what has made this an issue in the first place. I don't envy them!
|
|
|
Post by monkey on Mar 21, 2013 4:55:53 GMT
Absolutely ridiculous. NO team should ever be relegated down 2 divisions. Truly disgraceful, I don't care what the 'explanation' is, there is no justification for it. Whats to stop them relegating a team 3 divisions, just cos it makes life easier?? Or relegating them 2 divisions next year if they get relegated again (distinct possibility, frankly id stop playing if i was relegated 2 divisions for no reason other than 'it makes life a bit easier'!!!! So a team could easily lose most of its players and then suffer the same fate again if it couldnt find decent replacements) Personally I think the whole relegations thing shouldnt be an issue anyway. It should be fixed. end of, 1 or 2 teams. New teams shouldn't be slotted in at the expense of others, and certainly not relegated 2 divisions! Words fail me. We get too many super teams being created that are short lived glory hunters and other teams lose hard fought places to accomodate these frankly flaky wannabes. The counter argument is of course that its unfair to place them in lower divisions -well i dont reckon you'd get that many taking it up if starting at the bottom (like they should) was the only option! Appalling decision making (yet again). I know its a thankless task (believe me ive run my share of committees before), but decisions like this really dont help their cause at all. Of course there are going to be complaints!! Mainly because some team just got royally f*cked over!! We really should be all up in arms about this to be honest, because if it can happen to them it can happen to anyone! (unless you're in the prem probably) Hi Tim You are of course entitled to your opinion. I am not sure if your comments are like Orrible and designed to provoke a reaction or you really believe what you have said. If it is the latter then I am sorry that you think the decisions are ridiculous and an absolute disgrace. There has been talk that we should have limited the number of teams to 80. We could have done that a couple of years ago when the league reached 72 teams. We could have made the same decision and limited it to 70. Instead we have allowed the league to grow. I think that was the correct decision then and it is hopefully the correct decision now. Time will tell. Let's say we did what one person has suggested and limited the number to 80 with the 5 new teams drawing lots for the 3 available places. What if the 2 teams that missed out were the new Emperor teams. The pub has just installed three pool tables and we turn around and say sorry "no room in the league". What sort of message would that send out to Landlord's. We are all constantly bemoaning the dearth of pubs and pool tables. Just look at those that have been lost recently. The Cricketers, Plough, Rosemary Branch, Queen Edith, Five Bells and Osborne Arms from the top of my head. When a pub installs tables and supports the league we should, in my opinion, be supporting that and not saying sorry no room. How about we say hard luck to the last 2 teams to register. Mickey Flynn's C were the last team to give me the money. Should i tell one of our main sponsors of the league that one of their teams is not allowed to enter. Second last was Portland Arms (B). A pub that has been in the league for many years and provides some of the best pub food in the league. They have also supported the league with an advert for a few seasons. Again, refuse them entry? In short i think it is very difficult to confine the league to 80 teams. We therefore have 82 teams and this is an awkward number to deal with. We have acted in the best interests of the league as a whole. We did consider 5 divisions of 10 and 2 divisions of 16. The top 5 divisions would be 10 teams and the bottom two would be 16. The bottom two divisions would be playing each other just the once. We rejected this because we thought it would be difficult marrying up the fixtures of establishments that have A and B teams in the different divisions. We also thought it would lead to too many meaningless matches towards the end of the season. We also considered 7 divisions of 10 and a bottom division of 12. Again, the bottom division would play each team once and then do a Scottish Premier Division style split with the top 6 and bottom 6 playing each other once more to make a total of 16 fixtures. However, we again thought the fixtures would be difficult to marry up. Also, we would not be able to give all teams their fixtures at the start of the season. After 11 weeks we would then need to add fixtures and try to balance home and away matches and again marry up with existing teams at the same venues. We were not sure if that would be possible. This may be something we will look into for the future. The decision to relegate some teams by two divisions was a hard one. If we did not do this then some divisions would have had mass relegations as described by Garry Browne. We thought this was the lesser of two evils. The decision was made in an attempt to be fairer rather than because it was easier. The new teams have been slotted in as high as we could whilst trying to cause the least amount of disruption to the existing teams in the league. There were some committee members that thought the new Emperor (A) team should go into division 2. They are probably of the same standard as some of the teams that have recently entered the league in divisions 1 or 2. This was rejected as it would have meant relegating Rathmore (E) from division 2 and Cambridge City from division 3. The constitution states that new teams will, when possible be placed in a division that reflects their ability. If you think that this should not be the case then please send me an email to change the rules and it will be debated at the next GM. Not sure what you mean about super teams and flaky wannabes. Of the 7 or so teams that have recently entered the league in high divisions I believe that six are still going. Mickey Flynn’s A, CSC A, The Old Boys, CSC Young Guns and CSC H are all in the Prem and Hopbine A are joining them this season. I believe only Mickey Flynn’s Arbers have folded. I assume your comment about a super team this season refers to the Emperor (A). This comprises players that have played over 1,700 frames between them in the league in the last 5 years. Not sure how that makes them short lived glory hunters? Most of them played as a team for a few years and moved venue three times. Each time the Pub either closed or took out the pool table. The new Emperor tables have given them a chance to start again. You are probably right that if starting at the bottom was the only option then they wouldn’t join. Is that promoting pool? Look at CSC (A). They were going to start in division 2 but managed to get into division 1 and then have recently represented Cambridge in the Champion of Champions national tournament and made the semi finals. This would not have been possible if they had to start in the bottom division. However, if that rule was brought in then I would imagine you would get far more of the swapping that led to CSC (A) getting into division one. You have stated that the number of relegations should be the same every season. In your words it should be fixed? We normally relegate two teams in each division. Last season we went against this and Rathmore (E) stayed in division two despite finishing second bottom. I cannot remember receiving a comment from you that your team did not get relegated? Telling us it is a disgrace and awful decision making may be your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. It would be better if you could come up with some constructive criticism. I would be pleased to listen to your alternative scenarios? One of your previous complaints was that the Queen Edith (A) started a season with two away fixtures in a row. Given that complaint, I have probably spent way too much time answering this one.
|
|
spaff
Improving
Posts: 41
|
Post by spaff on Mar 21, 2013 12:32:37 GMT
Well said Monkey. I think this proves that any decision that has been made by the committee, whether people think it is right or wrong, is not taken lightly.
|
|
|
Post by controller on Mar 21, 2013 13:13:18 GMT
picking single sentences out of entire explanations (given in the interest of transparency) isn't original orrible, copying other members styles is beneath even you, boredom is no excuse At the risk of picking out a sentence... obviously this is quiet unacceptable. Anyway... Did you consider I found the rest of it less "offensive?" What "style" is this you speak of? I didn't know you based your viewpoint on a style of writng? You are a strange wee little man
|
|
|
Post by controller on Mar 21, 2013 13:20:11 GMT
Ok.......Please enlighten us with how you would have dealt with this. No difficult really. You don't manage the entry's properly. You allow teams to shuffle around their players on a whim. Be stricter on entry conditions. This will make it easier to limit the number. get the established teams entered then any "changed" teams can apply and only get entered if it" befits the smooth running of the league" You can keep that one FOC You bleet on about being fair... How about relegating CSC Oz or H? That would also solve a problem of too many CSC teams in the prem.
|
|
|
Post by controller on Mar 21, 2013 13:24:01 GMT
11 or12 teams in a division adds on 4 extra weeks, which then would cause us issues around when the season ends, and the next one starts. . Easy. Separate Summer and Winter. Make winter longer with bigger divisions. make summer smaller divisions. But then this means Annual winners... Oh wait
|
|
|
Post by controller on Mar 21, 2013 13:25:31 GMT
Absolutely ridiculous. NO team should ever be relegated down 2 divisions. Truly disgraceful, I don't care what the 'explanation' is, there is no justification for it. Whats to stop them relegating a team 3 divisions, just cos it makes life easier?? Or relegating them 2 divisions next year if they get relegated again (distinct possibility, frankly id stop playing if i was relegated 2 divisions for no reason other than 'it makes life a bit easier'!!!! So a team could easily lose most of its players and then suffer the same fate again if it couldnt find decent replacements) Personally I think the whole relegations thing shouldnt be an issue anyway. It should be fixed. end of, 1 or 2 teams. New teams shouldn't be slotted in at the expense of others, and certainly not relegated 2 divisions! Words fail me. We get too many super teams being created that are short lived glory hunters and other teams lose hard fought places to accomodate these frankly flaky wannabes. The counter argument is of course that its unfair to place them in lower divisions -well i dont reckon you'd get that many taking it up if starting at the bottom (like they should) was the only option! Appalling decision making (yet again). I know its a thankless task (believe me ive run my share of committees before), but decisions like this really dont help their cause at all. Of course there are going to be complaints!! Mainly because some team just got royally f*cked over!! We really should be all up in arms about this to be honest, because if it can happen to them it can happen to anyone! (unless you're in the prem probably) Hi Tim You are of course entitled to your opinion. I am not sure if your comments are like Orrible and designed to provoke a reaction or you really believe what you have said. You will be hearing from my solicitor.
|
|
|
Post by The Halifax Ringer on Mar 21, 2013 20:36:13 GMT
Monkeys reply makes it clear to me why the CAPL is run as smoothly as a German machine. Some decisions may not be "perfect" but a demonstrable thought process behind them proves these decisions aren't made on a whim. I personally don't like the idea of relegating a team who finished 3rd bottom by the skin of their teeth, but I can see it's the wider picture that needs to be seen.
The entry of new teams will always be an issue though.
|
|
Lefty
International Player
Posts: 538
|
Post by Lefty on Mar 22, 2013 0:34:44 GMT
After reading all of the previous posts i have to say i'm still unsure if i totally agree with it all, but having been there myself i know this would have been well discussed and considered the best option in the opinion of the committee.
I would like to make a few points though:
If new teams had to start at the bottom, this would not stop 'super teams' forming simply by changing which players play for which teams. This would probably be a better solution as you won't gain an extra team (place needed) and as often is the case 2 teams into 3 means often one the the teams players have left will fold during the following season due to lack of players. This would have in my opinion been the better solution when CSC A was formed for instance.
As was mentioned the Emperor A team was placed that high as it contained several players from prem in the previous season, yet when Rathmore F was formed last summer season it contained players who played at a much higher standard than that such as Kim for instance, yet was placed in Div 6. The decision this season to place the new team into Div 4 meant a team that had lost just 6 games, 1 more than 3rd, gets relegated.
The point of 'super teams' being set-up and then being 'flaky' is founded and has been the case a few times, CSC X is a prime example of this.
The committee has a registration night, so why are teams that played in the league allowed to enter for the following season after this date? They know when it is, so if they can't make it contact the committee before hand to say if they want to enter or not. If that is the registration date, then thats when it should be, not for a few days after. Ppl take time to go and register, yet others are allowed to enter after this even when they haven't made that effort. This may also have an effect on entry numbers, but in the right way i feel.
The decision to 'relegate' a team 2 division is never easy but is always based upon the teams they would be playing in teh following season, and where those are that they played in the season that has just ended. Looking at that for the forthcoming season, i feel the right decision was made, even if it is a bit tough for some to take.
|
|
|
Post by P.A.U.L on Mar 22, 2013 7:39:38 GMT
Its scroll wheel time.... Absolutely ridiculous. NO team should ever be relegated down 2 divisions. Truly disgraceful, I don't care what the 'explanation' is, there is no justification for it. Whats to stop them relegating a team 3 divisions, just cos it makes life easier?? Or relegating them 2 divisions next year if they get relegated again (distinct possibility, frankly id stop playing if i was relegated 2 divisions for no reason other than 'it makes life a bit easier'!!!! So a team could easily lose most of its players and then suffer the same fate again if it couldnt find decent replacements) Personally I think the whole relegations thing shouldnt be an issue anyway. It should be fixed. end of, 1 or 2 teams. New teams shouldn't be slotted in at the expense of others, and certainly not relegated 2 divisions! Words fail me. We get too many super teams being created that are short lived glory hunters and other teams lose hard fought places to accomodate these frankly flaky wannabes. The counter argument is of course that its unfair to place them in lower divisions -well i dont reckon you'd get that many taking it up if starting at the bottom (like they should) was the only option! Appalling decision making (yet again). I know its a thankless task (believe me ive run my share of committees before), but decisions like this really dont help their cause at all. Of course there are going to be complaints!! Mainly because some team just got royally f*cked over!! We really should be all up in arms about this to be honest, because if it can happen to them it can happen to anyone! (unless you're in the prem probably) Hi Tim You are of course entitled to your opinion. I am not sure if your comments are like Orrible and designed to provoke a reaction or you really believe what you have said. If it is the latter then I am sorry that you think the decisions are ridiculous and an absolute disgrace. There has been talk that we should have limited the number of teams to 80. We could have done that a couple of years ago when the league reached 72 teams. We could have made the same decision and limited it to 70. Instead we have allowed the league to grow. I think that was the correct decision then and it is hopefully the correct decision now. Time will tell. Let's say we did what one person has suggested and limited the number to 80 with the 5 new teams drawing lots for the 3 available places. What if the 2 teams that missed out were the new Emperor teams. The pub has just installed three pool tables and we turn around and say sorry "no room in the league". What sort of message would that send out to Landlord's. We are all constantly bemoaning the dearth of pubs and pool tables. Just look at those that have been lost recently. The Cricketers, Plough, Rosemary Branch, Queen Edith, Five Bells and Osborne Arms from the top of my head. When a pub installs tables and supports the league we should, in my opinion, be supporting that and not saying sorry no room. How about we say hard luck to the last 2 teams to register. Mickey Flynn's C were the last team to give me the money. Should i tell one of our main sponsors of the league that one of their teams is not allowed to enter. Second last was Portland Arms (B). A pub that has been in the league for many years and provides some of the best pub food in the league. They have also supported the league with an advert for a few seasons. Again, refuse them entry? In short i think it is very difficult to confine the league to 80 teams. We therefore have 82 teams and this is an awkward number to deal with. We have acted in the best interests of the league as a whole. We did consider 5 divisions of 10 and 2 divisions of 16. The top 5 divisions would be 10 teams and the bottom two would be 16. The bottom two divisions would be playing each other just the once. We rejected this because we thought it would be difficult marrying up the fixtures of establishments that have A and B teams in the different divisions. We also thought it would lead to too many meaningless matches towards the end of the season. We also considered 7 divisions of 10 and a bottom division of 12. Again, the bottom division would play each team once and then do a Scottish Premier Division style split with the top 6 and bottom 6 playing each other once more to make a total of 16 fixtures. However, we again thought the fixtures would be difficult to marry up. Also, we would not be able to give all teams their fixtures at the start of the season. After 11 weeks we would then need to add fixtures and try to balance home and away matches and again marry up with existing teams at the same venues. We were not sure if that would be possible. This may be something we will look into for the future. The decision to relegate some teams by two divisions was a hard one. If we did not do this then some divisions would have had mass relegations as described by Garry Browne. We thought this was the lesser of two evils. The decision was made in an attempt to be fairer rather than because it was easier. The new teams have been slotted in as high as we could whilst trying to cause the least amount of disruption to the existing teams in the league. There were some committee members that thought the new Emperor (A) team should go into division 2. They are probably of the same standard as some of the teams that have recently entered the league in divisions 1 or 2. This was rejected as it would have meant relegating Rathmore (E) from division 2 and Cambridge City from division 3. The constitution states that new teams will, when possible be placed in a division that reflects their ability. If you think that this should not be the case then please send me an email to change the rules and it will be debated at the next GM. Not sure what you mean about super teams and flaky wannabes. Of the 7 or so teams that have recently entered the league in high divisions I believe that six are still going. Mickey Flynn’s A, CSC A, The Old Boys, CSC Young Guns and CSC H are all in the Prem and Hopbine A are joining them this season. I believe only Mickey Flynn’s Arbers have folded. I assume your comment about a super team this season refers to the Emperor (A). This comprises players that have played over 1,700 frames between them in the league in the last 5 years. Not sure how that makes them short lived glory hunters? Most of them played as a team for a few years and moved venue three times. Each time the Pub either closed or took out the pool table. The new Emperor tables have given them a chance to start again. You are probably right that if starting at the bottom was the only option then they wouldn’t join. Is that promoting pool? Look at CSC (A). They were going to start in division 2 but managed to get into division 1 and then have recently represented Cambridge in the Champion of Champions national tournament and made the semi finals. This would not have been possible if they had to start in the bottom division. However, if that rule was brought in then I would imagine you would get far more of the swapping that led to CSC (A) getting into division one. You have stated that the number of relegations should be the same every season. In your words it should be fixed? We normally relegate two teams in each division. Last season we went against this and Rathmore (E) stayed in division two despite finishing second bottom. I cannot remember receiving a comment from you that your team did not get relegated? Telling us it is a disgrace and awful decision making may be your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. It would be better if you could come up with some constructive criticism. I would be pleased to listen to your alternative scenarios? One of your previous complaints was that the Queen Edith (A) started a season with two away fixtures in a row. Given that complaint, I have probably spent way too much time answering this one. Quoting this considered and well written post to push Leftys pointless post off of my screen "I thank you"
|
|
|
Post by Craig Benstock on Mar 22, 2013 9:06:47 GMT
lol @ Paul.
So long as the committee use their own judgement to place teams rather then an elected system of placing all new teams in at the bottom for example, this will always be a contentious issue.
That counter argument is that if they don't use their own judgement then team placement becomes less fair to both the new teams and the teams within the division they are placed, and for as many seasons until said new team reaches a level at which it is competitive.
|
|
Jimbo
County Player
just play the game
Posts: 497
|
Post by Jimbo on Mar 22, 2013 17:43:57 GMT
Having only been on the committee for a short time, i can tell you that the lads argue all points of where to place each team, but it is always done with the best intentions, however as the saying goes, can't please everybody all the time. If a committee member is involved with a said team they have no input as to the outcome, again keeping it as fair as pos.
|
|
|
Post by controller on Mar 22, 2013 18:39:51 GMT
After reading all of the previous posts i have to say i'm still unsure if i totally agree with it all, but having been there myself i know this would have been well discussed and considered the best option in the opinion of the committee. I would like to make a few points though: If new teams had to start at the bottom, this would not stop 'super teams' forming simply by changing which players play for which teams. This would probably be a better solution as you won't gain an extra team (place needed) and as often is the case 2 teams into 3 means often one the the teams players have left will fold during the following season due to lack of players. This would have in my opinion been the better solution when CSC A was formed for instance. As was mentioned the Emperor A team was placed that high as it contained several players from prem in the previous season, yet when Rathmore F was formed last summer season it contained players who played at a much higher standard than that such as Kim for instance, yet was placed in Div 6. The decision this season to place the new team into Div 4 meant a team that had lost just 6 games, 1 more than 3rd, gets relegated. The point of 'super teams' being set-up and then being 'flaky' is founded and has been the case a few times, CSC X is a prime example of this. The committee has a registration night, so why are teams that played in the league allowed to enter for the following season after this date? They know when it is, so if they can't make it contact the committee before hand to say if they want to enter or not. If that is the registration date, then thats when it should be, not for a few days after. Ppl take time to go and register, yet others are allowed to enter after this even when they haven't made that effort. This may also have an effect on entry numbers, but in the right way i feel. The decision to 'relegate' a team 2 division is never easy but is always based upon the teams they would be playing in teh following season, and where those are that they played in the season that has just ended. Looking at that for the forthcoming season, i feel the right decision was made, even if it is a bit tough for some to take. good points.
|
|
|
Post by P.A.U.L on Mar 22, 2013 19:43:02 GMT
Its scroll wheel time.... Hi Tim You are of course entitled to your opinion. I am not sure if your comments are like Orrible and designed to provoke a reaction or you really believe what you have said. If it is the latter then I am sorry that you think the decisions are ridiculous and an absolute disgrace. There has been talk that we should have limited the number of teams to 80. We could have done that a couple of years ago when the league reached 72 teams. We could have made the same decision and limited it to 70. Instead we have allowed the league to grow. I think that was the correct decision then and it is hopefully the correct decision now. Time will tell. Let's say we did what one person has suggested and limited the number to 80 with the 5 new teams drawing lots for the 3 available places. What if the 2 teams that missed out were the new Emperor teams. The pub has just installed three pool tables and we turn around and say sorry "no room in the league". What sort of message would that send out to Landlord's. We are all constantly bemoaning the dearth of pubs and pool tables. Just look at those that have been lost recently. The Cricketers, Plough, Rosemary Branch, Queen Edith, Five Bells and Osborne Arms from the top of my head. When a pub installs tables and supports the league we should, in my opinion, be supporting that and not saying sorry no room. How about we say hard luck to the last 2 teams to register. Mickey Flynn's C were the last team to give me the money. Should i tell one of our main sponsors of the league that one of their teams is not allowed to enter. Second last was Portland Arms (B). A pub that has been in the league for many years and provides some of the best pub food in the league. They have also supported the league with an advert for a few seasons. Again, refuse them entry? In short i think it is very difficult to confine the league to 80 teams. We therefore have 82 teams and this is an awkward number to deal with. We have acted in the best interests of the league as a whole. We did consider 5 divisions of 10 and 2 divisions of 16. The top 5 divisions would be 10 teams and the bottom two would be 16. The bottom two divisions would be playing each other just the once. We rejected this because we thought it would be difficult marrying up the fixtures of establishments that have A and B teams in the different divisions. We also thought it would lead to too many meaningless matches towards the end of the season. We also considered 7 divisions of 10 and a bottom division of 12. Again, the bottom division would play each team once and then do a Scottish Premier Division style split with the top 6 and bottom 6 playing each other once more to make a total of 16 fixtures. However, we again thought the fixtures would be difficult to marry up. Also, we would not be able to give all teams their fixtures at the start of the season. After 11 weeks we would then need to add fixtures and try to balance home and away matches and again marry up with existing teams at the same venues. We were not sure if that would be possible. This may be something we will look into for the future. The decision to relegate some teams by two divisions was a hard one. If we did not do this then some divisions would have had mass relegations as described by Garry Browne. We thought this was the lesser of two evils. The decision was made in an attempt to be fairer rather than because it was easier. The new teams have been slotted in as high as we could whilst trying to cause the least amount of disruption to the existing teams in the league. There were some committee members that thought the new Emperor (A) team should go into division 2. They are probably of the same standard as some of the teams that have recently entered the league in divisions 1 or 2. This was rejected as it would have meant relegating Rathmore (E) from division 2 and Cambridge City from division 3. The constitution states that new teams will, when possible be placed in a division that reflects their ability. If you think that this should not be the case then please send me an email to change the rules and it will be debated at the next GM. Not sure what you mean about super teams and flaky wannabes. Of the 7 or so teams that have recently entered the league in high divisions I believe that six are still going. Mickey Flynn’s A, CSC A, The Old Boys, CSC Young Guns and CSC H are all in the Prem and Hopbine A are joining them this season. I believe only Mickey Flynn’s Arbers have folded. I assume your comment about a super team this season refers to the Emperor (A). This comprises players that have played over 1,700 frames between them in the league in the last 5 years. Not sure how that makes them short lived glory hunters? Most of them played as a team for a few years and moved venue three times. Each time the Pub either closed or took out the pool table. The new Emperor tables have given them a chance to start again. You are probably right that if starting at the bottom was the only option then they wouldn’t join. Is that promoting pool? Look at CSC (A). They were going to start in division 2 but managed to get into division 1 and then have recently represented Cambridge in the Champion of Champions national tournament and made the semi finals. This would not have been possible if they had to start in the bottom division. However, if that rule was brought in then I would imagine you would get far more of the swapping that led to CSC (A) getting into division one. You have stated that the number of relegations should be the same every season. In your words it should be fixed? We normally relegate two teams in each division. Last season we went against this and Rathmore (E) stayed in division two despite finishing second bottom. I cannot remember receiving a comment from you that your team did not get relegated? Telling us it is a disgrace and awful decision making may be your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. It would be better if you could come up with some constructive criticism. I would be pleased to listen to your alternative scenarios? One of your previous complaints was that the Queen Edith (A) started a season with two away fixtures in a row. Given that complaint, I have probably spent way too much time answering this one. Quoting this considered and well written post to push Leftys pointless post off of my screen "I thank you" But just summarising other posts..
|
|
|
Post by Steve McCann on Mar 22, 2013 19:44:07 GMT
Its scroll wheel time.... Quoting this considered and well written post to push Leftys pointless post off of my screen "I thank you" Absolutely ridiculous. NO team should ever be relegated down 2 divisions. Truly disgraceful, I don't care what the 'explanation' is, there is no justification for it. Whats to stop them relegating a team 3 divisions, just cos it makes life easier?? Or relegating them 2 divisions next year if they get relegated again (distinct possibility, frankly id stop playing if i was relegated 2 divisions for no reason other than 'it makes life a bit easier'!!!! So a team could easily lose most of its players and then suffer the same fate again if it couldnt find decent replacements) Personally I think the whole relegations thing shouldnt be an issue anyway. It should be fixed. end of, 1 or 2 teams. New teams shouldn't be slotted in at the expense of others, and certainly not relegated 2 divisions! Words fail me. We get too many super teams being created that are short lived glory hunters and other teams lose hard fought places to accomodate these frankly flaky wannabes. The counter argument is of course that its unfair to place them in lower divisions -well i dont reckon you'd get that many taking it up if starting at the bottom (like they should) was the only option! Appalling decision making (yet again). I know its a thankless task (believe me ive run my share of committees before), but decisions like this really dont help their cause at all. Of course there are going to be complaints!! Mainly because some team just got royally f*cked over!! We really should be all up in arms about this to be honest, because if it can happen to them it can happen to anyone! (unless you're in the prem probably) Hi Tim You are of course entitled to your opinion. I am not sure if your comments are like Orrible and designed to provoke a reaction or you really believe what you have said. If it is the latter then I am sorry that you think the decisions are ridiculous and an absolute disgrace. There has been talk that we should have limited the number of teams to 80. We could have done that a couple of years ago when the league reached 72 teams. We could have made the same decision and limited it to 70. Instead we have allowed the league to grow. I think that was the correct decision then and it is hopefully the correct decision now. Time will tell. Let's say we did what one person has suggested and limited the number to 80 with the 5 new teams drawing lots for the 3 available places. What if the 2 teams that missed out were the new Emperor teams. The pub has just installed three pool tables and we turn around and say sorry "no room in the league". What sort of message would that send out to Landlord's. We are all constantly bemoaning the dearth of pubs and pool tables. Just look at those that have been lost recently. The Cricketers, Plough, Rosemary Branch, Queen Edith, Five Bells and Osborne Arms from the top of my head. When a pub installs tables and supports the league we should, in my opinion, be supporting that and not saying sorry no room. How about we say hard luck to the last 2 teams to register. Mickey Flynn's C were the last team to give me the money. Should i tell one of our main sponsors of the league that one of their teams is not allowed to enter. Second last was Portland Arms (B). A pub that has been in the league for many years and provides some of the best pub food in the league. They have also supported the league with an advert for a few seasons. Again, refuse them entry? In short i think it is very difficult to confine the league to 80 teams. We therefore have 82 teams and this is an awkward number to deal with. We have acted in the best interests of the league as a whole. We did consider 5 divisions of 10 and 2 divisions of 16. The top 5 divisions would be 10 teams and the bottom two would be 16. The bottom two divisions would be playing each other just the once. We rejected this because we thought it would be difficult marrying up the fixtures of establishments that have A and B teams in the different divisions. We also thought it would lead to too many meaningless matches towards the end of the season. We also considered 7 divisions of 10 and a bottom division of 12. Again, the bottom division would play each team once and then do a Scottish Premier Division style split with the top 6 and bottom 6 playing each other once more to make a total of 16 fixtures. However, we again thought the fixtures would be difficult to marry up. Also, we would not be able to give all teams their fixtures at the start of the season. After 11 weeks we would then need to add fixtures and try to balance home and away matches and again marry up with existing teams at the same venues. We were not sure if that would be possible. This may be something we will look into for the future. The decision to relegate some teams by two divisions was a hard one. If we did not do this then some divisions would have had mass relegations as described by Garry Browne. We thought this was the lesser of two evils. The decision was made in an attempt to be fairer rather than because it was easier. The new teams have been slotted in as high as we could whilst trying to cause the least amount of disruption to the existing teams in the league. There were some committee members that thought the new Emperor (A) team should go into division 2. They are probably of the same standard as some of the teams that have recently entered the league in divisions 1 or 2. This was rejected as it would have meant relegating Rathmore (E) from division 2 and Cambridge City from division 3. The constitution states that new teams will, when possible be placed in a division that reflects their ability. If you think that this should not be the case then please send me an email to change the rules and it will be debated at the next GM. Not sure what you mean about super teams and flaky wannabes. Of the 7 or so teams that have recently entered the league in high divisions I believe that six are still going. Mickey Flynn’s A, CSC A, The Old Boys, CSC Young Guns and CSC H are all in the Prem and Hopbine A are joining them this season. I believe only Mickey Flynn’s Arbers have folded. I assume your comment about a super team this season refers to the Emperor (A). This comprises players that have played over 1,700 frames between them in the league in the last 5 years. Not sure how that makes them short lived glory hunters? Most of them played as a team for a few years and moved venue three times. Each time the Pub either closed or took out the pool table. The new Emperor tables have given them a chance to start again. You are probably right that if starting at the bottom was the only option then they wouldn’t join. Is that promoting pool? Look at CSC (A). They were going to start in division 2 but managed to get into division 1 and then have recently represented Cambridge in the Champion of Champions national tournament and made the semi finals. This would not have been possible if they had to start in the bottom division. However, if that rule was brought in then I would imagine you would get far more of the swapping that led to CSC (A) getting into division one. You have stated that the number of relegations should be the same every season. In your words it should be fixed? We normally relegate two teams in each division. Last season we went against this and Rathmore (E) stayed in division two despite finishing second bottom. I cannot remember receiving a comment from you that your team did not get relegated? Telling us it is a disgrace and awful decision making may be your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. It would be better if you could come up with some constructive criticism. I would be pleased to listen to your alternative scenarios? One of your previous complaints was that the Queen Edith (A) started a season with two away fixtures in a row. Given that complaint, I have probably spent way too much time answering this one. But just summarising other posts.. What?
|
|
tatsu
Won a few trophies
Posts: 148
|
Post by tatsu on Mar 24, 2013 0:24:13 GMT
Ok.......Please enlighten us with how you would have dealt with this. No difficult really. You don't manage the entry's properly. You allow teams to shuffle around their players on a whim. Be stricter on entry conditions. This will make it easier to limit the number. get the established teams entered then any "changed" teams can apply and only get entered if it" befits the smooth running of the league" You can keep that one FOC You bleet on about being fair... How about relegating CSC Oz or H? That would also solve a problem of too many CSC teams in the prem. Oi don't start dragging CSC Oz into it, we got our own problems . On another note, "quiet unacceptable".....me no comprende ;D
|
|
|
Post by Rich Wharton on Mar 24, 2013 19:45:29 GMT
The point of 'super teams' being set-up and then being 'flaky' is founded and has been the case a few times, CSC X is a prime example of this. This is absolute Penn and Teller. CSC 'X' was not a "super-team", nor was it intended to be. Look at the players involved: none of them thought they were signing on to be a super-team. We were a bunch of mates who put a team together. Neither did we fold because we were "flaky", but don't let that stop you from postulating about it like it's a fact. CSC 'X' folded, in protest, as a result of the failings of the CAPL Committee, not as a result of any failing of our own. We had a team meeting to decide what to do that week, which was attended by TEN people. We were not short of players, nor were we having trouble fulfilling fixtures. If that's flaky, in your eyes, then either your grasp of language or your grasp of the salient points is seriously lacking. Pay some attention to the facts before spouting your uninformed opinions in future.
|
|
|
Post by timmy on Apr 3, 2013 15:29:26 GMT
Any chance of getting fixtures put up please??
|
|