Mid Sussex AGM 2010

A rather volatile meeting with a reasonable attendance and a late finish (11pm).

A slight loss was made on the year but finances were considered sound enough to keep annual subscriptions at £25 and free entry to all Cup competitions.

A slight shakeup in committee, yours truly resigned the Presidency to stand against Roy as Fixtures Secretary, but votes were even, and as is often the protocol the incumbent got the Chairman's casting vote.
A new President was elected, in Graham Sparksman. Darren Newnham and Geoff Fairs have joined the committee to swell the ranks to seven.

The Committee were congratulated from the floor on a well-run season and Finals Night and the Secretaries in particular for their hard work.

There were various proposals for rule amendments, for which follows a brief outline:

Rule 4 on Constitution, resolving a previous omission - carried.
League Rule 7a, match can be called off if team is unable to field 4 players (previously 3) - carried.
League Rule 7b, play-by date for postponed match can be set by the Fixtures Secretary without prior consultation of committee - carried.
Players can arrange venue of own choice for singles and doubles by mutual agreement following sanction by Competitions Secretary - carried.
Charity Cup to be four singles and two doubles rather than three singles and two doubles - defeated by 3 votes to 17.
No date to be set by committee for postponed fixtures - no seconder.
Cup Competitions forthwith only open to registered players where Mid Sussex is their main playing league on Wednesday nights - carried.
Four-player rule: someone drawn at random can play twice - proposal withdrawn.
Charity Cup Final to be kept separate from Finals Night - defeated, but with the recommendation from the floor that the Masters could be played through to conclusion on the day to avoid Finals Night congestion of fixtures.

[Sparky]

Thank you Tommo for a useful reminder of the outcome after what could easily have been a confusing meeting for some.

[BB Warrior]

May 26, 2010 23:58:50 GMT tommo III said:

Cup Competitions forthwith only open to registered players where Mid Sussex is their main playing league on Wednesday nights - carried.

Just to clarify this new Rule....... this applies to both all of the Individual and Team Competitions, including the Charity Cup.

I wonder why it was felt that this was needed........ :P ::) :-X

I'm not so sure as it does include the Charity Cup - which can be also known as the Charity League- as if it does, it will be difficult to enforce.

The Charity League/Cup usually starts as a pre-able to the Main League, so take the instance that someone registers, plays four games in the Charity, and then splits their League playing between, say, Mid Sussex and Brighton equally, and there is just one game in it.

If the 'extra' game happened to be in Brighton, would all their Charity games then be expunged and awarded the other way ? This would cause massive disruption to the later stages of the Charity Cup, where it may have already advanced to the Semi-finals stage. :o :o

Debate, please........

[Sparky]

My observation is that the Charity games are controlled/arranged by the Fixtures Secretary not the Competition Secretary, and it is formatted along the lines of a League rather than a Knock out competition.

At the time my instincts warned me it would be a difficult rule to adjudicate.

[H]

May 26, 2010 23:58:50 GMT tommo III said:

Charity Cup to be four singles and two doubles rather than three singles and two doubles - defeated by 3 votes to 17.

I'm very suprised at this outcome.

While personally, I don't really care as I'm not captaining the team anymore, and will gladly play whatever format, I will forewarn that my team probably won't partake in the charity cup next because of this.

They have all made it very clear to me this season that they hate the current format, which always leaves one player without a singles game, and so don't be suprised if they opt out next year.

May I just ask what the rationale was for such a huge vote against? Seems a bit odd to me...

I was one of the "three", H, my view being exactly the same as Andy's: one player who could otherwise play a singles misses out.

The case against seemed to be:
a) "it ain't broke why mend it ?" and
b) that the extra game would drag the evening out too long (some people have homes to go to ! ;) )

You can't really blame the AGM for a decision reached democratically if you weren't there yourselves to support your proposal ! :-/

[Sparky]

One other reason H is that the proposal only works when the team has 4 players, but raises exactly the same problem if the team arrives with 5 or 6 or more players, which is more common I feel, so doesn't really solve the problem put to the AGM.......I was surprised that the person proposing the rule change was not present to explain and answer questions and feel that always goes against a Proposal as it appears that it isn't important enough.

An example of attending was that a proposal was withdrawn by the proposer once other points of view were explained.

Please remember that there are many players who struggle to arrive for the start of matches and that others need to leave promptly and with the slightest delay during the evening then a six game match would cause more problems than those it is supposed to cure. Many 'sixth game friendlies' are played by the few who stay and with the tolerance of the landlords and their licencing obligations.

May 27, 2010 11:57:59 GMT H said:

May 26, 2010 23:58:50 GMT tommo III said:

Charity Cup to be four singles and two doubles rather than three singles and two doubles - defeated by 3 votes to 17.

They have all made it very clear to me this season that they hate the current format, which always leaves one player without a singles game, and so don't be suprised if they opt out next year.

On that basis do they think it right for other teams with larger numbers of players, like mine, to similarly opt out of the competition if your/the proposal had been accepted, and consider that principle very insular/one sided !!

[H]

Sorry guys, I wasn't trying to start a big debate about it. On a personal level, as I say, I don't mind either way and the proposal didn't come from me! I was simply interested in what the thinking was behind it.

I did check with the old man if he was going, and his response was that nobody else was and he didn't fancy it on his own. His decision - I wasn't going anyway since I didn't personally put any proposals in.

The main point of my post was just to forewarn that the team probably wont enter the charity cup next year, which to me is a great shame, but I'm only one of the six of us, and no longer the captain, so I don't think I'm going to sway the vote that much.

Also, congratulations Graham on the new position!

[bobhall]

hi H i was one who voted for no change only reason is that i have 5 for the league and 5 for the charity so it means two dont get two games but i mix it around each week so they get to play single games that was why i saw no need for it to change

[BB Warrior]

May 27, 2010 22:58:15 GMT H said:

Sigh

Yes H, you are right..... I have waffled on far too much in those posts (which I have now deleted) without really saying what I meant to..... :-[ ::)

Let me try again..... ;)

May 26, 2010 23:58:50 GMT tommo III said:

Cup Competitions forthwith only open to registered players where Mid Sussex is their main playing league on Wednesday nights - carried.

Although I am not aware of what prompted the Competition Secretary to propose this rule change..... (maybe it was me this season.... :-[) .... it may surprise people to find out that I think the "principle" behind it is good and is in the best interests of the MSBBL League in the long term. :o 8-)

But, it is poorly worded and possibly will not achieve what was probably intended..... and no explanation has been given on who will adjudicate it, how it will be applied..... or what will happen should a player "break" the Rule. ::)

Presumably, the "intention" behind the new Rule was to prevent "outsiders" ("ringers" if you prefer) from entering the Competitions in future...... but does the Rule actually achieve that aim? ???

The easiest was to determine that is to look at the people who have played recently and decide whether they would have been "eligible" to play..... or not. Let's start with the obvious choice.... ::)

Myself. Regular Mid-Sussex player for 4 years, moved to Brighton League last season, played 1 MSBBL League game, a couple of Charity Cup games, was available to play 5 or 6 League games more but not selected as H rightly played his "regular" players. Won Singles & Open Doubles....... Would NOT have been eligible to enter these under new Rule.

Kevin Hall. Regular Mid-Sussex player for many years, moved to Brighton League 2 years ago. Played 9 MSBBL games in 2008/9, none this year, entered Competitions both years (not Singles this year) and won Open Doubles 2008/9 with Lorraine Hall. Would NOT have been eligible to enter these under new Rule.

Hayley Tunstall . Won Mixed Doubles with Kevin Hall in 2006/07 and 2007/08.... despite never having played a League game in MSBBL. :o Did play a handful of games as a reserve in Brighton, also played West Sussex (although I may be wrong about that?) during those seasons so presumably would NOT have been eligible to enter these under new Rule.

Doug Mahy. Entered Open Doubles this year, again having never played in MSBBL before. Reached semi-finals..... around which time he also played his first MSBBL game! ::) However, as he did not play in another Wednesday night League, he would be eligible to enter in the same way next season. 8-)

Tony Jenner. Entered Mixed Doubles with Ros Appleby, played 1 MSBBL match at end of season, regular Brighton League player. Would NOT have been eligible to enter these under new Rule.

Jim Broderick & Nick Hayes. Two old MSBBL players who had not played in the League for 10+ years, entered Open Doubles this season and reached quarter-finals...... despite not playing any games in the League. Presumably though, if they did not play in another League.... they would be eligible to do this? ???

If the intention behind the Rule was to prevent players like myself and Kevin Hall entering the competitions..... then it will achieve that intention for as long as we continue to play in another League. ;) But, I believe that it is open misinterpretation..... and would not stop someone like Nigel Senior deciding to take a year off from playing in Brighton (highly unlikely I know...! ;D), playing 1 game as a reserve in MSBBL and entering all of the Competitions..... :o :P

But rather than having a Rule that will be very hard to adjudicate, surely it would have been much better to have a rule that states something along the lines of.....

"Any player that is registered to play in the Mid-Sussex League may enter the Individual Competitions. Acceptance to play in these competitions will be at the discretion of either the Competition Secretary or the League Management Committee".

Clear, easy to understand..... and not open to to any misinterpretation. 8-)

On a final note..... and in case anybody thinks this is just a case of "sour grapes" because I would not be able to defend my Mens Singles title next season.... :P .... I had decided some time ago that I would not be entering next year anyway as can be confirmed by the PM that I sent to Tommo on 4th May, an extract from which is shown below...

Hi Clive

I won 3 Singles Titles last year....... Mid-Sussex Singles, Lewes Sprackling Cup and the Sussex Captain's Cup...... have reached the Finals of all 3 again this year...... 8-)

Having said that...... win or lose this year..... I won't be defending any of those next year as I will be cutting down my playing schedule a bit. ::)

Best wishes,

Dave

So, my only real interest here is to see that the "i's" are dotted and the "t's" are crossed..... and I am confident that the appropriate people will ensure that will happen..... 8-) ;)

Dave, when you delete large posts you made earlier to which people have replied you leave the thread disjointed. I have therefore had to delete one of my own posts dealing with a point you've now withdrawn, and also H's little "Sigh" post which then looked at if it was in answer to Bob.

I can fully understand the depth of your feelings, having faced a parallel situation 30 years ago at an AGM when the Crawley League tried to bring in a rule to say that no-one could play in the league unless they made themselves eligible for their Interleague team - which I took personally. Although the motion was defeated, my response was to promptly return to the Horsham League ! For this reason alone, you will note that I opposed the motion on Wednesday.

Despite this, I am sorry to say that the situation now is a fait accompli. the new rule will be administered by the Competitions Secretary and Committee to the best of their ability bearing in mind all facts available to them.

It's quite clear in my mind what 'Mid Sussex being their main playing league' means, and your examples cited are probably all correct but refer to incidents in the past - over which the rule just passed does not have any influence. (Jim Broderick/Nick Hayes being permissable as their loyalties were entirely to Mid Sussex - they had not signed for any other league.)

The only confusion is on the question of whether or not the Charity League is in fact included in the embargo as a 'Cup Competition', and I'm sure that our new President will make it his business to seek the required clarification on that one.

[BB Warrior]

May 28, 2010 10:44:05 GMT tommo III said:

Dave, when you delete large posts you made earlier to which people have replied you leave the thread disjointed. I have therefore had to delete one of my own posts dealing with a point you've now withdrawn, and also H's little "Sigh" post which then looked at if it was in answer to Bob.

I can fully understand the depth of your feelings, having faced a parallel situation 30 years ago at an AGM when the Crawley League tried to bring in a rule to say that no-one could play in the league unless they made themselves eligible for their Interleague team - which I took personally. Although the motion was defeated, my response was to promptly return to the Horsham League ! For this reason alone, you will note that I opposed the motion on Wednesday.

The only confusion is on the question of whether or not the Charity League is in fact included in the embargo as a 'Cup Competition', and I'm sure that our new President will make it his business to seek the required clarification on that one.

Sorry Tommo, I realise that deleting posts does make other peoples replies look out of place..... :-[ ......but, having looked back at the previous posts I had put, they did not really say what I meant and I did not want to make the thread too long. ::)

As I have pointed out above, I was not going to enter the MSBBL Comps next year anyway..... so it is not that I have taken it "personally" at all.... similarly, the examples that I have shown (from previous seasons) are in the past and clearly none of these players have broken any of the Rules of the MSBBL by taking part in these competitions.

It is simply a case that it is not clear how, or to what competitions, the new Rule will be applied and does not explain what will happen if it is broken..... ???

May 28, 2010 11:02:42 GMT BB Warrior said:

It is simply a case that it is not clear how, or to what competitions, the new Rule will be applied and does not explain what will happen if it is broken..... ???

Agree, now is a timely juncture for a representative of the MSBBL Committee to weigh in with their interpretation. ;)

[BFG]

What a predicament! :o

BBW I certainly understand the need sometimes to just totally delete a post, especially when you review it and realise it does not truly express your gut feeling. ???

For what it's worth I remember you saying about not defending next season if you won. Think the same was said about a few other tournaments! ;)

Most leagues will have run into this problem at some point when they start to feel there is a possibility of their tournaments being "hijacked" by people they would consider to be trophy hunters, players of such a high standard that most "home" players would have little or no chance if drawn against them.

Cup Competitions forthwith only open to registered players where Mid Sussex is their main playing league on Wednesday nights - carried.

However the wording in the rule change does not reflect this, for example if was a truly excellent player :'( and played every Tuesday and Thursday in other leagues and played JUST ONE league game in mid Sussex this would therefore be my MAIN playing league on a Wedneday night? True?

Therefore this nothing to do with "Trophy hunters" in general but obviously only ones that play in another league on a Wednesday night?

I admire the thought procces! There is obviously an angle thought through about commitment to mid Sussex versus another one . 8-)

In West Sussex it is considered only appropriate for someone to enter when the captain of the team validates the entrant as a valid player, someone who has "played a part in the season" Our ladies champion and mixed doubles champion played about 5 games for us but with such enthusiasm and so much in the spirit of the league. (Not that everyone approved!)

The only true way out is to actually declare that "all entrants are subject to approval for entry by the committee."

Or

Any entrant should have played the majority of available fixtures within MSBBL at the time of entry.
Seems to fit with the intent of the proposal wording.

BUT since the motion as worded was passed at the AGM it sticks with you for a year!

All the best!

[Ros]

May 28, 2010 21:41:32 GMT BFG said:

I admire the thought procces! There is obviously an angle thought through about commitment to mid Sussex versus another one . 8-)

Yes, I admire the thought process too, BFG! ;)

Tommo, I specifically asked Lorraine whether the rule was meant to apply to the Charity Cup as well and she said it was. Pete Edwards also said this when he summarised the rule before we voted.

I was grateful to our reserves this year when Posh Bob decided he wanted to pull out and Trevor struggled with a shoulder injury (which stopped him playing on finals night)
After discussion among the team, we had decided not to play both TJ and Doug in the same fixture, if we could avoid it.

I think you're right Dave, that under the new rule, Doug would have been eligible and TJ would not have been. Rob Driver would also have been.

I didn't play Mixed doubles with TJ though, I played the Mixed with Pete Edwards and the Open doubles with TJ - it looks like I need a new partner next year :(

However, if the intention is to restrict competition entries, it is hard to see how this could be done differently, without excluding players genuinely registered to a team, but not picked to play - such as this year's Mixed doubles champion Margo.

Let's be careful we don't become too insular in our league though.

With regard to the Charity Cup rule change - I voted against this because it would mean an earlier start and I already often struggle to prepare the table, get home to eat and get back again to play for 8.30. Others in my team also have time issues.
I would also struggle to get to the Laughing Fish for an 8.00pm start! I will have to make sure my workload is light before the match against them in the summer league.

I also agree with Sparky, a six game match only helps if you go out with 4 players. The current format allows us to play between 4 and 7 players, I work on giving everyone one game and then spread any 'extra' games around fairly evenly so that everyone gets a second game in some of the matches.

Finally - congratulations to Sparky on becoming President. 8-)

May 29, 2010 10:00:08 GMT Ros said:

Tommo, I specifically asked Lorraine whether the rule was meant to apply to the Charity Cup as well and she said it was. Pete Edwards also said this when he summarised the rule before we voted.

I too recall that, Ros, but that still does not resolve the matter 100% as due to the confusing terminology Charity League/ Charity Cup for the same competition people would not have been fully aware of the ramifications of what they were voting on.

I venture to offer the principle that it is the Charity League if played on Wednesday nights within the framework of the League programme, and the Charity Cup if the league is both divisions play all, games are played on nights other than Wednesdays outside the league programme, and entry for teams is optional.

I would suggest that the embargo would apply only to the latter and not to the former.

But hey - who am I to offer such wisdom ? I'm just an ex-Prez. ;D ;D

[BB Warrior]

May 29, 2010 10:00:08 GMT Ros said:

I didn't play Mixed doubles with TJ though, I played the Mixed with Pete Edwards and the Open doubles with TJ - it looks like I need a new partner next year :(

Some very good points from Ros...... ;) .... however please accept my aologies Ros for getting your Doubles Partners mixed up...... :-[

It looks as though quite a few people will be looking for new partners next season...... ::) ...... and with so many previous (& current :P) champions unable to play next season it looks as if there could be an opportunity to get some new names on some of the Trophies. 8-)

Also thanks to BFG for his input..... always nice to get a view from somebody outside of the League..... 8-) ...... he has clearly seen the obvious flaw in the Rule change. :-X

[ladyh]

I have read this thread and given it lots of thought and I think that given the circumstances, I am beginning to understand why this new rule was considered in the first place - for all concerned.
Trying to reason with everyone having different takes on situations often becomes argumentative and then spoils the enjoyment for others.
It is human nature to find a 'way out'. An example to flout the new rule would be to play 6 games for Billingshurst league, 6 games for Brighton league and then 7 games for Mid Sussex league making Mid Sx their main Wednesday league. Apart from ruining it for others in their team as their availability would be limited and so would let them down, I am sure there is no-one out there who would be petty enough to do this. You need to be loyal to one league per season, showing support for your team.

In addition though, I am mostly unhappy that my name was used as an example without first asking me if I minded, this I feel was trying to discredit me and yet I had done nothing wrong.
I agreed to play the mixed doubles competition only.
Everyone knows that there is never enough lady players to go round and often mixed doubles competitions struggle for entries because of this. As I only started playing in the Summer of 2005, I felt that being part of a double would improve my game and give me the opportunity to adapt to different tables.

Hayley, you have regularly turned out for Bob Hall's team in Mid Sussex to help him out (being short of players) so Mid Sussex have embraced you as our own.

I hope you do not feel targeted, although as things stand you wouldn't be able to partner Kev (Chunky Monkey) all the time that Brighton remains his 'main league'.

It was Dave I think who made the point that the new rule could finish off by 'hurting the wrong people' - I thought this at the time and voted against it.

I am in general against anything that restricts the opportunity to play the game - within reason. But Mid Sussex found it necessary for some reason to propose the Rule and it was passed almost unanimously. So we are stuck with it - for this season, anyway.

I expect there will be some 'interesting new combinations' in the doubles matches for this forthcoming season !

[BB Warrior]

I am very sorry Hayley if you felt that any comment that I made was meant to discredit you (or any of the other people that I mentioned in my earlier post) as that was certainly not my intention.

As I have clearly pointed out in a previous post........

May 28, 2010 11:02:42 GMT BB Warrior said:

As I have pointed out above, I was not going to enter the MSBBL Comps next year anyway..... so it is not that I have taken it "personally" at all.... similarly, the examples that I have shown (from previous seasons) are in the past and clearly none of these players have broken any of the Rules of the MSBBL by taking part in these competitions.

..... no rules have been broken at any time by these players. ;)

The reason for my initial post was to try to ascertain if the new Rule would actually achieve what was intended...... ::) ..... and I found that the easiest way to do that was to use actual examples of players who presumably could have been affected by the Rule had it been in place in previous years.

Please accept my apologies if the use of your name has caused offence, that was never intended..... :-[ ..... but as I am sure that you will agree, putting myself at the top of the list (as the "obvious choice") would have been a strange thing to do had I intended to discredit anybody. :o ;D