ruby
Full Forum Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by ruby on Jun 14, 2013 12:05:55 GMT
Sorry Ian I trying to make allowances for the weaker section 1 players who you would have the chance of beating against the break as yourself Chris and Colin are in all honestly section 1 standard players .
|
|
colinm
Full Forum Member
Posts: 423
|
Post by colinm on Jun 14, 2013 12:33:26 GMT
This is the problem, I think your proposals were well thought and constructive Arthur ;)
I can also understand Ian's worries that this could mean some section 2 players get drawn against the break a lot! However this would protect the lesser players whilst giving the section A and B teams some flexibility for their weaker players :)
Perhaps and this is where it starts to get complicated; this Captains choice could be restricted so that assuming we played the league as we did last year and everyone plays everyone 4 times you could only get drawn against the break 1 home and 1 away against a side from a higher section? A bit like the way the 4 player rule works?
Personally I would be happy to play in whatever format keeps people happy and maintains the league and if I were against the break every week then so be it. But we wouldn't want to end up with a situation where certain players like: Chris Bateman, Ian Gordon and myself among others ended up worse off than players in Section 1 teams in terms of breaks!
The only truth is that not everyone is going to be happy whatever we do and we need to find a way of pleasing everyone as much as possible whilst not discouraging anyone from playing. We are all working toward the same result we just have varying ideas of how to get there but I feel confident that the more these things are opened up and discussed the more everyone feels a part of the process and we can then find compromises for all :)
|
|
|
Post by BigPhilMac on Jun 14, 2013 16:32:20 GMT
I think one big problem we face here is that we would have to call an EGM for this to be brought up again, i believe thats what the rules state
|
|
colinm
Full Forum Member
Posts: 423
|
Post by colinm on Jun 14, 2013 19:17:22 GMT
Yes if we want to alter proposals previously passed we will need to hold an EGM this is not an issue the point is we need to have a discussion first to ensure any amendments have been discussed and properly thought out. I have previously said that we would need to hold an EGM to discuss changes.
|
|
|
Post by BigPhilMac on Jun 14, 2013 20:19:36 GMT
Yes if we want to alter proposals previously passed we will need to hold an EGM this is not an issue the point is we need to have a discussion first to ensure any amendments have been discussed and properly thought out. I have previously said that we would need to hold an EGM to discuss changes. I will make sure thats on the agenda for the first meeting
|
|
ruby
Full Forum Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by ruby on Jun 14, 2013 23:08:44 GMT
I don't think we are going to get a agreement on this issue ,and we are getting no input from our new chairman or craig who wanted a rule change in the first place . the game now seems to be about self rather than team and any suggestions I would come up with will always favour the weaker player.With this in mind and not wanting to upset anyone I haven't managed to yet,i suggest the rule passed at the AGM be adopted as all discussion seems to be getting nowhere ,and as the only dissenting regular Wallingford league player I give up .Please remove me from the marlborough club summer league team and Wallingford c inter area team I don't want to have justify my position all summer as I am now no longer a Wallingford league player .Iwill encourage Callum and Adam to continue playing as I believe they both have bright futures in the game.
|
|
|
Post by BigPhilMac on Jun 14, 2013 23:31:04 GMT
I don't think we are going to get a agreement on this issue ,and we are getting no input from our new chairman or craig who wanted a rule change in the first place . the game now seems to be about self rather than team and any suggestions I would come up with will always favour the weaker player.With this in mind and not wanting to upset anyone I haven't managed to yet,i suggest the rule passed at the AGM be adopted as all discussion seems to be getting nowhere ,and as the only dissenting regular Wallingford league player I give up .Please remove me from the marlborough club summer league team and Wallingford c inter area team I don't want to have justify my position all summer as I am now no longer a Wallingford league player .Iwill encourage Callum and Adam to continue playing as I believe they both have bright futures in the game. Lets not be hastey here Arthur, i personally, as well as Colin and many others im sure, dont wish for everything discussed to be absolutely set in stone, i want to be as flexible as the next person. I think by turning round and hanging up your cue in the Wallingford League is a bit drastic and over the top, with the greatest of respect. The Marlborough value your services as a player and as a comittee member so i hope you do re consider what youre saying. And in terms of me not saying much on the issue, id like to politely remind you and everyone that we are not going to cone to an agreement purely through the forum, id rather go about it the proper way at a comittee meeting, therefore as far as im concerned its a little bit pointless and unprofessional, for want of a better word. Also comments on the forum could be misinterpreted and i dont want to start upsetting everyone because of a misunderstanding of immense proportions. As well id like to point out that im trying to liaise with Oxford over the Ray Sturgess cup and running it effectively amongst other things so this issue isnt the only thing on my mind currently. If for what its worth youd like to hear what i have to say on the matter, i agree with you Arthur, im for helping the lower section players and i was one of the more vocal people at the agm about a reshuffle, i was also against balls back for top section players both home and away, i was for balls back only away as some of the tables can be unplayable. I was for the lower section players getting all the breaks, thus helping them out, but what ive now got to think about, along with the whole comittee and Colin particularly, is the issue of alienating the top section players in favour of the lower section players. But like i said i want to discuss this at the comittee meeting, not on here.
|
|
ruby
Full Forum Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by ruby on Jun 15, 2013 8:40:56 GMT
Ive not been hasty Phil just two weeks to late.
|
|
colinm
Full Forum Member
Posts: 423
|
Post by colinm on Jun 15, 2013 18:16:57 GMT
Ive not been hasty Phil just two weeks to late. Look we are just going round in circles at the moment :-/ We have until the start of the Winter league to get this sorted which gives us the rest of June, July and August to get a resolution to this I must say I think this now needs to be discussed at the next Committee meeting rather than just going over the same ground on here :-/
|
|
|
Post by craig mace on Jun 24, 2013 3:10:58 GMT
I don't think we are going to get a agreement on this issue ,and we are getting no input from our new chairman or craig who wanted a rule change in the first place .I have a life other than the forum
|
|