|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Nov 18, 2014 9:31:41 GMT
The future of the Pub Team Comp needs consideration away from the strong opinions of a few posters. I have thus added a poll to get a better idea of whether my proposition is left on the table as no other proposition was submitted within the ruling time constraints to be considered at the AGM.
I will delete any posts containing arguments that have already been expressed in the discussion thread. This is a pressure free confidential poll. |
|
|
|
Post by racehorse on Nov 18, 2014 9:53:06 GMT
Voted option 1, however on the proviso option 3 is also enforced. It's too hard to govern without both being in place.
|
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Nov 18, 2014 12:47:15 GMT
Voted Option 3, I have no real objection to teams having a guest player although the guest should have some direct link with the team they play for and should (as a mimimum) be a player within a League inside the same county.
|
|
|
|
Post by gandalf the untidy on Nov 19, 2014 11:58:18 GMT
7 voters so far, c'mon boys and girls flex your digits, vote and make a difference.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Gordon on Nov 19, 2014 12:09:11 GMT
I've gone for option 2. This competition is for the best "House Team" this shouldn't include a guest player from another team or even worse the rest of the country!! This will make a mockery out of the competition as some teams will just pick the best reserve possible from the BB Community.
Ian
|
|
|
|
Post by Q on Nov 20, 2014 2:17:16 GMT
I'd love to put in a pub team, wouldn't need to worry about guests as I'd only have a team of ONE anyway
|
|
|
|
Post by bigtj on Nov 20, 2014 7:54:20 GMT
Option 2 but still a problem with players playing multiple leagues as to what their first choice team should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by BigPhilMac on Nov 21, 2014 11:01:30 GMT
Number one for me. I see the idea of having a "guest" player as being able to have somebody not necesarilly affiliated to your team or league, meaning that you are including a group of players rather than excluding them.
|
|
|
|
Post by peetee on Nov 21, 2014 18:34:39 GMT
Option 2.
Just don't agree with a guest player.Teams who enter should have a full side without scouting for guest players. agree with Ian's comments.
Pete
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 21, 2014 20:21:06 GMT
I have gone for option 1 as some very small leagues now only have 4 players per team so they would not be able to enter.
You could in future find far less counties being able to submit teams without this.
|
|
dipper
Distinguished Member
Posts: 842
|
Post by dipper on Nov 22, 2014 17:34:55 GMT
I have gone for option 2 with the proviso that if the the pub has more than one team they can pick from any player from these teams. Class it as a club.
|
|
|
|
Post by gandalf the untidy on Nov 22, 2014 20:06:19 GMT
Perhaps the guest player should be limited to have played at least 1 game for the league where the pub is registered.?
|
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Nov 22, 2014 23:12:55 GMT
Perhaps the guest player should be limited to have played at least 1 game for the league where the pub is registered.? Errrr.... isn't that pretty much what the existing rule already says?  |
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Nov 25, 2014 14:03:16 GMT
Only 16 votes and I'll close this in a couple of days, but the results thus far indicate that my proposal should be discussed at the AGM.
Sav |
|
|
|
Post by The Chubbster™ on Nov 25, 2014 17:21:05 GMT
I've voted for no guest player at all. If guest players are proviong a problem, just get rid of them all together. Problably makes it more fair anyway, after all it will be a true competition that way.
End all this right now and make the competition all about who REALLY is the best local team in the land, rather than who can find the better guest.
Back into exile I go......
|
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Nov 26, 2014 2:28:42 GMT
The competition is Pub Team Championship - surely this is to find the best team in the country? Not the best 4players in your team plus the best ringer you can find?
Either have the competition as the title suggests or disregard it!
|
|
|
|
Post by milko on Nov 26, 2014 14:17:02 GMT
The competition is Pub Team Championship - surely this is to find the best team in the country? Not the best 4players in your team plus the best ringer you can find? Either have the competition as the title suggests or disregard it! Mark, I couldn't agree more. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Dec 2, 2014 18:13:10 GMT
Closing the poll as no clear favourite. Just as many people think a guest should be allowable as those who object to guests, only two votes for the other suggested proposal (option 3) so little or no support for that outside of its proposer.
I am thus withdrawing my proposal as it does not have a clear majority and there is no point in wasting time discussing it this year as the other options were not proposed within the rules time-frame and the concept will have to be discussed again next year anyway.
Sav
|
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Dec 2, 2014 22:58:35 GMT
Closing the poll as no clear favourite. Just as many people think a guest should be allowable as those who object to guests, only two votes for the other suggested proposal (option 3) so little or no support for that outside of its proposer.
I am thus withdrawing my proposal as it does not have a clear majority and there is no point in wasting time discussing it this year as the other options were not proposed within the rules time-frame and the concept will have to be discussed again next year anyway.
Sav
Two quick points here.... Firstly I don't think that many people would have considered option 3 as a proposal in its own right when the poll was effectively either a vote for or against guests.  Secondly, I don't understand why you would want to withdraw your proposal as surely that will give an opportunity to discuss the whole situation at the ONLY place that any decision can be made about the rules.... which clearly people must be unhappy with as there was only ONE vote in favour of the rules being left as they stand now. Unless perhaps you now think that the alternative proposal actually made more sense and would have been a better solution....?? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Dec 2, 2014 23:13:03 GMT
Two quick points here.... Firstly I don't think that many people would have considered option 3 as a proposal in its own right when the poll was effectively either a vote for or against guests. Secondly, I don't understand why you would want to withdraw your proposal as surely that will give an opportunity to discuss the whole situation at the ONLY place that any decision can be made about the rules.... which clearly people must be unhappy with as there was only ONE vote in favour of the rules being left as they stand now. Unless perhaps you now think that the alternative proposal actually made more sense and would have been a better solution....??
No I don't think the alternative proposal made more sense, nor did anyone else apart from two votes that were presumably the proposer and seconder.
Please read my post for the reasons as I will not repeat them here.
|
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Dec 2, 2014 23:32:35 GMT
No I don't think the alternative proposal made more sense, nor did anyone else apart from two votes that were presumably the proposer and seconder. With respect, the alternative proposal was more than just saying counties should hold a separate competition, however this poll did not show that fact.  So, let me try to understand this, the ONE person that voted in favour of leaving the rules as they stand has now WON the overall vote here and made you decide to withdraw your proposal.... when 20 people voted for a change of some kind????  That is one of the strangest decisions I have ever seen and effectively means that all of the discussions on here were just a complete waste of time. Little wonder that many people don't bother expressing their opinions here....  |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 3, 2014 6:46:17 GMT
Dave
As the seconder to Chris' proposal that has been withdrawn:
I do have to say that it is very clear to ne why it has been withdrawn as stated by Chris THERE IS NO CLEAR MAJORITY
Instead of the way that you have interpreted this as a waste of everyones time/discussion I have interpeted it thus:
As only one proposal was on time to be discussed at the AGM, with the rules being followed and as it is clear that it is a split vote, it would seem only fair to me that it is withdrawn; clearly it is not overwhelmingly the most popular option.
So I look at it positively that due to people taking the time to discuss/air their views on here, someone has listened and acted appropriately.
|
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Dec 3, 2014 7:42:34 GMT
As the seconder to Chris' proposal that has been withdrawn: I do have to say that it is very clear to ne why it has been withdrawn as stated by Chris THERE IS NO CLEAR MAJORITY Hi Chrissie, Yes, I understand that.... BUT, as been said here many times in the past, decisions about rule changes are NOT made on the Forum they are ONLY made at the AEBBA AGM. The fact that it did not get a majority here does not mean that either that proposal or an amendment to it would not be approved at the AGM. Now it will not even be discussed.... |
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Dec 3, 2014 9:31:43 GMT
The only reasons that discussions could remotely be considered a waste of time is that the proponents of the other two change options couldn't be bothered to get their proposals in by the closing date.
That meant that only my option, which did not have an indicated majority preference, could be considered, hardly a full and frank discussion. As Tony pointed out, the only change could be for one that might not have been the most popular option, I thus withdrew the proposal as another year of rules that won't be adhered to or enforced will not make much difference. There are more important things to worry about at the AGM, such as the loss of another county to the association and fund raising, than to worry about the semantics of a rule that has never been fully enforced.
Sav. |
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Dec 3, 2014 10:31:25 GMT
The only reasons that discussions could remotely be considered a waste of time is that the proponents of the other two change options couldn't be bothered to get their proposals in by the closing date. I am really not impressed with that comment.  My proposal was emailed to AEBBA Secretary within 5 minutes of it being seconded, unfortunately the 21 day rule was then enforced against the proposal rather than being accepted one day late. Considering the availability of modern technology, I share Tony's sentiment that 21 days does seem "archaic".... I would have assumed that rule dated back to a time when pigeons were used to send out information and was very surprised to hear that it was apparently only changed to this 4 years ago.... goodness only knows why that happened??  Please could somebody advise when the rule proposals were sent out to County Secrataries as they are required to be under the same rule that prevented my proposal being accepted? For the benefit of AEBBA, can I remind them of the applicable rule.... 14) Changes of the Association’s Rules may only be made by a majority decision of the Annual General Meeting. Proposals must be with the Secretary 21(twenty one) days before the AGM and distributed to the County Secretaries, so they can be sent to each league / association to be discussed upon. As someone who will be attending the AGM, I would like the opportunity to discuss the proposals within the League I will represent at the meeting.... or is this rule only to be applied selectively, primarily when it just suits certain people. |
|
|
|
Post by barbelman on Dec 3, 2014 10:55:05 GMT
I think perhaps that this thread should be stopped now as things seem to be getting out of hand. The subject has chewed over enough, there have a lot of misinterpretations and the AGM is on Sunday.
It's just not worth falling out about! No more comments please......
Tony
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Dec 3, 2014 11:15:48 GMT
I've been moderated!! 
I look forward, as always, to seeing Dave on Sunday. |
|
