David.G
Distinguished Member
Posts: 550
|
Post by David.G on Nov 17, 2009 7:57:34 GMT
Don't forget the AGM will be held at the post office club in Reading on 6th December.
Selection committee will meet at 11am
Xmas dinner will be 12 o'c midday
AGM will be approx 2.15pm
If you are attending and would like Xmas dinner please let me know ASAP (choice of Turkey or Beef and will cost £15)
Dave Alder - Veggie Diana Alder - Turkey Sam Alder - Turkey Kevin Tunstall - Turkey Keith Sheard - Turkey Pauline Withey - Turkey Curt Driver - Turkey
|
|
|
Post by SirKT on Nov 17, 2009 13:12:48 GMT
Don`t forget also that any proposals must be in writing and in Daves posession by this sunday, bring along to the Mixed Pairs if you are coming :)
I`ll have Turkey please Dave ;)
|
|
|
Post by milko on Nov 18, 2009 4:52:03 GMT
Hi Dave
Pauline & myself would like Turkey, please.
Keith
|
|
curtd
Distinguished Member
Posts: 616
|
Post by curtd on Nov 21, 2009 21:37:03 GMT
Hi
Turkey for me please.
Curt
|
|
|
Post by peetee on Nov 26, 2009 18:37:15 GMT
Hi Dave Please except my apologies, it's that time of year again when I'm away with my caravan club for a Xmas do.
Hope all goes well for you Cheers Pete
|
|
|
Post by milko on Dec 1, 2009 15:31:54 GMT
I thought I would give another reminder that this years All England AGM is this Sunday starting approx 2.15pm.
There are a few proposals (4 by me) so come along and have your say, even if you can't vote, due to the fact of only having 2 votes per County!!
Your Country Needs You There!! ::)
So please make every effort to attend, as it seems to be the same old few that bothers to show up each year. :(
Keith :)
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Dec 1, 2009 16:46:34 GMT
We would like to have attended, but unfortunately I re-arranged to have my children down for this weekend to enable me to play in the Grand Prix last weekend..... ;)
Please would somebody pass our apologies on the the meeting? 8-)
Many thanks.
Dave & Colleen
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Dec 3, 2009 18:12:02 GMT
Dave,
I'll be going to represent this forum's interests. There will be two voting members from KBBA
Dead Big Hen for me
Sav
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Dec 3, 2009 19:37:31 GMT
Please pass on my apologies as unfortunately I cannot attend
Graham
|
|
David.G
Distinguished Member
Posts: 550
|
Post by David.G on Dec 4, 2009 23:35:06 GMT
For those attending the AGM Dinner please note that we will be feasting at the carvery down the road from the club
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Dec 5, 2009 7:56:29 GMT
Anyone know a name or in which direction please?
Sav
|
|
|
Post by milko on Dec 5, 2009 9:15:08 GMT
Anyone know a name or in which direction please? Sav Chris, I don't know the name, but It's on the R/H side of the road (riverside) as you come along towards the PO Club from the roundabout, we have eaten there a couple of times ourselves, but you have to wait to be seated for up to an hour on a Sunday, as it's a popular pub for the carvery meal, very good though. I'm not sure if you can reserve tables, but I hope Dave has been able to, or we could be late for the AGM!! Dave, may we ask why we are not eating at the PO Club? At least it wont cost us £15 because the carvery is only £7 or £8 and you will be too stuffed to have any pudding.....well we were!!
|
|
|
Post by milko on Dec 5, 2009 9:21:59 GMT
I've just checked and its called The Toby Carvery.
|
|
|
Post by milko on Dec 5, 2009 9:29:09 GMT
It's a 5 min walk from the PO Club, but it will be pouring with rain by then. :-/
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Dec 5, 2009 9:29:18 GMT
I'm not sure if you can reserve tables, but I hope Dave has been able to, or we could be late for the AGM!! Dave, may we ask why we are not eating at the PO Club?Not enough people booked. Sav
|
|
fitz
Full Forum Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by fitz on Dec 5, 2009 13:09:23 GMT
Dave
Further to conversation last week Curt and I will be eating at the carvery. We are planning to get to the PO club at about 11.30am.
|
|
|
Post by milko on Dec 7, 2009 6:39:44 GMT
I'm sure Dave will give a full run down of what happened at the meeting, but I must say I was a bit surprised to see that only 4 Counties out of 9 had paid the £20 Affiliation fees by the time of the AGM.
Those that had paid were Bucks, Cambs, Sussex & Hants and those that are still outstanding are Kent :-/,Berks :-/, Surrey :-/, Northants :-/ & Oxon :-/ :o
We also had no Treasurer there to answer any questions on the balance sheet, that didn't tally up. :o
But on a plus side 3 out 4 of my proposals were accepted, albeit the one regarding the voting was amended to one vote per association. :)
Also the Carvery at the pub was excellent. ;D
Keith.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Dec 7, 2009 7:21:28 GMT
Terrible driving (riding) conditions travelling up from Deal, several accidents through aquaplaning and my boots leaked! A total of seventeen hardy souls made it to the most important meeting in the annual calendar for our game. Surrey, Northants and Cambridge were not represented.
One of the longer meetings, at which much time was lost because of senseless bickering over whether the association obeyed ts rulebook or not, also ½ hour discussing competition calendar next year that the exec could not even agree upon themselves.
However I was very encouraged to find out that the table purchase has now gone through and all the elements appear in place. It was pleasing to see the new AEBBA chair, Phil Hawkins, acknowledging the vital role this forum plays in communications for AEBBA, a major shift in his perspective.
The major rule change that went through was the change in voting for next year, one per league association. I was not in favour of it myself, but had no vote. AEBBA will have to decide exactly how many votes per county that constitutes, and how to police who plays for what league.
What constitutes an association?? Reading have separate committees for their winter and summer league so that is two separate associations and two votes, however if the same committee run both leagues as is normal then its one vote only.
I can see nothing to stop anyone paying an affiliation fee to their county and forming their own association(s) if there is something on the agenda they feel strongly about, thus buying votes.
The net result is Sussex will get at least ten votes out of the just over twenty leagues currently affiliated should they all turn up.
Sav.
|
|
|
Post by barbelman on Dec 7, 2009 8:14:18 GMT
I can see nothing to stop anyone paying an affiliation fee to their county and forming their own association(s) if there is something on the agenda they feel strongly about, thus buying votes. The net result is Sussex will get at least ten votes out of the just over twenty leagues currently affiliated should they all turn up. Sav. Hi Sav You cannot seriously think that someone would set up a league/association and run it, simply to get an extra vote at the AEBBA AGM!! With regard to the Sussex votes, statistics say that almost half the players in this country play in Sussex so why on earth should they not have almost half the votes? The County set-up that existed has never been a fair system for the bigger BB counties and perhaps this will bring more people to the AGM and generate a bigger pool of people from which to choose officers. Like you I am always astonished at the lack of depth of knowledge of even senior Officers regarding both the constitution and the rules.... :-/ Good meeting though and the Chairman kept everyone in order except himself....but we love him really ;D ;D cheers Tony
|
|
curtd
Distinguished Member
Posts: 616
|
Post by curtd on Dec 7, 2009 11:03:25 GMT
Hi All
Well....I attended my first AGM yesterday and and was pleased to see there is a passion from the guys sitting at the front desk to take bar billiards forward and to try and do the right thing.
Was SHOCKED at the turn out though.I thought there would have been more people there to to disscuss what happens about the beautifull game for the next year. Then to my suprise I see there was a competition arranged for yesterday(The Littlehampton Masters) I,m not blaming the players cause I think most people would rather play than talk about the game and there could also be scheduling issues Im not aware of.Dont know if the people playing would have gone to the AGM but I think this date should be kept free so if people are avaliable then they might consider going to the AGM.
Curt
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2009 15:37:48 GMT
With regard to the Sussex votes, statistics say that almost half the players in this country play in Sussex so why on earth should they not have almost half the votes? The County set-up that existed has never been a fair system for the bigger BB counties and perhaps this will bring more people to the AGM and generate a bigger pool of people from which to choose officers. One unfair system has been replaced by another unfair system: Not only can a county now turn up at an AGM 'mob-handed' to force a decision through, but you could have the ridiculous situation of the same one person having multiple votes if he/she represents the interests of more than one Association (for instance I could represent Surrey, Redhill, Sussex, Mid-Sussex and Horsham if no-one else from those ones was there) - whilst someone else from an association already represented could have no vote at all ! :o Agree that 'One vote per association' needs defining - and quick ! ;D
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Dec 7, 2009 17:27:16 GMT
One unfair system has been replaced by another unfair system: Not only can a county now turn up at an AGM 'mob-handed' to force a decision through, but you could have the ridiculous situation of the same one person having multiple votes if he/she represents the interests of more than one Association (for instance I could represent Surrey, Redhill, Sussex, Mid-Sussex and Horsham if no-one else from those ones was there) - whilst someone else from an association already represented could have no vote at all ! :o Agree that 'One vote per association' needs defining - and quick ! ;D Well, since about half of the Leagues in Sussex didn't make an appearance at the Sussex AGM this Summer.... ::) .... I doubt that we will see a sudden flood of people from Sussex making the trek to Reading next year! Even if they did, I doubt that all of the Leagues would agree to the same thing as each other anyway!! ;D I agree entirely that one person must NOT be able to vote for more than 1 Association at the AGM, that would certainly not be an acceptable situation. ::) The only way that I think that could happen would be for an Association to provide a written "proxy vote" to the Secretary at the start of the Meeting on behalf of the Association if they were unable to attend which the Secretary could then include within the voting. But their vote should be shown on the letter handed to the Secretary, not left to the individual to vote "on their behalf"? ??? As Tommo has stated, the situation does need clarification.... ;D
|
|
|
Post by milko on Dec 7, 2009 17:49:43 GMT
Hi Clive You say it’s an unfair system, but if it means more people going to the AGM then it’s got to be better, 17 members is disgraceful considering how many play the game. We’ve brought it to the attention of the AEBBA that something needed to be done and we have succeeded in doing that.
Even if it was a free vote for all you could still get one County coming Quote “mob handed” to get a proposal through.
Another way that we looked at was to make it 4 votes per County, but we decided on the Association one.
I agree that the rule will need defining. The rule will have to state “one vote per person” this means that you will only be allowed one vote even if you were the only person from all the Associations that you are a member of that turned up.
As Chris mentioned already no one from your County Surrey, or Cambs & Northants were there, so these Counties have only themselves to blame if they don't like the new rule.
Keith.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 7, 2009 21:33:28 GMT
I genuinely appreciate and totally respect all those that went to the AGM especially Brian Daniels from Hants who has given so much and has two small children, so weekends must be very precious to have given that up...
I do though feel that all must consider that no peoples 2 lives are the same.. and we should not judge... I cannot with my work do more than play in competitions as it means extra work at nights for me all week when I do... others are different and do have various committments.. I acknowledge this .. and hope that like me, you give what you can when you can in various ways... and turn up accordingly to competitions, which primarily is the objective in keeping the game alive..
I do thank all those that turned up to the AGM and especially those that do more than me in running the whole scene for the year !
Chris
|
|
BFG
Distinguished Member
Posts: 591
|
Post by BFG on Dec 7, 2009 21:56:01 GMT
Well said Warrior!
There is very little attraction to attending the AGM for these reasons and a few more!
There is little doubt that the workings are very much wrapped up by people that communicate, through this forum or elsewhere, their opinions and direction.
This is not always a bad thing as most things are thought through with the best intentions of the game. However the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
The only truly valid way of getting a true pulse is for issues to be aired at LEAGUES agms and the vote and opinion to be delivered at the AEBBA AGM
Therefore the Association would really be County on behalf of the individual leagues. Representing the opinion of Leagues within their County.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2009 0:23:08 GMT
Good points thrown up in the last three posts, and one thing we all seem to agree on is that, the rule having been passed (which no-one disputes) it remains open to interpretation as to what constitutes an Association. Therefore the Association would really be County on behalf of the individual leagues. Representing the opinion of Leagues within their County. Taking Tim's words, Association means nothing more than County. Which I would agree with, as Counties pay one lot of affiliation fees only to AEBBA. So why should Cambridgeshire, for instance, have less voting rights than, say, Oxfordshire when the fees are exactly the same ? Just because an individual league within a county calls itself an 'association' instead of 'league' should not give it special status - unless it pays a fee in its own right direct to the AEBBA (and I can't think of any that do.)
|
|
|
Post by barbelman on Dec 8, 2009 10:22:15 GMT
Both my league Witney and Oxford are called associations historically. Other more recent leagues call themselves leagues. Is this difficult to follow? We have an Oxfordshire Association consisting of four local associations or leagues. It's semantics but you can call them all leagues if you wish. BTW (ASSOCIATION - noun (abbr.: assn.) (often in names) a group of people organized for a joint purpose
With the old system half the players in the country (who just happen to be from one county) had a paltry two votes between them and another county with one twelth of the number of players also had two votes. Is that fair?
We have to get away from the county level thinking and get to more democratic local league level that will give a much better overview of opinion and will involve a lot more people in the affairs of the AEBBA. BB Warrior has already reiterated the fact that you cannot expect all the Sussex leagues (for instance) to agree a consensus on any matter with just two votes - it's ridiculous..
Voting should be by a nominated person from each league (as is done for the counties now) and each person can only represent one league and should ideally be an officer of that league.
The cost of affiliation is only £20 and I don't think that trivial amount is a real issue if leagues are given voting rights.
The old system was unfair, non-democratic and illogical and had to change. We're talking about the future of bar billiards here not world domination... ;)
cheers Tony
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2009 11:41:53 GMT
With the old system half the players in the country (who just happen to be from one county) had a paltry two votes between them and another county with one twelfth of the number of players also had two votes. Is that fair? While you present a good argument, Tony, none of what you say has much foundation. The upshot of what you are saying is that we should do away with Counties completely and merely affiliate Leagues directly to the AEBBA instead. This would create an opportunity for larger national tournaments with maybe 20 'champions' able to take part in the AEBBA singles, and 20-odd teams in the Watney Mann Finals. No, I did not think for one minute that you were advocating that ! ;D What you have to remember is that the majority of Counties comprise one single league (Berks, Bucks, Cambs, Hants, Northants and Surrey). Only three (Kent, Oxon and Sussex) have more than one 'League' or 'Association' as you like to call it. You have singled out Sussex as an example of why the old system wasn't fair. But Sussex are an exceptional case, having 10 leagues to Oxon's 4 and Kent's 3. I have always said that the Sussex situation was top-heavy, back in the 1970s Sussex was made into two counties geographically (East Sussex and West Sussex) and could easily be made into two separate bar billiards counties - if they chose to be so. Sussex have never as far as I know complained at having only two votes the same as everyone else. There are two very strong leagues (Brighton and Worthing), and many players and venues are common to both, and there is strong representation on the County Association organising body of people from these two leagues. The 'lesser leagues' tend to go with the flow and are happy with what goes on. If the four Leagues of Oxfordshire are in such conflict that they cannot agree on a common front, then that is a unique case, and I would suggest the root cause is also a geographical one, stemming from when (also in the 70s) half of Berkshire was taken away and given to Oxfordshire ! ;)
|
|
MID
Full Forum Member
Where's my cue!
Posts: 232
|
Post by MID on Dec 8, 2009 12:07:24 GMT
I was under the opinion that the reason the proposals had to be in 2 wks before was so they could be circulated to the County Secretaries (but its not in the rules), I can remember as a player in a league team getting a sheet with our newsletter, to Vote on proposals, and then this could be handed in with the score sheet. Perhaps this could be the only true way that all players can have a part of a say. Otherwise what is the point of having proposals in 2 wks before hand. But there again if you as a player play on two/three nites for different area's then you would be getting 2/3 votes!!! So not even that would be true representation. Only if like IKO you can only play for one county, then you should only be able to be able to vote for one area in the assn.
We have 2 separately run leagues, with completely different committee's, one Richard Hockey is the Chairman, Dave Tallack Comp Sec. the other Alan Peters is Chair and Brian Comp Sec. Does that mean we have 2 votes? Or one as we come under the same town name, we have slightly different rules and comp's.But both say after our own rules All other all England Rules apply.
Perhaps a proposal now should go in for next yrs AGM, that the proposals received should be sent out to the County Secretaries, due to the fact not everyone has a computer or looks at this site, Brian does not have or use a PC, and would not have know in advance what the proposals were.
These are my own opinions and not Brian's or our counties, I would have been there at the AGM but someone has to look after the girls, and I did not think it fair to have a 32 month and 18 month old girls running ariot!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2009 13:21:18 GMT
Well said, Mary.
There should be a natural cascading of information from the All-England, down to County and thence down to Leagues.
The Forum is still being relied on too much to convey information to the counties, when as you say not all County Secretaries are on a computer.
The Forum should be used in addition to rather than instead of communicating by letter or phonecall.
|
|