A.G.M 2009

[milko]

Dec 8, 2009 12:07:24 GMT MID said:

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.

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.

I would have been quite happy to have sent all County Secretaries a list of my proposals and also think it should be a rule, so each area, ie, League, County can have time to discuss them.

I think there should be a list on this forum that shows who is County Secretary for each County, with their postal address, or email, that way we would know who to send the proposals.

But sadly if we can't even get the affiliation fees paid in time what chance have we got of getting the proposals distributed to the league secretaries in time.

Constitution
Rule 5
An annual affiliation fee shall be paid to the Association by each County, the amount to be determined by the Annual General Meeting, which will also decide a date by which fees will be due. If fees are not paid by the agreed date then they will be doubled every two months for which they remain unpaid. Counties will not be permitted to enter the A.E.B.B.A competitions unless affiliation fees have been paid.

So what is the date??


Keith.

Good points, Keith.

Although we are by nature amateurs in the sporting world we could all do with smartening up our act and behaving a bit professionally ! ;) ;D

Dec 8, 2009 13:49:27 GMT milko said:

I think there should be a list on this forum that shows who is County Secretary for each County, with their postal address, or email, that way we would know who to send the proposals.

That was suggested some time in the past, and I remember having responded on behalf of Surrey.

Dec 7, 2009 6:39:44 GMT milko said:

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

Keith.

Surrey's Treasurer Colin Frost assured me on 29/10/09 that our affiliation fees had already been paid up front for this season.

Please advise if this is not the case.

[barbelman]

Thanks Tommo - you presented a very good argument FOR the rule change.... ;D

The AEBBA is NOT (or certainly should not be) all about competitions. If that were true then it would be pointless for a lot of smaller leagues to be affiliated, whether through their counties or not. It (AEBBA) has to be a force for the game and the table purchase is a start in that direction.

It is about a more sensible and proportional balance of voting rights amongst players in the whole country and we really cannot take the apathy of some Sussex leagues to the AEBBA into account. I repeat that it is indefensible that a total of 75% of the players in this country (Ox,Suss & Kent) have only 33% of the votes. Using the vote per league system the same 75% of players have 75% of the votes and that has to be fairer.

As someone said, the chances of some of the leagues actually turning up is very slim but at least they will have the opportunity to make a difference now.

cheers
Tony

[milko]

Dec 8, 2009 15:36:30 GMT tommo III said:

Dec 7, 2009 6:39:44 GMT milko said:

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

Keith.

Surrey's Treasurer Colin Frost assured me on 29/10/09 that our affiliation fees had already been paid up front for this season.

Please advise if this is not the case.

I had a feeling that we were going to get responses like that, Clive.

It looks like your last post is very true. :-/

I'm just waiting for Peetee our County Secretary to reply, but although he's been on here, he has not yet answered. ::)

Dec 8, 2009 16:14:20 GMT barbelman said:

Thanks Tommo - you presented a very good argument FOR the rule change.... ;D

Interesting "spin", Tony.

Whether I am for or against what was proposed does not matter one iota, I was not at the meeting so not entitled to vote.

I, like others, am seeking clarification on exactly what was passed.

At the moment the moot point is does "One vote per Association" mean "All Counties, plus Witney" ?

(Sussex being a complete Red Herring/Barbel, ;D as the only Association in the county is the Sussex County Bar Billiards Association - which has ten leagues affiliated to itself).

[milko]

Dec 8, 2009 16:44:40 GMT tommo III said:

Dec 8, 2009 16:14:20 GMT barbelman said:

Thanks Tommo - you presented a very good argument FOR the rule change.... ;D

Interesting "spin", Tony.

Whether I am for or against what was proposed does not matter one iota, I was not at the meeting so not entitled to vote.

I, like others, am seeking clarification on exactly what was passed.

At the moment the moot point is does "One vote per Association" mean "All Counties, plus Witney" ?

(Sussex being a complete Red Herring/Barbel, ;D as the only Association in the county is the Sussex County Bar Billiards Association - which has ten leagues affiliated to itself).

You're beginning to make my head "spin" Clive. ;D ;)

Rule
All associations (leagues) that are part of a County that is affiliated to the AEBBA are entitled to one vote each at the AGM.


Dave brought up a good point when he said, what happens if a league wanted a vote but could not make the meeting, he asked could they vote by proxy?
I don't think that should be allowed, because as it is now if you're not there then you do not get a vote.

Keith

[Colemanator]

Dec 8, 2009 14:50:52 GMT tommo III said:

Although we are by nature amateurs in the sporting world

Wrong there Clive, we're not a sport 8-)

Also I think Proxy voting should be allowed, sorry Keith :-X

Dec 8, 2009 17:48:23 GMT milko said:

Rule
All associations (leagues) that are part of a County that is affiliated to the AEBBA are entitled to one vote each at the AGM.

Thank you ! Now we know. There, that wasn't much to ask, was it ? ;D

Dec 8, 2009 17:48:23 GMT milko said:

Dave brought up a good point when he said, what happens if a league wanted a vote but could not make the meeting, he asked could they vote by proxy?
I don't think that should be allowed, because as it is now if you're not there then you do not get a vote.
Keith

Now you're trying to add something else to it outside the AGM. :o
You'll have to wait 'till 2010, I'm afraid ! ;D

I look forward to turning up next year and having my 5 votes, by the way........ ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[barbelman]

Dec 8, 2009 16:44:40 GMT tommo III said:

Dec 8, 2009 16:14:20 GMT barbelman said:

Thanks Tommo - you presented a very good argument FOR the rule change.... ;D

Interesting "spin", Tony.

Whether I am for or against what was proposed does not matter one iota, I was not at the meeting so not entitled to vote.

I, like others, am seeking clarification on exactly what was passed.

At the moment the moot point is does "One vote per Association" mean "All Counties, plus Witney" ?

(Sussex being a complete Red Herring/Barbel, ;D as the only Association in the county is the Sussex County Bar Billiards Association - which has ten leagues affiliated to itself).

Tommo
Please go back and read what Keith and I have actually said instead of reading what you want to, and taking cheap shots at Witney is not very constructive. :-/

Facts are facts and spin is spin and I have no self interest at all apart from making the voting system more representative. I doubt the vast majority of Witney players know of the existence of the AEBBA, let alone it being of any use to them as it is presently. I believe it is those that have a vested interest in opposing this rule that are spinning every little loophole they can think of to get it rescinded so please do not accuse me of spin for stating facts based on statistics...

BTW I can think of quite a lot of leagues that have association in their title including all the four Oxfordshire leagues, Cambridge, Reading, High Wycombe and possibly others. Semantics as I said.

I think this has all got seriously out of proportion and much as I like a healthy discussion, I shall be quiet now..... ;D ;D

cheers
Tony

Tony,

I have been enjoying this 'debate' too, rather fuelled I suspect by the fact that we stand at opposite ends of the spectrum in our political views. ;)

I would like to be quiet on the subject too. :-/ But you have had one parting shot and in the interests of fairness (democracy) I should be allowed one also. 8-)

So I'll say that your 'Liberal' idea of proportional representation, which I accept was based on the noble concept that it would encourage more people to come along to the AGM, will probably have the exact opposite effect.

By this I mean that from now on Counties (as regards their voting rights) are divided into the 'Haves' and 'Have nots'. My county (Surrey) is now in the minority. Where we had an equal say before, at the All-England AGM, we will not have from now on.

I am less likely to want to put myself out on a fraught 2-hour journey to Reading there and back in the knowledge that any proposals we made could be stamped out by a block vote from a neighbouring county. >:(


The new rule has not been given sufficient thought, and as a consequence is ill-defined. IMHO it even needs specifying who is entitled to cast a vote for their county: it must be some person holding an officialdom, like a Secretary, Chairman or President. But even that is not specified, and it could be any old Tom, Dick or Harry choosing to turn up for the Christmas lunch. :-/

[milko]

Dec 8, 2009 17:57:22 GMT tommo III said:

Dec 8, 2009 17:48:23 GMT milko said:

Rule
All associations (leagues) that are part of a County that is affiliated to the AEBBA are entitled to one vote each at the AGM.

Thank you ! Now we know. There, that wasn't much to ask, was it ? ;D

Dec 8, 2009 17:48:23 GMT milko said:

Dave brought up a good point when he said, what happens if a league wanted a vote but could not make the meeting, he asked could they vote by proxy?
I don't think that should be allowed, because as it is now if you're not there then you do not get a vote.
Keith

Now you're trying to add something else to it outside the AGM. :o
You'll have to wait 'till 2010, I'm afraid ! ;D

I look forward to turning up next year and having my 5 votes, by the way........ ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Clive, do I sense a touch of sarcasm here!!? :(

Dec 9, 2009 13:05:47 GMT milko said:

Clive, do I sense a touch of sarcasm here!!? :(

:-X ;) :-*

[milko]

Dec 9, 2009 9:23:00 GMT tommo III said:

Tony,

I have been enjoying this 'debate' too, rather fuelled I suspect by the fact that we stand at opposite ends of the spectrum in our political views. ;)

I would like to be quiet on the subject too. :-/ But you have had one parting shot and in the interests of fairness (democracy) I should be allowed one also. 8-)

So I'll say that your 'Liberal' idea of proportional representation, which I accept was based on the noble concept that it would encourage more people to come along to the AGM, will probably have the exact opposite effect.

By this I mean that from now on Counties (as regards their voting rights) are divided into the 'Haves' and 'Have nots'. My county (Surrey) is now in the minority. Where we had an equal say before, at the All-England AGM, we will not have from now on.

I am less likely to want to put myself out on a fraught 2-hour journey to Reading there and back in the knowledge that any proposals we made could be stamped out by a block vote from a neighbouring county. >:(


The new rule has not been given sufficient thought, and as a consequence is ill-defined. IMHO it even needs specifying who is entitled to cast a vote for their county: it must be some person holding an officialdom, like a Secretary, Chairman or President. But even that is not specified, and it could be any old Tom, Dick or Harry choosing to turn up for the Christmas lunch. :-/

Clive,

I should think that all leagues are responsible enough to have their own point of view on matters arising, ie; proposals, in that they would have a choice themselves on how to vote and not have to agree with a fellow league in the same County, so I shouldn't think you'll need to worry about a "block" vote against your league.

I do not agree with your last sentence, as it shouldn't have to be anyone "holding officialdom". Pauline, Mark? & myself are always the only ones from the Oxford league that goes along to the AGM and none of us are on Committees now. Saying that though I'm all for having a meeting with the league to discuss any proposals that are put forward and having a vote for or against, then one of us can represent the league at the AGM with the Oxford league vote.

Keith

Keith,

While you and I have in the past seemed to see eye to eye on most things, our opinions differ on this subject of voting rights and I think we should both acknowledge that.

By nature, I like things to be kept simple, and what was simpler than 'two votes per county at the AGM' ? One vote per county, maybe - but we didn't get that. ::)

Now the situation your proposal - no doubt made with the best of intentions - has landed us with is a 'cloudy' one, one which our poor beleaguered AEBBA Sec will find himself having to define, as regards
a) whether votes by Proxy can be allowed, and
b) whether one individual can represent the interests of more than one League.

There are other Rules of entitlement that by the AEBBA's own admission are 'fuzzy' - age requirement for over50s over 60s and under25 competitions, and who can be registered to play for whom in the National Team Championships.

Now a hitherto straightforward issue has been complicated, to the disadvantage of 6 out of the 9 playing Counties, and rather than us keep chewing on the same old bone, I would be more interested now in learning what these other counties think. :'(

[milko]

Dec 9, 2009 14:12:26 GMT tommo III said:

Keith,

While you and I have in the past seemed to see eye to eye on most things, our opinions differ on this subject of voting rights and I think we should both acknowledge that.

By nature, I like things to be kept simple, and what was simpler than 'two votes per county at the AGM' ? One vote per county, maybe - but we didn't get that. ::)

Now the situation your proposal - no doubt made with the best of intentions - has landed us with is a 'cloudy' one, one which our poor beleaguered AEBBA Sec will find himself having to define, as regards
a) whether votes by Proxy can be allowed, and
b) whether one individual can represent the interests of more than one League.

There are other Rules of entitlement that by the AEBBA's own admission are 'fuzzy' - age requirement for over50s over 60s and under25 competitions, and who can be registered to play for whom in the National Team Championships.

Now a hitherto straightforward issue has been complicated, to the disadvantage of 6 out of the 9 playing Counties, and rather than us keep chewing on the same old bone, I would be more interested now in learning what these other counties think. :'(

As you say Clive "we usually see eye to eye" so it's nice to have a change. ;D

I must admit that neither "a" or "b" were mentioned at the meeting, but I would not want either of those to be allowed!!

I agree (see we agree again :)) with the next sentence regarding those Competitions, but doesn't the rule state that you have to be under that age on Sep 1st of that years competition to enter.

[Q]

I'm fascinated reading this, I can see everyones point, and everyone HAS got a point.....

In another sport (Ian) that I participated in, each area had a nominated delegate to attend the AGM and it was their job to canvas rule changes and based upon the majority of their area they would vote accordingly, the country was divided into 12 areas and votes were cast proportionally according to the percentage of the total that were registered in that area, a similar thing could be done here. (Obviously taking into account players who are registered to more than one league)

As an aside... I suppose that if I registered Cornwall (as I have considered) then I would get 2 votes ALL TO MYSELF

I could be open to bribes 8-)

Well eulogised, Bernie. ;)

I could well see the point of having 1 vote for Cambs, Northants, Surrey, Hants, Berks, Bucks and say, TWO for Oxon, Kent and Sussex, as that would reflect the strength/playing activity of these counties (the latter three having pretty useful County 'B' sides).

But to make it 1,1,1,1,1,1, 4, 3 and 10 votes respectively just seems to me to be beyond the pale. :o

[BFG]

Dec 9, 2009 16:07:16 GMT Q said:

I'm fascinated reading this, I can see everyones point, and everyone HAS got a point.....

In another sport (Ian) that I participated in, each area had a nominated delegate to attend the AGM and it was their job to canvas rule changes and based upon the majority of their area they would vote accordingly, the country was divided into 12 areas and votes were cast proportionally according to the percentage of the total that were registered in that area, a similar thing could be done here. (Obviously taking into account players who are registered to more than one league)

As an aside... I suppose that if I registered Cornwall (as I have considered) then I would get 2 votes ALL TO MYSELF

I could be open to bribes 8-)

I was trying to work out what I was thinking!!......then there it was!!

[everybodyshappy]

This is turning in to the offside rule or Jedwood :)

Just like that rule should go back to basics, could give everyone a vote that turns up or in writing and signed by that person, as im guessing this would then give everyone a feeling of involvement potentially getting more people to attend events, and the world a better place or something like that. ;D

[MID]

;D Just a thought, if your county has not paid Affilation fee's can you actually propose (or vote on) things for the AGM? ;D :o ;D

Also do you have to be in a county that is Affilated to AEBBA to enter comp's?

But on a serious note yes I can see a point to Sussex maybe having 3, Oxford 2 votes but having one county having 10 votes does seem unfair. One question I was asked from a local player was does this mean Sussex pay £200 Affliation fees from now on...

Dec 10, 2009 15:35:42 GMT MID said:

One question I was asked from a local player was does this mean Sussex pay £200 Affliation fees from now on...

As logic would seem to dictate, Mary. ;) Who's going to break the news to them ? ;D ;D ;D

But as I understand it, any League which pays an affiliation to its County (not to the All-England) is now entitled to 'dine at the top table' (ie with a vote).

This means that the only leagues excluded would be Maidstone (who don't pay an affiliation to Kent) and Hastings (who don't pay an affiliation to Sussex).

[Chris_Sav]

Has anyone seen minutes yet for the meeting please?

If not the exec might be reminded this weekend at Bournemouth.

Sav,

[peetee]

I have received mine Sav.....Pete

[Chris_Sav]

Thanks Pete, could you forward them to me please, I can find no trace of them here.


Sav.