[superbigal]

Within the Jeanfield proposal will it define how the changeover is made at the end of next season. Ie will any teams still be relegated from the SL even though it would be increasing by 4 teams.

Or is that just another can of worms

This post has been edited by superbigal: 18 April 2012 - 11:56

[Auld Heid]

Perthboy, on 18 April 2012 - 08:25, said:

I was told last night by my club that Jeanfield WILL be resubmitting their proposal of 4x16 at the AGM.
It will go up against the MC's proposal and any other proposals that day.
Will the status quo option be on the table or would that need to be proposed and seconded?

All proposals should be voted upon and the winner would then go against the Status Quo.

It can get messy if there is more than one counter proposal put up against the MC Proposal.

So at present the MC Proposal would go agains the Jeanfield Proposal and the winner then goes against Status Quo.

[Perthboy]

No Superleague teams will be relegated with top 4 up from Premier. I will post the full Jeanfield proposal when I get time. Also the MC's proposal which will go against it.

[neutral observer]

superbigal, on 18 April 2012 - 11:55, said:

Within the Jeanfield proposal will it define how the changeover is made at the end of next season. Ie will any teams still be relegated from the SL even though it would be increasing by 4 teams.

Or is that just another can of worms

I think any proposal must define how the change over is going to work.

I also think it will strengthen the Jeanfield proposal if they were to propose no relegation from the premier or super league next season. I'm sure a number of teams from both leagues would love to be given a season worry free from relegation and a season to prepare for the new set up. I also think you want the best possible teams in the super/prem for the start of the new set up, i.e the bottom team or bottom 2 in the super are probably going to be better teams than the 5th and 6th teams in the premier.

I would suggest no relegation from Super/premier leagues

4 teams promoted from Premier to super

4 teams promoted from south to premier
2 teams promoted from central to premier
2 teams promoted from north to premier

Then split the remaining teams as discussed before.

[Perthboy]

Neutral Observer, what you have said above IS exactly what Jeanfield have proposed!!
No relegation from Super or Premier.
Top 4 up from Premier
Top 4 up from South to Premier
Top 2 up from Central to Premier
Top 2 up from North to Premier
This also eases the overcrowded South League.
There after it is 2 up/2 down from Super/Premier with a 3rd bottom v 3rd top play off.
Bottom 4 from Premier relegated
Top 2 South League promoted automatically
Top 2 North League promoted automatically

[neutral observer]

Perthboy, on 18 April 2012 - 12:50, said:

Neutral Observer, what you have said above IS exactly what Jeanfield have proposed!!
No relegation from Super or Premier.
Top 4 up from Premier
Top 4 up from South to Premier
Top 2 up from Central to Premier
Top 2 up from North to Premier
This also eases the overcrowded South League.
There after it is 2 up/2 down from Super/Premier with a 3rd bottom v 3rd top play off.
Bottom 4 from Premier relegated
Top 2 South League promoted automatically
Top 2 North League promoted automatically

Sounds good to me, if I was to be really picky, I would say forget the play off between super/prem and just have straight 3 up, 3 down but I suppose your way will give a bit of added excitement for the neutrals like myself come the end of the season.

Well done Jeanfield

[neutral observer]

Hopefully we will see this list of supporters grow at a rapid pace now we know what Jeanfield are proposing.

Montrose
Haddington
Penicuik
Jeanfield
Blackburn
Blairgowrie
Dalkeith
Carnoustie
Ballingry
Forfar WE
Bankfoot

Supporters so far, only 22 teams to go.

[Perthboy]

Please don't be picky, it's taken us AGES to get this far!!:-)
We added the play-off, the only 1 in our proposal, for the excitement value. Plus it gives 2 clubs a good pay day before 1 departs to the darkness of the Premier League!!!:-)

[HTG]

Auld Heid, on 18 April 2012 - 11:57, said:

All proposals should be voted upon and the winner would then go against the Status Quo.

It can get messy if there is more than one counter proposal put up against the MC Proposal.

So at present the MC Proposal would go agains the Jeanfield Proposal and the winner then goes against Status Quo.

No. All proposals should be voted on with the proposal securing the lowest vote being filtered out until there are only 2 left and it is a simple majority. The status quo should not receive protected status.

[locheeboy]

Perthboy, on 18 April 2012 - 12:20, said:

No Superleague teams will be relegated with top 4 up from Premier. I will post the full Jeanfield proposal when I get time. Also the MC's proposal which will go against it.

The management committee do not have a proposal. What they put forward was a suggested proposal for the clubs to decide if that was what they wanted to go with.

[HibeeJibee]

HTG, on 18 April 2012 - 13:03, said:

No. All proposals should be voted on with the proposal securing the lowest vote being filtered out until there are only 2 left and it is a simple majority. The status quo should not receive protected status.

That's probably not how it will work, though... what proposals are submitted will presumably be amendments to the existing rules? So the status quo gets kept if insufficient clubs vote 'Yes' to whatever version of amendments wins a run-off.

Anyway, you could get a very odd outcome if you did it your way, depending on people's cunning.

Say there's 3 proposals in the First Round... Status Quo, Jeanfield, Management Committee. You might find sufficient clubs who back Jeanfield or Management Committee but are scared of the other, voting tactically or wisely. Likes happens in ballots for the Olympics and so forth. You could then find, say, Jeanfield eliminated in R1... then all the people who don't want Management Committee, vote for Status Quo in R2!!

At least making the proposed new formats run-off against each other, then whichever wins face a simple "Yes"/"No" vote, means that the strongest candidate for change definetely comes through to a decision.

locheeboy, on 18 April 2012 - 13:13, said:

The management committee do not have a proposal. What they put forward was a suggested proposal for the clubs to decide if that was what they wanted to go with.

So what did they decide?

This post has been edited by HibeeJibee: 18 April 2012 - 13:31

[Auld Heid]

HTG, on 18 April 2012 - 13:03, said:

No. All proposals should be voted on with the proposal securing the lowest vote being filtered out until there are only 2 left and it is a simple majority. The status quo should not receive protected status.

Totally incorrect, what you are suggesting is against all proper business principals - The Status Quo should always remains as the last vote against whatever the preferred amendment is.

You can't just change the rules and make rash statements that the Status Quo should not receive protected status.

The vote should proceed as follows.

Management Committee Proposal V The Counter Proposal of Jeanfield

or if a 3rd proposal comes in then the 2 Counter Proposals are voted on with the Winner going against the Management Committee Proposal and then the winning proposal against Status Quo

with the Winner of this vote going against the Status Quo - what you suggests would only cause confusion

[HTG]

Auld Heid, on 18 April 2012 - 13:56, said:

Totally incorrect, what you are suggesting is against all proper business principals - The Status Quo should always remains as the last vote against whatever the preferred amendment is.

You can't just change the rules and make rash statements that the Status Quo should not receive protected status.

The vote should proceed as follows.

Management Committee Proposal V The Counter Proposal of Jeanfield

or if a 3rd proposal comes in then the 2 Counter Proposals are voted on with the Winner going against the Management Committee Proposal and then the winning proposal against Status Quo

with the Winner of this vote going against the Status Quo - what you suggests would only cause confusion

Totally incorrect my arse. Of course I can't just change the rules - I'm just telling you what I want to happen and that is that the status quo need not be protected. If there are 5 options, there is no difficulty at all in laying out the 5 options and seeking a vote from each club on their preference. In these circumstances, the status quo simply becomes an option. It's hardly an uncommon approach.

Re the bit in bold, it would only cause confusion if it were not explained properly (although it's an easy concept to follow) or if the delegates were a bit thick. I'll give them credit for being able to cast a vote, have them counted, eliminate athe least popular option, cast another vote, have them counted, eliminate an option etc etc. It's no more complicated than a game of pass the parcel. After the first bit of wrapping paper is off, every 4 year old understands the rules!!!

[Auld Heid]

HTG, on 18 April 2012 - 14:40, said:

Totally incorrect my arse. Of course I can't just change the rules - I'm just telling you what I want to happen and that is that the status quo need not be protected. If there are 5 options, there is no difficulty at all in laying out the 5 options and seeking a vote from each club on their preference. In these circumstances, the status quo simply becomes an option. It's hardly an uncommon approach.

Re the bit in bold, it would only cause confusion if it were not explained properly (although it's an easy concept to follow) or if the delegates were a bit thick. I'll give them credit for being able to cast a vote, have them counted, eliminate athe least popular option, cast another vote, have them counted, eliminate an option etc etc. It's no more complicated than a game of pass the parcel. After the first bit of wrapping paper is off, every 4 year old understands the rules!!!

I have attended enough meetings to know that unless it is kept simple you only court disaster and the wrong decision being reached. You also assume that you have a chair who can properply conduct business - the role of chair with no disrespect doesn't automatically mean that you have a business like background and knowledge.

You also assume that delegates are fully briefed and not just standing in for someone else. You also assume that all delegates have a view on the matter. Experience suggests you have some who lead and some who will ultimately be led.

The make up of the MC suggests this in that it is largely made up of the more senior teams from the higher leagues rather than a democratic split of clubs representing all levels.

So ultimately you may find that for every forward thinking team there is a team who aren't that bothered and as such will follow.

But there again I am only talking based upon the meetings that I attended over the years

[roseyposey]

Auld Heid, on 18 April 2012 - 14:51, said:

I have attended enough meetings to know that unless it is kept simple you only court disaster and the wrong decision being reached. You also assume that you have a chair who can properply conduct business - the role of chair with no disrespect doesn't automatically mean that you have a business like background and knowledge.

You also assume that delegates are fully briefed and not just standing in for someone else. You also assume that all delegates have a view on the matter. Experience suggests you have some who lead and some who will ultimately be led.

The make up of the MC suggests this in that it is largely made up of the more senior teams from the higher leagues rather than a democratic split of clubs representing all levels.

So ultimately you may find that for every forward thinking team there is a team who aren't that bothered and as such will follow.

But there again I am only talking based upon the meetings that I attended over the years

well if half the stuff you suggest here happens then no wonder the game is f*cked

[HTG]

Fair enough Auld Heid. I see your conundrum. It's a recipe for disaster when the Chair doesn't know how to chair, the delegates don't know the rules (because the Chair doesn't know how to chair), the delegates might not be the delegates anyway (they might be someone else), the delegates have no idea why they are there and the influence of the delegates from the big clubs (who may have no more business acumen than fly) is pervasive and the wee team delegates just do as they're tellt. I apologise - I should have taken all of this into account ...

PS - you're getting a doing at the Quiz Night on Friday now!!!

[Man on a bike]

Auld Heid, on 18 April 2012 - 13:56, said:

Totally incorrect, what you are suggesting is against all proper business principals - The Status Quo should always remains as the last vote against whatever the preferred amendment is.

You can't just change the rules and make rash statements that the Status Quo should not receive protected status.

The vote should proceed as follows.

Management Committee Proposal V The Counter Proposal of Jeanfield

or if a 3rd proposal comes in then the 2 Counter Proposals are voted on with the Winner going against the Management Committee Proposal and then the winning proposal against Status Quo

with the Winner of this vote going against the Status Quo - what you suggests would only cause confusion

When it gets to a head to head, will a clear majority of one be enough to win?

[Burnie_man]

First of all well done on Jeanfield for proposing the 4x16, a forward thinking club with big ambitions who should be congratulated.

As for this list;

neutral observer, on 18 April 2012 - 12:57, said:

Hopefully we will see this list of supporters grow at a rapid pace now we know what Jeanfield are proposing.

Montrose
Haddington
Penicuik
Jeanfield
Blackburn
Blairgowrie
Dalkeith
Carnoustie
Ballingry
Forfar WE
Bankfoot

Supporters so far, only 22 teams to go.

I think you can add at least another half dozen to that I hear (inc another Superleague club), although its upto those clubs to show their hand if they want.

[Burnie_man]

locheeboy, on 18 April 2012 - 13:13, said:

The management committee do not have a proposal. What they put forward was a suggested proposal for the clubs to decide if that was what they wanted to go with.

So are you really saying that unless a club proposes the MC proposal (and I have no doubt that one will, and I can probably guess which ones are most likely), that it wont be on the table at the AGM?

[non_sequitur]

St.Andrews to be added to the list

[jaggywaggy]

Burnie_man, on 18 April 2012 - 18:26, said:

So are you really saying that unless a club proposes the MC proposal (and I have no doubt that one will, and I can probably guess which ones are most likely), that it wont be on the table at the AGM?

That's my understanding - it needs a proposer and seconder for it to be on the table. The Management Committee as such can't propose their own proposal.

[Clearviewoftheball]

Burnie_man, on 18 April 2012 - 18:26, said:

So are you really saying that unless a club proposes the MC proposal (and I have no doubt that one will, and I can probably guess which ones are most likely), that it wont be on the table at the AGM?

I think Locheeboy and burnieman are both corect in their statements, in Locheeboys case that the M C cannot propose change (it would have to come from a member club?) and in Burnie's case this will be no problem given that most / all of the M C are connected to a club (and one will be nominated to forward the proposal).

It is clear change is needed (wanted by the majority I suggest of more ambitious clubs). Whether that is the Jeanfield proposal which i prefer or not remains to be seen.

Any team who have aspired to the higher standard for example Downfield who apparently have struggled a wee bit financially would wish to stay there and indeed kick on from there. I believe this also to be the case at Broughty.

These two clubs with no disrespect at all have been regarded as middle of the road clubs recently and by that I mean haven't hit the high spots in terms of achievements constantly in recent years promotions and the odd local cup excepted, these two clubs I believe are good examples of how middle progressive clubs would be thinking.

Now I know these clubs are enjoying the Premiere League but how would they vote, these clubs (and those like them in similar circumstances) could be crucial in terms of votes because it is easy enough to hazzard a guess at the top and bottom rungs and be reasonably accurate as to how voting would go.

I think the 16 x 4 gives good number in fixtures, a more level playing field in terms of onfield competitiveness and perhaps even in terms of ability to progress clubs in terms of fund raising, this too becomes more competitive and in time would allow more ambitious clubs to surface.

Why do committees work and organise if not some day to see their club gain some level of success ? Why do managers manage and coaches coach at this level if not to seek improvement from their teams and players ? Why do we (supporters of the junior game) go along week in week out if we were to believe our clubs were not trying to improve?

Hope this 16 x 4 gets approval !