The Ilford Drummer Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 All went a bit quiet, anyone got an idea when final proposal will be tabled and if/when club reps can start a debate with their committee and support? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archieb Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 Whitletts have emailed all clubs with copies of the 2 AGM motions. Any club that hasn't received this should contact Whitletts with their up to date contact info. So discussions could already be under way, no need to wait for the West Region to send out the AGM papers. I understand that all motions will be discussed at the April general meeting after which there is a 7 day period for motions to be changed by the proposer and for amendments to be submitted. These are all then voted on at the AGM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ilford Drummer Posted March 22, 2017 Author Share Posted March 22, 2017 Thanks for that, cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glensmad Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 The Whitletts proposal has been well documented. It's the alternative proposals which were rumoured to be coming which nobody seems to know. The longer they take to come out, the less time people have to debate them properly. Whitletts have done well with their timing in my opinion, and at the moment all that can be debated is their proposal or the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 According to Vics chairman on Nugent4nil last week, the Whitletts proposal has already been altered due to feedback from clubs. 4 leagues all in off 16 teams, which i think is better than the original proposal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmontheloknow Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 Yep the 'other' proposal is a slightly modified Whitletts one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archieb Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 Clubs that had drawn up draft reconstruction proposals, including Whitletts and Pollok, got together with several others who had expressed interest to produce the final version that has now been submitted as an AGM motion. Johnstone Burgh have submitted a motion independently; other clubs still have the opportunity to do so before the deadline of 31st March. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glensmad Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 Do we know what the Johnstone Burgh proposal contains ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archieb Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 1 minute ago, glensmad said: Do we know what the Johnstone Burgh proposal contains ? I saw a draft proposal several weeks ago but don't know whether it's what they finally submitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clash city rocker Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 4 all in leagues of 16 , 3 up 3 down. Why does the juniors always make something so easy so bloody difficult ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glensmad Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 4 all in leagues of 16 , 3 up 3 down. Why does the juniors always make something so easy so bloody difficult ? That's pretty much the Whitletts proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archieb Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 8 hours ago, clash city rocker said: 4 all in leagues of 16 , 3 up 3 down. Why does the juniors always make something so easy so bloody difficult ? 2 hours ago, glensmad said: That's pretty much the Whitletts proposal. The JB proposal I saw included that (although with a different way of achieving it) but also advocated changing kickoff time to 2.30 or 3pm and combining the Ayrshire and Central Sectional cups Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glensmad Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 Unless I'm mistaken, the Whitletts propsal I have seen needs one correction to make the numbers work out. It has the bottom three teams in next season's Central District League Division One going into the new bottom league, but the grid they have provided to illustrate it shows that it should only be the bottom two teams, so a wording change will likely be required before the proposal can be voted on. Other than that I think it's a very sensible proposal, although I'd be keen to see the Johnstone Burgh proposal as well if they are suggesting a different way of achieving the same outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archieb Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, glensmad said: Unless I'm mistaken, the Whitletts propsal I have seen needs one correction to make the numbers work out. It has the bottom three teams in next season's Central District League Division One going into the new bottom league, but the grid they have provided to illustrate it shows that it should only be the bottom two teams, so a wording change will likely be required before the proposal can be voted on. Other than that I think it's a very sensible proposal, although I'd be keen to see the Johnstone Burgh proposal as well if they are suggesting a different way of achieving the same outcome. I haven't seen any such grid but the wording of the motion is perfectly clear. Where did you get this grid from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glensmad Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 8 minutes ago, archieb said: I haven't seen any such grid but the wording of the motion is perfectly clear. Where did you get this grid from? It was sent out to the clubs recently for them to peruse and discuss. There are currently 14 teams in the Central District Division One, and the teams that finish 4th to 12th in that league next season would go into the 3rd tier of the proposed new set-up. That leaves only 2 teams to drop down into the 4th tier which is backed up by the grid, but the wording says 3 teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archieb Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 And unless the JB motion has been changed from what their proposal originally said, it had only 2 Ayrshire teams going into the 3rd level division but 7 going into the 4th, bottom division so not really equitable and no way an improvement on the strategy suggested by the Whitletts group of clubs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archieb Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, glensmad said: It was sent out to the clubs recently for them to peruse and discuss. There are currently 14 teams in the Central District Division One, and the teams that finish 4th to 12th in that league next season would go into the 3rd tier of the proposed new set-up. That leaves only 2 teams to drop down into the 4th tier which is backed up by the grid, but the wording says 3 teams. It's based on the situation expected at the end of season 2017-18. Look at the current League table for Super League Div 1 - barring some very unlikely results, one Ayrshire team will be relegated and 3 Central teams. So next season there will be 11 teams in the Ayrshire Division and 15 teams in Central Div 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glensmad Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, archieb said: It's based on the situation expected at the end of season 2017-18. Look at the current League table for Super League Div 1 - barring some very unlikely results, one Ayrshire team will be relegated and 3 Central teams. So next season there will be 11 teams in the Ayrshire Division and 15 teams in Central Div 1. That's fair enough, but the grid and wording is also based on there being 12 teams in the Ayrshire League at the end of next season, not 11. I appreciate that it's a flexible thing that can't really be finalised until we know the final numbers at the end of the season. Either way the wording will likely require to be changed slightly to suit the actual numbers before the voting. Thanks for that clarification. It would be interesting to see the Johnstone Burgh alternative to get to the same outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archieb Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 16 minutes ago, glensmad said: That's fair enough, but the grid and wording is also based on there being 12 teams in the Ayrshire League at the end of next season, not 11. I appreciate that it's a flexible thing that can't really be finalised until we know the final numbers at the end of the season. Either way the wording will likely require to be changed slightly to suit the actual numbers before the voting. Thanks for that clarification. It would be interesting to see the Johnstone Burgh alternative to get to the same outcome. I haven't seen the grid you refer to but if it is as you describe then it is wrong. It does not constitute part of the motion however and it is the motion that will be discussed and voted on, not any illustrative grid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glensmad Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 23 minutes ago, archieb said: I haven't seen the grid you refer to but if it is as you describe then it is wrong. It does not constitute part of the motion however and it is the motion that will be discussed and voted on, not any illustrative grid Good point, and assuming three Central teams are relegated from this season's Super League Division One (as seems likely) then the wording of the motion is correct. Thanks for that clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.