FORUM CLOSING ON 14th JANUARY

LADY_1980 · Regular Poster (Wins the toss)

RE: Committee Positions 2010

Minx · Ultimate Poster (Breaks off in decider)

LADY_1980 wrote:

At the beginning of this thread it says that all motions have to be with the secretary by the 14th March 2010. I am presuming that this would include any proposal can you confirm when the proposal by Rileys was received? I can confirm that the Crown House proposal was circulated to the committee by Keith Hollis on the 21st January 2010.

I put forward a motion by the deadline of Sunday to have a vote on which venue to locate the county at because we had received a proposal from the Crown House earlier in the season. People need to know what issues are being raised at the AGM so they know whether to attend & vote.

The rules are there to stop a committee sneaking in a vote on a major issue with minimal warning before an AGM i.e. if everyone expects there to be no key issues, so not many turn up, so the committee vote it through in the absence of the main voting body. Obviously this is not happening here.

Your presumption that this means the specifics of Riley's proposal need to have been received or released by last Sunday has no factual basis.

Though incidentally, I received the e-mail from Rileys on the afternoon of Saturday 13th March.

TheBotttler · Regular Poster (Wins the toss)

What Will Rileys Offer Us As A County Squad Then Minx..?

Minx · Ultimate Poster (Breaks off in decider)

Sorry all, no can do

Suffice to say the Rileys proposal is quite similar to the crown house offer and provides an even better deal than the players have been receiving during the past season.

However, this forum is open to Joe Public to read, not just county members, so I do not feel I am at liberty to publish the full financial package Rileys Oxford have offered. Rileys are a national business and may have different deals agreed across the country.

Any county members who are interested can hear all about it at the AGM

Twitcher · Regular Poster (Wins the toss)

What about those that can not make the agm and wish to vote by proxy? As you yourself said it would be foolish to vote without knowing what was being offered ny noth parties. Also, will rileys now be able to change their proposal now that they have seen the crown house's? Furthermore, any member of joe public could be stood at rileys on sunday and hear the financial package that rileys have offered and how many hits does this website get that are not playing for county? i would think not many, so i fail to see why the rileys offer can not be made public knowledge at this stage. Also, would it not be better to allow county players to see both proposals in advanvce of the agm so that they can take time to consider which way they wish to vote instead of being forced to make a quick decision on sunday morning?

LADY_1980 · Regular Poster (Wins the toss)

What about the people that are not able to make the AGM on sunday? Are the committee expecting them to make a proxy vote without seeing/hearing about both proposals.

As for other counties finding out what Rileys have offered does that mean that all the players will have to keep it a secret for the whole season.....

Paragraph 13 (f) of the constitution states:

People unable to attend an AGM/EGM may contact the secretary who will arrange for them to cast their vote prior to the meeting. Alternatively, non attending members may use a proxy voter. However, proxy voting will only be allowed if the unavailable member notifies the secretary at least 24 hours, less in exception circumstances, before the AGM date and has a valid reason for using a proxy.

Does this not mean that these people have the right to see the proposal before the AGM??? At least 24 hours in advance???

-- Edited by LADY_1980 on Thursday 18th of March 2010 03:38:10 PM

MING · Ultimate Poster (2-0 up in a best of 7)

Perhaps it would be better for Jaz to email a copy of both proposals to anyone who requests them?

That way we can do without the crap that nornally appears, on the forum, on these issues.

Do the proposals contain non pool info such as BEER prices, SKY TV and access for us "old gits" motability scooters. Ok CHC is on the ground floor so we don't have to get 4 strong blokes to carry them up the stairs, but we then lose the "Evel Knievel" experience on the way down... biggrin

LADY_1980 · Regular Poster (Wins the toss)

MING wrote:

Perhaps it would be better for Jaz to email a copy of both proposals to anyone who requests them?

That way we can do without the crap that nornally appears, on the forum, on these issues.

Do the proposals contain non pool info such as BEER prices, SKY TV and access for us "old gits" motability scooters. Ok CHC is on the ground floor so we don't have to get 4 strong blokes to carry them up the stairs, but we then lose the "Evel Knievel" experience on the way down...

My point earlier was I was not presuming anything about Rileys, it was just a question. As a motion and any nominations have to be received 7 days prior to an AGM does that mean that proposals should be the same and have to be received 7 days before?

Ming you may be able to answer my questions?

As for beer prices:

Guiness £2.80
Stella £2.80
Carlsberg/Fosters and Coors £2.50
Tetleys/Whitbred £2.10

(PER PINT)

Sofy drinks 80p per can

25% off of table time means £1.50 per hour on a saturday and £3 per hour on any other day

Oh and lets not forget great food!!

Minx · Ultimate Poster (Breaks off in decider)

I hadn't thought of that. I suppose anyone wishing to vote by proxy could contact me and ask? Not that anyone has so far.

Why is it all the crown house regulars who are getting in a tiz about this?

And Twitcher, I've got both proposals in, I'm not not going to let either party get into a competition of one-up-manship over this, so there wont be any further amendments made at this late stage (although I did let the crown house make one this morning, since they asked nicely)

You may think not many people read our forum, but actually other counties pool teams do. And since I know Berkshire have a deal at the Reading Rileys for example, it is definitely far too presumptious to assume they would never get wind of any deal written on here.

Thats enough for one day though, this thread has the appearance of degenerating into a slanging match. Sunday should be fun.

GOD · Veteran Poster (Pots the first red)

It wasn't OCPF's choice to release the details of the Crown Houses proposal. So maybe someone from Rileys will look at it and think how they can tweak their offer. That is not the counties fault.

Although some things OCPF do are published / advertised on the forum, it is not our official channel of communication to members as some members of OCPF (in fact quite a lot) do not use the forum. I believe Mr Kinsey has been quite clear about this in the past.

As far as members keeping quiet about the terms of our deal for the duration of the season. What a ridiculous thing to say! I for one have never struck up a conversation with the opposition to find out what deal they have with where ever they choose to play.

I understand why Emma would want to know the details of any other proposals; to enable her to add to their already good proposal if it falls short of Rileys.

Personally, I am a little dissapointed with your approach Emma (but not surprised!). It's quite clear to me that you will be voting for the Crown Houses proposal with blatent disregard for what is best for OCPF and will not even consider whether Rileys offer us a more viable or better deal.

In your position on the committee at the Crown House Emma, I think you have a massive conflict of interest with OCPF. I don't believe there are any rules in our constitution at present to govern against such a conflict of interest but it might be something I propose is added at a future AGM.

The time to debate the pro's and con's of each individual deal is on Sunday at 10am, not now.

LADY_1980 · Regular Poster (Wins the toss)

GOD wrote:

It wasn't OCPF's choice to release the details of the Crown Houses proposal. So maybe someone from Rileys will look at it and think how they can tweak their offer. That is not the counties fault.

Although some things OCPF do are published / advertised on the forum, it is not our official channel of communication to members as some members of OCPF (in fact quite a lot) do not use the forum. I believe Mr Kinsey has been quite clear about this in the past.

As far as members keeping quiet about the terms of our deal for the duration of the season. What a ridiculous thing to say! I for one have never struck up a conversation with the opposition to find out what deal they have with where ever they choose to play.

I understand why Emma would want to know the details of any other proposals; to enable her to add to their already good proposal if it falls short of Rileys.

Personally, I am a little dissapointed with your approach Emma (but not surprised!). It's quite clear to me that you will be voting for the Crown Houses proposal with blatent disregard for what is best for OCPF and will not even consider whether Rileys offer us a more viable or better deal.

In your position on the committee at the Crown House Emma, I think you have a massive conflict of interest with OCPF. I don't believe there are any rules in our constitution at present to govern against such a conflict of interest but it might be something I propose is added at a future AGM.

The time to debate the pro's and con's of each individual deal is on Sunday at 10am, not now.

I do not appreciate you getting so personal as you are the chairman of OCPF.

I will be there on sunday and will listen to both proposals, it is up to the individuals who they vote for and until I have heard both proposals will not be making my mind up.

I have been asking general questions, which as a member of the county team am allowed to do so.

I will be playing for the county team next year whether it be at the CHC or Rileys. It is about playing pool and what is beneficial for the team not a personal choice on where people like to drink!!

There is no conflict whether I am on the committee at the CHC or not. I will be playing county because I want to!!

Luckylewis · Even if you beat me I’m STILL THE BEST ;-)

MING wrote:
Do the proposals contain non pool info such as BEER prices, SKY TV and access for us "old gits" motability scooters. Ok CHC is on the ground floor so we don't have to get 4 strong blokes to carry them up the stairs, but we then lose the "Evel Knievel" experience on the way down...

Nobody cares about the elderly

GOD · Veteran Poster (Pots the first red)

LADY_1980 wrote:

I do not appreciate you getting so personal as you are the chairman of OCPF.

I will be there on sunday and will listen to both proposals, it is up to the individuals who they vote for and until I have heard both proposals will not be making my mind up.

I have been asking general questions, which as a member of the county team am allowed to do so.

I will be playing for the county team next year whether it be at the CHC or Rileys. It is about playing pool and what is beneficial for the team not a personal choice on where people like to drink!!

There is no conflict whether I am on the committee at the CHC or not. I will be playing county because I want to!!

So are you saying you will judge each proposal on it merits and then decide which venue to vote for? If so I appologise and I don't think I have been overly personal.

As also previously stated by Mr Kinsey, the forum is not the place to be asking this type of question and yes the siutaion has got a little heated. I'm sure if you give the secratary a call you will answer any questions you have as well as she can.

LADY_1980 · Regular Poster (Wins the toss)

Just because I play at the CHC does not mean that we cannot play pool anywhere else, if Rileys offer the best deal then so be it that is where we will play. At the end of last season I did not want to play anymore but by playing at Nationals has encouraged me not to give up.

If I have to play a county match at Rileys every so often I don't mind.

It should be about who is offering the best deal and the best stability for the County and I will NOT be making my mind up until Sunday after I have had the chance to hear the other proposal and have had the chance to consider both of them on their own merits.

I infact recently spoke to Jaz about playing for her sunday team next season (which I presume would not be at the CHC) we are not contracted to them!!

but.....I hope that everyone else votes on the merits of each proposal and not where they like better, which we both know (if truthful) will happen with some people.

MOO · Veteran Poster (Potting like a demon)

Luckylewis wrote:
Nobody cares about the elderly

I think these people do www.ageconcern.org.uk

MING · Ultimate Poster (2-0 up in a best of 7)

Does any of the proposals include the clause

Free BEER for MING?

MOO · Veteran Poster (Potting like a demon)

MING wrote:

Does any of the proposals include the clause

Free BEER for MING?

Ming you missed the last part of above sentence....."and free Guinness for moo"

MING · Ultimate Poster (2-0 up in a best of 7)

MOO wrote:

MING wrote:

Does any of the proposals include the clause

Free BEER for MING?
Ming you missed the last part of above sentence....."and free Guinness for moo"

I'm not sure they could afford both of us in this economic climate, though if we split the teams; half to Riley's and half to CHC.... smile

Milhouse · Ultimate Poster (2-0 up in a best of 7)

Question for the committee....

If the vote of venue goes the way of the Crown House Club, does that mean that the trials will be moved to there also ?

MING · Ultimate Poster (2-0 up in a best of 7)

Milhouse wrote:
Question for the committee....

If the vote of venue goes the way of the Crown House Club, does that mean that the trials will be moved to there also ?

ouch....

Beefy · Ultimate Poster (Breaks off in decider)

GOD wrote:

It wasn't OCPF's choice to release the details of the Crown Houses proposal. So maybe someone from Rileys will look at it and think how they can tweak their offer. That is not the counties fault.

Yes Emma has decided to publish the Crown house proposal on here EARLIER TODAY which I suspect was to give the players chance to review it before Sunday. Whether it was right or not to do so is a matter of opinion but as she is not on the OCPF committee ,I don't think she has done anything wrong.

Hate to say it, but given its on here now everyone will know the details inside out by then and will have had plenty of chance to evaluate it.

Although some things OCPF do are published / advertised on the forum, it is not our official channel of communication to members as some members of OCPF (in fact quite a lot) do not use the forum. I believe Mr Kinsey has been quite clear about this in the past.

Correct he did !

As far as members keeping quiet about the terms of our deal for the duration of the season. What a ridiculous thing to say! I for one have never struck up a conversation with the opposition to find out what deal they have with where ever they choose to play.

I did and it was at Berkshire in Rileys as I know several of their players very well and I simply wondered what they had done to get so much Chicken and chips when we were getting tuna sandwiches.....

I understand why Emma would want to know the details of any other proposals; to enable her to add to their already good proposal if it falls short of Rileys.

Judging by the comments on here everyone wants to know so they can make an informed decision on Sunday.

Personally, I am a little dissapointed with your approach Emma (but not surprised!). It's quite clear to me that you will be voting for the Crown Houses proposal with blatent disregard for what is best for OCPF and will not even consider whether Rileys offer us a more viable or better deal.

In your position on the committee at the Crown House Emma, I think you have a massive conflict of interest with OCPF. I don't believe there are any rules in our constitution at present to govern against such a conflict of interest but it might be something I propose is added at a future AGM.

Emma as a player has brought to the attention of the committee an offer which represents a favourable deal for all the players and the long term stability of our organisation. Unless Emma is on some kind of kick back from the extra business then I don't see what she has done wrong.

The time to debate the pro's and con's of each individual deal is on Sunday at 10am, not now.
Very true !

Twitcher · Regular Poster (Wins the toss)

Surely the trials won't be moved! How can you expect people to turn up at rileys only to be told that they have to go elsewhere. It would make no sense to move the trials and surely there is already some agreement between ocpf and rileys already in place that states that the trials have to be held there

hulio · Veteran Poster (Pots the first red)

Milhouse wrote:

Question for the committee....

If the vote of venue goes the way of the Crown House Club, does that mean that the trials will be moved to there also ?

yeah crown house have a coach waiting to whisk you all down their.

well its only right if they win the vote they should have the trials there as well.

-- Edited by hulio on Thursday 18th of March 2010 06:47:33 PM

MING · Ultimate Poster (2-0 up in a best of 7)

Beefy wrote:
an offer which represents a favourable deal for all the players

Don't see anything that benefits the more experienced players only the young whippersnappers. Pensions increases are now falling behind pocket money, in real terms.

-- Edited by MING on Thursday 18th of March 2010 06:57:06 PM

the apprentice · Veteran Poster (Potting like a demon)

The young whippersnappers deserved to be looked after Kev, and Crown House's deal to sponsor a player for County Finals is fantastic, fair play to them! (I am not swinging my vote yet so dont you lot start....)

I think this scenario needs a 'Why?' question at the AGM. Im sure whoever loses the vote will want to know why. Cheaper beer, other place has better atmosphere, change of scenery etc...

Then they can change what they need to change and apply the following year. With me?

johnny_cider · Veteran Poster (Potting like a demon)

MOO wrote:

MING wrote:

Does any of the proposals include the clause

Free BEER for MING?
Ming you missed the last part of above sentence....."and free Guinness for moo"

And free Cider for Cider!...

Oh where will this end!?

johnny_cider · Veteran Poster (Potting like a demon)

MING wrote:
Ok CHC is on the ground floor so we don't have to get 4 strong blokes to carry them up the stairs...

What? Only 4!? You been on a diet Kev!?

Barney · Ultimate Poster (Breaks off in decider)

Can we leave open the possibility of Rileys and Crown House Club sharing hosting duties for County pool?

I.e. something like Rileys hosting Mens A, Mens B, Mens C, Seniors A and Seniors B with the Crown House hosting Ladies A, Ladies B, Youth A and Youth B (and C?).

Twitcher · Regular Poster (Wins the toss)

Surely that wouldn't be finacially viable for either party, ie both the chc and rileys would potentially lose money. Also, how would you decide which teams played where? It wouldn't be fair on one venue to place all the mens teams at one place and all ladies/ youth at the other because I would imagine that the mens would generate more income for that venue, which isn't fair if both parties are offering the same package. Also, if you was to say each team votes on where they play what happens if 90% of the teams wish to play from one venue? In such a case I can't see the other venue offering a generous package if they only host matches for a couple of teams.

Barney · Ultimate Poster (Breaks off in decider)

I don't think there's anything wrong with having the thought of sharing hosting duties in mind.

The detail of how it would work is something that can be sorted out between those in charge. I'm not suggesting a particular arrangement, only that having both venues host County matches may be an option.