FORUM CLOSING ON 14th JANUARY

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

RE: Rumour ?

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

MING wrote:

All questions regarding the OCPF constitution etc. should be directed to the Secretary.....................

Could you post a copy of the current constitution on here ? Or email it out to people ?

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

Milhouse wrote:

MING wrote: All questions regarding the OCPF constitution etc. should be directed to the Secretary..................... Could you post a copy of the current constitution on here ? Or email it out to people ?

Will email it to ash so he can put it on the web, and anyone else you wants it

8ball · Senior Poster (Nominates their colour)

Keith Taylor finished with 28.86, only 1.14 short of retention. One wild card was given to a player who missed the 18 point retention level at the finals by 1 point.

JKF wrote; Very different situations ... one was in qualifying (low standard) and he had ample oppertunity to get the extra two points, the other won 8/9 at the much higher nationals level of play.

Isn`t it strange how you have picked just a section of this post to answer, he was still over looked as far as the other wild cards go but you choose not to comment on this .

I would have liked to have gone to the AGM but due to 1 wife, 2 children, 1 house (mortgage) 2 vehicles etc I`m afraid work had to come first.

-- Edited by 8ball at 16:04, 2006-04-12

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

JFK wrote:

Keith Taylor finished with 28.86, only 1.14 short of retention. One wild card was given to a player who missed the 18 point retention level at the finals by 1 point. Very different situations ... one was in qualifying (low standard) and he had ample oppertunity to get the extra two points, the other won 8/9 at the much higher nationals level of play.

Who won 8/9 at the finals ??? I think your stats sheet needs looking at again !

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

8ball wrote:

Isn`t it strange how you have picked just a section of this post to answer, he was still over looked as far as the other wild cards go but you choose not to comment on this .

So what sections didn't he answer?, unlike you who's yet to answer any questions.................who was the committee person concerned? Either your lying or talking cow dung.

On the point regarding Keith Taylor, there's no pecking order for 2wildcards", it's down to the Managers choice. If you don't like his choice then do something about it via the proper channels

Barney · Ultimate Poster (Breaks off in decider)

Stop nit-picking. You'll give yourself a bad reputation.

simply the best · Newbie (50p on the table)

Barney wrote:

Stop nit-picking. You'll give yourself a bad reputation.

They already have

COWARDS

You so called commitee members do not or will not TELL THE TRUTH all people want to know is 1 simple answer were the rules changed after the fact to accomodate MR TOM WE LOVE YOU WE DO WEEKS.

Reading the posts i would like to ask a question.

According to earlier posts all commitee members had to vote in favour of this wild card being awarded. (i.e) if 1 voted against it this would not have been passed. what a load of shi?

If this is the case that means we can call you all w???ers

8ball · Senior Poster (Nominates their colour)

Just for Ming below is the whole section from which this was taken

Keith Taylor finished with 28.86, only 1.14 short of retention. One wild card was given to a player who missed the 18 point retention level at the finals by 1 point.

8ball wrote; If a wild card was to be used and as you have said it could not be given to any one who was not proven or commited then surely the stats from last year should have been looked at. Keith Taylor finished with 28.86, only 1.14 short of retention. One wild card was given to a player who missed the 18 point retention level at the finals by 1 point, the other pre trials wild card was given to a player who having played only 2 games, finished last season on 7 points and at 24th in the rankings some 21 points less, and 16 places below Keith

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

8ball wrote:

Just for Ming below is the whole section from which this was taken Keith Taylor finished with 28.86, only 1.14 short of retention. One wild card was given to a player who missed the 18 point retention level at the finals by 1 point. 8ball wrote; If a wild card was to be used and as you have said it could not be given to any one who was not proven or commited then surely the stats from last year should have been looked at. Keith Taylor finished with 28.86, only 1.14 short of retention. One wild card was given to a player who missed the 18 point retention level at the finals by 1 point, the other pre trials wild card was given to a player who having played only 2 games, finished last season on 7 points and at 24th in the rankings some 21 points less, and 16 places below Keith

perhaps i'm the stupid one here....................................and your point is?

Lets get one thing straight here; Wildcards where awarded in accordance with the constitution. Whether or not you agree with the current constiution is quite frankly irrevelant, as the proper poceedures where adhered to.

And you still haven't answered the question.............Liar or cow dunger?

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

simply the best wrote:

You so called commitee members do not or will not TELL THE TRUTH all people want to know is 1 simple answer were the rules changed after the fact to accomodate MR TOM WE LOVE YOU WE DO WEEKS.

The truth, the problem lies in the fact that you don't want the truth..................you want the truth as you see it. Perhaps you should take some time to read the constitution before you make statements on something you've obviously never read. Fortunately for you and 8 Ball i'm in contact with a childrens book publisher who is going to see if they can write it in "child speak", pictures and all, which will make it easier for you to understand.

simply the best also wrote:

Reading the posts i would like to ask a question. According to earlier posts all commitee members had to vote in favour of this wild card being awarded. (i.e) if 1 voted against it this would not have been passed. what a load of shi? If this is the case that means we can call you all w???ers

Can you explain exactly what you're complaining about; it would appear that you're not in favour of the point that only one member needs to vote against the wildcard for it not to be offered. Nor am i, but that's the motion that was passed.

If it's something else you're complaining about......................................please enlighten me

-- Edited by MING at 09:14, 2006-04-13

The Chin · Senior Poster (Pots off the break)

Blimey, is this still the topic of conversation??

I can't wait until you lot are all in the same room at finals night!!

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

The Chin wrote:

Blimey, is this still the topic of conversation?? I can't wait until you lot are all in the same room at finals night!!

......................................................... Can't wait

hulio · Veteran Poster (Pots the first red)

The Chin wrote:

I can't wait until you lot are all in the same room at finals night!!

I cant wait till tonight when we go head to head against the best side in the league.

You may win on the pool table but you wont win in the car park.

The Chin · Senior Poster (Pots off the break)

Should be a nice friendly match then..

8ball · Senior Poster (Nominates their colour)

Ming wrote; Perhaps you should take some time to read the constitution before you make statements on something you've obviously never read. Fortunately for you and 8 Ball i'm in contact with a childrens book publisher who is going to see if they can write it in "child speak", pictures and all, which will make it easier for you to understand

Thc constitution, like the minutes from the `virtual` meeting don`t seem to be available, so how can they be read ?

JFK · Senior Poster (Nominates their colour)

SIMPLY THE BEST:They already have COWARDS You so called commitee members do not or will not TELL THE TRUTH all people want to know is 1 simple answer were the rules changed after the fact to accomodate MR TOM WE LOVE YOU WE DO WEEKS.

The Rule (if it can even be called a rule, more of a guideline) before trials/end of trials/end of last season (however you want to put it - basically the old rule) was that team managers could do anything regarding wildcards pre or post trials in the name of the county's best interest.

This was considered outdated, too vague and open to miss use. So yes we updated it to "the County Squads may contain up to 4 "WILDCARD" places (2 Men, 1 Lady & 1 Youth) to be awarded by the relevant Team Manager prior to the date of the County Trials. Additionally, Team Managers may apply to the committee to award post trial "Wildcards" where failure to do so would be considered detrimental to the County"

So to spell it out AGAIN, YES there has been a rule change and NO this rule wasn't changed for Tom Weeks - he could of been wildcarded under the old guidelines with a lot less hassle. All that has happened is that the wildcard system has been laid out properly. I would have thought 8 ball would prefer it!! No Lies, no deceit no cowardess, shady deals or opening of back doors. I do find it funny though being told about not telling truths and cowardly actions by an anonymous poster!!

SIMPLY THE BEST:Reading the posts i would like to ask a question. According to earlier posts all commitee members had to vote in favour of this wild card being awarded. (i.e) if 1 voted against it this would not have been passed. what a load of shi? If this is the case that means we can call you all w???ers

For a post trial wildcard to be awarded there must not be a single objection from any one committee member. That is very different from all having to vote in favour. It is hard for everyone to vote in favour when for example, say the ladies manager or captain is being asked to vote on a male player they may never have seen. In this case either they abstain (ie trusting the managers judgement) or object(not trust the managers concerned judgement or feel it unfair to others) and stop the wildcard. Any member can stop a wildcard. Now the 2 things i want to know is why is this 'a load of shi?' and why does this 'mean we can call you all w???ers'.

8BALL:If a wild card was to be used and as you have said it could not be given to any one who was not proven or commited then surely the stats from last year should have been looked at. Keith Taylor finished with 28.86, only 1.14 short of retention. One wild card was given to a player who missed the 18 point retention level at the finals by 1 point, the other pre trials wild card was given to a player who having played only 2 games, finished last season on 7 points and at 24th in the rankings some 21 points less, and 16 places below Keith.

8 Ball ... you just don't get it. This isn't kids under 12's football. This is a supposed to represent a high standard of a competative game. Yes, of course committment should be rewarded but it can only get you so far. I don't want to comment directly on any one players' game because i don't think it's right. However, you have mentioned a player new to county last year who did something special at nationals (i think it would be poor if we lost him before seeing him at higher levels due to his work not letting him go to retrials - ie potential ie wildcard), we also have another player you mentioned that true, has been consistent and committed; made retention level over past three years but to be blunt hasn't improved or threatened to make the A side (ie no wildcard). We also have someone that had a hell of an achievement last season winning the whole southern section clearly prooving he has what is needed and got injured before trials (ie wildcard).

The theme here you really don't get is that Oxfordshire needs to encourage players that are willing and capable of improving; dispense with players that are only content to be retained and start being the force in pool that it can and should be. Unfortunately though... it seems some of the county needs to be dragged kicking and screaming!!

-- Edited by JFK at 12:39, 2006-04-13

-- Edited by JFK at 12:40, 2006-04-13

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

8ball wrote:

Thc constitution, like the minutes from the `virtual` meeting don`t seem to be available, so how can they be read ?

Check your email, it's there. Get back to me when you've read and digested it. As for the 'virtual meeting', i dealt with that in a previous posting which reading your continuing comments you never read or understood. So once again, just for you is the important excerpts from the yet to be typed up minutes. (the only bits missing are the details of time, date, to whom sent etc, all the boring bits. Nothing else was discussed)

Motion 1

to amend the rules to "that the County Squads may contain up to 4 "WILDCARD" places (2 Men, 1 Lady & 1 Youth) to be awarded by the relevant Team Manager prior to the date of the County Trials. Additionally, Team Managers may apply to the committee to award post trial "Wildcards" where failure to do so would be considered detrimental to the County (an unanimous decision must be recorded in this instance)"

Proposed Kevin McIlroy
Seconded John Kinsey

Motion was passed ............................meeting closed

A request from Team Managers to the committee regarding a 'Post Trial Wildcard' was received

We would like to grant Tom Weeks a Wildcard. We believe it is in the both the short and long term interests of OCPF to do so etc, etc, etc. Under the new rule there must be no objections.
No objections where received, wildcard granted...

Understand all that do we........................Yes?, No?

Answer The Question Are you a Liar or a Cow Dunger.........................................still waiting

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

MING wrote:

8ball wrote: Thc constitution, like the minutes from the `virtual` meeting don`t seem to be available, so how can they be read ? Check your email, it's there.

come on 8 Ball you've had it 10 minutes Alarm Clock

, all them long words confusing you Reading

8ball · Senior Poster (Nominates their colour)

Ming wrote; So once again, just for you is the important excerpts from the yet to be typed up minutes. (the only bits missing are the details of time, date, to whom sent etc, all the boring bits.

We would like to grant Tom Weeks a Wildcard. We believe it is in the both the short and long term interests of OCPF to do so etc, etc, etc. Under the new rule there must be no objections.
No objections where received, wildcard granted...

The` boring bits` as you call them all form pert of the minutes, but as it`s taking so long to get them typed up I wouldn`t be surprised if there are a few more changes to the constitution before we see them.

Having read through the copy of the constitution that you sent me I can find no mention at all of post trials wild cards. Perhaps you could tell me where to find it.

According to your earlier posts it only takes 1 against vote to prevent a post trials wild card from being awarded, this seems strange because I spoke to a member of the Committee just after Tom had been eliminated and was saying it was a bit of a shock, I then said to them that he would be allowed into the squad in some way and their reply was "not as long as I`m involved he won`t" Would this suggest that not all members of the Committee were not contacted for their vote / opinion on this ?

Ming wrote;

Answer The Question Are you a Liar or a Cow Dunger.........................................still waiting

The actual words used by the said person were " Not while I`m in charge he won`t"

Perhaps the Committee need to speak to each other and be honest with each other !

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

Luckylewis wrote:

Gonna miss all this, just popping along to the WORLDS, keep it up, as I want to read lots lots more when I get home.

Good afternoon gentlemen, I see that you didn’t disappoint me.

The Chin · Senior Poster (Pots off the break)

8ball wrote:

The actual words used by the said person were " Not while I`m in charge he won`t" Perhaps the Committee need to speak to each other and be honest with each other !

Who is "in charge" then??

Well Malc is the President, so do you mean him?

What have you been saying Malc??

You are back early Malc, I thought the finals were today??

maximus · Regular Poster (Wins the toss)

Luckylewis wrote:

Luckylewis wrote:
Gonna miss all this, just popping along to the WORLDS, keep it up, as I want to read lots lots more when I get home.

Good afternoon gentlemen, I see that you didn’t disappoint me.

How did u get on Lucky?

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

The Chin wrote:

What have you been saying Malc??

Its not me

now its down to eliminate the rest of the committee

Beefy · Ultimate Poster (Breaks off in decider)

8ball wrote:

Are you a Liar or a Cow Dunger.........................................still waiting The actual words used by the said person were " Not while I`m in charge he won`t" Perhaps the Committee need to speak to each other and be honest with each other !

8 Ball is trying to cause unrest in the committee ranks by using a statement he is not prepared to disclose in my opinion. This is hardly the white house but maybe others are trying to turn it into a polictical scandal.

I think you will find they do speak via e-mail and I certainly did not see any mails that put any evidence to your claim "Not while i'm in charge he won't"

So 8 ball name and shame ot shut up !

The Chin · Senior Poster (Pots off the break)

I see you are still biting well!!

Who else is there on the committee then??...

Kev??

Keith??

John??

Marcus??

Shelly??

I don't know who the committee are, so probably not best placed to guess.

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

8ball wrote:

Having read through the copy of the constitution that you sent me I can find no mention at all of post trials wild cards. Perhaps you could tell me where to find it.

You won't. As you will also know having read it, the constitution can only be changed at an AGM or other General Meeting held for that purpose. The 'Post Trial Wildcard' rule has to be ratified at next years AGM before it can appear in the constitution. Exactly in the same way that the retention rule was revised prior to the County Finals, but only now appears in the constitution because it was ratified at this years AGM.

47 Players may retain their place in the County Squad if;

· They have attained the required number of ranking points throughout the season as set prior to the commencement of the season

· Score 18 or more points at the National County Finals AND have a win percentage of 55% or above

· Reach the quarter finals or better at the relevant National Singles event.

· Any youth satisfying the above criteria for his/her youth side in their FINAL year as a youth will automatically qualify for men's squad next year

The bold, underlined bit was in the old constitution, the rest is new.

Now before you spit out your dummy, let me draw your attention to 2 other very important rules of the constitution

1. This is the Constitution of the Oxfordshire County Pool Federation (herein “OCPF”). This Constitution shall govern the organisation and members of the OCPF. Any points of interpretation arising out of this Constitution shall be decided by a majority vote of the OCPF Committee at a Committee Meeting. Alterations to this Constitution may only take place by majority vote at an AGM, however any matter not dealt with herein may be decided by the Committee of the OCPF (herein “The Committee”)

and

10. The Committee shall have full authority, to make any decision that, in their opinion, is deemed necessary or beneficial to the Federation.

Checkmate, me thinks

8ball also wrote:

According to your earlier posts it only takes 1 against vote to prevent a post trials wild card from being awarded, this seems strange because I spoke to a member of the Committee just after Tom had been eliminated and was saying it was a bit of a shock, I then said to them that he would be allowed into the squad in some way and their reply was "not as long as I`m involved he won`t" The actual words used by the said person were " Not while I`m in charge he won`t"

So which is it; IN volved or IN charge. These excerpts are from your posting, so it would seem that it's you who can't make up you mind. Also as i commented in a previous posting (do keep up); it could equally indicate that said person was persuaded to change their view after reading the various arguements for and against the motion

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

Luckylewis wrote:

now its down to eliminate the rest of the committee

Wise Guy Cowley Community Centre carpark 7.30pm

Laser Blaster Death Ray at the ready...........................

-- Edited by MING at 15:15, 2006-04-13

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

The Chin wrote:

I see you are still biting well!! Who else is there on the committee then??... Kev?? Keith?? John?? Marcus?? Shelly?? I don't know who the committee are, so probably not best placed to guess.

Me, Malc, Beefy, JFK, Marcus, Shelley, Verity, Jaz

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

The Chin wrote:

I see you are still biting well!! .

Me biting don’t be silly, I’ll rather “smack your face in” than shake your hand ……… mate!!