EGM Issues

[Mike Langdon]

Would just like to make a couple of points regarding the 2 issues to be voted on at the EGM.

Item 1: 4 player teams.

I feel the match should be played as there are not to many windows in the season for matches to be rearranged.  However if the vote goes for the 3rd option ie they can play the doubles frame, i think they should have to give a 14 or 21 start in the pairs.  My thinking behind this is that the team with only 2 players might be their best 2 players and the side that has a full team would be forced into playing their weakest player as he has not had a frame therefore giving the team with only 2 players a unfair advantage.

Item 2: A & B Teams.

Could probably do with some clarification on this ie: are the B team the reserve team? In which case they should not be able to play in the same division and both teams should not be entered into the knockout. I would suggest the A team would enter the main knock-out cup with no Plate fall back as the B team would contest the Plate.  I would also suggest a pool of 4 named players (the 4 best players at the club who can only play for the A team) but anyone else can play as many times as they wish for either the first or second string in a season.

If the A & B teams are actually a different side then yes they should be able to compete in the same competition(s) but there should be no crossover of players from one to the other.  Perhaps Sherwood 'B' should change their name, Sherwood Hillcrest or Sherwood Crest perhaps? Would be nice to keep a reminder of the old Hillcrest Club anyway, don't you think?

Cheers
Mike (Pegasus)

[Alan Cunningham]

I think we have got to stick with our guns - ref item 1 - we changed the rules to accommodate teams that could not raise 8 players on a regular basis and agreed we would go with 6, ie 3 singles and a doubles home and away - 4 legs in all. In each leg IF THE SIDE CANNOT FULFILL THE 3 SINGLES OBLIGATION then they cannot play the doubles and so must lose a point for each frame they cannot play.
As regards the 'A' & 'B' side in the same division, this was always going to be a bone of contention
if both teams were in the same division as I tried to point out before this season started IF Arnold B had been promoted - I am sure Hillcrest must have been in the same situation 4 or 5 seasons ago. I personally wouldnt like to predict the outcome of this debate.
But as for the other instance regarding Sherwood 'A' and Sherwood 'B' (x Hillcrest). Knowing both teams, they are both tightly knit sqads and I dont think they would be interested in swapping and changing players players. So to avoid any confusion I would go with Mike suggestion that perhaps Sherwood 'B' beknown as Sherwood Hillcrest ? or similar.