Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'England Hockey' started by ted16, Jul 2, 2015.
Those interested in the open league plans...
My only issue with the publication, is stating a non reply will count as a no, surely the club that chooses not to reply, should be removed from the consideration. Can just see 41 clubs responding with a Yes to progress, 29 clubs saying no, and the 14 who don't respond would actually have inadvertently made the deciding votes.
To change the context, imagine it was an election, and if you didn't vote, your token vote went to the monster raving loony party. For easy figures, the 2017 election had a 70% turnout of eligible voters, the other 30% of the countries eligible did not vote, and their vote, was therefore not counted. However if a default was in place that there vote went elsewhere, as they hadn't responded, 9.672 million votes would have gone somewhere else.
I agree wholeheartedly with @Darren Dixon. An abstention is just that. It otherwise skews the vote by simply stating "No vote is a vote for the status quo."
In order to take undecided or opposing clubs with MRHA (and, I hope, the majority) on this journey it needs to be an open (see what I did there) and transparent process. Co-opting votes to the status quo doesn't do that.
That said, i would have quite like the monster raving loony parties arguments in PMQ's around Brexit
For anyone who would like a little laugh, their 2017 manifesto should do it....
Lord bucket-head is a must please.
All I will say is make sure your clubs vote.
@Darren Dixon and @Mac - I don't speak for the league committee (in fact I was skeptical of them even getting us this far) - but I think their intentions were to guarantee that 50% +1 of the clubs supported the change.
This means that any flaws in the system gives them the defence (possibly too strong) that more than half the league actually agreed to the change. Now this may feel wrong (I'm not keen) but I do understand why they took that path. The GE comparison is slightly flawed as there are more than 2 choices - however if applied to the EU referendum they the vote woudl have gone the other way.
Personally I was happy to see the amount and detail of work in the proposals - it shows the committee have looked at it properly. It won't be perfect, but it was a thankless task and they should be applauded for turning it round in a relatively short period of time.
So if your clubs do want open leagues the only thing they can do is (1) ensure they respond (2) lobby other local clubs to ensure they also respond - 43 need to say yes and it carries. The smaller clubs have as much say as the big ones so if Buxton and Newton say Yes but Beeston say No (and extrapolate up) it will get the result.
(Clubs chosen at random not as an indication of their votes!!!)
To use the GE again, Theresa May had the intentions of winning a majority in order to simplify Brexit.... we all know how that ended up.
Overall i agree with you, they have done a very good job at turning round, a very thorough document, but what is the point of all the time spent on a "thankless task", if people ignoring it could have a huge impact on the result.
I think it is to avoid having to go back over it again in 12, 24, 72 months - what is needed is teams to vote (however they wish) and however misinformed I think it is the statement that an abstention is a no vote does at least promote that.
I'm not defending them here, I believe it's bonkers, but I do want to do is cut them some slack as they have had a lot of undue stress and stick over this already - and they are in essence volunteers. Given Essex saw it's committee resign (probably quite rightly) en masse this week I think we sometimes forget that most people involved in the admin of hockey are just volunteers trying to do what they can for a sport they love.
(Not you @murph )
She already had a majority! She went for the GE because Corbyn was so god awful in the polls she was convinced by the party she'd end up with some crazy huge majority, so gambled and lost
Open leagues work in every other region and it should ensure every team gets a 12 team league so they get their 22 games as well as playing at a level appropriate for their ability i.e. not having Cannock, Beeston, Loughborough Students 2s etc playing "who's the best of the national league bench" in a league with 6 clubs playing "avoid the bottom 2 spots". I genuinely believe in a few years Midlands could have been stronger by tempting players to move to a nearby club knowing they could play NL rather than playing 2nd XI and benching NL, however if EH allow second teams in the NL it could put paid to the advantage for Midlands, but I'd still weigh down in favour for making the leagues more competitive and more enjoyable
Precisely my point, just not worded clearly.... reinforces my point. I remember being told a phrase, "Whats worked by us" Just because something worked once, we assume it will continue to work indefinitely, and its at the "assume" stage, where people like our good old prime minister, start to look silly.
Looking at the doc from a Northern perspective, I was surprised how small the area covered was: 80 miles North to South and 115 miles East to West Our 5/6s have away games that are @95 miles away at Bangor - which is too far IMO for that level of hockey. If Bangor Uni have a few promotions, twinned with Morpeth getting a couple, then there could be a @520 mile round trip! (same as Brooklands -> Canterbury)
I hope they actively pursue clubs to make a vote, and shame those that do not, just sitting on your arse and not participating would be pathetic.
Is there much unhappiness with travel in the current setup? with distance and/or the time to do that distance ?
On the club map in the pdf, who are the two clubs way out on the east and west? (page 18)
Agreed, as one who grew up in the Yorkshire leagues, some of the Midlands distances are quite low!
Furthest West is likely to be Newtown, East will be Oundle
Setup wise, there are too many leagues either with too few teams or some where the 1st team is national league so their seconds and thirds are simply too good for the league they're in but can't go higher. Beeston 2s would beat a fair few of the first teams meaning they don't get a great challenge in their league and it's not really fun for the other teams in the league. As an example, 2nd team prem - top 4 teams are scoring for fun and conceding very few then you have a big drop for 6-12 - the bottom 5 combined have 29 points, Beeston (top) have 27 on their own
I'm just grumpy about having to leave the house at 0830 on Saturday - Oundle here we come!
I remember playing for Crewe Vagrants V Durham - 342 miles on a Sunday. That was fun we lost 9-0 I think after we'd lost 6-1 to Hull (also away) the previous day!
5s/6s must be around the Vagrants 2s (before the South Cheshire folding) so I've done Bangor too!
South Men's Leagues went fully open several years ago, and we had only 1st teams divisions closed, with all else open. Much better all round.
Go for it, Midlands!
To add to the ever-evolving midlands thread...
It's looking increasingly likely that I will be moving to north Leicester in the summer. I will have easy access to the M1.
Club recommendations welcome... Happy to travel, last year It was a 45-minute journey (one way) to get to the club I was coaching at. This year it's under 10.
To be perfectly honest, I am picky.
Now I'm not expecting to hit all of my preferences but as many as possible would be nice
'Family clubs' - that vet that always asks you how you got on but you're not sure he actually knows your name or who you play for / coach
A good pitch
Clubhouse house by the pitch (at a push I can stretch to an under 5-minute drive)
A good junior section that is well run
A forward-thinking committee that is trying to improve the club and are willing to invest time and resources to do this (not all talk). Some sort of development plan in place is always a bonus
Somewhere that has good coaching
Decent website and social media accounts to stay up to date with whats going on
Preference would be to have men's and ladies sections (girlfriend plays as well)
Nice changing facilities and warm showers!
Good social within teams and the club as a whole
A club that doesn't have a reputation for being aggressive or rubbish playing style
Any clubs that can hit 7 points or above I will consider
Played and coached a fairly decent standard in the South
There's three teams in Leicester, not sure if any of them have their own pitch and clubhouse though. Melton certainly do.
Obviously Beeston are just up the road.
There's even more than just Beeston in Nottingham too!
Boots too are on the up. Likely to be Midlands Prem next year. Always score highly in the socialbility tables...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk