|
|
Post by thecentralscrutinizer on Oct 13, 2011 15:13:25 GMT 1
Open Invitation from SPA
by: maxi, Today 11:09 AM (#1)
The SPA Executive Committee called an EGM recently to discuss the ADPL letter requesting dual affiliation with the SPA and SEPF.
The letter, and it’s proposals were discussed at length and the outcome is as follows:
The ADPL can affiliate for the period of one year (2012) to participate in all SPA organised events. At the end of this period the ADPL are required to decide on which association they wish to affiliate to.
After this decision was made it was decided to open this same offer to all existing SEPF or WR playing leagues in Scotland.
If anyone has access to any of these leagues websites could you please cut and paste so they are aware of the offer.
Affiliation costs are £50. Next meeting is December the 4th and this is the deadline for IM entries for next year so leagues would need to register their intent and bring their entries to that meeting.
I WOULD LIKE TO FORMALLY REQUEST THAT OUR LEAGUE TAKE UP THIS OFFER TO DUAL AFFILIATE TO THE SPA ASWELL AS THE SEPF. THIS WOULD ALLOW PLAYERS FROM THE ELGIN LEAGUE ACCESS TO ALL COMPS AVAILABLE IN SCOTLAND.
WOULD THE COMMITTEE CONSIDER MEETING TO DISCUSS THIS?
|
|
|
|
Post by raymack on Oct 13, 2011 16:06:36 GMT 1
As a committe I would imagine we are dutybound to have a meeting about something like this.
I am a wee bit confused as to what the motives are behind opening up this offer to all WR leagues in Scotland though.
|
|
|
|
Post by thecentralscrutinizer on Oct 13, 2011 16:23:25 GMT 1
The idea is to get players playing together more often I think. In my view, they have the superior pool product in Scotland and the opportunity is there for our players to get a piece of it. Players could play on the sepf regional tour as well as local qualifiers for SPA IM's. We could send a team to the sepf interleague next year in addition to the SPA's super 11 and Super 15 Tournaments.
Seems like a win win. However, I may have missed the bit at last Sunday's meeting which said we can't actually do this! Brad?
|
|
|
|
Post by raymack on Oct 13, 2011 16:40:02 GMT 1
Or the cynic in me perhaps see this as the SPA seeing an opportunity to drive a stake into the heart of the SEPF........... just keeping an open mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by thecentralscrutinizer on Oct 13, 2011 18:16:26 GMT 1
Nothing ventured nothing gained in my view. Just because we dual affiliate for one year does not necessarily mean we bin sepf affiliation after that year expires does it?
We have been offered an opportunity with no strings attached. Some will view it as you do but if the sepf is meeting the needs of all the players then it has nothing to worry about.
More tourneys, increased competition. new opponents etc for 50 squid. No bad if you ask me! And if we don't like it we can remain as we are now. Too good to be true?!
|
|
|
|
Post by raymack on Oct 13, 2011 18:41:00 GMT 1
Some will view it as you do but if the sepf is meeting the needs of all the players then it has nothing to worry about. Now now Adam, I didn't actually say it was my view there were ulterior motives ........I said i was keeping an open mind and I hear what you are saying as regards the SEPF. I just knew this wouldn't be far away !  |
|
|
|
Post by thecentralscrutinizer on Oct 13, 2011 18:53:17 GMT 1
Some will view it as you do but if the sepf is meeting the needs of all the players then it has nothing to worry about. Now now Adam, I didn't actually say it was my view there were ulterior motives ........I said i was keeping an open mind and I hear what you are saying as regards the SEPF. I just knew this wouldn't be far away ! Quite right ray, sorry! Should have said 'view it in that way' instead. Oops! |
|
|
|
Post by thecentralscrutinizer on Oct 13, 2011 18:55:12 GMT 1
Who knows the dual affiliation idea may just bring Scottish pool back together again. A lofty ambition but a worthy one nonetheless!
|
|
|
|
Post by ac on Oct 13, 2011 19:00:08 GMT 1
where's the wight knight when you need him eh?
C'mon Bradders, what the sepf's take on this, crack with the aforementioned meeting? only seen snippets on the adpl site....
|
|
|
|
Post by thecentralscrutinizer on Oct 13, 2011 19:03:25 GMT 1
What do you think Andrew?
|
|
|
|
Post by ac on Oct 13, 2011 19:21:05 GMT 1
i'll be honest adam, without knowing the in's and out's fully i cant possibly see what the harm in it could be?
I'm quite happy plugging away on a wednesday and trying to compete on the region 4 tour (no laughing at the back there!!), but i guess for folk like yoursel, tony etc it would open up a few doors to play further afield.
But what i will say is that i prefer WR's as opposed to BB. Granted, i've not played enough games of BB to say for definite one way or another, just a hunch. After a few seasons of world rules, i like the fact games tend to be quicker, it encourages attacking play etc so it be reluctant to change back. In our 4 games this season i dont think we'v still been playing after ten bells (that includes the tennants turning up at half 8 - only jesting raymondo it was 25 past lol). Bear in mind, as a fresh faced young loon playing a while back with old elgin rules, half 12, 1 am finishes were not uncommon (cough cough i.o cough cough lol). Maybe purists wuld prefer BB based on the no delibrate fouling rule an i empathise with that, but deliberately fouling as i see it, is a skill, and defo speeds the game up.
Slightly off topic Adam, but if you had to choose one set of rules, what would they be? I'm asking purely as you've played them both quite extensively....??
|
|
|
|
Post by thecentralscrutinizer on Oct 13, 2011 19:44:56 GMT 1
Got to admit that I prefer World Rules because I feel that there is more thought required more of the time. However, coming one billionth of a second just behind is blackball rules. Either are excellent rules.
Totally agree with your comment about quicker frames and matches during league games because of WR but Inverness play the same format through there and it doesn't make a difference that they play BB. No stupid o'clock finishes there either tbh.
I say let's give it a go and see. If we don't like it then we can get rid.
Ps. Shame u can't make it on sat as it would have been a wee chance for a wee hit about at the BB rules...
|
|
|
|
Post by thecentralscrutinizer on Oct 13, 2011 19:46:45 GMT 1
Pps what you talking about competing in tourneys? You could have won two tours last year if Neil hadn't been grinding his way to victory!
|
|
|
|
Post by Brad on Oct 13, 2011 20:01:43 GMT 1
Hi all,
The SEPF are sending an official letter to the ADPL. Until this letter has been sent and received, I'm not in a position to comment as it would be unfair on the guys in Aberdeen who initiated this move.
Please wait a week or so and see what happens in Aberdeen.
Hope you can understand my position.
Thanks,
Brad
|
|
|
|
Post by martinc on Oct 14, 2011 11:24:43 GMT 1
Hi Brad how long we looking for this letter to come, was told it would be a couple of days back on Tuesday? Just plenty of folk looking for clarification . nipping my head etc lol, shouldnt take that long to do up effectively the minutes of the meeting. Also some conflicting information being fed down here that would be good to get cleared up as well.
cheers Brad
|
|
|
|
Post by derek on Oct 14, 2011 11:35:57 GMT 1
Brad/Adam,
I was at the same meeting as you guys on Sunday past.
Can you both confirm that you voted on this matter ?
Not asking what you voted but if you voted.
Brad you should be able to confirm this by the minutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brad on Oct 15, 2011 12:01:08 GMT 1
I can confirm it Derek. I voted, Adam wasn't in the room at the time.
Martin, I'll be posting the letter today, it shopuld be with you on Monday or Tuesday at the latest.
|
|
|
|
Post by thecentralscrutinizer on Oct 19, 2011 12:02:47 GMT 1
Hi Brad,
Any further forward on this pal?
Thanks,
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brad on Oct 19, 2011 19:06:20 GMT 1
Partially! I'm just dealing with Martin Campbell and Lindsay directly at the minute, trying to keep things iff the internet as there's so much bending of reality by people who aren't involved that it's getting beyond belief!
|
|
|
|
Post by thecentralscrutinizer on Oct 24, 2011 23:46:17 GMT 1
Hi Brad,
I have read the stuff on the ADPL website and find it to be a little confusing. They have gone a bit further down the line with dual affiliation it would seem and they are potentially going to be penalised for this.
Bearing all of this in mind, are the EDPL committee intending to meet and discuss the SPA's invitation anyway? It would seem that the league representatives should have the chance to discuss this issue if not only to clarify the state of play.
Thanks,
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by raymack on Oct 25, 2011 11:22:46 GMT 1
Adam, to answer your question, at the moment and after speaking with Brad the other day there have been no plans made for a committee meeting that I am aware of.
However, since then as you know there have been developments and I personally now feel this should be discussed in order to avoid all the uncertainty that has been evident in Aberdeen.
Will speak to Brad later.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by Brad on Oct 25, 2011 17:02:34 GMT 1
No problem,
Basically until the SPA drop their choice policy, any SEPF member league who affiliates to the SPA will have their SEPF membership revoked.
Myself and the SEPF Executive have attempted to reach a compromise which would allow Aberdeen and Aberdeen only to try dual affiliation for a season long trial. However, the SPA choice policy is a stumbling block, as is the fact that I cannot obtain a straight and concise explanation of SPA International (including 11 man B team) selection policy.
Therefore, we have been left with no choice but to go with the results of the proposal which the SEPF regional committee's voted on at Kirkcaldy which does not allow SEPF member leagues to affiliate to the SPA.
I really don't think there's much point having a meeting for our league. I don't think anyone would want to sacrifice what we have achieved in the last couple of years with regards to regional tours and international players, just to play in a couple of team events and qualifiers for a national tour.
We will have to have a committee meeting soon anyway, to discuss the Player of the Season fiasco, so if you feel strongly about it then feel free to raise it then.
Brad.
|
|
|
|
Post by thecentralscrutinizer on Oct 25, 2011 18:43:25 GMT 1
I'm not convinced that we would need to sacrifice anything Brad. I think that is the very reason we need to have a meeting about this. I believe that there is still a way for EDPL players to get the best of both SPA and SEPF events next year which is why we should have a chat about things.
I agree that the SPA choice policy is a poor show however an SEPF equivalent in whatever form is just as rubbish. Anyway, we can discuss it at this forthcoming meeting about the player of the season problems. Like that won't be fun enough...
|
|
|
|
Post by Brad on Oct 25, 2011 19:48:19 GMT 1
The SEPF does not have a choice policy when it comes to players playing in tournaments.
The only choice we have said must be made is you must choose whether your league affiliates to the SEPF or SPA. You can't do both.
If someone like Fyffee went and played an SPA event which carried international ranking points (hypothetically), he might be selected for the SEPF Scotland squad and subsequently informed by the WEPF that he is not welcome to play at the World Championships.
|
|
|
|
Post by thecentralscrutinizer on Oct 25, 2011 20:03:43 GMT 1
Yes but the way that this is going seems to show that affiliating to the SPA for the one year trial period is the way to go though. Reason being that we could still have Regional Tours through individual affiliation payments and play in IMs and Superleagues no bother. The best bit about it is that we dont have to change rules in the leagues or in the regional tour and After the year is up, we can revert to SEPF affiliation if that was what was best for our players.
Obviously to do this Fyffee or whoever would need to be informed from the start that if they played IMs they would not be allowed to go to play for the SEPF Scotland team if they qualified again. Players would have the choice in advance which events to play in without anyone telling them what to do. The point is though that this way they would have MORE choice than they currently do.
I feel that there is value for our players here and we should be doing everything possible to ensure that value is realised.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brad on Oct 25, 2011 21:18:06 GMT 1
But that would mean Elgin not playing at the SEPF Interleague in 2012 and I think that would be a very unpopular move.
I personally think what we have here is fine and has worked well since we affiliated, largely thanks to your hard work setting up and running the tours. I don't see any need to rock the boat and test the other side, it'll only benefit a very small number of players if any. I also doubt very much that we'd be able to get a team out for any extra competitions given the fact that I had to borrow two guys from Aberdeen to make up an 8 man team for the anniversary event in in August.
Am I also right in thinking you have to qualify for the SPA team competition final stages?
|
|
|
|
Post by Brad on Oct 25, 2011 21:19:16 GMT 1
Also, surely anyone who wishes to play in IMs, can just play in the Inverness league, opt out of playing on SEPF Regional tours and keep quiet about the fact that they play in a WR league?
|
|
|
|
Post by thecentralscrutinizer on Oct 25, 2011 21:59:18 GMT 1
Why would it have to mean not playing at the SEPF Interleague in 2012? I'm not sure that the competition nor the SEPF would turn teams away if they indicated that they would be reaffiliating in 2013. I'm also not sure they would turn away guys who have been individually affiliating through the regional tours either when push comes to shove.
What this is boiling down to is quite unpleasant. You and the SEPF committee are, for purely protectionist reasons, attempting limit the choice of players playing pool in the EDPL and I don't think that it casts you in a good light at all. I might have expected this from others on that committee but coming from you is quite hard to take.
If the league doesn't want to take the route that I have outlined above because they are threatened with a ban then so be it. We should be looking at this as an opportunity for our players to compete in more comps against different opposition. I can't believe that you are against this.
|
|
|
|
Post by thecentralscrutinizer on Oct 25, 2011 22:04:03 GMT 1
Also, surely anyone who wishes to play in IMs, can just play in the Inverness league, opt out of playing on SEPF Regional tours and keep quiet about the fact that they play in a WR league? Well you've just shat on that idea for anyone who may consider such nefarious means to play pool tournaments... |
|
|
|
Post by Brad on Oct 25, 2011 22:23:27 GMT 1
It's not me who came up with the no dual affiliation rule Adam. It was proposed by a regional committee member at the meeting and voted on by all present including members of our own region and league.
Apart from abstentions from Aberdeen guys it was unanimous. People feel that you should be either SEPF or SPA but not both, largely due to the choice policy which the SPA use to ban their players from playing in our tournaments.
It would mean not playing at the Interleague because a league (Aberdeen for example) who affiliates to the SPA for the duration of 2012 would have their SEPF membership revoked for the duration of 2012 and therefore wouldn't be entitled to play at the Interleague which is for SEPF teams/players.
We also agreed at the start of the Kirkcaldy meeting that Interleague entry criteria would be discussed at the AGM with the proposal being, "Only league representative teams from SEPF affilliated leagues consisting of players who genuinely play in those leagues may enter the Interleague."
Many players, myself included, aren't happy with the current situation whereby any seven players from around the country could form and enter a team. It should be league representative teams only.
|
|
