Jump to content
Cornwall Football Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Gooner

Applications to join the ECPL next season

Recommended Posts

As a committee member of a club that was seeking to get voted into the league I was not at the meeting. Therefore I am having to rely on the testimonies of individuals on here that were at the meeting.

Marjons would like to congratulate the clubs who have been voted in, and hope that they become an asset to the competition. Kev has rightly pointed out that the vote was unanimous, however, I find it quite worrying that the strengths/weaknesses of EACH club's bid wasn't put to all present at the meeting so that an informed decision could of been made. Like all clubs who were looking to gain a place in the league, our own bid undoubtedly had some negative aspects attached that many clubs would have noted when casting their vote. However it also had many strengths, and having a lack of an opportunity to 'sell' those benefits could have greatly affected voting on the night. (For what its worth, I agree with all of the previous comments regarding Tamarside, and I'm surprised they didn't get in - it certainly wouldn't be on the grounds of quality as they are a well run club).

We may have still been voted out, but at least we would of got a fair hearing, and had our chance to put forward the strongest case possible. We may have even learnt one or two things from other clubs regarding any potential concerns in readiness for what may be our third bid to join the league in 2011/12. If the committee were so intent on having certain clubs voted in, then why invite applications?

We are still keen on moving forward as a club over the long-term by building teams and facilities that will be the envy of many. IF something fishy has gone on here, then we will have to think very hard about applying for this league in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest thebigfella

As a committee member of a club that was seeking to get voted into the league I was not at the meeting. Therefore I am having to rely on the testimonies of individuals on here that were at the meeting.

Marjons would like to congratulate the clubs who have been voted in, and hope that they become an asset to the competition. Kev has rightly pointed out that the vote was unanimous, however, I find it quite worrying that the strengths/weaknesses of EACH club's bid wasn't put to all present at the meeting so that an informed decision could of been made. Like all clubs who were looking to gain a place in the league, our own bid undoubtedly had some negative aspects attached that many clubs would have noted when casting their vote. However it also had many strengths, and having a lack of an opportunity to 'sell' those benefits could have greatly affected voting on the night. (For what its worth, I agree with all of the previous comments regarding Tamarside, and I'm surprised they didn't get in - it certainly wouldn't be on the grounds of quality as they are a well run club).

We may have still been voted out, but at least we would of got a fair hearing, and had our chance to put forward the strongest case possible. We may have even learnt one or two things from other clubs regarding any potential concerns in readiness for what may be our third bid to join the league in 2011/12. If the committee were so intent on having certain clubs voted in, then why invite applications?

We are still keen on moving forward as a club over the long-term by building teams and facilities that will be the envy of many. IF something fishy has gone on here, then we will have to think very hard about applying for this league in the future.

Well said Professor! No club had a opportunity to 'present' their case to the existing member clubs, other than Kilkhampton who appeared to have that done for them my the committee!

If there was one spot available between Kilkhampton, UCP Marjons, Tamarside, Ivybridge Res, Gunnislake and Dobwalls then all 6 clubs should have been given an EQUAL opportunity and chance to gain election. What is the process? What was presented to the member clubs? Seems to me that the committee had already decided who they wanted in (god only knows why) and that feeling was imposed on the members at the meeting, and maybe even beforehand.

If Dobwalls had actually had a team, I would have said that they would have had the strongest case for entry given that their first team is in the SWPL. However, given that they hasn't even got a team ready to enter the league, then you would have thought that UCP Marjons, Tamarside, Gunnislake and even Ivybridge would have met far more criteria that Kilkhampton, regardless of any 'future' investment! As I understand it, Tamarside may well be in line for some additional funding when the school switches to an Academy... so, what's the difference?

My proposal would be that each club submits a short 2/3 page document to the league committee by a certain date. This document, containing set and standard information about the club, facilities and structure, plus an opportunity to put their own case forward, should then be circulated to all member clubs enabling them all to make a considered and educated vote at the AGM. Not be railroaded into a decision that the committee had already preconcieved. Completely unfair and undemocratic!! Poor show ECPL!!! Changes please!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with many of your points bigfella. My preference would be for each club to provide a presentation to existing members, and then votes cast. That way, questions could be answered there and then. To be fair, your idea of the 2/3 page document would be a step forward. Some transparency would be welcome so that time and energy isn't wasted in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest thebigfella

I agree with many of your points bigfella. My preference would be for each club to provide a presentation to existing members, and then votes cast. That way, questions could be answered there and then. To be fair, your idea of the 2/3 page document would be a step forward. Some transparency would be welcome so that time and energy isn't wasted in the future.

I take your point Prof, but the problem there then is that it becomes more about an individuals presentation skills rather than about what the football club has to offer. Someone with powerpoint and a media qualification could quite easily jazz-up any club's application... but would that really reflect the 'football club' as a whole? I doubt it.

A standard questionnaire type document, with a further opportunity to append the clubs own words would be much fairer I feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a personal point of view I wasn't in favour of Kilkampton mainly because of the distance to travel (even though only once a season), but my understanding is that Tamerside plan was to keep their 1st team in their Plymouth league and that it would be their under 18's that would step up as a reserve team in ECL. Kilkampton were not exactly forced onto the members but their was no real info about any of the clubs in question. I agree their should really be some sort of background information to help members decide.

Problem is many member clubs (founder members) regard changing room facilities as the indicator of a successful club (my opinion only).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a personal point of view I wasn't in favour of Kilkampton mainly because of the distance to travel (even though only once a season), but my understanding is that Tamerside plan was to keep their 1st team in their Plymouth league and that it would be their under 18's that would step up as a reserve team in ECL. Kilkampton were not exactly forced onto the members but their was no real info about any of the clubs in question. I agree their should really be some sort of background information to help members decide.

Problem is many member clubs (founder members) regard changing room facilities as the indicator of a successful club (my opinion only).

So how did you know that it was Tamarside's plan to do that? Was that read out at the meeting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a personal point of view I wasn't in favour of Kilkampton mainly because of the distance to travel (even though only once a season), but my understanding is that Tamerside plan was to keep their 1st team in their Plymouth league and that it would be their under 18's that would step up as a reserve team in ECL. Kilkampton were not exactly forced onto the members but their was no real info about any of the clubs in question. I agree their should really be some sort of background information to help members decide.

Problem is many member clubs (founder members) regard changing room facilities as the indicator of a successful club (my opinion only).

So how did you know that it was Tamarside's plan to do that? Was that read out at the meeting?

Yeah, the committee said at the meeting that Tamarside would be fielding their under 18 side in ECL1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That should not be a deterrent as any side could turn out to be all youth.

the last time tamaraude were in the league they had different teams every week, especially away games.

For the other part the league do make some strange decisions, kilkhampton? Why would anyone prefer to there rather than another east Cornwall club, dibwalls don't have a team but neither did camelford. Tamarside dropped out a few years ago but so did st dennis. Total double standards to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is correct it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

The process for selection seems to change every year, talk about moving goal posts they appear to be non existent where the ECPL are concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with many of your points bigfella. My preference would be for each club to provide a presentation to existing members, and then votes cast. That way, questions could be answered there and then. To be fair, your idea of the 2/3 page document would be a step forward. Some transparency would be welcome so that time and energy isn't wasted in the future.

So why did you withdraw your application?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest brickwall

That should not be a deterrent as any side could turn out to be all youth.

the last time tamaraude were in the league they had different teams every week, especially away games.

For the other part the league do make some strange decisions, kilkhampton? Why would anyone prefer to there rather than another east Cornwall club, dibwalls don't have a team but neither did camelford. Tamarside dropped out a few years ago but so did st dennis. Total double standards to be honest.

To be honest i think u need to be able to spell before u consider joining the ECPL! i do however agree that kilkhampton will be a long way to travel and tamarside would have been better but we cant have teams joining our league if they only wanna use it as development for youth sides!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with many of your points bigfella. My preference would be for each club to provide a presentation to existing members, and then votes cast. That way, questions could be answered there and then. To be fair, your idea of the 2/3 page document would be a step forward. Some transparency would be welcome so that time and energy isn't wasted in the future.

So why did you withdraw your application?

I can assure you that we didn't. I hope that wasn't the impression given by the committee........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with many of your points bigfella. My preference would be for each club to provide a presentation to existing members, and then votes cast. That way, questions could be answered there and then. To be fair, your idea of the 2/3 page document would be a step forward. Some transparency would be welcome so that time and energy isn't wasted in the future.

So why did you withdraw your application?

I can assure you that we didn't. I hope that wasn't the impression given by the committee........

No the Committee did not give the impression that you had withdrawn your application to join the league, they did not think you had the facilities in place for next season

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with many of your points bigfella. My preference would be for each club to provide a presentation to existing members, and then votes cast. That way, questions could be answered there and then. To be fair, your idea of the 2/3 page document would be a step forward. Some transparency would be welcome so that time and energy isn't wasted in the future.

So why did you withdraw your application?

I can assure you that we didn't. I hope that wasn't the impression given by the committee........

No the Committee did not give the impression that you had withdrawn your application to join the league, they did not think you had the facilities in place for next season

Actually. I think the committee dismissed the applications of both Ivybridge and Marjons because their league position was not high enough and they left off Dobwalls from the voting slip because of the fact they had applied without having a team to go into the League. Member clubs were invited to add Dobwalls name and vote for them if they wished (which six obviously did) and they mentioned that Tamarside had pulled out two seasons ago 'after' the fixtures had been drawn up and it was the committee's understanding that they (Tamarside) would be keeping their title winning side in the P&WDCL and the ECPL side would be made up from their all winning U18 side from this season.

That would be a little bit difficult because there were players from Tamarside's U18 squad that were already playing for the P&WDCL side or SWPL football with other clubs.

There was a lot of conjecture about Kilkhampton's current league status, whether their playing and changing facilities were up to ECPL standards and whether they (Kilkhampton) would be able to come good on their promise of ground improvements by Christmas ,(if not before) on the basis of supposed funding in place.

St Teath were confirmed as being accepted into the ECPL on the basis of having won the Duchy Premier and also in view of their ground improvements meeting league standards.

Nothing was mentioned about Gunnislake by either the Committee or the member clubs (hence no votes).

In my opinion the Committee didn't over emphasis their preferance for Kilkhampton or for not wanting Tamarside but merely responded to questions / queries from the member clubs regardiing Kilkhampton.

At the end of the day, if there was any dispute as to Kilkhampton's worthiness to join the ECPL the member clubs had the chance to vote for someone else which they clearly did not.

Like I said previously 21 votes against 2 for Tamarside is pretty unanimous and in my opinion, one of the main reasons that has really stopped Tamarside progressing is the fact that the top Division in the P&WDCL is now classed as Junior football, otherwise with their set up they could easily have applied for promotion to the SWPL Div One West.

It's easy for me to say as a DEVON club already being in the ECPL but maybe...just maybe...regardless of the merits of Tamarside...another DEVON club in the EAST CORNWALL League is why they didn't get voted for by many of the member clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said previously 21 votes against 2 for Tamarside is pretty unanimous and in my opinion, one of the main reasons that has really stopped Tamarside progressing is the fact that the top Division in the P&WDCL is now classed as Junior football, otherwise with their set up they could easily have applied for promotion to the SWPL Div One West.

The fact that the P&WDCL class their top division as "intermediate" (not junior) does not affect promotion to the Peninsula League - as far as that league is concerned, the P&WDC is still one of it's six feeders. The change of status just changes the Devon County Cup the teams play in.

--

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with many of your points bigfella. My preference would be for each club to provide a presentation to existing members, and then votes cast. That way, questions could be answered there and then. To be fair, your idea of the 2/3 page document would be a step forward. Some transparency would be welcome so that time and energy isn't wasted in the future.

So why did you withdraw your application?

I can assure you that we didn't. I hope that wasn't the impression given by the committee........

No the Committee did not give the impression that you had withdrawn your application to join the league, they did not think you had the facilities in place for next season

Funny was talking to someone last night who was at the meeting and he was told when asked about Marjons that they had withdrawn their application!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...