212 replies to this topic

[Marauder]

is their going to be a vote by the ncl members on a return back to winter or is it not that simple?

If they did get to vote it should be a secret one where no one knows who voted summer or winter.

[gillmeister]

Id imagine the NCL would stay as it is and it will be down to individual clubs to decide to leave and find a league to play in

[samsung]

is their going to be a vote by the ncl members on a return back to winter or is it not that simple?

There won't be a vote. The NCL are committed to a 3 year period of summer rugby and if, after that length of time, the summer isn't working, the clubs can make decisions on what to do next. In the meantime, if individual clubs want to go back to winter, they will be free to do so. Hopefully, the established NCL clubs will stay with the NCL and give it at least another season to see if it works for them.

[Marauder]

There won't be a vote. The NCL are committed to a 3 year period of summer rugby and if, after that length of time, the summer isn't working, the clubs can make decisions on what to do next. In the meantime, if individual clubs want to go back to winter, they will be free to do so. Hopefully, the established NCL clubs will stay with the NCL and give it at least another season to see if it works for them.

In the end finances and player (across the board) availability will be the deciding factors and with many clubs now openly stating they are having problems in both areas can they afford to bury their heads for a further two seasons?

I can't see how they will make it work as the problems are not ones you can build a long term workable structure around, tie this in with the RFL elite youth/junior plans and you have another big problem for the NCL (Unless your a chosen club)

[gillmeister]

In the end finances and player (across the board) availability will be the deciding factors and with many clubs now openly stating they are having problems in both areas can they afford to bury their heads for a further two seasons?

I can't see how they will make it work as the problems are not ones you can build a long term workable structure around, tie this in with the RFL elite youth/junior plans and you have another big problem for the NCL (Unless your a chosen club)

I would imagine that the SL clubs dual registering more players with championship clubs will see clubs in the championship and below looking to use the NCL as a breeding ground as a result?

Which clubs have openly stated they are having problems with finances Marauder?

[sbull]

Id imagine the NCL would stay as it is and it will be down to individual clubs to decide to leave and find a league to play in

if there was a vote and the majority voted to move back to winter, would the NCL not just move back?

[gillmeister]

My understanding is the NCL will be a summer comp. They have 18 new applicants so why would they revert back when they have the capacity to replace say a dozen teams? Leaves the NCL with the whip hand!!

[sbull]

There won't be a vote. The NCL are committed to a 3 year period of summer rugby and if, after that length of time, the summer isn't working, the clubs can make decisions on what to do next. In the meantime, if individual clubs want to go back to winter, they will be free to do so. Hopefully, the established NCL clubs will stay with the NCL and give it at least another season to see if it works for them.

why are the NCL committed for three years, was this mentioned prior to the Vote taking place? i fully understand your argument give it another go but at what cost, how many players will be lost over a three year spell, not to mention the drop in standards,

whats stopping a vote at the end of the season and getting away from this three year commitment if its for the good of the game and if its what clubs want which we will only know by voting, a simple vote without any prearranged proper gander is the only way forward,

whos got the power to decide if it can go to a vote or not?

[sbull]

My understanding is the NCL will be a summer comp. They have 18 new applicants so why would they revert back when they have the capacity to replace say a dozen teams? Leaves the NCL with the whip hand!!

thought the idea of switching to summer was to improve playing standards, at what standard are the new 18 applicants playing at? are is it just about nr now,

it is my understanding that if the mojority of the clubs VOTE to move back, then they will move back, or is it all stitch up and the members dont get a say, by not having a vote for instance ?

[bowes]

thought the idea of switching to summer was to improve playing standards, at what standard are the new 18 applicants playing at? are is it just about nr now,

it is my understanding that if the mojority of the clubs VOTE to move back, then they will move back, or is it all stitch up and the members dont get a say, by not having a vote for instance ?

If there was a vote for winter then there'd instantly be a summer alternative set up and you'd end up with 2 rival leagues.

Very unlikely though as last vote was 28-10 in summer and if the league loses half a dozen pro winter clubs next year but replaces them with a dozen pro summer clubs the next vote would be far more overwhelmingly for summer.

[bowes]

thought the idea of switching to summer was to improve playing standards, at what standard are the new 18 applicants playing at? are is it just about nr now,

it is my understanding that if the mojority of the clubs VOTE to move back, then they will move back, or is it all stitch up and the members dont get a say, by not having a vote for instance ?

Some of the 18 are a good NCL standard, others lower end but some I wouldn't let anywhere near (Kippax Knights and South Wales Hornets). I haven't seen the full list though.

[sbull]

If there was a vote for winter then there'd instantly be a summer alternative set up and you'd end up with 2 rival leagues.

Very unlikely though as last vote was 28-10 in summer and if the league loses half a dozen pro winter clubs next year but replaces them with a dozen pro summer clubs the next vote would be far more overwhelmingly for summer.

will probably end up with two rival leagues then with the playing talent split in two,

with no team able to turn out the same team twice during the summer anyboby want to put a argument forward about how to achieve a better standered of rugby which was the main reason for the switch?

Edited by sbull, 29 August 2012 - 06:31 PM.

[Marauder]

If there was a vote for winter then there'd instantly be a summer alternative set up and you'd end up with 2 rival leagues.

Very unlikely though as last vote was 28-10 in summer and if the league loses half a dozen pro winter clubs next year but replaces them with a dozen pro summer clubs the next vote would be far more overwhelmingly for summer.

Your talking daft!
If the majority of clubs voted to move back to winter they all would go in bulk like they did with the switch to summer, the difference between the first vote (which was 100% to stay with BARLA) and the last was the induced payments on offer and the infiltration of the committee.
If (I doubt the NCL/RFL would allow a vote until it had run around the clubs feeding them with it will be OK spell) a meeting was called the difference between now and the last vote is the clubs have now seen the negatives of summer rugby.

You’ve had an alternative competition for a few years (In your basic words) it's not good enough

[bowes]

Before the incentives the vote was about 1/3 summer, 1/3 winter, 1/3 abstain. But the league had quit full BARLA membership a couple of years previous.

The existing summer competition's problems have as much to do with summer as they have to do with the craters of the Moon. The problems are due to some poor quality clubs that wouldn't get let near the NCL. The league would have been in much worse shape in winter. The other problem is clubs using winter players which they should have banned.

[LordCharles]

Your talking daft!
If the majority of clubs voted to move back to winter they all would go in bulk like they did with the switch to summer, the difference between the first vote (which was 100% to stay with BARLA) and the last was the induced payments on offer and the infiltration of the committee.
If (I doubt the NCL/RFL would allow a vote until it had run around the clubs feeding them with it will be OK spell) a meeting was called the difference between now and the last vote is the clubs have now seen the negatives of summer rugby.

You’ve had an alternative competition for a few years (In your basic words) it's not good enough

Actually Marauder.........................


As I understand it BARLA have been accused of going against Community Board policy by supporting a proposed new league in the NWC at U13's - U18's, obviously you have to be represented on the Community Board to do something that contravenes existing policy and then be repremanded for it.

So as it stands any league that any clubs decide to go to should they vote for say a more traditional season and then move en masse, could not be a league or league within an organisation that is represented on the Community Board, as it will be deemed to be going against Community Board policy which is to promote the March - November program.

Now you might say the NWC Youth and Junior Leagues are independant leagues (as they were once governed by democratic member vote, until recently) therefore they can do what they like, similar to the NCL, however all have signed the MOU and are represented on the Community Board via Charlie Bray and Treveor Hunt etc, so as Leagues, irrespective of any vote by the clubs, they cannot move away from the March - November season without it being voted on and agreed at Community Board level, hence the 3 year agreement or MOU as it is termed to "Work with" the RFL to promote a March - November season

Whilst I believe BARLA did not sign any MOU, their position on the Community Board is subject to them promoting Community Board policy, so their alleged position as outlined in a presentation at a recent SGM I attended, stated the very same, ie BARLA were going against Community Board policy as they were supporting a proposal to offer an alternative league outside of the March - November season.

So, given at this time (to my knowledge) every league outside of NWC 8's - 12's, NWC OA, Yorkshire Combination Youth and Pennine ARL have either signed an MOU or are represented directly on the Community Board, or an organisation that may assist in any new league starting up is directly represented on the Community Board, any clubs that may want to move, or even vote to move have very limited options, unless of course the regional leagues they play in renage on their 3 year commitment to "Work with" the RFL.

So it does make you wonder how much information the member clubs of the Regional Leagues were actually given by their management groups prior to any MOU's being signed, oh............thats right, some regional leagues said nothing to their member clubs, did'nt ask for a vote or canvass opinion, they just signed it as a management group as they wanted to commit to "working with" the RFL.

Thats kind of how it works anyway, I'm sure Del Capo or somebody much older and wiser than me can put it more politically correctly or make read a bit easier on the eye

Edited by LordCharles, 29 August 2012 - 07:11 PM.

[Marauder]

My understanding is the NCL will be a summer comp. They have 18 new applicants so why would they revert back when they have the capacity to replace say a dozen teams? Leaves the NCL with the whip hand!!

I'm sure the vote would involve the present NCL sides

Before the incentives the vote was about 1/3 summer, 1/3 winter, 1/3 abstain. But the league had quit full BARLA membership a couple of years previous.

The existing summer competition's problems have as much to do with summer as they have to do with the craters of the Moon. The problems are due to some poor quality clubs that wouldn't get let near the NCL. The league would have been in much worse shape in winter. The other problem is clubs using winter players which they should have banned.

I did say the first vote and the last, I never mentioned the ones inbetween after the poison medicine took affect, I can not see the NCL having a split with teams either staying or moving back in bulk regardless of a vote, I can see teams having to move back to winter in dribs and drabs if they continue to struggle in the two areas that have been well aired.

[Marauder]

Actually Marauder.........................


As I understand it BARLA have been accused of going against Community Board policy by supporting a proposed new league in the NWC at U13's - U18's, obviously you have to be represented on the Community Board to do something that contravenes existing policy and then be repremanded for it.

So as it stands any league that any clubs decide to go to should they vote for say a more traditional season and then move en masse, could not be a league or league within an organisation that is represented on the Community Board, as it will be deemed to be going against Community Board policy which is to promote the March - November program.

Now you might say the NWC Youth and Junior Leagues are independant leagues (as they were once governed by democratic member vote, until recently) therefore they can do what they like, similar to the NCL, however all have signed the MOU and are represented on the Community Board via Charlie Bray and Treveor Hunt etc, so as Leagues, irrespective of any vote by the clubs, they cannot move away from the March - November season without it being voted on and agreed at Community Board level, hence the 3 year agreement or MOU as it is termed to "Work with" the RFL to promote a March - November season

Whilst I believe BARLA did not sign any MOU, their position on the Community Board is subject to them promoting Community Board policy, so their alleged position as outlined in a presentation at a recent SGM I attended, stated the very same, ie BARLA were going against Community Board policy as they were supporting a proposal to offer an alternative league outside of the March - November season.

So, given at this time (to my knowledge) every league outside of NWC 8's - 12's, NWC OA, Yorkshire Combination Youth and Pennine ARL have either signed an MOU or are represented directly on the Community Board, or an organisation that may assist in any new league starting up is directly represented on the Community Board, any clubs that may want to move, or even vote to move have very limited options, unless of course the regional leagues they play in renage on their 3 year commitment to "Work with" the RFL.

So it does make you wonder how much information the member clubs of the Regional Leagues were actually given by their management groups prior to any MOU's being signed, oh............thats right, some regional leagues said nothing to their member clubs, did'nt ask for a vote or canvass opinion, they just signed it as a management group as they wanted to commit to "working with" the RFL.

Thats kind of how it works anyway, I'm sure Del Capo or somebody much older and wiser than me can put it more politically correctly or make read a bit easier on the eye

Isn't Charlie Brays Yorkshire Juniors funded by the RFL to a tune of £10,000?

[del capo]

NCL ballots are secret. And always invigilated scupulously.

Clubs know what they need to do to ask for a ballot.

This thread is extremely invigorating , but not too many posters are actually involved at NCL level...

The NCL is committed to an MOU with the RFL and expect them to stick to their side of it.

That MOU contained what the NCL largely wanted .The move to summer was independent of that. Sorry if that upsets you non NCL conspiracy theorists out there.....

I expect the NCL clubs to stick together, one way or the other. People outside the League perhaps do not have / share the brotherhood of this organisation.

As for expansion Bowes and others , this will remain a matter entirely for the NCL. Only half of the applicants at this stage look to have a chance.....

The day the NCL committee ceases to be in charge will be the day I expect most of the committee to step aside.....does anyone think that is likely to happen ?

I have long held the view that the RFL would struggle to run the daily process of running Leagues without committed volunteer administrators. I have seen nothing recently to change that view....

[Marauder]

probably the wrong term but we would all like to live on the hill in the big house, unfortunately we can't all afford it, this brings me to say how do you suggest keeping clubs in the brotherhood who are struggling for players and cash since the switch to summer?

[LordCharles]

NCL ballots are secret. And always invigilated scupulously.

Clubs know what they need to do to ask for a ballot.

This thread is extremely invigorating , but not too many posters are actually involved at NCL level...

The NCL is committed to an MOU with the RFL and expect them to stick to their side of it.

That MOU contained what the NCL largely wanted .The move to summer was independent of that. Sorry if that upsets you non NCL conspiracy theorists out there.....

I expect the NCL clubs to stick together, one way or the other. People outside the League perhaps do not have / share the brotherhood of this organisation.

As for expansion Bowes and others , this will remain a matter entirely for the NCL. Only half of the applicants at this stage look to have a chance.....

The day the NCL committee ceases to be in charge will be the day I expect most of the committee to step aside.....does anyone think that is likely to happen ?

I have long held the view that the RFL would struggle to run the daily process of running Leagues without committed volunteer administrators. I have seen nothing recently to change that view....

Agreed, the move to Summer was independant/outside of any MOU and a move to summer was voted on by clubs from other regional leagues as well, but that is it, as they could not vote on accepting any MOU or even understand what it might relate to as it was never outlined to the clubs of some other regional leagues until a considerable period of time after it had been signed, the question is, given the current state of affairs.........why?