125 replies to this topic

[Marauder]

Many of the other applicants had their application transferred to a Conference South that may or may not be under the NCL brand name but will be tier 3. Though at least one (and probably more) of the failed applications was northern. Kippax would have been number 10 if they could raise a team, but they can't.

Who transfered the other teams to the conference south; RFL or NCL because I can't see how the NCL would have the power over the RFL to transfer teams to one of their leagues, if the league belongs to the NCL now did the NCL clubs vote on the adoption of the Conference South.

On the other hand if the RFL transfered the teams who have applied for the NCL to the Conference South then that would indicate to me that the RFL are in control of the NCL because it has taken away the NCL clubs the right to vote on who can and who can not join their ranks.

[bowes]

Who transfered the other teams to the conference south; RFL or NCL because I can't see how the NCL would have the power over the RFL to transfer teams to one of their leagues, if the league belongs to the NCL now did the NCL clubs vote on the adoption of the Conference South.

On the other hand if the RFL transfered the teams who have applied for the NCL to the Conference South then that would indicate to me that the RFL are in control of the NCL because it has taken away the NCL clubs the right to vote on who can and who can not join their ranks.

Just because the NCL aren't run by the RFL doesn't mean the NCL committee have to spite the RFL in every decision. It is in the RFL's interest to have a Conference South and it is in the NCL's interest that their members don't face long trips. Win, win as far as I can see.

The NCL would have to vote to accept a Conference South but if they didn't it would still run anyway (assuming there's enough members) just as a separate league at step 3.

[stupid]

Does anyone know what the criteria is for acceptance into the NCFL ? Also who are the people who actually vet the applications and then give their recommendations that certain teams should be accepted and that others should not be? It would be nice to have names and clubs of the people who have made this decision thanks .

Edited by stupid, 16 September 2012 - 10:16 PM.

[Marauder]

Just because the NCL aren't run by the RFL doesn't mean the NCL committee have to spite the RFL in every decision. It is in the RFL's interest to have a Conference South and it is in the NCL's interest that their members don't face long trips. Win, win as far as I can see.

The NCL would have to vote to accept a Conference South but if they didn't it would still run anyway (assuming there's enough members) just as a separate league at step 3.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a Conference South, what I'm asking is who is in control of the NCL and who vets the clubs before they get to a club vote on who is in or not, it seems to me if they are only putting 9 teams forward the decision has been made before the clubs get to vote.

[del capo]

Does anyone know what the criteria is for acceptance into the NCFL ? Also who are the people who actually vet the applications and then give their recommendations that certain teams should be accepted and that others should not be? It would be nice to have names and clubs of the people who have made this decision thanks .

The criteria is on the website and applicants worthy of consideration ( not all are) are then measured against that criteria and what they can bring to the League.

They are then visited by 2 /3 management members not from their area. A written report is normally prepared for the full management meeting..Effectively the whole committee have been involved in the visits and then the final recommendations . It's as impartial as it can be. It says a lot for the process that only 9 are being recommended at this juncture when the League could have used more but maintaining standards remains a primary target......

I hope that is of some use to you......

[Marauder]

The criteria is on the website and applicants worthy of consideration ( not all are) are then measured against that criteria and what they can bring to the League.

They are then visited by 2 /3 management members not from their area. A written report is normally prepared for the full management meeting..Effectively the whole committee have been involved in the visits and then the final recommendations . It's as impartial as it can be. It says a lot for the process that only 9 are being recommended at this juncture when the League could have used more but maintaining standards remains a primary target......

I hope that is of some use to you......

What is the NCL committee's stance on permit players (Or what ever they are called these days)

[del capo]

What is the NCL committee's stance on permit players (Or what ever they are called these days)

Moving off thread.

Create a new one on the Community Board. And post the Barla /Pennine League position for starters.........

[Marauder]

Moving off thread.

Create a new one on the Community Board. And post the Barla /Pennine League position for starters.........

Why have you refused to answer the question about the NCL committee's stance on permit players.

[del capo]

Why have you refused to answer the question about the NCL committee's stance on permit players.

I haven't. I've simply told you to post where it belongs. It's a wider issue than just for the NCL , who have formed no view on the subject as yet......

[thestatman]

Marauder the BARLA spin doctor - trying to spin his own slant on everything to the detriment of the RFL! For the record this process has not changed for as long as I have been receiving such emails from the NCL. They have always originated from an RFL email address. Be it David Lowe, Carol Savage (both NCL administrators) or in this case Kelly Barrett from Community Game Services (who has been standing in when Carol has been on holiday). All people involved in NCL clubs know that these emails are send by these people in their role of Adminstrators of the NCL (or their stand ins), on behalf of the committee that are democratically and independently elected by the NCL clubs.

To the uninitiated who may read your post and believe what you're saying is the truth - it needs making clear that there has been no change in the way the NCL is or has been run. The same people are running the league to the same standards and criteria that they always have done. They are doing a very good and professional job.

Now please do us all a favour and take your contrived and conceited propaganda somewhere else because quite frankly most people on here are sick of listening to the absolute tripe you come out with on a daily basis.

[TaxiEgg]

To say the RFL control the NCL is a bit over the top, as far as I see the management still with the clubs backing make their own decisions .
The bigger question is who controls the RFL because the way I see it and many others in the game its the Super league clubs who are in control .

As for the new clubs in the list above enhancing the playing standards well that,s surely a NCL nanagement call .

[bowes]

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a Conference South, what I'm asking is who is in control of the NCL and who vets the clubs before they get to a club vote on who is in or not, it seems to me if they are only putting 9 teams forward the decision has been made before the clubs get to vote.

Should the clubs be able to individually vote in clubs who fail criteria (in some cases badly) or should they only vote on clubs that meet criteria, with the possibility of a vote to relax or tighten criteria if they wish?

[Spidey]

In the past when new clubs have applied. We normally find out at the meeting which clubs have failed or have not been recommended. I expect to get that info at the meeting. No conspiracy. Just normal practice

[Marauder]

I haven't. I've simply told you to post where it belongs. It's a wider issue than just for the NCL , who have formed no view on the subject as yet......

Not formed a view or not prepared to state the dealings between the NCL committee & The RFL?

We are not all daft, It’s looking more and more like a puppet committee with the RFL pulling the strings, the entire principles that made the NCL such a strong and admirable competition are being eroded away by the RFL who if you check can’t even decide on which is the ideal aged group for their Super League teams to run never mind run the amateur game.
You have now or about to recommend 9 clubs to your clubs with the intentions to form a NCL3 with the relegated club from the NCL2, I’d like to know what the NCL contingency plan if one or more of the 9 clubs don’t get voted in by the clubs?
Has the playing standards (No disrespect to some of the applicants) become secondary within the NCL/RFL criteria for the entrance into the NCL.

[bowes]

Not formed a view or not prepared to state the dealings between the NCL committee & The RFL?

We are not all daft, It’s looking more and more like a puppet committee with the RFL pulling the strings, the entire principles that made the NCL such a strong and admirable competition are being eroded away by the RFL who if you check can’t even decide on which is the ideal aged group for their Super League teams to run never mind run the amateur game.
You have now or about to recommend 9 clubs to your clubs with the intentions to form a NCL3 with the relegated club from the NCL2, I’d like to know what the NCL contingency plan if one or more of the 9 clubs don’t get voted in by the clubs?
Has the playing standards (No disrespect to some of the applicants) become secondary within the NCL/RFL criteria for the entrance into the NCL.

Maybe 3 or 4 of the clubs named there could win promotion from division 2 at first attempt so don't see what your problem is. You're just looking for excuses to criticise. Remember this is division 3 so is meant to be a division below anyway. The National League originally was only open to 10 teams with only one club allowed for town. In practice this meant the same 10 clubs every year. Where would we be if we'd stuck to that?

PS the very first BARLA National League included a team from NWCL division 1. I may be wrong but I believe this is the very same Pilkington Recs who are now entering from 3rd in the premier with a very strong set up yet you bizarrely and libellously put that down to an RFL official having played for them

Edited by bowes, 17 September 2012 - 09:19 AM.

[GeordieSaint]

The bigger question is who controls the RFL because the way I see it and many others in the game its the Super league clubs who are in control.

I don't think you are wrong in that assertion. The RFL are a toothless animal in my opinion controlled by the top tier clubs...

As for the potential entrants, good to see my old club Pilks Recs in the mix and Peterlee Pumas who I played against on a few occasions when at Northallerton - they are a great club (and rumoured to have wanted me to play for them!!).

[Marauder]

Should the clubs be able to individually vote in clubs who fail criteria (in some cases badly) or should they only vote on clubs that meet criteria, with the possibility of a vote to relax or tighten criteria if they wish?

The strength of the NCL is IMO has been the criteria, many a side have never applied for the NCL because they fail it on other departments except what I believe to be a very important one (Playing standard)

[bowes]

The strength of the NCL is IMO has been the criteria, many a side have never applied for the NCL because they fail it on other departments except what I believe to be a very important one (Playing standard)

What do you judge playing standard on though. Are the club a higher standard than Heworth? I'd suggest 8 out of the 9 are and Peterlee can be once they've recruited from other NE clubs.

[Marauder]

Maybe 3 or 4 of the clubs named there could win promotion from division 2 at first attempt so don't see what your problem is. You're just looking for excuses to criticise. Remember this is division 3 so is meant to be a division below anyway. The National League originally was only open to 10 teams with only one club allowed for town. In practice this meant the same 10 clubs every year. Where would we be if we'd stuck to that?

PS the very first BARLA National League included a team from NWCL division 1. I may be wrong but I believe this is the very same Pilkington Recs who are now entering from 3rd in the premier with a very strong set up yet you bizarrely and libellously put that down to an RFL official having played for them

I never directly put Pilks being admitted down to Neil, I have watched Pilks progress over the last few years with interest because many of our past players did actually work for Pilkinsons glass in Doncaster.

[Marauder]

What do you judge playing standard on though. Are the club a higher standard than Heworth? I'd suggest 8 out of the 9 are and Peterlee can be once they've recruited from other NE clubs.

So it's OK to go and take players from other clubs which could result in them folding, I've seen and I'm sure you have teams that have done this over the years and where do they end up once the shine has gone.(Take a look at the failed NCL teams)