I don't recall asking you to. You've gone pretty stroppy and defensive for no apparent reason - seeing as all that's happened here is that I've told you what the current situation is. I havent commented on the likelihood if any apoeal succeeding and i don't even know for sure that the lad is involved in the academy at all - if he isn't then there's no problem is there?
-
The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Coast League Banter
- Thread starter Old Timer
- Start date
- Status
I don't recall asking you to. You've gone pretty stroppy and defensive for no apparent reason - seeing as all that's happened here is that I've told you what the current situation is. I havent commented on the likelihood if any apoeal succeeding and i don't even know for sure that the lad is involved in the academy at all - if he isn't then there's no problem is there?
Super Ted
Striker
Ive tried to be reasonable, explained Washingtons decision and tried to leave things until the league issue a concrete statement to Washington so everyone officially knows the score.
"Sweeper" has done nowt but ruined a thread by looking for bites with childish comments and patronising remarks.
C
Connolly_31
Guest
Totally agree. Any chance to have a pop he has. Why he feels the need to do it, I don't know. if he's so interested in the goings on of WCC, why doesn't he ask his two well informed executives?
Why sack Durban
Winger
Is Adam related to Darren?
Super Ted
Striker
Aye, Adam is his son.
Unreasonable - I've got very little interest in WCC And certainly don't have anything against them. Nor am I an anonymous sniper looking to slag off WCC - mr real knows exactly who I am and knows exactly who it is that has told me what the current situation is.
I haven't once "had a go" over this affair because (as I've repeatedly said) I don't know for sure that this lad IS in the Academy squad. If he isn't then (again, as I've repeatedly said) there's no problem and WCC would be entirely correct to appeal. If he is, then the rules are clear and so you've no basis to come on here and say "Hylton play Washington". At this moment in time WCC aren't in the competition so that's patenty untrue. It isn't my opinion, nor was it my decision; it's just the present situation as it stands.
Super Ted
Striker
As current second team captain I think I have every right to reply to a poster asking a question. The whole scenario has absolutely nothing to do with you yet you've simply just came on this thread looking for bites and making shitty little comments about Washington.
As Connoly said, If your so in the know with your 'sources' you need no clarification about the coast league on the SMB message board.
Let the lads at the top deal with it, wait until the outcome is set in stone between all parties before persistently looking for arguments, its boring.
So the disqualification of a club from three cup competitions for fielding an (allegedly) ineligible player isn't worth discussion? I would have said it's a pretty hot topic in the league at the moment and is well worth talking about. Exactly why you think it's not worth discussing I'm not sure.
I can't see where I've "looked for arguments" at all, let alone persistently - I've merely passed on the fact that Washington are, as things stand, out of those cups pending any appeal they might lodge (which is fact, not opinion) and asked for clarification from one of the WCC lot as to whether the lad is in fact involved with the Academy at all - still no clarification forthcoming. These arent my opinions and I've never posted them as such.
As an aside, if you are indeed Washington's 2nd XI captain it makes your comments re. the Harbour even more out of order.
Last edited:
Completely agree he had the same intent in the pyramid system thread ruthlessly preaching death to the poor DSL in his typically condescending manner. Personally I'd ban him for breach of the peace but thats just my opinion.
Last edited:
He wasnt always like this mind I dont think he fully recovered from the fearsome blow he took to the head from a wild Micky Anderson bouncer five seasons ago away to Hylton.
Since we elected to go the NEPL 2 route we've been cut out the loop some what . Rumour and I stress this is only a rumour not from a great source either is that DSL are looking to open talks with the TSL or go it alone. Have a look at the tweet Lord B sent me last week.
I remember that day. It was a double weekend and I'd only just survived a frightful spell the day before from Tabs and Kam; only to get pinned by the Hylton express on the Sunday.
Aye his Lordship is in the lakes again; so I'll ask him what's appertaining when he gets back - there was talk after our cup game with Hylton last night though about the DCL and DCCL showing a willingness to merge but the DSL still hanging on for something different. Could understand why the remaining DSL clubs might want to get involved with TSL but can't see the TSL being too keen on the idea - what's in it for them other than a few very long round trips? They have a good set up as it is.
If DSL go it alone they'll presumably need to poach a few clubs to make up their numbers, so you might see them make a move along those lines before the DCCL and DCL sort any merger out. It's all very interesting.
Last edited:
Well you've made yourself look a bit of a tit here. As it stands, and this may well change, Washington have not had any correspondence around expulsion from three cups. So it is not fact. As a supposed lawyer you should know to get your facts right. The Club cannot appeal a decision yet to be formally ratified.
You state in a previous post the laws are clear. They are not when it comes to Academy players. If you disagree, point me to the rule in the book you think Washington CC have breached.
Thirdly, it's obvious knowing the club you play for, who the two Exec members you keep referring to are. I think you should think before you post - as well as embarassing yourself you are embarassing these two gentlemen and your club (who are generally a sound bunch of lads).
I can only pass on what I'm told mate and if it's wrong I apologise; I don't have any reason to think it is though. I was told that Washington had accepted the decision; so had (logically) assumed that it had been communicated to them.
Like I've said anyway, it's not even clear to me at this stage whether the lad is in fact in the Academy squad at all - has he played a game for them? It's by no means the first time a DCCL player has been selected for the Academy (again, IF he has) and unless the rules have changed, they are pretty widely understood - an Academy player can play in league games for his DCCL parent club if he isn't selected for the Academy on any given weekend, but cannot play cup ties or junior cricket. This in itself is a special dispensation granted to Academy players because if someone played their senior cricket for any other club they wouldn't be permitted to play DCCL cricket at any level under any circumstances.
You've also assumed wrong re. where the info first came from. Remember that a fair number of the league officials umpire every week.
Last edited:
Both Washington lads are regulars in the NEPL Academy team (both are doing very well) - so yes they are involved, although Hickey is too young to be contracted as still an U15. But, you are wrong on the rules when you state they are 'pretty widely understood' (a change in stance from your previous posts) because this has never ocurred before.
There is no rule around cup cricket
That is why there has been no official communication to Washington around expulsions. The matter is still being discussed so best to leave it at that until the Exec agrees on the best path forward.
Last edited:
Good post - and the type of post I've been hoping for for the past two days; at least it confirms where the "grey area" might be.
I haven't once said that Washington had received an "official letter", only that the exec had apparently taken the decision and that Washington were aware of it/had, as far as we were informed, accepted it. I assume that this is the case (ie they were at least aware of it) seeing as you've been at pains to state that no "official" correspondence has been received.
I'm not sure though why the signing or non-signing of a contract has any relevance though? To play in NEPL he has presumably been registered as an Academy player, and he therefore plays for a non-DCCL club. The rules for non-DCCL registered players playing in DCCL are set in stone - they can't. Academy players get preferential treatment allowing them to play the odd league game when not needed in the Academy 1st XI, but other than that the rule (which you'll find in the handbook) is straightforward.
Agree on the contract - it has no relevance to the discussion.
The grey area arises as a) it's a new situation for the DCCL and b) it's a couple of young lads who want to play as much cricket as they can (without 'burnout' -neither are fast bowlers so this shouldn't be an issue). NEPL don't play much weekday cricket (only 20/20 competiton as far as I know) so it's a chance for them to get time at the crease and develop further.
If it was two 'senior' players then without doubt there would be no question. That would be taking the piss. But if we are talking about a couple of youngsters with potential to go on to play first class cricket (no pressure lads
) then maybe we can have some flexibility for the benefit of all parties - lads, Washington, Academy (who have ok'd, and indeed encouraged the idea)And I will re-iterate once again - no expulsions have yet been handed out - official or otherwise. Nothing has been handed out, accepted or appealed! Your contacts have jumped the gun. It may yet happen...I'll make sure you know
Agree on the contract - it has no relevance to the discussion.
The grey area arises as a) it's a new situation for the DCCL and b) it's a couple of young lads who want to play as much cricket as they can (without 'burnout' -neither are fast bowlers so this shouldn't be an issue). NEPL don't play much weekday cricket (only 20/20 competiton as far as I know) so it's a chance for them to get time at the crease and develop further.
If it was two 'senior' players then without doubt there would be no question. That would be taking the piss. But if we are talking about a couple of youngsters with potential to go on to play first class cricket (no pressure lads
And I will re-iterate once again - no expulsions have yet been handed out - official or otherwise. Nothing has been handed out, accepted or appealed! Your contacts have jumped the gun. It may yet happen...I'll make sure you know
We had the same situation last season with a 13 year old who wanted to play junior cricket for us - he was registered to play senior cricket for the same club as his dad in a league that doesn't have a junior section. Because he was registered to a non-DCCL club he couldn't play for us - senior, junior, league or cup cricket. He, like anyone else of that age, "just wanted to play as much as he can".
That's why I've said the rule is straightforward - it's catch-all. Maybe the rule needs changing as I agree there's a valid argument for letting (particularly junior) players get as much cricket in as they can - but as it stands the rule is pretty prescriptive.
I've got nothing against the lad in question, or Washington CC; like I say if you go back through my posts on this thread they're not argumentative and I don't give my opinion on whether the decision made by the exec is correct.
That said, although it may yet change and it may not yet have been "officially" communicated - that decision was made; as was confirmed again by a THIRD person who sat in on the meeting last night at our cup game (again, not a Bill Quay affiliated person). It's not a secret - we've played three teams in the last five days and all three sets of opposition players were aware of it and were discussing it.
Super Ted
Striker
You felt the need, once again to interrupt my reply to the question about what happens for next Mondays game. The game as of today will go ahead on Monday like i said 2 pages ago, Washington CC are yet to hear anything back from the league regarding the decision. Would you have advised I told my Washington team just to not bother turning up on Monday as 'Sweeper' on the SMB claims to be 'ITK'. As I said many pages ago, Let the men at the top deal with it and contact Washington CC with a final decision before coming on here claiming as to what you have heard.
As for you not having anything against Washington...
As well as saying on the 22nd May 2012..
Which is untrue.
I rest my case.
Last edited:
Am I right in thinking the second of the Academy lads (who has presumably signed a contract as he's a bit older) hasn't played for Washington this season? If the confusion on Washington's part comes down to the distinction between "contracted" and "non-contracted" Academy players then I've got some sympathy with them.
We appear to have our wires crossed - the above mentioned quotes were to do with the article that some idiot at WCC apparently wrote attributing made up quotes to mr real and other WCC officials. Mr real and I were discussing it by PM at the time as we were in the process of removing references to it from the BQ website on the grounds that it was a load of shite - those comments are meant for him and are tongue in cheek; as he well knows. It's all about context.
The whole "ineligible player" thing is a different discussion and I've only passed on what I've been told. I haven't once given my own opinion on it. You went very defensive very quickly.
I also take it that, seeing as you're waiting for the league to contact you with a "final decision" - the league have been in touch and WCC are now putting their case forward, which they are entirely entitled to do. Suggests that the league did make a decision on the issue in the first instance though which is all that's ever been said.
I don't know what you're getting your knickers in a twist about - presumably you've calmed down after the Harbour blocked out that draw and are now in need of something else to focus on. For the record, the world isn't against you and very few of us actually care what the leagues final decision is on this. But when word has gone round the league about a club being in hot water for fielding ineligible players it certainly warrants discussion on a messageboard thread entitled "Coast League Banter".
We appear to have our wires crossed - the above mentioned quotes were to do with the article that some idiot at WCC apparently wrote attributing made up quotes to mr real and other WCC officials. Mr real and I were discussing it by PM at the time as we were in the process of removing references to it from the BQ website on the grounds that it was a load of shite - those comments are meant for him and are tongue in cheek; as he well knows. It's all about context.
The whole "ineligible player" thing is a different discussion and I've only passed on what I've been told. I haven't once given my own opinion on it. You went very defensive very quickly.
I also take it that, seeing as you're waiting for the league to contact you with a "final decision" - the league have been in touch and WCC are now putting their case forward, which they are entirely entitled to do. Suggests that the league did make a decision on the issue in the first instance though which is all that's ever been said.
I don't know what you're getting your knickers in a twist about - presumably you've calmed down after the Harbour blocked out that draw and are now in need of something else to focus on. For the record, the world isn't against you and very few of us actually care what the leagues final decision is on this. But when word has gone round the league about a club being in hot water for fielding ineligible players it certainly warrants discussion on a messageboard thread entitled "Coast League Banter".
- Status
