Durham Cricket League

[robkitchuk]

I’ve no idea, I’m not the treasurer, or chairman, or even on the committee.

As for the Dawdon and Hylton comment - how is it exaggerated? I’ve based my point on experience of seeing the various teams play and of the players involved who I either know personally or from previous competition.


For me you could simply have aligned the NEDCL divisions below the DCL ones - I see the main argument for the current set up being that in a few years teams will find their level, with my example the same would apply.

There’s no hard and fast solution granted, but seeing how the NEDCL was quite obviously as a collective below the standard as a collective of the DCL (not just in playing standard, but also facility) it makes far more sense than to falsely elevate clubs by using a ridiculous and ultimately false system of direct comparison. What they’re saying is that DCL3 is exactly the same in terms of quality as NEDCL1. That simply is not true.

Furthermore, the NEPL and DCL are a pyramid system, the NEDCL was not and so I see no reason why the NEDCL can’t sinply tack onto the bottom of the DCL structure and go from there. Clubs with a modicum of ambition will be prepared to play the long game, improving facilities, their ground, infrastructure and importantly their playing capability - likely through an improved youth set-up.

I see the punishment of clubs in the DCL, some who are actively looking to get into the NEPL, as very unsavoury. Those clubs were happy to be part of a pyramid, a meritocracy if you will, they acknowledged promotion and relegation a long time ago - so why then should they be demoted?

It’s more than possible for one or two clubs to gain promotion to the NEPL in the next couple of years, meaning their Second XI’s would suddenly jump 5/6 divisions up the pyramid. It’s absolutely bonkers.


I look forward to you pointing out where I’ve said that.

I’ll wait.

So what your proposing is to punish NEDCL clubs instead? A number of former DCL secind teams struggle to put a side out most weeks. Yet you would quite happily see stronger teams playing two divisions below. Taking even long for clubs 'to find their place'. So I think its agree to disagree. I think for the most part clubs will face clubs of a similar standard (some exceptions will appear). Again I disagree the top half of NEDCL 1 is more than equal to DCL 3. So dont really see what your issue is. Unless you just want to see the NEDCL clubs kept in their place?

Finally you mention facilities, most NEDCL grounds can more than match those of many DCL clubs. Examples being Seaham Harbour, South Hetton, Murton, Burnhope even Tantobie entering as the bottom club in the league meet the DCL ground criteria!

 

[brandon]

Re; Your reiteration of your main concern - the member clubs voted for the structure so why should the league executive be held to account? One thing I know the league exec is there to do is protect and preserve cricket in the region which is surprisingly enough, exactly why the DNECL has happened.

You are totally guessing at wether club will fold due to those reasons, they’re more likely to fold due to lack of juniors, facilities and players than the reasons you are stating. But we will look at each situation on a case by case basis as we are with the current Whiteleas situation and have autonomy to act to prevent clubs from going to the wall.

I do sincerely hope that Brandon run away with division 6 mind after the noise you’ve made, otherwise your going to look very silly. Sounds like some of the sides in there should be very worried about facing an Aussie circa 2000s like side that finished 9th in their division last year.

Exactly the kind of blame shifting I’d expect from a committeeman. I’ve seen it for years from the FA - now we’re seeing it with the government. Thanks for confirming what I suspected all along.

Again with the comment about Brandon - not sure what your obsession is there, but I’m still waiting for you to point out where it was that I said I thought Brandon’s league placing was so beneath them.

I’ve made more noise about Dawdon and Hylton - yet I notice you’ve conveniently ignored that. Dawdon firsts were promoted, as you made so much noise about second teams following the success of their first teams, why have Dawdon 2’s been demoted?

There are no teams based in Div 6 bases on the last couple of seasons in who are anywhere near Div 3 standard mind.

I never said there were any Division 6 teams who should be in Division 3.

I did however suggest

There are no teams based in Div 6 bases on the last couple of seasons in who are anywhere near Div 3 standard mind.

Can you point out where I said there were? Thanks.

It has been published and circulated to all clubs,so either go there to your rep or put simply, wait like every one else. I haven’t got time to type out a 6 divisional league structure on my phone to satisfy impatience.

And when I say not online I meant the docs not me physically not being online!

It’ll take about ten minutes, you’ve spent more than twice that time already abusing me for having a different opinion to you.

So what your proposing is to punish NEDCL clubs instead? A number of former DCL secind teams struggle to put a side out most weeks. Yet you would quite happily see stronger teams playing two divisions below. Taking even long for clubs 'to find their place'. So I think its agree to disagree. I think for the most part clubs will face clubs of a similar standard (some exceptions will appear). Again I disagree the top half of NEDCL 1 is more than equal to DCL 3. So dont really see what your issue is. Unless you just want to see the NEDCL clubs kept in their place?

Finally you mention facilities, most NEDCL grounds can more than match those of many DCL clubs. Examples being Seaham Harbour, South Hetton, Murton, Burnhope even Tantobie entering as the bottom club in the league meet the DCL ground criteria!

Indeed, what about Coundon and Belmont’s facilities though? Might aswell consider everyone eh? Not just the former NEPL clubs you listed among others.

It isn’t a question of keeping anyone ‘in their place’ in such a vindictive manner as you put it - but when the NEPL and DCL existed in a pyramid system and the NEDCL did not, or atleast would only have been fed into DCL2 if any of their clubs showed ambition to do so - why not have a structure such as I suggested?

I appreciate atleast you’ve not attempted to personally abuse me as others have and so I thank you for the healthy debate and say simply that we have different opinions of what’s right or what’s best. We’ll see this summer (and perhaps the next five) just what is the crack with the makeup.

One thing is for sure, I look forward to visiting grounds and playing against teams I’ve never done so as yet.

 

[Voice of fair play]

I think the bottom line with this whole debate, is the new structure and where to put these teams was always going to be a cause of debate.

I don’t envy the people who had to make the decisions and would imagine they came up with a structure and plan of where to put teams with the very best intentions.

But like most things in life you can’t please everybody, you have got to just do what you think is the best thing to do, and there is no reason to suggest that had happen.

Although have to add I am amazed Horden 2nds are as high as div 4

 

[Bezzabee]

[QUOTE="brandon, post: 31037498, member: One thing is for sure, I look forward to visiting grounds and playing against teams I’ve never done so as yet.
[/QUOTE]
Will that be for the 1sts or 2nds?

 

[The Voice Of Reason]

Although have to add I am amazed Horden 2nds are as high as div 4

Teas weren’t obviously the criteria...

 

[robkitchuk]

Exactly the kind of blame shifting I’d expect from a committeeman. I’ve seen it for years from the FA - now we’re seeing it with the government. Thanks for confirming what I suspected all along.

Again with the comment about Brandon - not sure what your obsession is there, but I’m still waiting for you to point out where it was that I said I thought Brandon’s league placing was so beneath them.

I’ve made more noise about Dawdon and Hylton - yet I notice you’ve conveniently ignored that. Dawdon firsts were promoted, as you made so much noise about second teams following the success of their first teams, why have Dawdon 2’s been demoted?


I never said there were any Division 6 teams who should be in Division 3.

I did however suggest


Can you point out where I said there were? Thanks.


It’ll take about ten minutes, you’ve spent more than twice that time already abusing me for having a different opinion to you.


Indeed, what about Coundon and Belmont’s facilities though? Might aswell consider everyone eh? Not just the former NEPL clubs you listed among others.

It isn’t a question of keeping anyone ‘in their place’ in such a vindictive manner as you put it - but when the NEPL and DCL existed in a pyramid system and the NEDCL did not, or atleast would only have been fed into DCL2 if any of their clubs showed ambition to do so - why not have a structure such as I suggested?

I appreciate atleast you’ve not attempted to personally abuse me as others have and so I thank you for the healthy debate and say simply that we have different opinions of what’s right or what’s best. We’ll see this summer (and perhaps the next five) just what is the crack with the makeup.

One thing is for sure, I look forward to visiting grounds and playing against teams I’ve never done so as yet.

Since the NEDCL was part of the pyramid and has been since its initial formation (it was there even in the days of the rather unworkable DCL pyramid system). And NEDCL 1 as you say fed into DCL 2, as such it has been tacked on the bottom. The former NEDCL has simply continued to feed into the same position in the pyramid. So really the existing system still allows clubs to move into tha same place in the pyramid, whilst (crystal ball moment) hopefully avoiding too many one sided encounters. As you say its agree to disagree, the current system was vited for by clubs including my own. We can but see if it works or not.

 

[brandon]

Since the NEDCL was part of the pyramid and has been since its initial formation (it was there even in the days of the rather unworkable DCL pyramid system). And NEDCL 1 as you say fed into DCL 2, as such it has been tacked on the bottom. The former NEDCL has simply continued to feed into the same position in the pyramid. So really the existing system still allows clubs to move into tha same place in the pyramid, whilst (crystal ball moment) hopefully avoiding too many one sided encounters. As you say its agree to disagree, the current system was vited for by clubs including my own. We can but see if it works or not.

Certainly explained it better than I’ve seen previously marra so thanks, I didn’t really take that into account regarding first teams from NEDCL as a feeder to DCL.

Again, my main issue wasn’t necessarily with my own club, but the likes of Hylton 2’s for example who I feel are much better than their new division suggests.

Ultimately, time will tell.

[QUOTE="brandon, post: 31037498, member: One thing is for sure, I look forward to visiting grounds and playing against teams I’ve never done so as yet.

Will that be for the 1sts or 2nds?
[/QUOTE]

Depends how my pre-season goes marra

(Originally posted that but got lost in amongst some bad quoting )

 

[robkitchuk]

Also set me thinking regarding facilities.
Ignoring juniors, clubmark and other off field matters (debate for a other thread).
Beamish - showers, covers, sight screens, electronic scoreboard, bar
Belmont - showers, covers, sight screens
Burnhope - showers, covers, sight screens, manual scoreboard (think they're fitting an electric one), bar
Coundon - showers, manual scoreboard
East Rainton - covers, sight screens, manual scoreboard
Murton - all criteria
Seaham Harbour - all criteria
South Hetton - all criteria
Stanhope - showers avaliable, covers, sight screens, manual scoreboard
Wearmouth - showers, covers, sight screens, manual scoreboard, bar
Kibblesworth - showers, bar
Simonside - showers, sight screens, covers, manual scoreboard
Tantobie - showers, sight screens, covers, electronic scoreboard, bar

So by my reckoning that's three former NEDCL clubs which would not pass the basic facilities test for the old DCL.
*Edit - even those three are I think desirable only.

 

[SAFC2403]

Also set me thinking regarding facilities.
Ignoring juniors, clubmark and other off field matters (debate for a other thread).
Beamish - showers, covers, sight screens, electronic scoreboard, bar
Belmont - showers, covers, sight screens
Burnhope - showers, covers, sight screens, manual scoreboard (think they're fitting an electric one), bar
Coundon - showers, manual scoreboard
East Rainton - covers, sight screens, manual scoreboard
Murton - all criteria
Seaham Harbour - all criteria
South Hetton - all criteria
Stanhope - showers avaliable, covers, sight screens, manual scoreboard
Wearmouth - showers, covers, sight screens, manual scoreboard, bar
Kibblesworth - showers, bar
Simonside - showers, sight screens, covers, manual scoreboard
Tantobie - showers, sight screens, covers, electronic scoreboard, bar

So by my reckoning that's three former NEDCL clubs which would not pass the basic facilities test for the old DCL.
*Edit - even those three are I think desirable only.

I think the NEDCL has had some unfair press over the last few years - lets be honest theres quite a few DCL clubs that wouldnt exist if it wasnt for the NEDCL so to complain about their position in the new structure just smacks of arrogance along the lines of dare i say it the old senior league/coast leagye bollocks of years gone by.

Personally i think the new structure will make for some interesting games and also gives the NEDCL teams the chance to make some eat their words.

 

[ac arundez]

Exactly the kind of blame shifting I’d expect from a committeeman. I’ve seen it for years from the FA - now we’re seeing it with the government. Thanks for confirming what I suspected all along.

Again with the comment about Brandon - not sure what your obsession is there, but I’m still waiting for you to point out where it was that I said I thought Brandon’s league placing was so beneath them.

I’ve made more noise about Dawdon and Hylton - yet I notice you’ve conveniently ignored that. Dawdon firsts were promoted, as you made so much noise about second teams following the success of their first teams, why have Dawdon 2’s been demoted?


I never said there were any Division 6 teams who should be in Division 3.

I did however suggest


Can you point out where I said there were? Thanks.


It’ll take about ten minutes, you’ve spent more than twice that time already abusing me for having a different opinion to you.


Indeed, what about Coundon and Belmont’s facilities though? Might aswell consider everyone eh? Not just the former NEPL clubs you listed among others.

It isn’t a question of keeping anyone ‘in their place’ in such a vindictive manner as you put it - but when the NEPL and DCL existed in a pyramid system and the NEDCL did not, or atleast would only have been fed into DCL2 if any of their clubs showed ambition to do so - why not have a structure such as I suggested?

I appreciate atleast you’ve not attempted to personally abuse me as others have and so I thank you for the healthy debate and say simply that we have different opinions of what’s right or what’s best. We’ll see this summer (and perhaps the next five) just what is the crack with the makeup.

One thing is for sure, I look forward to visiting grounds and playing against teams I’ve never done so as yet.

Where exactly am I blame shifting? I’m stating facts. The member clubs voted for the system so how can blame be attributed to a league committee if a club struggles in years to come? The league will continue to go the best by clubs as they’re doing at this very moment with Whiteleas.

I also refute the personal abuse claim that has been the one around more than once. Calling someone “A keyboard warrior” once, does not constitute personal abuse, I’ll come and meet you and have a healthy debate face to face if you like? I can then point out the many points in which your talking absolute codswallop. I’ll also look forward to your apology for saying I don’t know the rules of the old league which you have conveniently made up yourself.

I also haven’t ignored the Dawdon/Hylton 2nd team etc issue either. Dawdon & Brandon were promoted last season and I’d the DCL still existed their second XIs would have followed their 1st XIs into DCL1 second teams. However the fact the DCL doesn’t exist anymore seems to be lost on you. Your consistently mixing 3 leagues, the new and 2 old together. Oh whilst also completely fabricating rules to back up your flawed argument (a point I note you have conveniently ignored also).

As for typing out a divisional structure on my phone in a logical format it wouldn’t take me 10mins at all.

As for Brandon being Benares themselves the first few posts from your good self related to Brandon being in Division 6 and questioning why. When I responded with a perfectly logical reason that all clubs voted unanimously for you’ve ignored that point and gone on with your own agenda. An agenda that includes accusing me of continually abusing you!

If you can’t take more than measured responses that counteract your arguments then don’t get involved in the argument or plainly make things up and personally abuse me for “not knowing the old rules of the DCL”.

As for your suggestion I haven’t seen one notion of a suggestion to see how else it could have been done. As the NEDCL1 fed into DCL2 in a formal pyramid system for years. And NEDCL2 fed in to NEDCL1. So just because some high and mighty ex NEPL club 2nd team player thinks his team has been hard done by being in division 6 doesn’t exactly suggest an alternative option.

And as I’ll come back to one last time, your about 9months too late coming to the table with your concerns. You should’ve raised them with your club at the time and they could’ve easily voted against the proposed structure and being in Division 6. Mind they would’ve been voted 40odd to 1 but again that’s a fact that seems lost on you. None of this has been done without absolute full consultation of clubs and also players, who have all had ample opportunity to comment and feedback.

 

[Greavsie]

Without getting myself balls deep in this debate, the proposed rules, leagues structure etc were distributed in a very transparent manner on FB through the merger committee's page that was promoted on the DCL page and also shared on a number of clubs FB pages.
I've followed this from September and have always had a good idea of what was going on

With regard to teams being in inappropriate leagues, I'd describe it, from what I can see, as an imperfect sysyem that will soon enough right itself. The first year of the DCL (2013) involved 20 odd teams playing each other once. I saw some really one sided games that season. By 2014, clubs had found their place. I believe the same will happen. There will be some teething problems but if there is a will to work through them and accept change, then this will be fine. I'm glad to hear that the new league will show more flexibility than the old DCL did in relation to clubs struggling for a 2s

 

[robkitchuk]

Durham & Northeast Cricket League - New league Web page
https://m.facebook.com/DNECLofficial/ - new league facebook page

Both basic at the moment, but believe leagues are correctly shown in the 'competition' section of the Web page.

 

[brandon]

Where exactly am I blame shifting? I’m stating facts. The member clubs voted for the system so how can blame be attributed to a league committee if a club struggles in years to come?

In the same way that if, in five years time, the country is absolutely fucked; we’ll have to blame those who voted for the government, rather than the people who are directly responsible for those failings - the government.

Doesn’t work that way. It’s a leagues duty to look after its clubs, it’s in their best interests. One would think.

With regard to teams being in inappropriate leagues, I'd describe it, from what I can see, as an imperfect sysyem that will soon enough right itself. The first year of the DCL (2013) involved 20 odd teams playing each other once. I saw some really one sided games that season. By 2014, clubs had found their place. I believe the same will happen. There will be some teething problems but if there is a will to work through them and accept change, then this will be fine. I'm glad to hear that the new league will show more flexibility than the old DCL did in relation to clubs struggling for a 2s

That’s actually a great example of what could’ve happened here. Half the divisions with double the number and playing each other once - then see what exactly the direct comparisons were between DCL teams and NEDCL teams.

 

[ac arundez]

In the same way that if, in five years time, the country is absolutely fucked; we’ll have to blame those who voted for the government, rather than the people who are directly responsible for those failings - the government.

Doesn’t work that way. It’s a leagues duty to look after its clubs, it’s in their best interests. One would think.


That’s actually a great example of what could’ve happened here. Half the divisions with double the number and playing each other once - then see what exactly the direct comparisons were between DCL teams and NEDCL teams.

Not that it has anything to do with government or policy’s etc. mind but looking after the clubs is exactly what the league is doing right now (refer you to Whiteleas yet again) and will do again in future. So the blame game can be attributed to multiple parties if a club went under, not just a league for putting in a structure that literally everyone was for and none against. The fact that every club voted for the structure in the entirety seems to be lost on you.

Great avoidance of the points raised about your fabrication of rules to win arguments again by the way.

Re. Your point about every club playing each other, was mooted, got zero support from anywhere when the structure was mooted and options discussed. We’ve been extremely transparent with the merger from ball one, I’ve personally ensured that to be the case. Every club engaged and for a change this time all players/supporters were engaged too. You’re on Facebook, why didn’t you engage when your opinion could’ve mattered or made a difference?

 

[eddyfinn]

Not if they’re three divisions below where they should rightfully be, and in a Division with 6 other teams who are in a lower division than their capability - could take up to a decade.

Which I will now reiterate is my main concern - teams (and possibly whole clubs) will fold. I wonder if the league committee will then take any responsibility for the extinction of clubs.


If you look, I edited my post upon seeing your edit.

So where can we find the OFFICIAL make up, so that mistakes aren’t made again?

You hint at it here, I will also add there is no one in Div 5 or Div 4 that should be in Div 1 or 2 either. Hylton 2nds are the best outside the top 3 Divs currently.

In the same way that if, in five years time, the country is absolutely fucked; we’ll have to blame those who voted for the government, rather than the people who are directly responsible for those failings - the government.

Doesn’t work that way. It’s a leagues duty to look after its clubs, it’s in their best interests. One would think.


That’s actually a great example of what could’ve happened here. Half the divisions with double the number and playing each other once - then see what exactly the direct comparisons were between DCL teams and NEDCL teams.

Why should teams who have showed they have been good enough over the last few years play 10 or 11 games that are completely uncompetative that could also ruin clubs, the difference from Div 3 to Div 6 is massive. At the end of the day Brandon had the chance to show they were better than Div 6 and they didnt.

 

[brandon]

Great avoidance of the points raised about your fabrication of rules to win arguments again by the way.

Re. Your point about every club playing each other, was mooted, got zero support from anywhere when the structure was mooted and options discussed. We’ve been extremely transparent with the merger from ball one, I’ve personally ensured that to be the case. Every club engaged and for a change this time all players/supporters were engaged too. You’re on Facebook, why didn’t you engage when your opinion could’ve mattered or made a difference?

I’ve got nothing else to add on it - let people make their own minds up, when you suggested meeting in public to discuss things I felt it started to get a bit creepy to be honest. Wasn’t WHED banned for that sort of thing?

How do you know I’m on Facebook? How do you know I didn’t engage? Or with my own clubs rep?

You hint at it here, I will also add there is no one in Div 5 or Div 4 that should be in Div 1 or 2 either. Hylton 2nds are the best outside the top 3 Divs currently.

[\QUOTE]

I wasn’t talking about Brandon, I was talking about Hylton. For me, they’re good enough to be much higher than they are.

Why should teams who have showed they have been good enough over the last few years play 10 or 11 games that are completely uncompetative that could also ruin clubs, the difference from Div 3 to Div 6 is massive. At the end of the day Brandon had the chance to show they were better than Div 6 and they didnt.

Who are you referring to here? Which clubs are you saying have shown they’re good enough over the last few years?

Try and tear yourself away from the Brandon obsession, there are SEVERAL clubs in Divisions 4 and 5 who have shown they’re deserving of a higher ranking. That was my overriding point - I’m speaking for those clubs and one thing I’ve not had answered yet is how the committee came to the decision of where in the pyramid the NEDCL should fit and why.

Again, I don’t want to know the criteria used for the placing of clubs such as Beamish 1’s, Boldon 2’s, Dawdon 2’s, etc - but HOW and WHY it was decided that the NEDCL would start at Division 3 and how then was a comparison made for the start of the insertion of their second teams.

Also set me thinking regarding facilities.
Ignoring juniors, clubmark and other off field matters (debate for a other thread).
Beamish - showers, covers, sight screens, electronic scoreboard, bar
Belmont - showers, covers, sight screens
Burnhope - showers, covers, sight screens, manual scoreboard (think they're fitting an electric one), bar
Coundon - showers, manual scoreboard
East Rainton - covers, sight screens, manual scoreboard
Murton - all criteria
Seaham Harbour - all criteria
South Hetton - all criteria
Stanhope - showers avaliable, covers, sight screens, manual scoreboard
Wearmouth - showers, covers, sight screens, manual scoreboard, bar
Kibblesworth - showers, bar
Simonside - showers, sight screens, covers, manual scoreboard
Tantobie - showers, sight screens, covers, electronic scoreboard, bar

So by my reckoning that's three former NEDCL clubs which would not pass the basic facilities test for the old DCL.
*Edit - even those three are I think desirable only.

Are you saying those clubs HAVE showers, or they require them? Think an essential criteria should be HOT Showers personally.

Same goes for football clubs, but that’s for another forum obviously.

 

[eddyfinn]

I’ve got nothing else to add on it - let people make their own minds up, when you suggested meeting in public to discuss things I felt it started to get a bit creepy to be honest. Wasn’t WHED banned for that sort of thing?

How do you know I’m on Facebook? How do you know I didn’t engage? Or with my own clubs rep?



Are you saying those clubs HAVE showers, or they require them? Think an essential criteria should be HOT Showers personally.

Same goes for football clubs, but that’s for another forum obviously.

2nd teams wanted the opportunity to play against 1st teams that is one reason why it started at Div 3, quality wise all the 1st teams in recent years who have come up from the NEDCL have competed well in their first season so no reason to suggest they wouldnt against our 2nd teams, although it is denied there are people who were paid in the NEDCL and are of a decent standard, so DCL 2nd teams will be playing against paid players. There also needs to be a fairness with both leagues to get it over the line if DCL had just dictated it would never have been done and overall this is the best soloution for local cricket.

The only change that I would have made was Hylton and Ryhope 2nds being promoted to Div 4 and Horden and Ushaw Moor 2nds being demoted to Div 5 however I voted on the proposed rules and like others some whom would have had more of a vested insterest in the above it was never suggested.
The teams Im talking about are the teams in Div 3 and in some cases Div 4. You also have teams in div 5 who are way better than those in Div 6 and it wouldnt have been a very competative game last year

 

[brandon]

2nd teams wanted the opportunity to play against 1st teams that is one reason why it started at Div 3, quality wise all the 1st teams in recent years who have come up from the NEDCL have competed well in their first season so no reason to suggest they wouldnt against our 2nd teams, although it is denied there are people who were paid in the NEDCL and are of a decent standard, so DCL 2nd teams will be playing against paid players. There also needs to be a fairness with both leagues to get it over the line if DCL had just dictated it would never have been done and overall this is the best soloution for local cricket.

The only change that I would have made was Hylton and Ryhope 2nds being promoted to Div 4 and Horden and Ushaw Moor 2nds being demoted to Div 5 however I voted on the proposed rules and like others some whom would have had more of a vested insterest in the above it was never suggested.
The teams Im talking about are the teams in Div 3 and in some cases Div 4. You also have teams in div 5 who are way better than those in Div 6 and it wouldnt have been a very competative game last year

Thanks for such a clear explanation.

 

[ac arundez]

I’ve got nothing else to add on it - let people make their own minds up, when you suggested meeting in public to discuss things I felt it started to get a bit creepy to be honest. Wasn’t WHED banned for that sort of thing?

How do you know I’m on Facebook? How do you know I didn’t engage? Or with my own clubs rep?



Are you saying those clubs HAVE showers, or they require them? Think an essential criteria should be HOT Showers personally.

Same goes for football clubs, but that’s for another forum obviously.

Who uses language like creepy by the way? As for speaking face to face I’ve nee idea who WHED is but I’m more than happy to not hide behind a keyboard and say whatever I type.

As for engaging, you certainly didn't on the merger page, I also know who you are from years ago on here, so I would’ve known if you’d engaged. If you have with your club rep then he/she certainly didn’t convey your concerns at any point during the merger process so if you did, I’d suggest taking it up with them but I’d expect you didn’t.

 

[brandon]

Who uses language like creepy by the way?

The youth mate. Millennials

Seeing how it’s now getting more than a bit stalky, I think I’ll leave it there.