MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF THE BURY & DISTRICT TABLE TENNIS LEAGUE

HELD ON MONDAY 19th MAY 2008 AT 7.30PM AT SEEDFIELD METHODIST CHURCH HALL, BURY

APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received from Frank Sheldon, Graham Jeffries, Jim Chadwick and Phil Mellor.

CLUBS REPRESENTED

Adelphi, BAE, BGSOB, Claybank, ELPM, Elton Vale, Holmar, Little Lever, Maccabi, Prestwich, Ramsbottom, St Philip’s, St Sebastian’s, Seedfield, Shawfield, Wardle.

CLUBS NOT REPRESENTED

Burning Desire, Carlton, Hilton Bury, Hilton YMCA, Milnrow, Radcliffe, Stand.

MINUTES

The minutes of the 2007 AGM were approved.

CHAIR

In the absence of a League Chairman the Secretary, Keith Butler, took the Chair.

REPORTS OF THE OFFICERS

Secretary

The Secretary thanked Burning Desire for their continued sponsorship of the League and Frank Sheldon for his chairing of the Committee meetings during the year.

Keith apologised for the lack of development of the League website. He had promised to make improvements during 2007/8 but other calls on his time had prevented this. Better progress was expected in 2008/9.

Match Secretary

Keith Warrington reported as follows:

“This was my second season as Match Secretary and there were more problems in the last few weeks of the season than the whole of the earlier part. This mainly arose because of the change in the rule at the last AGM which enabled matches to be rearranged more easily. The only problem at the end of the season was that there wasn’t enough time to play some matches before the date of the last League fixture. Some of the matches had implications on promotion, relegation and the top ten so the Committee agreed that five matches could be played in the Cup Final week. In the whole of the season therefore there were only three awarded matches, each having their own unique circumstances which meant that no other decision could be made. Last season there were at least nine awarded matches (I didn’t keep a proper record) so a significant improvement this season and I must thank everyone for making the effort in the rearranging of matches.

There were 23 clubs in the League this season, one less than last season. Bishops Road amalgamated with Maccabi and Hamer withdrew. St. Sebastian’s joined us in Division 3. There were 54 teams, the same as last season, and 5 divisions, also the same as last season.

There were 574 matches and a lot of the boxes were continued to be filled in for which I thank everyone for doing so and please continue next season.

The trial last season of a ‘Wimbledon style’ draw for the Cup matches continued this season with a couple of enhancements which made my job so much easier.

The draw was made electronically using a ‘random number selector’ in the Excel spreadsheet which I use. This was carried out by our Inter League Secretary, Graham Jeffries who added all the techy bits to my spreadsheet for which I’m grateful.

In addition to this a ‘random cell selector’ in the spreadsheet was also included which meant the home team was selected entirely at random for each round. Keith Butler provided the idiot proof guide to me for this and I thank him for doing so.

Apologies to the clubs who do not have computers. What I have just explained may not make much sense. I just wanted to explain how we have tried to move away from manual to electronic systems.

The website stayed the same this year and everyone who uses it has very complimentary comments to make about it. I am able to update the website daily to ensure that the details are always up to date. I have been known to update the site three times in a day if I get score cards from the postman, then hand delivered and also by email. I would encourage clubs and players to email me the score card if you can.

Last season there were 21 teams that regularly emailed me their cards which ensured that the results were shown on the site very quickly. I’m sure it was because of this that there was a significant drop in the number of late scores cards from 33 last season to only 7 this year.

We are hoping to increase the capacity of the website next season to include all the Cup Draws, photos and past records of the League. This is on Keith Butler’s ‘to do’ list.

I mentioned earlier about rearranged matches and they increased significantly this season. My bits of paper and card index proved totally inadequate for me to keep track of them all. I didn’t keep a count but I would say there were 25 to 30.

Because I use the same spreadsheets as the Oldham League I am able to compare notes with Joe Redikin, Match Secretary of Oldham and also a Prestwich Table Tennis Club player. Joe showed me a simple way using the spreadsheet to keep a record electronically and I’m thankful to Joe for this.

The Bury Times problems were far less this season and it was my fault that the report for the Finals night appeared a week late. I did the report the day after Finals night and forgot to email it to the Bury Times.”

Inter League Secretary

Graham Jeffries was on holiday so there was no formal report. However it was noted that the first team had won the Premier League for the first time and the second team had finished third in their division. Congratulations were offered to all inter-league players for these fine results.

Tournament Secretary

David Ternent reported that the attendance at the Championships remained low, similar to the previous season. The lack of entries from Divisions 4 and 5 was particularly noticeable. However it was a good and enjoyable tournament and finals night.

Keith Butler promised to put a questionnaire on the website in an effort to find out why only ten percent of League players enter each year.

Treasurer

Phil Herd apologised for not having been able to get the accounts audited before the AGM but said that this would be done in the next few weeks.

The accounts showed a surplus of £1,000 for the year. This was almost entirely due to a reduction in costs rather than an increase in income.

Insurance was cheaper (now obtained through the ETTA) and the cost of the handbooks had been substantially reduced. The previous year had borne the loss on the anniversary dinner.

PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENTS/CHANGES (see below)

The Committee was proposing no changes to the subscriptions and fees. A reduction could have been made in the light of the surplus for 2007/8 but it was thought that the League should continue to build its cash reserves so that money would be available for developments.

Rule 8(n) – the following new version was approved unanimously:

(n) (i) The current laws of table tennis as adopted by the E.T.T.A. shall apply to all matches in the League.

(ii) All balls and rubbers used in League competitions must be in the relevant ITTF authorised lists specified by the Management Committee.

Rule 8(o) – the following new version of the last part of the rule was approved unanimously:

(o) … No player may play in the semi-final or final of any competition unless he or she has played five league matches for that club by the first Friday after 31 January or other date specified by the Management Committee, with only matches scheduled to take place by that date being taken into account. In the case of the lowest ranked team in a club, or a club with only one team, someone who has not played five matches may be allowed to play in a semi-final or final subject to the prior approval of the Management Committee.

Rule 8(k)(iii) – the following wording was approved with nine votes in favour as against eight for the alternative proposal:

The sets shall be played in the following order:

1 v 2; 3 v 1; 2 v 3; 3 v 2; 1 v 3; D; 2 v 1;

3 v 3; 2 v 2; 1 v 1; home team first in each case.

If a match is played out of score card order through an acceptable reason, the order shall be decided by the opponents of the team causing the match to be played out of order.

If both teams agree, the doubles may be played as the last set of the match.

Rule 8(m) – the following wording for the first part of the rule was approved unanimously, the alternative proposal having been withdrawn:

In a match a team shall be credited with one point for each set won, each such point to count in the league table. At the end of the season the top two teams shall be promoted and the bottom two teams relegated.  In the event of a tie on points the deciding factors shall be, in order of precedence:

·          matches won

·          matches lost (the fewer losses determining the higher league position)

·          the aggregate result of the home and away fixtures between the teams involved.

If there is still a tie, a play-off over nine sets shall take place between the teams on a neutral table to be decided by the Management Committee. …

ELECTION OF OFFICERS

President

George Lomax had agreed to continue in this role and he was unanimously re-elected.

Chairman

No nominations had been received so the position was left vacant.

Vice Chairman

Thanks were expressed to David Ternent for his service in this position – he was now stepping down. Rodney Hall was nominated and elected unanimously.

Secretary

Keith Butler had agreed to stand again and he was re-elected unanimously.

Treasurer

Phil Herd had agreed to stand again and was re-elected unanimously.

Match Secretary

Keith Warrington had agreed to stand again and was re-elected unanimously.

Tournament Secretary

David Ternent was willing to continue in this position despite standing down as Vice- Chairman and he was re-elected unanimously.

Inter League Secretary

Graham Jeffries was willing to carry on and he was re-elected unanimously.

Committee

Andrew Webster, Ian McKenzie and Frank Sheldon were willing to continue as general Committee members. All three were re-elected unanimously.

UPDATE TO “The story so far”

Keith Warrington explained his proposals for updating and extending the book originally produced by Bob Goodman some years ago. His research had enabled him to gather more information from the earlier years of the League and he would also bring it up to date. He had got estimates for publishing a new version, considerably longer than before and with some colour plates. The figure of about £1,700 should be reduced by possible advertising revenues and sponsorship, but that would still mean a substantial investment would be needed to proceed. Without a commitment from potential buyers it would be difficult to go ahead. The price per copy would be very dependent on the size of the print run. He was proposing sending out an email to all players, where possible, seeking their views on the project.

Aubrey Huller suggested that feedback could be obtained via club secretaries.

Barrie Fleet suggested that perhaps subscriptions could be increased for one year only and a free copy given to every member.

Eddie Kalinowski thought that production and printing costs might be reduced if further quotations were sought. Without a firmer idea of the cost per copy it would be difficult to get proper feedback.

Jim Crompton put forward the idea of using the Sam Hilton bequest for the project.

The general feeling appeared to be pessimistic that sufficient copies could be sold to break even but it was agreed that Keith would continue with his emailing proposal.

HANDICAPPING SYSTEM

Keith Butler referred to the note on handicapping that had been circulated to all (see below).

The response from the meeting was positive.

While nobody particularly criticised the current method there was an interest in carrying out a trial in the coming season. A number of members had experience of handicapping systems similar to the type being considered and they generally liked them.

The Committee were given the go–ahead to formulate the system properly and put it into effect, if they wished, without further reference to the clubs.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Keith Butler explained how a group of Committee members, led by Joe Walk, had hoped to set up a table–tennis centre in Bury for the purpose of providing coaching and practice facilities. A grant application to Awards for All had been made but had not succeeded, possibility due to reasons un-associated with the actual proposal made.

Now that Joe had decided to go abroad again the remaining Committee members did not feel that a project of the same scope was possible. However they realised that something similar was needed and intended to pursue this, hence the desire to build up League funds referred to earlier in the AGM.

In the meantime they would like to know if there are any spare tables available that might be of use in a future table tennis centre.

SAM HILTON BEQUEST

The Secretary noted that most players probably already knew that Sam Hilton, a League member for many years, had died during the last year and left £225 to the League. The Committee wished to use this for a specific purpose rather than absorb it into general League funds. The Treasurer had already explained how the money had not been treated as income for the year but would be shown as a separate part of the accumulated funds until a suitable use was identified.

2008/9 SEASON

The Match Secretary issued the usual forms for clubs to apply for membership for the new season.

He also issued the individual registration forms from the ETTA. Clubs were asked to check the data on the forms and amend where necessary. Some blank copies were available and it would also be on the website as soon as the ETTA made it available.

HANDBOOK

Keith Butler drew attention to the comments that he proposed to publish in the handbook for next season.

These included references to the spirit in which he hoped the game would be played, the provision of refreshments during matches, the use of two tables on occasions and the law defining a legal table tennis serve.

No-one expressed any significant objections to these.

The meeting closed at 9.30 pm.

Papers for the AGM

Proposed rule changes

Rule 8 (n)

Present rule:

(n) The current laws of table tennis as adopted by the E.T.T.A. shall apply to all matches in the League.

Proposed:

(n) (i) The current laws of table tennis as adopted by the E.T.T.A. shall apply to all matches in the League.

(ii) All balls and rubbers used in League competitions must be in the relevant ITTF authorised lists specified by the Management Committee.

Committee note: This will avoid any disputes over the quality or legality of equipment.

Rule 8 (o)

Present rule (extract):

(o) … No player may play in the semi-final or final of any competition unless the player has played five league matches for that club by a date to be announced by the Management Committee with only matches scheduled to take place by that date being taken into account, except in the case of a Club with only one team or the lowest team of a Club being involved, when the playing of a reserve shall be subject to the prior approval of the Management Committee.

Proposed (extract):

(o) … No player may play in the semi-final or final of any competition unless he or she has played five league matches for that club by the first Friday after 31 January or other date specified by the Management Committee, with only matches scheduled to take place by that date being taken into account. In the case of the lowest ranked team in a club, or a club with only one team, someone who has not played five matches may be allowed to play in a semi-final or final subject to the prior approval of the Management Committee.

Committee note: This makes it unnecessary for the date to be published each year, unless the timing of competitions changes significantly.

Rule 8 (k) (iii)

Present rule:

The sets shall be played in the following order:

1 v 2; 3 v 1; 2 v 3; 3 v 2; 1 v 3; D; 2 v 1;

3 v 3; 2 v 2; 1 v 1; home team first in each case.

If a match is played out of score card order through an acceptable reason, the order shall be decided by the opponents of the team causing the match to be played out of order.

Proposed:

The sets shall be played in the following order:

1 v 2; 3 v 1; 2 v 3; 3 v 2; 1 v 3; 2 v 1;

3 v 3; 2 v 2; 1 v 1; Doubles; home team first in each case.

If a match is played out of score card order through an acceptable reason, the order shall be decided by the opponents of the team causing the match to be played out of order.

If both teams agree, the doubles may be played as the sixth set of the match.

Or

The sets shall be played in the following order:

1 v 2; 3 v 1; 2 v 3; 3 v 2; 1 v 3; D; 2 v 1;

3 v 3; 2 v 2; 1 v 1; home team first in each case.

If a match is played out of score card order through an acceptable reason, the order shall be decided by the opponents of the team causing the match to be played out of order.

If both teams agree, the doubles may be played as the last set of the match.

Committee note: We believe there may be a desire to play the doubles at the end of each match (and we know that this is done on occasions in any case). These alternatives would either make a permanent change to the order of play (but retain a get-out for traditionalists) or leave the existing rule in place but allow doubles to be played at the end if mutually agreed.

Rule 8(m)

Present rule (extract):

In a match a team shall be credited with one point for each set won, each such point to count in the league table. At the end of the season the top two teams shall be promoted.  In the event of a tie on points, matches won shall count, matches won also deciding any relegation issue.  If the matches won are identical, a play-off over nine sets shall take place between the teams with identical matches won on a neutral table to be decided by the Management Committee. …

Proposed (extract):

In a match a team shall be credited with one point for each set won, each such point to count in the league table. At the end of the season the top two teams shall be promoted and the bottom two teams relegated.  In the event of a tie on points the deciding factors shall be, in order of precedence:

·          matches won

·          matches lost (the fewer losses determining the higher league position)

·          the aggregate result of the home and away fixtures between the teams involved.

If there is still a tie, a play-off over nine sets shall take place between the teams on a neutral table to be decided by the Management Committee. …

Or

In a match a team shall be credited with one point for each set won, each such point to count in the league table. At the end of the season the top two teams shall be promoted and the bottom two teams relegated.  In the event of a tie on points the deciding factors shall be, in order of precedence:

·          matches won

·          matches lost (the fewer losses determining the higher league position).

If there is still a tie, a play-off over nine sets shall take place between the teams on a neutral table to be decided by the Management Committee. …

Committee note: The current rule does not specify the relegation places; the proposed one does. Also, we would prefer to have these issues decided on the results of the season rather than by play-off so we are proposing two additional factors to be taken into account if necessary. Some clubs may not like the idea of the aggregation of the league match results so one of the alternatives does not include this factor.

Handicapping system

There have been a number of adverse comments about the handicapping system currently used for the cup competitions.

The problem is that the handicap is solely based on the position of each team in the league and does not reflect the abilities of those who actually play in an individual match.

The presence of a particularly good or particularly poor player can render the team-based handicap nonsensical.

We have had a look at alternative systems in use in other leagues and none has been found that satisfies our circumstances. However we think that it may be possible to come up with a basis that may be an improvement.

The work hasn’t been completed but the thoughts are that the basis could be similar to the Oldham system but with modifications necessary because we have matches involving teams from different divisions.

Oldham allocates a handicap to each player based on his/her win percentage, adjusted if they have only played a few matches for example. The handicaps of the three players are totalled to give the team handicap.

The match is played with each game starting at love all. Each “set” consists of either four games to eleven or two games to twenty-one.

The total points won by each team is calculated and added to the team handicap to give the team score. The team with the higher score wins.

As mentioned above, we would need to make a further adjustment to account for teams playing in different divisions.

Our ideas are not fully formulated but we wanted to give the AGM an opportunity to comment. If we introduced a new system it would probably be on a trial basis for one season for the Macdonald and Poytress Cups. These competitions do not usually begin until half the league matches have been played so win percentages should be mostly representative of players’ abilities. Also the spread of divisions is less than that for the Dwyer Cup.

At the AGM we would like to find out whether there is general dissatisfaction with the current system.

If there is, would the clubs like to try a new system?

If so, will they give the Committee the go ahead to come up with firm proposals?