EWBbrown
17th April 2002, 10:14
Sorry for the confusion on ICT results, and certainly my copy of the results show Middlesex as 3rd and Leicestershire 4th.
It was nice to hear so many good comments about the ICT and I am pleased that the event brought so much joy to so many people. It is a lot of hard work for my committee but the reward is the enjoyment it brings to so many young people and the thanks we receive for our efforts at the end of the event.
On the issue of Merseyside and Greater Manchester, we have no interest whatsoever in killing either of the Associations off.
The position is clear, at the 2000 AGM of the ESBA, it was agreed that we should for the benefit of the game ESBA should merge with the BA of E. The vote was a decisive one and the reasons for the merger were aired for at least one year prior to this decision being made.
At this time the issue of common borders was raised, and no secret was ever made of the fact that in time Merseyside and Greater Manchester would not be able to function any more as County Badminton Associations.
Yes I did fly up to the June 2000 Merseyside AGM, on the request of Merseyside and attended a meeting where there was a proposal on the table to disband Merseyside Schools BA. I attended along with representatives from Lancashire CBA and Cheshire CBA. The meeting was like a page out of a farce, the venue I turned up to was changed at the last minute and a constitution was placed on the table, which entitled only a very small proportion of those present, to vote. The vast majority of the meeting felt that this was not democratic, a decision I was pleased to support, and the motion to disband Merseyside was eventually defeated.
We have tried to broker a deal between the counties and both Lancashire and Cheshire have moved their positions considerably to accommodate opinions received from Merseyside and Greater Manchester.
I have attended two meetings in the Manchester area, and was unfortunately unable to attend a third when I was hospitalised on the way to it (I threw myself of a cliff in sheer desparation). All of the time our aim has been to protect the interests of the players and administrators of all involved in the area. However we do not have the wisdom of Solomon, and while we can please some of the protagonists we definitely cannot please all of them. If
we allow the status quo Lancashire and Cheshire will feel rightly aggrieved.
From May 2003,ESBA will cease to be a separate association, and the functions currently carried out by the ESBA will be gradually transferred to the BA of E with the Schools and Youth Board monitoring the transfer very closely. Affiliation will be to the BA of E and the only way that Greater Manchester and Merseyside can be recognised as County BA's will be if the Council of the BA of E accepts them as County Associations. They will be able to continue as junior associations but to do this will have to affiliate via either Lancashire or Cheshire.
The only events that the decison effects are those the BA of E have jurisdiction over a) The ICT b) The Under 13 and 15 Challenges c) Under 11 Challenge.
Our recommendation was to phase these particular teams out of the events, starting with the Under 11 and 13 Challenges in September 2002. Merseyside or Greater Manchester did not want this and we were prepared to listen to alternatives.
No alternatives were given to us and therefore we sent a letter prior to year-end announcing that this would be a proposal for the AGM June 2002.
Prior to the ICT, I received a phone call from Ken Linforth (Chairman of Merseyside SBA) asking me to try to negotiate an extra year. It was an amicable phonecall and we discussed all the issues involved again. I agreed the following with Ken
a) That despite two years discussion the position had changed little
b) To discuss the issue with the Chief Executive and put the case to him.
c) To get back to Ken on my return from the ICT.
This is what I did, and a letter was sent to the Counties involved outlining a compromise proposal. The matter will be discussed at the next Executive Board of the BA of E and hopefully at a future council meeting. There will be no phasing out but agreed change will come in by September 2004 at the latest.
We have always said that the agreements must be made at local level. Boundary changes were not of our making, they were brought about by the Government.
I hope this has answered some of the points in your forum. Open discussion is healthy and the Schools and Youth Board are pleased that Badders.com have been able to give time for people to express their view.
On another ICT point, I have two valuable rackets that were left behind at the ICT if anyone has lost their racket please contact me EWBbrown@aol.com and if you can describe it accurately I will get it back to you. Another player from Merseyside has lost a racket can you look to see if you picked this up by mistake as it is the same type as one that I currently have.
It was nice to hear so many good comments about the ICT and I am pleased that the event brought so much joy to so many people. It is a lot of hard work for my committee but the reward is the enjoyment it brings to so many young people and the thanks we receive for our efforts at the end of the event.
On the issue of Merseyside and Greater Manchester, we have no interest whatsoever in killing either of the Associations off.
The position is clear, at the 2000 AGM of the ESBA, it was agreed that we should for the benefit of the game ESBA should merge with the BA of E. The vote was a decisive one and the reasons for the merger were aired for at least one year prior to this decision being made.
At this time the issue of common borders was raised, and no secret was ever made of the fact that in time Merseyside and Greater Manchester would not be able to function any more as County Badminton Associations.
Yes I did fly up to the June 2000 Merseyside AGM, on the request of Merseyside and attended a meeting where there was a proposal on the table to disband Merseyside Schools BA. I attended along with representatives from Lancashire CBA and Cheshire CBA. The meeting was like a page out of a farce, the venue I turned up to was changed at the last minute and a constitution was placed on the table, which entitled only a very small proportion of those present, to vote. The vast majority of the meeting felt that this was not democratic, a decision I was pleased to support, and the motion to disband Merseyside was eventually defeated.
We have tried to broker a deal between the counties and both Lancashire and Cheshire have moved their positions considerably to accommodate opinions received from Merseyside and Greater Manchester.
I have attended two meetings in the Manchester area, and was unfortunately unable to attend a third when I was hospitalised on the way to it (I threw myself of a cliff in sheer desparation). All of the time our aim has been to protect the interests of the players and administrators of all involved in the area. However we do not have the wisdom of Solomon, and while we can please some of the protagonists we definitely cannot please all of them. If
we allow the status quo Lancashire and Cheshire will feel rightly aggrieved.
From May 2003,ESBA will cease to be a separate association, and the functions currently carried out by the ESBA will be gradually transferred to the BA of E with the Schools and Youth Board monitoring the transfer very closely. Affiliation will be to the BA of E and the only way that Greater Manchester and Merseyside can be recognised as County BA's will be if the Council of the BA of E accepts them as County Associations. They will be able to continue as junior associations but to do this will have to affiliate via either Lancashire or Cheshire.
The only events that the decison effects are those the BA of E have jurisdiction over a) The ICT b) The Under 13 and 15 Challenges c) Under 11 Challenge.
Our recommendation was to phase these particular teams out of the events, starting with the Under 11 and 13 Challenges in September 2002. Merseyside or Greater Manchester did not want this and we were prepared to listen to alternatives.
No alternatives were given to us and therefore we sent a letter prior to year-end announcing that this would be a proposal for the AGM June 2002.
Prior to the ICT, I received a phone call from Ken Linforth (Chairman of Merseyside SBA) asking me to try to negotiate an extra year. It was an amicable phonecall and we discussed all the issues involved again. I agreed the following with Ken
a) That despite two years discussion the position had changed little
b) To discuss the issue with the Chief Executive and put the case to him.
c) To get back to Ken on my return from the ICT.
This is what I did, and a letter was sent to the Counties involved outlining a compromise proposal. The matter will be discussed at the next Executive Board of the BA of E and hopefully at a future council meeting. There will be no phasing out but agreed change will come in by September 2004 at the latest.
We have always said that the agreements must be made at local level. Boundary changes were not of our making, they were brought about by the Government.
I hope this has answered some of the points in your forum. Open discussion is healthy and the Schools and Youth Board are pleased that Badders.com have been able to give time for people to express their view.
On another ICT point, I have two valuable rackets that were left behind at the ICT if anyone has lost their racket please contact me EWBbrown@aol.com and if you can describe it accurately I will get it back to you. Another player from Merseyside has lost a racket can you look to see if you picked this up by mistake as it is the same type as one that I currently have.