Forum

Tom - whilst I have expressed my view on a preference for 8 teams in a league why would CSN have to explain their reasoning for making a decision to you or anyone other than its members (I will ask don't worry!). I am sure other clubs do not have to account to this forum for decisions.

Yellow and Black - I read your comment correctly. I heard nothing said about lawyers on the day and I think you are stirring particularly by not saying who you are and who said what and in what context.

Wayne if you had read my comment correctly it wasnt about your success during the season it was for the comments made by your senior member who was opening the champers while chirping about lawyers.

Have to agree it was a strange decision by CSNI not to vote for the new structure as it appears to be in the interests of the more ambitious and progressive clubs.
Ironic that one point loses the league and a little two votes loses the union's proposal for change. I can't believe the two things are related Tom but let's hear it from the boys!

Re tom higgins - I am not on our committee and not aware of any facts re the voting at the AGM but from my perspective it is disappointing for the league not to go down to 8 teams and I am sure for a lot of others they feel the same.

As for yellow and black. The champagne was popped due to 16 league wins and a cup win. It was the 28th September after a long hard pretty successful season. I think trying to stir and not showing your name is pretty spineless.

Mr Heaney - Great to see you quoting the NCU rules (timescales etc.) But you leave the impression that it was the NCU's fault that North Down's moment of glory was spoiled.
However that topic aside I'm still waiting for the reasons behind the CSNI 'NO' vote to 8 team sections at the AGM.
Did the club's response to the Development Board questionaire indicate that they were opposed to the restructuring and likely to vote against?
If not then in the absence of any reasoned argument one is left to assume it was a knee-jerk 'anti' vote.
You need not reply personally, I'm happy to hear the view from CSNI, PWC, HBOS, PSNI or whoever usually acts for you in these matters.

i was at the inst v csni match at stormont and amazed to see at the end of match a senior official from the home club popping champers and suggesting we will get that point back with our legal team.
Is this what local sport is all about now?
unreal

Tom Higgins
I would be interested to know why you think the timing of the CSNI appeal had anything to do with the NCU Dinner? The appeal was made within the timeframes as designated by the rules, and from what I understand any delay has not been of CSNI's making. Have to say I feel sorry for North Down. As is rightly posted on their website, they were either sole or joint winners of the League, and they were denied their moment of glory at the dinner.

Interested and indeed shocked at the developments from the NCU AGM last night when the main proposal of the evening was not sufficiently supported to get the 60% needed. I really thought that its progression into the rules was a mere formality given most of what had been said about 8 team leagues.
I wouldn't like to see any particular club(s) or representatives singled out or castigated for voting against the proposal though because what some people might have viewed as progress wouldn't necessarily be the opinions of every committee.
Personally I reckon it fell down with the lower league clubs because the restructuring season put a glass ceiling on top of clubs in the 2009 season with promotion not an option and a lot of meaningless cricket happening throughout. Whether that is something that would improve the standard in the short term would be open to debate. Either way, no doubt the same proposal might hit the table again this time next year, and with a few changes will no doubt get through.

Clarence Hiles doesn't quite come out and say it but there will always be a suspician that the timing of the CSNI appeal was a calculated one to have an impact on dinner. Coupled with their vote against the restructuring to 8 team leagues (surely they can't be worried about relegation) it seems that any NCU target is good enough.
Any chance of a reasoned argument to justify that vote against 8 team leagues from any of the regular CSNI contributors?

Paul I agree, how about removing two teams from section 1 and promoting 1 team from section 2. I know the teams in section 1 would not be happy at a section 2 side getting their place but if you phased this over two years then you would have two less sides in section 1 and it would still give section 2 sides something to play for. All in all the change IS DRASTICALLY needed if we are to benefit from Ireland improving as a nation in cricketing circles. Believe me the sacrifice now would / will benefit not only players but supporters alike.

Someone seriously has to put there foot down here, the big 3 are without question going to be playing a lot of 20/20 games next year. Its like a scenario that rose in the cups a while back against them when all of a sudden opposing teams covers seemed to be left off so that they could force a bowl out! League could end up being decided by a 20/20! We already have a competition for that!!!

From being at the meeting last night it seemed that most, if not all Section 1 clubs voted for the 8 team league structure. Where the proposal fell down was that most Section 2 and 3 teams voted against it - as is their right to do so, you could say understandly seeing as how there is no promotion from section 2 next year. Maybe 3 down from Section 1 and 1 up from Section 2 might have got the proposal through, but I guess we'll never know!

Re 20 over match 2, I have to agree with Robin - If there is a sniff of rain will teams want to play against the so called big 3 in a 50 over match or take their chances in match 2 - time will tell.

re. james belfast

couldn,t agree with you more james, the 20 over replays will be the best way for some clubs to get a victory so expect a lot of 50 over match 1 games postponed with some club grounds clearly not up to senior standard after one days rain.
your earlier question "can players not be bothered anymore" was answered at the end of this season when some clubs had to play 3rd 4th eleven players on their first team.
i get the distinct feeling that some clubs dont want to play competitive cricket.
heres hoping for a hot 2009 and no mickey mouse league matches.

I agree with Rodneys comments and I am disappointed that the new structure will not come into effect after 2009. I feel sorry for Andy Clement and his development team - they went to a lot of bother to see if the Clubs & CAPTAINS would be interested in such a change. I wonder how many senior captains were representing their clubs, rather than "club suits" as they are called.
However, I think if this is proposed again in future, it will be carried - just a shame as each year is one wasted. People have to realise that, with the climate as it is now, there are not going to be enough dry Saturdays to play X cup and 18 league fixtures.

Disappointing but predictable votes last night.

I would echo Rodney's sentiments about the league structure. Laurelvale could well have ended up in a lower league but I would have voted for the change.

What is going to be done about section 4 now ?

I am also disappointed that replays will be sorted out over 20 overs. It really does take away from a proper 50 over league.