Peter Moran - President, National Conference League wrote:What are the advantages for the National Conference League, its clubs and players that are currently enjoyed from their present "associate membership" status that would be lost to them if the National Conference League chose to leave Barla?
- Number of posts : 167
Age : 52
Location : One step away from insanity!!
Registration date : 2009-01-18
|Thanks for the initial help Sam.I started again and now I'm here.Not bad advice come to think about it!|
Lee, Sam is quite correct.The Juniors raise a different question and mine is specific to the NCL It needs a seperate answer ..Our clubs ,putting it simply,want to know what they are going to lose in real terms if they vote to leave.
I personally can't think of anything other than the Appeal process(which is worth another thread of it's own.) Rep and Cup rugby for instance remains open through the District League route,as I understand it.,but I am genuinely seeking guidance.
This forum is a great idea,but please, no spin and no prevarication Some of us are very old hands when it comes to this sort of thing.I am sure you can get someone from the Board to respond quickly .They can't all be licking insurance envelopes......
I'm on a road trip to France for the next three weeks, so plenty of time to construct a winning response !
And if you are really serious about representing clubs and players , have another look at NCL constitution , and Barla's right to representation on its management. A good response to the question might help , or am I getting too political ? Maybe we should just let the season unfold, along with everything else......
So this is the “longest standing unanswered question on this site,” despite your previous record of factual inaccuracy, this is taken as so. Regardless of which, it is still a question which you have asked and waited patiently for a response and judging by it’s resurrection from the archives, you really are deserving of an answer.
Peter the term ‘our clubs’ is used, when in reality as has been determined in our exchanges, it is teams. However in your favour, as this question was raised a considerable time before you came to terms with the correct wording, this can be overlooked.
Before I do give my honest opinion and answer the question, my thoughts are that it is purely the desire of the NCL management seeking closure on this issue, not its member teams. And the vote that you mention was, “Should the National Conference League withdraw from BARLA,” not the clubs themselves. That is what my answer is based on.
Having decided on that basis then, by the National Conference League withdrawing from BARLA, its teams would lose virtually nothing. Logically, with each individual team being a part of a BARLA club, it would still benefit enormously, from the support offered by the association.
The team’s club would still be able to use the BARLA appeals system, something for which you seem to hold in low regard Peter. When considering that some of the fines that are imposed on its teams, are bordering on a similar sum to that of which pro’ clubs are receiving, I would say that the National Conference League itself would indeed benefit, with teams having no independent point of appeal to turn to. This lack of arbitration would definitely not be of benefit to the team.
One thing that a team would lose, which is something that has already been denied to them by the NCL management’s decision to reduce its membership status, is the teams’ right to cast a vote through the NCL on BARLA matters. Considering that the teams’ clubs may still be able to cast a vote via its junior, youth, district and regional league membership, don’t you find it somewhat ironic, that the club’s senior side is not offered representation through the amateur game’s “flagship league.” Certainly when considering that one vote often can be crucial.
As you point out Peter, the teams can follow other avenues which lead to prestigious cup competitions and representative rugby, but why should it be necessary for them to have to go this route? My thoughts are that it only causes more divide within the game which can’t be beneficial at all.
One benefit that you did not mention is the player compensation system – however frugal it may be – with which BARLA work in direct consultation with the RFL financial department, to finalise and administer the compensation payments to amateur clubs. And of course there is the BARLA insurance which undeniably, you instruct your members constitutionally, to be paid directly to the association.
Am I right in my belief that when BARLA were more heavily involved with National Conference League, that there were more benefits such as subsidised travel, competition prize money, referee’s/officials fees, available for member teams. Why then, despite having a major coach operator as the NCL sponsor, is not travel subsidised and what happened to the competition prizes.
Hypothetically Peter and I’m not often one to use that word, if the NCL did decide it fit to sever all association with BARLA, would it then be written in to rule 6.1 of your constitution, that a member would not be allowed to be a BARLA member. I myself couldn’t see this action as ever being necessary, but just imagine the fragmentation and divide it would create within your teams’ clubs if that ever did happen.
So how have I done Peter, is this the guidance that you were genuinely looking for, is it a response good enough to be considered serious about representing clubs and their players, is it a good enough response to reinforce BARLA’s right to representation on the NCL management. I don’t consider any content of the response to be over political and rather than just letting the season unfold, only to be met with age old problems that see your league having to veer from it’s constitution, what about a natter.
- Number of posts : 31
Registration date : 2009-02-11
Don't know how many times I have to repeat it but NCL sees itself as a grouping of clubs with standards requiring Clubmark, reserve teams, youth and juniors, mini-mod etc. You may choose to want to look at it differently ,but that's how we see it.
It has never been put that the NCL withdraw from BARLA. That is not on the agenda. My question was really designed to bring home to the powers that be what you have said - we would lose nothing- but more than that , to highlight the apparent paucity of ambition at the top to drive the amateur game forward - what are the tangible benefits of associate membership? Or should I ask the Ukrainians?
By the way, everyone gets compensation for players regardless of Barla membership...
And Barla has had little to do with subsidies, referee fees ,prize money or sponsorship. That's been self generated/extracted from RFL with massive help from RLS, and in fact continues to this day. And you really should be up to date Hammer- Frazer Eagle went into liquidation last year !!!!
We now have our own independant Appeals system and will not be bothering to use Barla's from here on in. If you ask Kelly or David at RLS they will let you have a copy of our 2009-2010 handbook with complements ,though I would have expected them to have lodged one by now ..
Barla's representation is not constitutional. It derived from RFL peace-making in a previous 'tiff'. You should have the minutes available somewhere.
Finally, unlike other organisations I could mention,we have never moved away from following our constitution and will not do so in the future. Certain amendements have provided us with clarity and more self determination at this year's AGM.
And yes it's always good to natter.