Would I be correct in saying that 5 months after the AGM the members have still not been provided with last years accounts / treasurers report?
If so then i note the following.
In the minutes for Junes meeting it states that the accounts are required so that sections can apply for funding.
Then at yesterdays meeting there is a section approved for funding (For the record I am not against the funding being provided)
The committee / attendees then decides to provide all Internationalists with 4 polo tops F.O.C
What is the approx cost of this? How can it be approved when the members haven't been provided with the accounts? Surely this is a cost that can not be approved without a ballot of all the members?
The committee / attendees then propose to raise the cost of super entries by £3 per person to assist the international players.
So are the committee looking for the players who will never play international pool to compensate for these polos?
Surely if your playing for Scotland then buying polos should never be an issue.
In short i'm struggling to see how all these decisions can be made when the members still haven't saw the previous years financial report and i believe that none of the above decisions can be made until these are made available
Although we have no seen the accounts we were reliably informed yesterday that we have around £30-35k surplus in our account. First of all, this is far too much for a non profit organisation and I'd be interested to see how this has been accrued and over what period. Regardless, this means there is plenty to pay for the estimated £5.5k in polo tops for the international players. Players can sometimes spend up to £1k per event to represent our organisation and all this is doing is wiping off an expense they would normally fork out for.
In regards to the £3 extra Supers fee, I don't agree to it. But, it is not for polos. It was part of Santa's proposal to help fundraise for the World Championships from 2018 where they will be in South Africa and then in Cyprus I believe. There were a number of fundraising activities proposed and this is one that needs to be voted on properly.
In actual fact it was not a section that was funded yesterday. It was the junior academies. They were let down by a major sponsor and asked for help, a proposal was made, minuted, taken away and the meeting voted overwhelmingly to give the money. Myself included.
As an aside the point was raised (again) that sections should be providing accounts prior to asking for any funding.
with 32-33k sitting in SPA accounts and more profit to come per supers event I do hope much more is spent appropriately to develop
the game ? Donate to charity ? I would imagine an association set up as non profit making but gaining profit each season to add to an already large sum in the bank would have to look at ideas of how
best to use it up
How many leagues are in the SPA? Surely they could even be donating match balls to the leagues that will be getting used in IM events and super events?
Can I ask in relation to the proposal put forward..
Is it 3 venues on the Saturday or 2??
And 1 on the Sunday played to a finish..!!
Cos surely if it's 3 then that means less players at each venue which can't be a good thing!!
Venues are moaning cos of the no shows at present with having 128 players meant to be attending they only getting 80-90..
If 3 venues on the Saturday it would means at most they getting about 80odd players each..and with no shows your maybe taking that down to about 60odd...
Will it even be worth venues holding an I'm..will they just say no thanks it's not worth it any more..
Surely it has to be 2 venues of 128 on the Saturday with a different venue of last 64 on the Sunday played to a finish..
Am I wrong here or does it not seem obvious that's what need to happen??
You're wrong unfortunately Vinnie. It would be impossible to play a 128 down to the last 32 in each venue due to time (you'd be starting matches at 1am). So the proposal is to go to 3 venues which will give more clubs a chance to hold an event and cater for the smaller venues too. The last 64 will be played in one venue on the Sunday that is both big enough and good enough to hold the finals. In short, this change will ensure all clubs are given a fair chance to stage part of an IM. It will also ensure that the IM is completed on one weekend as it should be.
If the average venue has 8 tables, that would mean 12 round of 8 matches to fit in the 96 matches scheduled. Bearing in mind that it is a timed draw with matches starting at 10am and schedules for 1 hour and 15mins, then the last matches would start at 1am. Each venue will still get 80+ on the Saturday, paying a smaller fee than before. There is more benefit than downside I believe.
I've said it b4 and I'll say it again if they would cut the times to 1hlur instead of having empty table all over the place then they would get 2 rounds played 128-32 no bother!!
Maybe we should hear what the fee would be in this scenario first before deciding if it will be good or bad for the clubs.
It can't be x amount per player as they do at seniors events etc as even getting 80+ in they are only in for a limited time each whereas events like the seniors are played to a finish.
www.lastbidz.com http://twitter.co...
SPA Scottish Doubles Champions 2013
World Champion 2012 (Scotland Seniors Team)
Strathclyde League Singles Champion 2012
Red Triangle Singles League Champion 2012
Superleague 11 & 15 Team Champions 2012 (Team G)
Superleague 11s Challenge Champions (captain)
World Speed Pool Seniors Champion 2010
Paisley Singles Champion 2010
European Masters Senior Team Champions 2010, 2011
Superleague 15's Champions Team G 2009
Belhaven Grand Final Champion 2007
knowledge wrote:
In actual fact it was not a section that was funded yesterday. It was the junior academies. They were let down by a major sponsor and asked for help, a proposal was made, minuted, taken away and the meeting voted overwhelmingly to give the money. Myself included.
As an aside the point was raised (again) that sections should be providing accounts prior to asking for any funding.
Would the vote to provide internationalists with 5k + of kit not be classed as a section being funded?.. Or it is, it just didn't happen yesterday?
Just a question for my own understanding.. No malice intended.
knowledge wrote:
In actual fact it was not a section that was funded yesterday. It was the junior academies. They were let down by a major sponsor and asked for help, a proposal was made, minuted, taken away and the meeting voted overwhelmingly to give the money. Myself included.
As an aside the point was raised (again) that sections should be providing accounts prior to asking for any funding.
Would the vote to provide internationalists with 5k + of kit not be classed as a section being funded?.. Or it is, it just didn't happen yesterday?
Just a question for my own understanding.. No malice intended.
If you re-read the first post which I have added below you will note that there are things called "paragraphs". A quick Google will explain these to you. I have added a few "***" to highlight the relevant ones.
You will note the ones above the **** refer to a "section", which is what my post is in reply to, below, in the following "paragraph" (see Google) you will note the authors reference to polo tops, in a separate subject.
The internationals receiving tops would not be classed as a "section" they would be classed as the international teams representing those sections aka "team Scotland". I am always happy to aid with anyone's understanding of any issue if I can I apologise for referring you to google as I do not consider myself qualified to explain primary school English.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.
No malice intended.
geegee1984 wrote:
Would I be correct in saying that 5 months after the AGM the members have still not been provided with last years accounts / treasurers report?
If so then i note the following.
In the minutes for Junes meeting it states that the accounts are required so that sections can apply for funding.
Then at yesterdays meeting there is a section approved for funding (For the record I am not against the funding being provided)
************
The committee / attendees then decides to provide all Internationalists with 4 polo tops F.O.C
What is the approx cost of this? How can it be approved when the members haven't been provided with the accounts? Surely this is a cost that can not be approved without a ballot of all the members?
The committee / attendees then propose to raise the cost of super entries by £3 per person to assist the international players.
So are the committee looking for the players who will never play international pool to compensate for these polos?
Surely if your playing for Scotland then buying polos should never be an issue.
In short i'm struggling to see how all these decisions can be made when the members still haven't saw the previous years financial report and i believe that none of the above decisions can be made until these are made available
I don't understand why a voluntary, not for profit needs that much as a float.
Surely it would be better invested in developing the game or investing in technology etc as opposed to sitting in the bank collecting (is it 0.25% these days) interest. Or, as a radical idea, why not use some of this to subsidise the internationalists as opposed to going back to the grassroots well for £3 per player. Personally, I don't object to funds being used to help the international players. But stumping up another £3 to help pay for sunshine holidays for the select few (whilst there's a wedge of unused cashed already in the SPA coffers) does stick in my throat a bit tbh.
Next we'll be stumping up for Icelandic language lessons.
We need to develop the sport of pool in Scotland, to hell with everything else.
Pump money into proper coaching structure and staff all over Scotland.
Pump money into youth academies being held at every areas pool halls to entice the next generation of players through.
Invest in proper streaming equipment and staff to do it right.
Invest in technology to allow proper live scoring from every single SPA event it holds.
Just a few ideas which are far better than helping guys who win money all year from tournament get a cheaper holiday to represent Scotland.
www.lastbidz.com http://twitter.co...
SPA Scottish Doubles Champions 2013
World Champion 2012 (Scotland Seniors Team)
Strathclyde League Singles Champion 2012
Red Triangle Singles League Champion 2012
Superleague 11 & 15 Team Champions 2012 (Team G)
Superleague 11s Challenge Champions (captain)
World Speed Pool Seniors Champion 2010
Paisley Singles Champion 2010
European Masters Senior Team Champions 2010, 2011
Superleague 15's Champions Team G 2009
Belhaven Grand Final Champion 2007
SPA Accounts / Treasurers Report
