Page 14 - Summer 2016

AGM 3:Layout 1 01-Sep-16 9:08 AM Page 1

14 Delegates were told that you could just do the generic part of the course and the short
mat bowls modules. I.C.C was discussed and there was much amusement at Kent’s pro-
posal that counties who fail to provide a free tea or coffee for visiting teams should be fined.
The point of the proposal was that counties like Kent provide free hot drinks to visiting teams
while counties who use Bowls Clubs as their venues do not because of the cost. The matter gave
some delegates the opportunity to bring some light relief to the meeting but a vote indicated Kent’s
view did not have a lot of support.
I.C.C Roll-ups to stay the same
There was a discussion on roll-ups with Cheshire strongly putting the case for home teams to be
allowed roll-ups while the away team were not. Eventually the option of remaining with the current
system or returning to the half hour each roll-up was put to the meeting. 29 delegates for the cur-
rent 2 up and 2 down system while just 4 delegates voted for the half hour roll-ups.
Shock vote at Open Forum opens door to players changing counties
The question of bowlers being allowed to play for whichever county they want each season, re-
gardless of where they live, was raised. Barry Hedges called for a vote on the issue and seemed
surprised when 18 delegates voted in favour of this change and only 10 against.
West Midlands dress code question
West Mids asked how strictly dress code would be enforced, no clear answer seemed to be forth-
coming.
Complaints over noise in Norfolk v Essex Final
One delegate complained of the volume of noise in the I.C.C Premier Final between Norfolk and
Essex. Barry Hedges explained that matches between these teams are like local derbies and both
teams had brought supporters. The delegate said that the umpires should have taken action over
this issue but this did not seem to receive support across the room.
Kent raised the issue of players being tied once they had played for one of their Premier
team in the knock-out rounds. They had to call in two “A” Team players because of injuries and
then could not play them in their “A” Team in the knockouts. They were informed that this is in the
rules although one delegate queried this. Derbyshire raised the question of why, after three rinks
had played off for a National Place, they had not been allowed to enter.
It was explained to them that under the rules a minimum of four
rinks should have played to get a National place. The Competition
Organiser said that if they had less than four entries in a competition
he would try to join them up with another county, who also had less
than the required entry numbers, to play off for a National place.
It should be noted that in an Open Forum the ESMBA are not
required to implement changes that delegates are asked to vote on.
Delegates are given the chance to raise issues in an Open Forum
that may not arise doing the formal business of an AGM.
Since his election as ESMBA Chairman it has become a com-
FROM
mon feature for Barry Hedges to call for votes on various issues raised FROM
at Open Forums and generally the ESMBA has implemented these Selwyn Goldsmith
decisions although it should be stressed they are not binding on the
ESMBA Committee, only votes that take place in the AGM, or an EGM, are binding.
The EDITORS Personal comments on the AGM etc.

My thanks to Selwyn Goldsmith on his excellent report and the following are my personal com-
ments. I have produced his report exactly as he wrote it and my personal comments are just that
and should not be confused with Selwyn’s report.
I accept I’m the only person complaining but having overspent by another £10,000 this year,
making £30,000 over the last two seasons I really think the ESMBA are taking the pee out of our
registered players and I am UTTERLY ASTONISHED that the county representatives are not howl-
ing in protest at this gross overspending!