Minutes – SRAM NDCXL AGM 14 March 2014

MINUTES SRAM NOTTS & DERBY CYCLO-CROSS LEAGUE AGM

Friday14 th March 2014 7:30pm – SRAM HQ, Clay Cross

PRESENT

Rob Howden – Beeston CC		Richard Shenton – Beeston CC
Steve Hand – Derby Mercury CC		Pete Turner – Derby Mercury CC
John Holmes – Team EmpellaCyclo-Cross.Com		Sarah Naylor – Fossa RT
Gavin Hardwicke – Fossa RT		Mac Lambert – Heanor Clarion CC
Fred Lambert (Mac Snr) – Heanor Clarion CC		Mary Gill – Heanor Clarion CC
Lee Shunburne – Matlock CC		Andy Stuart – Nottingham Clarion CC
Neil Mansfield – Nottingham Clarion CC		Graham Snodden – Sherwood Pines Cycles SRAM RT
Russell Cox – South Pennine RC		Heather Wimble – South Pennine RC
Chris Rowe – Team ZenithBuzz Cycles		Karen Lifford – VC Nottingham
Dave Gretton – VC Nottingham		Robert Wimble – Zepnat RT
Chris Willett – Judging team		Mick Gascoyne – Matlock CC
Kyle Buleigh – Fossa RT		Dave Ash – Nottingham Clarion CC

 

1		Apologies:
		John Gott, Martin Stocks and Matt Crouch.
2		Minutes of Previous Meeting:
		The minutes of the previous meeting were taken as read, agreed as a true and accurate record. Proposer: John Holmes; 2nd: Chris Willett – For 20, Against 0, Abstained 0 – CARRIED Day name amended to read Saturday.
3		Chairman’s report:
		Once again we reach the end of a successful season for the League. Fourteen great events, with excellent racing across all age groups and categories. Growth in competitor numbers has continued as the popularity of cyclo-cross continues to grow. This is great to see but is a challenge – with venues needing to be carefully chosen to deal with number of people attending. Indeed venue suitability and security has been an ongoing theme this season – something we’ll continue to address. Thanks to the tenacity of organisers we had 14 events. Thank you to organisers and clubs for the 201314 season events. The League has a deserved reputation for promoting high quality events; and this I down to the hard work put in by these people.Changes made for the 201314 season have been successfully implemented; these have alleviated some of the issues around competitor numbers. Happy that the “feel” of League events has been maintained that that we’re in a strong position to deal with future growth.The League continues to rely on a small but active volunteer group to whom we’re all extremely grateful – without their time and dedication there couldn’t be a League. As always new volunteers are welcome.Finally, we thank SRAM for their six years of support to date and the three years ahead.
4		Secretary’s report:
		NA
5		Treasurer’s report:
		League accounts distributed. Average League event income was £219.59.
6		Election of committee
		Committee stood down.Existing committee posts all willing to re-stand.Committee members Graham Snodden, Neil Mansfield and Mac Lambert re-stand. Two further committee posts filled by Kyle Burleigh and Chris Rowe. Proposer: Gavin Hardwicke; 2nd: Sarah Naylor – For 20, Against 0, Abstained 0 – CARRIED
7		Proposals
		Steve Crapper – Bolsover & District CC – New rule
		Event of the season.
		A new award – Perhaps decided by online vote across the League riders , and intended to drive an ongoing desire to continuously improve the events that we deliver.
		2nd: Richard Shenton – For 1, Against 12, Abstained 6 – REJECTED
		Rob Wimble – Zeptnat.com RT – New rule
		Race times should be run so that the winners time is not less than the stated race duration, except were exceptional weather poses a danger to riders.
		Reason: Too many races finish short lap length should be shorter not the race time.
		2nd: Heather Wimble – For 2, Against 16, Abstained 1 – REJECTED
		John HolmesHilary Johnson Empella.com RTcyclo-cross.com – Amend rule 1.2
		Amend 1.2: League for Senior, Under 23, Junior, Women, Vet 40 and Vet 50 competitors.
		To read: League for Senior, Under 23, Junior men, Women, Junior women, Vet 40, Vet 50, Vet Women 40 and Vet Women 50 competitors
		Reason: Recognition for veteran women categories.
		WITHDRAWN
		Mac Lambert – Judging Team – New rule
		Riders of all ages should be capable of completing the course provided under their own resources (with exception for marshalling of challenging sections in exceptional weather). The course should be clear of all non-riders for the duration of the event.All participants should take part on pedal driven bicycles.
		Reason: The under 9’s events often have fields in the region of 60 riders and lap duration in the region of 1 minute.On a weekly basis there have been multiple instances of parents or helpers pushing very young riders (often on “balance bikes”) for the full duration of U9’s events. This has compromised the safety and participation of other riders who are able to take part in the events using their own resources.This is a safety hazard to the more capable rider, the rider being “helped”, the helper and other people not on the course.There have already been accidents caused by lack of attentiveness of helpers, fortunately without notable consequence so far. Whilst the league has, through its constitution, the purpose of “promoting the sport to all categories of rider” I feel in this case that the safety of the majority of participants has to take priority.
		2nd: Chris Willett – For 4, Against 13, Abstained 2 – REJECTED
		John HolmesHilary Johnson – Empella.com RTcyclo-cross.com – Amend rule 2.1
		Amend 2.1: A separate League competition shall exist for each category (Junior, U23, Senior, Vet 40, Vet 50 and Women’s).
		To read: A separate League competition shall exist for each category (Senior, Under 23, Junior men, Women, Junior women, Vet 40, Vet 50, Vet Women 40 and Vet Women 50).
		Reason: Recognition for veteran women categories.
		2nd: Steve Hand – For 18, Against 0, Abstained 1 – CARRIED
		Andrew Naylor – Fossa RT – Amend rule 2.3
		Riders who organise or officiate at an event (and do not also ride that race) shall have their average points counted, up to a maximum of 3 events, at the event Organiser’s andor Committee’s discretion. This will be an average of their completed (points scoring) rounds.
		To read: Riders who organise or officiate at an event (and do not also ride that race) shall have their average points counted, up to a maximum of 3 events, at the event Organiser’s andor Committee’s discretion. This will be an average of their completed (points scoring) rounds, excluding their 3 lowest points scores.
		Reason: The current rule 2.3 places a great deal of emphasis on riders preserving as high an average points total as possible. To do this riders are choosing not to finish races if the points score they would achieve could affect this. This proposal aims to reduce the need for riders to take a “tactical DNF” to preserve their average.
		2nd: Lee Shunburne – For 18, Against 0, Abstained 1 – CARRIED
		Steve Hand – Derby Mercury RC – New rule
		Any rider in the U9’s, U12’s or Youths leagues will only be allocated average points (as in 2.3) once per season.
		Reason: Fairness
		2nd: Lee Shunburne – For 17, Against 0, Abstained 2 – CARRIED
		Steve Hand – Derby Mercury RC – Amend rules 3.3, 3.4.1, 3.5.1, 3.6.1
		Remove the line: “unless there are fewer than 11 riders in that category, in which case there will be one trophy awarded for each 5 competitors.”
		And replace with: “unless there are fewer than 3 riders in that category, in which case there will only be trophies allocated to the number of riders in the league. To be eligible for a trophy, the rider must have a minimum of 5 point scoring rounds.”
		Reason: The rule at the moment is unfair to any riders who have competed in races throughout the season, and who happen to be in a league with a small number of riders (under 11), and are therefore not eligible for a trophy for coming third, OR (under 6) and are not eligible for a trophy for coming 2nd or 3rd.This season the committee took the decision to allocate trophies to all 1st, 2nd & 3rd finishers, BUT, this meant that some riders were allocated trophies for only finishing one or two events.
		2nd: Neil Mansfield – For 18, Against 0, Abstained 1 – CARRIED
		John HolmesHilary Johnson – Empella.com RTcyclo-cross.com – Amend rule 3.4
		Women’s League: Junior, Senior & Veteran:
		To read: Junior, Senior, Veteran 40 and Veteran 50:
		Reason: Recognition for veteran women categories.
		2nd: Steve Hand – For 18, Against 0, Abstained 1 – CARRIED
		Lee Shunburne – Fossa RT – Amend rule 3.4
		To read: Women’s League: Junior, Senior, Veteran 40 & Veteran 50:
		Reason: To reflect the increase in participation in the Women’s categories.
		WITHDRAWN
		John HolmesHilary Johnson – Empella.com RTcyclo-cross.com – Amend rule 4.1
		Senior Woman, Junior Woman, Veteran Woman.
		To read: Senior Woman, Junior Woman, Veteran 40 and Veteran 50 Woman.
		Reason: Recognition for veteran women categories.
		2nd: Steve Hand – For 18, Against 0, Abstained 1 – CARRIED
		Neil Mansfield – Nottingham Clarion CC – Amend rule 4.2 + subs
		4.2. Team Trophies:4.2.1. Riders will score ‘points’ according to their position in their respective Leagues, with one point for first place etc. (These Leagues will be: Junior, Senior, V40, V50 and Women.)
		4.2.1.1 Junior Team Trophy to the most successful team of 2 competitors from the same team, based on having the smallest score when finishing positions are summed.
		4.2.1.2 Senior Team Trophy to the most successful team of 3 competitors from the same team, based on having the smallest score when finishing positions are summed.
		4.2.1.3 V40 Team Trophy to the most successful team of 3 competitors from the same team, based on having the smallest score when finishing positions are summed.
		4.2.1.4 V50 Team Trophy to the most successful team of 3 competitors from the same team, based on having the smallest score when finishing positions are summed.
		4.2.1.5 Women Team Trophy to the most successful team of 2 competitors from the same team, based on having the smallest score when finishing positions are summed.
		4.2.1.6. Mixed Team Trophy to the most successful team of 5 competitors from the same team, with at least one member a woman and at least one member being a man, based on having the smallest score when finishing positions in respective leagues are summed.
		4.2.2. If the result is a tie, then the next placed rider will be taken into consideration.
		4.2.3. Trophies will only be awarded if there are two or more teams qualifying in the category.
		BACKGROUND– team competition categories have remained largely unchanged whilst the number of riders has increased substantially– team competitions can be dominated by smaller categories since rule change last season (eg. Junior category 4th place only raced 3 rounds but is a member of the 2nd place men’s team; 8th, 9th, 10th juniors all only raced one race but still qualify as ‘top ten’ finishers)– the majority of riders qualifying in the top 3 of current team competitions are also award winners in their individual categories (6 out of 9 men; 7 out of 9 mixed) and therefore focus is on individual result rather than teamEXPLANATION– the change will allow for riders who are placed lower in the league competitions to still have a trophy to compete for– the change will encourage more riders to race in the smaller categories (eg. to create another qualifying team)– the increase in number of riders in the mixed team will reflect the increase in participation– the increase in number of riders in the mixed team will reduce the potential dominance of the smaller categories, whilst not excluding those riders.– the increase in allowable number of women riders in mixed team will reflect increase in women’s participation.
		2nd: Gavin Hardwicke – For 15, Against 0, Abstained 4 – CARRIED
		Steve Hand – Derby Mercury RC – Amend rule 4.9
		Awarded by vote at the AGM to a person who has made a significant contribution to, and enhanced the spirit of, the League.
		To read: Awarded by the committee, or the elected committee members, to a person who has made a significant contribution to, and enhanced the spirit of, the League.
		Reason: As the ‘prizes’ are awarded at the presentation meeting, it makes more sense to have this award voted on by the members, so it can be presented at the same time as all the other awards. As it is, at the moment, it would be around 11 months before any award could be presented.
		2nd: Graham Snodden – For 19, Against 0, Abstained 0 – CARRIED
		Sarah Naylor – Fossa RT & John Holmes – Empella RTcyclo-cross.com – Amend rule Appendix C
		Amend race category groups:Junior men, U23s & Men, Junior women & WomenVeteransAmend gridding as appropriate with women starting after Junior men
		Reason: Whilst the decision to split the 16+ competitors into separate races has been generally agreed to be a success, ensuring safety and competitiveness for an ever-increasing number of competitors, with hindsight it seems that the current split of categories is somewhat uneven. During the previous season, the VetsWomen’s race has regularly seen total field sizes of a similar magnitude to those that originally instigated the split of races, yet the SeniorJunior race has had field sizes consistently less than 100 riders (and sometimes less than 50). I (Sarah) propose that the split of categories be amended, resulting in two events more equal in size: a Vets’ only race and a SeniorsJuniorsWomen’s race. Both races would remain 50 minutes in duration (since this was debated at length at the 2013 AGM and widely agreed to be preferred by the majority of riders in all categories). Similarly separate starts would be retained for each category, as is currently the case.
		2nd: Mac Lambert – For 18, Against 0, Abstained 1 – CARRIED
		Amend race timetable:Junior men, U23s & Men, Junior women & Women – 13:00 Veterans – 14:30 Amend gridding as appropriate with women starting after Junior men
		Reason: Regardless of any potential changes to the split of categories between the two 16+ events, I (Sarah) propose that any race including the V40 & V50 categories is the final event of the day. When these categories are combined they result in the largest race, so would make a good showpiece event to end the day. Although I am aware that some of the Veteran riders are parents of children racing in the U16 events, this is not universally the case, and furthermore there are parents of child competitors in the Senior and Women’s categories. Also, I am hopeful that by scheduling those events that place the greatest demands on event infrastructure – namely the vets and the U9U12s – to either end of the day, we can further extend the capacity of our venues, some of which are approaching breaking point due to the ever-increasing success of the League.
		For 4, Against 8, Abstained 5 – REJECTED
		Sarah Naylor – Fossa RT – New rule
		To read:OPTION 1: Mandatory: All recognised U16 categories (U9B, U9G, U12B, U12G, U14B, U14G, U16B, U16G); All recognised Women’s categories (Junior, Senior, Veteran) Men’s categories as follows: Junior, Senior, V40, V50, V60, V70+ Discretionary:Men’s V45, V55, V65 prizes to be awarded at the Organizer’s discretion
		OPTION 2: All recognised U16 categories (U9B, U9G, U12B, U12G, U14B, U14G, U16B, U16G)All recognised Women’s categories (Junior, Senior, Veteran) Men’s categories as follows: Junior, Senior, V40, V45, V50, V55, V60, V65, V70+ The number of prizes awarded within each category must be consistent with British Cycling Rules (ie. 1 per 5 riders), with the exception of U9U12 where one non-monetary prize per rider must be awarded.
		Reason:  Every season there appears to be a significant number of inquiriescomplaintsdisagreements on the subject of event prize money. Given this fact, I feel it is incumbent upon the League to attempt to clarify the situation for the benefit of all competitors, and for the benefit of Organizers who might wish for more guidance in addressing these difficulties. Unfortunately, since the complaints vary widely, from those who think too little prize money is won to those who say too much is given, it is impossible to suggest a scheme that will please everybody. Furthermore, Organizers may feel that these are matters upon which they wish to retain autonomy. Given these provisos, I will attempt to describe a system which I believe would be fair to all competitors, where no group is subsidized by another (with the obvious exception of the U9U12s).Firstly, I propose that it would be useful to stipulate the categories in which prizes must be awarded at each event. The number of prizes in each category would remain unchanged at 1 per 5 riders, consistent with British Cycling Rules.This would require new rule which I would consider most fitting to insert as rule 1.10, renumbering other subsequent rules sequentially. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS & INFORMATION (pdf)
		OPTION 12nd: Rob Wimble – For 17, Against 1, Abstained 1 – CARRIED
		Sarah Naylor – Fossa RT – New rule
		To read: OPTION 1:The League expects that, where prizes are to be monetary, Organizers allocate prizes according to the proportions laid out in Appendix H.
		OPTION 2:The League recommends that, where prizes are to be monetary, Organizers allocate prizes according to the proportions laid out in Appendix H; however, this is not mandatory.
		OPTION 3:Guidance to be adopted by the League as acceptable guidance without inclusion in the Rules:To aid Organizers and provide clarification for riders, the League offers guidance on how British Cycling Rules regarding prizes may be satisfied. It is recognized that every Organizer’s budget is unique, therefore this guidance is not mandatory but may be utilized at the Organizer’s discretion.
		Reason: In addition to the number of prizes awarded within each subcategory reflecting the number of riders competing in that category in any given event, I believe that an equal contribution of every 16+ rider’s entry fee should be allocated for prize money. The total contribution to the prize fund by any given category should be ring-fenced, and divided solely amongst the competitors of the category that contributed said prize money. Thus, every rider only contributes to a prize fund that they are eligible to compete for. However, I recognize that the budget of every Event Organizer is unique to venue and the resources available to their team of volunteers. It seems that a very significant proportion of riders are unaware that the primary reason for the large discrepancies in prize money between different events is because the costs of organizing vary by many hundreds of pounds, depending on how fortunate the Organizer is with the facilities and services available in each case. Therefore the only workable way to implement a prize structure would be to base it upon what relative proportion of a given prize fund should be awarded for achieving a given place in that category’s ‘sub-race’. Thus the amount of prize money would continue to vary between races in keeping with the Organizer’s budget, but the allocation of prizes would be fair to all riders, with each sub-race treated as it would have been if it were a standalone event. I am aware that this approach does not result in parity between categories for all prize winners – in fact it is likely to result in the novel situation of veterans receiving the highest prize money due to the fact that they make the greatest monetary contribution to events – but I do not accept that aiming for parity is consistent with fairness. After all, those who win are unlikely to leave the sport and rarely race for the money (and nor should a grass roots league be aiming to finance professionals). It is those who might be said to ‘make up the numbers’ who we need encourage to enter or remain within the sport, and the quantity of prize money is of little relevance to such riders. To ensure that this system works successfully for all Organizers, regardless of budget, I believe it necessary to state a minimum prize limit. This limit must be a fair reflection of the budget challenges faced by some Organizers rather than a reflection of what riders would like to win. (To be clear, the proportional allocation of the prize fund would also apply to Youth riders; however, the amount set aside for their prize fund would continue to be a special case as dealt with specifically by the current rule 1.10 in accordance with British Cycling Rules. U9U12 events will continue to receive goody bag prizes and to be subsidized by the wider costs of the event.)I appreciate that this is a somewhat complex proposal. I propose that the League provides an automated spreadsheet, if necessary extending it to a greater number of riders if deemed appropriate. Furthermore, pre-calculated reference tables (such as those made available for the analysis of this proposal) would be available if preferred. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS & INFORMATION (pdf)
		OPTION 1 2nd: Rob Wimble – For 17, Against 1, Abstained 1 – CARRIED
8		Date setting for 201415 season
		Requestedproposed dates: 13 Sept N&D1 Hilton – CX.comEmpella 20 Sept N&D2 Sherwood Pines – SPSRAM 4 Oct N&D3 Shipley – Heanor Clarion 11 Oct N&D4 Alfreton – Belper 18 Oct N&D5 Bingham- VC Nottingham 1 Nov N&D6 Foremark – MerciaSPRC 15 Nov N&D7 Holme Pierrepont – Nottm Clarion 22 Nov N&D8 Markeaton – Derby Mercury 13 Dec N&D9 Hardwick – Bolsover 28 Dec N&D10 Bakewell – Matlock 17 Jan N&D11 Chilwell – FossaAshfield 24 Jan N&D12 Broxtowe – Beeston Meeting closed 10:15pm.   agm minutes 1 Trackback / Pingback Agenda – SRAM NDCXL AGM 13 March 2015 | SRAM Notts & Derby Cyclo-cross League Comments are closed. Copyright © 2024 | WordPress Theme by MH Themes