The GCCL committee discussed the feedback from the Divisional Meetings at its September meeting and, in particular, that on the structure of the League. This paper tries to answer some of the questions raised and to outline the committee’s conclusions and plans.
Why do we never know how many teams will be relegated until the end of each season?
One of the things that greatly annoys clubs is the uncertainty over how many teams will be relegated. This happens every year. For our Divisions 1-4 the number of relegations is driven entirely by the fact that we are part of a pyramid system that uses geography at each splitting point to determine where relegated teams go. We can have 0, 1 or 2 teams relegated from WEPL, depending on the league tables higher up, and how many Gloucestershire teams are relegated from the WEPL Glos/Wilts Division and how many Glos/Wilts teams are relegated from WEPL Premier Division 2. A while back, WEPL and the three County Boards had a look at trying to remove this variability, but that came to nothing. In pyramid systems one either has to accept it (and in most sports they do), or get rid of the geographic rules and shuffle teams horizontally to iron out the wrinkles (this happens, I believe, in football between the Blue Square Bet South and North Divisions). Horizontal shuffling, it is reckoned, just doesn’t work for our area and sport.
The decision to move Bourton Vale into WEPL Glos Division was announced about a year ago, It was announced at our AGM, and put in the January 2011 newsletter on our web site, which said: “At the end of the 2011 season Bourton Vale will be moving from the Cherwell League to WEPL and will be placed in the Gloucestershire Division. That means there will be an extra club relegated from WEPL to GCCL (1st and 2nd teams), so there will be a ripple down throughout the GCCL.” We had plenty of notice about that.
What about Division 5 and below? At the moment we have rules feeding new teams in at Division 5 and 6, and, for each team being brought in, another team has to be relegated from that division and every division below. The structure is not a proper pyramid. There is no way it would be fair to insist that District winners and WEPL 2nd XI’s join at the bottom – Division 9. But the only way to reduce the large but unpredictable number of relegations is to ensure there is a proper pyramid in place, so that the only entry points are from above or from below, not into the centre. You, our clubs, either have to accept large numbers of relegations from division 5 and below, or accept that our lower teams must be regionalised. OK – there is a third way – the lower teams form a separate league that does not form part of the pyramid, but then cuts them off from promotion above the top of that.
Where did the re-organisation proposal come from and what of it now?
The re-organisation proposal came from Brian Hudson and me. We saw that the number of relegations in divisions 5-8 was getting silly this year, and this was confirmed by early feedback we were getting from clubs. The committee has for a long time sought the re-forming of a Cheltenham-Gloucester District League, expecting the GCB to lead on this. This year’s exacerbated problems with relegations and evictions made it, Brian and I thought, a good time to move, based on ideas that have been around for a while.
Some have found the proposals positive. The GCB and the Stroud, Forest and Cotswolds Districts have long wanted something like this. Of course there are things not yet worked out, importantly: who would run the Chelt-Glos District competition? Could the Forest League run 2 divisions? But in general the GCCL Divisional meetings criticised the proposals heavily. It was said that they were a “knee-jerk” reaction, rushed into place and not thought through. We have withdrawn the proposal from the agenda for the 2011 AGM. Therefore large number of relegations in Division 5 and below will happen.
There is a proposal before the AGM that has come from Highnam Court CC to remove the cap of 90 clubs. If that passes we will not have to remove teams from the bottom of the tables. However, your committee believes strongly that the County League should not be allowed to grow in size indefinitely. A perpetual, and valid, criticism from the District Leagues is that we take clubs but hardly ever give any back. Having said that, it could be that we actually end up with very close to 90 teams this year (re-)applying for 2012, for three reasons:
(a) As stated elsewhere, there are a few clubs and teams in GCCL with a very uncertain future.
(b) If we pass the resolution that requires Division 1 teams to have a 2nd XI in the pyramid but not necessarily in the County League, we may see some clubs moving their 2nd XI’s to the District Leagues, and
(c) In some years we get one or two teams leaving the competition anyway for reasons other than viability.
Nevertheless the current committee is sure we should be getting away from the situation of not having a proper pyramid, and ensuring there is an even-handed system of promoting and relegating between the County League and District Leagues. We reckon it is in everyone’s interests to ensure the strength, vitality and viability of District level competitions. So we have agreed with the GCB and the Districts to work with them to come up with a re-structure proposal, to be in place for the 2013 season. We will keep our member clubs informed of progress.
Finally, it is important to say that the County Boards hope that WEPL will abandon their separate 2nd XI competition, putting those teams in the same pyramid as all other teams. This change would, of course, require a large one-off shuffle to insert the 2nd XI’s in the right place in the pyramid (e.g. where would Cheltenham 2nd XI go?). However, if we have already restructured along the lines envisaged, we will be well placed to accept this development with minimum disruption. Once it has happened every team will get to its own level on merit alone and we no longer will have the annual headaches we currently have.
Andy Russell