Leagues Meeting

1. Welcome & Introductions & Apologies

2. 2007 Fees Proposal

JS asked whether the fees structure could be amended or whether it was presented as “set” already. He was told that fees would be set by the BBF AGM and would be entirely controlled by the BBF this year – including held in their own bank account.

JW encouraged people to view 2007 as a transition year, from a situation where the staff of BSUK handled the running of the leagues to the a situation where the voluntary Board of the BBF would be doing it.

DMu said that the BBF will be handling these fees and will be taking control of the fee income to manage the leagues. As part of this process, there has been an analysis done to show what has been spent on BBF administration out of the general BSUK financial pot.

HS objected to a fee schedule being set at all.

3. League Structure

RRa asked for all comments on the League Structure to be submitted by 12 February so that a formalised plan can be presented at the AGM. He also suggested that he would be keen for the BBF Leagues to be structured in 2007 in a similar fashion to 2006 to keep the continuity going in this transition year.

TG’s document on ideas for the structuring of the leagues for 2007 was presented as an early discussion document.

DW suggested that the Midlands League might need to be considered within future plans. Within the proposals for 2007 and 2008, would there be a reason for his team to win their league this year, particularly in the context of moving to a new structure?

RRa called for comments to be sent to the BBF Board from all of the teams on the ideas being presented.

TF and RRa suggested that between them they will be Midlands Representatives and that Darren Ward could present ideas to them to take the BBF Board Meeting on Saturday.

JS asked where Burgess Hill would be next year. RRa confirmed that he's proposing that the leagues remain the same for next year (which would mean that they'd be in the Premier Division). JS said that he was happy with this.

ADi said that although he'd need to consider this properly in the next weeks, he's very pleased with the proposed number of games in all of the divisions increasing. He asked what other clubs felt. JS said that they've always been keen on doubleheaders and playing as many games as possible. TF said that the BBF would be more than happy to accommodate teams’ wishes – but that there are teams who do not want to play as many games. JW said that the Richmond club was keen to play games on Saturdays. TG asked for teams to state whether or not they are willing to play on Saturdays.

DW asked whether the Final Four could be spread around the country. He was told that applications would most certainly be considered because there is not the same ability for BSUK to fund the Final Four and the BBF community as a whole will need clubs to step up to host the event and will work to support clubs in these proposals.

JB said that BSUK would be happy to talk to any clubs (specifically the Herts Falcons) about the costs involved in hosting a Final 4.

4. Hall of Fame

TF took a proposal about the Hall of Fame for the BBF Community that has been put together and proposed by Josh Chetwynd. The proposal is still in draft form – the criteria are yet to be set, the board of electors are yet to be set and TF is going to progress this in the next few weeks. There has been a proposed Board of Electors to be contacted initially. The Board of Electors will be asked to feed into the formation of criteria.

KS asked TF for the list of proposed Electors to be published. TF agreed.

TK suggested that the BBF might try to find sponsorship for the Hall of Fame. DMV said that the cost for setting up the Hall of Fame will be minimal, based on his involvement in finding awards for the British Softball Federation Hall of Fame.

5. Metal Bat Proposal (Div1 & Div2 Teams)

There was much discussion about this. The consensus in the meeting was that using wood did improve the game significantly. The one question was around whether Division Two should use wood. TF agreed to discuss this specifically with those lowest division teams to see whether they are already able to meet the requirements to use wood. Because the decision was made that all divisions should use wood, then those teams in Division Two could bring a request to the BBF Board to consider an exception for their league.

6. Umpiring & Scoring

DMu, the new Commissioner of Umpires for the ABUA-GB, addressed the meeting. He reminded teams that they are required to have an ABUA-GB registered umpire to officiate their games.

TK asked what the cost of the umpiring clinic covered. DMu responded that the contribution from umpires covers logistics costs only for two full days of training, and all of the trainers donate their time for free. Level Two, which covers Division One and Two, can be done in one day. Candidates who wish to officiate in higher divisions would need to come to both days. Certification should be done every year. DMu clarified that this is not a rules clinic but an umpiring clinic. The course is £10 and can be booked through the ABUA-GB website.

TK raised a concern about the BBF not being able to officially allocate umpires for games, as opposed to teams relying on players officiating. He suggested that the ABUA-GB needs to do a better job recruiting umpires from sources other than players in teams. DMu told the meeting that the ABUA-GB has appointed two recruitment officers and is planning to work with youth players coming out of the leagues to train them as umpires. DMu also said that umpires in American schools and colleges get more money for umpiring than BBF umpires do, which causes recruitment problems from these sources.

TK asked for the BBF Board to respond with details of what they're going to do about umpire recruitment. The BBF Board members present agreed to this.

TF said that currently approximately 90% of ABUA-GB umpires are players or ex-players and the best way to get more umpires was for teams to send more candidates to the umpire clinic.

7. AOB

TF addressed the meeting about the plans for an official ball deal to be signed that will add income to the BBF account. RRa added to this information with proposed prices per box and rebate rates. TF informed the meeting that there was another potential deal, but without an income coming back to the BBF. TF said that the BBF board will deliberate on this matter on Saturday.

HS addressed the meeting about his intention to run for the BBF Board and set out his reasons for doing so.

JW asked what the BBF could do about supporting teams that are on the point of folding – had the BBF looked into potential similarities between the reasons why the teams fold and were there things that could be done to help support them? TF and TG replied that there were many reasons for teams folding, but it was difficult to find an answer to solve the problem.

TK asked for the BBF to make a statement about what kinds of behaviour is unacceptable in the game, to include things like fake tags causing unnecessary sliding by runners, intentional collisions at home and “dirty” play. DMu replied that this behaviour is dealt with in the baseball rules. TK said that the problem is more prevalent in the lower divisions where umpires are fewer, and that managers and coaches need to be made more aware so that fewer injuries occur.

TF informed the meeting about the feedback he got from the teams he had contacted. TF apologised that he could not go through all of the points since time was running short, but he informed the meeting that points raised to him would be made available to Southern teams for their perusal and comment in the near future.