Machine Politics vs Beaver Boys, May 2011. Photo by Bruce Carver
Hi everyone,
I think it's great that we're finally talking seriously about forming an Australian committee.
It's important that we are clear about what this means. I have created a thread in the Australian region on League of Bike Polo, alongside the mammoth australian/worlds discussion we hav been having.
Like all good threads, here is a proposal to get things started. Of course it is based on the many many discussions we have had to date.
Background:
Australian Hardcourt Bike Polo started in late 07/early 08 and by 2009 many people were travelling between cities for events like the Sydney Open, Perth ACMC and the first Australian Nationals were held in Melbourne in November 2009.
No Australians attended the first world championships in 2009 (Philadelphia) but 11 travelled to Berlin in September 2010.
So far the cities and towns in Australia that play are:
Perth
Adelaide
Castlemaine
Melbourne
Frankston
Healesville
Canberra
Albury
Sydney
Goldcoast
NSW Central Coast
Toowoomba
Brisbane
NZ?
What could this group do:
Agree on a national ruleset (pretty much done anyway)
Agree on a calendar for major tournaments
Agree on the Nationals Host City (generally done at nats anyway)
Investigate insurance for Australia wide play
Represent Australian bike polo at the world level
Organise national sponsorship?
other ideas?
There are a number of ways we could decide how this could be made up:
2 per city, 1 per town ~19 people
2 per established 'club', 1 per establishing 'club' ~18 people
2 per 'big club', 1 per 'small club' ~16 people
3 per 'big club', 2 per 'small club' 30+ people
2 per State/Territory, ~ 12 people
3 per state/territory ~18 people
3 per 'club' = 39!
After considering a range of options I'm thinking that "1 or 2' per club would work well.
Without being too strict, generally bigger/more established clubs from cities may have 2 people but any town that has 2 good quality willing people should be welcome. After all, this isn't just about voting, this is about actually doing work and bringing polo forward in Australia.
Who should be considered?
People who:
Have the support of their clubs
Can represent the views of their entire club
Can communicate back to their clubs openly and regularly
Have a good understanding of the issues involved
Are good ambassadors for Australian bike polo nationally and internationally
How should we decide things?
Ideally, decisions should cater to keep all members where possible and minor concessions should be made if it improves the overall acceptability of the outcome.
For complex issues, voting should not be used as a first resort when consensus would produce a better outcome. (Sure this takes a bit of work but it keeps more people happier)
When should this happen?
Clubs will need a few weeks to sort things out, but the first order would be to agree on the worlds eligibility criteria before the nationals in early May.
Perhaps the 2nd or 3rd week of April is a good time for clubs to report back on their nominated reps?
The last week of March and first week of April would be a good time to agree that we want to go ahead with this?
What does everyone think of this?
How about letting each city/state decide how many reps it wants but only allow it one vote in any decision.
I think it is important to keep people involved that want to be involved, espcially at a time when things are just being set up. We can always reduce the number later..
Insurance is a really important issue. We cannot hold tournaments in Sydney without it and we will not always be able to rely on sponsors (like Potential of Hydrogen) to let us use theirs.
+1
If the idea of reps was to consolidate ideas before coming to the table then this would be perfect. It would make the 'internal' discussions easier and not rely on forums as much which IMO are confusing and not always efficient to get consensus.
If larger cities think they deserve more say, then an alternative is to give large clubs' vote more weight (i.e. worth 2). Not sure about this suggestion though.
I like the motivation of this idea, but not sure about the practicality.
What about if each city establishes its own "committee" of whoever is interested (as few or as many people as you like). They elect their one "rep" who (you guessed it) represents this committee and is responsible to communicate the goings on of the Jedi Council and consider all input from the local committee when delivering a vote.
I like this idea a lot V. Seems to make sense?
is there any reason why we need to elect the committee members based on discrete geographical regions?
I think for ease of communication with the people you are representing. It is so much better, a lot of the time, to talk face to face if at all possible.
I agree, I'm not thinking of discrete geographical regions, rather communities/groups of people.
(Which in this barren land, happen to be quite discrete... due to geographical factors :)
But we could investigate setting up political parties for polo if you like ;)
It's been a week since this thread was started. If we want to proceed with the establishment of National reps in time for the Nationals, we need to progress this. Can people from each city please indicate their views on this?
(Not talking specifically about the worlds qual issue, but more broadly about setting up a panel of reps for 2011-2012 year.)
D
I can say that we probably only need one or two reps to represent Perth's opinions.
We (aus) seem to have a hard time getting to an agreement even with less than 15 people in one discussion, the less the better. Let each city form their own opinion and let their one or two reps furthur discuss the idea with other reps around the country.
Its easier to ask for more people to join a discussion than to "kick" people out the panel..
(and after a quick browse of the thread, im on the same lines of Lewis' Jedi Council ideas..)
Can we have light sabres?
Choosing reps and determining numbers is one thing, but I think it is more important to begin by deciding what the role of the group actually is. This way, we know in advance what being a rep involves, and makes it easier to determine how many people we need and to ensure we don’t overstep authority/control.
I think it should begin at the basics, like a ‘teething’ stage so everyone gets comfortable and used to it. If it runs smoothly then its involvement can increase. Lewis had a good point that the board members are merely a ‘liaison’ between clubs/cities and are not representing their personal view.
Proposal:
• The board will begin by deciding on a set of national rules, which will be the standard for all tournaments. Changes to rules will have to be approved by the board.
• The board of reps will maintain the tournament schedule and liaise with groups in regards to selecting dates. Perhaps regarding Prawi’s point, there could be a minimum notification period.
• The board will take registrations for teams qualified for worlds, check they are approved to the national requirements (TBA), and offer next in line teams if spot is available.
It’s all about baby steps, it’s only a small start but covers the main points that all always being discussed and changed by each city. NAH is taking the approach of selecting a board that is merely there to decide on the structure of the next board.
Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions?
Thanks Brook.
+ 1
:)
Firstly I thinkt he national set of rules thing will be easy, we've got a good record of our past rulesets and now with the NA/Worlds rules to link back to all the group would have to do is agree on a few details.
Maintaining the calendar I think would be probably the biggest thing (easiest and most valuable) this group could do.
Taking the rego's for the worlds, yes of course.
Combine this with the points int he OP and I think you have the terms of reference of the group.
- Agree on the Nationals Host City (generally done at nats anyway)
- Represent Australian bike polo at the world level (i.e. communicate with Seattle between now and sep)
- Investigate insurance for Australia wide play (I think this has been started a few times)
- Organise national sponsorship?
I like the idea that these people will actually end up doing a bit of work (it will take time) but that these people will (for the first time in many cases) actually be authorised to do this on behalf of polo. This can be an amazing motivator in and of itself. And with a small representative and comitted group of people working on things we can take things up a notch.
This!
I think at the moment there are a few small tasks a committee like this could achieve relatively quickly and easily. Most of which have been listed above, but especially things like cementing a solid national ruleset, facilitating the determination of next years Nationals city, setting up a registration model for Worlds qualification. But i think the biggest and most useful thing would be setting up national insurance for us all. It would make organising tourneys so much easier and make us just that much more legit as a group.
I find myself in the position now where I am heading back to Canada in June and have the intention to stay there for a few years at least.
As most of you probably know I have poured a lot of my time, effort and money into both playing polo and making things happen in the polo community not just in Sydney but impacting across Aus. Furthermore, in my previous 6 months away from Aus I was still actively involved in major discussions as well as (with the help of the Sydney crew) organising one of the country's most well attended tournaments to date.
So my situation is this: I feel that running to be a Sydney rep would be counter intuitive, if I am shortly departing as in effect it deprives Sydney of true representation. However, I want to maintain a strong presence in Australian polo and I believe despite the distance, and especially with a North American insight, I will be able to continue to provide an invaluable contribution to a committee like this. Would people be supportive of a request to have some kind of position in this committee, despite an absence from the country, as a member of the board and possibly with some kind of specific role such as "international liason".
Lewis, I would definitely support your involvement. after all it is consistent with my comment above that this is not only representative, but its about doing and getting work done. Like many other groups and especially sporting leagues/associations. it's the quality and dedication of the poeple working behind the scenes who get heir sponsors lined up and venues booked and player insurance sorted.
As for taking up a spot on a board representing a city and or having a vote to represent those players, thats obviously a different thing so i agree position for international liaison would be great. Particularly in bike polo where our relationship with overseas is so much more important than more australian sports where we are already established in the world scene (cricket/surfing whatever) or where it doesnt really matter (aussie rules. does it even have a world championship?)
So with some of the ground work laid out regarding what the council will strive to complete, brings us back to how many resp do we need? My suggestion would be three reps per state, that have one collective vote between them. I think that this give each state multiple voices but unifies the state with one vote. The way the reps are selected is completely up to each state but it makes things simple and easy. Food for thought.
x2
Three is a good number.
I also agree with the idea of "one state - one vote". As regional clubs get bigger and decide to take an active part in the Australian polo community, we can look at increasing the number of areas represented
The benefit of starting with a smaller range of tasks as Damon has outlined above is that they are simple management tasks and not main decision making tasks. If the board of reps is structured as what Lewis described as simply being a liaison, then we could get away with having a smaller group of reps.
If this is the case, would having fewer per club could be more convenient in terms of communication and reducing confusion??? Or put a greater load of work on a smaller number?
It seems it'll be either 1 or 3 per constituent, but is it by states or by clubs? My first thought was by club. It should obviously be optional, in case a club chooses not to represent.
Everything about polo in Australia has been about cities and clubs, so I don't see any reason to run things by states for this. I expect that most smaller clubs would probably defer to their cities reps but I wouldnt want to assume this.
--
I think we have way too much emphasis on voting and not enough on actually doing work/finding agreement etc.
"Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that seeks not only the agreement of most participants but also the resolution or mitigation of minority objections."
Voting should be a mechanism of last resort, and only after we have tried to work together to incorporate the concerns of different clubs.
(eg, if we are talking about an alcohol sponsor. voting would throw us into a big yes/no battle. But actually sitting down and sorting stuff out could lead to a bit more refinement in the way we might handle such a sponsorship. yes for day 1 no for day 1, yes at night, no for day, yes at the event, no on the website or any multitude of combinations. One person without the voting numbers may have a great idea, but if things go to a vote too soon, we might never know what it was.
The way i see it we have a bit of a chicken/egg problem, we need a committee to decide how we form a committee.
I suggest we bootstrap the process.
What we have on here at the moment is basically a self selected committee, the forum is open to anyone and the people contributing are the people who are passionate enough and make the time to.
If we broadcast the existence of this forum to the wider polo community, let those who want to be a part of it nominate themselves, see what sort of response we get, and then go from there we'll at least be making progress.
I think there are a number of people who are a given as to being on the committee and i think we could use this to our advantage to get the rest of the committee formed. I can't imagine an Australian polo committee without Damon and Lewis on there, so perhaps they can then make selections from the self-nominated list, and then when they decide on a 3rd that person helps decide on a 4th etc etc until we have something resembling a proper committee. Yes the initial people are going to have a large influence over who gets selected, but i don't think this really matters.
thoughts?
Yes the initial people are going to have a large influence over who gets selected, but i don't think this really matters.
thoughts?
Personally, I think it has to be elected, otherwise it will always going to continue the same without the support of the general community. If the reps aren't elected, how are they actually representing us? It also opens up these things to people that aren't on LoBP or the net as much.
is there any reason why we need to elect the committee members based on discrete geographical regions?
This idea is slowly starting to grown on me, to an extent. Bare with me. I'll get back to it.
I think there are a number of people who are a given as to being on the committee
I definitely agree with this to the extent there are particular people who have the drive, commitment, communication skills and ideas to strongly deserve a spot on the council. I still think that these people need to be elected, however, like you i believe there are people from other cities besides my own that are deserving. Your support or my support for these people is no less valid because we dont play in the same city as them.
I still believe each city/state needs representation, but i dont think this is the best solution. Under most current proposals for reps, the most common thing im hearing is 1 rep per city, 1 vote per city OR 3 reps per city, 1 vote per city.
Imagine this scenario: The committee needs to decide on one of 2 options. A or B.
In Melbourne 28/30 players agree on option A. Melbourne casts its vote for A.
In Perth 10/12 players agree on option B. Perth casts its vote for B. This vote is weighted the same as Melbournes vote.
Also, in Brisbane 16/30 agree on option B. Brisbane casts its vote for B. This also carries the same weight as Melbournes vote.
This seems very disproportionate no?
So here is where Steve's earlier idea comes into play.
What I think has the potential to work well is this.
1. Any and all people interested in being a rep nominate themself.
2. People nominate anyone they would like to see represent them (from their city or not).
3. Everyone interested votes on Nominated people of any city. 3 votes are cast by each person voting, 3 points is assigned to the first vote, 2 to the second and 1 to the third.
4. After voting closes the highest voted for player from each state is selected for the committee.
5. After the first 5 reps are chosen by state, the next top 5-7(?) - regardless of city - are also selected for the committee.
This way each city is fairly represented. But also the voice of all individual players can be heard, and will not be drowned out because it is vetoed or out numbered in their own city.
>Imagine this scenario: The committee needs to decide on one of 2 options. A or B.
>see above for the rest of the scenario
This is why I am so against voting as a means of first resort :)
Being on the committee is not just about having a vote, it's about being able to fully understand the issues at hand and formulate a response. (and representing your consttuents)
Also Eeno is Tom (I'm assuming you thought he was Steve?)
I generally like the idea of the electoral process Lewis outlined though it seems unconventional and complicated, (I'll have to think about it a bit more)
Managing the electoral roll for this would be tricky wheras sending each city away to go and elect a rep can be done by group discussion by each city's normal group decision making process (pickup/pub meeting/google group/facebook whatever)
Being on the committee is not just about having a vote, it's about being able to fully understand the issues at hand and formulate a response. (and representing your consttuents)
Agreed. Thats why selecting the best people for the job, as chosen by ALL players across the nation is important instead of just and not pigeonholing everything in to cities.
Also Eeno is Tom (I'm assuming you thought he was Steve?)
Oops. I guess if i looked at his photo a little more closely I could have figured that out.
it seems unconventional
Possibly, but this is because I've tried to tailor it to our requirements, rather than using a commonly existing model for the sake of convenience.
Managing the electoral roll for this would be tricky
It may involve a little more work, but not an excessive amount. If people think that its a good system, its probably worth the extra work to make it happen. It will only require 2 different forms to be created. I can do this.
Each city needs to elect its own reps, what else is stopping us from doing this?
Submitted by Dingo on March 23, 2011 - 9:02pm
>When should this happen?
>Clubs will need a few weeks to sort things out, but the first order would be to agree on the worlds eligibility criteria before the nationals in early May.
>Perhaps the 2nd or 3rd week of April is a good time for clubs to report back on their nominated reps?
>The last week of March and first week of April would be a good time to agree that we want to go ahead with this?
>
Also Eeno is Tom (I'm assuming you thought he was Steve?)
They are THE SAME PERSON! Think about it, have you ever seen them in the same place together?
On topic:
We (Brisbane) will get this done this Sunday. How many reps do we need to come up with? Will get onto the GC ladz about getting their rep/s nominated.
In the interest of a fair election; do we consult everyone who is there on Sunday or everyone who has ever played in Brisbane? do spectators who dont really play but are involved in organisation etc get a vote?
I know you said "by group discussion by each city's normal group decision making process", but Brisbane can be pretty informal and having an outline as to how the other cities/states are holding their election would really push things forward.
Hey everyone,
2 answers to this:
a/I'm not too fussed.
b/2 per state (not too many)
I'm inclined to say dont focus on the voting and think about doing work. My vision for this group is a group of people from around the country who work together to get stuff done. Voting is only there to sort things out. But really this is about progressing polo and for that we will need people to to do part time voluntary jobs/work for and on behalf of the polo community. So Jamie to answer your question, There are a few people who arent playwers per se but they have done lots of work and contributed to progressing polo. They should definitely be involved if they have the support of their clubs!
D
i think three per state shares the work load better, its not a huge number of people to rep a state.
i think three per state shares the work load better, its not a huge number of people to rep a state.
I agree.
Damon, I agree. I thinks its more to liaise info than to decide on things. A smaller group would be better to pass on info. Tasks can be deligated to others outside the group if needed.
I think its time to act on this again.
We have two important things to decide in the near future that a governing/representative body should be involved in.
- Worlds selection (once we have been told how many spots we have)
- AHBPC2012, Perth or GC
A third but equally important thing is to incorporate a national body first and then help "clubs" incorporate.
I was approached mid nats and asked if I could be a rep for Adelaide and I agreed. Hopefully most of you who didn't know me or know me well does so now. It has been really good over the last two tourneys to get to know you all a lot better.
Above, there seemed to be a bit of disagreement regarding how many reps per region we should have. I think for starters we should have 2 per established club (clubs who represent at the national level) We can increase this if we feel there is too much work or if there is some kind of imbalance.
Also we need to have a nice tight way of communicating. Google groups worked really well for the AHBPC2011. It wont hurt to do this now. We can start a group but what would be a good name for a future national/regional body?
HBPA, Hardcourt Bike Polo Australasia?
AH, Australian Hardcourt?
AHBPA?
Suggestions?
(I like the "NAH" simplicity)
x2 to everything said here.
I think 2 is a good number for now, for every team that competed in Adelaide. Smaller cities such as GC and Canberra could have 1 rep for now?
I asked to be able to be a Sydney rep to discuss things in Adelaide. The Syd crew agreed to this but I think for the long term its probably better to have a rep for the city thats living there. I'd love to see V as the other Sydney rep. Brook was the other people went for in Adelaide.
That said I really want to stay involved in Aus. Bike Polo, will be trying my hardest to come back to play Nationals every year, and also have recently been added as an international observer/contributor to NAH internal goings-on. I believe this would make me a really valuable addition to the committee, but I guess thats up to everyone else to decide.
Maybe its something the city reps could decide yes/no one once they are agreed on.
Firstly,
I defnitely think we need this international position not only to inform Aus about the international state of affairs but to have a figure out there in the world who has the credibility of being formally endorsed by a formally structured body alive and healthy in Aus.
I also definitely think that of the options we have available you would be my first choice.
On a more general note I think that representation is long overdue for the many dedicated players we have who have to make the decision to take a backseat in actively contributing to the development of polo in any formal sense due to work / family / life commitments.
I would love to play a more active role in the sport but work commitments make this difficult, it's hard enough to keep abreast of what's happening in PCP let alone on a national level. It's better to be uninvolved then muddying the waters with uninformed opinions.
Having a formally voted representative(s) to approach would make me feel more involved and much more informed.
We are still nurturing a new sport, this looks to be the healthiest way to nurture that sport into as it grows.
We're lucky to have so many dedicated members of this sport.
We are also lucky to have so many level headed, reasonable people working for it's development I would happily place my trust in everyone contributing here and several others besides.
You are doing great work for us all and it is appreciated.
Now go to it, I await my chance to vote for representation.
Im definitely for simplicity.
Australian Hardcourt Association (AHA)
Australian Hardcourt Bike Polo (AHBP)
??
Anyone able to clarify the status in regards to NZ? We keep including the 'australiasian' for the nationals and I understand that polo has now spread from Christchurch to 3 or 4 other citites which is great.
1) If the board is just Australia, i guess we could still have nationals and worlds allocations bundled with NZ...(just like we've been doing)?
2) Does this new national association include NZ? Or keep it just Australia?
3) Do we also ask NZ clubs to put their hand up to be part of the board of reps?
If we want the sport to grow in some ways its better to 'put all our eggs in one basket' for having a larger voice to reach the international community. On the other hand, if NZ want to grow, they might feel they would get further having their own individual voice and not lumped in as part of 'Australia'.
*looks over to polo camo*
Hello Australia, don't discount NZ just 'cos we don't have much to say.. I've been lurking on this discussion for several weeks but the situation post earthquake here in Christchurch has diverted much of my attention away from long conversations via internet forums, couple that with the lack of attendance of NZ teams in Adelaide I felt it wasn't my place to make comment prior to now. I think it's really important for NZ to be involved in the AHBP as a way for us to move the sport forward here. I note that both NAH and EHBPC are not bound by singular political boundaries and don't see that AHBP should be either. Bike polo is a growing sport in NZ and there are a number of fledgling and emerging scenes here as well as the established polo cities of Auckland and Christchurch. My thoughts at this stage are that NZ should have reps from both Auckland and Christchurch - perhaps just 1 per city at this stage, tho' I can see the benefit of having 2 per city already. My feeling is that if we don't 'jump on the train" with this we'll miss out on a fantasitc opportunity to learn from the depth of knowledge there in Oz and that we also have "stuff" to offer the AHBP from over here that is valuable to the scene as a whole. So lump us in!. I'll make contact with the "Drivers" of polo in the other NZ towns and cities and try to get them to comment here...
AUSTRALASIAN Hardcourt Bike Polo!... please.
Awesome news!
I guess in the lead up to the last 2 nationals there had been indication that we MIGHT be seeing NZ teams and for that reason had left the name as Australasian so as to keep things inclusive. Good to hear that you guys are still keen to work with us! Exciting!
Hey everyone,
I have 2 views ont he NZ/Australasian situation.
Firstly I think if they want to be involved, then thats the end of the discussion, count them in. (from this point forward)
BUT I feel reluctant to say that our previous nationals winners have been the "Australasian championships" just because we invited them. going by that logic we could have added antarctica. So I'm reluctant to say that the winner of the nationals is the champion of Australasia if they never had to play against anyone from NZ to get there.
We'd also need to consider what this means for the future, does NZ now enter the rotation of cities that will host the championships? if yes then what about the best team in New Zealand, will they ever get the opportunity to win the NZ championships or will they have to play against all Australias best teams just to win at a national level? Or the year that Auckland hosts the 'nationals" does this unfairly penalise perth?
If anything, we need more tournaments not less, Maybe how about an Australian Championship, a NZ championship and an Australasian championship too? (just an idea)
I'm all for more unity with NZ but I dont want us to steal their thunder or claim that we are the champions of Australasia if we've never even played in NZ or faced any NZ teams in a tourney, just because we said they were invited.
Damon
I don't really think that is the implication of using the word Australasian in the name. The past 2 years have held the possibility of NZ teams coming to the Champs. Naming it Australian in a way closes that door of invitation.
If NZ want to have their own champs thasts up to them. If they want to crown the highest ranked NZ team from "Australasians" as NZ champ then that's their call too. I'm sure they're capable of making their own decisions in that regard. As are we. Entering under a combined name for organisational purposes doesn't rule any of this out. Each country, as each city, will maintain a level of autonomy.
Firstly thanks Damon for considering our "feelings" if the current (or previous) winning team of the Australasian Champs wants to parade themselves around with that title without having actually played a NZ team to do so. The fact is that we've been give the opportunity to attend and have not done so, so it's really up to us to attend if we want to stake a claim.
To be completely honest about the scene in NZ is far more casual than that in Australia. Could a Kiwi team win the title? maybe, but without attendance of Kiwis at Aussie tournaments or Aussies at Kiwi tournaments it's hard to guess. The real benefit for NZ being involved in AHBP is to future proof our scene here, it may be another year or two before we catch up with you all over there for tournaments but if the door is closed now I'd be gutted to miss out on a great opportunity. That said I'd hope we could contribute meaningfully to AHBP too and not just "take" from it.
I'm not sure if more tournaments is what Australasian polo needs, I wonder if better attendance at fewer but more organised tournaments may be better. I base this on a feeling rather than actual working knowledge of the Aussie tournement scene - it strikes me that most of the tournaments there are well organised but as you all travel around every few months to attend loads of tournaments does that drain the funds to attend those further away eg Perth and Christchurch? Probably. If one of the purposes of AHBP is to develop the sport in the entire region then this may need to be a consideration, if it's not an objective then it's less important.
I don't see an issue with Perth teams travelling to NZ for the Australasian Champs any more than I see issue with NZ teams travelling to Perth for the same - the tyranny of distance works in both directions. Take note that the only 2 Australian players to visit CHC and attend pick up games have both been from Perth...
I'e been in contact this week with the polo overlords in NZ and the current thinking is we'd provide a rep for AHBP via geographical region rather than by city, currently thinking 1 for North Island and 1 for South Island, tho' 2 in each region may better align with the AHBP "system" as a whole. It really comes down to the number of people who have the time, vision and willingness to provide meaningful contribution to the AHBP organisation.
We're having our polo AGM (legal requirement as we're an Incorported Society) and will be discussing this at that meeting, I'll report back following that.
Enough random ramblings from me...
+1. Well written, the reason why Perth rocks up in numbers for Nats is because its the one big tournament most people save up for on the polo calender, they know it will be the biggest and the best.
This was the idea behind my proposed "major" tournaments calendar I suggested about a year ago. With the idea being if you can be guaranteed a tourney that is organised to a certain level, with a good turn out from cities from across the country, you are more likely to go than just rock up to another city for a 5 team, local tourney that was announced 3 weeks ahead of time.
Bench Minor in Sydney is a good example of what I would envision as one of these "Major Tourneys". 45 players, (compared to 54 at Nats), 2 days, and players from every major polo city in Aus. I can't take all the credit for it being so big, but I think one of the key factors was that we gave everyone 5 months notice that it was coming up!
agreed, even if we dont end up with more tourneys, at the very least, more notice for the ones we do have.
please post your upcoming tourney details at bikepolo.com.au/tournaments
This was the idea behind my proposed "major" tournaments calendar I suggested about a year ago. With the idea being if you can be guaranteed a tourney that is organised to a certain level, with a good turn out from cities from across the country, you are more likely to go than just rock up to another city for a 5 team, local tourney that was announced 3 weeks ahead of time.
100% agree, this is one aspect of the AHBP I'd love to see happen.
Winter Whack II in Christchurch - 6th August 2011 (still very much happening!!)
Hmmm...... anyone else from Perf tempted?
Jus' checked the roster could book it off....
Flash? Brad? Praw? Anyone want to throw a mallet in?
yeah I'm pretty tempted, I was planning to do a little tour of the east coast during my winter hols. This would work well for me, should be about 1000 return, if we pit stop in Melb/Syd for a couple of days it might be worth it.
They've got a pretty epic polo scene, for a club thats only around 1.5 years old?
Not to mention some awesome (legit) courts:
Started this for you Craig :)
http://leagueofbikepolo.com/club/australasia/winter-whack-ii-in-christch...
got a pic we can use for the meantime?
Can we bring back the political party option, I want the beer, porn and pelican dick party to represent me.
OK, I guess Prawi is enough
Can we bring back the political party option, I want the beer, porn and pelican dick party to represent me.
OK, I guess Prawi is enough
x 200000000000000000000
OK, this discussion has been circulating around for a few months now.
I propose that each city (inc NZ) go and nominate up to 2 of their own representatives for a national body.
Then the body will determine it's name
And the host city for 2012 nationals
How about we say by the 31st of May, does that give everyone enough time?
I agree 100% Damon.
Have just been reading the nationals forum on fixed.org. and it seems that we could go one forever disussing rules, representation, nationals hosting etc etc on internet forums and get nowhere.
We need to consolidate all this valuable input and opinion and determine how it will be actioned.
Jedi council is the only way to provide defined progress and decisions as far as I'm concerned.
Feedback I'm getting from our crew seems to indicate that we are ready to have 2 names by the 31st.
The year isn't getting any longer and there are decisions ready to be made so let's go to it, get some reps decided and let the future begin.
We're (Perth) having a meeting next tuesday, we'll nominate reps accordingly and let you know asap.
So, names?
All the ideas i've heard so far are:
Australasian Hardcourt Association
Australasian Hardcourt Bike Polo
Australasian Hardcourt Bike Polo Association.
Something i've been thinking about today is "players association". Im pretty proud of the fact that we are all self organised, and it could be really cool to show that, so something like:
Australasian Hardcourt Players Association
Australasian Hardcourt Bike Polo Players Association
After seeing "designjerk's" (thats Bennett right?) post on fixed.org.au, maybe we can think about a website. If we are happy using bikepolo.com.au or will we need a separate site. I can see benefits for both. Maybe we should get the committee going and then they can decide what tools they think they need? At least its something to keep in the back of our minds for now.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure Sydney ratified Virginia and Brook as our reps tonight. Any other cities got this confirmed yet!?
You are correct on both counts:
(a) Designjerk is Bennett
(b) Brook and I are Sydney Reps - watch out Australasia!!
Everyone should have a look at Bennett's post: http://www.fixed.org.au/forums/t17454/ and Wall's response which makes a lot of sense.
In relation to the name, I think using the word "player" may make the organisation seem less legitimate when dealing with insurers, councils etc. I think Australasian Hardcourt Bike Polo Association sounds more professional. I am really proud of the fact that we are self organised too but there are times when we may want to appear bigger/more professional to companies than what we really are
>In relation to the name, I think using the word "player" may make the organisation seem less legitimate when dealing with insurers, councils etc
agree
I'm +1 to most comments on this thread.
I like AHA because it simple, but I think we're going to have to rule it out as AHA is more commonly known as the Australian Hospitality Association, which I am currently a member of :P
I've finally caught up. Really good points everyone has been raising
Australasian Hardcourt Bike Polo Association has my vote (AHBPA) if possible
Having more than 1 Representative but an uneven number (3?) per city/state would resolve any voting problems between themselves
I would like to add that formalization would require becoming Incorporated, and I'm not sure if that can cover overseas countries, does anyone know about this? MBP are doing this now (I have the paperwork) so I guess we'll find out soon :)
Also, further down the track when this Australian Bike Polo Council are an Association/Incorporated it might be very cheap for us to register Australia-wide Public Liability insurance (and we could pool funds together) and I do not know if this would cover NZ
Should we need to vote on Representatives, I can add a WordPress voting feature to allow voting for each rep in each city/state.
I would like to see each Representative being elected from all players across all of Australia as well as their own city/state, but I see the merit of the city/state electing their own Representative.
I think the idea of having 2 for large cities and 1 for small cities is to allow a level of weight to a representative of an area with more players. They are only a rep, and should be voting what the players in there city want, so whether its 1 vote or 3, they should be voting the same thing anyway. Having 2 also adds a bit more transparency. I may have missed when or why it went to this format, but I think its a good base to start with.
In terms of an acronym, we could do what NAH has done and officially be something longer such as AHBPA and then use a shortened version such as ABP or AH for its branding.
NZ has its' shit together and we've nominated our reps. We've done this based on geographic region rather than by city (don't see that as being a problem for the "system"). At this early stage and with where polo is "at" here it will provide us with enough voice and input for the initial period. I assume that as scenes grow here the need for city reps will become more appropriate in NZ too and request that this be able to be implemented as time goes on.
NZ Reps are: North Island - Nigel Tipene (Taupo based) aka Bhudda & South Island - Craig Johnston (Christchurch based) aka Polo Camo
As for Liability Insurance and Incorporation, Christchurch is already an incorporated society here in NZ and holds $500K Public Liability Insurance, so we're OK on that front but not sure about trans-tasman incorporation stuff or linking other NZ clubs into that.
Ok, lets get into it!!
I think the idea of having 2 for large cities and 1 for small cities is to allow a level of weight to a representative of an area with more players. They are only a rep, and should be voting what the players in there city want, so whether its 1 vote or 3, they should be voting the same thing anyway. Having 2 also adds a bit more transparency. I may have missed when or why it went to this format, but I think its a good base to start with.
In terms of an acronym, we could do what NAH has done and officially be something longer such as AHBPA and then use a shortened version such as ABP or AH for its branding.
agree. 2 and 1
3 per city would produce a massive national committee, probably too large to function
Very good idea Brook. I agree with 2 and 1.
Now is GC large or small?
Small or Large, how that's defined is a really good question, is it based on population in the area? or regular polo players in the "club"? or some other less mathmatical means like how long there has been a scene there... perhaps we need a committee to sort out how to make a committee ;-) Is GC's proximity to Brisbane a factor..or not?
perhaps we need a committee to sort out how to make a committee ;-)
Don't even joke about that! I can already see that happening.
a while ago I said "I propose that each city (inc NZ) go and nominate up to 2 of their own representatives for a national body."
"up to 2 of their own"
This avoids having to say who is big and who is small, and who is worthy or not. as far as I see it. if there are enough keen and active people who want to get involved, then why should the fact that you are from a small town limit your input.
Please everyone stop thinking about voting and numbers for a moment.
It feels like there has been far too much emphasis on voting when really we are trying to form a group that is a cohesive national group to work together and progress polo. voting should be a last resort activity to resolve a stalemate, not a routine method for decision making on a regular basis. if it is then we are constantly thinking about having the numbers and not about solutions that work for everyone.
If GC wants to have 2 reps then I support that. Their proximity to Brisbane is irrelevant. but if the committee is going to be forcing votes every week and refusing to consider incorporating minority points of view, then we're already at a disadvantage.
Some more acronyms (i really like acronyms apparently)
AAHBP - Australasian Association of Hardcourt Bike Polo
HBPAA- Hardcourt Bike Polo Association of Australia
BPAA - Bike Polo Association of Australia
ABPA - Australasian Bike Polo Association
In terms of an acronym, we could do what NAH has done and officially be something longer such as AHBPA and then use a shortened version such as ABP or AH for its branding.
Im into this.
My vote is for AHBPA and Australasian Hardcourt for branding. EEXXTRTREEEEEMMMMEEEE.
In terms of reps, just to be clear i've written a list of clubs below which I am aware of. I've made some big assumptions here so please correct me if you feel it should be different. This is weighted on what active player numbers are as well as level of tournaments and input into the community. Some of the smaller clubs might pass on having a rep which is fair enough. For the smaller clubs, can we get volunteers to contact them to let them know about it?
2 Reps:
Adelaide
Brisbane
Sydney
Melbourne
Perth
New Zealand (opted for only having 2)
1 Rep:
Gold Coast
Castlemaine
Albury-Wodonga
Canberra
Ettalong
I am one of the chosen reps for Adelaide. I cant remember if it was Tom or Colin for the other rep.
Can someone compile/complete the list of nominated reps so far?
Sydney : V, Brook
Adelaide: Neil,
Melbourne:
Perth:
Brisbane:
GC:
NZ:
International: Lewis
Once this list has two reps/city plus Lewis I will form a google group and add you to the email group.
2 reps -
Sydney : Virginia, Brook
Adelaide: Neil, Ben
Melbourne:
Perth: Prawi, ??
Brisbane:
NZ: Nigel (Taupo/Nth), Craig (ChrstChch/Sth)
1 rep -
GC:
Canberra:
Castlemaine:
Albury-Wodonga:
Ettalong:
International: Lewis
Brook, can you get in touch with Ben or someone from Ettalong and see if they're interested in having a rep, and if not let them know to get in touch with us if that ever changes.
Can someone else do the same for Albury, Castlemaine and Canberra. Is Bennett likely to read this or should someone ask him about GC too?
I'm going to give Ben in Ettalong a call or email tonight to see if they are interested.
Is everyone cool with the above list of clubs/rep numbers? I posted it only to have it in writing as we hadn't properly listed it until now.
just posted this above but it seems more relevant here:
a while ago I said "I propose that each city (inc NZ) go and nominate up to 2 of their own representatives for a national body."
This avoids having to say who is big and who is small, and who is worthy or not. as far as I see it. if there are enough keen and active people who want to get involved, then why should the fact that you are from a small town limit your input.
If GC wants to have 2 reps then I support that. Their proximity to Brisbane is irrelevant. but if the committee is going to be forcing votes every week and refusing to consider incorporating minority points of view, then we're already at a disadvantage.
I may have helped to confuse this a little by constantly referring to the reps as "voting" in threads as have a few others that I've noticed here and there.
See their role as discussion and negotiation to get as close to a satisfactory conclusion as possible that best represents how Australian polo players want the sport to progress where necessary problems must be addressed. The mechanics of that is something they will have to figure out as one of their first tasks, not worth getting into yet IMO.
I mention this because, to me, that seems the general consensus of how they should act from the discussions on the various threads that I have been following.
I think voting has been used as a loose term to mean decision making or discussion, just as I can't imagine that anyone will actually need to hold a formal vote to elect their reps. More of a "discussion at polo" situation.
I think 2 reps max for everyone on that list, less if you wish.
Frankston/Seaford (contact Simon Bowie from bikepolo.com.au)
Toowoomba, QLD (on facebook contact is Michael)
(see the contact list here:
http://www.bikepolo.com.au/contact/
This website is the homepage of Australian Bike Polo. Though organised independently, each city has at least one editor at bikepolo.com.au. Please contact your local reps with news, photos and articles for the site.
We would love to hear from you
Contact someone in Melbourne (e-mail link)
Contact someone in Sydney (e-mail link)
Contact someone in Perth (e-mail link)
Contact someone in Brisbane (e-mail link)
Contact someone in Adelaide (e-mail link)
Contact someone in Castlemaine (e-mail link)
Contact someone in Frankston (e-mail link)
Contact someone in Gold Coast (e-mail link)
Contact someone in Toowoomba (e-mail link)
Contact someone in Canberra (e-mail link)
Website maintenance (e-mail link)
Join the Melbourne Bike Polo mailing list (e-mail link)
Contact someone for a general enquiry (e-mail link)
BikePolo.com.au City Reps
Brisbane – Gypsy & Dan.
Adelaide – Tom, Neil & Daniel.
Perth – Prawi, Brad & Ash.
Sydney – Lewis, Brook, Virginia & Donald
Albury – Mark
Frankston/Seaford – Bowie
Castlemaine – Paddy & Laurie
Christchurch NZ – Craig
Melbourne (Too many to list)
Website Admins – AJ, Scott, Brook & Rob
Perth Jedi Council is now meeting on Wednesday, will let you know then.
Hell yeah Wall!
Sydney : Virginia, Brook
Adelaide: Neil, Ben
Melbourne:
Perth: Prawi, Wall
Brisbane:
NZ: Nigel (Taupo/Nth), Craig (ChrstChch/Sth)
GC:
Canberra:
Castlemaine:
Albury-Wodonga:
Ettalong:
International: Lewis
Toowoomba http://www.facebook.com/pages/T-Bar-Bike-Polo/255680276563?sk=wall
Frankston
Melburn get your shizz together. You got 5 days.
Did anyone hear some feedback from the regional clubs about who wants representation / how many etc etc?
Did anyone hear some feedback from the regional clubs about who wants representation / how many etc etc?
I've asked Ettalong and gave them the run down of whats involved etc. Waiting to hear back.
Soooo, if Melbourne miss the deadline I'm assuming they'll miss out on having reps?? ;D
Well the rest of us that have been elected can vote on that now..
All those in favour of Melbourne forfeiting their right to representation if they miss the 31 May 2011 deadline, vote now!
Hey everyone, a quick update from our meeting.
We had our April meeting last sunday night (a few weeks late) despite all indications that it might be a bunfight, we had a great meeting and sorted some stuff out. (minutes posted to our e-mail list)
We also designated AJ as electoral officer and he's going to make sure we do our best to contact all the irregular players and those who don't use the internet very much.
He's aware of the may 31 date but can't guarantee we'll meet it.
Shit! connection was lagging so I just kept on mashing that button, anyone know how to delete a post????
just edit it and put something else in there... either a full stop or whatever you like.
I'll get in contact with Canberra and keep you updated.
Melbourne? Whats the Word. Deadline is tomorrow. Can you guys have an answer us by the end of the weekend at least?
Where's Brisbane at? Theyve gone aweful quiet.
Can I propose that once Bris and Melb have reps elected we start moving things on? After that if smaller clubs come on board we can bring them up to speed as/when that happens. It seems as though folks have had a decent amount of time to respond and indicate their interest. We cant wait around forever, especially on shit like AHBPC 2012 - wherever it ends up, the more time they have to organise, the better.
...Can I propose that once Bris and Melb have reps elected we start moving things on?
I second that motion, all in favour...
Updated reps list:
Sydney : Virginia, Brook
Adelaide: Neil, Ben
Melbourne:
Perth: Prawi, Wall
Brisbane:
NZ: Nigel (Taupo/Nth), Craig (ChrstChch/Sth)
GC: Bennett
Canberra:
Castlemaine:
Albury-Wodonga:
Ettalong:
International: Lewis
I have been talking with Ben who organizes the polo in Ettalong. They have all discussed it and have decided to pass for the moment. Although they play weekly with OK numbers, they don't want it to become too serious. Fair enough. I offered to keep them up to date on tournaments and any relevant news. Sydney will be travelling up there soon for a hit around too.
brisbane will know by tonight it is just hard getting everyone together to get a decision but we will be able to tell you by tomorrow.
I've got the arms of a bear and arms to hold beer but don't always have bare arms...
mostly i'm just filling in time until Melbourne and Brisbane get on board this train and we can get this s*it started.
What we can do now in preparation is a contacts list for emails and mobiles. Virginia and I can put together what we have for the moment.
Perhaps if all reps so far can send an email to 'brook [at] sydneybikepolo.org' with preferred email and mobile number I can set up a mailing list. Once done, I can send out the list so everyone has a copy.
Nice one.
I guess the other thing we should talk about is HOW we want to do this?
I quite like how the Google Group works for "Melbourne". I'd probably go for that, at least to start, and once we have all the reps accounted for and added to the list we can figure amongst ourselves if there's any other options we'd like to use if Google isnt working for us/our needs?
I agree about using the google group thing. Brook and I were talking about that yesterday.
I like how It ensures everyone gets every email instead of relying on people (like me) to remember to hit "reply all".
I also agree that a mailing list to start off with might be easiest, then we can move on from there if we find something better. might be worth talking to Kev about how they do it in NAH. Skype confrencing could potentially cut down confusion etc that emails and forums create.
When we send out the contact list, perhaps we can mention a few things to start thinking about. Virginia listed the next nationals and worlds qualification as the two most immediate issues. Other things to consider is structure and possibly division of tasks or a set decision process.
Mailing list makes most sense I agree.
Maybe use skype conferences as a regular, scheduled thing to make sure everyone's on the same page, sort out the involved stuff etc (every 2 months, 3 months or whatever).
I'd probably like to keep away from using it except where there's a set list of issues and agenda, though.
We use video conferencing a little at work and it always seems much more difficult than with a face to face meeting to churn through everyone's 5 minutes quickly and get all the reactions etc etc. Makes them less productive (not that work meetings ever are...)
Could just be my perception though.
- Virginia listed the next nationals and worlds qualification as the two most immediate issues.
Agreed, these both have a deadline, the sooner we address the more time we have to get around any difficulties raised.
- Other things to consider is structure and possibly division of tasks or a set decision process.
What tasks do we actually have to address at this stage?
I suggest that we sort out the two issues Virginia has raised in a (fairly) informal manner and and see what copmes uip in the discussion, who is good at what, how we interact etc etc and then use that experience to set up a more formal structure to address the remaining issues.
So.... I want to say that my mallet is in this court.
I agree whole heartedly with the direction we are going with this. I can't say anything that's not already been said. It's taken me a while to get up to date with this discussion. Sorry.
Just don't count NZ'd out. This a big thing we are undertaking and the start of something great.
So whats the wizzerd?
Any more reps in tha hooouuuuuuseeee?!
Sydney : Virginia, Brook
Adelaide: Neil, Ben
Perth: Prawi, Wall
Brisbane: 2 reps have been chosen this week but they will be confirmed at this weekends session
NZ: Nigel, Craig
GC: Bennett
International: Lewis
So far for the small clubs, Ettalong passed on it and as far as i know, theres no word from the others. Melbourne are still figuring out how to create a voting process that they can agree on.
Ive set up a google groups page and V and I are putting together contact details for all the reps. This will be sent out after Brisbane get back with reps. I guess after that we can discuss on ways to progress from there?
So far for the small clubs, Ettalong passed on it and as far as i know, theres no word from the others. Melbourne are still figuring out how to create a voting process that they can agree on.
Can we just put all their names into a hat and then send them the result?
So far for the small clubs, Ettalong passed on it and as far as i know, theres no word from the others. Melbourne are still figuring out how to create a voting process that they can agree on.
Can we just put all their names into a hat and then send them the result?
Sounds like a plan :)
The reps for brisbane are Simon Mitchell and Jordan Heppell. I declare a recount!
we both got shoed today. Got to start bring heavier shoes to polo, take my doc martins down next time.
Sydney : Virginia, Brook
Adelaide: Neil, Ben
Perth: Prawi, Wall
Brisbane: Simon, Geordie
NZ: Nigel, Craig
GC: Bennett
International: Lewis
Melbourne: Try again next year.
But seriously, I heard you guys might have an answer within a week?
Let's not get too excited.
It will take at least a week to interview for scrutineers....
I don't get it! am I missing something here? Aren't we as representatives just taking the voices and concerns of our polo communities to this "association" for discussion and deliberation before a possible (but not always) vote on said "concern". In which case it matters not who is the communities representative so long as that representative is infact representing the majority opinion of their community... so why is it taking so long for Melbs to put forward 2 representatives when a 31 May deadline was proposed and generally agreed upon?. Will we always be so patient when important decisions need to be made in a timely fashion?
I can't help but feel there is waaay more going on behind the scenes than is being said here as to Melbourne’s apparent lateness. If we're going to run a successful association for Australasia then we need some transparency here & now. This rep forum has not seen a lot of input from Melbourne for a few weeks and it'd be nice to be informed on the reasons why.... please, enlighten me.
End rant.
Aren't we as representatives just taking the voices and concerns of our polo communities to this "association" for discussion and deliberation before a possible vote on said "concern". In which case it matters not who is the communities representative so long as that representative is infact representing the majority opinion of their community.
spot on.
.. so why is it taking so long for Melbs to put forward 2 representatives when a 31 May deadline was proposed and generally agreed upon?
Melbourne will be with us shortly. I think they have a lot of pressure at the moment due to court access. They have been working a lot to get approval (or even be allowed to stay) for courts. This can be pretty exhausting and hard to keep up enthusiasm. They have started voting now and should have final numbers this Sunday. But being from Sydney, I'm only working off limited news.
The jedi council probably won't be making any major decisions for the next week or two so they should be able to catch up pretty easily.
voting by shoe-ing is a great idea!!!
but seriously.....Brisbane will be setting up a more formal election process in the near future.
In the meantime I am certain that Jordy and myself have the full support of the Brisbane Hardcourt community.
Could have been classic Melbourne filibustering, but the votes are underway and we will be anouncing reps this Sunday.
Could have been classic Melbourne filibustering, but the votes are underway and we will be anouncing reps this Sunday.
Well done Andrew!
Maybe you should think about nominating yourself for the position.
HUZZAH!!
Looking forward to a full house of reps :)
!
!
The votes are in. Will and Damon will represent Melbourne.
Just as a reference point, I went back over both Worlds Qualification threads, and so far 16 people have contributed.
The break down is
3 Sydney
3 Adelaide
3 Bris
4 Melb
1 Perth
2 NZ.
In reality, this has been each person "fending for themselves" as far as getting their own opinion heard.
The idea of having reps is, as the name suggests, to represent the ideas, input and interests of the players of the clubs. At the moment it seems as though the suggested amount of reps is as many, or more, than the amount of people currently contributing.
Now I'm not saying its a bad idea to have more input, but I dont think creating more reps then there is interest to be involved is the way to go about it. I really think, as a far as getting things done, less is more. (NA Hardcourt for example has 21 reps -who in turn report to club reps- which covers 158 clubs).
This is direct democracy. Not some vague form of watered down "democracy". The reps will be in direct contact with the rest of the club every week. Of course the representative body will need to maintain transparency, but with proper policy in place to ensure this, I truely believe we can have a small concentrated group of "doers" to run the body and actually make things happen.