---

Eden 6 0 jolly sailor.... Enough said!

---

spence thats still a good result against a stronger team well played mate,

good luck for tomorrow,

---

Warbank 3 - 6 Better Halfs

SHOCKING!! :mad:

---

Pawleyne Foulers 3 - 6 The Farley Loyalists

We feared the worst after the spanking they gave us in the league last Tue, but the boys showed spunk, grit, & termination to grab this one. Well done. Gotta mention a very truly top notch break-dish from Shaun Kelly against myself, it lifted them slightly, but we already had a good lead from the first set. 1 - 4.

gotta mention it, good luck in the plate lads!!

Rainbow
:angel:

---

Lock Stock 2 - 6 Blood Masters

My words were apparently misunderstood last time...so.... my team played well, I played an appalling second game (and won, lol)... and that's about it!!

---

The Refugees 6 - 4 Beechtree Revolution

Game played in the right manner, all having a laugh. As it turned out we couldda been 3-0 up, wasnt to be, found ourselves 5-1 down after losing five on the bounce.

Took the next three with some good finishing but that wily Fox Jeff Martensz with his second of the evening got them through and everyone wanted a decider, well we did anyway Lol :lol:

We'll be in the plate, good laugh last night, well played lads and we'll see you in a couple of weeks :handshake:

---

The William 2 - 6 Langley Sports

An enjoyable match against a good bunch of lads from the William. The match was much closer than a 6 - 2 scoreline suggests. Good luck tou our opponents in the Plate and for the rest of the season.

---

The Wizards 3 - 6 The lodgers

Well done to my old team, managing to get a good win last night despite losing their best player. :D:

All jokes aside you played well, we played bad. Plates look better then cups anyway!!!!!!

---

Pond Q's 6 Dropas Babies 4
Not a particularly great performance from our B team. But at the end of the day,we are still in it. I don't really know why I bothered to enter this competition. We always struggle to field a team on Mondays !! Good luck to our opponents for the remainder of the season. A very nice group of people !! :clap:

---

I have four points to raise on last nights match.

The Loyalists played a lot better this week than last and were at the point I left well worthy of their win.

The Pawleyne Foulers have the shiniest balls in the league.

I would rather have molten larva place on my nutsack play in a ko plate competition.

I won the poker up the road so it all ended tickety boo!

---

point 5 Shaggy, the funniest team name i have seen for some years!! Who came up with that one?

---

Kelly as per normal.

---

Farley small potatoes 6 Prop 7 After bein 1-5 up i think some complacency set in. Then to go 6-5 down it looked as though a shock was on the cards,but we got there in the end. Well played to the small pots they pushed us all the way,especially Di the destroyer who started the fight back and to Firefox for beaten Swetts at his own fudging game.

---

After some discussions after the match last night i emailed Mark Halsey for clarification on the event of a tie in the knock out cup as the rules state that only one deciding frame should be played not three. He has now confirmed that this is the case and that three deciding frames are only played in the Semi Finals.

Therefore, apologies to the Prop but the result of

Farley Small Potatoes 6 - 5 The Prop

stands.

Fantastic come back by the Small Pots last night from being 5-1 down. I think we surprised both teams and I think in all honesty we all expected an early night. But it just goes to show that you shouldn't underestimate the Potatoes

---

Once it has been agreed i dont think u can change the result after the event. If u wasnt sure at the time u should of asked the question then. Both caps/secs agreed on a 3 man play-off so the result should stand. Straws and clutching spring to mind.

---

IT WAS AGREED THAT WE PLAY 3 PLAYERS CANT BELIEVE U WANT TO CHANGE THE RESULT NOW ITS BEEN PLAYED.U SHOULD OF SAID SOMETHING LAST NIGHT NOT THE NEXT DAY.WE AGREED TO PLAY 3 SEPERATE GAMES TO DECIDE IT NOT 1

---

At the end of the 10th frame we were deciding on which one player should play the deciding frame. Paul came up and said it was 3 frames to be played after he had spoken to Gary. I said that I thought it was only one and wasn't aware of a rule change but presumed that as a committee member Gary would know the rules, so went along with it.
Even when we signed the card I asked Gary when the rules had changed and he didn't really answer me.
It was only later when other players came into the pub and said that the rules stated it was only one deciding frame to be played. So I emailed Mark and explained what happened and asked him for clarification. He replied saying that it's the first team to 6.
It wasn't that we had agreed to play 3 frames, we were told by your team that it was three.
It's not that we are changing the result. ~The result at the end of the day was 6-5

---

Cathy, you don't need any help here... you KNOW the bobby!

---

IF U DIDNT AGREE THEN WHY DID U PLAY THEM

---

From a neutral perspective.

Firstly, other than Mark Halsey nobody really knows or can really be that bothered to read or keep abreast with the ever changing of the rules. For years, match length formats have been changed in singles/doubles event & the bottom line this is done with both sides consent.

It seems to me, after discussion that consent to play a three frame play off was agreed on the night by both teams. Potatoes had the opportunity to consult the rules to clarify the position, didn't do so and proceeded with the format.

The play off was played over the agreed 3 frames, Potatoes lost and signed for the result, match done and dusted. I can see Potatoes point here but its too late in the day to try and claim a victory. Both sides made an error with the rules, but both sides also agreed on how the tie should be settled.

The result should not be altered it will be a mockery if Mark does so after the event. The Potatoes, I agree, will feel hard done by, but equally so will the Prop.

Just my penny's worth so don't lynch me!

---

Firstly The Small Pots have not requested that the result be altered.
And secondly there was no discussion to consent to play three frames.
The whole point of requesting clarification of the rules was that we were told it was best of three frames, not asked if we wanted to play best of three.
I was under the impression that in the case of a tie it was a one-frame decider. When the other team come over and say "it's best of three, choose your 3 players", and that team consists of a committee member, then I am going to take it as face value and presume that maybe the rules have changed. OK so maybe this is where I went wrong and should have said "Sorry you are wrong, hold on let me go and check out the rules" but I didn't. For this I apologise, and will ensure that in future I have a copy of the General Playing Rules to hand.

The Pototatoes have not requested that the result be changed, it was merely a request to have the rule clarified which I did at the request of the players in my team

---

So what is 'the result'... 6-5 or 6-7?

---

From another neutral perspective,the facts are simple. Mr.Swettenham has been a committee member since I last went to school (I was a mature student) ,and as such he should be fully conversant with the rules. The main reason that I have never applied to join the Committe is the stringent testing that takes place. All members have to recite every rule from memory at every meeting. I felt that this would be too time-consuming for me and probably extremely stressful. We should expect better from such an exalted individual as Garry and, unless there are any extenuating circumstances such as temporary amnesia,I'm afraid that it has to be game,set and match to the Chips !! :violin:

---

In my opinion for what its worth if a mistake has been made 'in good faith', then that mistake should be treated as 'an honest one' and as such the result should stand.

There is nothing in this thread that has indicated a team was attempting to gain any advantage from playing a certain number of frames.

Mistakes do happen, but I feel the integrety of the comp can only be maintained if the Prop progress. I would have said exactly the same if the result of the 3 person play off was the exact opposite.

---

POTATOE'S !! :lol:

---

I think that answers my question... and quite right too!

As someone who preferes to play league singles matches over 3 sets of 9 you might expect me to be in the other camp. However, I think 'agreement' plays an important part here. From what I read the Pots were presented with an erroneous assertion of the rules and felt they had no choice but to play best of 3. Had they known it was 1 frame and agreed to play 3 that would be fair enough. Since they were in no position to make that agreement, the rules should be enforced and whoever got to 6 first be the winner.

---

I think the Taters have a point because if they had been given a choice they probably would have gone for the 1 frame sudden death, as they were the underdogs. But because both sides knew that it was a best of 3 play off, regardless of how that decision was reached, then I think that the Prop should go through. I think there is a bit less pressure on the first frame of a best of three than there is on the decider and who knows how that first frame would have panned out?
The best thing to do in a best of three play off is to win it two-zip.

---

U WOULD SAY THAT FRAN U WASNT THERE WE DIDNT FORCE ANYONE INTO DO ANYTHING THEY DIDNT WANT TO WE AGREE TO PLAY 3 SO IT SHOULD BE END OF MATTER.3 GAMES WERE PLAYED NOWONE ARGUED THEN SO WHY NOW.WHY ALWAYS AFTER ITS SURELY TO LATE THEN THE TATERS COULD OF SAID NO WE WANT A 1 FRAME PLAY OFF WE DIDNT MAKE THEM PLAY A 3 MAN PLAY OFF THEY MUST OF AGREED COS THEY PLAYED IT

---

All getting heated it seems...As a principle ignorance of rules is not generally a defence. However, this is not a pro league, and can we all say we know every rule? No.

From Tuesday I understand Mark Halsey had indicated which result will stand, but from a fairness viewpoint to me it boils down to how the issue was put to the Potatoes, i.e. were they asked or instructed to play 3? Cathy clearly indicates it was not a request/offer, and with Gary present who could have corrected this surely the Pots should go through...But just another opinion...and without having been present at the time is of limited value.

---

Lets get one thing straight,i played tuesday and Cathy was no way bullied or pushed into playin best of 3. Macca asked Swetts what the situation was and Gary replied i think its been changed to best of 3 to Macca, Macca then sorted it with Cathy and there was no debates whatsoever. They picked there 3 as did we. No good crying after the event,both secs made errors so both are at fault.It is a lesson learnt for the future. P.S if it had of been decided on one frame i can guarantee u that Macca would not of played Andy Shaw first,as by that time, the old stella had kicked in.

---

---

prop out....where r ur morals small pots....U ACCEPTED a 3frame play off n LOST irreguardless ov any mistakes or confusion over play off...uv devalued the ko cup n ruined the plate 4many teams..many ov us av lost playin an inncorrect format in the past but u dont try n progress afterwards,ur rong uns...

---

I see that an extraordinary general meeting has been arranged for next Friday. Hopefully there will be a good turnout. All the relevant evidence can be heard and I feel certain that the correct decision will be made !! Let justice prevail !! :handshake:

---

Fifa r now runninig croydon pool league. According to reports the buffoons at CDPL have decided to award the match to small pots. I am left speechless at this decision,makes a mockery of the rules and the league itself.

---

WHAT CAN I SAY THE GAME WAS PLAYED IN GOOD SPIRIT AND MAYBE A DIFFERENT FORMAT TO WHAT THE LEAGUE STATES.BUT LETS BE FAIR HOW MANY TEAMS AND SINGLES AND DOUBLE GAMES HAVE BEEN PLAYED TO A DIFFERENT FORMAT *******LOADS.AND UP TILL NOW EVERYONE HAS EXCEPTED THE OUTCOME.WELL IF THE LEAGUE SAY THEY R AWARDED THE MATCH THEN ALL THOSE PLAYERS AND TEAMS THAT LOST THERE GAMES PLAYING UNDER A DIFFERENT FORMAT HAVE NOW GOT AN ARGUMENT.COS LETS BE FAIR THE SMALL POTATOES HAVE ONLY KICKED UP A STINK AFTERWARDS NOT BEFORE.SO ID LIKE TO STATE THE YEAR WHEN THE FORUM BEAT US IN THE KNOCKOUT CUP FINAL ON A 1 GAME PLAY OFF COS THATS WHAT THE COMMITTEE MEMBER TOLD ME IT WAS A ONE FRAME PLAY OFF IN THE FINAL HAS SURELY STILL TO BE DECIDED.ANYONE CAN CHECK THIS OUT COS IT WAS A FINALTHEN THIS YEAR I WATCH THE CUE MASTERS BEAT THE EAGLES IN A THREE FRAME PLAYOFF IN THE FINAL.SO WHY WOULD I THINK ANYTHING ELSE THAN A THREE FRAME PLAYOFF.OH YEAH COULD ANYONE FROM THE COMMITTEE TELL ME IF WE COULD PLY OUR TWO REMAINING FRAMES FROM THE FINAL WE LOST COS WE WAS TOLD IT WAS A ONE FRAME PLAYOFF.SO ITS NOT THE FIRST TIME THE PROP HAVE BEEN HARD DONE BY

---

No need to shout Macca (apologies if your keyboard is stuck on CAPS)! Yep, it would set a precedent for sure. Should be an interesting meeting, may suggest to the Ban-man we go along on behalf of the Dukes to c what occurs.

Liverpool for top 4 next season, bring it on! Anyone but United for the title!

---

From a neutral point of view, I think it would be wrong to take it away from the Prop after the event. At the end of the day if both Secs/Caps agreed to the best of 3 format at the time, then that should be that.
If the small pots go through now, whats to stop other people in singles / doubles matches saying we played best of 5 (which sometimes happens) for example rather than best of 3, going 2 nil up, then losing 3-2 then arguing they got to 2 first so they should go through.

---

seems a bit harsh that the prop have been knocked out like this.
it seem obvious that neither secretary was sure of what to do with the scores at 5-5 and then swetts suggested he thought it was best of 3 which was then agreed by both parties and played to a 7-6 win for the prop. obviously swetts made a genuine mistake and perhaps both secretarys are at fault for not knowing the correct procedure following the draw but the fact both agreed on a best of 3 is why i think the original result should stand. very harsh but oh well.

and liverpool top 4 lol me thinks no chance.

---

I CAN SHOW U HOW TO SHOUT IF U WISH GRANTS NOT A PROBLEM.AND AS FOR THE CAPS IT WINDS CERTAIN FOLK UP

---

No need Macca, you may be right about winding some people up. From above posts looks like an interesting meeting for sure.

---

I'm not sure what is more embarrassing.

1. The committee bothering to consider altering a completed result.

OR

2. The Potatoes considering to participate in the next round of the main draw.

---

Yes, I've heard of claiming games for people turning up late or not being able to make the date, which is bad enough, but claiming a game that you've lost is a new one on me.

---

I have just read this thread from start to finish & i think everyone is missing one very clear obvious point about all this & that is................

How funny is the name the Pawleyne Foulers

---

a valid point,wel said mr brooker....think i may av been a bit harsh on small pots as hearing thro the grapevine it does kinda sound like they got bolted up as such, as they wer not offered the choice ova 1frame play off but wer told it woza 3frame play off wen make no mistake the prop new it woz 1frame..every1 nos the odds massively changed in the props favour asa result ov playing best ov3 so i do c how the small pots can fil aggrieved..unfortunitaly tho 4the small pots they did not check play off format at the time with swety or check the rules so theyv agreed 2play best ov 3 n lost so morally u must accept the loss coz u av actually lost..

---

---

TO MUCH HAS BEEN SAID AND A LOT OF IT IS NOT EXACTLY TRUE

---

edit as much as u want cathy but u clearly failed 2check the rules n u PLAYED all 3frames ov the play off...can u not c by the post that every1 thinks wat uv done isa joke...put ur hands up admitt uv lost n stop tryin 2cheat, wat the hell is rong wit u...dont keep tryin 2 justify ur immoral actions

---

foxy wrote: paul came up

shaggy wrote: pawleyene foulers

the power wrote: bottom

kermy wrote:clutching

the power wrote: abreast with

Kermy wrote: swetts

longshanks wrote: on

beachtree_outlaw wrote: his

shaggy wrote: nutsack;)

---

:clap:

---

Poetry emotion! :rofl:

---

true story...absolute quality metin :D:

---

What happened to sportsmanship regarding the cup knock out between the Small Pots and the Prop who after a blatant disregard 4 a long standing well known rule, could not answer a simple question by a lower division team. When it was queried with Mr Halsey he passed the correct ruling and many ppl are put out. What happened to enjoying the game, win, lose or draw. Grow up people where have the standards gone?
And further more, it's nice to c so many ppl slag off and paste comments on a particular team, even though the committee voted in their favour.

---

Let me point you in the direction of Swetts and Mr Macquire. You seem convinced that the Prop were deliberately bending the rules.... I'm sure they'd love to hear more!!:boxer:

---

Im sure they would teach. As for you fat boy i think you should get your facts right before making such statements. The game was played in a good atmosphere,and so was the play off. It wasnt until i put up a write up on the site that Cathy then replied claiming the game. Yes,both secs made errors,doesnt everybody. But what your failing to see is Cathy is now trying to claim the game after the event. She has even admitted making the mistake in one of her posts. Say for instance that we had won the 11th frame then the pots won the next 2,do you think the prop would of gone running to the committee,i think not. So if you wanna start talking sportsmanship i think you should direct it at the small pots.

---

u no what ive sat back and have been reading most of the comments made on here (looks like its back to school) i can see this from both sides i do think the prop should go though on the count that 3 frames were decided !!! but i also see it from cathys point as well she questioned a committee member over this and was found not to have much reaction back .... therefor the 3 frames were played prop winning the final frame ... i got to mention what a come back for the small pots in the beginning to come back from 5-1 down to level the match!! then this is were is goes wrong sends a email to mark halsey questioning over this matter... mark in turn explains the rules and awards the small pots the game which then cathy posts !!! cathy doesnt make the league rules up, mark halsey inforces them as am a were by the world rules!!!! it was mark that decided to put the small pots though since then a meeting has taken place and the commitee voted and awarded the small pots the game gary has appealled !! yet cathy spoke to mark and ask to solve this y not put both teams in the plate... mark said no !!! i think for certain people on here to call them cheats is a little low theres names up here that have gone out there way to try and mess about with matches ( thats another story ) i think mark should post out the league rules to each team and it b visible for teams to look at so mistakes are not made ... everyone has a right to there say but to give pure stick to cathy ( u lot are a joke u need to grow up) fatboy even shaggy mention on a different thread this is a pub game but it seems to have gone beyond that !! even the divisional singles in div 1 was a mockery 4 talented players moaning over a venue and a 1 match play off ..then sean gives away his teams league cup semi final trophy to keep people happy !!! no wonder teams aint bothering re joining the league with ******* like this !!! rant over so instead of popping off at cathy y dont u certain people gets some balls and question mark y he decided to allow the small pots the win ... good luck to the outcome and move on from this !!! i think sportsmanship has faded away in the croydonpool league :handshake:

---

Firstly- semi final trophy??? Eagles team all gave them up as it was a semi trophy and would only be used as an ash tray!
2nd- Some wanted to do the playoff but not over 1 frame as it was a long season and wanted to make a night of it.
3rd- how has this become part of summer league
4th- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

---

haha wata crock ov s**t....1)cathy did not question swets b4 play off. 2)aint a case ov mark enforcing rules wat is the main issue, its the fact that small pots r tryin2 claim a win after losing. 3)div singles r entitled 2share trophy if they wish 2do so, only time u av2 play off is for runners up unless u buy extra trophies. 4)a man talks bout sportsmanship wen the same guy barracks his opponants whilst there playing a shot, but then gets torn a new arse so karma prevailed...tis all bout morals

---

not u metin meant andy talkin out ov his arse

---

Hahahahahahahaha

---

Jacko think u need buds and spec savers your like an old granny a complete moaner!!! 1st . Am going by what I've read and I spoke to Cathy see wanted to clarify with mark and then got told yes it was wrong to award the small pots the match if the 3 frames had been agreed !!! 2nd.. You were just shocked that I almost dished u off your break and even had a bit of banter with fran standing there and said how I'd pop the black !!! And then even before u playing your wrist job shot I said come on my your not going for the fudge Fran then spoke and said what shots he would play !! I was quiet as u played what was a superb shot I then potted the black were after u put your knickers on and moaned like a bitch !!! I also told u before the match finished u could have it cos I heard I had Cathy in the next round facts live with it !!

---

u tried ur best wit ur slimey little chudders but then U GOT SMASHED...n as if id take nfin from the likes ov u,u got broke dished n then abused in the last...bitch

---

What a messy one this whole business is. . .

Just to clear a couple of things up though, with regards to rules being sent out to everyone, they ARE sent out to everyone, by way of everyone's secretary. They get sent everything before the season kicks off.
It's then up to the secretary and the respective venue to either have them displayed, or at the very least have them at hand in a folder somewhere to refer to in such an event as this one.
I find it hard to believe that The Farley, with the several teams playing from there, does not have a set of rules somewhere.
Also, in this day and age, this very website has them on the front page thanks to Paul, so they can be accessed quickly from anyone with a smart phone at hand....

Secondly, with reagrds to the semi final trophies we (The Eagles) are forfeiting.
It's not a case of dis-respecting the semi final acheivement, indeed, I hope we still get the call up when prompted at the presentation. It was more to ensure that Metin, in his first season for us, got the recognition of finishing joint top of the divisionals. It's a long old season, and to finish joint top after 22 league matches, only to then lose on a one frame play off is an awful kick in the nads, for any of the 4 players involved, so glad that they will all get the recognition they rightfully deserve, and glad that we were able to assist.

Back on topic, there's a meeting tomorrow night regarding the outcome of the disputed match I believe, I hope that whatever the outcome, that people can move on and enjoy the summer league for what it was inteneded, a vehicle to give us competitive pool whilst waiting for the Winter League to come round again.
Don't take it too seriousley guys...

---

Jacko lmao !!! What game was u watching... u must of gone to seasons past I remember u blowing the black in after it was wobbling over the corner pocket :-) take nothing away from u the 2 hours I was there I spent most of it sleeping after your 8 min plus a shot !!! Back to the topic hope this mess is sorted and as you righty say let's enjoy the rest of the season !!

---

wel said mr kelly...all the guys appreciate ur teams gesture concernin div1 singles trophies n ur wise words sums up our feelings...andy cum on son dont b bitter,the only chance u ad woz if i hung the black on that furry dead table,it takes me a few seconds 2 play a tactical shot n a minute or so 4 u2 try n work out a solution..i broke dishd then played 4 or 5 aggressive safetys then dishd again...sori 4not giving u a chance werent very sportin ov me i no :P

---

wel said mr kelly...all the guys appreciate ur teams gesture concernin div1 singles trophies n ur wise words sums up our feelings...andy cum on son dont b bitter,the only chance u ad woz if i hung the black on that furry dead table,it takes me a few seconds 2 play a tactical shot n a minute or so 4 u2 try n work out a solution..i broke dishd then played 4 or 5 aggressive safetys then dishd again...sori 4not giving u a chance werent very sportin ov me i no :P

---

:D::D::D:

---

I have been in the league for over three years now and every time we draw in a final,nobody is ever sure whether 1 player should play 3 frames, 3 players should play 1 frame or 1 player should play 1 frame. We agree on the night what to play and stick to it.If the small pots played 3 frames then as far as I am concerned they have agreed to play 3 frames the Prop have won fair and square. If you play in the 4th round of the singles and you both agree on best of 5 you shouldn't then be able to phone Mark up and say you were 2-0 up after losing 3-2 and claiming the game. Final point if the Prop knew it was only one frame they wouldn't have played a very drunk Andy Shaw as their only player.

---

I am also in support of the Prop on this occasion, but how pissed off must half their team be if a very drunk Andy Shaw still gets in the 3-man play off ahead of them (and he then lost!):lol:

---

I was going to say the same teach. The Andy Shaw drunk thing is a complete red herring. If he was that drunk surely it would have been prudent not to pick him.

---

I would definately agree with you Nuttmeg, but we didn't agree to it in the sense that we all knew it was only meant to be one but DECIDED to play 3. We were TOLD it was best of 3 and when we questioned it saying that we thought it was ONLY 1 we were TOLD that THE RULE was best of 3 according to Gary who is a committee member. I personally tend to give respect to our committee members as they do need to know all the rules at all times and often give up their own time to come down to matches to referee - based on this and the fact that I've never questioned them in the past, we took this at face value based on the say so of a committee member. I hope that in the future I will not see the need to ask a committe member about a ruling and then run off to double check the rules as I would think that this was quite insulting. I don't think there is any way that you can argue that playing best of 3 was definately in favour for the Prop instead of us (as they are all much better players and it was just luck on the night that we managed to claw our way back from 5-1 down) and I do feel very sorry for Andy Shaw as even though he was drunk (from what I remember he only seemed slightly sober for his first frame of the night) because on the night he was the only player from the prop to win 2 out of 2 in the first 10 frames (which is probably why he was choosen to play first in the deciding frames, considering there were a lot of other prop players who weren't as drunk that weren't picked for the final 3). I also think that regardless of his having too many drinks, I would still be likely to put money on him winning than someone from the 4th division. At the end of the day this was only brought up to Mark H because a committee member had said one rule and we later found out this wasn't the case and wanted to clarify the rules for any future draws. He then said that it is the first to 6 which happened to be the small pots.

---

A lot of this is being put on swetts,which is unfair. He never spoke to Cathy or any of your team,so for fcuks sake stop trying to blame other people rather than your own secretary.

---

n the moral ov the story is...if at 1st u dont succeed lie n try again...apologies apopogies,dam lap top...meant 2b If at 1st u dont succeed try n try again :juggle: ...n 2all u cynical people out there id like 2point out that the prop did not in anyway try 2 decieve the small pots n the small pots only contacted mark 4 clarification on the rules n wer not tryin 2progress after losing..obviously...we can all now finally sleep wel again as the purity n integraty ov Croydon Pool is restored lol....actually woz no win situation 4the committee...2rongs make a rite as the sayin goes dont it :angel:

---

The league best order 16 throphys for this comp, you cant lose in this one.lol :fart:

---

What was the outcome in the meeting last night?

---

"The Executives Committee's decision on Friday 17th June was upheld and endorsed by the membership present whereas the Farley Small Potatoes were awarded the match for their previous round fixture against The Propeller. Pat Flynn (Pond Q's) notified the league that he wished to withdraw his team from the main comp due to lack of players for a monday night and graciously offered the Pond Q's entry so that both the Farley Small Potatoes and The Propeller could continue within the competition. It was found at the EGM that both team secretaries were at fault on the evening of their match and endorsed Pat Flynns offer and re-entered The Propeller into the main competition replacing the Pond Q's."

Who'da thunk it? Pat Flynn to the rescue!

---

That makes it interesting. Who will we be playing as the draw has been done on the website, and we are down to play Small Pots/Prop. Will the draw be re done?

---

I think that's just answered my question if that's true fran. Looks like the prop replaced pond, so we'll be playing the small pots

---

The draw has been updated

---

i think every team should withdraw except the potatoes and the prop

then let them have a one frame play-off for the cup on the presentation night...!

---

why is every single game at suzy Qs...? i can understand the semis and maybe final but the 2nd round...????? come off it... bit of a joke that.

---

sponsors i guess!

---

Big sponsorship deal with Rileys. A proposal was put to the AGM and was voted in.

I'm not sure what the current state of play is though, if Suzi Q's is being sold.