In the Aire-Wharfe Cricket League, there is an annual vote by all member clubs, revealed at their AGM, as to whether to retain the two lowest ranked clubs – or eject them.
For 2024, the two clubs at risk of being without a cricket league to join for 2025 are Rodley and Follifoot.
It is a strange ruling I can’t think happens in any other cricket league I know. Having talked to clubs over years, no-one seems to like it and yet this odd Eurovision-style popularity contest goes on.
In case you think I’m trash-talking the league, I should say that their Secretary Mark was very helpful in untangling the nuances for me and pointed out that there have been no approaches from clubs to suggest amending / removing the re-election requirement.
I find that curious. Either clubs are happy with the status quo, don’t want to be seen to rock the boat or don’t think any motion for change would pass.
In fact, since the 2022 AGM, Aire-Wharfe clubs no longer vote on rule amendments. Clubs can put forward suggestions by 30 September and the Management Committee reveals the rules by 31 January.
I guess rule 2.5 (the re-election table) is there as a safeguard to maintain the quality of the league in some way but it smacks of punishing those clubs that might need the most support.
The clubs selected for re-election are decided like this: Points are awarded to first and second eleven teams based on their results over three years, along with grounds and facilities being graded and factoring in discipline.
It seems like a lot of effort and a perpetual axe hanging over some clubs, particularly as it’s often the same ones in jeopardy – given the emphasis on performance. Otley or Collingham & Linton, to pluck a couple of names, are never going to be at risk.
Being up for re-election is hardly likely to encourage player recruitment for the next season either. A tough sell any way you look at it.
In the case of Follifoot (below), they conceded three matches in the 2024 season due to not enough players. A situation many clubs can find themselves in and not something you can magically fix.
With a player pool of about 30, a Bank Holiday, cup games for both first and second teams on the same weekend and the impact of a wedding all hit availability at a small village club.
As for Rodley, they’ve only been in the league two years (having moved from the Bradford Premier League) and along with a strong junior section, they’ve worked at improving drainage at the ground and built outdoor nets.
Of course, it might not come to pass for either of them.
The rules state that both clubs will be re-elected if they receive 19 or more votes (“gain the support of over half the Clubs entitled to vote”). I imagine the vote is secret but with so much at stake, it ought not to be.
What will clubs vote on? The quality of the facilities, how the pitch plays, the travel distance, any niggle between the clubs…it would only be human nature.
If Rodley and Follifoot were ejected, they would follow St Chad’s Broomfield who swapped the Aire-Wharfe League for the Pontefract & District Cricket League.
Rodley might ask to go back to the Bradford Premier League and I guess Follifoot would eye Yorkshire Premier League North. More stuff for volunteers to negotiate.
It seems counter-intuitive to me when it’s hard enough for a grassroots cricket club that there’s even the possibility of two more being given extra scenarios to plan for.
Aire-Wharfe clubs tell me that the re-election process creates stress during a season; not least because there are fewer leagues now so alternatives might be limited.
With any luck, neither Rodley nor Follifoot will be booted out of the league – by virtue of the fact that they’ve done nothing wrong. As for the ruling, there’s been no move to change it for 2025.
With thanks to Mark /Caught Light Photography for the images of Follifoot CC.
- Harry Brook: From Burley to number one in the world - December 11, 2024
- Make Money For Your Cricket Club: Learn Online - December 10, 2024
- Paying club cricketers: Blurring the lines - December 10, 2024
Great article John – absolute abhorrent nonsense in this day and age as we try to grow the game 🤷♂️
Seems rather ridiculous and parochial to not allow clubs to vote on this. The dangerous part is the league committee gave gripes and complaints and axes to grind. They should be actively encouraging Rodley and Follifoot to improve their playing standards and facilities to attract players.
Hi John, as you say, the clubs could change it if they wanted to.
You mention St Chads and my information from sources within the league is that clubs couldn’t wait to get rid of them, so if you look at it that way it’s a safety valve for clubs who might think that certain clubs are not up to standard.
Lots of leagues like to think they are the upholding certain standards; on field and off, so this gives them a chance to admit a club at the expense of others.
Not sure if I personally agree or disagree with it, it’s just how the A&W runs.
Good points on both sides Craig. I’m well versed on the St Chad’s case but I guess there’s no guarantee that clubs will be in that bottom two.
As for clubs able to change it if they want…They can suggest a rule change for the following year – but no longer vote on it.
As I mention, it’s interesting there’s no current appetite to change it.
Absolutely fabulous article John, as always.
Cheers Tim, hope you’re keeping well. See you next season, if not before.
hi john
The problems for these 2 clubs will be duplicated with no guarantee to recruit for 2025 season being
hard most league have rules that arnt applicable to cricket and society in the 2020/30 all clubs in the county are in some danger over double header weekends , and all leagues are their to promote cricket @ what ever standard how many junier players willl miss out on belonging to a club local to their homes.
Thanks John, good to hear from you.
If nothing else, this on the face of it rather odd ruling can be seen as seasonally appropriate: turkeys offered the opportunity to vote for Christmas. Imagine if the bottom two were kicked out, repeatedly, season after season. How long would it be before the Aire-Wharfe League eliminated itself from the cricketing landscape?!
Good question… I guess when it was down to the final one! It may well come to pass that Rodley and Follifoot stay in but that only really bunts the issue to next year.
You could reasonably argue that if there’s only ever been three clubs to have been ejected in recent decades (Steeton, Crossflatts and St Chad’s) then is the rule needed at all?
(Now craving turkey, gravy and roast potatoes btw).
central Yorkshire league had the same rules. Intact I had a standard re election letter and just amended the date each year.
Thanks for your comment David – I didn’t know that but the CYCL was a few years back now.
I think Steeton will be upset to learn they have been ejected. It is Silsden who left the League.
Other clubs who are no longer Aire-Wharfe clubs include Gargrave, Otley Town, Upper Wharfedale, Illingworth, and Woodhouse.
Most of these clubs have left the League of their own accord. This year Colton resigned to join the York League, as Illingworth chose the Halifax League.
I joined Alwoodley when they joined the League in 1968. We had to apply for re-election twice in our first 3 seasons. We were rubbish, the pitch was rubbish, but the other clubs stood by us, and the club remains a member of the League. In fact the only real risk to the clubs seeking re-election is where there have been serious administrative breaches, and where there are other clubs seeking to join the League
Thanks Steven for that excellent summary. Good to get your insight.
Interesting to see where other clubs I’ve been to have ended up like Illingworth and Gargrave.
The thing I never liked is that, in this case, two thirds of the teams voting won’t have been to or played against Rodley. Follifoot firsts did ok.
Silsden were a founding club in the league and wanted to keep one team in, but that’s not the rules. Same with knaresborough. One of the most successful teams in the league history. They wanted to keep a team in, but no. Cricket is on its arse and sone flexibility of thought is required.
Perhaps they could change the nature of the voe to the “two clubs most in need of support”?
Good to hear from you Jason – I suspect both were voted back in but yes, a vote with a different emphasis would probably be welcomed.