SOP AGM.
- Thread starter ploughman61
- Start date
Well, of course that is your choice, but perhaps you could explain why? I agree that its far from perfect, but its all we have, and is all that we are likely to have! There are only so many people with the interest and time to be able to run such an organisation, and for better or worse the SOP has most of them.
Over the years, there have been attempts to organise a replacement, the "Inter counties" was I believe the most recent, but all have withered on the vine.
Membership cancelled, not good, but only half a story, can we have the rest of it?
Suggest you read posts on page 8 from Howard 150 & Roy Stokes
Roy Stokes
Member
- Location
- East Shropshire
I believe you have rejoined the society after a while of not being a member Harry, you too were disillusioned enough to leave, you now have had a change of heart which is fine, but you shouldn't chastise those who vote with their feet, they are only doing what you have done in the past
Just about everything that has been written about them in the past few years, money grabbers who have made a very good living from the SOP members in my opinion. I have been a member in the past but as I say never again. I was all set to travel to the national a few years ago and I think we worked it out that it would of cost us just over £600 and they then sent me a form saying I would have to pay an entry fee for my wife to go with me , bloody cheek, tore the forms up there and then. I have qualified a few times for the National but will never bother going.
I too, would have been far from pleased if an admission fee had been charged for my partner, but, it never was. However, as she was not a member, the society was quite within its rights. You could have pre-empted this by taking out a family membership, not that I feel that would have been within the spirit of the event. It is my view that partners should be included in the competitors pass, they too put a lot into the competitors being there. But, as I said, its far from perfect, but change wont come from outside.
Money grabbers, good living? Perhaps, but where is the proof, until the audit shows up major discrepancies, that is a dangerous thing to say.
It is ironic that you have such a low opinion of the society, but avail yourself of qualifying matches which are organised by the society.The same society which produced the (often ignored) rule book, you plough to, and the score sheet your points are recorded on!
Thanks for the info. I have read the message sent to you by the society, and your membership application was refused, not cancelled.
Your quite right Roy I did leave, and rejoin. Ironically, I rejoined to have a vote at the egm! I have no chastisement in mind, but things are changing, and strong willed people will be required to keep up the momentum. So perhaps ex members could think again. I am known in "Doncaster Towers" for my dislike of handling and my wish to protect stewards. the latter, to my surprise has been taken on board. At the national at least, a written warning only will be given before ploughing, and stewards no longer have to confront miscreants.
As I have said, its not perfect, but its all we have, change is in the air, lets try to keep it going.
Don't think things are changing, they just refused golden opportunity to make the peace with John plowright & Desmond Jenkins, and thrown it back in their faces, sop have lost local support over this with members refusing to go to the organising meeting for this years national last week. I have a brilliant site lined up for 2019, but since my treatment since the world's at York in 2016, the host has withdrawn the offer. I have lost all faith in sop, will only join to go and help plougmen at this years match, now I've posted this probably be refused membership
Last edited:
I run a match according to SOP rules, not that I agree with them verbatim but because I believe that a uniform set of rules is desirable. This may not continue as I understand that a rule has been introduced instructing organisers to designate the end from which ploughing commences. I cannot see the logic as it removes the use of a piece of field craft. Moreover I know one or two organisers who would not see the significance of choice of end because the sun shines out of their ars4 and not the sky. It could also disadvantage those whose plots had adverse slopes and camber. If anybody can explain I would be pleased to know the reasoning. To me it seems like childish tinkering.
Needless to say I will not be obtaining a new rule book so departure from the hallowed rules is inevitable I am afraid and match ploughing takes a step back into the dark ages.
I wondered what had rattled your cage at lastDon't think things are changing, they just refused golden opportunity to make the peace with John plowright & Desmond Jenkins, and thrown it back in their faces, sop have lost local support over this with members refusing to go to the organising meeting for this years national last week. I have a brilliant site lined up for 2019, but since my treatment since the world's at York in 2016, the host has withdrawn the offer. I have lost all faith in sop, will only join to go and help plougmen at this years match, now I've posted this probably be refused membership
Another indefensible rule, and another hole in a foot!You are quite correct, it stinks of someone needing to be seen to be doing something. For myself, It will matter little, as I have no faith in the majority of judges and no longer bother with prize givings, disqualification for starting at the wrong end will not matter. In truth ,however this rule will no doubt be treated with the hallowed obedience given to the one on handling!
- Location
- Acton Scott, South Shropshire
61 won’t say it but I will - the treatment he received from SOP over the national match at Lichfield was terrible after all that he did and offered and was the reason I left the SOP and said I wouldn’t go back to help whilst the secretary remained.I wondered what had rattled your cage at last
I think I have been supportive of the SOP and the move for change but I am bitterly disappointed by the recent events and on the face of it there appears that reconciliation is not on the agenda any time soon.
As I said earlier , what has been said and done in the past and what is still being said and done , SOP a complete waste of space ,time and money. Ley 253 , I have not seen the SOP having a wonderful amount of input in any qualifier match in this part of the country as QM's are just tagged onto an ordinary match and when I have said I am not interested in the National they tell me I have qualified anyway as everyone else is not interested either. As for the rules Arcobob has answered that very well a few posts ago, we are very capable of running to our own rules anyway thank you very much , without the last bit on the sheet ie overall appearance ,another way to make whoever you want win. As for dangerous talk, I am used to that and you have absolutely no idea to the extent of my knowledge concerning the SOP.
Ridiculous and pointless meddling by a largely unelected body. Very similar to the disgraceful way straighteners was imposed, and this according to one ‘advisor’, the electorate having their say through elected representatives.
You wanted more say in the decisions affecting you, questionable at best. You wanted change in general and to a degree you got it. Alan Jones proposed to sack 5 directors and remove them as members. An amendment was proposed by Tony Bradley at an EGM that, whist their status as Directors should be changed, their status as members should not. Despite protocol being ignored and this proposal not being voted on, the membership considered the famous 5 to have been retained as members. Robert Irvine actually ploughed at York.
2 years down the line and change you got. The Executive - a fine upstanding body of moral substance have decided not to allow Desmond the benefits of membership. Two of said body of fine upstanding moral substance are unable to recollect having a vote on it whilst one other cannot even recollect being at the meeting.
In another meeting that the same fine upstanding body of moral abundance had, but never attended, they, in their absence, decided to summarily dispense with John Plowright - £50k extra in their coffers or otherwise.
So just to recap. On the face of it you got some change. The status of JP and DJ has without a doubt changed.
However and in the areas where you wanted change then change has not been as forthcoming. The Directors still have no say whatever. The Executive still call the shots whether they are there or not and more to the point, retribution is alive, well and thriving within the SOP.
And one area remaining steadfastly unchanged........Harry is still there in there in the background arguing vehemently for both sides.
I for one will certainly not be opening up driving directly into the sun, as many societies will find the rule meddlesome, pointless and a complete waste of time.
There will be no need for an AGM in future nor any other open meetings because democracy has demonstrably gone out of the window. It never really existed before but the snake pit have laid down the guidelines and demonstrated quite clearly that they run the show and anyone else has nothing to offer. Who would support such a bunch of power grabbers even if there is no viable alternative. They deserve no support, financial or otherwise and this should be brought to the attention of potential sponsors.
Your last puts you on dangerous ground, to say the least. Let us though go back a bit, and examine the "Viable Alternative"
Perhaps we could all stop recirculating the same tired old arguments, and actually do something! You mention "Viable Alternative"! There is indeed space for one, so, instead of preaching to the converted on here, form some type of organisation, tour the ploughing matches, get people to join and eventually replace the sop, having gained a mandate to do so.