SOME of the natives, and one native in particular, in the Aire-Wharfe League are restless.

The reason for that are the ramifications from what division to place new clubs Bingley Congs and Rodley in the structure.

Both of their first teams ended up in Division Four.

Burley seconds and Saltaire seconds were both, as per rule, relegated from Division Four as a consequence of finishing bottom and second from bottom respectively.

However, the league could not relegate the third-from-bottom club as St Chads Broomfield firsts failed to gain sufficient votes to be re-elected and were therefore no longer part of the league.

That led to Pool seconds, who were fourth from bottom, being relegated, which did not go down well.

Their committee issued a statement on February 7, which had club chairman Charlie Bell’s name attached to it, saying: “Despite several attempts before Christmas to persuade the league management committee (LMC) to reconsider their stance, these ultimately fell on deaf ears.

“Due to the lack of cohesion and co-operation of the LMC, regrettably we found ourselves with only one option: escalating the situation to leave the decision out of their control.”

They believe that prioritising a new club over an existing member club is “fundamentally wrong” and not “in the best interest of the league”.

The statement continued: “We have canvassed opinion of a handful of fellow AWSCL member clubs, and we are delighted to announce that we have gained the support of the 11 clubs, allowing us to request a special meeting of the (AWSCL) Council (EGM) in line with Rule 1.7(i).

“As per the AWSCL rules this meeting is to be called within 21 days of the receipt of the request (which is today’s date of February 7).”

They also proposed a change to Rule 2.4(ii), which would prevent a club finishing outside of the normal relegation positions being demoted in order to accommodate a club or new clubs.

However, on February 13, the league issued a statement, signed by league secretary Mark Shaw, in answer to Pool’s request which included: “While performing due diligence of the request it has come to light that one club have confirmed that they had not officially confirmed their support as stated on the letter and some clubs (apparently two) who originally supported the request have since withdrawn their support.

“As such the request failed to have sufficient support for the request to be successful.”

Pool have countered, via a statement from their committee, again signed by Bell, that they indeed had written support from ten clubs, plus themselves, making up the 11 needed to call an EGM.

They also believe that the LMC have used coercive behaviour to make some of the 10 clubs change their minds, including by threatening to resign en bloc if the EGM went ahead.

Pool believe that the league have therefore acted unconstitutionally and indeed have acted in a discriminatory fashion against Pool.

The club will now seek legal counsel and take their case to higher authorities, such as the Yorkshire Cricket Board, in their bid to secure an EGM.