British Minigolf Association

Annual General Meeting Motions and additional information regarding proxy voting PDF Print E-mail


Here are the list of motions that will be discussed and voted on as part of the AGM on March 1. Please note full details of the proxy voting process is covered later in the document. The names in brackets after each motion heading relate to the member(s) who have raised the proposals.




MOTION 1) introduction of a new category – Cat 4 – for players in their debut season on the tour, with ring fenced prize money / medals in line with the existing Cat 2 & 3 players (Sean Homer)


Rationale: This will give new players better chances of prize money while they develop rather than being up against existing category 3 players that range from first timers to experienced BMGA tour pros. It is important that we incentivise new players in their first season on the tour giving opportunities for winning prize money / medals, etc that will help maintain their interest and reward their loyalty on the tour. NB: the time criteria for category 4 relates to the current season, not a calendar year from when the player plays in their first event.


MOTION 2) Change the criteria for players classified as Category 1 and Category 2 as detailed below (Mark Wood)


Category 1: Top 8 players in rankings, plus any BMGA tournament winner (this includes Club Opens) over the last 2 seasons (i.e. the current season and previous year)


Category 2:  players ranked 9 to 32 (except those who are classed as Cat 1 above)


Category 3 (and 4, presuming motion 1 gets passed) remain unchanged


Rationale: The above would make it harder to achieve cat 1, which represents the elite end of the game. So to achieve cat 1 you would have to earn more ranking points than with current system or win a tournament. Category 2 is opened up and gives those ranked 9-16 some added incentive. The new category splits would ensure good levels of players from each of the Categories at each event, and give players within these categories prize fund incentives to encourage participation.




MOTION 3) Revise the Season Only Rankings (Sean Homer / Chris Smith)


The Season Only Rankings (SOR) were first introduced in 2009 with the aim of giving all players a more immediate and season specific breakdown of where they stand in relation to all the players that participate in tournaments each year. The SOR do not replace the Official Rankings (which are still the ultimate Benchmark

for players) but run in tandem with the official rankings, using different criteria for scoring. Unfortunately the results have not been as hoped for with the SOR virtually replicating the overall rankings. With this in mind there are three options in this motion for people to vote for.


MOTION 3 OPTION A) Scrap the SOR – get rid of the rankings and leave only the Order of Merit as a benchmark for players.


MOTION 3 OPTION B) Revise SOR to be more favourable to lower categories (Sean Homer)


Rationale: The focus of the SOR is still to reward players for their results across the year, with particular emphasis on Personal Best performances, improvements round to round within any given tournament along with specific points for aces and a variety of other rewards. The breakdown of how the new look Season Only Rankings would be made up is listed below:


  • Relative result in a tournament - 10 points per place


The following points are multiplied based on Category Status i.e. Cat 2 sees the points x 2, Cat 3 x 3


  • Aces - 10 points each
  • Hatrick of aces - 50 points
  • Sub 36 rounds - 10 points each
  • Setting or equalling an Official Course Record - 50 points
  • Beating an existing Official Course Record - 100 points
  • Consecutive improvement round by round - 25 points per round
  • Personal Best - 50 points


The Season Only Rankings (SOR) above was applied to the Star City Open results with key areas getting multiplied dependant on your category status (see for details). The new calculations have seen a major change to the overall standings after just 1 event.


MOTION 3 OPTION C) The season only rankings (SOR) should not have separate criteria for points but instead should take the points earned at each tournament from those collated for the Order of Merit rankings" (Chris Smith)


Rationale: The Order of Merit rankings are likely to be amended at the AGM with the inclusion of more appearance points for all competitors to encourage greater participation. Therefore, it seems logical to use the Order of Merit ranking points which apart from the appearance element reward skill, being based on the number of strokes behind the winner, by adopting them in their entirety into the SOR.


MOTION 4) Ring fence 5% of entry fees from BMGA strokeplay events across the year (excluding the WCGC – we do not take any part of the entry fees for this event) to build a prize fund for the SOR’s with category leaders and leaders overall getting recognised at the season end. (Sean Homer)


Rationale: if the SOR still exist following the outcome of Motion 3 then this would give an added incentive for all players across the course of the season. The approx prize fund details would be communicated later in the season with the final details communicated before the final events of the year.




MOTION 5) Revise the order of merit to ensure a wider spread of ranking points throughout the field at any event, as per the attachment entitled “Order Of Merit proposal 220214” (Sean Homer, Mark Wood, Martin Greenhead)


Following discussions at the Players Forum (details of which can be found at it is clear that the rankings play a significant role in encouraging players to get involved in tour events across the season. However it was highlighted that the current system, whilst consistently rewarding the players at the top of the leader board, often fails to allocate enough points to players further down the leader board. This results in very little movement and reward for the majority of participants, notably players in Category 3 and 2 in particular.


There is no proposal to amend the current system of allocating points to an event because it is felt by players that this system works well, i.e. apportioning points in relation to the strength of the field is the best benchmark and that Major/National events should continue to have the current minimum points available to the winner


At present the event winner receives the maximum points available for that event and all other players receive points based on their average score compared to the average score of the winner, based on the following formula:


Ranking points allocated = EP - (ED x (PA-WA)) where EP=Event Points, ED=Event Differential (currently 100), PA=Player’s Average, Winner’s Average


e.g. if an event has 600 points available and the winner has an average of 30 per round, then a player with an average of 31 will receive 500, an average of 32 will receive 400 and anyone with an average of 36 or less will receive no points, other than a single point for attending the event


The current system is felt to have flaws because points are not allocated across a significant number of players, which does not give a positive incentive for players to play in events other than the Majors.


This motion proposes to amend the Event Differential (ED) from 100 to 50. The benefits of this change are as follows:


1.     the proposed system allocates points across a larger range of players’ averages relative to the winner’s average when amending the differential to 50 (from the current 100)


2.     This has the effect of including more players in the allocation of ranking points which will assist in encouraging more players to attend competitions, especially the non Majors/Nationals where fewer points are available


3.     This will result in more movement and changes in player’s rankings and between categories, particularly in Category 2 and 3 where there is little movement currently, except following the Majors/Nationals.  This will in turn result in greater competition and therefore greater participation.


Other values of the Event Differential were considered but 50 was felt to be the optimal value to ensure points rewarded good performances and were not spread across the field too thinly.


A comparison between the current and proposed systems along with full details of the proposals can be found in the document attached to this bulletin (entitled “Order Of Merit proposal 220214”). If the proposed changes are voted in, they will be retrospectively applied to the 2014 Star City Open results.


MOTION 6) Remove the Players Championship from the Order of Merit rankings (Michael Smith):


Rationale: The Players Championship is a brilliant event. But the Order of Merit should feature only PURE strokeplay events where all players play the same number of rounds.


MOTION 7) Remove the World Crazy Golf Championship from the Order of Merit rankings (Michael Smith):


Rationale: The World Crazy Golf Championship is a very special event. But it should not count to the Order of Merit as it is a one ball tournament, and the ball used, unlike in the Kent Open, is not a minigolf ball. Bearing in mind Great Britain national teams for European competitions, which are held on courses where players use 12-18 different balls per round, are picked mainly on the rankings, it is not right that the World Crazy Golf Championship carries minigolf ranking points.


BMGA Chairman Sean Homer comments: The event has always qualified under the criteria to be a BMGA ranking event which is why as a 2 day competition (and as such carries the title of BMGA Major) it carries ranking points for participants. The World Crazy Golf Championship provides possibly one of the best chances for any player to earn ranking points (within the existing and also the proposed changes to the rankings in Motion 5) and by removing them would result in a lack of opportunity for a large proportion of our players to attain any significant points in the season.


The onus on any changes to date (including the proposed changes to the rankings for the 2014 season) has always been to ensure more players get rewarded for their relative performance in events and see increased opportunities to move up the rankings (something that came across strongly in the Players Forum). Removing the WCGC from the rankings does not support this overall aim. The question of team selection is covered in motion 8.




There was a motion proposed regarding Introducing a new Order of Merit Strokeplay rankings which will start from January 2015 (Michael Smith). The full details can be found in the attachment at the bottom of this document. As you will see, the proposal involves a total change of the ranking system in both the allocation of points to players as well as how the points for each event are calculated and would take effect next season. Given the potential implementation date, and with the nature of the changes in mind, it will not be part of the motions at the AGM this year. It is important that the proposals are reviewed in detail and as well as having the chance to discuss the idea at the AGM, the most effective and telling way of doing this is for a working party to be set up to implement the system in theory, applying the criteria to the 2014 season so that we get to see how this will work based on the data from the current year.


The proposal and the findings from this work can then be presented back at the start of the 2015 season (ideally at the Players Forum) and in turn raised as a motion at the 2015 AGM for the membership to vote on. If the proposed changes are voted in, they will be retrospectively applied to any events that have take place prior to the 2015 AGM. Given that Michael Smith has raised the idea, and that Mark Wood and Martin Greenhead have already done work looking at the rankings (see motion 5), it makes sense that these three tour pros make up the work party. Presuming all parties are happy to work on the project, this can be agreed at the AGM on March 1.




MOTION 8) Remove wildcards from GB national team selection (Michael Smith)


Rationale: There are two problems with wildcards:


A) There is potentially an issue of bias towards certain players. I'm not suggesting this has happened in the past - though plenty of people have! But it is a potential risk of the current system where one person picks the team.


B) Team selection should not come down to personal opinion. It is very difficult to agree on which players are more worthy to be in the team than other players and there is too much controversy that can be avoided by removing wildcards. To take a hypothetical example: is a former British number 1 who doesn't play much, more or less deserving of a place than someone currently ranked 8 or 9? People can have opinions but it impossible to know who is right. By removing wildcards you remove this controversy and the resentment caused by players who feel they should have been picked.


In addition, by selecting teams based solely on end of year rankings, you are encouraging players to play more events and you are rewarding those players who support the tour. You're also sending a very worthwhile message to everyone: what a player has done in the past is irrelevant and we are picking teams based solely on merit.


BMGA Chairman Sean Homer comments: The top 5 ranked players automatically get selection for the national team(s) for the WAGM, along with the European and World Championships. For the latter two events, if all these players take up their slots, there are 2 wildcard places available. If a player in the top 5 declines the invitation, the selection moves down through the ranked players with the player ranked 6th getting the first shot at taking up the place. If they decline, then the 7th placed player gets the chance, and so on and so forth. The wildcard places, which have been an ever present in the National Team selection gives the selectors the opportunity of offering places to other players outside of the automatic ranking selection places. It is important that the balance within the team is looked at to ensure we get the strongest possible line-up, and the wildcards ensure we are able to draw on players who have the experience and ability to perform in the unique environment that these international competitions dictate.


Rankings are not the only measure of whether a player is right for the tournament. Personal opinion is part of this process and this, along with managing the logistics and support for any team playing in these events, is a key part in the role of the team manager. The key factor here is that we are talking about a National Team and it is vital that all players who take part are able to cope with the demands and pressures that come with these events, and work well together as a group. Experience is a very important part of helping support all the players in any Great Britain team. It is encouraging that we have an ever widening pool of players with international experience but of course this means we are not in a position to select every player who may want to take part in these events. If any player outside of the top ranked players is keen to participate in these events then it is important that they talk to myself and James to ensure they know that this is the case and we will look at ways of giving people the opportunity to e part of the National team. In summary, retaining the wildcards is an important part of the selection process.



All 2014 BMGA Tour Pros are eligible to vote on the motions detailed above, either in person at the AGM on March 1 or via proxy vote, details of how to vote this way is covered after the summary of the motions. Once all the votes have been counted, the majority decision will be passed (in the event of a tied vote, the motion will be rejected)




MOTION 1) introduction of a new category – Cat 4 – for players in their debut season on the tour, with ring fenced prize money / medals in line with the existing Cat 2 & 3 players


  • Vote YES or NO


MOTION 2) Change criteria for players classified as Category 1 and Category 2


  • Vote YES or NO


MOTION 3) Revise the Season Only Rankings


  • VOTE A to scrap the SOR
  • VOTE B to use revised system
  • VOTE C to use Order Of Merit system


MOTION 4) Ring fence 5% of entry fees from BMGA strokeplay events across the year to build a prize fund for the SOR


  • Vote YES or NO


(NB if Motion 3 sees the SOR scrapped then this motion will be rejected).


MOTION 5) Revise the order of merit to ensure a wider spread of ranking points throughout the field at any event


  • Vote YES or NO


MOTION 6) Remove the Players Championship from the Order of Merit rankings


  • Vote YES or NO


MOTION 7) Remove the World Crazy Golf Championship from the Order of Merit rankings


  • Vote YES or NO


MOTION 8) Remove wildcards from GB national team selection


  • Vote YES or NO


2014 Tour Pros that are unable to attend the AGM can vote on these motions via proxy. Votes need to be emailed to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it with the Subject “AGM Proxy Vote”. Votes must be received by 6pm on Friday 28 February. All votes will receive return email confirmation of receipt. A full breakdown of all votes cast via proxy and on the day will be published with the AGM notes.



There were 3 potential motions forwarded that are not being voted on at the AGM. These motions, along with the reasoning behind not raising them at the AGM are as follows:


Motion) The only one ball tournament run by the BMGA (excluding Club Opens) should be the World Crazy Golf Championships (Chris Smith) –


Rationale: One ball tournaments are not typical of BMGA events which require competitors to use skill in both the selection of and playing with a number of different mini golf balls


BMGA Chairman Sean Homer comments: The BMGA are always looking at ways of engaging more players, in particular the general public who play on the courses that we hold tour events on but have not taken the step to take part in one of our events. Limiting the ball selection and having a one ball tournament provides the only way of truly levelling the playing field for these players, making it more appealing in the process. We have held a number of events to encourage the public to take part (including the British Crazy Golf Open) and all of these have been one ball tournaments. These events have seen a number of new members get involved and as such will be part of future development plans for the BMGA. This motion would stop these initiatives and effectively close off this avenue to potential members. The feedback from players at the Players Forum also indicated that there is a lot of interest in one ball events. We currently have a good variety of events on the tour and we should be looking at ways to expand the options available, not reduce them. These are the reasons why this motion is not part of the AGM voting process


Motion) The ball used in the World Crazy Golf Championships should be a heavy mini golf ball similar to the one used in the 2013 Kent Open (Chris Smith)


Rationale: The use of golf balls in such events is contradictory to the BMGA whose guiding principle should be to promote the sport of mini golf and not a variation of golf. In addition, the use of mini golf balls would also encourage more novices to take up the sport as it will demonstrate to them that it is different from golf.


BMGA Chairman Sean Homer comments: There are a number of factors here that need to be highlighted. Firstly, golf balls are actually recognised as official minigolf balls, sanctioned by the WMF. As was mentioned at the Players forum, as positive as it would be to have a true minigolf ball for the event (you only have to look at the impact this has had at the Kent Open in drawing players onto the tour) these require a major financial investment and would require a significant increase to entry fees for example to cover the cost. The BMGA run the event but unlike any other event on the tour, we do not do this alone but work in conjunction with Castle Golf, who put up the substantial prize fund for the event. The funding and future of the World Crazy Golf Championship (WCGC) is something that myself and the course owner are looking at as the event currently is running at a loss and we need to drive a greater revenue for future events to be possible. As such it is not feasible to look at producing a ball such as the Kent Open Ball. The other issue is related to potential sponsors of the event who may well wish to have a branded ball as part of their involvement. As such we cannot restrict the possibilities of what balls may be used without jeopardising our involvement in the event. The event has actually proven to bring players onto our tour rather than put them off, and the single ball event actually encourages new players due to the fact that it provides a level playing field. I don’t honestly think anyone looks at the WCGC and sees any real comparison with golf – it is a unique event and I hope that this will continue going forward. These are the reasons why this motion is not part of the AGM voting process.


Motion) Have a course ball replace the golf ball for the World Crazy Golf Championship (Michael Smith)


Rationale: The golf ball is far too light and turned the 2013 event into a joke. You could argue we were unlucky with the weather. But Hastings in October is always windy and so heavier balls are required. Reason 2: The general public who play the Hastings Crazy course use a course ball. So should we. Reason 3: We are minigolfers, not golfers. How are we ever going to convince new players and Sport England to accept us as a sport in our own right rather than a different version of GOLF if we use a GOLF ball for our most high profile tournament?


BMGA Chairman Sean Homer comments: The conditions on day 2 were challenging to say the least but this would not have been any different if the course balls were used. They are only slightly heavier than the ball that was used in the 2013 event and would have been affected in the same way by the wind. The predominant reason for introducing a ball and moving away from the course ball was due to the unpredictability of the balls, a fact that was highlighted after the 2012 event and also the British Crazy Golf Open by a number of players. The new balls were all identical, have consistent bounce and weight and also provided a nice memento for the players who took part (none of which we had with the course balls from 2012). The introduction of the new ball met with a positive response from players before, during and even after the event despite the extreme wind. The issue raised above regarding sponsorship is also a factor and being prescriptive about what we will and won’t use will not help us as we and Castle Golf aim to move the event forward. New players have always been drawn to the event and it has always proved to be a great opportunity for the BMGA to introduce players to competitive minigolf. Getting Sport England to recognise minigolf as a sport in its own right is an issue that goes far beyond the issues raised here and the type of ball we use at the World Crazy Golf Championship is not going to influence this matter. These are the reasons why this motion is not part of the AGM voting process


Download this file (MOTIONS FOR 2014 AGM.doc)Motions for the 2014 AGM[Downloadable Word document detailing all the information regarding 2014 motions][ ]65 Kb
Download this file (Order Of Merit proposal 220214.doc)Order Of Merit proposal 220214[Document detailing the proposed changes to the Order Of Merit (MOTION 5)][ ]2162 Kb
Download this file (Introduce a new Order of Merit Strokeplay rankings which will start from January)2015 Order of Merit proposal[Document detailing the proposed changes to the Order Of Merit for the 2015 season (NB:not a motion)][ ]25 Kb
Last Updated ( Saturday, 22 February 2014 21:34 )

Previous Events

Sun 02/12/2018
Star City Open 2018

Sun 11/11/2018
Kent Open 2018

Sun 21/10/2018
Club Championships 2018

Sun 07/10/2018
Welsh Open 2018

Sun 16/09/2018
British Open 2018


Log in or register with the BMGA.

Forgot Login?


Who's Online

We have 21 guests online