Forgive me, I am about to compose a thread that will be of interest to two people, none of which are related to me. It's on my old stomping ground of bowls. 1/

@LeedsCC_News have started a consultation period as to the number of bowls greens they can support in the city. It comes at a time when councils are being asked to cut their cloth so harshly, that the end result is indecent 2/

I understand this. Bowlers will. Problem with the consultation is that it is a numbers game. Reduce by X = Cost saving of Y. It can't easily take in to consideration the health, wellbeing and community "n" in that figure. Bowls is more than 21 shots on a wet Tuesday in Leeds 3/

They have provided a series of figures through the consultation document. One striking one is here, which I have an issue with. Bowls isn't bowls. There is flat green, crown green, short mat, indoor. Leeds is a crown green city. Park greens are as dominant as private clubs 4/

Glasgow is a flat green city. To generally find a good bowls green for flat green, you need a private club environment. It needs constant attention so the quality doesn't impact the game. Part of the challenge of Crown is overcoming the green. It's not a "level playing field" 5/

I've played bowls in both Glasgow and Leeds. I played for two parks clubs in Leeds (and York), but can't remember playing a game in the park in Glasgow. Only private member clubs 6/

Where are the stats for Bradford, Fylde, Bolton, Kirklees. The real hotbeds of Crown Green. Are they comparable % wise with a city/town size against the Leeds numbers? 7/

The other interesting numbers are the amount of bowlers paying green fees in the city. I am assuming this is only those who play for park based clubs. The issue with this metric is that it may not include private club members. Who will play on parks' greens in leagues 8/

So if you remove a green, you will undoubtedly kill a club. Have seen plenty fold when other councils in London where I also used to play (Flat) put a similar approach in. Less clubs = less games in leagues. Which mean less teams to fill with displaced members 9/

So closing a green will in reality reduce the number of bowlers even further. The health benefits will be lost. The contact single adults who rely on the game, will be lost. I can't see the game seeing out this century as it is. Will be harder if we lose clubs now 10/

However, this is all against a backdrop of Libraries closing, school budgets cut, a housing crisis, amenities and services at risk. Keeping a bowls green cut three times a week is, for some, likely to be a luxury compared to saving other things 11/

In my past life of the @LeedsNews Bowls Correspondent, or a county bowler for Yorkshire on the Flat @yorkshirepost. A club member for New Wortley in the park... I saw the importance the game had on the lives of a great many. Not great enough to make it financially viable... 12/

But viable enough so that man and woman you saw hurl bowls from their hip, when you were #c25king/drinking/playing with your kids/walking your dog in the park... had a reason to leave their house a couple of times a week. That's at the heart of this consultation 13/

I am sure there are analysts who can put a price on that, but is worth saving a bowls green in the hope they carry on playing for many more years to come? I think it is! 14/

Thanks as always to @EmmaMBearman for firing a small local, community spark - and best with it all to @LeedsParks as no decision will ever be the right decision 15/