SA Footy

who are we kidding...
the facilities across the league are terrible!!!!!

there are very few clubs who could confidently boast that their facilities are remotely close to satisfactory.

it is the elephant in the room that no one wishes to discuss....

lovethefooty wrote:who are we kidding...
the facilities across the league are terrible!!!!!

there are very few clubs who could confidently boast that their facilities are remotely close to satisfactory.

it is the elephant in the room that no one wishes to discuss....

I know I rabbit on about this - BUT:

How can you make a broad statement like that and call Echunga's facilities terrible?
2 ovals (both flat)
Main oval - SANFL standard lighting, SANFL standard goal posts, nets behind goals, great drainage, surface curated by golf club, correct size.
Second oval - good surface, great warm up area, junior size.
Elevated viewing mound, ample parking, change-rooms that are adequate, good bar facilities with great local wines, 2 x food outlets.

Uraidla, Onkas, Lobey & Hahndorf are all of reasonable to good standard also.

TV - absolutely woeful and not of a standard for Central.
Bridgey - facilities are sub par with a bar facility that is disgusting. Callington change-rooms are a disgrace.
Ironbank - OK deck but parking, warm up area and size of oval below par.
Mt Barker - well below par in all areas (and the HFL gave them a final WTF! )
Blackwood - bad drainage, below par oval, limited parking.

And what is it with clubs having "child size" goal posts on an adult size oval.

Clubs with below standard facilities / ovals SHOULD NOT be awarded finals matches until they are brought up to an appropriate standard.
This should be used as a lever to ensure the below par clubs are forced to improve.

And - Yes I am passionate about my club!!!

legs man you mount a good argument..
and I don't necessarily disagree with you.

but from what I have seen the clubs in this league seem completely unwilling to spend money on their facilities and making sure they
are of a good standard.

I guess when I think of facilities I don't think of the wines sold at the bar....

lovethefooty wrote:legs man you mount a good argument..
and I don't necessarily disagree with you.

but from what I have seen the clubs in this league seem completely unwilling to spend money on their facilities and making sure they
are of a good standard.

I guess when I think of facilities I don't think of the wines sold at the bar....

Fair call re the wines - but it is an area we put extra effort into with the elevation to Central.
We wanted to show the "nay sayers" that we have spent on our product for supporters and visitors to our club.
At away matches we supported the club we were visiting and showed we wanted to be a part of the Central division comp. (albeit TV as we couldn't get away quick enough)

It is now that we are hoping the clubs value this and vote for us to stay.

Unfortunately some of the clubs don't value the visiting club and present them with what can only be deemed as not appropriate for the top tier competition.

You can see very easily which clubs have pride in what they offer - and don't spend their sponsors and supporters money solely on players.

It is obvious that the offending clubs are habitual offenders in this area so need a shake up by the governing body.

BTW: great article by Pistola in this week's Courier - particularly in respect to his view on the HFL and the way they have a record of continual problems governing the hills football league in many key areas. Good to see he did his research and gained outside opinion from which to base the article.
As an unbiased editorial piece - it hit the mark!

I absolutely agree with you legs man, and pride in your club and all things surrounding is obvious.
I think back to the season just finished and reflect that indeed Echunga would probably be on top of the list in those facets.

I am by no means suggesting any of these fixes are easy or cheap......but important none the less....imo!!!

So did I hear that the fate of echunga is being made tonight??

barrys antz wrote:So did I hear that the fate of echunga is being made tonight??

Correct.

cracka wrote:

barrys antz wrote:So did I hear that the fate of echunga is being made tonight??

Correct.

I'm hearing Bye Bye Echunga

Milly wrote:

cracka wrote:

barrys antz wrote:So did I hear that the fate of echunga is being made tonight??

Correct.

I'm hearing Bye Bye Echunga

I would suggest the threat of the resulting court injunction to stop play whilst this gets sorted will mean that Echunga will not go anywhere.

The by-laws are in place, why now decide to go against them?

Maybe the clubs should vote on their opinions/assumptions of the by-laws (ie, are finals included or not).

I think if it ends up in court, the reasonable person assumption will be used and IMO a reasonable person wouldn't assume finals to be included as it means clubs who don't make finals can't gain any further points.

toot toot wrote:Maybe the clubs should vote on their opinions/assumptions of the by-laws (ie, are finals included or not).

I think if it ends up in court, the reasonable person assumption will be used and IMO a reasonable person wouldn't assume finals to be included as it means clubs who don't make finals can't gain any further points.

One could also argue, that making the finals earns you the right to be eligible to get extra points. Just as making the finals earns you the right to play additional games & the right to have a chance at winning a grand final.
If you don't make finals, you don't get the right to have a crack at a grand final & you don't get a crack at getting additional club points. Just a thought.

You ask anyone who won the grand final for the 2014 season & they will all tell you Echunga. The emphasis on the word season, as it is stated in the by-laws.

The thing that goes against counting finals - is they don't count finals on working out combined games won, when they work out how many points each team gets.

On the bright side Legs Man, at least now you wont have to put up with the woeful, disgusting, disgraceful and below par ovals and facilities that the central division teams all seem to have.

StickyFingers wrote:On the bright side Legs Man, at least now you wont have to put up with the woeful, disgusting, disgraceful and below par ovals and facilities that the central division teams all seem to have.

Does that mean you know what the verdict was tonight sticky?

Shoot it wrote:The thing that goes against counting finals - is they don't count finals on working out combined games won, when they work out how many points each team gets.

They will now.was voted in at a meeting 4 weeks ago.

The vote didn't go Echungas way

StickyFingers wrote:The vote didn't go Echungas way

16-3 apparently.

saintal wrote:

StickyFingers wrote:The vote didn't go Echungas way

16-3 apparently.

Caaaaatttccchhyyyaaaaa Legs man, it's been fun.

Looks like a legal battle is on the cards. Just can't imagine Echunga losing it. If the law does not state that finals are excluded then it will be hard for any judge to rule that Echunga should be relegated.
I know I've said it before but the solution is simple. The clubs should not have been voting on an 11 team comp, they should have been voting on who gets relegated. Fairly sure that would be an easy vote.
Was it a secret ballot or can someone enlighten us on which clubs voted for the 11 team comp?

R. White wrote:Looks like a legal battle is on the cards. Just can't imagine Echunga losing it. If the law does not state that finals are excluded then it will be hard for any judge to rule that Echunga should be relegated.
I know I've said it before but the solution is simple. The clubs should not have been voting on an 11 team comp, they should have been voting on who gets relegated. Fairly sure that would be an easy vote.
Was it a secret ballot or can someone enlighten us on which clubs voted for the 11 team comp?

I believe one of the 3 was Milang. Clutching straws.