by morell » Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:21 am
by Q. » Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:48 am
by morell » Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:01 pm
by Footy Chick » Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:26 pm
Gatt_Weasel wrote:if they (Walkerville) dont win the flag ill run around the block of my street naked :) you can grab a chair and enjoy the view
by morell » Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:31 pm
by heater31 » Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:32 pm
morell wrote:Stuff the registration requirements! Who cares. We've got a spot for a team. A couple in fact. We've got a club which can field a team and wants to play. Whats the problem? Pragmatism pls.
And I have heard of other clubs which did not meet the requirements and are in.
Seems to me, the SAAFL have got a very defined agenda to remove Wingfield from their competitions.
by morell » Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:38 pm
by Yank Man » Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:47 pm
morell wrote:Sure, but that's circular logic. All this about registration requirements and dispensations and what not is a self fulfilling prophecy.
Facts are. There is room for three teams in D7. THREE. We have one ready to go. And were saying no, because of rules, those rules which were originally designed to maintain the integrity of the competition. Those rules are now stopping the improvement to the integrity of the competition
Makes. No. Sense.
by jo172 » Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:49 pm
by morell » Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:59 pm
No I agree, its not the leagues fault entirely, other than they can surely veto this process and instill Winfield into D7 as the rules original intention have not panned out as expected.Yank Man wrote:morell wrote:Sure, but that's circular logic. All this about registration requirements and dispensations and what not is a self fulfilling prophecy.
Facts are. There is room for three teams in D7. THREE. We have one ready to go. And were saying no, because of rules, those rules which were originally designed to maintain the integrity of the competition. Those rules are now stopping the improvement to the integrity of the competition
Makes. No. Sense.
But it's a bit unfair to blame the league. The blame lays with those who voted on these rules some time ago.
Easy fix, every club to have 50 minimum registered players by Feb 15th. That in turn puts all clubs on a level playing field and if clubs can't comply it gives the league time to jump in and help, which I believe they tried to do with Wingies. Time ran out.
Yeah I understand that. The premise behind that though was that there would still be 8 other teams to play against. In D7 we've got 6. Not exactly the same scenario so the "rules" should be thrown out the door and pragmatism put in their place.jo172 wrote:Morell, the clubs voted on the rule due to the frustration caused by the Kilburn situation last year. The premise being that a vast majority of clubs do not want their reserves sides having byes while their A Grade sides play. There are obviously those clubs that disagree. This is what the majority of the League wanted though.
by Sass! » Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:06 pm
by Executive Member » Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:43 pm
jo172 wrote:Morell, the clubs voted on the rule due to the frustration caused by the Kilburn situation last year. The premise being that a vast majority of clubs do not want their reserves sides having byes while their A Grade sides play. There are obviously those clubs that disagree. This is what the majority of the League wanted though.
by Footy Chick » Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:44 pm
Gatt_Weasel wrote:if they (Walkerville) dont win the flag ill run around the block of my street naked :) you can grab a chair and enjoy the view
by morell » Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:49 pm
So then how do nominations, promotions and other such gradings work if the SAAFL have absolutely no say?Executive Member wrote:jo172 wrote:Morell, the clubs voted on the rule due to the frustration caused by the Kilburn situation last year. The premise being that a vast majority of clubs do not want their reserves sides having byes while their A Grade sides play. There are obviously those clubs that disagree. This is what the majority of the League wanted though.
From the SAAFL Constitution
8.13.2 Until otherwise decided by the Delegates all of the powers conferred
upon and exercisable by them as the General Committee pursuant to
these Rules are delegated to and conferred upon the Executive
Committee with the restriction that the Executive Committee shall not
unless expressly authorised by resolution of the Delegates exercise
any powers which would enable it:-
8.13.2.7 To the exclusion of the General Committee determine the number of
grades and the allocation of teams to such grades.
by Executive Member » Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:59 pm
morell wrote:So then how do nominations, promotions and other such gradings work if the SAAFL have absolutely no say?Executive Member wrote:jo172 wrote:Morell, the clubs voted on the rule due to the frustration caused by the Kilburn situation last year. The premise being that a vast majority of clubs do not want their reserves sides having byes while their A Grade sides play. There are obviously those clubs that disagree. This is what the majority of the League wanted though.
From the SAAFL Constitution
8.13.2 Until otherwise decided by the Delegates all of the powers conferred
upon and exercisable by them as the General Committee pursuant to
these Rules are delegated to and conferred upon the Executive
Committee with the restriction that the Executive Committee shall not
unless expressly authorised by resolution of the Delegates exercise
any powers which would enable it:-
8.13.2.7 To the exclusion of the General Committee determine the number of
grades and the allocation of teams to such grades.
But point taken, I get that you can't place teams willy nilly because "the delegates" - hence why I originally said that anyone saying "but the delegates" would get a stern animated GIF.
Bit of flawed system if the league's governing body cant make an executive call for the betterment of the competition without having to have a proverbial red tape bon fire.
by Executive Member » Thu Apr 09, 2015 3:04 pm
morell wrote:So then how do nominations, promotions and other such gradings work if the SAAFL have absolutely no say?Executive Member wrote:jo172 wrote:Morell, the clubs voted on the rule due to the frustration caused by the Kilburn situation last year. The premise being that a vast majority of clubs do not want their reserves sides having byes while their A Grade sides play. There are obviously those clubs that disagree. This is what the majority of the League wanted though.
From the SAAFL Constitution
8.13.2 Until otherwise decided by the Delegates all of the powers conferred
upon and exercisable by them as the General Committee pursuant to
these Rules are delegated to and conferred upon the Executive
Committee with the restriction that the Executive Committee shall not
unless expressly authorised by resolution of the Delegates exercise
any powers which would enable it:-
8.13.2.7 To the exclusion of the General Committee determine the number of
grades and the allocation of teams to such grades.
But point taken, I get that you can't place teams willy nilly because "the delegates" - hence why I originally said that anyone saying "but the delegates" would get a stern animated GIF.
Bit of flawed system if the league's governing body cant make an executive call for the betterment of the competition without having to have a proverbial red tape bon fire.
by morell » Thu Apr 09, 2015 3:08 pm
by morell » Thu Apr 09, 2015 4:01 pm
by Dogwatcher » Thu Apr 09, 2015 4:50 pm
Jim05 wrote:adr107 wrote:BZB27 wrote:So has anyone heard how St Pauls are shaping up? Did they have any trials? Do they have a coach now?
Bloke named Tim Kelso coaching St Pauls apparently. Ex Modbury C's coach...
As in the ex Barossa Districts player?
by Esteban Vihaio » Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:14 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |