Kilburn Stripped

[Footy Chick]

Too bad you're shitehouse posts on this page counteract the above..

Sorry but feel the need to side with the green man here - NO WHERE has he complained or sooked.

You, FE, in your wording of your previous immature attacks seem to believe that it is Shrek himself that stuffed it up.

Perhaps research previous posts instead of having random cracks from behind a bloody keyboard. It is you sir, that appears to be carrying on like a child.

[Scouser]

So let me get this right.

A kid, 18 years old, straight out of school, who may have moved from the country to the city for year 12, will potentially be allocated points if playing for his old scholars team?

[FOURTH ESTATE]

For those wanting the full story on how the APPS came in to the SAAFL read on:


The system was brought in by the Community Football League as a way of controlling player payments as the salary cap was considered an abject failure.

The league was in a two-year trial phase 2010-11 when the CFL demanded that we adopt it in its entirety as of 2011. A meeting as held at Thebarton by the league in conjunction with the CFL in which all clubs where in attendance. A vigorous and robust debate took place on the merits and short fallings of the system. The clubs were advised by CFL General Manager Glen Rosser that if they did not join the system all of the SAAFL’s players could be picked up by other leagues for zero pts which was endorsed by the representatives of the Barossa & Hills leagues in attendance who advised that a lot of country clubs were waiting for the opportunity to raid the SAAFL with big cheque books.

A need for controlling player payments is needed to ensure the survival of clubs and the league but the APPS has too many flaws in it to be universal. It was originally designed for country leagues and when forced upon the SAAFL was not modified to suit our requirements. Each league is different and has it’s own set of requirements in which it needs to operate under. One system does not suit all. Already minor changes have been made by the delegates - league to suit our selves but these have been slow in coming.

The delegates were bluffed into joining the system under the coercion of losing players to the cashed up country clubs.

What the Board and Delegates of the SAAFL should do is form a working committee of knowledgeable members across the league from all grades who then can present their own version to the CFL of the SAAFL’s APPS which would allow all clubs to be a on a fair and reasonable footing in the regards to recruiting and player retention and not be hamstrung by the restrictions that they are currently placed under.


Funny thou the club that led the way and pushed it the most by their President/Chairman are the ones that have stuffed up the biggest. (Karma I suppose)

We would not have lost players more then usual if they were on the CFL club contract they would have been going no where. This system needed to be fixed properly before we joined but the delegtes ran scared by the scaring mongering of the CFL and outside leagues.

[turbo182]

Too bad you're shitehouse posts on this page counteract the above..

Sorry but feel the need to side with the green man here - NO WHERE has he complained or sooked.

You, FE, in your wording of your previous immature attacks seem to believe that it is Shrek himself that stuffed it up.

Perhaps research previous posts instead of having random cracks from behind a bloody keyboard. It is you sir, that appears to be carrying on like a child.

Your*

Agreed. Seems quite contrite in the fact his club stuffed up and are copping it on the chin.

If anything this emphasises the importance of an A Grade team manager/Someone inputting the teams with due-car/dilligence. At SMOSH we're lucky enough to have a couple of Club legends who have been doing it for years, but I imagine some other clubs may not be as lucky.


In on-field news: Rumour has it the old Battle-tank Simon Quinn may be back this week...!

[Jimmy_041]

For those wanting the full story on how the APPS came in to the SAAFL read on:


The system was brought in by the Community Football League as a way of controlling player payments as the salary cap was considered an abject failure.

The league was in a two-year trial phase 2010-11 when the CFL demanded that we adopt it in its entirety as of 2011. A meeting as held at Thebarton by the league in conjunction with the CFL in which all clubs where in attendance. A vigorous and robust debate took place on the merits and short fallings of the system. The clubs were advised by CFL General Manager Glen Rosser that if they did not join the system all of the SAAFL’s players could be picked up by other leagues for zero pts which was endorsed by the representatives of the Barossa & Hills leagues in attendance who advised that a lot of country clubs were waiting for the opportunity to raid the SAAFL with big cheque books.

A need for controlling player payments is needed to ensure the survival of clubs and the league but the APPS has too many flaws in it to be universal. It was originally designed for country leagues and when forced upon the SAAFL was not modified to suit our requirements. Each league is different and has it’s own set of requirements in which it needs to operate under. One system does not suit all. Already minor changes have been made by the delegates - league to suit our selves but these have been slow in coming.

The delegates were bluffed into joining the system under the coercion of losing players to the cashed up country clubs.

What the Board and Delegates of the SAAFL should do is form a working committee of knowledgeable members across the league from all grades who then can present their own version to the CFL of the SAAFL’s APPS which would allow all clubs to be a on a fair and reasonable footing in the regards to recruiting and player retention and not be hamstrung by the restrictions that they are currently placed under.


Funny thou the club that led the way and pushed it the most by their President/Chairman are the ones that have stuffed up the biggest. (Karma I suppose)

We would not have lost players more then usual if they were on the CFL club contract they would have been going no where. This system needed to be fixed properly before we joined but the delegtes ran scared by the scaring mongering of the CFL and outside leagues.

Pretty much sums it up

We dont need a separate committee to review it though
The APPS is part of our rules & regulations and we have a Rules & Regulations Committee with some pretty wise old heads on it representing all facets of the league.
Why cant they can review it and make recommendations to the Executive?

[Footy Follower]

The whisper I heard on the weekend was that PAOC in division 2 have been claiming some of their players as zero points who went to the school for year 12 only, meaning that they did not register the minimum 25 games required to be a zero point. I even heard one player played soccer not football when there at high school.

Now I maybe ignorant here, but to be zero or -1 points, you have had to play 25+ games for the club in previous years or juniors?
If this is the case, does this apply for the college sides? i.e. do they have to play 25 games of college football to be worth zero or -1?

You really shouldn't listen to the girls whispering to you at The Palace - they will tell you anything for another lap dance
None of the A Grade players went to PAC in Year 12 only.
James Admiraal played soccer at school and plays in the Bs, PLUS joined us straight from school so he'd be zero points anyway (Adders - we'd have to be pretty short mate )
Happy to confirm if you can give me a name, but I doubt you'll give one.

Hahaha nice one Jimmy, only reporting what I hear after all that is what this site is all about. I was a bit foggey on the rules for Old Scholars sides. However I still think after a few investigations into some sides, a few clubs may get found out. Not saying yours is one of them though. It is a funny system, currently as it stands I personally could change to 3 different clubs from the one I am at now and be zero points as I played junior footy at one, went to high school at the other, and also have played over 100 games for the third one.
But if I wanted to say try and play A grade at a top notch div 1 side (higher grade than the other 3 clubs) I would be worth 3 points!

Well, that's the difference between us FF, I only report fact on here.......
OK maybe not

BUT - considering you had a crack at my club, AND I know the girl (Yardy Lard) at the Palace that gave you the whisper the other night, and you know I love to dissect and respond, I retort with the following:

"Not saying yours is one of them though" - bull$hit - you were insinuating it and I called your bluff. Name and defend!
"I played junior footy at one" - if you played 25 junior games you would be zero points for them forever. That is where the system works well - rewards the clubs that promote juniors
"went to high school at the other" - did you play 25 games for them? Depends how old you are - very few high schools play footy now. Colleges, Marryatville and AHS as far as I know. I only wish the public school football system was still there so the colleges could regularly play Henley, Plympton, Unley, Norwood/Morialta High etc. I still drink with Norwood and Unley blokes that I played against.
"and also have played over 100 games for the third one" - granted - zero points
add in - which senior side did you first join?

"Not saying yours is one of them" was infact sincere, if you read the order of which I first posted I first insuated your team and then when Pag responded with his well laid out answer regarding the fact that 25+ games must be played at college to be eligible for a zero I then stated "some sides might be in trouble with this" e.g. any one of the old scholar sides.

Secondly, I was simply saying that it is funny that I personally could go to 3 clubs in 3 different divisions to what I play now(2 below and 1 above) and be worth zero. But yet if I say wanted to go to say a Henley in div 1 I would be worth 3 points. My point here is simply that the current system has some bugs! I believe and would think others would too, that players going up divisions i.e. a better standard of footy, should not be penalised or disadvantaged to getting an a grade game because they are worth points.

[scrappy1]

Can kilburn appeal this decision?
Or is this decision final?

[Mr Beefy]

"Not saying yours is one of them" was infact sincere, if you read the order of which I first posted I first insuated your team and then when Pag responded with his well laid out answer regarding the fact that 25+ games must be played at college to be eligible for a zero I then stated "some sides might be in trouble with this" e.g. any one of the old scholar sides.

Where can I find in the rules and regulations that Old Scholars are worth 0 points?

[giffo]

Not sure wether it was in rules&regs or in a newletter but I remember seeing it and it had that any old scolar of ST Michaels could go to SMOSH-West Lakes for 0 points. Don't know how it works when we've had a junior play for us and then play some seniors footy and then decides "recruited" by SMOSH. Could hurt some clubs like Lockleys, Woodville South & Seaton.

[Mr Beefy]

Not sure wether it was in rules&regs or in a newletter but I remember seeing it and it had that any old scolar of ST Michaels could go to SMOSH-West Lakes for 0 points. Don't know how it works when we've had a junior play for us and then play some seniors footy and then decides "recruited" by SMOSH. Could hurt some clubs like Lockleys, Woodville South & Seaton.

Perhaps it was never voted in and the wily old scholar clubs are bluffing their way through. Perhaps the league should investigate all old scholar clubs and allocate points to their old scholars where necessary. I'm sure Jimmy could clarify whether this was ever voted in.

[The Informer]

I do know that Mawson lakes has been told by the league last month that they have no longer got ties with St Pauls anymore and cannot claim players from there.
Which is completely different from the original letter sent to clubs about points.
Gee they should not of changed there name

[Jimmy_041]

The CFL decreed that the definition of "Junior" would apply to schools / old scholars on the same basis as clubs.
They also said that if you play 25 games for both a school and a club, say Scotch and Mitcham, both can claim him as a junior.
Of course that only applies where they started their senior career at another club.

So, for example, given above, a kid leaves Scotch, hasn't played 20 games for Sturt, and decides to play for UM Jets - he's zero points for them as his first senior club. Plays 25 games for them and decides to go to Scotch OC - he's zero points for them, then moves to Mitcham - he's zero points for them.
If he plays anywhere else he's worth points, but he can swap those 3 clubs for the rest of his life.

[Q.]

I do know that Mawson lakes has been told by the league last month that they have no longer got ties with St Pauls anymore and cannot claim players from there.
Which is completely different from the original letter sent to clubs about points.
Gee they should not of changed there name

Changing the club was the best thing to do, so what if you can't access a small number of SPOS players as zero pointers. In a short amount of time the club will have moved through the grades and have junior teams, thanks largely to it's new affiliation.

[The Informer]

I do know that Mawson lakes has been told by the league last month that they have no longer got ties with St Pauls anymore and cannot claim players from there.
Which is completely different from the original letter sent to clubs about points.
Gee they should not of changed there name

Changing the club was the best thing to do, so what if you can't access a small number of SPOS players as zero pointers. In a short amount of time the club will have moved through the grades and have junior teams, thanks largely to it's new affiliation.

I totally agree that moving was in the clubs best interests and the club will continue to grow. All i was asking was what had changed since this from the original letter sent to all clubs

It was confirmed at this meeting that “junior football” will include college matches (eg. If a junior player plays 25 games between the ages of 13 – 18 with Westminster College – then this player can be recruited to Westminster OS Football Club with a player points rating of zero). This ruling will apply for all Old Scholar clubs including Mawson Lakes (St Pauls College), Old Ignatians (St Ignatius & Aquinas College) and Adelaide Lutheran (Lutheran Schools Network).

[Boosh]

Not sure wether it was in rules&regs or in a newletter but I remember seeing it and it had that any old scolar of ST Michaels could go to SMOSH-West Lakes for 0 points. Don't know how it works when we've had a junior play for us and then play some seniors footy and then decides "recruited" by SMOSH. Could hurt some clubs like Lockleys, Woodville South & Seaton.

I would say currently North Haven would have at least 25 Ex St Michaels Students that this rule would apply to so Lockleys etc would have heaps

[Boosh]

What's more a joke there are players in to there 3rd year close to 50 games still carry a point

We have a player worth 2 points that is in his 6th season with the club as the first 5 he played he had 3 shoulder operations and only played 24 games before going out to Port Adelaide then the Adelaide Plains League. But that's the system so we have to live with it.

Why don't you clear this player to another club, then clear him straight back and say that he has previously played 25 games for you? That should knock off a couple of points.

That is an great idea, not sure if it is legal though

Any club want to help us out on this?

[Mr Beefy]

The CFL decreed that the definition of "Junior" would apply to schools / old scholars on the same basis as clubs.
They also said that if you play 25 games for both a school and a club, say Scotch and Mitcham, both can claim him as a junior.
Of course that only applies where they started their senior career at another club.

So, for example, given above, a kid leaves Scotch, hasn't played 20 games for Sturt, and decides to play for UM Jets - he's zero points for them as his first senior club. Plays 25 games for them and decides to go to Scotch OC - he's zero points for them, then moves to Mitcham - he's zero points for them.
If he plays anywhere else he's worth points, but he can swap those 3 clubs for the rest of his life.

Where is this decree you speak of?

[Mr Beefy]

What's more a joke there are players in to there 3rd year close to 50 games still carry a point

We have a player worth 2 points that is in his 6th season with the club as the first 5 he played he had 3 shoulder operations and only played 24 games before going out to Port Adelaide then the Adelaide Plains League. But that's the system so we have to live with it.

Why don't you clear this player to another club, then clear him straight back and say that he has previously played 25 games for you? That should knock off a couple of points.

That is an great idea, not sure if it is legal though

Any club want to help us out on this?

Wouldn't he have to play at least a game for the other club? If so, we will help you out when you play us.

[Jimmy_041]

The CFL decreed that the definition of "Junior" would apply to schools / old scholars on the same basis as clubs.
They also said that if you play 25 games for both a school and a club, say Scotch and Mitcham, both can claim him as a junior.
Of course that only applies where they started their senior career at another club.

So, for example, given above, a kid leaves Scotch, hasn't played 20 games for Sturt, and decides to play for UM Jets - he's zero points for them as his first senior club. Plays 25 games for them and decides to go to Scotch OC - he's zero points for them, then moves to Mitcham - he's zero points for them.
If he plays anywhere else he's worth points, but he can swap those 3 clubs for the rest of his life.

Where is this decree you speak of?

Glen Rosser said it at the meeting - their R&Rs committee had decided it

Remember, its their R&Rs - not ours

[lutz]

The CFL decreed that the definition of "Junior" would apply to schools / old scholars on the same basis as clubs.
They also said that if you play 25 games for both a school and a club, say Scotch and Mitcham, both can claim him as a junior.
Of course that only applies where they started their senior career at another club.

So, for example, given above, a kid leaves Scotch, hasn't played 20 games for Sturt, and decides to play for UM Jets - he's zero points for them as his first senior club. Plays 25 games for them and decides to go to Scotch OC - he's zero points for them, then moves to Mitcham - he's zero points for them.
If he plays anywhere else he's worth points, but he can swap those 3 clubs for the rest of his life.

Where is this decree you speak of?

Glen Rosser said it at the meeting - their R&Rs committee had decided it

Remember, its their R&Rs - not ours

How would the kid be worth 0 points at Mitcham, when he has never played there before in your fact scenario?