Southern Football League

[helicopterking]

Should be interesting to watch the Sunday 16, s play this year as I believe there are only two teams in the competition! So to help out all the future shoc players those two teams want all the other teams to play Sunday to accomadate them ! Bit of a joke really !!! They better sort it out quick or Brighton and parks will be refunding all the thousands of dollars they have received for registration:0

Brighton with 3 u/16 sides why others have none. Should be good internal trials every week. Unless they cap juniors SFL is finished, a slow painful death which it is already suffering. Do Other leagues cap juniors?

[Down the Hill]

It's actually 2 Under 16 sides HK. We do have 3 Under 14 sides but that is based on the bare number of players to get 3 sides and no kid will miss a game unless unavailable or injured. The SFL introduced Sunday junior footy beyond the Mini's age groups to facilitate those clubs who had excess players or a combination of excess players and lads who couldn't play regular Saturday footy due to other reasons. Those reasons could be another sport or that they attend a college and are required to play for their school on many Saturday's of the SFL season. Obviously the further South you go the less likely the latter reason is a factor.

The 2 clubs left standing from the Sunday Under 16 have sides made up of nearly all lads that attend Sacred Heart College. These lads can not play regular Saturday footy hence why they will either play Metro South or SFL Sunday if they want a full season of club footy. Most play school footy becasue they are obliged to but the majority enjoy their club footy more because of the greater professionalism, better grounds, facilities etc. It does mean that they are generally stronger sides than the other clubs that have fielded on a Sunday (which are closer to B teams) and we recognise this was a factor in either Flaggies or Reynella in deciding that their numbers coupled with 2 out of every 3 games against MP and BB was counterproductive. And credit to Reynella for now looking to assist Hackham with their Under 16's.

However this leaves about 50 players from 2 clubs potentially without a game of footy other than the 12 or 13 school games most will play. It is mid-April so almost impossible for anyone to find another club and a logistical nighmare for our clubs in refunding subs and other merchandise. That is why we want the clubs to keep an open mind about the potential re-fixturing of the Saturday Under 16 comp to accommodate MP and BB for the sake of the lads themselves. I'm sure some of the clubs would love to play these teams with their "A" teams and try and prove to these lads that the Saturday comp is the real SFL and us and MP would love for our lads to have that challenge put to them. And we are willing to play as many games on a Saturday or a Friday night as is humanly possible. We are not looking for this to be a permanent arrangement and it may cause our clubs and the SFL to re-consider Sunday junior footy beyond Under 14's in the future. Although with 10 Sunday Under 14 teams this year it would seem that a viable Sunday Under 16 comp in 2014 is likely.

But before you go on about capping to prevent clubs from having multiple teams, there are several clubs in the SFL who have 30 plus squads in their Under 18 and Under 16 whilist other clubs are struggling or not fielding teams at all. At least having multiple teams is generally giving every player a game but what about the clubs who just aren't selecting up to 10 players a week. So the capping argument can be extended to many clubs and not just those who are fielding extra teams.

[helicopterking]

It's actually 2 Under 16 sides HK. We do have 3 Under 14 sides but that is based on the bare number of players to get 3 sides and no kid will miss a game unless unavailable or injured. The SFL introduced Sunday junior footy beyond the Mini's age groups to facilitate those clubs who had excess players or a combination of excess players and lads who couldn't play regular Saturday footy due to other reasons. Those reasons could be another sport or that they attend a college and are required to play for their school on many Saturday's of the SFL season. Obviously the further South you go the less likely the latter reason is a factor.

The 2 clubs left standing from the Sunday Under 16 have sides made up of nearly all lads that attend Sacred Heart College. These lads can not play regular Saturday footy hence why they will either play Metro South or SFL Sunday if they want a full season of club footy. Most play school footy becasue they are obliged to but the majority enjoy their club footy more because of the greater professionalism, better grounds, facilities etc. It does mean that they are generally stronger sides than the other clubs that have fielded on a Sunday (which are closer to B teams) and we recognise this was a factor in either Flaggies or Reynella in deciding that their numbers coupled with 2 out of every 3 games against MP and BB was counterproductive. And credit to Reynella for now looking to assist Hackham with their Under 16's.

However this leaves about 50 players from 2 clubs potentially without a game of footy other than the 12 or 13 school games most will play. It is mid-April so almost impossible for anyone to find another club and a logistical nighmare for our clubs in refunding subs and other merchandise. That is why we want the clubs to keep an open mind about the potential re-fixturing of the Saturday Under 16 comp to accommodate MP and BB for the sake of the lads themselves. I'm sure some of the clubs would love to play these teams with their "A" teams and try and prove to these lads that the Saturday comp is the real SFL and us and MP would love for our lads to have that challenge put to them. And we are willing to play as many games on a Saturday or a Friday night as is humanly possible. We are not looking for this to be a permanent arrangement and it may cause our clubs and the SFL to re-consider Sunday junior footy beyond Under 14's in the future. Although with 10 Sunday Under 14 teams this year it would seem that a viable Sunday Under 16 comp in 2014 is likely.

But before you go on about capping to prevent clubs from having multiple teams, there are several clubs in the SFL who have 30 plus squads in their Under 18 and Under 16 whilist other clubs are struggling or not fielding teams at all. At least having multiple teams is generally giving every player a game but what about the clubs who just aren't selecting up to 10 players a week. So the capping argument can be extended to many clubs and not just those who are fielding extra teams.

There wouldn't be to many clubs with excess players tho. But at under 14 level, one side should be enough, spread the kids to neighbouring clubs, so the competition has a full ladder of opposition to play. If kids are 12 or 13, winning is irrelevant. For the future of the comp, it's a must I feel. But I can understand how some clubs would argue it.

[MZ]

Some people still don't get it. BDOS has 3 x U14 sides - say 65-70 kids. Well over half of theses players either play primary school football or college football on Sat mornings.

If Sunday footy wasn't an option in the SFL these kids would be playing at Plympton, PHOS, Goodwood etc. so the sharing of players to MVP, Marion etc would not occur.

Fact: Last year on the eve of the season when BDOS were not allowed a second side in the Sunday comp 25 kids left the club. 15 stopped playing Club footy at all, 9 went to the Metro South comp and 1, thats right, 1 went to another SFL club.

I will conceed that the retention of college kids once they hit the age of 17-18 poses us a complex problem, however, BDOS and MVP are a better chance of them staying on and playing senior footy for our Clubs than if they were playing for PHOS.

[shoe boy]

[quote="Down the Hill"]It's actually 2 Under 16 sides HK. We do have 3 Under 14 sides but that is based on the bare number of players to get 3 sides and no kid will miss a game unless unavailable or injured. The SFL introduced Sunday junior footy beyond the Mini's age groups to facilitate those clubs who had excess players or a combination of excess players and lads who couldn't play regular Saturday footy due to other reasons. Those reasons could be another sport or that they attend a college and are required to play for their school on many Saturday's of the SFL season. Obviously the further South you go the less likely the latter reason is a factor.

NO,DTH
The sunday footy was ONE reason and ONE only, overflow of kids not pampering to college kids that play Sat!!!
Entering the SFL as per constitution SAT footy with 5 games. If you dont like it play amateurs

[vics01]

DTH

I agree with you regarding capping of numbers. It will never work, kids will either play where they want or not at all. I will also have a dramatic effect on under 18 and numbers of kids coming out of 18 football.

The Sunday comp. commenced to allow the overflow of kids at the time to get a game on Sunday's. My club at the time was a big supporter of this concept. It was meant for the overflow from Saturday football.. Unfortunately in the last few years it has been hijacked with some running A teams against inferior 2nd teams and blowiing the trumpet about their junior programs, which are not really a program at all.. As has been discussed on this site previuosly some are not even attempting to field Saturday sides at all. Sunday footy was about developing kids who otherwise were more likley to miss selection on a Saturday.

SFL rules state the first side must be entered on a Saturday the 2nd side can then be entered on a Sunday. Some are rorting this rule. While I have some sympathy for you guys DTH I have none for the other lot..

I for one do not see why the Saturday comp should be hijacked by clubs fielding sunday teams, either support the league and play Saturday football or enter sides in the MSFL/MSWFL.

DTH you and I have discussed this on many occassion. Maybe the kids need to stand up or more likkely the parents to the college system and say NO, play mid week and let us play club on weekend, As we saw a week or so again in the media it is impacting at SANFL under 18 level now. SANFL/SFL and other leagues also need to go into bat for club junior sport. After all the clubs develop the kids, then they get taken at secondary level and claimed as school boy champions.
after all at the end of the day school footy is pretty average outside the top couple.

Easy fix play the GF round 1 between BDOS and MPFC as will be after 16 rounds in any case let the clubs boast about what really has become a 2 horse race comp. and send the kids back to school.

[Axle Rose]

Havent been on for a while, but am I reading this right? Two clubs in a 15 club competition, want the league to consider changing the saturday comp to a sunday/friday night timeslot to accomodate their players who are committed to playing college football on a saturday?? That is the most absurd thing ive ever heard.
Colleges have a set criteria. If this affects a club enough to want to change the makeup of a whole competition, then perhaps they might be in the wrong competition. I think its fantastic that young college kids want to play club footy, but im pretty sure when these clubs entered the SFL, they would have benn told WE PLAY FOOTY ON SATURDAY. I think they have been more than accomodating by starting a sunday comp for the extra numbers left over from ALL CLUBS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR ABILITY.

[afc9798]

Havent been on for a while, but am I reading this right? Two clubs in a 15 club competition, want the league to consider changing the saturday comp to a sunday/friday night timeslot to accomodate their players who are committed to playing college football on a saturday?? That is the most absurd thing ive ever heard.
Colleges have a set criteria. If this affects a club enough to want to change the makeup of a whole competition, then perhaps they might be in the wrong competition. I think its fantastic that young college kids want to play club footy, but im pretty sure when these clubs entered the SFL, they would have benn told WE PLAY FOOTY ON SATURDAY. I think they have been more than accomodating by starting a sunday comp for the extra numbers left over from ALL CLUBS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR ABILITY.

Personally, I think one of the biggest attractions of the SFL is the Saturday comp, providing a whole day of footy from 14's up. Exactly as it is in country footy. You turn up, your kids might play 14's or 16's and then you can stay on, help out a bit and watch some good footy culminating in the A Grade.

To me, it is the colleges that need to pull their heads in and play footy at a different time. Clubs provide the Auskick, mini league etc that attract kids to footy. And many of these clubs develop far better footy cultures than colleges could ever hope to achieve. I would certainly be at odds with most other Brightonites, but will say that my mind has completely swung since my kids started playing at the Vikings.

Of course, each to their own, but the Saturday day of footy, wins me over completely.

[Esteban Vihaio]

The topic of sunday football and the effects of college football on the DTH clubs has been discussed ad nauseum. The same people have the same opinions they had five years ago, myself included. Furthermore, college kids have played saturday football, as is, for longer than I can remember.

[Down the Hill]

Hey guys, last time I checked Brighton has always fielded and will continue to field 5 Saturday teams (with much success) and we covet our Saturday day of footy as much as any other club. But we also want to provide a game of footy for any lad who lives in our immediate area and wants to play for his local club. So AFC9798 you are not at odds with most "Brightonites".

I agree that the whole college footy system seems to be at complete odds with the SANFL down to community level, highlighted by recent articles in the press. The fact that the Glenelg Under 18 team fielded over 60 different players in 2012, mainly due to college football is absurd. This also means that a lad who should be playing most weeks with his local or country club is forced to play for Glenelg more regularly even though he may only be the 30th or 35th picked if all players were available.

[Oldman Munga]

Havent been on for a while, but am I reading this right? Two clubs in a 15 club competition, want the league to consider changing the saturday comp to a sunday/friday night timeslot to accomodate their players who are committed to playing college football on a saturday?? That is the most absurd thing ive ever heard.
Colleges have a set criteria. If this affects a club enough to want to change the makeup of a whole competition, then perhaps they might be in the wrong competition. I think its fantastic that young college kids want to play club footy, but im pretty sure when these clubs entered the SFL, they would have benn told WE PLAY FOOTY ON SATURDAY. I think they have been more than accomodating by starting a sunday comp for the extra numbers left over from ALL CLUBS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR ABILITY.

DTH you wont get to re-invent the wheel on this occasion ,both teams should go play in a league that accommodates their wishes and needs, You got more front than Myers expecting other clubs to deny a Jnr side the opportunity to play at club home games on a Saturday ( Like everyone one else ) so SHC kids can play both days , I'm sure the best of these said teams will still be available for you to stack your Saturday sides come SFL Finals being registered players for SFL Affiliated clubs , Its worked for Edwardstown in the past
THE SFL DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND BDOS FC , Keep telling yourself that Aye ????

[Down the Hill]

You and Shoe Boy still can't get over that Under 18 finals loss to Townies a couple of years back. The same year you rorted the ladder by fooling the SFL about that weird system with premiership points. Talk about re-inventing the wheel yourselves. But that burnt you because it actually gave you a tougher finals draw. Whether a kid goes to college or not if he chooses to play for a Saturday team but only be available when he can play club is no different to a lad who might work every second Saturday or a lad who is in and out of his sanfl side. If he is registered player and qualifies to play finals then good luck to him. Clubs have done it for years and will continue to do it. How can it be deemed stacking when it's your best team for that age group.

.

[Esteban Vihaio]

You have a choice of kids playing in SFL versus not playing or moving to SAAFL clubs.
- one choice increases player numbers, income (fees / canteen / bar) and strength of clubs and league and participation
- the other does the opposite and alienates more clubs which potentially adds to the llist of clubs who have left SFL over the past 15 years.

With minds like this at work, you'd be eligible to run the SFL.

[vics01]

How does the SFL now re-configure the under 16 draw to allow the entry of 2 Sunday sides to the Saturday comp.?

Will clubs be prepared to give up home games to facillitate a Friday night or sunday game as stand alone for their 16 sides?

[vics01]

DTH
I agree that the whole college footy system seems to be at complete odds with the SANFL down to community level, highlighted by recent articles in the press. The fact that the Glenelg Under 18 team fielded over 60 different players in 2012, mainly due to college football is absurd. This also means that a lad who should be playing most weeks with his local or country club is forced to play for Glenelg more regularly even though he may only be the 30th or 35th picked if all players were available.

Makes a mockery of the SANFL Junior Football Excellence.

[Esteban Vihaio]

I note the SAAFL's reaction to a situation in Div 6 where TTG C Grade were beat consecutively by 47 goals. Contrast this to the SFL action on resolving parity issues.

Afternoon all. I’m presuming you are well aware of the difficulties the Tea Tree Gully C grade are facing at the minute being best demonstrated by the magnitude of the losses from their first two matches. In Round 1 they were defeated by Mitchell Park by 47 goals and in Round 2 another 47 goal loss at the hands of Colonel Light Gardens.
Clearly this type of score line is not a good advertisement for The League or is it something we expect the players from the TTGFC who participate purely for enjoyment to endure so we are taking steps to allow for a more competitive match for all.
We accept changing course “mid-stream” is not ideal and it would be easy for some to suggest we could’ve or should’ve taken steps to address this concern earlier. That said, as a league we have tremendous faith in the promotion and relegation system that has served as so well for as long as our existence and regard it as the most objective platform to enable teams to be drawn in their most suited competition. However, we also accept that in the most extreme circumstances and in the best interests of football and The League, we may need to make some irregular decisions as we have now.
In turn we are removing Tea Tree Gully from the Division 6 competition and re-drawn in the Division 8 competition and make the following assertions.

1. Division 6: The competition will now be a 9 team competition with a bye

2. Division 6: The results from the first two rounds will be null and void and recorded as a bye

3. Division 6: Player statistics such as games played and goals kicked are retained by the individual player

4. Division 6: Goals kicked and association Best & Fairest votes will not be included in the final tally

5. Division 8: The competition will now be a 10 team competition

6. Division 8: The 2 teams in the competition who recorded a bye in the first 2 weeks will now be credited with a forfeit.

7. Adjustments are being made to Footyweb and will be completed by C.O.B Wednesday the 17th.

8. Golden Grove Division 8 team will play Tea Tree Gully at Golden Grove on Saturday the 20th of April

Clearly we are hoping you will understand and accept the reasoning we have taken these steps as being in the best interests of The League in general.

[fathersonsfl]

I note the SAAFL's reaction to a situation in Div 6 where TTG C Grade were beat consecutively by 47 goals. Contrast this to the SFL action on resolving parity issues.

Afternoon all. I’m presuming you are well aware of the difficulties the Tea Tree Gully C grade are facing at the minute being best demonstrated by the magnitude of the losses from their first two matches. In Round 1 they were defeated by Mitchell Park by 47 goals and in Round 2 another 47 goal loss at the hands of Colonel Light Gardens.
Clearly this type of score line is not a good advertisement for The League or is it something we expect the players from the TTGFC who participate purely for enjoyment to endure so we are taking steps to allow for a more competitive match for all.
We accept changing course “mid-stream” is not ideal and it would be easy for some to suggest we could’ve or should’ve taken steps to address this concern earlier. That said, as a league we have tremendous faith in the promotion and relegation system that has served as so well for as long as our existence and regard it as the most objective platform to enable teams to be drawn in their most suited competition. However, we also accept that in the most extreme circumstances and in the best interests of football and The League, we may need to make some irregular decisions as we have now.
In turn we are removing Tea Tree Gully from the Division 6 competition and re-drawn in the Division 8 competition and make the following assertions.

1. Division 6: The competition will now be a 9 team competition with a bye

2. Division 6: The results from the first two rounds will be null and void and recorded as a bye

3. Division 6: Player statistics such as games played and goals kicked are retained by the individual player

4. Division 6: Goals kicked and association Best & Fairest votes will not be included in the final tally

5. Division 8: The competition will now be a 10 team competition

6. Division 8: The 2 teams in the competition who recorded a bye in the first 2 weeks will now be credited with a forfeit.

7. Adjustments are being made to Footyweb and will be completed by C.O.B Wednesday the 17th.

8. Golden Grove Division 8 team will play Tea Tree Gully at Golden Grove on Saturday the 20th of April

Clearly we are hoping you will understand and accept the reasoning we have taken these steps as being in the best interests of The League in general.

Well done to the SAAFL. They have shown both common sense and had the balls to make a decision. SFL hierarchy please take note.

[lion heart]

Well done to the SAAFL. They have shown both common sense and had the balls to make a decision. SFL hierarchy please take note.

The SAAFL have taken 2 weeks to make a clear decision which is in the competitions best interest's, meanwhile the SFL has sat on its hands for 12 years and counting. What happened to the future directions committee, have any decent recommendations or options come from the findings? Of course not and i wonder why..... What else did we expect when a driving force behind 1 division was put in charge of the FDC 12 years later? Did we expect or want any different or was the FDC simply put together to quell the masses? Why did we not look for some outside perspective - what a novel idea that would have been.

As a person who loves my club and the SFL i find this infuriating. The SFL has stagnated while other leagues move forward. 15 years ago the SFL was the premier league in S.A. and now we are a long long way behind GSFL and a few others.

It is blatantly obvious some heads need to roll within the SFL 'boys club' in order for some action to take place. It may seem harsh to tap a long serving member on the shoulder but if they are affecting the health of our competition tough decisions must be made. The SFL unquestionably has some great members but it's time to clear the dead wood and look toward the future with a clear and concise plan in place. It is by no means an easy job, but the leagues existence depends on it. Stop the rot and make it happen.

[afc9798]

.

Well done to the SAAFL. They have shown both common sense and had the balls to make a decision. SFL hierarchy please take note.

Seconded. Amazing how some proactivity can get things done.

[shoe boy]

Well done to the SAAFL. They have shown both common sense and had the balls to make a decision. SFL hierarchy please take note.

The SAAFL have taken 2 weeks to make a clear decision which is in the competitions best interest's, meanwhile the SFL has sat on its hands for 12 years and counting. What happened to the future directions committee, have any decent recommendations or options come from the findings? Of course not and i wonder why..... What else did we expect when a driving force behind 1 division was put in charge of the FDC 12 years later? Did we expect or want any different or was the FDC simply put together to quell the masses? Why did we not look for some outside perspective - what a novel idea that would have been.

As a person who loves my club and the SFL i find this infuriating. The SFL has stagnated while other leagues move forward. 15 years ago the SFL was the premier league in S.A. and now we are a long long way behind GSFL and a few others.

It is blatantly obvious some heads need to roll within the SFL 'boys club' in order for some action to take place. It may seem harsh to tap a long serving member on the shoulder but if they are affecting the health of our competition tough decisions must be made. The SFL unquestionably has some great members but it's time to clear the dead wood and look toward the future with a clear and concise plan in place. It is by no means an easy job, but the leagues existence depends on it. Stop the rot and make it happen.