Legs Man wrote:Most also thought Echunga wouldn't be good enough to win the premiership.
I am not trying to be little the clubs - but am amazed that they didn't take the logical and common sense option availed them.
It seems that a side can start a season disadvantaged, be further disadvantaged during the season, go on to win the comp and be relegated.
Along with presenting more players into the junior competition than some other Central clubs and having great facilities to showcase the game.
You are right with respect to the HFL though and my thoughts have only been endorsed by their decisions this season:
Allocating more points to TV and going back on their initial direction.
Taking a final off Echunga with no reason or logical explanation and gifting it to Mt Barker - with what many note here as very sub standard facilities. (bear in mind this is a decision that effects Echunga financially with lost revenue)
The uneven playing field was created by the league and the league only as the above were not club decisions.
There is no threat being made to other clubs - just the statement that Echunga will follow the direction and legal position they have been advised of.
No doubt any other club in the same situation would do likewise.
Legsman
I think there’s two separate issues you’re raising.
You won’t get much argument from any as to the issue of equity. Most would agree that TV were clearly advantaged during the year with additional points (Chad O’Sullivan anyone?) and permits to enable them to field junior teams.
I agree that this was unfair, but it’s hard to rectify this after the fact.
However the HFL SGM of last night is an entirely different matter.
The 19 HFL Clubs that attended the SGM were not asked to vote on whether Echunga should be in Central Division, or whether Echunga have a right to defend their title, or whether TV should be sent back.
They were simply asked to vote on an interpretation of an existing by-law. Specifically, what does it say, what is its intention, how has it been traditionally implemented and how do Clubs currently interpret it.
On this issue the vote was unequivocal – 16 of the 19 clubs agreed that the by-law’s intention, previous implementation and interpretation were that it was for the minor round only.
Technically, the only 2 clubs that could be accused of voting on ‘self-interest’ are Echunga and Bridgewater as they were the only clubs with anything to lose. The fact that 15 of the other 17 clubs – who would not be impacted by the result of the vote – were adamant that Echunga’s interpretation of the by-laws was incorrect probably tells you something.
Let’s be honest here, if Echunga finished 2 points above TV at the end of the minor round (and were therefore safe from relegation), then lost the first A grade final, while TV won the first B grade final, do you think Echunga would hold a different view on the by-law – of course they would.
It’s up to Echunga what they do next but gathering support for an 11 team comp may be the only solution.
Legal action would be costly and unlikely to be resolved until the end of the next season anyway. All the Clubs have seen the Echunga legal opinion, the fact that it didn’t change anything might give you an insight as to it’s worth.
