Ch9 AFL Division 3 - 2015

[easy TIGA]

A very unreliable little bird reckons that Golden Grove will be taking on the Crows reserves in a trial match.

Can anyone from the Grove please confirm or deny - and if you confirm, please spit out some details.

I'm sure there are plenty of us that want to see Powerhouse take on the Crows

Looks like it is happening. Believe it's on the Wednesday 28th at old footy park. Purely top up players playing 25 man squad. Bit of training before the trial.

[Boosh]

I did hear Seaton have lost a few players

I can do better than that....

Loechel gone to mannum and should be able to afford a nice boat by the end of the $eason to fish on the Murray
Leys the first of many to go to Port Districts who are recruiting very heavily under Clayton
Hynes gone, forgot where he went
As many as ten others from last years As are going or gone to a variety of places but two destinations that will feature in the exodus are Port Districts and North Haven

I'd suggest Seaton won't be hosting two home finals this year

No one at North Haven as yet.

We are playing them in a trial game though so will know how good they are then.

[Flipper]

Cbc are looking for a trial on Friday night 20th March. We have Kilburn oval booked. Either PM me or phone Paul Wadsworth on 0418 858 427 if any teams r interested.

[Fools Gold]

A very unreliable little bird reckons that Golden Grove will be taking on the Crows reserves in a trial match.

Can anyone from the Grove please confirm or deny - and if you confirm, please spit out some details.

I'm sure there are plenty of us that want to see Powerhouse take on the Crows

Looks like it is happening. Believe it's on the Wednesday 28th at old footy park. Purely top up players playing 25 man squad. Bit of training before the trial.

Game is tonight at 6.30 for those interested.

[carey]

Been informed that Salisbury West need 55 registered players by Mid February. That part sounds fair enough BUT, They have also been told that anyone over 32 who hasn't played for the club the last 2 years will not be counted in the 55 players. That's pretty tough, I know of a couple of blokes who had retired but were going to play again in the clubs time of need, Seems a little unfair.

Or am I wrong in thinking that?

[heater31]

Been informed that Salisbury West need 55 registered players by Mid February. That part sounds fair enough BUT, They have also been told that anyone over 32 who hasn't played for the club the last 2 years will not be counted in the 55 players. That's pretty tough, I know of a couple of blokes who had retired but were going to play again in the clubs time of need, Seems a little unfair.

Or am I wrong in thinking that?

No, it stops the clubs naming 55 year old blokes with no intention of playing....

[carey]

Been informed that Salisbury West need 55 registered players by Mid February. That part sounds fair enough BUT, They have also been told that anyone over 32 who hasn't played for the club the last 2 years will not be counted in the 55 players. That's pretty tough, I know of a couple of blokes who had retired but were going to play again in the clubs time of need, Seems a little unfair.

Or am I wrong in thinking that?

No, it stops the clubs naming 55 year old blokes with no intention of playing....

Yes Granted and that should be the case but where do you draw the line?

I know there is far from any love on here for Salisbury West But there is 2 blokes I know of who are 35 and 36 who were going to play again to 'help the club out' but have been told they wont count in the 55. To me that's unfair, And to the blokes credit they are still going to play anyone.

[Cohiba]

Been informed that Salisbury West need 55 registered players by Mid February. That part sounds fair enough BUT, They have also been told that anyone over 32 who hasn't played for the club the last 2 years will not be counted in the 55 players. That's pretty tough, I know of a couple of blokes who had retired but were going to play again in the clubs time of need, Seems a little unfair.

Or am I wrong in thinking that?

No, it stops the clubs naming 55 year old blokes with no intention of playing....

Yes Granted and that should be the case but where do you draw the line?

I know there is far from any love on here for Salisbury West But there is 2 blokes I know of who are 35 and 36 who were going to play again to 'help the club out' but have been told they wont count in the 55. To me that's unfair, And to the blokes credit they are still going to play anyone.

If that's what it takes I agree.... As long as "all" the players regardless of age commit to season for the future of the Club let them have a crack.......But, on the clear understanding that.....if either one or both teams forfeit a "single" match throughout the year due to lack of numbers (for any reason).... they're done......

Their predicament is of their own making and as such has consequences.....The ball is and should be squarely in SW's court to be on the up and up that they register players that are going to play football in 2015 at the very least.

[Mr Beefy]

Been informed that Salisbury West need 55 registered players by Mid February. That part sounds fair enough BUT, They have also been told that anyone over 32 who hasn't played for the club the last 2 years will not be counted in the 55 players. That's pretty tough, I know of a couple of blokes who had retired but were going to play again in the clubs time of need, Seems a little unfair.

Or am I wrong in thinking that?

No, it stops the clubs naming 55 year old blokes with no intention of playing....

Yes Granted and that should be the case but where do you draw the line?

I know there is far from any love on here for Salisbury West But there is 2 blokes I know of who are 35 and 36 who were going to play again to 'help the club out' but have been told they wont count in the 55. To me that's unfair, And to the blokes credit they are still going to play anyone.

If that's what it takes I agree.... As long as "all" the players regardless of age commit to season for the future of the Club let them have a crack.......But, on the clear understanding that.....if either one or both teams forfeit a "single" match throughout the year due to lack of numbers (for any reason).... they're done......

Their predicament is of their own making and as such has consequences.....The ball is and should be squarely in SW's court to be on the up and up that they register players that are going to play football in 2015 at the very least.

Dont the rules state 3 forfeits, not 1, and then the league can take action against a club?

[Cohiba]

I understand that to be case Beefy.......

Notwithstanding......My response regarding a "single" forfeit was deliberate and made specifically applicable only to Salisbury West given they themselves have created a situation which puts their future in jeopardy.

Their registration to remain in SAAFL has been made conditional as outlined by Carey (assuming of course it is as he stated)....It appears one of those conditions is an "age cap" so to speak. Perhaps this was imposed to limit the opportunity to exploit the "numbers" with some skulduggery as suggested could happen by Heater 31.

My viewpoint is it would be in their interests to ensure that each registration is a genuine footballer committed to play for season 2015 by being aware they are on notice.....that a single (1) forfeit (not 3) by either one or both senior sides .....and its "over" for 2015....The stakes are high so time to see how much they want it because half measures won't cut it IMO.

[marbles]

groves played the crows i heard? any scores?

[BurraBoys]

groves played the crows i heard? any scores?

Got our arse kicked lol. Seriously though, it was a great opportunity to be exposed to a higher level. Irrespective of score we were happy with performance. Won an even share of contested ball and stuck to the game plan well. Just a case of turnovers and speed of transition that they really made us pay. Just getting to warm up in 'the shed' and play on footy park was great.

[Look Good In Leather]

I understand that to be case Beefy.......

Notwithstanding......My response regarding a "single" forfeit was deliberate and made specifically applicable only to Salisbury West given they themselves have created a situation which puts their future in jeopardy.

Their registration to remain in SAAFL has been made conditional as outlined by Carey (assuming of course it is as he stated)....It appears one of those conditions is an "age cap" so to speak. Perhaps this was imposed to limit the opportunity to exploit the "numbers" with some skulduggery as suggested could happen by Heater 31.

My viewpoint is it would be in their interests to ensure that each registration is a genuine footballer committed to play for season 2015 by being aware they are on notice.....that a single (1) forfeit (not 3) by either one or both senior sides .....and its "over" for 2015....The stakes are high so time to see how much they want it because half measures won't cut it IMO.

the anti-CDFA bias continues

those conditions would never be considered if it was an old scholars bloc club

[Cohiba]

I understand that to be case Beefy.......

Notwithstanding......My response regarding a "single" forfeit was deliberate and made specifically applicable only to Salisbury West given they themselves have created a situation which puts their future in jeopardy.

Their registration to remain in SAAFL has been made conditional as outlined by Carey (assuming of course it is as he stated)....It appears one of those conditions is an "age cap" so to speak. Perhaps this was imposed to limit the opportunity to exploit the "numbers" with some skulduggery as suggested could happen by Heater 31.

My viewpoint is it would be in their interests to ensure that each registration is a genuine footballer committed to play for season 2015 by being aware they are on notice.....that a single (1) forfeit (not 3) by either one or both senior sides .....and its "over" for 2015....The stakes are high so time to see how much they want it because half measures won't cut it IMO.

the anti-CDFA bias continues

those conditions would never be considered if it was an old scholars bloc club

Bias!!........ you either sincere or pulling my leg.......seriously!!!............ and regarding yours re the "conditions".....Why not?......

[Look Good In Leather]

I understand that to be case Beefy.......

Notwithstanding......My response regarding a "single" forfeit was deliberate and made specifically applicable only to Salisbury West given they themselves have created a situation which puts their future in jeopardy.

Their registration to remain in SAAFL has been made conditional as outlined by Carey (assuming of course it is as he stated)....It appears one of those conditions is an "age cap" so to speak. Perhaps this was imposed to limit the opportunity to exploit the "numbers" with some skulduggery as suggested could happen by Heater 31.

My viewpoint is it would be in their interests to ensure that each registration is a genuine footballer committed to play for season 2015 by being aware they are on notice.....that a single (1) forfeit (not 3) by either one or both senior sides .....and its "over" for 2015....The stakes are high so time to see how much they want it because half measures won't cut it IMO.

the anti-CDFA bias continues

those conditions would never be considered if it was an old scholars bloc club

Bias!!........ you either sincere or pulling my leg.......seriously!!!............ and regarding yours re the "conditions".....Why not?......

Were there "conditions" on Kilburn last year?

[bandar]

I understand that to be case Beefy.......

Notwithstanding......My response regarding a "single" forfeit was deliberate and made specifically applicable only to Salisbury West given they themselves have created a situation which puts their future in jeopardy.

Their registration to remain in SAAFL has been made conditional as outlined by Carey (assuming of course it is as he stated)....It appears one of those conditions is an "age cap" so to speak. Perhaps this was imposed to limit the opportunity to exploit the "numbers" with some skulduggery as suggested could happen by Heater 31.

My viewpoint is it would be in their interests to ensure that each registration is a genuine footballer committed to play for season 2015 by being aware they are on notice.....that a single (1) forfeit (not 3) by either one or both senior sides .....and its "over" for 2015....The stakes are high so time to see how much they want it because half measures won't cut it IMO.

the anti-CDFA bias continues

those conditions would never be considered if it was an old scholars bloc club

Bias!!........ you either sincere or pulling my leg.......seriously!!!............ and regarding yours re the "conditions".....Why not?......

Were there "conditions" on Kilburn last year?

I think last year might be why the conditions exist.

[Cohiba]

I understand that to be case Beefy.......

Notwithstanding......My response regarding a "single" forfeit was deliberate and made specifically applicable only to Salisbury West given they themselves have created a situation which puts their future in jeopardy.

Their registration to remain in SAAFL has been made conditional as outlined by Carey (assuming of course it is as he stated)....It appears one of those conditions is an "age cap" so to speak. Perhaps this was imposed to limit the opportunity to exploit the "numbers" with some skulduggery as suggested could happen by Heater 31.

My viewpoint is it would be in their interests to ensure that each registration is a genuine footballer committed to play for season 2015 by being aware they are on notice.....that a single (1) forfeit (not 3) by either one or both senior sides .....and its "over" for 2015....The stakes are high so time to see how much they want it because half measures won't cut it IMO.

the anti-CDFA bias continues

those conditions would never be considered if it was an old scholars bloc club

Bias!!........ you either sincere or pulling my leg.......seriously!!!............ and regarding yours re the "conditions".....Why not?......

Were there "conditions" on Kilburn last year?

Don't know.....were there?.......

[Footy Chick]

Right o, I've made inquires and it seems that there's nothing like a game of Chinese whispers to pass the off season.

For clarity, there was a generic Email that went to 4 clubs - who are all in the same boat, which read something to the effect of:

1. The XYZ Football Club will be required to provide a list of 50 players specifically detailing their most two (2) recent playing seasons by no later than February 15 2015
2. a pre-requisite is each player having played a minimum of four matches in season 2013 and or 2014 in an affiliated league of the Australian Football League.

So there’s no mention of 55 players and there’s certainly no mention of an age limit. If the Salisbury West FC is telling people the league has told them that anyone over 32 won’t be considered part of the 50, then they have manufactured that to get the sympathy vote...

That is all. There’s nothing onerous about this and more to the point, these conditions were generated by the clubs who fell victim to forfeits from opposition clubs in Division 3, 6 & 7 last year.

The League (and most people, you'd think) would have to be pretty accepting that C & or D grades forfeit at various time in the year but the clubs voted with their feet that the minimum must be 2 teams EVERY Saturday and if not you’re out.

[Lightning McQueen]

Been informed that Salisbury West need 55 registered players by Mid February. That part sounds fair enough BUT, They have also been told that anyone over 32 who hasn't played for the club the last 2 years will not be counted in the 55 players. That's pretty tough, I know of a couple of blokes who had retired but were going to play again in the clubs time of need, Seems a little unfair.

Or am I wrong in thinking that?

I've heard the numbers are very grim atm, I hope I'm wrong, Blondie would be a strong disciplinarian and would have the balls to confront spectators or players that step out of line, not that there lies the current problem.
Fingers crossed that a proud club can stay alive, they aren't the first club to suffer a mass exodus and wont be the last, hopefully they can do enough to at least exist for the time being and begin a rebuilding process.

[Look Good In Leather]

Right o, I've made inquires and it seems that there's nothing like a game of Chinese whispers to pass the off season.

For clarity, there was a generic Email that went to 4 clubs - who are all in the same boat, which read something to the effect of:

1. The XYZ Football Club will be required to provide a list of 50 players specifically detailing their most two (2) recent playing seasons by no later than February 15 2015
2. a pre-requisite is each player having played a minimum of four matches in season 2013 and or 2014 in an affiliated league of the Australian Football League.

So there’s no mention of 55 players and there’s certainly no mention of an age limit. If the Salisbury West FC is telling people the league has told them that anyone over 32 won’t be considered part of the 50, then they have manufactured that to get the sympathy vote...

That is all. There’s nothing onerous about this and more to the point, these conditions were generated by the clubs who fell victim to forfeits from opposition clubs in Division 3, 6 & 7 last year.

The League (and most people, you'd think) would have to be pretty accepting that C & or D grades forfeit at various time in the year but the clubs voted with their feet that the minimum must be 2 teams EVERY Saturday and if not you’re out.

Does that mean Wingfield Royals will be forced to field a B-Grade or else fold, not even a C-Grade division option?