SWFC

Adelaide Footy League Talk

Re: SWFC

Postby jo172 » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:43 pm

Booney wrote:
jo172 wrote:What's the over/under on yes votes?

10.5?


Surely no clubs are going to take the risk of hanging themselves out to dry?

I'll take what you're offering on the unders.


Surely there's at least a handful of clubs who feel victimised by AAAs/are believers in the great northern conspiracy.

Hell, there might be a couple who become worried about the precedent of booting clubs out of the League on the basis that they might be next.
jo172
League - Top 5
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 6:00 pm
Has liked: 877 times
Been liked: 558 times

Re: SWFC

Postby marbles » Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:15 am

Div 7 clubs might prefer having SW instead of a 7 team comp and 3 byes
User avatar
marbles
Veteran
 
 
Posts: 3719
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Titan
Has liked: 236 times
Been liked: 231 times

Re: SWFC

Postby carey » Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:26 am

Without any knowledge, What was SW behaviour like during the year? was this a one off incident or were there on going issue throughout the year?

for what its worth I highly doubt any club will vote 'yes' as they wont want to be seen as a club that condones this type of behaviour.
you've gota keep on keep'n on .........
User avatar
carey
Coach
 
 
Posts: 18984
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:20 pm
Location: From a place i shouldn't be.
Has liked: 2110 times
Been liked: 2356 times
Grassroots Team: Paralowie

Re: SWFC

Postby whufc » Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:11 am

jo172 wrote:
Booney wrote:
jo172 wrote:What's the over/under on yes votes?

10.5?


Surely no clubs are going to take the risk of hanging themselves out to dry?

I'll take what you're offering on the unders.


Surely there's at least a handful of clubs who feel victimised by AAAs/are believers in the great northern conspiracy.

Hell, there might be a couple who become worried about the precedent of booting clubs out of the League on the basis that they might be next.


Agree I think most northern clubs show support for one another when backs are against the wall so I would be surprised if Salisbury North, Salisbury, Central United, Eastern Park, Smithfield and Elizabeth voted against SW being allowed back in the competition.
RIP PH408 63notoutforever
User avatar
whufc
Coach
 
 
Posts: 19216
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:56 am
Location: Blakeview
Has liked: 2647 times
Been liked: 1171 times

Re: SWFC

Postby alcho-pop » Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:03 pm

carey wrote:Without any knowledge, What was SW behaviour like during the year? was this a one off incident or were there on going issue throughout the year?

for what its worth I highly doubt any club will vote 'yes' as they wont want to be seen as a club that condones this type of behaviour.


Hopefully this answers your question, 27 games from 4 reports for this one person.

I can’t see the vote being overturned purely on the basis that clubs will go with what the league want. Some club delegates pushing agendas of their own based on grudges from previous dealings as well (PNU v SW bloodbath GF for example) wont help SW’s situation.
Attachments
180C654D-84CD-4FA0-A357-7C6F6AACD9D0.jpeg
180C654D-84CD-4FA0-A357-7C6F6AACD9D0.jpeg (218.23 KiB) Viewed 1218 times
alcho-pop
Member
 
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 1:04 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 2 times

Re: SWFC

Postby Trader » Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:28 pm

What's the formula for the rating?

All other clubs appear to be (Games + Reports) / Teams, however SW would come out at 11, not 8.3?

If you list them at 11, and then everyone else as 6 or lower, it really shows a massive gap and a clear indication that they shouldn't be playing.

If their teams was actually 4, then you get 8.25 (or 8.3 in their chart to 1 DP), and even there, that's a fair wack above the second worst of the 70-odd clubs, let alone the average.
Danny Southern telling Plugga he's fat, I'd like to see that!
User avatar
Trader
League - Best 21
 
Posts: 2482
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 1:19 pm
Has liked: 33 times
Been liked: 310 times

Re: SWFC

Postby jo172 » Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:41 pm

alcho-pop wrote:
carey wrote:Without any knowledge, What was SW behaviour like during the year? was this a one off incident or were there on going issue throughout the year?

for what its worth I highly doubt any club will vote 'yes' as they wont want to be seen as a club that condones this type of behaviour.


Hopefully this answers your question, 27 games from 4 reports for this one person.

I can’t see the vote being overturned purely on the basis that clubs will go with what the league want. Some club delegates pushing agendas of their own based on grudges from previous dealings as well (PNU v SW bloodbath GF for example) wont help SW’s situation.


Grudge is a funny way to describe a dozen assaults.
jo172
League - Top 5
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 6:00 pm
Has liked: 877 times
Been liked: 558 times

Re: SWFC

Postby Footy Chick » Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:01 pm

jo172 wrote:
alcho-pop wrote:
carey wrote:Without any knowledge, What was SW behaviour like during the year? was this a one off incident or were there on going issue throughout the year?

for what its worth I highly doubt any club will vote 'yes' as they wont want to be seen as a club that condones this type of behaviour.


Hopefully this answers your question, 27 games from 4 reports for this one person.

I can’t see the vote being overturned purely on the basis that clubs will go with what the league want. Some club delegates pushing agendas of their own based on grudges from previous dealings as well (PNU v SW bloodbath GF for example) wont help SW’s situation.


Grudge is a funny way to describe a dozen assaults.


A grudge is a place you park your caaaaar :lol:
Don't play games with a girl who can play 'em better...

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
User avatar
Footy Chick
Moderator
 
 
Posts: 24819
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:44 pm
Location: anywhere I want to be...
Has liked: 1238 times
Been liked: 1729 times

Re: SWFC

Postby HH3 » Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:14 pm

Footy Chick wrote:
jo172 wrote:
alcho-pop wrote:
carey wrote:Without any knowledge, What was SW behaviour like during the year? was this a one off incident or were there on going issue throughout the year?

for what its worth I highly doubt any club will vote 'yes' as they wont want to be seen as a club that condones this type of behaviour.


Hopefully this answers your question, 27 games from 4 reports for this one person.

I can’t see the vote being overturned purely on the basis that clubs will go with what the league want. Some club delegates pushing agendas of their own based on grudges from previous dealings as well (PNU v SW bloodbath GF for example) wont help SW’s situation.


Grudge is a funny way to describe a dozen assaults.


A grudge is a place you park your caaaaar :lol:


You've been funny lately. I like it.
2013/14 NFL Tipping Comp Champion
User avatar
HH3
Coach
 
Posts: 11389
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:14 pm
Has liked: 3100 times
Been liked: 2291 times
Grassroots Team: North Haven

Re: SWFC

Postby The Bedge » Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:05 pm

Think people need to remember this isn’t a decision based purely on one player being reported - this is the culmination of year and year of incidents, and an apparent lack of regard or action from the club leading up to this.

In recent memory off the top of my head there was the ruck who got a life ban, 18’s removed from finals, C grade removed from the competition and that’s just in the last few years.

Good luck to them in their efforts to stay afloat, but one would think they’re pushing shit up hill.
If you fall i'll catch you - Floor
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
User avatar
The Bedge
Coach
 
 
Posts: 9575
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 12:28 pm
Has liked: 2358 times
Been liked: 2344 times

Re: SWFC

Postby Trader » Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:54 pm

10 reports and 59 games worth of suspension in the last two years?
Only had the two sides this year too if I'm looking at it correctly.
Danny Southern telling Plugga he's fat, I'd like to see that!
User avatar
Trader
League - Best 21
 
Posts: 2482
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 1:19 pm
Has liked: 33 times
Been liked: 310 times

Re: SWFC

Postby redyellow&blue » Mon Nov 19, 2018 9:03 am

pretty sure 6 or 7 of those reports,and 27 of those matches were against the one person in one match. That would be the Adam Jones incident against trinity this year. that kinda skews the stats but probably works into the narrative certain people want..

not sure off the top of my head, but i reckon since 2014 Salisbury west have been in the tribunal, and been found guilty 3, maybe 4 times..... less then Modbury, PAC, FFC, Henley, and Seaton... but thats off the top of my head. someone correct me if i'm wrong
redyellow&blue
Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:58 pm
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 14 times

Re: SWFC

Postby The Bedge » Mon Nov 19, 2018 9:32 am

"Works into the narrative certain people want.." - give up on the conspiracy theories. :lol: :lol:

Dear all. It is entirely appropriate to offer some relativity in response to any of an email, text or private message via Facebook as copied below from a member of the Salisbury West Football Club. The same communique has prompted attention from Member Clubs as well as some sections of mainstream media with respect to the Salisbury West FC and their appeal to the General Committee to overturn The League Executive’s decision to deny the Salisbury West FC affiliation for season 2019.

The League Executive were hopeful of retaining some control over the information at its disposal that allowed it make the decision it has with a high degree of confidence and in turn discuss “in camera” next Monday Night with its members. It needs to be made very clear that The League’s position is that as a collective, it has endured more than enough publicity over this matter and it is only in response to a member of the Salisbury West FC making it a public issue again and a separate email to some from an official of the SWFC, that The League must respond accordingly.

Whilst self-serving to the argument to re-admit the Salisbury West Football Club to the competition for season 2019, much has been made of Adam Jones and his offences and how that alone has embroiled the Salisbury West FC to this situation.

Adam Jones’ very well publicised offence simply brought the Salisbury West Football Club before The League Executive in response to what was already an ongoing matter for The League. At the completion of the 2017 Season and not for the first time, the Salisbury West FC were made aware of ongoing concerns The League had in their ability to supervise young men playing football and satisfy our very transparent ethos of providing a safe environment for all. As a result of repeated offences over an extended period of time, the Salisbury West FC were placed on the most serious and final of any Amended Affiliation Agreement any club has been subject to and one they agreed to abide by. It is fair to suggest that clubs are not placed on the most serious of AAA for any simple or single reason and nor does the League Executive subject a club to that finality without cause.

Whilst there is a list of offences and concerns, The League has referred to dating as far back as the year 2000, consider these:

A precis of considerations

1. Since the year 2000, Players, officials and or members of the Salisbury West FC have been found guilty of a range of breaches on and off the field totalling 87 in reports and 276 matches worth of suspensions.
2. Whilst there is one other Member Club close to that number who will be addressed in time, those numbers are some 40% higher than the 3rd worst behaved club over the same period.
3. If we make those very specific numbers relative to the last two seasons, representatives from the Salisbury West FC have amassed 10 reports totalling 59 matches.
4. It is safe to assume that 59 matches worth of suspensions is indicative of the seriousness of those offences that have resulted in
a. a Broken Jaw
b. a Broken Nose
c. a depressed fracture of the cheekbone.
5. In the last 2 years, it would need 25 member clubs to amass the same number of reports and more specifically, 37 clubs to accumulate the number of matches suspended in which representatives from the Salisbury West FC have alone.
6. In season 2018, it would need 36 clubs to amass the same number of reports and 51 clubs (75% of clubs) to accumulate the number of matches suspended in which representatives from the Salisbury West FC have alone.
7. In season 2017, the Salisbury West FC made a decision of their own volition to withdraw their U18 team on the eve of a Preliminary Final because they could not guarantee The League that members of their U/18 team could or would adhere to The League’s code of conduct.
8. That at the completion of season 2017 when asked for a reasoning as to why The League should accept their affiliation for season 2018, The Salisbury West FC offered a plagiarised and re-dated letter from 2007 when the then management of the Adelaide Footy League (SAAFL) asked them the same question.
a. The question begs to be asked why we are currently being challenged with the same problems in 2018 when in 2007, the Salisbury West FC offered reasoning as to how they were going to address the concerns of the day to which are still apparent today.

We accept any of those injuries as listed in 4a, 4b, and 4c could occur in a match of football through a clash of heads or any other innocuous type incident considered an accident, accidents that happen in a match of football we all accept have elements of risk playing. But they did not. They were incurred through acts of violence that if the perpetrator initiated these incidents on the street could quite likely spend some time in jail. Whilst not for this forum, the details of how at least one of those incidents were able to happen will be detailed on Monday Night.

The stanza in the letter advising the Salisbury West FC that their application for affiliation had been denied sums the views of the League Executive the most succinctly being:

- “The League believes it has offered the Salisbury West Football Club (SWFC) ample opportunity to implement strategies to address ongoing concerns. Whilst we acknowledge an effort to address member conduct, we are not confident that sufficient change can be effected in the relatively short space of time leading up to the commencement of the 2019 season.”

On behalf of the League Executive, allow me to be very clear. The Salisbury West FC has not been denied affiliation because Adam Jones offended and any suggestion by the Salisbury West FC to divert responsibility to Adam Jones is unfair on him. The League has denied the Salisbury West Football Club affiliation because The Executive of the league has little confidence the Salisbury West FC have the necessary skills and or culture to mitigate the risk of anything similar occurring again and in turn unnecessarily putting others from any other Member Club of The League at risk whether on or off the field, yours included.

Before any club decides to vote in favour of the Salisbury West FC’s motion to have the League Executive’s decision overturned, ask yourself if as a club you are willing to accept the responsibility as a club or individual to speak on behalf of The League next year or even the year after as a result of a member of the Salisbury West FC breaching again and in an incident causing as much poor publicity on The League as those in years past after the League Executive in the role as League Directors have identified a risk in their duty of care to you and your own members.

For and on behalf of The League Executive
If you fall i'll catch you - Floor
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
User avatar
The Bedge
Coach
 
 
Posts: 9575
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 12:28 pm
Has liked: 2358 times
Been liked: 2344 times

Re: SWFC

Postby redyellow&blue » Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:03 am

hmm, based on that email, isn't point 2, 5 and 6 a manipulation of the stats? and it's a tad harsh to be bringing stuff up from over 10 years ago.

when we look at 2014 onwards. i'm quite certain there has been a new committee in place since that time? as i said someone correct meif i'm wrong.
redyellow&blue
Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:58 pm
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 14 times

Re: SWFC

Postby Lightning McQueen » Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:11 am

redyellow&blue wrote:hmm, based on that email, isn't point 2, 5 and 6 a manipulation of the stats? and it's a tad harsh to be bringing stuff up from over 10 years ago.

when we look at 2014 onwards. i'm quite certain there has been a new committee in place since that time? as i said someone correct meif i'm wrong.

It is whatever you want it to be.
HOGG SHIELD DIVISION V WINNER 2018.
User avatar
Lightning McQueen
Coach
 
Posts: 34210
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:43 am
Location: Radiator Springs
Has liked: 1978 times
Been liked: 3950 times

Re: SWFC

Postby The Bedge » Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:18 am

redyellow&blue wrote:hmm, based on that email, isn't point 2, 5 and 6 a manipulation of the stats? and it's a tad harsh to be bringing stuff up from over 10 years ago.

when we look at 2014 onwards. i'm quite certain there has been a new committee in place since that time? as i said someone correct meif i'm wrong.

Manipulation of stats lol.. ok lets put it in simple terms then..

AdFL - You're on your last warning.
SW - Mess it up.
AdFL - This is your final final warning
SW - Mess it up.
AdFL - Right, seriously, last warning.
SW - Mess it up.
AdFL - See ya pal
SW - Don't blame us for one mans actions.

Look at a club like Smithfield, they were walking a fine line a few years ago, and have turned it around, don't even recall the last suspension they received - that's a club making a proper effort, not shifting the blame.
If you fall i'll catch you - Floor
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
User avatar
The Bedge
Coach
 
 
Posts: 9575
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 12:28 pm
Has liked: 2358 times
Been liked: 2344 times

Re: SWFC

Postby The Bedge » Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:31 am

Another way to look at it is the lack of due diligence or apparent lack of care in some matters.

For instance the ruckman who copped the suspensions in 2017 - from memory copped half a dozen games or more early in the season for a violent act.. came straight back in after his suspension and first or second game back head-butted and broke the nose of an opposition player well off the ball. One bloke, two incidents in one year.

Other clubs in similar positions under the heat I imagine would've kindly asked him to leave the club after the first incident, or at least put something in place to show they dealt with it internally or had something in place to minimise the risk of it happening again - but they didn't.

Same with Jones in the GF. Reported for how ever many offences it was and played the game out. Granted the umpires didn't see it, but surely team mates or coaching staff would've picked up on his volatile state - and should've actioned on it - but didn't.

Fact is, they cry hard done by, but they've shown very little to suggest they've made efforts to change.
If you fall i'll catch you - Floor
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
User avatar
The Bedge
Coach
 
 
Posts: 9575
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 12:28 pm
Has liked: 2358 times
Been liked: 2344 times

Re: SWFC

Postby Footy Chick » Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:53 am

redyellow&blue wrote:hmm, based on that email, isn't point 2, 5 and 6 a manipulation of the stats? and it's a tad harsh to be bringing stuff up from over 10 years ago.

when we look at 2014 onwards. i'm quite certain there has been a new committee in place since that time? as i said someone correct meif i'm wrong.


Is it harsh? No, it shows form.

New committee with one common denominator.

What most people also don't remember, is that The league have even reversed the de-registration of one of their players and it took him all of about 5 weeks to f*** up again.
Don't play games with a girl who can play 'em better...

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
User avatar
Footy Chick
Moderator
 
 
Posts: 24819
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:44 pm
Location: anywhere I want to be...
Has liked: 1238 times
Been liked: 1729 times

Re: SWFC

Postby Trader » Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:27 pm

redyellow&blue wrote:pretty sure 6 or 7 of those reports,and 27 of those matches were against the one person in one match. That would be the Adam Jones incident against trinity this year. that kinda skews the stats but probably works into the narrative certain people want..

not sure off the top of my head, but i reckon since 2014 Salisbury west have been in the tribunal, and been found guilty 3, maybe 4 times..... less then Modbury, PAC, FFC, Henley, and Seaton... but thats off the top of my head. someone correct me if i'm wrong


I've pieced this together from some old spreadsheets, so it might not be exactly 100%, but I'm fairly confident it's close:

Since 2014 I count 12 times a SW player has been found guilty at the tribunal, only 4 of which were Adam Jones incident in the recent final.
In those 5 years, SW has had 2,1,2,3,2 teams. So call that 1.2 guilty offenses per team per year.

Modbury have filled 28 teams over that same period, for an average of 0.57 guilty offenses per team.
Seaton 10 guilty, 15 sides = 0.67
PAC 8/26 = 0.31
Henley 11/21 = 0.52
Danny Southern telling Plugga he's fat, I'd like to see that!
User avatar
Trader
League - Best 21
 
Posts: 2482
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 1:19 pm
Has liked: 33 times
Been liked: 310 times

Re: SWFC

Postby jo172 » Mon Nov 19, 2018 1:32 pm

Trader wrote:
redyellow&blue wrote:pretty sure 6 or 7 of those reports,and 27 of those matches were against the one person in one match. That would be the Adam Jones incident against trinity this year. that kinda skews the stats but probably works into the narrative certain people want..

not sure off the top of my head, but i reckon since 2014 Salisbury west have been in the tribunal, and been found guilty 3, maybe 4 times..... less then Modbury, PAC, FFC, Henley, and Seaton... but thats off the top of my head. someone correct me if i'm wrong


I've pieced this together from some old spreadsheets, so it might not be exactly 100%, but I'm fairly confident it's close:

Since 2014 I count 12 times a SW player has been found guilty at the tribunal, only 4 of which were Adam Jones incident in the recent final.
In those 5 years, SW has had 2,1,2,3,2 teams. So call that 1.2 guilty offenses per team per year.

Modbury have filled 28 teams over that same period, for an average of 0.57 guilty offenses per team.
Seaton 10 guilty, 15 sides = 0.67
PAC 8/26 = 0.31
Henley 11/21 = 0.52


Without having any such spreadsheet I'd tend to suspect that SW's 1.2 offences per team per year were higher end of the scale incidents too.
jo172
League - Top 5
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 6:00 pm
Has liked: 877 times
Been liked: 558 times

PreviousNext

Board index   Football  Other Footy Leagues  Adelaide Footy League

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests