by Patrol » Sat Feb 07, 2009 6:07 pm
by cyclops » Sat Feb 07, 2009 6:19 pm
by shoe boy » Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:35 am
by cyclops » Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:18 pm
shoe boy wrote:If anyone has had a chance to read a proposal from M/PARKS it has a lot of merit. Based around the amature league sunday format (sunday only)
Maybe someone from M/Parks can post??
At this point the Shoes will most definetly be fielding dual sides.
by shoe boy » Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:25 pm
cyclops wrote:shoe boy wrote:If anyone has had a chance to read a proposal from M/PARKS it has a lot of merit. Based around the amature league sunday format (sunday only)
Maybe someone from M/Parks can post??
At this point the Shoes will most definetly be fielding dual sides.
id love to know the amount of numbers you guys are currently getting out consistently for youre 14s and 16s shoe boy,you sound pretty confident of getting dual sides this season.
by cyclops » Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:30 pm
by WHEELS&DEALS » Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:40 am
by Bluedemon » Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:43 pm
by shoe boy » Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:50 pm
kookas wrote:when did they put this proposal to the Southern League?
by spanner » Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:05 pm
WHEELS&DEALS wrote:MPFC proposal
Proposal has 5 major points.
Enable clubs that are not as strong to loan players for a year to fill sides and therefore ensure kids are playing.
.
by WHEELS&DEALS » Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:43 pm
shoe boy wrote:If anyone has had a chance to read a proposal from M/PARKS it has a lot of merit. Based around the amature league sunday format (sunday only)
Maybe someone from M/Parks can post??
At this point the Shoes will most definetly be fielding dual sides.
by shoe boy » Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:03 pm
WHEELS&DEALS wrote:shoe boy wrote:If anyone has had a chance to read a proposal from M/PARKS it has a lot of merit. Based around the amature league sunday format (sunday only)
Maybe someone from M/Parks can post??
At this point the Shoes will most definetly be fielding dual sides.
Gday Shoe boy
did this get brought up at last nights meeting and what was the feed back?
by marley » Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:15 pm
Yes it was tabled at the SFL meeting last night and discussed but I cannot give you feedback?
My personal thoughts are that the document has some good points.
by shoe boy » Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:45 pm
marley wrote:Yes it was tabled at the SFL meeting last night and discussed but I cannot give you feedback?
My personal thoughts are that the document has some good points.
Yes it was tabled but voted down. Next Monday the club junior delegates have to vote on whether to keep the current school format or move to u8.u10.u12 as suggested by Porties. A straw pole conducted on the night indicated that the majority of clubs prefer to move to under age 8/10/12/14/16/18 comp. hopefully it is sorted next week and the season can commence with these age groups.'
It will not really affect most clubs in anycase kids will just move from school based to club based age groups.
by marley » Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:48 pm
by marley » Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:48 pm
by shoe boy » Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:54 pm
marley wrote:Shoeboy:
I think the Porties proposal makes sense.
by Waterboy » Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:08 pm
shoe boy wrote:marley wrote:Yes it was tabled at the SFL meeting last night and discussed but I cannot give you feedback?
My personal thoughts are that the document has some good points.
Yes it was tabled but voted down. Next Monday the club junior delegates have to vote on whether to keep the current school format or move to u8.u10.u12 as suggested by Porties. A straw pole conducted on the night indicated that the majority of clubs prefer to move to under age 8/10/12/14/16/18 comp. hopefully it is sorted next week and the season can commence with these age groups.'
It will not really affect most clubs in anycase kids will just move from school based to club based age groups.
Marley you refer to the Port Noarlunga proposal of changing 2/3 4/5 6/7 to 8/10/12?
by WHEELS&DEALS » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:13 pm
Waterboy wrote:shoe boy wrote:marley wrote:Yes it was tabled at the SFL meeting last night and discussed but I cannot give you feedback?
My personal thoughts are that the document has some good points.
Yes it was tabled but voted down. Next Monday the club junior delegates have to vote on whether to keep the current school format or move to u8.u10.u12 as suggested by Porties. A straw pole conducted on the night indicated that the majority of clubs prefer to move to under age 8/10/12/14/16/18 comp. hopefully it is sorted next week and the season can commence with these age groups.'
It will not really affect most clubs in anycase kids will just move from school based to club based age groups.
Marley you refer to the Port Noarlunga proposal of changing 2/3 4/5 6/7 to 8/10/12?
After getting comments from all of the club delegates still at the meeting last night there wasn't much support for the Morphettville Park proposal. Next week at the junior delegates meeting the 3 options up for vote will be
1) No change
2) Go to U8, U10 and U12 in 2009
3) Go to U8, U10 and U12 in 2010
Moving to age groups will push some number of year 7s up to under 14 football a year early. These are the kids who would only play one year of under 14s with the 2/3, 4/5, 6/7 setup.
by Waterboy » Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:23 pm
WHEELS&DEALS wrote:Waterboy wrote:
After getting comments from all of the club delegates still at the meeting last night there wasn't much support for the Morphettville Park proposal. Next week at the junior delegates meeting the 3 options up for vote will be
1) No change
2) Go to U8, U10 and U12 in 2009
3) Go to U8, U10 and U12 in 2010
Moving to age groups will push some number of year 7s up to under 14 football a year early. These are the kids who would only play one year of under 14s with the 2/3, 4/5, 6/7 setup.
So does this mean that the Morphettville Park proposal has been voted on and won't be an option for this year? A few questions for anyone out there who cares about junior football.
1/ what do people think of having 20 teams in each grade for 2/3s, 4/5s and 6/7s?
2/ what are your veiws on clubs with dual sides and should they be caped.
3 If Morphettville Parks proposal was voted out, how would other club feel if there juniors left the SFL and went and played with the Metro sth League?????
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |