SA Footy

Definitely tinfoil-hat-worthy theories.

morell wrote:If humanity stuck to the rules all the time, we would still be living in caves. Sometimes rules have to be broken for the larger good. Pragmaticism is a lost art, it seems.

I would love it if the Executive just came out and went BANG! this is how it is, stuff your delegates votes, stuff your quasi bushman's democracy, stuff your pieces of paper with rules on them, this is it because we have the ability to think strategically and a group of volunteers with self serving agendas, do not.

At a minimum it would be a catalyst for changing the ridiculous system.

morell wrote:I suspect (albeit with my tin foil hat on) that has been the intention all along LGIL.

The league is creating an environment which means they have the power to remove clubs that for whatever reason are considered a "problem".

I dare say your prior thoughts are closer to the tin foil variety

I'm really confused as to what you think the "League" is other than the member clubs (including Mitchell Park, North Pines) at a General Committee meeting?

Put it this way then - I wonder why a club with a pristine record and reputation was allowed to slide by the new "delegate" voted "x number of players by x date" rule, whilst others, with perhaps a slightly less pristine record and history of difficulty has had the book thrown at them?

Now I can't prove that, without access to the sporting pulse database, but, it is what I have heard around the traps.

morell wrote:Put it this way then - I wonder why a club with a pristine record and reputation was allowed to slide by the new "delegate" voted "x number of players by x date" rule, whilst others, with perhaps a slightly less pristine record and history of difficulty has had the book thrown at them?

Now I can't prove that, without access to the sporting pulse database, but, it is what I have heard around the traps.

I'm confused. Name names?

jo172 wrote:I'm really confused as to what you think the "League" is other than the member clubs (including Mitchell Park, North Pines) at a General Committee meeting?

Its a group of shady businessman hiding in corners and poking people with poisonous umbrellas. Some say they even have reptile blood.

But no, I mean the Executive Committee.

I'll tidy up my vernacular.

jo172 wrote:

morell wrote:Put it this way then - I wonder why a club with a pristine record and reputation was allowed to slide by the new "delegate" voted "x number of players by x date" rule, whilst others, with perhaps a slightly less pristine record and history of difficulty has had the book thrown at them?

Now I can't prove that, without access to the sporting pulse database, but, it is what I have heard around the traps.

I'm confused. Name names?

C'mon Jo, its not hard to work out!

I have heard but freely admit that I cannot substantiate, that Flinders Uni did not meet the criteria by the deadline but were told not to worry about it. Conversely, I have heard, that Wingfield and North Pines were pretty confident they had the numbers, but didn't really understand how to get them all into the "system" on time - and promptly had the book sent into their foreheads.

I have also heard, that this is a very deliberate and thought out strategy by the Executive Committee to guide the General Committee to create justification to remove a couple of clubs that have had disciplinary and numbers issues in the past, and perhaps "clean up" the lower divisions.

I suspect there are some half truths in there and some long bows, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Now, where is that aluminium.

Why is cleaning up the lower divisions a bad thing? (If that is what they are doing?).

And to put a follow up to that, if this theory is close to accurate. I don't think I disagree with the intention. Instead I would hand MORE power to the Executive so they don't have to **** around with messy fixtures and underhanded tactics and they can just chop clubs with enough anecdotal justification.

I know that this isnt what the thread is used for actual footy talk but is North Pines oval up and running this week or will they be playing at Salisbury West again this week?

Trader wrote:Why is cleaning up the lower divisions a bad thing? (If that is what they are doing?).

Nothing at all. I would support it.

No issue with the intention, huge issue with the methodology - if what I have been told is accurate.

After the way North Pines ended last year things were always going to difficult. They have new management and people and it takes time and education to put things in order.
I can assure everyone that I have seen 1st hand the work 'The Executive' have done to ensure the club has a defined understanding of what needs to be done to ensure their longevity......in this league.

morell wrote:

jo172 wrote:

morell wrote:Put it this way then - I wonder why a club with a pristine record and reputation was allowed to slide by the new "delegate" voted "x number of players by x date" rule, whilst others, with perhaps a slightly less pristine record and history of difficulty has had the book thrown at them?

Now I can't prove that, without access to the sporting pulse database, but, it is what I have heard around the traps.

I'm confused. Name names?

C'mon Jo, its not hard to work out!

I have heard but freely admit that I cannot substantiate, that Flinders Uni did not meet the criteria by the deadline but were told not to worry about it. Conversely, I have heard, that Wingfield and North Pines were pretty confident they had the numbers, but didn't really understand how to get them all into the "system" on time - and promptly had the book sent into their foreheads.

I have also heard, that this is a very deliberate and thought out strategy by the Executive Committee to guide the General Committee to create justification to remove a couple of clubs that have had disciplinary and numbers issues in the past, and perhaps "clean up" the lower divisions.

I suspect there are some half truths in there and some long bows, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Now, where is that aluminium.

The league gave Wingfield several deadline extensions to meet criteria and were far too generous by allowing North Pines to play D7R. The idea that they want clubs to fold is ridiculous.

Q. wrote:Were far too generous by allowing North Pines to play D7.

Q. wrote:The idea that they want clubs to fold is ridiculous.

Bah, I meant D7R

Yank Man wrote:After the way North Pines ended last year things were always going to difficult. They have new management and people and it takes time and education to put things in order.
I can assure everyone that I have seen 1st hand the work 'The Executive' have done to ensure the club has a defined understanding of what needs to be done to ensure their longevity......in this league.

I find it strange that they are now advertising for more clubs when they cannot manage the number they currently have

Just draw the line.

Put them in div 7 by 5 oclock today

Then tomorrow we can all wake up in happy land

Look Good In Leather wrote:

Yank Man wrote:After the way North Pines ended last year things were always going to difficult. They have new management and people and it takes time and education to put things in order.
I can assure everyone that I have seen 1st hand the work 'The Executive' have done to ensure the club has a defined understanding of what needs to be done to ensure their longevity......in this league.

I find it strange that they are now advertising for more clubs when they cannot manage the number they currently have

The League doesn't manage clubs. Clubs manage the League through the General Committee.

Evidently the problem is that some clubs have demonstrated they inadequately manage themselves to the satisfaction of the other clubs

Look Good In Leather wrote:

Yank Man wrote:After the way North Pines ended last year things were always going to difficult. They have new management and people and it takes time and education to put things in order.
I can assure everyone that I have seen 1st hand the work 'The Executive' have done to ensure the club has a defined understanding of what needs to be done to ensure their longevity......in this league.

I find it strange that they are now advertising for more clubs when they cannot manage the number they currently have

They manage the quantity just fine. It's not up to the league to micro-manage each individual club, it's up to the clubs to manage themselves in accordance with guidelines.

jo172 wrote:

Look Good In Leather wrote:

Yank Man wrote:After the way North Pines ended last year things were always going to difficult. They have new management and people and it takes time and education to put things in order.
I can assure everyone that I have seen 1st hand the work 'The Executive' have done to ensure the club has a defined understanding of what needs to be done to ensure their longevity......in this league.

I find it strange that they are now advertising for more clubs when they cannot manage the number they currently have

The League doesn't manage clubs. Clubs manage the League through the General Committee.

Evidently the problem is that some clubs have demonstrated they inadequately manage themselves to the satisfaction of the other clubs

More a case that the league is too big, time to get back to a manageable size

jo172 wrote:

Look Good In Leather wrote:

Yank Man wrote:After the way North Pines ended last year things were always going to difficult. They have new management and people and it takes time and education to put things in order.
I can assure everyone that I have seen 1st hand the work 'The Executive' have done to ensure the club has a defined understanding of what needs to be done to ensure their longevity......in this league.

I find it strange that they are now advertising for more clubs when they cannot manage the number they currently have

The League doesn't manage clubs. Clubs manage the League through the General Committee.

Evidently the problem is that some clubs have demonstrated they inadequately manage themselves to the satisfaction of the other clubs

You're not that naive.