SA Footy

sweendog wrote:WELL LOOKS LIKE SHOES NEED TO FIND ANOTHER COMP SHOEBOY AS YOU DO NOT HAVE YOUR OWN U18 TEAM OUTRIGHT....SEEYA LATER OFF TO THE GSFL YOU GO

Shit am sure I seen play between our 16 game and the B grade on the wend!!!

The old sweendog NFI .

shoe boy wrote:

Look Good In Leather wrote:

Front & Centre wrote:So what's everyones thoughts on what will happen at the big SFL meeting tonight? Are any of the recommendations going to get up? Personally I think they have missed the mark on many issues and certainly the change of junior grade ages seems unnecessary - if it aint broke why fix it?

Almost half of clubs do not field a full set of teams in their own right (7/15)
33% of clubs do not field a team in the U/16 comp
33% of clubs do not field a team in the U/14 comp
100% of games played in the U/18 comp this week resulted in the winning team doubling their opponents score or more with the other game a forfeit
Only one game each this week in the U/14 and U/16 comps were decided by a margin less than 6 goals

It is very broken, something needs to be done. The debate is if the proposal goes far enough.

Hi LGL are these figures based on Sat as it should be? As I recall Sun was and should be overflow of Sat comp!
If this is the case and you must fill Sat before Sun you watch them find players.

Only counting Saturday as that is the main comp and the one we need to fix, the Sunday kick-around 15-a-side comp is an overflow comp.

Front & Centre wrote:

Look Good In Leather wrote:

Front & Centre wrote:So what's everyones thoughts on what will happen at the big SFL meeting tonight? Are any of the recommendations going to get up? Personally I think they have missed the mark on many issues and certainly the change of junior grade ages seems unnecessary - if it aint broke why fix it?

Almost half of clubs do not field a full set of teams in their own right (7/15)
33% of clubs do not field a team in the U/16 comp
33% of clubs do not field a team in the U/14 comp
100% of games played in the U/18 comp this week resulted in the winning team doubling their opponents score or more with the other game a forfeit
Only one game each this week in the U/14 and U/16 comps were decided by a margin less than 6 goals

It is very broken, something needs to be done. The debate is if the proposal goes far enough.

Agree that there are some huge issues but will changing U14s, U16s, U18s to U15s and U17s and pushing kids up to seniors a year earlier really help? In the words of a red headed politician "please explain"

18yo men have no place in junior football

shoe boy wrote:

sweendog wrote:WELL LOOKS LIKE SHOES NEED TO FIND ANOTHER COMP SHOEBOY AS YOU DO NOT HAVE YOUR OWN U18 TEAM OUTRIGHT....SEEYA LATER OFF TO THE GSFL YOU GO

Shit am sure I seen play between our 16 game and the B grade on the wend!!!

The old sweendog NFI .

Haven't you got a combined 18's with Aldinga. I think this is what he meant. So if it was a condition this year, who goes you or the Sharks?

Courtney Fish wrote:

shoe boy wrote:

sweendog wrote:WELL LOOKS LIKE SHOES NEED TO FIND ANOTHER COMP SHOEBOY AS YOU DO NOT HAVE YOUR OWN U18 TEAM OUTRIGHT....SEEYA LATER OFF TO THE GSFL YOU GO

Shit am sure I seen play between our 16 game and the B grade on the wend!!!

The old sweendog NFI .

Haven't you got a combined 18's with Aldinga. I think this is what he meant. So if it was a condition this year, who goes you or the Sharks?

I suspect both would have teams if it was forced, just they would start the season with around 12-14 players each

Easy answers, difficult solutions. Porties, Shoes, Aldinga have not filled a full U/18 side at least once in recent years. Morphies, Marion, Lonsdale and Edwardstown struggle 1-2 Saturday sides on average. That's seven sides given the boot if you need to fill three junior sides on the Saturday. I have seen posts from Brighton suggesting that some weeks they struggle to fill a Saturday side, but have filled one or two sides on a Sunday.

I never understood what the rationale for changing from U/17's to U/18's in 1996. Neither how letting a side fill two or even three sides when a neighbour struggles to fill one.

Esteban Vihaio wrote:Easy answers, difficult solutions. Porties, Shoes, Aldinga have not filled a full U/18 side at least once in recent years. Morphies, Marion, Lonsdale and Edwardstown struggle 1-2 Saturday sides on average. That's seven sides given the boot if you need to fill three junior sides on the Saturday. I have seen posts from Brighton suggesting that some weeks they struggle to fill a Saturday side, but have filled one or two sides on a Sunday.

I never understood what the rationale for changing from U/17's to U/18's in 1996. Neither how letting a side fill two or even three sides when a neighbour struggles to fill one.

The rationale was that was what the clubs wanted, as all changes in League structure are. Ultimately, the clubs (or at least a majority of them !) decide what the League structure will be.

The SFL had had Under 18s (along with U14s and U16s ) for a long time until that experiment in 1991-1995 and it had worked. The Under 17s "experiment " was a disaster for many clubs, with record low numbers moving from Juniors (U17) into Seniors. Remarkably, the SFL tried Under17s again in 2002, and again it was a distaster and they went back to Under 18s again the next year in 2003.

And they say history never repeats .... I hope tonight's vote doesn't mean it is repeating again in SFL !

Result of last nights special meeting re FDC.

Vote on point 1 was 9 clubs voted for change 6 clubs voted no change 3 board members voted no change leaving President Warman to have casting vote which he also voted no.

No need to vote point 2-5 as they all fell in line with point 1 to make change to the structure of SFL.
So we go on with nothing to see here.

I do recall a certain club President make comment after vote on point 1 was handed down that it is a "democracy"!!! MY FRIEND DEMOCRACY YOU HAVE NO IDEA OR VERY SHORT MEMORY OF DECISSIONS THAT HAVE NOT TURNED OUT THE WAY YOU INTENDED THEN CRY DEMOCRACY!!!!!

Dazza44 wrote:
The rationale was that was what the clubs wanted, as all changes in League structure are. Ultimately, the clubs (or at least a majority of them !) decide what the League structure will be.

Apparently not,,,

lion heart wrote:

Dazza44 wrote:
The rationale was that was what the clubs wanted, as all changes in League structure are. Ultimately, the clubs (or at least a majority of them !) decide what the League structure will be.

Apparently not,,,

60% of clubs voted for change

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk

Look Good In Leather wrote:

lion heart wrote:

Dazza44 wrote:
The rationale was that was what the clubs wanted, as all changes in League structure are. Ultimately, the clubs (or at least a majority of them !) decide what the League structure will be.

Apparently not,,,

60% of clubs voted for change

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk

So all Board Members voted for no change... Too much hard work for them???

Look Good In Leather wrote:

lion heart wrote:

Dazza44 wrote:
The rationale was that was what the clubs wanted, as all changes in League structure are. Ultimately, the clubs (or at least a majority of them !) decide what the League structure will be.

Apparently not,,,

60% of clubs voted for change

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk

What was the vote on - Point 1 from last night?

Look Good In Leather wrote:

lion heart wrote:

Dazza44 wrote:
The rationale was that was what the clubs wanted, as all changes in League structure are. Ultimately, the clubs (or at least a majority of them !) decide what the League structure will be.

Apparently not,,,

60% of clubs voted for change

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk

Yet Warman ultimately gets returned year in, year out. If those majority of clubs who voted for change are unhappy with the three board members and president, who effectively vetoed the change, they know what they can do.

lion heart wrote:

Dazza44 wrote:
The rationale was that was what the clubs wanted, as all changes in League structure are. Ultimately, the clubs (or at least a majority of them !) decide what the League structure will be.

Apparently not,,,

I will point out that I have been mis-quoted, and out of context here ..... as so often happens !! The quoted statement was about the changes in 1996 (as you will see if you look back a few posts), made before the most recent decision, and I stand by that statement as fact.

You can debate the current situation as you see fit, but you don't need to use my words.

As for the current situation, I am disappointed it wasn't more clear cut and would have preferred didn't require any Board votes at all.

So a Future Directions Committee was created, they came up with ideas. A majority of clubs agreed with them but the league shuts them down. What is the point of the FDC then. The league wants what they want, not the clubs.

Esteban Vihaio wrote:

Look Good In Leather wrote:

lion heart wrote:

Dazza44 wrote:
The rationale was that was what the clubs wanted, as all changes in League structure are. Ultimately, the clubs (or at least a majority of them !) decide what the League structure will be.

Apparently not,,,

60% of clubs voted for change

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk

Yet Warman ultimately gets returned year in, year out. If those majority of clubs who voted for change are unhappy with the three board members and president, who effectively vetoed the change, they know what they can do.

You're correct. Unless there are those prepared to stand up and be counted, you get what you elect.
For all the faults of the SFL and its board, there is a distinct shortage of those prepared to put themselves up against them and usher in change and take on the considerable task of running the league.

On that basis, you have to take the good with the bad and live with the decisions. Doesn't make it right, but there's only one way to change things and there seems no mood for that to happen.

Courtney Fish wrote:So a Future Directions Committee was created, they came up with ideas. A majority of clubs agreed with them but the league shuts them down. What is the point of the FDC then. The league wants what they want, not the clubs.

"Change is the law of life And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future."

shoe boy wrote:

Courtney Fish wrote:So a Future Directions Committee was created, they came up with ideas. A majority of clubs agreed with them but the league shuts them down. What is the point of the FDC then. The league wants what they want, not the clubs.

"Change is the law of life And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future."

JFK

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AS ADVISED FROM MEETING WITH BOARD
ALL CLUBS REC (1) REC (2) REC (3) REC (4) REC (5)
AGREE 12 5 12 11 4
DISAGREE 3 10 3 4 11
TOTAL 15 15 15 15 15

I guess some clubs changed their minds from when they met with the league about the FDC recommendations. Although 1 of the 12 wanted Under 17.5's and Under 15.5's.
This was the feedback the clubs received from the SFL after all the meetings.

Does anyone know the reasons behind the league's vote against the majority?

Under 13's on a Sunday would remove the need for most year 7's to choose between Saturday club under 14's or primary school sport. I hope my son doesn't choose school soccer over club footy.

courtnay fish * Does anyone know the reasons behind the league's vote against the majority?

The league is in the power clubs pockets...they get what they want. Warman is the puppetmaster pulling the strings of the other maroon coats