by The Dutchman » Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:26 pm
by THE MOLE » Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:32 pm
The Mexican wrote:THE MOLE wrote:The Dutchman wrote:G'day junior
I am not affiliated with any SFL club but i am interested to know if you are you associated with any SFL committees or whether you attend AGM's? Perhaps you could find the right forum for you to raise your issues with the league and the rights of your club. Then your concerns might truly be heard.
The Robinson issue has been overdone, and using it to highlight M/Vales superiority over other clubs undermines M/Vales hard work and loyalty of its players to get to its current position as the best club in the comp.
But the league is full of Morphett Vale people........
There is no question that morphies hard work has got them there, but doesnt mean that they should dominate the leagues committee aswell.....
Juniors point (i think) was that issues have been raised with the league, but laughed at, no matter how times they have been brought up. Therefore the lower teams dont have a chance to catch up to morphett vale and they will continue to dominate, which isnt good for the competition, or football in general.
"The league is full of Morphett Vale people" please name them...?? I'm sure from Morphett Vale's point of view this is not the case. I am unaware of any...
by THE MOLE » Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:35 pm
The Dutchman wrote:I can see the point you are trying to make Junior. However, one of the reasons for M/Vales success is the killer attitude it has over its opponents. M/Vale currently has a greater desire to win than any other club, which is a credit to them considering they are going for four straight, so of course they are going to look down on other clubs. I dont want you to confuse the issues of M/Vale being a deservedly dominant club, and the league contributing to its success and the downfall of other clubs in the league. Any other club in the league could be in the same position as M/Vale if it puts a long term plan in place. Believe me, i would rather see much more compeititive games each week, but clubs have to accept some responsbility for their current position and the blame can not lie with the league itself.
by Buff » Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:37 pm
by Buff » Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:41 pm
by The Mexican » Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:43 pm
THE MOLE wrote:The Mexican wrote:THE MOLE wrote:The Dutchman wrote:G'day junior
I am not affiliated with any SFL club but i am interested to know if you are you associated with any SFL committees or whether you attend AGM's? Perhaps you could find the right forum for you to raise your issues with the league and the rights of your club. Then your concerns might truly be heard.
The Robinson issue has been overdone, and using it to highlight M/Vales superiority over other clubs undermines M/Vales hard work and loyalty of its players to get to its current position as the best club in the comp.
But the league is full of Morphett Vale people........
There is no question that morphies hard work has got them there, but doesnt mean that they should dominate the leagues committee aswell.....
Juniors point (i think) was that issues have been raised with the league, but laughed at, no matter how times they have been brought up. Therefore the lower teams dont have a chance to catch up to morphett vale and they will continue to dominate, which isnt good for the competition, or football in general.
"The league is full of Morphett Vale people" please name them...?? I'm sure from Morphett Vale's point of view this is not the case. I am unaware of any...
President of SFL, was associated with Mprohett vale for 10 years..... Good start????
by THE MOLE » Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:54 pm
The Mexican wrote:THE MOLE wrote:The Mexican wrote:THE MOLE wrote:The Dutchman wrote:G'day junior
I am not affiliated with any SFL club but i am interested to know if you are you associated with any SFL committees or whether you attend AGM's? Perhaps you could find the right forum for you to raise your issues with the league and the rights of your club. Then your concerns might truly be heard.
The Robinson issue has been overdone, and using it to highlight M/Vales superiority over other clubs undermines M/Vales hard work and loyalty of its players to get to its current position as the best club in the comp.
But the league is full of Morphett Vale people........
There is no question that morphies hard work has got them there, but doesnt mean that they should dominate the leagues committee aswell.....
Juniors point (i think) was that issues have been raised with the league, but laughed at, no matter how times they have been brought up. Therefore the lower teams dont have a chance to catch up to morphett vale and they will continue to dominate, which isnt good for the competition, or football in general.
"The league is full of Morphett Vale people" please name them...?? I'm sure from Morphett Vale's point of view this is not the case. I am unaware of any...
President of SFL, was associated with Mprohett vale for 10 years..... Good start????
Not sure about 10 years, maybe half that. One person certainly does not constitute "being full of M/Vale people". In another posting someone has overheard the "so called" Morphett Vale loving league president calling the Morphett Vale B grade a mob of wankers for all to hear, so i am just wondering how hard Craig lobbies for Morphett Vale's causes, do you honestly think he is on that clubs side...?? I don't think so..
by Buff » Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:55 pm
by Junior » Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:04 pm
Buff wrote:The Dutchman wrote:I can see the point you are trying to make Junior. However, one of the reasons for M/Vales success is the killer attitude it has over its opponents. M/Vale currently has a greater desire to win than any other club, which is a credit to them considering they are going for four straight, so of course they are going to look down on other clubs. I dont want you to confuse the issues of M/Vale being a deservedly dominant club, and the league contributing to its success and the downfall of other clubs in the league. Any other club in the league could be in the same position as M/Vale if it puts a long term plan in place. Believe me, i would rather see much more compeititive games each week, but clubs have to accept some responsbility for their current position and the blame can not lie with the league itself.
The league should go to a two division comp to give the lower sides the oppotunity to bring on their players and win games. winning games gives the club pulling power for more players and supporters to get on board. Cove are starting to get there. Hackham never will.....too close to M/vale and no winning culture! Lonsdale won't while they remain at a backpackers hostel! Christies will get back to div 1 standard, Aldinga and Noarlunga have a chance with housing developments increasing junior ranks....so if you look at a 2 division set up we might have competetive games each week! not until they do that.
by Swooper16 » Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:13 pm
by THE MOLE » Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:13 pm
Junior wrote:Buff wrote:The Dutchman wrote:I can see the point you are trying to make Junior. However, one of the reasons for M/Vales success is the killer attitude it has over its opponents. M/Vale currently has a greater desire to win than any other club, which is a credit to them considering they are going for four straight, so of course they are going to look down on other clubs. I dont want you to confuse the issues of M/Vale being a deservedly dominant club, and the league contributing to its success and the downfall of other clubs in the league. Any other club in the league could be in the same position as M/Vale if it puts a long term plan in place. Believe me, i would rather see much more compeititive games each week, but clubs have to accept some responsbility for their current position and the blame can not lie with the league itself.
The league should go to a two division comp to give the lower sides the oppotunity to bring on their players and win games. winning games gives the club pulling power for more players and supporters to get on board. Cove are starting to get there. Hackham never will.....too close to M/vale and no winning culture! Lonsdale won't while they remain at a backpackers hostel! Christies will get back to div 1 standard, Aldinga and Noarlunga have a chance with housing developments increasing junior ranks....so if you look at a 2 division set up we might have competetive games each week! not until they do that.
Clubs based near Morphett Vale will always struggle making strong clubs when the league is quite happy for m/vale to have two of each junior teams while other sides struggle to make 1 junior team? Obviously they have a good junior program and good on em, but while that can happen do you really expect other teams to catch them?
by Buff » Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:20 pm
by THE MOLE » Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:30 pm
Buff wrote:THE MOLE wrote:Junior wrote:Buff wrote:The Dutchman wrote:I can see the point you are trying to make Junior. However, one of the reasons for M/Vales success is the killer attitude it has over its opponents. M/Vale currently has a greater desire to win than any other club, which is a credit to them considering they are going for four straight, so of course they are going to look down on other clubs. I dont want you to confuse the issues of M/Vale being a deservedly dominant club, and the league contributing to its success and the downfall of other clubs in the league. Any other club in the league could be in the same position as M/Vale if it puts a long term plan in place. Believe me, i would rather see much more compeititive games each week, but clubs have to accept some responsbility for their current position and the blame can not lie with the league itself.
The league should go to a two division comp to give the lower sides the oppotunity to bring on their players and win games. winning games gives the club pulling power for more players and supporters to get on board. Cove are starting to get there. Hackham never will.....too close to M/vale and no winning culture! Lonsdale won't while they remain at a backpackers hostel! Christies will get back to div 1 standard, Aldinga and Noarlunga have a chance with housing developments increasing junior ranks....so if you look at a 2 division set up we might have competetive games each week! not until they do that.
Clubs based near Morphett Vale will always struggle making strong clubs when the league is quite happy for m/vale to have two of each junior teams while other sides struggle to make 1 junior team? Obviously they have a good junior program and good on em, but while that can happen do you really expect other teams to catch them?
Teams that have 3 senior teams, and 2 of each of the junior teams dont really help the league and football in general. It is the leagues job to have as many players playing for as long as possible. What happens to the guys coming up out of u18s, who then go into seniors??? With the senior sides having full squads already??? The guys stop playing footy! Which no one, especially the league should be happy with.
Do you really think players coming out of 18s stop playing because they cannot get a run in the senior sides? look at the positive.....M/vale are giving more kids a chance to play the game! is it their fault they have a good junior program that teaches kids how to play the game! Happy valley are in the same boat.
by Swooper16 » Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:43 pm
by The Lova » Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:19 pm
Swooper16 wrote:I can see your point but if the league only granted 1 junior team for each club then my bet would be that many of those kids would just stop playing altogether rather then be forced somewhere else. Thus denying them at least 2 less years of footy. Which wouldnt be good for anyone.
by Hotdogs » Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:40 pm
by Junior » Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:46 pm
Hotdogs wrote:Yeah the emus have been successful the last 3 years - but that doesn't stop them from being a bunch of tossers.
Now in my playing day the Emu's only had it over us in 2004. We smashed the messes every other year.....smoke that....
by FOOTYGODS » Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:51 pm
by The Mexican » Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:52 pm
Hotdogs wrote:Yeah the emus have been successful the last 3 years - but that doesn't stop them from being a bunch of tossers.
Now in my playing day the Emu's only had it over us in 2004. We smashed the messes every other year.....smoke that....
by The Lova » Fri Apr 27, 2007 6:41 pm
Hotdogs wrote:Yeah the emus have been successful the last 3 years - but that doesn't stop them from being a bunch of tossers.
Now in my playing day the Emu's only had it over us in 2004. We smashed the messes every other year.....smoke that....
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |