by The Sorce » Mon Jan 05, 2015 3:34 pm
by cracka » Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:19 pm
by Armytank » Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:37 pm
by rock » Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:41 pm
Armytank wrote:why should we change the by-laws now, to cater for one team, when we wouldn't change the by-laws before the court action to cater for another?
Smacks of double standard to me......
by Legs Man » Mon Jan 05, 2015 6:40 pm
Armytank wrote:why should we change the by-laws now, to cater for one team, when we wouldn't change the by-laws before the court action to cater for another?
Smacks of double standard to me......
by cracka » Mon Jan 05, 2015 7:24 pm
Armytank wrote:why should we change the by-laws now, to cater for one team, when we wouldn't change the by-laws before the court action to cater for another?
Smacks of double standard to me......
by Legs Man » Mon Jan 05, 2015 8:24 pm
by Ye Olde Place Kick » Mon Jan 05, 2015 9:07 pm
Amateur Footy wrote:Do you think Country Div clubs would commit to a super league knowing they will have no hope of finals in 2015 and some would be on the end of big drubbings? What would it matter if it was 10 in Central and bottom two drop out in 2016 to form a new Div 2 with top 6 from Country that all have 4 teams as minimum? Would need to decide if it was based on As or whole club still.
by cracka » Mon Jan 05, 2015 9:13 pm
Legs Man wrote:As previously stated - let clubs decide their own fate.
Other clubs shouldn't be able to tell clubs what they can or can't do as long as the club in question can field all required sides.
If a club wants to go up damn well let them as it is their decision and it affects their supporters and players.
Likewise if they want to play in the lower division as their player stocks are low. are rebuilding or spending money on facilities etc etc.
Natural attrition and results will sort this out over time.
Why can another club determine what your club does - as it isn't their clubs future being decided.
This way you are in control of your own clubs destiny and each club is responsible for its own decisions.
I don't see it as being equitable or fair that Mt Barker can decide what Nairne does or Mt Lofty decide what Bridgey does or Blackwood decide what Ironbank do - the list goes on.
We are all competing for the same end result after all across all grades.
As an example - if Bridgey go down then Mt Lofty have more chance of giving juniors a game in a location that sees parents travelling less and in an environment that is more conducive to junior development.
We have seen this first hand at Echunga with respect to our junior numbers since being in Central with an increase in players - which would have been the opposite if we stayed in Country.
The decision making process is a problem in Hills footy as recently shown so let's fix this element as a starting point to get things back on track.
by Legs Man » Mon Jan 05, 2015 9:23 pm
cracka wrote:Legs Man wrote:As previously stated - let clubs decide their own fate.
Other clubs shouldn't be able to tell clubs what they can or can't do as long as the club in question can field all required sides.
If a club wants to go up damn well let them as it is their decision and it affects their supporters and players.
Likewise if they want to play in the lower division as their player stocks are low. are rebuilding or spending money on facilities etc etc.
Natural attrition and results will sort this out over time.
Why can another club determine what your club does - as it isn't their clubs future being decided.
This way you are in control of your own clubs destiny and each club is responsible for its own decisions.
I don't see it as being equitable or fair that Mt Barker can decide what Nairne does or Mt Lofty decide what Bridgey does or Blackwood decide what Ironbank do - the list goes on.
We are all competing for the same end result after all across all grades.
As an example - if Bridgey go down then Mt Lofty have more chance of giving juniors a game in a location that sees parents travelling less and in an environment that is more conducive to junior development.
We have seen this first hand at Echunga with respect to our junior numbers since being in Central with an increase in players - which would have been the opposite if we stayed in Country.
The decision making process is a problem in Hills footy as recently shown so let's fix this element as a starting point to get things back on track.
One club does not decide the fate of another, the league as a whole decide based on their interpretation of the rules
by cracka » Mon Jan 05, 2015 9:25 pm
Legs Man wrote:cracka wrote:Legs Man wrote:As previously stated - let clubs decide their own fate.
Other clubs shouldn't be able to tell clubs what they can or can't do as long as the club in question can field all required sides.
If a club wants to go up damn well let them as it is their decision and it affects their supporters and players.
Likewise if they want to play in the lower division as their player stocks are low. are rebuilding or spending money on facilities etc etc.
Natural attrition and results will sort this out over time.
Why can another club determine what your club does - as it isn't their clubs future being decided.
This way you are in control of your own clubs destiny and each club is responsible for its own decisions.
I don't see it as being equitable or fair that Mt Barker can decide what Nairne does or Mt Lofty decide what Bridgey does or Blackwood decide what Ironbank do - the list goes on.
We are all competing for the same end result after all across all grades.
As an example - if Bridgey go down then Mt Lofty have more chance of giving juniors a game in a location that sees parents travelling less and in an environment that is more conducive to junior development.
We have seen this first hand at Echunga with respect to our junior numbers since being in Central with an increase in players - which would have been the opposite if we stayed in Country.
The decision making process is a problem in Hills footy as recently shown so let's fix this element as a starting point to get things back on track.
One club does not decide the fate of another, the league as a whole decide based on their interpretation of the rules
Sorry Cracka - I am meaning the other clubs as a body of votes decide what any given club can or can't do.
Simply trying to reinforce that if a club wants to play Central let them as long as they field all sides.
Don't let the other clubs decide that on their behalf just because they want their precious 10 team even round comp.
by Ye Olde Place Kick » Mon Jan 05, 2015 9:49 pm
Legs Man wrote:cracka wrote:Legs Man wrote:As previously stated - let clubs decide their own fate.
Other clubs shouldn't be able to tell clubs what they can or can't do as long as the club in question can field all required sides.
If a club wants to go up damn well let them as it is their decision and it affects their supporters and players.
Likewise if they want to play in the lower division as their player stocks are low. are rebuilding or spending money on facilities etc etc.
Natural attrition and results will sort this out over time.
Why can another club determine what your club does - as it isn't their clubs future being decided.
This way you are in control of your own clubs destiny and each club is responsible for its own decisions.
I don't see it as being equitable or fair that Mt Barker can decide what Nairne does or Mt Lofty decide what Bridgey does or Blackwood decide what Ironbank do - the list goes on.
We are all competing for the same end result after all across all grades.
As an example - if Bridgey go down then Mt Lofty have more chance of giving juniors a game in a location that sees parents travelling less and in an environment that is more conducive to junior development.
We have seen this first hand at Echunga with respect to our junior numbers since being in Central with an increase in players - which would have been the opposite if we stayed in Country.
The decision making process is a problem in Hills footy as recently shown so let's fix this element as a starting point to get things back on track.
One club does not decide the fate of another, the league as a whole decide based on their interpretation of the rules
Sorry Cracka - I am meaning the other clubs as a body of votes decide what any given club can or can't do.
Simply trying to reinforce that if a club wants to play Central let them as long as they field all sides.
Don't let the other clubs decide that on their behalf just because they want their precious 10 team even round comp.
The showcase league for footy - AFL - are growing by including more clubs which is what we should do also.
Even consider inviting Langhorne Creek and Strathalbyn into our league also to bolster it further.
by Legs Man » Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:45 pm
by Armytank » Tue Jan 06, 2015 1:24 am
cracka wrote:Armytank wrote:why should we change the by-laws now, to cater for one team, when we wouldn't change the by-laws before the court action to cater for another?
Smacks of double standard to me......
Not quite 6 hours ago you said we should have an 18 team superleague. What's changed.
by shake'n'bake » Tue Jan 06, 2015 8:51 am
by Legs Man » Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:58 am
shake'n'bake wrote:How can you possibly have an uneven draw for one year based on the A grades finishing position,
When the B grade, 17's and 14's results also determine whether a club is going to be relegated.
This would have to be the most ridiculous suggestion.
The only way you could possibly do this is to have relegation solely based on the A grade.
by Esteban Vihaio » Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:39 am
by woodublieve12 » Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:41 am
Esteban Vihaio wrote:A superleague sounds a lot like what the Southern league has in place.....
by cracka » Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:50 am
woodublieve12 wrote:Esteban Vihaio wrote:A superleague sounds a lot like what the Southern league has in place.....
marbles is the man to speak about super leagues
by oldbomber » Tue Jan 06, 2015 7:19 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |