Footy Chick wrote:This is where the GJ Rd boundary comes in.
Literally the only people that are kicking up about it are on the northern side of the road.
In reality, any leftover SN B & C graders won't travel further than the boundary to go and play a game of footy. 3 xD2R players in a struggling D5/D6/D7 side are going to go pretty well, posing what other clubs will see as an unfair advantage. Of course they're going to vote no, not because they think the SN Players are dangerous but because for the best part, there is no benefit for them
If JK hadn't gone to the clubs and the board made the decisions off their own back, then they'd be branded crap guys and anti -SN and totalitarian,so they're damned if they do and damned if they dont. Tell me now that any of you think that Shadiac or GIno would've consulted member clubs to come to this decision.
Marbles, not many people having a giggle around here at the minute. There are folks here that are effected directly. Your stupidity is both unwanted and quite insensitive. Either contribute positively or please go away.
Your boundary rule isnt 100% true. I had spoken with a few players and they were talking about different clubs. Most weren't keen to drop down to divs 6 or 7. Yes a few would have stayed closer to SN but most the top end of the talent would have been spread out IMO.
Was more referring to the B and C players here luv and was just a theory, for the best part, they're generally at the end of their careers (espeically C grade) and don't generally want to travel too far to train etc.. therefore the theory they wouldn't venture too far away, they just want a kick and a catch.
If they don't want to venture down to 6/7, there's not much on the north side of the road anyway, bar EP, who you would think would be particularly picky on who they recruit at this point, or Salisbury/Pooraka.
Can’t believe you actually think these players should miss the rest of the year when some of these players have never been susupended, outrageous that this comp is gonna stop some of these guys going to another club! & for you “footy chick” to agree is pathetic that’s like convicting these blokes for absolutely nothing
Dutchy wrote:Feel for the B/C graders who just want to play footy and most probably won't get a game in neighboring leagues if they explore that option.
They knowingly played at a club that had agreed to the conditions. Nobody forced them to be at SNFC.
I disagree to a point, I have a couple of mates who decided to have a C Grade kick with SN this year.
They have always played amateur soccer and wanted to give football a crack. They had no idea such rules even existed etc. They were hardly engaged in the club other than 2 hours on a Saturday so certainly didn't have knowledge of the history of the club. it wasn't made mention to them by the club before they signed that 'beware we are an AAA club etc'
Negligent if SN didn’t inform all players and members of the Club the relevant terms of the AAA and the possible consequences of a breach. The uproar on here would be amplified if it had been a C grade player that caused the trigger clause.
Dutchy wrote:Feel for the B/C graders who just want to play footy and most probably won't get a game in neighboring leagues if they explore that option.
They knowingly played at a club that had agreed to the conditions. Nobody forced them to be at SNFC.
I disagree to a point, I have a couple of mates who decided to have a C Grade kick with SN this year.
They have always played amateur soccer and wanted to give football a crack. They had no idea such rules even existed etc. They were hardly engaged in the club other than 2 hours on a Saturday so certainly didn't have knowledge of the history of the club. it wasn't made mention to them by the club before they signed that 'beware we are an AAA club etc'
So the club failed to ever communicate in any form about the behavior expected from players and the ramifications of breaches?
Seems like that would have been the obvious starting point to culture change.
CCC Romans wrote:Negligent if SN didn’t inform all players and members of the Club the relevant terms of the AAA and the possible consequences of a breach. The uproar on here would be amplified if it had been a C grade player that caused the trigger clause.
Wasim1 wrote:What a weak bunch we have running the circus! Give the club's the option to vote on it so we don't have to make the call and then we can't be held accountable for the decision,.Heard the boss may have had a couple of things to say at the tribunal that were interesting but they can wait for another day.Question is though if correct, " why did he sit as a tribunal member when they have a cast of thousands? I thought the top dog only took notes if anything.Got his mate as the tribunal chairman too I see
Go buy a clue Wasim, paid employees can't sit on the Tribunal
They're some pretty big accusations you're making there....
I thought that was the idea of this forum, voice your opinion and not have to worry about those members of the inner sanctum who are part of the fold. I'm not sure about accusations, my info was that the boss satin the tribunal so if that is incorrect then I apologize.
I try to sift through your woft and I don't know what your opinions are? You just seem to hate the world and everyone in it.
Are you angry at the AdFL, Salisbury North, the affiliated clubs, the tribunal, JK or all of the aforementioned.
I did hear along the grapevine that Virginia could be the recipient of a heap of young lads that were playing in the lower grades as Salisbury North didn't have an 18's.
The offending player has played for them for years and likely endured the previous club suspension too? Still not aware of the AAA though didnt get the memo
Dutchy wrote:Feel for the B/C graders who just want to play footy and most probably won't get a game in neighboring leagues if they explore that option.
They knowingly played at a club that had agreed to the conditions. Nobody forced them to be at SNFC.
I disagree to a point, I have a couple of mates who decided to have a C Grade kick with SN this year.
They have always played amateur soccer and wanted to give football a crack. They had no idea such rules even existed etc. They were hardly engaged in the club other than 2 hours on a Saturday so certainly didn't have knowledge of the history of the club. it wasn't made mention to them by the club before they signed that 'beware we are an AAA club etc'
So the club failed to ever communicate in any form about the behavior expected from players and the ramifications of breaches?
Seems like that would have been the obvious starting point to culture change.
From what I understand they did after the event of signing.
People are blaming the AdFL for putting the vote out to the clubs, but if its like the SFL their constitution means that something like this needs to be put to a club vote and can't be made by the board.
marbles wrote:If you regard my suggestion as stupid then you gotta be stupid to the bone calling a person whos highlighting a problem as an opportunity then we truly are in dumb dumb land and youve only made yourself look stupid.
Huh?
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
Dutchy wrote:People are blaming the AdFL for putting the vote out to the clubs, but if its like the SFL their constitution means that something like this needs to be put to a club vote and can't be made by the board.
Dutchy wrote:People are blaming the AdFL for putting the vote out to the clubs, but if its like the SFL their constitution means that something like this needs to be put to a club vote and can't be made by the board.
but the expelling of a club can be made by the board?
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
marbles wrote:If you regard my suggestion as stupid then you gotta be stupid to the bone calling a person whos highlighting a problem as an opportunity then we truly are in dumb dumb land and youve only made yourself look stupid.
Dutchy wrote:People are blaming the AdFL for putting the vote out to the clubs, but if its like the SFL their constitution means that something like this needs to be put to a club vote and can't be made by the board.
but the expelling of a club can be made by the board?
Dutchy wrote:People are blaming the AdFL for putting the vote out to the clubs, but if its like the SFL their constitution means that something like this needs to be put to a club vote and can't be made by the board.
but the expelling of a club can be made by the board?
I'm guessing the AAA agreement process was voted in by the clubs though, which then gives them the powers to expel.
didnt get the memo
