Choccies wrote:I would imagine there would be more to gain from being in Div 3 and building some confidence, re-grouping and having a good year than being up in Div 2, possibly out of your league and copping another dent to to your clubs' aspirations.... There seems to be no other incentives to be in Div 2 otherwise ??
I think being competitive in div. 2 would be more satisfying than being strong in div. 3, it's far easier to be relegated than it is to be promoted.
i agree lightning, smosh just need to consolidate for a season, avoid relegation and then build on that!!! remember smosh ahve a fairly young side recruit a few blokes and they could be a decent div 2 side in a few years!
Choccies wrote:I would imagine there would be more to gain from being in Div 3 and building some confidence, re-grouping and having a good year than being up in Div 2, possibly out of your league and copping another dent to to your clubs' aspirations.... There seems to be no other incentives to be in Div 2 otherwise ??
I think being competitive in div. 2 would be more satisfying than being strong in div. 3, it's far easier to be relegated than it is to be promoted.
i agree lightning, smosh just need to consolidate for a season, avoid relegation and then build on that!!! remember smosh ahve a fairly young side recruit a few blokes and they could be a decent div 2 side in a few years!
Speaking to a couple of Modbury people during 08, they thought Smosh were danger games in the week leading up to playing them, both times.
I can see your point TBS, but i know of a club that was offered serious cash not to go up a division the year following a GF appearance. They refused, went up a grade, struggled and were relegated back down. You have to admire their stance. They want to play as high as division footy as possible. Im sure your club has the same philosophy.
i dont think teams should have much of a choice in which Division they play, unless they are absolutely chased strapped and cannot afford to pay the Subs to SAAFL beacuse it could mean they go further in debt or possibly fold. SAAFL should just tell them that they are playing in a particular division or they're not playing at all for the next season, and they automatically get relegated for the season after and strat the season with negative points. Maybe 8 games worth so it puts a big dent in them making the finals
but you would think that clubs want to play in the highest league they possibly can, even if it means they lose more often then they win. Higher placed clubs may attract more sponsorship then one's in lower divisions.
Suri wrote:i dont think teams should have much of a choice in which Division they play, unless they are absolutely chased strapped and cannot afford to pay the Subs to SAAFL beacuse it could mean they go further in debt or possibly fold. SAAFL should just tell them that they are playing in a particular division or they're not playing at all for the next season, and they automatically get relegated for the season after and strat the season with negative points. Maybe 8 games worth so it puts a big dent in them making the finals
but you would think that clubs want to play in the highest league they possibly can, even if it means they lose more often then they win. Higher placed clubs may attract more sponsorship then one's in lower divisions.
on the sponsorship though suri clubs that win lots of games may attract more sponsorship!!
Suri wrote:i dont think teams should have much of a choice in which Division they play, unless they are absolutely chased strapped and cannot afford to pay the Subs to SAAFL beacuse it could mean they go further in debt or possibly fold. SAAFL should just tell them that they are playing in a particular division or they're not playing at all for the next season, and they automatically get relegated for the season after and strat the season with negative points. Maybe 8 games worth so it puts a big dent in them making the finals
but you would think that clubs want to play in the highest league they possibly can, even if it means they lose more often then they win. Higher placed clubs may attract more sponsorship then one's in lower divisions.
on the sponsorship though suri clubs that win lots of games may attract more sponsorship!!
As Ca$h Haven do neither, where do they get their money from Fisty?
The Big Shrek wrote:I just had a look at the SAAFL rules in the 2008 handbook and it is silent about promotion/relegation in this type of situation.
Who is the club you are talking about Felch?
One of the 2 clubs relegated from D1 this year - pretty sure you can work it out from there. Offered a sizeable sum of cash from another club NOT to go up at the end of 2007.
Choccies wrote:I would imagine there would be more to gain from being in Div 3 and building some confidence, re-grouping and having a good year than being up in Div 2, possibly out of your league and copping another dent to to your clubs' aspirations.... There seems to be no other incentives to be in Div 2 otherwise ??
I think being competitive in div. 2 would be more satisfying than being strong in div. 3, it's far easier to be relegated than it is to be promoted.
Absolutely... But what if being competitive in Div 2 just isn't going to happen ?? Do you go back to go forward eventually ?
I love grapes. With grapes, you always get another chance. You know, if you have a crappy apple or a peach, you’re stuck with that crappy piece of fruit. If you have a crappy grape, no problem-just move on to the next. ‘Grapes: The Fruit of Hope.
Lightning McQueen wrote:If the SAAFL had any sense, they would offer Golden Grove the final spot in div. 2.
What sort of bait is on that hook LM ???
I love grapes. With grapes, you always get another chance. You know, if you have a crappy apple or a peach, you’re stuck with that crappy piece of fruit. If you have a crappy grape, no problem-just move on to the next. ‘Grapes: The Fruit of Hope.
The Big Shrek wrote:I just had a look at the SAAFL rules in the 2008 handbook and it is silent about promotion/relegation in this type of situation.
Who is the club you are talking about Felch?
One of the 2 clubs relegated from D1 this year - pretty sure you can work it out from there. Offered a sizeable sum of cash from another club NOT to go up at the end of 2007.
So Uni offered Seaton money to stay down. That explains what Rotter was doing at their presentation night. Very interesting. So they don't pay players, they just pay other clubs ha ha!
Suri wrote:i dont think teams should have much of a choice in which Division they play, unless they are absolutely chased strapped and cannot afford to pay the Subs to SAAFL beacuse it could mean they go further in debt or possibly fold. SAAFL should just tell them that they are playing in a particular division or they're not playing at all for the next season, and they automatically get relegated for the season after and strat the season with negative points. Maybe 8 games worth so it puts a big dent in them making the finals
but you would think that clubs want to play in the highest league they possibly can, even if it means they lose more often then they win. Higher placed clubs may attract more sponsorship then one's in lower divisions.
on the sponsorship though suri clubs that win lots of games may attract more sponsorship!!
As Ca$h Haven do neither, where do they get their money from Fisty?
for legal reasons i cant go into where north haven aquire there money!
Suri wrote:i dont think teams should have much of a choice in which Division they play, unless they are absolutely chased strapped and cannot afford to pay the Subs to SAAFL beacuse it could mean they go further in debt or possibly fold. SAAFL should just tell them that they are playing in a particular division or they're not playing at all for the next season, and they automatically get relegated for the season after and strat the season with negative points. Maybe 8 games worth so it puts a big dent in them making the finals
but you would think that clubs want to play in the highest league they possibly can, even if it means they lose more often then they win. Higher placed clubs may attract more sponsorship then one's in lower divisions.
on the sponsorship though suri clubs that win lots of games may attract more sponsorship!!
As Ca$h Haven do neither, where do they get their money from Fisty?
for legal reasons i cant go into where north haven aquire there money!
Suri wrote:i dont think teams should have much of a choice in which Division they play, unless they are absolutely chased strapped and cannot afford to pay the Subs to SAAFL beacuse it could mean they go further in debt or possibly fold. SAAFL should just tell them that they are playing in a particular division or they're not playing at all for the next season, and they automatically get relegated for the season after and strat the season with negative points. Maybe 8 games worth so it puts a big dent in them making the finals
but you would think that clubs want to play in the highest league they possibly can, even if it means they lose more often then they win. Higher placed clubs may attract more sponsorship then one's in lower divisions.
on the sponsorship though suri clubs that win lots of games may attract more sponsorship!!
As Ca$h Haven do neither, where do they get their money from Fisty?
for legal reasons i cant go into where north haven aquire there money!
Common knowledge the Porn King deals out a bit of cash..
My new Mantra - I am no longer available to things and people that make me feel like shit
hanno_7 wrote:hey thachy what time did you get in the sweat track last night???
I OPTED AGAINST THE PARA HILLS SWEAT TRACK MATE.. DIDNT WANNA WASTE MY TIME RUNNING 1.5KM DECIDED TO HEAD TO UNI LOOP AND DO A 3KM TIME TRIAL INSTEAD.. CANT DISCLOSE MY EXACT TIME THOUGH.. AS IT WILL MORE THEN LIKELY RESULT IN ME GETTING TAGGED BY 2 MAYBE EVEN 3 PLAYERS GIVE OR TAKE 5 MINUTES BUT I THINK IT WAS MID TO LATE 9'S
mid to late 9's or mid to late 19's??? Ive seen you run time trials.
YOU'VE SEEN ME RUN TIME TRIALS HEY? SO YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN THE #7 GETTING FURTHER AND FURTHER INFRONT?
