Mr Beefy wrote:My understanding, the rule was introduced, clubs (MP, FU, Kilburn, Wingfield) had a grace period to meet the criteria of the rule. The grace period has expired all clubs must now adhere to the rule, just like any other rule.
Speaking of rules, are clubs no longer allowed to wear white shorts at home games?
No, the rule is that any club can revert to one team for a grace period of one year. They then must produce two teams to remain affiliated.
correct. I reckon that's a bit unfair. It's not college clubs fault that the rest of you dumasses can't figure it out...but that's just my $0.02.
Why is it that only college clubs got to have only one colour?
Mr Beefy wrote:My understanding, the rule was introduced, clubs (MP, FU, Kilburn, Wingfield) had a grace period to meet the criteria of the rule. The grace period has expired all clubs must now adhere to the rule, just like any other rule.
Speaking of rules, are clubs no longer allowed to wear white shorts at home games?
No, the rule is that any club can revert to one team for a grace period of one year. They then must produce two teams to remain affiliated.
correct. I reckon that's a bit unfair. It's not college clubs fault that the rest of you dumasses can't figure it out...but that's just my $0.02.
Why is it that only college clubs got to have only one colour?
It wasn't just college clubs but any club that had white as their preferred short colour.
Mr Beefy wrote:My understanding, the rule was introduced, clubs (MP, FU, Kilburn, Wingfield) had a grace period to meet the criteria of the rule. The grace period has expired all clubs must now adhere to the rule, just like any other rule.
Speaking of rules, are clubs no longer allowed to wear white shorts at home games?
No, the rule is that any club can revert to one team for a grace period of one year. They then must produce two teams to remain affiliated.
correct. I reckon that's a bit unfair. It's not college clubs fault that the rest of you dumasses can't figure it out...but that's just my $0.02.
Why is it that only college clubs got to have only one colour?
It wasn't just college clubs but any club that had white as their preferred short colour.
So what happened when two clubs with white shorts only played each other?
Mr Beefy wrote:My understanding, the rule was introduced, clubs (MP, FU, Kilburn, Wingfield) had a grace period to meet the criteria of the rule. The grace period has expired all clubs must now adhere to the rule, just like any other rule.
Speaking of rules, are clubs no longer allowed to wear white shorts at home games?
No, the rule is that any club can revert to one team for a grace period of one year. They then must produce two teams to remain affiliated.
correct. I reckon that's a bit unfair. It's not college clubs fault that the rest of you dumasses can't figure it out...but that's just my $0.02.
Why is it that only college clubs got to have only one colour?
Mr Beefy wrote:My understanding, the rule was introduced, clubs (MP, FU, Kilburn, Wingfield) had a grace period to meet the criteria of the rule. The grace period has expired all clubs must now adhere to the rule, just like any other rule.
Speaking of rules, are clubs no longer allowed to wear white shorts at home games?
No, the rule is that any club can revert to one team for a grace period of one year. They then must produce two teams to remain affiliated.
correct. I reckon that's a bit unfair. It's not college clubs fault that the rest of you dumasses can't figure it out...but that's just my $0.02.
Disagree completely.
From this day forth North Haven only wear Black shorts, too bad for everyone else. Doesn't seem fair.
I don't disagree with the dumbass part though, I fully accept my club and myself included are not capable of remembering home shorts when we play at college teams. It's beyond us.
I believe everyone should wear coloured shorts all the time, just because it looks cool.
I love that Plympton still wear the red shorts and if Ethelton still existed I would play for them just to wear gold shorts.
I have a problem. It's to do with the little man, the squashed-in French man, the naked little squashed up hairy boy! You know! With the hand feet *I apologise to Hope Valley people in advance, no offence intended
Mr Beefy wrote:My understanding, the rule was introduced, clubs (MP, FU, Kilburn, Wingfield) had a grace period to meet the criteria of the rule. The grace period has expired all clubs must now adhere to the rule, just like any other rule.
Speaking of rules, are clubs no longer allowed to wear white shorts at home games?
No, the rule is that any club can revert to one team for a grace period of one year. They then must produce two teams to remain affiliated.
correct. I reckon that's a bit unfair. It's not college clubs fault that the rest of you dumasses can't figure it out...but that's just my $0.02.
Disagree completely.
From this day forth North Haven only wear Black shorts, too bad for everyone else. Doesn't seem fair.
I don't disagree with the dumbass part though, I fully accept my club and myself included are not capable of remembering home shorts when we play at college teams. It's beyond us.
I believe everyone should wear coloured shorts all the time, just because it looks cool.
I love that Plympton still wear the red shorts and if Ethelton still existed I would play for them just to wear gold shorts.
I have a problem. It's to do with the little man, the squashed-in French man, the naked little squashed up hairy boy! You know! With the hand feet *I apologise to Hope Valley people in advance, no offence intended
easy TIGA wrote:If no amateur league club from 4, 5, or even 6 wants to be promoted all being by default then I think it goes to show where local footy really Stands. IMHO I believe there will be alot more clubs that will follow trends of the few clubs that have struggled recently, even those that don't pay. Having a bye in our amateurs top 3rd division is just that, amateurish.
Chicken Little much?
Why would a D5 or D6 club throw themselves to the wolves in D3? That smacks of poor decision making.
Yeh I'm not saying they should, but I'm guessing that most clubs don't have the stocks or resources to atleast think they might have a crack at it. My point is that below div 3, there are plenty of clubs that are struggling, both financially and finding players, including juniors. salisbury west is not going to be alone. There are plenty of reasons why clubs are struggling so much but imho I think the apps has made big clubs stronger and little battling clubs non existent.
How has the apps made big clubs stronger and battling clubs weaker?
One would be juniors, and before you tell me it's about building a foundation so the juniors can thrive and grow into a senior role , I've heard it. Sometimes geographically It is simply impossible. I've seen a lot of clubs but I'll take kilburn as one, they have no chance of gaining young aussie rules kids for their juniors, their only option to gain juniors is to recruit from the likes of Gaza, gepps x,as they're probably closest. Sides with good juniors, juniors become seniors, 0 points. Kilburn cannot now recruit any more than say 3 to 4 players each year, (money or not and even guys that wanna play together but might want to drop divisions cannot go there) the apps system has allowed strong junior based clubs, as well as college sides to become stronger. And sides that thrive on an everyday bloke to walk in off the street to become very vulnerable. I feel that it the burden doesn't lift on some clubs we might see a 3 or 4 division league.
How come Salisbury West can affiliate with one team but Wingfield, or any other club, cannot?
Wingfield had their grace year last season just like ovingham had previously. 2015 will be Salisbury West's grace year to give them time to get enough players for two sides again.
always forgive your enemies...nothing annoys them so much
It has made it more difficult for clubs who do not develop football at junior level to compete with those who do. I think that's a great result.
I think the league probably has a few too many clubs, as you've suggested they have a number of clubs who take the cherry off the top of other clubs without developing football at junior level. Do we need many of these clubs? The league might level out at 6 division which I think would be about right.
I think the NEJFA rules are BS and anti-competitive that they allow big clubs to have so many junior teams per grade, not allowing some smaller clubs to contribute to junior football and building their club.
It hasn't stopped the everyday bloke having a kick, its just made it harder for the gun (or as we all know, maybe just reasonable player) jumping around.
The APPS isn't perfect, for example if everyone wanted to leave SW for instance, stay as a group, and go play around the corner, that is a legit issue.
Im not sure if the heat is getting to me or what, but I actually agree with what Jetters says there.. You see clubs with astronomical junior numbers and they register 2 or 3 sides per age level, and then just up the road a club is struggling to get enough for 1 side, and in turn the juniors fold, and have a flow on effect into the seniors down the track..
Juniors are key to longevity, unless Old Scholar clubs, who in turn will obviously rely on school kids acting as their 'juniors'
It's naive to think clubs with multiple juniors teams don't deserve them. In my experience the junior programs at the bigger junior clubs (GG, TTG, Modbury etc.) offer kids a much better environment to learn, develop and enjoy football.
Just little things like having a white and red age group allowing kids to play at an appropriate skill level is great for kids.
It has made it more difficult for clubs who do not develop football at junior level to compete with those who do. I think that's a great result.
I think the league probably has a few too many clubs, as you've suggested they have a number of clubs who take the cherry off the top of other clubs without developing football at junior level. Do we need many of these clubs? The league might level out at 6 division which I think would be about right.
I think the NEJFA rules are BS and anti-competitive that they allow big clubs to have so many junior teams per grade, not allowing some smaller clubs to contribute to junior football and building their club.
It hasn't stopped the everyday bloke having a kick, its just made it harder for the gun (or as we all know, maybe just reasonable player) jumping around.
The APPS isn't perfect, for example if everyone wanted to leave SW for instance, stay as a group, and go play around the corner, that is a legit issue.
Agree with limiting clubs with juniors, but maybe the saafl should limit senior clubs to no more than 4 teams each. If you can't be a 1 team club you shouldn't be allowed more than 4 teams.
jo172 wrote:It's naive to think clubs with multiple juniors teams don't deserve them. In my experience the junior programs at the bigger junior clubs (GG, TTG, Modbury etc.) offer kids a much better environment to learn, develop and enjoy football.
Just little things like having a white and red age group allowing kids to play at an appropriate skill level is great for kids.
That's ultimately what it should be about.
That's fine. But then you have a club going around recruiting talented juniors from other clubs when they've already got plenty of numbers. That is just wrong and I feel unnecessary. Not much point winning final after final when you've got nobody decent to play against.
jo172 wrote:It's naive to think clubs with multiple juniors teams don't deserve them. In my experience the junior programs at the bigger junior clubs (GG, TTG, Modbury etc.) offer kids a much better environment to learn, develop and enjoy football.
Just little things like having a white and red age group allowing kids to play at an appropriate skill level is great for kids.
That's ultimately what it should be about.
Nah that's a bit BS.
What you said is self fulfilling, big clubs can offer the best environment because they have the most players (resources, success etc).
You have to find a balance between encouraging clubs to provide great junior programs so they prosper and also allow competition.
jo172 wrote:It's naive to think clubs with multiple juniors teams don't deserve them. In my experience the junior programs at the bigger junior clubs (GG, TTG, Modbury etc.) offer kids a much better environment to learn, develop and enjoy football.
Just little things like having a white and red age group allowing kids to play at an appropriate skill level is great for kids.
That's ultimately what it should be about.
Nah that's a bit BS.
What you said is self fulfilling, big clubs can offer the best environment because they have the most players (resources, success etc).
You have to find a balance between encouraging clubs to provide great junior programs so they prosper and also allow competition.
I think NEJFA have this balance pretty far off
and let the other clubs with less of a junior program to fold their juniors??
all clubs should help out each other so that everyone can prosper
SAFooty.net, where you hear the community football news first
