Picola & District SE 2015

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
SharpElbows said:
I have seen more passionate and "right" people than yourself get no where with more data and evidence than you are stating.

at the end of the day, it will be in regardless :)
Click to expand...

most probably will. But I've voiced my concerns without lowering myself to personal attacks.

You haven't provided anything either to say this system will work no data will prove it either way. The question is will clubs follow it? Time will tell I guess.
 
wouldIlietoyou said:
most probably will. But I've voiced my concerns without lowering myself to personal attacks.

You haven't provided anything either to say this system will work no data will prove it either way. The question is will clubs follow it? Time will tell I guess.
Click to expand...

Data and stats aren't available to support the system because it hasn't been trailed, you might find it in place, but not capped at the start. That way it can be monitored and gauged anonymously to gather sufficient data to put a case forward as to why the system is required.

horse before the cart
 
"The Roar Is Back" said:
Heard recently of a proposal whereby clubs would be allocated points based on the amount of players they have had play in the past 7 years that have played over the 40 game home player threshold.
Greater than 60 > 22 points
50 - 60> 25 points
40-50 > 28 points etc etc

Not sure if I necessarily agree with the figures used for the criteria and allocation of points, but it may even out the playing field within the same competition for those clubs that don't have the benefit of great junior numbers from time to time, compared to those that do. Would also place a huge emphasis of all clubs to improve the percentage of their juniors that transition into senior players, which should be the number 1 goal.
Click to expand...

Interesting. 22 points is very low, that is a side of 1 pointers only!?
Am I reading it wrong or does it seem that clubs who have had good junior infrastructure in the past 7 years will be punished the most?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

SharpElbows said:
That's rich coming from you.
So your stating when clubs vote within the PDFNL (if they get a vote) the PDFNL board will go with what the majority vote in support of? Or does the PDFNL "OWN" the clubs? ;)


You might not like lack of control but fact is, it will eventually be in place.
Not even affiliating the PDFNL with AFL NSW will avoid this change. delaying the inevitable will only give other leagues a head start into the system.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the PDFNL board governs the PDFNL and is not only empowered but also obliged to act in the best interest of the league and all of it's members .
You'll have to get some balls and ring and ask the board , yes the same one you have criticised to answer your questions .
I would suggest the league has already checked out it's avenues including the majority of its memberships view and also the view and progress of fellow leagues.
Scare tactics , you really are clutching
 
SharpElbows said:
Interesting. 22 points is very low, that is a side of 1 pointers only!?
Am I reading it wrong or does it seem that clubs who have had good junior infrastructure in the past 7 years will be punished the most?
Click to expand...
This system I would have thought caters and supports those with a good junior structure and favours those with the higher percentage of juniors who are developed into senior footballers, rather than gross numbers.
Less poaching of juniors , might even out the junior comps as well , which many might see as a massive if not the biggest issue.
 
"The Roar Is Back" said:
Pretty sure the PDFNL board governs the PDFNL and is not only empowered but also obliged to act in the best interest of the league and all of it's members .
You'll have to get some balls and ring and ask the board , yes the same one you have criticised to answer your questions .
I would suggest the league has already checked out it's avenues including the majority of its memberships view and also the view and progress of fellow leagues.
Scare tactics , you really are clutching
Click to expand...

As do the AFL VIC board governs AFL VIC and is not only empowered but also obliged to act in the best interest of the AFL VIC and all of it's members. ;)
 
SharpElbows said:
Data and stats aren't available to support the system because it hasn't been trailed, you might find it in place, but not capped at the start. That way it can be monitored and gauged anonymously to gather sufficient data to put a case forward as to why the system is required.

horse before the cart
Click to expand...
Actually stats are available for both portions of the proposal. 92% of clubs with the points currently in say it has no affect of player payments. Only a maximum of 45% of clubs were interested enough to complete the Vic Country Survey only 45% of those surveyed felt is was likely or highly likely to work. I also believe it is common knowledge that it was alleged 12 clubs completed the survey , where identities couldn't be confirmed ,yet where identities were able to be confirm only 4 completed the survey.
It is also 100% correct that AFL Vic ( country ) senior members of staff have been quoted as saying that a salary cap nor a points system would work or be brought in or words to that affect.
 
"The Roar Is Back" said:
This system I would have thought caters and supports those with a good junior structure and favours those with the higher percentage of juniors who are developed into senior footballers, rather than gross numbers.
Less poaching of juniors , might even out the junior comps as well , which many might see as a massive if not the biggest issue.
Click to expand...

So would you like to see points based on the fact that

CLUB A has a better junior structure the last 7 years (22 points)
CLUB B has a worse junior structure the last 7 years (28 points)

it seems CLUB A are getting penalised for good club management?
 
It is actually irrelevant. Have a look at Dookie this year which has about a dozen under 14 and 17's. The lack of numbers will cause a major problem for many years under a points system. I think all clubs try really hard to have good junior systems, but Shepp East with under 12's up will always be at an advantage if they can keep their kids right thru (and good on them), same with Tunga who have 25 14's and 17's. Why do we need centralised control, I said on another board the KDFL have had 8 clubs win flags in the last 10 years, how good is that, the probs have been South Barwon, Horsham and Albury in the country, and Heidelberg, Balwyn and the like. The common theme has been these clubs have been able to get a major sponsor/benefactor to support them. Tunga crowds are allegedly disappointing this season with the locals wanting to see a contest but not getting so they do not turn up, and hopefully they will consider this in their attack on 2016.
 
mixed emotions said:
It is actually irrelevant. Have a look at Dookie this year which has about a dozen under 14 and 17's. The lack of numbers will cause a major problem for many years under a points system. I think all clubs try really hard to have good junior systems, but Shepp East with under 12's up will always be at an advantage if they can keep their kids right thru (and good on them), same with Tunga who have 25 14's and 17's. Why do we need centralised control, I said on another board the KDFL have had 8 clubs win flags in the last 10 years, how good is that, the probs have been South Barwon, Horsham and Albury in the country, and Heidelberg, Balwyn and the like. The common theme has been these clubs have been able to get a major sponsor/benefactor to support them. Tunga crowds are allegedly disappointing this season with the locals wanting to see a contest but not getting so they do not turn up, and hopefully they will consider this in their attack on 2016.
Click to expand...

Are you saying numbers are the issue and a points system won't help?
 
SharpElbows said:
So would you like to see points based on the fact that

CLUB A has a better junior structure the last 7 years (22 points)
CLUB B has a worse junior structure the last 7 years (28 points)

it seems CLUB A are getting penalised for good club management?
Click to expand...
Success of a junior structure should not be based upon player numbers , that mentality is what is causing a poor retention of players , low open age footballers around the state and also seeing children being recruited .
The proposal in it's rawest form does favour teams with larger junior numbers as they have more players in future to recruit back to the club without incurring additional points .
Many clubs within the PDFNL do not have the equal ability to attract junior players and it is no fault of their own or a reflection of their junior program , it is primarily due to their location. What is reflective of a junior program is the percentage of kids who continue to play the game once of open age .
Clubs who have good junior numbers and are able to maintain those kids are already the ones who are enjoying senior success . If there is anyone who should be provided a advantage it should be clubs who have the highest percentage of kids who continue playing senior footy.
It may even see junior comps re-address the thinking of having 35 kids per team and without consideration starting new teams , whilst neighboring clubs have 12 , like Dookie .
I thought the idea was to improve the chances of success for the smaller communities not further dis advantage them .
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ark n go said:
Is the idea of the points system for "equalization" or for the survival of clubs?
Click to expand...
Got no idea ark I don't believe it has ever been stated . Fwiw I don't think it has even been explained whether the proposal that has been put forward is to reduce player payments or to equalise competitions .
The biggest differences in scores actually occurs in junior football with the players ( juniors) , who are most likely to give the game away due to being consistantly defeated. A issue I have no doubt afl vic know about and will come up with a reason to slug clubs $$$'s to so call address in the future when. It has be proven can be addressed at no costs to clubs.
Don't think a reason has been given for the increase in auskick yet
 
Last edited:
"The Roar Is Back" said:
Success of a junior structure should not be based upon player numbers , that mentality is what is causing a poor retention of players , low open age footballers around the state and also seeing children being recruited .
The proposal in it's rawest form does favour teams with larger junior numbers as they have more players in future to recruit back to the club without incurring additional points .
Many clubs within the PDFNL do not have the equal ability to attract junior players and it is no fault of their own or a reflection of their junior program , it is primarily due to their location. What is reflective of a junior program is the percentage of kids who continue to play the game once of open age .
Clubs who have good junior numbers and are able to maintain those kids are already the ones who are enjoying senior success . If there is anyone who should be provided a advantage it should be clubs who have the highest percentage of kids who continue playing senior footy.
It may even see junior comps re-address the thinking of having 35 kids per team and without consideration starting new teams , whilst neighboring clubs have 12 , like Dookie .
I thought the idea was to improve the chances of success for the smaller communities not further dis advantage them .
Click to expand...

Are we not going to even consider that maybe the 18 kids for each team are just a lot better than the 18 in the bottom team?
Quantity of kids at a club does not necessarily = success.
You mentioned Dookie why do the 4ths have 39 players on their list? 16 of who have played 9 or more games? the club should be making it more appealing for the 10 odd kids who have only played 1 game.
 
SharpElbows said:
Are we not going to even consider that maybe the 18 kids for each team are just a lot better than the 18 in the bottom team?
Quantity of kids at a club does not necessarily = success.
You mentioned Dookie why do the 4ths have 39 players on their list? 16 of who have played 9 or more games? the club should be making it more appealing for the 10 odd kids who have only played 1 game.
Click to expand...
Do some research and you'll find out why the 10 odd 4ths haven't played more than 1 game, you are proving very quickly why research should be done before forming a opinion.
Never mentioned winning junior premierships nor do I think has anybody else or is it relevant ?
Now where are your facts behind the allegations you made yesterday ?
 
"The Roar Is Back" said:
Do some research and you'll find out why the 10 odd 4ths haven't played more than 1 game, you are proving very quickly why research should be done before forming a opinion.
Never mentioned winning junior premierships nor do I think has anybody else or is it relevant ?
Now where are your facts behind the allegations you made yesterday ?
Click to expand...

They are fielding more than 12 players each week was my point.
So why aren't they securing these 10 fill in players? or are they the players they field on permit from other leagues all the time?
these kids obviously have connections to the club, why cant Dookie secure them?
 
The fact is that many primary schools in PDFL member towns have significantly reduced in enrolments. Some now just 30% of the size they were in the 1990s.
 
SharpElbows said:
They are fielding more than 12 players each week was my point.
So why aren't they securing these 10 fill in players? or are they the players they field on permit from other leagues all the time?
these kids obviously have connections to the club, why cant Dookie secure them?
Click to expand...
Their geographic location to a junior comp which has more teams than it filters to is the exact reason they struggle for juniors and is the same across the majority of the state .
The intended equalisation appears to be heavily pushed due to the dominance of the Yarrawonga.
The fact is the yarrawonga area and junior setup has it spot on . Numerous under 12 sides yet at under 14 and above they only have the same amount of junior sides as they have senior sides .
The yarrawonga area as a whole , including , Yarra, Mul, Rennie and Tunga has a amazing recent history . Multiple flags at all levels and a extremely good retention rate into senior players . Yes at times some sides struggle for numbers at different grades but it is not generally prolonged .
Their junior set-up has people in it which see the much bigger picture , encourage the strength of the whole area not just the premier comp in the area .
EQUALISATION is achievable but more research needs to be done to replicate what is being successful not trying to restrict them , because as in this case it will most likely further bridge the gap in their favour and further escalate other issues that exist , like player numbers , club administration .
Inbalance at senior level is most certainly an extension of junior issues.
 
Maybe the PDFNL Clubs have the wrong people in place to address the issue.

Maybe the PDFNL themselves have the wrong people in place to address the issue.

Maybe the AFL VIC have the wrong people in place to address the issue.

Maybe the AFL have the wrong people in place to address the issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

"The Roar Is Back"
  • Sticky
Picola & District Discussion 2024
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
226
Views
29K
Nickedoff
N
MortlockWatcher
Picola & District Discussion 2023
20 21 22 23 24
Replies
575
Views
89K
justanotherfootynut
J

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top