Ron Fuller on club zones
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:31 pmHas anything changed?
Wednesday 14 March - By Ronny's Blog
During the week I went to my pigeon hole at work and in it was an interesting article about zones and population of clubs in the SANFL sent to me by a long time supporter.
Just for your reminder the current system is based on population via the census, although it is stated that it ought to be based on population and participation of male youths between 13 and 18 in the clubs zone.
The recent participation stats say that South is last with only 60 teams from clubs or schools.
For your information this is the list in order of participation.
Glenelg 112 teams from clubs or schools.
Norwood 110
West 95
Sturt 93
Eagles 83
Port 77
North 68
Central 62 &
South 60.
The article I spoke of in my pigeon hole was from the News dated February 28, 1929 & it read.
SOUTH OFFICIALS INDIGNANT
REJECTION OF CLAIM FOR LARGER AREA
Will consider withdrawal from league
“ By its decision the South Australian National Football League has sacfificed South Adelaide” said J.L. Kay. ( secretary of South)
He was referring to the league having rejected a recommendation of a committee to give South more territory.
South have the smallest area, the smallest population and the smallest number of residential dwellings of any district according to Mr. Kay.
Officials will consider seriously whether the club will withdraw from the league.
Interesting statistics showing the territory allotted to each league club, the respective population and dwellings, and the area of vacant land available for expansion were placed by South before the committee which considered the question of the redistribution of districts.
The statistics are as follows.
Population Dwellings Area in acres Vacant land in acres.
Sturt 58, 362 13,823 17,797 11,280
Norwood 54, 971 12,874 15,080 11, 430
Port 45, 727 11,181 13,432 8,332
Torrens 44, 726 8,117 8,673 5,132
North 40,187 10,030 5,156 2,610
Glenelg 24, 144 5,635 16, 740 12,513
West 23, 216 5,760 7,587 5,500
South 21,580 4,803 1,263 150
( This was before Central and Woodville came in but there are many similarities. )
This was further reported.
“ I have it on good authority that Sturt was prepared to make the sacrifice, provided Norwood were. The latter club, however, would only voluntarily concede their portion on condition that South handed back to them Kent Town and Hackney, areas transferred to South seven years ago and having a population of nearly 5,000 people. Thus Norwood would have shown a profit on the transaction.
In the circumstances it was voted upon, and for some obscure reason the league delegates decided that South Adelaide must continue to struggle against the odds. There is just a possibility that something may be done for the city team when the new league executive assumes control after the annual meeting on Monday march 18.
I have no hesitation in saying that the majority of football followers would like to see South Adelaide given better treatment by the league.
Followers of football were astounded when it became known that the league had declined to rearrange the football areas.
The officials of South Adelaide Club concerned are more than astounded. So keenly do they feel what they term the injustice of the controlling body that it is likely that the committee will convene a meeting of members with a view to discussing the disbandment of the club.”
In conclusion Mr. Kay said: “Is there any incentive for officials and players to fight on under such overwhelming odds year after year when the serious position of the club, after having been placed at length before the controllers of the game in this state, is treated with apparent indifference.”
The zones did not change until much later and South didn’t disband of course but it is obvious who was running the competition in those days despite a “New league executive “ which was probably the equivalent of the current Commission.
Although it was from 1929, has anything really changed?
Let’s hope history doesn’t repeat itself.
Ron Fuller.
Wednesday 14 March - By Ronny's Blog
During the week I went to my pigeon hole at work and in it was an interesting article about zones and population of clubs in the SANFL sent to me by a long time supporter.
Just for your reminder the current system is based on population via the census, although it is stated that it ought to be based on population and participation of male youths between 13 and 18 in the clubs zone.
The recent participation stats say that South is last with only 60 teams from clubs or schools.
For your information this is the list in order of participation.
Glenelg 112 teams from clubs or schools.
Norwood 110
West 95
Sturt 93
Eagles 83
Port 77
North 68
Central 62 &
South 60.
The article I spoke of in my pigeon hole was from the News dated February 28, 1929 & it read.
SOUTH OFFICIALS INDIGNANT
REJECTION OF CLAIM FOR LARGER AREA
Will consider withdrawal from league
“ By its decision the South Australian National Football League has sacfificed South Adelaide” said J.L. Kay. ( secretary of South)
He was referring to the league having rejected a recommendation of a committee to give South more territory.
South have the smallest area, the smallest population and the smallest number of residential dwellings of any district according to Mr. Kay.
Officials will consider seriously whether the club will withdraw from the league.
Interesting statistics showing the territory allotted to each league club, the respective population and dwellings, and the area of vacant land available for expansion were placed by South before the committee which considered the question of the redistribution of districts.
The statistics are as follows.
Population Dwellings Area in acres Vacant land in acres.
Sturt 58, 362 13,823 17,797 11,280
Norwood 54, 971 12,874 15,080 11, 430
Port 45, 727 11,181 13,432 8,332
Torrens 44, 726 8,117 8,673 5,132
North 40,187 10,030 5,156 2,610
Glenelg 24, 144 5,635 16, 740 12,513
West 23, 216 5,760 7,587 5,500
South 21,580 4,803 1,263 150
( This was before Central and Woodville came in but there are many similarities. )
This was further reported.
“ I have it on good authority that Sturt was prepared to make the sacrifice, provided Norwood were. The latter club, however, would only voluntarily concede their portion on condition that South handed back to them Kent Town and Hackney, areas transferred to South seven years ago and having a population of nearly 5,000 people. Thus Norwood would have shown a profit on the transaction.
In the circumstances it was voted upon, and for some obscure reason the league delegates decided that South Adelaide must continue to struggle against the odds. There is just a possibility that something may be done for the city team when the new league executive assumes control after the annual meeting on Monday march 18.
I have no hesitation in saying that the majority of football followers would like to see South Adelaide given better treatment by the league.
Followers of football were astounded when it became known that the league had declined to rearrange the football areas.
The officials of South Adelaide Club concerned are more than astounded. So keenly do they feel what they term the injustice of the controlling body that it is likely that the committee will convene a meeting of members with a view to discussing the disbandment of the club.”
In conclusion Mr. Kay said: “Is there any incentive for officials and players to fight on under such overwhelming odds year after year when the serious position of the club, after having been placed at length before the controllers of the game in this state, is treated with apparent indifference.”
The zones did not change until much later and South didn’t disband of course but it is obvious who was running the competition in those days despite a “New league executive “ which was probably the equivalent of the current Commission.
Although it was from 1929, has anything really changed?
Let’s hope history doesn’t repeat itself.
Ron Fuller.
, the current zones are clearly unfair. When you have two clubs with over 100 clubs & schools and two clubs with 62 & 60 clubs and schools there is an obvious misappropriation of resources, regardless of who the clubs are at the bottom of the zone food chain.