Grade Cricket

[heater31]

The unlucky 13th club to be relegated to ATCA premier grade and then operate a promotion/relegation with the winner of ATCA premier grade and the wooden spoon

Doubt it. Merger most likely.

Wasn't being serious lol.

Which clubs would be most likely to be considered for the merger?

SACA response on Twitter to a couple questions is that they are actively targeting clubs to induce negotiations....


I can say it won't be Adelaide & Sturt as outlined in the original report. That was vehemently opposed at a community forum of Adelaide CC players, life members and interested people a few weeks ago.

[Footy Smart]

So number of district team to decrease to 12, not the 10 coming out of the clubs. Is it already being watered down?
Did I read it correctly when it said it was reducing to 12 teams to align it with ATCA. The peak body aligning itself to a community competition. Shouldn't the peak body establish what is best of itself and then if there is any aligning it is done from the bottom up?

I think the point is they will align the scheduling with the ATCA which will make it easier for players to move between the two competitions. Having coached in both comps, I think this is a good move - very frustrating to have to leave some poor 17 year-old D-grader without a game when college and state players come back in December, conversely when struggling for numbers at a turf club and there are 40+ guys sitting around from a grade club doing nothing because of the bye, who can't be played because the programs are out of sync. This may also help community and grade (premier) clubs to develop better working relationships.

Exactly, well put SH.

This will be a positive move for GC. Also i like the fact that the funding arrangements have been tightened and stricter governance required.

I have a feeling a few clubs will be a bit worried.

Hopefully along with the extra paperwork is the increased opportunity for more cash....

Im not sure a heap of extra cash is needed for clubs? some clubs function better than others, admittedly there is many reasons for this.

[heater31]

I think the point is they will align the scheduling with the ATCA which will make it easier for players to move between the two competitions. Having coached in both comps, I think this is a good move - very frustrating to have to leave some poor 17 year-old D-grader without a game when college and state players come back in December, conversely when struggling for numbers at a turf club and there are 40+ guys sitting around from a grade club doing nothing because of the bye, who can't be played because the programs are out of sync. This may also help community and grade (premier) clubs to develop better working relationships.

Exactly, well put SH.

This will be a positive move for GC. Also i like the fact that the funding arrangements have been tightened and stricter governance required.

I have a feeling a few clubs will be a bit worried.

Hopefully along with the extra paperwork is the increased opportunity for more cash....

Im not sure a heap of extra cash is needed for clubs? some clubs function better than others, admittedly there is many reasons for this.

At the very least a CPI increase would be nice. The Cost of putting 8 teams on the field each week is only increasing, I believe that it has been a number of years since the funding model has been adjusted.

[Aerie]

Thought I'd have a quick look back at the past 5 seasons to try to measure on field strength.

I looked at how many times a club finished top 4 in A Grade, top 4 in the Club Championship (to measure overall senior strength) and top 4 in juniors (U16R&W, U14R&W) to measure overall junior strength.

1. Kensington (87% overall) - 100% A Grade Finals, 80% Club Champ Top 4, 80% Junior Finals
2. Tea Tree Gully (53% overall) - 60% A Grade Finals, 60% Club Champ Top 4, 40% Junior Finals
3. Sturt (50% overall) - 40% A Grade Finals, 40% Club Champ Top 4, 70% Junior Finals
4. West Torrens (47% overall) - 40% A Grade Finals, 60% Club Champ Top 4, 40% Junior Finals
5. Woodville (43% overall) - 80% A Grade Finals, 40% Club Champ Top 4, 10% Junior Finals
6. East Torrens (33% overall) - 20% A Grade Finals, 60% Club Champ Top 4, 20% Junior Finals
7. Glenelg (23% overall) - 20% A Grade Finals, 40% Club Champ Top 4, 10% Junior FInals
8. Port Adelaide (18% overall) - 40% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, 15% Junior Finals
9. Adelaide (13% overall) - 0% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, 40% Junior Finals
=10. Northern Districts (12% overall) - 0% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, 35% Junior Finals
=10. Prospect (12% overall) - 0% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, 35% Junior Finals
12. Southern District (8% overall) - 0% A Grade Finals, 20% Club Champ Top 4, 5% Junior Finals
13. University (0%) - 0% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, No Juniors

Obviously this doesn't tell a whole story. For example, Uni finished 5th in Club Champ last year so on improve perhaps and 5 years isn't a large sample size in a comp that has clubs well over 100 years old, but you'd want to have a strong club now to avoid getting the chop.

[heater31]

Thought I'd have a quick look back at the past 5 seasons to try to measure on field strength.

I looked at how many times a club finished top 4 in A Grade, top 4 in the Club Championship (to measure overall senior strength) and top 4 in juniors (U16R&W, U14R&W) to measure overall junior strength.

1. Kensington (87% overall) - 100% A Grade Finals, 80% Club Champ Top 4, 80% Junior Finals
2. Tea Tree Gully (53% overall) - 60% A Grade Finals, 60% Club Champ Top 4, 40% Junior Finals
3. Sturt (50% overall) - 40% A Grade Finals, 40% Club Champ Top 4, 70% Junior Finals
4. West Torrens (47% overall) - 40% A Grade Finals, 60% Club Champ Top 4, 40% Junior Finals
5. Woodville (43% overall) - 80% A Grade Finals, 40% Club Champ Top 4, 10% Junior Finals
6. East Torrens (33% overall) - 20% A Grade Finals, 60% Club Champ Top 4, 20% Junior Finals
7. Glenelg (23% overall) - 20% A Grade Finals, 40% Club Champ Top 4, 10% Junior FInals
8. Port Adelaide (18% overall) - 40% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, 15% Junior Finals
9. Adelaide (13% overall) - 0% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, 40% Junior Finals
=10. Northern Districts (12% overall) - 0% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, 35% Junior Finals
=10. Prospect (12% overall) - 0% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, 35% Junior Finals
12. Southern District (8% overall) - 0% A Grade Finals, 20% Club Champ Top 4, 5% Junior Finals
13. University (0%) - 0% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, No Juniors

Obviously this doesn't tell a whole story. For example, Uni finished 5th in Club Champ last year so on improve perhaps and 5 years isn't a large sample size in a comp that has clubs well over 100 years old, but you'd want to have a strong club now to avoid getting the chop.

You also need to crystal ball a bit too and look at the potential in your zone catchment for juniors. If you can't get a full compliment of teams on the park it isn't going to look very bright without recruiting players from other clubs. Using Woodville as an example can they cash in on the St Clair Development? They have a ground right on the door step of this sub-division....

[Tony Clifton]

I always felt they should have used the country zones to balance the metro zones. Some clubs have fairly small metro areas, or low socio economic, or low cricket playing numbers. These clubs should have been allocated the larger, closer country areas (Hills, Barossa).

It makes no sense that Port Adelaide has Eyre Peninsula. Big country zone but very few will travel that far to play. Prospect have Broken Hill. Can't imagine too many make the trek down weekly.

[Footy Smart]

Thought I'd have a quick look back at the past 5 seasons to try to measure on field strength.

I looked at how many times a club finished top 4 in A Grade, top 4 in the Club Championship (to measure overall senior strength) and top 4 in juniors (U16R&W, U14R&W) to measure overall junior strength.

1. Kensington (87% overall) - 100% A Grade Finals, 80% Club Champ Top 4, 80% Junior Finals
2. Tea Tree Gully (53% overall) - 60% A Grade Finals, 60% Club Champ Top 4, 40% Junior Finals
3. Sturt (50% overall) - 40% A Grade Finals, 40% Club Champ Top 4, 70% Junior Finals
4. West Torrens (47% overall) - 40% A Grade Finals, 60% Club Champ Top 4, 40% Junior Finals
5. Woodville (43% overall) - 80% A Grade Finals, 40% Club Champ Top 4, 10% Junior Finals
6. East Torrens (33% overall) - 20% A Grade Finals, 60% Club Champ Top 4, 20% Junior Finals
7. Glenelg (23% overall) - 20% A Grade Finals, 40% Club Champ Top 4, 10% Junior FInals
8. Port Adelaide (18% overall) - 40% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, 15% Junior Finals
9. Adelaide (13% overall) - 0% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, 40% Junior Finals
=10. Northern Districts (12% overall) - 0% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, 35% Junior Finals
=10. Prospect (12% overall) - 0% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, 35% Junior Finals
12. Southern District (8% overall) - 0% A Grade Finals, 20% Club Champ Top 4, 5% Junior Finals
13. University (0%) - 0% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, No Juniors

Obviously this doesn't tell a whole story. For example, Uni finished 5th in Club Champ last year so on improve perhaps and 5 years isn't a large sample size in a comp that has clubs well over 100 years old, but you'd want to have a strong club now to avoid getting the chop.

Awesome post Aerie, while 5 years is a reasonably small snapshot, it does represent the current landscape of how the clubs are performing on the field.
There are is probably only 1 result which would change clubs order and thats Ports premiership year.

An interesting data set would be comparing the 5 years before this and seeing who is showing 'improvement' and which clubs are on the 'decline'.

[Shark_Hunter]

Thought I'd have a quick look back at the past 5 seasons to try to measure on field strength.

I looked at how many times a club finished top 4 in A Grade, top 4 in the Club Championship (to measure overall senior strength) and top 4 in juniors (U16R&W, U14R&W) to measure overall junior strength.

1. Kensington (87% overall) - 100% A Grade Finals, 80% Club Champ Top 4, 80% Junior Finals
2. Tea Tree Gully (53% overall) - 60% A Grade Finals, 60% Club Champ Top 4, 40% Junior Finals
3. Sturt (50% overall) - 40% A Grade Finals, 40% Club Champ Top 4, 70% Junior Finals
4. West Torrens (47% overall) - 40% A Grade Finals, 60% Club Champ Top 4, 40% Junior Finals
5. Woodville (43% overall) - 80% A Grade Finals, 40% Club Champ Top 4, 10% Junior Finals
6. East Torrens (33% overall) - 20% A Grade Finals, 60% Club Champ Top 4, 20% Junior Finals
7. Glenelg (23% overall) - 20% A Grade Finals, 40% Club Champ Top 4, 10% Junior FInals
8. Port Adelaide (18% overall) - 40% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, 15% Junior Finals
9. Adelaide (13% overall) - 0% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, 40% Junior Finals
=10. Northern Districts (12% overall) - 0% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, 35% Junior Finals
=10. Prospect (12% overall) - 0% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, 35% Junior Finals
12. Southern District (8% overall) - 0% A Grade Finals, 20% Club Champ Top 4, 5% Junior Finals
13. University (0%) - 0% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, No Juniors

Obviously this doesn't tell a whole story. For example, Uni finished 5th in Club Champ last year so on improve perhaps and 5 years isn't a large sample size in a comp that has clubs well over 100 years old, but you'd want to have a strong club now to avoid getting the chop.

Awesome post Aerie, while 5 years is a reasonably small snapshot, it does represent the current landscape of how the clubs are performing on the field.
There are is probably only 1 result which would change clubs order and thats Ports premiership year.

An interesting data set would be comparing the 5 years before this and seeing who is showing 'improvement' and which clubs are on the 'decline'.

I seem to remember about 12 months ago that the Adelaide Uni Union/Sport Assoc had approved(?) the cricket club to investigate a merger with Prospect. Also heard from someone close to the Pirates that there was strong expectation that the Uni/Prospect merger had legs and may go ahead as early at this coming season. Clearly this has not progressed, but is there any further info on this possibility. Tony Clifton?

[Tony Clifton]

Thought I'd have a quick look back at the past 5 seasons to try to measure on field strength.

I looked at how many times a club finished top 4 in A Grade, top 4 in the Club Championship (to measure overall senior strength) and top 4 in juniors (U16R&W, U14R&W) to measure overall junior strength.

1. Kensington (87% overall) - 100% A Grade Finals, 80% Club Champ Top 4, 80% Junior Finals
2. Tea Tree Gully (53% overall) - 60% A Grade Finals, 60% Club Champ Top 4, 40% Junior Finals
3. Sturt (50% overall) - 40% A Grade Finals, 40% Club Champ Top 4, 70% Junior Finals
4. West Torrens (47% overall) - 40% A Grade Finals, 60% Club Champ Top 4, 40% Junior Finals
5. Woodville (43% overall) - 80% A Grade Finals, 40% Club Champ Top 4, 10% Junior Finals
6. East Torrens (33% overall) - 20% A Grade Finals, 60% Club Champ Top 4, 20% Junior Finals
7. Glenelg (23% overall) - 20% A Grade Finals, 40% Club Champ Top 4, 10% Junior FInals
8. Port Adelaide (18% overall) - 40% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, 15% Junior Finals
9. Adelaide (13% overall) - 0% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, 40% Junior Finals
=10. Northern Districts (12% overall) - 0% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, 35% Junior Finals
=10. Prospect (12% overall) - 0% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, 35% Junior Finals
12. Southern District (8% overall) - 0% A Grade Finals, 20% Club Champ Top 4, 5% Junior Finals
13. University (0%) - 0% A Grade Finals, 0% Club Champ Top 4, No Juniors

Obviously this doesn't tell a whole story. For example, Uni finished 5th in Club Champ last year so on improve perhaps and 5 years isn't a large sample size in a comp that has clubs well over 100 years old, but you'd want to have a strong club now to avoid getting the chop.

Awesome post Aerie, while 5 years is a reasonably small snapshot, it does represent the current landscape of how the clubs are performing on the field.
There are is probably only 1 result which would change clubs order and thats Ports premiership year.

An interesting data set would be comparing the 5 years before this and seeing who is showing 'improvement' and which clubs are on the 'decline'.

I seem to remember about 12 months ago that the Adelaide Uni Union/Sport Assoc had approved(?) the cricket club to investigate a merger with Prospect. Also heard from someone close to the Pirates that there was strong expectation that the Uni/Prospect merger had legs and may go ahead as early at this coming season. Clearly this has not progressed, but is there any further info on this possibility. Tony Clifton?

I reckon there was something on both the Uni and Prospect websites about this. Not committing to a merger, just presenting some facts/options to their members. Not sure whether it's progressed at all.

[heater31]

University definitely looking at all their options. Plenty of intellectual members looking for the best deal for them. Don't forget they have an AFL club eyeing off their ground for a city base.....

[Tony Clifton]

They just spent about $30k on a brand new pitch square for Uni #1. Presumably there would have been some SACA grant money included in this.

[Tony Clifton]

From Prospect's website (from over a year ago - they've got a new president now among other things)

http://prospectcricketclub.org.au/club-news/seniors/an-open-letter-from-the-president-to-all-prospect-district-cricket-club-stakeholders/

Dear PDCC Players, Past Players and Supporters

Twelve months ago the SACA Board of Management commissioned a report on Grade Cricket. The two primary authors of the report are Bob Zadow (former Salisbury, TTG and State player) and Bill Baker (former AUCC, Sturt player and current AUCC assistant coach). Their report was presented to the SACA Board on Monday night (26th May) and immediately thereafter to the Grade Cricket Committee. I and David Callan (PDCC Secretary and Delegate to SACA Grade Cricket Committee) were present. It was only a presentation. There was no meaningful discussion of the report. That will happen in time.

Before turning to those parts of the report that touch on PDCC it is important to note that the recommendations have not been endorsed by the SACA Board nor discussed (let alone endorsed) by the SACA Grade Cricket Committee.

The Report makes a number of recommendations. I will focus only on those that might impact most on PDCC.

The Report recommends that the Grade Comp be reduced from 13 teams to 10 and that this be achieved by a number of mergers. The suggested mergers include one between Adelaide University Cricket Club and Prospect District Cricket Club (based at University). The others are between Sturt and Adelaide, Glenelg and West Torrens and Woodville and Port Adelaide. This would mean nine teams. The 10th would be a new team created north of Adelaide (Gawler). The report recommends that this be achieved by SACA providing substantial financial incentives (many hundreds of thousands of dollars per club involved).

Among the other recommendations are as to the number of junior teams per club, the age structure, that D Grade become an U19 comp, that significant funds be made available for pitch development, that there be a substantial injection (from SACA) into funding for grade coaching and umpiring, that SACA service the country zones, that the control of Grade Cricket rest with the SACA Board etc.

The most significant of the above recommendations cannot be achieved without changes to the SACA constitution which requires 75% support in a vote of the members.

As set out above, the Report is just a set of recommendations. The recommendations do not have the support of the Board nor of the Grade Cricket Committee (GCC). Whether some, or all, of the recommendations get the support of the Board and/or the GCC will be learnt over time. The first step is that the Board will form a group to meet with each of the Grade Clubs and discuss the recommendations. On this group will be three Board members (chaired by Rod Phillips) and two people from the GCC. The GCC will vote on who those two should be next week. The consultation process about the Report alone will take a considerable amount of time.

As a stakeholder of PDCC it is important that you know the above and that you hear it from the club rather than read about it in the media or be told about it from others. It is also important that you know that the PDCC Management Committee has not even discussed the recommendations as each of the clubs was asked to maintain the contents of the Report in confidence until there had been further discussion with Adelaide University Cricket Club in regards to their unique funding model through the University.

Since the meeting Adam Kimber (AUCC President) has released a statement that has been made public which means that the PDCC and the other Grade Clubs are now able to communicate to their respective stakeholders about the Report.

I have spoken with Adam and with his permission I have used his communication as the basis for my statement on the PDCC website as we feel that it represents a transparent and consistent message in relation to recommendations from the Report that are common to both PDCC and AUCC.

As Adam has said, we do not even know if such a proposed merger would be possible. It has not been the role of those conducting the review to investigate such matters. The fact that the AUCC is a University Club that values its connection to the University will guide the AUCC Committee’s consideration of the Report. Similarly we the PDCC Management Committee will consider what is in the best interests of PDCC and Grade Cricket going forward and ensure that our stakeholders are kept informed and where appropriate be given the opportunity to have input.

If you wish to speak to me personally about the above, send me an email at aormandy58@gmail.com and I will respond at the earliest opportunity. Otherwise, if you have any comments to make, you can send them to the email address on the club website and these will be collated for discussion by the PDCC Management Committee.

In the interim, as Adam also said to the AUCC stakeholders, it is business as usual for PDCC. The club’s response to the above Report will be important but so will be the preparations for the 2014/15 season.



Yours in cricket,

Andrew



Andrew Ormandy

President

[Tony Clifton]

From Adelaide Uni CC's website, posted today

http://aucc.edu.au/a-message-from-adam-kimber/

Dear AUCC Player and Supporter

In the last 48 hours many of you will have read that the SACA Board of Management has announced that it proposes to reduce the teams in the competition by one (to twelve). This announcement follows, among other things, what has become known as the “Zadow Report” which was released to the Grade Clubs and the Board a little over twelve months ago. That report recommended a ten team competition.

It is inevitable that some of the speculation that will follow Monday’s announcement by the Board will focus on the AUCC. The club has decided therefore to communicate with its players and supporters directly.

Since the Zadow Report the AUCC committee has carefully considered the possibility of a merger. Among other things, the club discussed the issue with the University and, separately, had a very informal meeting with two clubs – Prospect and Adelaide. The AUCC was obliged to alert the University to the Zadow Report. The committee also resolved that it was appropriate to discuss the issue on an informal basis with the two clubs I have mentioned. Those meetings took place not because the AUCC wished to merge. It does not. The committee’s position is that the AUCC is best as a “stand alone” club. However, the club looked at the issue in a very limited way, as it decided that when a Report of that nature is published, the club has a responsibility to consider the issue and ascertain the views of other relevant clubs. The committee also thought it prudent to do some very limited due diligence in case the day ever came when the issue of a merger was “forced” on the AUCC or any other club/s.

Now that the Board of Management has made this announcement, the AUCC is obliged to look at the issue again. This is not because it is our preferred option nor is it because we think that it is inevitable. It isn’t and we don’t. The committee believes that the club has positioned itself well to contribute to the Grade Competition into the future and is well placed to do so in its own right. However, just like twelve months ago, we think it prudent to look carefully at the issue so that we can make a fully informed decision. If any serious resolution is contemplated by the AUCC Committee, my own view is that seeking input from players and supporters will be vital. If that day ever comes, there will be further communication from me.

However, in the interim, if you wish to put forward a view about the future direction of the club, you should feel free to put it. Input is very welcome. The best contact via email is Luke Johnston cricket@theblacks.com.au Luke will collect responses and share them with the committee.

Adam Kimber

President – AUCC

[Computer Crashed]

Prospect didn't have a coach as of last week.
Could very well be an indication.

[Footy Smart]

I keep hearing West Torrens name mentioned in merger talks? anyone heard similar? I couldnt imagine Rumbles being happy with possibly merging

[Arch44]

Prospect didn't have a coach as of last week.
Could very well be an indication.

They have Andrew Zesers as high performance manager and he is assisting them in getting a skills coach.

[heater31]

I keep hearing West Torrens name mentioned in merger talks? anyone heard similar? I couldnt imagine Rumbles being happy with possibly merging

Looks like first in best dressed.

University an obvious target due to no juniors as Adam Kimber rightly pointed out.

[Aerie]

I keep hearing West Torrens name mentioned in merger talks? anyone heard similar? I couldnt imagine Rumbles being happy with possibly merging

West Torrens position has been documented via their newsletters published on their website throughout the season, and this from Presidents Report in Annual Report released on Monday:

"Merger talks with any other Club have ceased for the present but the door has been left open in case new offers are put forward.

Our Board has submitted that it:
• is in a stable financial position
• has agreements in place to protect its future at the Henley & Grange Memorial Oval for both the oval and clubrooms
• is in a favourable position due to junior development programs
• has these programs and as a consequence is now experiencing players developed through them progressing to A Grade level
• has sufficient players to fill and be competitive in each grade, senior and junior, each round
• is in a sound position with Women’s A and B grade teams – both also competitive
• has an excellent junior program the envy of most other SACA clubs
• has an excellent zone program the envy of most other SACA clubs
• is in a position to independently manage its future
• does not have any need to merge in the near future
• merging at the present time is not an option the B of M would promote to WTDCC members

The essential needs of any elite Club are
– talent I.D. followed by recruitment and development of the recruits
- income to exceed expenditure (business management)
- volunteers and/or remunerated workers
- obtaining and upkeeping suitable facilities

West Torrens D.C.C. currently has these in position. However we must be ever vigilant to maintain and improve this position."

[Footy Smart]

I keep hearing West Torrens name mentioned in merger talks? anyone heard similar? I couldnt imagine Rumbles being happy with possibly merging

West Torrens position has been documented via their newsletters published on their website throughout the season, and this from Presidents Report in Annual Report released on Monday:

"Merger talks with any other Club have ceased for the present but the door has been left open in case new offers are put forward.

Our Board has submitted that it:
• is in a stable financial position
• has agreements in place to protect its future at the Henley & Grange Memorial Oval for both the oval and clubrooms
• is in a favourable position due to junior development programs
• has these programs and as a consequence is now experiencing players developed through them progressing to A Grade level
• has sufficient players to fill and be competitive in each grade, senior and junior, each round
• is in a sound position with Women’s A and B grade teams – both also competitive
• has an excellent junior program the envy of most other SACA clubs
• has an excellent zone program the envy of most other SACA clubs
• is in a position to independently manage its future
• does not have any need to merge in the near future
• merging at the present time is not an option the B of M would promote to WTDCC members

The essential needs of any elite Club are
– talent I.D. followed by recruitment and development of the recruits
- income to exceed expenditure (business management)
- volunteers and/or remunerated workers
- obtaining and upkeeping suitable facilities

West Torrens D.C.C. currently has these in position. However we must be ever vigilant to maintain and improve this position."

Well thats that then

WT for me are a stable club and as pointed out meet all the essential needs for an elite club.

I would suggest that not all cubs can match the following (and im not just reffering to Uni):
*is in a stable financial position
*is in a favourable position due to junior development programs
*has these programs and as a consequence is now experiencing players developed through them progressing to A Grade level
*has sufficient players to fill and be competitive in each grade, senior and junior, each round

[Aerie]

I wonder if the new Adelaide High School to be built on Frome Rd will have any bearing on creating a junior set up for University to make their club a more viable option in to the future. Their ovals are great to play on and I'd imagine they'd be well funded by the Uni. It might make more sense to expand their club as is as opposed to a merger.

The SACA have to be careful not to destroy an existing set up that is or could work well with the right guidance/assistance.