Grade Cricket

[Yardy Lard]

Perhaps better utilising the $50k grant from SACA could help clubs be the elite clubs they are supposed to be?

Is that 50K spread over all the 13 clubs? - assuming it is

[heater31]

Perhaps better utilising the $50k grant from SACA could help clubs be the elite clubs they are supposed to be?

Is that 50K spread over all the 13 clubs? - assuming it is

That is each club Yardy. With all this extra money the SACA has stumbled across as the members have sold out one would expect that figure possibly rise even further.


Good development step for kids that are 16 and too old for juniors. Not many are able to step into C grade straight away. Keeps them at the club because if they leave at 16 chances are they won't be back.

[Yardy Lard]

Perhaps better utilising the $50k grant from SACA could help clubs be the elite clubs they are supposed to be?

Is that 50K spread over all the 13 clubs? - assuming it is

That is each club Yardy. With all this extra money the SACA has stumbled across as the members have sold out one would expect that figure possibly rise even further.


Good development step for kids that are 16 and too old for juniors. Not many are able to step into C grade straight away. Keeps them at the club because if they leave at 16 chances are they won't be back.

Anything is better than nothing, but $3,800 per club is hardly a kings ransom to do a hell of a lot with. Still, better off with it than without it though.

[smac]

You misunderstood. $50k each.

U18 is the Grade missing. D, u16 white are the ones distracting from elite development.

Personally believe U14 white should go too, but understand the argument for keeping it.

[Yardy Lard]

You misunderstood. $50k each.

U18 is the Grade missing. D, u16 white are the ones distracting from elite development.

Personally believe U14 white should go too, but understand the argument for keeping it.

So what do the clubs have to do, in order to get 50K each. Obviously the SACA does not hand that sort of coin out to each of the clubs without a little catch on the end of it.

I know that sounds cynical but............................................no one hands that money out unless that get something in return for their investment.

Maybe I am wrong and the SACA are just going to give it to all the clubs..........................but I sense that there might be a catch.

[Bulls forever]

You misunderstood. $50k each.

U18 is the Grade missing. D, u16 white are the ones distracting from elite development.

Personally believe U14 white should go too, but understand the argument for keeping it.

SMAC, interesting comment that one. Won't argue D Grade, that is a seperate argument. An analysis of all TTG players over the past 10 years, there are only three A Grade players that have not played either 14 white or 16 white. Jake Haberfield in fact played U13's at TTG, then back to Modbury for 3 years before coming back to play 16 red and that was based on selection criteria. In my opinion Grade clubs need both white divisions if clubs run them properly. Take for example the scenario that you have 48 junior players, plus a development squad who play for community clubs and available to play Grade when shortage. If you have 12 U16's, 12 U15's, 12 U14's and 12 U13's that provides the club with the stepping stone and an age group from U13's upwards. In an ideal world this is how is should be done, obviously year by year, you might drop to 10 and 14 split, but leave the template as above. Interesting your comment, because don't SACA have Primary Schools, U14 squad, U15 squad and then move to 17's and 19's, but they have introduced the BankSA U16's to provide the selection process for 17's the following season. Your argument is flying in the face of what SACA are actually doing to their elite kids. I really think the argument is the appropriate development of juniors at Grade clubs, not the age groups. The argument at the Grade committee level is being driven by clubs that are notoriously poor in the junior structure and seem to not bother about developing their kids for the future.

[Bulls forever]

You misunderstood. $50k each.

U18 is the Grade missing. D, u16 white are the ones distracting from elite development.

Personally believe U14 white should go too, but understand the argument for keeping it.

So what do the clubs have to do, in order to get 50K each. Obviously the SACA does not hand that sort of coin out to each of the clubs without a little catch on the end of it.

I know that sounds cynical but............................................no one hands that money out unless that get something in return for their investment.

Maybe I am wrong and the SACA are just going to give it to all the clubs..........................but I sense that there might be a catch.

Yardy, very perceptive. Several years ago, they just got the money. Now they have to submit a breakdown of the structure of where the money is going. There are significant costs over and above Community clubs to run a Grade Club. For instance at a CC, they might pay a coach 3 or 4 k, at Grade level, when you feature in coach, assistants, womens, juniors, etc, the coaching bill might come to 20 or 25K. So basically the higher level, the more cost to the clubs.

[smac]

You misunderstood. $50k each.

U18 is the Grade missing. D, u16 white are the ones distracting from elite development.

Personally believe U14 white should go too, but understand the argument for keeping it.

SMAC, interesting comment that one. Won't argue D Grade, that is a seperate argument. An analysis of all TTG players over the past 10 years, there are only three A Grade players that have not played either 14 white or 16 white. Jake Haberfield in fact played U13's at TTG, then back to Modbury for 3 years before coming back to play 16 red and that was based on selection criteria. In my opinion Grade clubs need both white divisions if clubs run them properly. Take for example the scenario that you have 48 junior players, plus a development squad who play for community clubs and available to play Grade when shortage. If you have 12 U16's, 12 U15's, 12 U14's and 12 U13's that provides the club with the stepping stone and an age group from U13's upwards. In an ideal world this is how is should be done, obviously year by year, you might drop to 10 and 14 split, but leave the template as above. Interesting your comment, because don't SACA have Primary Schools, U14 squad, U15 squad and then move to 17's and 19's, but they have introduced the BankSA U16's to provide the selection process for 17's the following season. Your argument is flying in the face of what SACA are actually doing to their elite kids. I really think the argument is the appropriate development of juniors at Grade clubs, not the age groups. The argument at the Grade committee level is being driven by clubs that are notoriously poor in the junior structure and seem to not bother about developing their kids for the future.

I am all for development squads, have as many as you want in any age group.

But I will never understand why an elite club wants a "B grade" division of juniors. Dev squads and good relationships with community clubs will see players come in the system at the right time for them.

[smac]

You misunderstood. $50k each.

U18 is the Grade missing. D, u16 white are the ones distracting from elite development.

Personally believe U14 white should go too, but understand the argument for keeping it.

So what do the clubs have to do, in order to get 50K each. Obviously the SACA does not hand that sort of coin out to each of the clubs without a little catch on the end of it.

I know that sounds cynical but............................................no one hands that money out unless that get something in return for their investment.

Maybe I am wrong and the SACA are just going to give it to all the clubs..........................but I sense that there might be a catch.

Yardy, very perceptive. Several years ago, they just got the money. Now they have to submit a breakdown of the structure of where the money is going. There are significant costs over and above Community clubs to run a Grade Club. For instance at a CC, they might pay a coach 3 or 4 k, at Grade level, when you feature in coach, assistants, womens, juniors, etc, the coaching bill might come to 20 or 25K. So basically the higher level, the more cost to the clubs.

Ways around it though, always will be.

The real catch is to continue voting for the board that approves the budget, isn't it?

[Yardy Lard]

You misunderstood. $50k each.

U18 is the Grade missing. D, u16 white are the ones distracting from elite development.

Personally believe U14 white should go too, but understand the argument for keeping it.

So what do the clubs have to do, in order to get 50K each. Obviously the SACA does not hand that sort of coin out to each of the clubs without a little catch on the end of it.

I know that sounds cynical but............................................no one hands that money out unless that get something in return for their investment.

Maybe I am wrong and the SACA are just going to give it to all the clubs..........................but I sense that there might be a catch.

Yardy, very perceptive. Several years ago, they just got the money. Now they have to submit a breakdown of the structure of where the money is going. There are significant costs over and above Community clubs to run a Grade Club. For instance at a CC, they might pay a coach 3 or 4 k, at Grade level, when you feature in coach, assistants, womens, juniors, etc, the coaching bill might come to 20 or 25K. So basically the higher level, the more cost to the clubs.

A payment of 50K to all the clubs won't do anything really then. Essentially, it will just 'mask' the problems that currently exist and will continue to exist until the competition is fixed. The clubs then will spend the 50K and in two or three years there is the same problems that exist within the SACA competition now. Could be interesting to see some club's books I am thinking. Could well be some creative accounting, in order to get the grants.

Perhaps having to submit books each year with financials and a wide range of changes to the competition might well be in order first, before handing out any short term fixes. Just an observation.

[oldeagle]

Perhaps having to submit books each year with financials and a wide range of changes to the competition might well be in order first, before handing out any short term fixes. Just an observation.

I'm pretty sure this already happens.
Each year every club has to apply to get their $50000 grant. They have to say they are going to spend their money in certain areas e.g. coaching, infrastructure, balls etc. depending on the area of spend, SACA matches the spend at different ratios. At the time of application SACA demands to see full audited financials. Once the application is approved the club receives $25000. At the end of the season the club has to show full documentation that the money has been spent in the areas the club said it would be. Once this is done the remaining $25000 is released.

You've got to remember these are big clubs. If they have a female side of the club they can have up to 12 teams which means they have a lot of expenditure.

I've found one club that has it's financial statement "on line"

Just to give you an idea of some of their costs. Approx figures

Groundsman $20000
Balls $17000
Water $3000
Insurance $2000
Oval/Indoor net hire $3000

It all adds up.

[beeroclock]

You misunderstood. $50k each.

U18 is the Grade missing. D, u16 white are the ones distracting from elite development.

Personally believe U14 white should go too, but understand the argument for keeping it.

SMAC, interesting comment that one. Won't argue D Grade, that is a seperate argument. An analysis of all TTG players over the past 10 years, there are only three A Grade players that have not played either 14 white or 16 white. Jake Haberfield in fact played U13's at TTG, then back to Modbury for 3 years before coming back to play 16 red and that was based on selection criteria. In my opinion Grade clubs need both white divisions if clubs run them properly. Take for example the scenario that you have 48 junior players, plus a development squad who play for community clubs and available to play Grade when shortage. If you have 12 U16's, 12 U15's, 12 U14's and 12 U13's that provides the club with the stepping stone and an age group from U13's upwards. In an ideal world this is how is should be done, obviously year by year, you might drop to 10 and 14 split, but leave the template as above. Interesting your comment, because don't SACA have Primary Schools, U14 squad, U15 squad and then move to 17's and 19's, but they have introduced the BankSA U16's to provide the selection process for 17's the following season. Your argument is flying in the face of what SACA are actually doing to their elite kids. I really think the argument is the appropriate development of juniors at Grade clubs, not the age groups. The argument at the Grade committee level is being driven by clubs that are notoriously poor in the junior structure and seem to not bother about developing their kids for the future.

I am all for development squads, have as many as you want in any age group.

But I will never understand why an elite club wants a "B grade" division of juniors. Dev squads and good relationships with community clubs will see players come in the system at the right time for them.

Money mate.
An extra 12 plus kids in each grade adds up to about $7k.

[smac]

Horrible motivation.

Grade clubs as a general rule are lazy fundraisers, partly because of the grant system. Adding teams to raise funds is not what an elite club should do.

[Yardy Lard]

Horrible motivation.

Grade clubs as a general rule are lazy fundraisers, partly because of the grant system. Adding teams to raise funds is not what an elite club should do.

100% true in every facet. Would not be a truer word said on here today. Not as a rule either. They are lazy fundraisers and do wait for the SACA grant at seasons end and always have done.

[tigerpie]

Have been reading this thread with great interest.

SMAC have to agree with ditching the whites, and your comment regarding horrible motivation for having them.
I would like to see a graph of junior cricket participation rates over the last 10 years. I feel its dropped at community level, in some areas pretty drastically over the last 3 years. Why not have the whites lads posted back to community clubs and being put on notice that with form they can get in the reds. They train 1 night with grade club and 1 with community club. This will help bolster junior cricket at cc level.
As for the $50 000 crickey!!! My club would like a slice of that and so would all the others. Maintaining good turf facilities costs money and with water bills on the rise some help financially in these areas would be a god send!

Why doesnt cc see any significant monies? Some do as much in the way of quality coaching and facilities. CC clubs pay for level 1-2-3 coaching accreditation for their coaches and then they bugger off and coach junior grade clubs as has happened to my club.. Should the cc clubs be re-imbursed for these payments?

[oldeagle]

Why not have the whites lads posted back to community clubs and being put on notice that with form they can get in the reds

Most kids would already be playing for a community club in the morning.

[tigerpie]

Adelaide turf juniors play on Sunday.

[MadMax]

Perhaps SACA need to realise what roles community clubs play in the development of future cricketers and what they do well. I know that our community club has seen a lot of cricketers go to District level and come back a season or two later because they don't enjoy the culture nor support network at those clubs.

As much as we encourage them to explore the possibilities of playing at a higher level, they are young adults and make their own decisions and unfortunately have all come back to play with mates and with clubs that "know" them and their abilities. Perhaps some of the grant money could be used to reward those responsible, well managed community clubs that are nurturing the future talent and more interaction from state based talent scouts and coaches at that level. Develop some grassroots interaction and even community-based cricketing "hubs" that assist the talented cricketers avenue to more focused levels of training and playing etc in an environment they know and are comfortable in.

[oldeagle]

I'm not a SACA advocate but I do know they actively try to get grade clubs to build the community club bridge. From my experience there a number of players who supposedly "could have been anything" apart from the fact that when push comes to shove they not consistent and don't want to do the hard yards. I would be very surprised if there is an 18 - 30 year old out there in community club cricket who has the determination to play 1st class cricket and is not in the system

[beeroclock]

Have been reading this thread with great interest.

SMAC have to agree with ditching the whites, and your comment regarding horrible motivation for having them.
I would like to see a graph of junior cricket participation rates over the last 10 years. I feel its dropped at community level, in some areas pretty drastically over the last 3 years. Why not have the whites lads posted back to community clubs and being put on notice that with form they can get in the reds. They train 1 night with grade club and 1 with community club. This will help bolster junior cricket at cc level.
As for the $50 000 crickey!!! My club would like a slice of that and so would all the others. Maintaining good turf facilities costs money and with water bills on the rise some help financially in these areas would be a god send!

Why doesnt cc see any significant monies? Some do as much in the way of quality coaching and facilities. CC clubs pay for level 1-2-3 coaching accreditation for their coaches and then they bugger off and coach junior grade clubs as has happened to my club.. Should the cc clubs be re-imbursed for these payments?

The reason why some community clubs are having a drop off rate is because there home grown kids are playing whites at grade level as most parents see the headlights and give their kids a crack. ( Fair enough ).
Then to play on a Sunday ( club cricket ) as well as school cricket on a Saturday morning something has to give with the parents and is generally club cricket.