HFL Division 2 (Country)

[cracka]

Thanks Cracka - appreciate the clarification

It's unfortunate that the situation didn't work out so clubs had their sides at one ground each week as I reckon this is a big factor in participation.

Only thing I don't understand is what made the clubs vote invalid - aren't they able to vote on this type of functionality of the league?

They voted on not making Central an 11 team comp and that stood.

Whats different on this occasion? (not being antagonistic - just trying to understand what happened)

Something I don't think anyone knew about but a vote has to be a majority of those attending, so even though clubs abstained the result had to be 10 or more against the Sedan/Hahndorf proposal.
All clubs voted on not making div 1 an 11 team comp & the result was more than 10 against it anyway.

Is this another interpretation issue??
The rule in the constitution is written:
16.1.2 Any resolution put to a vote shall be carried if approved by a simple majority of club representatives present and voting, subject however to the voting requirements of this constitution in respect of certain special motions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a club abstains from voting on a motion (although present), then they should be excluded from the calculations for the "majority" shouldn't they??
So I believe the vote went; 8 for SC into div 3, 7 against and 4 abstained. Therefore 8 out of 15 is a majority???

I think you are right.
Was it a vote to put Sedan in div 3 or was it a vote about the Sedan/Hahndorf proposal.

[Look Good In Leather]

Thanks Cracka - appreciate the clarification

It's unfortunate that the situation didn't work out so clubs had their sides at one ground each week as I reckon this is a big factor in participation.

Only thing I don't understand is what made the clubs vote invalid - aren't they able to vote on this type of functionality of the league?

They voted on not making Central an 11 team comp and that stood.

Whats different on this occasion? (not being antagonistic - just trying to understand what happened)

Something I don't think anyone knew about but a vote has to be a majority of those attending, so even though clubs abstained the result had to be 10 or more against the Sedan/Hahndorf proposal.
All clubs voted on not making div 1 an 11 team comp & the result was more than 10 against it anyway.

Is this another interpretation issue??
The rule in the constitution is written:
16.1.2 Any resolution put to a vote shall be carried if approved by a simple majority of club representatives present and voting, subject however to the voting requirements of this constitution in respect of certain special motions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a club abstains from voting on a motion (although present), then they should be excluded from the calculations for the "majority" shouldn't they??
So I believe the vote went; 8 for SC into div 3, 7 against and 4 abstained. Therefore 8 out of 15 is a majority???

A majority would require 10 votes for, an abstained vote is a no but is generally used as a symbolic gesture of independence or protest/defiance.

[Legs Man]

Thanks Cracka - appreciate the clarification

It's unfortunate that the situation didn't work out so clubs had their sides at one ground each week as I reckon this is a big factor in participation.

Only thing I don't understand is what made the clubs vote invalid - aren't they able to vote on this type of functionality of the league?

They voted on not making Central an 11 team comp and that stood.

Whats different on this occasion? (not being antagonistic - just trying to understand what happened)

Something I don't think anyone knew about but a vote has to be a majority of those attending, so even though clubs abstained the result had to be 10 or more against the Sedan/Hahndorf proposal.
All clubs voted on not making div 1 an 11 team comp & the result was more than 10 against it anyway.

Is this another interpretation issue??
The rule in the constitution is written:
16.1.2 Any resolution put to a vote shall be carried if approved by a simple majority of club representatives present and voting, subject however to the voting requirements of this constitution in respect of certain special motions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a club abstains from voting on a motion (although present), then they should be excluded from the calculations for the "majority" shouldn't they??
So I believe the vote went; 8 for SC into div 3, 7 against and 4 abstained. Therefore 8 out of 15 is a majority???

A majority would require 10 votes for, an abstained vote is a no but is generally used as a symbolic gesture of independence or protest/defiance.

This is getting terribly messy again - but it seems the decision has been made.

I tend to agree though that the majority of voting clubs - excluding those who abstained - voted for S/C to be playing C grade not Country div.

As far as I am concerned - if you abstain you don't have a say!

What happens if all clubs abstain from voting - we go nowhere?

[redsox]

Do the Hahndorf teams playing for SC have to play their home games at Sedan? or do they play on Friday nights at Hahndorf again so some players can play Div1 and Div2 on the same weekend?

[running defender]

Looks like a win win for Hahndorf and no one else. The board should make them play in front of sedan otherwise it affects all the other country clubs by splitting them up they should all kick up a stink about another backdoor job. Come on country clubs kick up a stink have you forgot what happened last year its going to happen again. Grow some BALLS.

[cracka]

Looks like a win win for Hahndorf and no one else. The board should make them play in front of sedan otherwise it affects all the other country clubs by splitting them up they should all kick up a stink about another backdoor job. Come on country clubs kick up a stink have you forgot what happened last year its going to happen again. Grow some BALLS.

Cant believe I am saying this but I agree with you. If it is a combined side then they should have to play in Sedans U15 spot at Sedan when they are home & at the away venue when Sedan are away.

[running defender]

I knew i"d eventullay get through to you, this is just another slap in the face for everyone who took the time to attend the meeting and then find out the vote ment nothing you should"nt have to put up with this farce. I think the constitution says you must have 4 sides in country if not 3 ,dosen"t say combined. What are they going to be called hahndorf, Hahndorf/sedan or just sedan. What if Hahndorf forfiet a game do sedan get points taken away or do Hahndorf loose the points, have all these scenarios been taken into account i think not another slapstick decision by a board with to many egos.

[The Gimp]

Something I don't think anyone knew about but a vote has to be a majority of those attending, so even though clubs abstained the result had to be 10 or more against the Sedan/Hahndorf proposal.
All clubs voted on not making div 1 an 11 team comp & the result was more than 10 against it anyway.

Is this another interpretation issue??
The rule in the constitution is written:
16.1.2 Any resolution put to a vote shall be carried if approved by a simple majority of club representatives present and voting, subject however to the voting requirements of this constitution in respect of certain special motions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a club abstains from voting on a motion (although present), then they should be excluded from the calculations for the "majority" shouldn't they??
So I believe the vote went; 8 for SC into div 3, 7 against and 4 abstained. Therefore 8 out of 15 is a majority???

A majority would require 10 votes for, an abstained vote is a no but is generally used as a symbolic gesture of independence or protest/defiance.

I totally disagree. To abstain is clearly saying you are not voting 'for' or 'against' the motion/proposal.
And like it was mentioned, you would rarely get any outcomes passed if clubs kept abstaining based on your theory.

[Look Good In Leather]

Something I don't think anyone knew about but a vote has to be a majority of those attending, so even though clubs abstained the result had to be 10 or more against the Sedan/Hahndorf proposal.
All clubs voted on not making div 1 an 11 team comp & the result was more than 10 against it anyway.

Is this another interpretation issue??
The rule in the constitution is written:
16.1.2 Any resolution put to a vote shall be carried if approved by a simple majority of club representatives present and voting, subject however to the voting requirements of this constitution in respect of certain special motions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a club abstains from voting on a motion (although present), then they should be excluded from the calculations for the "majority" shouldn't they??
So I believe the vote went; 8 for SC into div 3, 7 against and 4 abstained. Therefore 8 out of 15 is a majority???

A majority would require 10 votes for, an abstained vote is a no but is generally used as a symbolic gesture of independence or protest/defiance.

I totally disagree. To abstain is clearly saying you are not voting 'for' or 'against' the motion/proposal.
And like it was mentioned, you would rarely get any outcomes passed if clubs kept abstaining based on your theory.

A question is put to the voting body and passes if more than half vote yes. Whether the rest vote no, maybe, abstain or anything else, they are not voting yes and as a result it does not count as a yes vote.

[The Gimp]

Is this another interpretation issue??
The rule in the constitution is written:
16.1.2 Any resolution put to a vote shall be carried if approved by a simple majority of club representatives present and voting, subject however to the voting requirements of this constitution in respect of certain special motions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a club abstains from voting on a motion (although present), then they should be excluded from the calculations for the "majority" shouldn't they??
So I believe the vote went; 8 for SC into div 3, 7 against and 4 abstained. Therefore 8 out of 15 is a majority???

A majority would require 10 votes for, an abstained vote is a no but is generally used as a symbolic gesture of independence or protest/defiance.

I totally disagree. To abstain is clearly saying you are not voting 'for' or 'against' the motion/proposal.
And like it was mentioned, you would rarely get any outcomes passed if clubs kept abstaining based on your theory.

A question is put to the voting body and passes if more than half vote yes. Whether the rest vote no, maybe, abstain or anything else, they are not voting yes and as a result it does not count as a yes vote.

That's not what the constitution says. It says majority of clubs reps present AND voting. Therefore if you abstain from voting then you aren't included for calculations of the majority.
It's black and white!

[cracka]

By having Sedan play in div 2 rather than div 3 it totally stuffs up the Div 2 draw for the other 8 clubs. For the 1st time in years the country div junior grades would have been able to follow the senior teams EVERY week with all junior grades full & only 1 club not having a senior colts side (which just means a bye for that week in S/C). Now there are 3 holes in the Senior Colts draw, Gum, Sedan & the bye.

[Legs Man]

By having Sedan play in div 2 rather than div 3 it totally stuffs up the Div 2 draw for the other 8 clubs. For the 1st time in years the country div junior grades would have been able to follow the senior teams EVERY week with all junior grades full & only 1 club not having a senior colts side (which just means a bye for that week in S/C). Now there are 3 holes in the Senior Colts draw, Gum, Sedan & the bye.

Totally agree Cracka - once again the clubs and HFL were presented with a situation to improve Country division and they couldn't or wouldn't capitalise on it.
Why penalise the Country clubs by not formulating a decision which sees the club travel as one unit each weekend.
The outcome not only shows a total lack of respect for the clubs that voted - but also offers up another situation where the decision making comes into question.
I also agree that if Hahndorf is prepared to come into this new agreement that it is imperative that their Sedan juniors play at Sedan EVERY TIME Sedan plays at home.
The country clubs must stand up for themselves and not allow a Central club to disrupt their competition for the Central clubs gain.
Don't be fooled guys - Hahndorf only have their interests as the agenda with this one - and if they don't then they would be ensuring their Sedan juniors follow Sedan.
I am all for growing our junior numbers and competition while giving Sedan a lifeline but this isn't improving Country - it is effectively making it worse.
My own opinion is that Hahndorf are using this to guard their juniors from going to other clubs which is understandable but it can't be at the detriment of all the other Country division participants.

[saintal]

Hahndorf juniors playing home games at Cambrai..? will never happen.

[Legs Man]

Hahndorf juniors playing home games at Cambrai..? will never happen.

Did the clubs vote this in?
With all the rhetoric surrounding clubs effectively controlling footy decisions I am assuming they voted for this collectively.
Can anyone confirm this?
I know the decision to not allow S/C to play in Country due to a lack of juniors was voted on and a majority voted they can't play in that division ( disregarding the clubs that abstained as their vote doesn't count IMO ) so how does the current situation come into effect.
Surely all the clubs can see that the inability for a club to travel as one is dissadvantaging the clubs that are trying to grow family numbers and doesn't promote footy in a logistical sense.
Footy is topical and always a good debate but I am increasingly surprised as to why the HFL is always in the spotlight regarding decisions made within our league.
The focus needs to be on footy and showcasing our game , increasing partication and making clubs financially viable so we can grow our sport and provide a great community asset across the hills - so why are we continually presented with these situations that take the focus away from the core values of Aussie Rules footy.

[Ye Olde Place Kick]

Hahndorf juniors playing home games at Cambrai..? will never happen.

Keeping S/C out of this. A some queries A - slightly amazed that Mt Barker don't field a C grade given the population of the town. Not having a shot at them just looking for some informative answers. B - What are the chances of a club starting up out of Littlehampton? (may be in combination with Cornerstone College and thus could play there) Hahndorf I get the impression that they gain a lot of juniors from this area, so wouldn't need to field extra junior sides. ( think the better talent would still gravitate to a Central rather than Country club so they wouldn't lose much in quality) Also give an opportunity to build up another club to enter the Country div with both seniors and juniors. C- What happens to these extra juniors when they reach seniors? As Hahndorf haven't fielded a C grade for about 5 years.

[cracka]

Hahndorf juniors playing home games at Cambrai..? will never happen.

Keeping S/C out of this. A some queries A - slightly amazed that Mt Barker don't field a C grade given the population of the town. Not having a shot at them just looking for some informative answers. B - What are the chances of a club starting up out of Littlehampton? (may be in combination with Cornerstone College and thus could play there) Hahndorf I get the impression that they gain a lot of juniors from this area, so wouldn't need to field extra junior sides. ( think the better talent would still gravitate to a Central rather than Country club so they wouldn't lose much in quality) Also give an opportunity to build up another club to enter the Country div with both seniors and juniors. C- What happens to these extra juniors when they reach seniors? As Hahndorf haven't fielded a C grade for about 5 years.

Mount Barker have had a C grade the last 2 year's going by sportingpulse.
I think most agree, there needs to be a side from Littlehampton/Cornerstone just because of the population of that area. Starting up a new side is a massive project & would require a dedicated group of people.
Its weird how the clubs who don't have big junior numbers field C grade sides, Uraidla, Ironbank & Bridgewater have all had C grades in the last few years although Bridgewater didn't last year when they merged with Callington.

[Ye Olde Place Kick]

Sorry Cracka yes Mt Barker came in late last year when Mt Lofty pulled out and the year before combined with TV I believe. My bad.
I look back to the early 70's and Mt Barker, Hahndorf, Narine, Littlehampton and even Bremer (before merger with Narine ) and Mylor had teams and fielded A, B and a colts side. (Mylor only one senior team) With a greater population over that area now days surprised there are not more teams.

Uraidla have surprising from back in the 60's fielded a 3rd senior team and now days with the mergers of Ashton, Lenswood & Forest Range and themselves cover a large area. Just surprised they struggle with juniors but not certain if the population has increased much over time.
In Ironbank I see a similar scenario with Littlehampton in that if Stirling hadn't merged with Heathfield-Aldgate United to form Mt Lofty for the old SAFA comp then would there have be the numbers in the area to start Ironbank? If Littlehampton hadn't folded would there of been 3rd teams over the years from Mt Barker, Hahndorf or Narine? Plus extra juniors would of had another option of where to play.
The merger of Bridgewater and Callington should of lead to extra numbers thus a 3rd side. In fact when Ashton and Lenswood Rangers amalgamated (Eastern Rangers) they did field a 3rd side at one point.

[cracka]

I remember playing C grade when still a senior colt in the late 80's & it was an 8 team comp, 7 C grade sides & Milang I think.

[Legs Man]

I remember playing C grade when still a senior colt in the late 80's & it was an 8 team comp, 7 C grade sides & Milang I think.

Yes it was a time that the comp actually worked quite well - c grade was seen as a comp for everyone to have a good time.
Reckon we even played at Stirling Oval which would be great now and right in a position that could attract huge numbers of spectators.
Could we shift the HFL headquarters to Stirling and make that oval the Etihad Stadium of the Hills?

[cossi11]

Does anyone know when the fixture will be released?