SA Footy

We had an interesting situation recently where a club was accused of adding a player to a team sheet whilst they were playing for their school at the same time. As I understand the SFL was refused information due to privacy when they asked for confirmation that the player was indeed participating for their school at the time, I think they were able to dismiss it through other means, however it raised the question of how transparent the schools are regarding games played.

How does this work for the SAAFL in regards to the Old Scholar teams and the APPS system?

6.3 of the APPS regulation says: “Junior Football” means a competition in which players must be over the age of 12 years and under the age of 18 years on a prescribed date in the calendar year in which that competition is conducted and includes the Sports Association for Adelaide Schools (SAAS) secondary school football competition.

6.4: “Junior Player” means a player under the age of 18 years who has played a minimum of 20 games from the year in which he turns 13 years of age with an Affiliated League Club or school affiliate of an Affiliated League Club, with which he is seeking registration.

Do the Old Scholar clubs provide proof that a former student played 20 games? How does the SAAFL gain access to SAAS records? Is there any auditing done to ensure honesty?

Regarding the original point, wouldn't it have just been easier to confirm that the player wasn't in the SFL game and thereby shouldn't have been on the team sheet?

No idea how the League verifies school games, particularly when it's an "older" returned scholar.

My biggest qualm with the Old Scholars as zero points system is that SMOSH, Unley and SHOC get to effectively "double dip" by being aligned to a school and running their own junior programs.

We've given passing thought to changing our name to Payneham Norwood Union Marryatville Morialta to jig the same system.

jo172 wrote:Regarding the original point, wouldn't it have just been easier to confirm that the player wasn't in the SFL game and thereby shouldn't have been on the team sheet?

No idea how the League verifies school games, particularly when it's an "older" returned scholar.

My biggest qualm with the Old Scholars as zero points system is that SMOSH, Unley and SHOC get to effectively "double dip" by being aligned to a school and running their own junior programs.

We've given passing thought to changing our name to Payneham Norwood Union Marryatville Morialta to jig the same system.

We need another oval: PAOCPNUFC?

Jimmy_041 wrote:

jo172 wrote:Regarding the original point, wouldn't it have just been easier to confirm that the player wasn't in the SFL game and thereby shouldn't have been on the team sheet?

No idea how the League verifies school games, particularly when it's an "older" returned scholar.

My biggest qualm with the Old Scholars as zero points system is that SMOSH, Unley and SHOC get to effectively "double dip" by being aligned to a school and running their own junior programs.

We've given passing thought to changing our name to Payneham Norwood Union Marryatville Morialta to jig the same system.

We need another oval: PAOCPNUFC?

*PNUPAOCFC

Actually, compromise, PPAOCNUFC

We can return to the Payneham Football Club Maroon guernseys, use yellow numbers, and I can take my rightful spot as an H Grader

Edit, you'll also have to ease up on the #CommunicationCareResponsibilityRespect business. That won't go down well with our membership, players or committee in the slightest.

Both Dalwood boys are PNU jnrs along with a lot of other PAC lads!

I wouldn't have thought a club like Payneham would be to worried about it with the number of Jnr teams they have? They do such a good job at Jnr level its just a matter of keeping track of blokes once they start playing school or sanfl footy.

teaoby wrote:Both Dalwood boys are PNU jnrs along with a lot of other PAC lads!

I wouldn't have thought a club like Payneham would be to worried about it with the number of Jnr teams they have? They do such a good job at Jnr level its just a matter of keeping track of blokes once they start playing school or sanfl footy.

My concerns re double dipping aren't privately motivated but are more a general concern regarding keeping the competition equitable. It seems unreasonable to me that SMOSH, Unley-Mercedes and SHOC can double dip potential zero pointers, whereas Adelaide University and Flinders University for example, don't have access to any zero pointers*

*other than first time registrations.

jo172 wrote:

teaoby wrote:Both Dalwood boys are PNU jnrs along with a lot of other PAC lads!

I wouldn't have thought a club like Payneham would be to worried about it with the number of Jnr teams they have? They do such a good job at Jnr level its just a matter of keeping track of blokes once they start playing school or sanfl footy.

My concerns re double dipping aren't privately motivated but are more a general concern regarding keeping the competition equitable. It seems unreasonable to me that SMOSH, Unley-Mercedes and SHOC can double dip potential zero pointers, whereas Adelaide University and Flinders University for example, don't have access to any zero pointers*

*other than first time registrations.

Fair.
I think its safe to say the small clubs will battle either way going forward, as there seems to be mounting hurdles to jump just to get a team on the field.

jo172 wrote:

teaoby wrote:Both Dalwood boys are PNU jnrs along with a lot of other PAC lads!

I wouldn't have thought a club like Payneham would be to worried about it with the number of Jnr teams they have? They do such a good job at Jnr level its just a matter of keeping track of blokes once they start playing school or sanfl footy.

My concerns re double dipping aren't privately motivated but are more a general concern regarding keeping the competition equitable. It seems unreasonable to me that SMOSH, Unley-Mercedes and SHOC can double dip potential zero pointers, whereas Adelaide University and Flinders University for example, don't have access to any zero pointers*

*other than first time registrations.

Then you'd need to include in your general concern those clubs that can field multiple teams in under age divisions that can double dip potential zero pointers

laser wrote:

jo172 wrote:

teaoby wrote:Both Dalwood boys are PNU jnrs along with a lot of other PAC lads!

I wouldn't have thought a club like Payneham would be to worried about it with the number of Jnr teams they have? They do such a good job at Jnr level its just a matter of keeping track of blokes once they start playing school or sanfl footy.

My concerns re double dipping aren't privately motivated but are more a general concern regarding keeping the competition equitable. It seems unreasonable to me that SMOSH, Unley-Mercedes and SHOC can double dip potential zero pointers, whereas Adelaide University and Flinders University for example, don't have access to any zero pointers*

*other than first time registrations.

Then you'd need to include in your general concern those clubs that can field multiple teams in under age divisions that can double dip potential zero pointers

Not really, they're all playing at the same club being administered by the same people with the club ultimately reaping the rewards of the work it puts in.

Old Scholar Zero Pointers are a free hit. With non-junior Old Scholars the zero points is not unreasonable to prevent Adelaide Uni like anomalies. When you've got both though you get the benefit of a free hit and the benefits of the hard work. What if, for example, Golden Grove pull what Unley-Mercedes has done with Gleeson College? Where does it end?

I understand your point that while each club has a different pool of potential zero pointers the points system inherently inequitable.

jo172 wrote:

laser wrote:

jo172 wrote:

teaoby wrote:Both Dalwood boys are PNU jnrs along with a lot of other PAC lads!

I wouldn't have thought a club like Payneham would be to worried about it with the number of Jnr teams they have? They do such a good job at Jnr level its just a matter of keeping track of blokes once they start playing school or sanfl footy.

My concerns re double dipping aren't privately motivated but are more a general concern regarding keeping the competition equitable. It seems unreasonable to me that SMOSH, Unley-Mercedes and SHOC can double dip potential zero pointers, whereas Adelaide University and Flinders University for example, don't have access to any zero pointers*

*other than first time registrations.

Then you'd need to include in your general concern those clubs that can field multiple teams in under age divisions that can double dip potential zero pointers

Not really, they're all playing at the same club being administered by the same people with the club ultimately reaping the rewards of the work it puts in.

Old Scholar Zero Pointers are a free hit. With non-junior Old Scholars the zero points is not unreasonable to prevent Adelaide Uni like anomalies. When you've got both though you get the benefit of a free hit and the benefits of the hard work. What if, for example, Golden Grove pull what Unley-Mercedes has done with Gleeson College? Where does it end?

I understand your point that while each club has a different pool of potential zero pointers the points system inherently inequitable.

I can see what youre saying, but as laser described, everyone has their own pros and cons.

We would have a ton more juniors available to be 0 pointers if we were in a less socialist junior league. You can have unlimited junior sides and you do have multiple in many grades. We would if we could, but rules prevent us, just as our rules on junior selection are much restrictive than yours. You also collect fees and revenue from these players which we cant. We benefit from our association with the school, but just as we have an association with one school, the number of other colleges around us mean we miss a lot of our juniors and may never have, or really struggle to have u18s

You win some, you lose some.

Nothing stopping Adelaide Uni starting some Junior sides with all the people they have, sons of the players playing have to start some where

FOURTH ESTATE wrote:Nothing stopping Adelaide Uni starting some Junior sides with all the people they have, sons of the players playing have to start some where

They'd have to disaffiliate from the Adelaide University Sports Association which I'm suspecting would be logistically difficult and cost prohibitive.

Re Unley Mercedes, I understand all points involved. Realistically the points system is inherently unfairly fair. Everyone is going to have their own inherent advantages and disadvantages and whatever anyone does to maximise their situation all power to them. Just the obvious loopholes irk me.

Don't even start me on the salary cap haha

jo172 wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:

jo172 wrote:Regarding the original point, wouldn't it have just been easier to confirm that the player wasn't in the SFL game and thereby shouldn't have been on the team sheet?

No idea how the League verifies school games, particularly when it's an "older" returned scholar.

My biggest qualm with the Old Scholars as zero points system is that SMOSH, Unley and SHOC get to effectively "double dip" by being aligned to a school and running their own junior programs.

We've given passing thought to changing our name to Payneham Norwood Union Marryatville Morialta to jig the same system.

We need another oval: PAOCPNUFC?

*PNUPAOCFC

Actually, compromise, PPAOCNUFC

We can return to the Payneham Football Club Maroon guernseys, use yellow numbers, and I can take my rightful spot as an H Grader

Edit, you'll also have to ease up on the #CommunicationCareResponsibilityRespect business. That won't go down well with our membership, players or committee in the slightest.

Mrs 041 has noted, on more than one occasion, that #CCRR is a new phenomena completely foreign to me

Firstly, I don't think anyone who has come to play from Mercedes would've attracted points anyway, tho Jetters may correct me. All we've done is formalise links we already had (20 to 30 Mercedes ex Mercedes students prior to the establishment of the formal affiliation) and the main benefit, aside from an additional feeder stream in addition to our juniors, has been the injection of more off field assistance. (Can I say - if you want success, recruiting volunteers to key support roles is where you should start rather than wondering which gun you're going to recruit.) Sadly for us we lose many of our juniors, after all our investment, to other college clubs such as Scotch, PAC or Pultney (tho they may think twice now we're in Div 1) and no-one would suggest transfer fees would be a popular idea to compensate clubs with junior programs who lose out when someone moves on after all the hard work.
A zero points sytem for our graduating juniors and our affiliate's Old Scholars, is at least some compensation and really just acknowledges a long standing relationship with the club in one form or another. If another club feels this disadvantages them, then developing their own advantageous strategic allances is something they should consider rather than trying to level the playing field to the lowest common denominator.

BigB wrote:Firstly, I don't think anyone who has come to play from Mercedes would've attracted points anyway, tho Jetters may correct me. All we've done is formalise links we already had (20 to 30 Mercedes ex Mercedes students prior to the establishment of the formal affiliation) and the main benefit, aside from an additional feeder stream in addition to our juniors, has been the injection of more off field assistance. (Can I say - if you want success, recruiting volunteers to key support roles is where you should start rather than wondering which gun you're going to recruit.) Sadly for us we lose many of our juniors, after all our investment, to other college clubs such as Scotch, PAC or Pultney (tho they may think twice now we're in Div 1) and no-one would suggest transfer fees would be a popular idea to compensate clubs with junior programs who lose out when someone moves on after all the hard work.
A zero points sytem for our graduating juniors and our affiliate's Old Scholars, is at least some compensation and really just acknowledges a long standing relationship with the club in one form or another. If another club feels this disadvantages them, then developing their own advantageous strategic allances is something they should consider rather than trying to level the playing field to the lowest common denominator.

Please....
So there was no need to acknowledge a long standing relationship before the points system came in. In other words, you sold your soul to get a zero point stream from Mercedes.

BigB wrote:Firstly, I don't think anyone who has come to play from Mercedes would've attracted points anyway, tho Jetters may correct me. All we've done is formalise links we already had (20 to 30 Mercedes ex Mercedes students prior to the establishment of the formal affiliation) and the main benefit, aside from an additional feeder stream in addition to our juniors, has been the injection of more off field assistance. (Can I say - if you want success, recruiting volunteers to key support roles is where you should start rather than wondering which gun you're going to recruit.) Sadly for us we lose many of our juniors, after all our investment, to other college clubs such as Scotch, PAC or Pultney (tho they may think twice now we're in Div 1) and no-one would suggest transfer fees would be a popular idea to compensate clubs with junior programs who lose out when someone moves on after all the hard work.
A zero points sytem for our graduating juniors and our affiliate's Old Scholars, is at least some compensation and really just acknowledges a long standing relationship with the club in one form or another. If another club feels this disadvantages them, then developing their own advantageous strategic allances is something they should consider rather than trying to level the playing field to the lowest common denominator.

In SFL if a junior has been developed by one club and said player moves to another club in the same league in his first year off senior football .... the junior player is worth two points to his new club ...... thats if he is good enough to play A's....

Mr Beefy wrote:

BigB wrote:Firstly, I don't think anyone who has come to play from Mercedes would've attracted points anyway, tho Jetters may correct me. All we've done is formalise links we already had (20 to 30 Mercedes ex Mercedes students prior to the establishment of the formal affiliation) and the main benefit, aside from an additional feeder stream in addition to our juniors, has been the injection of more off field assistance. (Can I say - if you want success, recruiting volunteers to key support roles is where you should start rather than wondering which gun you're going to recruit.) Sadly for us we lose many of our juniors, after all our investment, to other college clubs such as Scotch, PAC or Pultney (tho they may think twice now we're in Div 1) and no-one would suggest transfer fees would be a popular idea to compensate clubs with junior programs who lose out when someone moves on after all the hard work.
A zero points sytem for our graduating juniors and our affiliate's Old Scholars, is at least some compensation and really just acknowledges a long standing relationship with the club in one form or another. If another club feels this disadvantages them, then developing their own advantageous strategic allances is something they should consider rather than trying to level the playing field to the lowest common denominator.

Please....
So there was no need to acknowledge a long standing relationship before the points system came in. In other words, you sold your soul to get a zero point stream from Mercedes.

Sold our soul??? "Formalised an already existing relationship" would be the more accurate description in more objective rather than emotive terminology. The Mercedes people approached us in 2010, deliberations and working parties in 2011, we trialled a "merger" in 2012 (3 premierships , B & C Grade) and formalised the arrangement as an "affiliation" in 2013. If you weren't part of the deliberations which led up to the affiliation you would have no idea of very methodical and business like approach to the process.

Zero points really didn't get talked about as much as the additional off field support which we needed. Anyway, my lad (an A Grader) started playing for Unley as an under 9, I've been involved in a number of roles, our family have nothing to do with Mercedes beyond the footy affiliation (an Unley High old collegian actually - FYI - UFC initially started as "Unley High Old Collegians" and the constitution still recognises that fact) - and I actually have heart and soul commitment to the club. No sell out in my view, in fact it was a desire to see the club survive which gained the broad acceptance by the Unley membership.

Many clubs have affiliations designed to foster their aims. As I said in my post, if you're not looking around to see who you can form alliances with then you're not thinking beyond the square. Nuff said, you're entitled to your opinion, even if you're wrong

BigB, You may have taken some bait, stale bait at that. My reply to the Beefmiester; No we didn't.

Tend to agree there is an inequity numbers wise vs. points. Not sure this is represented as an advantage tho.

laser wrote:BigB, You may have taken some bait, stale bait at that. My reply to the Beefmiester; No we didn't.

Tend to agree there is an inequity numbers wise vs. points. Not sure this is represented as an advantage tho.

Was wondering where you were.

BigB wrote:

Mr Beefy wrote:

BigB wrote:Firstly, I don't think anyone who has come to play from Mercedes would've attracted points anyway, tho Jetters may correct me. All we've done is formalise links we already had (20 to 30 Mercedes ex Mercedes students prior to the establishment of the formal affiliation) and the main benefit, aside from an additional feeder stream in addition to our juniors, has been the injection of more off field assistance. (Can I say - if you want success, recruiting volunteers to key support roles is where you should start rather than wondering which gun you're going to recruit.) Sadly for us we lose many of our juniors, after all our investment, to other college clubs such as Scotch, PAC or Pultney (tho they may think twice now we're in Div 1) and no-one would suggest transfer fees would be a popular idea to compensate clubs with junior programs who lose out when someone moves on after all the hard work.
A zero points sytem for our graduating juniors and our affiliate's Old Scholars, is at least some compensation and really just acknowledges a long standing relationship with the club in one form or another. If another club feels this disadvantages them, then developing their own advantageous strategic allances is something they should consider rather than trying to level the playing field to the lowest common denominator.

Please....
So there was no need to acknowledge a long standing relationship before the points system came in. In other words, you sold your soul to get a zero point stream from Mercedes.

Sold our soul??? "Formalised an already existing relationship" would be the more accurate description in more objective rather than emotive terminology. The Mercedes people approached us in 2010, deliberations and working parties in 2011, we trialled a "merger" in 2012 (3 premierships , B & C Grade) and formalised the arrangement as an "affiliation" in 2013. If you weren't part of the deliberations which led up to the affiliation you would have no idea of very methodical and business like approach to the process.

Zero points really didn't get talked about as much as the additional off field support which we needed. Anyway, my lad (an A Grader) started playing for Unley as an under 9, I've been involved in a number of roles, our family have nothing to do with Mercedes beyond the footy affiliation (an Unley High old collegian actually - FYI - UFC initially started as "Unley High Old Collegians" and the constitution still recognises that fact) - and I actually have heart and soul commitment to the club. No sell out in my view, in fact it was a desire to see the club survive which gained the broad acceptance by the Unley membership.

Many clubs have affiliations designed to foster their aims. As I said in my post, if you're not looking around to see who you can form alliances with then you're not thinking beyond the square. Nuff said, you're entitled to your opinion, even if you're wrong

So can Unley then count students from Unley High & Mercedes as 0 pointers if they meet the rules?
FYI not a dig, just interesting having 3 sources of players be eligible for 0 point status.