SA Footy

How Many of the SFL Clubs have juniors to fill these Under 14's & 16's on Sunday hope theres a few more than last year
please list Clubs that will fill a Sunday team Thanks

too early to say yet mate,i dont think clubs would be confident of fielding 2 sides unless they are getting at least 45 to training all thru feb and march.with all this hot weather i dont think that too many clubs would be getting that type of numbers out at the moment.give it about 6 weeks and i think that would be a better indication.need at least 45 to be comfortable,players always drop of thru the season and i dont think clubs should have to rely on kids doubling up week in week out.

If anyone has had a chance to read a proposal from M/PARKS it has a lot of merit. Based around the amature league sunday format (sunday only)

Maybe someone from M/Parks can post??

At this point the Shoes will most definetly be fielding dual sides.

shoe boy wrote:If anyone has had a chance to read a proposal from M/PARKS it has a lot of merit. Based around the amature league sunday format (sunday only)

Maybe someone from M/Parks can post??

At this point the Shoes will most definetly be fielding dual sides.

id love to know the amount of numbers you guys are currently getting out consistently for youre 14s and 16s shoe boy,you sound pretty confident of getting dual sides this season.

cyclops wrote:

shoe boy wrote:If anyone has had a chance to read a proposal from M/PARKS it has a lot of merit. Based around the amature league sunday format (sunday only)

Maybe someone from M/Parks can post??

At this point the Shoes will most definetly be fielding dual sides.

id love to know the amount of numbers you guys are currently getting out consistently for youre 14s and 16s shoe boy,you sound pretty confident of getting dual sides this season.

Cyclops we do our homework and have many meetings to date re juniours. Our sign on day was a great success and we had many new lads sign also.

Galbs currently has 45 for his 16 side.

Cyclops we do our homework and have many meetings to date re juniours. Our sign on day was a great success and we had many new lads sign also.

Galbs currently has 45 for his 16 side.[/quote]

dont get me wrong mate,im not havn ago,last season at m/vale the 16s were in a similar position to you boys now,lads always go missing for what ever reason,but if you have been getn these numbers on the track in this weather then use are obviously doin some thing rite.by the end of last season our 16s were lucky to get 30 on the track after starting with about 50+.

MPFC proposal
Proposal has 5 major points.

1) Maintain the current Saturday structure for Junior and Senior Football at the present Under14, 16 and 18. This is definitely a strength for the league in the transition from Junior to Senior Football.

2) Adapt the very young juniors to age groups of Under 8,9,10,11,12,13 instead of the current years 2/3, 4/5, 6/7.
 This would enable kids to play in their relevant age group and provide opportunities for the kids who struggle every second year to enjoy their football and as a consequence keep them in the game.

3) Establish an Under 15 and Under 17 competition to be played on Sunday therefore doing away with the Sunday under 14 and 16 competitions.
 This would allow clubs that currently have an excess of under 14 and under 16 players to form teams on Sundays.
 Provide an opportunity to lose the stigma of second sides
 Enable first year players at the larger clubs an opportunity to play against kids of similar ability.
 Private school kids would now have a suitable competition to play in and therefore enable these footballers to remain in the Southern Football League and not be enticed to other leagues.
 This may see some Super Sundays of Football with the potential of a club hosting 8 games of football.

4) Consider the establishment of capping per age group.
 Determine a capping level per age group. 28 players would provide clubs with a 33% overflow of kids to enable sufficient backup and enable kids to play enough football.
 This would mean that some of our strongest clubs would be able to field a maximum of 11 junior sides that would equate to 308 juniors.
 Enable clubs that are not as strong to loan players for a year to fill sides and therefore ensure kids are playing.

5) Clubs would not be required to field sides in all age groups, only those that they have sufficient numbers.

when did they put this proposal to the Southern League?

kookas wrote:when did they put this proposal to the Southern League?

To be tabled at the next SFL meeting 16/Feb but clubs have been copied for the past 2 weeks?

WHEELS&DEALS wrote:MPFC proposal
Proposal has 5 major points.

 Enable clubs that are not as strong to loan players for a year to fill sides and therefore ensure kids are playing.
.

We all agree on this point that the main aim is for kids to get a game of football.BUT the reality is and i know this for a fact there are a lot of kids (be it not all but most)
wont play if asked to play for another club. Kids are more loyal to there choosen club than seniors.
I know of one family who moved clubs because there son was told to play for another club.
One club had 1 and a half teams the other half a team. On paper it sounded perfect every player gets a game. And it wasnt just the one player a few players faded away.

shoe boy wrote:If anyone has had a chance to read a proposal from M/PARKS it has a lot of merit. Based around the amature league sunday format (sunday only)

Maybe someone from M/Parks can post??

At this point the Shoes will most definetly be fielding dual sides.

Gday Shoe boy
did this get brought up at last nights meeting and what was the feed back?

WHEELS&DEALS wrote:

shoe boy wrote:If anyone has had a chance to read a proposal from M/PARKS it has a lot of merit. Based around the amature league sunday format (sunday only)

Maybe someone from M/Parks can post??

At this point the Shoes will most definetly be fielding dual sides.

Gday Shoe boy
did this get brought up at last nights meeting and what was the feed back?

Yes it was tabled at the SFL meeting last night and discussed but I cannot give you feedback?

My personal thoughts are that the document has some good points.

Yes it was tabled at the SFL meeting last night and discussed but I cannot give you feedback?

My personal thoughts are that the document has some good points.

Yes it was tabled but voted down. Next Monday the club junior delegates have to vote on whether to keep the current school format or move to u8.u10.u12 as suggested by Porties. A straw pole conducted on the night indicated that the majority of clubs prefer to move to under age 8/10/12/14/16/18 comp. hopefully it is sorted next week and the season can commence with these age groups.'

It will not really affect most clubs in anycase kids will just move from school based to club based age groups.

marley wrote:

Yes it was tabled at the SFL meeting last night and discussed but I cannot give you feedback?

My personal thoughts are that the document has some good points.

Yes it was tabled but voted down. Next Monday the club junior delegates have to vote on whether to keep the current school format or move to u8.u10.u12 as suggested by Porties. A straw pole conducted on the night indicated that the majority of clubs prefer to move to under age 8/10/12/14/16/18 comp. hopefully it is sorted next week and the season can commence with these age groups.'

It will not really affect most clubs in anycase kids will just move from school based to club based age groups.

Marley you refer to the Port Noarlunga proposal of changing 2/3 4/5 6/7 to 8/10/12?

Shoeboy:

I think the Porties proposal makes sense.

Shoeboy:

I think the Porties proposal makes sense.

marley wrote:Shoeboy:

I think the Porties proposal makes sense.

Marley Marley I am not disagreeing with you.

Where you at the meeting last night?

shoe boy wrote:

marley wrote:

Yes it was tabled at the SFL meeting last night and discussed but I cannot give you feedback?

My personal thoughts are that the document has some good points.

Yes it was tabled but voted down. Next Monday the club junior delegates have to vote on whether to keep the current school format or move to u8.u10.u12 as suggested by Porties. A straw pole conducted on the night indicated that the majority of clubs prefer to move to under age 8/10/12/14/16/18 comp. hopefully it is sorted next week and the season can commence with these age groups.'

It will not really affect most clubs in anycase kids will just move from school based to club based age groups.

Marley you refer to the Port Noarlunga proposal of changing 2/3 4/5 6/7 to 8/10/12?

After getting comments from all of the club delegates still at the meeting last night there wasn't much support for the Morphettville Park proposal. Next week at the junior delegates meeting the 3 options up for vote will be

1) No change
2) Go to U8, U10 and U12 in 2009
3) Go to U8, U10 and U12 in 2010

Moving to age groups will push some number of year 7s up to under 14 football a year early. These are the kids who would only play one year of under 14s with the 2/3, 4/5, 6/7 setup.

Waterboy wrote:

shoe boy wrote:

marley wrote:

Yes it was tabled at the SFL meeting last night and discussed but I cannot give you feedback?

My personal thoughts are that the document has some good points.

Yes it was tabled but voted down. Next Monday the club junior delegates have to vote on whether to keep the current school format or move to u8.u10.u12 as suggested by Porties. A straw pole conducted on the night indicated that the majority of clubs prefer to move to under age 8/10/12/14/16/18 comp. hopefully it is sorted next week and the season can commence with these age groups.'

It will not really affect most clubs in anycase kids will just move from school based to club based age groups.

Marley you refer to the Port Noarlunga proposal of changing 2/3 4/5 6/7 to 8/10/12?

After getting comments from all of the club delegates still at the meeting last night there wasn't much support for the Morphettville Park proposal. Next week at the junior delegates meeting the 3 options up for vote will be

1) No change
2) Go to U8, U10 and U12 in 2009
3) Go to U8, U10 and U12 in 2010

Moving to age groups will push some number of year 7s up to under 14 football a year early. These are the kids who would only play one year of under 14s with the 2/3, 4/5, 6/7 setup.

So does this mean that the Morphettville Park proposal has been voted on and won't be an option for this year? A few questions for anyone out there who cares about junior football.
1/ what do people think of having 20 teams in each grade for 2/3s, 4/5s and 6/7s?
2/ what are your veiws on clubs with dual sides and should they be caped.
3 If Morphettville Parks proposal was voted out, how would other club feel if there juniors left the SFL and went and played with the Metro sth League?????

WHEELS&DEALS wrote:

Waterboy wrote:
After getting comments from all of the club delegates still at the meeting last night there wasn't much support for the Morphettville Park proposal. Next week at the junior delegates meeting the 3 options up for vote will be

1) No change
2) Go to U8, U10 and U12 in 2009
3) Go to U8, U10 and U12 in 2010

Moving to age groups will push some number of year 7s up to under 14 football a year early. These are the kids who would only play one year of under 14s with the 2/3, 4/5, 6/7 setup.

So does this mean that the Morphettville Park proposal has been voted on and won't be an option for this year? A few questions for anyone out there who cares about junior football.
1/ what do people think of having 20 teams in each grade for 2/3s, 4/5s and 6/7s?
2/ what are your veiws on clubs with dual sides and should they be caped.
3 If Morphettville Parks proposal was voted out, how would other club feel if there juniors left the SFL and went and played with the Metro sth League?????

The Morphettville Park proposal didn't seem to have a lot of supporters. One of the problems seen with it was that a number of smaller clubs wouldn't be able to field all 6 teams which would leave you with a lot of holes in the draw and make programming a huge task. The proposal looks good, for when the smaller clubs have stronger numbers in sub-juniors and can field teams in all grades.

I'll take a crack at some answers

1/ and 2/ taken together. Capping sounds like a good cure at first, spread all the kids out and have good numbers at all clubs. Except that the kids (or their parents) are left without a say. They will have clubs they want to play for because they live close by, they have friends or family who played there or they want to go to a big club so they get more wins. If you say to 5 kids, sorry but we're full here at Cove, you'll have to go to Lonsdale, how many of those kids would go down the road, how many would give up football, and maybe even sport altogether? I don't have much to do with amateurs, but I'm told that caping works there. Can anyone with first hand knowledge of amateur sub-juniors comment?
Dual sides then at least keep kids in football, but make life much more difficult for the smaller clubs. Lonsdale have lost sub-juniors from last season because their families don't feel that the smaller number of kids at practice makes for a good practice. As well there are clubs who haven't got quite the numbers that other clubs have and see the smaller clubs as ripe pickings to boost their own numbers to ensure that they get strong second sides.

3/ I for one wouldn't want to see Morphettville Park take their juniors out of the SFL. I would think that their proposal would come about in the future, but going with the Port Noarlunga proposal is the first step towards that.