SA Footy

With most clubs now in Pre - Season mode or in the process of getting started up again after the break.... Has there been any special meeting called? Date etc when a final decision on the 2015 season will be made?

As I'm sure what ever the decision there will want to be challenges based on the all the differnet options being put up on the forum.

I have put this on here before but if we extend next season to 20 rounds for a one off 11 team comp we get an almost even draw, at least we'd play 8 other clubs twice & only 2 other clubs once. With the AFL finishing a week later next year it's probably a lucky opportunity for us to do it. Surely we wouldn't have to have the CFL's compulsory weekend off for the Country champs crap if clubs are having 2 byes plus the Queens Birthday long weekend off. Start the season April 11, have long weekend off, finish season August 29, finals in September. The SANFL Grand Final is scheduled for Sunday 27th September so clubs competing in HFL GF could still go (imagine that for Sunday GF celebrations). Just for one year while the AFL is going a week later, gives us a year to get the review results & the by-laws sorted for 2016 & beyond.

why should we change the by-laws now, to cater for one team, when we wouldn't change the by-laws before the court action to cater for another?

Smacks of double standard to me......

Armytank wrote:why should we change the by-laws now, to cater for one team, when we wouldn't change the by-laws before the court action to cater for another?

Smacks of double standard to me......

Well said, leave things as they are and relegate Bridgewater.

Armytank wrote:why should we change the by-laws now, to cater for one team, when we wouldn't change the by-laws before the court action to cater for another?

Smacks of double standard to me......

Will certainly be interesting to see if the clubs who were adamant on only 10 teams change their view and if they do they could have saved a lot of time and money prior legal proceedings.

Armytank wrote:why should we change the by-laws now, to cater for one team, when we wouldn't change the by-laws before the court action to cater for another?

Smacks of double standard to me......

Not quite 6 hours ago you said we should have an 18 team superleague. What's changed.

As previously stated - let clubs decide their own fate.
Other clubs shouldn't be able to tell clubs what they can or can't do as long as the club in question can field all required sides.
If a club wants to go up damn well let them as it is their decision and it affects their supporters and players.
Likewise if they want to play in the lower division as their player stocks are low. are rebuilding or spending money on facilities etc etc.
Natural attrition and results will sort this out over time.
Why can another club determine what your club does - as it isn't their clubs future being decided.
This way you are in control of your own clubs destiny and each club is responsible for its own decisions.
I don't see it as being equitable or fair that Mt Barker can decide what Nairne does or Mt Lofty decide what Bridgey does or Blackwood decide what Ironbank do - the list goes on.
We are all competing for the same end result after all across all grades.
As an example - if Bridgey go down then Mt Lofty have more chance of giving juniors a game in a location that sees parents travelling less and in an environment that is more conducive to junior development.
We have seen this first hand at Echunga with respect to our junior numbers since being in Central with an increase in players - which would have been the opposite if we stayed in Country.
The decision making process is a problem in Hills footy as recently shown so let's fix this element as a starting point to get things back on track.

Amateur Footy wrote:Do you think Country Div clubs would commit to a super league knowing they will have no hope of finals in 2015 and some would be on the end of big drubbings? What would it matter if it was 10 in Central and bottom two drop out in 2016 to form a new Div 2 with top 6 from Country that all have 4 teams as minimum? Would need to decide if it was based on As or whole club still.

Back in 1983 the league couldn't agree on how many zones etc so all 15 clubs I think from memory OTT of my head played in the one zone.
Yes there were some big margins between the previous years zone 1 and zone 2 teams but at least nearly all clubs from memory had 4 teams A, B, S/C, J/C. They had 2 lots of finals with a final 5 for the top 5 then the next 4 played a knock out from memory 6v9 and 7v8 the winners in the Final. Can remember the winners final was played at Birdwood. Perhaps a top 8 and then 9v12 and 10v11 in a second set of finals would keep things interesting, even call it the Central premiership and the Country premiership if you like.

Also another precedent was the colts in the old Southern zone of the late sixties got divided into 2 groups playing final fours and they called it Senior and Junior colts.

Legs Man wrote:As previously stated - let clubs decide their own fate.
Other clubs shouldn't be able to tell clubs what they can or can't do as long as the club in question can field all required sides.
If a club wants to go up damn well let them as it is their decision and it affects their supporters and players.
Likewise if they want to play in the lower division as their player stocks are low. are rebuilding or spending money on facilities etc etc.
Natural attrition and results will sort this out over time.
Why can another club determine what your club does - as it isn't their clubs future being decided.
This way you are in control of your own clubs destiny and each club is responsible for its own decisions.
I don't see it as being equitable or fair that Mt Barker can decide what Nairne does or Mt Lofty decide what Bridgey does or Blackwood decide what Ironbank do - the list goes on.
We are all competing for the same end result after all across all grades.
As an example - if Bridgey go down then Mt Lofty have more chance of giving juniors a game in a location that sees parents travelling less and in an environment that is more conducive to junior development.
We have seen this first hand at Echunga with respect to our junior numbers since being in Central with an increase in players - which would have been the opposite if we stayed in Country.
The decision making process is a problem in Hills footy as recently shown so let's fix this element as a starting point to get things back on track.

One club does not decide the fate of another, the league as a whole decide based on their interpretation of the rules

cracka wrote:

Legs Man wrote:As previously stated - let clubs decide their own fate.
Other clubs shouldn't be able to tell clubs what they can or can't do as long as the club in question can field all required sides.
If a club wants to go up damn well let them as it is their decision and it affects their supporters and players.
Likewise if they want to play in the lower division as their player stocks are low. are rebuilding or spending money on facilities etc etc.
Natural attrition and results will sort this out over time.
Why can another club determine what your club does - as it isn't their clubs future being decided.
This way you are in control of your own clubs destiny and each club is responsible for its own decisions.
I don't see it as being equitable or fair that Mt Barker can decide what Nairne does or Mt Lofty decide what Bridgey does or Blackwood decide what Ironbank do - the list goes on.
We are all competing for the same end result after all across all grades.
As an example - if Bridgey go down then Mt Lofty have more chance of giving juniors a game in a location that sees parents travelling less and in an environment that is more conducive to junior development.
We have seen this first hand at Echunga with respect to our junior numbers since being in Central with an increase in players - which would have been the opposite if we stayed in Country.
The decision making process is a problem in Hills footy as recently shown so let's fix this element as a starting point to get things back on track.

One club does not decide the fate of another, the league as a whole decide based on their interpretation of the rules

Sorry Cracka - I am meaning the other clubs as a body of votes decide what any given club can or can't do.
Simply trying to reinforce that if a club wants to play Central let them as long as they field all sides.
Don't let the other clubs decide that on their behalf just because they want their precious 10 team even round comp.
The showcase league for footy - AFL - are growing by including more clubs which is what we should do also.
Even consider inviting Langhorne Creek and Strathalbyn into our league also to bolster it further.

Legs Man wrote:

cracka wrote:

Legs Man wrote:As previously stated - let clubs decide their own fate.
Other clubs shouldn't be able to tell clubs what they can or can't do as long as the club in question can field all required sides.
If a club wants to go up damn well let them as it is their decision and it affects their supporters and players.
Likewise if they want to play in the lower division as their player stocks are low. are rebuilding or spending money on facilities etc etc.
Natural attrition and results will sort this out over time.
Why can another club determine what your club does - as it isn't their clubs future being decided.
This way you are in control of your own clubs destiny and each club is responsible for its own decisions.
I don't see it as being equitable or fair that Mt Barker can decide what Nairne does or Mt Lofty decide what Bridgey does or Blackwood decide what Ironbank do - the list goes on.
We are all competing for the same end result after all across all grades.
As an example - if Bridgey go down then Mt Lofty have more chance of giving juniors a game in a location that sees parents travelling less and in an environment that is more conducive to junior development.
We have seen this first hand at Echunga with respect to our junior numbers since being in Central with an increase in players - which would have been the opposite if we stayed in Country.
The decision making process is a problem in Hills footy as recently shown so let's fix this element as a starting point to get things back on track.

One club does not decide the fate of another, the league as a whole decide based on their interpretation of the rules

Sorry Cracka - I am meaning the other clubs as a body of votes decide what any given club can or can't do.
Simply trying to reinforce that if a club wants to play Central let them as long as they field all sides.
Don't let the other clubs decide that on their behalf just because they want their precious 10 team even round comp.

Yep, got it now.

Legs Man wrote:

cracka wrote:

Legs Man wrote:As previously stated - let clubs decide their own fate.
Other clubs shouldn't be able to tell clubs what they can or can't do as long as the club in question can field all required sides.
If a club wants to go up damn well let them as it is their decision and it affects their supporters and players.
Likewise if they want to play in the lower division as their player stocks are low. are rebuilding or spending money on facilities etc etc.
Natural attrition and results will sort this out over time.
Why can another club determine what your club does - as it isn't their clubs future being decided.
This way you are in control of your own clubs destiny and each club is responsible for its own decisions.
I don't see it as being equitable or fair that Mt Barker can decide what Nairne does or Mt Lofty decide what Bridgey does or Blackwood decide what Ironbank do - the list goes on.
We are all competing for the same end result after all across all grades.
As an example - if Bridgey go down then Mt Lofty have more chance of giving juniors a game in a location that sees parents travelling less and in an environment that is more conducive to junior development.
We have seen this first hand at Echunga with respect to our junior numbers since being in Central with an increase in players - which would have been the opposite if we stayed in Country.
The decision making process is a problem in Hills footy as recently shown so let's fix this element as a starting point to get things back on track.

One club does not decide the fate of another, the league as a whole decide based on their interpretation of the rules

Sorry Cracka - I am meaning the other clubs as a body of votes decide what any given club can or can't do.
Simply trying to reinforce that if a club wants to play Central let them as long as they field all sides.
Don't let the other clubs decide that on their behalf just because they want their precious 10 team even round comp.
The showcase league for footy - AFL - are growing by including more clubs which is what we should do also.
Even consider inviting Langhorne Creek and Strathalbyn into our league also to bolster it further.

So does that mean Creek and Strath start in the country and work up?

Just kidding but could some of the weaker clubs in the SFL eg Aldinga, LOS, Hackham be interested? Would make a solid southern div with the likes of Kangarilla, Meadows, Maccy at least they field 4 teams. Would stop a breakaway of those teams going to the SFL especially if they went to 2 divs again and give them a standard they could compete better in.

Not a bad idea to bolster Country div and create a stronger junior comp within it.
The clubs mentioned are probably of a similar standard overall which would make it a good even comp.
Might be a bit of a re alignment geographically too for the likes of Maccy and Meadows.
It would mean a revision of the northern hills sides though with possible amalgamation needed to make them competitive in Central.
Probably something that is required on that side to create a really strong northern 2 sides - maybe Kersbrook and Gums plus Birdwood and TV.
Amalgamated into 2 sides would make them both powerhouse clubs that could supply a couple of C grade sides also to supplement that comp.
It's a big ask though as clubs traditionally fight losing their identity which is fair enough.
Looking at the big picture though this is a means of securing a strong future for hills footy in that region of the hills.

cracka wrote:

Armytank wrote:why should we change the by-laws now, to cater for one team, when we wouldn't change the by-laws before the court action to cater for another?

Smacks of double standard to me......

Not quite 6 hours ago you said we should have an 18 team superleague. What's changed.

Nothing has changed. Read my posts again. All i want is what is fair across the entire league. Not special dispensation for any one particular club. The idea of a superleague for one year is fair across the entire league. A 10 team comp is fair in regard to the current by-laws. Keep in mind that we are in this position because people can't read and understand their own by-laws.

My personal view is that this is the perfect opportunity for the league to set up a fresh start for 2016.

How can you possibly have an uneven draw for one year based on the A grades finishing position,

When the B grade, 17's and 14's results also determine whether a club is going to be relegated.

This would have to be the most ridiculous suggestion.

The only way you could possibly do this is to have relegation solely based on the A grade.

shake'n'bake wrote:How can you possibly have an uneven draw for one year based on the A grades finishing position,

When the B grade, 17's and 14's results also determine whether a club is going to be relegated.

This would have to be the most ridiculous suggestion.

The only way you could possibly do this is to have relegation solely based on the A grade.

Easy - get rid of relegation and the club points system that goes with it.
If you can field all 4 grades and want to play Central then let clubs do so.
Get rid of the current barriers that stop clubs progressing.
Only the clubs that are strong enough will stay up.

A superleague sounds a lot like what the Southern league has in place.....

Esteban Vihaio wrote:A superleague sounds a lot like what the Southern league has in place.....

marbles is the man to speak about super leagues

woodublieve12 wrote:

Esteban Vihaio wrote:A superleague sounds a lot like what the Southern league has in place.....

marbles is the man to speak about super leagues

Yeah, ask his advice & do exactly the opposite, then we might be somewhere close to what we need.

Not a bad idea legs man about growing the league inviting strath and creek. Unfortuneatly dont think anyone from the outside will be keen to join the HFL anytime soon after the shenanigans and incompetence on display by those running the show over last couple of years.