Legs Man wrote:There is no way that a league director would sanction me to even stand for election.
The implementation of a business savvy CEO is the best option moving forward which then takes the onus away from the directors and a lot of criticism is deflected.
There could be savings made by simply having a centrally located office for the CEO and 2 other employees with the HFL meetings being held on a rotational basis at HFL clubs.
This would mean that a headquarters as such is not required and the expense that goes with it.
This also gets the board closer to each club and provides a greater alliance and understanding between all parties.
No remuneration is paid to directors as this is a voluntary position e.g no payments for ground inspections, running the footy budget etc etc,
Our competition now generates the income to be run as a business and should be treated this way which would also mean the constitution would become part of the business structure and be formalised in an equitable and legal sense.
My opinion is that 11 apps points should be allocated to all clubs allowing more quality players into hills footy and therefore spreading the remuneration while also diminishing the mercenary footballer's bargaining power.
Each club is then given the same opportunity - with no permits allowed - and there is no argument that anyone is favoured.
While this appears fair in principle, its not what the APPS is designed for in country footy, there are too many other factors that make it an uneven playing field as it stands, where the points system is in principle designed to even out the competition "make it fair"...
Withouth being too technical about it, the population, demographic, socio-economic factors that play a major part in participation numbers (and therefore by weight of numbers that equates to playing depth) already makes every club different (or uneven for this argument). What the points system is designed to do is try and even out those differences by allowing players from outside the league population to join a particular club to give it a better chance of competing with other clubs.
Given that intention, the only way to apply points to clubs is based on performance. And heres the example:
Club A wins premiership and based on past 3 years performance is allowed 6 point to retain exisitng recruits or replace one that leave. This mark sets the current benchmark for the rest of the competiton.
Club D runs fourth this year and accounting for previous 3 years performance and is allocated 10 points. This indicates (based on performances not opinions) that Club D requires the use of 4 extra points (to be used as they see fit) to take them to a level that should be equal in relative terms to Club A.
Club H finishes eighth and allowing for previous 3 years results is allocated 15 points. This indicates (based on performances not opinions) that Club H requires the use of 9 extra points (to be used as they see fit) to take them to a level that should be equal in relative terms to Club A.
Every club is assessed without prejudice based purely on past performace to indicate what allowance of outside support is required to make them competitive with the competition benchmark.
If every player/import was of the same ability then this would be a pretty accurate formulae to determine points allocation (and is still the best way).
Where clubs get it wrong, is how THEY decide to use their points allocation.
Dont get confused with the ammo's where they give everyone 15 points and let promotion and relegation create the so called even divisions, they prom/releg is hugley relevant over the number of divisions they have, the relegation / promtion issue here is minimal at best as its not even a given to happen every year.
people use the APPS as an excuse as a limitation, but forget thats exactly what its designed to do in country footy, giving everyone 15 points will only see an EPL like results, where the bigs clubs with big populations, good juniors and plenty of $$$ win it every year and everyone else battle just to make the finals!