heater31 wrote:Well haven't SACA botched this.....West Torrens and Woodville had a verbal agreement now they have to create a side in Mount Barker
Salty.....
by Aeropti » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:08 pm
heater31 wrote:Well haven't SACA botched this.....West Torrens and Woodville had a verbal agreement now they have to create a side in Mount Barker
by heater31 » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:08 pm
Aerie wrote:A state under 19 side as the 14th team in 1st grade?
by heater31 » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:13 pm
Aeropti wrote:heater31 wrote:Well haven't SACA botched this.....West Torrens and Woodville had a verbal agreement now they have to create a side in Mount Barker
Salty.....
by Aerie » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:14 pm
heater31 wrote:Aerie wrote:A state under 19 side as the 14th team in 1st grade?
Not sure how well that works in England with the County club having a side in the local league. Takes players away from their own club.
by ferret » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:59 pm
by Tony Clifton » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:30 pm
ferret wrote:Would the SACA be looking at a short term solution with the U19s, until a new club can be properly set up?
by heater31 » Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:17 am
Tony Clifton wrote:ferret wrote:Would the SACA be looking at a short term solution with the U19s, until a new club can be properly set up?
Hopefully.
Apparently the U/19 proposal went to grade clubs tonight at their committee meeting.
by Booney » Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:29 am
by Lineandlength » Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:08 am
by bulldogproud » Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:18 am
by Lineandlength » Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:34 am
by Aerie » Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:48 am
by daysofourlives » Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:27 am
by Dogwatcher » Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:45 am
daysofourlives wrote:Not sure relocating northern to the Barossa is that simple. 4 brand new ovals would have to be built to accommodate senior and junior cricket on a Saturday arvo. No current Barossa club will give up their facilities.
by Eagles2014 » Tue Feb 07, 2017 12:46 pm
Lineandlength wrote:At last common sense has prevailed, well done to these clubs.
The next round of decisions must be made for the long term success of cricket in SA. The U/19 proposal would not seem to be the long term solution here.
Long term a new team in Mt Barker, Northerns to the Barossa or at least Gawler, no D grade, and no U16 whites, as these players can continue their development at their community clubs
by Burras » Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:02 pm
Aerie wrote:If the main issue is having Redbacks players not having a game of cricket to play if their club has the bye, why not just allow these players to play for another club on that day? That is then technically creating a stronger competition instead of weakening it by adding an U19 team.
Which club has the most state squad members? Doubt any would have more than 3 or 4. Just place them in the bottom teams for that day (I.e. If there are 4 players without a game one each gets added to the bottom 4 teams.
It's a strange set up when you have futures squad players currently playing B Grade to ease their workload yet at the same time going through and trying to cull a successful club to ensure these same players are playing enough cricket.
by Aerie » Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:10 pm
Burras wrote:Aerie wrote:If the main issue is having Redbacks players not having a game of cricket to play if their club has the bye, why not just allow these players to play for another club on that day? That is then technically creating a stronger competition instead of weakening it by adding an U19 team.
Which club has the most state squad members? Doubt any would have more than 3 or 4. Just place them in the bottom teams for that day (I.e. If there are 4 players without a game one each gets added to the bottom 4 teams.
It's a strange set up when you have futures squad players currently playing B Grade to ease their workload yet at the same time going through and trying to cull a successful club to ensure these same players are playing enough cricket.
Don't think that idea would work.. Player's didn't want to play premier league as it meant they couldn't play for 'their club', why would they then want to play for another one.
by Tony Clifton » Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:20 pm
by The Hound » Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:14 pm
bulldogproud wrote:A great relief to all of us at the two clubs under the microscope. Well done to all the guys for their hard work in keeping us afloat. The one thing that SACA have achieved is to galvanise both West Torrens and Port Adelaide to be even stronger clubs this year.
As with the view of previous posters on here, I can't see the Under 19 team as being a viable long-term solution. Hopefully, they are just being used as a short-term option to make it look as if SACA have actually achieved something by eliminating the bye, rather than having just lost the case against WT and PA. A team from either the Barossa or Mount Barker would seem to be the way to go for the future.
Cheers
by Aerie » Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:48 pm
The Hound wrote:bulldogproud wrote:A great relief to all of us at the two clubs under the microscope. Well done to all the guys for their hard work in keeping us afloat. The one thing that SACA have achieved is to galvanise both West Torrens and Port Adelaide to be even stronger clubs this year.
As with the view of previous posters on here, I can't see the Under 19 team as being a viable long-term solution. Hopefully, they are just being used as a short-term option to make it look as if SACA have actually achieved something by eliminating the bye, rather than having just lost the case against WT and PA. A team from either the Barossa or Mount Barker would seem to be the way to go for the future.
Cheers
Great work by all involved at both clubs by why did it take SACA's decision "to galvanise both West Torrens and Port Adelaide to be even stronger clubs this year", shouldn't they be doing that in the first place
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |