Why would anyone join the committee when all you have to do is complain enough to get your own way? For example clubs (as the collective) originally wanted WGOS out of Div. 3 because they were dominating, then they wanted them out of Div. 2 because of them not having a second team. The level of entitlement that some club reps feel they hold is over the top. IMO the Executive should make ALL the decisions and not 'consult' anyone. If any club feels personal aggrieved then they may take it up with the executive in their own time. That way you would actually have club reps wanting to join the CSL committee.
The 'solution' hasn't really resolved anything, that & I just don’t get whats in it for Mt B.
Division two
-
Squeezy Cheesey Peas
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:19 pm
- Current Club: Adelaide City
Re: Division two
Interista,
You are right.. there is nothing in it for Mount Barker.....
The conversation with those in know at the club was basically around the issue of how uncompetitive their 3rd and 4th teams would be in Div 3 especially this year. Last season saw their second XI in Div 3 but they will now move into Div 1b is the assumption.
The inquiry about whether 2a/2b could be an option was made to the CSL and it wasn't retracted as it:
1 - provided a solution to the 2a / 2B number of clubs issue - 7 teams wasn't deemed to be a good solution
2 - The club has no preference between 2a and Div3 for its thirds as the result will be the same in both leagues ( they will be uncompetitive)
3 - It will bring the 3rd and 4th team together in terms of playing at same places - small benefit but a benefit never the less
From the clubs point of view, the idea of moving Scotch and Windsor out of Div 2 wasn't clever BUT the clubs voted for this.
If I had my way (10 people = 10 opinions!!) I would have left Scotch and WG in Div 2 until the 10 clubs were found. Having Pembroke and Unley with 2 teams in Div 5 ain't clever either in my humble opinion when that didnt need to happen.
MB offered this as a solution to the CSL as it was clear one or two of the other clubs (who were vocal at the meeting) didn't want WG / Scotch in 2A for logic / reasons that aren't really an issue in my eyes but thats democracy!
M Barker has no agenda with this move and will happily play ball if things change again but i don't see it happening.
The issue of how the league grows in a sustainable and competitive manner is the bigger agenda item and I agree that the league should maybe take less direction from the clubs and start to employ a view which looks at making 5 x competitive divs . Easier said than done and the reality is whichever way, it will still be football on Saturday and it ain't that serious is it?
You are right.. there is nothing in it for Mount Barker.....
The conversation with those in know at the club was basically around the issue of how uncompetitive their 3rd and 4th teams would be in Div 3 especially this year. Last season saw their second XI in Div 3 but they will now move into Div 1b is the assumption.
The inquiry about whether 2a/2b could be an option was made to the CSL and it wasn't retracted as it:
1 - provided a solution to the 2a / 2B number of clubs issue - 7 teams wasn't deemed to be a good solution
2 - The club has no preference between 2a and Div3 for its thirds as the result will be the same in both leagues ( they will be uncompetitive)
3 - It will bring the 3rd and 4th team together in terms of playing at same places - small benefit but a benefit never the less
From the clubs point of view, the idea of moving Scotch and Windsor out of Div 2 wasn't clever BUT the clubs voted for this.
If I had my way (10 people = 10 opinions!!) I would have left Scotch and WG in Div 2 until the 10 clubs were found. Having Pembroke and Unley with 2 teams in Div 5 ain't clever either in my humble opinion when that didnt need to happen.
MB offered this as a solution to the CSL as it was clear one or two of the other clubs (who were vocal at the meeting) didn't want WG / Scotch in 2A for logic / reasons that aren't really an issue in my eyes but thats democracy!
M Barker has no agenda with this move and will happily play ball if things change again but i don't see it happening.
The issue of how the league grows in a sustainable and competitive manner is the bigger agenda item and I agree that the league should maybe take less direction from the clubs and start to employ a view which looks at making 5 x competitive divs . Easier said than done and the reality is whichever way, it will still be football on Saturday and it ain't that serious is it?
Re: Division two
I didn't mean to imply that Mt B were seeking some form of advantage by this move.
The problem as I saw it... a team in Div 2 that can't be promoted, solution replacing them with a team in Div 2 that can't get promoted. . .then drop two one team clubs into a lower grade (which is why they had to move up in the first place).... This "solution" now compromises Div. 2, Div.3 and Div.5. as opposed to just Div 2. . poor outcome any way you look at it.
IMO all new / single team clubs should play in Div 2 that way you have club's first teams playing off against each other. Leave Div 3 for club's third teams, Div 4 for club's 4th teams and Div 5 for club's fifth teams.
Implement bye rounds or schedule fixtures based on where the teams finished in the previous season to reflect the required number of rounds (i.e. top placing teams play each other more frequently).
The problem as I saw it... a team in Div 2 that can't be promoted, solution replacing them with a team in Div 2 that can't get promoted. . .then drop two one team clubs into a lower grade (which is why they had to move up in the first place).... This "solution" now compromises Div. 2, Div.3 and Div.5. as opposed to just Div 2. . poor outcome any way you look at it.
IMO all new / single team clubs should play in Div 2 that way you have club's first teams playing off against each other. Leave Div 3 for club's third teams, Div 4 for club's 4th teams and Div 5 for club's fifth teams.
Implement bye rounds or schedule fixtures based on where the teams finished in the previous season to reflect the required number of rounds (i.e. top placing teams play each other more frequently).
-
Squeezy Cheesey Peas
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:19 pm
- Current Club: Adelaide City
Re: Division two
Totally agree!!
No offence was taken!
I reckon last season worked well in Div 2 and didn't need fixing.
The other 3 Divs should have promotion / relegation to create a competitive set of Divs....
Not holding my breath for any change though but thats democracy
No offence was taken!
I reckon last season worked well in Div 2 and didn't need fixing.
The other 3 Divs should have promotion / relegation to create a competitive set of Divs....
Not holding my breath for any change though but thats democracy
Re: Division two
Bit of news just came my way that the only team to exit the div 2 will be Windsor Gardens. Scotch and Pac to amalgamate leaving mount barker to replace WG.
If this happens it's not that bad a change only the mt barker team situation has different opinions.
If this happens it's not that bad a change only the mt barker team situation has different opinions.
Re: Division two
Hellas, the situation you described was how things had been decided at the CSL plenary meeting in early February. But unfortunately the merger between Scotch and last year's PAOC Japenese contingent is no longer taking place. That group may be joining up with Uni SA instead, but that is not confirmed. We will know the outcome by next Monday when the CSL AGM takes place.
With Scotch back to one team, the composition of divisions 2A and 2B needs to be re-considered. It would be farcical to demote Windsor to division 3 on the basis of having one team but to allow Scotch to remain in 2A with only 1 team. Perhaps both can remain in 2A for another season, as with PAOC dropping out and Thebarton coming in we are effectively in the same situation as last season.
The following 8 clubs will definitely be in 2A and 2B:
AUSC Grads Blue
CBC
Pulteney
North City
Norwood
Thebarton
Westminster
Uni SA
So they could potentially go with an 8 team division. But that means playing each other 3 times over a 21 game season. That becomes a problem in terms of league rounds overlapping with cup rounds. Plus extra games mean no weeks off and arguably a greater likelihood of postponed games when pitches are in use every week.
The other teams to consider for 2A are Windsor, Scotch, Blackwood and Woodside ( all 4 clubs have one team). Plus Mt Barker volunteered to go in 2A and 2B, though I don't think that was a sound decision to permit them to do that. That just appealed to the one or two clubs that can't fathom the idea of their A and B teams being separated for 1 or 2 games in an entire season (what do they do in the Cup?) and/or don't want to play Windsor.
Blackwood and Woodside could alternatively be considered for division 2B given it's their first season, or else perhaps Pembroke and Unley could be in 2B again as per last year (but I acknowledge that Unley are particularly keen to avoid that).
10 teams in divisions 2A and 2B and an 18 game season makes things far easier from an administration point of view. The fixtures are easier to do, there is no overlap with cup rounds and it is easier to re-schedule postponed league games to coincide with the latter rounds of the cup if need be.
I agree with Chelsea and some of the other comments above that the CSL Executive Committe should determine the final composition of the divsions, taking all factors and options into account. It is never possible to please everyone but the people who actually administer the competition are well placed to make these decisions.
With Scotch back to one team, the composition of divisions 2A and 2B needs to be re-considered. It would be farcical to demote Windsor to division 3 on the basis of having one team but to allow Scotch to remain in 2A with only 1 team. Perhaps both can remain in 2A for another season, as with PAOC dropping out and Thebarton coming in we are effectively in the same situation as last season.
The following 8 clubs will definitely be in 2A and 2B:
AUSC Grads Blue
CBC
Pulteney
North City
Norwood
Thebarton
Westminster
Uni SA
So they could potentially go with an 8 team division. But that means playing each other 3 times over a 21 game season. That becomes a problem in terms of league rounds overlapping with cup rounds. Plus extra games mean no weeks off and arguably a greater likelihood of postponed games when pitches are in use every week.
The other teams to consider for 2A are Windsor, Scotch, Blackwood and Woodside ( all 4 clubs have one team). Plus Mt Barker volunteered to go in 2A and 2B, though I don't think that was a sound decision to permit them to do that. That just appealed to the one or two clubs that can't fathom the idea of their A and B teams being separated for 1 or 2 games in an entire season (what do they do in the Cup?) and/or don't want to play Windsor.
Blackwood and Woodside could alternatively be considered for division 2B given it's their first season, or else perhaps Pembroke and Unley could be in 2B again as per last year (but I acknowledge that Unley are particularly keen to avoid that).
10 teams in divisions 2A and 2B and an 18 game season makes things far easier from an administration point of view. The fixtures are easier to do, there is no overlap with cup rounds and it is easier to re-schedule postponed league games to coincide with the latter rounds of the cup if need be.
I agree with Chelsea and some of the other comments above that the CSL Executive Committe should determine the final composition of the divsions, taking all factors and options into account. It is never possible to please everyone but the people who actually administer the competition are well placed to make these decisions.
-
Squeezy Cheesey Peas
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:19 pm
- Current Club: Adelaide City
Re: Division two
Hey Ross,
That sounds like an option!
I would be particularly strong in making Pembroke and Unley's 6th team stay in 2B IF Scotch and WG remain as it also remove the issue of 2 x teams in Div 5.
The decision as you said needs to be made by the CSL and the clubs have to fall in line. We all have our opinions and democracy rarely works in these situations!!
Shame about Scotch / PAOC merger but that's life.....
Don't know about Blackwood but Woodside will struggle in 2B and thats not desirable if we wnat to grow the league...
Looking forward to kicking a ball instead of talking now
That sounds like an option!
I would be particularly strong in making Pembroke and Unley's 6th team stay in 2B IF Scotch and WG remain as it also remove the issue of 2 x teams in Div 5.
The decision as you said needs to be made by the CSL and the clubs have to fall in line. We all have our opinions and democracy rarely works in these situations!!
Shame about Scotch / PAOC merger but that's life.....
Don't know about Blackwood but Woodside will struggle in 2B and thats not desirable if we wnat to grow the league...
Looking forward to kicking a ball instead of talking now
-
Squeezy Cheesey Peas
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:19 pm
- Current Club: Adelaide City
Re: Division two
That was the most interesting and entertaining CSL meeting I have ever been to......
Glad to see common sense prevail and Windsor / Scotch back into 2A where they will be competitive without walking away with the titles.
Nearly a full victory for common sense with Pembroke staying in 2b instead of Div 5 with the only blemish being the Unley double team in Div 5 which didn't need to happen but was probably an argument too far last night.
Respect to Rostrevor for filling that spot and good luck to all now the dust has settled and the leagues are now formed for 2014.... I can see the same debate in 12 months though
Another topic of interest... Blackwood with only 12 registered players at the moment....... I'm glad they were allowed in (seemed ropey for a while) as the CSL neds the growth of new clubs rather than the growth of the same clubs and although they will be borderline this season, Any help to attract / retain these new clubs is vital to the future diversity of the CSL. I think the big clubs with 5 / 6 or more teams (looking forward!!) is the contributor to the issues in each Div as well making it less possible to develop a competitive league system without having the potential for 3 teams from the same club in a div!!
Fingers crossed for Blackwood and lets try and support them during the season as its in all of our interests I think.....
Glad to see common sense prevail and Windsor / Scotch back into 2A where they will be competitive without walking away with the titles.
Nearly a full victory for common sense with Pembroke staying in 2b instead of Div 5 with the only blemish being the Unley double team in Div 5 which didn't need to happen but was probably an argument too far last night.
Respect to Rostrevor for filling that spot and good luck to all now the dust has settled and the leagues are now formed for 2014.... I can see the same debate in 12 months though
Another topic of interest... Blackwood with only 12 registered players at the moment....... I'm glad they were allowed in (seemed ropey for a while) as the CSL neds the growth of new clubs rather than the growth of the same clubs and although they will be borderline this season, Any help to attract / retain these new clubs is vital to the future diversity of the CSL. I think the big clubs with 5 / 6 or more teams (looking forward!!) is the contributor to the issues in each Div as well making it less possible to develop a competitive league system without having the potential for 3 teams from the same club in a div!!
Fingers crossed for Blackwood and lets try and support them during the season as its in all of our interests I think.....
-
divineponytail
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:33 pm
Re: Division two
No chance of WG walking away with the title in any division. Some people say that the collective circumference of their stomachs (and love for beer) could stretch the length of the Nullabor.
Gold jacket, green jacket who gives a shit.
Gold jacket, green jacket who gives a shit.
-
livetovolley
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:10 pm
Re: Division two
Newbie looking in
Don't believe common sense prevailed here, Windsor and Scotch have been given ample time(over a year?) to rectify their situations. Both teams are clearly lazy and lack competitiveness at an administrative level. Can someone fill me in on how long ago they were asked to provide a second side?
Mt Barker showed some drive and who says they couldn't have been competitive, recruited and improved their squad depth. But I guess it is hard to fight the statistics of Mt Barkers 3rd and 4th sides last season if you were to consider the past record of Windsor and Scotch recruiting and improving their squad depth..
Piss poor and forced the hand of the CSL to try to make the most popular decision instead of sticking to a rule that may well have improved the future of the league instead of just thinking one year at a time.
Don't believe common sense prevailed here, Windsor and Scotch have been given ample time(over a year?) to rectify their situations. Both teams are clearly lazy and lack competitiveness at an administrative level. Can someone fill me in on how long ago they were asked to provide a second side?
Mt Barker showed some drive and who says they couldn't have been competitive, recruited and improved their squad depth. But I guess it is hard to fight the statistics of Mt Barkers 3rd and 4th sides last season if you were to consider the past record of Windsor and Scotch recruiting and improving their squad depth..
Piss poor and forced the hand of the CSL to try to make the most popular decision instead of sticking to a rule that may well have improved the future of the league instead of just thinking one year at a time.