Division two

[Ross30]

Mt Barker are in for a tough time regardess of how they now configure their teams. Div 1B is massively tougher than div 2B and is tougher than div 3 also, so if Mt Barker put their 2nd best team in div 2A then their team in div 1B is likely to struggle. However they approach it, it will really test their depth of talent. I think that would be the case for any club.

I don't think this was a good decision to allow a club with teams in 1A and 1B to also be in 2A and 2B, but I was at the meeting and I understand why the majority of clubs were in favour of it (having 10 teams from the same club in 2A and 2B was the main attraction). It's just a bit ironic that clubs complain for years about Windsor being unable to be promoted from 2A and now they are replaced by a team that also cannot be promoted.

Hopefully we can have 20 clubs with 2 teams or more in the CSL by 2015, so that these situations no longer need to arise. With 3 new clubs joining us this year there is every chance that could happen.

For those who didn't attend the meeting:

- Mt Barker's 2A and 2B sides cannot be promoted;
- If Mt Barker's 1A and 1B sides were relegated in 2014, their 2A and 2B teams would move down to divisions 3 and 4 in 2015; and
- if Mt Barker's 1A team finished in the relegation spots and their 2A team finished in the promotion spots, they would not be permitted to swap places. The 2A and 2B teams would still have to move back to divs 3 and 4 in 2015.

Divisions 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B were finalized at Monday's meeting, but the CSL Executive Committee will finalize the make-up of divisions 3, 4 and 5 once they know exactly how many teams are competing this year. It won't be easy, as about 12 or 13 teams wish to be in div 5 but divisions 3 and 4 need to be filled up.

In addition to the new clubs, Immanuel may be expanding to 5 teams and Grads Red may be expanding to 4 teams, but both clubs will be confirming either on or before the CSL AGM on 24 Feb. And, as stated above, Scotch are hopefully forming a 2nd team via a merger.

[hanners]

Cant understand why Pembroke, Unley or Rostrevor wasn't made to have a 2A & 2B team instead of Mt Barker??

Mt Barker will struggle in Div 2 being their 3rd and 4th teams. The other clubs were strong in every division last year and therefore would adapt better with a strength in debt club.

Doesn't make sense that Mt Barker was picked IMO.

[chelsea]

I agree with Ross / Hanners. There are many ways to make up the divisions but this doesnt fit for me personally.

Mt Barker should not be in 2A / 2B.

If a club had to make a move for the benifit of the league it should of been the following 2 clubs.

Pembroke - Div 3 Champions - Move to 2A / Pembroke to stay in 2B as Champions.

Rostrevor - Div 3 Runner up - Move to 2A / Rostrevor Div 4 Chamipions to Play 2B.

Blackwood / Woodside - Div 5 is incorrect for them. Their 1st team playing the 5th/6th sides.

We can ask 10 people and you will get 10 different answers on how the Divs should be made up.

[hanners]

Your theory makes far better sense Chelsea!!! for a more even approach to the league.

[Ross30]

Mt Barker were the club which put the idea forward of them going into 2A/2B as well as 1A/1B. They said they would prefer that to divisions 3 and 4. I'm not 100% sure why.

Other clubs were asked at the meeting if they were interested in that option and none were.

Personally I wasn't in favour of the arrangement at all, for any club. And with the benefit of hinsight I wish the option of having Windsor in 2A and a bye in 2B had been discussed (clubs were opposed to having their A and B teams at different places, but a bye in 2B as the 10th "team" would avoid that).

I also agree with Chelsea that Blackwood and Woodside should not go into div 5. I think there is a fair chance they may go into div 4, but we shall see. I was in favour of them going into div 2B and Scotch and Windsor remaining in 2A as per last year, but the travel issue discussed above was relevant there.

I is also worth noting that clubs were keen to avoid having an 8 team division in 2A/2B, which would mean a 21 game season. The preference was to keep it as an 18 game season.

Until we have 20 clubs with 2 or more teams there will never be a perfect solution.

[hellas]

One step froward three steps back

[Squeezy Cheesey Peas]

The decision to move WGOS out of Div 2a is really the catlayst for this.... The decision made last year should have been reviewed as the situation is now different.
One or two were vocal in the upholding of this move but I totally agree that utting Mt Barker into the breach in lieu of WGOS makes no sense at all..
Almost bloody mindedness on behalf of a few people?
There was a need to maintain 10 teams to keep @a/B balance but it should have been status quo with Pembroke and Unley 2b remaining as the make up teams for Scotch and WGOS.
Those 2 to Div 5 makes that unbalnced now and nothing has changed in 2A....
Not too late to change it CSL!!!

[MickyP21]

I like the Mount Barker idea as it keeps my club at the same ground. I absolutely hate having two teams playing at two different spots. Not only do we lose the atmosphere as we dont get a very good turnout, but it also means organising linemen is troublesome.

I cant see why people are so passionate towards their opinion of Div 2 as until we get 10 clubs with two teams, then there will never be a proper solution.

Anything we ever come up with will never properly work. At least now it avoids the travelling to different ground.

[INTERISTA]

I like the Mount Barker idea as it keeps my club at the same ground. I absolutely hate having two teams playing at two different spots. Not only do we lose the atmosphere as we dont get a very good turnout, but it also means organising linemen is troublesome.

I cant see why people are so passionate towards their opinion of Div 2 as until we get 10 clubs with two teams, then there will never be a proper solution.

Anything we ever come up with will never properly work. At least now it avoids the travelling to different ground.

If anything wouldn't it be the reverse now that you have teams in Div 2? Div 1 has multiple clubs with 4 or more teams ROCSC, Unley, Pembroke, Mercedes, Uni White and even Grads Red now. Past fixing usually has Div 3 & Div 4 teams playing at the same location as the Div 1 teams. Now you have 2 teams playing entirely different clubs... which may work for home games...

The whole notion is nonsensical to me it creates more issues than it solves. I think the executive should take more accountability with this decision. IMO as administrators they should simply structure the divisions of the league in the way they best deem fit which is easiest and most efficient (even if it means fewer teams in Div 2). I don't think clubs should have a voice in determining the fate of other clubs... At least that way we would avoid these 4 hour meetings that seem to resolve little.

[MickyP21]

I agree with Ross / Hanners. There are many ways to make up the divisions but this doesnt fit for me personally.

Mt Barker should not be in 2A / 2B.

If a club had to make a move for the benifit of the league it should of been the following 2 clubs.

Pembroke - Div 3 Champions - Move to 2A / Pembroke to stay in 2B as Champions.

Rostrevor - Div 3 Runner up - Move to 2A / Rostrevor Div 4 Chamipions to Play 2B.

Blackwood / Woodside - Div 5 is incorrect for them. Their 1st team playing the 5th/6th sides.

We can ask 10 people and you will get 10 different answers on how the Divs should be made up.

Yeah thats fine, but those clubs didnt request to play in Div 2 Chelsea. Mount Barker were the ones to come up with this idea. Why force a club to play in another division when youve got another club who wants to be playing there.

As you said 10 different people for 10 different answers so I have no idea why people are so critical of the committee, when they are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

So far I havent seen one opinion that solves the issue, and if they are the so passionate why dont they join the committee and make a difference?