CSL clubs affiliating with FFSA teams

[chelsea]

Just in relation to Ross point of a Fed Club enquiring about fielding teams in the CSL. Would this work? I'm assuming the Fed Club doesn't have an affiliated College or school?
Would we need to change rules / name of the league in order to accommodate the Fed Club?

The time has come to change this and open things up a bit.

[INTERISTA]

I think so.

[hanners]

There was a suggestion at a CSL meeting a few years ago in relation to permitting players from Federation clubs to be loaned to CSL clubs. That idea never got off the ground and hopefully it never does.

Players cannot be registered for two separate clubs at the same time and, under the current rules, after 30 June each year players effectively cannot join a CSL club if they've already played for a Federation club that season.

I'm not sure if the relationship between Unley and Adelaide City will amount to anything more than ground-sharing, so at this stage I can't comment at all on any permeations of that relationship. However, we already know of Mt Barker's intention to join the State League and to keep fielding teams in the CSL too. And the CSL has been approached by at least one other Federation club about the prospect of fielding teams in the CSL in 2016.

If a CSL club has links with or is part of a Federation club next season then I suspect that the abovementioned rules will mean that players will need to be registered with one entity or the other (not both) and that they would need to de-register from one club before registering and playing for the other. And from 30 June onwards they would need to stay with one club for the rest of the season. For example, in Mt Barker's case, though a final decision is yet to be made, I think they will need to have two separate entities - Mt Barker CSL and Mt Barker State League - and I suspect it will not be straightforward for players to regularly move backwards and forwards between the two entities. Further, if their State League teams don't make the finals, I don't envisage that the players from those teams will be permitted to play the last month or so of the CSL season.

There will be many other administrative issues to consider, I'm sure, and there may be a need to review some of the CSL's rules to accommodate or respond to new scenarios.

That Mt Barker bit is interesting... They are one club with each player having an FFSA membership number. That play should be able to play for one club and not two. So, Mt Barker will be the only FFSA team to represent 2 leagues under the same umbrella. So what is wrong in them leading the way and letting their players play CSL and Fed?

Does that mean that the juniors can't play local football on a Saturday and JPL on a Sunday if they chose too? Same club within the FFSA....

Interesting....

[wojindows]

As the state leagues finish a month(?) earlier than the CSL, I believe the main aim is to stop clubs filling their teams with these players at the end of the season. Is there a better way to stop this happening? Perhaps they can't play for a CSL team after June 30 if you haven't played 3(?) matches for them already...

[Squeezy Cheesey Peas]

Yep.... It would be wrong for FFSA players to just extend their season at another team on a few levels....
I reckon the CSL could be innovative like wojindows mentioned and some movement between the teams with rules (no cup loans, no move after June 30th if they haven't played 3 games prior etc.)
Having sister clubs move players isn't much different than A and B grades playing in Div 5 / 6 on occassions (except its at the higher level) and honestly, How many FFSA teams would allow their players to play 'down' on a regular basis beyond giving fringe players a game or injured players a run?
Maybe a limit on players (3 per season loaned) or something...
It would be good for the CSL to be leaders in innovation but at same time, will be too hard to agree between the clubs I'd guess so no chance!!

[chelsea]

Many things to look at in the Mt Barker case. Firstly I am not even confident that the FFSA will get a 3rd league going. If it doesnt get going then Mt Barker will just stay as they are.

Allot will depend on the Mt Barker setup and I dont know if they know yet on how they will approach it.
If the following happens - Mt Barker fields 3 State league sides and then fields 4 teams in Div 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 CSL.
They basically dont play in 1A / 2A. I think players could move up and down as much as they like and it keeps simple for Mt Barker and the CSL.

If Mount Barker want to be involved in 1A / 2A where promotion exists and these are the 2 key leagues that the CSL is built around then rules would have to be applied on player movements.

I would suggest the following if they wish to stay in 1A / 2A setup. Mt Barker start the season with their selected squads in FFSA and CSL. On the 1st Tuesday of every month, the same day that the RBA meet, Mt Barker can transfer players between the leagues as they like and as many as they like. This can be done on a monthly basis up until 30th June where they will have to settle their squads for the rest of the year.

This would be fairest for CSL and their rivals in the FFSA league and it keeps tracking more simple as its once a month.

Like I said at the start, I actually dont have high confidence that the League will kickoff for Mt Barker. Mt Barker might be ready but there are many teams in the FFSA that are just about ready to go the other way and head to SAASL.

Many things to happen before rules are set.

[dash riprock]

The rare glimpses I have had with the current FFSA incumbents at Hindmarsh suggest that the new State League will happen regardless of teams movements!!
They seem to exceptionally 'driven' before practical so my money is on the third tier going ahead with their eye on a 4th tier in years to come....
My point (poorly made) was this is the right time for the CSL to align with the FFSA as it will become an unstoppable bandwagon if they pursue their goals as aggressively as they have laid out. The SAASL moves are partt of the big 'bun fight' that exists to try and undermine each league but the FFSA has a bigger steamroller (doesn't mean I agree with it or not) and therefore my gut feel is they will get what they want...
More teams will be 'tapped up' in subsequent years and the FFSA dream of a unified league will get closer but they will never win the battle with the SAASL... I can see them taking the odd team over each year and the SAASL trying to do the same but the future should be a Federation competition backed by the amateur comps but with them fully aligned (not in conflict)
CSL is best placed already for this and any closer alignment can only be good for the long term of the CSL by having that movement between the Fed comp and the CSL bringing in new / quality players.....

As for the Mount Barker set up for next season....... I would expect the CSL to insist on them maintaining a 2 team set up in the Div1 / 2 space with any other teams in the lower Divs accordingly.
The question then would be do they maintain their Div 1 status or would they move into Div 2 as a new club??

[crusader_]

If we have to create a second club then our new club will be called Mount Barker_.

If other NPL clubs enter teams in the CSL then hopefully the CSL can find the right balance between preventing clubs from stacking amateur teams with higher level players on their weeks off and allowing clubs some flexibility within their playing group.

Chelsea's ideas seem like a reasonable solution.

[crusader]

Who is this imposter. I am crusader and I keep getting mixed up with crusader_

[fingers]

I thought I'd shed some light on the Unley/Adelaide City FC arrangement...we are forming an official partnership whereas the 2 clubs will remain as separate legal entities (and therefore in the FFSA's eyes separate clubs). There is an MOU in place that involves the sharing of sponsors/grounds/committee expertise/networks etc.

As far as players go, the partnership is designed to create more playing pathways for ACFC juniors that don't make the senior teams or seniors finishing up their super league careers have a place to play that is still connected with ACFC. Similarly, it allows Unley players who want to have a crack at a higher level or players with children looking for a club, a familiar place to go.

Players will register with either ACFC or Unley and moving between clubs is no different to clubs with no partnership - any ACFC players would need to transfer prior to June 30 etc.

Unley will play their games at the ACFC grounds in 2016, which provides access to a clubrooms compromising of changerooms, bar etc.

I think this model could open the door for other CSL clubs to form partnership with FFSA clubs to create bigger footballing communities in their areas and create better playing pathways.

Happy to answer questions if there are any.