March 24, 2007
2008 Southern League Structure
At a meeting of the 10 Premier League Clubs last night, on a vote of 8-2, the South Premier League will be reduced to 8 teams next year. But the league will be retained in it’s current three tier league rather reduced to the two proposed by the FFT board.
Division 1 will be required to mirror the Premier League by introducing a third tier which will presumably be either U/19 or U/17.
Needless to say, this will create some headaches and anguish for 2-3 teams in ensuring they avoid the drop into Div.1
The only question I have to ask (for now) is, will the 8 team southern league teams be made up by their 2007 finishing position (positions 9 & 10 relegated with maybe position 8 playing off with 1st Div.1 team) or will it be by meeting a set criteria??
For Div.1 will the SPL clubs be excluded (South Hobart & Kingborough)??
Thoughts??
8 teams in Premier League is surely the way to go. How it is achieved is certainly a thorny issue. Should be known before season starts - to be fair to all concerned. If Div One Premiers are not to be promoted (or playing off for promotion) then Div One clubs need to know now as they can then use 2007 to plan for 2008 success. Perhaps bottom three premier teams play off in round robin with Div one premiers? Top two after round robin play a one-off ‘final’?? and YES - SPL clubs should be excluded from Division One.
Comment by sj — March 24, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
have 9 vs 10 winner against div1 and 8th spot team and give the div1 teams something to aim for. being a northerner not knowing much about hobart soccer i would be saying 9 and 10 would be taroona and metro and 8th spot could nearly be half the teams in the league
apparently you don’t know much about spelling and not using ‘text’ spelling/speak on this blog either billy. No more warnings…text speak will result in a deleted post. It’s my pet hate billy, get used to it!! Blackjack
Comment by billy — March 25, 2007 @ 12:26 am
Yes SJ, we know your views on SPL clubs with teams in Div.1 but will those teams be there next year? I’m not asking if they should be there or not. Does anyone know for a FACT?
Was there any discussion or views put forward at this meeting of SPL clubs about raising a bid for one of the V-League places? Is this going to become a reality or just one of those suck it and see scenarios? If that’s the case, can someone give it a suck…
Comment by Blackjack — March 25, 2007 @ 7:58 am
My thoughts, prefered bottom two go - no promotion just relegation - in 2007
Not prefered but to keep the politically correct happy -
Bottom two relegated Div 1 can play 8th bottom team for a spot in prem league
Comment by sent off — March 25, 2007 @ 8:07 am
Let’s hope it’s all clubs meeting a set criteria…………
But it won’t be. As this was what was to happen 4 to 5 years ago, and Soccer Tas at the time, didn’t have the balls to enforce it.
It’d be interesting to see where the knight’s & Zebra’s would find their own home ground with all required facillities………….and meet paying all the extra bills that most other clubs face year in year out.
Football Tasmania, here’s your chance top really improve the competition, but have some BALLS!!!!
Comment by like the idea but... — March 25, 2007 @ 10:00 am
Whilst my club supports the move I as an individual am diametricaly opposed to the proposed reduction in the number of Premier teams .
But before proceeding further FFT should be required to produce a draft roster , advise of the domino effect on the Statewide Cup and summer cup .
In fairness to the demoted teams the Summer Cup should be expanded to include Division 1 and also the Southern K O cup should be reintroduced .
Relegation and promotion under the new structure 1 up 1 down with no playoff?
Comment by Brian Roberts — March 25, 2007 @ 10:17 am
Agree in principle with sent off. There is no real need to offer promotion to one of the Div.1 clubs for the 2008 season, but if there was to be a playoff then it should be against the 8th team (9th & 10 prem team to be relegated). I wouldn’t be as presumptious as billy to suggest Metro & Taroona would be the teams to go. There are others who show some potential for relegation, and it is a long season.
Comment by Lionheart — March 25, 2007 @ 11:14 am
So is this official now??? There is def going to be an 8 team competition next year?
Comment by Canweunited — March 25, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
That’s what the 10 SPL clubs voted 8-2 for on Friday night. Of course the FFT board may oppose that and do their own thing and as the chairman reminds us fairly regularly, the FFT board has been voted in to ‘run’ football in Tasmania but then why would they put it to the clubs for a vote if they didn’t want to do what the clubs vote for??
Comment by Blackjack — March 25, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
You cant make a decision one week out before a competition starts… Its a good idea… But has taken too long to administor
Comment by Canweunited — March 25, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
Any guesses on who the 2 were? I’d assume Metro and possibly Taroona, knowing that they are up shit creek!
So only 14 matches in a season? Pretty poor.
Comment by Ril — March 25, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
You could possibly play 21 matches each team playing each other team 3 times. The significance of playing at home doesnt really assist a team. I think the shape, size and surface of a ground can be accustomed too but I don’t think it plays any real advantage. Have a random draw where you will play 3-4 of the last round games at home and vica versa for away. A 14 game season would be very poor.
It is very interesting to speculate who the two clubs would’ve been. One should think that it would’ve been two clubs that would potentially be more likely to harmed by this move. I’m gonna throw it out there and say Metro and Taroona too.
Comment by 1878 — March 26, 2007 @ 12:25 am
hopefully they would play 21 games
Comment by sj — March 26, 2007 @ 12:37 am
Someone mentioned to me yesterday that FFT were continuing with this idea of not having Premier league teams in Div 1. Could someone please explain the logic of this to me or am I just going insane? Why if the premier league team, eg Kingborough, is competitive in Div 1 you would want to kick them out??? I do not see any logic around this and frankly is sour grapes from other clubs that they want teams like kingbrough out of Div1. There is no point in doing this to the Div 1 as I imagine Kingborough and other clubs will simply just take different avenues to have the team in Div 1.
Comment by Go the Pool!! — March 26, 2007 @ 9:47 am
There is no doubt that this is going to have to be a criteria based selection, i would have thought that this proposed structure would be based on the fact that it is going to be around for the next few years not just looking at next year, and in doing this i would assume that all clubs would need to have junior development, grounds with club rooms, spectator facilites, lights for night games and pathways and programs put in place to better soccer in general. I dont see the point in reducing teams if it is not going to achieve a goal in the long run. And there are quite a few teams that would not meet a selection criteria if there was one. This is whay this structure has to be achieved over 2 years not 6 months.
Comment by scania — March 26, 2007 @ 9:55 am
21 games with no 30-minute summer cup
Comment by Ice-5 — March 26, 2007 @ 10:28 am
I would have thought the voting would have been 7-3 .
One of the 8 must finish bottom
Have a look at the Stats
A survey of the past ten years shows that the following clubs would have been number 8 and playing off to avoid relegation.
They are Glenorchy Knights, Kingborough Lions (3), Hobart Zebras, Clarence, Metro, Newtown Eagles and Hobart Olympic (2).
Comment by Brian Roberts — March 26, 2007 @ 10:30 am
Speaking of the structure, does anyone else think that the finals series should be brought back? Particularly if it is only 14 games. At least then it gives something for the middle of the table teams to play for. Last year it was over for more than half the teams in the middle of the season. Then you had teams (like Zebras from memory) resting players for the season games to save them for the cup games, which takes a lot of credibility away from the league I think.
Comment by Ril — March 26, 2007 @ 11:04 am
Beware , i am a big supporter of the 8 team competion , three rounds , although whilst giving approval by 8-2 vote , unless the clubs have identified the criteria and or are able to have input , my feelings are that our FFT board , who are all well versed in the running of clubs and Football administration
could well chose a similar criteria to the V. League format (why re invent the wheel) and a number of clubs who voted for the 8 team format because they believe they will finish in top eight could well find themselves frozen out because they don’t meet many of the other criteria’s that could well be set, in respect to administration - facilities - juniors - financial.
For those smiling just remember Juventus failed in the first State league to gain entry for these reasons .
Nothing wrong with criteria in fact i strongly support, but to those clubs who have paid scant regard to it in years gone by, one hopes you are made (if you wish to be part of the new SPL) to toe the line.
Brian you are correct with issues that FFT will find to hard to comprehend in regards to rostering issues - just wait till our Northern clubs find out that maybe no State Championships —- not enough time in season —- no state wide Cup - to hard to roster. again not insurmountable as SJ will no doubt tell us .
Comment by oncesacked coach — March 26, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
Yeah we must remember it is amatuer competitions and a 21 game season would mean that the likes of the Laka Cup would have to be sacrificed. It could be possible to play these statewide comps on a wednesday night (a la Champions League) but then again many clubs wouldn’t have the depth nor ability to do that (due to work commitments of players).
Brian, valid point on the 7-3 perhaps some clubs aren’t looking that far into the future.
Are the logistics of creating this competition just far too complicated and will the FFT just resort back to the existing competition?
Comment by 1878 — March 26, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
I’m a little torn about this one. I don’t necessarily think that these plans will make the competition stronger, there are a few reasons why I think this is so.
Relegation and promotion are vital to ensuring the best teams are playing against each other and staying healthy in a playing sense. Are we trying to clip the wings of big clubs? We have stated that we need clubs that foster football in their growth areas. Metro, South Hobart, Clarence and Kingborough all do this to a really high level and all credit to those clubs who try and foster a club and community involvement which is more than simply their premier team doing well.
KLUSC have 500 members this year, that’s right 500. We provide an avenue for all abilities and aspirations and allow people who might not take up the sport to do that if they choose. If we did not have the ability to field a Div 1 team it is not just that team which suffers, we also can not field a team in Div 1 res and I assume under 17. That is one tenth of our players who are suddenly left without a team to play in, then there is supposedly another league because we don;t have enough already) to be formed to provide KLUSC, South, and others to still have a kick which could possibly be better standard than div 1. The argument that players will move to get a game and therefore make other teams stronger is rubbish.
Who would leave a community club like KLUSC who has all aspects of the requirements for the old State League (grounds, clubrooms, social facilities, family continuity etc etc) to go and play with (no disrespect) a team like the Cannons who have the barest essentials in terms of playing structure (they do have their own ground though) ?
It meant so much to the KLUSC club to win its first div 1 competition a few years ago. A club that big to win one div 1 competition shows how hard it is to stay successful and win anything.
Do we only want clubs to have two senior teams and one youth team to support the growth for a year or two tops. This does not seem sensible to me. Please convince me that our population and depth of soccer ability augers well for more leagues and excuses for people who can’t beat a club’s 3rd team to be able to play against their 1st team. Anyone?
Comment by charlie white — March 26, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
post deleted….no valid e-mail address
Comment by ikentina — March 26, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
Post deleted….no valid e-mail address.
EVERY POST MUST HAVE A VALID E-MAIL ADDRESS.
NO E-MAIL ADDRESS….POST DELETED!!!
Comment by jester — March 26, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
As per Go the Pool!! and Charlie White’s comments - beyond parochialism and other emotional niceties - I am yet to have explained to me exactly what is the problem with a Premier League Club fielding a team in Division 1.
The FFT Competition Review Discussion Paper notes, in relation to the issue: “… whether that is the case is arguable, but the perception exists …” The paper then lists two apparent options, one of which is explored in detail, t’other (the status quo) addressed with “no change required”. Hardly a balanced analysis.
So is it merely a “perception” that there is a problem? And if there are some issues (such as Clubs dropping players back to a lower division), could not they be managed better?
Wouldn’t it be terrible if Tasmanian football was managed via parochial self-interest rather than the for the provision of an enjoyable, challenging and open competition structure?
Comment by Mik — March 26, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Mik / charlie - I believe the ‘problem’ with Premier Clubs having a team in Div 1 is simply that they have the ability to manufacture a result if their Club’s Premier team looks like being relegated. Once you have promotion/relegation between divisions the anti team stacking rules are simply not workable. Where there isnt promotion relegation then not the same problem. The other problem is the widely different sides that may take the park on any given week - If there are only ‘Firsts’ as opposed to ‘Thirds’ in the roster such variations in playing strength from week to week are much less likely.
Comment by sj — March 26, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
SJ - What possibly could the premier league club do to manufacture a result, except if they are near the top of the div 1 table at that time anyway? Surely if they are struggling in premier league they are not going to have a gun team running around in div 1. If you look at the history of premier league clubs having div 1 teams, then the strength of their premier league team is directly attributal to the strength of their whole club and subsequently their div 1 and prem teams are similarly placed in their respective teams. South and Kingborough are prime examples at the moment, and both have been near the bottom in their respective leagues in the past.
Surely club management (player management) works so that the prem club in div 1 actually makes it harder to win div 1. An injury or absence from prem takes a player out of a lower league and puts them higher. I would like to think that if clubs have a healthy base of players then the difference in playing ability is limited, that is not simply the problem of prem clubs in div 1 though is it? There are clubs around that have a couple of good players and then very little, so they are surely more likely to fluctuate in performance than a club who can field the prem, prem res, div 1, div 1 res under 19 and under 17 as we will this year. Still not hearing any really hard evidence that getting rid of prem clubs out of div 1 will make the standard of clubs going into the premier league any better. Someone please convince me!
Comment by charlie white — March 26, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
That in my opinion is not a valid reason SJ. One, rules can be arranged to stop team stacking, which if you looked at the past you would ascertain hasn’t happened anyway (weak reason) and two if the situation occured where Kingborough finished last in premier league and first in Div 1 then a rules would be in place to deal with it. At the moment, FFT if they go ahead with this are saying, we don’t want clubs to get too much depth and grow. Not all clubs will get thsi depth but clubs that have worked so hard to achieve this should not be punished. This is easily managed and I seriously can’t believe FFT are considering this. Clubs will just find an alternative way to beat it if adopted, eg an alliance club is created and put in Div 1. STUPID……Do FFT officals, Board etc read this site??
Comment by Go the Pool!! — March 26, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
here here Charlie….!!!
Clarence will be in the same boat too soon with all the current depth of youth they have coming through…!! If they want to keep them all they need to have teams to put them in eg Div 1 (thinking ahead I hope Clarence).
Comment by Go the Pool!! — March 26, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Charlie you and I are in the same boat . We both want the status quoto remain . In my response I did put in a little fine tuning .
The problem you and I face is that our Clubs support the proposal to reduce the teams to 8 . Thus through relegation pushing the Premier Clubs out of Div 1.
However I understand all 10 wish to retain the reserve league and 3rd tier youth component.
Comment by Brian Roberts — March 26, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Have the SPL clubs with Div.1 teams been ‘officially’ kicked out of the Div.1 comp for 2008?? Just wondering, as I have heard no official word just rumour.
Comment by Blackjack — March 26, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
so can i ask what the reasons are for having an 8 team league??? is it purely to improve the strength of the league??? why are we getting rid of the 10 league structure???
Comment by doggeydog — March 26, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
For those who have been around a long time will know that we have had leagues of varying sizes, 6, 8, 9 & 10 team leagues. Why is an 8 team league suddenly the go? We have talk of dropping other KO Cups etc to accomodate a 21 roster season. That seems a negative before we even start. Certainly have Premier and Div 1 on similar lines so any movement up/down does not cause the current disruption.
If history is anything to go by it will all need reviewing/changing again in 3/4 seasons!
Comment by Keith Roberts — March 26, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
Go the Pool – “rules can be arranged to stop team stacking”. So easy to say. Those involved in club administration over any period will acknowledge that the current rules are only necessary because clubs in the past have abused any loopholes should it suit them at any particular time. The current provisions work fairly well in most circumstances . Any tightening of team stacking rules in one area would have consequences elsewhere.
Comment by sj — March 27, 2007 @ 12:11 am
The mere fact that it is possible for a premier league club to impact the outcome of the division one promotion race is sufficient argument for that possibility to be eradicated. Premier Club A may be comfortably sitting mid-table in premier league and mid-table in division one. Premier Club B may be bottom of Premier League and vying for top spot in Division One. Both Premier league clubs are in a position to influence the outcome of the Div One premiership and the promotion battle. This is simply not tenable as it is not providing that all CLUBS have an equal opportunity to reach the Premier League.
Comment by sj — March 27, 2007 @ 12:13 am
Ril,
can you help me out please by explaining how Metro is…. ” up shit creek”. As you know this to be the case your valued input would be appreciated.
After you let us know, maybe you’ll be able to spend some time with Taroona. Christ they only joined the Premier League 5 minutes ago and already they’re up shit creek.
Comment by Greg Saunders — March 27, 2007 @ 7:53 am
Let’s play devil’s advocate here for a minute -
Kingborough & South Hobart have their Div.1 teams kicked out. Where do they go?? There is no alternative if they are to stay together as one club but to go to League One & Two (Div.2 & 3).
Does anyone else see a pattern developing here?? If the Div.1 squad is competative and retains most of it’s players, the EXACT same arguement that saw these clubs kicked out of Div.1, will come from the teams in League One. We’ll be accused of stacking teams!!!
This is just a case of punishing clubs that have done well and developed depth and loyalty at their clubs. It would be interesting to test the legitimacy of this FFT move (if indeed it does become a reality) in a court of law. This could well be a case of discrimination.
It might be better for the other Div.1 clubs to start looking at themselves and looking at ways to overcome their selfish attitudes by starting to put something back into the game and rewarding the communities in which they operate rather than just taking. (I fully acknowledge there are some Div.1 who are doing the right thing, eg Beachside) By the same token, FFT needs to stand up and have the intestinal fortitude to acknowledge success as a worthwhile goal rather than punishing them by artificially creating a level playing field.
The mound of soil which is KLUSC & South Hobart (also Clarence, Eagles, Zebras, etc.), has to be pushed somewhere and all you’ll finish up with is a mound of soil somewhere else. The soil won’t be scattered as some might desire, for this is what you get when you build loyalty. Something many clubs can only dream of.
Comment by Lionheart — March 27, 2007 @ 9:04 am
For every reason there is a real reason . Sell motor cars and the client that doesnt like the colour in reality has no money .
So what’s the real reason . What will be achieved by dienfranchising some DIV1 players ,expelling those over 21 from Premier reseerves and reducing the Premier numbers to 8.
Those players who wish to play at the highest level will have two choices force their way into Premier league or take the easier option choose a Div 1 side that has a chance of promotion .
I beleive the FFT Board sees it as a subtle way of improving the quality of Division 1 thus making Promotion less of a hurdle for the successful club.
In reality the 2nd level in the South is Premier reserves not Div 1 which is some thing the the Board wishes to redress .
What the plan doent take into account is LOYALTY and in the in modern age freedom of choice being paramount.
Leave it as it is , those that wish to succeed will do so those that do not will find the level most appropriate to their talents and aspirations.
Comment by Brian Roberts — March 27, 2007 @ 10:52 am
Isn’t it funny like , when even clubs who actually run the game - yeah the clubs not the board of FFT ( clubs have the power to elect and remove the board , not the board themselves). As a group of SPL CLUBS make a decision which has a major effect on the make up of the 27-30 clubs in totality, is taken by this fine group as blog contributors as a done deal!!!!!
Without doubt the powers to be at FFT will be put to a referendum of all clubs - North - north west and south to seek approval to change ie final series , .
Oh the one step forward - two steps backwards is just about to begin.
But please don’t stop raising the pro’s and cons from this discussion may come real answers plus questions that need to be answered.
Comment by Billy Jones — March 27, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
You’ve made some really valid points Brian, the limitations that this proposed comp would place on some players would be more detrimental.
Greg, sj was a little harsh in his analysis but at the moment if the competition goes ahead it does look like Metro and Taroona will be relegated. Yes, the season hasn’t started and neither team has had a chance to prove their worth but judging from years gone by this will probably. I’d happily be proven wrong.
Hypothetically, if your club (anyone’s club) is relegated would you expect and in reality retain your better players and not lose them to bigger better clubs? This also opens up another discussion the benefits or lack there of that the movement of good players from relegated clubs to better clubs?
Comment by 1878 — March 27, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
surely the southern clubs wouldnt want to get rid of the state championship and knockout cup. in particular the cup is great to play against teams you dont usually play against and is the the only time we get to experience extra time and penalties
Comment by billy — March 27, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
Lionheart, im sure many Div 1 clubs would welcome your attempt to test this legitemacy in a court of law because they would more than happily bring up the topic of Premier league clubs forcing Div 1 under 19s teams out of the competition. Especially since the Beachside U19 team dominated against the majority of Premier league aligned sides and a Beachisde player won the player of the year award in 2006. This move was completely against the development of youth football in Tasmania, and more focussed on bigger clubs gaining more skillful junior players than what they already have. Rather than Premier league teams concerning themselves with the good of the game it seems they are only concerned with their own clubs and competition they play in.
Comment by jester — March 27, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
You have to be kidding Jester. The problem with the div 1 teams in the under 19 roster was not the fact that they played for a div 1 team it was that it basically stuffed up the roster for prem league teams and did not allow for the clubs to manage their teams in the best way. I know that this will not appease you, but i promise that when you have a lot of teams the workload in keeping them on the park is far more onerous than it appears. I find it preposterous that you say that premier league teams are not concerning themselves with the good of the game, what a joke. Why is beachside suddenly the poster child for div 1? because they are trying to emulate the premier league clubs who foster youth and junior players. Take a long hard look at who you are tarring with your brush and be very specific with your observations. because beachside had a good year (one) in under 19 does not make it automatcally an avenue for any team to put in a team, this is specifically because it is a league which is compulsory for all prem league teams. If the roster would allow for u19, prem res and then prem to play and somehow fit any div 1 teams in it then i welcome it.
Comment by charlie white — March 27, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
Jester I’m astounded you would have the afront to mention such utter garbage. To begin with, speak to the FFT board and David Abela before you start laying crap at the feet of Premier league clubs. Beachside u19’s should never have been there in the first place and neither should the State U15s. At the time the SPL was made up of a three tiered competition; Premier, Prem Reserves and U19. Where was Beachside’s Premier & Prem reserves side? You hadn’t won anything to DESERVE the right to be there!!! The competition isn’t set up to ensure Beachside can develop their players son, and Beachisde sure as hell doesn’t have a monopoly of development in Southern Tasmania.
If I remember correctly Kingborough (prior to amalgamation with Caladonians) lost a heap players to other clubs simply because we couldn’t get a complete development pathway to State League. What gives Beachside the right to do it any different?? You want a pathway to the top league, then you EARN it!!! Just the same as everyone has to.
This is just rubbish. I don’t know why I even justified it with a response. We’ll put it down to being slightly miffed shall we.
Comment by Lionheart — March 27, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
1878 - it wasnt sj that was harsh - it was Ril !!
Comment by sj — March 27, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
1878
I never said Dils comments were harsh. There were other words I could have used for stupid bloody idiotic comments like Dil’s. One would suggest if the bloke has any guts he’ll respond to a simple question like “help me out by explaining how Metro is up shit creek”.
For such a learned person it can’t be that difficult.
I’ll try not to hold my breath waiting for the profound response.
Comment by Greg Saunders — March 27, 2007 @ 11:09 pm
Mr Saunders - did the 8-2 vote suggest how the 8 would be determined?
Comment by sj — March 27, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
Greg, and further to sj’s question, was there any ‘official’ plan to remove the SPL clubs from Div.1 and would the Div.1 (and lower clubs) get the chance to have a vote on the league structure??
No pressure here Greg, just a couple of simple questions that require yes/no answers. Nothing important really!!! LOL
Comment by Blackjack — March 27, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
i personally hope metro does survive and i think playing under pressure will bring the best out of them to avoid relegation this season, they have been affected by losing key players in the last 3 or so years wich hasnt helped them on the field at all but i wish them luck
Comment by trev — March 28, 2007 @ 12:21 am
I think you will find through the minutes taken if I am not mistaken that the suggestion was that the league move to 8 Premier teams.
My recollection is that the issue is going to be discussed at tomorrow nights AGM. If I’m wrong again I’m sure one of the meeting attendees will corrcect that.
Like several contibutors have suggested nothing will happen without the nod from FFT and the Board. The conversation focussed on providing a better standard of football and rightly or wrongly the Presidents believed with a majority that 8 teams was the way to go.
I would suggest that there is a lot of work to be done with the key stakeholders before decisions are put in concrete about who stays and who doesn’t and, whether SPL sides that have Div 1 sides retain them.
I understand your coments Blackjack may have been tongue in cheek about nothing important really. I believe all who attended the meeting took it very seriously. As several have suggested a person who is President of a club such as mine doesn’t go into these meetings and make these decisions lightly knowing full well what the consequences of those recommendations may be.
I’m going to be away for the next couple of days so won’t have access to our site, however I’m sure that others who attended the meeting may care to offer some comments.
Comment by Greg Saunders — March 28, 2007 @ 12:38 am
Greg, It must take a “learned person” to change a letter in a name to make something personal. Not much maturity there, but I shall ignore it. edited by Blackjack (eventually)
I was giving my view based off the last couple of seasons results of your team (4 wins from last 2 seasons, average position of 2nd last from last few seasons), as well as from the Summer Cup of this year. I think everyone (apart from you obviously) will agree they are fair enough reasons to suggest your team will be a likely contender for relegation this year.
Then Taroona being a newly promoted obviously are up against it, with their apparent lack of depth and the results of last year’s promoted team influencing my opinion on their chances this year.
Both views might be considered harsh, but sometimes the truth is. Good luck to your club in proving me wrong though, as there are other teams I would prefer to see relegated than yours!
Comment by Ril — March 28, 2007 @ 3:36 am
Well if south and kingborough are allowed to keep their div 1 clubs (And they sure as hell shouldn’t be) why can’t Clarence or Uni or Zebras have a div 1 club.
People have got to accept that this is a positive step for football in Tassie, and move towards a more stable and fair system.
From my memory, Clarence a couple of years ago was denied the chance to have a team in div 1. It’s good to see that there is now a reason for this…
Comment by redandblack — March 28, 2007 @ 8:25 am
Hey, if Kingston Cannons can can get a team into Div.1 then why can’t Clarence, Zebras, Olympic, etc? Win the Div.2 comp, and unless FFT hasn’t moved the goal posts, then you’ve got a Div.1 team. But from the comment by ‘redandblack’ I would suggest his mental health might be in danger if Clarence do get a team into Div.1, you sound like you can’t make up your mind if you want Clarence to be in Div.1 or South & Kingborough out.
Comment by Lionheart — March 28, 2007 @ 9:05 am
Lionheart…South and kingborough out would be my preferred option, as this would make the whole system fair for all clubs.
However, if this cannot be achieved, then give other clubs (eg. Clarence) the opportunity to play in div 1.
Comment by redandblack — March 28, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
I have heard a whisper that the SPL club presidents held a forum type meeting last week , no FFT representatives or DIV 1 clubs , and that their are minutes circulating, are any of the club presidents willing to divulge the contents ??
This would stop a lot of the rubbish that is being printed on the blog by the committed but non informed
Comment by Billy Jones — March 29, 2007 @ 10:34 am
Ril,
I’m going to try and not be tedious about this. I am “Learned” enough to understand that if you treat people, or our clubs with respect and/or courtesy, generally it will be reciprocated.
You’ve put in another comment that I assume is designed purely to offend people, that being, “the Chigwell side of the club coming through in you”.
I don’t want to denigrate this site, so, I’ll leave it at that.
Comment by Greg Saunders — March 29, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
Greg, I have to accept partial responsibility for this comment going to air. I intended to delete the comment by Ril but became sidetracked and then promptly forgot it. I have edited now but I guess that’s like closing the door after the horse has bolted. Please accept my apologies.
Blackjack
Comment by Blackjack — March 30, 2007 @ 1:11 pm