April 30, 2007
League restructure beyond 2008
The FFT league restructuring discussion paper has now been available since March. I’ll make the assumption most people will have read it and also a response from former Soccer Tas chairman Brian Roberts. Both papers are available for review.
The discussion period is about to close and clubs will be required to make their final recommendations.
I too have formed my own opinions but I urge you to come forward to discuss your ideas and concerns. I would hope their might be some solid input from the clubs.
I have read briefly the proposals by FFT to change the structure of the Premier League. A similar proposal was put to clubs a few years ago and rejected but of course it is unlikely that the hierachy at FFT would take no for an answer when they can wait for changes in administration and then try again. I would be happy to wax lyrical about the entire document if it is so desired but suffice it to say at this time that the document itself is not as importance as the underlying reasons for it. Basically, FFT want to put a team into the Victorian competition so step one is to re-arrange the local competition to suit. One of the requirements for the V-League is U21’s…so let’s take the U21 players out of the current senior teams and see who is left. NO you may say…let the younger players play Premier League…I agree….but if you remove the reserves AND play the under 21’s in the senior teams you are going to end up with a lot of over 21 players in Division One. That is of course a Division One that doesn’t contain PL clubs…..so do they leave the PL club to get a better standard of game? If they do what happens to the depth at PL level?
Next up they want to reduce the size of the local league to 8 teams. It doesn’t matter that the bottom two teams miss out, because they are’nt any good anyway. Of course that depends on who the bottom two teams are. Look at the league from say 5 or 6 years ago when two of the bottom clubs were Clarence and Olympic…compare that to where they are now.
As we all know, Councils take their grounds back at the end of each year to prepare for summer sport. A 14 round season is too short and a 21 rounder too long because the grounds are gone…unless you shorten the season another way. Has anyone noticed the final five series has gone……I wonder why that is? Getting rid of the summer cup would have been far more sensible but that’s an issue for another day.
So when FFT takes the 15 or so best players from your teams to play in the V League and then the best 15 or so under 21 players for the support team will you all look back on this and smile?
…and we haven’t even mentioned funding the Victorian experiment…or has there already been some talk of franchises?
If FFT wants a team to play in Victoria why not get working on developing the local club competition to a standard where it can brings its own players through and clubs could vie for a place in the bigger comp? I would suggest that FFT might well get a reasonable team in Victoria, but at what cost to the local competition?…and of course it wouldn’t be a bad thing to be “The President that took the sport to the next level” would it?
Comment by A Whisper — April 30, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
In my opinion the league should remain 10 teams and reserves MUST be maintained. By introducing the Under 21’s what happens to all those players in the 22-35 age bracket who are either very good reserves players or knocking on the door for the seniors. It would result in a displacement of hundreds of players who still want to play with the Club they always have played for.
Also with regards to the relegation/promotion situation what happens for instance if South win the DIV 1 title this year, obviously they dont get promoted, but removing them and Kingborough from DIV 1 would weaken the league greatly. If Metro were to finish last this year in the premier league would they be relegated? I dont think they would based on the bit of cash they have available. Whilst the relegation/promotion component is a good addition I dont think Tasmanian Football is big enough to sustain it. The current system is working well why change it?
Comment by Observer — April 30, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
Firstly thankyou Blackjack for acknowledging my input into this matter .
However I’ve been giving the matter further thought and the revival of this Blog gives me the opportunity to put forward another facet .
The thrust of all the arguments has been contained to the upper echelon howeever have we considered the following .
I am sure neither the Board nor the CEO have .
.
1. What happends to the Club that finishes bottom of Division 1.
What happens if the Club that finishes bottom of Division 1 gets tired of finishing bottom .
.
2. What happens if 2 or 3 Clubs do not meet the benchmarks . A league of 7 or 6???
.
OR 2 or 3 Clubs in Div 1 are simply whipping boys and decide to opt out into Div 2 . ( Cheaper nomination , referee fees)
A league of 7 or 6 .
.
3.What happens if after 2 or 3 years the top Div side cease to enjoy being promoted one year and relegated the next and refuses to accept promotion .
.
I have yet to come up with an answer other than leave it as it is .
.
The benefit of promotion and relegation is that eventually all find their true level furthermore I beleive that reduction in league numbers is a retrograde step.
Comment by Brian Roberts — April 30, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
Brian the first two points could happen with the current structure - and so could the third, but a condition of being in Div 1 should be a willingness to be promoted.
Reduction in league numbers will not necessarily show results immediately but may over time - if we have abandoned the idea of a state league then, in the south, trimmer leagues should be pursued. There are many options for an eight team league - not necessarily restricted to 2 or 3 rounds. Final Four etc.
Comment by sj — April 30, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
Let’s look at the current ladders and create a hypothetical scenario.
SPL, Metro goes out (a club that is actively promoting junior development, ground development, clubrooms, etc while the likes of knights/Olympic who ‘attract’ their players with no visible development pathway, is just criminal).
In Div.1, Beachside goes up as South Hobart can’t but only as long as they can beat Metro (or will it be a straight swap). Christian Utd or Huon Valley goes down.
Div.2, Eagles can’t go up nor can Beachside because they’ve just won promotion to SPL. Zebras go out (which now makes two Zebras teams in Div.4).
Now if Beachside has difficulties beating South Hobart’s Div.1 squad and/or Kingborough what chance do they have in defeating the senior teams of these two clubs? Poor, unless they go and recruit their asses off.
It’s a complete farce.
Maybe the whole lot should be dissolved and applications called for ALL positions but under a strict application process. Each division should have a criteria to meet (e.g. SPL = junior development, own ground, clubrooms, etc.), each division to be graded down from there.
FFT will willingly and knowingly damage clubs like South Hobart & Kingborough if/when these two clubs are forced to withdraw their Div.1 & Div.1 Reserve squads.
I can’t speak for South Hobart, and have no intension of doing so but I have personally worked very hard (arm in arm with a small army of Kingborough faithful) over the years to ensure our development pathways are suitable for our many youngsters coming through and our Div.1 squads are an integral part of that development pathway.
I firmly believe the Fair Trading Commission would find the FFT proposal ‘interesting’ as any body of authority cannot knowingly cause damage (financially or otherwise) to one of it’s members.
It seems the old Chinese curse/proverb has never been more appropriate than in these circumstances; “May you live in interesting times”.
These ARE interesting times.
Comment by Lionheart (Brad Hughes) — April 30, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
I missed out on the first round of discussions on this subject having discovered the site too late.
I’d heard vague mumblings about the restructuring being aimed at Tassie (southern Tassie?) trying to enter a team in the V League but, quite honestly, just thought that some pipe dream that wasn’t to be taken seriously. There are just too many parts of the puzzle missing - huge sponsorship dollars needed (unless the FFT stop wasting the rego. money) for coaching, gear, flights and so on; availability of players (how many would be needed for the two teams - at least 30 and would there be that number willing to put in the extra hours needed and not become semi-proffesional); I could go on but suffice it to say that it really isn’t an option.
Reducing the number of Premiership teams will not increase the quality of football at all. Whilst there are some players who seem to front up with different clubs each year the vast majority (especially those who have come through a club’s juniors and youth teams) will stay with the same club regardless. The bottom two teams may then improve the Div1 standard but, as many have pointed out how do you run an 8 team league? Maybe follw the cricket world cup and play 2 groups of four and then something as stupid as the super-8s?
As to PL clubs not being allowed a team in Div1 I think that would diminish that leagues quality even more. Why should the clubs who have worked so hard in development then be penalised? As I’ve already said these guys wouldn’t leave the clubs - but DDiv2 would then be a a two horse race.
And finally (well maybe not) - at the moment all PL clubs have to meet a stringent set of FFT requirements, not the least is being able to field a PL, Reserves and U19 AND having a certain number of Youth teams (amongst others). If promotion/relegation was actually de rigeur (which it has not been in the past) what of the scenario of Huon Valley (with no malice - they’ve done wonders in a footy land) were to win Div1 and couldn’t meet all the criteria? FFT wouldn’t allow them to go up so the relegated team stays put??
The paper should be shredded tomorrow and all clubs be invited to meet with the FFT for a (hopefully constructive) workshop after the season. Don’t start with a ‘paper’ - start with meaningful discussions - and an independant chairman.
Comment by tasblue — April 30, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
ps - Blackjack. How come my post was up an hour before I sent it? Is your pc still on daylight saving or are you a mind-reader?
You’ll need to consult with the domain provider. Does it matter?
Comment by tasblue — April 30, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
SJ, if you played a final four series in an eight team competition, how many games will a team play if they don’t make the final four?
How, I repeat, how, will a reduction in league numbers produce results such as the movement of players from a demoted club to promoted club or at least one that is currently in the SPL? This notion is simply ridiculous.
Comment by Lionheart — April 30, 2007 @ 11:21 pm
It is difficult to moot this alternative paradigm to the V League proposal in this forum, without the ability to precipitate topics. It may have been covered comprehensively in preceding discussions, but what about the proposal of an elite state league as an alternative to the FFT proposal?
The possibility of four teams playing in a state league sounds normatively plausible to me, but in practice, six teams is probably more realistic. It could take the form of a Launceston team, a Devonport team and four Hobart teams. Maybe one of the southern teams could manifest in the form of an under 19 team? Maybe a better model can be suggested by more informed bloggers?
This scenario could act as a feeder league to a future A League team based in Tasmania. The VPL is obviously a good standard, but there may be insurmountable and expensive logistical problems associated with this model. Also, the Tasmanian team would be dictated to by a body (the Victorian Football Federation, or whatever it is called) with a vested interest in a Victoriocentric bias, not necessarily in the interests of Tasmanian football. Most of us would agree FFT is a vastly inferior operational outfit to the administrations in swimming, cricket and most other sports in this state. I would be concerned with a partnership of FFT and the FFV and all the potential machinations for disaster.
Also, there could be another replicated scenario with the Tasmanian Devils Australian rules team. That is, where nationally there is a perception that it is all Tasmania can manage.
This is particularly in light of the possibility of the hypothetical Tasmanian soccer team finishing down the ladder in the VPL. Remember all those mainland cricket pundits who have argued Tasmania should be precluded from the Pura Cup? I haven’t heard Bill Lawry et al pontificate on this in the last month! I am concerned if we move in the direction of a VPL soccer team, we will be eternally stuck with it as the zenith of elite level soccer in this state.
Some of you will advance the cogent argument, that this is preferable to the current soccer scenario . This is probably true. However, the world is a smaller place with the advent of the internet etcetera. I believe notionally, Tasmania can do better than one or two teams in the VPL. Coaching is still in an ad hoc and embryonic stage in Australia, and I think Tasmania could replicate a better coaching coaching system per capita head of population, fairly quickly.
How is this possible? For one, Tasmania could seek out a few experienced Dutch and French coaches. This could be done under the auspices of the government. How with an AFL loving Premier? Lennon is an ephemeral appointment. The young Premier in the making, David Bartlett, is a soccer player. He has already tried to unsuccessfully influence Lennon to see the merits of soccer. There must surely be some coaches in France and Holland with good knowledge of the game who are not currently at top level, who can make suggestions to improve coaching methodology after living here and experiencing the football nuances of this state. At the same time, they may not need exorbitant amounts of remuneration, if the right research is conducted to gain the right coach who provides value for money.
Coupled with this is the notion that all football under the age of 13 is played in the five aside format to increase skill. It is frequently mooted in this country, but never implemented in its entirety.
A further suggestion is to employ Brazilian individual technical skills. This can be done with contacting Simon Clifford the CEO of Brazilian Soccer Schools and setting up many here. He is an English football coach who has closely scrutinised Brazilian techniques used in Brazil. The techniques are incredible on his DVD. He breaks them down systematically. Most have never been used in the EPL, but are used all the time by Ronaldo, Ronaldhinho, Roberto Carlos, Emerson, Kleberson, Rivaldo, etcetera. Even I can do some of them and have seen them used effectively already in youth matches here demonstrated by players I have worked with. The only problem is some of the techniques don’t work with the same efficacy on wet balls and balls effected by dew. If FFT started to coordinate the dissemination of these techniques in a systematic way, Tasmanian footballers would be vastly technically superior to the mainland states. It is also possible to employ a few Brazilian coaches to educate the local coaches on the individual technical skills which make Brazilian players unique and the best players to watch.
The Tasmanian state league could play a more technical brand of football demonstrating greater individual skills than the VPL, with these suggestions. This could ultimately assist and A League team. What do others think? Also, who is familiar with Brazilian Soccer Schools?
Comment by Decentric — May 1, 2007 @ 12:19 am
Can anyone see that the two premier League clubs with teams in Div One & Div One Reserves have an enormous advantage over those who dont? Certainly those two clubs do - as they are vehemently opposed to any change.
Comment by sj — May 1, 2007 @ 2:11 am
Lionheart - I actually favour a 21 game roster, but a bottom four could also be played if need be. I am sure there are other possibilities.
Those players who want to play at the highest level, within Tassie, may stay at their club if demoted - for one year to try to gain promotion - but a number will move initially, and a number will move after 12 months. Club loyalty is still prevalent but is not what it once was - just see how many players move across clubs within and between seasons. This proposal is only being fought by those who see their club losing out - which is fair enough - but those who look at whats best for the game (eg. Greg Saunders of Metro) acknowledge that even though their club may suffer its better for the game as a whole.
Comment by sj — May 1, 2007 @ 2:18 am
sj, of course the two clubs who are affected by the Div.1 scenario are opposed to change as the change will destroy their development pathway and render untold harm on the structure of our clubs. Why do you sound so surprised by this?? It’s not rocket science.
South Hobart & Kingborough have worked damn hard to build our clubs to the point to which they now sit. We have sacrificed silverware, premierships and other ‘trimmings’ to ensure we have a solid foundation on which to continue building our clubs. Now the powers that be want to tear it all down by changing the rules.
What possible advantage could we possibly have that we haven’t earned. It’s not like we are cheating. It sound more like envy and jealousy. It’s a bloody disgrace, I know that much.
I wonder if one of the clubs could manage to buy a top team (rather than develop it) if FFT and the other clubs would legislate to remove that team from the competition because they ‘had an unfair advantage’?
Comment by Lionheart — May 1, 2007 @ 8:11 am
The only result cutting King & Sth from Div1 will do is make the competition weak and provide the lower divisions with dominance from Sth & King…as their players will go to Div 3 or 4…results of 12-0 etc will be common….Good idea…!!
I can’t see the benefit of removing king & sth…I must have tunnel vision or be thick…..oh well, we can say as much as we like on this matter…but lets be honest, which ever club has the closest relationships with FFT and the Board will get the decision… This discussion paper stuff is crap and FFT are just using it as a butt saving exercise, I have no doubt the FFT and the Board already have made their decision.
Comment by Observer — May 1, 2007 @ 9:24 am
I think an 8 team PL & 8 team div 1, playing 21 rounds is the way to go - without clubs having teams in both comps [thereby able to 'fix' results when need be, as has been done in the past-but I wont quote examples yet]. If (as everyone seems to assume) Metro & Taroona go down to Div 1, that creates a strong Div 1 comp from which any winner would give 8th placed PL team a good battle in the promotion/relegation game at seasons end. Clubs that develop juniors in Div 1 will eventually be rewarded with promotion to PL & vice-versa, so don’t focus too much on who will be where just in 2008. There will be plenty of seasons to follow that one.
As for 21 being too many games (over current 18), most players seasons currently finish end of August. I’m sure going into September wouldnt hurt - even if most people do want to watch the AFL finals
Comment by IceMan — May 1, 2007 @ 10:04 am
I refer to Walter’s article in todays Mercury on Taroona’s prospects for the future .
Little does Mattew realise that his club has to finish 8th this year to stay in the Premier League if the mooted proposals go through.
Again I repeat some of those in favour do not realise that this year they may finish 9th or 10th and in coming years 8th.
As the standard may allegedly improve I presume it will be a straight swap as there will be no time for a playoff series.
Comment by Brian Roberts — May 1, 2007 @ 10:05 am
…and so the topic is open for discussion again…what a great idea. The fact is that FFT is elected to grow all facets of the game of football in this state, a claim that they make most vociferously. They are not however elected to make decisions DESPITE the people that make up the game in this state. I am not particularly knowledgable about the Brazilian Soccer Schools system but the idea of looking outside the square to assist the qualifications and development of our coaching and playing fraternity is excellent. As i said originally, the local game should be developed and this is not best done by “buying” a spot in the Victoria. For years FFT in its previous guise as Soccer Tas preached conditions on entering Premier League, development, home gounds, financial control et al and while some clubs spent their money in these areas believing that this was the right way to go, other clubs spent their money differently. Now FFT would develop a state based team which would further undermone the ongoing development of individual clubs.
With regard to the 8 team competition, when all is said and done, the 10 team league is the best option even though I am sure that all would be acceptable if we were stuck with them. I guess I will upset some who agree with me in other areas but (sorry Lionheart) I do not believe that PL clubs can have teams in Div 1 if the system is to grow. The U19/Reserve/Senior pathway in the Premier League gives enough of a development pathway for players even though I agree it may cost some clubs numbers to go the other way…and therefore some revenue loss…thus affecting their club development a bit. But in the end, Man Utd do not have a team in Division One in the UK, even though they would certainly be competitive. What is important is that some clubs have spent their money and efforts on junior and local growth, facility development and building a solid business base for their organisations. Others have won premierships. Now is the chance for FFT to reward those clubs without whom the game would have no base upon which to develop. After all, they have only been doing what the state body should have been doing for many years.
Finally a state league is actually a great idea…unfortunately it would need the commitment of the clubs and the support of FFT in teh financial area to succeed. Travel (and therefore cost) is a concern and I can recall occasions in the last State League where players went to other clubs because they were unable or didn’t want to travel. Again however maybe we need to bite the bullet and give it go again in order to give the next stage of the development pathway.
Comment by A whisper — May 1, 2007 @ 10:28 am
Look, this ‘fixing a result’ is a crock of %&$# you can’t move more than a couple players up or down, it’s called ‘Team Stacking Rules’ implemented by FFT some years ago. So get over yourselves. I’m sorry if I’m sounding a bit p’d off by all of this, but it’s a clear case of ‘tall poppy syndrome’. Kingborough & South Hobart have become too big for their boots so they’re going to get cut down to size.
KLUSC set up their programme under the rules of the day. Now the rules aren’t restrictive enough so they’re going to be changed. Gee, FFT are at it again but this time aided by those clubs who can’t really be bothered. And this is even all the more strange because there are clubs such as Clarence, Eagles & Olympic who have all had teams in Div.1 over the past few years.
Disgusted!!
Comment by Lionheart — May 1, 2007 @ 11:28 am
I haven’t mentioned fixing a result Lionheart. I agree that this is difficult to do on anything more than a one match basis and that a Div 1 club would need to get itself into a good position anyway for this to have any effect. I do believe in the long term that a Division 1 comp without the PL teams in it is better than one with them in as it also encourages the development of new clubs. For all the allegations laid at Beachside’s door that I have read in these blog’s, it should be remembered that as Howrah they were going nowhere and the sponsorship and development that they have managed to undertake has been to the benefit of the game as a whole because it also shows that a new entity can be successful. Let me say again, the development of the local game and local clubs is the surest base upon which to base the growth of the state game. That development must however be broad based enough to continue to support the game so we need to encourage more clubs like KULSC, SH, Metro and Clarence that are trying to develop their own facilities, growth and structure. Four is not enough.
I read a comment in an earlier blog, can’t remember who wrote it and can’t be bothered checking, that a couple of PL clubs had been refused permission to play in Division one a couple of years ago. My sources tell me in fact that, assuming we are talking about the year before Hobart United entered the PL, a concious decision was made by the leadership at Clarence and White Eagle NOT to force the issue of a Division 1 team for their clubs (which would have made it an 11 team league) but for both to pull out of that in favour of Hobart United getting into Division 1. This decision was then justified in that Hobart won promotion the following year returning that competition to a ten team comp. KULSC should be complimented for the great work they have done over a number of years to grow the game in their area….is it possible that changing times bring a need for reviewing some areas to maintain the positive effect of that growth?
Comment by A whisper — May 1, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
Fair thought ICEMAN…that’s why the finals series disappeared. What about the thought that FFT removed that competition to make way for the elongated 8 team league season so no one could say “but what about the final’s series?” It is the way these things are done that troubles me. It wouldn’t surprise me to find a paper from FFT shortly advising that they feel the season is finishing to early and an 8 team 21 round season would extend it for all players…unless of course someone up there reads this comment first…lol
Comment by A whisper — May 1, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
Lionheart, take a chill pill. If you think the team stacking rules have worked in the past, then thats just living in fairyland. In the past, the results of some teams in Div 1 who had PL teams varied WILDLY throughout the year as wooden-spoons or premierships beckoned. I remember clearly one occasion where a Div 1 team sealed the title the same day their PL team lost 10-0..& the whole club celebrated. This was not really an ‘out of character’ action taken by the club at the time either - and I know cos I played for that club.
Wherever there are rules, there will be ways around them.
Comment by IceMan — May 1, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
Heaven forbid if we change to a state league, vic prem league, 8 team, 10 team, finals, no finals, cup, summer cup, promotion, playoffs etc etc. How about we focus on having clubs no matter where they play having basic facilities such as a ground, change rooms, juniors and youth development and then decide who should play where. If you have people making decisions about the now and do not have any idea where we are going then we are going to be let down again and again. Kingborough need a division one team to be able to incorporate some of the 550 members they have to play with thier mates, is that not what it is about. Most ( i would say all) of thos players in div 1 and div 1 res are not going to go anywhere so the spreading of talent argument is flawed.
SJ you refer to transfers being many, have you not noticed that the number is realitvely small and they seem to go between the same clubs, generally clubs which have no ground, no juniors, no loyalty and spirit.
Get rid of South, get rid of Kingborough, but I hope you introduce promotion and relegation from div 1, because I can see Kingborough and South flogging teams in Div 2 (actually on FFT’s heirarchy the 6th level of competition in this massivly populated state!) Where is the common sense that says that clubs that grow are doing something right, taking away the ability for our 3rd team to play in the 4th level of competition is just ridiculous. No one has actually argued with any logic on this issue and to be frank there does not seem to be any logic from FFT.
Comment by charlie white — May 1, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Even so Lionheart, a couple of PL players coming down makes a big difference in Div 1. Note Walters article today re the difference.
Comment by Cougar — May 1, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
I remember playing for South Hobart at a time when we won the Div 1 title, we needed to win our last game to win the league and that day about half the team was made up on senior players, our senior team got beaten 8-0 or something and was made up of 3rd team players. Lionheart team stacking is an issue nothing to do with tall poppy syndrome.
Comment by Observer — May 1, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
Can you name a time recently where a Kingborough or South Hobart PREMIER LEAGUE player has played Div 1. for the reasons you state. Both these team have fielded players on the comeback path from injury in DIV 1 maybe you might have perceived this as “Team Stacking”
Comment by That Guy — May 1, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
I think the saddest part about all this is that FFT have come up with some pretty limited options and asked people to choose between them. I’d preferred to have seen FFT ask for submissions for a new league structure from clubs. Suddenly there are more ideas on the table, and the best workable bits from each could be used.
I’d love to start and sit on a round table of something like this.
Comment by Tommy — May 1, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
Maybe, just maybe, the ever expanding Kingborough municipality could support another club? If they want to play for their club then they play wherever they can within the leagues available to that club. If they really believe that they need to play Div one / Div one reserves then perhaps they could move to an already existing Div One club within the same region.
The promotion / relegation between Div One/ Div Two is problematical because of the need for a reserves side, and any club winning div 2 with a team in premier league could not go into div one anyway.
If the two sides are satisfied flogging the others in Div 2 year in year out then so be it - no different to the womens comps of recent years.
The logic Charlie is removing the POSSIBILITY of a Premier League Club from influencing the outcome of Division One. Simple really.
Comment by sj — May 1, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Cougar - If a few Premier players make a big difference then your argument about getting rid of Kingborough and South is as flimsy as it is illogical. Once again I reinforce that KLUSC has not stacked its team and has been top 4 in div 1 for the past 5 or so years, so how is it that you continue this argument. If another team is stacking but not winning it, which if you had noted no premier team has won div 1 for a very long time (maybe us in 2002 - note our first div 1 title in 25 odd years!) what is the argument about? If a team can not beat a team with a couple of premier players, how can they hope to compete if they get promoted?
Comment by charlie white — May 1, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
Lets remove the POSSIBILITY of it raining by playing inside then. No logic simply clutching at straws. Here is a POSSIBILITY SJ, KLUSC allow another “club” to form that use Lightwood, wear black and blue, train on KLUSC grounds, drink at KLUSC bar and have exactly the same players that our div 1 team does now (oh but now i’m being pedantic about detail, silly me) We would then have our premier league players having to drop to (let me think about this) div 2 (which by current rules is illegal) to get some kind of match fitness/game time if they are injured away etc. Lets think about it, we would then have quite rightly many people who are having a social kick getting to play against a Premier player and probably not being very happy with it. IS this making all leagues of a higher standard? Do I have any simple logic here?
Comment by charlie white — May 1, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Some good, positive comments above and some less so!
Seems South’s once wanted to win div1 and stacked the team. Have no idea when but I’m sure the guys currently in charge would not let happen again. Anyone know of Kingborough doing the same thing? They haven’t been in the PL for many years have they?
There was mention of resurrecting the State league. I actually think that an 8 team State league would be an ideal solution to many of the problems we’re discussing, but we’re discussing them from the south’s point of view I hasten to remind you all. I don’t think that there has been any input to this blog from north of Granton, but may be wrong. Again the very bottom line would be dollars - either the FFT have to get off their cosy seats at KGV and find the money to run it or someone to put up enough prize money to make it attractive. No club in the state could afford to be a part of it without financial assistance.
sj - presume you realise that Taroona and Christian U. are also in Kingborough? Look out for Woodbridge by the way - they enetered a team in the Summer Cup!
Tommy - well said. Let the clubs do the thinking, discussing etc. and come up with viable alternatives.
Comment by tasblue — May 1, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Charlie - I cant remember every having argued about getting rid of KB and SH on this blog, thanks all the same. I think perhaps you should check facts like these before attributing assertions such as ‘flimsy’ and ‘illogical’ at people.
The simple theme in my so-called ‘flimsy’ and ‘illogical’ argument was that having PL players playing in Div 1 (for whatever reason) strengthens the Div 1 team above those non-aligned Div 1 teams. That isnt rocket science.
ThatGuy - they are still PL players REGARDLESS of whether they are coming back from injury OR they are just dropping back. I believe Div 1 should be a separate competition from the PL, therefore if youre a PL player and get injured, you should come back through PL reserves, not Div 1.
Comment by Cougar — May 1, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
Cougar - that does happen……..!!!!!!!! How many times you seen Charlie White play Div 1 after being injured or unavailable….? How many times you seen Charlie White play reserves after being injured or unavialable…quite a few. Once again, teams in Div 1 clearly show that they want an easy ride and don’t want to play against competitive teams. Shame.
Observer - I have edited some of the content of this post as it was antagonistic and added nothing to the discussion. BJ
Comment by Observer — May 1, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
Charlie, I think the idea for some Div 1 clubs is to get promoted first, THEN worry about recruiting, etc. to compete at the next level. It’s only fair opportunity that they’re asking for. Kingborough have done ok once they went up & they never got promoted legitimately to the top flight - they had to merge with West Hobart Lions/Calies to get there.
That guy - are you suggesting that because 2 teams havent team stacked [in your opinion] in the last 12 months that it will never happen in the future? Would seem a ‘flimsy’ argument considering plenty of examples of such behaviour from the past 3-4 years could be cited.
Keep PL & div 1 seperate, small (8 teams) and competitive.
Comment by Fab — May 1, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
Fab,
“considering plenty of examples of such behaviour from the past 3-4 years could be cited.”
I’m sure we’d all like to hear of them - please enlighten me - it may alter my opinion on the matter.
Comment by tasblue — May 1, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
Fab, I don’t know which club you are involved with but your statement (you win Div1 and THEN recruit) demonstrates why so many clubs drag behind Kingborough & South Hobart when it comes planning and development.
This whole process is a complete crock. All people are doing is cutting down the tall poppies simply because most couldn’t be bothered to put some blood seat and tears into bringing on the next generation and all that comes with it. It’s bloody hard work to achieve this goal, ask Brian & Jill Dale, John Iles, Bruce Harper, Charlie White and all the other hard working people at Lightwood Park.
This administration has worked hard to improve Tasmanian Football unfortunately most of it has been at the expense of the clubs it is supposed to represent.
I’ll wait for the final word from FFT but I’m sincerely hoping my club will explore ALL avenues to avert this disasterous proposal.
Comment by Lionheart (Brad Hughes) — May 1, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
Not just being a Northern whinger, but where does the NPL fit in to all the plans? I will admit I have not read all the above postings too many and too long
Comment by Hugo — May 1, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
It doesn’t Hugo, someone just wanted to weave a State League concept into an already hostile discussion environment.
I want people to refrain from casting dispersions on other posters or their clubs simply to try and make a point. Posters need to remember that some people are passionate about these issues and they need to consider an individuals reaction to what they are posting. Care and due considertion people.
Comment by Blackjack — May 1, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
A. Whisper and Tasblue.
The state league was probably trialled in a different football epoch with a different football milieu. It was in the days of the old Tony Labozetta controlled admin of Soccer Australia. The game is growing exponentially in this country now, with a far more positive eternal outlook. A state league would create the fertile peconditions for a viable A League team here.
One model which could minimise travel, is to implement the conference paradigm as practised in US basketball. There could be four clubs in a Southern conference and four in the north and north-west, termed the Northern conference. Each team in the two conferences could play each other once and then four or five times a season, after each conference round, each conference team could play the other conference team in the same position on the ladder. For example Northern first team after three rounds could play Southern first on the ladder, second Northern could play second Southern and so on. This could minimise travel costs.
The only problem with this model, is I don’t know the relative strengths of the south and north. A few years ago I read the north was much weaker in football. Maybe other informed bloggers could elucidate this scenario?
My concern is not to dilute the spread of talent. Maybe 8 teams is too many for Tasmania? Maybe it is better to centralise a future state league in the south? Whatever, we urgently need a more elite competition to sustain junior players interest in the sport, and, to create the mass interest from outside the football fraternity.
Comment by Decentric — May 1, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
Good ideas Decentric….and certainly there are ways to overcome the problems providing all clubs are willing and don’t do what Devonport did years ago and just refuse to play.
Remember though, the other point in all this was the underhanded way that FFT have set the scene to make it easier to accept the 8 team 21 round proposal (I assume for both North and South). Remember the vote to get rid of the finals series was assumed to be a regional vote but when the votes were counted, I think you will find FFT manufactured the vote they wanted by combininig the north and south voting, something that was not explained prior to the vote taking place. Someone has an agenda here . What does the old line say about bearers of gifts?
Of course, if you really want to extend the season why not rid ourselves of the Summer Cup? Very few coaches take it seriously and clubs get no revenue from it.
One further question?
Can anyone tell me how much it costs for a club to play in the Premier League now and what percentage of that amount when multplied by ten actually goes to the winning club in prize money. Perhaps someone from last years Premiers could fill in the blanks?
Comment by A Whisper — May 1, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
For Tasblue, I’ll refrain from naming the clubs (but to keep half the bloggers on here quiet will mention Kingborough is not in these examples): 2005 a team who’s colors include white lost 5-1 in April to a side they then beat 3-2 in late July with a totally different team, at a time when the whites were going dangerously close to a wooden spoon. Late in 2004 season, the PL senior player coach (who played Saturday) gave away a penalty for his clubs div 1 side on the Sunday (who knows how many other PL players the team was stacked with). 2006 another Hobart region club regularly played PL players in their Div 1 teams Sunday games [when PL played Fri or Sat].
Comment by Fab — May 2, 2007 @ 10:00 am
Lionheart, dont forget several of the clubs in the top flight never got there by putting in enough “blood,sweat & tears” to win the lower league & get promoted. They got there through other means. Clubs that win a strong 8 team Div 1 should have the right to play off against the team that finishes last in an 8 team PL. If they’re good enough to get promoted, they will probably be able to do what Taroona have done & further strengthen their side with a few recruits who want to play PL. That opportunity should not potentially be denied because some PL clubs get special treatment over other PL clubs by being allowed to also compete in Div.1.
I’m sure sthn Tas can support 16 seperate clubs in 2 leagues without having to double up.
Comment by Fab — May 2, 2007 @ 10:09 am
Fab, how could I ever forget, you keep on reminding people ad nauseum (bit like a scratched record really). But this statement demonstrates your lack of knowledge (??ignorance) rather than Kingborough’s lack of blood sweat and tears.
It might seem techincal but Kingborough didn’t ‘take over’ Callies/Lions, we merged. Kingborough didn’t have to earn anything, Callies were rightful particpants in every State League since the inception of the State League and, in fact, were winners on several ocassions. Callies continued in the guise of a NEW club, Kingborough Lions United, just as Kingborough United continued in the Southern League in the guise of that same new club as well.
(edited by blackjack. No need to be so antagonistic Lionheart)The top league of the time (State League) no longer exists and Kingborough Lions United didn’t have to earn anything. We were there in our own right.
Comment by Lionheart — May 2, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Lionheart, please READ posts PROPERLY before commenting. In my last post I said SEVERAL clubs in top flight got there by means other than winning the lower league & being promoted. I never said anything about Kingborough ‘taking over’ Calies. [Nor did I suggest any other clubs don't deserve to be there].
My point was just that potentially blocking promotion from div 1 to PL (by some clubs competing in both comps, others not) is not in the best interests of all Southern Tasmania Soccer.
I am not promoting the cause of any one club nor exhibiting ‘tall poppy syndrome’ against others. Just supporting an egalitarian point with some facts.
Comment by Fab — May 2, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
I’m sympathetic to clubs like Kingborough that have put huge amounts of effort into player development, and no doubt removing Premier League clubs from Div 1 would significantly lower the standard of the competition, but I think it is also important to remove the possibility of stacking ever occuring as it certainly has in the past.
One possible solution is to ban any downward movement of players from the Premier League + Reserves squad back to the Div 1 + Div 1 Reserve squad.
It is not ideal as it limits the flexibility to call up players from lower leagues to cover genuine injuries etc., but there could be some provision built in to allow FFT to approve exceptions in cases where someone is returning from a long-term injury, similar to the AFL’s long-term injury list arrangements which allow clubs to call up a rookie.
Comment by Ben — May 2, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
“Kingborough have done ok once they went up & they never got promoted legitimately to the top flight - they had to merge with West Hobart Lions/Calies to get there”.
Comment by Fab — May 1, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
Maybe I’m just being too sensitive but don’t I detect an inference there? Anyway, doesn’t matter Kingborough don’t need to justify themsleves to anyone. They are clearly Tasmania’s leading club and may still be the largest sporting club in the state.
Comment by Lionheart — May 2, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
Fab, despite some misquoting/misinterpreting you, you make some interesting points.
There’s a saying “dont argue with a fool. They’ll drag you down to their level & beat you with experience”. The emotional rants of some on here suggest you may be wasting your time bringing any more facts into consideration
Comment by jacko — May 2, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
Hey Lionheart…good to see you are proud of your club but don’t take all the comments too personally I don’t believe that they are all meant that way.
One comment though if I may, as far as being Tasmania’s leading club and largest sporting club, the boys and girls at Clarence tell me they might have stolen your mantle in both areas. As I noted once before, there is a need to encourage more clubs state wide to achieve those same goals and standards. It is on that strong base that the growth and development of our beloved round ball game is enhanced.
Of course if FFT in their many guises had actually enforced the various criteria that they have been talking about for decades much of this would already be happenning. It is an easy process
1. Set the criteria
2. Set a date to have the criteria met
3. (and this is the one they never got their heads around) work with the clubs seeking to meet that criteria and actually help them achieve their goals. If you just try to hit them with a big stick…and they don’t respond…what do you do next. You do what FFT did and ignore the criteria.
Comment by A whisper — May 2, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
A Whisper - Clarence may well be up there with Kingborough in terms on leading club and numbers etc, buts lets be honest the way to tell is difficult at best. All I know is that “regional” clubs seem to be getting bigger and you would like to think better. Clarence are perfectly set up to emulate the growth of Kingborough, both are giving an opportunity for juniors, youth, seniors, women and spectators to get involved with thier own grounds and club rooms. Clarence deserve to be congratulated, the hard part that we have found at Kingborough is to know when to stop and say this is as big as our volunteers can cope with.
Comment by charlie white — May 2, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
Ben - I agree 100%. PL teams with Div 1 teams should allocate their players to Div 1 or PL, and play in that tier only. I think even if a PL player gets genuinely injured they should have to come back through PL reserves - not Div 1. This is unfair on stand alone Div 1 teams.
A point that hasnt really been raised is that the current arrangements could be considered unfair on PL teams that DONT have a Div 1 team, as they dont have the depth to call on to cover injuries that PL teams with Div 1 teams do.
Lionheart has gone from aggressive to ‘we dont need to justify ourselves to anyone’. Yes you do lad, theyre called FFT and whatever they decide, based on submissions from ALL clubs, Lightwood Park will wear it as well.
Comment by Cougar — May 2, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Cougar - let me get this right…I could be wrong……!! When you say “PL teams that DONT have a Div 1 team, as they dont have the depth to call on to cover injuries that PL teams with Div 1 teams do”…are you serious….? You are saying, because King (as you refer to and obviously have a problem with) worked to have a team in Div1 and built depth that they are now unfairly ahead of the pack….ARE YOU FOR REAL…. this is comment you made is not logical….
Comment by Observer — May 2, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
I would whole heartedly support naming players to play in either PL or Div 1, it seems sensible, Cougar I am a bit perplexed at the point that “unfair on PL teams that DONT have a Div 1 team, as they dont have the depth to call on to cover injuries that PL teams with Div 1 teams do” is that not the fault of the club if they do not have the depth to cover injuries. We have got guys playing back as far as div 4 ( I kid you not) to fill holes in our senior team, surely that depth just shows a healthy club, I understand that teams might not have a team playing at a level competitive enough to give replacements but if we are to have clubs with 500 + players like KLUSC, CUFC etc then we will need to have enough leagues to allow them to play. I personally want there to be enough competitive leagues to allow all of Kingborough people to play at a level which is competitive for them. I make no apologies for trying to allow guys like Cam Ellis who has played div 1 for over a decade for Kingborough to keep doing it, not send him down to div 2 and see his enjoyment suffer.
Comment by charlie white — May 2, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
So should Kingborough not have a Div 4 team either (we might stack it, you know)?
Oh, hold on, Uni have 6 teams from Div 2 down to Div 4 - they could manipulate a few results! As could Zebras, Clarence, BeachSide, Eagles, etc.
The utopian world people seem to be looking for where we have the English style of a tiered competition only seems to work for a very few small clubs.
The problem is just the promotion/relegation thing, and that can be worked around - the non-PL team in Div 1 that finished highest gets to play off against the bottom PL team.
Comment by John — May 2, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
Hi Cougar…basically I agree with your thoughts. Unfortunately I am not convinced that FFT want to know what we think unless it agrees with them. My thought to you is that they will go whichever way they feel they want to on the premise that they were elected to run the sport so they have a mandate to do whatever they can make us believe we want.
Comment by A whisper — May 2, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
I have followed the comments on this site with interest and increasing frustration. The introduction of all manner of subjects, which go off at tangents detract from the serious debate, this issue deserves.
As the designer of the current Promotion / Relegation, and Statewide cup format I gain the impression that opinions are being stated as facts and some have not read the CEO’s paper.
Before you go further either read the CEO’s paper or the extract set out below.
THE STRUCTURE THAT IS PREFERRED BY THE BOARD IS AS FOLLOWS:
· An eight team Premier League
· A Championship league restricted to non-Premier League teams
· A two tier system – with Seniors and Under 21’s
· An Under 18 league that is open to all clubs that wish to enter teams, whether Premier League or Championship. Where rosters coincide, the Under 18’s to play before the Seniors/Under 21’s.
· Promotion and relegation based on the current system
What you and I have to do if we disagree is try and persuade our Club representatives to argue for no change.
.
As the Premier Clubs by a majority have voted in favour we are like men with wheelbarrows.
We have the job in front of us.
.
I am sure I have written previously of the hidden agenda however I’ll try to set it out in a simple form.
Dispose of two Premier Clubs and you have 11 Div 1 teams, subtract the two premier representatives and you have 9 teams.
You also have in theory 22+ extra players to spread between the 9 Div 1 clubs.
Make the reserves under 22 and you have even more players to spread throughout the system.
.
Theoretically this action will elevate the Division One League to “2nd “ place in the pecking order as opposed to its current standing of say 3rd. In the designers eyes (not me) quite logical as that’s were future Premier Clubs will come from.
.
Now I don’t want to hear from people saying this is terrible, this is all wrong.
We have a determined (the Annual Report not me) Board who will ensure their policies are met so once again
.
THE STRUCTURE THAT IS PREFERRED BY THE BOARD IS AS FOLLOWS.
Unless Club reps can be persuaded to change their minds, it is a lost cause and all the theories; bleating and grand schemes will come to naught.
If you want a copy of my 5 page response to the CEO”s paper drop me an email.
Comment by Brian Roberts — May 2, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
Making the reserve premier league comp non existant is a bloody stupid idea. Come on Brian, seriously!
Comment by Chalky — May 2, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
I agree Chalky…but that is what FFT want to do….Premier league/U21 then off to Division One….they said it in their own preferred option. Is it then supposed to be Division One and Div 1 U21’s so that a Div 1 team is ready for promotion…THEN where do the senior players go that can’t make PL or Div 1.
It is FFT’s proposal…not Brians…or mine….and it is all geared to making a Tasmanian team acceptable in the V League…which is where we started this debate.
Comment by A Whisper — May 2, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
How many clubs do you think actually sent in comments by the deadline of 30th April?
Comment by sj — May 2, 2007 @ 11:55 pm
Is it true that most clubs want any changes delayed until 2010?
Comment by sj — May 2, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
Curious.
My first thought when I heard about a possible restructuring of the leagues was, I hope the FFT do not try and re-invent the wheel. The proposal favoured by the board posted by Brian Roberts doesn’t look terrible to me, but it’s not brilliant either.
One thing is for certain, our current system is laughable, we should compare our system, to professional leagues, because they are the leagues that have invested many thousands of dollars, pounds, euros, etc etc into think tanks to design their optimal infra structure, I can save you the research and tell you none of these leagues have our system, why? Because it’s inefficient, and does not promote growth of the game. Yes, I feel sorry for the larger clubs such as Lions, and South Hobart, but can you honestly say that not a single player in your Division 1 sides would not get a game at another club in the premier league? (I’m sure Taroona wouldn’t mind some of those players, especially considering Lions impressive Div 1 results thus far)
I think the growth, and competition of the overall league should really rate as a higher consideration for FFT than individual clubs? Clearly the competition of the league should be one of the highest priorities for FFT as evidenced over the past several years when I have been paying attention to local football (Young ‘un you see..) it’s simply not there. The three most recent promotee’s from Div 1. (At least as I remember it) are DOSA, 1 point in 3 seasons? Consecutively last in those seasons obviously.. Hobart United relegated in short order, how many points did they collect in their time in the top flight? Finally, Taroona, and to be honest I am unsure how the are going, I have heard slightly better than Hobart/DOSA but are still looking likely to take the wooden spoon? How many Div 1 teams need to be promoted, and finish last before some of you acknowledge there is a problem of depth in Football in the Southern part of the state?
Furthermore, do you really think one club tying up 500 players (Sorry if you feel like I’m targetting you Kingborough, but it’s just that one of you posted that number and I have no idea on South’s situation) is beneficial to the problem of competitiveness in the leagues? It’s not.
I personally would like to see us adopt a system similar to the one implemented in England. Premier League, Premier League Reserves, Division 1, A Reserves League open for Div 1 and Div 2 teams, then Div 2, Div 3, and so on and so forth, finally a tiered youth competition open to ALL division’s youth teams with as many tiers as necessary. NO CLUB allowed to double up in the main divisions, a social/veteran division may be made for this purpose, but those players may not play for the competitive sides without exemption from FFT. So Kingborough for example could have Premier League, Premier League Reserves, and a tiered Youth Team, and a Social Side, but thats it. This nonsense of having extra sides in the lower divisions is unprofessional, and it dilutes the quality of football being played.
I don’t think we should lose the reserves league, that although again it would strengthen the other leagues, I think it is an essential part of a competitive system, youth players may not always be ready to step up into a senior league etc.
I think it would add some colour and maybe some real interest in our league if a Division 1 team has a very realistic chance of being promoted into the Premier League and becoming a force over several seasons, yes it’s happened in the past, but it hasn’t happened at all recently, and the FFT’s restructure to the leagues, although harsh, will probably ensure it can happen again in the future… and hell, the idea of watching a two leg relegation/promotion tie for the loser of PL and the winner of D1 where theres a genuine battle sounds like something I’d definitely pay to go see, and so would many others.
Comment by Bronsjua — May 3, 2007 @ 1:42 am
Wouldn’t you think bronsjua would actually know what he/she was talking about before casting an opinion otherwise you are just left looking ignorant. Do some background reading bronsjua. The remainder of his input is just tripe from someone who knows very little about football apart from what he sees on SBS of a Sunday. At least that’s the impression he leaves anyway.
Comment by Roundball Specialist — May 3, 2007 @ 8:37 am
After reading post from recent days on this blog I am convinced Kingborough thinks differently to many (most) other clubs.
When Kingborough develops a player we develop them to play for Kingborough (or above) and at the highest league possible for their level of skill & ability. If their goals differ the player seeks other opportunities elsewhere and goes with the club’s blessing.
If we have a glut of players in any given year we investigate the possibility of entering another team (as long as the league is suitable for the player’s developing needs). We don’t flick a player unless we can’t offer them the playing time and opportunity that they themselves desire and then we will be honest with the player. This has happened on 2-3 ocassions only in my many years at the club.
Kingborough grows it’s own talent. Very rarely we will chase a player but we are always happy to talk to a player who wants to play for Kingborough. Hence as a player grows he knows he will have opportunities and not be pushed out by some player who has been ‘pilfered’ from another club. The time Kingborough have chased a player has been unmitigated disasters but all have been at the behest of coaches who wanted results NOW rather than do the hard work to help develop a player.
So why should we be surprised when we hear other clubs say that we should farm our players out to other clubs. Give away, dump, off load, farm out are all expressions used to transfer players to other clubs that are surplus to our needs if we don’t have a Div.1 or Div.1 Reserve teams.
Well at Kingborough it has become clearly apparent that our players seem to be more like family. We’d prefer to fight for our family members rather than just cast them off as surplus to needs if and when circumstances don’t suit.
I’m sure South Hobart are in a similar state of mind.
If FFT and the other clubs decide PL clubs can’t have a Div.1 squad then don’t be surprised if Kingborough & South Hobart enter into a partnership where these players are ‘looked after’ in either an existing club/s or in a newly created club/s set up for the express purpose of continuing our players development.
Comment by Lionheart — May 3, 2007 @ 9:07 am
I dont think ive ever mentioned Kingborough specifically in this topic. Its disappointing that the Kingborough bloggers are so intent on taking everything as a pot-shot at their club rather than seeing the bigger picture. A bit of maturity wouldnt go astray lads.
My simple point is, Premier League and Premier League Reserves should be a stand alone tier, that you have your squads for, and you cant call on anyone outside of these squads. The same with Div 1. I wouldnt have thought that would be all together controversial, unless ive written in white ink somewhere my supposed Kingborough bashing.
Comment by Cougar — May 3, 2007 @ 9:58 am
Roundball specialist, maybe you should post some thoughts instead of just taking potshots at others who do.
Comment by Cougar — May 3, 2007 @ 10:01 am
John wrote this “The problem is just the promotion/relegation thing, and that can be worked around - the non-PL team in Div 1 that finished highest gets to play off against the bottom PL team”.
Yes, that sounds logical. BUT - who becomes the highest non-PL team in Div 1 can be influenced by having PL-aligned teams in there that may run their PL/PL Reserves players back through Div 1 due to injury or whatever other reason. Not saying it happens, saying it can happen, and that links back to my thoughts in previous posts that the squads should be separate.
A disclaimer - bash me if you will Kingborough lads, but I havent mentioned you specifically in this post, and if a k and an l just happen to be together, thats just coincidence.
Comment by Cougar — May 3, 2007 @ 10:11 am
Cougar, Maybe you should Clarify which teams you are talking about so that Kingborough Supports dont (rightfully so) get any more fraustrated with the comments made
Comment by That Guy — May 3, 2007 @ 10:27 am
That guy - my argument relates to PL teams with Div 1 teams.
Comment by Cougar — May 3, 2007 @ 10:41 am
Round Ball Specialist….why not take a constructive approach to the comments by Bronsjua and explain where you think they are wrong instead of an abusive approach. The contribution he/she has made is actually quite considered.
Lionheart I am not suggesting that all clubs should be reduced to the same number of players and that an effort should be made to make everyone equal. What I am suggesting is that if we are going to change the structure of the leagues in the state, let’s look for one that will:
1. Help develop a better standard of player, club and coach at the elite end of the competition with appropriate pathways for progression for all concerned and
2. Leave enough room for all that want to play for whichever club but do not wish or are not able to play at the top level.
These two things are not mutually exclusive but they do require alot of consideration for many of the reasons noted in these blogs.
It is especially helpful if the people making these decisions either are or have access to the realities of running a club, and everything that this entails not just an overview of the elite direction. What is interesting is that I would suggest that the poeple contributing to this discussion have a better idea of all those things than those running the game.
Can anyone tell me when has FFT gone from club to club seeking to advise them on administration, structure, fund raising, coaching, player development, facility development etc etc.
What is needed in the sport is a new helpful approach that has a realistic understanding of the game in Tasmania and what can be achieved with help. Then of course the help must be provided.
Yes there is a cost attached to that process and of course FFT has no money spare…..does it?
Comment by A whisper — May 3, 2007 @ 10:57 am
That guy - some comments are made in general about league structures. If bloggers have to post which clubs may or may not be related to their comment just to ensure those with a persecution complex dont misinterpret something, thats being overly pedantic. If everyone reads posts properly before commenting & thinks rationally, I believe in most cases they’ll better see the points being made & wont take offence where none was intended.
Society’s need for disclaimers on so many things makes one wonder sometimes……
Comment by fab — May 3, 2007 @ 11:04 am
Lets look at the positives in the League restructure.
1/ The aim to establish similar structures in Premier and Div 1 so that movement between the leagues is not so disasterous (especially if you are going down).
2/Promotion/relegation will still be by a play-off so this on the law of averages should favour the bottom Premier team.
3/The aim to create a stronger Div 1 competition for independant clubs.
In 1/ FFT indicate that talent is spread to thinly across the league and a reduction to a 8 team league may improve the standard. It may lift the profile of Div 1 but will do little/nothing to Premier. In recent years there has been an increase in junior players and this is flowing into the adult leagues. My point is that the top teams may be no better than 20 years ago but those at lower level (Reserves, Div 1 etc) are certainly far ahead of lower clubs from the “good old days”.
Some have pointed out that promoted teams are finding it hard to establish themselves in a 10 team league, it could be virtually impossible in 8 teams. South Hobart took 3 years to gain experince and move away from last spot in the State Lg.
The aims 2/ and 3/ should be the main aim for FFT. The contencious issue is what happens to Premier sides in Div 1. Since the demise of the State Lg (1999) South and KLions have won Div 1 once each, the other years it has been independant clubs. South last year were near the foot of the league table so Premier clubs have no guarantee of success as some would suggest. Maybe they should continue in the structure and if finishing in last place will be available for relegation.
Just as a point of interest, one of the best Div 1 leagues was 1989-1991 when the State Lg recommenced. All Reserves and independant clubs in the South played in the one league, if you won that one you deserved promotion, both Taroona and University did that but there was promotion/relegation at the time, and Glenorchy Knights were last in the State Lg of 1989. So had the restructure applied at the close of that season???
Comment by Keith Roberts — May 3, 2007 @ 11:05 am
An important misprint in the last section of my e-mail..There was no promotion and relegation during 1989-1991 so Taroona and University stayed in Div 1.
Comment by Keith Roberts — May 3, 2007 @ 11:08 am
Fair point, Cougar, but there are many things that influence results. It’s unlikely that the Div 1 only teams would run the same team every week for the whole season. Some games will be played on a perfect deck, some in a quagmire.
One thing to note, by the way, is that if a (Kingborough/Souths/whoever) PL/PLR player is back in Div 1, someone has almost certainly gone up to cover them, and they were obviously considered better at the time the selection decision was made. This actually weakens the Div 1 side. That’s assuming, of course, that there isn’t just flat-out stacking by doubling the players up - but if you do that, you’re not going to be too popular with the Div 1 players that get left out.
Anyway, back to the original point - there’s the potential for stacking at any level - the only way to eliminate it would be to use Bronsjua’s system of clubs with 2 adult teams (senior & reserves).
That would require dismantling some pretty big clubs. And maybe he’s right in that it would provide a more professional, competitive elite level. Not so good for the huge number of players who play Div 4, Div 3, Div 2, and (in the case of the PL clubs) Div 1 & 1R., though That’s perhaps 2/3 or more of the players having to find or start a new club.
Comment by John — May 3, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Bronsjua - I think you hit the nail on the head, there may be some players in our div 1 team who could easily fit into another team’s Premier set up, but they do not want to, because we are a club of people who play for their mates and do not want to go to another club to hunt for that elusive premiership. I find it really difficult to put that notion in any simpler terms, if they had wanted to go they would have gone. I challenge anyone to find a Kingborough player who has left our club in the last 5 years for lack of game time or lack of a challenge, this is the great shame of this debate, this quite possibly will dissolve loyalty and force people to leave their club, which they do not want to do. In the English game we have big clubs and small clubs - based on supporters and aspirations. Here we have big clubs and small clubs based on number of players. Hockey only has 6 clubs and everyone has to find a club and division where they fit, no promotion, no relegation, just world cups being hosted in Tas, which sport has it right? To say that we are going forward is laughable. Hockey also has a Lord Mayor’s cup for the most successful team over all the divisions, meaning they focus on the whole development pathway, not simply their senior team. Again who has the right idea, we feel the need to chase some European ideal which will not create a more vibrant game, more supporters or any sort of advancement of the game.
Comment by charlie white — May 3, 2007 @ 11:23 am
Cougar, I see your concerns but tend to disagree. There needs to be an ability to promote or drop players between the leagues. I don’t think anyone is arguing the promotion between ressies and seniors. But for example clubs with Div 1 and SPL teams aren’t winning all the trophies in lower divisions. South Hobart, have been good in the top flight… Div 1, they are ok. Kingborough, apart from 2005(?) where they were close to knights and had a stellar season, yet like every other club looked far inferior, have neither had huge successes in either Div 1 or SPL. So I don’t think the evidence supports your claims Cougar and I think you’d probably kill a lot of clubs. Would I be right to say that many players are playing SPL Reserves and then dropping to Div1 or Div1 reserves to facilitate the numbers?
Comment by 1878 — May 3, 2007 @ 11:59 am
Lionheart:
.
It’s good to hear that you and your club are prepared to fight what you have built, as it sounds for your club a good system. I still stand by my earlier comments that it’s better for the club, but maybe not for the league. If the process was streamlined, (No lower division teams, just Youth, Reserves, Seniors) would your set up then fail to function? Or would it proceed as ever it has but with less players?
Comment by Bronsjua — May 3, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Just realised that the above post may seem a bit confrontational to Kingborough. When I said they looked far inferior… well they did, as did everyone else. And any other season Kingborough probably would’ve taken out the Premiership, it was just a little unfortunate.
Oh and this banter about best clubs blah blah… Both Kingborough and Clarence are very successful in their operations as a club. Good culture and spirit. I don’t think it is fair, possible or even relevant to distinguish who is better. It is interesting though that Clarence, Metro and Kingborough all have fairly good kind of development programs yet they haven’t really got the silverware to show for it. Look who has come through Metro Corey Smith, Matthew Sanders, The Cairns’ and Goran Jozeljic just to name a few. About the only top top player they’ve retained is Troy Kaden. Perhaps the league should adopt a structure that encourages and rewards the hard work at junior level. So having several age tiers leading up to the Premier League
Comment by 1878 — May 3, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
Thin skinned jokers around here. I didn’t abuse a soul, simply stated that some background research was required. This bloke come on here and says how he knows little about the game here but that he’s a father with a kid who’s in the game (most dangerous creature). Has no idea how Taroona is going (information freely available - newspaper, FFT, www, etc. ), if you’re going to make a point it might be handy to check these things especially if you going to make assumptions (”Taroona look likely to take wooden spoon”). So someone has more than likely made an ass of themselves.
I’m playing devil’s advocate here. I’m not Jesus Christ. I don’t have all the answers. I don’t see too many people that do. There are degree of differences while some are poles apart and couldn’t agree if they wanted to. Doesn’t anyone see that????? There’s too much verbal jousting for the sake of jousting.
What I’m doing is simply holding up a mirror and asking folks to have a look. If you can’t do that on this site then maybe I should be elsewhere doing more productive things.
Thanks for chance to have my say.
Comment by Roundball Specialist — May 3, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
Just to pick out a few points from posts:
.
Brian Roberts (very top) asked the very pertinent question “What happens if 2 or 3 Clubs do not meet the benchmarks . A league of 7 or 6?” What is the FFT’s position nowadays on clubs reaching certain benchmarks?
How many of the current PL teams have their own ground, clubrooms, junior/youth teams and an ability to show good financial management? How many ‘independant’ div1 teams would meet such criteria?
.
Several have asked about relegation from div1 to ? I’d assume that any div2 team would therefore also need to have a set-up similar to that needed by div1 (and PL) teams to be eligible for promotion? Are there any?
.
Clarence may well be the biggest club nowadays (A Whisper) - well done on putting time and effort into promoting the game. Where will all their players go to in the future? The clubs that have done likewise are producing a huge amount of players for the future and most will stay with that club as they progress. Or should I say ‘would like’ to stay?
.
Brian Roberts (again) rightly points out that the Board want just a 1st. and U21 team for each PL and div1 club. Now maths isn’t my strong point but that would mean that each club would have about 15 seniors and 15 U21’s? playing at that level. That’s a total of 240 senior players. At the moment Sth. Hobart and Kingborough have about 60 senior players playing in the 4 teams they both field? Every other club in the PL and div1 have 30 (counting those in the reserves of course) which means there are currently 570 senior players in those leagues!
If this ludicrous set-up actually happened where on earth are those excess 330 players meant to go? Form 16 new clubs and play on grounds that don’t exist? Go and play footy?
.
A thought on Charlie White’s comments re. hockey. I actually agree with him for once - just look at what they have achieved. World class grounds, International tournaments played in Hobart and (I think I am right in so saying) it is run by volunteers! No top-heavy admin., no drain of player subs, just much better vision than that of the FFT.
Comment by tasblue — May 3, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
1878 - good points and certainly they show the way. In the case of Metro that you mention, good players were raised through the system, only to be lured away from their roots by a club that didn’t bother with development just flashed the cash around.
In Charlies case, many of those players have stayed with their club and ignored the lure for other reasons including the good atmosphere that the lions engender. Of course, if FFT had enforced the criteria over the years there would be a number of PL teams that would no longer be in the top flight and unable to win ‘the sliverware’ unless they had found their own grounds (not one provided for the fortunates by FFT) and put a decent junior development structure in place. Unfortunately there is no recognition for the development model…..another thing that FFT should have looked at by now. Of course the first reward for putting a proper development structure in place should be retaining your place in the PL/ State League.
I also don’t believe that that a club should be restricted to the number of players and teams that it can field. Only that a promotion/relegation structure will work better (I believe) if clubs do not have teams in both levels of the structure.
I understand that the responses by clubs to the FFT proposals will be up on their web site soon. I wonder how many responses were sent in by the clubs. Given the North and South of the state…there would have to be around 25 clubs wouldn’t there…I haven’t really checked. So lets say they get 10 responses in favour of their proposal….does that really equate to the claim they will make of 100% support for the proposal. Interesting times we live in.
Comment by A whisper — May 3, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
Actually Roundball, you’ve misinterpereted some of my comments, I’ll dispense with the sarcasm this time around as it simply got deleted :X
I didn’t say I know little about the game, I said that I have only genuinely been paying attention to local football in recent years. I didn’t say I was a father of a kid in the game, though I can see that it was probably an error of mine that made you think so, when I said Young ‘un, I meant I am fairly young in comparison to some of the posters here who I get the impression have been involved in the game at a local level much longer than I. I did not make any assumptions, I merely restated what I had heard talking to people around the traps, and looking at the ladder, it doesn’t seem to be a wholly radical idea, the final half of the round will be a most interesting one as Metro, Eagles, and Taroona all play one another. I would say the reason ‘thin skinned jokers’ have taken issue with your comments was that you made zero attempt to respond to any points, instead labelled another poster ignorant, who knows very little about football with no justification of your position at all.
.
One final thought I noticed completely by accident while checking the senior league, one of the leading scorers in the Div 1 Reserves League has also picked up a Premier League Seniors goal also, I’ve no doubt there could be any one of a thousand valid explanations other than to start screaming team stacking etc, but it’s when people just have a quick scan of the leagues and see something like that it sets off the alarmist responses
Comment by Bronsjua — May 3, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
Ok, if this topic is going to continue we are all going to ignore inflamatory posts and/or statements and allow me to deal with it. I can’t read every post in detail. A little bit of self regulation will need to be employed.
Round Ball Specialist, put forward an opinion on the topic NOT the person who posted. Thank you. The rest of you will need to avoid rising to the bait.
Comment by Blackjack — May 3, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
For what they’re worth, these are my thoughts -
To end the where are they going to go?/side-stacking arguments have a three-tiered system - the first two tiers of eight teams must have a senior, reserves and unders team (whatever shape and form that is) with full relegation and promotion. Each club may have only one entry in one of the top two leagues. Then a third league could be created to overcome the problem of the left-over players. Any club from either of the top two leagues could enter a team in this league, which could also include teams of youth representative players or teams from lower leagues aspiring to someday crack one of the two bigger leagues. Single team leagues could then continue under the present format.
The league system in the north works well, so this shouldn’t change, but more needs to be done to improve pathways in this half of the state. My suggestion is the appointment of a full-time FFT development/administration officer in the north of the state to act in somewhat of a ’satellite’ support role. FFT should take over the administration of the under 13-17 age groups from NTJSA (just as it does in the south of the state with the three regions) so that there is a clearer pathway from juniors through to youth and seniors within a singular club framework. You would find that players would be more willing to make the shift from ‘junior’ to ’senior’ clubs at age 13 (as in the south) than at age 17 (as in the north - a situation killing the development of the game).
A state league is somewhat inevitable because this is required of the state if we are to ever enter a team in the A-League, which should be the ultimate goal that Tasmania should be striving towards. This state league should compliment, not clash with present league systems. This league should consist of eight teams playing during the summer, to keep all the fans out there happy all year round! The eight clubs should be completely new entities entirely separate from current club structures. The league should be fully-funded before commencement ie. costs of travel etc. provided by sponsors - thus alleviating the downfall of the previous state league. The league would provide the pathway for talented players to make the next step into the A-League.
An A-League team is entirely feasible given the right amount of vision and foresight on the part of administrators. So what do you think?
Comment by Interested Onlooker — May 3, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
As most will have guessed have been around the game for a while and will hopefully be around a little while longer -
Sometime ago , i believe in the Brian Roberts era of Presidency , Soccer Tas put forward a proposal that was agreed by the then 10 clubs became 9 DOSA left the scene and no replacement came up , that at the end of 2005 the league was going to be 8 teams , ( this was agreed prior to 2003 , plus involved minimum criteria issues yeah Zebra still had Bell St having said that both Roberts and Smithy moved on by end of 2004 - didn’t happen.
In fact for many years criteria re clubs having junior - youth teams was part of both State and or Premier League participation - remember Uni having Hutchins as their Youth club Bridgewater as the Knights and so on !!
So here comes another comp review , at least this time their has been some active debate and the powers to be can read the bloggers responses.
Love the stats from Tasblue - still trying to work them through but if true sure are scary were will the players go???
I agree with Charlie will over 21 players not in the first team now have to leave the club if in premier league as they will not be allowed to enter a team in Div 1 ???
Maybe having been brought up as a lone club person and very pleased to have been , i can really see a scenario were premier league teams will have a second league called premier league seconds - yeah guys that want to stay at their preferred clubs - only for prem clubs so that will keep the team stacking moaners happy , the only problem for the Div 1 clubs will be that the Premier League seconds div will be stronger than Div 1 and the Premier League clubs will get stronger .
Also working on this system Uni will have a league on it’s own , judging by Clarences numbers ( A.Whisper) they will have to have their own league in the future .
Maybe i am over the top - or missing something ????
My new FFT league understanding
Premier League - 8 teams - No Div 1 Teams
Premier Under 21 -8 teams - No Div 1 Teams
Premier Under 18 -8 teams - No Div 1 Teams
Div 1 League -8 teams - No Premier League Teams
Div 1 Reserves ( not sure if this Under 21 ) 8 teams - No premier League Teams
Div 1 Under 18 -8 teams - No Premier League Teams
Div2 Old Premier League reserves-too old for Prem Under 21 , not good enough for senors - 8 Teams no Div 1 teams
Div 3 Maybe this will be made up of Div 1 teams plus reserves who can’t play Div 1 reserves too old !!
Div 4 Uni League
Div 5 Clarence League
Div 6 Who ever is left …
Comment by sent off — May 3, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
Not bad Mr. Onlooker…just a couple of additional thoughts if I may…firstly I can recall years ago that the southern leagues were reduced from 12 to 10 “in order to improve the standard”. I do not believe that the top level standard of the last 5 years is better than it was 15 years ago…in fact quite the reverse. I do however believe that the up and coming group of youngsters in the south have the potential to resurect the standard i that area…and this is because there are now at least four clubs in the south developing their own junior pathways.
An eight team league of totally new clubs and leave the old ones in place? I can’t quite go along with that. I am not sure that you mean it as a state league (let’s call it the T LEAGUE) or not but I am going to assume that this was your intent. Money is not prevalent enough in the game in this state at this time and FFT would want a franchise fee which alone would be prohibitive because they are only looking at ways to raise money to pay the entry fee into the V LEAGUE.
I do agree however that an A League team is not out of the question but should it be an FFT team or the logical development of club football. It will require more than vision and foresight it will require a solid base of localised football to support the structure. If I were a suspicious fellow I would put my tongue in my cheek and suggest that your comments come from someone very close to, and supportive of, the current direction of FFT. But of course I ain’t a suspicious fellow.
Let’s say for the sake of the argument that we could start a state league of 8 clubs…launceston 2, Devonport, Burnie/Ulverstone, South 3 or 4 depending upon how it sets up and that you can get all of them to agree to stay in it and support the sponsors, not as happened some years ago when a local bus company agreed to sponsor the league for a fairly large amount of money and two clubs refused to use the service because car pooling was cheaper.
You would then need to set up North/South leagues seeking promotion to this T League and I agree they should not include teams from the T League itself. This may come about in time…but certainly not yet.
Also you would now need 8 new administrations and the ones we have are stretched pretty thin. Finding the additional bodies to do the legwork may well denude the local leagues of good people that are hard enough to find now. It may even need some part-time semi professional people to run these teams to help get them to the level they need to be to start looking at the next stage and that means more money to pay them.
Let me finally come back to a point I made earlier in the blog. I do not see where FFT have put in place programmes to assist the professional development of club administrators to get them to the level they need to be at to run the sort of league you are proposing. Nor have they insisted that clubs develop the pathways and people to develop the infrastructure needed for this sort of venture. Fortunately some clubs have been able to get good people with the right sort of expertise and have done this for themselves. However we still lack the leadership to bring it all together.
I wouls propose that the foresight and vision would still seem to be lacking from the top but if you criticise it from within the club structure you will be ostracised.
Let me see the five to ten year plan from FFT that puts all of this in place and I will jump on the bandwagon with you heading for the A LEAGUE.
Comment by A Whisper — May 3, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
I still believe a dedicated ‘Veterans League’ will be mandatory.
Comment by Blackjack — May 3, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
from what ive heard there is little interest in going back to a state league from the northern clubs. exposure isnt much up north and therefore sponsorship is hard to come by. the money to travel every second week isnt there. the northern comp is getting stronger and more even with only launceston really struggling with the other 8 teams capable of beating each other on there day or at least putting in a competitive or close game. or struggling to find money play state league for who knows how long this version will last before it goes under and go back to a struggling northern comp. if there is a state league the south would be alright with what 10 premier league clubs then about 6 to 8 div1 clubs to build a healthy league to fight for promotion to the state league. take say 3/4 teams out of the northern comp and it would be screwed. if afl cant make a state league work with all the money available how is soccer going to
Comment by billy — May 3, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
Sent off, I’ll try to make this even easier.
.
The proposal is for 8 PL and 8 div1 senior teams. 16 teams x 15 players = 240 players.
.
Current situation is 10 PL and 10 PL reserves, 9 div1 and 9 div1 reserves. 38 teams x 15 players = 570 players.
.
570 - 240 = 330!
.
It isn’t “scary” it’s just plain stupid! But nothing surprises me abaout SoccerTas/FFT any more.
Comment by tasblue — May 3, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
good point 1878 about the players who metro have lost.if those players were still there now im sure metro would not be anywhere near the bottom of the ladder. A whisper i dont think it was a case of money with any of the players leaving metro but maybe they just needed a fresh chalenge to achieve there goals
Comment by trev — May 4, 2007 @ 12:24 am
Nice thought Trev…but given the changes in coaches and players that happen regularly I am not convinced. When you are an amateur player like ours are and someone says “Free boots/tracksuit/no fees if you play with us” it is hard to resist. Especially if the club doing the asking is already in a good position to win silverware and the player could be a part of that. Interestingly my sources tell me that our former Premiers are not too flush with cash at the moment…could it be the piper being paid?
…and before anyone takes me to task…yes I do know for a fact that these offers were made to some players over the years…no names….no clubs.
Comment by A whisper — May 4, 2007 @ 9:26 am
Nice figures sent off……
Comment by A whisper — May 4, 2007 @ 9:28 am
oops…my error…nice figures Tasblue…sorry about that
Comment by A whisper — May 4, 2007 @ 9:29 am
Here is a question which I do not know the answer to. IF a State League goes ahead in the summer, who is going to play in it? I don’t mean teams I actually mean players. Why would you want to play in the summer? Why would you want to go and play under a manufactured badge and for what? IF it goes ahead is there going to be a mad scramble to sign up players now to a certain club and then sign up a certain coach and with what money are you going to pay the coach. These clubs would rely soley on sponsorship, I can’t see too many clubs that have their own facilities suddenly wanting to make more work for themselves by operating 12 months a year and therefore not being able to maintain their own grounds as they would be in constant use. Any thoughts?
Comment by charlie white — May 4, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
IF the meeting of Southern Premier Club Presidents - I think 9 out of 10 attended - agreed that premier league should be reduced to 8, and it agreed that there should be no premier league clubs in Division One, and was strongly in favour of three tiers i.e Seniors / reserves and Under 18’s in both Premier and Division One. Is it likely that FFT wil pursue something else?
Comment by sj — May 4, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Who knows SJ, I guess that is the problem.
Comment by charlie white — May 4, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
SJ….yes they would because they don’t want three tiers they want under 21’s and two tiers
Comment by A whisper — May 4, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
hey charlie….good questions and I don’t know the answers either…but if that is what FFT want…that is what we will get. On top of that of course it really is a bit late now for the next summer….isn’t it?
Comment by A whisper — May 4, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
Charlie - I’ve never been a fan of running around in the cold & wet on week nights. I enjoyed it when the State league was a summer comp in the early/mid 90’s and would enjoy playing/training in the warm once again.
I only speak for myself as an individual though. The running costs for clubs & fighting with cricket clubs for grounds are big obstacles, let alone the question of how many people would participate in a summer league. I’d be curious to know though. I presume blackjack will open it up as another topic for dicussion…
Comment by Richard Korn — May 4, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
I finally got time to have a look at the FFT discussion paper in a bit more detail overnight and would like to pose the following questions: Apologies for the caps.
THE DISCUSSION PAPER RECORDS FFT;S PREFERRED STRUCTURE.…WHY?
IF THIS IS A GENUINE ATTEMPT TO GET THE OPINIONS OF THE CLUBS WHY TRY TO INFLUENCE IT?
IN ADDITION TO THIS:
1. MOST IMPORTANTLY…THERE HAS BEEN NO ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS THE PREFERRED OPTION.
2. IF IT HAS TO BE HERE AS A PREFERRED OPTION IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY AN OVERVIEW OF WHERE THIS STRUCTURE WILL TAKE THE GAME.
3. THERE IS NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION OUTLINING THE GOALS OF FFT OVER THE NEXT 5 YEARS AND HOW THIS RESTRUCTURE WILL ASSIST THOSE GOALS.
4. THE PROPOSALS DO NOT INCLUDE GUIDELINES FOR INCLUSION IN THE NEW STRUCTURE. WOULD THE BOTTOM TWO TEAMS BE RELEGATED FROM THE PREMIER LEAGUE OR WOULD CRITERIA BE PUT IN PLACE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ADHERED TO AND APPLICATIONS FOR THE NEW LEAGUE BE SOUGHT.
IF CRITERIA IS AN OPTION WHAT WILL THEY BE GIVEN THE PROXIMITY OF THE 2008 SEASON AND HOW MUCH TIME WOULD CLUBS BE GIVEN TO MEET THE CRITERIA.
5. IF CRITERIA NEED TO BE MET, HOW WILL FFT AVOID FARCICAL SITUATIONS LIKE THAT WHICH AROSE WITH UNIVERSITY AND HUTCHINS A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO?
6. FINALLY WHAT ARE THE MAJOR ISSUES THAT THIS RESTRUCTURE IS ATTEMPTING TO SOLVE?
I AM AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND HOW ANY CLUB COULD PROVIDE A COGENT AND CONSIDERED RESPONSE TO THIS PAPER WITHOUT THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS AND WILL BE VERY INTERESTED TO SEE FIRSTLY WHAT THE RESPONSES ARE AND SECONDLY HOW FFT INTERPRETS THEM.
Comment by A whisper — May 4, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
sj, I wasn’t at the meeting you are referring to, but the minutes say nothing about any agreement to reduce the Premier League to 8 teams.
The other details are correct, but surely Div One clubs should have some input since it is proposed that their league also go to a three tier structure?
The other key point from that meeting is the agreed timeframe for implementation - 2010.
Comment by Ben — May 4, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
Ben,
Is there any way we can access to the minutes from that meeting - or are they as sacrosanct as the FFT’s financial details?
Are you saying that this meeting happened without any of the (independant) clubs’ Presidents being a party to it?
Implementation 2010?
.
Blackjack - whilst this whole debate may well have been acrimonious on occasion, light hearted sometimes, informative, whatever - is there any chance of you getting an official response from anyone at FFT to clear things up? (I did enjoy the only original joke by the way)!
Comment by tasblue — May 4, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
tasblue, I like your joke to…that FFT would come on here to give any ‘official’ explanation. hahaha
FFT watch the place like a hawk, in fact I have it on good authority that one or two of them have it as their ‘home page’ but as for them offering up blessings?? Snow flake’s chance in hell I would say. No we are renegades here tasblue.
There are too many people in this state who believe the board and the CEO ARE football in this state (club presidents are tolerated). Everyone else should bow and scrape and wait for crumbs to be thrown down from on high. The current board of FFT came to power promising transparency of action and accountability. Thus far all we have had is closed doors and silence, unless it suits the purpose.
So tasblue we’ll just have to get used to reporting information (most of it’s released by FFT but we get it up quicker…go figure!) and from time to time we do get a scoop. I am proud of the fact that we can report the scores far far quicker than FFT. I’m glad you are enjoying the site.
Comment by Blackjack — May 4, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
Well spoken interested onlooker . I strove ( corrrect verb ? ) to achieve the integration of the NTJSA abd NWTSSA into the Soccer Tas family for 10 years .
At that time a deep seated mistrust coupled with local empire builders scuppered the whole thing .
Matters may have taken a turn for the better during the past 3-4 years .
Blackjack if you would like a paper on the North/Northwest setup and I’ll try my best bearing in mind it would be 3 years old.
.
Re the local restructure I am told the Premier Presidents ( No independents) met and reviewed the CEO’s paper . My understanding 8-1 in favour with certain ammendments , i.e. reserves not under 21.
.
Congrats whisper . A logical Blog.
Comment by Brian Roberts — May 4, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
I’m not sure this was at times an acrimonious discourse in a relative context. One should go on the bigger Australian forum sites discussing national and international issues football. Some of the discussion is absolutely abysmal! Most of the comments are made by informed stakeholders on this blog, written in decidedly superior quality language, and, with bloggers even acknowledging agreed points by relative adversaries.
However Blackjack, I would like to see more issues pertaining to international and national football, with this same quality of discussion
which has been exhibited on local issues.
Comment by Decentric — May 5, 2007 @ 12:56 am
Blackjack,
Hope you realised my reference to the only good joke (not on this subject) was the one on the jokes page about IQ’s! And thanks for the site. The blogs such as this, the stuff from the north, results within a couple of hours - why don’t the FFT just outsource football info. to this site? Silly question - sorry.
.
And after 100 posts Mr. Roberts drops the aside “8-1 in favour with certain ammendments , i.e. reserves not under 21.”. He could maybe have mentioned that earlier? When was that meeting?
.
If all of the discussion on this subject has been enjoyed by fans who are being kept in the dark then I’d suggest it be canned. Until we get some facts from the FFT and honest input from the clubs.
.
I’m off to check the latest jokes!
Comment by tasblue — May 5, 2007 @ 1:58 am
tasblue’s 300-odd players who aren’t playing anywhere would still be playing premier and div 1 reserves, no?
Just struck me as odd.
Comment by redandblack — May 5, 2007 @ 9:07 am
Which Div.1 side will they be playing in? At another club? There will already be two complete teams down in Div.1 so places will be at a premium.
Just a question for the Clarence people. With all these registered players you profess to have, are you making plans on where they will play for the future?
Comment by Lionheart — May 5, 2007 @ 9:30 am
For those that are new to this discussion or havn’t seen the previous discussions that have taken place on this topic, can I refer you to here and ask that you read. It’ll save rehashing.
Comment by Blackjack — May 5, 2007 @ 10:04 am
redandblack (5th. May),
My little sums were on the assumption that there weren’t going to be any reserves!!! Thanks to Brian Roberts’ belated input (4th. May) it appears that they’re back!!!
Like I said - it’s a pretty meaningless debate unles we know what’s benn decided behind closed doors.
Comment by tasblue — May 5, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
AAAH Tasblue….that’s the question isn’t it. The “window dressing” discussion paper is there to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy but some at FFT already know what they are going to do…they just need to find a way to justify it.
As i said earlier…they tell you their preferred option but not why it is preferred or what the goal is if that is adopted. Just “It will be better that way”.
Comment by A whisper — May 5, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
Tasblue go to the “here” section above and you will see my personal response to the CEO’s paper. I don’t think my input was belated , as soon as I coulod confim the grape vine whisper I posted the news .
If you watch the FFT site the various responses will be posted in the near future.
Comment by Brian Roberts — May 6, 2007 @ 11:04 am
There is unprecedented growth in the Junior/Youth ranks which is one of the reasons that Clubs like Clarence and Kingborough have such huge numbers. They are working actively within their Community in promoting participation, and offering as many opportunities as possible for all players. Sadly this scenario is not a priority in many of the other Clubs and that is why the structure needs to change. The future of the Game is at the Grass Roots level in the Community. The Clarence model is a good one to focus on at the moment due to their onfield success so far this season, and with the talent they have coming through the future looks very exciting for the Club.
So, what I like about a common team structure between SPL and Div1, is that the Clubs that are willing to work their communities and take an interest in developing their Youth, and promote the Game and their Club in general, will be the ones coming to the fore. Any SPL club that thinks that they can get by without working in their community, they better look out for any Div1 Club that does. If I was a betting man, I know where my money would go for long term results.
More Clubs working in their community has to be better for the future of the Game and even though there are many pitfalls which have been mentioned in the 100+ blogs above, I think there’s a lot of merit to making changes to the current Structure.
Comment by DeB8 — May 6, 2007 @ 11:42 am
Well that was a silly argument DeB8, because if you work within the community and do the right thing by that community, grow the game, develop the next generation of players, promote the game in general and strive for excellence…
They punish you by forcing you to offload players, reduce the number of teams you are eligible to have and move the goal posts in terms of developing players.
But if you buy your players, don’t have a youth development programme, own your own grounds or player facilities, hey, you can have whatever you want and you certainly won’t face any sanctions despite the policies of FFT that demand all of these things.
So why bother…
Do I, by any chance, sound bitter and twisted??
Comment by Lionheart — May 6, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
Lionheart you are bitter and twisted and yes foresight is in small supply, future planning is in small supply and lets hope that after this change we can leave it alone for a while, whatever the change is.
Comment by charlie white — May 6, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
Lionheart - I don’t believe I was actually arguing about anything, and correct me if I am wrong, but at this stage nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. I was merely pointing out that Clubs like the Lions who do a fantastic job within their community will have a bright future no matter what format the new League will take.
Deb8 - I think Lionheart was being sarcastic.
BJ
Comment by Deb8 — May 6, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
Deb8 your assertions are certainly correct regarding the community based clubs. Unfortunately FFT could not care less. If they did care, they would have fostered and supported the clubs that have put their efforts into developing this model instead of leaving them to their own devices.
Comment by A Whisper — May 6, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
Well…it is over a week now since the submissions closed. Did someone need to read through them before they are posted on the FFT site?
Comment by A whisper — May 8, 2007 @ 11:01 am
Minutes of Meeting of Southern Premier League Presidents
Held at Greek Club, North Hobart
Friday, 23rd March 2007
Meeting opened at 6:35pm
Present: University, Glenorchy Knights, South Hobart, Tilford Zebras, Hobart Olympic, Kingborough Lions, Metro Claremont, Taroona, Clarence United.
Apologies: New Town Eagles
Business Arising:
1. Brian Dale to act as chair of the meetings.
Moved: Zebras; Seconded: South Hobart; Carried: Unanimously
2. Both Premier and Division 1 are to be conducted as a three tiered structure. This structure will comprise Seniors, Reserves and a Youth team. Structure to be implemented in 2010.
Moved: Metro; Seconded: Zebras; Carried: By majority
Objection: University
3. Premier League clubs are not to participate in Division 1. Structure to be implemented in 2010.
Moved: Clarenc