May 31, 2007
Meeting of the minds - 30th May
A meeting was held last night between club representatives, FFT (board/office), etc.
I believe the meeting has been fruitful but it also went through an interesting process to arrive at a meeting of the minds.
I am aware that an alternative league structure was put forward to the meeting and it lead to some fascinating discussions. As this meeting involves the playing welfare of all players in (Southern) Tasmania it might be worthwhile discussing this meeting and it’s agenda. Can anyone enlighten put forward the crux of this meeting but especially the new league structure?
There was a meeting of the Clubs with our illustrious President last evening concerning the structure of the competition for next year. The suggestion of the 8 team premier league with reserves and 19’s was apparently the go with a criteria for ALL clubs playing in the mainline structure to have a juniorpathway in place within say three years and those that didn’t want to comply with the criteria taking their place in a more social league which would only require a team to have its 15 players. ll looks fairly positive if this is adopted. I suppose we will now wait with interest to see what the FFT Board decide to do at their next meeting following the report from this one.
Comment by A whisper — May 31, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
I rang FFT to confirm whether this meeting was open to the public, and, to ascertain the purpose of the meeting. I had heard it was about this topic. Whether it was through a comedy of errors, or, I was misled because I needed to know the right questions to ask, I was led to believe it was a routine meeting between the clubs and the President, discussing routine matters.
Great communication FFT!
Comment by Decentric — May 31, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
AW - some sources are saying a TEN team premier league was the consensus this time - with a 7 team Div 1. Both Premier and Div1 to have THREE tiers - senior, reserves and youth.
Comment by sj — June 1, 2007 @ 12:23 am
Does anyone have any info on any of the other criteria for the 2008 premier comp?
Comment by Eleventy Seventy — June 1, 2007 @ 10:34 am
There does seem to be a bit of confusion as to whether the league will be 8 or 10 next year I wish someone would hurry up and make a decision. Personally i don’t think there is enough talent around for 10 decent teams and in the past have supported the idea of reducing it to 8. However, an 8 team league is too small… has anyone thought about looking at ways to improve the number of quality players so their are enough to fill 10 decent premier teams? At the moment it’s only the bottom 3 teams that are ordinary and even they can grind out results (I know eagles haven’t yet). Would be nice if all the clubs could play attractive football.
Comment by Wenger — June 1, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
I have received the following précis of the club meeting:
The meeting opened with the President (in the Chair) welcoming all and thanking them for their contributions.
Kingborough then presented a plan they believed took into account all the submissions.
The plan was simple and to its credit would not cause any great upheaval.
Take a sheet of A4 paper. Draw two columns on the left and right hand sides.
Title the left column “Premier Divisions” the right “Regional Divisions”.
Basic Rules, to play in the left hand column.
1. You may only enter one team per club
2. You must meet FFT Benchmarks
3. You must have seniors, reserves a youth team. (Age band over 15 to under 19)
If you don’t meet the above you play or you may by choice play in the unrestricted Regional league where your club may field multiple numbers of teams.
The plan met with general approval. The meeting spent the remainder of the evening either trying to persuade the existing Div 1 Clubs to come aboard or debating the time frame for them to come aboard.
Precisely what message the CEO will present to the Board is unclear as no summary was presented to attendees at the conclusion of the meeting.
The major merit of the plan would appear to be that it gives Clubs a choice. They may aspire to the Premier League or opt for a Regional league. Both will be competitive leagues so for those who choose to move to the Regional League there should be no loss of face .You will note that Premier Clubs Div 1 teams move to the regional league.
Comment by Blackjack — June 1, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
Surely the number of teams in each division is going to depend a bit on how many clubs seek entry into the new system if it was adopted. It would be silly having 8 in the top Division and 12 in Division Two should this occur. Perhaps holding this decision in abeyance and seeing how many teams apply for the league and how many of these can meet whatever criteria are put in place will make this decision easier.
Comment by A whisper — June 1, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
A Whisper - I agree that the numbers would need to be similar, however I don’t believe that the numbers necessarily need to be the same. If there are more teams below the premier pushing for the promotion that can only be a good thing.
I have seen the model that Blackjack is alluding to, I have alerted people to this in a previous post and hope that all parties feel heard and listened to in terms of wants and needs. It is simple and I am a little puzzled as to why FFT did not come up with it and it was up to a single club, who as we have all seen, had a significant interest in having a pathway to lead the way
Anyway I hope that the minds that met, agreed on something and lets stick to it!
Comment by charlie white — June 1, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
I may have missed something in all of this but the one thing that still seems to me to be missing is the overall “view of the future” that FFT have. The reason that they didn’t come up with the structure alluded to in BJ’s note above could be because it doesn’t fit with what they want to do. The fact is we don’t know. It would help immensley if we knew the goals to which we are striving. FFT seem to have said “We want to change things but we won’t tell you why”. Perhaps if they were to share their goals for say 5-10 years down the track we could assist them rather than wondering at the direction.
If this plan is out there and I haven’t seen it, would someone like to post it on the blog? Maybe that would help explain some of the puzzlement experienced by Charlie, me and others.
I do agree on one thing though, the hope that the minds that met were listened to. After all we are all stakeholders of the game but the clubs more than any have to help point the way.
Comment by A whisper — June 2, 2007 @ 9:10 am
I have read the above with interest. I was at the meeting representing S H. In brief here are some hypothetical projections in response to Whisper and others.
The Future
1. Continued emphasis on youth development through defined pathways. Why else set up a TIS with 2 high profile coaches.
2. A Senior XI and U/21 side in the VPL comp by say 2009/10 linking in with the above
3. If some one with dollars to burn appeared a State League to underpin the above so the best are always on display
4. Continued development of better quality officials. Why else employ a full time development officer.
However lets turn to the Boro Plan .I agree if adopted for the 1st time ever FFT will give Clubs a choice as to where they want to be.
Div 1 is currently an amalgam of aspirants, and those who are content with their lot. Why? Because there is nowhere else for them to all enjoy soccer at a reasonable standard. Under the Boro system those that wish to aspire to Premier status have to not lift their playing capability but also commit to FFT benchmarks along the way.
With no disrespect I feel the intention to reduce the Premier league to 8 is premature. Lets say the Boro plan is accepted and the Premier league is reduced to 8.
We therefore have 9 candidates for Premier Div 2 or do we.
Beachside Yes
Christian Utd I don’t know if they would want to meet the benchmarks
DOSA They say no
Hobart Utd Say it will be hard to meet the benchmarks
Huon Valley They meet the benchmarks but would they want to play there
Kingston Cannons Would they want to meet the benchmarks
Nelson Say it will be hard to meet the benchmarks
Plus two demoted teams who would want to return to the top flight ASAP.
We could possibly end up with a Division 2 of at least 3 or as many as 5.
Why not have in the interim a Premier League of 11 or twelve until there are sufficient numbers to split into 2 divisions. .
Concerning the Benchmarks they may be on the FFT website otherwise ask your Club secretary to let you have a look at their copy
Comment by Brian Roberts — June 3, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
After reading the forum over the past 6 months we need our players to be involved at the highest level to further develop the game in this state.
If state league so be it.
If a southern comp. it should be limited to 8 teams (if not 6) as insufficient quality players available.
Prior to entering a Vic. comp. we first need to streamline the game in the state ensuring that the best players in our competition are playing weekly against quality opposition hence the reduction in numbers.
While not being a expert on the game i have viewed 12 or so Victorian premier league over the past year and have noted that we are light years away in preparation and professionalism.
This is not an attack on the current system but just thoughts that i share as i do WANT to see the game go forward in this state and retain all the quality young players that are currently playing in all regions.
With the recent appointments within FFT we as a state should be in a position to fully develop our talented players and provide them with a pathway thu to the next playing level either in the Vic. or National comps.
Open the any feedback on my point of view..
Ps. Good luck to any players having a crack at the big leagues.
Would be happy to provide any feedback on my experiences obviously not as a player.
regards
Rocket
Comment by rod sanders — June 3, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
What about a three tier comp for Premier League and Division One, A Grade, BGrade/Under21 and C grade with a manditory U/13 to U16 for all clubs in (PL) and Div One by 2009/10. Junior development starts at a young age not U/19 level. This would make rostering easier as all junior games could be played at one ground either Saturday or Sunday not on the same day as senior teams we should be promoting the highest level of the game. With the growth at primary level it should not be hard to find players for the junior age groups. Retention is very important and club focus is extreamly impotant. The club atmosphere and fund raising potential by having all juniors playing at the same ground is tremendous, over the long run parents will get involved as they will see benefits for their children and there are some people/parents out there with expertise in areas of admin, fund raising and general organising taking the burdon off club directors. If clubs dont want develop juniors then they can drop to the social leagues with the old hacks and run one or two sides. It’s quite simple just food for thought.
Comment by b&w — June 4, 2007 @ 12:26 am
LOL B&W…Was that Freudian spelling error?
Overall I agree with most of the blogs here. They all take the view that we should encourage development through the junior ranks and that clubs should be encouraged (forced?) to contribute to this development or fall back to the more “social” style of competition. It is just the varying proposals for how this formats together that need to be considered and they all have good points.
Comment by A whisper — June 5, 2007 @ 11:29 am