New Junior Structure 2014

[ZZZZ]

came across this in my junk email left some of it out - mentions the old wealthy clubs with access to large sums of money

Dear All

It is with some interest that I read the emails from clubs regarding the proposed structure review. Quite simply this proposal only serves to benefit the large, old, wealthy clubs who have a well established junior program and charge high fees. These teams have no difficulty in filling junior teams and have access to large sums of money due to very high fees and clubroom facilities.

Why post Junk Mail in the Junior Forums? And why leave "some of it out"?

I think a club has sent this out to all clubs, hence why ZZZZ says its 'junk' because he doesnt agree with it

I've seen another clubs email to all also

it was literally in my junk mail but it caught my eye because i hadnt won 10000000

[Soap Box]

I think people are looking TOO deep .... I feel FFSA just want to elimanate promotion/relegation at junior level, thats it, and the 'win at all cost' mentality that goes with it

Remember, we're only talking about 4 age groups, and some SL clubs (who have very few 'A' division teams anyway) think Armageddon is about to occur

Armageddon will occur when premier league clubs discover Ffsa have shifted the goal posts so far that 2014 junior structure has No points. No ladder. No promotion. No relegation.

[fossil]

When kids give up the game, or go to another club, how else are we to get new players .... trials

We also have and need JSL teams

I hear your 18's coach has invited SL players from 16's cup team to come out for next year and you say that the new system is minor and won't effect a clubs development, shows how you get new players don't let them decide just chase them do that x 5 clubs and who is developing what.

SL clubs need to get better returns for your future players if they have slim chances of gaining promotion by taking better juniors

[Željko Jurin]

Rumours, dont you love them ...... Anyway If true, probably because our u16s have been playing reserves and first team

But what you're saying has no relevance to the junior league set ups anyway

Isn't 18s senior football, where there is no promotion/relegation ?

[johnydep]

If it goes ahead and is planned well, this could be the turning point for increased spectator support for clubs.

Senior and Junior fixtures would be identical, allowing a club to have almost all their junior teams playing one after the other. This is an excellent chance to build an increased revenue source from increased numbers and consistency of numbers during home games. It is also the best opportunity we've had for a long time to build a club culture and increase attendances at the Senior games, by allowing for better connection and promotion between the two age groups of 'one' club (junior and seniors working as one).

This is about building the game and the clubs. The present way is not working. Hopefully this new way is implemented, with the acceptance of all clubs. If we want to build a serious professional state league, clubs must remember that - without juniors there is no seniors, without seniors there is no juniors. Too often each side forgets about the other.

[Željko Jurin]

If we want to build a serious professional state league (and Premier League), clubs must remember that - without juniors there is no seniors, without seniors there is no juniors - Too often each side forgets about the other.

Now that's what we're talking about !!

[give us a break]

If we want to build a serious professional state league (and Premier League), clubs must remember that - without juniors there is no seniors, without seniors there is no juniors - Too often each side forgets about the other.

Now that's what we're talking about !!

I don't recall anybody questioning that.

[redfred]

The present way is not working. [/quote]

1 season in

[johnydep]

The present way is not working.

1 season in

The Seniors NPL is one season in. The JPL/JSL has been running for several years.

[matty2323]

If it goes ahead and is planned well, this could be the turning point for increased spectator support for clubs.

Senior and Junior fixtures would be identical, allowing a club to have almost all their junior teams playing one after the other. This is an excellent chance to build an increased revenue source from increased numbers and consistency of numbers during home games. It is also the best opportunity we've had for a long time to build a club culture and increase attendances at the Senior games, by allowing for better connection and promotion between the two age groups of 'one' club (junior and seniors working as one).

This is about building the game and the clubs. The present way is not working. Hopefully this new way is implemented, with the acceptance of all clubs. If we want to build a serious professional state league, clubs must remember that - without juniors there is no seniors, without seniors there is no juniors. Too often each side forgets about the other.

do we think pitches will be able to handle that many games on them in a single weekend? especially once we hit the wetter season. Whats the maximum amount of games on most home pitches this season if the seniors are at home? 3 on saturday and maybe 2-3 on Sunday? That will increase dramatically.

[Željko Jurin]

do we think pitches will be able to handle that many games on them in a single weekend? especially once we hit the wetter season. Whats the maximum amount of games on most home pitches this season if the seniors are at home? 3 on saturday and maybe 2-3 on Sunday? That will increase dramatically.

u12, u13, u14, u15, u16, possibly u17

Most clubs have min 2x full size pitches .... 8.45am, 10.30, 12noon

Next week, no games at home .... possibly only 1 or 2 Junior League games if clubs have 2 teams in an age group

[bloodypassit]

Let's look at the big picture of developing juniors than your own back yard
Like the concept

[themessenger]

do we think pitches will be able to handle that many games on them in a single weekend? especially once we hit the wetter season. Whats the maximum amount of games on most home pitches this season if the seniors are at home? 3 on saturday and maybe 2-3 on Sunday? That will increase dramatically.

u12, u13, u14, u15, u16, possibly u17

Most clubs have min 2x full size pitches .... 8.45am, 10.30, 12noon

Next week, no games at home .... possibly only 1 or 2 Junior League games if clubs have 2 teams in an age group

you're forgetting that many clubs are also having to find pitch space for Under 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11s matches. That means junior games every week for clubs that have SSF plus 12s - 17s. Add in a 30 round season for the older juniors and that is a lot of traffic on 2 or 3 pitches.

[Željko Jurin]

Which clubs only have 2 pitches ?

[themessenger]

Which clubs only have 2 pitches ?

South Adelaide. Noarlunga. Playford. Birkalla. Cumberland. Salisbury. Some clubs with no grounds at all and play at Burton.There are probably more clubs than listed that only have two pitches.

[justmyopinion]

Great idea from the FFSA, aligning all the juniors to the seniors, creates some passion & loyalty to one club from a junior level , for those complaining clubs, create an environment with quality junior coaches who follow the FFSA system and develop and improve your kids and they will want to stay rather than follow result driven junior clubs.

As for only having 2 grounds for all your junior teams, rather than accept mediocrity raise the bar and work with your councils and local schools to accommodate more teams, plenty of open parks out there, you have to have the drive as a club to continually improve, or just be a feeder club.

It comes down to what you want as a club and how hard your prepared to work to get to what you want.

Be a Leader club and drag the standard up, rather than complain and drag everyone else down.

[Željko Jurin]

Which clubs only have 2 pitches ?

South Adelaide. Noarlunga. Playford. Birkalla. Cumberland. Salisbury. Some clubs with no grounds at all and play at Burton.There are probably more clubs than listed that only have two pitches.

Haven't Birkalla and Cumberland got pitches somewhere else ?

[matty2323]

Which clubs only have 2 pitches ?

South Adelaide. Noarlunga. Playford. Birkalla. Cumberland. Salisbury. Some clubs with no grounds at all and play at Burton.There are probably more clubs than listed that only have two pitches.

We have 2 full size pitches at Playford, and 2 SSG pitches we've acquired from the rugby club next door. I only talk about pitches because 10 games on a pitch over 1 weekend, although it would have a rest the next week, you'd imagine they would get tuned up pretty quick. You only have to look around the clubs now to see what sort of state pitches are in. It affects the style of play dramatically, and both senior and junior level. Ideally, i imagine most clubs would like 3 pitches. 1 for the u17-seniors and 2 for junior teams. Do all clubs currently playing in either SL or PL currently field junior teams in SSG and u12-u17 age groups?

[mrrombold]

Let's look at the big picture of developing juniors than your own back yard
Like the concept

The State League clubs are at a huge disadvantage with travel. We are talking about those clubs travelling from Noarlunga to Playford to Gawler to Cove to South Adelaide to Port Pirie etc. Juniors and seniors. If we are talking about big picture, this amount of travel could discourage parents from having kids play our sport.

The Premier league clubs are all virtually all within a 15km radius of the CBD. So It's easy to understand why they like the concept and the Premier League clubs supporting this are not kidding anyone if they say this is not a major factor in wanting this change to occur. Many have suggested that with the pressure of where the juniors finish on league tables being removed, coaches can concentrate on the process not the result. That is an honourable outcome but this proposed idea is a financial burden on the State League junior teams. Think about it, Noarlunga to Port Pirie. Significant extra transport cost for kids to play. And these outer lying suburbs are socio economic standards less advantaged than the inner metro suburbs.

If the goal is to have juniors not swapping leagues based on results, and encourage coaches to focus on development instead of results, would it not be preferable to have junior divisions based on geographical location. Certainly the financial burden is softened, travel time reduced, and players would not chop and change based on the performances of senior teams. Kids have no influence on senior teams performances and that should not affect their status. The avenue for clubs to rebuild and develop from within would be retained.

Maybe a finals system could be introduced where the top 2 teams in each zone play off in a final series. Anything but this divisive, elitist and discriminatory proposed set up.

If it's about the best kids playing the best kids, leave it as it is. If it's about relieving the win at all costs mentality, go with a geographical model. These big clubs cant have it both ways.

[matty2323]

Let's look at the big picture of developing juniors than your own back yard
Like the concept

The State League clubs are at a huge disadvantage with travel. We are talking about those clubs travelling from Noarlunga to Playford to Gawler to Cove to South Adelaide to Port Pirie etc. Juniors and seniors. If we are talking about big picture, this amount of travel could discourage parents from having kids play our sport.

The Premier league clubs are all virtually all within a 15km radius of the CBD. So It's easy to understand why they like the concept and the Premier League clubs supporting this are not kidding anyone if they say this is not a major factor in wanting this change to occur. Many have suggested that with the pressure of where the juniors finish on league tables being removed, coaches can concentrate on the process not the result. That is an honourable outcome but this proposed idea is a financial burden on the State League junior teams. Think about it, Noarlunga to Port Pirie. Significant extra transport cost for kids to play. And these outer lying suburbs are socio economic standards less advantaged than the inner metro suburbs.

If the goal is to have juniors not swapping leagues based on results, and encourage coaches to focus on development instead of results, would it not be preferable to have junior divisions based on geographical location. Certainly the financial burden is softened, travel time reduced, and players would not chop and change based on the performances of senior teams. Kids have no influence on senior teams performances and that should not affect their status. The avenue for clubs to rebuild and develop from within would be retained.

Maybe a finals system could be introduced where the top 2 teams in each zone play off in a final series. Anything but this divisive, elitist and discriminatory proposed set up.

If it's about the best kids playing the best kids, leave it as it is. If it's about relieving the win at all costs mentality, go with a geographical model. These big clubs cant have it both ways.

probably the best thing i have read on here to be honest. Well said. Im a big advocate if you're going to make any change, just leave the clubs in their zones that they compete in at u12 level.

[The Kings Jesta]

Let's look at the big picture of developing juniors than your own back yard
Like the concept

The State League clubs are at a huge disadvantage with travel. We are talking about those clubs travelling from Noarlunga to Playford to Gawler to Cove to South Adelaide to Port Pirie etc. Juniors and seniors. If we are talking about big picture, this amount of travel could discourage parents from having kids play our sport.

The Premier league clubs are all virtually all within a 15km radius of the CBD. So It's easy to understand why they like the concept and the Premier League clubs supporting this are not kidding anyone if they say this is not a major factor in wanting this change to occur. Many have suggested that with the pressure of where the juniors finish on league tables being removed, coaches can concentrate on the process not the result. That is an honourable outcome but this proposed idea is a financial burden on the State League junior teams. Think about it, Noarlunga to Port Pirie. Significant extra transport cost for kids to play. And these outer lying suburbs are socio economic standards less advantaged than the inner metro suburbs.

If the goal is to have juniors not swapping leagues based on results, and encourage coaches to focus on development instead of results, would it not be preferable to have junior divisions based on geographical location. Certainly the financial burden is softened, travel time reduced, and players would not chop and change based on the performances of senior teams. Kids have no influence on senior teams performances and that should not affect their status. The avenue for clubs to rebuild and develop from within would be retained.

Maybe a finals system could be introduced where the top 2 teams in each zone play off in a final series. Anything but this divisive, elitist and discriminatory proposed set up.

If it's about the best kids playing the best kids, leave it as it is. If it's about relieving the win at all costs mentality, go with a geographical model. These big clubs cant have it both ways.

probably the best thing i have read on here to be honest. Well said. Im a big advocate if you're going to make any change, just leave the clubs in their zones that they compete in at u12 level.

Mentioned this exact situation bout 6 months ago. People argued that then there would be top PL teams playing bottom JS teams in some locations and as such would have the top teams getting bored as they would always be winning. I still argue that if all clubs are limited to one team per age group, and there is no relegation (still should play for points and have a league winner) then through natural process players will fill in to clubs as the overflow from some clubs spills out. For those that say these players are someone elses rejects and so they don't want them... Look up Paul Pogba and the manager/club that let him go deemed not good enough and where he is now and what he has achieved. Additionally, work on ways (outside of just winning) to make your club more attractive.

[bandito]

I thought I had this figured out.....however, after speaking to someone, they have said that the under 17 league will be a JSL league regardless of where your senior team play. I have also heard if your clubs senior team is in the premier league, your juniors will all (including your b teams who are currently in the jsl) jump up into the jpl.

In very simple terms, if someone knows what is going on.......please explain!!

[The moyesiah]

Which clubs only have 2 pitches ?

South Adelaide. Noarlunga. Playford. Birkalla. Cumberland. Salisbury. Some clubs with no grounds at all and play at Burton.There are probably more clubs than listed that only have two pitches.

white city, pirates, Toros, olympic and some of them have 1

[johnydep]

The goal is to have strong clubs, complete with juniors and seniors, with large supporter and volunteer base so that growth of the sport can happen.

Having all a clubs junior age groups playing on the same day and the day before the senior game will help clubs grow. It makes finding volunteers easier, increased income, better use of resources, increased usage which leads to a need and reason to develop, etc.

The excuse about clubs losing players is a poor one. Most people will stay we're they are, most know that it's not where you play but how you play.

Look at the bigger pitcure.

[mrrombold]

The goal is to have strong clubs, complete with juniors and seniors, with large supporter and volunteer base so that growth of the sport can happen.

Having all a clubs junior age groups playing on the same day and the day before the senior game will help clubs grow. It makes finding volunteers easier, increased income, better use of resources, increased usage which leads to a need and reason to develop, etc.

The excuse about clubs losing players is a poor one. Most people will stay we're they are, most know that it's not where you play but how you play.

Look at the bigger pitcure.

The comment about kids not moving is just a statement, nothing else. The reality is that kids and especially parents cant help themselves. They will move their little champ, and it is very naive to think otherwise. We are talking about kids remember and this is all just politics. And to support the strong over the less strong and not based on the merit of the individual junior team it a draconian proposition. Zoning juniors will relieve the ridiculous and expensive travel burden face by parents, taking kids all over town and beyond. If your proposition is for the FFSA to do this to favour stronger clubs, so they can have their little clique, and at the the expense of the not so strong, that is appalling. Salisbury V Playford junior fixture where half teams play home and the other half play away, now that would be fun, and with half the teams playing at home I doubt that volunteer numbers would be an issue. I just don't think that it is necessary to travel from Pt Pirie to Noarlunga to Gawler to Seaford to enhance club culture. I think the big picture should include making it as easy as possible on families and not discriminate based on how good or crap their seniors are, geographical location with the potential attached socio economic issues. The outer suburbs are less affluent and they will bare the brunt of this increased expense. I doubt the FFSA will reduce the fees for State League junior kids by $200.00 to compensate for the increased travel cost. This is all just way to convenient for the established, locked in bigger premier league clubs.

This new proposal is a divisive and horrible idea and should be scrapped. Their are better ways.

[The moyesiah]

The goal is to have strong clubs, complete with juniors and seniors, with large supporter and volunteer base so that growth of the sport can happen.

Having all a clubs junior age groups playing on the same day and the day before the senior game will help clubs grow. It makes finding volunteers easier, increased income, better use of resources, increased usage which leads to a need and reason to develop, etc.

The excuse about clubs losing players is a poor one. Most people will stay we're they are, most know that it's not where you play but how you play.

Look at the bigger pitcure.

The comment about kids not moving is just a statement, nothing else. The reality is that kids and especially parents cant help themselves. They will move their little champ, and it is very naive to think otherwise. We are talking about kids remember and this is all just politics. And to support the strong over the less strong and not based on the merit of the individual junior team it a draconian proposition. Zoning juniors will relieve the ridiculous and expensive travel burden face by parents, taking kids all over town and beyond. If your proposition is for the FFSA to do this to favour stronger clubs, so they can have their little clique, and at the the expense of the not so strong, that is appalling. Salisbury V Playford junior fixture where half teams play home and the other half play away, now that would be fun, and with half the teams playing at home I doubt that volunteer numbers would be an issue. I just don't think that it is necessary to travel from Pt Pirie to Noarlunga to Gawler to Seaford to enhance club culture. I think the big picture should include making it as easy as possible on families and not discriminate based on how good or crap their seniors are, geographical location with the potential attached socio economic issues. The outer suburbs are less affluent and they will bare the brunt of this increased expense. I doubt the FFSA will reduce the fees for State League junior kids by $200.00 to compensate for the increased travel cost. This is all just way to convenient for the established, locked in bigger premier league clubs.

This new proposal is a divisive and horrible idea and should be scrapped. Their are better ways.

Here's the thing, go look at all the PL teams and do research, then tell us how many of their senior players (not reserves / 18s) were junior players at that same club for longer than 4 years, I bet the numbers are below 20%. Which means they pay other clubs players, guess what? any SL club can pay these players the same wages.

You know what the PL clubs say?
Generate more money at your club, Generate the want to play at your club, and buy your way into the PL. West Adelaide did it!!

[Steve#4]

The goal is to have strong clubs, complete with juniors and seniors, with large supporter and volunteer base so that growth of the sport can happen.

Having all a clubs junior age groups playing on the same day and the day before the senior game will help clubs grow. It makes finding volunteers easier, increased income, better use of resources, increased usage which leads to a need and reason to develop, etc.

The excuse about clubs losing players is a poor one. Most people will stay we're they are, most know that it's not where you play but how you play.

Look at the bigger pitcure.

Your club survived relegation and were down the wrong end of the ladder this season....Let's see your opinion in the next few years if you happen to get relegated....I am picking it will change big time.... Watch your juniors scatter to other clubs when you are no longer JPL entitled.

[Stitch This]

Your club survived relegation and were down the wrong end of the ladder this season....Let's see your opinion in the next few years if you happen to get relegated....I am picking it will change big time.... Watch your juniors scatter to other clubs when you are no longer JPL entitled.

To be fair, Croydon had plenty of junior teams (a lot more than most clubs) before the JSL was introduced and before they were promoted to the Premier League.

[Steve#4]

Your club survived relegation and were down the wrong end of the ladder this season....Let's see your opinion in the next few years if you happen to get relegated....I am picking it will change big time.... Watch your juniors scatter to other clubs when you are no longer JPL entitled.

To be fair, Croydon had plenty of junior teams (a lot more than most clubs) before the JSL was introduced and before they were promoted to the Premier League.

What was the structure back then?....Was it the haves and have nots like the current and newly proposed systems?

[themessenger]

The goal is to have strong clubs, complete with juniors and seniors, with large supporter and volunteer base so that growth of the sport can happen.

Having all a clubs junior age groups playing on the same day and the day before the senior game will help clubs grow. It makes finding volunteers easier, increased income, better use of resources, increased usage which leads to a need and reason to develop, etc.

The excuse about clubs losing players is a poor one. Most people will stay we're they are, most know that it's not where you play but how you play.

Look at the bigger pitcure.

The juniors play the day after the seniors, not the day before.

Secondly, no one is accounting for all the SSF teams. Do you really think clubs that have got 12 teams and more, from U6 to U17s, can all play in one morning? No they cannot.

And a club travelling with all its Senior teams from metro Adelaide to Port Pirie (a 400km round trip) on Saturday, repeats the process on Sunday to watch their Under 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17s junior teams play?

Not likely.

As for the 'big picture' stuff people keep espousing. Would be really interested to know whether any people posting positively on this topic are actually from State League clubs. Probably they are all associated with Premier League Clubs or are so far removed from understanding how clubs actually run, that they fail to see how this new structure is going to greatly disadvantage SL clubs, players and families.