Steve#4 wrote:Seniors do not drive a club....Juniors do and thus should not be linked as the FFSA is proposing.
A club should be judged on how they are developing their juniors in the way of coaching they offer, Starclub status etc...Not how much they spent to get their seniors in the position they are....
I would love to see clubs graded on their junior systems and play in competitions accordingly....What their Seniors do should be a last resort....Means bugger all in the scheme of things.
Food for thought. Agree that juniors drive the club, by and large provide revenue via fees, canteen, bar to pay the seniors. Often these seniors just play and don't give back to the clubs. Some clubs link wages to certain club tasks the seniors do ie assisting periodically with junior coaching. Well done to those clubs as a way of assimilating both areas of the club. Unfortunately the Norm is that juniors are only there to provide revenue and labour. The club my kids play at, the junior fee take is very close to the senior wage bill. Basically if the seniors did not get paid the juniors could pay almost nothing to play. We have heard from many on other threads that juniors don't fund seniors via fees. What a load of hot grenache. Measuring club performance on other criteria other than how much money they can toss around to buy success is one of the most intelligent things said on this thread.
ive said this many times before...
you have the power to change this mrrombold!
all you, and other like minded parents, need to do, is tell junior rombold, that when he gets to seniors, he needs to go to the club president and tell him that he will play the season for free.
easy fix.
These users thanked the author Sunny Vanilla for the post:
Old Master, johndedes, theorakle, ozzie owl, suzie, thewabster, Za Dom Spremni
Abra1 wrote:The thing that gets me, is that some of the teams who are staying in the PL this year, are not there because they have sound junior structures. They are there because they are wealthy clubs and could afford big bucks for their seniors players. If this is all about promoting junior development, then why are those clubs being rewarded by enforcing this arbitrary cut off? The implementation is elitist and unfair to clubs who aren't wealthy, but are developing their juniors.
No offence, but which PL clubs dont have sound junior structures ?
And which SL clubs have equal, let alone better then most PL clubs ?
Before answering the questions, lets talk about the WHOLE junior set up at a particular club, and not just 1 or 2 individual teams inside that club
robinfriday10 wrote:i just don't think it should be installed for 2014, 2015 yes but more than 5 minutes notice when coaching appointments may have already been made believing certain teams are A division now their not.
Again no offence, but which SL teams knew they were in an A division on 22 August ?
The moyesiah wrote:
All junior teams will prob not play at the same ground, unless of course they are scheduling games until 7pm
845amU12 / 1030amU13 / 12pmU14 / 130pmU15 / 3pmU16 / 5pmU17 - (multiple ground venues are ok but not everyone is)
This is the reason I asked the earlier question of which clubs dont have 2-3 pitches ..... majority are currently SL clubs
Let's do it the other way. Raiders have started good junior development. Croydon I think might be on the right path. Metros, Campbelltown, Comets on their way... The rest, I don't know? Is their development so spectacularly better that they deserve to be singled out over State league clubs? If this idea was phased in I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's the wham bam nature of it that sucks.
Abra1 wrote:Let's do it the other way. Raiders have started good junior development. Croydon I think might be on the right path. Metros, Campbelltown, Comets on their way... The rest, I don't know? Is their development so spectacularly better that they deserve to be singled out over State league clubs? If this idea was phased in I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's the wham bam nature of it that sucks.
You said 'sound junior structures' ......
All of the PL clubs have
- 200+ juniors,
- more then 1-2 pitches,
- majority accredited coaches with some sort of licences
- unfortunately all turning away dozens of kids at trials each year (even though we get blamed for being way too expensive),
- most of their junior teams in A division (if this counts at all )
I assumed these were a good way of measuring sound junior structures
Abra1 wrote:Let's do it the other way. Raiders have started good junior development. Croydon I think might be on the right path. Metros, Campbelltown, Comets on their way... The rest, I don't know? Is their development so spectacularly better that they deserve to be singled out over State league clubs? If this idea was phased in I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's the wham bam nature of it that sucks.
You said 'sound junior structures' ......
All of the PL clubs have
- 200+ juniors,
- more then 1-2 pitches,
- majority accredited coaches with some sort of licences
- unfortunately all turning away dozens of kids at trials each year (even though we get blamed for being way too expensive),
- most of their junior teams in A division (if this counts at all )
I assumed these were a good way of measuring sound junior structures
Not that I'm really disagreeing with you, in principle, but don't White City, Enfield & Croydon only have the 1 pitch capable of JPL games at their main venue?
The moyesiah wrote:1) SL clubs with smaller volunteer base is a long day for the ones who do volunteer (but I guess this is the whole point of SL clubs need to do more, to raise more, to compete more, right?)
True but keep in mind that if all teams play home the one weekend, then all teams will be away the next, giving volunteers the whole weekend off, unlike now where most clubs would have home games every weekend to support.
Steve#4 wrote:Seniors do not drive a club....Juniors do and thus should not be linked as the FFSA is proposing.
A club should be judged on how they are developing their juniors in the way of coaching they offer, Starclub status etc...Not how much they spent to get their seniors in the position they are....
I would love to see clubs graded on their junior systems and play in competitions accordingly....What their Seniors do should be a last resort....Means bugger all in the scheme of things.
Food for thought. Agree that juniors drive the club, by and large provide revenue via fees, canteen, bar to pay the seniors. Often these seniors just play and don't give back to the clubs. Some clubs link wages to certain club tasks the seniors do ie assisting periodically with junior coaching. Well done to those clubs as a way of assimilating both areas of the club. Unfortunately the Norm is that juniors are only there to provide revenue and labour. The club my kids play at, the junior fee take is very close to the senior wage bill. Basically if the seniors did not get paid the juniors could pay almost nothing to play. We have heard from many on other threads that juniors don't fund seniors via fees. What a load of hot grenache. Measuring club performance on other criteria other than how much money they can toss around to buy success is one of the most intelligent things said on this thread.
ive said this many times before...
you have the power to change this mrrombold!
all you, and other like minded parents, need to do, is tell junior rombold, that when he gets to seniors, he needs to go to the club president and tell him that he will play the season for free.
easy fix.
You mean actually play soccer for the sport and the shirt instead on coin. Thats an interesting concept.
Abra1 wrote:Let's do it the other way. Raiders have started good junior development. Croydon I think might be on the right path. Metros, Campbelltown, Comets on their way... The rest, I don't know? Is their development so spectacularly better that they deserve to be singled out over State league clubs? If this idea was phased in I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's the wham bam nature of it that sucks.
You said 'sound junior structures' ......
All of the PL clubs have
- 200+ juniors,
- more then 1-2 pitches,
- majority accredited coaches with some sort of licences
- unfortunately all turning away dozens of kids at trials each year (even though we get blamed for being way too expensive),
- most of their junior teams in A division (if this counts at all )
I assumed these were a good way of measuring sound junior structures
location location location. If you stuck Playford in the location of 95% of PL clubs, we would have 200+ juniors every year too being able to charge $500-$1000. Look at the State league, 90% are clubs not located in the CBD. why? because they're economically poor areas where they 1. cant afford to pay big salaries and 2. struggle for junior numbers simply because parents cant afford to pay the fees. Ive coached for 3 years now, and every season ive taken money out of my wage to pay for kids. How many parents currently playing for AC are struggling for money? I dont mean to sound incredibly rude, but all i get from the established PL clubs is a sense of elitism. You live in wealthy areas, are affiliated with wealthy people and simply have a better chance of succeeding then the clubs in the SL. Implement this stucture, and take away what we currently have in terms of junior development, and you might aswell pay for the bulldozer to come knock the SL clubs down.
ZJ - you have 1 player at your club who's salary covers 75% of Playfords entire wage bill for the entire year. how can we compete with that?
matty2323 wrote:
ZJ - you have 1 player at your club who's salary covers 75% of Playfords entire wage bill for the entire year. how can we compete with that?
so your junior fees are cheap since you don't have to pay big senior wages?
which would negate the argument that parents in your area cant afford fees.
These users thanked the author Sunny Vanilla for the post:
Old Master, johndedes, theorakle, ozzie owl, suzie, thewabster, Za Dom Spremni
matty2323 wrote:
ZJ - you have 1 player at your club who's salary covers 75% of Playfords entire wage bill for the entire year. how can we compete with that?
so your junior fees are cheap since you don't have to pay big senior wages?
which would negate the argument that parents in your area cant afford fees.
have you ever seen the financial report of clubs? i know at some of the bigger clubs that junior fees help pay for senior players, but thats not all they do. Water bills, electrical bills, referees, kits, equipment, FFSA fees.. where do you think all this comes from? Im fortunate enough to have seen the break down, at the club makes next to no profit charge $500. Compare that to the $150 E&D clubs charge, or the AFL clubs charge, its an uphill battle for poor economic regions. In my first year i saw 2 friends(possibly brothers) share a pair of boots in trials.
EDIT: just to add to this, this is the break down for our juniors without figures:
FFA levy
FFSA Registration
FFSA Fees
Limited player insurance
Refereeing
Lighting
Ground Management & Repairs
Club Administration
Rates and Taxes
Council Fees
Water Rates
Equipment
Kits
The club pays it senior players on the back of the Toilet Seats, gates and sponsorship. Our juniors have no impact on our seniors because if we charged $800 per player so we could afford a few $250 per game players at the club, we wouldn't have a junior set up.
Last edited by matty2323 on Wed Sep 04, 2013 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
matty2323 wrote:
ZJ - you have 1 player at your club who's salary covers 75% of Playfords entire wage bill for the entire year. how can we compete with that?
so your junior fees are cheap since you don't have to pay big senior wages?
which would negate the argument that parents in your area cant afford fees.
have you ever seen the financial report of clubs? i know at some of the bigger clubs that junior fees help pay for senior players, but thats not all they do. Water bills, electrical bills, referees, kits, equipment, FFSA fees.. where do you think all this comes from? Im fortunate enough to have seen the break down, at the club makes next to no profit charge $500. Compare that to the $150 E&D clubs charge, or the AFL clubs charge, its an uphill battle for poor economic regions. In my first year i saw 2 friends(possibly brothers) share a pair of boots in trials.
thank you, i was just trying to reinforce a point some parents on here don't seem to get.
These users thanked the author Sunny Vanilla for the post:
Old Master, johndedes, theorakle, ozzie owl, suzie, thewabster, Za Dom Spremni
Abra1 wrote:Let's do it the other way. Raiders have started good junior development. Croydon I think might be on the right path. Metros, Campbelltown, Comets on their way... The rest, I don't know? Is their development so spectacularly better that they deserve to be singled out over State league clubs? If this idea was phased in I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's the wham bam nature of it that sucks.
You said 'sound junior structures' ......
All of the PL clubs have
- 200+ juniors,
- more then 1-2 pitches,
- majority accredited coaches with some sort of licences
- unfortunately all turning away dozens of kids at trials each year (even though we get blamed for being way too expensive),
- most of their junior teams in A division (if this counts at all )
I assumed these were a good way of measuring sound junior structures
Not that I'm really disagreeing with you, in principle, but don't White City, Enfield & Croydon only have the 1 pitch capable of JPL games at their main venue?
Who said 'main venue' ? .... and Enfield are in the SL next year
matty2323 wrote:You live in wealthy areas, are affiliated with wealthy people and simply have a better chance of succeeding then the clubs in the SL.
ZJ - you have 1 player at your club who's salary covers 75% of Playfords entire wage bill for the entire year. how can we compete with that?
Gepps Cross a wealthy area ??? wow .....
Even if your 75% figure was true or even slightly close (which its not, and is ridiculous statement anyway), what's a senior players wage (any senior players wage at any club) got to do with this discussion and proposal ?
matty2323 wrote:You live in wealthy areas, are affiliated with wealthy people and simply have a better chance of succeeding then the clubs in the SL.
ZJ - you have 1 player at your club who's salary covers 75% of Playfords entire wage bill for the entire year. how can we compete with that?
Gepps Cross a wealthy area ??? wow .....
Even if your 75% figure was true or even slightly close (which its not, and is ridiculous statement anyway), what's a senior players wage (any senior players wage at any club) got to do with this discussion and proposal ?
You ever lived in Elizabeth? trust me, Mawson Lakes is considered "upper class". And that statement is correct, if the player who told me his wage is in fact telling the truth (apologies, my calculations just worked it out to be 71%). And its very applicable to these discussions now, because juniors play in leagues affiliated to their senior setup. West Adelaide just purchased their way to the top, Senior teams will spend to ensure they stay in the top league. What chance is there for "poorer" clubs to compete? We cant pay seniors big dollars, therefore our chance of promotion is limited, and thus our kids wont get the opportunity to compete in the "A" division...
Croydon Kings FC is looking forward to the implementation of the new Junior Competition Structure.
“The NCR undertaken by the FFA and the subsequent implementation of the NPL, highlighted the need for all senior clubs to have sound junior structures...All junior teams will be aligned to their Senior Team.”
CKFC believe that by allowing clubs to have all their junior teams play at the same location on the same day will:
1) Help club management to better coordinate the limited volunteers and scarce resources in a more efficient manner. Allowing for better delivery of services to club members and the general public, and less stress on limited current volunteers.
2) Create a ‘gala day’ atmosphere, due to the flow of games one after the other (hopefully age related), giving people reason to stay longer at games; watch the next age group, their siblings, friends, etc.
3) Also lead to an increase in general income and the number of volunteers available, and eventually increasing the supporter base due to more and better services. This should flow on to increased attendance numbers to senior home games.
Volunteers are a big part of a club, but over the years the work load has been increasing onto an ever shrinking number. Having all of a clubs’ teams playing at home allows for the majority of volunteers to be in one place at every home game. This will allow clubs to re-build a supporter culture and strengthen clubs financial positions; with opportunity to eventually grow into a viable business entity able to hire staff for administration, coaching and development purposes.
Croydon Kings FC is in agreement with the FFSA introducing this proposed structure.
So, I take it, Croydon is ready to sacrifice their B-Teams which presently play in the State League, because with the proposed system I can't really see how you could accommodate them.
Sir, I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to be a complete fool. - Voltaire
Sacred Noodle wrote:A Playford team (assume U12s) has been alluded to in this discussion and maybe well coached and an ok team in its zone league but where are most of Playfords your other junior teams at??
under 17A
under 16A (Cup Winners)
Sacred Noodle wrote:a lot of the SL clubs will have players pushing up as more juniors push into the senior sides due to some of the SL clubs not being as financial as some of the PL clubs
Playfords Reserves have an u15,x5 under16s,x1 under 17,x4 under 18s a 19 and 20 year old, so yes as with most SL teams as the season has gone on opportunity has arisen. I don't think the the new structure will make more juniors go to senior games.
I believe the current system is not broke as it enables juniors who have earn't the right to play in the top division to play in it. The proposed structure does have logistic benefits(especialy to PL clubs), but even SL teams will have benefits of everyone at the same location. Yes it will enable the Pl clubs to get even better numbers and quality to their trials but this can also come at a cost when they get to seniors because there are only so many senior spots available each year. Players will make the grade in their junior age groups but when they get to reserves they will hit a brick wall for opportunity (if their not going to make first team). They will then be moved on. If they at the age of 19-20 try to go to SL club, most of these clubs will have also gone through similiar processes over the years making the player cut from PL clubs at that age looking for a gig somewhere as it will be difficult going to a completely new club and getting in, probably ending up at amateurs or giving the game away.
One thing that State League clubs will be able to offer junior players is an extended life at FFSA level ( unless your going to be a long term PL first teamer).
I believe the proposed structure has many benefits, is it fair ? (probably not), i just don't think it should be installed for 2014, 2015 yes but more than 5 minutes notice when coaching appointments may have already been made believing certain teams are A division now their not.
If SL clubs knew of this at the start of the year would they have spent an extra few dollars on a striker to help get them there?????
The point you make about the shortness of notice is spot on. Especially when you look at the FFSA Competition Operating Guidelines, Junior Premier and State Leagues. "By 2014 all State League clubs must field at least 3 age groups in the JPL (that is JPL not SL, PL) 2 from U6 - 11 & 2 from either 12s, 14s, 16s. So what I would like to know is based on this stated position by the FFSA for 2014, how can they say now on the eve of junior trials that the goal posts might move? Where does this stand constitutionally or ethically, no doubt this could be easily challenged via the sports arbitration process. The whole debate is a reasonable but one surely this proposal should be discussed for possible implementation for 2015 at the earliest. Whats the rush for 2014, just a fair chance it will be completely cocked up, lets be honest about that. I cannot imagine that any other leading sporting body in this state / country would even consider flip flopping on a clearly stated position 3 months prior to the next calender year, and when clubs are arranging trials when they cannot even tell the participants where they are likely to play. It's just not right. Further with all the age groups not required to be filled some divisions will have a full complement of teams while others will have byes all over the place. It's just got "oh dear" written all over it.
If this proposal is to go ahead, PL clubs should not be allowed to have second (JSL) teams, that way players not quite making their elite squads should have to drop down to SL clubs improving their numbers and quality!
"The trouble with referees , they know the rules , but they don't know the game." Bill Shankly
redfred wrote:If this proposal is to go ahead, PL clubs should not be allowed to have second (JSL) teams, that way players not quite making their elite squads should have to drop down to SL clubs improving their numbers and quality!
Certainly would help the SL clubs if it did go ahead.
Agree.......some of the JSL teams in the premier divisions are stronger that some of the C division JPL teams, if you look at some of the cup results, I have coached West Adelaides JSL and they would easily beat a lot of the JPL C league teams, and some of the B division teams too (same with Metros JSL)...........not sure if Metro 15s JSL if disbanded next year would go to a State League team (see other post) they may just give up altogether, if you cant make it in the JPL premier then you would have no choice in joining a state league, why not change the State league to a A and B division comp.......under 16s have teams all over the place, the bottom of the Bs cant compete with teams, but would be competitive in the Cs.
redfred wrote:If this proposal is to go ahead, PL clubs should not be allowed to have second (JSL) teams, that way players not quite making their elite squads should have to drop down to SL clubs improving their numbers and quality!
Certainly would help the SL clubs if it did go ahead.
The PL clubs would never agree to this as the Fees from their "extras" are far to important....
Let's see what PL clubs actually agree for this to happen....
redfred wrote:If this proposal is to go ahead, PL clubs should not be allowed to have second (JSL) teams, that way players not quite making their elite squads should have to drop down to SL clubs improving their numbers and quality!
Certainly would help the SL clubs if it did go ahead.
The PL clubs would never agree to this as the Fees from their "extras" are far to important....
Let's see what PL clubs actually agree for this to happen....
So if our facilities allow more teams, and we have good coaches in place, we are going to tell kids that have been at our club for 6-7 years 'sorry, you need to go to a SL club to make them stronger, and we don't know if their coach is any good?'
