New Structure

[theone]

A proposed new structure includes JPL playing teams from E&D and other associations and also inlcuding those amateur teams with Juniors. How are JPL clubs who charge in the hundreds $ going to compete against associations who may charge $100.

How are clubs also going to attract players if they stay at there E&D clubs. Somebody has got this all wrong there are some major issues in this proposed structure.

[corona]

the structure will stay the same as last year .

[Hollygirl]

A proposed new structure includes JPL playing teams from E&D and other associations and also inlcuding those amateur teams with Juniors. How are JPL clubs who charge in the hundreds $ going to compete against associations who may charge $100.

How are clubs also going to attract players if they stay at there E&D clubs. Somebody has got this all wrong there are some major issues in this proposed structure.

Seems that somebody may have it right....why do Federation clubs charge so much when E&D (and some Fed clubs) do not....not to prop up seniors of course

[fossil]

maybe someone could post the new format for 2008 as I would like to see the finer points.

If e&d is allowed to compete against the JPL sides of this year look out fed clubs the boy's won't want to trail with you they will be able to stay true to thier first clubs!

you can hear the clubs crying foul that have always been able to pick the eyes out of e&d.

[ZZZZ]

the structure will stay the same as last year .

wrong mate - see u in the C's

[pulse]

I have heard that EDJSA will have teams in the B division so the A division teams who also have a B squad will be left to compete in the C division is this true?

[Hollygirl]

Can anyone update on next years format before the trials start....

[Nova]

Apparently, clubs that have two teams in the same age group with one of them being an "A" team, will have their B team changed to C division.
Clubs with one team in C division will be promoted to B division.
What an absolute "Brainwave"
The person who came up with this format must be a genius and should enter into politics or something because your a wasted talent

[Arturo]

I prefer the A Group to consists of teams that mirror the senior teams from the Best League.

These clubs charged at least double of the non Best League clubs and so you want to get your moneys worth by playing in the highest league possible.

A lot of players are loyal to their club and they rather play for their club than moving to clubs that are in the A group.

[Mr Right]

I prefer the A Group to consists of teams that mirror the senior teams from the Best League.

These clubs charged at least double of the non Best League clubs and so you want to get your moneys worth by playing in the highest league possible.

A lot of players are loyal to their club and they rather play for their club than moving to clubs that are in the A group.

I can't agree that a team should be in the "A" league because the individuals have paid more money. The "A" League should consist of the best teams no matter which club they belong to.

When players are growing out of the Junior League, then they need to decide whether to stay loyal to their existing club or not, if capable of playing in a higher league than their senior team.

[Željko Jurin]

I prefer the A Group to consists of teams that mirror the senior teams from the Best League.

These clubs charged at least double of the non Best League clubs and so you want to get your moneys worth by playing in the highest league possible.

A lot of players are loyal to their club and they rather play for their club than moving to clubs that are in the A group.

I can't agree that a team should be in the "A" league because the individuals have paid more money. The "A" League should consist of the best teams no matter which club they belong to.

When players are growing out of the Junior League, then they need to decide whether to stay loyal to their existing club or not, if capable of playing in a higher league than their senior team.

1/ In most cases, the Super league teams have the best facilities.
2/ Isnt it ALL about junior development and not who is the best team and winning.

Having said that, all age groups should either be zoned, so someone in elizabeth doesnt have to travel to noarlunga
OR, seeing the Super league clubs pay the higher fees to FFSA, and most have the better facilites, reward them by having their juniors in the A's, Premier in B's, and State in c's
That's how it was in the old days when I was junior.

[Mr Right]

I prefer the A Group to consists of teams that mirror the senior teams from the Best League.

These clubs charged at least double of the non Best League clubs and so you want to get your moneys worth by playing in the highest league possible.

A lot of players are loyal to their club and they rather play for their club than moving to clubs that are in the A group.

I can't agree that a team should be in the "A" league because the individuals have paid more money. The "A" League should consist of the best teams no matter which club they belong to.

When players are growing out of the Junior League, then they need to decide whether to stay loyal to their existing club or not, if capable of playing in a higher league than their senior team.

1/ In most cases, the Super league teams have the best facilities.
2/ Isnt it ALL about junior development and not who is the best team and winning.

Having said that, all age groups should either be zoned, so someone in elizabeth doesnt have to travel to noarlunga
OR, seeing the Super league clubs pay the higher fees to FFSA, and most have the better facilites, reward them by having their juniors in the A's, Premier in B's, and State in c's
That's how it was in the old days when I was junior.

Agree with 1/.

Agree with 2/ but think part of Junior development is playing the best possible competition which wouldn't necessarily be achievable if all age groups were zoned. I am happy to travel to get the better competition to develop the players.

Super league clubs may pay higher fees however they should be able to more than recoup the cost with the extra sponsorship. If they couldn't the FFSA wouldn't be charging them higher fees.

And again can't agree with junior teams being placed in an "A" league for any other reason than they are the best team. The "A" league should provide the best teams with the best possible competition which enhances junior development.

[Željko Jurin]

I prefer the A Group to consists of teams that mirror the senior teams from the Best League.

These clubs charged at least double of the non Best League clubs and so you want to get your moneys worth by playing in the highest league possible.

A lot of players are loyal to their club and they rather play for their club than moving to clubs that are in the A group.

I can't agree that a team should be in the "A" league because the individuals have paid more money. The "A" League should consist of the best teams no matter which club they belong to.

When players are growing out of the Junior League, then they need to decide whether to stay loyal to their existing club or not, if capable of playing in a higher league than their senior team.

1/ In most cases, the Super league teams have the best facilities.
2/ Isnt it ALL about junior development and not who is the best team and winning.

Having said that, all age groups should either be zoned, so someone in elizabeth doesnt have to travel to noarlunga
OR, seeing the Super league clubs pay the higher fees to FFSA, and most have the better facilites, reward them by having their juniors in the A's, Premier in B's, and State in c's
That's how it was in the old days when I was junior.

Agree with 1/.

Agree with 2/ but think part of Junior development is playing the best possible competition which wouldn't necessarily be achievable if all age groups were zoned. I am happy to travel to get the better competition to develop the players.

Super league clubs may pay higher fees however they should be able to more than recoup the cost with the extra sponsorship. If they couldn't the FFSA wouldn't be charging them higher fees.

And again can't agree with junior teams being placed in an "A" league for any other reason than they are the best team. The "A" league should provide the best teams with the best possible competition which enhances junior development.

Yes, but then the best players will come to the Super league clubs (at an early age too, not just after the player has develped) to play in the best league with teams that have the best facilities and bigger clubs.

[Mr Right]

I prefer the A Group to consists of teams that mirror the senior teams from the Best League.

These clubs charged at least double of the non Best League clubs and so you want to get your moneys worth by playing in the highest league possible.

A lot of players are loyal to their club and they rather play for their club than moving to clubs that are in the A group.

I can't agree that a team should be in the "A" league because the individuals have paid more money. The "A" League should consist of the best teams no matter which club they belong to.

When players are growing out of the Junior League, then they need to decide whether to stay loyal to their existing club or not, if capable of playing in a higher league than their senior team.

1/ In most cases, the Super league teams have the best facilities.
2/ Isnt it ALL about junior development and not who is the best team and winning.

Having said that, all age groups should either be zoned, so someone in elizabeth doesnt have to travel to noarlunga
OR, seeing the Super league clubs pay the higher fees to FFSA, and most have the better facilites, reward them by having their juniors in the A's, Premier in B's, and State in c's
That's how it was in the old days when I was junior.

Agree with 1/.

Agree with 2/ but think part of Junior development is playing the best possible competition which wouldn't necessarily be achievable if all age groups were zoned. I am happy to travel to get the better competition to develop the players.

Super league clubs may pay higher fees however they should be able to more than recoup the cost with the extra sponsorship. If they couldn't the FFSA wouldn't be charging them higher fees.

And again can't agree with junior teams being placed in an "A" league for any other reason than they are the best team. The "A" league should provide the best teams with the best possible competition which enhances junior development.

Yes, but then the best players will come to the Super league clubs (at an early age too, not just after the player has develped) to play in the best league with teams that have the best facilities and bigger clubs.

But then what happens to the late developers or late starters who are turned away from the Super league clubs and would then not encounter the higher level of competition and miss out on the associated development. You would end up with a smaller number of highly developed players which ultimately means a crap Australian side....

That's how it was in the old days when I was junior.

[Željko Jurin]

I prefer the A Group to consists of teams that mirror the senior teams from the Best League.

These clubs charged at least double of the non Best League clubs and so you want to get your moneys worth by playing in the highest league possible.

A lot of players are loyal to their club and they rather play for their club than moving to clubs that are in the A group.

I can't agree that a team should be in the "A" league because the individuals have paid more money. The "A" League should consist of the best teams no matter which club they belong to.

When players are growing out of the Junior League, then they need to decide whether to stay loyal to their existing club or not, if capable of playing in a higher league than their senior team.

1/ In most cases, the Super league teams have the best facilities.
2/ Isnt it ALL about junior development and not who is the best team and winning.

Having said that, all age groups should either be zoned, so someone in elizabeth doesnt have to travel to noarlunga
OR, seeing the Super league clubs pay the higher fees to FFSA, and most have the better facilites, reward them by having their juniors in the A's, Premier in B's, and State in c's
That's how it was in the old days when I was junior.

Agree with 1/.

Agree with 2/ but think part of Junior development is playing the best possible competition which wouldn't necessarily be achievable if all age groups were zoned. I am happy to travel to get the better competition to develop the players.

Super league clubs may pay higher fees however they should be able to more than recoup the cost with the extra sponsorship. If they couldn't the FFSA wouldn't be charging them higher fees.

And again can't agree with junior teams being placed in an "A" league for any other reason than they are the best team. The "A" league should provide the best teams with the best possible competition which enhances junior development.

Yes, but then the best players will come to the Super league clubs (at an early age too, not just after the player has develped) to play in the best league with teams that have the best facilities and bigger clubs.

But then what happens to the late developers or late starters who are turned away from the Super league clubs and would then not encounter the higher level of competition and miss out on the associated development. You would end up with a smaller number of highly developed players which ultimately means a crap Australian side....

That's how it was in the old days when I was junior.

They would play at a Premier or State league team, just like the B's or C's atm.

In other words, instead of A's, B's, C's, you have Super, Premier, and State.

If the premier or state league club cant fill a team in a certain age group, I'm sure a Super league team can fill it with a 2nd team

[Mr Right]

I can't agree that a team should be in the "A" league because the individuals have paid more money. The "A" League should consist of the best teams no matter which club they belong to.

When players are growing out of the Junior League, then they need to decide whether to stay loyal to their existing club or not, if capable of playing in a higher league than their senior team.

1/ In most cases, the Super league teams have the best facilities.
2/ Isnt it ALL about junior development and not who is the best team and winning.

Having said that, all age groups should either be zoned, so someone in elizabeth doesnt have to travel to noarlunga
OR, seeing the Super league clubs pay the higher fees to FFSA, and most have the better facilites, reward them by having their juniors in the A's, Premier in B's, and State in c's
That's how it was in the old days when I was junior.

Agree with 1/.

Agree with 2/ but think part of Junior development is playing the best possible competition which wouldn't necessarily be achievable if all age groups were zoned. I am happy to travel to get the better competition to develop the players.

Super league clubs may pay higher fees however they should be able to more than recoup the cost with the extra sponsorship. If they couldn't the FFSA wouldn't be charging them higher fees.

And again can't agree with junior teams being placed in an "A" league for any other reason than they are the best team. The "A" league should provide the best teams with the best possible competition which enhances junior development.

Yes, but then the best players will come to the Super league clubs (at an early age too, not just after the player has develped) to play in the best league with teams that have the best facilities and bigger clubs.

But then what happens to the late developers or late starters who are turned away from the Super league clubs and would then not encounter the higher level of competition and miss out on the associated development. You would end up with a smaller number of highly developed players which ultimately means a crap Australian side....

That's how it was in the old days when I was junior.

They would play at a Premier or State league team, just like the B's or C's atm.

In other words, instead of A's, B's, C's, you have Super, Premier, and State.

If the premier or state league club cant fill a team in a certain age group, I'm sure a Super league team can fill it with a 2nd team

But what would happen if you had State junior team capable of playing in the A's competitively?

[Željko Jurin]

1/ In most cases, the Super league teams have the best facilities.
2/ Isnt it ALL about junior development and not who is the best team and winning.

Having said that, all age groups should either be zoned, so someone in elizabeth doesnt have to travel to noarlunga
OR, seeing the Super league clubs pay the higher fees to FFSA, and most have the better facilites, reward them by having their juniors in the A's, Premier in B's, and State in c's
That's how it was in the old days when I was junior.

Agree with 1/.

Agree with 2/ but think part of Junior development is playing the best possible competition which wouldn't necessarily be achievable if all age groups were zoned. I am happy to travel to get the better competition to develop the players.

Super league clubs may pay higher fees however they should be able to more than recoup the cost with the extra sponsorship. If they couldn't the FFSA wouldn't be charging them higher fees.

And again can't agree with junior teams being placed in an "A" league for any other reason than they are the best team. The "A" league should provide the best teams with the best possible competition which enhances junior development.

Yes, but then the best players will come to the Super league clubs (at an early age too, not just after the player has develped) to play in the best league with teams that have the best facilities and bigger clubs.

But then what happens to the late developers or late starters who are turned away from the Super league clubs and would then not encounter the higher level of competition and miss out on the associated development. You would end up with a smaller number of highly developed players which ultimately means a crap Australian side....

That's how it was in the old days when I was junior.

They would play at a Premier or State league team, just like the B's or C's atm.

In other words, instead of A's, B's, C's, you have Super, Premier, and State.

If the premier or state league club cant fill a team in a certain age group, I'm sure a Super league team can fill it with a 2nd team

But what would happen if you had State junior team capable of playing in the A's competitively?

Exactly the same thing that happens in the 19's and 23's at present, nothing !!! Why should the lower age groups be any differnet to the 19's and 23's ??? Wait for the cup games

[Mr Right]

Agree with 1/.

Agree with 2/ but think part of Junior development is playing the best possible competition which wouldn't necessarily be achievable if all age groups were zoned. I am happy to travel to get the better competition to develop the players.

Super league clubs may pay higher fees however they should be able to more than recoup the cost with the extra sponsorship. If they couldn't the FFSA wouldn't be charging them higher fees.

And again can't agree with junior teams being placed in an "A" league for any other reason than they are the best team. The "A" league should provide the best teams with the best possible competition which enhances junior development.

Yes, but then the best players will come to the Super league clubs (at an early age too, not just after the player has develped) to play in the best league with teams that have the best facilities and bigger clubs.

But then what happens to the late developers or late starters who are turned away from the Super league clubs and would then not encounter the higher level of competition and miss out on the associated development. You would end up with a smaller number of highly developed players which ultimately means a crap Australian side....

That's how it was in the old days when I was junior.

They would play at a Premier or State league team, just like the B's or C's atm.

In other words, instead of A's, B's, C's, you have Super, Premier, and State.

If the premier or state league club cant fill a team in a certain age group, I'm sure a Super league team can fill it with a 2nd team

But what would happen if you had State junior team capable of playing in the A's competitively?

Exactly the same thing that happens in the 19's and 23's at present, nothing !!! Why should the lower age groups be any differnet to the 19's and 23's ??? Wait for the cup games

Because we are talking about junior development. Restricting constant A grade participation to a third who either live in the right area or can afford to play denies the other two thirds the ability to constantly play against the best possible competition. The current system allows them to participate in the appropriate grade based on merit, not which club you belong to.

Have a look at the current A grades and see how many junior teams come from non-super league clubs. There wouldn't be enough room for all of these players in an A league if each Super league club had one team in.

[Željko Jurin]

Because we are talking about junior development. Restricting constant A grade participation to a third who either live in the right area or can afford to play denies the other two thirds the ability to constantly play against the best possible competition. The current system allows them to participate in the appropriate grade based on merit, not which club you belong to.

Have a look at the current A grades and see how many junior teams come from non-super league clubs. There wouldn't be enough room for all of these players in an A league if each Super league club had one team in.

It is exactly the same as now, the players that are good enough to play in A teams will go to Super league clubs

Look, no offence, but I think we are going around in circles. I see where you are coming from.
In the current environment, why is it then when a team drops from the A's most of the players go out for trials to other A teams to try and stay in the A division???
Same thing, when a team drops from the super league, the players will trial at other super league clubs, and if good enough, will make it.

Or if it's the zonal areas, stay as zones, no relegation. What is wrong with the u/12 competition ???? Some teams are stronger, some weaker, but it all evens itself out. What is relegation and promotion achieving for junior development ??? Just let the kids play, play, play, and not worry about needing to win a certain game by 5 goals to avoid relegation etc.....
They have these state talent identification championships to spot the talented players for state teams. The clubs are there to provide facilites, train them to their best ability, and teach the kids team unity. Not A's, B's, C's, and winning at all costs is everything

[Hollygirl]

Because we are talking about junior development. Restricting constant A grade participation to a third who either live in the right area or can afford to play denies the other two thirds the ability to constantly play against the best possible competition. The current system allows them to participate in the appropriate grade based on merit, not which club you belong to.

Have a look at the current A grades and see how many junior teams come from non-super league clubs. There wouldn't be enough room for all of these players in an A league if each Super league club had one team in.

It is exactly the same as now, the players that are good enough to play in A teams will go to Super league clubs

Look, no offence, but I think we are going around in circles. I see where you are coming from.
In the current environment, why is it then when a team drops from the A's most of the players go out for trials to other A teams to try and stay in the A division???
Same thing, when a team drops from the super league, the players will trial at other super league clubs, and if good enough, will make it.

Or if it's the zonal areas, stay as zones, no relegation. What is wrong with the u/12 competition ???? Some teams are stronger, some weaker, but it all evens itself out. What is relegation and promotion achieving for junior development ??? Just let the kids play, play, play, and not worry about needing to win a certain game by 5 goals to avoid relegation etc.....
They have these state talent identification championships to spot the talented players for state teams. The clubs are there to provide facilites, train them to their best ability, and teach the kids team unity. Not A's, B's, C's, and winning at all costs is everything

WOW...does that ever make sense....then clubs would truly have to develop their players to be successful.....