Goulburn Valley FL 2014
- Thread starter ringo1
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
- Oct 5, 2004
- 14,145
- 7,084
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Rochester FC, Waroona FC, Pacers
Looks that way. I can't remember what the league said a few years ago to sell it to the public. Something about rivalries or reducing travel time?
Don't expect a lot of science to be attached. Seems that delegates are handed 'alternatives' and then asked vote, no discussion about variations etc. It's always going to be an issue when there are twelve or more teams in a league as playing each side twice becomes an impossibility unless you go to twenty-two plus rounds.
Why can't the draw be structured over a 'x' year cycle so that over the time frame every side plays each other the same amount of times.
Eg. In 2015 Ky play Mansfield twice , then don't play them twice for 2 years .
Would appear not a great start for the new administration which clubs are allegedly paying a additional $10k per year each for ??
Eg. In 2015 Ky play Mansfield twice , then don't play them twice for 2 years .
Would appear not a great start for the new administration which clubs are allegedly paying a additional $10k per year each for ??
The Old admin have used this draw for the past 2-3 years so not sure what the new admin have to do with it! Agree its a stupid set up and at the very least should keep the first 3 games and last 3 in the same order and not mirror image them which means everyone is playing same side only 7 rounds apart.
Wasn't the draw released by the new admin , which clubs are paying a lot more money for and clubs should rightfully expect more from .
Last edited:
Look we know you have an axe to grind with the hub but the draw isn't something to blame them on, if clubs voice their concerns and its not changed next season then you can start huffing and puffing about the wasted money, Didnt the previous admin only finish up in the last couple of weeks, I'd say they would have had a lot more to do with the draw than the new admin anyway.
When does the accountability start in $130k's time, Mr Bott ?
The only issue I have is club volunteers having to work harder to keep their clubs afloat .
If that's a axe to grind well yes I do .
Last edited:
- Jan 8, 2010
- 591
- 614
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
10k is about 10 match payments for plenty of players around the league. Rubbish about volunteers having to "work harder".
Everyone pays the same fees. Everyone loses half an overpaid Footballer each. No big deal.
Whilst GV clubs have to compete against clubs from other leagues and other sports for players, who don't have the same costs . GV clubs are at a disadvantage . Increased expenditure does not see clubs stop spending on the top end , there is just more pressure applied to maintain the lesser likes which inadvertedly forces more pressure upon club administrators ( generally volunteers ) to raise more money or increase player shortage as players go elsewhere . Increased player payments have done the same over the years ,
increased club admin and player shortage .
There is not a shortage of players wanting big money !
Please excuse my ignorance, but can anyone clearly outline the case why clubs elected to go to the AFL hub and not stay with the status quo?
I am still confused as to logic behind the decision and its overall impact on clubs and the running of the league. If after this year clubs are not happy can the league opt out of this agreement?
Waiting with baited breath to be enlightened - Thanks
I am still confused as to logic behind the decision and its overall impact on clubs and the running of the league. If after this year clubs are not happy can the league opt out of this agreement?
Waiting with baited breath to be enlightened - Thanks
- Oct 5, 2004
- 14,145
- 7,084
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Rochester FC, Waroona FC, Pacers
I'm also confused about this. What's the deal with the extra money?
Smoke and mirrors and inexperienced operators would appear to have been caught up in the fan fair of glossy brochures.
My understanding is the clubs can opt to get out however can only get out if the hub agree.
Same question many are asking .
Gents, thanks for your input, BUT can anyone clearly state for me the benefits of the hub over what we already had? Club delegates obviously saw the benefit, could they please share with us the clear benefits involved to clubs of the change?
Without any details will not make comment other than to say the league was financial and making positive gains.
Without any details will not make comment other than to say the league was financial and making positive gains.
- Oct 5, 2004
- 14,145
- 7,084
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Rochester FC, Waroona FC, Pacers
Here's my (quick) take;
- The Peter Jackson Review of Country Football in October 2011 which suggested a new centralised structure for country footy.
- Recommendations included merging AFL Victoria and the VCFL and reducing the 82 different league boards and 28 umpire associations into eight large and five small regions, making governance and decision-making easier.
- The GVFL clubs were given a vote and Echuca, Mansfield, Mooroopna, Shepparton, Tatura, Swans & United voted Yes to hand over control of the GVFL to the AFL Goulburn Murray Regional Administration Centre (GMRAC), which is part of the AFL Goulburn Murray (AFLGMR) region (one of the eight larger regions mentioned above). Benalla and Seymour initially voted No, but changed their vote to a Yes after a presentation by the GMRAC
- The GMRAC will look after the GVFL's administration, including fixtures, match day paperwork, club liasion, sponsorship, events, marking, budgeting and tribunal
- The GMRAC now has to replace GVFL GM Keith Wellman with a new operations manager who will undertake the above duties. I'm not sure if this person is employed by the GVFL or the AFLGMR. I presume the AFLGM
- AFL Goulburn Murray general manager Martin Gleeson told the Shepp News that "The league is still run by the board, our role is to provide and deliver the administrative service for the league."
- The GVFL has a three-year contract with AFL Goulburn Murray,
and has to pay AFL Goulburn Murray $95k in the first year and $115k in the following years (plus GST). I guess that's how much AFL Goulburn Valley believes it costs to provide administration services to the GVFL.
- People employed by the GVFL, such as reception/administration, finance and publicity will probably lose their jobs, which will transfer over to the GMRAC
- Echuca president Brett Stevens said it was "really good opportunity for the league to hand over the administration side of things and focus on dealing with the clubs as opposed to getting bogged down with admin work."
- The clubs that voted Yes believed that the former GV board did a good job, but they wanted to put their faith in the centralised office, which has an agenda to fix umpiring and junior numbers and finances, amongst other things (including the traditional soccer threat). These clubs believe the GMRAC has a strong plan and they wanted to see it implemented.
Happy to be correct on any of this.
As per your question, I guess no-one really knows what the benefits are of moving administration. Presumably all the paperwork and processes are basically the same,. Maybe because the new structure has the backing of the AFL, then more money will be poured into the GVFL, but if that's the case, why didn't the AFL just give the money directly to the GVFL? And why does the administration costs jump $20k in one year? Was a deal struck to give a discount in the first year? And who pays for it, the clubs?
I knew nothing about this issues 30 minutes ago, but after looking into it briefly, it doesn't really make much sense. It will be interesting to keep an eye on it.
Afl Gm have advertised for a additional staff member alothough I believe staffing will be spread amongst many people who also look after the KDFL , shepp juniors and Seymour juniors.
The $130 k figure I have quoted is allegedly the average over 3 years including the % AFLGM take from gvfl sponsorship .
Also the umpiring, junior player numbers and competition against other sports, iirc falls under the development managers role which was increased from 1 to 3 in the Gm region . They are paid directly by AFL VIC via clubs affiliation fees and although working out of the AFL GM offices and being overseen by afl Gm general manager have nothing to do with the commission. So by the review nothing gained or lost in these regards by having admin with the GM commission .
Just to clarify I am not opposed to the suggestions made in the review including the views around centralised administration . However, IIRC the review recommendations included a reduction in admin costs through greater efficiencies amongst other things which haven't come to fruition .
On face value the GVFL have been bent over backwards and unknowingly handed all control to the AFL / AFLGM commission .
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #1,544
I think that one of the bigger challenges that we need to meet head on is the looming threat of Soccer. The AFL is beginning to realise this. There is more and more coverage of the game in the media and the kids in school are playing soccer as much as footy. Hopefully the Hub takes note of this, especially in Shepparton!
The afl nth East border hub (based in Wangaratta) has been fantastic for the leagues it administers (O&K, tallangatta etc). It's more professionally run, better communication, stronger backing from AFL vic and better training for the league officials and club executives. It also opens up avenues for a central/reliable source of clothing and equipment purchase for the clubs due to some afl vic deals done with suppliers. All positive from my point of view since the changes a couple of years ago in this area.
We have also got back involved in inter league which is backed heavily by the league admin.
We have also got back involved in inter league which is backed heavily by the league admin.
A couple of the points you have raised have long been available to leagues well before centralised admin .
Interleague - via country championships was opened up and leagues invited to compete for 5-6 years at least .
Clothing / Apparel deals through vic country ( previously VCFL) - Footymart has been around for a long time over 10 years .
Out of interest what area are you from as I have heard the benalla area isn't that happy about losing their junior comp ?
Is good to see that the NE are apparently placing the highest priority on growth of the game and less on administrating leagues like the o@m, who have chosen to administer themselves at this stage .
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #1,549
Just on Junior footy..something needs to be done regarding the Goulburn- Campaspe U/16 comp. Only a few teams and a generally lop-sided competition don't do much for the development of young players. Its no ones fault but just wondering if an U/16 comp could precede the U/18s each Saturday? Its been raised before..16's at 10, 18's 11.20, reserves 1pm and seniors at 2.15. The Murray league seems to pull it off well!
- Oct 5, 2004
- 14,145
- 7,084
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Rochester FC, Waroona FC, Pacers
I've been saying this for a while. Nearly all GV clubs have an U16s affiliate. The only one I'm not sure about is Shepparton. Do they have an affiliation with a junior club? I'm sure they could organise one with Notre Dame or one other school/club
* Echuca, Kyabram, Mooroopna, Swans, United, Rochester and Tatura already have U16s teams playing in the Shepparton District Junior league.
* Mansfield and Benalla have U16s teams in the Wangaratta junior league
* Euroa and Seymour have U16s teams in the Seymour junior league
Is there a concern that a GV fourths would ruin these local junior leagues? Is it too costly for the GVFL (travel, umpires, coaches, medical staff etc)?
I'm sure they could organise it so games are all played on Saturday. Rochy has two ovals right next to each other so it's easy to move support staff between the games and with staggered starts of the U16s and U18s then it would work. I'm sure most clubs would have a junior oval near their senior oval so trainers etc. could move between the ovals with some ease.
A GVFL fourths was on the agenda about 20 years ago and possibly earlier, but for whatever reason it has never been implemented.
- Status
