NOW to sometime later in the year (maybe) - Talk about anything

[Bunk Moreland]

Another Division 4 coach lashed the idea, arguing too many teams at one club was inequitable.

He said merging Nunawading and Forest Hill “should’ve been the only realistic option”.

“What are we solving here? I don’t think we’re creating a solution to this problem,” he said, adding the travel time to Berwick was “logistically untenable”.

“Are we saying its OK for clubs to have three sides and others not be able to field two sides? What are we actually doing as a league here?

“The EFNL have created this monster by for instance, Surrey Park being a six-minute drive from Forest Hill, and probably another five minutes to Nunawading.

“I’ve got no issue with the EFNL trying to help clubs like Nunawading and Forest Hill stay alive, but I just don’t feel that a club six minutes up the road should have three teams, so effectively you’re the 50th or 60th best player at that club. Why not go down the road and play senior footy at Forest Hill?

He added: “We’ve created this situation in junior footy where it’s OK for clubs to bring as many juniors in as they possibly can, regardless of what happens to the smaller clubs in the local leagues.”



Bingo.

People starting to get it.

 

[guest666]

Another Division 4 coach lashed the idea, arguing too many teams at one club was inequitable.

He said merging Nunawading and Forest Hill “should’ve been the only realistic option”.

“What are we solving here? I don’t think we’re creating a solution to this problem,” he said, adding the travel time to Berwick was “logistically untenable”.

“Are we saying its OK for clubs to have three sides and others not be able to field two sides? What are we actually doing as a league here?

“The EFNL have created this monster by for instance, Surrey Park being a six-minute drive from Forest Hill, and probably another five minutes to Nunawading.

“I’ve got no issue with the EFNL trying to help clubs like Nunawading and Forest Hill stay alive, but I just don’t feel that a club six minutes up the road should have three teams, so effectively you’re the 50th or 60th best player at that club. Why not go down the road and play senior footy at Forest Hill?

He added: “We’ve created this situation in junior footy where it’s OK for clubs to bring as many juniors in as they possibly can, regardless of what happens to the smaller clubs in the local leagues.”



Bingo.

People starting to get it.

Sounds good in theory, but both Nunawading and Forest Hill haven’t had juniors in a while. How would there be rules to stop kids from moving clubs?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Sounds good in theory, but both Nunawading and Forest Hill haven’t had juniors in a while. How would there be rules to stop kids from moving clubs?

I don’t think it’s beyond the capacity of the powers that be to find a way to work out situations where a Blackburn or Vermont have 2 or 3 junior teams in an age group and Nunawading and Forest Hill have none.

They all have to graduate to one reserves and one senior team eventually.

If they’re happy for their senior clubs to fall over then fine. This is the outcome.

I’ve shown the numbers a few times. There are more boys playing junior EFNL footy now than there was 20 years ago. More teams. They’re just concentrated in less clubs.

This is what has caused this. Enjoy the outcome or find a way to change it.

 

[Voice of the G]

I don’t think it’s beyond the capacity of the powers that be to find a way to work out situations where a Blackburn or Vermont have 2 or 3 junior teams in an age group and Nunawading and Forest Hill have none.

They all have to graduate to one reserves and one senior team eventually.

If they’re happy for their senior clubs to fall over then fine. This is the outcome.

I’ve shown the numbers a few times. There are more boys playing junior EFNL footy now than there was 20 years ago. More teams. They’re just concentrated in less clubs.

This is what has caused this. Enjoy the outcome or find a way to change it.

Struggle to see how Nunawading especially can survive with no curtain raiser game before their 1,s home games and it seems no womens side looking at the current fixture.

 

[outside_off]

Whats the plan next year? Do you tell Berwick thirds and SP thirds "no thanks" we have now filled the Forest Hill and Nunawading reserves teams.

 

[localfootylegend23]

Whats the plan next year? Do you tell Berwick thirds and SP thirds "no thanks" we have now filled the Forest Hill and Nunawading reserves teams.

They cant even organize things a month out. Next year is 10 years away in their eyes.

 

[hansie]

I don’t think it’s beyond the capacity of the powers that be to find a way to work out situations where a Blackburn or Vermont have 2 or 3 junior teams in an age group and Nunawading and Forest Hill have none.

They all have to graduate to one reserves and one senior team eventually.

If they’re happy for their senior clubs to fall over then fine. This is the outcome.

I’ve shown the numbers a few times. There are more boys playing junior EFNL footy now than there was 20 years ago. More teams. They’re just concentrated in less clubs.

This is what has caused this. Enjoy the outcome or find a way to change it.

Blackburn have 2 sides per age group. We have a 3rd 17s however that’s a lot of bottom ages skipping 16s to start moving towards the senior club.
We have more in the 8s/9s but that is smaller side games.
A couple of the second sides are a little low on numbers so it’s not all as it may appear to the outside.
In my time involved there I am a aware of some (albeit not many) blacky juniors who went to the zebs or nuna for more game time/1s footy etc

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Blackburn have 2 sides per age group. We have a 3rd 17s however that’s a lot of bottom ages skipping 16s to start moving towards the senior club.
We have more in the 8s/9s but that is smaller side games.
A couple of the second sides are a little low on numbers so it’s not all as it may appear to the outside.
In my time involved there I am a aware of some (albeit not many) blacky juniors who went to the zebs or nuna for more game time/1s footy etc

The league has to drive it, make it easier for second teams to move as groups to other clubs.

There’s been an overall increase in the number of kids playing yet senior clubs are falling over, if they put half the effort they put into “expansion” into the long term health of their existing clubs, things would be in better shape.

Think they need a reminder that one existing club is the same as one new club.

Officially have two clubs that can’t field a senior and a reserve team.

So we’ve done 2x U19

Now we’re doing 2x Reserves

Won’t be long until 2x Seniors is broached.

 

[eflreceiver]

The league has to drive it, make it easier for second teams to move as groups to other clubs.

There’s been an overall increase in the number of kids playing yet senior clubs are falling over, if they put half the effort they put into “expansion” into the long term health of their existing clubs, things would be in better shape.

Think they need a reminder that one existing club is the same as one new club.

Officially have two clubs that can’t field a senior and a reserve team.

So we’ve done 2x U19

Now we’re doing 2x Reserves

Won’t be long until 2x Seniors is broached.

We already have 2 Senior teams in the women's (in different Divisions). It's become farcical. Soon, the big clubs can just play the A team against the B team. At least they are guaranteed a win.

The league has created a monster, and rather than show leadership and clear direction, they are just sitting on their hands, hoping it will fix itself.

 

[guest100]

I reckon the AFL had a role as well to provide resources (both people and funding) to set a path to set up local leagues and local clubs.
They are the ultimate owners of the gave and need to show serious leadership

Not talking about games in India (being touted) when the health here is Aus is not as good as it should be.

 

[eflreceiver]

I reckon the AFL had a role as well to provide resources (both people and funding) to set a path to set up local leagues and local clubs.
They are the ultimate owners of the gave and need to show serious leadership

Not talking about games in India (being touted) when the health here is Aus is not as good as it should be.

It would be great if the AFL actually ran local football, given how many millions it has in the bank. Then each league would just require an administrator, not a board.

 

[Carn The Berries]

The league has to drive it, make it easier for second teams to move as groups to other clubs.

There’s been an overall increase in the number of kids playing yet senior clubs are falling over, if they put half the effort they put into “expansion” into the long term health of their existing clubs, things would be in better shape.

Think they need a reminder that one existing club is the same as one new club.

Officially have two clubs that can’t field a senior and a reserve team.

So we’ve done 2x U19

Now we’re doing 2x Reserves

Won’t be long until 2x Seniors is broached.

Seems to be heading down a path similar to the Ammos... Old Xavs had at least 4 (could have been 5?) 3rds sides last year.

It's a farce.

 

[CliffMcTainshaw]

If they go down this path then eventually it will become like the local cricket competition where the Grade, a team plays in will be determined by where they finish at the end of the previous year. There won't be a firsts with their seconds playing in a reserves competition. There will be 10 Grades and some Club's, Firsts teams will be playing against the Reserve teams of other Clubs. The fixture will be the toughest thing to work out. There may not be any games before a clubs first's play. They would have to rule that a club cannot have more than one team in a Grade.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

If they go down this path then eventually it will become like the local cricket competition where the Grade, a team plays in will be determined by where they finish at the end of the previous year. There won't be a firsts with their seconds playing in a reserves competition. There will be 10 Grades and some Club's, Firsts teams will be playing against the Reserve teams of other Clubs. The fixture will be the toughest thing to work out. There may not be any games before a clubs first's play. They would have to rule that a club cannot have more than one team in a Grade.

It would be shit. The whole game is based on club vs club across a day. It’s an absolute mystery how they’ve allowed this to occur, you have these enormous junior clubs where the players clearly don’t go into senior footy as if they did, they’d have 400 senior players. And other clubs are on the verge of death.

It’s just been put in the too hard basket.

 

[CliffMcTainshaw]

It would be shit. The whole game is based on club vs club across a day. It’s an absolute mystery how they’ve allowed this to occur, you have these enormous junior clubs where the players clearly don’t go into senior footy as if they did, they’d have 400 senior players. And other clubs are on the verge of death.

It’s just been put in the too hard basket.

I agree that scenario is crap, but that would seem to be the progression once they allow it to begin by allowing 3rds teams in.

 

[Roo42]

Maybe I’m thinking about this too simply, and I’m happy to hear other people’s thoughts, but could the EFNL strictly enforce maximum senior list numbers?

Using Blackburn as an example, could the league say you’ve got 60-70 senior/reserve spots, you pick them, and the rest are gone?

I understand the argument that there would probably be a drop off from juniors to seniors, and 19s to seniors, because some kids wouldn’t be able to keep playing with their mates, but is the game really losing players in this case?

If they’re not in the best 60-70 at a club, chances are they’re not even playing a 2s game for that club.

So, if they’re not playing a 2s game, or they stop playing because they don’t want to play at another club, I don’t see the problem because they’re not playing anyway, but there’s the potential positive of it possibly keeping other clubs alive.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Maybe I’m thinking about this too simply, and I’m happy to hear other people’s thoughts, but could the EFNL strictly enforce maximum senior list numbers?

Using Blackburn as an example, could the league say you’ve got 60-70 senior/reserve spots, you pick them, and the rest are gone?

I understand the argument that there would probably be a drop off from juniors to seniors, and 19s to seniors, because some kids wouldn’t be able to keep playing with their mates, but is the game really losing players in this case?

If they’re not in the best 60-70 at a club, chances are they’re not even playing a 2s game for that club.

So, if they’re not playing a 2s game, or they stop playing because they don’t want to play at another club, I don’t see the problem because they’re not playing anyway, but there’s the potential positive of it possibly keeping other clubs alive.

Part of the problem - and it’s a root cause of a lot of the problems in local footy - is all the leagues see themselves as in competition with each other. It stops a lot of things that could happen for the good of the game overall and for clubs.

Things would be vastly improved if a single body ran all the leagues - at least all the metro leagues.

Having all these different local league organisations is inefficient and leads to bad outcomes. They are outdated, pretty much started in the days of horse travel.

 

[Fatboy35]

It would be great if the AFL actually ran local football, given how many millions it has in the bank. Then each league would just require an administrator, not a board.

I am totally opposed to this.

My view - the game is called Australian Rules football, not 'AFL'. The AFL is the largest competition in the country, but it is not the owner of the game. That distinction matters and too often gets ignored.

Secondly, this issue has nothing to do with the AFL. The EFNL is run by its own board, and that board is responsible for making decisions within our region that they believe are in the best interests of EFNL member clubs. This second Reserves was signed off by the EFNL board, just as they have signed off on clubs having two Under‑19 teams and on junior numbers being pushed to their current levels.

That’s where my frustration lies. I hate hearing people say, 'the AFL needs to do more'. No — the AFL is not the problem here. The EFNL board has to do more. These decisions sit squarely with them, and so does the responsibility for the consequences.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I am totally opposed to this.

My view - the game is called Australian Rules football, not 'AFL'. The AFL is the largest competition in the country, but it is not the owner of the game. That distinction matters and too often gets ignored.

Secondly, this issue has nothing to do with the AFL. The EFNL is run by its own board, and that board is responsible for making decisions within our region that they believe are in the best interests of EFNL member clubs. This second Reserves was signed off by the EFNL board, just as they have signed off on clubs having two Under‑19 teams and on junior numbers being pushed to their current levels.

That’s where my frustration lies. I hate hearing people say, 'the AFL needs to do more'. No — the AFL is not the problem here. The EFNL board has to do more. These decisions sit squarely with them, and so does the responsibility for the consequences.

Decent points.

It doesn't necessarily have to be the AFL - it could still be an independent board - but I'm convinced things would be far better placed if all the metro leagues merged into a single entity. Doesn't mean they all have to play together, you could still have regional conferences, east - south - north - west or whatever, but the admin and decision making should be centralised and the best thing for all clubs and the game could be prioritised.

These leagues - or the predecessors on which they are based - were set up as country leagues. Go check trove and the results in newspapers from 100 years ago, they were all listed under country football. These suburbs were farms and orchards and they were isolated. Country leagues make sense and still do, in the actual country - they can be independent and control things in their area because they're indepednent across a huge geographic area.

In what is present-day Melbourne, it's just ridiculous. They are all on each other's doorsteps and all see themselves in competition with each other, and it is the root cause of many of the stupid decisions. They spend all their time building and protecting their own empires, and to what end? You go to an EFNL AGM and all the bloody chairman talks about is how we need to get to 50 clubs and if you have junior clubs in other leagues, you need to bring them in. Why? How does it help anyone? The 40 clubs of the EFL from 20 years ago - and the clubs are what is important - are they any better off for this expansion? Has it made their lives better? Of course not.

So we have this stupid situation where clubs like Nunawading and Forest Hill aren't sustainable. Should we have tackled the junior thing and see if there's a way to spread out juniors across clubs? Can't do that, what if kids end up going to another league!? Would the two clubs be better off merging or at least combining for a year or two? Their players and supporters would at least get a full matchday to enjoy. Can't do that, we need 50 clubs! Why? Dunno, we just do.

We have to have Berwick's extra players in this stupid standalone reserves team, that makes life hard for everybody. God forbid they might go and play for Berwick Springs or Clyde, shit.

Decisions need to be made for the good of all clubs and for the game overall, but the decision making lies with this stupid, ancient level of "metro league" that we have in between and that serves nothing but itself.

The AFL is the only body that could perhaps force this kind of change, but they won't - it's too hard. Imagine the pushback from the these self-interested clowns, even if it was promised a new metro board would be independent.

 

[hansie]

The other thing in all of this is that there is less occurrence of players dropping divisions as in past years. Early 2000s, blacky were then Div 2 and got an influx of old Vermont guns moving down - end result a 1s and 2s flag and promotion. However some Blackburn players then moved to Forest hill, as well as some Vermont blokes.
This is happening less now - blokes tend to simply pull the pin and not necessarily drop down.

As for juniors if you zone then there will always be exceptions. My neighbours are Vermont - they moved from closer to Vermont’s ground to Blackburn however the suburbs neighbour so they don’t move the kids. Depending on where lines are drawn people with historical and familial connections to clubs could be moved - it just doesn’t work.

Where clubs have 2 sides an age group it can be many factors - the particular influx from Auskick in a given year, school friendships etc. On some occasions a second team comes from bailing out a neighbor club short on numbers. It can differ. Remember a team can only be 24 so some clubs put the hard yards in for a second team so 24-34 don’t have to be shipped off elsewhere…

My young bloke’s age group is full and not one player was recruited by the club. Rather they follow mates from school etc. Another club near to us HAS openly pursued players. Not naming names but sometimes you might soar like an eagle only to end up a turkey…

At the risk of sounding harsh I think nuna and forest hill need to merge stat. So do box hill north and eley park in the ammos - clubs in identical levels of footy 2k apart and struggling for numbers (one of these massively self inflicted!)

 

[localfootylegend23]

At the risk of sounding harsh I think nuna and forest hill need to merge stat. So do box hill north and eley park in the ammos - clubs in identical levels of footy 2k apart and struggling for numbers (one of these massively self inflicted!)

Yep. Times over to be too proud. Pull resources together. But if you dont have a feeder or juniors you are cooked.

 

[Saltness]

Decent points.

It doesn't necessarily have to be the AFL - it could still be an independent board - but I'm convinced things would be far better placed if all the metro leagues merged into a single entity. Doesn't mean they all have to play together, you could still have regional conferences, east - south - north - west or whatever, but the admin and decision making should be centralised and the best thing for all clubs and the game could be prioritised.

These leagues - or the predecessors on which they are based - were set up as country leagues. Go check trove and the results in newspapers from 100 years ago, they were all listed under country football. These suburbs were farms and orchards and they were isolated. Country leagues make sense and still do, in the actual country - they can be independent and control things in their area because they're indepednent across a huge geographic area.

In what is present-day Melbourne, it's just ridiculous. They are all on each other's doorsteps and all see themselves in competition with each other, and it is the root cause of many of the stupid decisions. They spend all their time building and protecting their own empires, and to what end? You go to an EFNL AGM and all the bloody chairman talks about is how we need to get to 50 clubs and if you have junior clubs in other leagues, you need to bring them in. Why? How does it help anyone? The 40 clubs of the EFL from 20 years ago - and the clubs are what is important - are they any better off for this expansion? Has it made their lives better? Of course not.

So we have this stupid situation where clubs like Nunawading and Forest Hill aren't sustainable. Should we have tackled the junior thing and see if there's a way to spread out juniors across clubs? Can't do that, what if kids end up going to another league!? Would the two clubs be better off merging or at least combining for a year or two? Their players and supporters would at least get a full matchday to enjoy. Can't do that, we need 50 clubs! Why? Dunno, we just do.

We have to have Berwick's extra players in this stupid standalone reserves team, that makes life hard for everybody. God forbid they might go and play for Berwick Springs or Clyde, shit.

Decisions need to be made for the good of all clubs and for the game overall, but the decision making lies with this stupid, ancient level of "metro league" that we have in between and that serves nothing but itself.

The AFL is the only body that could perhaps force this kind of change, but they won't - it's too hard. Imagine the pushback from the these self-interested clowns, even if it was promised a new metro board would be independent.

Yep. Times over to be too proud. Pull resources together. But if you dont have a feeder or juniors you are cooked.

The biggest issue is the league’s ridiculous determination to have 50 teams

 

[josha93]

We already have 2 Senior teams in the women's (in different Divisions). It's become farcical. Soon, the big clubs can just play the A team against the B team. At least they are guaranteed a win.

The league has created a monster, and rather than show leadership and clear direction, they are just sitting on their hands, hoping it will fix itself.

I see on Facebook that North Ringwood is advertising a 3rd senior women’s team for this season.

 

[hansie]

I see on Facebook that North Ringwood is advertising a 3rd senior women’s team for this season.

North Ringwood is an interesting one in that their vets are that strong, and bat that deep for quality numbers I reckon they could compete in Div 4! (Speaking from first hand experience of several floggings at their hands)

 

[Fatboy35]

I see on Facebook that North Ringwood is advertising a 3rd senior women’s team for this season.

I think North Ringwood is benefiting from having a large junior program with more than 25 teams over each of the past three seasons. Given that, it doesn’t surprise me that they currently have enough players to field three women’s teams. However, I’m not convinced that this level of participation will be sustainable in the long term.