Picola & District NW 2018
- Thread starter "The Roar Is Back"
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
- Thread starter
- #252
Not everything is a result of money. Change happens often because people are not happy where they are , or the alternative is a better enviroment, a point you should probably start taking note of and addressing.
On a side note your other attempts of reply were probably better.
Ive heard it all now. I hope u arnt in charge of a club or league because money talks now days in small towns. Picola league is a resemblance of what im saying if u havnt been under a rock all season
- Thread starter
- #254
funny you should mention $$$'s as although hard to actually understand what you were getting at with the below post, I suspect you were saying that a $130k cap would significantly restrict many clubs within the MFL ?
I think you need to stop kidding yourself and thinking people aren't aware that it is $$$'s that is seeing players join your club.
- Thread starter
- #256
I don't agree , if a player is happy he will just refuse any advances.
If he isnt he'll start looking around which is when $$'s plays a part.
wouldIlietoyou
All Australian
- Dec 1, 2009
- 903
- 243
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Wrong mate. I know Deni area and the players really well, been at all three clubs know their situations. First, all three clubs have fantastic people doing a lot of work for their clubs and I do include your committee in that great people. I also personally owe your club for its support for our family so please take what I'm about to say as neutral and my honest observations.
I can say for a fact majority and that's over 90% of players have a reason other than money they look elsewhere.
My take on Rams is this it was known your top players weren't going to travel back you were already losing competitive edge players felt unless the club recruited exceedingly well they'd be facing floggings. Players don't like not being competitive you don't have to win flags but you must be competitive. That's the sole reason behind the Deni Giants basketball side folding they were sick of losing. Now think about the timing of signings those players didn't switch until reasonably late were they waiting to see how Rams went with recruiting first? I'd say yes for the majority of them.
clubs know when players aren't happy and know if a club is losing games players may be unhappy and willing to switch so phone calls start happening. It then becomes a bidding war where money is a factor but some look at how far to travel is a coaching gig attached etc etc. but I reiterate the players are usually not happy for some reason first.
Your problem isn't picola league clubs it's because you fell away competively. If you have salary cap of $130k your MFL clubs are spending more than ours. Worry about your competitors in your league not the club your using as bit of a scapegoat to hide behind.
Blighty spent a lot more money over 16 years ago than they do now is say. You didn't know and didn't feel the effects of that because back then you were extremely competitive .
Also they spend and always have plenty on their facilities for the enjoyment of their members as have rovers and both deserve credit for that.
Last edited:
wouldIlietoyou
All Australian
- Dec 1, 2009
- 903
- 243
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Also dons01 those players would play for your club for nothing I'd imagine if they thought you would be competitive. Those players who went to Blighty aren't going to be the players to make your club competitive on their own. No offence to those players in any way but look what they are up against in the MFL in terms of top line recruits .
That's the big problem you guys face at this time unfortunately. if you don't address that and keep up this sook fest about Blighty things will only get worst.
That's the big problem you guys face at this time unfortunately. if you don't address that and keep up this sook fest about Blighty things will only get worst.
I wonder if they will fit them in under the points system ?
It has been reported in the media in the last couple of days that PDFNL will start on 35 points under the points system to come in next year. Surely this is a mis-print or a joke? Anyone got any info on this?
- Thread starter
- #261
Apparently ability to apply up to 50.
Conmonly used across the system.
Catinpigeons
Draftee
- Oct 8, 2016
- 13
- 0
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Hearing 41 points and ability to apply for more depending on club circumstance? What will the salary cap be set at as I believe the points and cap operate concurrently? What happens if a club has already signed players up and end up committing over what the cap may be? Say approx $85k if it is the same as KDFL? How does a club move forward when they don't know the points nor the cap?
- Thread starter
- #263
Mid to high 30's with option for more has been used often with success across the state , to allow the same impact on all clubs not just those in the more remote communities.
35 points is apparently going to be no issue to those who have had good junior numbers , live near large communities and have regularly played in seinor GF's.
Whilst it would appear the majority of clubs were oppossed to any salary cap far less the KDFNL figure.
Keep in mind many KDFL clubs are within 30 mins to shepp or Bendigo or within 1 1/2 of Melb .
Whilst most if not all are within 2 hours of Melbourne.
Suggest if the AFL try to force a high point figure and/or a salary cap anywhere near equal to the KDFNL , they have a motive to remove remote clubs.
Catinpigeons
Draftee
- Oct 8, 2016
- 13
- 0
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
So at this point do PDFNL clubs ignore any possibility of a salary cap and work on recruiting to around the 35 point mark?? Is there any indication of a timeframe that clubs will know exactly where they stand in regard to both points and cap?
Now that the points system has been adopted by the PDFNL I believe it is important that we all get behind it and make it work. Having said that I think starting off our first year at 35 is a mistake as it will take clubs time to adjust to the admin involved in a such a system ( a number of issues/mistakes have occurred around the state during this year already) . Also clubs who recruited well in 2016 may have to let players go that they may have been able to retain to keep them competitive which would be a shame for those clubs and perhaps counter-intuitive to the purpose of the equalization systems goals. Perhaps a higher figure in the low 40's with a schedule to reduce over the next few seasons could be worth while looking into.
A few questions:
Who sets the base figure, VCFL?
When will that be officially announced?
If it is set at 35 can the PDFNL apply to the VCFL on behalf of all clubs to have that figure lifted for all clubs with the ability for some clubs with special circumstances to apply for even higher?
Is the under 17 sub included in the points?
wouldIlietoyou
All Australian
- Dec 1, 2009
- 903
- 243
- AFL Club
- Carlton
what is the purpose of the equalisation system?
Is that a loaded question?
wouldIlietoyou
All Australian
- Dec 1, 2009
- 903
- 243
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Nah ,I'm interested to hear what you think the purpose of the equalisation measures are?
- Thread starter
- #269
I believe the majority of mistakes around the state were to do with the allocation of a players specific points , that is not going to be eliminated by having a higher cap. I doubt any club will be required to dump any players they recruited in 2016.
Keep in mind all players who were recruited to a club in 2016 and worth 2 or more points and played more than 5 games loose a point for the 2017. Also keep in mind the league option is 35 plus ability to apply for more.
The leagues recommend to the localised working party (lwp) ratification. The lwp's ackowledge that they dont know leagues as well as the leagues exec and their role is to ensure the figure isnt ridiculously high and at the detriment of neighbouring leagues.
PDFNL press release recently announced 35 plus ability to apply for more, it's official and would assume clubs have started making application for more points.
Don't get caught up with the usual by play used to undermine in an attempt to get the league into the hub, which happens every off season.
The PDFNL boards decision is apparently supported by many on the State working party , PDFNL clubs and lwp.
Scaled salary cap is also allegedly being used in some areas.
All players carry points.
The apparent reasoning for 35 being set was that it will allow room for all clubs , and allow for a point variation of up to 15 points with 50 being the localised parties cap. All applications above that have to go to the state wp and aren't really supported.
My understanding is that changes have been flagged for both the salary cap and point system and are yet to be released by afl vic country.
Last edited:
Well my understanding is that the equalisation system has been implemented to help make leagues more equal. By limiting the amount of recruiting movements it takes the pressure of the committees of struggling clubs to keep coming up with greater amounts of cash just to compete. It should promote greater junior retention and force clubs to look to past juniors as possible recruits. IMO Its is important that the system is used to equalize and not used as a handicap system where 1 team is on 35 points and another team down the road is on 50!
So PDFNL have recommended 35 points? That doesnt make any sense! Why would the board recommend that when the leagues around us are on 42 and 43 points and when we recruit it attracts an additional point. During rounds 7 through 12 in 2016 the SE clubs averaged close to 43 points and NW close to 41. Surely common sense would suggest the board would suggest a higher a starting point which could then be reviewed in subsequent years after clubs become familiar with the mechanics of the system.
Purely Hypothetical Example:
15 Locals = 15 points
2 premier league reserves players recruited in 2016 = 4 points
1 premier league senior players recruited in 2016 = 3 points
1 premier league reserves players recruited in 2017 = 3 points
2 premier league senior players recruited in 2017 = 8 points
1 premier league senior premium players recruited in 2017 = 5 points
=38 points
This is just an example I dont think 6 or 7 recruits would be at all unusual to see in most clubs. Do most clubs believe they can field a side with more than 15/22 locals?
- Thread starter
- #272
You also seem to be dismissing the fact clubs can apply for more and also the vast difference between clubs within the league and the need to have variation to cover for that.
Example only , but if a club uses 28 points and another needs 50 to reach the same level, having a cap of 42 entitles some clubs to a level others can't get to due to their varied circumstances. All clubs will go through a time of not having enough 1 point players , that may be due to kids leaving due to school , not enough kids in the area etc etc.
IIRC Mathoura went 5-6 years without 3rds when there was no mention of points system and that age group would be now 27-22 ?? As such they have no "home players" in that age group. Others have gone through times of reduced 3rds numbers also. They simply cant compete with others clubs under a point system on near the same points.
Last edited:
That sounds a lot like a handicapping system not an equalising system.
wouldIlietoyou
All Australian
- Dec 1, 2009
- 903
- 243
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Funny here we are trying to equalise all these leagues and the AFL can't even equalise our Premier league. If that worked properly poor ole Roar's Tigers would have won a final by now
Anyway if the intent is to Equalise then you have to use a handicap system how else do you do it?
On the 35 points that's good base rate far more realistic than what is being used in say MFL. As Roar has said it doesn't mean our strongest clubs will be set at 35 this year it's just a base.
if they don't start sharpening the pencil in other leagues then throw the point system in the bin as it will have no impact. its going to take years and years to be a positive impact for struggling clubs no matter what league as it is. my main concern if the base points stay above 40 and their is a ceiling of say 50 it will actually make things harder for struggling clubs not easier. I'd rather be working hard to raise dollars to pay players and still have a club than have my hands tied behind my back by rules I would be thinking were made to break my club. just my opinion.
wouldIlietoyou
All Australian
- Dec 1, 2009
- 903
- 243
- AFL Club
- Carlton
ok then how do you equalise without having point differences between clubs??
Last edited:
- Status
