SFNL Div 1 2018

[Blood Stained Angels]

What odds would they be to win div 2 next year?

Does this mean City get points from EM after Saturdays game ?

 

[2s Hack]

Does this mean City get points from EM after Saturdays game ?

Afraid not, since they were 46 points

 

[Backyard Bruce]

Afraid not, since they were 46 points

Give them the points. They deserve them more than Cheltenham did !!

 

[Billy the Lid]

Mordialloc v Bentleigh
Despite what I hear is a long injury list the Bloods keep rolling on and with the focus (good and bad) on East Malvern they seem to be flying under the radar. Only poor conversion prevented a very ugly margin last week. Mordialloc by 7 - 8 goals.

St Pauls V Chelsea Heights
Doggies at home to win easily against a brave but undermanned Chelsea, who are feeling the mid-season pinch on injury and unavailability. St Pauls by 50 points.

Port Colts v East Malvern
Port will have a real crack. The don’t die wondering the Colts and will serve it up physically but East a class above and will win easily

St Kilda V Cheltenham
Both teams can be somewhat unpredictable but City clearly the better team and should win comfortably at home. Unbelievably Cheltenham still in touch with the 5 but will be further away after this week. St. Kilda by 5-6 goals.

Oakleigh v Dingley
A real danger game for the Dingoes against a very spirited Districts. Not that long ago I though Districts were good things for relegation but they have shown plenty of late. Dingoes to get them late and win by 2-3 goals.

 

[2s Hack]

 

[Bounceback]

moving to melbourne and looking for a club to play footy, will be living inner city, what clubs would i be looking at??

Old mate, considering you have posted across every high division in every league you have probably missed the big story in ‘Mercenary Monthly’, in regard to player points. Do you rate yourself a 1 to 6? And I’m talking in terms of footy not you appendage.

 

[Burra4life]

View attachment 515810

Anyone go to the league meeting last night, what was the wash-up?

 

[Tigersman]

Anyone go to the league meeting last night, what was the wash-up?

The leagues position is to look forward, no further retrospective penalties.

Two more clubs have been found to have played over points but they lost those games anyway. The league not sure what they’ll do with those two clubs. The clubs were not named.

A couple of surprising points deals were made with clubs that the league has now made public to explain why certain clubs points don’t look right. Those deals will be honoured but players points will be addressed and made what they should be next season.

League looking at how they can take the responsibility for points assessment away from the clubs next year to remove the need for clubs to turn on each other.

 

[2s Hack]

The leagues position is to look forward, no further retrospective penalties.

Two more clubs have been found to have played over points but they lost those games anyway. The league not sure what they’ll do with those two clubs. The clubs were not named.

A couple of surprising points deals were made with clubs that the league has now made public to explain why certain clubs points don’t look right. Those deals will be honoured but players points will be addressed and made what they should be next season.

League looking at how they can take the responsibility for points assessment away from the clubs next year to remove the need for clubs to turn on each other.

So are you saying that those players that have been given dispensation this season, will remain on the same points for 2019?

 

[Tigersman]

So are you saying that those players that have been given dispensation this season, will remain on the same points for 2019?

The way I took it, certain players with dispensation that the league assess to be too generous will not get the one point deduction next year that they would normally.

 

[Dannerz]

The way I took it, certain players with dispensation that the league assess to be too generous will not get the one point deduction next year that they would normally.

That's how I took it as well, but on exposed form the league isn't always great at following through with what they say.

If the league agrees to be transparent going forward in regards to dispensation and deals made with clubs, it will a great step

 

[Burra4life]

The leagues position is to look forward, no further retrospective penalties.

Two more clubs have been found to have played over points but they lost those games anyway. The league not sure what they’ll do with those two clubs. The clubs were not named.

A couple of surprising points deals were made with clubs that the league has now made public to explain why certain clubs points don’t look right. Those deals will be honoured but players points will be addressed and made what they should be next season.

League looking at how they can take the responsibility for points assessment away from the clubs next year to remove the need for clubs to turn on each other.

Cheers Tigersman, care to elaborate on surprising points deals?
Would imagine it would have been a very tense meeting.

 

[Tigersman]

Cheers Tigersman, care to elaborate on surprising points deals?
Would imagine it would have been a very tense meeting.

One was that time in the under 19s counts when discounting a player for service to the club. The league has chosen to do this against afl Vic recommendation.

Another was that Hampton Park have been allowed to recruit any player from the Sefnl and not get the penalty point for recruiting from a premium Comp. The league said they have a history of giving new clubs to the sfnl assistance to ensure success and saw this as no different.

There was others but I can’t remember.

There was some frustration in the room but a couple of club reps spoke towards the end about moving on from all of this and most agreed.

 

[demonstrate]

One was that time in the under 19s counts when discounting a player for service to the club. The league has chosen to do this against afl Vic recommendation.

Another was that Hampton Park have been allowed to recruit any player from the Sefnl and not get the penalty point for recruiting from a premium Comp. The league said they have a history of giving new clubs to the sfnl assistance to ensure success and saw this as no different.

There was others but I can’t remember.

There was some frustration in the room but a couple of club reps spoke towards the end about moving on from all of this and most agreed.

move on or just fed up with sweeping under rugs ?

 

[Burra4life]

One was that time in the under 19s counts when discounting a player for service to the club. The league has chosen to do this against afl Vic recommendation.

Another was that Hampton Park have been allowed to recruit any player from the Sefnl and not get the penalty point for recruiting from a premium Comp. The league said they have a history of giving new clubs to the sfnl assistance to ensure success and saw this as no different.

There was others but I can’t remember.

There was some frustration in the room but a couple of club reps spoke towards the end about moving on from all of this and most agreed.

The Under 19 thing I can kind of understand but the Hampton Park one is hard to fathom. No way they should have been dropped in Div 3 and given points assistance, makes no sense at all.

 

[demonstrate]

The Under 19 thing I can kind of understand but the Hampton Park one is hard to fathom. No way they should have been dropped in Div 3 and given points assistance, makes no sense at all.

It wasn't just about H/P and Tigersman is being a tad reluctant to out the entire story ,maybe the 5th amendment !

 

[Tigersman]

It wasn't just about H/P and Tigersman is being a tad reluctant to out the entire story ,maybe the 5th amendment !

Haha not at all. And no it wasn’t about HP alone.
My club has nothing to hide, in fact we were given a public apology, as I suggested we would in a previous post on here.

 

[demonstrate]

Haha not at all. And no it wasn’t about HP alone.
My club has nothing to hide, in fact we were given a public apology, as I suggested we would in a previous post on here.

Public apology for what ? Or has selective memory loss set in.

 

[Tigersman]

Public apology for what ? Or has selective memory loss set in.

For giving 2 of our players incorrect point values after we submitted them ( and all of our list) for confirmation with the correct value.
Then having their value changed online without any valid explanation, making it look like we had stuffed up.

 

[demonstrate]

For giving 2 of our players incorrect point values after we submitted them ( and all of our list) for confirmation with the correct value.
Then having their value changed online without any valid explanation, making it look like we had stuffed up.

Now I understand,you are suggesting that some of your recruits were re evaluated,after the fact.Strange I dont recall any public apology being forwarded for that.Maybe you could give us all the names of the 2 players you refer and points values both prior/post games 1-7 and we can all turn our attention to the league operations department. Or take the 5th

 

[Tigersman]

Now I understand,you are suggesting that some of your recruits were re evaluated,after the fact.Strange I dont recall any public apology being forwarded for that.Maybe you could give us all the names of the 2 players you refer and points values both prior/post games 1-7 and we can all turn our attention to the league operations department. Or take the 5th

If you were in the room you would have heard it quiet clearly, our points are fine. In fact we should have asked for dispensation going by the numbers discussed last night.

 

[demonstrate]

If you were in the room you would have heard it quiet clearly, our points are fine. In fact we should have asked for dispensation going by the numbers discussed last night.

No Names ?

 

[Dicky Ballsack]

One was that time in the under 19s counts when discounting a player for service to the club. The league has chosen to do this against afl Vic recommendation.

Another was that Hampton Park have been allowed to recruit any player from the Sefnl and not get the penalty point for recruiting from a premium Comp. The league said they have a history of giving new clubs to the sfnl assistance to ensure success and saw this as no different.

There was others but I can’t remember.

There was some frustration in the room but a couple of club reps spoke towards the end about moving on from all of this and most agreed.

Hampton Park were given a point reduction on players recruited from SEFNL because the league imposed a recruiting limit of 1 player per club from any of the Southern clubs.

One was that time in the under 19s counts when discounting a player for service to the club. The league has chosen to do this against afl Vic recommendation.

Another was that Hampton Park have been allowed to recruit any player from the Sefnl and not get the penalty point for recruiting from a premium Comp. The league said they have a history of giving new clubs to the sfnl assistance to ensure success and saw this as no different.

There was others but I can’t remember.

There was some frustration in the room but a couple of club reps spoke towards the end about moving on from all of this and most agreed.

Hampton Park were asked by Southern to sign an MOU on entering the competition restricting them to recruiting no more than 1 player per Southern club which they signed and had no problems with. AFL Vic stepped in and over ruled it as H/P would’ve been the only club in the state to have such a restriction of free trade held over them.
Before it was over ruled by AFL Vic, H/P had no choice to recruit from SEFNL and surrounding leagues, the dispensation is for SEFNL players only and for 1 year only.
The club applied for 2nd division but were thrown in 3rd rightly or wrongly because of poor results over the past 6 years (4 wins).
I was amused to say the least that 20 of the 36 clubs receive dispensation, which include the clubs that were at the forefront of shit canning H/P!!

 

[Tigersman]

Hampton Park were given a point reduction on players recruited from SEFNL because the league imposed a recruiting limit of 1 player per club from any of the Southern clubs.

Hampton Park were asked by Southern to sign an MOU on entering the competition restricting them to recruiting no more than 1 player per Southern club which they signed and had no problems with. AFL Vic stepped in and over ruled it as H/P would’ve been the only club in the state to have such a restriction of free trade held over them.
Before it was over ruled by AFL Vic, H/P had no choice to recruit from SEFNL and surrounding leagues, the dispensation is for SEFNL players only and for 1 year only.
The club applied for 2nd division but were thrown in 3rd rightly or wrongly because of poor results over the past 6 years (4 wins).
I was amused to say the least that 20 of the 36 clubs receive dispensation, which include the clubs that were at the forefront of shit canning H/P!!

Great deal. Good piece of negotiating by HP if they worked their way into that deal.
Can’t believe that head office thought that was a fair deal at the time!


The league also made it clear they have always helped new clubs to the Comp get off to a strong start. This is despite saying the exact opposite when asked about doing deals in past.



I do like the new approach being taken by HQ under the new leadership. Seem much more open and less secretive.

 

[Dicky Ballsack]

Great deal. Good piece of negotiating by HP if they worked their way into that deal.
Can’t believe that head office thought that was a fair deal at the time!


The league also made it clear they have always helped new clubs to the Comp get off to a strong start. This is despite saying the exact opposite when asked about doing deals in past.



I do like the new approach being taken by HQ under the new leadership. Seem much more open and less secretive.

If it had been transparent from the start, we’d be talking about results and upcoming games for a change!