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

Remove this Banner Ad

adock said:
Yeah that would be the 4th coach in 4 years if he is replaced which is never a good look. There isn't much patience around clubs currently regarding their coaches. We have seen the same with The Basin this year and Wantirna South last year replacing the coach but not improving at all.
Click to expand...
I can confirm Justin will remain as coach. As I stated earlier, they win those close games and it's a different story.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

😂 ****in Vermont… w***ers… you can’t make this stuff up

Oh and the Balwyn powerbroker agrees!





Is it time for a marquee player allowance in local football?

In the case of the Eastern league, yes, according to Vermont great Craig Gislingham.

The 10-time premiership Eagle is worried about the standard of Eastern’s Premier division, saying it has declined sharply in the past two years as clubs operate on reduced salary caps.

This year clubs in the top tier of metropolitan leagues can pay $120,000, which is tipped to increase to $125,000 in 2025.

The Eastern, Northern, Southern, Essendon District and Western Region competitions all had their player-payments ceilings set at $100,000 as they came out of Covid in 2021.

Eastern had been at $200,000.

Gislingham said it appeared the EFNL clubs were playing by the rules, but it had affected the quality of a competition once commonly regarded as the strongest in the metropolitan area.


He said the reduction in the cap equated to the loss of three or four top-drawer players for each team.

Gislingham believes clubs should be able to sign marquee players and pay them outside the salary cap.

“I think it would make the league stronger. I think the Eastern league is being left behind by the Essendon league and the Northern league,’’ he said.

“We’ve got to try to get better players into the competition, which other leagues seem to be able to do at the drop of a hat.

“I think a club should be able to go outside and have a look around and bring in someone as a marquee player who gets paid outside the cap. Let the clubs pay whatever they can afford. If you want to go out and get a really good one, go out and do it. If you can pay it, you can pay it. I think it’s a great idea to promote the league and put the league back up there again.’’

Gislingham said he had spoken to Eastern boss Jy Bond about the issue.

He said the subject also came up when he bumped into Balwyn powerbroker Richard Wilson, who has also expressed alarm at the standard of Eastern Premier.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Gislingham believes clubs should be able to sign marquee players and pay them outside the salary cap.

“I think it would make the league stronger. I think the Eastern league is being left behind by the Essendon league and the Northern league,’’ he said.

“We’ve got to try to get better players into the competition, which other leagues seem to be able to do at the drop of a hat.

“I think a club should be able to go outside and have a look around and bring in someone as a marquee player who gets paid outside the cap. Let the clubs pay whatever they can afford.
Click to expand...
Easy to say when you have way more money than everyone else.:think:
 
CliffMcTainshaw said:
Easy to say when you have way more money than everyone else.:think:
Click to expand...
And for years have done deals to get around the salary cap and poached juniors from clubs and claimed them as their own...

Can't stand them and their arrogance. It never ceases to amaze me. Its great to see a level playing field and one not dominated by the same clubs or those trying to keep up by living well beyond their means.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
😂 ****in Vermont… w***ers… you can’t make this stuff up

Oh and the Balwyn powerbroker agrees!





Is it time for a marquee player allowance in local football?

In the case of the Eastern league, yes, according to Vermont great Craig Gislingham.

The 10-time premiership Eagle is worried about the standard of Eastern’s Premier division, saying it has declined sharply in the past two years as clubs operate on reduced salary caps.

This year clubs in the top tier of metropolitan leagues can pay $120,000, which is tipped to increase to $125,000 in 2025.

The Eastern, Northern, Southern, Essendon District and Western Region competitions all had their player-payments ceilings set at $100,000 as they came out of Covid in 2021.

Eastern had been at $200,000.

Gislingham said it appeared the EFNL clubs were playing by the rules, but it had affected the quality of a competition once commonly regarded as the strongest in the metropolitan area.


He said the reduction in the cap equated to the loss of three or four top-drawer players for each team.

Gislingham believes clubs should be able to sign marquee players and pay them outside the salary cap.

“I think it would make the league stronger. I think the Eastern league is being left behind by the Essendon league and the Northern league,’’ he said.

“We’ve got to try to get better players into the competition, which other leagues seem to be able to do at the drop of a hat.

“I think a club should be able to go outside and have a look around and bring in someone as a marquee player who gets paid outside the cap. Let the clubs pay whatever they can afford. If you want to go out and get a really good one, go out and do it. If you can pay it, you can pay it. I think it’s a great idea to promote the league and put the league back up there again.’’

Gislingham said he had spoken to Eastern boss Jy Bond about the issue.

He said the subject also came up when he bumped into Balwyn powerbroker Richard Wilson, who has also expressed alarm at the standard of Eastern Premier.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised Gislingham didnt desribe the EFNL salary cap as 'woke'. IYKYK.

Vermont until 2020 - 90% of our players are homegrown and through our junior program, we don't spend as much money as anyone else because players want to play for Vermont and its all because of the culture of the club.

Vermont now - Why aren't we allowed to buy flags? But we have the money!!!
 
There is a very interesting survey the Whitehorse Council had until Wed on their proposed Gambling Policy.
The outline follows:
We invited feedback on our Draft Gambling Harm Minimisation Policy.
We reviewed our existing policy and proposed changes based on the latest research, evidence and community feedback.
Key proposed changes include:
  • expanding the policy beyond pokie machines to include online gambling and sports betting
  • moving towards a ‘public health approach’ that aims to prevent and reduce gambling harm
  • more education and awareness raising
  • banning Council-run events in gaming venues
  • not funding community groups and organisations that own or operate pokies
  • prohibiting gambling and the promotion of gambling activities at Council-owned or managed land and buildings.
Based on the state average, we estimate more than 97,000 adults in Whitehorse may engage in gambling each year.
Over $153,000 was spent each day on pokies in Whitehorse in the last financial year. This was more than $56 million across the year.

When I filled it in, it all seemed fine. I got to the Section of where they stated that the Council would not accept monetary donations from any business or clubs. That seemed OK to me at that point, but the next Section changed my mind. It stated that any club with gaming machines could directly contribute to the funding for any renovations or new buildings that the club used.

This led to my input to the survey:

Allowing clubs that have gaming machines to contribute towards investment in the redevelopment of buildings they lease from the Council is just another form of accepting financial contributions from the gambling industry. It is a disguise that the council is using to get money from gambling. I understand that Council may see this as a means to reduce their own expenditure and is of benefit to the community. This view is incorrect, it does not benefit the community. The only one to benefit, is the club using money obtained from gambling.

All the other clubs in the competition are put at a disadvantage because they (for whatever reasons) do not have gaming machines and do not contribute to gambling harm. Furthermore, it encourages the club to continue their involvement with gaming machines and allows them to ignore any gambling harm caused by their gaming machines in other suburbs. Neither should the council ignore that harm.

In your Draft Gambling Harm Minimisation Policy you have identified gaming venues within Whitehorse, but you haven't identified any clubs (sporting or otherwise) within Whitehorse that have gaming machines located outside Whitehorse. This is an equally important issue. It's no good minimising gambling harm in Whitehorse at the expense of the harm caused in other suburbs. How many clubs are there and who are they? Everyone in Whitehorse is entitled to know and should be informed.

It would be better to allow donations towards projects that everyone in Whitehorse can access and enjoy rather than allow clubs to contribute towards projects that only their members enjoy.


PS.
I was told a while ago by a Lilydale resident that Vermont has purchased another business in Lilydale. I have no idea if this is true, perhaps someone can confirm or deny the rumour?
 
Last edited:
Bunk Moreland said:
The reduction in cap - $100k - equates to “three or four quality players” according to him.

Good to know their “quality players” are on around $2k per week.
Click to expand...
They don't call him 'Grislingham' for nothing! He was a sook on the field when things went against him and now moaning because his club cannot wrought the system any more.

No surprise his mate at Balwyn thinks the same. Remember when they were accepted into the league and said they would have a strong local junior base.... Another club that has snubbed its nose against the system since they were admitted. Balwyn have provided the league minimal benefit since they started. Its always been all about them too.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

CliffMcTainshaw said:
There is a very interesting survey the Whitehorse Council had until Wed on their proposed Gambling Policy.
The outline follows:
We invited feedback on our Draft Gambling Harm Minimisation Policy.
We reviewed our existing policy and proposed changes based on the latest research, evidence and community feedback.
Key proposed changes include:
  • expanding the policy beyond pokie machines to include online gambling and sports betting
  • moving towards a ‘public health approach’ that aims to prevent and reduce gambling harm
  • more education and awareness raising
  • banning Council-run events in gaming venues
  • not funding community groups and organisations that own or operate pokies
  • prohibiting gambling and the promotion of gambling activities at Council-owned or managed land and buildings.
Based on the state average, we estimate more than 97,000 adults in Whitehorse may engage in gambling each year.
Over $153,000 was spent each day on pokies in Whitehorse in the last financial year. This was more than $56 million across the year.

When I filled it in, it all seemed fine. I got to the Section of where they stated that the Council would not accept monetary donations from any business or clubs. That seemed OK to me at that point, but the next Section changed my mind. It stated that any club could directly contribute to the funding for any renovations or new buildings that the club used.

This led to my input to the survey:

Allowing clubs that have gaming machines to contribute towards investment in the redevelopment of buildings they lease from the Council is just another form of accepting financial contributions from the gambling industry. It is a disguise that the council is using to get money from gambling. I understand that Council may see this as a means to reduce their own expenditure and is of benefit to the community. This view is incorrect, it does not benefit the community. The only one to benefit, is the club using money obtained from gambling.

All the other clubs in the competition are put at a disadvantage because they (for whatever reasons) do not have gaming machines and do not contribute to gambling harm. Furthermore, it encourages the club to continue their involvement with gaming machines and allows them to ignore any gambling harm caused by their gaming machines in other suburbs. Neither should the council ignore that harm.

In your Draft Gambling Harm Minimisation Policy you have identified gaming venues within Whitehorse, but you haven't identified any clubs (sporting or otherwise) within Whitehorse that have gaming machines located outside Whitehorse. This is an equally important issue. It's no good minimising gambling harm in Whitehorse at the expense of the harm caused in other suburbs. How many clubs are there and who are they? Everyone in Whitehorse is entitled to know and should be informed.

It would be better to allow donations towards projects that everyone in Whitehorse can access and enjoy rather than allow clubs to contribute towards projects that only their members enjoy.


PS.
I was told a while ago by a Lilydale resident that Vermont has purchased another business in Lilydale. I have no idea if this is true, perhaps someone can confirm or deny the rumour?
Click to expand...

Yes they own two venues. The other is the Lilydale International, which they bought from Collingwood in 2018 when the Pies did their “we’re exiting pokies” dance that a few AFL clubs have done.
 
Bobby Beecroft said:
Points again. Gets boring after a while.

By now surely it’s acknowledged the teams with higher points tend to be teams struggling?
Therefore reducing points would hurt those that are already struggling and is clearly not the answer.
Click to expand...

Correct lessen the points only strengthens the Vermonts and other clubs that have good junior set ups.
There is no quick fix solution
 
Or scale it inside each division so that the teams that have missed the finals for three seasons get more points than the others in the division.

It works well in the leagues in WA that use it and the Picola league introduced it in the last year or so. Now leagues such as the Ovens & Murray are looking to implement it for next year.
 
I’d hold off on bigger changes. Points and salary cap aren’t perfect but have had / are having the desired effect.

Maybe a few minor changes

I think the total points figure could probably come down a few points. The only clubs that are consistently hitting it are the likes of Doncaster East and Vermont and that’s not because they don’t have juniors, it’s because they buy external players - it’s what the system is designed to limit.

And I think the definition of a home player needs a little tweaking to further discourage junior recruiting. Vermont are the main vultures in this area at around the Under 14/15 mark, and these kids shouldn’t end up 1 pointers for Vermont when they hit 18yo. I’m not sure of the exact solution - perhaps it’s as simple as the first club you qualify for (three seasons / 40 games) is the only one you’re a home player for.

It’s unfortunate that’s required but that’s what happens when you have a Vermont constantly recruiting junior players.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
And I think the definition of a home player needs a little tweaking to further discourage junior recruiting. Vermont are the main vultures in this area at around the Under 14/15 mark, and these kids shouldn’t end up 1 pointers for Vermont when they hit 18yo. I’m not sure of the exact solution - perhaps it’s as simple as the first club you qualify for (three seasons / 40 games) is the only one you’re a home player for.

It’s unfortunate that’s required but that’s what happens when you have a Vermont constantly recruiting junior players.
Click to expand...
Obviously Vermont have earned the reputation but I'd be surprised if any of the other 5 teams in the top 6 of u17.5 A Grade weren't also doing it. It's a plague and it's not restricted to footy either, have heard rumours around local cricket where 15/16yos are receiving unsolicited messages from other clubs trying to recruit them.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
I’d hold off on bigger changes. Points and salary cap aren’t perfect but have had / are having the desired effect.

Maybe a few minor changes

I think the total points figure could probably come down a few points. The only clubs that are consistently hitting it are the likes of Doncaster East and Vermont and that’s not because they don’t have juniors, it’s because they buy external players - it’s what the system is designed to limit.

And I think the definition of a home player needs a little tweaking to further discourage junior recruiting. Vermont are the main vultures in this area at around the Under 14/15 mark, and these kids shouldn’t end up 1 pointers for Vermont when they hit 18yo. I’m not sure of the exact solution - perhaps it’s as simple as the first club you qualify for (three seasons / 40 games) is the only one you’re a home player for.

It’s unfortunate that’s required but that’s what happens when you have a Vermont constantly recruiting junior players.
Click to expand...
Baffles me when some are suggesting radical change.

The current situation is having the desired effect, especially in premier. You have an even competition where only two sides are non-competitive due to certain circumstances. There's no runaway leader and you have a range of teams that can win a flag (all of the top 5 have claims) and not just the same usual suspects.
 
Last edited:
Some strange times in Premier Div. Noble Park clearly struggling for numbers, put 18 players (incl retired blokes) out in the reserves.

They knock over Norwood’s 16 players 35.16.226 to 0.1.1.

Noble only win the seniors by 109 points.

40 player points vs 37 points suggests there’s not much home growing going on.

It’s hard to believe some of these “Premier Division” clubs are unable to attract decent numbers.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Some strange times in Premier Div. Noble Park clearly struggling for numbers, put 18 players (incl retired blokes) out in the reserves.

They knock over Norwood’s 16 players 35.16.226 to 0.1.1.

Noble only win the seniors by 109 points.

40 player points vs 37 points suggests there’s not much home growing going on.

It’s hard to believe some of these “Premier Division” clubs are unable to attract decent numbers.
Click to expand...

As I have said previously there are many clubs across the league that are really struggling. I hope the league are aware of this as I could envisage a couple of them disappearing.

Unfortunately the gloss of playing in the EFNL has really worn off at Noble and with the improved standard of football in Southern now attractive to local players due to less travel combined with changing demographics in the area I can see challenging times ahead for the club. The days are well gone of being able to buy your way out of trouble as has been done in the past.

As for Norwood, they are in big trouble. Money has run out, the reliance on imports has gone and no juniors coming through. They are lucky Berwick are in the same situation as it is still a possibility they may not be relegated. Was always surprised they have lasted this long in the top division.
 
Last edited:
We on here certainly give local government a fair kicking for their ineptness, lack of transparency and accomodating the woke brigade whilst not delivering the core services. This one takes the cake. Knox Council used to be so good in the sports, parks and open space field but now they are inept. Look at the debacle with the new pavilion for Boronia FNC and now letting The Basin FNC know their ground is closed at 4.47pm on Friday prior to their home game is nothing short of s a disgrace. This is a Council that spent a heap of donated money on the oval and now doesn’t maintain it properly.

Where is their accountability….

The Basin Football & Netball Club

To all TBFNC members, sponsors, supporters and community. Today at 4:47pm we received an email from council confirming the closure of Batterham #1 oval ahead of our 3 scheduled games tomorrow. This...
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
 
Local councils do what they want, when they want, often without even conferring with the councillors themselves.

The only accountability is at elections. Local sport is totally disorganised, it’s a huge voting base but is not organised with campaigns and voting for the right person. It’s all run by volunteers who have enough on their hands.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Similar threads

Bunk Moreland
2025 player moves - ins and outs
11 12 13 14 15
Replies
364
Views
27K
champp53
C

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top