-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
SFL – MSJFL proposed merger. Has the VAFA been stiffed?
- Thread starter AM
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Thread starter
- #127
Care to expand, 'b'?
THE BEACON
Senior List
I think Bedford is meaning that the clubs have to vote on the merger.
Look at the last line of the article (see below), until then nothing has happened!
Clubs will vote on a merger on November 4.
Look at the last line of the article (see below), until then nothing has happened!
Clubs will vote on a merger on November 4.
- Thread starter
- #130
Yep! There's a way to go even after the vote. However, I think Bedford was responding to my comment that while the proposal has "reached the critical stage the VAFA, which has a clear vested interest in the ultimate outcome, has effectively been dealt out of the process." Note there is no reference to the VAFA in the article.
You can be certain that intense lobbying for the merger vote on November 4 has already begun. This is possibly one of the most important meetings in the MSJFL's history, and the VAFA-as well as AFL Victoria-will be taking a keen interest in the overall result. A positive vote for the merger will be a hammer blow to the VAFA. And the VAFA will find themselves under severe pressure like never before. Disappointing to see that the VAFA has been given virtually no support from AFL Victoria on this issue.
Yeah, what's the deal there. Isn't the VAFA under the AFL Victoria banner as well? Why would they be chosing sides?
Maybe AFL VIC is starting to fall apart, kicked out of the AFL offices and major staff pulling in the pin. I don't think the MSJFL is their biggest worry at the moment.
Rooster1979
Team Captain
I think AFL Victoria see it this way:
MSJFL is going broke and can't run itself, it needs to merge to be more administratively & financially stable. (Or whatever reason it can't run itself)
VAFA is unsuitible because it's too big and covers an area to vast for junior football
SFL is in exactly the same catchment area and would be a perfect fit, similar to the EFL and KJFA merger
What should the MSJFL do if not merge with the SFL, if it collapses, no one is helped
- Thread starter
- #135
There is absolutely no reason why the VAFA couldn’t embrace the MSJFL. For years it practically ran its umpiring element. Selectively drawing junior comps under its umbrella (doesn’t necessarily require full mergers, btw) from around the metro area is something the VAFA should have been involved in many years ago.
At the very least the VAFA deserves to be part of the process here as it has been an enormous friend of the MSJFL over the years and has a vested interest in the outcome.
The mere fact that the AFL Vic CEO attended the recent meeting is indicative of the importance they place on the merger. I wouldn’t say that because Schwabie is off to a coaching role with the AFL means AFL Vic is "starting to fall apart" either. Schwabie seems to change jobs every two of three years.
OK - slap me with a wet fish and call me Clarence but (having now read the Code Report), I am think the following points are relevant.....
* the Terms of reference expressely refer to a review of the MSJFL and SFL, with the aim to make recommendations for stengthening footy in the inner southern region of Melbourne.
* the VAFA expressed, during the course of the consultation, that it had 9 clubs with partner/junior clubs in the MSJFL, and was concerned as to the potential impact on those clubs from any change in governance which may involve integration of the SFL and MSJFL.
* The report concludes that there are significant benefits from one entity representing all parts of football currently under control of the SFL, MSJFL and women's football.
* Every other region of suburban metropolitan Melbourne has a sucessfully integrated senior/junior goernance system, with one entity governing both.
* shared management of the MSJFL with either the DDJFL or the VAFA was considered as an alterntaive to vertical integration with then SFL, but subsequently ruled as a less attractive option.
* the SFL and MSJFL have improved their links enormously through shared administration over the past 3 years
* until recently, the VAFA had not expressed an interest in managing a junior league and whilst having a significant presence in the inner southern region, the demonstrated commitment of the SFL makes it a more logical partner of the MSJFL
Frankly, I think if the VAFA has been stiffed (which I seriously doubt), it happened 3 years ago when AFL Victoria identified both the SFL and MSJFL as needed serious intervention to generate the turn around which appears to have started. Two wrongs somehow seem to have made a right, but I can't see what, if anything the VAFA should have been doing when it has for 100+ years been a senior football competition covering 100's of kms of Melbourne, with U19 and more recently U18 sides coming on board as and when required.
The synergy between the SFL and MSJFL seems logical to me, and frankly the administrative integration of the leagues won't damage the current VAFA senior clubs one iota in my view. It's only administrative, and as for the side issue of umpires, well the VAFA have dozes of old boys clubs whom they should be approaching to see if they can recruit good 16 and 17 year old kids who have umpired junior games of APS/AGSV/ACC schoolboy football and bring them onto the VAFA roster.
* the Terms of reference expressely refer to a review of the MSJFL and SFL, with the aim to make recommendations for stengthening footy in the inner southern region of Melbourne.
* the VAFA expressed, during the course of the consultation, that it had 9 clubs with partner/junior clubs in the MSJFL, and was concerned as to the potential impact on those clubs from any change in governance which may involve integration of the SFL and MSJFL.
* The report concludes that there are significant benefits from one entity representing all parts of football currently under control of the SFL, MSJFL and women's football.
* Every other region of suburban metropolitan Melbourne has a sucessfully integrated senior/junior goernance system, with one entity governing both.
* shared management of the MSJFL with either the DDJFL or the VAFA was considered as an alterntaive to vertical integration with then SFL, but subsequently ruled as a less attractive option.
* the SFL and MSJFL have improved their links enormously through shared administration over the past 3 years
* until recently, the VAFA had not expressed an interest in managing a junior league and whilst having a significant presence in the inner southern region, the demonstrated commitment of the SFL makes it a more logical partner of the MSJFL
Frankly, I think if the VAFA has been stiffed (which I seriously doubt), it happened 3 years ago when AFL Victoria identified both the SFL and MSJFL as needed serious intervention to generate the turn around which appears to have started. Two wrongs somehow seem to have made a right, but I can't see what, if anything the VAFA should have been doing when it has for 100+ years been a senior football competition covering 100's of kms of Melbourne, with U19 and more recently U18 sides coming on board as and when required.
The synergy between the SFL and MSJFL seems logical to me, and frankly the administrative integration of the leagues won't damage the current VAFA senior clubs one iota in my view. It's only administrative, and as for the side issue of umpires, well the VAFA have dozes of old boys clubs whom they should be approaching to see if they can recruit good 16 and 17 year old kids who have umpired junior games of APS/AGSV/ACC schoolboy football and bring them onto the VAFA roster.
The Minder
Debutant
The concern for VAFA Clubs with juniors in MSJFL is if the SFL administration will continue or allow the current Permit or "dual registration" for U17 and U16 players.
I doubt they will and this will cause major problems. I know this year we had 12 lads from our own and 3 other MSJFL clubs dual registered to play in our 18s and 19s.
If the merge goes ahead this issue will need to be dealt with and confirmed by the SFL.
I doubt they will and this will cause major problems. I know this year we had 12 lads from our own and 3 other MSJFL clubs dual registered to play in our 18s and 19s.
If the merge goes ahead this issue will need to be dealt with and confirmed by the SFL.
- Thread starter
- #138
Well, slap me in the moosh with a damp lettuce, your “adieu” was more a “bye for now”. I’m chuffed you’re back. Keep ‘em coming.
There were two questions at the heart of my OP. One was whether the SFL is now a more progressive organisation than the VAFA in the context of the issue under discussion. You’ve acknowledged that by referring to the SFLs improved links - understating a tad however - with the MSJFL and its “demonstrated commitment” to it. That once would have been said of the VAFA.
The second question was whether the VAFA has been sidelined during the most important implementation phase of the process despite it having a clear vested interest in the eventual outcome. I don’t think I’m employing the written version of ‘verballing’ you by suggesting your post pretty much confirms that. In any event, the summary of the report states that the VAFA be merely “periodically updated on the progress of the merge”, so it’s really not a matter for dispute.
One or two things surprised me. The first being your regarding of the matter of the umpires as a “side issue” when in fact it is not only a serious issue generally, but is specifically a practical example of the problems that will flow from the merger in other areas. Your swishing aside of the issues associated with the recruitment and retention of umpires by suggesting we’ll mine the old school network demonstrates a lack of understanding of how hard it is to attract umpires, the parlous state of our ranks - particularly boundary and goal and more particularly the contrast with other leagues with feeder comps - and how vital feeder competitions are to not only attracting them but in their umpiring education and the umpiring experience.
Apparently because the VAFA has hither to been a “senior football competition” there is no need to progress our thinking past that. The mere fact that vertical integration has been seen as the way to go in all other competitions should tell us something about that outdated conservative thinking.
Throw in the fact that a Bentleigh poster in this thread has said that having all their teams playing in one league was a defining factor in their decision to return to the SFL, and Point Cook is actively considering a move back to their local league for the same reason should tell you something. Not to mention the two other district clubs who are reputedly considering the same thing into the future.
Which brings me to the district clubs - the ones most likely to be adversely affected by the proposed merger - and which received no mention in your post. Hmm! Maybe now you’re officially and ‘old boy’ you’ve forgotten your antecedence and district clubs are lesser beings.
I’ve referred to the various possible adverse affects in other posts - as have one or two others - so I won’t repeat them here. However, I’m pleased we appear to agree that the SFL has been the more progressive organisation in recent times. And the VAFA has been sidelined during the most important implementation stage of the merger process. Where we apparently disagree is the significance of what is occurring, both in this case and in other leagues. Time will tell whether the conservative approach is the way to go, or whether the progressive approach is the way forward.
Well, slap me in the moosh with a damp lettuce, your “adieu” was more a “bye for now”. I’m chuffed you’re back. Keep ‘em coming.
There were two questions at the heart of my OP. One was whether the SFL is now a more progressive organisation than the VAFA in the context of the issue under discussion. You’ve acknowledged that by referring to the SFLs improved links - understating a tad however - with the MSJFL and its “demonstrated commitment” to it. That once would have been said of the VAFA.
The second question was whether the VAFA has been sidelined during the most important implementation phase of the process despite it having a clear vested interest in the eventual outcome. I don’t think I’m employing the written version of ‘verballing’ you by suggesting your post pretty much confirms that. In any event, the summary of the report states that the VAFA be merely “periodically updated on the progress of the merge”, so it’s really not a matter for dispute.
One or two things surprised me. The first being your regarding of the matter of the umpires as a “side issue” when in fact it is not only a serious issue generally, but is specifically a practical example of the problems that will flow from the merger in other areas. Your swishing aside of the issues associated with the recruitment and retention of umpires by suggesting we’ll mine the old school network demonstrates a lack of understanding of how hard it is to attract umpires, the parlous state of our ranks - particularly boundary and goal and more particularly the contrast with other leagues with feeder comps - and how vital feeder competitions are to not only attracting them but in their umpiring education and the umpiring experience.
Apparently because the VAFA has hither to been a “senior football competition” there is no need to progress our thinking past that. The mere fact that vertical integration has been seen as the way to go in all other competitions should tell us something about that outdated conservative thinking.
Throw in the fact that a Bentleigh poster in this thread has said that having all their teams playing in one league was a defining factor in their decision to return to the SFL, and Point Cook is actively considering a move back to their local league for the same reason should tell you something. Not to mention the two other district clubs who are reputedly considering the same thing into the future.
Which brings me to the district clubs - the ones most likely to be adversely affected by the proposed merger - and which received no mention in your post. Hmm! Maybe now you’re officially and ‘old boy’ you’ve forgotten your antecedence and district clubs are lesser beings.
I’ve referred to the various possible adverse affects in other posts - as have one or two others - so I won’t repeat them here. However, I’m pleased we appear to agree that the SFL has been the more progressive organisation in recent times. And the VAFA has been sidelined during the most important implementation stage of the merger process. Where we apparently disagree is the significance of what is occurring, both in this case and in other leagues. Time will tell whether the conservative approach is the way to go, or whether the progressive approach is the way forward.
After all, when the merger gets into full gear in later years, how will the standard of VAFA umpiring look in the eyes of neutral umpiring observers, especially when most of the top umpires like Sutcliffe, Eastwood, Holmes, plus the more experienced umpires ie Gibson, McCarthy, Hinton retire in later years? The standard of VAFA umpiring will fall away dramatically in comparision to the early part of last decade, when most observers thought that the VAFA had the best umpires going around outside the AFL and the VFL.
Another thing too, and I've mentioned this before, is that the VAFA should have seen this report coming with some dim views about the VAFA and prepared accordingly. One of those moves could've been the creation of a VAFA Umpires Academy at Sportscover Arena. It helps too, particulary if the VAFAUA start to experience a shortfall of numbers in the three main areas of umpiring-field, boundary, goal, due to the SFL/MSJFL merger, especially in the lower levels of the VAFA, most notably Div 1-Div 4, Under 19 & Club 18. In fact, they should've done this (Umpires Academy) as early as 2002, when there was a lack of umpired in the lower levels of the VAFA, instead of the schools umpires program which the VAFA implemented.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I don't think I'm too hasty in saying that there won't be too many district clubs below C Grade playing in the VAFA in 5 years.
It was of our impression that the VAFA admin want a old boy only program as soon as possible. It will be only the likes of strong district clubs like Ormond, Hampton, Oakleigh & the likes who will be still welcomed into the competition.
Those with small or without a strong junior program or small supporter base will be pushed out by extreme affiliation fee hikes. Just a conspiracy
Rooster 24
Cancelled
- Jul 31, 2009
- 1,507
- 543
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Sniper your comments are generally balanced and insightful but you do seem to carry a fairly large chip about old boys clubs. Take it from someone who has been involved in both that they are really no different to suburban clubs. Of course the bigger school clubs have a strong feeder via their schools but this does not guarantee success. Like every other club they work bloody hard, rely on loyal supporters and volunteers and have to constantly fight off the chequebooks from other suburban leagues. Many of the stereotypes associated with the SFL or indeed your own club are incorrect and are often based on unsubstantiated opinions. Well the same applies here.
Quite a few district clubs are moving towards the top grades. Oakleigh were in D3 a few years back and this year they were on the cusp of B grade finals. Hampton and Beauy are also B grade starters in 2011. And for the first time in recent memory the U19 Premier grade will feature 2 district clubs Fitzroy and Beaumaris. (Werribee were certainties to be in Premier for 2011 but fell in the finals after being unbeaten all year) Throw in a couple of uni teams and the comp it has a new look to it. So not all gloom and doom and while accepting that it is difficult it is not impossible.
You're probably right with everything you said there Rooseter, but I'm tipping a few more exits from clubs from D2-D4, over the next 5 years. If the said merger goes through, the VAFA will be too big to hold every club under it's banner. A few clubs moving on won't affect the VAFA or clubs above C Grade, as they'll put it down to small collateral damage. Now that's a fact
BrianSpeaking
Cancelled
You are the biggest Flog of all time Sniper, you are part of a club that defected from the SFL because it couldn't afford to pay players, paid players whilst you were in the VAFA, then decided that the comp was better than what you thought so you got out and went back to the SFL. You have no credibility.
The VAFA is a great comp and always will be, clubs are falling over themselves to get into our competition.
This whole thread is a wankathon, Fraser is correct in his appraisal of the code report, so go back to the SFL boards and stop running our comp down.
Yeah I'm a flog?? Pot-kettle-black to you sir. Yeah & we paid players....pfft that's why the best players only got haircut vouchers for BOG for the last 5 years. And if you throw up names like Paul Dimattina, Kellaway & Mark Graham, you're horribly misinformed. Don't comment on things you know nothing about.
It's a wankathon in your mind as the merger won't affect those in B Grade so why should you care
- Thread starter
- #146
Ignore B.S, Sniper. We're are all too familiar with him on this board. This topic is waaaay over his head as his meaningless slogans demonstrate. B.S are appropriate initials.
Apart from suggesting that the SFL/MSJFL should merge, did the Code Report say anything in regards to the various country leagues in Victoria (ie Bendigo, Ballarat, Goulburn Valley leagues)?
Value Added
Senior List
There are a handful of district clubs that provide serious competition in the upper grades. There are something like 25 district clubs in the VAFA however and 85% of them will always be cellar dwellers. Probably there are many factors for that but one huge one would be they have no junior teams to get a flow of players from. Elsternwick is a club that springs to mind. A mighty little club that will always sit in one of the bottom grades.
I can't help but feel that if the VAFA had invested more in developing junior grades at least some of these clubs would have had the incentive to put together teams in those grades. As someone said, the VAFA see themselves as a senior competition and that's it. Whereas all other competitions see the benefits of having kids pushing their way up through the junior ranks in an organised integrated way.
Possibly it's because the VAFA sees itself as primarily an old school competition and the school system tends to provide players that it confines its thinking to just running a senior competition. Which it does very well mind you. Possibly short sighted though.
Interesting discussion
No Jason, it didn't. Frankly, I'm surprised you've posted so much here without actually reading it yourself. Hopefully, reading it will address many of the questions you have posed over the past 2 weeks, and also explain why the VAFA wouldn't bother putting it on their website - aside from noting it spoke to Sholly at some point, it has almost nothing to do with the VAFA.
Read it yourself here http://www.sportingpulse.com/assoc_page.cgi?assoc=3909&pID=1
Very narrow brief, focusing on how to improve/strengthen footy in the inner southern region. Interestingly, it mentions nothing whatsoever about umpires.
Field, Boundary or Goal.
Value Added
Senior List
No Jason, it didn't. Frankly, I'm surprised you've posted so much here without actually reading it yourself. Hopefully, reading it will address many of the questions you have posed over the past 2 weeks, and also explain why the VAFA wouldn't bother putting it on their website - aside from noting it spoke to Sholly at some point, it has almost nothing to do with the VAFA.
Read it yourself here http://www.sportingpulse.com/assoc_page.cgi?assoc=3909&pID=1
Very narrow brief, focusing on how to improve/strengthen footy in the inner southern region. Interestingly, it mentions nothing whatsoever about umpires.
Could that be that unlike the VAFA the junior feeder MSJFL/SFL relationship that already exists has ensured there are no problems in that regard?
From the outside it appears that the SFL has played the VAFA on break the way they have had control of the agenda from the get-go.
