SFL DIV3 2014

Remove this Banner Ad

oldnuts said:
fair result, this whole situation would of been avoided if the boozed up mount supporters kept their distance and weren't encouraged to approach the cpl player leaving the ground. you would think mount would ban these blokes for life and kick them out of the club. my sources gave the indication the the 2's coach was the one doing the encouraging, not surprised really the blokes a flog and a coward.

in regards to the cpl player sniping, seperate incident, hes got his weeks end of story. bit of the pot calling the kettle black from mount pretty sure they have their fair share of snipers.

so thanks to both clubs for wasting the rest of the divisions year really appreciate it. at least there on consitancy..mount lost another gr
anny.
Click to expand...
Spot on Old nuts. the story doing the rounds a few weeks ago at the Presentation night was that the Mt Wav seconds coach told a few of the drunk supporters to go to the CPL race and stir the pot - well done fools...
 
You are right Dannerz, I saw one day his work when he was coaching juniors if it is the same bloke then he is a blight on the game, he has been all over the place, I reckon 5 clubs in past few years.Beena, Skye, Highett maybe the Redlegs??
 

Log in to remove this ad.

tigris said:
In 2007, MWFC were leading BRFC when rule 5.5.1 (head count) was invoked. Under rule 5.5.3 BRFC should have had their score wiped, but the SFL deemed there was confusion. When rule 5.5.1 is invoked, either rule 5.5.3 (score wiped) or 5.5.4 (free kick against and report of captain for delay in game) should be applied, depending on the result of the head count. Neither of these happened, and the SFL decided the AFL ruling not be upheld at this time.

In 2014, MWFC were leading CPLFC when at half time when a brawl not involving MWFC players commenced. SFL decided the match would not continue. AFL rules state that in this situation (Rule 10.6.2c) the match be awarded to the team in front at the time a match is cancelled.

In both these situations, AFL laws were not followed. In both situations, it can be argued it is the fault of the SFL that MWFC did not win.

I don't play at MWFC and am not affiliated with them, but I see no reason why they should stay in the SFL. They clearly have no respect for the AFL rules, and a similar situation of SFL not upholding AFL law is exactly what led to Canterbury leaving the SFL.
Click to expand...

I thought that a match can only be awarded to a team if that match was abandoned after half time.

I think both clubs will be relieved that they got off so lightly.
 
Sounds like mount might be suffering with all the players that have walked out
Beercroft, gough , Stacey same with CPL. Moritz has returned to chelsea heights, Barr on the move Rhett moor to foster along with Trent Downie, McMurray back to keysborough ... List goes on and on
 
oldnuts said:
fair result, this whole situation would of been avoided if the boozed up mount supporters kept their distance and weren't encouraged to approach the cpl player leaving the ground. you would think mount would ban these blokes for life and kick them out of the club. my sources gave the indication the the 2's coach was the one doing the encouraging, not surprised really the blokes a flog and a coward.

in regards to the cpl player sniping, seperate incident, hes got his weeks end of story. bit of the pot calling the kettle black from mount pretty sure they have their fair share of snipers.

so thanks to both clubs for wasting the rest of the divisions year really appreciate it. at least there on consitancy..mount lost another gr
anny.
Click to expand...

Name one 'sniper' that plays for Mount.
 
I don't think anyone would be able to say with a straight face that Mt Wav has as many or similar snipers to CPL.

But they've definitely got their fair share (or more) of blow-hards.

Neither of which is any good for the game. I don't see why it's so hard to let your football do the talking. Sure, a bit of lip to get under the skin is fine, but sometimes you cross the line and can expect (but not deserve) a clip.

Outright violence and stupid verbal abuse has no place in the game and had the league thrown the book a lot earlier with other cases, it probably wouldn't have come to this debacle. The clubs involved should also shoulder the bulk of responsibility, but the league should also have forced them to act.
 
harrylufumbler said:
Sounds like mount might be suffering with all the players that have walked out
Beercroft, gough , Stacey same with CPL. Moritz has returned to chelsea heights, Barr on the move Rhett moor to foster along with Trent Downie, McMurray back to keysborough ... List goes on and on
Click to expand...

You would have to include Lucas in the departures at CPL. Regardless of the coaching situation with a few mates he got down there already going it would be hard to see him staying as well. Especially since they apparently don't pay players surely he ain't playing there for nothing. Strange Moor, Moritz etc are all moving on to chase $$$ when not getting anything this year. If not the case then they have wasted a revenue making year. Just doesn't add up
 
harrylufumbler said:
Sounds like mount might be suffering with all the players that have walked out
Beercroft, gough , Stacey same with CPL. Moritz has returned to chelsea heights, Barr on the move Rhett moor to foster along with Trent Downie, McMurray back to keysborough ... List goes on and on
Click to expand...

Haha where have I gone to mate? Would love to know
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

What is everyone's thoughts on div 3 clubs being asked to pay an extra $550 each for security at 2015 finals after the grand final debacle? My opinion is that the league or the two clubs involved on the day of the grand final should be the ones footing the bill for 2015 not the other clubs in the comp, it's hard enough as it is to raise funds and keep up to speed with overheads let alone having to cough up more money for an incident caused by two clubs and negligence of the league to not have contingencies in place on the day.
 
Dave g said:
What is everyone's thoughts on div 3 clubs being asked to pay an extra $550 each for security at 2015 finals after the grand final debacle? My opinion is that the league or the two clubs involved on the day of the grand final should be the ones footing the bill for 2015 not the other clubs in the comp, it's hard enough as it is to raise funds and keep up to speed with overheads let alone having to cough up more money for an incident caused by two clubs and negligence of the league to not have contingencies in place on the day.
Click to expand...
I think you will find it is all clubs in the sfl not just Divvy 3. On a 10 team comp that's an extra $5500 to spend on Security in each Divisions Finals Series. Should get the job done. Pretty harsh to blame the 2 teams involved. I think everyone agrees it was a handful of drunk supporters. Hopefully next year those drunk supporters are denied entry or evicted.
 
Raging Rhino said:
I think you will find it is all clubs in the sfl not just Divvy 3. On a 10 team comp that's an extra $5500 to spend on Security in each Divisions Finals Series. Should get the job done. Pretty harsh to blame the 2 teams involved. I think everyone agrees it was a handful of drunk supporters. Hopefully next year those drunk supporters are denied entry or evicted.
Click to expand...
Rhino, surely there are better ways to cover the additional security costs such as adding an extra $1 to the entry fee or charging the hosting team an extra few $ as I'm sure they already make quite a good profit? Feel for Hallam etc who are more than likely not going to make the finals and have to cough up more money. What is the 2K from Mt Waverley going towards?
 
Raging Rhino said:
I think you will find it is all clubs in the sfl not just Divvy 3. On a 10 team comp that's an extra $5500 to spend on Security in each Divisions Finals Series. Should get the job done. Pretty harsh to blame the 2 teams involved. I think everyone agrees it was a handful of drunk supporters. Hopefully next year those drunk supporters are denied entry or evicted.
Click to expand...
Have to disagree there sorry, as this would not be an issue if the supporter/members of those clubs acted appropriately on the day! Do you realise how much harder it is to attract sponsors now because of the fall out from that day? And then to be asked to pay another $550 for other clubs indiscretions is messed up.... I think you will find there will be a lot of push back on the league regarding this requested payment, why not at the very least charge an extra 10% on entry to cover that?
 
The SFL must be kidding, they made a tidy sum after Dingley played in finals this year, they are supposed to be a not for profit organisation that reinvests its profits back into the league ie: better conditions ie; security at finals!!!!
 
perspective said:
The SFL must be kidding, they made a tidy sum after Dingley played in finals this year, they are supposed to be a not for profit organisation that reinvests its profits back into the league ie: better conditions ie; security at finals!!!!
Click to expand...
I agree, all clubs should get together on this , the league needs to be transparent on things like security contracts? How do we know that it really costs that much ?
 
They should make it a grand for finals participants and give them back the difference if there are no incidents.

If one club plays up, take their deposit and distribute it back to the other clubs in return for their smaller contribution $200-$300 ish?

It's a bit harsh on the clubs who would never have any problems with their crowds having to stump up cash because some drop kicks in 3rd division can't behave themselves.

Can you imagine East Brighton fans starting a brawl?
 
Da
Dave g said:
I agree, all clubs should get together on this , the league needs to be transparent on things like security contracts? How do we know that it really costs that much ?
Click to expand...
Dave the SFL now have 2 extra clubs in next year which means a net financial positive. The SFL has always managed to make a surplus since Holsworth and Ellis were in charge and they always had police at finals. The extra costs are coming in employment infrastructure and junket overseas. Why could not the CEO spend time with an AFL club for a week? or a sport that is a trend setter that reside at the very least in Australia and possibly Melbourne. It would cost zilch and probably be a whole lot more beneficial and apt. Spend some time with Stewart Fox from Hawthorn for example.. If you take that cost away that would pay for security in 2015...
 
perspective said:
Da

Dave the SFL now have 2 extra clubs in next year which means a net financial positive. The SFL has always managed to make a surplus since Holsworth and Ellis were in charge and they always had police at finals. The extra costs are coming in employment infrastructure and junket overseas. Why could not the CEO spend time with an AFL club for a week? or a sport that is a trend setter that reside at the very least in Australia and possibly Melbourne. It would cost zilch and probably be a whole lot more beneficial and apt. Spend some time with Stewart Fox from Hawthorn for example.. If you take that cost away that would pay for security in 2015...
Click to expand...
Totally agree, i would imagine a research trip to states would be in the vicinity of 10-15k? It was a junket really, only question you may have to ask is who funded the trip? The league? Or afl? Potentially also part of his employment contract. Out of interest, where will the 2k be allocated that Mw have to cough up? For all we know it could be going on the sfl staff Christmas party bar tab!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

SFL DIV3 2014

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top