Dvca - Competition Restructure

[Tongs]

Playing devils advocate here isn't good for our players to try their luck on turf? The more important thing is to get them back once they've had their crack. Maybe is says something about the structure of some clubs with regards to juniors progressing into seniors. Doesn't lovey and his son play at PV rather than plenty?
Edit to add: I don't think PV are adding anything to the DVCA senior competition and could easily be discarded. Their place as progression for players in another comp is warranted though.

The problem is, Plenty Valley are poaching our kids with promises that they know full well they won't keep. They blow smoke up them, telling them how good they are, that they can go on trips overseas and play cricket, that they'll become a superstar cricketer. Reality is, most of the kids are only ok cricketers who have achieved very little in the DVCA and are only even going to be Plenty Valley 4ths, 5ths players and they're simply boosting their numbers (fees) to help pay for their 1st XI.

How many of their first 11 came up through their grades from the DVCA? I'd have a guess at ZERO.

 

[Bundoora]

I just find it interesting that the people that have biggest issue with the decision seem to be those that might now be going down. From an outsider, it appears to be sour grapes.

I think it's a given it's a unique set of circumstances and I'm not sure what other options they had. I think that they've taken the safest route which is to follow the rules as written, can't blame them.

My only issue with the 3 down scenario is we are changing the whole structure of the comp to suit 4 clubs that aren't capable of being part of the best 24 in the DVCA.

Panton Hill have been very good this season while Morang & to a lesser extent Thomastown have struggled in B grade against other clubs 2s. I won't waste my breath on Plenty Valley.

I'm not knocking TU or SM, they as clubs may benefit from being in an "A" grade comp. Hopefully for their sake it's the impotence to take them forward and they don't waste the opportunity they've been given

 

[Tongs]

I think it's a given it's a unique set of circumstances and I'm not sure what other options they had. I think that they've taken the safest route which is to follow the rules as written, can't blame them.

My only issue with the 3 down scenario is we are changing the whole structure of the comp to suit 4 clubs that aren't capable of being part of the best 24 in the DVCA.

Panton Hill have been very good this season while Morang & to a lesser extent Thomastown have struggled in B grade against other clubs 2s. I won't waste my breath on Plenty Valley.

I'm not knocking TU or SM, they as clubs may benefit from being in an "A" grade comp. Hopefully for their sake it's the impotence to take them forward and they don't waste the opportunity they've been given

I talk with many people through out the comp, from players, captains, coaches to committee members, and I honestly have not spoken to anyone who is actually for this new structure being put in place.

So, why on earth is it going ahead? It seems as though no one is happy or wants it, by there isn't anyone willing to stand up and get clubs to band together to knock it back. The only way its going to be rectified is if clubs get their committee's on board and get them talking to other clubs to knock back the proposed changes.

 

[daneswan]

I talk with many people through out the comp, from players, captains, coaches to committee members, and I honestly have not spoken to anyone who is actually for this new structure being put in place.

So, why on earth is it going ahead? It seems as though no one is happy or wants it, by there isn't anyone willing to stand up and get clubs to band together to knock it back. The only way its going to be rectified is if clubs get their committee's on board and get them talking to other clubs to knock back the proposed changes.

Tongs has this been brought up at previous presidents meetings?

I thought changes had to be voted on by clubs just like the proposed North Region merge which was knocked back by clubs.

Personally I think a 12,8,8 system would work better as the draw would not be compromised if they play each other twice in Money & Mash Shields which would mean you would have to play a Sat & Sun game and leave Barclay at an 11 game season as it stands now. The other issue would be the playing dates not matching up to your lower grades where some would be playing a one dayer and other sides playing a 2 day game and you have players unavailable or get injured you may not be able to replace.

 

[Tongs]

Tongs has this been brought up at previous presidents meetings?

I thought changes had to be voted on by clubs just like the proposed North Region merge which was knocked back by clubs.

Personally I think a 12,8,8 system would work better as the draw would not be compromised if they play each other twice in Money & Mash Shields which would mean you would have to play a Sat & Sun game and leave Barclay at an 11 game season as it stands now. The other issue would be the playing dates not matching up to your lower grades where some would be playing a one dayer and other sides playing a 2 day game and you have players unavailable or get injured you may not be able to replace.

Not being a president, I haven't attended one so i can't confirm, but I suggest that it has been discussed at those meetings. I am not sure that there was ever a vote held, I am led to believe it was the Exec that has made the decision on behalf of the clubs for this to go ahead. Which, i might add that this is why we empower the exec, to make calls to best enhance the competition. I just feel that they've got it wrong this time and they should have put the proposal to the clubs to think about, and then vote at a later date.

Whilst there are a couple of different possible solutions - ie Don't change something thats not broken, your suggestion and others. No one seems to be saying "I like it, it will better the competion", all I am hearing from others is negativity towards it. So why are we as players and clubs allowing it to go ahead? Until there is a solution that the clubs (not the exec) agree is the best option moving forward, we should not be making such a dramtic change and we should be staying as is and not accepting worst option available.

Much in the same way the clubs revolted against the comps merging a few years ago, i think this is the only way that this proposal won't go through. But we're cutting it fine.

 

[daneswan]

Not being a president, I haven't attended one so i can't confirm, but I suggest that it has been discussed at those meetings. I am not sure that there was ever a vote held, I am led to believe it was the Exec that has made the decision on behalf of the clubs for this to go ahead. Which, i might add that this is why we empower the exec, to make calls to best enhance the competition. I just feel that they've got it wrong this time and they should have put the proposal to the clubs to think about, and then vote at a later date.

Whilst there are a couple of different possible solutions - ie Don't change something thats not broken, your suggestion and others. No one seems to be saying "I like it, it will better the competion", all I am hearing and others is negativity towards it. So why are we as players and clubs allowing it to go ahead? Until there is a solution that the clubs (not the exec) agree is the best option moving forward, we should not be making such a dramtic change and we should be staying as is and not accepting worst option available.

Much in the same way the clubs revolted against the comps merging a few years ago, i think this is the only way that this proposal won't go through. But we're cutting it fine.

Agree with you 100% tongs

 

[brutal]

Tongs has this been brought up at previous presidents meetings?

I thought changes had to be voted on by clubs just like the proposed North Region merge which was knocked back by clubs.

Personally I think a 12,8,8 system would work better as the draw would not be compromised if they play each other twice in Money & Mash Shields which would mean you would have to play a Sat & Sun game and leave Barclay at an 11 game season as it stands now. The other issue would be the playing dates not matching up to your lower grades where some would be playing a one dayer and other sides playing a 2 day game and you have players unavailable or get injured you may not be able to replace.

At risk of being accused of agreeing to save my clubs own skin, I must agree that a 12-8-8 setup is the preferred option. Easiest way to have a an even draw and screams common sense, which is probably why the exec won't do it. The more I hear and witness these days, convinces me that the hierarchy at the DVCA are an old boys club that simply can't be trusted to do the "right" thing by its member clubs and the comp as a whole.

 

[Tongs]

At risk of being accused of agreeing to save my clubs own skin, I must agree that a 12-8-8 setup is the preferred option. Easiest way to have a an even draw and screams common sense, which is probably why the exec won't do it. The more I hear and witness these days, convinces me that the hierarchy at the DVCA are an old boys club that simply can't be trusted to do the "right" thing by its member clubs and the comp as a whole.

Throw in a few hidden, personal agendas.

 

[Tongs]

At risk of being accused of agreeing to save my clubs own skin, I must agree that a 12-8-8 setup is the preferred option. Easiest way to have a an even draw and screams common sense, which is probably why the exec won't do it. The more I hear and witness these days, convinces me that the hierarchy at the DVCA are an old boys club that simply can't be trusted to do the "right" thing by its member clubs and the comp as a whole.

Haha I only took issue with you not wanting the restructure to go ahead based on this season being compromised.
ie Bundoora United cost you relegation.

 

[Ex Prez]

Not being a president, I haven't attended one so i can't confirm, but I suggest that it has been discussed at those meetings. I am not sure that there was ever a vote held, I am led to believe it was the Exec that has made the decision on behalf of the clubs for this to go ahead. Which, i might add that this is why we empower the exec, to make calls to best enhance the competition. I just feel that they've got it wrong this time and they should have put the proposal to the clubs to think about, and then vote at a later date.

Whilst there are a couple of different possible solutions - ie Don't change something thats not broken, your suggestion and others. No one seems to be saying "I like it, it will better the competion", all I am hearing from others is negativity towards it. So why are we as players and clubs allowing it to go ahead? Until there is a solution that the clubs (not the exec) agree is the best option moving forward, we should not be making such a dramtic change and we should be staying as is and not accepting worst option available.

Much in the same way the clubs revolted against the comps merging a few years ago, i think this is the only way that this proposal won't go through. But we're cutting it fine.

Originally a proposal or set of proposals were put together by the Exec and presented to the clubs.
They then asked for feedback, of which I understand wasnt many that replied... the result was to be voted on at the next AGM.

Exec then decided it would be impossible to gain a consensus at the AGM and so just implemented what they thought best...

I agree that the Exec are empowered to make decisions on behalf of the comp, but this was far too big a change for the clubs not to be involved in.
So what if we had to reconvene for a second or 3rd sitting to reach a consensus...

The current proposed model is a shambles and renders the new comp and draw unfair... teams in Barclay & Money will have to play 3 teams twice...
So for example, how is it fair that teams might draw Creek, Macleod and Lower Eltham, whereas others might draw say Mernda, Plenty & Bundoora twice...?

The only fair and reasonable option is to either leave as 12 teams or go the whole way and go to 8 teams across all grades. yes we will all have to play 1 sunday game, but we play 2 now...

*** My Proposal is to wait another year but 5 go next season and we move to 8 teams.

Only way we can get this changed now is to call an extraordinary general meeting and the clubs have to over rule the Exec...
I can only see that ending in tears, as the exec, if over ruled, would probably chuck in the towel leaving no one to run the comp...

then again the shambles the DVCA are in at the moment, might not be a bad option...

 

[brutal]

Originally a proposal or set of proposals were put together by the Exec and presented to the clubs.
They then asked for feedback, of which I understand wasnt many that replied... the result was to be voted on at the next AGM.

Exec then decided it would be impossible to gain a consensus at the AGM and so just implemented what they thought best...

I agree that the Exec are empowered to make decisions on behalf of the comp, but this was far too big a change for the clubs not to be involved in.
So what if we had to reconvene for a second or 3rd sitting to reach a consensus...

The current proposed model is a shambles and renders the new comp and draw unfair... teams in Barclay & Money will have to play 3 teams twice...
So for example, how is it fair that teams might draw Creek, Macleod and Lower Eltham, whereas others might draw say Mernda, Plenty & Bundoora twice...?

The only fair and reasonable option is to either leave as 12 teams or go the whole way and go to 8 teams across all grades. yes we will all have to play 1 sunday game, but we play 2 now...

*** My Proposal is to wait another year but 5 go next season and we move to 8 teams.

Only way we can get this changed now is to call an extraordinary general meeting and the clubs have to over rule the Exec...
I can only see that ending in tears, as the exec, if over ruled, would probably chuck in the towel leaving no one to run the comp...

then again the shambles the DVCA are in at the moment, might not be a bad option...

What's the go with Laurimar Plenty Valley Yarrambat who the f### gives a rats toss bag Bats? I was told by a member of the exec that they were on notice to be competitive in C grade or they would be cut loose. As they are supposed to be the 8th team in the "Mash" shield and they are obviously not competitive, their future is perilous ( fingers crossed) and would surely make the restructure unworkable anyway. Unless of course they have a bye in the new shield. I suppose my point is that their hand may get forced.

 

[Ex Prez]

m

What's the go with Laurimar Plenty Valley Yarrambat who the f### gives a rats toss bag Bats? I was told by a member of the exec that they were on notice to be competitive in C grade or they would be cut loose. As they are supposed to be the 8th team in the "Mash" shield and they are obviously not competitive, their future is perilous ( fingers crossed) and would surely make the restructure unworkable anyway. Unless of course they have a bye in the new shield. I suppose my point is that their hand may get forced.

My understanding is yes they were on notice and they had to front the DVCA this week...???
Fair chance they will not be part of it next year....
Rumour also has it... one other club on notice to front DVCA too in coming weeks...(regarding behaviour) ... maybe down 2...

 

[brutal]

m


My understanding is yes they were on notice and they had to front the DVCA this week...???
Fair chance they will not be part of it next year....
Rumour also has it... one other club on notice to front DVCA too in coming weeks...(regarding behaviour) ... maybe down 2...

Would other club be situated quite a few K's North up Plenty Rd?

 

[Tongs]

What's the go with Laurimar Plenty Valley Yarrambat who the f### gives a rats toss bag Bats? I was told by a member of the exec that they were on notice to be competitive in C grade or they would be cut loose. As they are supposed to be the 8th team in the "Mash" shield and they are obviously not competitive, their future is perilous ( fingers crossed) and would surely make the restructure unworkable anyway. Unless of course they have a bye in the new shield. I suppose my point is that their hand may get forced.

If you had a bye in the third shield, it would actually work out to a bye in two games, or 3 Saturday's... Then again, if they do play, you're having a bye in two games, or 3 Saturday's anyway.

Gee this comp structure is going to work an absolute treat.

 

[Tongs]

Would other club be situated quite a few K's North up Plenty Rd?

By the 'Sea.....

The behaviour and their supporters has been disgraceful for about 5 years. I bet the Bundoora boys are rapt they dodged a bullet earlier in the year.

 

[Ex Prez]

If you had a bye in the third shield, it would actually work out to a bye in two games, or 3 Saturday's... Then again, if they do play, you're having a bye in two games, or 3 Saturday's anyway.

Gee this comp structure is going to work an absolute treat.

Ok, so how we go about this...? Can we get all the Presidents in one room and discuss pros & cons in a sensible debate before the seasons end...?

Is there enough support out there to do this or is it just keyboard warrior stuff on BC...? Reckon i have heard enough discontent...

Assuming we come to a consensus that the restructure doesnt go ahead until a feasible plan is put forward, the exec will almost certianly spit the dummy and walk... then what...?

What proposals will clubs put forward...?

Not for next year then, but the one after...

* Do we leave Barclay as the premier division of 12 teams, then 8 in every grade below...?
(Means we play at least one Sunday.. but we do now)

* Or or do we bite the bullet and go 8 teams across the board ( as most local comps have down recently) ?
Issue is then we will have BS 8, MS8, MS8, then plus 4 as we do now...playing the 2's sides... which is the real issue...
unless we get rid of the 2 teams as mentioned previously but still leaves 2 in the 4th grade...playing 2's,

* Do we re-visit the NMCA proposal of a few years back...?

* Do we invite new clubs into the DVCA to make up 4 divs of 8...?

 

[Tongs]

Ok, so how we go about this...? Can we get all the Presidents in one room and discuss pros & cons in a sensible debate before the seasons end...?

Is there enough support out there to do this or is it just keyboard warrior stuff on BC...? Reckon i have heard enough discontent...

Assuming we come to a consensus that the restructure doesnt go ahead until a feasible plan is put forward, the exec will almost certianly spit the dummy and walk... then what...?

What proposals will clubs put forward...?

Not for next year then, but the one after...

* Do we leave Barclay as the premier division of 12 teams, then 8 in every grade below...?
(Means we play at least one Sunday.. but we do now)

* Or or do we bite the bullet and go 8 teams across the board ( as most local comps have down recently) ?
Issue is then we will have BS 8, MS8, MS8, then plus 4 as we do now...playing the 2's sides... which is the real issue...
unless we get rid of the 2 teams as mentioned previously but still leaves 2 in the 4th grade...playing 2's,

* Do we re-visit the NMCA proposal of a few years back...?

* Do we invite new clubs into the DVCA to make up 4 divs of 8...?

Firstly, if any of the exec spit the dummy and walk, then so be it. They obviously don't have the best intentions of the WHOLE comp at heart, and good riddance to them. Don't be afraid of them walking, that's just allowing them to hold us at ransom. Losing an exec member who is holding clubs at ransom like that is not a bad thing, but in fact its the best possible outcome.

There is obviously enough support. We just need someone within power at a club to format an email and distribute it to all the other clubs, calling for a meeting. Once this happens, we can nut out everyone's feelings and where best to go moving forward.

As for the proposals, it may be worth mentioning in the email to the clubs asking each member club to nominate TWO proposals that they feel could work. 1 could be to leave as is, and 1 possible change. Or two changes, whatever that club thinks. Then once all the info is collated, another email to clubs advising of all the different nominations and for clubs to take to the committee's and discuss before the whole comp meets. So basically, what should have happened in the first place.

 

[_Blackhawk_]

I don't mind the 8 team grades idea as a batsman, it means more innings per season, but I can't help but think in part everyone is screaming before they're bitten. I do like the idea that 1's teams all play other 1's and it's clear no matter what structure you put in place, there is always going to be some aspect that people don't like about it. Perhaps give it a season and see how it goes.

As for trying to exert control over the DVCA by calling for and holding a special general meeting, I'd bet my last 10 bucks that they'd walk if we did that and frankly, I would too.

 

[lower11]

While I would be inclined to be sympathetic to the dvca exec I am not because it was a terrible decision in the first place, heres a tip next time you plan to restructure the league make sure you get the maths right!! It was an amateur error and I have absolutely no sympathy for them.

 

[_Blackhawk_]

Since there seems to be so much outrage about the restructure with many thinking they can do better, I expect to see a lot of nominations for the executive this coming AGM.