Dvca, Nmca And Hdca To Merge

[draught]

What you are saying is you cant have anyone from either competitions committees being directly involved with helping formulate ideas to create the NCA. Maybe CV should just take over and create it without anyone from the 3 comps controlling the process. Imagine the uproar if that happened. I understand this is an unusual position the comps find themselves in but surely the people who run the 3 comps know what is needed to develop this idea. If there are any ideas about a better way of doing it lets hear them.

Firstly we need to stop bringing CV into this topic as they have absolutely no interest in this and are not behind any of this.
secondly the whole process has been a shambles,when our clubs were told that a sub committee would look at the viability of the NCL and report back to our clubs thats what should of happen,but it hasnt and the clubs and the DVCA brand have been treated with absolutely no respect by our leaders, we were told a subcommittee would be set up to report back next thing there are announcements made of an in principle agreement to merge, websites being created, and a meeting held with 60 clubs to present the idea, not one meeting held by the dvca executive with our clubs and the opportunity to express clubs want and desires for our competition! I'm not saying the dvca shouldnt have people involved( hence why a subcommittee was formed) but i think the president of our comp shouldnt be that person as he needs to represent what the clubs in our competition want not what he wants! thats the role of an elected president isnt it? while a sub committee is there to explore ideas and report back? unfortunately the report back part of the idea failed to happen and now we are in the position that we are where we a questioning peoples motives and responsibilities to the organisations there representing!

 

[Goliath]

If the HDCA and NMCA are represented by their Presidents and general managers for juniors and seniors on this committee I'm sure the DVCA would want theirs too. The argument that people on the committee are in favor of the proposal is probably true.If you wanted to start a league would you put people on it who weren't in favor of it. How much time and effort would you put into something if your against it. The answer is minimum if not any. Thats probably why the people on it are in favor or at least willing to see what the advantages are so even though to some it may seem unfair its the best way of it working. Do you agree with that.

 

[draught]

If the HDCA and NMCA are represented by their Presidents and general managers for juniors and seniors on this committee I'm sure the DVCA would want theirs too. The argument that people on the committee are in favor of the proposal is probably true.If you wanted to start a league would you put people on it who weren't in favor of it. How much time and effort would you put into something if your against it. The answer is minimum if not any. Thats probably why the people on it are in favor or at least willing to see what the advantages are so even though to some it may seem unfair its the best way of it working. Do you agree with that.

Agree with you in principle, what i don't agree with is the way its been handled and the complete lack of respect and communication with clubs in the dvca to see what there positions are as there the ones this affects, lets look from the other two comps view, hdca is a dying comp with 10 clubs( correct me if im wrong) they have no alternative but to look at a merger or new comp, while the nmca is made up of clubs with predominately 3 teams per club(seniors im talking) and dwindling umpire numbers, the dvca is the strongest comp and its in there interest to look to us. i just dont think we need to dilute our resources and umpire numbers to enter into a comp that hasnt provided us with any positives or benefits, more numbers dosent mean better cricket or better finances or better juniors, things that benefit comps comes from within each individual club and the amount of people in those clubs prepared and determine enough to get of their bums and put in the work to make there clubs successful, not by the number of flags won or first class cricketers produced but by the amount of people, playing and non playing that are involved in each club. clubs are local community enviroments where people enjoy being around, their there so people can mingle , enjoy each others company, its there for networking , to get kids involed in an enviroment that is constructive and positive and where you can take the family for a enjoyable time in a friendly atmosphere, that is the purpose of all sporting and community groups, i may have got a little of my point here but i think they the NCL committee hasnt given a compelling enough presentation as to why the DVCA CLUBS should risk there already and still very very successful and well run competition for two competitions that arent in as good as shape as ours!

 

[Bundoora]

From the above posts, it is universally agreed that the DVCA is in great shape and does not need fixing/improving etc..... I would say the reason the comp is in great shape is because Tool, Mick Atkins (mashy before him) and Marlwood have and are doing a very good job representing our clubs, as are the rest of the executive, as we elected them to do. Think some people are going overboard calling for sackings & resignations, clubs get there opportunity for that at the AGM, if they feel the need.
As for people suggesting that some of the executive are not on the same page, i only see that as a good thing as i'd much rather be represented by people with stong opinions who are prepared to voice them, remembering that any major decisions will be ultimately be made by the clubs

We are not being forced into anything, but if these people think this is a viable option going forward, i think as a representative of my club, i am duty bound to at least listen.....

For what it's worth, I thought the junior presentation was informative and quite well presented, the senior "presentation" for want of a better word, was less than impressive (i'm trying to be nice). It was dissapointing cos i'm of the understanding that they are reasonably well advanced, this was not the impression anyone would have walked away with from the meeting...

 

[Riverside Legend]

I'm Out

 

[Dean3]

Firstly we need to stop bringing CV into this topic as they have absolutely no interest in this and are not behind any of this.

Not sure that this is entirely true, especially on the junior side of things. It is undeniable that CV have decided to restructure the pathway program in the north (ie merge the Northern and North-East regions) and this impacts on the 3 comps in question. Thus, CV have identified that the pathway teams emanating from this area have been under-competitive in recent years. Whether people like it or not, that does have implications for the junior structure in the area, and therefore may have "flow-on" effects into senior ranks. That's arguable of course. But, it is a slight misrepresentation of the facts to say the CV "have absolutely no interest" in this. Clearly they are interested enough to make a change to the structure of junior pathway cricket in the area.

 

[YouKnowNothing]

Not sure that this is entirely true, especially on the junior side of things. It is undeniable that CV have decided to restructure the pathway program in the north (ie merge the Northern and North-East regions) and this impacts on the 3 comps in question. Thus, CV have identified that the pathway teams emanating from this area have been under-competitive in recent years. Whether people like it or not, that does have implications for the junior structure in the area, and therefore may have "flow-on" effects into senior ranks. That's arguable of course. But, it is a slight misrepresentation of the facts to say the CV "have absolutely no interest" in this. Clearly they are interested enough to make a change to the structure of junior pathway cricket in the area.

Pretty sure that David Hall from CV was at the NCL meeting. If they "have absolutely no interest" then why would he be there????

 

[moneybank]

Some points:
- The most influential clubs in the three competitions all want this to happen
- HDCA is hardly knocking on death’s door, but due to geographical constraints see’s no other option than to push for a large scale North suburban competition. Unlike DVCA, can’t just keep expanding northwards with the housing developments
- The standard, and number, of HDCA grounds is greater than DVCA
- NMCA is a bit of a basket case, but their top few clubs would always compete strongly at DVCA or HDCA level.
I think we’ll see six DVCA, and three each from HDCA and NMCA in the top flight during season one and then North/South groupings below that with a relegation and promotion system in place.
Clubs will also find it easier to keep young players, because once a season they can look forward to playing at Brunswick St Oval and only being a $3 cab from dirty Perse.

 

[100% BULL]

Some points:
- The most influential clubs in the three competitions all want this to happen
- HDCA is hardly knocking on death’s door, but due to geographical constraints see’s no other option than to push for a large scale North suburban competition. Unlike DVCA, can’t just keep expanding northwards with the housing developments
- The standard, and number, of HDCA grounds is greater than DVCA
- NMCA is a bit of a basket case, but their top few clubs would always compete strongly at DVCA or HDCA level.
I think we’ll see six DVCA, and three each from HDCA and NMCA in the top flight during season one and then North/South groupings below that with a relegation and promotion system in place.
Clubs will also find it easier to keep young players, because once a season they can look forward to playing at Brunswick St Oval and only being a $3 cab from dirty Perse.

I would have thought that Bundoora would be considered influential but to my limited knowledge doesnt want this to happen. From what I read Riverside, Plenty, Mont are all against it, dont get more influential than Riverside or Plenty. Think you may mean the most infuential clubs in the other two comps.

Sounds like you are a happy HDCA player, hope you remain that way.

 

[moneybank]

I would have thought that Bundoora would be considered influential but to my limited knowledge doesnt want this to happen. From what I read Riverside, Plenty, Mont are all against it, dont get more influential than Riverside or Plenty. Think you may mean the most infuential clubs in the other two comps.

Sounds like you are a happy HDCA player, hope you remain that way.

I have been told that Bundoora and Plenty are supportive of the move for a NCL. This doesn't necessarily mean I was being told the truth, though.

 

[100% BULL]

I have been told that Bundoora and Plenty are supportive of the move for a NCL. This doesn't necessarily mean I was being told the truth, though.

Doubt it in regard to the Bulls. Plenty are co-hosting a meeting of clubs with Mont to discuss super league, so doubt they are supportive either.

 

[jikaone]

just want to play local park cricket get over yorselfs who wants to go from preston to yarrambat or brunswick street give it a break

 

[Bundoora]

I have been told that Bundoora and Plenty are supportive of the move for a NCL. This doesn't necessarily mean I was being told the truth, though.

I obviously can't speak for Plenty, but can say that at this stage as a club, Bundoora are certainly not supportive of any move from the DVCA. What our club is supportive of, is taking on board all relevant information and letting our members decide the future of our club if and when a decision needs to be made.

Supporting the right of the dvca executive in being part of the establishment of the NCL and making any sort of commitment towards the NCL are 2 entirely different things.

 

[Centre to Leg]

From the above posts, it is universally agreed that the DVCA is in great shape and does not need fixing/improving etc..... I would say the reason the comp is in great shape is because Tool, Mick Atkins (mashy before him) and Marlwood have and are doing a very good job representing our clubs, as are the rest of the executive, as we elected them to do. Think some people are going overboard calling for sackings & resignations, clubs get there opportunity for that at the AGM, if they feel the need.

To say that 60 plus years of Diamond Valley Cricket can be attributed to the current & recent executive is a bit much....
The current DVCA representatives they have served out comp well, up until this point.
The process of this whole Merge has been handled poorly without the DVCA clubs input or consultation. The clubs were always promised that they would be consulted before any action was taken in relation to a merge. This did not take place.
I understand Bundoora's reaction to stick up for one of their own but this is not about personalities or loyalties, this about the DVCA being dissolved to nothing.
So all the DVCA rule change proposals and voted decisions ever made by clubs up until this date has structured & formulated our great healthy competition. This is why our DVCA is so important to keep, controlled by the DVCA clubs.
Yes, this topic is emotional and so it should be, are we all willing to risk the integrity of the DVCA and its current clubs associated in it for some Melting Pot Competition called the NCL.
The DVCA clubs will lose all that has been built by their current & previous club committees on an idea that has not even been properly formulated, voted upon by its members or even proven successful.
Seeing that everyone on this forum seems to be quoting NCL Representatives perhaps I will share this comment provided to me by a NCL representative...."smaller clubs would need to Merge under this newly merged comp".
This would make sense, from what I am told, club restrictions would be eventually formulated by the NCL to put pressure on smaller clubs or clubs with minimal juniors to Merge.

So at the DVCA AGM, are the clubs voting for DVCA executive positions or NCL executive positions?
Surely everyone can see that their is a blatent conflict of interest here.

But I am in agreement, that each clubs members should be consulted by their club committee on the minimal information we have received thus far and should fomulate a clubs position on this merged comp called the NCL.

NCL = No Close Locations.

 

[Bundoora]

To say that 60 plus years of Diamond Valley Cricket can be attributed to the current & recent executive is a bit much....
The current DVCA representatives they have served out comp well, up until this point.
The process of this whole Merge has been handled poorly without the DVCA clubs input or consultation. The clubs were always promised that they would be consulted before any action was taken in relation to a merge. This did not take place.
I understand Bundoora's reaction to stick up for one of their own but this is not about personalities or loyalties, this about the DVCA being dissolved to nothing.
So all the DVCA rule change proposals and voted decisions ever made by clubs up until this date has structured & formulated our great healthy competition. This is why our DVCA is so important to keep, controlled by the DVCA clubs.
Yes, this topic is emotional and so it should be, are we all willing to risk the integrity of the DVCA and its current clubs associated in it for some Melting Pot Competition called the NCL.
The DVCA clubs will lose all that has been built by their current & previous club committees on an idea that has not even been properly formulated, voted upon by its members or even proven successful.
Seeing that everyone on this forum seems to be quoting NCL Representatives perhaps I will share this comment provided to me by a NCL representative...."smaller clubs would need to Merge under this newly merged comp".
This would make sense, from what I am told, club restrictions would be eventually formulated by the NCL to put pressure on smaller clubs or clubs with minimal juniors to Merge.

So at the DVCA AGM, are the clubs voting for DVCA executive positions or NCL executive positions?
Surely everyone can see that their is a blatent conflict of interest here.

But I am in agreement, that each clubs members should be consulted by their club committee on the minimal information we have received thus far and should fomulate a clubs position on this merged comp called the NCL.

NCL = No Close Locations.

I think you're using a little creative license to suggest i said the state of the comp as it stands is due to the current executive
I am certainly not trying to devalue the contribution by previous executive members of the DVCA since it's inception, the current group have obviously picked up where previous administrations left off.

You keep using the word merge, as have others, surely everybody realises this a new competition which will be run seperately from HDCA, DVCA & NMCA should some or all of the respective clubs decide to stay where they are.
If 12 clubs decide to leave the dvca, regardless of which 12, a new executive will be voted in by the 14 clubs that remain. ( from memory we have 26 clubs? ) It's pretty simple i would have thought.

Obviously if all clubs decide to stay in there current comps, the NCL will be disbandoned before it begins ( i can hear the cheering now! )

As for sticking up for one of my own, i don't hide from the fact that Tool is a friend, former team mate and currently the best batsman Riverside have on the books, but can honestly say this has nothing to do with personalites. If for example, Joe Fleming had been president od the DVCA, i'd still take the same stand that as an elected body, they have the right to represent ALL clubs, some who may see this as a viable option. I am of the opinion that they have a greater understanding of the big picture than i do as i'm only interested in things that benefit or hinder my club, and i would think most clubs would be no different. The DVCA will not be disolved to "nothing" as you suggest above, unless clubs choose to leave. The DVCA is not changing, unless the clubs choose to change. The clubs still have all the powers it had last season, it votes on RCP, it votes on what balls we use and will also vote in an elected executive committe every season. If as you say that the majority of clubs think any nominated person has a conflict of interest, you are not required to vote for them.

Brad

 

[Centre to Leg]

Obviously if all clubs decide to stay in there current comps, the NCL will be disbandoned before it begins ( i can hear the cheering now! )

Perhaps if clubs knew that a few of the elected DVCA executives were going to form a new committee called the NCL and not give the DV clubs or the remaining DVCA executive a vote prior to reaching this point those certain few may never have been elected in the first place.

Also according to article in the DV Leader this week on the NCL, they also used the word "Merge" to explain how three different comps were merging to form the new NCL.

And if this is not a merge as you say but a newly formed league called the NCL, surely Tool, Marlwood and Atkins no longer represent the clubs in the DVCA or the remaining DVCA executive and should immediately stand down.

It would be like Eddie Maguire forming a new Football Club in the AFL and trying to entice his Collingwood players to play for this new club, but at the same time, still holding the Presidency of the Pies. Wouldnt happen, would it.

If Joe Fleming was leading this DVCA push to the NCL I would be equally critical of how poorly this has been handled thus far.

Also a few slides with Graphs about what other Cricket comps in Victoria currently offer is not what I would call an impressive presentation, but everyone has an their own opinion which makes this forum so good.

 

[CowCorner]

surely Tool, Marlwood and Atkins no longer represent the clubs in the DVCA or the remaining DVCA executive and should immediately stand down

Are the two that receive PAY for there job still receiving it?

 

[Goliath]

Perhaps if clubs knew that a few of the elected DVCA executives were going to form a new committee called the NCL and not give the DV clubs or the remaining DVCA executive a vote prior to reaching this point those certain few may never have been elected in the first place.

Also according to article in the DV Leader this week on the NCL, they also used the word "Merge" to explain how three different comps were merging to form the new NCL.

And if this is not a merge as you say but a newly formed league called the NCL, surely Tool, Marlwood and Atkins no longer represent the clubs in the DVCA or the remaining DVCA executive and should immediately stand down.

It would be like Eddie Maguire forming a new Football Club in the AFL and trying to entice his Collingwood players to play for this new club, but at the same time, still holding the Presidency of the Pies. Wouldnt happen, would it.

If Joe Fleming was leading this DVCA push to the NCL I would be equally critical of how poorly this has been handled thus far.

Also a few slides with Graphs about what other Cricket comps in Victoria currently offer is not what I would call an impressive presentation, but everyone has an their own opinion which makes this forum so good.

Depends how you look at it.It could be more like Ross Oakley forming a new football league with more clubs involved in it from a larger geographical area when he was VFL boss.

 

[TheGreatApe]

Depends how you look at it.It could be more like Ross Oakley forming a new football league with more clubs involved in it from a larger geographical area when he was VFL boss.

Finally some commonsense and logic. Well done Goliath.

Any truth to the rumor that clubs meeting Tuesday to oppose NCL. My mail is that some DVCA clubs are for the new competition.

 

[gnippe]

My mail is that some DVCA clubs are for the new competition.

Which clubs, I'd be interested to know?