General Chat 12/13

Top Contributors
Mmmmm, interesting article Rat. I see they mention affiliation fees as one of their reasons. What are the fees going to be this season. Perhaps the VTCA could reduce them given they have over $140,000 of CLUBS MONEY in the bank??? I will certianly be looking forward to reviewing their financials this season!!!

I am particulary keen to know who at the VTCA is getting paid and how much.

I also found this article online;

http://www.caseyweekly.com.au/story/1545481/ddca-parkdale-makes-a-pitch-for-slot/

While I know it's old news, Parkdale too sight increased costs for a reason to move. I particluarly liked reading about the fact the VTCA are FORCING clubs to buy new covers - a stupid rule which should never have gotten through. I know my club will not be buying new covers just because a few "out of touch" VTCA exec members reckon it's going to get more cricket on the park. I already know our council is against it so I am keen to see how the VT are going to enfore it when Council (who own the grounds) will not allow it!
 
southern sledge said:
The reporter should check his facts before he writes bullshit and maybe lifemember your club would go better in the MCA
Click to expand...
What part of the article is not right Sledge?

Also before you knock my club and the MCA, you might want to ask your Club where their teams will be this season as from what I hear, they will be entering one team in the MCA and also had talks with the DDCA toward the end of last season!

And lastly, from what I see, there are more South based clubs looking to join the MCA than the VTCA, all beit in lower grades.
 
DDCA is just as much crap as the story. The reporter did no research at all. MCA one dayers is only an option if the far superior VT one day comp doesn't get up.
 
lifemember said:
Mmmmm, interesting article Rat. I see they mention affiliation fees as one of their reasons. What are the fees going to be this season. Perhaps the VTCA could reduce them given they have over $140,000 of CLUBS MONEY in the bank??? I will certianly be looking forward to reviewing their financials this season!!!!
Click to expand...

Not that I’m against reducing affiliation fees, but I would be more in favour of giving a dividend to those clubs who have contributed to the increase in the bank account over, say the past 10 years. At the moment you will have some new clubs (including I think one new one this year) who would benefit from the reduction in fees. A dividend payment total of – let’s say - $50,000. Over 10 years there have been (to pluck an approximate number) 2000 teams from clubs that remain in the VTCA, during that time club xyz had 40 teams (1/50th of the total). Therefore they get a cheque for $1000.

And if continued operating surpluses suggest that a drop in affiliation fees could be introduced, then go for it.

They must be managing it well to continually have that sort of increase in cash, and there is every reason to think that it would continue in the future. I don’t think it makes great sense to keep charging clubs an amount for affiliation and then at the same time keep making massive profits
 
southern sledge said:
DDCA is just as much crap as the story. The reporter did no research at all. MCA one dayers is only an option if the far superior VT one day comp doesn't get up.
Click to expand...
Sledge – any idea what might happen with the Sunday comp? There were only 4 south sides in it last year, and now Dingley have left, I don’t know what they would do with their Sunday team
It is a massive part of our club, so we are really keen to see what develops with that grade
 
From what I hear Rat, Sunday comp (in the south) is gone as is the South Under 17 comp - both are a shame and I understand that it's not the VT's fault.

I also like the idea of a dividend as it would help clubs, especially those who have supported the VT over a long period of time. I know they floated the idea of helping clubs buy new covers - beacuse of this STUPID rule they bought in, but how is that fair to clubs who have been in the VTCA for more than 20 years versus those who have been in 20 minutes?
 
Trying to get the Sunday comp up Rat.
$500 of the new covers will be subsidised by the Vt and their is a big review in to the affiliation fees. People flying off on here with no knowledge of whats going on is the frustrating bit. One thing is for sure and that is that the standard of cricket is very strong at the top, but the top teams in South in the last few years have adapted well in the top grade
 
Tell me Sledge, if this covers rule does happen, and I am still not convinced it will becasue of Council restrictions, will clubs be allowed to buy new covers from wherever they like or will the subsidy only come to those clubs who by the covers through the VTCA? Because if the you have to buy through the VTCA it all smells a bit like the Primary Edge (who buy the way went of business with their clothing!) deal to me.

Also, what about clubs who bought new covers recently and now have to buy more? I'm not sure the cricket union would like to hear clubs are being forced in to buying additional covers.
 
lifemember said:
Tell me Sledge, if this covers rule does happen, and I am still not convinced it will becasue of Council restrictions, will clubs be allowed to buy new covers from wherever they like or will the subsidy only come to those clubs who by the covers through the VTCA? Because if the you have to buy through the VTCA it all smells a bit like the Primary Edge (who buy the way went of business with their clothing!) deal to me.

Also, what about clubs who bought new covers recently and now have to buy more? I'm not sure the cricket union would like to hear clubs are being forced in to buying additional covers.
Click to expand...

I might be completely on the wrong track (has happened before) but I reckon last year we could have bought covers from anywhere, but the VTCA were the cheapest – by a fair way. They just had to cover the square, which we may have had issues with as we had a 6 deck square.
LM – why would council not allow you to cover the whole square?
 
rat'n'bat said:
I might be completely on the wrong track (has happened before) but I reckon last year we could have bought covers from anywhere, but the VTCA were the cheapest – by a fair way. They just had to cover the square, which we may have had issues with as we had a 6 deck square.
LM – why would council not allow you to cover the whole square?
Click to expand...
You are right Rat - you could buy them anywhere and we bought ours three seasons ago from somewhere else that are much larger than the ones the VT were selling (and better quality). My question related now to the suggested re-bate. Will they rebate to clubs who buy elsewhere or only who buy through the VTCA?

Council curators do not want to double handle (ie handle two sets of covers) nor do they want to handle heavy covers which (if you go by the VT suggested rules) they will be (given the size needed).
 
Used the 2 covers on half a dozen occasions in the last couple of years and it works, all the curator has to do is just peel one back to work on the deck. LM I think you have been a victim of a couple of very lazy curators. 2 covers is fine, no one has said you have to buy the big ones
 
lifemember said:
You are right Rat - you could buy them anywhere and we bought ours three seasons ago from somewhere else that are much larger than the ones the VT were selling (and better quality). My question related now to the suggested re-bate. Will they rebate to clubs who buy elsewhere or only who buy through the VTCA?

Council curators do not want to double handle (ie handle two sets of covers) nor do they want to handle heavy covers which (if you go by the VT suggested rules) they will be (given the size needed).
Click to expand...

Our covers for a 6 deck square are actually lighter, and stronger than the previous ones for our 4 deck square.
One guy can get them on and off in anything but a gale (he told me about it a few times as well) – it is a bit easier with a few more obviously, but it is easy enough to peel them back, do your work, then peel them back over
 
We were told there was plenty of useful discussion about the need to seriously drop the points at the south presidents meeting yet all the vt came back with was a one line statement saying the points number had fallen by 2.
No explanation, no transparency and no respect!
And people wonder why!
 
Filthylucre said:
We were told there was plenty of useful discussion about the need to seriously drop the points at the south presidents meeting yet all the vt came back with was a one line statement saying the points number had fallen by 2.
No explanation, no transparency and no respect!
And people wonder why!
Click to expand...

Bang! That was Old Mentones biggest issue at the 2nds GF 2nds travel and a promised points reduction which evaporated 2 points reduction still gives Clubs a further 9 points to splurge on a paid up player with the yearly 1 point per player reduction. Doesn't entice Clubs to foster youth or developement young players New clubs Russian not in the South with a strong DDCA CMCA and the Mercantile growing with all the VTCA Clubs pulling out their lower grade teams
 
Week in week out not the GF as you have mentioned SS it must of been miles to the Senior GF as no VTCA exec were in attendance to hand out our medals or Old Mentones poor for the Comps show piece maybe they were to busy at the North & North A GF like you did at Middle Park in maybe time for us all to pack up and move on like Dingley and Parky
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top