Subbies Thread

[fís shoiléir]

Reading between the lines, a vote is vote and if the vote is no then an association (or clubs within that association) won't join the CV model. But, can or will CV make life difficult for those that don't join? If CV are already removing the dividend, is there actually anything else left of value that they can withhold? Westland referred to grants but I don't know how much these are worth and how often a club might benefit from these. If clubs are financially independent then I can't see the downside of the Subbies model continuing if that is what 23 out of 28 clubs (and counting) want.

Westland makes some interesting points. If the new proposed structure takes the role and responsibility of the VMCU for promotion and advancement of cricket in Metropolitan Melbourne, then any association outside of the new proposed structure would no longer fall under that banner. Similarly any association playing alongside but not within the new structure would perhaps not have the support of Cricket Victoria as the governing body for the sport in Victoria. Besides Cricket Victoria grants, many external grant providers require the grant applicants to be aligned with the sports Governing Body.
Then there is insurance via the National Club Risk Protection Programme, mycricket administration, milo in2CRICKET & T20 Blast program support.
Lastly if Cricket Victoria realises the objective of aligning 5 regional administrations then they'll have stitched up local government support which may mean higher ground allocation fees and little support for facilities funding for clubs outside the structure.
To state that a club is financial may not be sufficient if the underlying support that is sometimes taken for granted is removed.
So just at a quick glance there's definite levers that can be pulled by Cricket Victoria, and where individually they may be dismissed - collectively the loss of the support structures currently provided would take some replacement, to put it mildly.

 

[Round the grounds]

Westland makes some interesting points. If the new proposed structure takes the role and responsibility of the VMCU for promotion and advancement of cricket in Metropolitan Melbourne, then any association outside of the new proposed structure would no longer fall under that banner. Similarly any association playing alongside but not within the new structure would perhaps not have the support of Cricket Victoria as the governing body for the sport in Victoria. Besides Cricket Victoria grants, many external grant providers require the grant applicants to be aligned with the sports Governing Body.
Then there is insurance via the National Club Risk Protection Programme, mycricket administration, milo in2CRICKET & T20 Blast program support.
Lastly if Cricket Victoria realises the objective of aligning 5 regional administrations then they'll have stitched up local government support which may mean higher ground allocation fees and little support for facilities funding for clubs outside the structure.
To state that a club is financial may not be sufficient if the underlying support that is sometimes taken for granted is removed.
So just at a quick glance there's definite levers that can be pulled by Cricket Victoria, and where individually they may be dismissed - collectively the loss of the support structures currently provided would take some replacement, to put it mildly.

VSDCA is not part of the VMCU so that wouldn't be a concern. As to the rest, that is the question I am asking, what is there of value that could be lost. Some of what you mention could be very valuable, others wouldn't be withheld as it is not in CV's interest to do so (like stopping a club running a MILO program). I do agree that Federal and State funding to the governing body are centre pieces of the proposal, cricket has seen how well the AFL milk funds out of both governments and now want a piece of the pie.

 

[shortnwide]

I think you are right. An elite Ist XI only division for "Super Clubs" would certainly enhance the CV model. Is 14 spots enough to cover the whole of Melbourne? Super Club's lower XI's could play in their regional comp, ticks that box. Only question, how do you promote out of the 5 local comps? Which of the 5 winners do you choose to go up for the bottom placed "Super Club" that gets relegated? That's where the current Subbies style 4 zones, 2 comps would work well, the two regional winners go up to Elite, bottom two Super Clubs go back to their regions...

And before anyone says "you could promote the winner of the Elite comp into Premier" don't bother, it won't happen. Premier clubs will not lose their status unless CV wants one of them out (ala Hawthorn-Monash), and new clubs will only be admitted because they fill a perceived need (ie an area does not currently have a Premier Club nearby).

Not a personal comment to you Round the Grounds or Compulsive, but what if Cricket Victoria don't care who the Elite First XI's outside of Premier Cricket are? There is an elite club cricket competition in Melbourne. It's Premier Cricket.

The rest of turf cricket is local cricket, some comps are obviously stronger than others, but window dress it or otherwise, thats what it is. Premier 2s is a better standard than other club comps. Premier 1s appreciably better.

CV want to regionalise the rest of turf cricket and line it up with the pathways, they want to reduce travel for participants, streamline communications with local governments, reduce duplication of effort etc etc (we've all read the proposal). They're the governing body of cricket in this state. If CV thought the current or proposed Subbies structure had greater merit in achieving its stated goals, that would be what the proposal would look like.

I genuinly believe they're doing what they think is best for cricket in Melbourne. I'm not convinced some associations are considering that at all.

 

[Scratch]

Totally agree shortnwide

 

[Round the grounds]

Not a personal comment to you Round the Grounds or Compulsive, but what if Cricket Victoria don't care who the Elite First XI's outside of Premier Cricket are? There is an elite club cricket competition in Melbourne. It's Premier Cricket.

The rest of turf cricket is local cricket, some comps are obviously stronger than others, but window dress it or otherwise, thats what it is. Premier 2s is a better standard than other club comps. Premier 1s appreciably better.

CV want to regionalise the rest of turf cricket and line it up with the pathways, they want to reduce travel for participants, streamline communications with local governments, reduce duplication of effort etc etc (we've all read the proposal). They're the governing body of cricket in this state. If CV thought the current or proposed Subbies structure had greater merit in achieving its stated goals, that would be what the proposal would look like.

I genuinly believe they're doing what they think is best for cricket in Melbourne. I'm not convinced some associations are considering that at all.

Understand your point but...

The many ex Premier cricketers playing subbies and VTCA are doing so because of one reason only, time commitment required to play Premier Cricket. A premier 1s2s player is at the ground around 9am for a 2 day game, then you add travel from, say, Frankston to Greenvale, Ringwood to Geelong, you get the picture. Then there are Sunday games, country trips.....

CV do need to care because their pathways start before Premier cricket, their elite players come from clubs like these so they really do actually care. CV think this is a better way but clearly Subbies clubs are yet to be convinced. I don't want to harp on it but if ain't broke...

 

[shortnwide]

Understand your point but...

The many ex Premier cricketers playing subbies and VTCA are doing so because of one reason only, time commitment required to play Premier Cricket. A premier 1s2s player is at the ground around 9am for a 2 day game, then you add travel from, say, Frankston to Greenvale, Ringwood to Geelong, you get the picture. Then there are Sunday games, country trips.....

CV do need to care because their pathways start before Premier cricket, their elite players come from clubs like these so they really do actually care. CV think this is a better way but clearly Subbies clubs are yet to be convinced. I don't want to harp on it but if ain't broke...

Agreed, no doubt plenty in Subbies, VTCA and ECA/DDCA for that fact that could still be playing Premier. Part commitment part financial.

Also, nothing wrong with the Subbies format, its a great comp. CV obviously looking at the bigger picture. Their challenge is selling it to the associations.

But on the topic of pathways, these kids start getting identified from before when they'd be playing in the seniors (particularly the 1s, and generally pulled out of the local system at the end of their juniors, or not long after). Strong local cricket competitions are necessary, a "super league" though isn't (in my opinion)

 

[Crickileaks]

I genuinly believe they're doing what they think is best for cricket in Melbourne. I'm not convinced some associations are considering that at all.

CV are only concerned about whats in the best interest for cricket in Victoria, and are not biased.

Associations don’t care about anything else but their own association, (and to an extent nor should they).

 

[westland]

Understand your point but...

The many ex Premier cricketers playing subbies and VTCA are doing so because of one reason only, time commitment required to play Premier Cricket. A premier 1s2s player is at the ground around 9am for a 2 day game, then you add travel from, say, Frankston to Greenvale, Ringwood to Geelong, you get the picture. Then there are Sunday games, country trips.....

CV do need to care because their pathways start before Premier cricket, their elite players come from clubs like these so they really do actually care. CV think this is a better way but clearly Subbies clubs are yet to be convinced. I don't want to harp on it but if ain't broke...

I can't imagine the Yarraville C C agreeing with the ''only reason'' you have posted. It could easily reel off a whole list of former Premier players their nearby neighbour, the Yarraville Club C C, has attracted due to financial inducements. I have yet to find evidence the administrations of comps of which I am familiar ever having actively policed their paid player policies. It's just a case of don't get caught, but no 'speed cameras' to catch you!! Maybe I have missed it, but I have yet to pick up in the Report reference to the 5 leagues being required to implement a common player points system.

 

[Round the grounds]

I can't imagine the Yarraville C C agreeing with the ''only reason'' you have posted. It could easily reel off a whole list of former Premier players their nearby neighbour, the Yarraville Club C C, has attracted due to financial inducements. I have yet to find evidence the administrations of comps of which I am familiar ever having actively policed their paid player policies. It's just a case of don't get caught, but no 'speed cameras' to catch you!! Maybe I have missed it, but I have yet to pick up in the Report reference to the 5 leagues being required to implement a common player points system.

The time commitment is why they leave premier and choose VSDCA VTCA etc, which club they choose and why is a different matter

Points Cap vs Paid Players Cap is one of the many differences, like 4 day GF's etc, between the comps that still have to be thrashed out if the new model gets off the ground. Personally, I think the points cap is the way to go, as you say, the paid players policing is a farce.

 

[Round the grounds]

Dont know - but it is already on my list of questions for tonight

Anything from the South meeting last night you can share?

 

[rat'n'bat]

Anything from the South meeting last night you can share?

Sorry, been busy doing work for those people who pay me to spend my time to administer cricket!!!!
Our meeting was basically split into 2 – one half for the restructure, and one half for clubs griping about the VTCA!! (I won't bore this thread with the 2nd half)

No club spoke up against it - and the overall impression was that all clubs were really positive about it, a few people with concerns about the micro issues, which will be nutted out at working group level – and shouldn’t hold it up in my opinion.
CV (and the associations) are looking for feedback, and as far as I understood, the decision will be made at CV board level on whether they will go ahead – based on the feedback from clubs, associations, VMCU etc. I get the feeling if the subbies went on board then everybody else would be in favour, if the subbies go against it – it'll still get up. It may be a soft launch. (I reckon the south and south east zones would get up without too much hassle)

Key feature of the presentation was a much better alignment with councils. City of Melton for example deals with 8 associations – surely the restructure along geographic zones has to streamline the communication at least a little bit

Comment from one club which I reckon summed it all up – if you needed to set-up a cricket structure in a city the size of Melbourne, with goodness knows how many clubs and players and grounds, what would your structure want to be like? And I'm sure it'll look a lot closer to the model proposed by CV, than the one we have at the minute.

There was a comment in an earlier post about CV's motivations. If you want to think they are the big bad state body with their tentacles wrapped around every local area, then fine. You'll probably already (and always) have that view – and that view isn't particularly healthy. Call me unbelievably naïve, but CV want what is best for cricket in Victoria, and specifically in this case, Melbourne. They want strong clubs, strong comps, plenty of players and a system that develops the good players to play at the highest level possible. I've got no doubt that the proposed model would achieve their aims far better than the current one does. In isolation the Subbies may achieve these goals – but does it help turf clubs/comps/players across Melbourne? I don’t know

 

[Crickileaks]

There was a comment in an earlier post about CV's motivations. If you want to think they are the big bad state body with their tentacles wrapped around every local area, then fine. You'll probably already (and always) have that view – and that view isn't particularly healthy. Call me unbelievably naïve, but CV want what is best for cricket in Victoria, and specifically in this case, Melbourne. They want strong clubs, strong comps, plenty of players and a system that develops the good players to play at the highest level possible. I've got no doubt that the proposed model would achieve their aims far better than the current one does. In isolation the Subbies may achieve these goals – but does it help turf clubs/comps/players across Melbourne? I don’t know

Spot on.

 

[Round the grounds]

Sorry, been busy doing work for those people who pay me to spend my time to administer cricket!!!!
Our meeting was basically split into 2 – one half for the restructure, and one half for clubs griping about the VTCA!! (I won't bore this thread with the 2nd half)

No club spoke up against it - and the overall impression was that all clubs were really positive about it, a few people with concerns about the micro issues, which will be nutted out at working group level – and shouldn’t hold it up in my opinion.
CV (and the associations) are looking for feedback, and as far as I understood, the decision will be made at CV board level on whether they will go ahead – based on the feedback from clubs, associations, VMCU etc. I get the feeling if the subbies went on board then everybody else would be in favour, if the subbies go against it – it'll still get up. It may be a soft launch. (I reckon the south and south east zones would get up without too much hassle)

Key feature of the presentation was a much better alignment with councils. City of Melton for example deals with 8 associations – surely the restructure along geographic zones has to streamline the communication at least a little bit

Comment from one club which I reckon summed it all up – if you needed to set-up a cricket structure in a city the size of Melbourne, with goodness knows how many clubs and players and grounds, what would your structure want to be like? And I'm sure it'll look a lot closer to the model proposed by CV, than the one we have at the minute.

There was a comment in an earlier post about CV's motivations. If you want to think they are the big bad state body with their tentacles wrapped around every local area, then fine. You'll probably already (and always) have that view – and that view isn't particularly healthy. Call me unbelievably naïve, but CV want what is best for cricket in Victoria, and specifically in this case, Melbourne. They want strong clubs, strong comps, plenty of players and a system that develops the good players to play at the highest level possible. I've got no doubt that the proposed model would achieve their aims far better than the current one does. In isolation the Subbies may achieve these goals – but does it help turf clubs/comps/players across Melbourne? I don’t know

Thanks, about what I expected. Wonder if the North meeting will be the same.

 

[westland]

The comment from one club referred to in rat'n'bat's post on last night's meeting is in line with that made by the match secretary of the Mercantile C A in the first para of the article in last Sat's Age re the CV proposal, viz, ''If you had 700 teams arriving from the moon and you had to create a cricket competition for them in Melbourne, you would do it the way they're proposing.'' It is probably easier for VTCA clubs to accept change because the VTCA's model is much closer to the CV model than the subbies model, given my understanding only its Senior Division involves significant across-town travel, and a promotion relegation system is in place in all divisions. Also, many present VTCA clubs do not have a particularly lengthy connection with it--not long enough to be too fussed about the loss of its history/status in the event of it winding up. I firmly recommend subbies clubs closely monitor VTCA developments.

 

[Round the grounds]

Really interesting banter on Twitter about the Subbies vacancy when PV (or perhaps Melton or Werribee) go to premier. Heaps of negativity from VTCA clubs, you can be sure Yarraville Club won't be taking up the vacant position, seem really comfortable being a big fish in a bit of a puddle. I'm not surprised at all by this, only surprise is that CV are trying to marry off these comps when there are so many differences, and not much respect, between them. I reckon that the vacancy will get filled but not locally forcing a re-alignment of the groups anti-clockwise.

 

[westland]

Really interesting banter on Twitter about the Subbies vacancy when PV (or perhaps Melton or Werribee) go to premier. Heaps of negativity from VTCA clubs, you can be sure Yarraville Club won't be taking up the vacant position, seem really comfortable being a big fish in a bit of a puddle. I'm not surprised at all by this, only surprise is that CV are trying to marry off these comps when there are so many differences, and not much respect, between them. I reckon that the vacancy will get filled but not locally forcing a re-alignment of the groups anti-clockwise.

I suggest that even if Yarraville Club was interested, this would pose a dilemma for the subbies exec given the comp is already well-served in that locality by the Yarraville C C. It would not be well pleased to have the Clubbers playing against it, to say the least!! Hoppers Xing is the only other non-subbies club I can presently think of out here that has 2 turf grounds and having its firsts in the indicative West League's Championship section. However, the pres of the VTCA is a Hoppers man. Any thought of Hoppers joining the subbies would, I imagine, put him in an intolerable position. Altona Nth may have 2 turf grounds, but its indicative grading in the West League is only A1. It may be competitive against some of the subbies battlers, but it has long been in the VTCA.
BTW, I take it you mean by ''heaps of negativity from VTCA clubs'' they are negative about the CV model, not negative about the VTCA?

 

[Round the grounds]

I suggest that even if Yarraville Club was interested, this would pose a dilemma for the subbies exec given the comp is already well-served in that locality by the Yarraville C C. It would not be well pleased to have the Clubbers playing against it, to say the least!! Hoppers Xing is the only other non-subbies club I can presently think of out here that has 2 turf grounds and having its firsts in the indicative West League's Championship section. However, the pres of the VTCA is a Hoppers man. Any thought of Hoppers joining the subbies would, I imagine, put him in an intolerable position. Altona Nth may have 2 turf grounds, but its indicative grading in the West League is only A1. It may be competitive against some of the subbies battlers, but it has long been in the VTCA.
BTW, I take it you mean by ''heaps of negativity from VTCA clubs'' they are negative about the CV model, not negative about the VTCA?

Agree having two clubs so close would not seem practical. By negativity, I mean comments from VTCA clubs about Subbies. "Why would Hoppers want to take a step backwards to Subbies" etc, and Yarraville Club made it very clear where they stand.

 

[Super Saint]

Agree having two clubs so close would not seem practical. By negativity, I mean comments from VTCA clubs about Subbies. "Why would Hoppers want to take a step backwards to Subbies" etc, and Yarraville Club made it very clear where they stand.

A step backwards!! As someone who has played in both comps, Subbies is a lot better competition.

 

[westland]

Agree having two clubs so close would not seem practical. By negativity, I mean comments from VTCA clubs about Subbies. "Why would Hoppers want to take a step backwards to Subbies" etc, and Yarraville Club made it very clear where they stand.

That's not the interpretation of the comments I had expected. You will probably find the players expressing these comments are from Senior Division clubs. However, if their views are also those of their clubs, CV can anticipate stiff opposition to its model from Senior Division VTCA clubs.

 

[Scratch]

No they are not, all the South senior clubs are for it