Subbies Thread

Top Contributors
Crickileaks said:
You didnt read what i said properly, and actualy you agree with me.

All subbies clubs would start in the top grade, then start their drift down, as they wont be able to match it with the best. Thus these clubs rely on being carried by the subbies comp to go out and say they play "subbies, which is a great standard". Yarraville Club (plus 2-3 others) would beat most, if not all subbies teams. Thus subbies dont play against the best.
Click to expand...

You didn't read what I said properly, and I don't agree with you at all.

I said, one or two subbies clubs (out of 28) might wobble down a grade but the rest will more than hold their own. In a ten team local comp, I can only think of one or two that would be out of their depth. Would Yarraville Club beat Caulfield or Oakleigh or Plenty Valley or Melton? No one is ever going to know.
 
Round the grounds said:
You didn't read what I said properly, and I don't agree with you at all.

I said, one or two subbies clubs (out of 28) might wobble down a grade but the rest will more than hold their own. In a ten team local comp, I can only think of one or two that would be out of their depth. Would Yarraville Club beat Caulfield or Oakleigh or Plenty Valley or Melton? No one is ever going to know.
Click to expand...
Round in circles they will know, not far down the track !
 
rat'n'bat said:
At the moment the WDCA and the DDCA are in favour
Although the VTCA initially said they were against – they tempered that somewhat to say they were at "the direction of their clubs". The South clubs were almost unanimous in their approval – and from what I heard of the North meeting, there was a similar feeling, if not quite as overwhelming in favour.
No idea about the Eastern – but I reckon weight of numbers will bring them on board
CV will go ahead with this so I don’t think they need to reassess strategy too much – only dilemma being, how do they get the remaining clubs on board. Focus on the struggling VSDCA clubs, withhold grants, whatever it takes – but they will get it done
Click to expand...

In recent posts you have advised the VTCA has stated at both the South and North meetings it is at the direction of its clubs. I can't understand what the VTCA spokesperson is on about because all associations are, to a significant degree, at the direction of their clubs because the Laws of the Land in respect to free trade allow clubs to exercise freedom in respect to moving from one competition to another. Almost all the restrictive by laws within associations on the movement of players had to be abolished years ago due to their being in contravention of the players' legal right to engage in free trade.
 
B&G OCC said:
Might be worthwhile acknowledging that the VSDCA did not propose their exact competition as an alternative, what they did propose made a lot of sense and was respectful to both the histories of the District and Sub-District competitions, while also allowing inclusion of all other turf clubs within the wider metropolitan area.
If the MMTCT had been a little more open minded they may have already achieved their end goals and objectives.
Click to expand...

But is this statement not the height of hypocrisy? CV have proposed a system that best fits their end goals and objectives for the broader turf cricket community in Melbourne and ultimately cricket in Victoria for which they are the steward and a major stakeholder. VSDCA have proposed an expansion of their own model, and you argue that CV (with a broader set of interests than just the VSDCA) should have been more open minded? The four regions don't even line up with the pathways CV want to have.

VSDCA are within their rights to go it alone. But lets not misrepresent the situation.
 
westland said:
In recent posts you have advised the VTCA has stated at both the South and North meetings it is at the direction of its clubs. I can't understand what the VTCA spokesperson is on about because all associations are, to a significant degree, at the direction of their clubs because the Laws of the Land in respect to free trade allow clubs to exercise freedom in respect to moving from one competition to another. Almost all the restrictive by laws within associations on the movement of players had to be abolished years ago due to their being in contravention of the players' legal right to engage in free trade.
Click to expand...
Yep. Initial releases from VTCA said they were against the restructure, based on maintaining their own self interests I believe. I reckon they realised it didn't really matter what they thought if the clubs wanted to join the CV model. As well as being, as you say contrary to their own rules of being custodians of a competition at the direction of their member clubs
 
rat'n'bat said:
Yep. Initial releases from VTCA said they were against the restructure, based on maintaining their own self interests I believe. I reckon they realised it didn't really matter what they thought if the clubs wanted to join the CV model. As well as being, as you say contrary to their own rules of being custodians of a competition at the direction of their member clubs
Click to expand...

I cannot help thinking the VTCA has been dragging its heels in getting a clear direction from its clubs (in stark contrast to the VSDCA). The VSDCA is now able to report to CV by 23 March it has the unanimous support of its clubs in rejecting the CV model. I do not believe the VTCA will be able to say in its submission it has canvassed all clubs, let alone done a complete head-count. Is it frightened if it did so, the outcome would not be to its liking? I suspect it is vulnerable to be undermined by CV if it was in CV's mind to do so. However, as you are a committee member and player in a VTCA club, and I am neither, you are in a much better position than me to advise on how far advanced is the VTCA getting a clear direction from its clubs.
 
westland said:
I cannot help thinking the VTCA has been dragging its heels in getting a clear direction from its clubs (in stark contrast to the VSDCA). The VSDCA is now able to report to CV by 23 March it has the unanimous support of its clubs in rejecting the CV model. I do not believe the VTCA will be able to say in its submission it has canvassed all clubs, let alone done a complete head-count. Is it frightened if it did so, the outcome would not be to its liking? I suspect it is vulnerable to be undermined by CV if it was in CV's mind to do so. However, as you are a committee member and player in a VTCA club, and I am neither, you are in a much better position than me to advise on how far advanced is the VTCA getting a clear direction from its clubs.
Click to expand...
It's probably a fair call.

I think I've said earlier that they were opposed to it initially and then came up with reasons why they were opposed to it. Certainly not the way to do a proper analysis, in my opinion. (And ultimately it doesn't matter anyway, as it is the clubs' choice)

The subbies got their clubs' vote the other night - the VTCA had info sessions and clubs were asked to provide feedback (to them and CV) before they make their submissions. It doesn't seem there will be an official vote as to what position the VTCA will take. I'm hoping it isn't the case, but the cynic in me says the VTCA is hoping that clubs (who might be ambivalent or in favour) don't bother providing feedback, allowing them to make their position look more favourable
 
shortnwide said:
But is this statement not the height of hypocrisy? CV have proposed a system that best fits their end goals and objectives for the broader turf cricket community in Melbourne and ultimately cricket in Victoria for which they are the steward and a major stakeholder. VSDCA have proposed an expansion of their own model, and you argue that CV (with a broader set of interests than just the VSDCA) should have been more open minded? The four regions don't even line up with the pathways CV want to have.

VSDCA are within their rights to go it alone. But lets not misrepresent the situation.
Click to expand...

I think you are disrespecting the many VSDCA people who have no doubt put 100's of hours of consideration and consultation into the final position. Is it so difficult to believe that the CV model might have some room for improvement? Is it so difficult to believe that CV's approach to negotiation may have been quite heavy handed? As for Pathways, there are 8 pathways regions in Melbourne, not 5, so that point has little merit. I also think that the history component is not well recognised or understood outside of the VSDCA. If the new model drops the number of comps from 6 down to 2 then 99% of what CV wanted to achieve will have been done.
 
I'll put my cards on the table and say I'm a history nut, and I love cricket history.
But, I can't see how the history of a competition (and I'm talking life members, association honour boards and individual trophies, and even just the fact that they exist) is something…
· that individual clubs, much less players know about, or care about
· that would stand in the way of a restructure that would benefit ALL turf cricketers throughout the region
· that couldn’t be overcome at working group level anyway
 
Round the grounds said:
I think you are disrespecting the many VSDCA people who have no doubt put 100's of hours of consideration and consultation into the final position. Is it so difficult to believe that the CV model might have some room for improvement? Is it so difficult to believe that CV's approach to negotiation may have been quite heavy handed? As for Pathways, there are 8 pathways regions in Melbourne, not 5, so that point has little merit. I also think that the history component is not well recognised or understood outside of the VSDCA. If the new model drops the number of comps from 6 down to 2 then 99% of what CV wanted to achieve will have been done.
Click to expand...

Certainly not. But "room for improvement" is subjective. Is that something that is nutted out by the working parties during the next stage. Or is it proposing a different model altogether. If (and its still an if) every other turf competition gets on board with CVs model, then the VSDCA and clubs will appear to be stubborn and out of sync with everybody else. I would argue that it would be in their (and metro turf's) best interests to be part of the working parties going forward. Unless they honestly believe they'll go it alone forever.
 
Like I said, I don't think the history is that well understood. It is more than honour boards etc, what would have been lost is the tradition, the rivalries, both annual and tri-annual, and the history that has been built surrounding those rivalries over the years etc that subbies clubs like and decided they want to keep. It's a democracy so accept it. I think two comps could be a blessing in the long run, it will at least provide some choice for clubs to move either way. The 5 team local comp lacks the variety of subbies, lacks the "prize" of Senior VTCA, and could see these new comps going stale quite quickly. I don't want to get into a long debate over all this, happy to agree to disagree, and I'm certain that debate on here isn't going to change anything anyway.
 
What is going on!!!!! All of a sudden we are being inundated by VTCA bloggers telling us what we should be doing with our competition.

Well thanks for all the gratuitous advice, boys, but I think we'll leave to OUR elected officials both, at club and association level to determine what's best for OUR competition. SO GIVE US A SPELL!!!!!
 
tips for the North/West this weekend
Roxburgh Park Broadmeadows vs Ivanhoe
Plenty Valley vs Yarraville
Melton vs Altona

Melton vs Altona will have to be the best game this weekend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top