Subbies Thread

Top Contributors
Turf Cricket said:
Only because it makes sense for the future of cricket in the regions.
Click to expand...

Go back to your mates at CV and tell them 4 divisions, N/S/E/W and it might work. Tell them to leave the DDCA out of it, they don't want any part of it. By including the DDCA in it, it stuffs everything up. The onus is CV to make it work. Until they do, Subbies will keep on keeping on.
 
http://www.cricketvictoria.com.au/w...2/Melbourne_Metropolitan_Cricket_Strategy.pdf

DDCA is it's own discrete region. Would be surprised that the DDCA wouldn't want to be involved. They're an excellent comp, with great administration that will only benefit from the resources CV would provide to the region.

Can't see why some in the VSDCA are so against the Metro strategy. If the VSDCA wants to retain its own competition and identity fair enough, but continually disparaging CSB and its clubs is nonsensical.

Each to their own though.
 
DalesHack said:
http://www.cricketvictoria.com.au/w...2/Melbourne_Metropolitan_Cricket_Strategy.pdf

DDCA is it's own discrete region. Would be surprised that the DDCA wouldn't want to be involved. They're an excellent comp, with great administration that will only benefit from the resources CV would provide to the region.

Can't see why some in the VSDCA are so against the Metro strategy. If the VSDCA wants to retain its own competition and identity fair enough, but continually disparaging CSB and its clubs is nonsensical.

Each to their own though.
Click to expand...

The DDCA are on the record as stating they didn't want to be a part of it. The only way they can be included is if they stand alone unchanged.

To accomodate the DDCA, CV have elected to combine N and W into one division, hardly in keeping with all the rhetoric about travel. The other 3 divisions would be S, SE, and E, SE being the DDCA as it is today.

The most disparaging person on this topic is Turfie and his continuous attack on the VSDCA competition in general and specifically the office bearers of the VSDCA. Go back through his posts and you will see what I mean.

I have no issue with CSB. It is what is, a second tier comp dominated EPL style by a couple of clubs.
 
Turf Cricket said:
They are rabble
Click to expand...

Might be time to take a rest from your relentless negativity on this board TC. We all know your viewpoint, and most respectfully disagree, so be it - perhaps you'd spend your time better elsewhere, or get some new material.

I'm fine with alternate opinions, encourage them in fact, but you continually add nothing to the conversation and merely bring down the tone. You have a comp, you have a club, great, so do all of us, let us enjoy/save/grow as we wish.
 
Round the grounds said:
The DDCA are on the record as stating they didn't want to be a part of it. The only way they can be included is if they stand alone unchanged.

To accomodate the DDCA, CV have elected to combine N and W into one division, hardly in keeping with all the rhetoric about travel. The other 3 divisions would be S, SE, and E, SE being the DDCA as it is today.

The most disparaging person on this topic is Turfie and his continuous attack on the VSDCA competition in general and specifically the office bearers of the VSDCA. Go back through his posts and you will see what I mean.

I have no issue with CSB. It is what is, a second tier comp dominated EPL style by a couple of clubs.
Click to expand...

The DDCA have engaged with CV and the steering committee from the get go with joint office holders of the DDCA & VMCU contributing to the process. The DDCA happened to match a CV Region at the plan's inception and therefore required no geographic change to the model.
Any concerns held by the DDCA revolved around governance and autonomy. As CV have pointed out and displayed in the CSB process - Local Clubs retain leadership and governance - Cricket Victoria provide the administrative support.

The last statement you make has little relevance to cricket in Melbourne as it stands. Every competition has its powerhouse clubs whether through heavy financing or good strategic direction (or both) so difficult to push a case for domination by one or two clubs.
If stacking clubs with paid players was to be addressed I'm sure VSDCA as a comp would not be alone in having to address it as an issue - nor would CSB be exempt from this.

As you note Turfie jumps all over VSDCA, but then again claiming preeminence over other local club comps on behalf of the VSDCA does you know favors either.

As it stands CSB has been a massive success for those clubs under its banner. I'm pretty sure CV has stated that no clubs or competition can be forced to adopt the Metro Turf Cricket Model, so it's all so much hair pulling over very little.
 
DalesHack said:
The DDCA have engaged with CV and the steering committee from the get go with joint office holders of the DDCA & VMCU contributing to the process. The DDCA happened to match a CV Region at the plan's inception and therefore required no geographic change to the model.
Any concerns held by the DDCA revolved around governance and autonomy. As CV have pointed out and displayed in the CSB process - Local Clubs retain leadership and governance - Cricket Victoria provide the administrative support.

The last statement you make has little relevance to cricket in Melbourne as it stands. Every competition has its powerhouse clubs whether through heavy financing or good strategic direction (or both) so difficult to push a case for domination by one or two clubs.
If stacking clubs with paid players was to be addressed I'm sure VSDCA as a comp would not be alone in having to address it as an issue - nor would CSB be exempt from this.

As you note Turfie jumps all over VSDCA, but then again claiming preeminence over other local club comps on behalf of the VSDCA does you know favors either.

As it stands CSB has been a massive success for those clubs under its banner. I'm pretty sure CV has stated that no clubs or competition can be forced to adopt the Metro Turf Cricket Model, so it's all so much hair pulling over very little.
Click to expand...

The DDCA are happy as long as nothing changes for them, if every association took the same view then where would the restructure end? Where it is at the moment, nowhere. You need to remember that CSB was born out of VTCA South clubs discontent. There is no discontent within Subbies.

I have an opinion about the strength of the CSB comp, so does everyone else, some might even agree with me, and at the end of the day I couldn't care less who does or doesn't. I see no correlation between that and how Turfie conducts himself.
 
Round the grounds said:
The DDCA are happy as long as nothing changes for them, if every association took the same view then where would the restructure end? Where it is at the moment, nowhere. You need to remember that CSB was born out of VTCA South clubs discontent. There is no discontent within Subbies.

I have an opinion about the strength of the CSB comp, so does everyone else, some might even agree with me, and at the end of the day I couldn't care less who does or doesn't. I see no correlation between that and how Turfie conducts himself.
Click to expand...
My beef is that how high these days some in the subbies think they are. Bentleigh and South Caulfield would belt most Subbies clubs in the region. Also Roundy it's a free forum.
 
Turf Cricket said:
My beef is that how high these days some in the subbies think they are. Bentleigh and South Caulfield would belt most Subbies clubs in the region. Also Roundy it's a free forum.
Click to expand...

They would beat Moorabbin, lose to Caulfield, probably lose to Oakleigh, and the other 4 games would be interesting. They should apply to join Subbies and test themselves out.

Never said it wasn't a free forum. Just pointed out that you are the most disparaging person on this topic. We'd all be better off if you gave it a rest and headed back to the CSB forum. If you are going to post here, be prepared to be called out when your posts are repetitive or just plain and simple baseless bagging of Subbies.
 
Round the grounds said:
They would beat Moorabbin, lose to Caulfield, probably lose to Oakleigh, and the other 4 games would be interesting. They should apply to join Subbies and test themselves out.

Never said it wasn't a free forum. Just pointed out that you are the most disparaging person on this topic. We'd all be better off if you gave it a rest and headed back to the CSB forum. If you are going to post here, be prepared to be called out when your posts are repetitive or just plain and simple baseless bagging of Subbies.
Click to expand...
It's not baseless. Would go close to beating Oakleigh and the rest would be easy.
 
DalesHacks has correctly stated that all comps have their ''powerhouse clubs''. An aim of the player points system should be to even out the division of a competition where clubs are known to outlay big dollars for players. In the VTCA, this is the Senior Division, and in the subbies the clubs' first XI's. The points system is in its infancy in the subbies but has been in place for several seasons in the VTCA. It has not had the effect of evening out that comps Senior Division. This tells me the points system is in need of radical review. Something that should be considered is to slow down the annual scaling down of the individual points allocated to all players under, say, age 30. When some clubs are rumoured to be willing to outlay 50K for one player, more than just marginally lowering the maximum allowable points is needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top