Mr cricket1
Member
What grade are you talking about?
Subbies Thread
- Thread starter rang1
- Start date
Satan
Member
Mr cricket1
Member
You have no clue!!!
Crickileaks
Member
Haha Fair call. Although you can probably understand the frustration from everyone else in Melb at why subbies is being so stubborn. Especially when the subbies pres came out at the start of all this and said we will fight tooth and nail for any change before even seeing the alternative proposal??
And I think you will find the "unanimous" vote of No isn't exactly 28 clubs to 0. My mail is that a few are willing to work directly with CV to sort out the issues. But yes, good luck to those clubs joining the renegade comp. It will be the 3rd best comp in melb behind the Two comps that will be run by CV.
Satan
Member
I know exactly what I am talking about
Mr cricket1
Member
Anyone know who this 'Satan' clown is?
short & wide
Active Member
short & wide
Active Member
I'll be more interested in what CV and their masters, the Premier Cricket Clubs, have got to say when they announce that under the "new Structure" entry to Premier Cricket will come by promotion and relegation.
They persist in carrying clubs that are truly basket cases, who have done and WON NOTHING. They let them into relocations, mergers and anything else to avoid making the obvious decision, THEY ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!
In the last five years, Ringwood, Frankston and Dandenong, all ex Subbies clubs have played in grand finals and won Premierships, let look at the hoops Plenty Valley, Melton and Werribee hare currently being made to jump through, just for the chance of entry into Premier Cricket.
There is no doubt Hopper Hoppers Crossing could come into Subbies and be competitive quickly, yet all of our Associations are asked to pack up our histories and traditions, but the existing Premier Clubs are being asked to make no concessions.
I think we'll stay as we are until Cricket Victoria comes to us with a model that will reward strong clubs in growth corridors and EVERY CLUB can aspire to the top echelon of cricket in this state.
They persist in carrying clubs that are truly basket cases, who have done and WON NOTHING. They let them into relocations, mergers and anything else to avoid making the obvious decision, THEY ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!
In the last five years, Ringwood, Frankston and Dandenong, all ex Subbies clubs have played in grand finals and won Premierships, let look at the hoops Plenty Valley, Melton and Werribee hare currently being made to jump through, just for the chance of entry into Premier Cricket.
There is no doubt Hopper Hoppers Crossing could come into Subbies and be competitive quickly, yet all of our Associations are asked to pack up our histories and traditions, but the existing Premier Clubs are being asked to make no concessions.
I think we'll stay as we are until Cricket Victoria comes to us with a model that will reward strong clubs in growth corridors and EVERY CLUB can aspire to the top echelon of cricket in this state.
Super Saint
Active Member
Interesting position. How can CV be taken seriously after the falling over of the merger? Why would you advertise for Expressions of Interest if the merger wasn't ratified and like concrete? And we are happy to hand the keys of our associations to these jokers? Cricket Victoria: too many bureaucrats being paid too much to continue to justify their jobs.
I'm not sure how many people have actually read this 'report', however, it has holes in it. The first is what sort of candidate for the CEO position will you get if they are only paying $100K which includes office space? Just remember, this person will do EVERYTHING that association volunteers now do. Sounds like a good job........
I'm not usre how cricket is broken. If it is why wouldn't hard wicket competitions also be a party to this restructure. Just doesn't make sense.
As to a previous post, HMU haven't spoken with us at this point. Personally, I wouldn't be jumping at any opportunity after what happened previously.
I'm not sure how many people have actually read this 'report', however, it has holes in it. The first is what sort of candidate for the CEO position will you get if they are only paying $100K which includes office space? Just remember, this person will do EVERYTHING that association volunteers now do. Sounds like a good job........
I'm not usre how cricket is broken. If it is why wouldn't hard wicket competitions also be a party to this restructure. Just doesn't make sense.
As to a previous post, HMU haven't spoken with us at this point. Personally, I wouldn't be jumping at any opportunity after what happened previously.
shortnwide
Active Member
The gap between Premier first XI clubs and Sub district clubs is too great to conceivably have a promotion relegation system. Not to mention the gap between premier 2s and subbie 2s.
After talk about players at sub district level who are good enough to play premier cricket but are not able/willing to commit. Would they all leave an Oakleigh or Caulfield when they get promoted? If you want to play premier and test yourself against the best cricketers in the state, join a premier club.
I agree with your point about the existing clubs geographically being a historical representation of melbourne's cricket playing population. CV should turf HMU out of the comp (they don't even have a ground ffs.) and promote PV to service JIKA and the DVCA.
This has been partially addressed. (NM to Greenvale, SM to Cranbourne, Richmond to Glen Waverly, Firzroy to Doncaster, Collingwood to Camberwell and now, wanting to kill off HMU and introduce a club to the Northern suburbs or the West).
If you have a situation where you are aspiring to get promoted into premier cricket, you are creating a conflict of interest detrimental to CV's objectives of identifying talent and getting them playing premier cricket and eventually hopefully state/international.
You're Caulfield, you've got a talented 16 year old legspinner and a young opening batsmen and you're there or thereabouts. You won't want them to head off to St Kilda next season, as you're in the hunt to promotion and losing them will weaken your side. Keeping them may not be what is best for their development.
shortnwide
Active Member
I assume they called for expressions of interests that early because they needed that much time to assess respective applications and give the successful club the notification it would require. That HMU have backflipped shouldn't necessarily be seen to be CVs fault. I found it a bit surprising, HMU aren't exactly negotiating from a position of strength! No facilities, mediocre on field performance, no money. Maybe they should merge with plenty valley lol
Super Saint
Active Member
That's fine, make sure the merger is likely to go ahead though, it was obviously far from a done thing if HMU pulled out at this late stage.
Realistically, how are HMU going to play next year???
Cricket Victoria: useless................
Believe me, it wasn't easy for the Sunshine C A executive to face up to the fact the local comp had lost its relevance/identity on the carve-up of the former City of Sunshine (and not helped by the thuggish behaviour of one club in particular during the comp's latter years). It was a ''full-service'' comp. Now, former SCA clubs are faced with affiliating in 3 separate comps; one for their turf XI's (either Willy or VTCA), either Willy or another for their synthetics, and yet another for their juniors. We ''oldies'' know how more convenient it would be for clubs to have all their teams under the one structure, but as for the SCA's history, the current generation of players in former Sunshine C A clubs are unaware of it, hence, unconcerned. However, many of the people on the clubs' ctees were involved during their clubs' days in the SCA and would be well-disposed to a concept that, over time, may allow the resumption of a full-service model with of CV-paid admin. I should imagine VTCA people posting on this forum at present has generally been accepted due to recognition that if the VTCA was to wind up, the VSDCA would probably find itself isolated from the mainstream.
Super Saint
Active Member
All clubs would have to do this anyway if they have turf, hard wicket and juniors. The new model doesn't cater for hard wicket and junior cricket.
Having regard to p25 of the Report, I consider that ''over time'' the Leagues would extend their activities to a full-service model.
Why would the VTCA, DDCA, WDCA and ECA not be in favour? The whole thing has been setup so that their competitions remain more or less as is. 5 new divisions that just coincidently marry up with WDCA (West), VTCA North (North), Eastern (East), VTCA South (South East) and DDCA (South). Because of pathways......rubbish. The only competitions copping it in the neck are the VSDCA and Mercantile, who are being used to prop up the others.
If you have been involved with the Mercantile you would know this proposal goes against the very reason they exist, and the VSDCA already has a well structured competition that meets most of the requirements of the proposal.
If you have been involved with the Mercantile you would know this proposal goes against the very reason they exist, and the VSDCA already has a well structured competition that meets most of the requirements of the proposal.
shortnwide
Active Member
The regions match up with Councils. The ECA for instance would lose turf clubs in Stonnington & Monash but obviously gain Subbie clubs in the east and not so east.
DDCA relatively unchanged.
The Mercantile aren't a fair dinkum association anyway are they? I'm surprised they were included.
I don't think there are too many clubs that would stand in the way of a young talented player heading off to Premier Cricket to give them a shot at playing for Victoria.
Too much history in the Subbies, and I don't blame the Subbies for not wanting change.
In the event there are VSDCA clubs not wholly convinced it would be in their long-term interests to remain in a competition that may end up being isolated from the mainstream, it was nevertheless a smart move on their part to vote in favour of remaining in the VTCA. First, because 23 clubs had already indicated their intention to stay put and, second, because they were not making an irrevocable decision. However, it would not be ethical behaviour for them to them to NOW go behind the VTCA's back by being ''willing to work directly with CV----''. They should honour their commitment to the VSDCA unless, and until, changed circumstanes force them to reconsider.