Subbies Thread

Top Contributors
rat'n'bat said:
Correct – the $100K is given to the region towards a full time administrator, and associated costs. But surely the infrastructure in an existing comp is already there. The DDCA already have a HQ, and computers and mobiles etc – and their current executive/future board will continue to be paid the honorarium they presumably already get– so it is $100K on top of the income they already generate from clubs, sponsors etc. Now let's say they spend $90K on full time /part-time administrator(s), straight away they've got $10K on top of their existing funds for them to do whatever they want.
So an existing association, effectively given free reign over the region they currently preside (ECA/DDCA and possibly VTCA in the north and SECA if they wanted to take over the South) would be mad in my opinion, not to be all over it
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like version 2 is at the least being informally thrown around to see if it has traction.

Where do VTCA South clubs currently playing in Senior Div sit? Is a higher division over the top of the regional divs now on the table?

To me, I can't see the South Caulfields and the Yarraville Clubs going back to a regional format unless VSDCA clubs are in, which they aren't, I doubt they ever will.

Version 2 appears to be SECA run south, DDCA run south east, ECA run east, WDCA run west, VTCA run north, VSDCA and MCA stay as is, and clubs choose where they fit, sound about right?
 
Beaumaris or McKinnon would be idle for the South in the Subbies as both are well run strong clubs or even you could throw in Old Mentonians as well they have 2 good grounds and strong depth and well run
 
Round the grounds said:
Sounds to me like version 2 is at the least being informally thrown around to see if it has traction.

Where do VTCA South clubs currently playing in Senior Div sit? Is a higher division over the top of the regional divs now on the table?

To me, I can't see the South Caulfields and the Yarraville Clubs going back to a regional format unless VSDCA clubs are in, which they aren't, I doubt they ever will.

Version 2 appears to be SECA run south, DDCA run south east, ECA run east, WDCA run west, VTCA run north, VSDCA and MCA stay as is, and clubs choose where they fit, sound about right?
Click to expand...

WDCA run the west! The numbers don't stack up mate. It is a minnow on the turf scene out here. There are 97 teams in the ''Indicative Grading Metro West League'' (p54 of the Taskforce Report). After deducting the 20 subbies teams fielded by Altona, Melton, Werribee, Williamstown and Yarraville, only 77 teams remain, the break-up being VTCA 63 and WDCA just 14. The WDCA's most successful turf club over the last 15 years or so, Grand United, appears in the North Division being a Brimbank-based club. Given the above figures, I find it hard to believe the VTCA would accept WDCA running the west.
 
Firstly theWDCA are irrelevant,it's a miracle they're still around,secondly the Kingston/Monash merger isn't over the line yet,still to be voted on by KS.If it goes ahead I reckon Sth Caulfield would be the obvious replacement should they wish,strong club with excellent facilities although not sure if Caulfield would welcome it.One from left field could be Mordialloc,just down the road from Kingston Saints and have gone from strength to strength since leaving the vtca
 
Last edited:
westland said:
WDCA run the west! The numbers don't stack up mate. It is a minnow on the turf scene out here. There are 97 teams in the ''Indicative Grading Metro West League'' (p54 of the Taskforce Report). After deducting the 20 subbies teams fielded by Altona, Melton, Werribee, Williamstown and Yarraville, only 77 teams remain, the break-up being VTCA 63 and WDCA just 14. The WDCA's most successful turf club over the last 15 years or so, Grand United, appears in the North Division being a Brimbank-based club. Given the above figures, I find it hard to believe the VTCA would accept WDCA running the west.
Click to expand...

Agree, I didn't want to be disrespectful but the facts are WDCA are in favour of the CV restructure as without it they will dissappear. Many of their clubs have moved to the VTCA and before too long there would've been nothing left. But, I doubt rat'n'bat put his view out there without some knowledge of where the VTCA sits on this. I suspect South clubs are basically out, and VTCA may have to take what they can, which may mean handing their west clubs over. I also suspect this includes CV compromising on a higher level comp sitting above the regions run by the VTCA. Of course I am just speculating there.
 
Last edited:
Round the grounds said:
Sounds to me like version 2 is at the least being informally thrown around to see if it has traction.

Where do VTCA South clubs currently playing in Senior Div sit? Is a higher division over the top of the regional divs now on the table?

To me, I can't see the South Caulfields and the Yarraville Clubs going back to a regional format unless VSDCA clubs are in, which they aren't, I doubt they ever will.

Version 2 appears to be SECA run south, DDCA run south east, ECA run east, WDCA run west, VTCA run north, VSDCA and MCA stay as is, and clubs choose where they fit, sound about right?
Click to expand...
The SECA will never run the South
 
shortnwide said:
My take on this (based purely on reading the CV proposal) was that they'd get 500k use that to rent office space and 5 full time administrators and dissolve the existing executive.

May be wrong. Interesting in hearing other people's interpretations
Click to expand...
There'd still be a board - which is an extension of the current executives.
 
Round the grounds said:
Agree, I didn't want to be disrespectful but the facts are WDCA are in favour of the CV restructure as without it they will dissappear. Many of their clubs have moved to the VTCA and before too long there would've been nothing left. But, I doubt rat'n'bat put his view out there without some knowledge of where the VTCA sits on this. I suspect South clubs are basically out, and VTCA may have to take what they can, which may mean handing their west clubs over. I also suspect this includes CV compromising on a higher level comp sitting above the regions run by the VTCA. Of course I am just speculating there.
Click to expand...
I think we all know where the VTCA sit on this. I doubt the compromise by CV will be on strategy which is essentially what having a tier above the regions is. I reckon they will compromise on makeup of the regions. Where Kingston council sits I reckon will be one thing that will change.
 
DStrek15 said:
McKinnon, South Caulfield, Bentleigh, Beaumaris...
Click to expand...
I've said it before and given the current environment it needs to be considered - how do clubs join (and indeed leave) the subbies? I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as a club saying we want to join and the VSDCA saying we'll have you. I believe CV have some pretty important input to structural changes in the VSDCA and I can't see them agreeing to have clubs join when they are trying to set up this model
 
Scratch said:
The SECA will never run the South
Click to expand...

Scratch old son I'm sure you have your reasons but...

If this restrucutre ever gets off the ground you can guarantee SECA or some morphed version of it will be running South cricket. When CV say "they hope synthetic and junior cricket align" that don't actually mean hope, it will happen. To get true value out streamling council relationships etc it has to encompass all cricket in council zone.
 
rat'n'bat said:
I've said it before and given the current environment it needs to be considered - how do clubs join (and indeed leave) the subbies? I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as a club saying we want to join and the VSDCA saying we'll have you. I believe CV have some pretty important input to structural changes in the VSDCA and I can't see them agreeing to have clubs join when they are trying to set up this model
Click to expand...

I still don't get this point you have been making for a while. How does CV have a right of veto if a club wants to change association?
 
Round the grounds said:
Scratch old son I'm sure you have your reasons but...

If this restrucutre ever gets off the ground you can guarantee SECA or some morphed version of it will be running South cricket. When CV say "they hope synthetic and junior cricket align" that don't actually mean hope, it will happen. To get true value out streamling council relationships etc it has to encompass all cricket in council zone.
Click to expand...
Not in their present state, Turf cricket would control it
 
Scratch said:
Not in their present state, Turf cricket would control it
Click to expand...

Yeah, the $100K CV man would be the Head but I'd expect any board/committee would contain SECA reps plus some others if there was interest. ECA for example have a board plus sub-commitees, one for turf, one for non-turf, and one for juniors, each has their own VP.
 
Round the grounds said:
I still don't get this point you have been making for a while. How does CV have a right of veto if a club wants to change association?
Click to expand...
I always thought that CV had to approve association changes anyway (similar with local footy), but the VSDCA clubs (not number of, or structure) are included in the rules of the competition. And CV have rights over those rules. Or (as has happened many times previously) I might be completely wrong!!! But if that's the case, why would CV vote to include a Beauy or McKinnon into a comp which for all intents and purposes they are trying to shut down.
 
rat'n'bat said:
I always thought that CV had to approve association changes anyway (similar with local footy), but the VSDCA clubs (not number of, or structure) are included in the rules of the competition. And CV have rights over those rules. Or (as has happened many times previously) I might be completely wrong!!! But if that's the case, why would CV vote to include a Beauy or McKinnon into a comp which for all intents and purposes they are trying to shut down.
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head and I hear a rumour that Ken Hilton is leaving Subbies and going back to McKinnon
 
rat'n'bat said:
I always thought that CV had to approve association changes anyway (similar with local footy), but the VSDCA clubs (not number of, or structure) are included in the rules of the competition. And CV have rights over those rules. Or (as has happened many times previously) I might be completely wrong!!! But if that's the case, why would CV vote to include a Beauy or McKinnon into a comp which for all intents and purposes they are trying to shut down.
Click to expand...

I do not know if CV has a right of veto or not. But, if they do, then they would need to have a very compelling case for exercising it. In the example we are talking about there wouldn't appear to be any such compelling reason. Are they really trying to shut down the VSDCA? or trying to restructure Metro cricket? If anyone captured by the restructure decides to reject CV then I am pretty sure that entity has pretty control over it's own destiny. If they didn't, CV would have mandated the change after consultation but they clearly don't have the power to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top