General Chat 12/13

rat'n'bat

Active Member
if clubs are leaving because of affiliation fees and the costs of covers, then it is a pretty poor excuse.
I don’t think they are leaving because of affiliation fees. If you read TwoBluesBoss’ post a few pages back, Parkdale said they were leaving because they didn’t think they got value from their affiliation fees. No doubt that they – and probably Dingley – have a perception they will be better off in the DDCA. Time will tell if they made the right decision. But the VTCA is like any other business – they have to listen to their customer base. If a large amount of clubs don’t want to travel to the other side of town, want lower affiliation fees, want more reward in the points system for developing juniors, want more one day games, want less one day games, want to get rid of bonus points, don’t want to waste their time at president’s meetings where nothing is enacted on, don’t want to be forced into buying covers – whatever their complaints are – then the VTCA either has do something about it, or acknowledge that clubs (their customers) are going to take their business elsewhere
 
I don’t think they are leaving because of affiliation fees. If you read TwoBluesBoss’ post a few pages back, Parkdale said they were leaving because they didn’t think they got value from their affiliation fees. No doubt that they – and probably Dingley – have a perception they will be better off in the DDCA. Time will tell if they made the right decision. But the VTCA is like any other business – they have to listen to their customer base. If a large amount of clubs don’t want to travel to the other side of town, want lower affiliation fees, want more reward in the points system for developing juniors, want more one day games, want less one day games, want to get rid of bonus points, don’t want to waste their time at president’s meetings where nothing is enacted on, don’t want to be forced into buying covers – whatever their complaints are – then the VTCA either has do something about it, or acknowledge that clubs (their customers) are going to take their business elsewhere
The Vtca isn't a business its a affiliation of clubs that form an association that play cricket, no matter what decisions are made there will always someone who complains as they do not get what they want. I would be surprised if any clubs worry about points when it comes to developing their juniors, and the travel excuse just effects clubs playing senior division. As I said early they are poor excuses. Perhaps it is easier being a big fish in a small pond
 

Filthylucre

New Member
As they said in The Castle "you're dreamin". You are out of touch with the sentiments presented at the presidents meetings. Clubs must be rewarded with zero points for a junior grad. Why is it 2. We have asked no reply.
Mercenaries aren't helping our great game they are screwing it blind. Sorry but we would prefer to spend our scarce $ on junior development.
 

rat'n'bat

Active Member
The Vtca isn't a business its a affiliation of clubs that form an association that play cricket, no matter what decisions are made there will always someone who complains as they do not get what they want. I would be surprised if any clubs worry about points when it comes to developing their juniors, and the travel excuse just effects clubs playing senior division. As I said early they are poor excuses. Perhaps it is easier being a big fish in a small pond
Pretty naive to be honest, if you dont think they arent like any other business. Yes there will always be clubs who don't like what is going on. And those clubs have the right to take their business elsewhere, if they so choose.
And I don't think parkdale or dingley have become big fish, nor do I think the DDCA is a small pond
 

Dingo_Jones

Member
Mmmmm, interesting article Rat. I see they mention affiliation fees as one of their reasons. What are the fees going to be this season. Perhaps the VTCA could reduce them given they have over $140,000 of CLUBS MONEY in the bank??? I will certianly be looking forward to reviewing their financials this season!!!

I am particulary keen to know who at the VTCA is getting paid and how much.

I also found this article online;

http://www.caseyweekly.com.au/story/1545481/ddca-parkdale-makes-a-pitch-for-slot/

While I know it's old news, Parkdale too sight increased costs for a reason to move. I particluarly liked reading about the fact the VTCA are FORCING clubs to buy new covers - a stupid rule which should never have gotten through. I know my club will not be buying new covers just because a few "out of touch" VTCA exec members reckon it's going to get more cricket on the park. I already know our council is against it so I am keen to see how the VT are going to enfore it when Council (who own the grounds) will not allow it!
A lot of uninformed comments on this forum appear to be causing some angst among the contributors. I would hardly think the cost of affiliation would contribute to a club deciding to pull up anchor.

As I understand it, the standard wicket cover(small) keeps the track dry, however play is unable to continue due to the rest of the turf table being too slippery, wet, greasy, boggy, dangerous, injurous to high priced professionals, OH&s etc etc etc. All those comments can be heard on saturday afternoon and more, whilst the players stand around in there shorts and thongs in the bright sunlight marvelling at how dry the deck is.

The decision to cover the whole table is a no brainer. If there is a way to circumvent weather interuptions surely it would be incumbent on an association to do so, in the interest of good governance. The vtca has shown good leadership in this instance.

Where clubs prepare there own tracks, there is no issue. Council prepared wickets would be the same as there would be less damage to the table on the whole. In both instances clubs need to manage the removal of the covers in order to limit browning of the grass.
 

Dingo_Jones

Member
Mmmmm, interesting article Rat. I see they mention affiliation fees as one of their reasons. What are the fees going to be this season. Perhaps the VTCA could reduce them given they have over $140,000 of CLUBS MONEY in the bank??? I will certianly be looking forward to reviewing their financials this season!!!

I am particulary keen to know who at the VTCA is getting paid and how much.

I also found this article online;

http://www.caseyweekly.com.au/story/1545481/ddca-parkdale-makes-a-pitch-for-slot/

While I know it's old news, Parkdale too sight increased costs for a reason to move. I particluarly liked reading about the fact the VTCA are FORCING clubs to buy new covers - a stupid rule which should never have gotten through. I know my club will not be buying new covers just because a few "out of touch" VTCA exec members reckon it's going to get more cricket on the park. I already know our council is against it so I am keen to see how the VT are going to enfore it when Council (who own the grounds) will not allow it!
From what I hear Rat, Sunday comp (in the south) is gone as is the South Under 17 comp - both are a shame and I understand that it's not the VT's fault.

I also like the idea of a dividend as it would help clubs, especially those who have supported the VT over a long period of time. I know they floated the idea of helping clubs buy new covers - beacuse of this STUPID rule they bought in, but how is that fair to clubs who have been in the VTCA for more than 20 years versus those who have been in 20 minutes?
The association puts out an annual report each year at the AGM. When you get to read one you will learn who gets paid and who does not on the exec.
\
In the past when the vtca accrued sufficient funds in excess to its needs an exgratia payment has in the past been made to each of the clubs. This is in appreciation of the clubs who have kindly made consistent and generous donations to the vtca by way of fines over the years. As far as I know they have made the payment equally to each of the clubs.

I think my club should get more because we are very nice to umpires.
 

Dingo_Jones

Member
One thing that I don't understand is the 2 points for Juniors, to me it is against the spirit of the points system
I gather you mean juniors whom have progressed through a clubs under-age squad. Rat'N'bat and a few others on this forum including myself have expressed the same sentement. The only problem I see with that senario is if maximum points stay as high as 42. An example as to what could occur is if a team played 5 juniors, that would leave 42 points to be distributed amongst 6 players. That would enable seriously cashed -up clubs to load up with an abundance of gun players.

Perhaps keeping the maximum points at 42 should apply to the senior division in order the standard of our premier division is not diluted. Where as the maximum points for all other divisions south of seniors could be reduced, to enable the VT to ensure the clubs are more evenly matched.
 

rat'n'bat

Active Member
I gather you mean juniors whom have progressed through a clubs under-age squad. Rat'N'bat and a few others on this forum including myself have expressed the same sentement. The only problem I see with that senario is if maximum points stay as high as 42. An example as to what could occur is if a team played 5 juniors, that would leave 42 points to be distributed amongst 6 players. That would enable seriously cashed -up clubs to load up with an abundance of gun players.

Perhaps keeping the maximum points at 42 should apply to the senior division in order the standard of our premier division is not diluted. Where as the maximum points for all other divisions south of seniors could be reduced, to enable the VT to ensure the clubs are more evenly matched.
Dingo - what you are saying is correct, but isn't that the point? If a club has the development program that allows them to have 5 juniors good enough to play in their 1st XI, then the reward is you have space in the points cap to perhaps pay for some guns for hire. So clubs with money are free to pay for whoever they want, but not at the expense of junior development.
The amazing thing about this, and we all sound like a broken record, but I know of no VTCA person - either club adminstrator or judging by the presidents meeting, executive member - who thinks that it doesn't make sense to have a junior player at zero points. So the only question is - how on earth are they still at 2?? What sort of process could there be that leads to that decision
 

Dingo_Jones

Member
Dingo - what you are saying is correct, but isn't that the point? If a club has the development program that allows them to have 5 juniors good enough to play in their 1st XI, then the reward is you have space in the points cap to perhaps pay for some guns for hire. So clubs with money are free to pay for whoever they want, but not at the expense of junior development.
The amazing thing about this, and we all sound like a broken record, but I know of no VTCA person - either club adminstrator or judging by the presidents meeting, executive member - who thinks that it doesn't make sense to have a junior player at zero points. So the only question is - how on earth are they still at 2?? What sort of process could there be that leads to that decision
Yep, I agree with your comments whole heartedly. Without question home grown "A" Grade players born from a clubs junior developement program should definately be on zero points.

We should remember the VT points cap which is still in it's infancy and has been adjusted once or twice, was introduced to eliminate the rule pertaining to limiting the number of paid professionals a club could recruit. A rule that was abused and rorted by many.

In my earlier posts I suggested reducing the points cap. The purpose of which was to even up the competition and thus restrict the capability of cashed up clubs to load_up with imports. This I believe is important when you consider the disparity of a club that has $5000 max spend compared with another that allocates $50,ooo. I'm very much in favour of evening up the various "A" Grade levels. Except of course "Senior Division". I'm very much in favour of an elite competition in order to safe guard the prestige of the association.

Rather that suggesting a half cocked junior zero points proposition to the VT, I believe we should put forward a case by way of a petition signed by the participating clubs. The petition should include a criteria on how it would be administered, what qualifies as a junior, how many seasons played at club and would a juniors years as a milo participant qualify? Then what safe guards would be put in place to stop clubs rorting the system. Perhaps another nightmare for the administrators.
 

Dingo_Jones

Member
Shows how bad we are
Be interesting to see how Fawad Ahmed goes if he gets a test. He's had an amazing rapid rise to the top. I had a chat with him 18 months ago and asked him why it was he was able to take all those wickets in the VT? He repied I didn't do much, the batsmen kept trying to hit me out of the ground. Interesting.
 
The Vtca isn't a business its a affiliation of clubs that form an association that play cricket, no matter what decisions are made there will always someone who complains as they do not get what they want. I would be surprised if any clubs worry about points when it comes to developing their juniors, and the travel excuse just effects clubs playing senior division. As I said early they are poor excuses. Perhaps it is easier being a big fish in a small pond
Totally agree.
 

rat'n'bat

Active Member
Be interesting to see how Fawad Ahmed goes if he gets a test. He's had an amazing rapid rise to the top. I had a chat with him 18 months ago and asked him why it was he was able to take all those wickets in the VT? He repied I didn't do much, the batsmen kept trying to hit me out of the ground. Interesting.
Unlikely now - he is apparently on his way home. Agar (another VTCA product) is staying on, so would likely be next cab off the rank
 
Top