Player Movements & Rumours 2016/17

Top Contributors
All clubs that have come across over the past 10-15 have had to enter via the bottom grade. This included Rosanna who had won multiple premiership in Hdca before the comp disbanded.
It's not as if the dvca are urging these clubs to join but let's face it, North rosebank don't even know what comp they are in these days. They are likely to come over, and more likely to leave within 3 years so to them , why would anyone entertain the thought of putting them in a higher grade ?
Yeah, so they are strong clubs - if they as good as they think they are, they will be competing in Barclay shield within 2 years.
 
serg fernandez said:
All clubs that have come across over the past 10-15 have had to enter via the bottom grade. This included Rosanna who had won multiple premiership in Hdca before the comp disbanded.
It's not as if the dvca are urging these clubs to join but let's face it, North rosebank don't even know what comp they are in these days. They are likely to come over, and more likely to leave within 3 years so to them , why would anyone entertain the thought of putting them in a higher grade ?
Yeah, so they are strong clubs - if they as good as they think they are, they will be competing in Barclay shield within 2 years.
Click to expand...
Serg wipe your mouth your dribbling $hit. Everyone is aware of the process clubs have taken to get into the comp previously, the point raised is that if common sense prevails they should be granted entry into Money Shield for all the reasons stated in previous posts.
I can barely make sense of your second point but I'm pretty sure Rosebank are aware which comp they are playing in, the one in which they just won the flag.
It appears they also realise that same comp is administered poorly and if they are looking to come over because of that rather than making them beg to join our 'prestigious' competition why not welcome one of the most successful clubs in the northern area since the turn of the century with open arms? Add those two clubs and the DV has two divisions stronger than the NMCA ever had in their top flight.
 
serg fernandez said:
All clubs that have come across over the past 10-15 have had to enter via the bottom grade. This included Rosanna who had won multiple premiership in Hdca before the comp disbanded.
It's not as if the dvca are urging these clubs to join but let's face it, North rosebank don't even know what comp they are in these days. They are likely to come over, and more likely to leave within 3 years so to them , why would anyone entertain the thought of putting them in a higher grade ?
Yeah, so they are strong clubs - if they as good as they think they are, they will be competing in Barclay shield within 2 years.
Click to expand...

Serg, it's completely fair and understandable to look at everything in the DVCA with rose tinted glasses at the moment, but this is the exact conservative attitude is what is the major concern here. Why on earth wouldn't the DVCA urge these clubs to join the comp? Are clubs filling the comp with 3-4 teams week in week out? Is the standard of cricket at the bottom end of the ladders improving year in year out?
Adapt or die, local cricket is dwindling and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. Rosebank just won the flag in their respective A-Grade competition against Rivergum who were going for the 3-peat, "entertaining the thought" of putting them into the 2nd tier competition as a starting point isn't granting them the golden ticket into the mystical and holy wonderland, it's smart and progressive competition management which would only strengthen the DVCA, how is that a bad thing?
 
serg fernandez said:
All clubs that have come across over the past 10-15 have had to enter via the bottom grade. This included Rosanna who had won multiple premiership in Hdca before the comp disbanded.
It's not as if the dvca are urging these clubs to join but let's face it, North rosebank don't even know what comp they are in these days. They are likely to come over, and more likely to leave within 3 years so to them , why would anyone entertain the thought of putting them in a higher grade ?
Yeah, so they are strong clubs - if they as good as they think they are, they will be competing in Barclay shield within 2 years.
Click to expand...

They left the comp to join the HDCA for more than one reason, reasons which were fair enough, then when the HDCA FOLDED they had no choice but to go back to the comp they were in. You are making them seem like comp-jumping mercenaries!
 
I am not saying that they wouldn't compete, or be successful in higher grades, I actually think that they would be quite successful. That's not the point. My point is that there are 10 clubs in Money Shield, 8 in Mash that are doing all they can to strengthen their own clubs and hopefully move up the grades, to win flags. Why should we bow down to clubs outside of the DVCA and give them a free armchair ride to the top grade? Bypassing those that in the process of building better stronger clubs?

Its simply not fair to allow them to jump grades in front of others. If they're good enough, they will be in Barclay in 2 years, and would have enjoyed the spoils of back to back premierships. If they don't, then they don't deserve to be in Barclay.
 
Sorry if I hit a nerve with some people.
Queue jumping would not sit well for a few clubs in money, and I suspect most clubs in Mash.
The executive just dropped 3 sides down to Mash to even up the quantity in each grade. All of a sudden you people want to increase the size of money shield to accommodate a couple of clubs who are disgruntled with the nmca ? Give us a spell
 
serg fernandez said:
Sorry if I hit a nerve with some people.
Queue jumping would not sit well for a few clubs in money, and I suspect most clubs in Mash.
The executive just dropped 3 sides down to Mash to even up the quantity in each grade. All of a sudden you people want to increase the size of money shield to accommodate a couple of clubs who are disgruntled with the nmca ? Give us a spell
Click to expand...

Don't think you've hit a nerve, for once everyone is in a healthy and genuine discussion and debate about the DVCA, a nice break from the typical rubbish that gets thrown around here. Drop the dramatic big-cricket jargon like "give me a spell" and leave the conversation open to anyone who wants to see the topic discussed.
 
serg fernandez said:
Sorry if I hit a nerve with some people.
Queue jumping would not sit well for a few clubs in money, and I suspect most clubs in Mash.
The executive just dropped 3 sides down to Mash to even up the quantity in each grade. All of a sudden you people want to increase the size of money shield to accommodate a couple of clubs who are disgruntled with the nmca ? Give us a spell
Click to expand...
Agree. DVCA doesn't need Rosebank or Rivergum. They are two teams running around in what is effectively a two team comp. I've little doubt that if the two sides joined in Mash, one year one would go up, the other the following year. From there it's anybody's guess, but if they're wanting to leave a comp because they're unhappy with it, they should be taking a longer term view than the first year, and just win their way up.
 
shortnwide said:
Agree. DVCA doesn't need Rosebank or Rivergum. They are two teams running around in what is effectively a two team comp. I've little doubt that if the two sides joined in Mash, one year one would go up, the other the following year. From there it's anybody's guess, but if they're wanting to leave a comp because they're unhappy with it, they should be taking a longer term view than the first year, and just win their way up.
Click to expand...
DV may not need them but does that mean it isn't beneficial to have them? I think if these two clubs came over and we had 30 sides in a 10/10/10 format there wouldn't be any need whatsoever to make any changes to the comp in the foreseeable future. All 3 divisions would be stronger and more competitive and there aren't really any other clubs outside the DV that are on the radar as possibilities to come. After these two that's it really. If them going into money is what it takes I think it is well worth it for the greater good
 
The logically thing would be to go to a 10-10-10 Shield setup. The issue will be, whilst yes we have 2 clubs that could possibly come. We could also lose some clubs too! So that could put us back to where we are now.
 
Tea Break Flipper said:
DV may not need them but does that mean it isn't beneficial to have them? I think if these two clubs came over and we had 30 sides in a 10/10/10 format there wouldn't be any need whatsoever to make any changes to the comp in the foreseeable future. All 3 divisions would be stronger and more competitive and there aren't really any other clubs outside the DV that are on the radar as possibilities to come. After these two that's it really. If them going into money is what it takes I think it is well worth it for the greater good
Click to expand...
Tea Break Flipper said:
DV may not need them but does that mean it isn't beneficial to have them? I think if these two clubs came over and we had 30 sides in a 10/10/10 format there wouldn't be any need whatsoever to make any changes to the comp in the foreseeable future. All 3 divisions would be stronger and more competitive and there aren't really any other clubs outside the DV that are on the radar as possibilities to come. After these two that's it really. If them going into money is what it takes I think it is well worth it for the greater good
Click to expand...

10/10/10 is a better format. The idea though that the DVCA wouldn't have to make any changes in the foreseeable future assumes no clubs would fold or leave the comp. This may or may not be an accurate assumption but I don't think you make decisions based on that. If those two teams left the NMCA, then what would happen to it? I two team comp that loses those two teams? Maybe West Heidelberg want to join in the future or West Ivanhoe, who knows.

The point remains, you don't shaft existing clubs of the DVCA for these clubs. If they wanted to provide an inducement to these clubs (I don't know why they'd bother) then you spend one year as 10/12/8 and you relegate three sides at the end of that season (of the following season if you want to provide clubs more warning) and shift it into a 10/10/10 comp. If they were to do that, they'd really want to communicate it early.
 
shortnwide said:
10/10/10 is a better format. The idea though that the DVCA wouldn't have to make any changes in the foreseeable future assumes no clubs would fold or leave the comp. This may or may not be an accurate assumption but I don't think you make decisions based on that. If those two teams left the NMCA, then what would happen to it? I two team comp that loses those two teams? Maybe West Heidelberg want to join in the future or West Ivanhoe, who knows.

The point remains, you don't shaft existing clubs of the DVCA for these clubs. If they wanted to provide an inducement to these clubs (I don't know why they'd bother) then you spend one year as 10/12/8 and you relegate three sides at the end of that season (of the following season if you want to provide clubs more warning) and shift it into a 10/10/10 comp. If they were to do that, they'd really want to communicate it early.
Click to expand...

10/10/10 would allow for both grand finalists to move up, and bottom 2 to move down. The one up one down system isn't too great for movement
 
With these teams wanting to come across, why not just merge the comps? Could become like a super-comp and would be really strong. We could call it the "Northern Cricket League".
 
IWishICouldBat said:
10/10/10 would allow for both grand finalists to move up, and bottom 2 to move down. The one up one down system isn't too great for movement
Click to expand...

I really dislike the 2 up 2 down. Whilst it would obviously have helped Eltham go up this year. There's no reward for winning the flag. I think the team that wins deserve the right to go up solely.
 
While common sense suggest rv and nbr should compete in higher grades it goes against the rules. It means we will have to kick out 2 teams from money shield who dont deserve to. Its just not a feasible option. Making exceptions for one rule and not other is unethical and makes the comp look bad.
 
Haven't been on here for years but nothing's changed. Tongs has built himself a little kingdom, a universe in which he has relevance.

Pity the ratio between reasonable cricket talk and schit talk isn't closer to 50/50.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top