Season 2010

[adelaidepie]

With all of the promotion / none promotion from 2009, what is installed for 2010? When will FFSA announce in writing to the clubs, what the league structures will be and what, if any chacnes do teams have of been promoted or relegated next season? I think this would be very handy for most teams to know now for next season.

If no promotion or relegation from any league or if the FFSA are not 100% sure on whether promotion or relegation will happen to any division then how do clubs have a hope / dream or set goals for next season?

Two seasons, two sets of rules hmm try again 2010?

To quote a line from a good film, " I think they are making it up as they go along"!

[southern]

You are right AP, even if we must remember that FFSA are obviously trying. The fact that they are always changing things is a demonstration of that. But yeah, that doesn't mean that they are getting it right!

Para Hills will stay in Prems, not sure Gawler, but I hear that they will stay in D1. Now that would mean that there will be 8 prem clubs again. Relegation/promotion???? Like you say, FFSA probably still don't have a clue!

[pvfc]

BRING BACK RESERVES

[slazenger]

It's not like teams can be formed or finalised until the SASI scholarships are announced due to the SASI ruling..

[John Cena]

BRING BACK RESERVES

Bring back common sense....if anton was still involved this SH.it would not be happening........

[pvfc]

It's not like teams can be formed or finalised until the SASI scholarships are announced due to the SASI ruling..

get rid of the sasi ruling!!
not like it's really relevant thses days, with sasi squad now much younger - or at least change ruling to only include sasi players over a certain age?

change sasi rule to be AU rule instead?

[ARodgers]

It's not like teams can be formed or finalised until the SASI scholarships are announced due to the SASI ruling..

get rid of the sasi ruling!!
not like it's really relevant thses days, with sasi squad now much younger - or at least change ruling to only include sasi players over a certain age?

change sasi rule to be AU rule instead?

Now there is GREAT idea!!

Back when SASI was the highest level a player in SA could aspire to, restricting the number of those players in sides was the only sensible thing to do. Now we have the w-league, restricting THOSE players seems like the only sensible thing to do as well.

I'm also a big fan of the SASI side getting younger, the current crop of 16-18 year olds that have gone through the system are really shining, and it's good to see us start to concentrate on the next generation before they get left behind.

[adelaidepie]

And with this I know it is hard for both FFSA and all clubs, but surely the rule is easy before the season starts if you win a division you get promoted, if you come bottom you will be relegated if ou finish second to bottom you could go down. Everyone will then know the rule but for some reason this rule is not always applied. Whether this season, last season or next season (time will tell here)

All I think the clubs would like is consistancy!

Cheers

Adelaidepie Julian

[Leppskiii]

or have no rule considering all au players are out of contract by the time the season starts.

[ARodgers]

Well hopefully in the next year or so the W-League season gets extended and the players can get contracts for longer than a season! But still a pretty fair point lepskii.....

[bennylava]

no w-league or sasi rule... tis silly seeing clubs hardly get too much of an advantage from SASI/AU players

look ad Adl. City...they won everything with only one AU player.

OR at the very least, a w-league sasi rule that goes along the lines of

"There can only be X amount of (W-League/SASI) players in a premier league squad, unless i) A player is home-grown at the club or has been consistantly playing at the club for X amount of years and ii) a player is geographically close to the club, because, for example, it makes no sense travelling from Kangaroo Island to Para Hills every weekend."

it's annoying to see plyers who always play at a club being told theyre not allowed. and annoying seeing people who really want to play club for a bit of footballing enjoyment having to settle for the sasi regime.

down with the full scholarship sasi people can't play for club bollocks!

[greavsie's_daughter]

Don't hold back bennylava, tell us how you really feel!

[beaches]

A lot of huff and puff imo.
Those on Full Scholarships at SASI are in the Matildas/Young Matildas/JuniorMatildas, play in the boys comp, attend camps and represent Australia in tournaments and train with SASI and many have studies. Play club as well!! Get in the real world.
The associate scholarship holders and GK can play for their club if they wish I believe.

Adelaide United is different again in that a number are from interstate, some are in Australian squads, and 4 or 5 are not in SASI either and play for local clubs at a different time of the year.

So SASI and AU should not even be mentioned in the discussion on Season 2010.

So clubs should organize themselves to play without the full scholarship holders.

[bennylava]

why is goalkeeper different from the other positions

[beaches]

I guess that if there are more than 2 goalkeepers in the SASI squad, they would not all get a game in the midweek boys comp. I think past or present SASI squad GK's could clarify why with more accuracy.

[pvfc]

The main problem is not necessarily the full scholarship holders. They are offered an opportunity very few get the chance to persue, and it is down to them to choose between SASI & club. End of story.

The main problem is young girls of 14, 15, 16 years old who may want a change of club for whatever reason but potentially cant commit to play for their 1st, 2nd or maybe even 3rd choice clubs because of the uncertainty of who may or may not end up with SASI 'associate' scholarships.
Consider clubs who have existing SASI girls plus other girls at their club who are in the new SASI summer squad - what do they do when they then also get other girls trialling at their club who want to move there but are involved in the SASI summer squad? Problem is, no-one knows who may or may not get offered scholarships in Feb 2010, so the clubs then have to turn away girls or make offers 'conditional' on whether they make it into SASI.
14 or 15 year old girls shouldn't have to contend with the headache of not knowing if they will be able to play at the club of their choice when all thier friends are already decided and know what they are doing next season.
The sasi ruling was relevant when SASI was made up of predominantly of 18-25 year olds, but now it is mostly 14-18 year olds with only 1 or 2 older girls. I can see how having more than 3 experinced 20+ year old SASI players could be an unfair advantage for a club, but how is having more than 3 14-18 year old SASI players going to give a club an unfair advantage? They may not all even end up playing at prems level within the club - some may still be playing U17s...
The ruling is no longer relevant, and I think it probably needs changing rather than scrapping.
How hard would it be to change it so that only players 18 or over at the start of the year (no longer U17 eligable) are subject to any limit in number of 'not home grown' SASI players a club can register? Change it so that junior age players (U17 eligable) have free movement between clubs regardless of whether they have an associate SASI scholarship, becoming 'home grown' to the club they are with during their final season of U17 eligability?
Some will say this stops clubs retaining their talented youngsters they have helped develop, but development is exactly the issue with girls that age - if they already have it in their heads they want to be elsewhere then they are not going to do the best for themselves or their club by staying there just because they are restricted from moving by an outdated rule.
Keep the rule that full scholarship holders dont register with a club if FFSA/SASI see it as necessary and relevant, but also they need to apply some common sense to rules which are now restricting the choice of young girls in their early teens.

I know that this scenario of young girls not knowing what they can do regarding club football next year is very real, and not fair at their age.

[pvfc]

Anyway - back to my first point for 2010;

BRING BACK RESERVES!!

[John Cena]

Anyway - back to my first point for 2010;

BRING BACK RESERVES!!

Bring back one rule for all clubs.......not whoever they feel like it......Para Hills should go down they come last......sorry but all for one and one for all..........this is a major farkup by wendy and co,,,,and yes there the ones that pushed it thru before the merger with FFSA........wake up and bring back reserves.........

[no idea]

John Cena sounds like sour grapes you must be mixed up with Toros. I agree that Toros got a raw deal when they got relegated and I can tell you they had the full support from Para Hills regarding there fight to stay up. But back to the topic Para Hills only stayed up because the Div 1 winners ( Gawler ) were not interseted in comming up and the second side Stirling could not commit to even having a side, so what do you do then go down to the side that ended up third. The problem is that there is such a big gap between Prems and Div 1. So lay off Para Hills we know we are lucky to still be in prems and are working hard to get a few experienced players to help our young side. LOOK OUT FOR PARA IN 2010

[gubs]

yeh when i was a scholarship holder it was pretty unfair with the goalkeeper situation as only if there was an injury to the first goalkeeper would the other 2 keepers get a look in to play. If we were unable to play club football then those 2 keepers would go a whole year with only a handful of games under their belts. Thats why the rule was brought in

[John Cena]

John Cena sounds like sour grapes you must be mixed up with Toros. I agree that Toros got a raw deal when they got relegated and I can tell you they had the full support from Para Hills regarding there fight to stay up. But back to the topic Para Hills only stayed up because the Div 1 winners ( Gawler ) were not interseted in comming up and the second side Stirling could not commit to even having a side, so what do you do then go down to the side that ended up third. The problem is that there is such a big gap between Prems and Div 1. So lay off Para Hills we know we are lucky to still be in prems and are working hard to get a few experienced players to help our young side. LOOK OUT FOR PARA IN 2010

Your username sais it all...its not sour grapes its been called screwed over.......look out para in 2010. thats what you guys have been saying for the last 5 years.....i used to be involved with toros about 5 years ago.,,,,that means nothing, the league has to stop changing the rules.......each prems teams is given 2 years in the league , they were given 1, para has been in prems for how long......has there been a season except for the one toros were in prems were you guys didnt finish last.....so just keep to your unsername...no idea.....

[ARodgers]

John Cena sounds like sour grapes you must be mixed up with Toros. I agree that Toros got a raw deal when they got relegated and I can tell you they had the full support from Para Hills regarding there fight to stay up. But back to the topic Para Hills only stayed up because the Div 1 winners ( Gawler ) were not interseted in comming up and the second side Stirling could not commit to even having a side, so what do you do then go down to the side that ended up third. The problem is that there is such a big gap between Prems and Div 1. So lay off Para Hills we know we are lucky to still be in prems and are working hard to get a few experienced players to help our young side. LOOK OUT FOR PARA IN 2010

Your username sais it all...its not sour grapes its been called screwed over.......look out para in 2010. thats what you guys have been saying for the last 5 years.....i used to be involved with toros about 5 years ago.,,,,that means nothing, the league has to stop changing the rules.......each prems teams is given 2 years in the league , they were given 1, para has been in prems for how long......has there been a season except for the one toros were in prems were you guys didnt finish last.....so just keep to your unsername...no idea.....

Perhaps instead of getting abusive you should actually respond to the point being made. Knights were set to be relegated, but both the 1st and 2nd placed teams in Div 1 were unable or unwilling to come up to prems, and so we were allowed to keep our spot. Rules haven't been changed, and we acknowledge we got lucky and are doing our best to consolidate a position next season. Calm down....

[John Cena]

were have i been abusive.....and A Rodgers, the rules have changed, they dropped reserves and gave toros 1 year.......

[slazenger]

John Cena sounds like sour grapes you must be mixed up with Toros. I agree that Toros got a raw deal when they got relegated and I can tell you they had the full support from Para Hills regarding there fight to stay up. But back to the topic Para Hills only stayed up because the Div 1 winners ( Gawler ) were not interseted in comming up and the second side Stirling could not commit to even having a side, so what do you do then go down to the side that ended up third. The problem is that there is such a big gap between Prems and Div 1. So lay off Para Hills we know we are lucky to still be in prems and are working hard to get a few experienced players to help our young side. LOOK OUT FOR PARA IN 2010

Your username sais it all...its not sour grapes its been called screwed over.......look out para in 2010. thats what you guys have been saying for the last 5 years.....i used to be involved with toros about 5 years ago.,,,,that means nothing, the league has to stop changing the rules.......each prems teams is given 2 years in the league , they were given 1, para has been in prems for how long......has there been a season except for the one toros were in prems were you guys didnt finish last.....so just keep to your unsername...no idea.....

I don't recall Para Hills ever saying 'look out' for the following season. They will be a strong team next year. And no, I don't have any affiliation with the club but I do believe they will be a better, stronger team next season providing they recruit well.
P.s. no idea obviously has some idea, their facts were correct, like it or lump it it's reality. Timeeeee to move on.

And also, abolish the SASI ruling.

[adelaidepie]

Just wade in a little in the Para Hills / Gawler issue.

From my information Gawler were prepared to go up however from information received, the FFSA Stated that Gawler would have to fill a team in prems and div 1! Meaning their Div 4 team moved up three grades. However as yet no one has stated if this is correct or not (Gawler could confirm) If true, WHY did the FFSA set this rule???

Again I am talking third hand over this, however I believe this to be correct and my interest is, will all prems div two teams move up to div 1 or was that just for Gawler and two I can understand why Gawler's div 4 team would not want to move up to div 1.

If someone can answer these questions; was Gawler told this is what will have to happen, div 4 to div 1 and if so why? Then this may explain why Gawler may have ended up saying no to prems.

I don't have an issue with either team going up or down but can understand why Gawler may have said no and why Para ended up staying up.

Just seems that these two little questions have not been answered as yet.

Adelaidepie Julian

[pvfc]

Well unless the rules have changed, Prems clubs are not allowed a team in div1 - next highest team they were allowed in 2009 was div2....
Even then there was no requirement for Prems clubs to have a div2 team in 2009.
Sounds like chinese whispers syndrome - some details have not been passed on correctly by the time 3rd hand info reached AP??

[themagnet]

Just wade in a little in the Para Hills / Gawler issue.

From my information Gawler were prepared to go up however from information received, the FFSA Stated that Gawler would have to fill a team in prems and div 1! Meaning their Div 4 team moved up three grades. However as yet no one has stated if this is correct or not (Gawler could confirm) If true, WHY did the FFSA set this rule???

Again I am talking third hand over this, however I believe this to be correct and my interest is, will all prems div two teams move up to div 1 or was that just for Gawler and two I can understand why Gawler's div 4 team would not want to move up to div 1.

If someone can answer these questions; was Gawler told this is what will have to happen, div 4 to div 1 and if so why? Then this may explain why Gawler may have ended up saying no to prems.

I don't have an issue with either team going up or down but can understand why Gawler may have said no and why Para ended up staying up.

Just seems that these two little questions have not been answered as yet.

Adelaidepie Julian

maybe it just means that they want any team going into prems to have a reserve team and maybe it's a hint toward the structure they are going for next year. No way a div 4 team could jump to reserves or div1, so if Gawler don't have the depth, then let them stay where they are.

[John Cena]

were have i been abusive.....and A Rodgers, the rules have changed, they dropped reserves and gave toros 1 year.......

well A Rodgers?

[ARodgers]

John Cena sounds like sour grapes you must be mixed up with Toros. I agree that Toros got a raw deal when they got relegated and I can tell you they had the full support from Para Hills regarding there fight to stay up. But back to the topic Para Hills only stayed up because the Div 1 winners ( Gawler ) were not interseted in comming up and the second side Stirling could not commit to even having a side, so what do you do then go down to the side that ended up third. The problem is that there is such a big gap between Prems and Div 1. So lay off Para Hills we know we are lucky to still be in prems and are working hard to get a few experienced players to help our young side. LOOK OUT FOR PARA IN 2010

Your username sais it all...its not sour grapes its been called screwed over.......look out para in 2010. thats what you guys have been saying for the last 5 years.....i used to be involved with toros about 5 years ago.,,,,that means nothing, the league has to stop changing the rules.......each prems teams is given 2 years in the league , they were given 1, para has been in prems for how long......has there been a season except for the one toros were in prems were you guys didnt finish last.....so just keep to your unsername...no idea..... [/quote]

Those ones seem a touch abusive to me, sorry if that wasn't your intent.

1st of all your original point was about Knights being allowed in the premier league next season, calling that a changing of the rules. As has been pointed out to you, Knights have only not been relegated because Gawler didn't want to be promoted. We were set to be relegated, FFSA were going to relegated us, and we were preparing for life in div 1, but Gawler said no, so we stayed up. They have NOT changed any rules in keeping us up.

Toros and reserves were dropped at the end of LAST season as part of a league 'restructure', it was a one off thing, and toros were given a very raw deal, but it is kind of irrelevant in debating whether knights should be in prems or not this season. They are two very different situations, and I don't really see how you can compare them both?

[Gommy]

I was the Coach of Para Hills Knights when we won Div One.
Promotion was offered to us to go to Premier League.
I personnally was against the move as we were not ready. To play at this standard I felt we needed to win the title a second time. I was out voted & we went up. Due to my committements to SASI boys I had to stop coaching Para Hills.
The result is quiet clear as we took a hammering.
I agree with Gawler for their stance as they need to build up the strength in the club before progressing. There year should be 2011 if they can win the title in 2010. I have watched Gawler this year & they are good but they need more refining before they make the move.