Premier Division Relationships With Other Clubs

[Hawknik]

Surely if ECE were serious about the alliance they would:
1) not field a side below Div 1 in seniors. That is concentrate on PL and Div 1 and not try and "expand" their teams. I was very surprised that they did that last year, which is effectively a kick in the teeth to the alliance,
2) whilst it is tough that NWJ could not get a U18's up, I would have thought that this would have been on the agenda when the alliance was formed (ie ECE in Premier Cup and NWJ in Challenge Cup)?

Seems a bit one-sided.... and before people jump up and down that I am bashing ECE, I think it is great that they are one of the strongest clubs and have done a great job to become that and develop their brand, it just seems it is incongruous to the "alliance" scenario...

[sam]

Surely if ECE were serious about the alliance they would:
1) not field a side below Div 1 in seniors. That is concentrate on PL and Div 1 and not try and "expand" their teams. I was very surprised that they did that last year, which is effectively a kick in the teeth to the alliance,
2) whilst it is tough that NWJ could not get a U18's up, I would have thought that this would have been on the agenda when the alliance was formed (ie ECE in Premier Cup and NWJ in Challenge Cup)?

Seems a bit one-sided.... and before people jump up and down that I am bashing ECE, I think it is great that they are one of the strongest clubs and have done a great job to become that and develop their brand, it just seems it is incongruous to the "alliance" scenario...

I think as i have said before ECE has done great over the years to be one of the best ran club in Syd but you would hope they would do more for the alliance if there is one, for here it looks abit one sided.
Is there the players out there to have 3 under 18s?

[Pekay]

From what I can gather, Penno and Mac Uni didn't have enough in either Challenge team to field a side each, so their Alliance came about through that situation. There are alot more kids out this way for ECE to field two teams, sure, I'd love one to be in NWJ colours, but a)it's not up to me, b)it's hard to make kids travel to Bensons Lane from Baulko etc (Well, it's not really) and c) it would feel a bit hollow from my part to take over their Challenge team and call it NWJ's.

Don't get me wrong, if it were offered that way I'd jump at it, anyone would. But as I have said, I will be working with both juniors clubs and ECE as well to make it happen next year (2011) as a proper NWJ team. Sure, the way you see it would be great, but that's subject to opinion. We have only been working towards our 18s team actively since the end of the season, so it was a bit premature.

And I think there would be enough out here for 3 teams, but if that's the case, none of these kids are lobbing up at Bensons.

[tara]

Pekay if I were you and serious about getting an 18's off the ground then your right you need to do twelve months solid work with all the junior clubs in your region so that people have the chance to judge you on fact not innuendo, secondly make sure you back it up year after year, thirdly if you have 12 now willing then go ahead because youll be suprised how many may come out of the wood work (we started with only 13 or 14 kids in our first game against Penrith) lastly if you only have 5 or 6 now play them in you ressies with a view to next year.

[The Duck]

Without wanting to sound like a smart @rse Peakay, what is the alliance? I pressume they would send left over players to you guys each week. They have then created a third side, which means instead of getting players 45-50 each week you would (if they actually have any left over) be getting players 67-70 on their list. I pressume you guys would have been expecting a few years ago that you would be able to use their left over 18s for your under 18s. They now have a challenge cup side where these players now get a game for ECE. You are effectively getting nothing in terms of players and I pressume if you have a good player they get to go there. It does not seem very fair to me. You would have thought if they were fair dinkum they would not have started a third grade side or a challenge cup side. Full credit to them for being the powerful club they are but surely they cannot expect to pull the wool over everyones eyes claiming they have an alliance. My understanding of an aliiance would be that it would be benificial to both parties. This is clearly not the case. Before all the ECE boys start, I am not bagging you. More power to you for being able to field these sides. I just think the word alliance is used to make out that you actually give a @@@@ about someone else other than yourselves. I bit of PR spin if you ask me.

[ShortHalfHead]

Pekay if I were you and serious about getting an 18's off the ground then your right you need to do twelve months solid work with all the junior clubs in your region so that people have the chance to judge you on fact not innuendo, secondly make sure you back it up year after year, thirdly if you have 12 now willing then go ahead because youll be suprised how many may come out of the wood work (we started with only 13 or 14 kids in our first game against Penrith) lastly if you only have 5 or 6 now play them in you ressies with a view to next year.

Agree with Tara there. You have to start sometime. With the AFL pathway list, There are plenty to choose from coming up from the 16's, with contact details available. And kids do come out of the woodwork. Battle through the first year and it's a solid start. Surely there are some Hawkesbury 16's that would like to play some 18's. Or talk to Baulko about getting some of their 16's to have a couple of games. Penrith had about 6-7 16's that played up during the year. With holiday rounds (where the juniors dont play) and byes, lots of kids jump at the opportunity. I certainly wouldn't be relying on ECE to overly helpful....and the kids they have in Challenge would probably prefer to be at ECE to be a chance of playing Premier Cup, as they would feel they would be noticed more there.
The first year is always a struggle, so IMO the quicker you start, the better.

[fevolution]

ECE formed their 3rd side due to having up to 15 players missing a game every week on a regular basis, as players were frustrated not getting to play with their mates on a regular basis

[sam]

Without wanting to sound like a smart @rse Peakay, what is the alliance? I pressume they would send left over players to you guys each week. They have then created a third side, which means instead of getting players 45-50 each week you would (if they actually have any left over) be getting players 67-70 on their list. I pressume you guys would have been expecting a few years ago that you would be able to use their left over 18s for your under 18s. They now have a challenge cup side where these players now get a game for ECE. You are effectively getting nothing in terms of players and I pressume if you have a good player they get to go there. It does not seem very fair to me. You would have thought if they were fair dinkum they would not have started a third grade side or a challenge cup side. Full credit to them for being the powerful club they are but surely they cannot expect to pull the wool over everyones eyes claiming they have an alliance. My understanding of an aliiance would be that it would be benificial to both parties. This is clearly not the case. Before all the ECE boys start, I am not bagging you. More power to you for being able to field these sides. I just think the word alliance is used to make out that you actually give a @@@@ about someone else other than yourselves. I bit of PR spin if you ask me.

Well said!!

[tara]

ECE formed their 3rd side due to having up to 15 players missing a game every week on a regular basis, as players were frustrated not getting to play with their mates on a regular basis

Your not the same Fevolution from TC are you?

[The Duck]

Any comments on the alliance Peakay? or are you trotting out the no comment line?

[Pekay]

Any comments on the alliance Peakay? or are you trotting out the no comment line?

Busy weekend mate, only posted on the other thread through my phone, hardly enough room to write a novel.

You make some valid points, as a few others do. However, on their excess players that now make up their 3rd grade, sure, we could've used them this year (09) and next, but I wasn't willing to have 6 different players week in week out, throwing out the balance of our senior unit, and Bully wouldn't either. In 08, we could afford to use them, because our senior team wasn't as strong as 09. Only if they were available in 3 or 4 week blocks would I find it sustainable. So that covers that part. ECE can't be blamed or chastised for conolidating their numbers with a third side. They are only doing what the uni's do.

Also, if we have a good enough player, he has the option to go to ECE to play and try his luck, however, our better players are normally defence, so can't commit to play at that level (And we had a few that could've played Premier Div, Clayden at the top of that list) To clear it up though, no player since 2001 (When the Alliance was in its infancy) has gone from NWJ to ECE)

As for 18s, I was asked to set up and coach our team this year (provided I could get someone to take seniors) but at the end of the day, I didn't put enough time and energy into it over the last 6 months, with coaching, new job and destroying my leg, other more pressing priorities. I am totally focussed on having our 18s up and running in 2011, it will be better off with a year of hard work and effort, than trying from almost scratch. I will be involved with the local junior clubs, and hopefully ECE 18s as well, to put the required work in place. For now, I will co-coach our magoos and assist seniors.

And you're not sounding like a smart ass, it was a legitimate question.

[The Duck]

Very well answered. You might still be a coach yet!!

[ShortHalfHead]

Excuse me for asking, Pekay, but were Nor-West given the opportunity to 'list" 30 players in the 18's?

If so, who wouldn't you have utilised it? I realise that team noms closed on Monday needed to be submitted and the "Listing" has to be in by end of month so the overlap there might have been a disadvantage.


Would have been good to see a 10 team comp in CC.

Interesting that Riverview have two teams in Challenge. Does that set a precedent? Hopefully they will not be allowed to swap players between teams once the season has commenced.

[tara]

Excuse me for asking, Pekay, but were Nor-West given the opportunity to 'list" 30 players in the 18's?

If so, who wouldn't you have utilised it? I realise that team noms closed on Monday needed to be submitted and the "Listing" has to be in by end of month so the overlap there might have been a disadvantage.


Would have been good to see a 10 team comp in CC.

Interesting that Riverview have two teams in Challenge. Does that set a precedent? Hopefully they will not be allowed to swap players between teams once the season has commenced.

No point name a kid you have never met or spoken with in the hope he may consider playing footy for your club - as Pekay has said they need to spent the next twelve months actively working with the junior clubs in their area so as to begin to build a relationship that will bear fruit in the future.

[Pekay]

Precisely as Tara had said. Every kid on my list of H'Bury/QH kids that I called, or spoke with their parents, either said 'too early for footy talk', or 'is that wanker Johno involved' (Keeping in mind, Johno is a mate of mine, I just disagree with what he did) or the main one was 'we're playing at ECE' so there was nothing I could do. The commited kids I had, very few, I wasn't going to put them through struggling to field a team every week. Disappointing to say the least, but that's footy. A year or so of hard yakka will see us in a better situation.