UTS dropped in strength or just not up to it?

[DLH]

I have no problem whatsoever with ECE's approach. They have a strong proud history of producing junior footballers and invest heavilly in that program. I amn sure if you had a look at their top two teams the vast majority would be home grown.

It'd be nice if they actually stuck to producing their own instead of pinching them from elsewhere.

Unfortunately the Pathway Policy might as well be dead as the template to get around it has now been set.

Make up some half baked story, appeal and then if you don't succeed, appeal again, invoking liberal amounts of smear and slander along the way.

Then when all else fails, threaten court action against the AFL's rules and voil?, clearance granted.

[Mug Punter]

It'd be nice if they actually stuck to producing their own instead of pinching them from elsewhere.

Unfortunately the Pathway Policy might as well be dead as the template to get around it has now been set.

Make up some half baked story, appeal and then if you don't succeed, appeal again, invoking liberal amounts of smear and slander along the way.

Then when all else fails, threaten court action against the AFL's rules and voil?, clearance granted.

A system that tells 16 and 17 year old where they can and cannot play for the privilege of paying their fees is simply insane.

It stifles clubs that have a decent development program in place and rewards medicocrity. It's also an administrative nightmare that clubs should not have to deal with. If you treat your juniors well, have a good club culture then really you shouldn't need to worry if every now and then a good player gets enticed away.

IMO it's a complete overkill and the administrators of the NSWAFL could be much better spending their resources elsewhere....

[tellitlikeitis]

Seriously if the same people wanna have the same arguments and whinges about East Coast having good sponsers and good development programs with Pathways for players can youse at least start your own forum or thread somewhere like footywhingers.com lol

[ShortHalfHead]

Seriously if the same people wanna have the same arguments and whinges about East Coast having good sponsers and good development programs with Pathways for players can youse at least start your own forum or thread somewhere like footywhingers.com lol

And if the national AFL adopted the same attitude by getting rid of the draft and letting players go wherever they want to (ie: the richest and most successful clubs) the game would be dead in the water.
The pathway policy was introduced to strengthen the fragile Under 18's competition in Sydney. It was a bold initiative that needed the support of all clubs and most welcomed it. There are of course, a couple of clubs that thumbed their nose at it as they have scant respect for the game in NSW.

[DLH]

A system that tells 16 and 17 year old where they can and cannot play for the privilege of paying their fees is simply insane.

It stifles clubs that have a decent development program in place and rewards medicocrity. It's also an administrative nightmare that clubs should not have to deal with. If you treat your juniors well, have a good club culture then really you shouldn't need to worry if every now and then a good player gets enticed away.

IMO it's a complete overkill and the administrators of the NSWAFL could be much better spending their resources elsewhere....

Rewards mediocrity?

Open slather slowly kills clubs on the fringes who have little or no access to established players due to geography, and have no alternative for their club to improve but to grow their own.

Big clubs, who in relative terms have access to the cream of the local crop anyway, come along offering the world and rubbishing the alternative, thereby consigning others to the doom loop of not being able to keep their few promising kids because they have little to offer, and so the cycle continues.

I think we have different definitions of insanity.

[Monty Burns2]

somewhere like footywhingers.com lol

Did you really LOL when you typed that?

[tellitlikeitis]

Did you really LOL when you typed that?

yea im not normally one to laugh at me on jokes but thought it was pretty funny aye

[tellitlikeitis]

Rewards mediocrity?

Open slather slowly kills clubs on the fringes who have little or no access to established players due to geography, and have no alternative for their club to improve but to grow their own.

Big clubs, who in relative terms have access to the cream of the local crop anyway, come along offering the world and rubbishing the alternative, thereby consigning others to the doom loop of not being able to keep their few promising kids because they have little to offer, and so the cycle continues.

I think we have different definitions of insanity.

you ever seen that movie year of the dog? about the westernbulldogs? My dad showed it to me andit shows to me that heart and passion is more important than money and hotshots

[tara]

And if the national AFL adopted the same attitude by getting rid of the draft and letting players go wherever they want to (ie: the richest and most successful clubs) the game would be dead in the water.
The pathway policy was introduced to strengthen the fragile Under 18's competition in Sydney. It was a bold initiative that needed the support of all clubs and most welcomed it. There are of course, a couple of clubs that thumbed their nose at it as they have scant respect for the game in NSW.

Have to say that I had a good chuckle to myself on the weekend when an unnamed official from a club was openly attempting to poach under 18's by spruiking the benefits they had to offer, their grand finanical plan etc to every parent and player who would listen whilst completely oblivious that one of the people he was speaking with was the clubs president.

[nugget]

I completely agree that active poaching of under 18/16 kids or offering unrealistic inducements / promises should be banned. I know that it is very difficult to monitor and / or stop. However we shouldn't be able to stop a kid from playing where they want to play - especially when they are paying fees. It's the kid and their parents decision to play where they want to.

[Mug Punter]

I completely agree that active poaching of under 18/16 kids or offering unrealistic inducements / promises should be banned. I know that it is very difficult to monitor and / or stop. However we shouldn't be able to stop a kid from playing where they want to play - especially when they are paying fees. It's the kid and their parents decision to play where they want to.

I agree with that 100%. Not saying it is ideal but kids should be able to play where they want. On the whole, clubs with a good culture and junior set up don't have a lot to worry about. With all due respect, DLH, I can see how a young player would see moving to the ECE with a potential pathway to the NEAFL and perhaps AFL and access to their resources as a reason to move.

[DLH]

Have to say that I had a good chuckle to myself on the weekend when an unnamed official from a club was openly attempting to poach under 18's by spruiking the benefits they had to offer, their grand finanical plan etc to every parent and player who would listen whilst completely oblivious that one of the people he was speaking with was the clubs president.

Let me see, Moorebank v Balmain in the U18's on the weekend wasn't it?

Unfortunately, we now see the usual suspects actively recruiting kids at U/14 level from other regions in order to have them play their 16's footy with junior clubs under their pathway.

Thankfully, I understand the AFL are in the process of further tightening the Pathway Policy after recent debacles.

I've got no issue with players pursuing what they perceive as greater opportunities with whomever they choose once they come out of U/18's.

In the meantime, every region has a Premier Cup team attached to it, along with assorted other Academies and junior rep footy in order to get themselves noticed.

[nugget]

Let me see, Moorebank v Balmain in the U18's on the weekend wasn't it?

Unfortunately, we now see the usual suspects actively recruiting kids at U/14 level from other regions in order to have them play their 16's footy with junior clubs under their pathway.

Thankfully, I understand the AFL are in the process of further tightening the Pathway Policy after recent debacles.

I've got no issue with players pursuing what they perceive as greater opportunities with whomever they choose once they come out of U/18's.

In the meantime, every region has a Premier Cup team attached to it, along with assorted other Academies and junior rep footy in order to get themselves noticed.

I'd love to know the examples of clubs recruiting kids into their pathway area in order to recruit them at a later stage however that's another issue.

Why should a kid / young man have to wait until after under 18s before moving clubs.

There are quite a number of under 18s running around in Premier Division (ie First grade sides). DLH this is nothing against Penrith but say if a young player at your club who is under 17s who is a gun and capable of playing premier division football would you stop them changing clubs next year to pursue these opportunities.

This isn't someone who has been poached but someone who wants to test themselves at a higher level. Should any club be able to stop a player from doing this just because they are from their pathway area.

[Mug Punter]

I'd love to know the examples of clubs recruiting kids into their pathway area in order to recruit them at a later stage however that's another issue.

Why should a kid / young man have to wait until after under 18s before moving clubs.

There are quite a number of under 18s running around in Premier Division (ie First grade sides). DLH this is nothing against Penrith but say if a young player at your club who is under 17s who is a gun and capable of playing premier division football would you stop them changing clubs next year to pursue these opportunities.

This isn't someone who has been poached but someone who wants to test themselves at a higher level. Should any club be able to stop a player from doing this just because they are from their pathway area.

Great post, nails it!

[DLH]

I'd love to know the examples of clubs recruiting kids into their pathway area in order to recruit them at a later stage however that's another issue.

Why should a kid / young man have to wait until after under 18s before moving clubs.

There are quite a number of under 18s running around in Premier Division (ie First grade sides). DLH this is nothing against Penrith but say if a young player at your club who is under 17s who is a gun and capable of playing premier division football would you stop them changing clubs next year to pursue these opportunities.

This isn't someone who has been poached but someone who wants to test themselves at a higher level. Should any club be able to stop a player from doing this just because they are from their pathway area.

I am aware of two examples of U/14's kids being recruited, although as you say, this is not really the place.

Under the circumstances you've outlined, if a kid had given us a year of service and was genuine in his commitment to play senior Premier Division football instead of a second year of 18's, then I daresay the answer would be yes.

We've already cleared kids to Premier Division clubs outside of our pathway that we've been entitled to list due to extenuating circumstances, we're not unreasonable.

That being said, we're not going to stand by and watch others actively flaunt the rules as they stand without sticking up for ourselves, otherwise we may as well open the floodgates.