|
Post by oldmanriver on Apr 26, 2013 8:07:45 GMT 10
Got a questionaire yesterday from BV and pondered over it, The first question I asked myself was, How many Level 4 coaches are there? How many Clubs will fit this 100 point criteria, is it really viable to take on cricket on a Saturday. Looking deeply at the questionaire, it seems the competition will be the same except for name changing. And finally, is this going to make the competition any better than what it is now? All it seems to me is that instead of having a junior criteria to get up the grades, 100 points will do it plus a Level 4 Coach/Manager.
|
|
|
Post by mackem on Apr 26, 2013 13:29:31 GMT 10
The 100 points still relies on how many junior teams you have and so in essence nothing has change with the criteria
|
|
|
Post by barb05 on Apr 26, 2013 15:03:08 GMT 10
It's been a while for me...
Firstly, I applaude BV for doing due dilligence and working towards a new structure.
My stance.
I’m a father, husband, brother, son, employee, club person, baseball player – in that order. Although I understand that everyone is different.
I believe the league needs to be structured in such a way as to ensure the clubs find it as easy as possible to administer and retain as many players each year as possible. All club administrators are volunteers, all do their best. Without them there are no clubs.
I believe that the league has an obligation to ensure that clubs are not put under undue pressure to perform administratively, financially, or structurally. Every club has their limitations (whether that is having only one diamond, limited growth capabilities, geographic, financially etc.) and this will make it hard to please everyone. Someone else already said KISS; in making it easier for clubs admins to run their clubs... I absolutely agree.
I believe our league needs to be structured around the players as much as possible. It needs to be structured to allow players to get to games and warm up properly, and for players to fully recover from playing before taking to field again in competition; a theory put into practice in many professional and amateur sports worldwide (eg AFL, NRL)
I believe that there needs to an effective balance between training and playing. With the current structure, I believe there are too many games and not enough training (it was put in place under the naïve and ignorant assumption that more games and less training is better for player development and would make for a stronger league - yes, naïve and ignorant, I was there, they had no facts and ignored anyone who suggested otherwise). I believe the current structure has drawn dangerously away from the healthy “club atmosphere” attitude and mentality that was the backbone of development of many players in the current playing group. Reducing training reduces development and club participation at events such as fundraising etc. Part of this is my belief is that every player/club-person/parent has a limit to the number of “contacts” with their club each season; effectively, the number of times that person will spend at their club each season. When this number of contacts is used up playing games, other club based activities (social, fundraising, mentoring, training, supporting) begin to suffer. When those activities suffer, the club suffers. How many of last years regular Div1 players know who their own club's U16/U18s are? I really am interested to know who strong that relationship is, I suspect the relationship is pretty weak barring a few exceptions.
I believe that the scheduling of games needs to be reasonable allow for every club to put the best team they can on the field at any one time. Any time a club needs to put inexperienced or under-developed players on the field at a level higher than their capabilities, they are putting those players in harm’s way. It's dangerous and often leads to embarrassing results.
Personally, I would like to see less games played at higher quality because the best players are fit and fighting it out. When push comes to shove, I'm not just a Malvern player, but I'm a supporter of every single Victorian club being able to "be their best" and showcase their own talent.
That is my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by oldmanriver on Apr 26, 2013 15:17:43 GMT 10
Well Typed. Totally agree.
|
|
|
Post by barb05 on Apr 26, 2013 16:06:25 GMT 10
As for the 100pt thing. I agree with what Chardy said so very long ago. Remove it completely. Yes, you'll need to have so many men's teams to qualify for the league, such as has always been, but apart from that each club should be able to play at its highest level.
It's in every club's best interest to grow and develop from within. Every club should and probably do have some sort of internal charter encouraging junior recruitment and developing players. I don't beleive it is in the best interests of our sport to penalise clubs if their best efforts for filling junior teams falls short, nor to be held accountable for reaching unattainable junior targets. Second to that, you can't discriminate and have some clubs on lower junior requirements than others - it's just not right.
|
|
|
Post by pirates on Apr 26, 2013 17:25:52 GMT 10
criteria by another name...our submission in the first place and now re submitted was to remove juniors from the requirements. only have required senior sides count to be in a larger div one comp. In the long run the clubs with a junior program will be the ones that will become stronger IMO but hey if clubs cant or don't feel the need to push for juniors so be it as long as they are producing more participation with senior men's, women's and masters players.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Apr 26, 2013 18:11:50 GMT 10
With the current structure, I believe there are too many games and not enough training (it was put in place under the naïve and ignorant assumption that more games and less training is better for player development and would make for a stronger league - yes, naïve and ignorant, I was there, they had no facts and ignored anyone who suggested otherwise). Please barb05, present your facts when ready that your opinion is right. Present the facts you have that player development hasn't improved and the league isn't stronger. I'd be interested to see them. I believe the current structure has drawn dangerously away from the healthy “club atmosphere” attitude and mentality that was the backbone of development of many players in the current playing group. Reducing training reduces development and club participation at events such as fundraising etc. Part of this is my belief is that every player/club-person/parent has a limit to the number of “contacts” with their club each season; effectively, the number of times that person will spend at their club each season. When this number of contacts is used up playing games, other club based activities (social, fundraising, mentoring, training, supporting) begin to suffer. When those activities suffer, the club suffers. Perhaps we could have a structure where senior player don't play any games. They can train twice a week and watch the under 16's and under 18's on the weekend... that should make for an awesome 'club culture'. How many of last years regular Div1 players know who their own club's U16/U18s are? I really am interested to know who strong that relationship is, I suspect the relationship is pretty weak barring a few exceptions. Funny, as many club's U16's/U18's are involved with playing in the Div 1 1sts/2nds, I would have thought the relationship was about the same now as it was 20 years ago... The senior players I know at all clubs are every bit as respectful and mentoring to the young players as they were to me when I was a kid... and without the bullying and hazing I dealt with. That said, I'm not sure that senior players, who have paid money to PLAY BASEBALL are, or should be, prioritising mateship with 14 and 15 year old boys over their own experience of playing. I believe that the scheduling of games needs to be reasonable allow for every club to put the best team they can on the field at any one time. Any time a club needs to put inexperienced or under-developed players on the field at a level higher than their capabilities, they are putting those players in harm’s way. It's dangerous and often leads to embarrassing results. It must be great career you've had never having had an embarrassing result because you were completely prepared for every opportunity. You must have been so lucky to have someone decide you were good enough and ready. The reality is, in every competition of every sport ever played, young players are given opportunities before they're ready. In fact, until you experience a new level of competition, you're never fully ready. It's especially so now in our competition where our best players are in the US playing college baseball, shut down by their pro teams, or being pulled out by the Aces. The joy in our current structure is we do get to see the young players getting an opportunity to play good quality baseball. By giving these players opportunities to play, they are improving. Formisano, Miller, Kerr-Chapman, Bedford, Rogers, Morris, Stenhouse, Bookluck, and Durston, all under 22, all played key roles in their teams Division One playoffs teams. All have developed within our current competition and all are quality young players. I'd say almost all of these young men were given opportunities before they were ready... In some cases, well before. If we were back playing one game a week, most of these young guys would never have even got a look. But now, they're important parts of the team. And these are just the young men in the playoff teams. Ashton, Wiggins, Hondo, Mann, Rogers (Staci), both Aron's, both Dale's, Hayes... All these kids played key roles at their club and all were probably thrown in too soon, but all have shown character and have grown as men and players. barb05, can you tell us which of these guys, or anyone else I've missed, embarrassed themselves or their club this season? What would represent an embarrassing result? As a pitcher, surely you can say what an 'embarrassing' ERA would be in a league you consider an inferior standard? Personally, I would like to see less games played at higher quality because the best players are fit and fighting it out. When push comes to shove, I'm not just a Malvern player, but I'm a supporter of every single Victorian club being able to "be their best" and showcase their own talent. That is my opinion. barb05, the truth is, at the time this current structure was put in place, Malvern were still a strong team, but reliant on one of the best pitchers in the league and a solid, but aging offense. Those involved in running Malvern never embraced this concept at the time and never realised the importance of giving young players a go, even if you thought they weren't very good. The job done by those running the club in the past two years has been admirable, and I'm pushing for Malvern to remain in Division One as a part of any new restructure... but it should have started years ago. The clubs that embraced the concept and committed time in developing kids and showing faith in them have been rewarded.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Apr 26, 2013 18:25:53 GMT 10
I've been interested to read a few different opinions on the complete removal of junior numbers from any criteria.
I agree that if clubs are fielding Men's, Women's and Master's teams they're facilitating the participation of baseball, but the churn rates on these sections are much higher than juniors, particularly Women's (stated from observation... no evidence to confirm because BV doesn't keep year-on-year records of retention and churn).
I would argue any sustainable long-term growth of the sport should be based, at least in part, on the continue growth of our Junior's section.
Junior's provide an increased value to our sport as they have lower churn rates and usually have additional resources (parents as volunteers, siblings as players) associated with them.
If so, should the development of our junior program not be the responsiblity of all clubs, not just some?
Is the criteria only there to act as ongoing support for a club's senior program, in which case, if they don't want it, then don't have it? Or is the criteria a tool for our sport to facilitate the on-going growth of our most important section, and shouldn't that growth be every club's responsiblity?
If not, and the work is left to too few, will our sport grow? Will clubs without juniors die slowly, while the percieved gap between the haves and have nots grow? Or will those carrying the heavy lifting on juniors be expected to share the wealth?
I agree flexibility should be included in the criteria for clubs to leverage of their strengths, including Women's and Master's. But, I think growth of our sport at a junior level is critical and I think the load should be shared.
The criteria should be viewed as a carrot to motivate our sport to greater participation, not a stick to beat clubs out of Division One.
|
|
hank
Junior Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by hank on Apr 26, 2013 20:17:26 GMT 10
criteria by another name...our submission in the first place and now re submitted was to remove juniors from the requirements. only have required senior sides count to be in a larger div one comp. In the long run the clubs with a junior program will be the ones that will become stronger IMO but hey if clubs cant or don't feel the need to push for juniors so be it as long as they are producing more participation with senior men's, women's and masters players. I think it is EVERY clubs responsibility and should be their no.1 or 2 priority (being no. 1 having their 1st team in the highest level possible aiming for a flag) to push as hard as possible to have as many junior teams as possible. It is so vital for the future of our game in this state and to think clubs shouldn't have to worry about this is ok??? seriously, what then? These clubs look at others that have done this hard work, to steal these players?? sorry extremely short sighted as I see it. I know pirates, you have stated that clubs with a solid junior program will be better in the long run, but please take my point that Victorian baseball as a whole will be better off if all follow a strong and firm criteria or strive to meet one. Accepting anything less is simply only thinking about one thing and that is your club and not the big picture. Not all just about how good your starting 9 or 2's squad is if you will be nothing in 5 years! I would also like to add that i think every player that has had the privilege of being coached over a number of years, should look as soon as possible to give back to the sport that they have been taught a lot from! You can't teach coordination, but you can be taught good skills and their is nothing more rewarding than giving this back to someone else! If coaching isn't your thing, how can you promote the sport? How can you assist your club giving back??? I have sat back and read a lot of opinions about this review and I applaud it. An old boss once said to me, don't wait till something is perfect before trying to release it, maybe it will never be perfect? Try it out and give it a go! I think this shows that their are some heads being put together and they are actually thinking about our game moving forward for the good of it! You cannot make everyone happy, but some will always have a closed mind and not like change! The worst thing though is making comments and negative ones from a far without any involvement yourself, I know a lot of that goes on here also!!
|
|
|
Post by barb05 on Apr 26, 2013 21:20:56 GMT 10
Thanks Nathan, always great to hear the world according to Geelong. Hahaha.
Okay, but seriously. I made it quite clear that it was my opinion and I'm happy to hear yours, I just don't think it's very sporting that you pull apart my post bit by bit and nitpick all the way through. In fact, I reckon it's a stick of a thing to do.
There's a fact for you.
|
|
|
Post by oldmanriver on Apr 29, 2013 13:52:08 GMT 10
After a bit of discussion, I do fully support Clubs having a junior program of some sort, but it should not be the total be all of end all if a club is good enough to play Div 1. Some clubs are fortunate to have a good structure and a collective of people who have the time to work on developing junior numbers, other clubs may not be fortunate in that way, but still have some sort of junior program. Div 1 Clubs should not be judged on how many junior sides you can put on the part, but is the Club good enough to play Div1. I just feel that there are a few too many restrictions that may hinder the development of some clubs.
|
|
beaverball
Junior Member
hey fungo im sandra dee
Posts: 72
|
Post by beaverball on Apr 29, 2013 16:25:36 GMT 10
Oh barb05 Perhaps you need to work on some sponsorship. Kleenex might be a good start.
Cheers........Beaver
|
|
|
Post by wearnie52 on Apr 30, 2013 13:35:42 GMT 10
I agree with barb...............it's a bit harsh pulling apart every single bit of his post aueagle. And it wasn't having a crack at anyone, it was just his thoughts and opinion.
I agree with everything barb said. I think it's great that BV are trying to come up with ways to improve baseball. But i don't think this proposal, right now anyway, is the way to go.
My biggest worry with this proposal is that the volunteers have not been noted.
All well and good to come up with a new wizz bang structure.............but if you have no-one able to commit their time to these things, how do we make them work? Volunteers are important, and have been ignored in the proposal that we are all commenting on.
|
|
|
Post by oldmanriver on Apr 30, 2013 14:42:26 GMT 10
As I have typed before a few times, the scheme does depend on a lot of volunteer time that may or may not come forthwith. Even in some cases, the canteen last summer season couldn't even get open on a Sunday morning. How then do volunteers get themselves up for what could be a three or four day committment. I do believe that the whole baseball community would look forward to change, but what is proposed is just to big a stride to take at this point of time. This not a true professional sport but an amateur sport trying to be professional. Let's just let nature take its course.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Apr 30, 2013 15:10:17 GMT 10
I'm always surprised when someone is affronted by a request to support their opinion with some sort of fact, proof, evidence, or even just an example.
barb05 made a range of statements, including calling a nameless group of people 'naive and ignorant', inferring our current competition had fallen short of development and quality expectations, and that inexperienced players (again nameless) had been put 'in harms way', leading to 'embarrasing results.'
My experience of Division One over the past five years has been quite different to that of barb05's, so I challenged his opinion by providing evidence to support my opinion and asking him if he could counter with justification of his own opinion.
What is the value of an opinion that has no justification? Diane Ravitch, an education policy analyst, once wrote of the lamenting of university professors when considering their students lack of critical thought. She wrote, "Having opinions without knowledge is not of much value; not knowing the difference between them is a positive indicator of ignorance."
I've known barb05 for enough years and had enough interaction with him to consider him a good guy with a passion for baseball. I respect he is entitled to his opinion, but I didn't realise he was above inquiry when he expressed them.
I gave barb05 a chance to justify his opinions and, perhaps, even provide me the opportunity to change my opinion. He didn't, which is also his right to do so, and I take no offense in his response; but it hardly shows any depth of knowledge that could, or should, be agreed upon.
Perhaps, wearnie52, since you're concerned by my challenging of barb05 and, as you say, you 'agree with everything barb said,' you would like to point out to us which inexperienced players have been an embarrassment to their club or which clubs have failed to foster a strong culture between its members as a result of the current structure? Or perhaps you can identify where our competition has failed in the development of young players?
And to be clear, I've not made any public statement of my opinion in regard to the proposal put forward by the SLC. My response to barb05 was about his comments relating to the current structure, not the proposed structure.
|
|
|
Post by oldmanriver on Apr 30, 2013 15:28:54 GMT 10
Sorry Larry, you misunderstood my nature call. What I meant was once the scheme gets a start then we as a baseball community can start to embrace the idea, but only in small steps. But with any new scheme, there will always be positives and negatives, all we need is a clarification of the requirements and probably a better interpretation of what the SLC/BV is trying to put forward. Then nature can take its course.
|
|
Camov
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by Camov on Apr 30, 2013 19:12:32 GMT 10
on the topic of achieving the participation we are looking for.
a little out of the box but what if the ABF/BV covered the cost of rego/insurance for juniors up until say 15-16.
allows the clubs junior programs to generate income allowing clubs to build self sustaining progams (paid coaches and helpers).
also allows clubs to price point the sport (i know this comes with different issues) as very accessible.
it seems that we all want to see the sport grow but at the moment its the clubs who are primarily pushing this growth and housing the juniors we all say we want. Its tough for clubs to both operate and administrate the teams along with now asking for clubs to achieve significant growth targets.
something like this changes the dynamic, junior programs stop being a chore or a criteria and can be sources of funding for clubs while simultaneously ensuring there and the long term survival of the sport.
just a thought, just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by wearnie52 on May 1, 2013 7:26:57 GMT 10
I disagree with you, and i have on here before aueagle.
You quote almost every time you post on here that "you know the facts". You did it when we were arguing about the pitching restrictions for non-nationals. The fact is, you are from division one, and you know little about the rest of the league.
What happens in division one men's baseball is so far from anything that happens in div 2, div 3, women's, etc.
So don't base your fact on division one men's. It's not the be all and end all of the world, and it doesn't provide a base for everyone else. The players are different, the structure is different, the clubs are set up different, the people are different..........it's all different.
Just my opinion, but i guess since i am not stating some kind of fact or evidence you speak of, i must not know what i'm talking about.
This is my last post on this, as i already know that no one ever wins with you.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on May 1, 2013 13:57:47 GMT 10
And still no example of a player who embarrassed himself or his club, in either Division One or Division Two (although myth has it D2 only played 22 games last season, and despite the increase of practice opportunities, most clubs still had the goal of reaching D1 and playing more games next year).
And still no example of a club who has failed in their efforts of developing players or fostering a positive club culture.
Only charges of bias and ignorance.
Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by oldmanriver on May 1, 2013 14:02:30 GMT 10
Just to put a different slant on this forum, has anybody realized that Baseball in general is just a weekend sport, just like cricket, just like AFL. Let's not kid ourselves, throughout Victoria alone, baseball is played predominately in winter as a recreational sport where in summer people are trying their level best to make it a major elite sport with granduer ideas about trying to create more baseball being played. Unless the Clubs have a very very strong volunteer base and a almighty off ground structure, this sport will for the majority remain a weekend sport. My question would be, at present, how many clubs actually have a level 4 qualified person to coach/manage the club. Looking at some of the Club coach requirements, there would have to be a real good renumeration package. These are just some of my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by The Puma on May 1, 2013 14:09:41 GMT 10
, most clubs still had the goal of reaching D1 and playing more games next year). . I would love to see your "facts" to back that up. Most division 2 clubs were ineligible, a fact they knew at the start of the season.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on May 1, 2013 14:25:52 GMT 10
Sorry Puma, no evidence to support it... you're correct that most may not have had the goal of Division One next year... but can I instead suggest most have reaching Division One as their ultimate goal?
I know that Williamstown have this as a stated goal, even though they're not currently eligible. Am I incorrect in thinking most have this as a stated objective, or do most prefer playing in Division Two because they play less games and have more time for practice?
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on May 1, 2013 14:31:49 GMT 10
Honestly, would be interested to hear from Division Two players if playing less games in D2 is a drawcard for your club to stay in D2 and that your club doesn't have aspirations of reaching Division One... I don't think I've ever heard it said before, but could well be the truth.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyword on May 1, 2013 14:39:23 GMT 10
Sorry Puma, no evidence to support it... you're correct that most may not have had the goal of Division One next year... but can I instead suggest most have reaching Division One as their ultimate goal? I know that Williamstown have this as a stated goal, even though they're not currently eligible. Am I incorrect in thinking most have this as a stated objective, or do most prefer playing in Division Two because they play less games and have more time for practice? Am I right in my thinking that the committee you are on Auseagle, is the group that came up with the new structure? Why are you only asking these questions now? Why weren't they asked of all clubs PRIOR to coming up with a new structure*? Isn't it a little late to be asking them now, if this is the case (not fully up to date, so please correct me where I'm wrong)? *ie analysis, design structure based on analysis, review, adjust design based on feedback, then implement?
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on May 1, 2013 14:57:33 GMT 10
dirtyword, I'm asking this question for my own knowledge... nothing to do with the SLC.
As it stands, no new structure has been adopted and the SLC is in the process of receiving feedback from clubs regarding what they believe is relevant and important in regard to any new structure that is adopted.
If playing less games and practicing more is overwhelmingly preferred through the feedback, I agree that should be a component of any change that does occur.
But, what interests me is understanding if there are players and clubs out there happy to compete in Division Two because of the reduced number of games? Are the additional games in Division One is a disincentive?
There's been several responses on this forum stating the criteria is what stops clubs from moving to Division One, but I'm asking if there are clubs that would prefer to play in Division Two, even if they met criteria, just to play less games?
|
|
|
Post by mc15 on May 1, 2013 15:00:35 GMT 10
I'm a little short on info. Can aueagle or someone else with insight be able to answer these questions for me?
Is it the Summer League Committee put this document together?
Is the Summer League is made up of representatives from the clubs?
Did BV as the administrators just sign off and publish this?
If the questions above are yes, then hasn't the formation of this document and any amendments still come back it the feedback of the clubs?
The reason I ask this is it just seems like BV and the Summer League Committee gets roasted on here, and yet they are just delvering information that could have been developed and modified from the clubs.
More than happy to hear if I'm off the mark here. I really don't know the details
|
|
|
Post by The Puma on May 1, 2013 15:29:00 GMT 10
But, what interests me is understanding if there are players and clubs out there happy to compete in Division Two because of the reduced number of games? Are the additional games in Division One is a disincentive? I would say clubs no, players most defiantly yes.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on May 1, 2013 15:35:21 GMT 10
mc15, to give some background...
As a result of the participation review commissioned last year, and through the development of it's strategic plan, BV established the objectives of increasing participation to 15,000 participants and creating a competition that would allow participants to engage in baseball activities more often.
These objectives were presented to the Presidents and Secretaries last year, and while there's now debate over this, it was understood and agreed that the SLC would consider structural change to facilitate these objectives.
The SLC is seven members, all with ties to either clubs or other baseball community groups. These people are appointed by the BV board for various periods of time, with two new appointments open each year. While each is expected to provide insight from our involvement in baseball, we each attempt to consider the best interests of baseball when we stand in judgement of any issue.
The proposal that was published was never considered a final working model for the new structure. It was developed as a starting point to generate thought and discussion among clubs and members. It was intended to provide a base model for certain ideas that were considered appropriate in producing expansion of the sport, but under the understanding that clubs and members would have the opportunity to discuss and provide feedback from this model.
While this model was developed by the SLC, it was approved by the BV board prior to release to the clubs.
As is often the case, the communication of some of these ideas and concepts may have been communicated poorly, or not at all in some cases.
To be clear on your question mc15, I wouldn't claim the current proposal was a result of information provided by clubs, although it was put together by people with club involvement. The process that is now occuring is to take the feedback from the clubs and members and understand what parts of this new model can work and what can't.
Without doubt, there were elements of the new proposal that were pushing the boundaries of what clubs and members would accept. To generate the growth needed to achieve BV's objective, it could be argued pushing boundaries was necessary.
That said, and the question that has been asked many times, is the objective realistic and is pushing the boundaries so far in pursuit of the objective the right move for baseball?
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on May 1, 2013 15:47:03 GMT 10
I would say clubs no, players most defiantly yes. Puma, really interesting take... correct me if I'm wrong, but you think there are players happy to remain in Division Two because they prefer the less demanding schedule, playing at clubs that have a stated objective of reaching Division One? Do you think these conflicted ideals have an impact on the outcome of a club's season? Do players not involve themselves in efforts to increase junior criteria because they don't want to see the club qualify? Do players put less effort into their performance to ensure the club doesn't reach a standard to qualify for Division One? Do you ever think there will come a time when a club qualifies and then experiences an exodus of players back to Division Two clubs? And, considering the club is merely a vehicle for its members experience, what leads to clubs and players having such different objectives? Isn't the club only there to provide the experience the player want? Would we ever have a club meet criteria and qualify to move up, but stay in Division Two because it's what the members want? And finally, what perceived benefit is there to being in Division One that would motivate a club administration beyond the needs of its members? Sorry, lots of questions... Puma, I don't expect you to answer all, or any, of these... would just like some insight from anyone who might have it.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on May 1, 2013 15:55:42 GMT 10
dirtyword, not sure if answered you questions in my response to mc15, so I'll have a go here...
All participants were invited and welcomed to engage in the participation review last year... I wasn't involved in the research project so I can't state if those conducting the review were satisfied with the number and spread of responses they received. They did publish their findings which wouldn't normally happen if they felt the responses were unrepresentative.
My understanding is the BV objectives were, in part, a result of these findings. I also understand parts of the new proposal were developed from these findings.
Please don't be appalled, the stakeholders of the game have spent the past few weeks being canvassed and providing opinions, thought, and requirements. The original proposal was developed to generate thought and ideas... it was not developed to force on clubs against their will.
Further to this, all clubs will have the opportunity to express their opinion on the restructure this coming Monday night... if anyone feels like they haven't had a chance to provide input, contact you club president before Monday night... Nothing can happen without the approval of the club presidents!
|
|