Also, for the SMFC board members or their affiliates on here, getting personal with club members and treating them as dinosaurs isn't helping your cause - it only makes you look more elitist and out of touch.

There are elements of the club that are very resistant and conservative when it comes to change, but tarring them all with the same brush is counter productive. Chris is a good guy, and a dedicated member. Just because you disagree with his position, doesn't mean you should dismiss his concerns out of hand. Having known him for two or three years now, we have had many disagreements on South issues, but he has never been disrespectful and has never had anything less than the club's interests at heart.

We have the same problem in Syd, Neanderthals with no idea or experience on running clubs wasting everyone's time with criticisms but when you ask them to table a workable model, it's 'I don't have time'.

Most federations let alone clubs have stuffed around for years & yep most of the u16s national Joeys that failed recently came from NSW. do we have the right credential coaches ? Or training formats? Or leadership with experience? I don't know

But a club like Sth having the balls to try & improve its youth / coaching / with 'overseas experts' should be applauded, I bet it's not cheap, but Australia's national squads are getting worse not better. the Dutch experiment has failed so far, hopefully the NCR will fix it.

yes your right Stallion - i have been in Sydney and spoken to a few clubs about what they are doing moving forward and to date it is about charging $2500 per annum for......? SMFC should be acknowledged as taking a brave step - the step is too far forward and my fear is that they will not have much to show for it in 5 years time.

any parent that aspires their child to play at a high level spends between $2500-$$3500 a year.
i Know, that's what it costs me.
Some parents than pay for glorified overseas trips to UK, Europe then add another $5000 plus

Look everyone is shocked in Victoria cause they've just worked out what it actually costs to develope footballers.

Is it still enough to compete internationally. I still don't think so.

Just went through Sths pamphlet, 4 x 2 hour training sessions then a match so 10 hours a week. 48 weeks in total, with physics, school tutors for kids to do homework before training, full time coaches, tech director from Brazil, and they have a General Mgr.

They offer more than any NSW club at the moment .
Good luck to them for having the 'kahunas' to put it all together

Meant medical ''Physios', damn spell check !

Shocked is right - which is why the FFV has said in their forums that they will need to review it - they have been told that it is a great programme but the costs are prohibitive. By the way - I believe that the APL set up is starting in season 2013 in Sydney - is that true? Which clubs are participating?

Really nice to see some new forumites signing up on 442 to discuss South's new junior setup.

My personal opinion is firstly that regarding the new program at South I don't really think it will have the desired outcomes. Which is to produce players capable of firstly playing for South, secondly reaching A-League standard and thirdly Europe.

Integrating this junior setup into the APL will also have its limitations due to the restrictive practices regarding player recruitment at zone level and restrictions on pricing as well as restrictions on the program delivery (programs must be approved by the FFV TD).
Mixing the two together will not acheive the desired outcomes as South is brought even further down to the common denominator of being a Zonal administrative club.

The alternative which I have discussed some time ago amongst South people was to develop a system of junior development to develop a larger pool of players. The concept would be to develop centres of excellences in the inner East South North and West as well as 4 outer suburban areas.

Each centre of excellence would be developed to accomodate upto 800 players per centre, the main focus would be to reconnect with the membership and support base to get their kids to play for SOuth at a Junior level.
Developing a database and support base moving the club forward. The Albert Park location would be for developing players showing potential.

Just a basic outline for here, but I think you get the gist.

Never dismiss anything - especially on the back of a National Review - I have been pushing the satelite club agenda for years - difference is that my proposal grows the brand - stimulates inclusion and stretches the fabric of this club over multiple locations and segments = diversity / growth / Brand awareness

Arthur also makes some valid recomendations

What I question with the NCR is the following - 1 team per age group - teams accepted in this program cannot be affiliated or associated or have representative clubs at any other state level or associations = shrinkage / 1 Point of Presence / community dissengagement

This will leave the club with a very thin trunk and no branch

Why football in this country loves operating under a capped system beats me up every time

Futhermore the way smfc is going about it is a total Organisational Restructure - and whilst I understand changes are required and all organisations need to adapt - it does pay to sit back - take a deep breath and see how things unfold

So why the rush as far as smfc is concerned?

The whole NCR application is about best past the post - not first past the post

If financials are a valid reason at the AGM then they are doing it for the wrong reason and revenue does not equate to market appeal - Retention - Growth and Sustainability in this business

If "compete at the highest level" card is tabled at the AGM then I am prepared for that too

Again - what is at stake?

Firstly there is much much more to a football club than its colors - location - infrastructure
Identity - who we are - where we come from and the future directions are critical in this business

Clubs should build on their legacy
Clubs should build on the identity and its integrity

I am not sure smfc truly appreciates how valuable these fundamentals are and that identity is not something you put a dollar figure on

You sell a clubs identity - You sell its soul

The smfc youth proposal is an institutionalised, privatised model - w2ho will it represent?

Everyone I have spoken to believes the whole direction smacks of arrogance and that has rubbed on on all the clubs achievements - this is not inclusive

From a marketing point of view - football already has an elitist system - it is called the HAL - NYL and WL >>>>>>> The NCR will sit under these comps

Question is what will smfc's point of differentiation be???



Edited by chris: 14/10/2012 07:18:51 PM

Forgot that aspect of the new program that it is outsourced and we haven't developed a club cultural program.

wait, what wasn't the club originally red and white

everything the club has done since screwing the naive sth melbourne united part of the amalgumation has very much been small minded

GDeathe good to see that you still have an interest in the goings on at South Melbourne and its History.

It is good to see that South Melbourne has affected your life so much that you find the need to comment.

Viva! South Melbourne.

CCFC u asked about the teams

http://www.footballnsw.com.au/index.php?id=17&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=7155&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=389&cHash=68d12cbe55

NSW has just announced their 2013 Aust Premier League clubs.
Qld Football did a month ago
APL is on next season whether people like it or not.
2014 in Vic !

http://www.footballqueensland.com.au/index.php?display=item&id=1751

These are the Qld teams in the APL for 2013
For those interested

Thanks Stallion - will be interested to see how it all pans out!

May as well talk about the NSW NCR Program for a moment

You can view it here:

http://www.kdsa.asn.au/UserFiles/File/FNSW%20Correspondance/Board%20Decision%20200712/Competition%20Review%20Board%20Decision%20Final%20dated%2020%20July%202012.pdf

Based on this model that was released in June by FNSW - the following needs to be highlighted

- there is nothing on their recomnmendation that highlights anything regarding a club representing its zone

- There is nothing on their recommendation that highlights 1 team per age group in the Juniors

- Senior point system is in place

- none of the clubs publicly endorsed this progam upfront like we did - all the clubs held off and worked with each other anf their federation via open and honest consultation

- the point system at senior level remains - however I am certain that this element was the major scrutiny point between the clubs and their federation

My Point: whilst the inclusion of Olympic - United and Marconi have provided the NSW NCR with credibilty for next season it must be noted that the NSW version of the NCR does provide clubs the canvass to maintain their club structure - heritage and point of differentiation

On the other hand and the point that still gives me the shits and what needs to be raised by the memebers is the following....in Vic - the plan has some monumental differences - The FFV positioned the NCR as an extension to their Summer Zonal League with either successful clubs or newly created establishments to be the representative in each zone.

Unlike FNSW which clearly represents its clubs - FFV brought out a model which would make smfc a much thinner model at ground level and flatten the club culture and differentiation the club had built over the last 52 years

What infuriates me even more is that the panel - these so calles professionals that represented smfc agreed to it and fully endorsed it without hesitation - my message to these guys - "now are you guys representing yourslves or the club?

The creation and developments of the Victorian NCR and whatever the outcome will be is no thanks to the panel that represented smfc - my message to them is that you are Naive - you busiiness acumen in negotiation at a high level is non existent and the club was held hostage via your arrogance and ill informed self assessment

GET IT RIGHT

I always welcome change - but like I said - we dont just opt for change for the sake of change and certainly not on the model that the FFV produced

The VIC model is an extreme model and one that is designed for challenge to meet middle ground - but again and as we have shown repeatedly in the past - we just jump on things like a bunch of amatuers without weighing up the risks

Finally - Any favourable results regarding adjustment to the existing criteria will be on the back of the outcome of NSW and also the resistance and challenge of other clubs in Victoria - not smfc

We acted with desperation and panick = stupidity


Edited by chris: 16/10/2012 05:02:09 PM

Well put Chris - although somewhat heated. It is normal business practice to review, challenge, refine and then set up a path that is inclusive of all stakeholders. Apart from the fact that I am not confident that the state will get any better players with a system like this - it would seem to me that a better approach would have been to consult with NSW, Queensland and then make a recommendation from there. This just gets worse and worse - I am astounded that there has not been better governance at board level. Considering that there has not been a championship won since? You would think that they might have thought a bit harder about this. Anyway would be interested to see where it ends up - there's an information night this week? Be keen to hear the outcome. By the way - the under 21's are apparently paying for the trial and cost of $3500 - what happens when they get a senior gig - they are paid for that I am assuming so then?

CCTV & Chris.
Our code suffers from way too many 'expert commentators' that have little experience or any runs on the board in running things successfully.
It's like taking advice from a homeless drunk in the street on 'how to manage your family'

Every club has its self opinionated experts, but when these individuals take their views into public forums, they are actually harming their club.
It's like those destructive fans lighting flares & claiming they are supporters of the club.
Sometimes people's perception of their self importance is far greater than their ability or judgment.

Best to keep your views in house.

Seriously Troy5 - you should keep to intelligent comments as you are not representing the club in the best light. Great to be passionate but keep to rational constructive comments as I believe that Chris has. The discussion was about the direction of the club and whether there was a better way as well as a member based club not approaching the business of SMFC in an appropriate manner. In my world - this doesn't happen. As I have said - put forward the plan, inform, discuss, review and revise if need be. Common business practice. SMFC is a great club with great people - don't mistake constructive criticism for destruction of your beloved club.