Premier Division Relationships With Other Clubs

[Pekay]

The thing is, we had an idea of the numbers we would have at our disposal during the year, with our 16s combining with Quakers Hill 16s we had about 25odd. Unfortunately it all fell over with one of the coaches, who was also Hawkesbury's executive president, also coaching Parra 18s, effectively pushing all the potential kids we had down there. So all that hard work has just been undone. Truth be told, we didn't really put in the work necessary to build one, based on the fact that the platform was there, or so we thought. My thoughts have always been, to give it a full year of groundwork to make it hapen, with 2011 to be the target year. As I've said, I need to mend a few bridges and build some new ones with local clubs, get our brand out there so the kids know their options. Hard work, but I have the time these days.

To be fair on ECE, they have worked hard to make their Challenge team, so for me to take any control of it is a bit much. But as an alliance we should be able to come to some agreement in 2011.

[ShortHalfHead]

Sorry to hear you couldn't get a team up, Pekay. Another 18's would have been good for the competition. I had no doubt that the Hawkesbury lads would come rushing back, not only logistics wise, but with the choice of coaches.
With the merged Nor-West/Penrith venture three years ago, the lads from over here greatly appreciated your input at games.
With Baulko having 3 Under 16's teams this year and the Hawkesbury/Quakers alliance having two, along with the out of area lads that tend to drift to East Coast, I thought it would have been very viable. You probably have more faith in an equitable arrangement with ECE than most would and I hope it works out.
Good luck with you seniors anyhow, they came a long way this year and by the sounds of it, the future is looking rosy. Of course, don't be afraid to send any excess players along Castlereagh Rd. With a lot of new names on the management list, many from the junior ranks, excitement is slowly building for 2009.

[Doormat]

oooooopppppppppppppppppsssssssssssss

The thing is, we had an idea of the numbers we would have at our disposal during the year, with our 16s combining with Quakers Hill 16s we had about 25odd. Unfortunately it all fell over with one of the coaches, who was also Hawkesbury's executive president, also coaching Parra 18s, effectively pushing all the potential kids we had down there. So all that hard work has just been undone. Truth be told, we didn't really put in the work necessary to build one, based on the fact that the platform was there, or so we thought. My thoughts have always been, to give it a full year of groundwork to make it hapen, with 2011 to be the target year. As I've said, I need to mend a few bridges and build some new ones with local clubs, get our brand out there so the kids know their options. Hard work, but I have the time these days.

To be fair on ECE, they have worked hard to make their Challenge team, so for me to take any control of it is a bit much. But as an alliance we should be able to come to some agreement in 2011.

[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?