Cork County Board – sending small clubs back to the bad old days

[Killyoursons]

A club has a duty to look after all their own players first. If a club has 20 players on the age then that club should be playing on its own so it can ensure all 20 players get enough game time

That would leave the other club with 10 players on the age in difficulty but that could be overcome by that club fielding at every second age rather than every age

Amalgamations are not always the best solution

Ok, so I want to make a general observation before addressing your specific proposal.

The general observation is that myself and some other posters on here would prefer the board to take the following approach to amalgamations:
First, listen to and take on board the observations of people in the clubs, who are in a much better position than board members to know the specific issues the clubs are facing wrt player retention, transfers, etc.

Second, if an amalgamation is working well and is not fairly blatantly being used to compete at a higher level (as opposed to at least one of the clubs being short of numbers), then it should be left as is. If the numbers change significantly (e.g., if there is a year where all the clubs involved could field separately) then suspend it for that year.

Topper can correct me, but it looks to me like he'd be happy with something like what I've just described. As he's described it, his own club cannot field teams at certain ages, and the amalgamation they are in is working well with goodwill built up on both sides.

Is there anything in what I've described with which you would disagree?

As regards your specific proposal (your third in this thread), I think it might work in certain circumstances. But go back and read the first post in this thread again. One of the key points raised there is parents looking to transfer their boys from the smaller club to their stronger neighbours. If your proposal was enacted, certain boys either would never play at their own age all the way up, or would play at their own age only every two years (or more). I suggest (again, Topper might correct me if I've gotten the wrong end of the stick) this would a further incentive to parents to transfer their boys to a club big enough that they can play on the age all the way up.

 

[Rebelred]

fair enough, not an ideal situation to be in, as i said earlier today there is no black and white when it comes to amalgamations

I have to praise your honesty in admitting half the reason ye amalgamated was to become more competitive. Most would vehemently deny this

I think that may be at the core of why the Board are being so gung ho over amalgamations

For my own amalgamation, playing together has meant that we have always been able to field across all ages and we're playing at a level or two higher than we would have previously when we struggled to field 13 a side teams as a standalone unit. It's a benefit, no question. More games, 15 a side games, no stressing about will we have enough players to field each week, people being able to take time to recover from injury etc.
It also has meant players can develop at their own rate, the small u11 isn't having to field at u14 when he's clearly not able for it.
In turn, playing at those levels(typically D1 or D2) has meant we are producing better players than we were previously, another positive. Both adult first teams are slowly reaping the benefits of that.
But above all, player retention rates have increased, measurably, for both clubs.
Would both clubs love to have our own full underage teams, yes, but is it feasible and sustainable right now, no. Relations between both clubs are very good and there's mutual respect and understanding as well as a healthy rivalry at adult level.
But these small club problems are glossed over but the big dogs on the board who know better than those on the ground.

 

[red&blue]

Ok, so I want to make a general observation before addressing your specific proposal.

The general observation is that myself and some other posters on here would prefer the board to take the following approach to amalgamations:
First, listen to and take on board the observations of people in the clubs, who are in a much better position than board members to know the specific issues the clubs are facing wrt player retention, transfers, etc.

agreed

Second, if an amalgamation is working well and is not fairly blatantly being used to compete at a higher level (as opposed to at least one of the clubs being short of numbers), then it should be left as is. If the numbers change significantly (e.g., if there is a year where all the clubs involved could field separately) then suspend it for that year.

agreed

Topper can correct me, but it looks to me like he'd be happy with something like what I've just described. As he's described it, his own club cannot field teams at certain ages, and the amalgamation they are in is working well with goodwill built up on both sides.

Is there anything in what I've described with which you would disagree?

nothing at all as ive already statec loads of times

As regards your specific proposal (your third in this thread), I think it might work in certain circumstances. But go back and read the first post in this thread again. One of the key points raised there is parents looking to transfer their boys from the smaller club to their stronger neighbours. If your proposal was enacted, certain boys either would never play at their own age all the way up, or would play at their own age only every two years (or more). I suggest (again, Topper might correct me if I've gotten the wrong end of the stick) this would a further incentive to parents to transfer their boys to a club big enough that they can play on the age all the way up.

im not sure it would. that is exactly how smaller clubs worked before rebel og was introduced so it would be nothing new.

However to protect the smaller club from losing players it would be better to continue the amalgamations as you outlined above

 

[red&blue]

For my own amalgamation, playing together has meant that we have always been able to field across all ages and we're playing at a level or two higher than we would have previously when we struggled to field 13 a side teams as a standalone unit. It's a benefit, no question. More games, 15 a side games, no stressing about will we have enough players to field each week, people being able to take time to recover from injury etc.
It also has meant players can develop at their own rate, the small u11 isn't having to field at u14 when he's clearly not able for it.
In turn, playing at those levels(typically D1 or D2) has meant we are producing better players than we were previously, another positive. Both adult first teams are slowly reaping the benefits of that.
But above all, player retention rates have increased, measurably, for both clubs.
Would both clubs love to have our own full underage teams, yes, but is it feasible and sustainable right now, no. Relations between both clubs are very good and there's mutual respect and understanding as well as a healthy rivalry at adult level.
But these small club problems are glossed over but the big dogs on the board who know better than those on the ground.

if anything good comes out of this discussion maybe its some member of the county board reading this post and taking on board the experiences of someone at the coal face of an amalgamation

pigs will fly i guess

 

[Henrys Fonda]

Shur who cares if the young fellas up the road get to play or not. You're having a mare.

He has a horrendous attitude to this debate.

 

[omar]

The mighty all conquering St Colemans beaten by Dungourney in the East Cork U21B final yesterday. After all the pearl clutching, its almost like these clubs know what they are doing!

 

[Killyoursons]

agreed

agreed

nothing at all as ive already statec loads of times

Fair enough.

im not sure it would. that is exactly how smaller clubs worked before rebel og was introduced so it would be nothing new.

Neither of us can be *sure* how it would work - but to my mind it gives an incentive to parents to transfer their boys to the bigger club.

However to protect the smaller club from losing players it would be better to continue the amalgamations as you outlined above

Right - but that seems to make your other suggestions moot.

 

[red&blue]

Fair enough.

Neither of us can be *sure* how it would work - but to my mind it gives an incentive to parents to transfer their boys to the bigger club.

there were no mass exodus’ before, i doubt there would be again

Right - but that seems to make your other suggestions moot.

they are all just suggestions for god sake, its not as if Pat Horgan will be implementing them next year

 

[red&blue]

He has a horrendous attitude to this debate.

here comes another one, you seem to love remarking on my posts without ever engaging me

 

[Henrys Fonda]

But they have ignored the observations as the OP stated.
You think a board that recommended 8 years olds to play u12 is fit for purpose or capable of making decisions on amalgamations?

^^^Earlier today, engagement.

here comes another one, you seem to love remarking on my posts without ever engaging me

If you are going to lie at least make a factual effort.
Tbh all though I did engage earlier, it’s pointless as you have zero respect for small clubs and their struggles.