The County Board Complaints Thread

[Reservedcitizen]

Suppose you have the likes of ballinure with Blackrock and rochestown next to douglas

Very small clubs really operating one team junior football teams could they be built up a bit with help from board etc

Ballyphehane have done a great job last few years building back up underage and additional teams - 2 adult football teams and a hurling team again great to see

The only way those clubs can build up at underage is to get designated primary schools that only they can access.
That won't happen unless all clubs in Cork come under some sort of coaching scheme like Dublin.
Each club in Dublin is linked to a number of schools and only that club can put their GPO until that school (apart from a handful of examples that would have traditionally been split)
As the county board in Dublin administer funds for the GPO, the clubs have to stay aligned to the agreements set out by the board.
Parnells when they came into money, started going into more schools than they swere designated and were basically ostracised by the county board. So the county would have to be providing funding directly or indirectly to Douglas, but Douglas are no longer allowed go into the schools in Rochestown area, only the Rochestown coach. And if Douglas go into those schools, their funding is withdrawn.
Is that willingness of leadership there to do that?

 

[red&blue]

The only way those clubs can build up at underage is to get designated primary schools that only they can access.
That won't happen unless all clubs in Cork come under some sort of coaching scheme like Dublin.
Each club in Dublin is linked to a number of schools and only that club can put their GPO until that school (apart from a handful of examples that would have traditionally been split)
As the county board in Dublin administer funds for the GPO, the clubs have to stay aligned to the agreements set out by the board.
Parnells when they came into money, started going into more schools than they swere designated and were basically ostracised by the county board. So the county would have to be providing funding directly or indirectly to Douglas, but Douglas are no longer allowed go into the schools in Rochestown area, only the Rochestown coach. And if Douglas go into those schools, their funding is withdrawn.
Is that willingness of leadership there to do that?

The money isnt there never mind the leadership but thats exactly what i was suggesting should happen

 

[red&blue]

I think Peopleluas said this would only apply to a club which have a certain number of players registered at a certain age group. You could even tweak that idea, e.g., if you have thirty players or more registered at, say, U14 you don't have to field 'regional' teams but you have that option. If you have forty players or more registered at that age, you have to field two teams. (Those numbers are just to give an idea, in practice they'd probably have to be higher.)

i think it might end up being counter productive to have the super clubs being forced to split their players into 2 equal teams instead of A and B teams which allows a cross over between the two. You would need at least 50 players to do it

 

[ThatFella]

Not a good look for the County Board today...
They tried to be proactive by bringing games forward but that hasn't worked and now postponed the games.

Some people already there and stewards and staff were in place.

Look I think they got it right, 2 games today pitch wouldn't be the best for tomorrows main event as the Intermediate is on before Senior so that'd be 3 games by time Senior play.

 

[peopleluas]

i think it might end up being counter productive to have the super clubs being forced to split their players into 2 equal teams instead of A and B teams which allows a cross over between the two.

I definitely agree with this to a point. I considered addressing it when I posted my idea, but I was concerned that a longer post on my behalf would dull the essence of my proposal in the mind of the reader.

So I will address it here now.

First a recap of my proposal:

My proposal is to geographically-partition clubs which have

• greater than a defined threshold number of players turning 8 in the calendar year, and
• have an adult team in either code playing at the premier senior grade (I have a reason for that condition too - a reason you might not expect).

and to not do it all at once, but that as those 8 year olds age then they are always representing their partition of the club.

Should there still be A & B teams?:

Absolutely yes. Examples:

• The main club is under the partition threshold, but has enough players for an A and B team - absolutely there should be an A and B team.
• The main club is well over the partition threshold. The player numbers are slightly under the number which would allow for 3 partitions, so they go for 2 partitions, both under the partition-threshold. One of the partitions has enough players for a A and B team - then absolutely that partition should field an A and a B team.

 

[red&blue]

I definitely agree with this to a point. I considered addressing it when I posted my idea, but I was concerned that a longer post on my behalf would dull the essence of my proposal in the mind of the reader.

So I will address it here now.

First a recap of my proposal:

My proposal is to geographically-partition clubs which have

• greater than a defined threshold number of players turning 8 in the calendar year, and
• have an adult team in either code playing at the premier senior grade (I have a reason for that condition too - a reason you might not expect).

and to not do it all at once, but that as those 8 year olds age then they are always representing their partition of the club.

Should there still be A & B teams?:

Absolutely yes. Examples:

• The main club is under the partition threshold, but has enough players for an A and B team - absolutely there should be an A and B team.
• The main club is well over the partition threshold. The player numbers are slightly under the number which would allow for 3 partitions, so they go for 2 partitions, both under the partition-threshold. One of the partitions has enough players for a A and B team - then absolutely that partition should field an A and a B team.

ok, let me first say any club that has enough numbers for 2 teams should seriously consider splitting their group into 2 relatively equal standard teams and look after and develop all their players strong and weak. Let them pick A and B teams from u16 up and as a one off for Feile

However in reality it will not happen as most clubs want to put all their good players onto one team. Take the current debate about amalgamated teams, and lets use the most vocal of them as an example, would Kiltha Og agree to do this? Split their group into 2 independent equal standard teams? Id be shocked if they agreed to it because just like any club or team, they want their best players playing together.

For that reason I would be reluctant to force that onto the few super clubs, but again let me irritate, its something they should possibly look at themselves. But they shouldnt be forced to do so because 1) they have the numbers and 2) they are doing a good job of looking after them, up to a point

I know one of the super clubs have in the past few years been wondering what would be the best system to use in their underage to 1) retain numbers 2) get more players through to senior. (they are falling down on both but at least they know it! 2 equal teams up to u14/15 would suit them down to the ground

It actually might be the best option for amalgamated teams too if they have enough numbers for 2 teams on the age and it could be the compromise that keeps everyone happy. If they want to enter 2 teams split them equally

As i said previously i am against forcing senior clubs to split their teams equally just because they are senior. It reminds me of the farce of a current rule by our board that allows 18 year olds play junior but not senior

I dont think using the equal teams rule at u11 down is necessary, its already there, clubs split their players into equal teams every week and it works a treat

You’re ideas are well thought out in fairness to you

 

[peopleluas]

For that reason I would be reluctant to force that onto the few super clubs, but again let me irritate, its something they should possibly look at themselves. But they shouldnt be forced to do so because 1) they have the numbers and 2) they are doing a good job of looking after them, up to a point

I am not in a super-club myself so I don't know first-hand, but my sense of it from second hand accounts is that they have (or have available to them to recruit) loads of 8 year olds, but by the time they are 18 their numbers are far far lower, and lower again at any age at adult level.

So think of what I am suggesting with reference to an analog - the divisions:

• For example, there's a Muskerry Premier Senior football team. Adult players with Macroom can play in that team if they are selected. Macroom also fields teams at other adult grades. At underage, if Macroom have enough players at (say) u14, they can field two u14 teams, and they would likely field one u14 team with the currently more able players at one grade and another u14 team with the currently less able players at a lower grade. If Macroom gives the same priority in respect, coaching-attention (i.e. whoever the boys see at the main coach), and recognition to both teams then fantastic (retention will be good).
• Now look at the likes of Ballincollig or the Barrs. What I am suggesting is that if they have a team in Premier Senior, and if they have more than a large threshold of players at u8, then their boys (and eventually their young men) would be better served if they were kinda like divisions too in one way. And so, they should be forced, or at the very least massively incentivised with funding or whatever else (sell the PuC albatross if there's no other way - this is more important), to geographically-partition the club in the incremental way (starting at those 8 year olds and moving up year on year - or faster if they want to) - but sharing facilities for optimal usage and retaining overall club allegiance. Just like Macroom in Muskerry, a particular Barrs-partition club might at some age group find it needs to field two teams - they would likely field one team with the currently more able players and another team with the currently less able players. And whether or not that distribution of players amongst those two teams is a good or a bad thing will I think depend on how that Barrs-partition treats them (just like Macroom).

p.s. I am not from Macroom, or Ballincollig, or the Barrs - only using them as examples in an attempt to explain my suggestion. I am not necessarily either defending my suggestion, as surely it can be improved on or shown to be fundamentally flawed - I am just explaining it, and I sincerely appreciate the critique/discussion.

 

[red&blue]

I am not in a super-club myself so I don't know first-hand, but my sense of it from second hand accounts is that they have (or have available to them to recruit) loads of 8 year olds, but by the time they are 18 their numbers are far far lower, and lower again at any age at adult level.

Neither am I, well not in comparison to Ballincollig, Douglas, Sarsfields anyway but all these things are relative to each persons situation

The issue is not numbers, it is as you say above player retention up to u18 and beyond. But i think it is also attracting players in at 7/8 years of age. Is enough being done to attract in kids in larger clubs? Im not so sure

The three clubs i mentioned above could have 50-80 players available at u8, the Barrs and most other bigger clubs typically would have half of that 30-40

So think of what I am suggesting with reference to an analog - the divisions:

• For example, there's a Muskerry Premier Senior football team. Adult players with Macroom can play in that team if they are selected. Macroom also fields teams at other adult grades. At underage, if Macroom have enough players at (say) u14, they can field two u14 teams, and they would likely field one u14 team with the currently more able players at one grade and another u14 team with the currently less able players at a lower grade. If Macroom gives the same priority in respect, coaching-attention (i.e. whoever the boys see at the main coach), and recognition to both teams then fantastic (retention will be good).

i hear ya and i agree in principle that this would be a good pathway to take but for all clubs, but not just those playing premier senior, the clubs adult grading is totally irrelevant

Clubs with enough numbers could easily form 2 evenly panels based loosely on their geographical area. Call ours St Finbarrs Blue and St Finbarrs Gold for instance and enter them at u12 to u15 with club teams starting at u16.

Again I have to say I dont think this would work at go games level as all club players turn up and are split into equal teams on the day anyway

• Now look at the likes of Ballincollig or the Barrs. What I am suggesting is that if they have a team in Premier Senior, and if they have more than a large threshold of players at u8, then their boys (and eventually their young men) would be better served if they were kinda like divisions too in one way. And so, they should be forced, or at the very least massively incentivised with funding or whatever else (sell the PuC albatross if there's no other way - this is more important), to geographically-partition the club in the incremental way (starting at those 8 year olds and moving up year on year - or faster if they want to) - but sharing facilities for optimal usage and retaining overall club allegiance. Just like Macroom in Muskerry, a particular Barrs-partition club might at some age group find it needs to field two teams - they would likely field one team with the currently more able players and another team with the currently less able players. And whether or not that distribution of players amongst those two teams is a good or a bad thing will I think depend on how that Barrs-partition treats them (just like Macroom).

To go back to the bigger picture of helping smaller or new clubs I still would prefer that a cap of 50 registered players at any age would be placed on all clubs. Once that 50 mark is fulfilled all other players would then join the second club in their area.

Imagine what 30-40 8 year olds walking into a struggling (or new) club with a county board plan in place to look after them would do for that club?

p.s. I am not from Macroom, or Ballincollig, or the Barrs - only using them as examples in an attempt to explain my suggestion. I am not necessarily either defending my suggestion, as surely it can be improved on or shown to be fundamentally flawed - I am just explaining it, and I sincerely appreciate the critique/discussion.

There is a much bigger picture than just the super clubs here, the lack of investment and planning in the city has decimated alot of the smaller clubs. Some are gone already and most of the rest are hanging on by their fingernails.

Meanwhile areas like Ballincollig, Douglas Carrigaline and Glannmire have grown hugely in the last 30 years and that growth has been ignored from the top down

While our debate on player retention is very interesting this is the area where the board should be focusing on in conjunction with the review of amalgamated clubs

Its never going to happen unfortunately

 

[NorthLad1]

There’s a lot of talk on here about the development of young players and the transition to inter county and senior levels.
Yet the county board continues to ignore the county u21 grade year in year out. We’re nearly in November now when school and college competitions are thriving, when pitches around the county are shite, and the county board still can’t fixture a few simple quarter finals. Something needs to change at this grade. The u21 grade used to be one of the most exciting and promising grades but look at it now

 

[peopleluas]

i hear ya and i agree in principle that this would be a good pathway to take but for all clubs, but not just those playing premier senior, the clubs adult grading is totally irrelevant

I completely agree with you that club's adult grading is totally irrelevant. However ....... no matter what change one suggests in all human endeavours, there is natural opposition from those who fear the consequences will be bad, and only lukewarm support from many of those who think the consequences could be good (they naturally fear unintended consequences). So I think taking on all clubs at once at the beginning would be too great a challenge. It would be important to find some way to subset the applicable clubs, and do it on that subset first, iron out problems and adapt to avoid unintended consequences, and ultimately demonstrate real success for the impacted clubs. Then, it will be easier to convince that it should apply to more clubs.

That's why I suggested that it should be applied to clubs having a number over a defined threshold of players turning 8, but also that this would only apply to clubs with a team playing premier senior. I viewed the adult grading as only temporarily relevant until success was demonstrated.