Printable View
There is no hate towards Olympic,Quote:
Originally Posted by Beppe
Just a stupid move to try and play football on a Union ground.
It does not work, look at Cahill oval.
I have yet to see a decent football game get played on that hard bumpy dirt Field.
And i would be very dissapointed to see game like Olympic Vs Magic (if played on no2) get wrecked by a bumpy pitch.
Not only will spectators hate it but imagine playing on it.
That surface would need thousands poured into it urgently and possibly for more than one season to ever be considered. ID do not play finals series games there because they have better alternatives available the Associations claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by supa
For Olympic I still think well done, it forced the Council to make the ground multi sport before Union could lay claims to it entirely and it shows clubs are now willing to think of options that ten years ago I doubt committees would have ever even discussed.
From a source at the club,olympic were asked by n.n.s.w football to host some of their home games at no.2 sportsground,with the idea of northern apparently getting a foot in the door to be able to use the facility.I hadnt heard anything about hosting grand final there.From what i was told the first round against lakes was picked as this was the weekend before the first round of newcastle rugby union was to be held so the ground would be in good condition.Also heard northern made this the week olympic hosted the 15s games which would have ensured a bumper crowd throughout the day.Latest i have heard is that this match will actually be at darling street because apparently rugby union are now starting their competition on the same week as northern thus making the ground unavailable.Quote:
Originally Posted by demon
Northern NSW Football > NHRU ..... couldnt they use their size and make Union be second fiddle and make this the home of Newcastle Football ? GF"s, rep games, etc etcQuote:
Originally Posted by wannabe
The leather patch boys have more swing in town than our 'Federation'Quote:
Originally Posted by Youaskedforit
You made the statement so please explain where the hate in this comment is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beppe
What ashame we don't have any political pull in a region dominated by our football code. For all the good work the many many clubs of the region do, our code gets very little recognition or monetary backing. Between the council and state government they spent nearly 11Mil on No.2 with the NRU being custodians of the venue and having their offices there also.Quote:
Originally Posted by EH9
How would our many clubs feel in their respective councils kicked them off and put another code on their field? I think we ought to be careful about going down this path, not to mention the fed is building a massive facility at Speers Point that we could never have fit in at the top of town. Newcastle Football has so much deadwood it's beyond belief and so many directors that do very little for the game and have no vision, make me feel like they are very self serving. In saying that Russell Henry seems to be a shining beacon of hope there...Quote:
Originally Posted by Youaskedforit
I just simply cannot believe that the fed would be engaged in such deceptive and covert tactics to take over the facility. If they did want No.2 then why favour Olympic? Have they no teams or competitions during the summer months they could have played there? What about the Jets Youth, and Woman's teams? Why didn't they play at the venue when there is absolutely no one playing there over the summer months? I feel one game for Olympic is hardly a foot in the door when they could have played so many games over the summer. I seriously doubt a change of venue will increase crowd numbers for any team, regardless of the venue. And it would be stupid for the fed to want the venue and not want to play GF there. Once again does not make sense. And I just can't get past the fact that the Fed has planned a massive complex at Speers Point for such a long time that they would be politically isolating themselves by trying to take over other codes venues, and let's face it from my knowledge No.2 has never been a football ground. Old heads can correct me here.Quote:
Originally Posted by wannabe
Sorry to say but The Gardens is a terrible place to watch anything but dogs going around the track...Quote:
Originally Posted by demon
How has Olympic forced an agenda onto Newcastle Council and where is the multi sport on the venue? Can you tell me just how many sports are using the facility? I have to agree with cobra, it's silly, and an attempt to muscle in on another's turf will not work, and further i believe it will diminish respect for our code. In fact we look like we are desperate to get on the field, with really zero chance of it happening. Now in reality if council allow Olympic playing rights on No.2, then council turn around and say to Olympic that another code requires their ground on the same weekend they are playing in town, what will Olympic say and do? How will they protect Darling street, and why should they leave their home? I also must mention that ten years ago Pheonix were playing on No.1, so this is nothing new from a committee, but hardly something a would consider ground breaking territory in our code...
Pheonix didnt have No1 for very long. Didnt they move to athletics?
Phoenix could play in there......Can't be much worse than Cahill "Cricket Pitch" Oval.
Thats right it cant be worse,Quote:
Originally Posted by Bremsstrahlung
but valo / pheonix should look for there own ground which only football is played on.
tHat is why we should not agree (if there is something to agree on) to play any games at no2
because all we will be doing is whinging every week about the same shit that we do about
cahill Rugby,rugbyleague,baseball,cricket,football oval.
Do we still have a thread with questions to David Eland? I for one would like to ask the question of whether the Fed asked Olympic to do as stated above and why maybe other teams like Pheonix were not given the opportunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by wannabe
I would not say mixed use has to be a negative, provided the Councils placed effective resources to maintain the grounds. All clubs of all sports struggle for facilities because it is such a duplication. Football, League & Rugby being the winter codes are all competing for small pools of funds for playing level lighting, better sheds, canteens, playing surface improvements. Ask any poor committee member who put their hand up to do grant applications how depressing a job that can be.Quote:
Originally Posted by nbnjet
We all have our training facilities which each club needs but do we each need game standard facilities at every one of those? One example is Lambton... Harker Oval. What sort of facility could that have been if Football (Jaffas, Newc Football & Northern) and League (Wests & Newc League) worked together. Moved cricket to Arther Eddon, made the ground rectangular in front of the existing grand stand. Want funds, fine, take the now spare land on the far side and sell it as 2 or 3 housing blocks and pour that $600,000 into upgrading the canteen, dressing sheds and crowd shelter. Each code has it week about and Council commit to having 2 staff there to manage it, no one trains there and the qualified groundsman make the calls on washouts.
It works elsewhere, not perfectly, but how many of our current grounds and facilities are up to what we thing should be an acceptable standard?
I couldn't disagree about Russell, one employee whose heart is in his job. But if you don't like the directors then talk to your club president, its the clubs that vote. And I have seen the apathy at more than one club about who to vote for which might be why there is so little turn over, clubs just vote for a name the recognise. But I do have say the Wet Weather contact (Gail?) does an immense job each weekend once the rain kicks in.Quote:
Originally Posted by nbnjet
The brother of my daughter's team mate at her US College is looking to trial for a NBN League or NEWFM League team, he is a goalkeeper and turns 19 on Boxing Day.
He is willing to travel from the US to attend the trials, and he understands that if successful he probably won't be paid to play.
He is e-mailing me some info about himself, which I can forward onto anyone interested.
My information is he is a very good goalkeeper.
Can anyone advise me of upcoming trails please?
tbh most clubs have had there trials and selected there teamsQuote:
Originally Posted by Osvaldo
so you may be out of luck!
DEMON; It Doesnt work anywhere else. we constantly have large surface issues from the clubs that
share with Rugby League etc. They chew the ground up to much.
thats why we need only football coded fields not mixed..
The Only ground That really gets a bit shite through the season other then cahill oval is Southy..
The rest are pretty decent surfaces.
the reason behind southy is i reckon they let to many junior games on it thats why..
you obviously didnt visit west wallsend this season, also I dont know one player who likes playing at edgeworth, its like playing on a wet sponge even when its dryQuote:
Originally Posted by cobra23
you are kidding right ? maybe 3-4 games max gets played ulinga 1 with juniors, that being said, still a thousand times better then westy, cahill oval. that being said ulinga is up there with one of the better grounds. IMOQuote:
Originally Posted by cobra23
Ulinga is not the worst ground in newcastle, but definitely not up there with the best (IMO).Quote:
Originally Posted by RedMexican
And whats wrong with Westys Wembley!!
Leave Lyall Peacock out of this convo :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Wise Man
hahaha lakes ground was not looking to crash hot on saturday either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Wise Man
Hellooooo. And administrators if you can help? I hear Davad has been uncontactable and does not like discussing any matters with forum? Any truth? Can we still pose questions to him?Quote:
Originally Posted by nbnjet
Be interesting what comes of this as the NBN State League clubs have a majority and can really restrict the Jets Yoof to whatever they chooseQuote:
NORTHERN NSW State League clubs are certain to call for a tightening of eligibility criteria for Jets A-League players when representatives meet to flesh out next season's rules tonight.
See your ad here
NNSWF chief executive David Eland said the regulations outlining the Emerging Jets and Youth Jets sides' participation in the competition were the only items on the agenda for the state league standing committee meeting.
This year the Jets under-20s side made their state league debut, finishing fourth and bowing out in back-to-back finals losses after setting the pace through most of the season.
Despite the successful debut, there was unrest among clubs about the open eligibility criteria for A-League-contracted under-20 players in the competition.
Originally, three of these players were allowed to take part if they were local and not considered established A-League players. The definition of established was a player who had started more than five A-League games the previous season.
However, this definition was opened up to be a player who had taken part in 10 or more A-League games in each of the past two seasons.
This gave the Jets greater freedom to bring in young A-League players, changing the strength of the side more from week to week.
Eland said the eligibility of Jets A-League players was "certain to be the hot topic of discussions".
The other likely change is sure to meet little opposition.
This year the Jets had no link between feeder systems the NSW Institute of Sport and Emerging Athletes Program within the state league.
It meant the Jets youth side were unable to call up NSWIS players when short, which led to the depleted first-grade side having to put field players in goal when their keeper was sent off or suspended.
Meanwhile, Eland said the absence of new nominations for board positions at Sunday's annual general meeting was a vote of confidence in current directors.
In accordance with the NNSWF constitution, two directors - Alex McDonald and Phil Holt - retired from the board. However they nominated for a return and were elected unopposed along with previous appointee, Michael Gaertner.
See your ad here
Bill Walker and Gaertner were elected chairman and deputy chairman respectively unopposed. Helene O'Neill remained as a casual vacancy, meaning the board was unchanged.
The board was elected in dramatic circumstances in January this year after the removal of former directors over their sacking of Eland.
The board saw themselves as an interim group to stabilise NNSWF but will now remain in their posts until the 2014 annual meeting.
I see there is a vote of confidence in the board of NNSW. Does David Eland hold the same vote of confidence from this board? I hear he is quite the arrogant type...
Really couldnt help myself first post in the local forum for 2013 :arse:
congratsQuote:
Originally Posted by immersion
Thanks foreverRed this is one the best moments i have had this year so far :lulzturtle:Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverRed
From Northern NSW football Website;
(Under 23 & Senior Squad Role)
Lambton Jaffas will be holding Under 23s goal keeper trials for the 2013 NBN league season.
Persons who are interested in attending the trials, or require any further information are to contact David Tanchevski 0406 147 852, or Michael Ross 0407 488 832, to detail previous experience.
Triallists should be aspirational of a 1st team position.
South Cardiff trial games
17th Feb v Weston at Weston
24th Feb v Edgy at Edgy
26th March v Bel Swans at Blacksmiths
3rd March v Broadmeadow at Broadmeadow
10th March State Cup
17th March v Charlestown at Charlestown
sorry, belswans game 26 Feb
Now that most clubs have started pre-season training, can anyone confirm player movements for the upcoming season?
there's a whole thread on it EH9
Sorry Boz
Correct me if I'm wrong and I probaly am. I thought No2 had problems with the fire exists and nobody can play there untill they are widened?
How about you confirm what you know??? Your in the loop.Quote:
Originally Posted by EH9
Apparently yes, BUT if you provide "fire wardens" you can circumvent this issue. Why the question?Quote:
Originally Posted by Premy
Was just reading back threw the thread, with all the stuff about Olympic playing a game there was just curiousQuote:
Originally Posted by nbnjet
There is a possibility that if the expected crowd is less than a certain quota the issue may not be relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Premy
Bad mistake on Olympics behalf, in my honest opinion. They have a great facility, for what it is worth, tidy, clean, though not to the standard of Magic / Edgeworth, which they basically have care and control of and yet they want to play on No. 2 because they want to get a foot in the door to challenge Magic / Edgeworth for the grand final. Just my opinion based on what i have heard! A really bad tactical position for Olympic to hold and i cannot understand what the advantage to Olympic or the State League will be by them playing there, nor do i understand why the Fed is allowing it? Why have a criteria for a home venue and then transfer your club to another venue? We carry on about clubs building and advancing their facilities and yet we have this sort of rubbish going on. As you can see i am passionate about clubs building their facilities.
Questions need to be asked:
1. Why transfer the game to No. 2?
2. What is the tangible benefit from this transfer?
3. What is the advantage for the Fed to move this game?
4. What costs are involved with playing on No. 2?
5. Who will benefit from the costs of playing at No. 2?
6. Will No. 2 be available for future football use?
7. Will No. 2 be a regular venue for Olympic?
8. Will No. 2 have a sufficiently suitable surface for playing football during the season?
9. Who will be playing at Darling St while Olympic are at No. 2?
Couldn't agree with you more surely the money spent moving their games to No2 could be better spent upgrading darling st not that it's that bad.
I do think however a team of the likes of cooks hill could benifit from playing there. They have been a strong side for the last couple of years in ZPL and with a large junior base I think they would do well in New FM not sure why they haven't been promoted but if facilities is the reason then No2 could be the solution.
I have nothing to do with cooks hill by the way.
at Cooks Hill we did put in massive efforts to get use of #2, only for the Council to classify it in a manner that only allows the highest State level competitions to be played there
doesn't stop rugby playing juniors there though
Cooks Hill United are committed to improving the facilities at our current ground in order to meet requirements for State League - we are keen on promotion and will do so when NNSW allows (and we're in a position to do so)