Originally Posted by
KITZ
Of course they'd have to allow it. Lakes lost a whole team of 16's last year, so they can't turn around and tell cooks that they can't do the same.
In all honestly if they promoted New Lambton they might get lucky and still field a team because every time I've seen them they carry a full team, and the maximum amount of subs in each age group. in JDL they were rotating a full team on and off the park, and in NL1 games I've seen them do almost the same. Maybe northern need to cut the amount of players a club is allowed to register in each age group. For the girls JDL for the amount of subs NL had, those girls could have filled open spots at other clubs so those clubs could have enough subs, and those girls actually get more than 10 minutes of game time a week. Its extremely unfair on those kids to carry that many subs. If you looked at the top NL1 clubs now I reckon you could find all those missing u16s players sitting on the bench and playing 20 minutes of football a week.
In saying that I reckon the bailout in any other NL1 team that got promoted would be the same. Some kids just want to win so they sit at the top in NL1 and ignore the fact there's a whole competition above them. 16s is also a really difficult age group to fill, there's boys competing for places from 13-15s but if you are up for the challenge if you jump to 16s you can find somewhere to play.
Posting Permissions
