Post history

History for foal30

Mainland Premier League (Part 1)

Back to topic

Current version

Posted February 14, 2011 22:48 · last edited March 18, 2021 06:10

I don't poach players and I resent the inferred  that I work for a club where that  is acceptable or the club's actual recruitment policy.

I coached 25 boys in 2 different teams 2010 season. 5 of these were new to Coastal. Only one player made the 2009 rep side(he played a year up).I nominated no players for Rep football in 2009 as I believe rep sides should be for the correct age group only.  In 2010 10 of them did. They made the rep team AFTER joining Coastal not BEFORE.4 of these 10 I have now coached for 5 seasons.

It was specifically listed in the Rep Coaches guide that no poaching of players would be accepted. I imagine this was in part because of our unhappiness with leaking our top players to other clubs once the rep season was complete.

Now that players and parents looking for high grade football see Coastal as an option we are the bad guys? Of the players trialing at the moment it is possible that no player new to Coastal will make the Division 1 side for the grade I select.

Yet we are poaching players?

Looking at it geographically maybe an argument could be made for residential zoning. We have players who also live near Burwood and Parklands clubs 'catchment areas'. One also might be closer to SAS or even Western. But as I imagine this is at best highly unlikely to happen we can expect competative parents to migrate to the clubs that seem to best align with their priorities.

Does offering a high performance unit , the COA and the Kanga Cup, an organized Coaching Network, and 12 months of football unbalance the Mainland Competition? If so, who is the onus on to address/fix this?

Internet whinging/agitation  is fine, I quite like it myself
but unquestionably for me Coastal is succeeding because people there have worked harder, not spent more $ or seemingly have a cosy relationship with the Mainland board.



 

Previous versions

1 version
Unknown editor edited March 18, 2021 06:10

I don't poach players and I resent the inferred  that I work for a club where that  is acceptable or the club's actual recruitment policy.

I coached 25 boys in 2 different teams 2010 season. 5 of these were new to Coastal. Only one player made the 2009 rep side(he played a year up).I nominated no players for Rep football in 2009 as I believe rep sides should be for the correct age group only.  In 2010 10 of them did. They made the rep team AFTER joining Coastal not BEFORE.4 of these 10 I have now coached for 5 seasons.

It was specifically listed in the Rep Coaches guide that no poaching of players would be accepted. I imagine this was in part because of our unhappiness with leaking our top players to other clubs once the rep season was complete.

Now that players and parents looking for high grade football see Coastal as an option we are the bad guys? Of the players trialing at the moment it is possible that no player new to Coastal will make the Division 1 side for the grade I select.

Yet we are poaching players?

Looking at it geographically maybe an argument could be made for residential zoning. We have players who also live near Burwood and Parklands clubs 'catchment areas'. One also might be closer to SAS or even Western. But as I imagine this is at best highly unlikely to happen we can expect competative parents to migrate to the clubs that seem to best align with their priorities.

Does offering a high performance unit , the COA and the Kanga Cup, an organized Coaching Network, and 12 months of football unbalance the Mainland Competition? If so, who is the onus on to address/fix this?

Internet whinging/agitation  is fine, I quite like it myselfTongue
but unquestionably for me Coastal is succeeding because people there have worked harder, not spent more $ or seemingly have a cosy relationship with the Mainland board.