Boundaries - Fair or unfair?

Is Norwood unfairly treated?

Are any other clubs badly treated, or do they all think they are?

what about westies we have the airport and cemetary
so we get them coming and going

Needs to be based on participation rates, not geography!

I think it should be a combination of both, as equitably distributed as possible.

I reckon the metro zones should also be contiguous as much as possible.
IE Areas within one club zone not separated by someone else's zone.

The problem is the log jam of clubs in the western suburbs.

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:The problem is the log jam of clubs in the western suburbs.

SNAP!

It has to happen that those clubs see their area expand as areas like Oakden, Craigmore, Salisbury Heights and Greenwith continue to expand. My mail is that North Adelaide face the very real possibiity of their home ground on Menzies Crs being excluded from the footprint that they are given as they are pushed into Oakden and WWT are pushed past Fitzroy to remain with equal numbers.

I'll try to find out if the participation rates for the last redistribution are publicly available.

I know that West had the lowest participation rate for many, many years and they've never been near the top.

redandblack wrote:Is Norwood unfairly treated?
Are any other clubs badly treated, or do they all think they are?

Firstly, I'd like to thank TFSA and R&Bfor taking my sarcastic questions on board prior to asking Mr. Chandler about my zoning concerns. To stay 'pure' to this thread I've edited my post from the First Interview thread on Who Are They Interviewing This Week?

Please understand that my views are 'holistic', as I hope I would defend any club's misfortune in similar circumstances.
A Norwood man eternal I may be, but I trust our fair minded TFSA members will understand my concerns are altruistic for all our
league club's interests regarding traditional 'homeland'.

My overiding point is that in a league espousing grass roots support to survive, and with the current advertising push that uses
OUR money, stating that "Your Tribe Is Calling!" WHY, WHY, WHY on Earth is our own league wrongfully tampering with the very boundaries that define, delineate and ultimately tribalise who the hell we are as supporters ???
Here is that post:

If your club is being adversely affected by any boundary changes you should let your club and the league know. Personally, from a purely Norwood point of view, I left ‘concerned’ light years ago and right now I’m about 3 galaxies beyond livid! Apologies for the following whinge, but if I don’t release some toxic critical mass I just might go thermonuclear.

Imagine if Norwood were given part of Port Road along with Alberton and Cheltenham, or Brighton Road with Glenelg’s Brighton and Hove, or heaven forbid, maybe Unley Road including Malvern, Parkside, Fullarton and Eastwood? Well you don’t get much more Norwood than ‘The Parade’, but unbelievably the entire top section of The Parade to Norton Summit Road and beyond has all been handed to another club. This is along with a huge number of other dyed in the wool, Red n Blue suburbs and Hill’s towns east of Penfolds Road, St. Bernards Road and Stradbroke Road, that used to be utterly Norwood since 1878! It’s manifestly intolerable !

I mean no disrespect to Sturt or ANY other club. Boundaries need to take account of demographics, but ‘fair suck of the sav’ gentlemen, do it correctly. How the hell can a league claiming to be all for ‘Grass Roots Tribal Football’ simply destroy a club’s traditional heartland? You need to magnify the SANFL zone map to really see the damage being done, but get this, the Norwood Morialta High School (Junior campus), the Magill Primary School, Rostrevor College and what used to be Campbelltown High School are now all in the ‘Sturt Zone’. That’s as well as all the small Hill’s hamlets to the east that supplied any number of Norwood champions.

I never thought we’d live to see the day when ANYTHING north of Greenhill Road, to the east of Fullarton Road, would be stripped from it’s rightful owner. Darren, by all means keep Sturt healthy, but stop stealing Norwood heartland to do it! There MUST be a fairer way. Perhaps Sturt could get a better share of the country areas that currently seem to favour 1 or 2 successful clubs. Remember figures do lie. Just guessing here, but let’s say 50 out of 100 country boys might play football where regional choice is limited, whereas competition for all the other sports and interests in city areas may mean that only 10 or 20 out of 100 city boys actually take up Aussie Rules.

Of course it gets even worse for The Legs as one looks north. Of the pitifully small geographical area Norwood has left in the metropolitan zone, a good 60-70% is now north of Greenwith/Yatala Vale! That’s slap bang in the middle of Central District supporter territory. Oh yeah, Norwood can really look forward to getting stupendous returns from areas bordering Elizabeth East, Munno Para and Evanston. Does anyone seriously think that people from Little Para Reservoir, to nearly, but not including Gawler, will now suddenly be singing ‘It’s A Grand Old Flag’ ? Sorry Darren, this isn’t so much a joke as a flamin’ nightmare. Bulldog people should be pretty upset too !

I notice the map of Country Zones isn’t on the SANFL site. A few weeks ago I rang league headquarters and insisted on a copy. After a few software problems we managed to open the attachment and found out why it’s not made readily available for general perusal on the League’s website. It’s a hotch-potch of weirdness including 2 strange islands for West Adelaide and another unacceptable rip-off for Norwood. Honestly, after all the events of the 1990’s it’s a pity that loyalty seems to remain a one-way street.

You might as well save on the advertising Darren, ‘Our Tribes ARE Calling’, but will The League start listening before it’s too late ?

Not a happy vegemite,
Sabre.

I agree with the sentiment of your post Sabre, but I don't know how else you equalise participation rates and 'eligible male' rates without reassigning various suburbs. If we left each club with its traditional heartland intact we would have an inequitable system. As the populations of different suburbs expand or shrink, the boundaries need to be reassessed.

When you say "Perhaps Sturt could get a better share of the country areas that currently seem to favour 1 or 2 successful clubs. " are you just asking them to do what they're doing but to someone else?

I can't see logic to why Sturt have Rostrevor and Magill etc but then lose Blackwood.

I think I am mostly with Sabre's arguments.
But I don't have the facts in front of me re numbers of kids that clubs have access to.

Would the idea of core inner suburban areas in more or less in their traditional geography and perhaps more rationalised outer areas / country towns work?

This alters what I said about contiguous zones, but I suppose something has to give in the balance between logic and equity.

I don't know if boundaries are fair/unfair, whatever. I'm not sure how they can measure how many boys will be playing football in the next 5 years, etc. A lot of boys couldn't care less about playing footy these days.

All I know is it seems a little silly to me to have the Sturt FC at Unley, a Sturt Zone in Rostrevor, and smack in the middle is the Norwood Oval.

I recall starting out with Norwood U17s. My parents didn't have cars, I had to find my own way to practice and back home again. Norwood was local so it made it easier. I'm glad I didn't have to travel from Rostrevor - Unley - Rostrevor 3 or 4 times a week. I would have lost interest very quickly.

But ... it IS the SANFL, so anything is possible.

I know I will be howled down for saying this but here goes.

South Adelaide have the rough end of the stick when it comes to zones.

Clubs are currently allocated zones by calculating the number of males of 14-18 years in their areas. On this basis many would think that to be a fair and reasonable way to do it.
However, perhaps a better way to do it is to drill down on that demographic and allocate zones based on Football participation in those age groups. ie registered players. On this basis you will discover that South Adelaide will run a very,very distant 9th .

Stand by for more news on this in the future.

blueandwhite wrote:I know I will be howled down for saying this but here goes.

South Adelaide have the rough end of the stick when it comes to zones.

Clubs are currently allocated zones by calculating the number of males of 14-18 years in their areas. On this basis many would think that to be a fair and reasonable way to do it.
However, perhaps a better way to do it is to drill down on that demographic and allocate zones based on Football participation in those age groups. ie registered players. On this basis you will discover that South Adelaide will run a very,very distant 9th .

Stand by for more news on this in the future.

Could not more agree B&W, it did not help matters when we finally had a run of success and the SANFL then handed a group of our juniors to West Adelaide and Glenelg, I do think this issue has held the SAFC back as its not even remotely equal in distribution and I do hope that the SAFC go to the Supreme Court over it and vigourously fight the SANFL over it to at least make things even as opposed to the current farce...

I'm not sure that's right about South's boundaries. South ranked 5th at the last change of boundaries, with one of the fastest growing areas.

West, on the other hand, have been in the bottom 3 in the last 15 years and were last at the 2006 changes.

I'll look at it in more detail tomorrow.

blueandwhite wrote:I know I will be howled down for saying this but here goes.

South Adelaide have the rough end of the stick when it comes to zones.

Clubs are currently allocated zones by calculating the number of males of 14-18 years in their areas. On this basis many would think that to be a fair and reasonable way to do it.
However, perhaps a better way to do it is to drill down on that demographic and allocate zones based on Football participation in those age groups. ie registered players. On this basis you will discover that South Adelaide will run a very,very distant 9th .

Stand by for more news on this in the future.

The main problem in Souths zone is that most 14-18 males in the Southern suburbs aren't playing football. Most of them are hanging around shopping centres wearing baggy pants, listening to hip hop music, and just making a general nuisance of themselves.

Gingernuts wrote:

blueandwhite wrote:I know I will be howled down for saying this but here goes.

South Adelaide have the rough end of the stick when it comes to zones.

Clubs are currently allocated zones by calculating the number of males of 14-18 years in their areas. On this basis many would think that to be a fair and reasonable way to do it.
However, perhaps a better way to do it is to drill down on that demographic and allocate zones based on Football participation in those age groups. ie registered players. On this basis you will discover that South Adelaide will run a very,very distant 9th .

Stand by for more news on this in the future.

The main problem in Souths zone is that most 14-18 males in the Southern suburbs aren't playing football. Most of them are hanging around shopping centres wearing baggy pants, listening to hip hop music, and just making a general nuisance of themselves.

unfortunately you are correct.

redandblack wrote:I'm not sure that's right about South's boundaries. South ranked 5th at the last change of boundaries, with one of the fastest growing areas.

West, on the other hand, have been in the bottom 3 in the last 15 years and were last at the 2006 changes.

I'll look at it in more detail tomorrow.

R@B , make sure you look at Participation rates.. not population.

THanks, B & W, I will.

blueandwhite wrote:I know I will be howled down for saying this but here goes.
South Adelaide have the rough end of the stick when it comes to zones.

No howling from me B&W. I agree. But if the league don’t stop soon, the wind might start howling a helluva lot more
for South. Read on …………

Without any doubt, what has happened to South Adelaide for well over 100 years has been a complete disgrace.
I read somewhere that South and Norwood used to share a boundary somewhere around the South/East Parklands not
far from Kent Town. Since then, unlike any other club, South have been systematically uprooted from every traditional
home they’ve ever had. From South Terrace to St. Mary’s to Noarlunga. And the league continues to steal from them every
suburb they’ve grabbed as a foothold and tried to develop along the way. You can't blame South for their lack of flags since ’64.
It sure as hell ain’t all their fault.

(With tongue in cheek) I wonder if the Hickinbotham organisation have earmarked some flat ground around Yankalilla for
your next oval. Talk about being ‘ridden out of town’! Hey B&W, when the clowns screwing up our zones have the Panther's
last base at Cape Jervis, make sure the team can swim mate. And not a short swim either, ‘coz you can bet someone else will
own Kangaroo Island by then. Nah mate, just keep swimmin’ until you get to Cape Denison, Commonwealth Bay.
With any luck, if the league are feeling generous, they might let you use the roof of Mawson’s Hut as a grandstand.
For a fee of course.

Oh, and better take some black paint to mark out the oval and posts because of the snow. I can’t say I’m looking forward
to your home games, but look on the bright side Panthers, in an Antarctic blizzard, if you win the toss you’ll not only win
the game in the 1st quarter with a 3,500 goal breeze, but you can bet all those bad jokes about Noarlunga being cold and
windswept will stop forever.


Of course, long before then, the joke will be on Norwood as we loose Moomba and start the fight to keep Innamincka in our
zone whilst playing all our home games in Haddon’s Corner.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haddon_Corner

Luv,
Sabre.

Sabre wrote:I read somewhere that South and Norwood used to share a boundary somewhere around the South/East Parklands not
far from Kent Town.

In the late 60s/ early 70s, I lived in St.Peters which was in Norwood's zone. Right across the road (Harrow Road) from me was South Adelaide's zone. Had I lived across the road, I would have been zoned to South. Adelaide Oval was South's home ground at that time.

Now, herein lies the point of my story. I liked the idea of playing for Norwood because it was only a 10 minute walk from where I lived. Had I been a South lad, and they re-located, I would have ended up at Panther Park which I would have found impossible to deal with. There may have been a real chance of footy losing me altogether.

I think it's important for young lads to identify with a local club, one that is easily accessible, and these current boundaries are not catering for that. I could easily see local Rostrevor lads saying, "Stuff playing for Sturt, I'll go play amateur league, or even soccer, with my mates".

This'll probably go down like a lead balloon but if the boundry/zoning system is so difficult to administrate and so contentious and no doubt always has been and always will be then why keep it?

I don't know the history of zoning but I'd guess it's been around a while and was introduced at a time when it was needed. Given the modern increase in local migration so it's common to have Norwood diehards and their potential playing offspring living in Glenelg or Doggies and theirs living in Norwood and so on is zoning really still needed today?

Regards
JAS

[quote="Adelaide Hawk I could easily see local Rostrevor lads saying, "Stuff playing for Sturt, I'll go play amateur league, or even soccer, with my mates".[/quote]

Well that has happened.
I family I know with 2 lads. Norwood supporters, but they live in Sturt's zone.
THey went with the flow and played for Sturt.
Eldest lad played one or two reserves games. Youngest lad just finished U18s.
Not sure if he will stay.

But here is the double rub.They probably should have been traditionally in Norwood's zone (reckon they live in Toorak Gdns?) But the current problem is that once they finish U18, given the need to rotate players, if they don't quite make the Ressies cut, they go off to the ammos anyway.
The eldest went back to Rostrevor Old Boys where he went to school and is in their A grade side.

So you have to wonder, after messing with the zones to get them into a given club, and that club can't find room for them and they drift off anyway. So yeah is the system is working very well.

This story actually made it onto a current affairs program in the 1970s:

I went to school with a lad who just loved Norwood. So much so, his parents bought a new house in the Norwood area so he could play for the Legs. He wasn't a bad player either.

Anyway, the league decided to re-define the boundaries, and it was discovered he was now linked to North Adelaide. After a long and drawn out process, the SANFL dug in their heels, and he was not allowed to play for Norwood, so he gave the game away.

Nobody won ... but at least the SANFL made a stance.

Probably not the subject of this zone thread, but the player churn issue is an interesting one and probably needs its own thread.

Scrap the zoning boundaries IMO. Or give me the job.

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:Probably not the subject of this zone thread, but the player churn issue is an interesting one and probably needs its own thread.

Chambo, you may know the answer to this. I played school footy with Silvano Cece. Neither of us understood the reason why, but he had a choice as to whether he'd play for Sturt or Norwood. He chose Sturt because he considered the Norwood juniors were too strong, which was ridiculous, Silvano would have made both teams. I've often wondered why he had that choice as I always thought boundaries were clearly defined. I myself was the opposite side of the street to South Adelaide's zone. No grey area there.