1 Year Interclub Ban for Boys Changing Clubs

ShriekingSheet

This motion was carried by the Leinster GUI only, and applies to any u18 boy who has been a member of a club for 2 years or more. If he moves club he will not be allowed to represent the new club in GUI Cups & Shields for 1 year.

I presume it's an anti-poaching measure. It's difficult to come down fully on one side or other on this. There are three elements to the issue as I see it.

1. Clubs who've had good juniors come through, only to see them depart for another club, be it higher profile, or with better facilities, or with more higher calibre players.

2. You have the likelihood that certain clubs actively recruit teenagers from other clubs to boost their own teams, trophies and status, should one of the many kids brought in turn out to be very good.

3. This is the one that divides opinion. What about the boy himself. What if he wants to leave his "starter" club, where there may be few if any sparring partners and poor facilities. What if the new club made no approach whatsoever, and this is purely a boy, with the support of his parents, looking to set himself up in the best environment possible?

Each of the above goes on, but each one only applies to some cases.

The positive is that the rule stops the mercenary-style, short-term view of junior golf, with clubs poaching good players off each other, and it will stop things like families being split up into different clubs.

The worry is, the rule focuses completely on the clubs, and less so on the player, as highlighted in point 3.

There's no easy answer, and this has been going on for 100 years, but I'm interested in people's thoughts.

mag

carton aint gonna be happy

ernieprice

Some clubs put a lot of work and finances into junior golf with free coaching etc. and then have their players lured to a bigger club. This I believe was the reason for this motion to the Leinster ADM.

PARlance

Do people not just take up golf in their 20's, 30's......;)

It strikes me as a strange ruling to bring in.

It's a tough fact, but talent will be poached in nearly all aspects of life, it's not necessarily a bad thing either.

GAA (based on having to play on your parish) aside, it's common and expected in most sports that kids with talent will be elevated up to better more successful clubs. As long as the kids are getting the best coaching while they are there then I see no issue with it at all.

If you want to excel at something it's best to get the best player, coaches and facilities all in one place and working together.

It's not nice for clubs that have invested time and effort in players to then have them poached, however, sheltering them will only serve to drop standards.

Mister Sifter

No real feelings either way on the ethics of it all, but surely a 1 year ban isn't really going to put either club nor player off a move.

PARlance

Mister Sifter wrote: »

No real feelings either way on the ethics of it all, but surely a 1 year ban isn't really going to put either club nor player off a move.

1 year would be a big chunk of a "kids" career though.
When I was 13, a game of football that was on Saturday felt like a lifetime away, and that was me on a Thursday night.

I don't think anyone will happily take the ban, they'll just be more creative and make sure that they spend no longer than 2 years with any one club.

If anything this ruling will create more movement between clubs and make the poaching clubs more aggressive with targeting of kids at a younger age.

TheGolfer01

Can't see this ever being passed at national level, but you never know.

Mister Sifter

ajcurry123 wrote: »

1 year would be a big chunk of a "kids" career though.
When I was 13, a game of football that was on Saturday felt like a lifetime away, and that was me on a Thursday night.

I don't think anyone will happily take the ban, they'll just be more creative and make sure that they spend no longer than 2 years with any one club.

If anything this ruling will create more movement between clubs and make the poaching clubs more aggressive with targeting of kids at a younger age.

Nonsense, if you're a 15 or 16 year old kid and you're getting the chance to ditch the likes of Roganstown, Corrstown or whatever for the opportunity to practice and play somewhere like Portmarnock (top class facilities/setups) for the foreseeable then i think it's a no-brainer. Young lads will happily by-pass a year of inter-club for that.

ShriekingSheet

Mister Sifter wrote: »

Nonsense, if you're a 15 or 16 year old kid and you're getting the chance to ditch the likes of Roganstown, Corrstown or whatever for the opportunity to practice and play somewhere like Portmarnock (top class facilities/setups) for the foreseeable then i think it's a no-brainer. Young lads will happily by-pass a year of inter-club for that.

Yeah, I think the notion of "aggressive poaching" is a bit ridiculous.

The reality is the kids are mad keen to get into the better clubs and apply themselves.

The sad thing is, for most, it doesn't work out.

stockdam

What if the kid moves house to another area and joins a new club?
What if the kid's parents cannot afford the fees of one club and want to move him to a cheaper club (is this applicable)?
What if a brother, father or other family member moves to another club and the kid follows (maybe he gets s lift from his dad)?

In the case of a kid moving to "improve" then that's kinda life isn't it? Yes the original club may have invested money and time but you can't use this as an excuse if it's in the best interests of the kid's development.

BoardsMember

Tricky one alright, but to be honest, I would have left it alone. While certain specific circumstances would suggest it would help stop things happening that "right minded" people would be interested in combating, in reality, the kids are moving of their own free will, and should be allowed to do so.

You dont need to presume the motive for the motion:

http://gui.ie/leinster/news/press-release.aspx
Motive for proposal
To discourage clubs from the recruitment of elite Junior/Juvenile players from other clubs.

PARlance

Mister Sifter wrote: »

Nonsense, if you're a 15 or 16 year old kid and you're getting the chance to ditch the likes of Roganstown, Corrstown or whatever for the opportunity to practice and play somewhere like Portmarnock (top class facilities/setups) for the foreseeable then i think it's a no-brainer. Young lads will happily by-pass a year of inter-club for that.

Nonsense, no talented young kid I know would sacrifice a year away from competitive action... a year is a high % of their "shop window" time to get noticed.

I happily joined a better football team at 16 to move to a more successful team, where I knew the chances of getting notice would be far greater. It worked, but I wouldn't have dreamed of moving if I had to sacrifice 1 of my final 2 years of getting noticed
*remembers a time when I was good at a sport*

Don't let the ambition, drive, determination and hope of a young kid with sights of great things in the world of golf be clouded with hackers like us who obviously would be more inclined to sacrifice a years competition to practice and play casually on a great course.

You're also assuming that the likes of Portmarnock have the resources to take in these kids that won't be eligible to play when they could be focusing on a kid with similar talent that is eligible to represent the club in that current year. No matter how big or successful a club I don't think they'd be interested in "minding" these kids for a year. Underage sport is fairly cut throat, this issue has arose from clubs that are out to enhance their reputation by winning. The majority of kids are just seen as enablers of this success.

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

Yeah, I think the notion of "aggressive poaching" is a bit ridiculous.

The reality is the kids are mad keen to get into the better clubs and apply themselves.

The sad thing is, for most, it doesn't work out.

When I said aggressive, I wasn't referring to Love/Hate aggression.
I don't envisage club members out with their 5 irons rounding up kids.

I think it's accepted that poaching is going on.
If it's not, and clubs are getting their talent at the moment because the kids are coming to them, then that will change with the rule change.
This rule will make clubs become more agressive/pro active/whatever in terms of ensuring they get the best golfers.

Mister Sifter

ajcurry123 wrote: »

Nonsense, no talented young kid I know would sacrifice a year away from competitive action... a year is a high % of their "shop window" time to get noticed.

Don't let the ambition, drive, determination and hope of a young kid with sights of great things in the world of golf be clouded with hackers like us who obviously would be more inclined to sacrifice a years competition to practice and play casually on a great course.

You're also assuming that the likes of Portmarnock have the resources to take in these kids that won't be eligible to play when they could be focusing on a kid with similar talent that is eligible to represent the club in that current year. No matter how big or successful a club I don't think they'd be interested in "minding" these kids for a year. Underage sport is fairly cut throat, this issue has arose from clubs that are out to enhance their reputation by winning. The majority of kids are just seen as enablers of this success.

"Hackers like us"? Speak for yourself.

The kids you're talking about aren't 'sacrificing a year' - effectively all they are missing out on is a few inter club events for one year only. The flipside is that they'll get access to first class facilities, expenses etc for championships, better/more coaching, better playing partners etc etc.

Not sure how much you know about how these things work in golf, but going by your posts, it seems not a lot. I'd be fairly certain the 'bigger' clubs wouldn't be in the slightest put off from recruiting a high potential young golfer for the sake of one year's inter club.

Mister Sifter

stockdam wrote: »

What if the kid moves house to another area and joins a new club?
What if the kid's parents cannot afford the fees of one club and want to move him to a cheaper club (is this applicable)?
What if a brother, father or other family member moves to another club and the kid follows (maybe he gets s lift from his dad)?

In the case of a kid moving to "improve" then that's kinda life isn't it? Yes the original club may have invested money and time but you can't use this as an excuse if it's in the best interests of the kid's development.

Also, what if kid is member of more than one club?

Goldenjohn

Mister Sifter wrote: »

The kids you're talking about aren't 'sacrificing a year' - effectively all they are missing out on is a few inter club events for one year only. The flipside is that they'll get access to first class facilities, expenses etc for championships, better/more coaching, better playing partners etc etc. [\QUOTE]

Think your fairly spot on here, imo the inter club isn't the real goal for the top level young golfers, it the majors,championships and other national events which give them the opportunity to make the various provincial panels etc that mean the most.... Cant see too many interclub matches influencing your progress onto these panels.....But maybe I'm completely wrong I am actually a hacker

PARlance

Mister Sifter wrote: »

"Hackers like us"? Speak for yourself.

The kids you're talking about aren't 'sacrificing a year' - effectively all they are missing out on is a few inter club events for one year only.

Not sure how much you know about how these things work in golf, but going by your posts, it seems not a lot.

Didn't mean any offense by term "hacker".
I'm sorry it has upset you. A term I loosely use for anyone not good enough to be out there earning/trying to earn a living from the game.

The kids are sacrificing a year from inter club comps.

Yip, I'm new enough to golf but on here to learn more and discuss things. I believe that's allowed.
I'm fairly confident I will improve my knowledge over time, it's a much easier thing to work on than lets say, attitude.

Mister Sifter

ajcurry123 wrote: »

The kids are sacrificing a year from inter club comps.

Exactly, which in the grand scheme of things isn't really anything.

dvemail

If they still remained a member of their old club then surely they could still play for that team.
They then wouldn't have to sacrifice a year of inter club. They could then obviously play for their new club the year after?

dvemail

(Repost)

thegolfer

dvemail wrote: »

If they still remained a member of their old club then surely they could still play for that team.
They then wouldn't have to sacrifice a year of inter club. They could then obviously play for their new club the year after?

If it was that simple then yes they could play as you suggest, though from experience in similar situations it could be a nightmare.
Only reason they are leaving is to be on a better team and or course. The old club and team members may not look too favourably on their star leaving for greener greens.
Know of one case where it almost came to blows.

ShriekingSheet

stockdam wrote: »

What if the kid moves house to another area and joins a new club?
What if the kid's parents cannot afford the fees of one club and want to move him to a cheaper club (is this applicable)?
What if a brother, father or other family member moves to another club and the kid follows (maybe he gets s lift from his dad)?

In the case of a kid moving to "improve" then that's kinda life isn't it? Yes the original club may have invested money and time but you can't use this as an excuse if it's in the best interests of the kid's development.

All good points here.

ccmp

Motive for proposal
To discourage clubs from the recruitment of elite Junior/Juvenile players from other clubs.

The motive says enough. Aimed at discouraging the pratice of poaching the odd elite. One elite player in a less successful club can bring on junior golf in that club over the course of a few years. Other junior aspire to close the skill gap. One more "elite" in a bigger club doesn't benefit the new club proportionate to the loss to the previous club.

BoardsMember

ccmp wrote: »

Motive for proposal
The motive says enough. Aimed at discouraging the pratice of poaching the odd elite. One elite player in a less successful club can bring on junior golf in that club over the course of a few years. Other junior aspire to close the skill gap. One more "elite" in a bigger club doesn't benefit the new club proportionate to the loss to the previous club.

And what about what the child wants? A club doesn't own the player, a child should be free to play wherever they want to play, subject to being in a position to gain membership. Legislating that they can't play for their new club is a little bit draconian in my opinion. The reality of is though is that if the player is worth poaching, or wants to go, they are going to be very focussed on their own golf, so missing one year of team golf wont be much of a disincentive.

ShriekingSheet

ccmp wrote: »

One elite player in a less successful club can bring on junior golf in that club over the course of a few years. Other junior aspire to close the skill gap. One more "elite" in a bigger club doesn't benefit the new club proportionate to the loss to the previous club.

Totally agree with BoardsMember - the above from ccmp suggests a talented kid could be shouldered with building for the future in his home club, potentially to the detriment of his own little "career".

Somebody puh-leez think of the children.

ccmp

Glad that the leinster delegates can see that the fairest way for a Golf Club to achieve success in the junior ranks is to develop talent from a young age and not poach from so called lesser clubs.

TheGolfer01

ccmp wrote: »

Glad that the leinster delegates can see that the fairest way for a Golf Club to achieve success in the junior ranks is to develop talent from a young age and not poach from so called lesser clubs.

Yes it's great to see such an insular viewpoint so overtly expressed, especially when you consider that inter club golf for the most part is irrelevant.

GreeBo

irrelevant to whom?

ShriekingSheet

GreeBo wrote: »

irrelevant to whom?

Irrelevent to most of the teenagers in question - the elite or very good ones this rule is aimed at.

You can tell when Senior Cup or Barton Shield etc regularly clashes with a Boys, Youths or even (bizarely) a Men's Championship.

None, or very few of the guys miss the championship.

Russman

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

Irrelevent to most of the teenagers in question - the elite or very good ones this rule is aimed at.

You can tell when Senior Cup or Barton Shield etc regularly clashes with a Boys, Youths or even (bizarely) a Men's Championship.

None, or very few of the guys miss the championship.

Exactly, inter-club doesn't really have as much of an impact on a player "getting noticed" as a good performance in a championship would/does. A great player on a bad team can still be knocked out in round 1 of an inter-club event. Its his/her performance in singles tournaments that will get him/her selected on panels IMO.

I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt anyone ever got picked on a provincial or national squad because their club won the Senior Cup, Barton Shield etc etc.

I think the thrust of the motion will probably have more of an effect (through accident or by design) on players slightly below "elite" level who would be good Barton Cup, Junior Cup, maybe even Metro players - who know they'll never make a national panel and for whom inter-club success is a bigger thing. I reckon they'd be the ones to think twice about moving and missing a year's inter club. The really good ones won't think twice about it IMHO.

GreeBo

Russman wrote: »

Exactly, inter-club doesn't really have as much of an impact on a player "getting noticed" as a good performance in a championship would/does. A great player on a bad team can still be knocked out in round 1 of an inter-club event. Its his/her performance in singles tournaments that will get him/her selected on panels IMO.

I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt anyone ever got picked on a provincial or national squad because their club won the Senior Cup, Barton Shield etc etc.

Fair enough, but wouldnt good performances on a team make it more likely for a club to try to poach you?
i.e. They are poaching to get guys on their club teams.

Russman wrote: »

I think the thrust of the motion will probably have more of an effect (through accident or by design) on players slightly below "elite" level who would be good Barton Cup, Junior Cup, maybe even Metro players - who know they'll never make a national panel and for whom inter-club success is a bigger thing. I reckon they'd be the ones to think twice about moving and missing a
year's inter club. The really good ones won't think twice about it IMHO.

Will a club poach someone who is not planning on playing on their club teams?

ArielAtom

Whether people like it or not poaching is going on and the more established clubs are the guilty ones. Before South County went they lost 5 teenagers to Grange, all were playing off 5 and below. Now maybe they all decided to move of their own volition but I doubt it.

I hindsight it was a great move for these lads.

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

Fair enough, but wouldnt good performances on a team make it more likely for a club to try to poach you?
i.e. They are poaching to get guys on their club teams.


Will a club poach someone who is not planning on playing on their club teams?

I think both the club doing the poaching and the player are probably doing it for subtly different reasons, albeit mutually beneficial up to now.

It might well be that players will still want to be poached but clubs might be slightly more selective....?

Maybe clubs will poach players at a slightly younger age before their talent blossoms, for sure they'll take in a few lemons, but the 1 year ban will be served while the good ones are still developing and have a few years left at junior/student.

ShriekingSheet

ArielAtom wrote: »

Whether people like it or not poaching is going on and the more established clubs are the guilty ones. Before South County went they lost 5 teenagers to Grange, all were playing off 5 and below. Now maybe they all decided to move of their own volition but I doubt it.

I hindsight it was a great move for these lads.

As a matter of interest, Greebo, how are these guys getting on?

GreeBo

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

As a matter of interest, Greebo, how are these guys getting on?

Not sure exactly tbh, we had a bunch of young lads join the last few years so not sure where they are all from.
That said, from what I have seen of those young lads (and girls) who joined they are ridiculously good and hit the ball miles (considering most of them are whippets (not to be confused with a WHIP-IT!))