I cannot see how BA involvement is going to benefit the league at all.

I am usually a firm believer in the 'if it aint broke, don't fix it' theory.

Having said that, I am also of the opinion that if improvements can be made they should be considered, explored and implemented with due diligence and common sense, taking the least risk for potentially the best possible outcome.

There needs to be some more detail and dialogue on this before I can make up my mind about whether or not it is a good thing for SEABL to change their governance, however it shouldn't adversely affect the product either way as it is a good one and we need it to continue to be a strong league...

I think everyone wants SEABL to be strong, even if over the coming years a couple of teams fall out due to financial issues, but what has BA actually done well in the last few years?
BA have possibly been the worst run and most under-performing sporting body in the country. Can anyone actually see them making SEABL better?
If costs are increased after a merge, that may be the final nail for the clubs on the brink to fall out into the state leagues. Wouldn't be the first time BA has managed to shrink a league.

Not up to date with the details or much with SEABL, but if the BA couldn't manage the NBL how will they be able to do a good job with SEABL? BA has shown their inability to run a competition successfully, which I think will be the main issue brought forward by voting members

Melbourne Boy.

Its very easy to slam sports governing bodies, I don't think its very easy to be one, unless you have the cash of the AFL, NRL, Cricket etc.

All sport governing bodies are accused of being poorly run. I have defended BA here before on the basis they have no revenue to speak of outside of revenue specifically allocated to high performance, where you would have to say BA have done a pretty good job over an extended period of time. You do not get to #3 in the world and continue to perform at junior world champs etc unless you have something right.

Add in the fractious nature of the sport system, where people are always protecting their own patch, its difficult to get buy-in to change.

I have lost any confidence I might have had early in Keneally, but on the whole, BA running the SEABL is probably a constitutional and political necessity.

I guess we'll just have to see how SEABL fares under the umbrella of BA?

What will happen to the relationship with SEABL when the government cuts the funding, will costs go up again?

As far as I know, BA is only answerable to the state bodies, all of which could be considered to have a vested interest in seeing SEABL fail in favour of their own state leagues. They might have a lot more staff, including many in media/marketing/promotion type roles (ever wondered just what they do?) but as others have said, they've shown they cannot contribute anything toards the successful running of a league but simply add costs. This is not what SEABL needs.

#436546

I think you will find the behaviour is a two way street. The SEABL has attempted to lure clubs out of those state league competitions.
No one has a righteous moral ground in this space. I am not saying that is happening now, but it has certainly happened.

The states have always resented the SEABL's unaffiliated status, because they have allowed private clubs at the wrong tiers of the sport among other things. One of the principles that was going to be adopted with the UPL was that clubs in that competition must be affiliated - fair enough.

You statement about the basketball continuing to die in this country is stupid.

"HO, the individual states should be helping their better teams get into SEABL, they shouldn't see SEABL as a threat, they should see it as a pathway."

Are you associated with SEABL by any chance?

#436595

So what undermines your statement is the success of leagues like QBL and SBL (WA).

Well structured state leagues that have certainly provided a stepping stone to the NBL in the past.

The SEABL is not needed in either of those states it appears, so why is it needed elsewhere?

Would a 10 team Victorian state championship be better than SEABL? Probably....

To confound that, its been commented here many times by others that the step from SEABL to NBL is too big. If true, it also undermines your argument.

In the earlier thread on this I argued that the SEABL does need to be retained. I still hold that view.

Here I am only trying to establish that there are a couple of sides to the whole argument - not just a stupid argument about the states tearing the SEABL apart or the emotionally wrought one that if the SEABL dies then basketball dies.

And while you are thinking about that, recant this....

"Part of that stepping stone is preparing players for travel, road trips and double headers, state based basketball cant offer that level of professionalism."

You obviously have been nowhere near a QBL road trip!

The threads and posts we are relying on here (some backed up by online articles from a diverse range of factual or in some cases slightly more fictitious opinion pieces), suggest there are obviously changes afoot in the Basketball landscape here in Aus...

What is unclear is who is leading the changes and what the big picture is!

So many complications, leagues, states, bodies, boards, personalities, business people, corporates and so called 'basketball people', yet the one thing needed to actually make the diffeence which made the difference in successful leagues before us is missing IMO...

A leader!

Whether we discuss SEABL, the NBL, BigV, QBL etc... is kind of lost without a visionary and someone to actually take control and get every one else thinking about the same pathway.

Examples:
Soccer - Lowe
Football - Dimitriou
Rugby - 'What's his name'....

Regardless, I am making a point here, which is that we appear splintered and that isn't going to work well for the future of the game I don't think??

Again, what happens when BA's funding gets cut? and it will

@Murray, I am basing my point partly on your comment here...

'The biggest discontent stems from the failure of BA/SEABL Board to provide adequate and timely financial information to members so that due diligence by member clubs can be conducted before a vote is taken'.

I agree, there needs to be transperancy and integrity between the stakeholders, if anything is going to be worked out properly or for the best interests of the game.

Leadership is the key component that looks to be missing here, if your comment above is based on some facts.

Melbourne Boy.

When the funding gets cut who knows?

The fact is that the vast majority of funding BA receive is for national teams. It doesn't get much other funding or much other revenue.

So the first casualty you would think would be business class travel (only for the girls of course :)! And then things like high performance staffing, extra tours, elite camps. Maybe junior athletes would be asked to contribute more than they do now?

BA could be tempted to steal from its other limited revenue sources to prop up its national teams, but again, there is not that much to steal if their annual report is much to go by.

I think you are implying that if they lose funding they will take more money from SEABL clubs, the other option is they could cut SEABL staffing. But, that is a scenario the SEABL face if they continue alone if I am reading the above stuff correctly.

Shows Boti's ignorance on this occasion. QBL, SBL and BigV all seem well run. Not sure about CABL and Waratah from a distance looks like a disaster.

#436640 makes a good point about the AFL. When they announced the players association mvp last week they said over 800 players got the chance to vote.

When you have that many players and 22 on a team the difference between talent in your top leagues and your second leagues can't be that big.

Its very different to NBL / SEABL where there is a widening gap, especially with the NBL only having 8 teams.

#436672

My response to your line of thinking is that you need something very different to the SEABL.

The SEABL is a locally, association based club structure. In some cases it is a direct product of its association (Knox, Nunawading etc.) and in other cases it is set a little aside.

What you are really talking about is professional opportunities, not semi-professional or amateur+ which is what the SEABL and other state leagues are offering. (you need to stop discounting QBL and SBL btw) The AFL have 800 professional playing roles, possibly more if you factor in some second tier league players being well paid.

While the SEABL remains association bound then it will never provide enough opportunities - only a certain number (very small) have the capacity in the long term to genuinely generate revenue to back the more "professional" approach. Even then, when things go bad, you see clubs looking hard at where they are playing, as allegedly Knox have. Its not just the cost of being in SEABL, but also the cost of being competitive in SEABL.

If you are serious about playing positions for Australian athletes then you have to start a conversation about limiting import spots in SEABL as well, because they take much of the cash and court time.

If you want the next tier to be a higher quality, reduce its size and create pathway structures that force the high quality athletes to play in it - sort of like what the AFL do with the TAC cup.

You might want to look at NBL development players being farmed in the way major and minor league baseball works.

All of those things however point to a different looking SEABL. Right now the SEABL is the QBL or SBL, just played interstate. No substantial difference in rules, in role, or in pathway.

You can argue all you like about the difference in quality. That difference is relative to geography and cost.

I think the winter structure is ok as it is, but ideally we need an 8-team summer comp (linked with NBL clubs in some way) for the best players from the winter leagues who dont make NBL, and possible also NBL devt players.

This would allow the next best players to play more of the year at a decent level and give them greater access to the pro club's training/coaches/facilities.

Of course, where will the money come from for that?

Here you go paul...

http://www.ultimatebasketball.com.au/index.html

#436679


You misunderstand. I am not arguing for that change.

I am responding to the PP who was lamenting the lack of career options in basketball compared to other sports. Was simply pointing out that if you want those options you have to change the structure. You cannot have a semi-pro pathway for lots of players while associations are running budgets for SEABL less than maybe 700 - 800k.

Paul's proposal is excellent. It would be far more meaningful than the SEABL is now and would bridge the gap. Again, the key is fewer teams and concentrated talent.

#436714

Fair call! It reads awful now I look at it again.

I am basically saying that if there is a call for the SEABL to be a true second tier, and provide a genuine set of playing opportunities for a wider set of Australian talent, then the budgets have to be more like 700-800k+ for each program (bearing in mind women's programs as well).

The idea of the other anon (can you guys please get a login so we know who we are talking to...) is that they want the SEABL to provide a bunch of paying/playing opportunities so lots more than the current 70-80 players get paid to play - bearing in mind that the AFL provides 800+ well paid opportunities.

I think SEABL programs are currently budgeting between 300 - 500k for their whole program (from previous indications here). Its just not enough to satisfy what #436672 seems to want.

Again, I am not advocating for this simply trying to say that if the SEABL is really to be like that, then both its structure, its rules and its budgets probably need to change.

So the current (in terms of player payments) SEABL environment leans more towards amateur+ than semi pro - again largely because imports grab a large part of the player payments budget.

#436735

Again, I didn't raise it. I responded to it.

But it also doesn't have to be the SEABL that achieves this.

Those that talk about SEABL teams coming back to play in a state league and saying it is a good thing have never been involved at SEABL level.

The other thing that would need to be addressed is what happens with the four tassie teams, Mt Gambier, Albury Wodonga ??

Would Big V teams travel to play country teams ?
SEABL was set up to cater for many and not just one state. It is a great competition and it would be really sad and a step backwards in my mind if this was to be changed to a state based competition.

One of my favourite arguing strategies Meegan - "you've never done it. so you cant possibly understand or comment on it".

Here's a concept, our recent Labor Government was dysfunctional. Are you going to say I cannot conclude that because I was not part of the government?

And FWIT, BigV teams have always travelled to country locations - last time I looked Mildura, Shep, Warrnambool, Traralgon, Horsham were all in the country. As I understand the BigV started as a Country League.

Again, I am not disagreeing with your view, but just couch it with some commonsense. Nothing you have presented provides any reason to stay with the current structure.

From the SEABL web site, here is a list of the current teams in the competition.

Albury Wodonga
Ballarat
Bendigo
Canberra
Brisbane
Dandenong
Frankston
Geelong
Hobart
Kilsyth
Knox
Launceston
Mt Gambier
Nunawading
NW Tasmania
Sandringham

9 of the 16 are Victorian based, with 1 on the border of NSW and anohter on the S.A. border, then two teams from TAS and one each from QLD and the ACT.

So, where do we see the future of SEABL growing or the benefit of change coming from?

My question to the powers in charge would be to consider whether or not they want the SEABL to move to a broader Australian competition or remain very much based in the South and East?

Even is we stay as we are, in proximity, couldn't there be more of a focus on increasing the volume of teams from S.A, QLD and NSW perhaps?

Then progressively look at W.A. once those teams are established and form a wider league that is more inclusive, rather than exclusive, to foster Association interest from a broader base...

Restructing conferences and schedules to support the introduction of new teams would inject excitement into an already strong league IMO!

Maybe well regulated gambling is an option!

I'm very frustrated at the fact that Victoria could have an elite semi-professional competition of it's own.

However, our best 6-8 clubs are in some other 'half-national' league, helping a couple of teams from 3 other states develop their players!

The Big V (or whatever you would want to call this league) could be sensational. Not only because there would be some great programs involved, but the 'good' programs who just sit in SCM every year and finish 7-8th, without much threat of demotion, are then actually pushed to pull their finger out to stay in the top tier.

If SEABL was the top 4/5 teams from each state, I would understand- but Victoria is losing out by far the most from the SEABL's existence.

Then how is it a state such as Tasmania can afford to provide two teams when they are so much smaller than both NSW and S.A.?

Is it how well they are organised, is it their culture or their system? Does their basketball operate on an Association based system similar to Victoria or are they closer to one of the others?

Maybe it isn't that S.A. can't afford it, until they actually find the leaders within to establish a necessity to actually work on how they can afford it...

The old arguement, 'you can find plenty of reasons for not doing something, but find just one good one to do it and work your arse off to achieve your goal if you want to succeed...'

Ho - I dont need to make an case to not change the structure of SEABL, it shoul dbe up to the SEABL to convince their shareholders why they should change. I still have not seen one good reason to change a very successful competition.
As for "not being involved so you dont know" I am saying anyone that has been involved with both Big V and SEABL will know how very different they are. Governments choices impacts on you so you have an opinion, being involved would give you an opinion with greater insight.

Bear - Tasmania have four teams playing out of it, two men and two women.

If an SA clubs budget is only 15K for both men and womens programs, then why do I see Americans playing int he league ?

I would just love someone to give me the upsides to changing the current SEABL structure.

Thanks Meegan, in stead of teams I should have listed Associations cheers...

Bear

Tassie teams for SEABL work a little differently as none are association based. They are funded differently. The Launceston Tornadoes is self funded and not tied to an association. The two Hobart teams are self funded as stand alone teams in the states south. The NW Thunder are backed by all eight associations on the north west coast of Tassie.

To my knowledge Canberra is the only other stand alone club not linked directly to an association.

Thanks @Meegan, that kind of supports my theory then, that S.A. and NSW, even QLD could easily enter more teams in a SEABL competition if they really wanted to, wouldn't you say?

The SEABL should be expanded to properly cater for that pathway as a feeder into the NBL and if supported correctly with a clear vision to do so would give the sport an enormous boost in this country IMO...

I still like the idea of the top two male/female teams meeting two weeks after grand finals in QBL, SBL, ABL, and SEABL can even throw in big V and have a knock out tournament teams drawn from a hat playing through until only two male/female teams remain.
No seeding- just pot luck from the draw.

Would mean competitions need to condense their seasons as to not clash too badly with NBL & WNBL commitments for players.

Meegan,

Here are some options, distilled from the above, not necessarily my views:

a) the seabl has not kept pace with the quality of the NBL, and is probably falling further behind in the "standard" gap
b) it is a very expensive (relatively) competition to play in compared to well run state leagues (SBL) which are pretty much achieving the same outcomes as the SEABL
c) there is not enough money in SEABL programs to provide a high quality second tier league to provide the professional employment opportunities for more players in this country
d) as TWA888 is suggesting, you would get a true Victorian state league, which would be very good for the state
e) you might see the emergence of a sensible Tasmanian league (comment I made in another thread)

I do question what the SEABL genuinely achieves if you were to absolutely sift through the passion and rubbish. It does not get TV coverage, and is extremely unlikely to, and it does not get strong state body or corporate support. It does not truly serve as an underpinning league - because other leagues also do that satisfactorily. It is not national, and unlikely to be so.

I said before I am not arguing for it to disappear, but for it to be sustained and supported you have to be able to prove that it achieves outcomes for the sport, not just the associations in it, and that those outcomes outweigh what would be achieved via a strong series of state leagues.

The SBL and QBL do make something of a lie of the claims that the SEABL is THE pathway etc.

What do you mean by passion and rubbish? There is nothing wrong with people having passion about their team/league. If anyone thinks that the NBL is running away in class of player they are just kidding themselves. Yes there is the step up in class as you would expect such as VFL to AFL but it's not that great. As for SEABL and TV the question that should be asked is what has NBL done for TV.

Choppy. Did i say there was something wrong with being passionate?

What I said was that you need to sift through the passion and rubbish. There are people here clearly just addicted to the SEABL - then there are people like Boti who have decided the SEABL is the only well run second tier league in Australia - no factual basis for that - just offers the statement.

So to have the debate you need to sift through the passion, and the rubbish, and then look at the issues.

As for TV. Understand the point I am making. To have a quasi national league that is not on tv, not getting corporate support etc etc raises legitimate questions as to whether the league is serving its required role. Especially when you consider the cost involved. Nothing to do with the NBL.

These are the questions that should be starting the debate - a) what are we looking for the SEABL to achieve?, B) is it achieving those things C) if not what do we need to change so it does.

#437982

Sorry. My contributions here have been designed to keep the discussions going, its been one of the more lucid threads here. I don't think I've demanded that I am right or made completely unprovable absolute statements such as this one..

"The value SEABL plays in the development of Basketball in this country is greater than can possibly be achieved in isolated state based competitions."

If you read all of my posts on this topic you will notice that I have made a number of comments consistently.

a) I have not strongly stated my views, rather reflected on peoples posts reasonably and extrapolated what their arguments really mean
b) I have consistently stated that the SEABL needs to continue
c) I have barely talked about BigV here. I have consistently made the point that some state leagues, particularly QBL and SBL, are serving the purpose that the SEABL supposedly does, but within the constraints of a State league.

I will give you my views on BigV however, and have stated it many times here, which is that it has fallen badly behind the SEABL over the last 3-5 years. In the middle of last decade it was a serious contender, right now it is not.

But I would again defend the absurdity of the notion that if you are not involved with a SEABL club or the league, that you cannot have a reasonable viewpoint on it. Of course you can, it just takes intelligence and articulation.

"The step between SEABL and the NBL is as close now as its ever been."

What do you base that on?

People with similar experience to what you claim have an opposite point of view. That's why I asked what you base it on.

Again though, can you actually tell us what you base that on? Are there any facts, stats or even notable observations you can point out to help us see your side of things?

The Launceston Tornadoes following their financial collapse 2 seasons ago were supported by the Northern Basketball Assoc (a mainly junior focused body). This tie may now be broken if their SEABL debt is cleared?

The Hobart Chargers and NW Thunder derive revenue with a 'levy' paid by juniors. The difference being is that their is no direct link between them, other than Regional Rep sides bearing their logo.

Import players are also signed by club teams who contribute to the players salary. While talented locals often play for nought. This was mainly done in the NWBU but Hobart kept most of their imports their this year with local clubs,.

Basketball Tasmania is currently considering bringing SEABL under their structure. In a move that could be financially risky given the small profits made, and potential for large losses.

In all SEABL clubs need to boost their development of lot cal talent. In order to grow a more competive base of home grown players, rather than rely heavily on imports.

#437987

Who wants it to struggle or fail? Who said that?

My questions are what is it truly achieving? Asking that question is a legitimate thing to do.

Lets take the catchment argument, seeing you made it.

SEABL barely touches either NSW, Qld or South Australia. If what we have read here is to be believed Brisbane will not be in SEABL next year anyway - and even there it has a minimal impact. It dominates the landscape in tiny (basketball-wise) Tasmania.

The reality is the "catchment" for 2014, other than the Tasmanian and ACT aberations, is Victoria. Victoria by itself represents 40% of Australia's playing population allegedly.

If Mt Gambier went to CABL, ACT to Waratah and Albury-Wodonga became Wodonga-Albury then honestly you may just as well have a Victorian State league. Let Tasmania do what it needs to do, which is create its own league.

Here's a thought, a super-strong Victorian state league, without the cost burden of air-travel, and limited to perhaps ten teams, might well quickly become a better competition than the current SEABL is, thus meeting the needs of the second tier better than they are now.

They are thoughts. They are not opinions. But I am trying to get an answer to the questions. What is SEABL meant to be achieving, is it doing that, if not what change is needed?

And if you are the same anon now arguing with Paul, then again you keep making statements with no basis.

I've been following the Logan Thunder plight and I am now left wondering will BA rescue SEABL teams and Associations after they take over SEABL in December.

Maybe BA did not need to concern themselves with Logan but rather perhaps it may be best to support Brisbane Spartans in their challenges with Qld basketball and the Spartans playing in SEABL

I still believe that the SEABL league offers a genuine pathway for players to step into WNBL and NBL teams.

I believe that 25 years ago the league was set up to get people out of the singluar mindset of state basketball as it can be a very narrow view of developing the game. The thought to include teams from Tasmania, ACT and a great club like Albury Wodonga are great positives. A place like Tasmania could not run a state league and without SEABL would provide no pathway for many of its junior talent. Three of the four Tasmanian teams have won titles as well as the Albury Wodonga men, so the inclusion of these teams has been great in my opinion.

Teams from NSW & SA were playing SEABL at one point but chose not to compete any more. Their choice, and I respect that they wished to play in their state league instead. I know from the womens point of view that the the Adelaide Lightning coach was dead against any of the teams list playing outside the SA state leauge and blocked several players going to play SEABL. Again their choice.

The SEABL does give a really good tough quality league for those that wish to play in it and make the commitment to play in it. As I said I have been involved at Big V and SEABL and I know which I prefer hands down.

As for being on tv ??? give me a break as WNBL and NBL barely get media coverage so I dont expect SEABL or Big V to get too many camera crews in there. Although in some country towns the games are covered I believe.

Again these are my thoughts, and I still cannot see any reason for SEABL to change what they are currently doing as their the product they offer is very good for its athletes and I am yet to hear any arguement that would have me think dropping teams off into nothing and just making a state league to apease those that dont want to travel is the way forward.

Some genuine attempts aimed at the original thread, this is good...

I see the different points of view, keep SEABL and risk it going into a one or two state competition, therby questioning its existence and viability as the country's second tier development league for the NBL.

Or, change it, maybe disband it altogether and leave it to every state to do as they see best for themselves, risking further domination in Victoria perhaps.

Or, take a punt in seeing whether B.A. can improve it, grow it and develop the SEABL into a true second league of semi-professional basketball and a valuable step-up into the NBL, perhaps as the pathway we all crave.

For me, it would be a shame if we gave up on something I think this country needs, SEABL isn't perfect, but at the moment it is crucial IMO.

Leaving each state to do their own thing isn't like the AFL-VFL-SANFL-WAFL etc... situation! We don't have the same structure, nor do we follow the same competition/association formats.

Reducing the semi-professional league of this country to state level would kill it in some states and create super leagues in one or two, is this what would best serve the young players of today and tomorrow?

Is that what would keep little Johnny or Jenny playing beyond youth league.....?

We need a light at the end of this perceived tunnel, not more doom or gloom IMO.

Thanks Meegan. More absolutes...

No absolutes HO, just my opinion on what I have been involved with.

Does Australian Basketball need a competition with every state playing in other than the NBL & WNBL ?

As I have been saying I havent had a really good reason why they should change the current SEABL format.

Boti Nagy

Remind me again why the SEABL wants to be run by BA?

Sorry Meegan.

This is an absolute.

"A place like Tasmania could not run a state league and without SEABL would provide no pathway for many of its junior talent. "

These are the sort of comments that separate those that have an interest versus those that want the debate.

No SEABL and Hobart would look to NBL

HO

I am telling you that Tasmania would not run a state league as it would not have the support of the three major regions. The state is divided into three areas and they do not work well with each other. There have been failed attempts as both senior and junior levels state leagues as they are not supported. Just look at their footy there.

I do not believe Hobart could sustain an NBL & WNBL team again. Just my opinion as I know how much they struggle with SEABL at times.

Possible idea:

Players that dont want to travel, play in a state league team in your state.

Players that are happy to travel, go try out for SEABL team.

Oh wait, that is what happens now.

Meegan. I suppose as long as Tasmania and Tasmanian people keep saying they cannot possibly have a state league the longer it will be without one. Certainly, while resources are diverted to SEABL teams that cost a lot it will be difficult to have one. I can't comment on the football specifically, but i suspect the comparison is poor. Just because you can't do it in one sport does not mean you cannot do it in another. Footy and basketball are different in Victoria. Footy's third tier and below is local league based, basketball's third, fourth and fifth tier is state based.

Wasn't there a very successful northern tassie league there for quite some time?

As for your other comment.... Queensland players travel all the time. They don't need to play SEABL to travel. Thats the point I've been making throughout this thread; some other leagues, run in state mode, provide opportunities that supposedly ONLY the SEABL is meant to, and do it pretty well, including providing pathways. At least in part that makes the SEABL claims redundant. If Brisbane leave SEABL, then there will only one serious road trip that HAS to remain in SEABL for the bulk of teams - the Tassie double.

If Spartans do move back to QBL successfully, their whole purpose and intent in being in the SEABL (pathways, travel, etc.) becomes pretty much moot doesn't it? because they will be achieving the same outcomes in the QBL.

Again, as i have said throughout, i don't think the SEABL should go, but neither should it be allowed to continue in its current form based on what appears to be a series of historical myths. I am more convinced by Paul's comments than anyone because its pretty well acknowledged he talks to lots of people (coaches, players), and he is suggesting that the gap between NBL and SEABL is widening. If that is the case then there is a reason for change.

The comment made above about questioning imports was a very good one that leans to this way of thinking. Perhaps the SEABL should continue with just one import? Perhaps NBL development players should be forced into SEABL clubs? Perhaps SEABL should become under 25 + two restricted players? Perhaps there should be a local content rule? Perhaps a new SEABL should be created with at least two teams in each state and four in Vic where all serious talent is funneled? Perhaps SEABL should stop being association based (TAC Cup model)?

Some good ideas HO....i don't like the age restriction plus two imports as we have seen in the last year or two a number of guys are getting signed when they are 25+ (Burdon,Prue,Vaseljivic) are recent examples and i know they don't all come from SEABL but i think age restricts belong in Youth League only and SEABL/top state leagues should be looked at as semi-pro and only restrictions are those on "imports/restrcited" player numbers.

I like the idea of adopting a 'local content' rule to keep teams closely linked to their zones too and I know some teams have quite a high percentage of their own junior talent come through their SEABL team.

But, how does this work in the case of say a Brisbane based team when there is no other team in QLD? Not quite the same as a team in Geelong or one based in Albury/Wodonga, where it is easier to quantify local talent...?

Like I said, I like the idea, but can see how it would be difficult to justify in the current SEABL structure!