Of course they can move - probably only issue would be if they have monies owing to that association / club.

I can't get over the poaching / window shopping / playing off club v club by prospective parents - never seen it at this level. Some families really have it all worked out - we'll spend this year here, next year at that club because they can get a certain conditions and a lot are getting what they want.

The kids see what happens in NBA, and see no issue with changing teams. Junior clubs spend effort to entice, because it's always easier to bring in a talented player than develop one. Remember that bringing in a player from another club keeps out of the team a kid that has probably been at the club since under 12s. What’s the point in that for the club? What does that say about the culture of a club?
There can be very good reasons to move, including where a kid feels they are just being overlooked and there have been some classic examples of that. I understand that - like a job, sometimes you need to move to get ahead.
Speaking with some College people, they don’t like it unless it can be v well explained - shows a lack of commitment and they don’t want kids who are going to come to their program for a year and then decide to move.

Andrew J it works both ways. The club the player left from gives the opportunity to the player that has played from under 12s. Also that player that has been dropped will get more opportunity in the division below.

+ the window of opportunity for elite athletes is small so they will take what they can get. It is no different from people swapping jobs but just a smaller time frame due to smaller window.

Would say more likely that parents changed jobs, rather than changing states for underage basketball, however, if you want a player to be seen you have to be in Victoria as it certainly increases chances of representation at higher levels, as the HP teams don't consider National Championship results, so maybe some families are making that commitment to be in Vic.

In the girls lots of u16 and u18 girls have left Frankston. There is no Gippsland or Korumburra team apparently and both had some good players who will most likley surface elsewhere, and I hear there have been more Nunawading to Dandenong transfers, probably following all the coaches that transferred last year. I've heard Melbourne have picked up some good imports in u18's but don't know who.

I personally don't mind people moving even if oftentimes the grass isn't greener - what I do mind is clubs getting exemptions for more than 2 imports beyond residential moves. It defeats the purpose of the rule.

What age levels have seen an interstate move out of curiosity? Maybe U18's?

Interesting to hear Melbourne picked up some good imports at u18 - assume you mean girls. They did the same last year in boys, and won VC. Will be interesting to see if those imports from last year stay. Would be a good sign for that club if they did.

Andrew J the imports that Melbourne got for u18's boys last yr have moved this season one at dandy and one at Knox from what I know

it depends to a goals -if you are after National Selection etc - you do have to go where the best is offered but the reality is that a small % make national teams. There is bizarre unwritten implications that I've witnessed - oh if your from xxxxxxx town you have to play at this club - never been such a by-law. It's just as competitive / manipulative off the court for players than on.

Basket81, then that speaks absolute volumes. Had a look, moved on.

VJBL system is broken afaic.

Each VJBL season should be viewed as a discrete entity with a fixed start and end date. Players should only be bound to a specific association for the duration of the season. Outside of the season, all players effectively become Free Agents.

The current structure favours the associations at the expense of the players. The sport should be about the players first.

I heard from a good source some clubs charging players to leave - cannot be right, surely?! On what grounds is that legit?

good point karma - the old system of one club etc etc seems outdated and the modern setup / expectation is different - so yes maybe a better framework.

One thing clubs should be required to do is communicate before try-outs how many teams they plan to have and how many coaches are locked in and how many kids are trying out. Clubs can add teams, but they should say what their base position is. Then families can decide whether they should also try out somewhere else. Problem at the minute is that if a family is all in on one try-out then they can quickly find themselves without an option as all try-outs are run at the same time. Clubs need be be transparent about this stuff, so people can make appropriate decisions. It's not hard, and it’s the right thing to do.

a few key influencers here - 1) clubs may be restricted how many teams the competition allows. So it's not all just clubs. 2) some clubs will take as many players that sign up. 3) a club has no idea exactly how many players they will have - that's why they have trials, they could say we are looking at xxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxx options. Until grading season is finished they can't really say "this is what we will have". They could end up with their 1st team in level 8 or level 1 after grading.

Gippsland have 18g team, Korumburra don't. Best player from each team went to Metro club.(tigers I believe). Best player from 18b went to Casey

Lots of kids across every age group leaving due to Gippsland United being victim of hostile takeover from Traralgon and the way its now run. Nepotism, new 'rules', rules waved when it suits, only 1 import allowed (hurt game time of family member)

Plenty of player movement across SA teams from the stats sheet from last night's round. A few clubs struggling to keep their best players (including mine ☹️).