TOPIC:

If you want change in the WAFL, do something about it, share/like/post...savethewafl.com @savethewafl

The other thing here is that surely the clubs including mine could foresee the problem happening after last years GF debacle. It's all very well for Bottrell to make the observation that the current rules around qualification of aligned players has been in play for 12 months and we have to live with it by why didn't the G7 clubs jump up and down last year that the WAFC needed go further in making sure this crap didn't occur again this year? The situation we have currently was completely foreseeable and potentially could happen every year Freo or WCE don't make the finals. This is not a swipe at Bottrell or SFFC...it's a question that should be put to all G7 clubs including mine.

BC wrote: The other thing here is that surely the clubs including mine could foresee the problem happening after last years GF debacle. It's all very well for Bottrell to make the observation that the current rules around qualification of aligned players has been in play for 12 months and we have to live with it by why didn't the G7 clubs jump up and down last year that the WAFC needed go further in making sure this crap didn't occur again this year? The situation we have currently was completely foreseeable and potentially could happen every year Freo or WCE don't make the finals. This is not a swipe at Bottrell or SFFC...it's a question that should be put to all G7 clubs including mine.

Great question BC , my only guess at the answer was that the WAFC did not give the WAFL clubs an option to accept their changes to the player eligibility rule. You may recall at the time there was the BGC report running parallel to this issue.
www.wafootball.com.au/news/11665/changes...nd-integrity-of-wafl
I think the extra $100,000 dollars were offered to the G7 clubs to accept the agreement which in effect is shut up money...The G7 clubs including mine and yours took the deal unfortunatley..Sad to say but the Presidents , Boards and CEO's of all G7 clubs have sold their soul to the WAFC.

you could be right Dwert...but I'm not sure the hush money provided to accept the alignment model is necessarily linked to rules around eligibility of players to play in WAFL finals....maybe it is...who knows....but it's time for clubs to put members and supporters first.

BC wrote: you could be right Dwert...but I'm not sure the hush money provided to accept the alignment model is necessarily linked to rules around eligibility of players to play in WAFL finals....maybe it is...who knows....but it's time for clubs to put members and supporters first.

Divide and conquer is alive and well unfortunately BC... The WAFC offered scraps from the table and you had clubs clambering over one another to grab the cash.
I saw an interesting question raised by an ex SD / AFL player on social media and he asked a very simple and concise question. "Have present day WAFL players been asked their opinions on this? My guess is NO and each of the WAFL clubs would never of thought to do...

BC wrote: you could be right Dwert...but I'm not sure the hush money provided to accept the alignment model is necessarily linked to rules around eligibility of players to play in WAFL finals....maybe it is...who knows....but it's time for clubs to put members and supporters first.

BC , I am prettu sure that after last year some changes were made weren't they?

Although they were pretty conservative and in the end accepted by the G7 , who lets be honest have stuff all power in this whole deal. Once the cheque book comes out its all over red rover.

I would of thought that at least SFFC have put something out saying and confirming the following.
1. Many traditional members are un happy with the current set up
2. The club intends to raise the issue following the finals

I would of thought SFC being the runners up last year and bearing the brunt of the deal in the GF, would of been far more vocal.

I can tell you the SFFC members stand particularly in the centurions after the game v Peel got very heated, people directly shouting out to Ditchburn he was a disgrace, which he heard immediate turned around and shouted back OH I'm a disgrace now am I?

yes mate...there were changes but only in that the aligned teams could field a maximum of 15 players in finals. so in essence, it went from 17 in last year's GF to 15 in this years which I think we all agree is tinkering at best. I saw some regs on here a little while back that Dwert posted from memory which included a clause that aligned players must have played more WAFL than AFL during the season to qualify...why that was taken out I'll never know as it's common sense to me. I also agree that all G7 clubs should be very vocal about getting the qualification rules reviewed and changed at season's end. so far only SFFC has come out and stated just that which Bottrell should be applauded for as it puts the WAFC on notice. after last weeks game the Subi crowd gave the Peel players and supporters a bit of a hard time as well so they should be in no doubt exactly how G7 supporters feel.

Interestingly over in SA Port have won straight through to their GF on the back of having unlimited numbers of AFL listed Port players to choose from. Now that Port Power are gorn the rules change dramatically as the full force of the SANFL qualifying rules come into force. They are expected to lose 50% of their AFL cohort that won the 2nd semi making it a much more even game when either Sturt or WWT eagles front up against them. How good for a number of the young Port maggies locals to be able to get a gig in the GF, great for their development.

BC wrote: The other thing here is that surely the clubs including mine could foresee the problem happening after last years GF debacle. It's all very well for Bottrell to make the observation that the current rules around qualification of aligned players has been in play for 12 months and we have to live with it by why didn't the G7 clubs jump up and down last year that the WAFC needed go further in making sure this crap didn't occur again this year? The situation we have currently was completely foreseeable and potentially could happen every year Freo or WCE don't make the finals. This is not a swipe at Bottrell or SFFC...it's a question that should be put to all G7 clubs including mine.

None of the G7 clubs wanted to make too big a deal about it in fear of losing the $100k pa that they each accepted as compensation for the alignment model being re-introduced. .

Name a G7 club that would have posted a profit in 2016 if this extra $100k was taken away? A few ran at a loss even with the $100k.

Until the G7 sides can put their own self interests aside and work collaboratively and consistently to make decisions which benefit the competition in both the short and long term, then the integrity of the competition will always be compromised.

Tiger Tales wrote:

BC wrote: The other thing here is that surely the clubs including mine could foresee the problem happening after last years GF debacle. It's all very well for Bottrell to make the observation that the current rules around qualification of aligned players has been in play for 12 months and we have to live with it by why didn't the G7 clubs jump up and down last year that the WAFC needed go further in making sure this crap didn't occur again this year? The situation we have currently was completely foreseeable and potentially could happen every year Freo or WCE don't make the finals. This is not a swipe at Bottrell or SFFC...it's a question that should be put to all G7 clubs including mine.

None of the G7 clubs wanted to make too big a deal about it in fear of losing the $100k pa that they each accepted as compensation for the alignment model being re-introduced. .

Name a G7 club that would have posted a profit in 2016 if this extra $100k was taken away? A few ran at a loss even with the $100k.

Until the G7 sides can put their own self interests aside and work collaboratively and consistently to make decisions which benefit the competition in both the short and long term, then the integrity of the competition will always be compromised.

TT which alternate universe do you live in? Exactly what decisions can the G7 clubs make? Quantify the lost revenue due to the dissatisfaction over the host club alignment? On what basis do you assert that none of the G7 clubs voiced opposition to the host club alignment?

Finally, are you suggesting that the WAFC were not aware of the angst relating to the host club alignment?