TOPIC:

pjaye wrote: When West Perth were negotiating with ch9 over sponsorship they were warned by the WAFC about pending talks with ch7 over televising the footy . They went ahead anyway and now are not going to be televised this season . Hardly suprising .

Don't go bringing facts into this discusion or this arena, it is not welcome and just gets in the way.

Next thing you are going to tell all of us is the WAFC asked for a vote from all clubs on this issue and most of the angriest people on here support clubs that actually voted (7 to 2) to take this action.

so barney who's side are you on??????????. you obviously hate west perth, that's ok, there is a whole bunch of blokes on the forum that hate west perth but most of them love the wafl and that makes them authentic. you are a stooge for somebody and that makes you unauthentic. so what is your agenda rosco p Coltrane , be a man and come clean. I really believe that most of the blokes on this forum are dam good folk that love their footy clubs and throw a bit of shit around to spark up the conversation but you barnacles my friend, you are nothing but a stooge. anyway screemar has had his say. did you hear about the roman that walked into a bar, put two fingers up and ordered five beers. screemar very funny. HEY.

pjaye wrote: When West Perth were negotiating with ch9 over sponsorship they were warned by the WAFC about pending talks with ch7 over televising the footy . They went ahead anyway and now are not going to be televised this season . Hardly suprising . Good publicity for ch9 in the media but I think West Perth have hardly done the right thing by there other sponsors who wont be exposed to the tv audience . If ch9 had won the tv rights and refused to televise East Perths matches due to ch7 being on their shirts I wonder how many of you would be jumping up and down at the disgraceful actions of the tv company .

What you are saying is that you believe the WAFC is right in wanting West Perth to forgo $300,000 in sponsorship money over three years. Would the WAFC compensate West Perth the lost sponsorship? Further when did the agreement between WAFC and Channel 7? What would have happened if the agreement had not been reached?

Barney wrote:

pjaye wrote: When West Perth were negotiating with ch9 over sponsorship they were warned by the WAFC about pending talks with ch7 over televising the footy . They went ahead anyway and now are not going to be televised this season . Hardly suprising .

Don't go bringing facts into this discusion or this arena, it is not welcome and just gets in the way.

Next thing you are going to tell all of us is the WAFC asked for a vote from all clubs on this issue and most of the angriest people on here support clubs that actually voted (7 to 2) to take this action.

Exactly what are the facts Barney? That Channel 2 was telecasting the WAFL footy? That no agreement had been reached nor was even close to being reached between the WAFC and Channel 7? Is it a fact that the WAFC offered West Perth compensation commensurate with the loss of sponsorship from Channel 9.

And compensate Claremont & East Freo for taking their sponsor in Kennards hire - knowing full well they were in agreements already

Southerner wrote: And compensate Claremont & East Freo for taking their sponsor in Kennards hire - knowing full well they were in agreements already

Southerner what are the most logical reasons for the WAFC decree that sponsorship over $50,000 needs to go through the commission?

A. The WAFC wants to poach the clubs' bigger sponsors for themselves?
B. They want to keep legitimate WAFL clubs under their thumb by limiting their financial viability?
C. They want to have the power and leverage of being able to veto a club's sponsorship to ensure that all WAFL clubs toe the 'party' line and are completely subservient to the WAFC's wishes?
D. All of the above and most likely a few more reasons of a similar vein?

I'm going to go with D

Want to know whether West Perth get a refund on their $8000 TV cover contribution too

Southerner wrote: I'm going to go with D

Want to know whether West Perth get a refund on their $8000 TV cover contribution too

Perhaps others can also vote.

Cardy wrote: Love the Idea.. other ways around it .. wear a shirt with a BIG 9 on it and make sure you stand behind the interviews LOL.
How about chn 9 having a segment on ACA? Sure many who are not even WP supporters will be really put off by it and it will come back to kiss chn 7 on the arse

Good idea. Maybe WP can get some cheap red T-shirts done up, and sell them at cost.

A blue sash on the back, and a nice big 9 in the same channel 9 type face on the front of the shirt.

Go to the Peel v Royals game and everyone stand behind the goals with the backwards shirt showing the WAFC have turned their back on WP.

As a Swans supporter, and if I was in Perth at the time I'd be happy to wear this shirt for shits and giggles.

Pjaye i read SDFC only have one home game for TV which means one whole chance to showcase there sponsors. I dont think they are really any better of than WP.