TOPIC:

There were were TWO INDEPENDENT DECISIONS. The first was a decision made by the WAFC that there would be a host club alignment for both WA domiciled AFL clubs.

The second decision, after negotiations with the WAFL clubs and NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS with the first decision, was made by the WAFC how much the non-aligned WAFL clubs would receive as a consequence of the earlier decision to enter an host club alignment arrangement.

swan42 wrote: There were were TWO INDEPENDENT DECISIONS. The first was a decision made by the WAFC that there would be a host club alignment for both WA domiciled AFL clubs.

The second decision, after negotiations with the WAFL clubs and NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS with the first decision, was made by the WAFC how much the non-aligned WAFL clubs would receive as a consequence of the earlier decision to enter an host club alignment arrangement.

Yeah we know that, the second was just about how much it was for them to go away quietly and shut up.

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote: There were were TWO INDEPENDENT DECISIONS. The first was a decision made by the WAFC that there would be a host club alignment for both WA domiciled AFL clubs.

The second decision, after negotiations with the WAFL clubs and NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS with the first decision, was made by the WAFC how much the non-aligned WAFL clubs would receive as a consequence of the earlier decision to enter an host club alignment arrangement.

Yeah we know that, the second was just about how much it was for them to go away quietly and shut up.

And they did...without any thought of the consequences of their action or inaction.

Dwert wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote: There were were TWO INDEPENDENT DECISIONS. The first was a decision made by the WAFC that there would be a host club alignment for both WA domiciled AFL clubs.

The second decision, after negotiations with the WAFL clubs and NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS with the first decision, was made by the WAFC how much the non-aligned WAFL clubs would receive as a consequence of the earlier decision to enter an host club alignment arrangement.

Yeah we know that, the second was just about how much it was for them to go away quietly and shut up.

And they did...without any thought of the consequences of their action or inaction.

Dwert exactly what did you want the clubs to do?

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote: There were were TWO INDEPENDENT DECISIONS. The first was a decision made by the WAFC that there would be a host club alignment for both WA domiciled AFL clubs.

The second decision, after negotiations with the WAFL clubs and NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS with the first decision, was made by the WAFC how much the non-aligned WAFL clubs would receive as a consequence of the earlier decision to enter an host club alignment arrangement.

Yeah we know that, the second was just about how much it was for them to go away quietly and shut up.

Bazza exactly the same question as the one I asked Dwert: exactly what did you want the clubs to do?

swan42 wrote:

Dwert wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote: There were were TWO INDEPENDENT DECISIONS. The first was a decision made by the WAFC that there would be a host club alignment for both WA domiciled AFL clubs.

The second decision, after negotiations with the WAFL clubs and NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS with the first decision, was made by the WAFC how much the non-aligned WAFL clubs would receive as a consequence of the earlier decision to enter an host club alignment arrangement.

Yeah we know that, the second was just about how much it was for them to go away quietly and shut up.

And they did...without any thought of the consequences of their action or inaction.

Dwert exactly what did you want the clubs to do?

Protect the Integrity of the WAFL competition firstly by not taking the shut up money as all they have proven in the eyes of the WAFC is that they can be bought at price...
I think the old WP President in his recent letter to the editor challenged the WAFC to act upon changing the constitution to take away the two AFL clubs power as they have a fair bit of clout when it comes to decision making apparently , you can bet your life that is one recommendation from the BCG report that will not see the light of day....

Dwert wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Dwert wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote: There were were TWO INDEPENDENT DECISIONS. The first was a decision made by the WAFC that there would be a host club alignment for both WA domiciled AFL clubs.

The second decision, after negotiations with the WAFL clubs and NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS with the first decision, was made by the WAFC how much the non-aligned WAFL clubs would receive as a consequence of the earlier decision to enter an host club alignment arrangement.

Yeah we know that, the second was just about how much it was for them to go away quietly and shut up.

And they did...without any thought of the consequences of their action or inaction.

Dwert exactly what did you want the clubs to do?

Protect the Integrity of the WAFL competition firstly by not taking the shut up money as all they have proven in the eyes of the WAFC is that they can be bought at price...
I think the old WP President in his recent letter to the editor challenged the WAFC to act upon changing the constitution to take away the two AFL clubs power as they have a fair bit of clout when it comes to decision making apparently , you can bet your life that is one recommendation from the BCG report that will not see the light of day....

So dwert you are suggesting that the clubs should not have taken the money. The host club alignment would still have been in place and the clubs would have a significant shortfall in revenue due to the drop in attendances because of the host club alignment. Bizarre logic.

swan42 wrote:

Dwert wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Dwert wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote: There were were TWO INDEPENDENT DECISIONS. The first was a decision made by the WAFC that there would be a host club alignment for both WA domiciled AFL clubs.

The second decision, after negotiations with the WAFL clubs and NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS with the first decision, was made by the WAFC how much the non-aligned WAFL clubs would receive as a consequence of the earlier decision to enter an host club alignment arrangement.

Yeah we know that, the second was just about how much it was for them to go away quietly and shut up.

And they did...without any thought of the consequences of their action or inaction.

Dwert exactly what did you want the clubs to do?

Protect the Integrity of the WAFL competition firstly by not taking the shut up money as all they have proven in the eyes of the WAFC is that they can be bought at price...
I think the old WP President in his recent letter to the editor challenged the WAFC to act upon changing the constitution to take away the two AFL clubs power as they have a fair bit of clout when it comes to decision making apparently , you can bet your life that is one recommendation from the BCG report that will not see the light of day....

So dwert you are suggesting that the clubs should not have taken the money. The host club alignment would still have been in place and the clubs would have a significant shortfall in revenue due to the drop in attendances because of the host club alignment. Bizarre logic.

Ok well what would be you plan of attack Swan?

The WAFC have thrown the scraps from the table to feed the selfish desires of all WAFL clubs at different points over the years mate and have the upper hand , I think we all agree on that issue.The only way that we are collectively as group going to make them stop and listen is to be as the thread make a united stand.... if it means we (all unaligned WAFL clubs)refuse to play against the AFL aligned clubs until we get a fairer agreement so be it. What are their options ,fine each of the clubs? we could just be like Peel and not pay in any case. United and tough stance will make them change their attitude. If we keep going with cap in hand for more and more hands out we are all farked.....or worse be in our current situation...

Dwert wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Dwert wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Dwert wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote: There were were TWO INDEPENDENT DECISIONS. The first was a decision made by the WAFC that there would be a host club alignment for both WA domiciled AFL clubs.

The second decision, after negotiations with the WAFL clubs and NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS with the first decision, was made by the WAFC how much the non-aligned WAFL clubs would receive as a consequence of the earlier decision to enter an host club alignment arrangement.

Yeah we know that, the second was just about how much it was for them to go away quietly and shut up.

And they did...without any thought of the consequences of their action or inaction.

Dwert exactly what did you want the clubs to do?

Protect the Integrity of the WAFL competition firstly by not taking the shut up money as all they have proven in the eyes of the WAFC is that they can be bought at price...
I think the old WP President in his recent letter to the editor challenged the WAFC to act upon changing the constitution to take away the two AFL clubs power as they have a fair bit of clout when it comes to decision making apparently , you can bet your life that is one recommendation from the BCG report that will not see the light of day....

So dwert you are suggesting that the clubs should not have taken the money. The host club alignment would still have been in place and the clubs would have a significant shortfall in revenue due to the drop in attendances because of the host club alignment. Bizarre logic.

Ok well what would be you plan of attack Swan?

The WAFC have thrown the scraps from the table to feed the selfish desires of all WAFL clubs at different points over the years mate and have the upper hand , I think we all agree on that issue.The only way that we are collectively as group going to make them stop and listen is to be as the thread make a united stand.... if it means we (all unaligned WAFL clubs)refuse to play against the AFL aligned clubs until we get a fairer agreement so be it. What are their options ,fine each of the clubs? we could just be like Peel and not pay in any case. United and tough stance will make them change their attitude. If we keep going with cap in hand for more and more hands out we are all farked.....or worse be in our current situation...

Dwert the previous owner of this site was threatened with legal action because I had the temerity to post an unexpurgated version of Walton's comments. I have spoken and emailed to Swans's directors regarding the host club situation. However, it would be a dere|lic¦tion of the directors' responsibility to not accept the funds.

swan42 wrote:

Dwert wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Dwert wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Dwert wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote: There were were TWO INDEPENDENT DECISIONS. The first was a decision made by the WAFC that there would be a host club alignment for both WA domiciled AFL clubs.

The second decision, after negotiations with the WAFL clubs and NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS with the first decision, was made by the WAFC how much the non-aligned WAFL clubs would receive as a consequence of the earlier decision to enter an host club alignment arrangement.

Yeah we know that, the second was just about how much it was for them to go away quietly and shut up.

And they did...without any thought of the consequences of their action or inaction.

Dwert exactly what did you want the clubs to do?

Protect the Integrity of the WAFL competition firstly by not taking the shut up money as all they have proven in the eyes of the WAFC is that they can be bought at price...
I think the old WP President in his recent letter to the editor challenged the WAFC to act upon changing the constitution to take away the two AFL clubs power as they have a fair bit of clout when it comes to decision making apparently , you can bet your life that is one recommendation from the BCG report that will not see the light of day....

So dwert you are suggesting that the clubs should not have taken the money. The host club alignment would still have been in place and the clubs would have a significant shortfall in revenue due to the drop in attendances because of the host club alignment. Bizarre logic.

Ok well what would be you plan of attack Swan?

The WAFC have thrown the scraps from the table to feed the selfish desires of all WAFL clubs at different points over the years mate and have the upper hand , I think we all agree on that issue.The only way that we are collectively as group going to make them stop and listen is to be as the thread make a united stand.... if it means we (all unaligned WAFL clubs)refuse to play against the AFL aligned clubs until we get a fairer agreement so be it. What are their options ,fine each of the clubs? we could just be like Peel and not pay in any case. United and tough stance will make them change their attitude. If we keep going with cap in hand for more and more hands out we are all farked.....or worse be in our current situation...

Dwert the previous owner of this site was threatened with legal action because I had the temerity to post an unexpurgated version of Walton's comments. I have spoken and emailed to Swans's directors regarding the host club situation. However, it would be a dere|lic¦tion of the directors' responsibility to not accept the funds.

Well then we are all farked we just keep going to the WAFC with our hands out and continue to do what they tell us to do. If that is the attitude of my clubs President and Board then let them be honest with me and tell me that. I can then piss off into the sunset and go and go and do something more productive with my energy and time...