TOPIC:

ArkRoyal wrote: DF: I have made reference to the WACA because you might not get another lease if you want to be a stand alone team.

Barking up the wrong tree Ark.
Read my comments about our relationship with Town of VP.

DF: Well let us hope your right. Why did Vicky Park not give a fifty year lease to the PFC as well as the Eagles?

I've said it a number of times and I'll say it again.... if Perth become the aligned club the WAFL can go and fuck itself. I'll never attend or watch another game again. Simple as that

good one 'anch': according to you, there is nothing to worry about in terms of a name change, accept that you support it, the AFL supports it, the Eagles, and many people in the community support it; yes, nothing to worry about at all.

There are two reasons the Eagles have not moved on this issue

1 the existence of the PFC
2 the fact that most Eagles fans want to keep the name.

Senior Seagull wrote: I still believe that at the end of the EP contract WC will dump EP and establish their own team, same at Adelaide have done. 10 team comp, no byes, 18 rounds and a final 5, Given CH 7 only broadcast 18 H & A games they will support this and we all know they have massive influence over the WAFC.

That will leave Perth alone and I think they will flourish in their new facilities. NBo issue with 3 teams at Lathlain as they will have 2 ovals. Along with some sensible player quals for finals it will be the best of a bad situation given the aligments/reserves team situation is set in concrete.

S/s there has to be a vote to be carried by the WAFL clubs to allow for an extra team in the WAFL. That vote SHOULD and WOULD be lost. Having an Eagles' stand-alone team in the WAFL does not help the WAFL.

With respect to 18 games per season:

(i) it would mean all players would have a 10% cut in their payments;
(ii) clubs would have reduced income from sponsorship, gate takings, bar sales etc.,
(iii) disruption with respect to colts and reserves fixturing due to no colts and reserves matches when clubs played the stand-alone team;
(iv) channel 7 broadcast 18 matches only because there were week ends where it was not possible to schedule a WAFL games (unless it was at 6 am or 11 pm) to fit into their schedule of AFL telecasts;
(v) with respect to qualifying matches required both WA domiciled would still be playing qualifying games if the WAFL season was reduced by a number of weeks due to no byes and fewer rounds and that would mean that they would still want their players to play in the WAFL;
(vi) where would the stand-alone team get additional players to ensure they had 22 players available? How many other competitions do we want to stuff up to sate the appetite of the WA domiciled AFL teams?

anchorman wrote: Absolutely nothing to worry about.This is not the first time that the change has been mooted.It is just paranoia.People jumping at shadows that just aren't there.
Merely a strange time for the article to become public.But this is not about the Perth Football club.

Aman it has a lot to do with the Perth Football Club if you read the article Sean Cowan also suggests the Eagles change their alignment with the Perth FC just because we will be sharing the same block of land and he thinks it's a perfect marriage that the Eagles change their name to Perth and everything will be hunky dory.

One problem, Perth members and supporters are not interested in aligning ourselves with the Eagles, wether they are call West Coast, Perth or the farrrking Scarborough Hornets.

That was the basis of me creating this topic, not so much them wanting to use the name Perth.

There will be change. Whichever way you look at it we will not go back to the way it was before the alignment. I think people need to get that type of thinking out of their heads, realise that there will be some AFL involvement and decide which way going forward will get the best result for both parties.

For me I would rather the Eagles have their own team, based out of Lathlain while Fremantle take control of Peel. Peel would have no reserves or colts teams. The Peel zone gets divided up amongst the eight clubs with the least successful club over the last 30 years getting a bigger portion of the zone and the most successful getting the least.

There would be no byes with each team over the first 18 rounds playing each other twice, once at home and once away. Not sure how yet the remaining two rounds would work to make sure that there is 20 games per season but one thing I would make sure of is that the Dockers and Eagles reserves sides played a third game between each other in either rounds 19 or 20.

Both the colts and the reserves competitions would consist of only eight teams. They could either play each other three times each for a 21 game home and away season or they could play each other twice and then somehow devise a fixture schedule for two more rounds for a 16 game home and away season. Yes I know this is less than 20. Out of the three grades in our competition the level of importance in my opinion is League, Colts and then Reserves. I don't envisage it being a major issue for the ressies if they played a couple of less games per season. The advantage of having a 16 game colts season would be that fixturing around State 18's and PSA commitments becomes easier.

Whether my idea is right or wrong there will be change and it will involve some sort of AFL affiliation. Those that want to completely give the AFL the flick IMO have their heads in the sand.

swan42 wrote:

Senior Seagull wrote: I still believe that at the end of the EP contract WC will dump EP and establish their own team, same at Adelaide have done. 10 team comp, no byes, 18 rounds and a final 5, Given CH 7 only broadcast 18 H & A games they will support this and we all know they have massive influence over the WAFC.

That will leave Perth alone and I think they will flourish in their new facilities. NBo issue with 3 teams at Lathlain as they will have 2 ovals. Along with some sensible player quals for finals it will be the best of a bad situation given the aligments/reserves team situation is set in concrete.

S/s there has to be a vote to be carried by the WAFL clubs to allow for an extra team in the WAFL. That vote SHOULD and WOULD be lost. Having an Eagles' stand-alone team in the WAFL does not help the WAFL.

With respect to 18 games per season:

(i) it would mean all players would have a 10% cut in their payments;
(ii) clubs would have reduced income from sponsorship, gate takings, bar sales etc.,
(iii) disruption with respect to colts and reserves fixturing due to no colts and reserves matches when clubs played the stand-alone team;
(iv) channel 7 broadcast 18 matches only because there were week ends where it was not possible to schedule a WAFL games (unless it was at 6 am or 11 pm) to fit into their schedule of AFL telecasts;
(v) with respect to qualifying matches required both WA domiciled would still be playing qualifying games if the WAFL season was reduced by a number of weeks due to no byes and fewer rounds and that would mean that they would still want their players to play in the WAFL;
(vi) where would the stand-alone team get additional players to ensure they had 22 players available? How many other competitions do we want to stuff up to sate the appetite of the WA domiciled AFL teams?

(11)any team playing Peel twice at home are already taking a hit because they have very few fans and less that will travel.

(iii)The colts and reserves are already disrupted its called the bye that happens because we have nine teams.we had three byes.They seem to cope in the sanfl with the Crows having no reserves or colts.

(v) We have a 23 round but 20 game comp with nine teams.The South Aussies have a 22 round 18 game comp with 10 teams. Afl teams will be able to cope.

Definitely think the WC should be called Perth.

We have carlton, richmond, collongwood, st kilda, essendon --- but no Perth come on.

What will the Demons be called then TFAF?