TOPIC:

Bazza wrote:

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?

I wonder if the same sf members shouting were around in 1999???

and as for the supporters abusing peel players coming off the ground is a disgrace as they have nothing to do with the decision of been aligned to peel or any club for that matter

Senior Seagull wrote: 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.

didn't port have 17 players in the sanfl GF?

strono wrote:

Bazza wrote:

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?

I wonder if the same sf members shouting were around in 1999???

and as for the supporters abusing peel players coming off the ground is a disgrace as they have nothing to do with the decision of been aligned to peel or any club for that matter

Strono...I don't disagree that the aligned players at Peel had little or nothing to do with the model or qualification rules but you wouldn't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the WCE and FFC put some pretty strong weight into making sure they got what they wanted. As representatives of FFC and with the WAFC hierarchy keeping a low profile on the issue the players were an obvious target....probably not warranted but understandable. After all the press and social media fallout hopefully the clowns at the WAFC have got the message so the aligned players won't have targets on their backs in future.

strono wrote:

Bazza wrote:

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?

I wonder if the same sf members shouting were around in 1999???

and as for the supporters abusing peel players coming off the ground is a disgrace as they have nothing to do with the decision of been aligned to peel or any club for that matter

The post doesn't say anything about abusing players., but at the CEO of Peel, a WAFC and FFC stooge.

The punters in sharks shit pit bar would of done exactly the same anyway.

BC wrote:

strono wrote:

Bazza wrote:

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?

I wonder if the same sf members shouting were around in 1999???

and as for the supporters abusing peel players coming off the ground is a disgrace as they have nothing to do with the decision of been aligned to peel or any club for that matter

Strono...I don't disagree that the aligned players at Peel had little or nothing to do with the model or qualification rules but you wouldn't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the WCE and FFC put some pretty strong weight into making sure they got what they wanted. As representatives of FFC and with the WAFC hierarchy keeping a low profile on the issue the players were an obvious target....probably not warranted but understandable. After all the press and social media fallout hopefully the clowns at the WAFC have got the message so the aligned players won't have targets on their backs in future.

My view is BC that there would of been something very wrong with traditional clubs supporters had they NOT voiced dissatisfaction in a very public manner, how else can the ordinary supporters view get through to the hierarchy. As you say it has to be targeted somewhere and if the WAFC makes a target that's where it will go,.

Has anything come out from the WAFC announcing a review of qualification rules? I've certainly not seen anything and given the amount of airtime and commentary the subject received would have thought the governing body would be all over it.

BC wrote: Has anything come out from the WAFC announcing a review of qualification rules? I've certainly not seen anything and given the amount of airtime and commentary the subject received would have thought the governing body would be all over it.

BC it was discussed at length on Saturday morning on 6pr , Clubs have all been asked to formulate submissions on what changes they want for next year, it is still in drafting stage and they will send in what they want, Langdon was of the opinion that there will be major changes.

I think he said he wanted a limit of 11 listed players in a team.

Quite a few calls came in , the consensus among callers was for stand alone teams for the two AFL teams as a better way to go long term.

Ok...cheers mate. Schofield was very vocal around Peel averaging just over 9 aligned players per game in the back half of the season and rolling out 15 in the GF...so reckon it could be based on averages during the year...but we'll wait and see I guess.

It should be that they have to play more WAFL games than AFL, end of story.