swan42 wrote:
Bazza wrote: (I) you are assuming it would alienate the supporter base and thinking like it is something new, its not I clearly remember games in the pre eagles 80s being played at Subi during the home and away as a neutral venue, I think they had double headers and the first ever Sunday games were held there. I also remember late 80s, East Perth and Perth playing double headers there that pulled good crowds.
(ii) the clubs should not accept any deal at all unless they the have a potential loss underwritten by the WAFC - I have already told you this but you keep repeating it.
(iii) I suspect the media ( in partnership with the WACA who want use out of what is becoming a potential white elephant) is driving it as the venue will give vastly superior broadcast quality for night games and time slots with leads to higher ratings which is what the WAFC wants and needs because if the ratings are higher more sponsorship is obtained which in turns means the broadcast deal is more financially viable which in turn means the WAFC will have to fork out less and sponsors fork out more for the production, this makes perfect fiscal sense.
(iv) no more ludicrous than having to drive down to Mandurah at night to watch Peel at a dumpster park, Oh wait you cant do it, no lights down there. Id go to the WACA a long time I went to Peel Park.
(v) Crystal ball time I guess, but see points (i) its attracted decent crowds in the past, and what ever we are doing now isn't working and hasn't done for years so why not change.
(i) There was a much bigger supporter base per-1987. I will repeat that we have already lost 3 homes games in a two year period. I would contend that fewer supporters would go to a game at the WACA than played at a home game at a WAFL club.
(ii) No disagreement with your call for compensation; what is the likelihood of it happening and how would the amount be calculated if compensation was paid?
(iii) How much will it cost to hold games under lights at the WACA? How many would turn up and what percentage of those would pay? For example, WACA members would not pay to get in. Similarly, kids would not pay. So the amount through the gate would barely cover the cost of gate and security staff. Then we have the cost of the lights. Sounds like the WACA would be charging a fairly high fee to play there.
(iv) You might go to the WACA; how many Peel supporters would go to the WACA for a night game?
(v) Without revisiting all the anti-WAFL decisions made by the WAFC I don't think we should change for change sake and let's not forget the WAFL clubs don't want it; it is the WACA and Channel 7 that want it.
(I) yes, there was and it all relative , we are getting very small crowds at run down suburban grounds now so its all relative, 4000 at a double header would be a good result by todays standards,
(ii) as I said - AGAIN no club should agree to it unless a compo deal is underwritten.
(iii) I don't see your point there, you seem to be repeating same theme, costs should be underwritten by WACA/WAFC with sponsors support, when I was a member of WACA we had access members at WAFL games but had to pay gate entry, children's are always free, don't see your point there.
(iV) who cares peel have little/no support base even at home...in fact the pro docker crowd a more likely to turn up at the WACA.
(vi) what we are doing now isn't working and if you don't change you die.
