TOPIC:

There was a player who caught 2/3 years ago accepting money from Wembley. The club got of Scott free while the player was suspended for a year. What is the difference here. Is it a different rule for A abs B Grade clubs.

Peter Pan wrote: Na that's different disco, there is no rule that says a club has to charge fees, also they offer it to everyone not selected individuals. I have little sympathy for clubs that pay regardless of how widespread it is, it amounts to cheating, I am perplexed though as to how this player who accepted the alleged offer, is still allowed to play.

Cheers Pan, I was not aware of the fees thing although after checking the bylaws it states all players as you have said.

Again it states not an individual or select grade etc such as colts.

Clubs have indicated colts play free etc or 1st Year players at the club free.
This has been the case this year from what I have seen in open forums such as this site?

Thoughts?

In my own opinion I believe the player in question should have been rubbed out also.

I've got no issues with colts or first year players playing free. A creative initiative for clubs to attract players as the colts become future senior players and allow the club to have future depth. Lynwood Ferndale have done this for a couple of years now - and they need to do this to stand out - in an area which has Canning Tigers, St Norberts, Willetton, Bull Creek-Leeming, Rossmoyne, Canning Vale, Curtin Uni Wesley, Thornlie, Manning and the Piara Bulls in a relatively close proximity to their ground.

Interesting topic given the media attention/fall out.

At one end the Cobras have mounted a strong campaign that the WAAFL has stitched them up and they’re completely innocent, at the other the WAAFL has found them guilty twice (once overturned) and is staying quiet. Both approaches are what you’d expect as for one it’s about damage control, pointing blame elsewhere, galvanizing the player group, supports etc. and the other is about not being drawn into publicly justifying the verdict.

Who knows what the truth is or whether it lies at either end of that spectrum or somewhere in the middle - as Unholytugboat said it would be surprising if the WAAFL didn’t have something via way of proof given the severity of the penalty and I’m not sure they’re in the business of getting players to sign false stat decs given that would mean they forced the player to commit a criminal offence.

A couple of guys I know down that way said there were a lot of grumblings preseason regarding players being lost to the Cobras from surrounding clubs and that drove a few rumors and innuendo surrounding the issue. They hadn’t heard about the May decision so it was obviously kept pretty quiet, wonder if the other clubs in the grade were aware or whether they were impacted from a finals perspective by the late decision?

By the sounds of it the player involved is now at his third club for the year? Pretty odd behavior, not sure why you would leave a club that was travelling pretty well and looking like a strong flag contender or was the move to someone who was an even bigger chance?

CasualObserver wrote: I've got no issues with colts or first year players playing free. A creative initiative for clubs to attract players as the colts become future senior players and allow the club to have future depth. Lynwood Ferndale have done this for a couple of years now - and they need to do this to stand out - in an area which has Canning Tigers, St Norberts, Willetton, Bull Creek-Leeming, Rossmoyne, Canning Vale, Curtin Uni Wesley, Thornlie, Manning and the Piara Bulls in a relatively close proximity to their ground.

Cheers CO, Always good to hear your input.
I agree with you but under the bylaws it states you cant.
I was just posing the question.
I think if clubs have the money in that area to foster development its a great initiative, BUT I would not like this to happen at clubs who have more than one colts side etc.(Just my personal opinion)
Some clubs work very hard to get this money and some are good at it.
Cant really blame them for that.
1st year player at a club is a different kettle of fish though if they are not colts?
Clearly states all or none?
With regard to the Cobra's events I guess it will all come out in the wash one day?

Disco Knight,
I hope you are not in a clubs recruiting department if you think a club offering players of all abilities free fees is the same as offering a player of "High Ability" incentives.
I also wouldn't want to be doing your lawn mower round if you think working for free is the same as getting paid.

The Rug wrote: Disco Knight,
I hope you are not in a clubs recruiting department if you think a club offering players of all abilities free fees is the same as offering a player of "High Ability" incentives.
I also wouldn't want to be doing your lawn mower round if you think working for free is the same as getting paid.

Rug,
Thanks for your feedback.
I am not trying to say or blame anyone and fully understand your viewpoint.
What I am having an issue with is the WAAFL bylaws versus reality.
It clearly states the rules with regard to what you can and cant do but clubs are doing this and not getting spoken too in some cases?
What I would like is for the WAAFL to go one way or the other in regards to fee remuneration and say yes its ok for colts etc.
Currently it states no you cant but as we know from posts on here its happening and clubs are not held accountable.
Just want clarity so if you are allowed to do it for the development of your colts etc you can do it with no recourse?
if you cant do well why are clubs allowed?
I do not condone player payment and if you do it and get caught tough!
Just want the ambiguity in some areas clarified and set so we all know moving forward.
Sorry for the long winded reply but I hope you can see where I am coming from?

DK

I am pretty sure that clubs like LF have to get these schemes signed off. IIRC, the topic of 'free play schemes' was posted in March/April and people were saying that the WAAFL needed to approve what was being done.

LF is at the other end of Metcalfe Ave from me and they have had signs around the neighbourhood for years saying colts and first year players played free (maybe it means no pay at all or it means free subs but having to pay for weekly ball fees?).

I don't see non-payment of fees in the same light as player payments as no fees equates to a figure of a couple of hundred bucks a year per player whereas paying players is more in the range of a couple of hundred (or more) a week per player.

Even two guys at $200 per week would equate to $7200 in costs for a club over the course of a home-and-away season - a figure that many clubs could not afford.

Rumour is this story is not finished. Questions being asked on "late evidence" that suddenly came to 'light' after club successfully appealed CIO's findings

So we are almost half way through the year and the latest topic (Leveling the playing field) had me thinking about where are the two clubs that were caught for breaching the amateur status.

Was a hot topic when it all went down but seems to be all forgotten now and a thing of the past.

Cobras taking a massive punishment last year and also banned from finals this year.

But i must say credit to the club and players as they managed to hold there 3 sides together this year in C4 which would have been a massive task for any club considering this year means nothing and comparing there situation to Noranda.

There colts and reserves are in the mix for the top 5 and the league side have notched up 2 wins so far. Would be a hard task motivating players on game day and recruiting league players.

Noranda lost a lot of players and had a massive fall from grace and probably lucky to keep the club alive after the mass exodus. They have dropped to E grade where they are travelling quite well in second place. A long recovery for this club to get back to at least a league and reserves sides.

Hopefully both clubs can get through the tough times and build for the future.