NOTES OF MEETING OF WAFC AND WAFL NON-PARTNER CLUBS
Held at 3pm on Tuesday 20.11.12 in the Ross Capes Room
Attendees:
WAFC
Frank Cooper Chair
Brett Fullarton Commissioner
Gary Walton Chief Executive
Michael Hnatojko Director of Finance & Administration
WAFL
Todd Shimmon CEO, Claremont FC
Adam Kelly CEO, East Fremantle FC
Vince Pendal President, Perth FC
Haydn Raitt President, South Fremantle FC
Peter Capes CEO, Subiaco FC
Phil Smart FM, Swan Districts FC
Brett Raponi President, West Perth FC
A summary of the discussions on the following points made in the letter from the 7 Non-Partnering Clubs to the WAFC of 19.11.12 regarding competition integrity (the key issue), list and player management:
1 Partner Clubs are to have zero (0) non-district players from 2014
This meets the focus of AFL Clubs having their players playing together
Partner Clubs replace their non-district recruits with the AFL players (11 average per game)
District Model and talent pathway focus for local players in the partnering clubs.
NB As a transitional measure partnering Clubs to be allowed a maximum of 4 non-district players whose contracts extend to 2014 and beyond but these contracts must have been signed and dated prior to September 30th, 2012
Additional WAFL Concerns/Points
This meets the motivations of FFC and WCE of having their players playing together and it meets the motivations of WAFC to improve the finances and future health of East Perth and Peel. They get their interstate recruits and non-District players via the AFL Clubs. Average of 11 or 12 AFL players in every WAFL game – why do they need to get another 4 or 6 players? If they are also to recruit 4 players there won’t be spots for the others. 4-6 non-District players is just about EP and Peel being competitive.
We want the District pathway. They will have extra help from the AFL Clubs such as conditioning coaches, etc.
In the Benchmarking booklet Swan Districts were 33% – if you have this model only 6-8 District players playing in the 33%. Benchmarking states that every club should strive for 75% - even if we said no players we would not get 75%. In every club last year the lowest was 72%. If we go back 7-8 years ago we had some 45-50%. The District model has meant an average 72%. The Clubs really want to support their District and their local players.
The allocation should be based on current figures, not 10 year averages.
Are we intending to put the partner clubs in as strong sides to start with or just with the AFL players together? We might need to change other rules in 2-3 years if they are too weak. The AFL Clubs only asked for their players to play together.
This is the most important of our points, it is a major issue.
We are saying they should start weak and build them up, you are saying start at the top and bring them down.
WAFC Response
The FA Committee and the Commission are absolutely committed to the District Model for all Districts, not just the 7 Districts. We want to see the talent pathway in all 9 Districts. EP and Peel would be the purest with more District players – it would be the best result and deliver a terrific outcome in terms of District.
Is your concern about the way in which EP and Peel run their Districts or is it about their playing strength?
We do not have the stats to hand on District players and percentages.
There are the same number of AFL players, the number of players across the competition are the same. If you just look at total numbers, the total opportunities are the same. The maths assume there are no WA players in the AFL list but there may be. The AFL Clubs might be more active in using Reserves. There are the same opportunities around the competition.
We appreciate your point, we need to get the balance. We are concerned that 0 may not be the right number at the beginning but we would like to get there eventually.
The concept is that the AFL players are coached together and play together, but Peel/EP should still be able to win premierships.
We are aligned philosophically – you have fears they will be world beaters, we have fears they will be cellar dwellers. We don’t want the top, we want the middle.
You had concerns about variability to the rules and how that might affect the competition. We are of the view that it would be difficult to get this exactly right. We want to make it clear that if EP/Peel get too strong we will change the rules. We do not think we are in any disagreement with you about what we actually want as our goals and objectives – it is a starting point.
2 WAFL Player Points Rule
Agreed that from 2014 both partnering WAFL Clubs will not be required to adhere to a Points System but only if point 1 above agreed.
Additional WAFL Concerns/Points
We definitely need a points system.
3 Salary Cap
From 2014, both partnering WAFL Clubs will have a salary cap of between $110,000 to $120,000.
This is based on the rationale of paying less than $6,000 TPP per game for a maximum of 12 players per game.
AFL Player values in 2013 salary cap– this was agreed for implementation in 2013. Given the additional allocation of AFL talent to Partner Clubs in 2013, competition integrity demands this offset to that advantage.
Additional WAFL Concerns/Points
Peel has the stronger junior club. We have done everything we possibly can to help them, they have already been baled out. We are not saying Peel should go, but when does it finish, how many times do we help Peel? All this money is going out of our system and it affects us all.
The WAFL Clubs have to be accountable – Peel has a record of poor management, EP have allowed their President to make it a one-man club.
WAFC Response
We take what you said on board. If there is no zone, if no 4-6, then that would have to be taken into account. It is a mathematical equation.
We are alive to the salary cap issue. There is potentially the need to differentiate between the two Clubs – to lift Peel. We have no plans to do that but just want to put it on the table that we may need to do it.
4 AFL Rookies
In 2014 when the partnering model comes to full effect local Rookie Players originally from the seven non partnering WAFL Clubs will no longer play at their original Club. This will include all current rookies who may remain as Rookies at West Coast and Fremantle in 2014 and any selected in the 2012 or 2013 Rookie Drafts. As such each original WAFL Club should be entitled to a draft fee equivalent to the Interstate Rookie Fee which is currently $15,000.
NB The issue of Rookies not attracting full draft fees has dogged WAFL Clubs for a decade.
NB The draft fee for a listed AFL player has not increased since the new WAFC payment system was introduced at least 5 years ago.
Additional WAFL Concerns/Points
-
WAFC Response
We are pretty much on side with this. We recognise it. Murray McHenry has taken it to the AFL without success. We agree - we just need to work out the costing.
5 AFL Player Service Agreement (PSA)
WAFC Partnership Model commences in 2014, so there is no need to change a long standing agreement for only 1 season.
Additional WAFL Concerns/Points
The model has now come in – now asking for 10 games.
WAFC Response
We generally agree with your logic. We need to go back to the AFL Clubs but there is logic in what you say.
6 WAFC will be the Arbitrator on all and every rule change or amendment
The WAFL Rules and Regulations give the WMC the responsibility to manage the WAFL competition and this must be the process into the future.
The WAFC Football Affairs Committee should reserve the right to review any decision made by the WMC in accordance with the rules.
Additional WAFL Concerns/Points
It used to be the Management Committee (CEOs), then go to the FMs and back to the CEOs for recommendation to FA. Now it’s just FA – we don’t get to see the FA agenda or their decisions. We don’t feel GD listens to our concerns or conveys them to FA. We don’t know how you know which Clubs support the issues – we rarely get a chance to vote, only on an ad hoc basis. There is no process any more.
WAFC Response
There is a high degree of consultation at WAFL CEO level. Football Affairs have not done anything other than what the majority of WAFL Clubs have wanted. Rarely 9:0 but always a majority. We think it works. The CEOs manage the competition and the FA Committee is overarching.
We agree there should be more transparency and we need to follow the process.
7 Protected Player List
Partner Clubs will not require the same 40 protected player lists as the other 7 WAFL Clubs (their lists will include AFL allocated players). 40 List must be reduced by the average number of AFL Players available, say 10, plus the number of our 40 list players that would not be available for selection on average due to suspension, injury etc., say 3 to 4. Recommend 25.
Additional WAFL Concerns/Points
If there is less opportunity for EP/Peel players they need to have the opportunity to leave.
WAFC Response
This seems reasonable, we will take it on board.
8 Funding Model
Require a substantial increase in proposed funds.
$170,000 per non-partner club to be funded as follows:.
Total funding required $1,190,000 (7 Clubs @ $170,000)
AFL Club contribution to Partnering Model $900,000
Current proposed reduction to funding for WAFL Partner Clubs $150,000
Further reduction to WAFL Partner Clubs $150,000 (because of understatement of benefits in the proposal to the Partnering Clubs; see below)
WAFL Clubs agree to establishment of a Sustainability Fund at each Club into which $40,000 shall be allocated each year of the Partnering agreement. Clubs also agree to appropriate controls being implemented which render the funds be only accessible when Club and WAFC are in agreeance
WAFL Clubs agree to establishment of a Development Fund at each Club into which $10,000 shall be allocated each year of the partnering agreement for the purpose of providing Development Opportunities for Club personnel. Similar controls could be established to ensure that monies are used for intended purposes.
Benefits to Partner Clubs Gross under calculation of benefits i.e. Senior Coach, AFL listed players, Assistant Coaches, no recruitment costs, transfer fees, relocation, recruitment staff, travel costs, medical and S&C benefits from AFL Clubs. IT, GPS and other player and statistical analysis benefits etc.
Additional WAFL Concerns/Points
We believe we are under-funded. This is a great opportunity to get it right.
We understand the deal has been done. We are not saying go back – just restructure the funding. We are saying that the reduction to Peel/EP needs to be doubled from $150K to $300K – an extra $75K each – because of what they will be getting from the AFL Clubs. They have changed the duties of the AFL Development Coaches – now starting at 12pm and working evenings with their WAFL Clubs – 3 Development Coaches – GPS for each AFL players. All these extras amount to much more than $175K. It has already started and it’s not even 2013 yet. We don’t get any benefits until 2014, they are getting them now.
If Peel/EP need anything they could talk to their AFL Clubs, ask them for help rather than the WAFC. We are concerned that e.g. EP might ask WCE for financial assistance.
We are concerned that Peel/EP are moving away from the WAFL – there will be 7 WAFL Clubs and 4 AFL Clubs.
We want a Sustainability Fund at each Club, not at the WAFC. The control mechanisms could be thrashed out, with WAFC as a signatory
Some of the trust in the Commission has been damaged, our ability to have a partnership. If the Commission held the money we lose the balance of power. We should hold it and decide on a project. We agree with the concept but we want more control. We want it visible and equitable. We want to know what each Club is getting for the money. We want it to be more open and transparent. There could be KPIs in place like with the Management Grants. We are asking for some trust from the Commission, with MH visiting us to keep an eye on it.
We need extra resource in Development programmes to assist FMs and DOs to ease their workload. We are losing them, they are burning out because of the hours and the workload. There are other areas of concern – upgrading our development programmes, GPS, testing equipment, lifeskills training, education in nutrition/drugs/alcohol abuse/racial vilification, etc.
Some of the Clubs just need a cash injection of at least $100k to try and stay afloat.
Unfair that Peel/EP are to get the full Management Grant in 2013 plus extra players – interstate and rookies.
WAFC Response
Our intent was that we wanted a declaration from the AFL Clubs then we would adjust the Management Grants accordingly. We will take it on board. We will talk to the AFL Clubs to try to quantify the benefits. We are philosophically aligned but we recognise it is very difficult to calculate.
It is not our intent that the AFL Clubs would give direct financial assistance - that would have to be taken into account in the Management Grant. It comes down to the integrity of the AFL Clubs. It is an issue but we trust that they will play the game.
It is a starting point issue. We have given ourselves the opportunity to see how things go in the first year.
The Development Fund is to be spent each year – the intention is to spend it on development, it’s not a balance sheet building exercise.
We don’t disagree with your list but we want to benefit the competition as a whole, not individual clubs. We think it is better if these things are done by the peak body. We want a 5-year Plan, with you helping to develop the programme. We think you get far better outcomes if it is done centrally.
These funds need to be applied equitably, where the real value is. There must be transparency about where the money goes and what is planned. We will reflect on this.
We acknowledge your cash flow problems but with central funding we can put training in place with outside companies on sponsorship / fund raising / bequests – to show you how to get additional cash flows.
We cannot see us taking an extra $150k from the two Clubs, we can’t commit to that, but we will try to put something together that reflects our discussion. We are not saying yes or no at this stage, we will take everything you have said into account and think about it and we will ask the AFL Clubs.
9 Transfer of Players from Partner Clubs
District Model presents implications where district players who cannot be accommodated by partner clubs because of the AFL player squeeze and wanting transfer to other WAFL Clubs should be free to do so without financial constraint. There should not be a transfer fee payable.
Additional WAFL Concerns/Points
How hard are we going to make it for them to get out – we still have protected player lists.
WAFC Response
We acknowledge this is a point that needs some discussion. We don’t want double dipping and we don’t want to deny players opportunities.
10 WAFC Structure for WAFL going forward
The appointment of a WAFL General Manager who will be supported by:
Dedicated WAFL Marketing team must have a WAFC based team i.e. marketing, operations & IT that are strongly aligned and tasked with WAFL responsibilities alone.
WAFC Football Affairs must return the responsibility of running the WAFL competition back to the WMC. A policy paper setting out the process, role and responsibility for FA involvement to be drafted by WAFC.
Additional WAFL Concerns/Points
We used to have GD as a WAFL person 4-5 years ago, GM of the WAFL, but until recently he was looking after all of football. No one in the Commission is proud of WAFL. No one even has it in their job title any more – Pathways & Competitions, what does that mean? There needs to be a GM WAFL and a process that we all understand and value.
Marketing of the WAFL competition – we would like it branded better than at the moment. The key thing is we feel the Commission support is very operational. We need someone with a bit of strategy, some marketing and sponsorship.
WAFC Response
The Commission has a major concern about the sustainability of the WAFL. It is a very serious issue for us. The economic model of the new stadium is very important. We need to get it right.
We acknowledge the marketing and WAFL issues. WAFL responsibilities are currently spread across 5 or 6 portfolios across the Executive, we need to look at it. The structure of the Commission is definitely something that GW will be looking at – it is a high priority and he is looking to finalise it during the first six months of 2013. . The Executive have a planning workshop next week and this is on the agenda. The WAFL is important – as a competition, Talent Pathway and District.
11 A MISPERCEPTION occurred at the August Council of Presidents meeting.
WAFC have the opportunity to acknowledge in writing to each Club what has occurred and that the agreed process of consultation was abolished without explanation.
WAFC to also correct the statement about the Peel debt issue, i.e. $400,000 loan of which only 1 payment of $50,000 has been made in 2010, nothing in 2011.
WAFC Response
FC to write a letter to HR outlining his comments to the meeting.
The Commission sees Peel’s debt as a real debt and expects to see it paid off – by Peel, not FFC.
A very constructive meeting. We are philosophically on the same page for a lot of these issues although we do have some different starting points.
Outcomes
WAFC to engage with the two Partner Clubs and the AFL Clubs, then have a further meeting of this group + GD.
Joint media statement by GW/HR to be issued the following morning – fruitful discussions, etc.
Meeting closed at 4.55pm.
we have here.. The WAFC responses were not satisfactory. I suspect they dont even know what a can of worms they have created.