TOPIC:

Beasley Hutton wrote:

smokey wrote: Swandog, ? 5000 members. You are kidding aren't you?
Good luck if you get that many.

It was 4000 a couple of years ago! Have your mob cracked the 800 mark yet?

I `Like` haha

So Garlett did sign for Perth originally then decided to play for Peel and guess what??? The WAFC have said this is fine and going to allow it to happen. This is dead set shambolic now

This is twisted and Demons should stand there gound.
This is exactly the maninpulation that is going to go on if WAFC dont pull there heads out of there proverbial

Sacko wrote: So Garlett did sign for Perth originally then decided to play for Peel and guess what??? The WAFC have said this is fine and going to allow it to happen. This is dead set shambolic now

I cant see how its fine??
Perth should threaten to take the contract and Garlett to court.

Those at the top will continue to do what ever they like to make sure Peel and East Perth don't fail. If the G7 clubs wanted to push their argument further and outside the state, they could refuse to make any players available for the State game.

Swandog wrote:

smokey wrote: Swandog, ? 5000 members. You are kidding aren't you?
Good luck if you get that many.

I think it is around 3500 mate, 5000 is the official target of the club, we have arguably the most passionate and dedicated supporter base along with West Perth

doesn't your good drinking buddy Raponi work for WP Swandog?

There are some very ominous signs here and they all "Stink".
If Garlett has already signed with Perth he is a contracted player and Peel cannot speak with him, or his manager, without Perth's consent.
If he has turned around and signed a second agreement with Peel the question is why are Peel allowed to speak with and sign a contracted player and if, as Sacko has suggested, the WAFC has turned a blind eye to it then surely it is a breach of contract law and Perth would be in a position to take legal action against Peel, Garlett and the WAFC, and even Garlett's manager.
I would be most surprised, given all the above, if Perth have not already headed down that track.
Yes, very ominous indeed that the WAFC may be flexing it's muscle. Beware G7 clubs.
I posted on here a couple of weeks ago and said it was the "thin end of the wedge".
Well that wedge is is being banged in deeper and deeper.

come on smokey you wouldn't be giving two shits if this was happening at one of the other 'G7' clubs......your pissed because it involved a Perth player that Perth wanted back....can understand your fustration and anger, but hey people can have second thoughts.....if Cruize truly thought he owed PFC something, he would be doing preseason with PFC now.....Cruize clearly has thoughts only for himself.....u best off without him....

Yeah, you may be right Freez. If he has that sort of attitude we don't need him.
BUT, what we have here is a possible blatant breach of contract law and Perth members and supporters would expect the club to pursue damages from Garlett and his manager, from Peel and from the WAFc.
If any of the other G7 clubs were in our shoes they would go down the same track - even your Sharks.

I didn't think the Sharks had any money Smokester.