TOPIC:

Control freaks... i agree with you Cardy 100%.

Cardy wrote: Spot on Jardine... Bottom line is it would be like a breath of fresh air
and put some life back into the WAFL. Ok some wont like it but gotta do something
I hope it all comes to fruition..
In 2018 it might be to late... I cant see a problem with kicking it off a lot sooner... Even the 2016 Season.

I realise my comments re scoreboard are a minor issue mate but just threw it into the conversation as I did with the Sponsorship CRAP going on.
Public transport is another issue but easily resolved ... they have the CAT buses I think that run from EP to Central... I caught a bus from Booragoon and it terminated in EP but I think those days are gone.
Friday night clash with Trots but always the option of Day games.. or Sat night
But as you say the night games would be brilliant because of the ambience under the lights.

Small minor issues that will be easily sorted out if it happens.

Cardy the WACA score board was fine for WAFL and AFL, they just slot team names in in the player slots and some score numbers, no probs.

Tiger of old wrote: The wafc will not decide anything until they are clear on what deal they are getting at the new stadium, and rightly so considering footy will be the MAJOR money spinner for it. Barnett the control freak can't handle somebody other than HIMSELF actually having some say in this.

The only control freaks in this argument are the WAFC and the two AFL franchises who have had a dream run at tax payers expense at Subi oval that was gifted to them on a pepper corn lease by the Burke Gov when the entire WA Football structure was on the bones of its arse.

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

jardine wrote: I don't mind football at the WACA, and it is an adequate size for WAFL finals & grand finals. The lighting is the best in Australia. And in my opinion better that Subiaco & the MCG, and Ive seen both. They will play weekly neutral games there just like they did at Subi in the 80's. They will also play regular double headers, that is the way it will go. Two games for the price of One will be a huge selling point, and it may attract regular attendances up around 4,500-6,000. A better look that the usual 1,500-2,000.

Spot on Jardine, I always liked the idea of WAFL Finals double headers that were tried in the 80's. As you say its a better look to have 6000 there than 3000.

Presentation wise as TV product, the WACA would be far superior , a fantastic playing surface, a well kept and maintained outter, and very comfortable stands ans seating, great lighting to boot!

Where does one start Bazza? I fully agree that provided there is enough under cover seating at the WACA, not at the moment, the GF would be better to be played at the WACA than the new stadium. With respect to double headers what percentage of supporters would be interested in double headers? My guess is not too many. I suspect what would happen is that those who were there for the first game wouldn't stay for the second game and those interested in the second game would turn up late in the first game. Another problem with double headers is the impact it would have on the lower grades and those supporters who want to see the lower grades.

I would argue that a well attended game at Basso would be superior to a similar crowd at the WACA.

Another problem with respect to neutral games at the WACA is the impact on revenue on clubs in terms of bar and gate takings, catering etc.

Admittedly I haven't watched much of the Ch 7 coverage but from comments I have heard and read about the Ch 7 coverage is that it is all about who had, is or will play in the AFL. The WAFL per se is purely peripheral.

So if Peel were to play a night game at the WACA how many Peel supporters would be in attendance? Obviously the WACA lights are vastly superior to any of the WAFL grounds' lighting.

I would also argue the premise that more people would attend a Swans' home game played at the WACA than would attend the game at Basso.

Finally I am no sure that games played at the WACA would particularly financially reqarding.

You sould start by being positive for once in the last 12 to 18 months Swan, fair dinkum mate, your a good bloke but you need to get out of this mealy mouthed rutt.

For a start I can't beleive you have ignored the WAFL coverage and not watched a single game just becasue its no longer on ABC and Ch 7 have cracked it over the WPFC Ch 9 deal. I would of thought someone so passionate over local football would of at lease checked out some games, not the least to past judgement on the coverage, a few years ago commercial coverage looked like an impossible dream for WAFL football and now we have it people are still not happy.

Re double headers , I think they have their place, a few a year with some compo deals would be fine, I enjoyed them there in the 80s.

But the finals would be the best place for them , I remember a double header final at Subi in 89 , both EF and SF played on the same day, I think it was the WP v EF draw, but it was a great atmosphere and crowd, most EF people hung around for the SF v C game afterwards.

over 30,000 all up I think, a figure we can only dream about now.

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

jardine wrote: I don't mind football at the WACA, and it is an adequate size for WAFL finals & grand finals. The lighting is the best in Australia. And in my opinion better that Subiaco & the MCG, and Ive seen both. They will play weekly neutral games there just like they did at Subi in the 80's. They will also play regular double headers, that is the way it will go. Two games for the price of One will be a huge selling point, and it may attract regular attendances up around 4,500-6,000. A better look that the usual 1,500-2,000.

Spot on Jardine, I always liked the idea of WAFL Finals double headers that were tried in the 80's. As you say its a better look to have 6000 there than 3000.

Presentation wise as TV product, the WACA would be far superior , a fantastic playing surface, a well kept and maintained outter, and very comfortable stands ans seating, great lighting to boot!

Where does one start Bazza? I fully agree that provided there is enough under cover seating at the WACA, not at the moment, the GF would be better to be played at the WACA than the new stadium. With respect to double headers what percentage of supporters would be interested in double headers? My guess is not too many. I suspect what would happen is that those who were there for the first game wouldn't stay for the second game and those interested in the second game would turn up late in the first game. Another problem with double headers is the impact it would have on the lower grades and those supporters who want to see the lower grades.

I would argue that a well attended game at Basso would be superior to a similar crowd at the WACA.

Another problem with respect to neutral games at the WACA is the impact on revenue on clubs in terms of bar and gate takings, catering etc.

Admittedly I haven't watched much of the Ch 7 coverage but from comments I have heard and read about the Ch 7 coverage is that it is all about who had, is or will play in the AFL. The WAFL per se is purely peripheral.

So if Peel were to play a night game at the WACA how many Peel supporters would be in attendance? Obviously the WACA lights are vastly superior to any of the WAFL grounds' lighting.

I would also argue the premise that more people would attend a Swans' home game played at the WACA than would attend the game at Basso.

Finally I am no sure that games played at the WACA would particularly financially reqarding.

You sould start by being positive for once in the last 12 to 18 months Swan, fair dinkum mate, your a good bloke but you need to get out of this mealy mouthed rutt.

For a start I can't beleive you have ignored the WAFL coverage and not watched a single game just becasue its no longer on ABC and Ch 7 have cracked it over the WPFC Ch 9 deal. I would of thought someone so passionate over local football would of at lease checked out some games, not the least to past judgement on the coverage, a few years ago commercial coverage looked like an impossible dream for WAFL football and now we have it people are still not happy.

Re double headers , I think they have their place, a few a year with some compo deals would be fine, I enjoyed them there in the 80s.

But the finals would be the best place for them , I remember a double header final at Subi in 89 , both EF and SF played on the same day, I think it was the WP v EF draw, but it was a great atmosphere and crowd, most EF people hung around for the SF v C game afterwards.

over 30,000 all up I think, a figure we can only dream about now.

Bazza for the record I have missed only two Swans' games this season: the colts' and reserves' games versus Claremont the day after watching Swans versus Claremont league game in Mt Barker.

I don't have an HD recorder therefore I cannot record the 7 Mate matches to watch the games after I get home from watching Swans. I also watched the 18s and State game at lathlain Park Oval.

I did watch some of the East Freo versus the club formerly known as East Perth in round 1. It seems to me that the commentators need to use the AFL to counterpoint the WAFL players rather than considering the WAFL as an entity in and of itself. I understand that the ABC was not going to televise the WAFL in 2015 and the WAFL needs the exposure on free to air tv. The WAFl has paid a significant price, financially and otherwise, to get the games on Channel 7. Irregular and strange match times and boycotting of West Perth are two examples of what has occurred to get Channel 7 to broadcast 18 of 23 rounds of WAFL footy.

I will continue to support the WAFL by supporting Swans until either Swans or I expire. I just wish that those involved in the running of the WAFl shared a common passion for the WAFL that we WAFL supporters have and as a consequence made decisions which were of benefit to the WAFL clubs and competitions rather than the opposite.

To finish on a positive for you I am impressed by my club's direction in developing and promoting our younger players which augurs well for success in the future.

With respect to being positive, it would be good to have something to be positive about. However, when you read comments from Messrs Walton and McHenry you would be hard pressed to find anything positive.

Bazza wrote:

Tiger of old wrote: The wafc will not decide anything until they are clear on what deal they are getting at the new stadium, and rightly so considering footy will be the MAJOR money spinner for it. Barnett the control freak can't handle somebody other than HIMSELF actually having some say in this.

The only control freaks in this argument are the WAFC and the two AFL franchises who have had a dream run at tax payers expense at Subi oval that was gifted to them on a pepper corn lease by the Burke Gov when the entire WA Football structure was on the bones of its arse.

I'm not going to be sending the wafc any Christmas cards let's be clear on that but they're not going to just uproot from subi and shift to the waca before any deal at the new stadium is made just because Barnett says they should.

Tiger of old wrote:

Bazza wrote:

Tiger of old wrote: The wafc will not decide anything until they are clear on what deal they are getting at the new stadium, and rightly so considering footy will be the MAJOR money spinner for it. Barnett the control freak can't handle somebody other than HIMSELF actually having some say in this.

The only control freaks in this argument are the WAFC and the two AFL franchises who have had a dream run at tax payers expense at Subi oval that was gifted to them on a pepper corn lease by the Burke Gov when the entire WA Football structure was on the bones of its arse.

I'm not going to be sending the wafc any Christmas cards let's be clear on that but they're not going to just uproot from subi and shift to the waca before any deal at the new stadium is made just because Barnett says they should.

They still have the lease there, but the Sports Minister can overule the WAFC if needs be, remember the WAFC was set up by the State Government to save football in the state. They won't have much choice once the new stadium is up and running, as if they will keep playing AFL games as a run down Subi when a whole new stadium is available, beside the AFL will demand games at the new venue, they are snookered either way, that leaves them high and dry. Once AFL games leave Subi it becomes a complete white elephant, what on earth would be the point on staying there maintaining a monolithic heap of crap with tumble weed blowing through it.

Mark my words, in 15 years what is now Subi oval will be high rise office, townhouse and apartment blocks all earning rates for the Town of Subi.

Bazza wrote: in 15 years what is now Subi oval will be high rise office, townhouse and apartment blocks all earning rates for the Town of Subi.

And that's what it's all about folks....... Then all that lovely revenue everyone makes from the new stadium when it's up and running. That the tax payers paid for, and will keep paying for it for ever and a day.

sounds like you're not a big fan of the new stadium w.a.g. quite frankly i think its long overdue...subi oval is a chit hole compared to say Etihad or Adelaide Oval and should have been demolished years ago.

We'll have to see how it pans out there BC. If the state govt (or others) don't stuff it up, the stadium should be alright. Do agree with Adelaide Oval (and Adelaide in general) looked good and a nice place when holidaying there not long back.