TOPIC:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

Freezin wrote: Out of interest if WP were at fault here what would the WP fans think of Raponi et al then......everyone loves to hammer the WAFC cronieshere on Oz Footy and rightly so....but if they were in the right here and WP were in the wrong what would the WP fans want to see happen?.....just curious because Raponi seems to be held in high regard by the WP boys.

Well said Freeze I think a few here are going to end having been found out to have barked up the wrong tree all along, WP are looking more and more isolated on this and appear to be engaging in fraudulent practices to cover tracks, I hope for the sake of the comp they have not let individual board members ego run the entire thing into a very ugly place.

Bazza my understanding of the timeline is that the West Perth agreement was signed approximately 12 months before the Channel 7 - WAFC agreement. That is the bottom line. It was incumbent on the WAFC to ensure that any agreement they signed with Channel 7 DID NOT IMPINGE on the legal agreement with West Perth and Channel 9. It is arrant nonsense that West Perth should have foregone $100,000 in sponsorship on a wing and prayer may be something will happen in the future.

One other thing to consider is who is paying whom in the Channel 7 WAFC agreement.

Your understanding is wrong, the contract was up for renewal, wpfc were given full warning of the consequences if they went ahead and signed regardless of the warnings of the and the breach of rule under the the WAFC licence regs if they signed a spinsorship deal in direct breach of a sponsorship deal the wafc had signed.

Clearly if this is the case wpfc has not got a leg to stand on,which is why its now apparent they have engaged in doctering of docs, if this is the case its very serious.

Further wpfc have refused all attempts to resolve the matter.

Finally and this is the crucial fact for me at the most recent meeting all other wafl clubs were present when contractual docs and timelines were presented as evidence to parties, all parties are now united with the wafc stance, wpfc are out on their own, which is a clear indication that something is very wrong at Joondy.

You might want to ring sdfc to confirm all this.

If confirmed wpfc are in a mess.

wafc have confirmed that they will not throw them out of the finals, but it means that the games will not be broadcast.

I look forward to wpfc launching legal action if they chose to do so, somehow I dont think it will happen, the game will just not be broadcast so a big blow for wafl.

Rest assured Bazza the following:

(i) what has been published previously in The West re the WAFL clubs kicking out West Perth WAS NOT TRUE;

(ii) what has been published in today's West has not been substantiated;

(iii) why would West Perth and Channel 9 would have signed only a 1 year agreement - patent nonsense

(iv) the WAFC WILL NOT win any legal procedding against West Perth and Channel 9.

Winger wrote: Soundcloud link

Thanks for that Winger it would be hard pressed to hear a more vacuous rationalisation of the WAFC's position than that contained in that interview.

Cardy wrote:

JD62 wrote:

Cardy wrote: Strange that over the last few months of this Saga this was not mentioned and other threats were made... Kick you out of the finals - No home finals for WPFC etc etc.
Yet NO MENTION OF THE ABOVE???

It has been previously reported. From an article in March
au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/265412...s-fire-over-tv-deal/

GREAT you quote an article by the West Australian which is owned by Chn 7. Similiar to todays article in the West.. Dont you think there is a conflict here?

Your opinion of bias is totally irrelevant. You stated that the accusation had never previously been mentioned. The article quoted showed it had been mentioned 5 months ago.

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

Freezin wrote: Out of interest if WP were at fault here what would the WP fans think of Raponi et al then......everyone loves to hammer the WAFC cronieshere on Oz Footy and rightly so....but if they were in the right here and WP were in the wrong what would the WP fans want to see happen?.....just curious because Raponi seems to be held in high regard by the WP boys.

Well said Freeze I think a few here are going to end having been found out to have barked up the wrong tree all along, WP are looking more and more isolated on this and appear to be engaging in fraudulent practices to cover tracks, I hope for the sake of the comp they have not let individual board members ego run the entire thing into a very ugly place.

Bazza my understanding of the timeline is that the West Perth agreement was signed approximately 12 months before the Channel 7 - WAFC agreement. That is the bottom line. It was incumbent on the WAFC to ensure that any agreement they signed with Channel 7 DID NOT IMPINGE on the legal agreement with West Perth and Channel 9. It is arrant nonsense that West Perth should have foregone $100,000 in sponsorship on a wing and prayer may be something will happen in the future.

One other thing to consider is who is paying whom in the Channel 7 WAFC agreement.

Your understanding is wrong, the contract was up for renewal, wpfc were given full warning of the consequences if they went ahead and signed regardless of the warnings of the and the breach of rule under the the WAFC licence regs if they signed a spinsorship deal in direct breach of a sponsorship deal the wafc had signed.

Clearly if this is the case wpfc has not got a leg to stand on,which is why its now apparent they have engaged in doctering of docs, if this is the case its very serious.

Further wpfc have refused all attempts to resolve the matter.

Finally and this is the crucial fact for me at the most recent meeting all other wafl clubs were present when contractual docs and timelines were presented as evidence to parties, all parties are now united with the wafc stance, wpfc are out on their own, which is a clear indication that something is very wrong at Joondy.

You might want to ring sdfc to confirm all this.

If confirmed wpfc are in a mess.

wafc have confirmed that they will not throw them out of the finals, but it means that the games will not be broadcast.

I look forward to wpfc launching legal action if they chose to do so, somehow I dont think it will happen, the game will just not be broadcast so a big blow for wafl.

Rest assured Bazza the following:

(i) what has been published previously in The West re the WAFL clubs kicking out West Perth WAS NOT TRUE;

(ii) what has been published in today's West has not been substantiated;

(iii) why would West Perth and Channel 9 would have signed only a 1 year agreement - patent nonsense

(iv) the WAFC WILL NOT win any legal procedding against West Perth and Channel 9.

Yeah no worries swan , ring sdfc get their version.

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

Freezin wrote: Out of interest if WP were at fault here what would the WP fans think of Raponi et al then......everyone loves to hammer the WAFC cronieshere on Oz Footy and rightly so....but if they were in the right here and WP were in the wrong what would the WP fans want to see happen?.....just curious because Raponi seems to be held in high regard by the WP boys.

Well said Freeze I think a few here are going to end having been found out to have barked up the wrong tree all along, WP are looking more and more isolated on this and appear to be engaging in fraudulent practices to cover tracks, I hope for the sake of the comp they have not let individual board members ego run the entire thing into a very ugly place.

Bazza my understanding of the timeline is that the West Perth agreement was signed approximately 12 months before the Channel 7 - WAFC agreement. That is the bottom line. It was incumbent on the WAFC to ensure that any agreement they signed with Channel 7 DID NOT IMPINGE on the legal agreement with West Perth and Channel 9. It is arrant nonsense that West Perth should have foregone $100,000 in sponsorship on a wing and prayer may be something will happen in the future.

One other thing to consider is who is paying whom in the Channel 7 WAFC agreement.

Your understanding is wrong, the contract was up for renewal, wpfc were given full warning of the consequences if they went ahead and signed regardless of the warnings of the and the breach of rule under the the WAFC licence regs if they signed a spinsorship deal in direct breach of a sponsorship deal the wafc had signed.

Clearly if this is the case wpfc has not got a leg to stand on,which is why its now apparent they have engaged in doctering of docs, if this is the case its very serious.

Further wpfc have refused all attempts to resolve the matter.

Finally and this is the crucial fact for me at the most recent meeting all other wafl clubs were present when contractual docs and timelines were presented as evidence to parties, all parties are now united with the wafc stance, wpfc are out on their own, which is a clear indication that something is very wrong at Joondy.

You might want to ring sdfc to confirm all this.

If confirmed wpfc are in a mess.

wafc have confirmed that they will not throw them out of the finals, but it means that the games will not be broadcast.

I look forward to wpfc launching legal action if they chose to do so, somehow I dont think it will happen, the game will just not be broadcast so a big blow for wafl.

Rest assured Bazza the following:

(i) what has been published previously in The West re the WAFL clubs kicking out West Perth WAS NOT TRUE;

(ii) what has been published in today's West has not been substantiated;

(iii) why would West Perth and Channel 9 would have signed only a 1 year agreement - patent nonsense

(iv) the WAFC WILL NOT win any legal procedding against West Perth and Channel 9.

Yeah no worries swan , ring sdfc get their version.

I have already had it confirmed that what The West reported was not correct, so the precedent has been set.

Swan that's interesting , I take it your confirmation comes from someone at the meeting. if the WAFC are misrepresenting the situation and WPFC version is correct , I look forward to the court action,either WPFC are forced to remove the logo and the game is broadcast and they sue the WAFC, or they refuse to remove the logo, ch 7 drop the broadcast meaning the WAFC sue WPFC as well as the other club participating in the GF for loses they incur from lack of sponsors coverage.

Dirty Weekender wrote: Big blow for WAFL my arse Bazza. Show me where TV coverage of the WAFL this year has increased or benefited any clubs financial position.

Yeah no worries brains, lets drop all media coverage of wafl seeings its so meaningless.

Bazza wrote:

Dirty Weekender wrote: Big blow for WAFL my arse Bazza. Show me where TV coverage of the WAFL this year has increased or benefited any clubs financial position.

Yeah no worries brains, lets drop all media coverage of wafl seeings its so meaningless.

How,many people are watching Bazza and of that lot how many are at times attending or contributing towards the WAFL with membership etc. Considering it is costing clubs money to televise games show me where the return in their investment is. I understand the need for exposure but is the TV coverage really helping on a financial level and will it really matter if a couple of WAFL finals games aren't shown in the midst of what is looking increasingly like an AFL preliminary final bonanza weekend for followers of the 2 WA based AFL teams.

So what your saying there is zero interest in WAFL?

I do agree it is limited and I do agree it has no chance of oxygen while two AFL teams are in the finals.

In the meantime WAFL dies on the vine.

As we both know its dying on the vine regardless of the TV coverage at the moment Bazza. That's why I'm saying its not a big blow to the WAFL if the GF and prelim aren't televised.....it's a bloody shame if that's the case but I struggle to see how TV is going to help the WAFL unless its a rival station to Channel Eagles and the coverage receives some form of hype and lets be honest help from the broadcaster