TOPIC:

MarkOlsen wrote: gee Bazza, maybe put your thinking cap on and work out why Peel didnt attend, they are the mob that dont have to pay back their debts !

their sponsorship is 300k, why do they want 50k to break it ?
they wont find that money again.

Perhaps you could put your thinking caps on and tell me if WPFC are so in the right as you beleive they are and will defo win any legal challegne and the WAFC are totally wrong, why the other WAFL clubs are not coming out strongly in support of them, after all they were all present at the briefing, and if your right about this it would of been blindingly obvious that WPFC was right all along and the WAFC was in wrong,, we dont know what WPFC thought about the briefing because weirdly they refused to front.

there doesnt need to be a legal challenge unless the WAFC takes action, its over 6 months since this saga started so why havnt the WAFC taken any action against WP ?
the governing body in any competition is responsbile for the rules and regulations - any repsonsibility for action against anyone not complying with rules or regs sits with the goverening body.
in this case the WAFC, they havnt taken any action so its business as usual for WP.
CH7 have told the WAFC they wont broadcast the WP games but as yet the WAFC have not charged WP with breaking any rules or regs.
pretty simple really.
you seem to think its up to WP to do something, when due process is followed and they are charged with somethin gand then get the opportunity to respond then we can see what the story is.
as yet the WAFC has done nothing.

Mark are you actually following this.

The WAFC served WPFC with a breach notice pursuant to their licence at 11am Friday 4 September.

Also, when you drive your car down the road do you follow the rules and regulations in accordance with the road traffic act, or do you just do what ever you want, ? You seem to think there is no obligation on individuals and or a football club to follow the rules of the competition they are a member of and just do as they please.

they told them they believe that WP have breached its licence, they havnt been charged with anything.
in fact this is a quote from Walton -
"But on Saturday afternoon the Commission hit back. CEO Gary Walton told 6PR Radio that the WAFC had run out of patience with West Perth.

He told sports presenters Karl Langdon, Peter Bell and Kim Hagdorn that the Commission had drawn a line in the sand as far as the Falcons were concerned.

"If the Nine logo is not removed from the jumpers for the preliminary final and potentially the grand-final, and that leads to the games not being broadcast then in our view that would be a breach of the licence agreement and we will seek any financial damages that flow from that from West Perth," he said.

so basically its the view of the WAFC that if they dont remove the logo for the prelim of GF they have breached their licence, so have they breached it yet or not or is it only breached when ch7 want to televise a game ?

unfortunately Bazza soem people do what they want in society - that is why we have police isnt it ?

WAFC just hope WP bt Subi on Sunday so they don't have to deal with it.

MarkOlsen wrote: they told them they believe that WP have breached its licence, they havnt been charged with anything.
in fact this is a quote from Walton -
"But on Saturday afternoon the Commission hit back. CEO Gary Walton told 6PR Radio that the WAFC had run out of patience with West Perth.

He told sports presenters Karl Langdon, Peter Bell and Kim Hagdorn that the Commission had drawn a line in the sand as far as the Falcons were concerned.

"If the Nine logo is not removed from the jumpers for the preliminary final and potentially the grand-final, and that leads to the games not being broadcast then in our view that would be a breach of the licence agreement and we will seek any financial damages that flow from that from West Perth," he said.

so basically its the view of the WAFC that if they dont remove the logo for the prelim of GF they have breached their licence, so have they breached it yet or not or is it only breached when ch7 want to televise a game ?

unfortunately Bazza soem people do what they want in society - that is why we have police isnt it ?

What people think of the rules is irrellevant , it does not abrogate their responsibily to stop at a red light, whether they think it is wrong or right they are obliged to obey.

MarkOlsen wrote: they told them they believe that WP have breached its licence, they havnt been charged with anything.
in fact this is a quote from Walton -
"But on Saturday afternoon the Commission hit back. CEO Gary Walton told 6PR Radio that the WAFC had run out of patience with West Perth.

He told sports presenters Karl Langdon, Peter Bell and Kim Hagdorn that the Commission had drawn a line in the sand as far as the Falcons were concerned.

"If the Nine logo is not removed from the jumpers for the preliminary final and potentially the grand-final, and that leads to the games not being broadcast then in our view that would be a breach of the licence agreement and we will seek any financial damages that flow from that from West Perth," he said.

so basically its the view of the WAFC that if they dont remove the logo for the prelim of GF they have breached their licence, so have they breached it yet or not or is it only breached when ch7 want to televise a game ?

unfortunately Bazza soem people do what they want in society - that is why we have police isnt it ?

They were served with a Notice , that is an affirmative action , the ball is now in their court.

and every other club has dumped them.

and that is why we have laws.

and back to the football - another day passes and nothing has changed in respect to this siutation..

and Bazza they havnt been served with a notice - all they have got is a letter in which the WAFC says they(the WAFC) are in the belief that they have breached their licence if they continue to refuse to remove the logo for boroadcasted games.

Walton ""If the Nine logo is not removed from the jumpers for the preliminary final and potentially the grand-final, and that leads to the games not being broadcast then in our view that would be a breach of the licence agreement and we will seek any financial damages that flow from that from West Perth," he said.

so its only their view, doesnt sound very confident to me.
its obviously a grey area with contracts agreed on both sides and neither 9 or 7 giving in and the WAFC powerless to do anything.

Bazza, These are questions that you should be asking

1.If its true what the WAFC said why have they sat on it for 18 months not issued West Perth with the notice so this mess could sought out.
2. Why were Channel 9 and 10 locked out of negotiations for the broadcasting rights.
3. Why would you give the rights to any one station and they not pay for them.
4 Why agree to only 18 games being telecast instead of all games like the ABC were showing. To give you and example a couple of weeks ago the 2 AFL teams were playing on the Sunday. Sat down to watch a WAFL game on the Saturday, no game was being shown. Instead they had a delayed telecast of an AFL game.
How is that promoting the WAFL.
These are questions that should be asked. Its has nothing to do with logos it is more about egos. Channel 7 has given 9 more publicity over the last 8 months than Channel 9 cost buy, and its been for free.
Toyota is the major sponsor of the AFL, yet at the coaches press conferences you can see competitor's logo in the background. (Geelong with Ford, Sydney with VW, Richmond with Jeep)and I'm certain there is a couple of others. Why doesn't that create problems.
Doesn't 7 also advertise Foxtel. Aren't they a competitor.
As I said its all about egos and unfortunately WP a pawn.

Bazza wrote:

MarkOlsen wrote: they told them they believe that WP have breached its licence, they havnt been charged with anything.
in fact this is a quote from Walton -
"But on Saturday afternoon the Commission hit back. CEO Gary Walton told 6PR Radio that the WAFC had run out of patience with West Perth.

He told sports presenters Karl Langdon, Peter Bell and Kim Hagdorn that the Commission had drawn a line in the sand as far as the Falcons were concerned.

"If the Nine logo is not removed from the jumpers for the preliminary final and potentially the grand-final, and that leads to the games not being broadcast then in our view that would be a breach of the licence agreement and we will seek any financial damages that flow from that from West Perth," he said.

so basically its the view of the WAFC that if they dont remove the logo for the prelim of GF they have breached their licence, so have they breached it yet or not or is it only breached when ch7 want to televise a game ?

unfortunately Bazza soem people do what they want in society - that is why we have police isnt it ?

They were served with a Notice , that is an affirmative action , the ball is now in their court.

and every other club has dumped them.

If we are going to talk about legalities: how about RESTRAINT OF TRADE?