TOPIC:

Frank Falcon wrote: 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.

FF to help Bazza out the reason why you see that is because anything else would be considered a restraint of trade.

Yeah Swan the support for WP from all the other clubs has been resounding and vocal, it might have something to do with the fact they turned up to the briefing. Its a wonder WP actualy have a clue what is going on at all given raponi and crew dont even bother to turn up, odd seeings that are the effected party.

While your throwing actions of tort around like restraint of trade, which wouldnt stand a snowballs chance in hell seeings that all other clubs are bound by the same clauses and it would easily pass the reasonableness test ,
You might want to ring WP and get them to serve a writ on the West for defamation regarding the published allegation of forgery, because I notice they are not taken any such action or denied any such allegation, instead putting up some lame smokescreen complaining about how the media got hold of the story.of course it can only be defamation if its not true. The West would not dare publish such an allegation without it being on a sound legal basis, in other words they have WP by the balls.

Interesting rumour on 6PR this morning , make of it what you will

Apparently Burley Sekem have confirmed the WPFC has ordered a batch of new Jumpers that have no sponsors names on them.

no sure how true it is.

hey bazza, why did brian ciccotosto give haydn raitt a public serve a few weeks ago, ill tell you why my friend its because raitt has the Italian tank syndrome, one forward gear and ten reverse gears.

In the light of the Commission's letter threatening financial sanctions in accordance with the relevant provision of the WAFL playing licence, it would be unwise in the extreme for the club to continue to wear the jumper.

Much has been written on this topic -- stressing whom signed this that and the other in whatever chronological order -- but the fact remains that successive WP boards have signed up to their playing licence, including the current board, long before Channel Nine came along.

Swan 42 -- you mentioned that the playing licence is a restraint of trade in strict constitutional parlance, and I think that you are correct, but I would not like to see WP go down this path. The money involved would far outweigh the sponsorship monies received from channel Nine. Equally, such a move, as you know, could bring into question the integrity of the WAFL itself. The whole thing is a restraint of trade, including the club zones, the points system, and the salary cap. $ubi has got plenty of money and could go to the WA Supreme Court at any time to bring down the system, but, thankfully, it does not do so.

WP do actually need to think about the real prospect of financial penalties, this season and in coming seasons, and dare I say it, the interests of the WAFL competition.

swan42 wrote:

Frank Falcon wrote: 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.

FF to help Bazza out the reason why you see that is because anything else would be considered a restraint of trade.

how would it be a restraint of trade?...no-one is stopping WP from playing..the WAFC is just telling them to take remove a sponsors name off their jumper. if the commission withdrew permission for WP to play finals then that might be considered a restraint but that's not what they're saying.

screemar wrote: hey bazza, why did brian ciccotosto give haydn raitt a public serve a few weeks ago, ill tell you why my friend its because raitt has the Italian tank syndrome, one forward gear and ten reverse gears.

Spot on!! Raitt is a buffoon - witnessed it first hand

BC -- WP would argue that the licence is preventing them from being able to freely contract with other parties -- a right which goes back to the Masters and Servants act in the UK itself.

Bazza wrote: Give me a break, not attend a meeting of all clubs, only they dont turn up, sounds like they are running scared already.

The have taken action ,they have told WPFC to comply with rule 11 of their licence which they are refusing to do.

WP are the ones mouthing off about legal action.

where are all the other clubs coming out in support of them?

You are so far wrong Chris it isn't funny!

kirbs wrote: hi

Bazza wrote:

MarkOlsen wrote: what, you reckon they are going to put something in the West about it ?
WP have responded via their Pres.
all this has shown is the incompetence of the WAFC - why hasnt this been sorted out by now ?
they have been talking about this since the start of the year and it isnt sorted, ch9 the big winners out of this.

Where is the west Perth presidents statement can you provide a link

Also why weren't WP present at the briefing along with all other clubs

This was tweeted Saturday morning

Brett Raponi ‏@Brett_Raponi Sep 5
@WestPerthFC has not breached its licence. We completely refute that upon legal advice
16 retweets 15 favorites
Reply Retweet 16 Favorite 15
More

Nah mate Bazza is at the coalface of it apparently!