TOPIC:

Rodger grassy, but we are profitable and don't require intervention

It's a requirement via constitution that juniors and ammo clubs s are profitable. Can't participate without lodging financials.

Sorry grassy, not trying to be a smart ass, it is what it is, and ain't what it ain't.

Unholytugboat wrote: Rodger grassy, but we are profitable and dn't require intervention

the difference being that the amateurs is just that, the wafl is semi professional and the second tier of footy in the country and needs significant more funding to continue contributing strongly to the supply of afl players.
The problem common to everyone is too much money concentrated at the top end and into expansion and conquer and not enough trickling down for the long term strength of the game. Too many people getting their paws into the pie

Tiger of old wrote:

Unholytugboat wrote: Rodger grassy, but we are profitable and dn't require intervention

the difference being that the amateurs is just that, the wafl is semi professional and the second tier of footy in the country and needs significant more funding to continue contributing strongly to the supply of afl players.
The problem common to everyone is too much money concentrated at the top end and into expansion and conquer and not enough trickling down for the long term strength of the game. Too many people getting their paws into the pie

The difference is the WAAFL competition which comprises 70 clubs, 260 teams and 10000 players receives $300k pa from the WAFC to administer the competition. The WAAFL clubs run viable businesses without receiving a single dollar from the WAFC directly.

The WAFL clubs directly receive a combined total of nearly $4m pa from the WAFC. The WAFL comprises 9 clubs, 27 teams and under 1000 players. Being a semi-professional league the WAFL clubs have a combined salary cap of over $2m pa which gets paid to about 300 players. Though the majority of the $2m pa is paid to about 50 players. Whilst WAFL clubs pay their best players over $1k a game, they charge their colts and reserves for the privilege of playing WAFL.

If you take the $300k pa away from the WAAFL, the clubs and the competition continue to exist. Take the $4m pa or even $1m pa away from the WAFL clubs and most clubs become insolvent and the WAFL is dead.

Obviously I didn't know all of what TT has outlined, I would have been less civil if I was better informed.

Tiger Tales wrote:

Tiger of old wrote:

Unholytugboat wrote: Rodger grassy, but we are profitable and dn't require intervention

the difference being that the amateurs is just that, the wafl is semi professional and the second tier of footy in the country and needs significant more funding to continue contributing strongly to the supply of afl players.
The problem common to everyone is too much money concentrated at the top end and into expansion and conquer and not enough trickling down for the long term strength of the game. Too many people getting their paws into the pie

The difference is the WAAFL competition which comprises 70 clubs, 260 teams and 10000 players receives $300k pa from the WAFC to administer the competition. The WAAFL clubs run viable businesses without receiving a single dollar from the WAFC directly.

The WAFL clubs directly receive a combined total of nearly $4m pa from the WAFC. The WAFL comprises 9 clubs, 27 teams and under 1000 players. Being a semi-professional league the WAFL clubs have a combined salary cap of over $2m pa which gets paid to about 300 players. Though the majority of the $2m pa is paid to about 50 players. Whilst WAFL clubs pay their best players over $1k a game, they charge their colts and reserves for the privilege of playing WAFL.

If you take the $300k pa away from the WAAFL, the clubs and the competition continue to exist. Take the $4m pa or even $1m pa away from the WAFL clubs and most clubs become insolvent and the WAFL is dead.

and your point is?

A bit of irony.

The reason a lot of lads turn to the ammos is the relaxed training and freedom of having a beer during the week....which also happens to be a money spinner for the ammos clubs.

WAFL boys, who aren't allowed that luxury during the week, can't contribute to their own club's bar.

But there does need to be a semi-pro league inbetween ammos and AFL.

The WAFL provides that for those who want to train and play at a very high level or have aspirations to be drafted as a mature age player.

LH: that is the key to the whole thing -- we need to avoid an under 23 competition at all costs. If that happens, we will have nobody returning to their clubs after playing in the AFL.

ArkRoyal wrote: LH: that is the key to the whole thing -- we need to avoid an under 23 competition at all costs. If that happens, we will have nobody returning to their clubs after playing in the AFL.

Yes we do and I don't trust those on here who have an affiliation with the ammos and seem to want to bolster their ranks by killing off the WAFL.

ArkRoyal wrote: LH: that is the key to the whole thing -- we need to avoid an under 23 competition at all costs. If that happens, we will have nobody returning to their clubs after playing in the AFL.

AR and LH whilst we know that there is a fair amount of angst between Subiaco and the other WAFL clubs' supporters (and particularly Swans's supporters) we have to provide an united front against these proposals. If we don't then the WAFL is gone.