TOPIC:

We can't get 7 Club Presidents to work together in the best interests of the WAFL but you're suggesting that 154 players stage a sit in protest during their games versus Peel and East Perth? They'd potentially forgo their match payments, have to put aside their competitive nature and an opportunity to test themselves against players who have been selected at the highest level and as such potentially prevent many of these WAFL players having a chance of realising their dream to be selected to play AFL...

BC wrote: IMO 42...the non-aligned clubs should have pushed for more given the alignment was a fait accompli and we're talking about 2 of the richest clubs in the AFL.

I agree BC, The G7 clubs should be pushing the cashed up 2 WA domiciled AFL clubs for at least triple the current compensation amount considering the money these 2 goliaths have saved with the 3 levels of Government (us taxpayers) forking out nearly $100 million each on their brand spanking new training facilities!

sorry guys I know the WAFL Grand FInal is old news now, but having just returned from France and Italy, I thought I would just make a quick comment. It is clear now that unless the WAFC make radical changes to the finals player qualifying rules for AFL players, the competition will be reduced to a feeder league for the national league, if it hasn't been already.

When you look at the qualifying rounds it is clear that Subiaco and SF were the dominant teams in the competition in 2017 and all things being equal should have played off in the Grand Final. Of course we know that all things are not equal and it turned out that "Peel" won the flag bolstered with 15 Dockers, whereas during the qualifying rounds their number of Dockers players was about 10. So those extra 5 AFL players made a huge difference.
Of course there are examples in history of teams coming from a lower point on the ladder to take a premiership from higher ranked teams, Claremont in 1964 and East Perth in 1978 spring to mind. The difference though is this was basically done by the same squads whereas Peel for example were able to play a guy like Darcy who was a first choice player for the Dockers in the second half of the year but qualified for Peel early in the season.

My suggestion for amendment for finals qualification for Peel and East Perth players would be
1. Only allow them to play the same number as their average for the season.So this season Peel would have only been allowed to play 10 Dockers in their finals team. This would negate the advantage Peel have had over the last few years with Fremantle missing finals
2. Players must have played more WAFL games than AFL games in a season to qualify.
This would balance things up somewhat I believe.

That will help Subi walk to the flag next year Mike. The year after the Dockers will be aligned with Peel and WC will be stand alone. Under that formula WCE may forfeit finals games. Do you have to bring in two different sets of rules.

I think Mike has it pretty well right. If an aligned team is going to play WAFL finals then what Mike is proposing seems reasonable. If WCE has their own stand alone reserves side at some point and won't be playing finals then there's nothing to worry about.

Have the two afl franchises have stand alone teams, WCE maybe go from scratch , leave EPFC alone, FFC fully merge with Peel, , that gets rid of the bye, and then don't have them playing finals, home and way only , that is best way to me.

Greatwhiteshark wrote: There is a few things that need to be done that are reasonable in my opinion.

1) Salary cap. If the cap for the Non Aligned clubs is $300'000.00 then for the aligned clubs it should be only a quarter of this which is $75'000.00

2) You must play more WAFL games than AFL games to qualify and you must play a minimum of 7 WAFL games to qualify including 2 of the last 3 rounds of the WAFL season.

These are the two sticking points for me and if they are addressed then I have no issue. This fixes the number that will qualify as it currently stands.

Given that EP and Peel can't recruit players the salary cap becomes a bit redundant for them.

Yes, having a larger cap makes it easier for them to retain players, but the reality is they will constantly lose fringe players who seek opportunities elsewhere.

I can't see the Eagles not participating in the finals. Factor in the 18 game season and you could have players getting no match practice at the business end of the year.

Larry Bird wrote: I can't see the Eagles not participating in the finals. Factor in the 18 game season and you could have players getting no match practice at the business end of the year.

The two franchise teams could just play each other in September, consider that league sides that had reserves knocked out never had their reserves playing on in the past.

Bazza wrote: Have the two afl franchises have stand alone teams, WCE maybe go from scratch , leave EPFC alone, FFC fully merge with Peel, , that gets rid of the bye, and then don't have them playing finals, home and way only , that is best way to me.

What happens the the colts' and reserves teams when there is a match against one of those two teams?

SO we don't keep score in those matches either?