TOPIC:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

DG wrote:

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.

18 games is really going to suck I miss the footy already! What a genius idea said no one ever

Same as SANFL and VFL

As far as Im concerned as long as SF keeps it three derbies a year, and it means one less game down at Mandurah or so then its no big deal.

The most eloquent post you have ever posted Bazza. To paraphrase your comments as long as it doesn't affect the derbies, I don't give a stuff about the impact.

In a nutshell yes, if we can save money on hosting a loss making game v peel and/or travel down there then as far Im concerned its win win, as I say its important clubs don't lose their traditional clashes that make money, if for example SF and EF were to lose a derby down to two per year that would be strong grounds for protest.

Bazza currently there are 9 teams. That means 8 matches each round and two rounds gives you 16 matches. Add 1 for the additional "Traditional opponent" gets you to 17. To determine the 18th match the proposal is to split it into thirds: 1-3; 4-6; and 7-9. That means your 18th match will be against Subiaco or Peel. Still think 18 games is a good idea?

don't mind Subi.

and its only a proposal anyway,,,could be anyone.

It's too late for the 7 Wafl clubs to make a stand. Had they done so at the very beginning, it would be different. Then the 7 Wafl clubs were too busy bending over picking up all the money that suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Sad to say, soon as they done that, it was all over! They won't be making a stand at all.

westaussieguy wrote: It's too late for the 7 Wafl clubs to make a stand. Had they done so at the very beginning, it would be different. Then the 7 Wafl clubs were too busy bending over picking up all the money that suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Sad to say, soon as they done that, it was all over! They won't be making a stand at all.

To be honest I think the WAFC are more concerned about public pressure and perception, they got absolutely hammered on social media with the Peel win, it was embarrassing for them plus the media had a crack as well.

westaussieguy wrote: It's too late for the 7 Wafl clubs to make a stand. Had they done so at the very beginning, it would be different. Then the 7 Wafl clubs were too busy bending over picking up all the money that suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Sad to say, soon as they done that, it was all over! They won't be making a stand at all.

WAG that is pure, unadulterated crap. For the umpteenth time the WAFC MADE the DECISION re the host club alignment. No ifs, buts or maybes. I have documented evidence that that was the situation. End of story. Once that was presented to the WAFL clubs the clubs endeavoured to get the best compensation possible.

Given that the decision was ALREADY MADE what should the WAFL clubs have done?

agreed 42. the president's made it clear stand alone ressies teams for Freo and WCE was not on...so the WAFC dug in and said in that case the alignment was not negotiable and here's $100k sweetener for each club to help get over it....fait accompli springs to mind.

swan 42, BC and everybody: that is correct.

The clubs votted 9-0 against the two vfl clubs teams in the compettion; the leauge responded by insistting on the alignment, which, apparently they can do under the legislation. Once that happened, the clubs had had the bomb, any organised resistance would have split WA football down the middle, the WAFL clubs on the one side, the Commission and the VFL clubs on the other; it was a fight they could not win at that time, but things have changed a little since Peel have won two flags; we would have some support in the media now which we did not have in the past.

Bazza wrote:

DG wrote:

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.

18 games is really going to suck I miss the footy already! What a genius idea said no one ever

Same as SANFL and VFL

As far as Im concerned as long as SF keeps it three derbies a year, and it means one less game down at Mandurah or so then its no big deal.

Pull your flouride riddled head in Bazza, please show some respect to the back to back premiers

BC wrote: agreed 42. the president's made it clear stand alone ressies teams for Freo and WCE was not on...so the WAFC dug in and said in that case the alignment was not negotiable and here's $100k sweetener for each club to help get over it....fait accompli springs to mind.

We have been over this a million times, its like ground hog day, we all know the WAFC told the clubs they had the alignment whether they liked it or not, from then on it it was all about the sit down money to hush up and go away quietly, which is precisely what they did, bend down (or over) take it and go away, Not a blip of resistance the only blue then was how much...

But before all that lets factor in that clubs broke ranks and put out feelers to the WAFC wanting to be the host club...what hope have you got when that happens.

DG wrote:

Bazza wrote:

DG wrote:

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.

18 games is really going to suck I miss the footy already! What a genius idea said no one ever

Same as SANFL and VFL

As far as Im concerned as long as SF keeps it three derbies a year, and it means one less game down at Mandurah or so then its no big deal.

Pull your flouride riddled head in Bazza, please show some respect to the back to back premiers

Yeah no worries mate.