TOPIC:

Agree totally, they should have been done for bringing game into disrepute.

Love youse all.

Singha wrote: One last point. Having teams in the competition that don’t care if they win or not is a much bigger problem then however good Subi are. Destroys relevance and the comp loses integrity. And the contempt I see from Fremantle and West Coast to the competition is a disgrace. Peel turning out a reserves team in that finals loss to WP a few years ago is a great example.

For me, the key words are these -: "Destroys relevance and the comp loses integrity.
And the contempt I see to the competition is a disgrace."

The Wafl has lost it's integrity and no longer has any. Regardless of what anyone says. How can it currently have any integrity?
And the second sentence is all to plain for everyone to see.

Win Loss records ( qualifying rounds) since 2016.

Subiaco 63 wins 6 losses (91.3%)
South Fremantle 53/16 (76.8%)
West Perth 39/30 (56.5%)
Peel 35/34 (50.7%)
Claremont 32/35 (46.4%)
East Perth 30/39 (43.5%)
Perth 24/45 (34.7%)
Swans 20/49 (29%)
East Fremantle 17/52 (24.6%)

Makes tipping easy I guess. Anyone who believes that this is just a cyclical issue is delusional. Even though Souths winning % looks impressive they have not played in a grand final for 10 years.

Souths should have played in the last 3 GF's Mike but were stiffed directly by an AFL loaded up Peel in 2016 and Subi in 2017 when Peel won straight through to the GF and blew it against WP last year.

The key state in all those figures was the SF figure
The Subi side will eventually retire and is cyclical --
The AFL problem is systemic and will be with us forever

ArkRoyal wrote: The key state in all those figures was the SF figure
The Subi side will eventually retire and is cyclical --
The AFL problem is systemic and will be with us forever

I agree with you about the AFL issue AR but in terms of Subiaco, if you took the figures back to say 2003 when Subiaco were top of the ladder and lost the GF, they have been pretty much the dominant force in the competition since then.Apart from a few odd years that they didnt make the finals (2010 and 2013) I think, they have been there or thereabouts since 2003 and have never really bottomed out. Thats not a cycle, thats a dynasty and what Subiaco have been able to do with their financial resources is that as players have retired they have been able to attract equal or better ones and developed a culture around this team of never being satisfied. This is to be applauded and I want to stress that I am not blaming Subiaco or their supporters for enjoying this situation. But in the end we all want a viable and competitive league and I think figures above show that the competition has become far too predictable and people are now staying away in droves. My club is trying to survive in harsh environment and as I have written on other threads they appear to have almost given up the ghost on trying to achieve football success in favour of more achievable goals. As have said many times the WAFC has been watching this situation develop over many years and has done pretty much. bugger all about it. The purpose should not be to bring Subiaco down to the level of the others, its more about giving Swans, Perth and East Freo in particular some reasonable assistance so that they can compete.

How about this:

Bottom 4 clubs play each other before they play anyone else at start of season;
A mini draft for players seeking new opportunities. It is confidential and players put a price on their own heads that they get if they move. But premier cannot recruit at all. Top 5 can’t take from bottom 5. Players can only move through the draft.
Bottom 5 gave higher salary cap than top 5 etc etc

There are things that can de done if the wafc cared.

Obviously in the mini draft you go from bottom to top. Players nominating have to agree to go where they go or they can’t go in it. Wce and peel excluded from picking up players but peel can lose players.

So for example Tyler keitel wants to leave wp. He puts $25k and 800 a game on his head. As ladder stands today if sd want him they agree and he is theirs. Wp get nothing. If sd doesn’t want to pay then 9th get a chance etc etc. there would be details to work out but can be done.

Some solid ideas there STT, but salary cap increases wont help clubs like SD who have limited financial resources or clubs like WP have blown their wad financially, the player points system needs to be significantly tightened with a set of graded restrictions on points for top 2 then 3 & 4, 5 & 6 etc. This along with bans on the top 2 recruiting except in exceptional circumstances will over a few years help the lower clubs catch up. Also need to work around the obvious restraint of trade issues that restricting where players can go raises. The AFL have dealt with that by having all clubs accept a contract form that in essence says accept AFL rules if you want to play footy. The other side of that is there could see a heap of experienced players head to country leagues who will pay top dollar for marque players.

You sound like wafc, ha. They said it will never work, players who don’t get to the clubs they want to go to will just go bush. I argued let’s try it and see - I argued guys going bush will go bush but most footballers want to play at highest level possible and wafl clubs have more money than country clubs. Look at Hampson, he could go bush but wants to play higher level and gets more coin at wafl. Re restraint of trade of course it is a restraint of trade but so is afl. They don’t get around it, just no one takes it on. I say again let’s see how we go. There are problems but wafc gave me a pat on the head and FO. I would love a copy of wafc meeting minutes to see how much time they have spent discussing wafl over last 10 years.