TOPIC:

Cardy wrote: Another point is 6 of our WAFL clubs presidents or committee approved the request
Now we can assume Peel and EPFC were two of them and I would say the other was
WPFC being the club that went through all the uncessesary shit to get Kietel to our club.

That leaves the other 6 clubs. WTF was going through their mind when they made this decision?
Why did they make this decision. Were they coerced?
I can understand Subiaco as they do what Don Randall tells them from the commission.

It seems strange that the other clubs would only be giving EPFC a added advantage once more and backing the club that jumped the fence and bought our game INTO DISPREPUTE.

I suggest and would like club members to ask their Presidents why the decision was made by their club. I suspect they will be met with some political crap.
Look forward to your responses... I will be asking Brett Raponi about this when I next see him at Lathlain.

Enjoy your WAFL as it is slowly becoming extinct.

Cardy, I'm in agreement with your comments but this was made possible when the other 8 clubs unanimously opposed your clubs use of the loophole (legal as it turned out) to get hold of Keitel in the first place. If the 8 clubs believed then that it was unfair for Joondy to get Keitel the way you did then it's pretty hard for them to oppose this sort of suggestion put up by the Filth, they had made a rod for their own backs. The compensation they should have got is to add a player of similar statue, age and experience to the one they lost, that would be fair and sensible, it's a bit like getting Phar lap to replace a weekend hack.

Senior Seagull wrote:

Cardy wrote: Another point is 6 of our WAFL clubs presidents or committee approved the request
Now we can assume Peel and EPFC were two of them and I would say the other was
WPFC being the club that went through all the uncessesary shit to get Kietel to our club.

That leaves the other 6 clubs. WTF was going through their mind when they made this decision?
Why did they make this decision. Were they coerced?
I can understand Subiaco as they do what Don Randall tells them from the commission.

It seems strange that the other clubs would only be giving EPFC a added advantage once more and backing the club that jumped the fence and bought our game INTO DISPREPUTE.

I suggest and would like club members to ask their Presidents why the decision was made by their club. I suspect they will be met with some political crap.
Look forward to your responses... I will be asking Brett Raponi about this when I next see him at Lathlain.

Enjoy your WAFL as it is slowly becoming extinct.

Cardy, I'm in agreement with your comments but this was made possible when the other 8 clubs unanimously opposed your clubs use of the loophole (legal as it turned out) to get hold of Keitel in the first place. If the 8 clubs believed then that it was unfair for Joondy to get Keitel the way you did then it's pretty hard for them to oppose this sort of suggestion put up by the Filth, they had made a rod for their own backs. The compensation they should have got is to add a player of similar statue, age and experience to the one they lost, that would be fair and sensible, it's a bit like getting Phar lap to replace a weekend hack.

It is also hardly comparing apples with apples when you have an host club aligned with all the advantages, implicit and explicit, associated with that arrangement and a club of the ilk of West Perth. It would take the dexterity of the best contortionist of all times to try to equate the "loss" suffered by "East Perth" with what happens when a player is drafted to one of the WA domiciled AFL clubs from one of the non-aligned WAFL clubs. Surely the loss of Keitel by "East Perth" is in no ways comparable with the loss of Connor Blakely by Swans.

Have you finally read the article 42? If so have you had a reply email sent back from Mr Walton as yet?

Beasley Hutton wrote: Have you finally read the article 42? If so have you had a reply email sent back from Mr Walton as yet?

No and no. Provide a link here and I will read it.

swan42 wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote: Have you finally read the article 42? If so have you had a reply email sent back from Mr Walton as yet?

No and no. Provide a link here and I will read it.

Heres the link mate... agree a link should always be provided.

au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/286714...ve-recruiting-boost/