TOPIC:

I do agree that we have the lowest socio-economic zone of any club. In saying that though I recently looked at a tally of players that had played 100 games or more at Subiaco, Claremont an Perth since 1998. Off the top of my head Subiaco had 18-19, Claremont 16-17 and Perth had roughly 6-7.

I think that while our zone does contribute to this another reason has been the lack of emphasis put into the development squads from the ages 12 and up right through to when players transition into senior football. This is starting to improve though, however still has a long way to go in my opinion.

I have seen some very talented juniors come through the ranks over the years but for one reason or another they get to 19-20 and don't seem to go on with it. I know that not everyone is going to make it but I would say that if Subiaco or Claremont had our zone in that time they would have done a far better job of it than we have.

personal demon wrote: Good point LH. You're right about Subi not having the elite schools. With Subi you had a growing demographic. The suburbs you mention were "young" suburbs. Lots of young families who had kids who reached football playing age between 1985 and 95. But really Subi had the money because of the deal with the insurance company and then because of the Eagles. I thought Mirrabooka, Nollamara and Balga were East Perth (when did it change?) I think you could call Karryinup well-to-do. How many other suburbs have a private golf club? I quibble. But socio-economically and demographically Subi's zone is far superior to Perth's.

Mirrabooka, Nollamara, Balga etc were given back to us in the boundary redistribution back in 2009/10.

As you say, EP and us have had them on and off since about 1986 I think it was. Unfortunately the team that represents that area (Northern Cobras) has disbanded for reasons which I won't go into here. Now two separate clubs (Balga) and (Nollamara) are trying to establish themselves. They've had some teams at the 12 year age group so we'll see if they can develop from there.

But back to Perth. With the next boundary redistribution due at the end of the 2016 season Perth must put forward a proposal to gain back the clubs Roleystone, Mundijong, Kelmscott and Armadale. This could be achieved if South are given back some of Peel's zone - idealy the suburbs in and around Rockingham. As an AFL host club, Peel simply don't need such a huge zone anymore.

PD you wont need a zone if you align with WCE as is being trumped

I think there has been some confusion here: there is a difference to what is happening to Lathlain, redevelopment etc; and the prospect of us aligning to the Eagles. Seeing the first through, doesn't mean the latter will follow. The club can't decide on its own about the latter - members will have a say, etc.

I simply don't know enough about the player development system at Perth. However, when I had more to do with the club than I do now, I remember two colts boys who could have been 100+ game players for the club (in fact one had a shot at being drafted). Now these two guys were stars in their final colts year. Both were promoted to the reserves during the season. They loved it; loved being part of the "big time". They were treated like men on the training track, but off the track they were encouraged and molly-coddled like you'd expect. Told they could make it if they put in the work. The club had a programme for them mapped-out. If you want to get to X you have to do A and B and C. They did that, were promoted to League for the last two games of the season. They seemed over the moon, enthusiastic. At the end of the season they were rubbing their hands, couldn't wait to get back into it, saw how they might get drafted if they put in a good season at WAFL. What happened, despite the club's best efforts, the next year both ended up preferring to play Sunday League and drink with their mates. A year later neither were even doing that - apart from the drinking. My point is this: sometimes it doesn't matter what you do, kids will prefer the easy road, especially if they don't have family support behind them etc and a culture of improvement and success. It's the later that some clubs get handed on a plate simply from where the kids came from. Now, it wasn't always the case. You'd get kids from working-class areas (just look at our teams from the 60s and 70s) and they just wanted a chance and they'd almost do it on their own. They wanted to play footy, and win, and succeed, and get on with their lives. That's been lost, generally.

personal demon wrote: I think there has been some confusion here: there is a difference to what is happening to Lathlain, redevelopment etc; and the prospect of us aligning to the Eagles. Seeing the first through, doesn't mean the latter will follow. The club can't decide on its own about the latter - members will have a say, etc.

I simply don't know enough about the player development system at Perth. However, when I had more to do with the club than I do now, I remember two colts boys who could have been 100+ game players for the club (in fact one had a shot at being drafted). Now these two guys were stars in their final colts year. Both were promoted to the reserves during the season. They loved it; loved being part of the "big time". They were treated like men on the training track, but off the track they were encouraged and molly-coddled like you'd expect. Told they could make it if they put in the work. The club had a programme for them mapped-out. If you want to get to X you have to do A and B and C. They did that, were promoted to League for the last two games of the season. They seemed over the moon, enthusiastic. At the end of the season they were rubbing their hands, couldn't wait to get back into it, saw how they might get drafted if they put in a good season at WAFL. What happened, despite the club's best efforts, the next year both ended up preferring to play Sunday League and drink with their mates. A year later neither were even doing that - apart from the drinking. My point is this: sometimes it doesn't matter what you do, kids will prefer the easy road, especially if they don't have family support behind them etc and a culture of improvement and success. It's the later that some clubs get handed on a plate simply from where the kids came from. Now, it wasn't always the case. You'd get kids from working-class areas (just look at our teams from the 60s and 70s) and they just wanted a chance and they'd almost do it on their own. They wanted to play footy, and win, and succeed, and get on with their lives. That's been lost, generally.

PD the members don't get a say in the alignment, as with WRT, it was couched as a business decision and as such is made by the directors, sorry but you will be in the same boat we were and someone turned off the bilge pump!

I can assure you that the attitude has gone from "at no stage were we even talking to the Eagles", Bronte wouldn't have allowed that anyway.
To "how high would like us to jump for you".

Mr Pendal's position on the matter has changed I can assure that unless we do something about it he will see it through to fruition.

Is the grandstand going to survive the redevelopment?

No grand stand goes.
New one further around with re-alignment of oval.

Glasscott was the best at turning off quality youngsters at the club in the early 90's. Those the club had all ended up leaving and playing elsewhere while other clubs kept their youth to develop into League players.

Above and Beyond wrote: Glasscott was the best at turning off quality youngsters at the club in the early 90's. Those the club had all ended up leaving and playing elsewhere while other clubs kept their youth to develop into League players.

turned me away