TOPIC:

Below is outlinned the offical position of the club --

PARTNER MODEL
Getting this model right is vital to club competitiveness and equalisation. The Subiaco Football Club are striving to be competitive with the alignment clubs that play 15 AFL players in finals. We want to be competitive during the year, during finals and on Grand final day. In the past two years, unfortunately we believe that this competitive balance has been compromised.

We must get to the purpose of the alignment. For the WA AFL clubs to be able to manage players, have their players train and play together and be able to coach them the AFL way. For the WAFL using the alignment to be able to improve long term strength and sustainability of the completion. For the WAFL Aligned Clubs using financial support of the alignment model (EP & Peel were under severe financial strain at the time they were awarded partner club status), helping them be competitive by having 10 to 12 AFL “recruits” every game and allowing them to develop their own local players – no recruitment!

Therefore the suggestions made by the Subiaco Football Club to ensure that the ongoing alignment model meets the needs of all stakeholders, the following amendments are proposed.

Subiaco Feedback - Rule Changes for 2018

WAFL Finals Qualification
· 5 WAFL games qualification to play finals, plus
· 3 WAFL games in the last half of the season, plus
· More WAFL games than AFL games in the last half of the season, plus
· Total number of AFL players in any final (includes when AFL teams are in finals that week) is their average number per game in the last 2 or 3 H&A seasons.

WAFL Partner Clubs
· No recruiting at all – the AFL players are their recruits, aligned clubs must develop and play 10 to 12 local players every game including finals.

Additional Feedback
· 40 list to be reduced to 30
· Finals TPP distribution overhaul (Peel got $8990 for every finals game, in two cases from the revenue raised by the Subiaco Football Club hosting a final, yet they only had to pay 7 players! We would estimate their actual TTP costs were probably a maximum $4,500 and they got that 3 times, twice from other WAFL Clubs gate revenue.

The WAFC have now met and discussed with the WAFL Club’s all the club feedback and they are now assessing what they will support for implementation in 2018. We are uncertain what changes the WA AFL Clubs would support bearing in mind that their partner clubs feedback was for no change.

A couple of observations on my part:

The propossed 12 player rule needs to be applied to all clubs
Half the monies saved by both Peel and EP should be divided among the rest of the clubs

Thanks Ark, all very reasonable and sensible comments and I would guess that they would be very similar to the other 6 WAFL clubs, although i would like to see the finals quals a bit more onerous. My guess is that after pressure is applied by the AFL clubs we will see some sort of half-arsed compromise somewhere between what we have now and what is proposed by Subi and the other clubs.

Would be great if other club supporters can get hold of their clubs position statements.

ArkRoyal wrote: Below is outlinned the offical position of the club --

PARTNER MODEL
Getting this model right is vital to club competitiveness and equalisation. The Subiaco Football Club are striving to be competitive with the alignment clubs that play 15 AFL players in finals. We want to be competitive during the year, during finals and on Grand final day. In the past two years, unfortunately we believe that this competitive balance has been compromised.

We must get to the purpose of the alignment. For the WA AFL clubs to be able to manage players, have their players train and play together and be able to coach them the AFL way. For the WAFL using the alignment to be able to improve long term strength and sustainability of the completion. For the WAFL Aligned Clubs using financial support of the alignment model (EP & Peel were under severe financial strain at the time they were awarded partner club status), helping them be competitive by having 10 to 12 AFL “recruits” every game and allowing them to develop their own local players – no recruitment!

Therefore the suggestions made by the Subiaco Football Club to ensure that the ongoing alignment model meets the needs of all stakeholders, the following amendments are proposed.

Subiaco Feedback - Rule Changes for 2018

WAFL Finals Qualification
· 5 WAFL games qualification to play finals, plus
· 3 WAFL games in the last half of the season, plus
· More WAFL games than AFL games in the last half of the season, plus
· Total number of AFL players in any final (includes when AFL teams are in finals that week) is their average number per game in the last 2 or 3 H&A seasons.

WAFL Partner Clubs
· No recruiting at all – the AFL players are their recruits, aligned clubs must develop and play 10 to 12 local players every game including finals.

Additional Feedback
· 40 list to be reduced to 30
· Finals TPP distribution overhaul (Peel got $8990 for every finals game, in two cases from the revenue raised by the Subiaco Football Club hosting a final, yet they only had to pay 7 players! We would estimate their actual TTP costs were probably a maximum $4,500 and they got that 3 times, twice from other WAFL Clubs gate revenue.

The WAFC have now met and discussed with the WAFL Club’s all the club feedback and they are now assessing what they will support for implementation in 2018. We are uncertain what changes the WA AFL Clubs would support bearing in mind that their partner clubs feedback was for no change.

A couple of observations on my part:

The propossed 12 player rule needs to be applied to all clubs
Half the monies saved by both Peel and EP should be divided among the rest of the clubs

Agree with the 12 local players applying to each club but the junior/country zones need to be more equalised before that can be applied.

Interesting that Subi think EP and Peel should not be allowed to recruit at all.
Those views won’t please Freezin and plenty of others on here

MarkOlsen wrote: Interesting that Subi think EP and Peel should not be allowed to recruit at all.
Those views won’t please Freezin and plenty of others on here

So is Subi the only club that thinks that way? What comments have Swans provided to the commission on this subject?

My own view is that both clubs should be able to recruit if they finish out of the five as EP did this year. I was just annoyed that Perth lost a player to the Royals when they needed him in an ideal world.

I think it has been working fine for the past 2 seasons

ArkRoyal wrote: My own view is that both clubs should be able to recruit if they finish out of the five as EP did this year. I was just annoyed that Perth lost a player to the Royals when they needed him in an ideal world.

Capacity to recruit should also be dependent on the AFL draft of that given year, meaning how many players did they draft from the other 7 WAFL clubs and consideration given to the competition as a whole.

This alignment is the only thing that stands in the way of $cabi purchasing premiership after premiership, no wonder the $cabi supporters want the model changed... how about looking in your own back yard and work out how to stop poaching players from clubs that finish below you on the ladder, this might help with the equilization .

Equalization needs to start with $ubiaco

As mentioned above, the only thing stopping Subi winning flag after flag IS the alignment model

Reduce the number to 14