TOPIC:

A headline which has just landed on the Worst online:

thewest.com.au/sport/wafl/subiaco-unable...rules-ng-b881353308z

Can one of you lucky subscribers fill in the details?

I await the inevitable from the obsessed Perth supporter.

Outer just called me and said it looks like Subi wont be able to recruit delisted AFL players like Zac Clarke and cant recruit from other WAFL teams. Wont effect Deluca's return if he doesn't get a contract which now seems the case.

So if this is correct the WAFC have taken the very softcock option of restricting one club rather than making a committment to the comp by pumping money and expertise into the other 7 WAFL clubs. Wonder how long the restrictions will be in place, will have some effect but would still expect Subi to be there and abouts the top 2 next year, the WAFC have given Subi a massive incentive to go extra hard next season, thanks WAFC.

Not sure if any restrictions on recruiting from the VFL or other 2nd tier comps where guys like Dela, Kitchen and Boland came from.

The rest of the comp better have ironclad contracts on their A graders or sit back and watch EP use their 1.5 mill war chest to recruit whoever they want.

I think we Have 3 million hidden in various ways Senior but hopefully we don’t recruit too heavily. I was told we will only load up when in sight of being a flag contender. I think Perth is more of a threat, I believe they are cashed up. Also is it the case they have a higher points cap than every other team? This seems absurd if you want a level playing field.

The article says that Subi are unable to recruit a player with a higher points value than any departing players. Since Zac Clarke would be 12p, he cannot go to Subi, unless, presumably, they decided to offload another 12p player. This rule appears to be specific to Subi. I don't really like that, I'd prefer equalisation measures that apply to all clubs. I have reservations about the WAFL pulling levers season by season in relation to the aligned clubs and any club deemed too dominant rather than structural measures such as the oft-discussed points loading.

Other measures are these: the top 4 non-aligned clubs now have 100p. WC drop from 60-50. P drop from 130 to 110 - that seems odd on the back of finishing 6th two years in a row after so many years of abject failure. EP have 125p and SD and EF 120. In this regard, I repeat a point I made earlier: I don't mind tweaking points in principle, but it should be applied over a 3-5 year period, not season by season. Despite recent improvement over the last 5 years, P are second last in terms of games won, ahead of only EF.

When asked for comment, Peter Capes asked why, instead of targeting Subi, other clubs were not being held to account for their list management errors. Perhaps Pete can answer the question by telling us what list management errors he made at EF, how he overcame them at Subi, and whether an additional $4m annually made the job at Subi easier...

Out of interest how many 6 figure losses in a row has Capes overseen as CEO at Subi- 3?

This crap doesn't surprise me one little bit given the WAFC has a history of making rash decisions without thinking them through. My advice to Subi which I'm sure they don't need is to test it in the Industrial Relations Commission given players are paid for their services. Surely it would have been better to implement equalisation strategies that go across all clubs and remains in place for the foreseeable future rather than something that targets one club only.

The positive is that they recognise there is a problem. Unfortunately they are tackling it from the wrong end. Instead of penalising Subiaco in 2020 they should be looking more at a long term strategy to even up the competition. The starting point is to look at how teams like East Fremantle, Perth and Swans can become more competitive and how all supporters can experience finals footy in a reasonable amount of time. This involves special
concessions and recruiting assistance for weaker teams similar to what the AFL is doing for Gold Coast

BC -- will survive; I would not challenge it in court as that would alienate the other clubs over time. TN was right the other day, when he stressed that, if they did target Subi, the provision should be reviewed annually.

As others have suggested above,they should be using money and points to lift the competition. One could make use, for example, of the monies the commission receives for draft picks.

It might alienate other clubs AR but right now it's our club which has been targeted. I agree that something needs to be done to give all clubs a chance of success over time but for the regulator to make rules for one club only should probably be tested in court in terms of Industrial Relations and/or Anti-Discrimination laws. It is just wrong.

Interestingly I was just watching Dateline on SBS and it had a story on the education system in Singapore where the motto is "lift the bottom but don't cap the top". Clearly the WAFC has gone the other way and prefer to "cap the top but don't lift the bottom"...that sums up the WAFC...go figure.