TOPIC:

thanks bease, I stand corrected

cl should lose the 'great southern'

MO -- I agree on the country zones -- we have had the Goldfields for decades it is an ideal place to start equalisation.

ArkRoyal wrote: DF i thought you might let me have York as a swap, but your right in simple terms, if the aim is 'equalisation' Perth would get both areas. Subi would not have country zone without such a swap. Bear in mind too that, if this did happen I would let South keep Southern River.

lol

Ark if I had to choose between York/Northam and the Goldfields I would choose York/Northam.
I haven't checked the numbers but I am sure if you looked at AFL lists York/Northam would have more.
PFC have had a lot of draftees and that's where they come from.
Bateman, Franklin, Davis, Glass just to name 4.

DF -- wayne ryder and others? Under equalisation you should get both zones

ArkRoyal wrote: thanks bease, I stand corrected

cl should lose the 'great southern'

MO -- I agree on the country zones -- we have had the Goldfields for decades it is an ideal place to start equalisation.

To be honest AR Claremont have gone under the radar for far too long regarding zoning.
They have had no real changes other than picking up the Kimberleys in the 50 years since zoning came in.
As we know the Great Southern zone (Albany, Mt Barker, Denmark/Walpole) has been very productive and now the Kimberleys have enormous indigenous talent being exposed whilst their metro zone is unparalleled for richness in all forms.
Even the Ongerup zone (Lake Grace, Newdegate, Kukerin, Dumbleyung etc) that has produced the likes of Fyfe, Morton x 4, Ditchburn, Bairstow (swapped to SF) etc I am sure Perth could have done with that zone over the years!

BH: I agree with you. It is fantastic that all of those places have produced such good footballers, particularly for the CL supporters. In truth, from what i ave read of football commission reports on the zones, CL treatment is justified by them, unlike any other club, according to commission, not having a 'zone node'. Naturally, the problem with such an argument is that very few clubs have uncontested node zones, as you would know well in the case of Ellenbrook and the struggle against EP. Taking everything together, the fact that the Tigers have not finished last since 1977, and have won many flags, major reform of their country zone would be justified I think.

Hang on guys, I'm confused, where's this idea come from that Subi has epic all conquering junior & country zones?
- Our Colts won their first flag in decades and apparently that was only coz they cheated,
then missed the finals this year.
- Our ressies won the flag last year but out of the finals in straight sets this year.
- Subi are constantly criticised for recruiting from the east or other clubs and only
having between 50-60% local content in most games.

So where is the proof that we have these guilt-edged zones? Subi have not provided many AFL recruits from their zones in recent years compared to Cl, EF, SD, P or PT.
So what is the justification for attacking Subi's zones when most on here constantly complain about Subi's eastern states, ex AFL and other WAFL clubs recruits being the major reason for Subi's success?

The step to restrict Subi's recruiting from AFL & WAFL clubs is just one step but it applies to just one club, here needs to be balance, someone talked about a player points per game limit, but that would need to be across the board then with concessions for the bottom 4 clubs, the WAFC needs to provide financial as well as recruiting concessions to the poorer clubs like SD & EF (Joondy already have been provided with massive financial support) then recruiting concessions to those clubs with money but lacking recent on field success like, Perth, & EP.

the WAFC would be within its rights to say if everybody operates at the same salary cap why do they need to provide clubs extra money, wouldn't that be an admission that Subi are paying blokes outside the cap ?

As they do MO.

Read again SS.
The rules don't apply to just poor down trodden Subi.
It is sad that Subi is being bullied. Not fair!!!