TOPIC:

puppy wrote:

DaveRoyal wrote:

puppy wrote:

DaveRoyal wrote: The Eagles and Dockers players leaving various WAFL clubs for EP and Peel next year have already been "paid" for by the eagles and dockers to whichever club they originated from. Clubs that have gotten further WAFL use out of them have further benefitted from not having to pay them for that time.

It therefore stands that EP losing any non-AFL players they have recruited/developed in the meantime should get just compensation for them as per usual.

Sorry I have to disagree with you on this point. What entitlement do you have to these players gifted to you? You are receiving resources of substantial value which you had no hand in producing or investing time or effort into. What are you giving up in return? If WAFL clubs want to pick up the excess players from EP or Peel, then EP or Peel should receive the same compensation as a non aligned WAFL club would from another WAFL club, AFL club or Eastern States State League club. You seem to accept that EP are somehow entitled to this huge windfall but should also be protected from any disadvantages that result. I think it is taking the piss to be propped up by an AFL club & yet expect not to suffer some loss of players or incur some substantial cost.

If the AFL were serious they would form a proper AFL reserves competition. Of course they want to take the cheap & easy option.

I agree with you we are not "entitled" to these players for nothing. But these players belong to the dockers and eagles - not the WAFL clubs. Therefore the clubs "losing" these players should not benefit as they have already been compensated for them.

The appropriate penalty it to limit EP/Peel points and/or recruitment availability in future as recognition of this. But a free for all on EP/Peel developed players is unacceptable.

Surely EP would have some players under contract & I think they should be out of bounds but I am not sure why the rest should be off limits. What is to stop EF losing 7 or 8 players in the next draft. What would stop that free for all? Would it be fair if 6 went to the Eagles & we play against them in 2014? I am not sure that EP & Peel should be totally protected against short term repercussions. I know you are concerned with EP being decimated from mass player departures but I find it hard to feel sympathetic given that they have gone into a host club arrangement for the second time. Also keep in mind that EF will have a fairly big hole in it's player roster in 2014 which will have to be filled by less experienced players. It may take 2 or 3 seasons to fully rebuild the side.

I would have also thought that EP would have considered the perils of entering such an arrangement & were willing to cop what may come their way.

I never said that EF should be compensated for the listed players they will be losing in 2014. I hope most of these players are traded next year so we don't have to play against them.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the alignment that will be coming into place next year? I am very relieved that EF are not one of the sides. Has there been any substantial complaining or resistance by the EP members since the season has started? I would be interested in your thoughts & feed back from your personal point of view.

Agreed, in most. Player contracts should be respected, players tied to EP under development circumstances should be treated as usual.

How do I feel about it? In short, its a reality I wish seen fairly metred out.

I have said I agree EP and Peel should have points and recruiting measures restricted, but you can't do this retrospectively as it may be too unfair to parties involved.

I agree the big hole in the alignment agreement is that EF and Claremont in particular have had a large contingent of players drafted locally over the years.

Why EF and Claremont have been so favoured by the WA AFL clubs in recruiting compared to the other WAFL clubs is another question, but they have benefited largely from this arrangement (until now) and will have to get used to the downside of this from now on. They should just accept that a player drafted is 30k in the bank (or whatever) and move along. That's what other clubs put up with.

If they think that's wrong then its time to petition the AFL for a better outcome for a player drafted.

What would happen if an EP or Peel player had signed a contract before or during the alignment process and at the end of this season seeks a transfer or release from that contract? Surely the conditions by which that contract was signed have now changed. Would a player not be entitled to change or amend the conditions of his contract or be released if those new or amended conditions referring to the alignment and playing limitations that will come with it cannot be agreed upon?

DaveRoyal wrote:

puppy wrote:

DaveRoyal wrote:

puppy wrote:

DaveRoyal wrote: The Eagles and Dockers players leaving various WAFL clubs for EP and Peel next year have already been "paid" for by the eagles and dockers to whichever club they originated from. Clubs that have gotten further WAFL use out of them have further benefitted from not having to pay them for that time.

It therefore stands that EP losing any non-AFL players they have recruited/developed in the meantime should get just compensation for them as per usual.

Sorry I have to disagree with you on this point. What entitlement do you have to these players gifted to you? You are receiving resources of substantial value which you had no hand in producing or investing time or effort into. What are you giving up in return? If WAFL clubs want to pick up the excess players from EP or Peel, then EP or Peel should receive the same compensation as a non aligned WAFL club would from another WAFL club, AFL club or Eastern States State League club. You seem to accept that EP are somehow entitled to this huge windfall but should also be protected from any disadvantages that result. I think it is taking the piss to be propped up by an AFL club & yet expect not to suffer some loss of players or incur some substantial cost.

If the AFL were serious they would form a proper AFL reserves competition. Of course they want to take the cheap & easy option.

I agree with you we are not "entitled" to these players for nothing. But these players belong to the dockers and eagles - not the WAFL clubs. Therefore the clubs "losing" these players should not benefit as they have already been compensated for them.

The appropriate penalty it to limit EP/Peel points and/or recruitment availability in future as recognition of this. But a free for all on EP/Peel developed players is unacceptable.

Surely EP would have some players under contract & I think they should be out of bounds but I am not sure why the rest should be off limits. What is to stop EF losing 7 or 8 players in the next draft. What would stop that free for all? Would it be fair if 6 went to the Eagles & we play against them in 2014? I am not sure that EP & Peel should be totally protected against short term repercussions. I know you are concerned with EP being decimated from mass player departures but I find it hard to feel sympathetic given that they have gone into a host club arrangement for the second time. Also keep in mind that EF will have a fairly big hole in it's player roster in 2014 which will have to be filled by less experienced players. It may take 2 or 3 seasons to fully rebuild the side.

I would have also thought that EP would have considered the perils of entering such an arrangement & were willing to cop what may come their way.

I never said that EF should be compensated for the listed players they will be losing in 2014. I hope most of these players are traded next year so we don't have to play against them.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the alignment that will be coming into place next year? I am very relieved that EF are not one of the sides. Has there been any substantial complaining or resistance by the EP members since the season has started? I would be interested in your thoughts & feed back from your personal point of view.

Agreed, in most. Player contracts should be respected, players tied to EP under development circumstances should be treated as usual.

How do I feel about it? In short, its a reality I wish seen fairly metred out.

I have said I agree EP and Peel should have points and recruiting measures restricted, but you can't do this retrospectively as it may be too unfair to parties involved.

I agree the big hole in the alignment agreement is that EF and Claremont in particular have had a large contingent of players drafted locally over the years.

Why EF and Claremont have been so favoured by the WA AFL clubs in recruiting compared to the other WAFL clubs is another question, but they have benefited largely from this arrangement (until now) and will have to get used to the downside of this from now on. They should just accept that a player drafted is 30k in the bank (or whatever) and move along. That's what other clubs put up with.

If they think that's wrong then its time to petition the AFL for a better outcome for a player drafted.

Your club align with an AFL club, will have AFL listed players walk through your door (at no cost to your club) and you say get use to it and move along.

How considerate of you Dave.

[quote="chaddy22" .[/quote]

hey puppy when the marsh boys wanted to play for east fremantle beacuse their grandfather played for your mob did you guys give us some compensation.i can't get an answer.they come from our zone.one drafted already. is the other one a certainty.i hope you guys give us the draft fee.[/quote]

well considering EP have had the use of Cripps for more league games than what Harrison and Jonathon have played league for EF, consider that as down payment Chaddy.....

interesting that you use the word 'wanted'......is the EP development system that stuffed?......out of interest how much did it cost EP to get the likes of Johnson and Smith.....30K each?.....mmmm think not?......I reckon the car's Bronte gave them to drive around in probably cost 40 - 50K each for starters....then there is relocation costs, match payments.....mmmm what else?.....30K from the draft covers diddly squat these days......especially for anything decent with experience......

I reckon if Peel and EP get all the local AFL boys then they should be classed as out of zone locals at least....3 points max......then for those E.S boys 5 points......then lets see what is left over......if you have enough for the likes of a 10 pointer like Johnson or a Smith then fair due.....if not suck it up and get on with it......

as for the likes of Cl and EF having more AFL boys on their lists than other WAFL clubs......well there are two reasons for that.......the likes of Brown came to EF as one of their priority picks for coming last the year before....Sutcliffe came to EF as reward for finishing out of the finals...as did Stevens when he was at EF......not EF fault that both WCE & Freo have an abundance of EF boys on their list...from memory Malaxos isn't in charge of either clubs draft picks is he?

SC30 wrote: What would happen if an EP or Peel player had signed a contract before or during the alignment process and at the end of this season seeks a transfer or release from that contract? Surely the conditions by which that contract was signed have now changed. Would a player not be entitled to change or amend the conditions of his contract or be released if those new or amended conditions referring to the alignment and playing limitations that will come with it cannot be agreed upon?

adam prior already gone.i am sure he was under contract,this is not the afl.players go to the country all the time if they can't get a regular game.

chaddy22 wrote:

SC30 wrote: What would happen if an EP or Peel player had signed a contract before or during the alignment process and at the end of this season seeks a transfer or release from that contract? Surely the conditions by which that contract was signed have now changed. Would a player not be entitled to change or amend the conditions of his contract or be released if those new or amended conditions referring to the alignment and playing limitations that will come with it cannot be agreed upon?

adam prior already gone.i am sure he was under contract,this is not the afl.players go to the country all the time if they can't get a regular game.

C22 some questions for you:

(i) do you support the host club arrangement your club has entered?
(ii) given that all the excess Eagles' players not required to play for the Eagles will be playing in your club's league team how do think that is compatible with your President's claim that they want to be the leader in junior development?
(iii) in your opinion is the host club situation going to favour your club, disadvantage your club or be neutral for your club compared to the seven non-aligned clubs?

so this waht I think the summary is,

the alignment is not going away

Most folks on this site hate it for a nhumber of reasons

EP have an age average for their teams each game (no-one has said anything against this, I think)

EP players who are deemed draftable (by EP) are alowed to nominate and go to another club for a nominal recompense ( not sure what is a fair amount but will stick with the original)

The clubs losing players to EP due to alignment will definitely continue to get AFL recompense.

A limit on the number of WCE players be set at 9 per game league and 5 for reservces.

All zones stay the same (frankly who would really want ours at the moment)

The rest of the convseration seemed to be side issues.

Have agreat day and perhaps someone who has ore sway could suggest something to the WAFC

swan42 wrote:

chaddy22 wrote:

SC30 wrote: What would happen if an EP or Peel player had signed a contract before or during the alignment process and at the end of this season seeks a transfer or release from that contract? Surely the conditions by which that contract was signed have now changed. Would a player not be entitled to change or amend the conditions of his contract or be released if those new or amended conditions referring to the alignment and playing limitations that will come with it cannot be agreed upon?

adam prior already gone.i am sure he was under contract,this is not the afl.players go to the country all the time if they can't get a regular game.

C22 some questions for you:

(i) do you support the host club arrangement your club has entered?
(ii) given that all the excess Eagles' players not required to play for the Eagles will be playing in your club's league team how do think that is compatible with your President's claim that they want to be the leader in junior development?
(iii) in your opinion is the host club situation going to favour your club, disadvantage your club or be neutral for your club compared to the seven non-aligned clubs?

(i) i don't like the host club arrangement but i am a diehard follower.

(ii)i can only remind what was mentioned at the info meeting.we will have to develop our local players because recruiting non zone players ia expensive exercise.the proof is in the pudding we have less non zone players running around with us this year then anybody repeat anybody.it means we already are playing more local players then most teams. i will repeat this again east perth had a total of 5 non zone players and swans had 13 non zone players in the league and reserves.we had 15 players that were zone players in the league and because embley is a swannies afl recruit swans only had 13 zone players.unlike peels mad recruiting over the summer east perth are positioning themselves to not rely on non zone players.next year we may have even less then five.we have had at least 3 league debuts including mitchell fraser in the swans game.for those who want to criticise junior development just have a look at the amount of non zone players that clubs have and most will have a dozen.in other words non zone players are already stifling the development of young players.it could be next year that some clubs will have more non zone players playing for them then we have eagles players.we already lost six wafl players this year.we will lose some for sure thru players maybe going east to other wafl clubs,go country or retire so we will have no option but to develop some of our players.

(iii)this is the hardest question to answer.we had less players to manage in 2000 and 2001 and it was the experienced local players and non eagle recruits who contributed the most in those two years.if the eagles get a bad run of injuries and players head east, to other clubs,go country and retire it may work to our disadvantage.i do remember 1999 when claremont had more eagles players then we had in 2000/2001 and they failed to make the four.they quickly abandoned the host arrangement.even tho it is a five year plan if we become uncompetitive and i don't mean premierships i don't think the club or supporters will like to be just a development squad.we already see how just having more dockers players hasn't made a great difference to peel.

Grump wrote: so this waht I think the summary is,

the alignment is not going away

Most folks on this site hate it for a nhumber of reasons

EP have an age average for their teams each game (no-one has said anything against this, I think)

EP players who are deemed draftable (by EP) are alowed to nominate and go to another club for a nominal recompense ( not sure what is a fair amount but will stick with the original)

The clubs losing players to EP due to alignment will definitely continue to get AFL recompense.

A limit on the number of WCE players be set at 9 per game league and 5 for reservces.

All zones stay the same (frankly who would really want ours at the moment)

The rest of the convseration seemed to be side issues.

Have agreat day and perhaps someone who has ore sway could suggest something to the WAFC

Is that max of nine Eagles players per league game for next year set in stone Grump? If that's the ruling, it's a fair one. Particularly with the decision being made that East Perth and Peel can't recruit from outside their zone from here on in.

Sorry Chaddy, still don't understand the system for next year ,does it mean that EP or Peel can amass a squad of up to 130 points and then also have access to the entire Eagles or Dockers overruns as well or are they operating on a different points total to the other 7 clubs??
Also what measures will be in place to allow those young players in the EP and Peel zones opportunities in their league teams if 15 plus AFL fringe players are taking those places.