TOPIC:

a yes or no question for you Freezin - were Adamson and Wellingham both cleared under the same transfer rule ?

There you go all intrinsically black n white on us again mate...to appease you, I reckon yes & no are valid answers to your closed ended question MO ..due to the fact that those WAFC rules are very charmeleon like mate and up for continuing interpretation...as you well know....but I don't need to point that out TBH.... as you are a fella who has done his homework in such matters.

its a yes or no question, if you are unsure of your answer you can just say not sure.
I take it as you are unable to answer the question you don't know ?

www.wafooty.com.au/download/d/RIIS4S92-f...qaqOIktQPGE4o-jxjVaM

I wasn't privy to the transfer paperwork at the time for either, so it would be wrong of me to give you a definite yes or no answer..... I have provided an interpretative answer mate on what I know and have heard..... unless you have the paperwork at your disposal and obviously know something more concrete....

I assume you have answered no due to the fact that is your interpretation of the WAFC transfer rules in regards to both players transfers....I am merely providing you with my interpretation looking at both sides, which is all I can do because I have stated earlier I wasn't privy or have the transfer paperwork in front of me at this time. Apologies if I am wrong.

But hey I do concur with you that the WAFC are inconsistent in their handling of the WAFL, which is most frustrating for all concerned .....that is something I can say Yes too.

all you need to do is read the rules which are available on the WAFC website.
if you choose not to read them that is your choice.

As Smokey and MO have pointed out, the issue is with the WAFL rules, not Wellingham individually. To have an equalisation policy where the same rules apply to all clubs in meaningless. It simply allows the entrenched inequality which has afflicted the WAFL for many years to continue. What is needed is for the WAFL to introduce rules which provide a disincentive for stronger clubs to recruit players from weaker clubs. An obvious example would be increased transfer fees and player points for a higher placed team. In the case of returning AFL players, (with, say, over 100 AFL games) perhaps a system like the veteran's list could be implemented, where a player's payments, or part thereof, would be outside the salary cap. That would encourage players to return to their club of origin. But if things stay as they are, then clubs with money and success will always have a recruiting advantage and nothing will change.

But the thread title says "Wellingham is a Royal"...not "The WAFC rules are wrong"...this is the EP thread not the WAFL news or the Bar thread....so far as I can gather we are talking about Wellingham the individual and his choice to join the EPFC.......good luck to the guy for 2018.

Thanks for the insight MO....I guess like all of us here its how one interprets those guidelines....obviously you and the WAFC aren't reading from the same page mate....and considering you don't work or have anything to do with the WAFC....not sure you are the right fella to be advising folk what the real issue is here.....eh?

you obviously havn't read them yet have you ?
until you do how are you qualified to comment ?

Freeze, Wellingham is a Royal because the WAFL rules are wrong. That is why the topics are related.