TOPIC:

bloody awful

ArkRoyal wrote: If SF and EF mergged, what name would they use? I would have thought the name Fremantle would be out of the question?

Get some marketing people onto it.

Something to put to the membership I guess.

Fremantle Port Bullsharks.

Time for my once in a blue moon contribution and rant.

Might be wrong but I thought Peel was introduced to provide development pathways for talent in the south west. Clearly that is no longer a consideration given the bastard alignment with the perennial AFL losers, so why are they in the WAFL? So...

- Fuck off Peel.
- Align EF, SF, Tigers and Subi to Fremantle. WP, EP, Perth and Swans to West Toast. Perth, Swans and the Freo teams would have been the ideal grouping but with the Demons being fondled by the Weags on a daily basis going forward, that doesn't work.
- If a WAFL player is drafted to their AFL aligned club, they stay at their original WAFL club. If they are drafted by the other AFL club, they move WAFL clubs.
- Any interstate recruits are distributed across the four aligned clubs with effort made to distribute them with the overall aim of 1. Dividing the full 40 odd squad evenly across the four aligned WAFL teams. 2. Assess the top 24 list players and divide them evenly with the same done for rest of squad. 3. Each year the AFL club may have to move players between WAFL teams to maintain equal division (original WAFL club recruits excluded from this).
- Coaching relationships with AFL/WAFL clubs are deeply intertwined.
- Redistribute zones (obviously).
- 21 game season.
- The four teams with 11 home games forfeit one game each year to be played in the country, including at Peel.

Had experience with Boston Consulting's work in the past and far from impressed. Doubt they could give an informed report concerning the WAFL but who knows, they may have changed.

And if South Fremantle and East Fremantle merge I will move to Melbourne. The thought of having a relationship with my life long opposition is horrifying. It cannot happen.

The end.

ArkRoyal wrote: BH: exactlly, that is the type of crap that the marketers will try and sell to the members and competition, rather than relying on the traditions of both clubs to make changes as painless as possible.

BUT back directlly on the EF question, if the Sharks do merge or fall, similarlly, to the SANFL, we will have lost the most successful club in history; rememberring, always, that the protection of the WAFL is part of the re-mit of the Commision; it was even, as you and others have reminded posters, the justification for setting up the two AFL clubs in this town.

AR to add to your comments who thinks that the current VFL competition bares any relationship to the VFA of years gone by? Is that we want for the WAFL? Do we want to lose all the history and tradition of the WAFL?

Grassy wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

Roman wrote: WHY ON EARTH YOU WOULD EVEN CONSIDER MERGING THE TWO CLUBS WITH THE THREE BIGGEST DRAWING GAMES EACH SEASON. THIS BOSTON MOB HAS NO IDEA ABOUT FOOTBALL. GET A BRAIN WHO EVER YOU ARE! THE CHUNDER HAS BEEN THE BIGGEST ENIGMA SINCE DAY ONE.

Long term this is the only pathway to survival, it may not be our two clubs either others will have to go. I'm talking 50 - 100 year survival here not 5 or 10.

Bazza if Souths and Easts were to merge, that would mark the end of both clubs. Does anyone really believe that Brisbane is really Fitzroy?

It is a damning indictment on the WAFC that they would countenance any extinction of the traditional WAFL clubs and to keep the disgrace that is known as the Peel Football Club.

Yep the "end" of both and the birth of a new.

The history of both will always be there.

Us older crew have been lucky enough to have enjoyed the pre Eagles WAFL and hey day of the 70s and 80s - we had the best days, and have been privileged.

They wont be coming back. Its the past , that's all it is now.

SANFL have already done it.

What?

Woodville and West Torrens?

Hardly Port and Norwood here.

How are those W's two going anyway?

They aren't because they are DEAD!

They have won three premierships in the last 25 years.Three more then perth have.

chaddy22 wrote:

Grassy wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

Roman wrote: WHY ON EARTH YOU WOULD EVEN CONSIDER MERGING THE TWO CLUBS WITH THE THREE BIGGEST DRAWING GAMES EACH SEASON. THIS BOSTON MOB HAS NO IDEA ABOUT FOOTBALL. GET A BRAIN WHO EVER YOU ARE! THE CHUNDER HAS BEEN THE BIGGEST ENIGMA SINCE DAY ONE.

Long term this is the only pathway to survival, it may not be our two clubs either others will have to go. I'm talking 50 - 100 year survival here not 5 or 10.

Bazza if Souths and Easts were to merge, that would mark the end of both clubs. Does anyone really believe that Brisbane is really Fitzroy?

It is a damning indictment on the WAFC that they would countenance any extinction of the traditional WAFL clubs and to keep the disgrace that is known as the Peel Football Club.

Yep the "end" of both and the birth of a new.

The history of both will always be there.

Us older crew have been lucky enough to have enjoyed the pre Eagles WAFL and hey day of the 70s and 80s - we had the best days, and have been privileged.

They wont be coming back. Its the past , that's all it is now.

SANFL have already done it.

What?

Woodville and West Torrens?

Hardly Port and Norwood here.

How are those W's two going anyway?

They aren't because they are DEAD!

They have won three premierships in the last 25 years.Three more then perth have.

Chaddy22 which years?

The merger of West Torrens and Woodville made sense.With the crows to join the national comp in 1991 two of the most unsuccessful clubs in the Sanfl merged.West Torrens had been in the comp since 1897 and only won 4 premierships the last in 1953
38 years before they decided to merge.Woodville had joined the comp in 1963 with no premierships and 9 wooden spoons.Geographically they serviced the same area.Since they have merged they have won the 1993,2006, and 2011 premierships and been in many finals.Rather then South and East merging the question should be is why the two least successful clubs of the wafl comp shouldn't merge being Peel and Perth.

chaddy22 wrote: The merger of West Torrens and Woodville made sense.With the crows to join the national comp in 1991 two of the most unsuccessful clubs in the Sanfl merged.West Torrens had been in the comp since 1897 and only won 4 premierships the last in 1953
38 years before they decided to merge.Woodville had joined the comp in 1963 with no premierships and 9 wooden spoons.Geographically they serviced the same area.Since they have merged they have won the 1993,2006, and 2011 premierships and been in many finals.Rather then South and East merging the question should be is why the two least successful clubs of the wafl comp shouldn't merge being Peel and Perth.

Good of you to answer with an emphatic answer that neither West Torrens nor Woodville have won a premiership since 1953. As for your comment about Peel and Perth merging perhaps a saner reason would have been that they both start with Pe.

Swan42: I agree with you 100 per cent on the loss of the VFA. The VFL were always gunning for them from all reports. I read somewhere that part of the reason SM was sent to Sydney, was so that that they could televise the games back to Melbourne on a Sunday, thereby undermining the VFA.

chaddy22: the only problem with the Woodville situation is that, to my knowlwdge, its one player of genuine note, the great Malcolm Blight, hates the club.