TOPIC:

westaussieguy wrote: It sounds like the moral of the story, you can simply do whatever you like and be unethical as you damn well please as long as one stays within the 'rules'.

No the moral of the story is you can't take this competition seriously. The WAFL multi millionaires Subiaco storm into yet another embarrassing GF and their likely opponent will be Peel (Fremantle). And I'm tipping Yarran to have another shocker like he did today in the GF because his loyalties are torn between playing for Fremantle reserves in the finals instead of the club he feels the most loyalty to.

TBH after that Subi win today over the 2nd best team in the comp, one must think, for a decent GF contest surely Peel needs to play in the GF instead of SF? Yeah I know, mockery of the comp and all that.....but if SF were to play in the GF, I dont think a 60 point pasting actually does wonders for the comps pinacle game either......

not to sure what folk want?.....end to Subi's dominance or the alignment process to go flagless again......touch wood SF regroup for next week......dont fancy their chances though.....the Peel train is certainly picking up speed.......

DD wrote:

westaussieguy wrote: It sounds like the moral of the story, you can simply do whatever you like and be unethical as you damn well please as long as one stays within the 'rules'.

No the moral of the story is you can't take this competition seriously. The WAFL multi millionaires Subiaco storm into yet another embarrassing GF and their likely opponent will be Peel (Fremantle). And I'm tipping Yarran to have another shocker like he did today in the GF because his loyalties are torn between playing for Fremantle reserves in the finals instead of the club he feels the most loyalty to.

DD and yet we have a WAFC initiated review with absolutely no inclination to maintaining the WAFL competition? In fact the raison d'etre for the review is to scrap the WAFL competition.

Well if the WAFL clubs showed a bit of back bone things may be different, obviously the money from the two AFL clubs is more important.

Peter North wrote: Well if the WAFL clubs showed a bit of back bone things may be different, obviously the money from the two AFL clubs is more important.

PN that is simply patent nonsense. The WAFL clubs, excluding the two aligned clubs, did not want the host club alignment. It was presented as a fait accompli. The WAFL clubs did not have the opportunity to vote on the host club alignment nor did they have a chance to veto the decision.

The money was not part of the decision to have a host club alignment. It was at best an adjunct to a decision presented to the WAFL clubs. You can't possibly be suggesting that once the host club alignment was made external to the WAFL clubs that they should not have attempted to try to get as much money as possible to try to offset the irreparable damage the host club alignment was going to do to the WAFL competition in an attempt to reduce that damage. I hasten to add that the dramatic drop in attendances in the past two years is just one of, and it was forseeable, the consequences of the host club alignment.

swan42 wrote:

Peter North wrote: Well if the WAFL clubs showed a bit of back bone things may be different, obviously the money from the two AFL clubs is more important.

PN that is simply patent nonsense. The WAFL clubs, excluding the two aligned clubs, did not want the host club alignment. It was presented as a fait accompli. The WAFL clubs did not have the opportunity to vote on the host club alignment nor did they have a chance to veto the decision.

The money was not part of the decision to have a host club alignment. It was at best an adjunct to a decision presented to the WAFL clubs. You can't possibly be suggesting that once the host club alignment was made external to the WAFL clubs that they should not have attempted to try to get as much money as possible to try to offset the irreparable damage the host club alignment was going to do to the WAFL competition in an attempt to reduce that damage. I hasten to add that the dramatic drop in attendances in the past two years is just one of, and it was forseeable, the consequences of the host club alignment.

The only supporters whinging about it are on this site, you'd think Raponi might come out and denounce the alignment after the flogging WP copped today .

Wasn't there an option of two stand alone sides playing for no points and the clubs voted against it surely that would of been the best option if that's the case.

42...if Peel make the GF, I reckon 20000 of Freo's fans will come out to watch history in the making....Freo's first trophy for their cabinet......hey arent you a Freo fan 42?

Agree with that Freeze. Peels first GF will be historic up against a side going for 3 in a row.

Peter North wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Peter North wrote: Well if the WAFL clubs showed a bit of back bone things may be different, obviously the money from the two AFL clubs is more important.

PN that is simply patent nonsense. The WAFL clubs, excluding the two aligned clubs, did not want the host club alignment. It was presented as a fait accompli. The WAFL clubs did not have the opportunity to vote on the host club alignment nor did they have a chance to veto the decision.

The money was not part of the decision to have a host club alignment. It was at best an adjunct to a decision presented to the WAFL clubs. You can't possibly be suggesting that once the host club alignment was made external to the WAFL clubs that they should not have attempted to try to get as much money as possible to try to offset the irreparable damage the host club alignment was going to do to the WAFL competition in an attempt to reduce that damage. I hasten to add that the dramatic drop in attendances in the past two years is just one of, and it was forseeable, the consequences of the host club alignment.

The only supporters whinging about it are on this site, you'd think Raponi might come out and denounce the alignment after the flogging WP copped today .

Wasn't there an option of two stand alone sides playing for no points and the clubs voted against it surely that would of been the best option if that's the case.

So who was going to play those two teams for no points? Why would the WAFL clubs want to do that? Swans most eloquently indicated what they thought of the host club alignment by placing the name Eagles rather than East Perth during a home game last season.

Why do you think there has been such a drastic drop in attendances over the past two years?

swan42 wrote:

Peter North wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Peter North wrote: Well if the WAFL clubs showed a bit of back bone things may be different, obviously the money from the two AFL clubs is more important.

PN that is simply patent nonsense. The WAFL clubs, excluding the two aligned clubs, did not want the host club alignment. It was presented as a fait accompli. The WAFL clubs did not have the opportunity to vote on the host club alignment nor did they have a chance to veto the decision.

The money was not part of the decision to have a host club alignment. It was at best an adjunct to a decision presented to the WAFL clubs. You can't possibly be suggesting that once the host club alignment was made external to the WAFL clubs that they should not have attempted to try to get as much money as possible to try to offset the irreparable damage the host club alignment was going to do to the WAFL competition in an attempt to reduce that damage. I hasten to add that the dramatic drop in attendances in the past two years is just one of, and it was forseeable, the consequences of the host club alignment.

The only supporters whinging about it are on this site, you'd think Raponi might come out and denounce the alignment after the flogging WP copped today .

Wasn't there an option of two stand alone sides playing for no points and the clubs voted against it surely that would of been the best option if that's the case.

So who was going to play those two teams for no points? Why would the WAFL clubs want to do that? Swans most eloquently indicated what they thought of the host club alignment by placing the name Eagles rather than East Perth during a home game last season.

Why do you think there has been such a drastic drop in attendances over the past two years?

The alignment has no bearing on wether I attend the WAFL that's for sure I've already stated Perth has done a good job of turning there own supporters away. I reckon a certain side making another GF would of turned away more supporters than the alignment I don't think ive seen one qtr of their last seven flags.

I don't know what the implications of stand alone teams would be, but I sense whatever happened wouldn't be good enough for you, , it has to be better than Peel playing finals with a full side of AFL listed players

A perfect opportunity for club Presidents to come out and denounce the alignment on behalf of there supporters about now I would of thought.