TOPIC:

Peter North wrote:

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.

PN what I wanted and I am sure most other WAFL supporters wanted was the continuation of the system that was in place prior to the host club alignment. The club presidents could present a 1,000,000 word dissertation against the host club and if it was written in Latin it would have the same impact. That, absolute no impact whatsoever.

The only hope that the WAFL competiton has to survive is for there to be a change in government at the next state election and the incoming Labor government demands the WAFC start making decisions that will ensure the WAFL survives and thrives.

swan42 wrote:

Peter North wrote:

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.

PN what I wanted and I am sure most other WAFL supporters wanted was the continuation of the system that was in place prior to the host club alignment. The club presidents could present a 1,000,000 word dissertation against the host club and if it was written in Latin it would have the same impact. That, absolute no impact whatsoever.

The only hope that the WAFL competiton has to survive is for there to be a change in government at the next state election and the incoming Labor government demands the WAFC start making decisions that will ensure the WAFL survives and thrives.

Yep I wanted the former arrangement as well perhaps the Eastern state recruits could of gone to Peel, the problem is that the WAFC is weak as piss pardon my language.

We need a Peel v $ubiaco GF to highlight what the WAFC have let happen to the WAFL, barely 6000 will rock up in a game btwn the AFL frauds and a side with lopsided and unfair financial advantages for 30 years and taken full advantage of it by poaching players because other club can match it plus the points cap fiasco.
It will a very sad day for our once great comp

Swandog wrote: We need a Peel v $ubiaco GF to highlight what the WAFC have let happen to the WAFL, barely 6000 will rock up in a game btwn the AFL frauds and a side with lopsided and unfair financial advantages for 30 years and taken full advantage of it by poaching players because other club can match it plus the points cap fiasco.
It will a very sad day for our once great comp

Yeah that's always been the bigger problem for mine.

swan42 wrote:

Peter North wrote:

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.

PN what I wanted and I am sure most other WAFL supporters wanted was the continuation of the system that was in place prior to the host club alignment. The club presidents could present a 1,000,000 word dissertation against the host club and if it was written in Latin it would have the same impact. That, absolute no impact whatsoever.

The only hope that the WAFL competiton has to survive is for there to be a change in government at the next state election and the incoming Labor government demands the WAFC start making decisions that will ensure the WAFL survives and thrives.

The chances of that are nil, given it was the Burke Labor Govt that drafted ghe WAFC constituion with the express purpose of giving it ultimate authority over the Wafl based on the former Wafl going broke and requiring tax payers to bail it out. Tne Wafc is a creation of Labor.

You might also care to note that the wafc constitution gives the Minister of Sport a permanent seat on the board, the last one to take it up was Ian Taylor when it was set up, none from either party has since.

Lads, this is not a political topic, this topic is about a bunch of duds in the WAFC.