TOPIC:

Swan, how does someone on the AFL commission being from WA supposed to benefit WA. Every decision he made was around his role with the AFL not WAFL, can you expand on why you thought the WAFL would get a good run from Fitzpatrick being on the commission

premiership hangover wrote: Swan, how does someone on the AFL commission being from WA supposed to benefit WA. Every decision he made was around his role with the AFL not WAFL, can you expand on why you thought the WAFL would get a good run from Fitzpatrick being on the commission

PH I didn't actually say that I expected Fitzpatrick to help the WAFL. It was in the context that as he was from WA and we have not received any help that a change wouldn't make a difference.

As to what the AFL could do is pretty simple to answer. If they would commit a fraction of what they spend to prop GWS,Brisbane and Gold Coast it would enable the WAFL clubs to be financially viable and commit to increasing their efforts in developing and expanding the future aussie rules players. This in turn would help improve the standard of the players drafted to the AFL. It could be a win for the WAFL and a win for the AFL. But no, what they want to do is to have total control of footy in WA to the detriment of the WAFL, its history, clubs, players and supporters.

What will be interesting is if D Commetti does in fact spend more time supporting West Perth and going to their games. He may be one of the few who will be able to articulate the need to ensure that the WAFL and its history remain and not go the way of the dodo.

swan42 wrote:

premiership hangover wrote: Swan, how does someone on the AFL commission being from WA supposed to benefit WA. Every decision he made was around his role with the AFL not WAFL, can you expand on why you thought the WAFL would get a good run from Fitzpatrick being on the commission

PH I didn't actually say that I expected Fitzpatrick to help the WAFL. It was in the context that as he was from WA and we have not received any help that a change wouldn't make a difference.

As to what the AFL could do is pretty simple to answer. If they would commit a fraction of what they spend to prop GWS,Brisbane and Gold Coast it would enable the WAFL clubs to be financially viable and commit to increasing their efforts in developing and expanding the future aussie rules players. This in turn would help improve the standard of the players drafted to the AFL. It could be a win for the WAFL and a win for the AFL. But no, what they want to do is to have total control of footy in WA to the detriment of the WAFL, its history, clubs, players and supporters.

What will be interesting is if D Commetti does in fact spend more time supporting West Perth and going to their game. He may be one of the few who will be able to articulate the need to ensure tht the WAFL and its history remain and not go the way of the dodo.

Well said 42.

swan42 wrote:

premiership hangover wrote: Swan, how does someone on the AFL commission being from WA supposed to benefit WA. Every decision he made was around his role with the AFL not WAFL, can you expand on why you thought the WAFL would get a good run from Fitzpatrick being on the commission

PH I didn't actually say that I expected Fitzpatrick to help the WAFL. It was in the context that as he was from WA and we have not received any help that a change wouldn't make a difference.

As to what the AFL could do is pretty simple to answer. If they would commit a fraction of what they spend to prop GWS,Brisbane and Gold Coast it would enable the WAFL clubs to be financially viable and commit to increasing their efforts in developing and expanding the future aussie rules players. This in turn would help improve the standard of the players drafted to the AFL. It could be a win for the WAFL and a win for the AFL. But no, what they want to do is to have total control of footy in WA to the detriment of the WAFL, its history, clubs, players and supporters.

What will be interesting is if D Commetti does in fact spend more time supporting West Perth and going to their games. He may be one of the few who will be able to articulate the need to ensure that the WAFL and its history remain and not go the way of the dodo.

Swan I don't quite understand how you have not grasp the concept yet that the AFL priority is firmly with the AFL NOT the WAFL, GWS Gold Coast etc are all AFL ventures for the AFL that is what they do build their own business , the WAFL is not part of their business plan. They have no interest in the WAFL apart from steam rolling it, as do the two local franchises who in turn control the WAFC. What part of that do you not get?

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

premiership hangover wrote: Swan, how does someone on the AFL commission being from WA supposed to benefit WA. Every decision he made was around his role with the AFL not WAFL, can you expand on why you thought the WAFL would get a good run from Fitzpatrick being on the commission

PH I didn't actually say that I expected Fitzpatrick to help the WAFL. It was in the context that as he was from WA and we have not received any help that a change wouldn't make a difference.

As to what the AFL could do is pretty simple to answer. If they would commit a fraction of what they spend to prop GWS,Brisbane and Gold Coast it would enable the WAFL clubs to be financially viable and commit to increasing their efforts in developing and expanding the future aussie rules players. This in turn would help improve the standard of the players drafted to the AFL. It could be a win for the WAFL and a win for the AFL. But no, what they want to do is to have total control of footy in WA to the detriment of the WAFL, its history, clubs, players and supporters.

What will be interesting is if D Commetti does in fact spend more time supporting West Perth and going to their games. He may be one of the few who will be able to articulate the need to ensure that the WAFL and its history remain and not go the way of the dodo.

Swan I don't quite understand how you have not grasp the concept yet that the AFL priority is firmly with the AFL NOT the WAFL, GWS Gold Coast etc are all AFL ventures for the AFL that is what they do build their own business , the WAFL is not part of their business plan. They have no interest in the WAFL apart from steam rolling it, as do the two local franchises who in turn control the WAFC. What part of that do you not get?

Bazza what I don't get is your inability or unwillingness to understand simple English. Secondly, come the change of government there may be a change where the WAFC is TOLD by the STate Government to start looking after the interests of the WAFL. A pretty simple concept really

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

premiership hangover wrote: Swan, how does someone on the AFL commission being from WA supposed to benefit WA. Every decision he made was around his role with the AFL not WAFL, can you expand on why you thought the WAFL would get a good run from Fitzpatrick being on the commission

PH I didn't actually say that I expected Fitzpatrick to help the WAFL. It was in the context that as he was from WA and we have not received any help that a change wouldn't make a difference.

As to what the AFL could do is pretty simple to answer. If they would commit a fraction of what they spend to prop GWS,Brisbane and Gold Coast it would enable the WAFL clubs to be financially viable and commit to increasing their efforts in developing and expanding the future aussie rules players. This in turn would help improve the standard of the players drafted to the AFL. It could be a win for the WAFL and a win for the AFL. But no, what they want to do is to have total control of footy in WA to the detriment of the WAFL, its history, clubs, players and supporters.

What will be interesting is if D Commetti does in fact spend more time supporting West Perth and going to their games. He may be one of the few who will be able to articulate the need to ensure that the WAFL and its history remain and not go the way of the dodo.

Swan I don't quite understand how you have not grasp the concept yet that the AFL priority is firmly with the AFL NOT the WAFL, GWS Gold Coast etc are all AFL ventures for the AFL that is what they do build their own business , the WAFL is not part of their business plan. They have no interest in the WAFL apart from steam rolling it, as do the two local franchises who in turn control the WAFC. What part of that do you not get?

Bazza what I don't get is your inability or unwillingness to understand simple English. Secondly, come the change of government there may be a change where the WAFC is TOLD by the STate Government to start looking after the interests of the WAFL. A pretty simple concept really

As I say, you fail to get a grip on the fact the AFL will never do what you dream them of doing as you have no grip on the fundamentals, just like your mythical view about the WAFC and the State Gov. which will never happen unless the State Govt stumps up the same sort of cash the eagles and dockers generate and that will never happen, in you deluded socialist vision of the world money is never a factor in the control of entities, when in fact it is the key tool.

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

premiership hangover wrote: Swan, how does someone on the AFL commission being from WA supposed to benefit WA. Every decision he made was around his role with the AFL not WAFL, can you expand on why you thought the WAFL would get a good run from Fitzpatrick being on the commission

PH I didn't actually say that I expected Fitzpatrick to help the WAFL. It was in the context that as he was from WA and we have not received any help that a change wouldn't make a difference.

As to what the AFL could do is pretty simple to answer. If they would commit a fraction of what they spend to prop GWS,Brisbane and Gold Coast it would enable the WAFL clubs to be financially viable and commit to increasing their efforts in developing and expanding the future aussie rules players. This in turn would help improve the standard of the players drafted to the AFL. It could be a win for the WAFL and a win for the AFL. But no, what they want to do is to have total control of footy in WA to the detriment of the WAFL, its history, clubs, players and supporters.

What will be interesting is if D Commetti does in fact spend more time supporting West Perth and going to their games. He may be one of the few who will be able to articulate the need to ensure that the WAFL and its history remain and not go the way of the dodo.

Swan I don't quite understand how you have not grasp the concept yet that the AFL priority is firmly with the AFL NOT the WAFL, GWS Gold Coast etc are all AFL ventures for the AFL that is what they do build their own business , the WAFL is not part of their business plan. They have no interest in the WAFL apart from steam rolling it, as do the two local franchises who in turn control the WAFC. What part of that do you not get?

Bazza what I don't get is your inability or unwillingness to understand simple English. Secondly, come the change of government there may be a change where the WAFC is TOLD by the STate Government to start looking after the interests of the WAFL. A pretty simple concept really

As I say, you fail to get a grip on the fact the AFL will never do what you dream them of doing as you have no grip on the fundamentals, just like your mythical view about the WAFC and the State Gov. which will never happen unless the State Govt stumps up the same sort of cash the eagles and dockers generate and that will never happen, in you deluded socialist vision of the world money is never a factor in the control of entities, when in fact it the key tool.

Here is a simple thing that the state government could do: for each of the two WA domiciled AFL qualifying matches the state government could make available for each of the non-aligned WAFL clubs 200 tickets per club for each match that the WAFL clubs sell and provide the clubs with an extra revenue stream.

Would the eagles and dockers agree to that? I doubt it - and if they didn't what power would the state gov have on ordering those two to hand over ticket revenues to other bodies?

Interesting timing from the chairman with this news just coming outta Melb....hemmmmm


Essendon saga: Supreme Court writ lodged against Gillon McLachlan and Mike Fitzpatrick:

Melbourne lawyer Jackson Taylor has lodged a writ against outgoing AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick and chief executive Gillon McLachlan, alleging acts of deceptive or misleading conduct during Essendon's supplements saga.
Taylor has lodged papers in the Victorian Supreme Court, and now awaits an AFL response.
The statement of claim includes allegations the AFL deceived the public over both the integrity of the joint investigation conducted by the AFL and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) and the AFL's responsibilities for player health and safety.
It cites interviews McLachlan has done with journalists and alleges "the AFL contributed significantly to the exposure of players to risks to their health and safety" by failing to regulate against the use of peptides before September 2012.
Taylor also takes aim Fitzpatrick over claims Fitzpatrick had said former Essendon coach James Hird would "never" be allowed back into football.
Taylor failed to get to court because of a lack of funds when he initially lodged papers against the AFL in September, 2015, with the league successfully seeking an order for security of costs. But this time Taylor believes he will have enough financial support to have McLachlan and Fitzpatrick take to the stand.
"You would be right to ask me: 'If they rubbed you out last time, how do you think your chances are better this time?' This time I think there are people out there who are concerned enough about the conduct, they will back me if the AFL does get an order for security," Taylor said on Wednesday.
"The whole thing feels differently now. I think there are people out there now who would be willing to fund this litigation to force the AFL to confront the accusations made against them."
Fitzpatrick, having revealed on Wednesday he was stepping down from the top role, said the AFL had no regrets over the manner in which it handled a saga that led to a doping suspension of 34 players and ultimately appears to have ended the AFL careers of Hird, former football-department chief Danny Corcoran and Hird's senior assistant, Mark Thompson.
"The ultimate end game is to have a trial and to allow the public to have clarification the ways in which the AFL mishandled the investigation, including the way it treated Hird, Corcoran and Thompson," Taylor said.
Taylor has worked with Arnold Bloch Leibler in Melbourne and Latham and Watkins in London.
A request to the AFL for comment was not successful.
-Timing of Fitzpatrick resigning makes sense now..

Bazza wrote: Would the eagles and dockers agree to that? I doubt it - and if they didn't what power would the state gov have on ordering those two to hand over ticket revenues to other bodies?

To put it eloquently IT HAS STUFF ALL to do with the two WA domiciled AFL teams.