TOPIC:

It is time to call out the lie that is the host club alignment. What was the rationale the two WA domiciled AFL clubs put forward as the reason for the host club alignment? Wasn't it to fast track the development of the players to make them more accomplished players sooner and as a result ensure the success of the two WA domiciled AFL clubs? Well what an outstanding success it has been. The Dockers languishing out of the 8 in seasons 2016 and 2017 and the Eagles losing in the first week of the finals last year and the flattest of flat track bullies in season 2017.

Oh and let's not forget that Priddis is so opposed to the prospect of playing for East Perth in the WAFL he is wiling to give up a conservative $450,000 - $500,000 in 2018 he will retire at the end of this season.

By this metric of success, the WAFC is the greatest organising body EVER in the world.

I believe Peel & East Perf should be allow to play who they like providing they are listed players. HOWEVER no player who plays 5 or more AFL games during the season is eligible to play finals in the WAFL unless their affiliated Club also plays that weekend in the AFL

swan42 wrote: It is time to call out the lie that is the host club alignment. What was the rationale the two WA domiciled AFL clubs put forward as the reason for the host club alignment? Wasn't it to fast track the development of the players to make them more accomplished players sooner and as a result ensure the success of the two WA domiciled AFL clubs? Well what an outstanding success it has been. The Dockers languishing out of the 8 in seasons 2016 and 2017 and the Eagles losing in the first week of the finals last year and the flattest of flat track bullies in season 2017.

Oh and let's not forget that Priddis is so opposed to the prospect of playing for East Perth in the WAFL he is wiling to give up a conservative $450,000 - $500,000 in 2018 he will retire at the end of this season.

By this metric of success, the WAFC is the greatest organising body EVER in the world.

Why should Priddis be entitled to a payout if he thinks he should be a protected species and not accept a different role and be exempt from being dropped to the WAFL? If you are on the big coin you have got to accept if your form doesn't warrant selection or the usual time you are used to in the midfield and you don't want to play for East Perth in the WAFL then why should you be entitled to a payout?

DD wrote:

swan42 wrote: It is time to call out the lie that is the host club alignment. What was the rationale the two WA domiciled AFL clubs put forward as the reason for the host club alignment? Wasn't it to fast track the development of the players to make them more accomplished players sooner and as a result ensure the success of the two WA domiciled AFL clubs? Well what an outstanding success it has been. The Dockers languishing out of the 8 in seasons 2016 and 2017 and the Eagles losing in the first week of the finals last year and the flattest of flat track bullies in season 2017.

Oh and let's not forget that Priddis is so opposed to the prospect of playing for East Perth in the WAFL he is wiling to give up a conservative $450,000 - $500,000 in 2018 he will retire at the end of this season.

By this metric of success, the WAFC is the greatest organising body EVER in the world.

Why should Priddis be entitled to a payout if he thinks he should be a protected species and not accept a different role and be exempt from being dropped to the WAFL? If you are on the big coin you have got to accept if your form doesn't warrant selection or the usual time you are used to in the midfield and you don't want to play for East Perth in the WAFL then why should you be entitled to a payout?

Who said he should be entitled to a payout?

Ok sorry I heard on radio I Hagdorn saying he and WC have come to a settlement I obviously skimmed over your post.

Huge kudos to Priddis for reportedly being very unwilling to play for east Perth considering his Subi links
And DD its simple, Priddis should be entitled to a payout because West Coast gave him a new contract (for reasons unknown) and approximately six or seven weeks later changed their mind. It's pretty obvious it wasn't entirely his decision to retire

It aint no lie, its actually happened, check it out.

Both local AFL franchise are on a fast train to no where, treading water or going backwards.

The 2 Vic coaches and their majority Vic assistants are just doing a marvellous job at the minute...a cynic/conspiracy theorist would suggest it could well be an inside job so that the "white knight" afl have to come in and take over the running of WA footy much like the 18s-Colts situation!

I don't think either Vic coaches will be taking those two mobs any further.

Simmos leading them straight down the ladder ever since a fluke GF appearance..

The bloke that needs to go at WC is Trevor Nisbet. The bloke hangs around like a bad smell, it must smell of stale air in the office corridors there. They need new blood at the top. They should have appointed Sumich who had done his apprenticeship but they thought they would be smarter than that and get a Victorian and probably fell for the wraps on him from the east when the bloke they should have given the job to was right under their nose and now they will probably dig their stubborn heels in and back him in for the long haul to try and justify their decision.

The Perth Wildcats had a CEO of many years (not as many as Trevor) and it was his job as long as he wanted it but after back to back championships he decided it was time for him to leave the organisation and seek new challenges and allow someone new into the club. Some people are just selfish and want to hog it until they turn their toes up.