TOPIC:

La Hincha wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote:

La Hincha wrote: And they lost a pile early in the pre-season season when it become clear the AFL players would get priority.

Clint Garlett, Bryce Thornton, Eddie Dann, Mitch Keddell, Rhett Mason, Matt Battye - come to mind. Some of those blokes could really play.

I spoke to a few parents down at Peel and at least according to them, the allignment is hated.

Interestingly Clint Garlett was in the Swans rooms after the match vs SF last week ..I for one have no feelings for them as Peel & EP have made their beds now they have to lie in them ..at least for the next 5 years!

Yeah nor do I.

In fact, because their list is allowed to be the same size as the G7 clubs plus their AFL players, they can keep these blokes registered, thus making it a requirement that other WAFL clubs have to pay big money to obtain the services of a Clint Garlett for example.

This needs to change ASAP. Their list should be reduced to 35 plus supps.

The G7 clubs have 55 plus supps.

Yeah it is a joke LH & I know for a fact that Peel were being pr!cks about paying Swans the transfer fees after they poached Motlop & Jacky from us over the summer so I would doubt they would let any of their listed players who have walked away from them go for nothing even tho they dont really want them other than for back up when the Freo crew are unavailable for whatever reason!

waflrules wrote: The alignment will actually make it worse. Why would a player stay at Peel knowing that he is going to get overlooked week in week out for a Freo player who may not yet be as good. They can go country just down the road and get paid a lot more. THe only players they will have in their 2's next year are the groupies who want to say they are at a league club.

Not sure that the Peel alignment will make anything worse than it already is for Peel. They have over the years lost players on a regular basis and tried to replace them from other clubs with c graders, those players who are in the ressies, may get the odd league game.

The traditionally have had a reasonable colts process but that seems to be failing (although the have beat us yesterday and have rolled EF and the tiggers this year).

Fundamentally the club is in the wrong place, it far enough away from Perth to make it just to hard to get to and their zone is just close enough to the country for players who are on the fringe to get better money elsewhere.

The saving for them is that the dickers will be at cockburn and if they have any sense they will move upthere to train and only play at rashtin park for matches.

La Hincha wrote:

DG wrote:

La Hincha wrote: Most of them are floating around in the Peel league but because Peel have kept them registered in most cases it would require a rival club to pay a fee for their services.

I think we should approach Rhett Mason but it would cost something.

Is he a local or from east?

He's a local lad. He played state 18's for WA. Absolute gun colts player and has played 28 league games before he quit as a 21 year old. I think his family might barrack for Subi as well. (I think, can't confirm)

Cool yeah we should jump on it mate.

Motlop, Jacky & Cruize Garlett.

They certainly went overboard before the WAFL could change the rules.

Well it's done them no good.

The best place for them is in the PEEL league where they belong.

They are a basket case.

La Hincha wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote:

La Hincha wrote: And they lost a pile early in the pre-season season when it become clear the AFL players would get priority.

Clint Garlett, Bryce Thornton, Eddie Dann, Mitch Keddell, Rhett Mason, Matt Battye - come to mind. Some of those blokes could really play.

I spoke to a few parents down at Peel and at least according to them, the allignment is hated.

Interestingly Clint Garlett was in the Swans rooms after the match vs SF last week ..I for one have no feelings for them as Peel & EP have made their beds now they have to lie in them ..at least for the next 5 years!

Yeah nor do I.

In fact, because their list is allowed to be the same size as the G7 clubs plus their AFL players, they can keep these blokes registered, thus making it a requirement that other WAFL clubs have to pay big money to obtain the services of a Clint Garlett for example.

This needs to change ASAP. Their list should be reduced to 35 plus supps.

The G7 clubs have 55 plus supps.

nice theory lahincha but it won't work.wafl rules state a minimum of 55 players and a maximum 130 players so long as they are all local zone players.most clubs started the year with 60-70 players.only two have more then 60 swans and claremont.funnilly if my arithmetic is correct perth are one short.

on your reasoning east freo should have only a list of 35 as they have 18 afl listed dockers and eagles listed players but would rarely have a handfull of afl listed players playing.it won't be a easy problem to fix.as far as i know the senior list minus afl listed players is thus.

swans 71
claremont 64
east freo 59
west perth 58
east perth 57
subi 57
south freo 55
peel 55
perth 54

a lot of players drifting back to minor leagues me thinks plus injuries which might be peels problems.not the only club over the years who have had trouble fielding a reserves side midway thru the year.might have been too ambitious with the recruiting which may have come back to bite them.

This sounds like Perth have it right. Time for a Flag.

Time For a Flag wrote: This sounds like Perth have it right. Time for a Flag.

i think perth's list is pretty current.has jarryd morton on it and looks like 54 but each club is allowed 6 supplimentary players so one might be making the total 55.this time of the year players of all clubs who are not making headway have a decision as to whether they go country and make more money or make up the numbers in the reserves.

chaddy22 wrote:

La Hincha wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote:

La Hincha wrote: And they lost a pile early in the pre-season season when it become clear the AFL players would get priority.

Clint Garlett, Bryce Thornton, Eddie Dann, Mitch Keddell, Rhett Mason, Matt Battye - come to mind. Some of those blokes could really play.

I spoke to a few parents down at Peel and at least according to them, the allignment is hated.

Interestingly Clint Garlett was in the Swans rooms after the match vs SF last week ..I for one have no feelings for them as Peel & EP have made their beds now they have to lie in them ..at least for the next 5 years!

Yeah nor do I.

In fact, because their list is allowed to be the same size as the G7 clubs plus their AFL players, they can keep these blokes registered, thus making it a requirement that other WAFL clubs have to pay big money to obtain the services of a Clint Garlett for example.

This needs to change ASAP. Their list should be reduced to 35 plus supps.

The G7 clubs have 55 plus supps.

nice theory lahincha but it won't work.wafl rules state a minimum of 55 players and a maximum 130 players so long as they are all local zone players.most clubs started the year with 60-70 players.only two have more then 60 swans and claremont.funnilly if my arithmetic is correct perth are one short.

on your reasoning east freo should have only a list of 35 as they have 18 afl listed dockers and eagles listed players but would rarely have a handfull of afl listed players playing.it won't be a easy problem to fix.as far as i know the senior list minus afl listed players is thus.

swans 71
claremont 64
east freo 59
west perth 58
east perth 57
subi 57
south freo 55
peel 55
perth 54

a lot of players drifting back to minor leagues me thinks plus injuries which might be peels problems.not the only club over the years who have had trouble fielding a reserves side midway thru the year.might have been too ambitious with the recruiting which may have come back to bite them.

Umm, no EF might have had access to 18 AFL listed players but that's like saying EP and PT will have access to 44 each next year.

Rest assured the number of listed players EP and PT will have next year is coming down from 55. You can take that to the bank right now.

DG wrote: Where have all these blokes gone??? What a waste.

Pat Travers you can add to that list also .

La Hincha wrote:

chaddy22 wrote:

La Hincha wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote:

La Hincha wrote: And they lost a pile early in the pre-season season when it become clear the AFL players would get priority.

Clint Garlett, Bryce Thornton, Eddie Dann, Mitch Keddell, Rhett Mason, Matt Battye - come to mind. Some of those blokes could really play.

I spoke to a few parents down at Peel and at least according to them, the allignment is hated.

Interestingly Clint Garlett was in the Swans rooms after the match vs SF last week ..I for one have no feelings for them as Peel & EP have made their beds now they have to lie in them ..at least for the next 5 years!

Yeah nor do I.

In fact, because their list is allowed to be the same size as the G7 clubs plus their AFL players, they can keep these blokes registered, thus making it a requirement that other WAFL clubs have to pay big money to obtain the services of a Clint Garlett for example.

This needs to change ASAP. Their list should be reduced to 35 plus supps.

The G7 clubs have 55 plus supps.

nice theory lahincha but it won't work.wafl rules state a minimum of 55 players and a maximum 130 players so long as they are all local zone players.most clubs started the year with 60-70 players.only two have more then 60 swans and claremont.funnilly if my arithmetic is correct perth are one short.

on your reasoning east freo should have only a list of 35 as they have 18 afl listed dockers and eagles listed players but would rarely have a handfull of afl listed players playing.it won't be a easy problem to fix.as far as i know the senior list minus afl listed players is thus.

swans 71
claremont 64
east freo 59
west perth 58
east perth 57
subi 57
south freo 55
peel 55
perth 54

a lot of players drifting back to minor leagues me thinks plus injuries which might be peels problems.not the only club over the years who have had trouble fielding a reserves side midway thru the year.might have been too ambitious with the recruiting which may have come back to bite them.

Umm, no EF might have had access to 18 AFL listed players but that's like saying EP and PT will have access to 44 each next year.

Rest assured the number of listed players EP and PT will have next year is coming down from 55. You can take that to the bank right now.

still think 35 is unrealistic you can't control how many afl players you will have.i think last week 15 eagles played wafl but only 7 dockers.on this theory peel would have only 42 to make a league and reserves side last week.if they do make a restiction i think 45-50 would be more realistic.