TOPIC:

Clubs that have 6 or more teams are able to get substantially more sponsorship and membership income,which enables them to substantial improve the Club facilities and enable them to attract the most professional and medical support for their players, particularly around their most senior team.

I really cannot see how the three team club will ever be able to compete with the established clubs that are currently fielding 6 to 8 teams.

If we are hell bent on introducing a points system then why isn't anybody talking about limiting the number of teams that each club can field.

If that happens then we may finally have a level playing field!!

Well said Hawkeye, I think this suggestion is especially important at colts age group, some clubs have 2 colts sides and other clubs that are just up the road cant get enough kids for 1 team. I reckon the first step is to make it one colts team per club, this will naturally spread out some of the talent at a younger age and even up the comp.

That said I do like your idea about the number of teams a club can nominate

That's a very simplistic and incorrect assessment of the situation.

All of the big clubs have been around for several decades and started out as 1 or 2 team clubs and have grown for several reasons. Some of the big clubs also have some of the worst facilities. A few have received upgrades recently but not many.

A cap on team numbers will not work for a number of reasons. You assume that by limiting team numbers that players unable to play at one club will automatically go to another club. they chose their club over other clubs in their area for a number of possible reasons. How many players are we going to lose to football? Most players in the big clubs lowest grades aren't there to push into their top teams but just have a social kick on the weekend. The big clubs aren't pulling any quality away from smaller clubs.

Most club revenue such as sponsorship and bar income is gained around clubs top 2 or 3 sides. Most of the big clubs lower grades would operate at a loss or at best be cost neutral with rego fees and sponsorship lucky to cover WAAFL affiliation fees, umpires and coaches etc.

The question that should be asked is what are these big clubs doing right that other smaller clubs can learn from? Answers will involve good management committees, volunteer engagement to support all teams, positive club culture etc etc.

In our area, all (6) clubs have 1 colts team and 2 clubs have 2 colts sides. The smallest club has 3 senior teams with the largest having 6 senior teams. Where would these players go to play if clubs were only allowed 1 colts and 2 senior teams? There is not enough full sized ovals or clubrooms to support any extra clubs in our area.

A team cap will only disadvantage the well run clubs and reward the poorly run clubs in the short term. Long term we would lose more players than we benefit.

I dont see how this can possibly be changed, at the end of the day all clubs aspire to become strong powerhouse A Grade clubs. Limiting clubs to a certain amount of teams is not the answer, clubs have to have aspirations to nurture their local talent such as players from their Junior Clubs. For example Nth Beach who are the largest club field teams in A, A Res, PSC, BJC, D1, D1 Res, D2 & D2 res. Nth Beach have the large club they do due to their success, at the end of the day young kids want to be playing A grade football. But what i dont agree with is when clubs have the power to work as alignment clubs which bring talent from outside their local area. North Beach have 3 Junior Clubs aligned to them, North Beach JFC, Warwick Greenwood JFC, and Sorrento Duncraig JFC (The Largest Junior Club in WA). This should not be occuring, young kids from Warwick Greenwood should be looking at clubs such as Kingsley & Kingsway, it is no where near North Beach. Plus for North Beach to have Sorrento Duncraig kids streaming straight into their club is huge for them.

Would love to hear everyone elses thoughts?

Clubs should be free to expand, but in my opinion a club with 1 full size oval should only have a maximum of 4 senior sides and 2 colts sides, alternating home game fixtures. If they have a second full size ground with facilities, they can obviously have more teams.

Whitford's second ground that was used by their 5th's a couple of years ago is a primary school ground suitable only for AFL 9's. We've also played at grounds where there is nothing more than an empty change room for each team, which while it doesn't sound that bad, if you aren't aware before you go there, you fail to pack all of the things that a football team might require for a game.

On a side note, I don't agree with the fixturing of night home games throughout the entire season for any one team, especially when the reason given is due to lack of an alternate ground for day fixtures.

Hawk Eye maybe I'm wrong but isn't the Promotion and Relegation system "The Level Playing Field" that we already have in place. In my opinion, it has worked extremely well in the WAAFL competition.

If your team is good enough then you progress through the grades.If you are not then hopefully you are playing sides that are your equal in their quality and depth.

It seems to me, that teams like North Beach who are driving the charge have an axe to grind and are behaving in a way that suggests THEY view themselves as having higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case with everybody else.

Their manipulation of and securing of a significant number of junior clubs within a 15k radius of their oval, suggests otherwise.

Having never complained about the system during their ten years of A Grade success or ever been subject to any sort of scrutiny the "old guard" are crying foul.

As ex Eagle David Hynes hasn't delivered for the club over the past five years, then I suppose Plan B was inevitable.

Good to see your distain for North Beach hasn't softened Big Al, despite Trinity Aquinas finally breaking through and having success at A Grade level this year.

Success comes with a cost and higher levels of scrutiny is one of those costs, though I'm not sure you've had any extra scrutiny placed on you this year as TAs been in the spotlight for many years, probably as far back as when you won your first B Grade flag, maybe longer. Though you may have had a few extra questions asked for appointing a coach for the last 2 seasons who it would be fair to say, didn't do a lot of coaching on game days.

You're right, North Beach never had an issue during their success nor did they have an issue when University dominated for the following 5 years, but a number of clubs (70% of clubs responded that the WAAFL had an considerable issue with player payments and as such the integrity of the competition) took exception to a few clubs, with TAs leading way who had a questionably high number of former AFL and WAFL League players of note on your list.

Lets not kid ourselves, at least 6 of these players are worth more at WAFL or in the country than the $15k you can offer a player-coach each season. Andrew Embley was selling himself off at $5k in 2014 to play a one-off game and speak at the club that night...but he played a hand full of games at TAs in 2015 for free? Surely your private school education should tell you that something doesn't add up?

But you keep trying to deflect any scrutiny away from TA by suggesting that North Beach pulls players from 15km away and from all points of the compass when the reality is that most players are local juniors who grew up within a few kms. Cause I'm sure all of TAs players live in Como? Or does Tas budget include a Como housing allowance?

"Though you may have had a few extra questions asked for appointing a coach for the last 2 seasons who it would be fair to say, didn't do a lot of coaching on game days."

This has to be the most ignorant thing anyone has said on this forum in a long time.

Some fairly insane arguments being shared here!!

questioning size of clubs, size of ovals, opposition to providing a pathway for juniors.. totally insane. We are community football, we cater for players out in the community who want to play football at whatever level. Clubs should aspire to be what serves the club & community best.

Vicko - Whitfords overflow ground is not a school oval, the WAAFL does indorse it, its not ideal but I am sure a 5th grade side can handle it. You need to ask what is the alternative? turn players away? send them to another club that could potentially have well known cultural issues?

Everyone has whinged about the payment of players, its very well documented on here.. the WAAFL is now addressing concerns the best way they know how by looking what other leagues do.

4 of the larger clubs in the WAAFL Nth Beach, Scarborogh, Nth Fremantle & Whitford are bordered by the indian ocean yet still manage to thrive in numbers. Its because they don't just rock up to play football, they are active in the community and have a large presence, people want to play for them.

It seems more and more clubs are taking the plunge into 'if you can't beat em join em' category with a usually well known club for doing things by the book now entering questionable territoryr. Kalamunda has 'somehow' signed Justin Simpson from Swans. A player who would fetch massive $$ elsewhere and would have been on considerable match payments had he stayed in the WAFL. Then the announcement of Brett Robinson from Subiaco. Duel premiership player who left swans where he was on high match payments to take more $ at Subiaco. These two signings wouldn't be coming cheap.

The points system must be brought in now. The evidence is now outrageous. Anyone on here defending any club should pull there head out of their ass. Nearly every A and B grade club is guilty of player payments and clubs as low as C4 are paying players. One club based just north of Fremantle is offering a local rivals best player more than $400 a game.

Points systems have had significant succsss in country leagues and deserve a go in the WAAFL. Pay players such as you want, it will limit the number of players from outside your club with experience at high levels you can sign.

The fact is, paying players is cheating and all premierships won with one or more players paid outside of the rules is not deserved.