TOPIC:

Disco Knight,
Do you believe it is cheating if a colts player pays $100 fees and senior players pay $200, as it isnt the same ?
If a first year player gets a pair of shorts and a polo shirt thrown in with their fees and no one else does, is this classed as cheating as well ?

There wouldnt be many teams left playing under your regime.

Rug,

Cheers for your input and I want to emphasise again I am not taking a shot at any club.

I have an issue with the rules and how they are written and the WAAFL choosing to ping some clubs and not others.

The rules clearly state you cannot do this full stop.

When it suits the competition and their integrity officer they trot our the club breached this rule dadadada etc etc.

Other clubs have clearly done this and good on them for having a crack at securing youth etc but as per the rules they are in breach.

I want to the league to actually fix the problem not create more ambiguity with the old "Its ok for some clubs to do it"

If I was a club that had been hit up and fined / sanctioned whatever I would be rolling out this argument and ask for an explanation?

I hope you guys can see where I am coming from and again I am talking about the rules not any clubs.

God knows we need the numbers to keep the comp as good as can be.

Do you guys have any suggestions?

Disco Knight,
So under your interpretation of the WAAFL laws you believe both of my previous questions should be penalised the same as a club that is clearly targeting players with incentives to have success.

I think we all agree there has been huge differences in penalties given to the clubs caught breaking the rules in the last few years and the waafl pick and choose.

But i don't understand how you can compare a club that is deliberately attracting quality players to clubs out there that are struggling for players especially colts and are happy to have a player of any ability with reduced fees. I would presume nearly every club in the competition would have cheaper fees for colts to seniors.

Rug,

Read the amateur status guidelines re expenses permissable.

www.waafl.com.au/resources/downloads/56/...es-and-constitutions

It states you can do it but it's the whole club or none?

Thats the point I am making.

If they want colts to be different or allow it write it down that way.

Disco,
Which by-law are you referring to, i couldn't find it?

Rug,

You could easily interpret that to mean charging a "lower" match day or membership fee to a colt than to a senior player is against the rules.
As far as I am aware ALL CLUBS do that!

What an absolute nonsense approach!

If you refer to Amateur Status Guidelines it states the following:
Expenses
Any expense directly associated with playing for
the club provided the expense is offered to all
players and not to individuals or a specific group of
players such as colts players.
E.g; club branded uniforms and bag, football
boots, mouthguard, insurance, membership fees,
tickets to the club dinner, meals after training, out
of pocket costs incurred as a result of football
injuries sustained whilst playing for the club.
Any expenses not directly associated with playing
for the club. This includes the provision of in-kind
services.
E.g; building, landscaping, professional services,
fuel, other travel related expenses or
accommodation

Ill buy into this, Legally there is a difference in paying someone to play, and choosing not to charge fees. I would like to see this decision challenged in the courts

By paying someone to play you are paying for their skills or expertise, that is clearly against the rules of the association

By saying to someone that you can play here for free is a club choice and should be made by clubs based on their financial situation.

I know Lynwood has come up a few times here so lets discuss them,

I don't believe they are doing anything wrong by saying if you play for us your first year of fees is free. The players respect that as they all had that rule when they joined the club, and because of the way Lynwood has set their club up, (they own their premises so they don't have to rent social rooms of councils each year) then if they save money this way why cant they use that by investing in the playing group of their club and lowering the fees the ask people to pay.

I'm sure ill get shot down but legally it would be an interesting debate

Preacher and PH,
Thanks for actually reading stuff.
I agree with both of you and think it should actually be rewritten to allow clubs to cater for colts.

Changing the bylaws for colts still leaves a lot of grey areas. Clearly our views on cheating are very different and luckily there is a thing called common sense. But next time the opposition give me a free beer or the club puts on a free sausage sizzle, I hope you boys don't dob me in for receiving remuneration.

Disco I agree entirely with what you have suggested. I also want the league to actually fix the problem.

For a start allow clubs to determine who & how they impose fees for match day & memberships.and on what basis they provide club uniforms.

There are several other rules which need to be modified to allow "sensible" payments to respect to:
(1) The senior club coach
(2) Merit based match days awards