TOPIC:

The decision was not up to Gavin.
The AFL made the call after the VFL was delayed.
It's the part time nature of the playing group.
Easier for the AFL Clubs to isolate their players.

Not sure what the hysteria is about.
We are in uncertain times.

Maybe PFC is ahead of their time.
They had already cancelled a function.

DD wrote: Ok I’ve made enquires with the club via email, won’t say who but it comes down to this.

1. Because WAFL players are semi professional and have jobs and or go to tertiary education they are much more in contact with the general public and therefore a higher risk.
2. AFL players being full time footballers it is considered clubs can limit players contact with the general public therefore lessen the risk.
3. The game relies heavily on TV broadcast rights and therefore the AFL want to produce a product that the broadcasters can televise and obviously get a return on their investment.

These are my words but that is the gist of it.

I agree with the reasons that have been outlined in your post DD. I would love the WAFL to start up but it's going to cost them more in the long run to hire staff, security etc to make sure there is a limit of 500 etc at the game and they are all reasonably spaced apart.

WAFL clubs rely on money from the WAFC which is generated from AFL matches being played. If there are no AFL matches then this revenue ceases to exist. Yes clubs still make money from bar and merchandise sales but apparently rely more on the former than they do the latter for their revenue streams.

These are different times that we live in and this virus is going to affect every single person in this world in some way or another.

Football in Western Australia could look very different in 2021.

If we are allowed to play WAFL from May 31st onwards, could the WAFL season still go ahead as planned just obviously starting and finishing later. Most of the grounds as far as I know aren't used a lot during the summer. Or at least used enough that you couldn't work the fixtures around if something was happening at Leederville or Moss Street etc on one particular weekend.

The biggest sticking point would be crowd numbers. If we are allowed 500 or less then I can't see it happening, but if things improve a little over the next 11 weeks then there is still a possibility, no matter how small, that we might get a season.

Stand the Test. If Gavin Taylor came out and said the exact same things that Gil did and that the WAFL was postponed until after May 31st would you still have an issue?

Or is your issue purely with Gil and the fact this decision was made by the AFL and not the WAFL?

Yes you are all correct, it's all about money. The WAFL cant survive without the WA AFL teams money, so the AFL comp happening is a good thing for the clubs.

It would be pointless (yes totally disappointing) for the part time WAFL to proceed with the now crowd limit of 100, which will be taken up by players officials and support staff. There would be virtually no income generated from a closed game, in fact it would be negative. Our part time players have day jobs so by playing and training are obviously put at a higher risk than if they didnt do those activities, that is indisputable.

I am shattered that the comp is almost 100% not going to happen but I vote in favour of protecting the players, rather than selfishly pushing for them to play.

WAFL clubs are big parts of their local communities and country zones so the WA Govt MUST look at the comp and the clubs as any other business affected by the virus and provide financial support and it needs to go right the way down the line to Ammos, juniors and country footy, it's part of our societies fabric and must be protected.

Roman wrote:

Stand the Test wrote: Why can’t the WAFL start?

Exactly tell us why Gavin? We are all waiting.
We don't have to travel. Thus we are low risk of contracting the virus.
We don't draw the crowds. Thus we are low risk.
C'mon Gavin come out of the closet and tell us why?

It's not only about crowds Roman which are now reduced to max 100, it's more the players and staff who are considered a higher risk than those of AFL clubs. AFL players are full time so they can in effect live in a cocoon if they need to, clubs will look after them.

Fremantle have moved their training base to Optus Stadium, the girls will stay at Cockburn. That's just an example of what AFL clubs can do. WAFL players are no different to you and I, they have jobs to make ends meet therefore are as vulnerable as the rest of us.

Senior Seagull wrote: Yes you are all correct, it's all about money. The WAFL cant survive without the WA AFL teams money, so the AFL comp happening is a good thing for the clubs.

It would be pointless (yes totally disappointing) for the part time WAFL to proceed with the now crowd limit of 100, which will be taken up by players officials and support staff. There would be virtually no income generated from a closed game, in fact it would be negative. Our part time players have day jobs so by playing and training are obviously put at a higher risk than if they didnt do those activities, that is indisputable.

I am shattered that the comp is almost 100% not going to happen but I vote in favour of protecting the players, rather than selfishly pushing for them to play.

WAFL clubs are big parts of their local communities and country zones so the WA Govt MUST look at the comp and the clubs as any other business affected by the virus and provide financial support and it needs to go right the way down the line to Ammos, juniors and country footy, it's part of our societies fabric and must be protected.

Spot on the broadcasters have to get a return on their investment otherwise they can withdraw the cheque and that will leave a massive black hole in the game that will have a devastating effect all the way down the line to grass roots football.

From memory it's still a maximum of 500 for outside events but down to 100 for inside. So WAFL games could in theory have 100 players, coaches, support staff, officials etc and 400 supporters. If the supporters were restricted to home team members coming through one gate so they can be counted on a first come first served basis and prepared to pay say $25 entry fee then it would give the club $10k in revenue plus bar sales etc.

Thanks BC, got that wrong ... at the moment, but as the virus takes a stronger hold that number will drop even below 100, countries in Europe are implementing public gatherings anywhere limited to 5 !!!

BC wrote: From memory it's still a maximum of 500 for outside events but down to 100 for inside. So WAFL games could in theory have 100 players, coaches, support staff, officials etc and 400 supporters. If the supporters were restricted to home team members coming through one gate so they can be counted on a first come first served basis and prepared to pay say $25 entry fee then it would give the club $10k in revenue plus bar sales etc.

Fair enough BC but my mail is it's more about risk to players and staff than crowds.