TOPIC:

Factor opinion wrote: The answers are in the Rules www.wafc.com.au/resources/46/wafl
Check out Rule 2.1.2(d).
In the end the examples given (Lee and Ledger) are not particularly good ones because they each are at least 7 points on WAFL games played anyway

We had another perfect example in 2019 the de-listed rookie Tony Olongo who was very raw and green and was no way worth his allocated 10 point value.

The player points probably do need to be revisited over the Summer RL.
How well are Claremont travelling when they can carry ex AFL players like Lee, Ledger, Curran etc in their Reserves side all year?!

Beasley Hutton wrote: The player points probably do need to be revisited over the Summer RL.
How well are Claremont travelling when they can carry ex AFL players like Lee, Ledger, Curran etc in their Reserves side all year?!

Yes B.H. they have tremendous depth and are perennial colts finalists but they do need to rejig the points cap.

I'm not sure the points in the rules need to be reviewed. I assume that they are set to encourage WAFL clubs to develop from within. Olango might show that EP made a mistake using 10 points on a player who did not represent value, but it does not mean that the rule is wrong.
Claremont are in a great position to have players from their zone who return to them and are prepared to play in their "development" team as CFC call the reserves. It could be part of the reason behind the improvement in players like England. It could also show the merit of the 10 point rule as other clubs are less likely to recruit ex-AFL players unless the "value" they represent is equal to the quality of League football that they play.

Factor opinion wrote: I'm not sure the points in the rules need to be reviewed. I assume that they are set to encourage WAFL clubs to develop from within. Olango might show that EP made a mistake using 10 points on a player who did not represent value, but it does not mean that the rule is wrong.
Claremont are in a great position to have players from their zone who return to them and are prepared to play in their "development" team as CFC call the reserves. It could be part of the reason behind the improvement in players like England. It could also show the merit of the 10 point rule as other clubs are less likely to recruit ex-AFL players unless the "value" they represent is equal to the quality of League football that they play.

Its good to have the capacity to develop with in but when you only have 8 junior clubs in your junior district i'm not sure thats very feasible particularly if your after any on field success.

All the more reason to use the points wisely. The rules do not take account of poor list management decisions. Presumably they expect the points to be used well. EP have more total points than other clubs.
Zoned players also include the country zone, so its not just 8 clubs, but EP does have a tiny metro zone. They do have 6 in the state 16s and 1 in state 18s from that metro zone plus 5 country 18s.

Points aside what needs to be addressed is that Claremont can claim borders from 3 big private schools in their zone, Hale, Scotch and Christchurch as their own, when these lads should be tied to their parents home address. Fyfe should have been a WP district player. it should apply to all borders at private schools, Guildford grammar, Wesley, Aquinas etc.

The rules are here www.wafc.com.au/resources/46/wafl
See rules 1.2 and 10.
I don't think it matters which school you go to. I am not sure how Fyfe got to Claremont from Aquinas college (which is not in Claremont's metro zone), so you could be right in that case but there are plenty of borders in Perth (at schools in Claremont's zone) that play for WAFL clubs other than Claremont.

Senior Seagull wrote: Points aside what needs to be addressed is that Claremont can claim borders from 3 big private schools in their zone, Hale, Scotch and Christchurch as their own, when these lads should be tied to their parents home address. Fyfe should have been a WP district player. it should apply to all borders at private schools, Guildford grammar, Wesley, Aquinas etc.

Fyfe is from Lake Grace - Claremont zone. If a bloke goes to Scotch but comes from, say, Kalgoorlie, then he'd be a Subi zoned player. Schools have nothing to do with your zoning, it's your residential address SS.

when did the rules change that a school and not a residential address determines where a kid plays ?
Fyfe is from Lake Grace which is in Claremont's zone.