TOPIC:

Subi going after Giro apparently. I hope they don't get him.  I agree with BC-  somehow limit recruiting by ladder position. Otherwise adjust salary cap ( do we have those?) And player points by ladder position.  Tilt the playing field by ladder somehow. The zones aren't fair but can't really be adjusted because of geographic facts. 

BC, JL, agree with your proposals. I wouldn't have an outright ban on recruiting from clubs lower on the ladder, rather a points/transfer fee loading. I think a ban might encounter some restraint of trade problems. Plus it would be unfair on clubs around the same level not to be able to recruit. For example, over the last 5 years, Perth have been only marginally more successful than EF. It would be a bit silly if we were banned outright from recruiting, say, Baskerville. A loading could work by simply adding one player point for each ladder position. So if Subi wanted Corey Byrne, he would, as things stand, be a 7 point player. But with Subi being 1st over the last 5 years, and Perth being 8th (not counting WCE), you would add 7 points to Byrne, so 14 all up. However, if SD went after him, I imagine SD would be 7th, so he would cost only 8 points. Transfer fees could be an incremental 25% loading. Finish 1-2 spots about, pay an extra 25%. 3-4 costs 50%, 5-6 75% and 7-8 double. So Subi or SF want Byrne, they pay double, SD or EP pay 25% extra. 

However, according to the West a couple of weeks back, transfer fees are getting cut. Hence why I am so pessimistic about the WAFC ever doing anything about it. 

Ted Nugent wrote:

BC, JL, agree with your proposals. I wouldn't have an outright ban on recruiting from clubs lower on the ladder, rather a points/transfer fee loading. I think a ban might encounter some restraint of trade problems. Plus it would be unfair on clubs around the same level not to be able to recruit. For example, over the last 5 years, Perth have been only marginally more successful than EF. It would be a bit silly if we were banned outright from recruiting, say, Baskerville. A loading could work by simply adding one player point for each ladder position. So if Subi wanted Corey Byrne, he would, as things stand, be a 7 point player. But with Subi being 1st over the last 5 years, and Perth being 8th (not counting WCE), you would add 7 points to Byrne, so 14 all up. However, if SD went after him, I imagine SD would be 7th, so he would cost only 8 points. Transfer fees could be an incremental 25% loading. Finish 1-2 spots about, pay an extra 25%. 3-4 costs 50%, 5-6 75% and 7-8 double. So Subi or SF want Byrne, they pay double, SD or EP pay 25% extra. 

However, according to the West a couple of weeks back, transfer fees are getting cut. Hence why I am so pessimistic about the WAFC ever doing anything about it. [/quote)



Seems a neat solution. What about Eastern States players? And returning players? How do we make Giro expensive for subi and souths?

Ted, there's a lot of common sense to what you propose. Given we cant have a full draft like the AFL ( you only play AFL if your drafted) something along the lines of your ideas would be the next best thing. A strict points cap and points loading as you have noted will reduce the number of high points players the higher ranked clubs can have.

I think something along those lines would work as well and the good thing about it is, it affects all clubs and not just mine. Sure Subi would be impacted the most but clubs would feel it less and less as we go down the ladder.

I think that idea has some merit in it Ted. Affects all clubs and might make for a more even spread of the top players at all clubs.

Ted, it maybe worth the effort to set out your ideas and send to JT and Duffield & ABC 720 sports talk. I'm sure Duff would be all over it, as he's hot on this after his beloved Souths lost the GF.

Ted Nugent wrote:

DG, in the last 20 years Subi have played in 14 grand finals, winning 10. SF and C have each played in 7, winning 3 and 2 respectively. WP have played in 5, SD, EF, EP and PT in 2 (3 of those 4 as alignment teams), and P in none. How is Subi playing in twice as many GFs and winning 3 times as many not daylight? 

South had a 10 year gap in a GF appearance  and 11 in a flag. with a fair bit of time out of finals as well.
Hardly a super power.
 

Ted Nugent wrote:

We have the same discussion every season. Nothing changes. Nothing will change. This has been going on for 20 years and is too deeply entrenched to ever change. The WAFC will see 30k at the GF and assume everything is going well. It's clearly not. This is the WAFL: Subi - big gap - SF/C - big gap - WP - big gap - EP/EF/SD - big gap - P. Then you have the aligned teams, who fluctuate with AFL availability. They have been the only teams to seriously challenge the dominance of Subi, but the measures taken after 2017 mean that they are unlikely to do so again. 

Every year Subi fans say "yes, we agree, it needs to change", but apparently by other teams somehow becoming better, and in a way that doesn't affect them at all. The only thing the points cap has achieved is Subi being unable to get Clarke for one year - and they won the flag anyway - and also missing Dela's cousin. (He played a passable season at Perth, but probably wouldn't have been a league player at Subi.) Otherwise, despite the points cap, Subi have had no problem accommodating Dewar, Marsh, Lockyer, Matera, Powell, Dela, Kitchin and others in past years. They will always have at least 6 interstate/exAFL and they will all be of the highest quality. So BC says Subi will come back to the pack next year because they might lose a few players. That would actually be the worst result for other clubs, because if Subi lose players, they will replace them, leaving clubs like Perth to pick over what's left. Perth have gotten into bidding wars with Subi over players before. Guess who won? 

Sorry, guys, but this is how things are. My ladder for 2022: S, SF, C, WP, EP, EF, SD, PT, P. My ladder for the 5 years after that: pretty much the same, but with EP, EF, SD and PT swapping around a bit. 

Precisely right, the lets make everyone else better but don;t touch what we have argument that's trotted out by Subi fans each time it comes up is well worn, the problem is of course in an economy of limited resources like the WAFL theres only so much that can go around and when they are concentrated in one part of the economy the only way is to move them and spread them around to the weaker parts to get them going again.

Last time I looked Subi supporters don't make the rules. So why don't you lot have a sook to the WAFC instead of taking aim at legitimate members and supporters of my club.