TOPIC:

Everyone has got valid points here but I think to dock clubs premiership points is probably the harshest penalty and undermines the competition. I think apart from fines perhaps a better way to penalize a club is to apply salary and points cap reductions the following season. What Townsend was saying was Perth could receive a fine up to 50k, be docked -12 premiership points AND have our points cap deducted 20 points. FMD those things collectively are way too harsh.

And this in a period where we were given extra points and salary cap so we could recruit to try to be competitive. I was told in pre season last year that we had one more year of the extra concessions then we were on our own. Well this has fucked that.

Only a dominant Subiaco in their prime could overcome a 3 game deficit and still make top 2 or 3. No club in today's competition could overcome this though I notice one Royal supporter on here is optimistic they could.

TheFeds wrote:

Yeah agree Bazza that South being first cab off the rank was unfortunate when the WAFC wanted to flex their muscles.It’s going to be more unfair to all affected clubs (SF,EF,P and EP) if the head honchos grab a brain and change the penalties in the future.  The only saving grace is that at least all clubs will start even on points like it’s been for around 120 years (excluding the last 2).

Changing the penalty system going forward given that two clubs have already had seasons seriously impacted...would be seen as grounds for compensation for those clubs I would say.

Bazza wrote:

royallucky wrote:

The powers that be at the WAFC need to understand that are not doing the forensic auditing on a competition that’s the financial equivalent of the multi billion American N.B.A. Do the dumb bastards understand the WAFL is struggling for relevancy in today’s sporting landscape,and most clubs are treading water financially,and what purpose does it serve to hit perennial battlers Perth with a -12 penalty over a perceived advantage for what???and don’t get me started on the idiotic non disclosure of a player’s supposed lawyers fees which has no impact whatsoever on the composition of the WAFL ladder.Do the imbeciles understand that the competition is struggling to get bums on seats as it is,and then decide to compromise it even further by inflicting a stupid-12 penalty for 2 clubs before a ball is bounced is just breathtakingly idiotic and serves no valid purpose.

The problem you have with all this sooking is the precedent has been set when SFFC copped a two game penalty being the first time ever in over 100 years of WANFL/WAFL history, I seem to recall that most club commentary was that well do the wrong thing and you pay the price. 

We have now had two seasons in a row with compromised points standings.

Perhaps if all the clubs had shown a far more united front on an OTT penalty of losing games then the WAFC might have backed down, thats not the case now and these penalties will be the standard going forward.


 

 I wouldn't complain about the last two years as the WAFC has given you guys a free kick this year.
This is the new deal for Souths and they have more points and TPP than all teams except for Perth.

• Up to ninety-five (95) cumulative player points • Up to thirty-two (33) Protected Players • Senior Player list to be a minimum of fifty-five (55) players • Total Player Payments: 100% + Competitive Balance Base TPP + (Super) $235,000 + ($28,200) Competitive Balance Rules + (Super) $5,000 + ($600) Total Ex $240,000 + ($28,800) Total Inc Super $268,800.00

chaddy22 wrote:

 I wouldn't complain about the last two years as the WAFC has given you guys a free kick this year.
This is the new deal for Souths and they have more points and TPP than all teams except for Perth.

• Up to ninety-five (95) cumulative player points • Up to thirty-two (33) Protected Players • Senior Player list to be a minimum of fifty-five (55) players • Total Player Payments: 100% + Competitive Balance Base TPP + (Super) $235,000 + ($28,200) Competitive Balance Rules + (Super) $5,000 + ($600) Total Ex $240,000 + ($28,800) Total Inc Super $268,800.00

what's the breakdown for the rest of the traditional WAFL clubs Chaddy? 

Clearly all speculation at the moment but it seems to me that, if any of this speculation is true, the WAFC are trying to kill off this competition. 4 teams in 3 years. Doesn’t that ring alarm bells at the commission? Why is the system so bloody complex? Can’t it be simple? If a club overspends, do 2 things. Reduce the club’s cap for the next season by the amount they have overspent AND provide increased SUPPORT to the club to ensure it doesn’t happen again. Support not draconian sanctions. Isn’t that what the commission are meant to be there for?

chaddy22 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

royallucky wrote:

The powers that be at the WAFC need to understand that are not doing the forensic auditing on a competition that’s the financial equivalent of the multi billion American N.B.A. Do the dumb bastards understand the WAFL is struggling for relevancy in today’s sporting landscape,and most clubs are treading water financially,and what purpose does it serve to hit perennial battlers Perth with a -12 penalty over a perceived advantage for what???and don’t get me started on the idiotic non disclosure of a player’s supposed lawyers fees which has no impact whatsoever on the composition of the WAFL ladder.Do the imbeciles understand that the competition is struggling to get bums on seats as it is,and then decide to compromise it even further by inflicting a stupid-12 penalty for 2 clubs before a ball is bounced is just breathtakingly idiotic and serves no valid purpose.

The problem you have with all this sooking is the precedent has been set when SFFC copped a two game penalty being the first time ever in over 100 years of WANFL/WAFL history, I seem to recall that most club commentary was that well do the wrong thing and you pay the price. 

We have now had two seasons in a row with compromised points standings.

Perhaps if all the clubs had shown a far more united front on an OTT penalty of losing games then the WAFC might have backed down, thats not the case now and these penalties will be the standard going forward.



 

 I wouldn't complain about the last two years as the WAFC has given you guys a free kick this year.
This is the new deal for Souths and they have more points and TPP than all teams except for Perth.

• Up to ninety-five (95) cumulative player points • Up to thirty-two (33) Protected Players • Senior Player list to be a minimum of fifty-five (55) players • Total Player Payments: 100% + Competitive Balance Base TPP + (Super) $235,000 + ($28,200) Competitive Balance Rules + (Super) $5,000 + ($600) Total Ex $240,000 + ($28,800) Total Inc Super $268,800.00

I'll also add that this year is the first time since 2005 that South Fremantle will nudge the total points cap - we have been pretty careful to get our own players back from the VFL and also get lower raked players if not and don't go near the limit
 

Why start now punishing clubs? Its been going on forever by certain clubs with no punishment. 

Tiger Tales wrote:

chaddy22 wrote:

 I wouldn't complain about the last two years as the WAFC has given you guys a free kick this year.
This is the new deal for Souths and they have more points and TPP than all teams except for Perth.

• Up to ninety-five (95) cumulative player points • Up to thirty-two (33) Protected Players • Senior Player list to be a minimum of fifty-five (55) players • Total Player Payments: 100% + Competitive Balance Base TPP + (Super) $235,000 + ($28,200) Competitive Balance Rules + (Super) $5,000 + ($600) Total Ex $240,000 + ($28,800) Total Inc Super $268,800.00

what's the breakdown for the rest of the traditional WAFL clubs Chaddy? 

All traditional clubs have 90 points except Souths who have 95 and Perth who  have 110.
Peel have 80 and in a adjustment  Beagles have 83.
This is before any likely punishment for salary breaches.

chaddy22 wrote:

Tiger Tales wrote:

chaddy22 wrote:

 I wouldn't complain about the last two years as the WAFC has given you guys a free kick this year.
This is the new deal for Souths and they have more points and TPP than all teams except for Perth.

• Up to ninety-five (95) cumulative player points • Up to thirty-two (33) Protected Players • Senior Player list to be a minimum of fifty-five (55) players • Total Player Payments: 100% + Competitive Balance Base TPP + (Super) $235,000 + ($28,200) Competitive Balance Rules + (Super) $5,000 + ($600) Total Ex $240,000 + ($28,800) Total Inc Super $268,800.00

what's the breakdown for the rest of the traditional WAFL clubs Chaddy? 

All traditional clubs have 90 points except Souths who have 95 and Perth who  have 110.
Peel have 80 and in a adjustment  Beagles have 83.
This is before any likely punishment for salary breaches.

Why have SF got more points than the likes of SD & EP???
Didnt they win a Premiership (albeit an abbreviated 8 game season and home GF handed to on a platter) only 4 years ago!!
More classic stuff coming from Tuart Hill!

Beasley Hutton wrote:

chaddy22 wrote:

Tiger Tales wrote:

chaddy22 wrote:

 I wouldn't complain about the last two years as the WAFC has given you guys a free kick this year.
This is the new deal for Souths and they have more points and TPP than all teams except for Perth.

• Up to ninety-five (95) cumulative player points • Up to thirty-two (33) Protected Players • Senior Player list to be a minimum of fifty-five (55) players • Total Player Payments: 100% + Competitive Balance Base TPP + (Super) $235,000 + ($28,200) Competitive Balance Rules + (Super) $5,000 + ($600) Total Ex $240,000 + ($28,800) Total Inc Super $268,800.00

what's the breakdown for the rest of the traditional WAFL clubs Chaddy? 

All traditional clubs have 90 points except Souths who have 95 and Perth who  have 110.
Peel have 80 and in a adjustment  Beagles have 83.
This is before any likely punishment for salary breaches.

Why have SF got more points than the likes of SD & EP???
Didnt they win a Premiership (albeit an abbreviated 8 game season and home GF handed to on a platter) only 4 years ago!!
More classic stuff coming from Tuart Hill!

I am perplexed as why the Royals  points have been reduced.
I thought you had to make the finals three years in a row for this to happen but  you can see an out clause for the wafl.
This is taken from the wafl's 2025 rules and regulations.

d) The WAFC may, in its absolute discretion without giving reasons: i. apply additional competitive balance measures to WAFL Clubs, including but not limited to TPP concession, Player points concessions, Protected player list concession and interstate player concessions.