TOPIC:

swan42 wrote:

anchorman wrote: But wouldn't the Souths Board have told Rait that they weren't happy with what he was doing?

Since you do not have a good knowledge of the WAFl, perhaps I should let you know that the only reason we have Peel is because the then President of Perth voted for Peel directly against the vote of the Perth board.

My point remains valid, that if the current South Freo President cannot represent the best interest of South Freo, he should resign.

Swan42 is spot on, the President is not doing the best by SFFC, I can tell you now that the first letter of "protest" he wrote to WAFC when this started was decidedly weak to the point of embarrasment, the letter had been shown to the board who supported it. It was not until he passed it on to two more experience longer term WAFL people both 60 plus who are the clubs Trustees that they pointed out his letter said nothing, his reply was ...well I dont want to upset anyone.!

What's that telling you?

Another thing is our board is highly suspect, it has been infiltrated ny people with vested AFL interests namely as player managers.

Nothing will change soon Im afraid

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

anchorman wrote: But wouldn't the Souths Board have told Rait that they weren't happy with what he was doing?

Since you do not have a good knowledge of the WAFl, perhaps I should let you know that the only reason we have Peel is because the then President of Perth voted for Peel directly against the vote of the Perth board.

My point remains valid, that if the current South Freo President cannot represent the best interest of South Freo, he should resign.

Swan42 is spot on, the President is not doing the best by SFFC, I can tell you now that the first letter of "protest" he wrote to WAFC when this started was decidedly weak to the point of embarrasment, the letter had been shown to the board who supported it. It was not until he passed it on to two more experience longer term WAFL people both 60 plus who are the clubs Trustees that they pointed out his letter said nothing, his reply was ...well I dont want to upset anyone.!

What's that telling you?

Another thing is our board is highly suspect, it has been infiltrated ny people with vested AFL interests namely as player managers.

Nothing will change soon Im afraid

Good pick up Bazza as I had also noticed who is on the SFFC board & wondered the same eg easy access to future AFL talent ..and as for the President who made him the spokesman for the G7?? He shows zero passion at all. It should have been Raponi a real passionate WAFL man if ever I have seen one!

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

anchorman wrote: But wouldn't the Souths Board have told Rait that they weren't happy with what he was doing?

Since you do not have a good knowledge of the WAFl, perhaps I should let you know that the only reason we have Peel is because the then President of Perth voted for Peel directly against the vote of the Perth board.

My point remains valid, that if the current South Freo President cannot represent the best interest of South Freo, he should resign.

Swan42 is spot on, the President is not doing the best by SFFC, I can tell you now that the first letter of "protest" he wrote to WAFC when this started was decidedly weak to the point of embarrasment, the letter had been shown to the board who supported it. It was not until he passed it on to two more experience longer term WAFL people both 60 plus who are the clubs Trustees that they pointed out his letter said nothing, his reply was ...well I dont want to upset anyone.!

What's that telling you?

Another thing is our board is highly suspect, it has been infiltrated ny people with vested AFL interests namely as player managers.

Nothing will change soon Im afraid

Thanks Bazza - at least we have one topic where we are on the same side.

My only suggestions, and this applies to all members and supporters of the G7 clubs, are:

if possible you become a member of your WAFL club; and

that we all vote for the directors who are going to put the WAFL competition first and we attend our club's AGM to ensure that the directors are aware of what we want as supporters of the WAFL competition.

Rait's first priority is the SFFC, to suggest otherwise is rediculous. Some people on here pretend they no the inner working of everything when in fact they don't know much at all . . . and to make it worse others believe it.

South board had been infiltrated??? Didn't they get in due to a members vote?? Brad Collard, Peter Christie, Van der Weilan.

Why are some trying to stir up some trouble here??

dogman wrote: Rait's first priority is the SFFC, to suggest otherwise is rediculous. Some people on here pretend they no the inner working of everything when in fact they don't know much at all . . . and to make it worse others believe it.

South board had been infiltrated??? Didn't they get in due to a members vote?? Brad Collard, Peter Christie, Van der Weilan.

Why are some trying to stir up some trouble here??

Dogman could you please explain why he was quoted as saying that all the WAFL clubs agreed to the alignment. This seems to me be to be the complete opposite of reality. It was patently obvious that the G7 WAFL clubs were given no choice: it was presented to the G7 clubs as a fait accompli.

dogman wrote: Rait's first priority is the SFFC, to suggest otherwise is rediculous. Some people on here pretend they no the inner working of everything when in fact they don't know much at all . . . and to make it worse others believe it.

South board had been infiltrated??? Didn't they get in due to a members vote?? Brad Collard, Peter Christie, Van der Weilan.

Why are some trying to stir up some trouble here??

Raitt is a nice enough bloke , but he has the heart the size of a pea, he should stick to dry cleaning.

I'm not re-igniting the debate because it will not achieve anything. But it's my understanding some of the wafl clubs were interested and some were not. I still believe the 7 wafl clubs should have fought a damned sight harder than what they did to head the alignment off. But it's easier to sit back and accept all the cash that suddenly materialized.

I can tell you all now that the 9 Presidents rocked up to what was thought to be a further discussion/debate regarding the alignment and the 7 non clubs were presented with copies of the 2 signed contracts from the Ferals and Peel. The G7 clubs were bent over and no correspondence was entered into ! We didn't even get an opportunity to better the $140-150k we get per year.

everytime you think our wafl clubs have been smashed enough, yet another hit comes.

read page 119 in the west today (saturday)

the WAFC now slashing funding to all clubs. kind of defeats the purpose of the compensation payments made with the alignment introduction.

the word shameful is an understatement.

INCREDIBLE It is happening.. What a ripoff and we allowed it to happen.

WAFL clubs have been told that about $500,000 in cost savings have been identified, with $70,000 to come by axing a series of club allowances.

Clubs will no longer receive the finals allowance that was introduced in 2006, when semi and preliminary finals were moved from Subiaco Oval because of the prohibitive costs involved in staging WAFL matches there.

The finals allowance is about $56,000 - or $7000 for each team per finals match.

The decision to cut the allowance means that the team that plays three finals this season will have to find at least an extra $20,000 to pay its players - or nearly 10 per cent of its annual salary cap.

The commission will also cut a $14,000 zone allowance that was used primarily by Claremont (Kimberley) and Swan Districts (Pilbara) to service their regions.

South Fremantle president Haydn Raitt said clubs were disappointed about the cuts.

"It is pretty hard when you have to have your budgets in place at the start of the year only to be told that guaranteed amounts have been removed six months later," Raitt said.

The WAFC also has restructured its league operations, with Steve Hargrave becoming football general manager as long-time football director Grant Dorrington prepares to retire this month.

And Darryl Sinclair has been removed as State umpires coach but will remain in a management role.

·Negotiations between Channel 9 and the WAFC over next year's WAFL coverage have been extended until the end of the month.
·WAFL clubs will be fined $5000 if they approach another club's players without formal permission. The fine will increase from the current $500.

Full article from the West Online

au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/wafl...bs-face-massive-hit/