TOPIC:

anchorman wrote: Cardy what are your thoughts on the non finals clubs making up a side to allow the Dockers players to keep match fitness?
I still see the only option being that the Peel/dockers players just keep training as they are now.

Interesting point that Anchorman.. I remember it was a topic on the Goss.
We even spoke of a 2nd tier comp where the bottom sides played off for best of the rest type of thing. played out while the Finals were on.
Dont know if would take people away from finals games such as they are.

Maybe a bit of money for the clubs in trading?

That aside Peel could continue playing as not in the finals but East Perth are so that leaves them available for Eagles players next year to play into the Finals. Next year I suppose the situation could be that Peel and EP will be in the finals series from 2014 on so they would be catered for to an extent.

Cant get my head around it really but I am sure the AFL clubs will come up with something BRILLIANT to enable their players to have a run?

As one poster said surely a game or 2 missed wont hurt the players concerned and they could continue to train fully. I am sure though the 2 AFL clubs if in finals would like their players to have a hit out with a WAFL club.

Shit what a tangled web we weave...All hypothetical anyway (I HOPE)

anchorman wrote: From my own perspective I don't think they should be allowed to push out players who have played for clubs all season,but who knows what will happen.
Only an off the cuff suggestion.Maybe the WAFL clubs that miss out on finals will be prepared to play matches after the final game and allow the Dockers Peel players and from other clubs,if they have any,to continue to get match practice.Maybe they will make up composite sides.
But regardless the same scenario could still apply next season where say both East Perth and Peel miss out on finals.What happens then maybe the same situation as well.

What you can be sure of A/man is that next year there will be absolutely no support from the G7 clubs toward the Dockers and Eagles. Where previously they will have played a reserves' game for another WAFL club when their WAFL aligned club had a bye will not be happening next year. Absolutely no cooperation next year as the Eagles and Dockers have made it clear that playing for a WAFL club not aligned with the Eagles or Dockers is detrimental to the development of that player.

They will be considered persona non grata as far as the G7 clubs are concerned.

At the risk of being branded as a paranoid, a question. Do you think the time will come when the Eagles or Dorks will drop players back to their reserves sides to win a WAFL flag (assuming they won't be playing AFL finals)? After all, clubs do that now.

At the risk of being branded a cynic I would say there is zero chance of that happening because Fremantle and eagles couldn't care less about their wafl clubs winning the flag, they will just be regarded as practise match training tools. We could even have the farcical situation where both the afl and wafl club are in the finals and east Perth or peel actually rest players from wafl finals.

anchorman wrote: Swan, if the money is right they will play ,make no mistake about that.They took the money this season and ran.Now all they do is complain.can't have it both ways.
If Fremantle and the Eagles come up with money to play the G7 will play them.Money is now what it is all about.

I have read a diverse range of comments on this site and on footygoss site previously. Some have been really well writtem, erudite and funny; some less so. However, your latest contribution, see above, is without doubt one that requires a strong rebuke. How can you possibly suggest that the G7 clubs, who were stridently against the host club alignment and reserves' teams, should not accept the very PALTRY amount of money offered is bizarre, unreasonable and unfathomable.

The host club alignment was presented as a fait accompli to the G7 clubs. They had no chance to vote against it. If they were allowed to vote against it there would have been 7 votes against out of a possible 9.

It has never been about the money from the G7 clubs' perspective. It was and is about the integrity of the WAFL competition and clubs. Whilst I would not suggest that the situation down at Peel with respect to their reserves' team is completely because of the host club alignment it certainly would have played a significant role. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that it is all about the money. For a start if there was no host club alignment there would be no need to offer any compensation.

Whilst I have been far more tolerant of your views, vis a vis the WAFL competiton, than a lot of other posters here it is becoming increasingly harder to account for your strident and, at times, jaundiced view of the WAFL competition and WAFL clubs.

As for your other suggestion that the G7 clubs would play a match against the host club aligned WAFL club to provide match practice if mindboggling to say the least. Assuming they would as stated by you if 'the money is right' how much would that be?

however, there is no evidence to back up your view that - "if the money is right they will play ,make no mistake about that.They took the money this season and ran"

therefore your view has no credibility as it not backed by any factual evidence..

anchorman wrote: Of course not,it is my opinion,my view.But since when has any fact ever been valid on here.I only run with my gut feeling most times here, and express my opinion, unlike some who prefer to attack any one who has an opinion or sit back and make no actual comment on what is being discussed.

The Eagles & Dockers have compromised the integrity of the WAFL competition by bringing in this Host club alignment for a second time. Given that the Eagles have played in 5 Grand Finals & won 3 Flags, I am not sure how the current system has failed them or warrants changing to this new model. To add injury to insult the non aligned clubs were denied the opportunity to vote on the alignment & it was brought in despite their protests. You are quite happy to basically describe the 7 non aligned clubs as whores because they took the inadequate compensation offered to them. If they refused to accept the compensation the alignment would proceed regardless. You have made these sort of flippant comments several times on this site which is your right but I think it is a bit rich for you to complain for being attacked for making them.

swan42 wrote:

anchorman wrote: Swan, if the money is right they will play ,make no mistake about that.They took the money this season and ran.Now all they do is complain.can't have it both ways.
If Fremantle and the Eagles come up with money to play the G7 will play them.Money is now what it is all about.

I have read a diverse range of comments on this site and on footygoss site previously. Some have been really well writtem, erudite and funny; some less so. However, your latest contribution, see above, is without doubt one that requires a strong rebuke. How can you possibly suggest that the G7 clubs, who were stridently against the host club alignment and reserves' teams, should not accept the very PALTRY amount of money offered is bizarre, unreasonable and unfathomable.

The host club alignment was presented as a fait accompli to the G7 clubs. They had no chance to vote against it. If they were allowed to vote against it there would have been 7 votes against out of a possible 9.

It has never been about the money from the G7 clubs' perspective. It was and is about the integrity of the WAFL competition and clubs. Whilst I would not suggest that the situation down at Peel with respect to their reserves' team is completely because of the host club alignment it certainly would have played a significant role. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that it is all about the money. For a start if there was no host club alignment there would be no need to offer any compensation.

Whilst I have been far more tolerant of your views, vis a vis the WAFL competiton, than a lot of other posters here it is becoming increasingly harder to account for your strident and, at times, jaundiced view of the WAFL competition and WAFL clubs.

As for your other suggestion that the G7 clubs would play a match against the host club aligned WAFL club to provide match practice if mindboggling to say the least. Assuming they would as stated by you if 'the money is right' how much would that be?

The bottom line is Swan, that the vast majority of people in this states first priority is to their respective AFL Clubs, in Anchormans case the dockers, if they feel the host club arrangement is good for them then the impact on the WAFL is of very little interest to them.

The vast majority of footy fans in this state do not attend WAFL games, do not watch or follow them in the media and many have no connection to the comp at all.

I am certainly not one of those, and I am convinced the host club will do irrepairable damage to what was once the WAFL.

In saying all that the presentation of the so called fait accompli to the G7, suggests an element of Ultra Vires power, this is far from the truth it was totally within the rules and constitution of the WAFC powers, this is something all WAFL clubs agrreed to many years ago.

So in many ways it was not a fait accompli as the presidents and clubs had long ago agreed to hand over power to the WAFC for decision making of this kind.

Not that I agree with that, but lets consider the historic paramiters that lead to the WAFL handing over almost total power to the WAFC.

The fact that the WAFL was bankrupt due to incompetant financial management in the late 80's and had begged and been bailed out by the WA Tax Payer. The trade off for that was a hand over of power secured in the new constitution which was entirely reasonable, and a minimal expectation of audit standards on behalf of the WA Tax Payer.

In sayung all that I am of the opinon that Raitt and the G7 were largely inept and impotent in their protests against the move.

Ultimately, the underling contiousness of the those responsible was that they were powerless to stop the move as they had surrendered that powerbase, through desperate necessity long ago to a superior power.

anchorman wrote: We will have to agree to disagree on this one Swan.Your view my view.

A/man you may the comment that if the money was right they would play; how much money is enough?

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

anchorman wrote: Swan, if the money is right they will play ,make no mistake about that.They took the money this season and ran.Now all they do is complain.can't have it both ways.
If Fremantle and the Eagles come up with money to play the G7 will play them.Money is now what it is all about.

I have read a diverse range of comments on this site and on footygoss site previously. Some have been really well writtem, erudite and funny; some less so. However, your latest contribution, see above, is without doubt one that requires a strong rebuke. How can you possibly suggest that the G7 clubs, who were stridently against the host club alignment and reserves' teams, should not accept the very PALTRY amount of money offered is bizarre, unreasonable and unfathomable.

The host club alignment was presented as a fait accompli to the G7 clubs. They had no chance to vote against it. If they were allowed to vote against it there would have been 7 votes against out of a possible 9.

It has never been about the money from the G7 clubs' perspective. It was and is about the integrity of the WAFL competition and clubs. Whilst I would not suggest that the situation down at Peel with respect to their reserves' team is completely because of the host club alignment it certainly would have played a significant role. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that it is all about the money. For a start if there was no host club alignment there would be no need to offer any compensation.

Whilst I have been far more tolerant of your views, vis a vis the WAFL competiton, than a lot of other posters here it is becoming increasingly harder to account for your strident and, at times, jaundiced view of the WAFL competition and WAFL clubs.

As for your other suggestion that the G7 clubs would play a match against the host club aligned WAFL club to provide match practice if mindboggling to say the least. Assuming they would as stated by you if 'the money is right' how much would that be?

The bottom line is Swan, that the vast majority of people in this states first priority is to their respective AFL Clubs, in Anchormans case the dockers, if they feel the host club arrangement is good for them then the impact on the WAFL is of very little interest to them.

The vast majority of footy fans in this state do not attend WAFL games, do not watch or follow them in the media and many have no connection to the comp at all.

I am certainly not one of those, and I am convinced the host club will do irrepairable damage to what was once the WAFL.

In saying all that the presentation of the so called fait accompli to the G7, suggests an element of Ultra Vires power, this is far from the truth it was totally within the rules and constitution of the WAFC powers, this is something all WAFL clubs agrreed to many years ago.

So in many ways it was not a fait accompli as the presidents and clubs had long ago agreed to hand over power to the WAFC for decision making of this kind.

Not that I agree with that, but lets consider the historic paramiters that lead to the WAFL handing over almost total power to the WAFC.

The fact that the WAFL was bankrupt due to incompetant financial management in the late 80's and had begged and been bailed out by the WA Tax Payer. The trade off for that was a hand over of power secured in the new constitution which was entirely reasonable, and a minimal expectation of audit standards on behalf of the WA Tax Payer.

In sayung all that I am of the opinon that Raitt and the G7 were largely inept and impotent in their protests against the move.

Ultimately, the underling contiousness of the those responsible was that they were powerless to stop the move as they had surrendered that powerbase, through desperate necessity long ago to a superior power.

Bazza the WAFL clubs had the ability to vote for or against new teams coming into the WAFL competition. That is, if the AFL clubs wanted to have their own reserves' teams in the WAFL they needed the WAFL clubs to approve their application. This was patently never going to happen. So instead they pressured the WAFC into the host club alignment with two willing lietenants in Peel and East Perth. The WAFC could have allowed a vote. The reason why they didn't was because it would have been overwhelmingly rejected. It was presented as a fait accompli.

The supposed need for an host club alignment or reserves team is non-existent. Is Fremantle's current position as a result of the alignment? The answer to that question is NO. I can cite Walters, Pearce etc as players who have benefitted from coming back to Swans. Can a/man name a single Freo player whose development has been hindered by the previous arrangement?