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.
