TOPIC:

No Swan, that does not overide the fact that the WAFC has to power to dictate terms to the WAFL if they see it as being in the best interests of football. if the WAFC wanted to force reserve sides in they have the power to do it.

The Host club was the easier option for all concerned, so to stop the
inpass they invoked their constitutional powers.

anchorman wrote: Swan that would depend on the WAFL who would be asked to play either the Dockers or Eagles.If they didn't think it enough they would ask for more.
I have no idea what would satisfy the WAFL clubs,but it seemed that when the offer was made to allow the two AFL clubs in initially it wasn't enough,but second time around they took the money and ran and have not stopped bleating ever since.

A bit like you constantly bleating on a subject you know absolutely nothing about!

anchorman wrote: Swan that would depend on the WAFL who would be asked to play either the Dockers or Eagles.If they didn't think it enough they would ask for more.
I have no idea what would satisfy the WAFL clubs,but it seemed that when the offer was made to allow the two AFL clubs in initially it wasn't enough,but second time around they took the money and ran and have not stopped bleating ever since.

Now that you have repeated the same statement for the millionth time, I would be interested in why you think the 7 WAFL clubs accepted an offer & took the money. You must have a basis on which you form your opinion.

anchorman wrote: They were offered an amount and said no.The offer was upped and they took the money the second time.

The 7 clubs had no choice in the new host club arrangement. The money was irrelevant. They took the money but that did not equate to being offered a choice or option. It was compensation after the event.

anchorman wrote: They were offered an amount and said no.The offer was upped and they took the money the second time.

What seems to be singularly lacking in many of your comments is an understanding of the WAFL competition, the WAFL clubs and the WAFC propensity to do anything but support them. Under no circumstances did the WAFL clubs think that the compensation offered was fair and commensurate with the damage caused to the WAFL clubs and competition. What you are suggesting is that the alignment occurs and the WAFL clubs accept no compensation.

Anchorman I think you will find that clubs are yet to receive any money from either of the AFL clubs. No extra money has been given this season, infact WAFL clubs will have to pay their own way through finals.

Mr Mysterious wrote: Anchorman I think you will find that clubs are yet to receive any money from either of the AFL clubs. No extra money has been given this season, infact WAFL clubs will have to pay their own way through finals.

g'day John, have fun reporting on the cricket tonight...

anchorman wrote: Then why take the money in the first place!!
What would have been better for the competition was if they had let the two AFL sides play during the byes which would have suited all and sundry.but the WAFL sides decided to get more.
But Hey sheeeit haven't we been down this path about 4,000 times.It is getting boring or has got boring.It is all whinge and moan.

On occasions A/man you really do try our patience. What the WAFL clubs, in general, wanted was to maintain the integrity of the WAFL competition as best they could. In their opinion, and in the opinion of I suspect the vast majority of supporters of the WAFL competition, the status quo swould be the closest to maintaining the integrity of the WAFL competition as was possible.

Instead we have a compromised Peel and East Perth. See a new topic on the Fremantle thread here with respect to Alex Howson. We also have reports that Peel were unable to play their 22 players on Saturday in the league game as they saw fit and were overridden by Freo officials. Please explain how the WAFL competition is the better for such actions.

What the host club alingment does is that we at Swans will not see Walters, Pearce play for us again and potentially could play against us in the future. When Lachie Neale played for us he demonstrated a commitment to the Swans' players which we will lose in the future due to the host club alignment. What has been said of the Swans' players and the AFL players aligned to us is replicated for the other 6 clubs of the G7.

Do you really think that Walters, Pearce, Naitanui etc would appreciate having to play against Swan Distrcits in the future?

Swan42, the alignment stuff is not want I wanted comment on but your comment abt players not wanting to play for this team or that team is interesting given that in other parts of the sporting world loyalty to a playersroots seems to be something we, those who are a bit older, hold true but those in the current laying generation have little time for!

It seems that if you pay me then my loyalty is to you, the right thing, so they will play and play well if they want to get in the top side.

I also recall players being dropped back to their team of origin and playing crap. It will be interesting to see what develops with attitudes etc.

Just an opinion, have a great day

swan42 wrote:

anchorman wrote: Then why take the money in the first place!!
What would have been better for the competition was if they had let the two AFL sides play during the byes which would have suited all and sundry.but the WAFL sides decided to get more.
But Hey sheeeit haven't we been down this path about 4,000 times.It is getting boring or has got boring.It is all whinge and moan.

On occasions A/man you really do try our patience. What the WAFL clubs, in general, wanted was to maintain the integrity of the WAFL competition as best they could. In their opinion, and in the opinion of I suspect the vast majority of supporters of the WAFL competition, the status quo swould be the closest to maintaining the integrity of the WAFL competition as was possible.

Instead we have a compromised Peel and East Perth. See a new topic on the Fremantle thread here with respect to Alex Howson. We also have reports that Peel were unable to play their 22 players on Saturday in the league game as they saw fit and were overridden by Freo officials. Please explain how the WAFL competition is the better for such actions.

What the host club alingment does is that we at Swans will not see Walters, Pearce play for us again and potentially could play against us in the future. When Lachie Neale played for us he demonstrated a commitment to the Swans' players which we will lose in the future due to the host club alignment. What has been said of the Swans' players and the AFL players aligned to us is replicated for the other 6 clubs of the G7.

Do you really think that Walters, Pearce, Naitanui etc would appreciate having to play against Swan Distrcits in the future?

Get used to all your former WAFL stars playing against their clubs of origin..

Walters Pearce and Nik Nat will all be wearing EP jumpers next year in the WAFL when they need a run, enjoy watching them all kick goals v SD.

But apparently it's all going to be all good for the spirit of the WAFL.

Not that most dockers or eagles fans give two shits about WAFL.