TOPIC:

thefalconstrike wrote: How would an EP v Peel GF go in 2014? I know for one I wouldn't be attending! Would anybody else? Reckon they would be lucky to get 10,000 there!

Yep, about 4000 Eagles supporters, 150 Dorks, anchorman and 1000 interested onlookers with nothing else to do on the day....but hang on, that doesn't add up to 10,000

anchorman wrote:

Leedy wrote: Anchor,

To fill you in, a club president told me exactly what happened at a scheduled meeting regarding the alignment. He said the Presidents took their places at the table, on the table were some documents, included in those docs was a copy of the signed agreements from the Ferals and Peel to take on the alignment.

The remaining Presidents had no idea that they had signed, in fact, all presidents had made a pact to hold off signing anything until they negotiated a better deal for the annual payment from the AFL clubs. It was inevitable that it would happen but they agreed to get the best possible deal before selling out.

Thank you Leedy at least that is a positive and adult response to my query.I hold your post in far more stead than ranting raving people who can only attack and not give positive responses.
Me thinks maybe BH and Co may have missed their meds for a few days.

You can apologise to Southerner and myself anytime you like Anchor?

jardine wrote: Bronte Howson has now stated the wafl must cull one club. I would imagine he wouldn't be making that statement if EP didn't have that alignment.
Everyone knows one club should be culled and that club should have been Peel. But given they are now being looked after, the clubs being targeted are the ones who historically built this league. His comments are no doubt mirrored by most, but they are comments that should have been pushed years ago when Peel should have been given the flick. They have been a commission catastrophe. Talk of culling a traditional club, especially coming form Howson is an insult I believe.

Although I'm a 100% WAFL fan and as much as I dislike the host club deal, I'm sorry to say Bronte is correct on this issue, as I have posted before the only way forward for what was once the WAFL is for major change and that primarily revolves around fewer clubs, Im glad in a way this has been brought up for discussion.

The current arrangement is terminal for most WAFL clubs, souths are in dire financial straits, the cash handout by the AFL will be a temporary fix. Along with that is the competiotion is going to be weak and unattractive as a spectacle, the non host clubs will be hopeless in trying to match it with a AFL powerhouse like East Perth, I would much rather see fewer clubs but stronger clubs than the same old weak clubs going through the motions each season and "just" surviving.

I've already posted at length on this, the first brick in the wall is to get rid of the bye, Peel will be there for good now that they are the dockers reserves, so that means 2 other clubs will have to merge, as I proposed earlier the WAFC needs to put out say a $1 Million dollar cash incentive plus a debt right off, for two current WAFL clubs to merge and form a new club, I have no doubt at all that several clubs would seriously consider this.

You reckon the WAFC Hall of abso-farken-lute arsewipery has a Million to throw Baz .... I don't mate

Well of the 9 I would look at it like this.

EP and Peel - no due to them already being set up and aligned. Leaves 7.

Subi will not be one of them due to their excellent financial state. Leave 6.

WP and CL - you would say no because of their relatively new locations, I doubt they would be going anywhere at all with the Arena and the Showgrounds being new. Leaves 4.

SF - although have lost money over the last 3 years have it in the bank and have spent with a purpose. Would never be told to leave Fremantle Oval by the WAFL - could you imagine no footy in Fremantle?? (Could ground share and probably will with EF in the near future - has to happen.) Leaves 3.

EF - Can improve their finances by ground sharing Freo Oval. Too much history and geographically not linked that closely (except for SF and Perth) to be a real merging chance. Leaves 2.

Perth and SD - One has had no success, the other has no money. Geographically close-ish. Zones pretty good for future draftees and income and club success you would think. The Perth Swans - red, white and black with 2 home grounds? If EP / WCE end up going to Lathlain then the "Perth Swans" can be based at Bassendean. Leaves Subiaco at Medibank by themselves - they should be ok with that financially but we wouldn't be using the ground to its optimum.

That would be the only way the WAFL would get back to 8 teams. Just for the record I don't like the idea of the merger for the sake of an even number.

If only the WCE bought in their own side and made it a 10 team competition!! Take overs, uneven numbers, loss of club identity would all be gone and with the $140K each year for the WAFL clubs finances would be looking a whole lot rosier.

Generally agree, although longer term i feel SF and EF wil merg.

Perth and SD are clearly the most obvious clubs at present.

I would not discount a Subi Claremont merger either longer term , that would make a very powerfull and wealthy club.

BTW - SFFC does not have money in the bank anymore, we have 170K left from 700 a few years back , but have now accumulated 220 in debts, so we are in the red by around 50k.

Spent with purpose, not really sure what that has amounted too , but 500,000 is a decade is a big spend - and for very little to show for it.

Freehold assets were valued at 1.9 million though Baz .... understand totally what you are saying beside that

(sure I saw that written in the statement - must check!!!!)

I wouldn't automatically think that the chunder are bullet proof just because they're aligned to the Dockers. From memory the deal was to be reviewed after 3 years so the Dockers can align themselves with whomever they like. It would make more sense for them to saddle up with SF down at Cockburn and that way Peel could be given the elbow. Not a very palatable scenario for bulldogs supporters but if it means staying alive in the comp then so be it.

Southerner wrote: Freehold assets were valued at 1.9 million though Baz .... understand totally what you are saying beside that

(sure I saw that written in the statement - must check!!!!)

Southerner, Yep - that is the land the clubhouse stands on, and the clubhouse itself, how practical it would be to liquidate those assets and exactly who would purchase them is debateble, the buildings themselves are depreciating and of course incur capital costs with maintenance on a yearly basis, so once again its a moot point as to how much of an asset they really are.

Certainly going forward a joint facility shared with EF would be far more viable.

BC wrote: I wouldn't automatically think that the chunder are bullet proof just because they're aligned to the Dockers. From memory the deal was to be reviewed after 3 years so the Dockers can align themselves with whomever they like. It would make more sense for them to saddle up with SF down at Cockburn and that way Peel could be given the elbow. Not a very palatable scenario for bulldogs supporters but if it means staying alive in the comp then so be it.

I would mate, the WAFC are full blown committed to Peel - they have pumped 100's of thousands of bucks into them and now the host club deal has secured their future very long term. In time they will be renamed the Mandurah Dockers or simply dockers and will grow on the field.

A SF relocation to Cockburn, that was muted 20 yrs ago or more, never happened , won't happen now, although I reckon if the host club deal was thrown out to SF or EF maybe its a chance, but its well past now, perhaps a SF EF merger renamed the dockers is a very strong possibility , in fact in 20 yrs time I could see it happening ..its already happened at jun Level - SFJFC was renamed the Dockers JFC a few years back . why ? I asked an official - Well the kids identify with the dockers, nobody knows who SF are anymore,