TOPIC:

Unofficially I believe it was discussed at Board level at SFFC - rejected because of what happened the last time .... we lost too many players and the anger from some members who had kids in the SFFC system at the time

Do not know the full story however - I wasn't there

astro wrote: 30yeardrought you are correct-G7 thought they had more power.
i dont blame them
Bottom line amongst all you write is that the WAFC did what they wanted and they did it because it is waht FFC and WCE wanted.
There was a total disregaurd for the G7 clubs and the footy public alike.

I do blame them, what a bunch of halfwits, they should of known exactly where and what they had to work with,

In saying all that . I actually think they knew and have known they have been powerless for many years, the WAFC Constitutuon makes it 100% clear that the WAFL clubs are meer minions of the local AFL franchises.

Freezin wrote: So what if some clubs publically refuted the alignment and then had discussions under the table.......cant believe the WAFC held this over them........so what is a bit of embarrassment and loss of face.....its only footy! Bit soft on the G7 part if this true......held to ransom......FMD......these clubs are too soft......

I'd say it would be a tad more than a bit of embarrasment, the entire boards of the clubs seeking the host club deal while bagging it at the same time would not of had an ethical leg to stand on and the creibility of the weirdo from Hey Dad.

One thing I like about it now and I'm guessing the coaching staff andplayers of the G7 clubs are enjoyingis not hhaving to juggle their side every week to accommodate AFL players. And as lot of supporters who don't like the arrangement were probably some of the loudest critics of the commitment of AFL players when they lined up fortheir club. I am enjoying knowing the players that train and pull on a Perth guernsey are Perth players through and through. If I recall correctly the WAFC has the power to make adjustments if they think the two AFL aligned clubs have too greater advantage.

Southerner wrote: Unofficially I believe it was discussed at Board level at SFFC - rejected because of what happened the last time .... we lost too many players and the anger from some members who had kids in the SFFC system at the time

Do not know the full story however - I wasn't there

That's 100% correct Southerner it was discussed and rejected based on 1999. This was actually made known to members,

Greatwhiteshark wrote:

Freezin wrote: So what if some clubs publically refuted the alignment and then had discussions under the table.......cant believe the WAFC held this over them........so what is a bit of embarrassment and loss of face.....its only footy! Bit soft on the G7 part if this true......held to ransom......FMD......these clubs are too soft......

Agree Freezin, It doesn't matter anyway because East Perth and Peel were the ones that did it. Makes no difference who or how many were interested.

There would of been no embarrasment anyway, the Eagles and Dockers or even East Perth and Peel would not produce any emails as it would make them look silly and be seen as bully's.
The Presidents are weak and for them to agree to these parameters makes me wonder if some other kick backs are not coming there way.

Weak Yes, the kick back was the extra cash payment to each club, that they so despreatley needed to operate. Begging Bowl Time.

La Hincha wrote:

Barney wrote: The G7 accepted it because the WAFC told them if you threaten boycotts and forfeits again we will hand the media this manilla folder full of emails showing 6 of the 7 clubs had negotiated with the AFL clubs to become an aligned team.

The G7 backed down because it would be pretty embarrassing, especially for 1 or 2 who had been overly critical, if everyone found out they were not angry about the arrangement but they were angry they missed out.

I'm guessing our club was one of the six?

Yes it was. The only team that had no idea was the team that was going through a change at board level so had no direction at the time, Swans.

If the G7 had come out and said that the alignment is not ideal but they were going to fight to get the best deal for their club it would have been a complete different story.

Unfortunately they came out and said it was horrible, the end of the comp and they had no idea it was happening. That pushed them into a corner, bit hard to deny knowledge there were discussions when your name is on an email about it. Easy for the WAFC to bend them over the barrel.

Barney wrote:

La Hincha wrote:

Barney wrote: The G7 accepted it because the WAFC told them if you threaten boycotts and forfeits again we will hand the media this manilla folder full of emails showing 6 of the 7 clubs had negotiated with the AFL clubs to become an aligned team.

The G7 backed down because it would be pretty embarrassing, especially for 1 or 2 who had been overly critical, if everyone found out they were not angry about the arrangement but they were angry they missed out.

I'm guessing our club was one of the six?

Yes it was. The only team that had no idea was the team that was going through a change at board level so had no direction at the time, Swans.

If the G7 had come out and said that the alignment is not ideal but they were going to fight to get the best deal for their club it would have been a complete different story.

Unfortunately they came out and said it was horrible, the end of the comp and they had no idea it was happening. That pushed them into a corner, bit hard to deny knowledge there were discussions when your name is on an email about it. Easy for the WAFC to bend them over the barrel.

Disappointing.

I guess they'll all say now "Yes, but discussing it isn't committing to it" or words to that effect.

Either way, the supporters were betrayed.

Bazza wrote:

Freezin wrote: So what if some clubs publically refuted the alignment and then had discussions under the table.......cant believe the WAFC held this over them........so what is a bit of embarrassment and loss of face.....its only footy! Bit soft on the G7 part if this true......held to ransom......FMD......these clubs are too soft......

I'd say it would be a tad more than a bit of embarrasment, the entire boards of the clubs seeking the host club deal while bagging it at the same time would not of had an ethical leg to stand on and the creibility of the weirdo from Hey Dad.

banging an under age kid and aligning with a footy club when you say you wouldn't, don't even compare Bazza...like I said big deal egg on your face sort of stuff, I'm sure the powers to be on the G7 boards would easily come up with a snazzy line to fall behind.....it's farkin footy we are talking about....not some countries dirty washing here!.....piss weak....

I'd still respect EFFC board if they had come out and said 'yeah we looked at it, investigated it, were interested in it'....even though we said publically other wise....big deal... todays goss is yesterdays goss and people soon forgive and forget and move on.....especially when the on field stuff starts!

Barney wrote: The G7 accepted it because the WAFC told them if you threaten boycotts and forfeits again we will hand the media this manilla folder full of emails showing 6 of the 7 clubs had negotiated with the AFL clubs to become an aligned team.

The G7 backed down because it would be pretty embarrassing, especially for 1 or 2 who had been overly critical, if everyone found out they were not angry about the arrangement but they were angry they missed out.

I think our friend Barney Rubble may need to be exposed. You seem to write and espouse the same shit that Hagdorn does. Are you one and the same.