TOPIC:

mikeh wrote: I don't think anybody has come out of this very well, but I reckon the main culprit is the WAFC. The WAFL fixtures come out 2 months after the AFL fixtures and in this case, it would have been so easy to avoid this situation if the Subiaco v Peel game had been played on the Sunday instead. There were only 3 occasions during 2014 that there was a Saturday afternoon AFL game in Perth coinciding with WAFL games, so it wouldn't have been hard to reschedule WAFL games involving the 2 alignment clubs on those weekends to minimise the chances of what happened on Saturday. A classic own goal for the WAFL.

Mikeh whilst you can argue that there should not have been a clash of fixtures, the fact was there was a clash. What the Dockers did shows complete and utter contempt for the WAFL competition. This is symptomatic of what both the Eagles and Dockers think they can do to the WAFL competition. Further if Channel 7 and the alleged preferred sponsor get involved in the fixturing of the competition next year, we all might aas well give up because it will no longer be the WAFl but a poor and pathetic vehicle for the AFL aligned players to get some practice. It will be completely devoid of meaning, value and heritage.

swan42 wrote:

mikeh wrote: I don't think anybody has come out of this very well, but I reckon the main culprit is the WAFC. The WAFL fixtures come out 2 months after the AFL fixtures and in this case, it would have been so easy to avoid this situation if the Subiaco v Peel game had been played on the Sunday instead. There were only 3 occasions during 2014 that there was a Saturday afternoon AFL game in Perth coinciding with WAFL games, so it wouldn't have been hard to reschedule WAFL games involving the 2 alignment clubs on those weekends to minimise the chances of what happened on Saturday. A classic own goal for the WAFL.

Mikeh whilst you can argue that there should not have been a clash of fixtures, the fact was there was a clash. What the Dockers did shows complete and utter contempt for the WAFL competition. This is symptomatic of what both the Eagles and Dockers think they can do to the WAFL competition. Further if Channel 7 and the alleged preferred sponsor get involved in the fixturing of the competition next year, we all might aas well give up because it will no longer be the WAFl but a poor and pathetic vehicle for the AFL aligned players to get some practice. It will be completely devoid of meaning, value and heritage.

Mike totally agree with you, Swan not so much, but see where your coming from, and that is the WAFL perspective. If you come from the Freo perspective, what they did in my opinion is what they had to do

I agree completely kirbs. Freo is entitled to do what it wants with its own players and if the chunder heirarchy aren't particularly bothered, then why should anyone else be? From a Subi perspective, it worked out well for us as they only had 2 on the bench for the first qtr and a bit...bloody good job I say.

BC wrote: I agree completely kirbs. Freo is entitled to do what it wants with its own players and if the chunder heirarchy aren't particularly bothered, then why should anyone else be? From a Subi perspective, it worked out well for us as they only had 2 on the bench for the first qtr and a bit...bloody good job I say.

BC what about the potential to influence positions in the final four based on an inflated score againt Chunder due to the lack of interchange players?

It's only happened once 42 and for less than half the game so can't really see it as a problem. also I guess it's no different to the AFL clubs sending players off for post season surgery where required if they're not going to make the finals rather than playing out the WAFL season. that's been happening for years and likewise must influence the outcome of games

BC wrote: I agree completely kirbs. Freo is entitled to do what it wants with its own players and if the chunder heirarchy aren't particularly bothered, then why should anyone else be? From a Subi perspective, it worked out well for us as they only had 2 on the bench for the first qtr and a bit...bloody good job I say.

be interested to hear what you say BC if Peel do it in the last game of the year and the club who beats them pip.... say Subi..... for a finals spot....from an EF perspective, it would of been handy for EF to be on the same points as Subi with a game in hand......but then again we are only talking about Sheridan and Bradley......

i see this scenario as being a by-product of the whole alignment fiasco. if subi or any other G7 club were disadvantaged by it then it's their own fault for not collectively standing up to the WAFC and saying no.

yeah true BC.....you reap what you sow I guess.

BC wrote: i see this scenario as being a by-product of the whole alignment fiasco. if subi or any other G7 club were disadvantaged by it then it's their own fault for not collectively standing up to the WAFC and saying no.

BC it seems to me to be quite irrational you trying to sheet the blame for this to the G7 clubs. Please explain what the G7 clubs could have done which would have prevented the host club alignment.

they could have done a whole raft of things to make it a bit more difficult like only agree to it on the basis the number of AFL players lining up for WART and FART was limited to a certain number each week...that AFL guys need to play at least 10 games or whatever to qualify for finals