TOPIC:

Allowed the AFL clubs their own teams as requested.

Swan42:quote=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 aligned players to get some practice. It will be completely devoid of meaning, value and heritage.>

Very well said, couldn't have stated it better.
Unfortunate to say but that's exactly what's happened. Never mind about all the talk of next season!
Our once great Wafl has been allowed to go down the drain!

Why do they want an 18 game season. What possible reason.
I say keep it at 20 and stand firm. Otherwise they will dictate everything.

Yeah, no reason to reduce it to 18. If they can't telecast the first two then so be it. 20 game season works fine.

That aside, wouldn't the two AFL clubs want their players in action in the WAFL for the entire length of the AFL season rather than just 18?

Also, from a historical point of view, I'd still love to see a player kick 100 goals in a WAFL season before I kick the bucket. It's tough enough these days with 20 games let alone 18.

westaussieguy wrote: Swan42:quote=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 aligned players to get some practice. It will be completely devoid of meaning, value and heritage.>

Very well said, couldn't have stated it better.
Unfortunate to say but that's exactly what's happened. Never mind about all the talk of next season!
Our once great Wafl has been allowed to go down the drain!

I think the quote is a little off, as I understand it is the broadcaster and only the broadcaster that is saying 18 games not the preferred sponsor.

Being realistic no matter who the sponsor is they would want as much exposure as they can get and so would the ones that piggy back onto the deal.

Grump wrote:

westaussieguy wrote: Swan42:quote=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 aligned players to get some practice. It will be completely devoid of meaning, value and heritage.>

Very well said, couldn't have stated it better.
Unfortunate to say but that's exactly what's happened. Never mind about all the talk of next season!
Our once great Wafl has been allowed to go down the drain!

I think the quote is a little off, as I understand it is the broadcaster and only the broadcaster that is saying 18 games not the preferred sponsor.

Being realistic no matter who the sponsor is they would want as much exposure as they can get and so would the ones that piggy back onto the deal.

Grump it would be very unfortunate for the WAFL competition if the amalgam of Channel 7, the named preferred sponsor and the WAFC are in accord as to the broadcasting of the 2015 WAFL season.

So "sell your soul for 30 pieces of silver Bronte" and his CH7/eagles mates are looking to do the WAFL broadcast's and they want to use only 2 venues so as to reduce costs. I wonder what one of the venues will be?? Surprise surprise it may be Leederville!! bit of a no brainer really, channel Eagles can broadcast all their (feral eagles) home games and the alternate weeks broadcast from the other venue (most likely centrelink park)so the chunderockers get a bit of coverage.

While TV coverage is a really desirable and important thing to have, it should not be at the cost of fairness integrity and equality, moreso than has already been visited upon the G7 clubs. Any move to reduce the season to 18 games should be totally rejected, I am still getting over it being cut back from 21 games!! F**k these F**king f**kers!!

We should stay with ABC TV and i believe it costs just $80 000 where as c7 $1 000 00 pa. C7 will manipulate fixture around AFL. Surley the WAFC can see this.

Know I'm getting a bit off the topic here but abc tv has always and do an excellent coverage.Will be sad to see it go!
I wish someone could tell me how the hell silly 7 will do a better broadcast? If not, why not?

au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/wafl/a/2...ge-over-peel-stance/
WAFC Under Seige, and righly so!