TOPIC:

"Power corrupts - Absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Now all we need Is for the spokesman from the AFL to state "let them eat cake"

MarkOlsen wrote: Ron Boucher and Bruce Tschirpig ?

Close MO but I was gonna say Ronald McDonald and Bruce Springsteen myself.

Growler wrote: "Power corrupts - Absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Now all we need Is for the spokesman from the AFL to state "let them eat cake"

Once again GROWLER you have hit the nail on the head.

Edmund Bourke A statesman born 1792 says it all..

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke

The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.
Edmund Burke

And for some more good quotes goto

www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/edmund_burke.html

Cardy and others

The fact remains that all of these sayings / quotes stem from life situations, chaos, wars and adversity experienced throughout human history
One not mentioned by either poster is along the lines that if we do not learn from history - IT REPEATS.... and here we are!!!!

The human condition sadly is to 'dominate, - and I fear for our game coincidering the powers that are in play here.

Will we see the destruction of what we now have before a semblance of its structure is rebuilt??? And if so - by whom??

I'm confused, which is not necessarily all that hard.

The Commission owns the licences to WCE & Fremantle - understand that.
The Commission runs football in WA - understand that.
The Commission has a vested interest to protect WCE & Fremantle - understand that.

My question is who runs the Commission?

The Commissioners ?
or
The employee - CEO?

My answer is, I would have thought the Commissioners run the Commission.

The vested interest (ownership of) the 2 WA AFL clubs is the priority for the Commission I would have thought.

That in itself makes their management of the WAFL a conflict of interest.

Now the catch 22, the WAFL relies on funding from the owners of the AFL Clubs, i.e. the Commission, because the WAFL can't financially run the competition themselves.

The WAFL needs to be run by the WAFL but where do they get the funds to run the competition? Management was taken away from the WAFL in the 80s because they couldn't run their own finances. They were broke basically.

Maybe we need to point some fingers at the Club Presidents, had they sat down and found a solution for the AFL Clubs maybe all this would not have happened.

The best possible solution for all parties would have been to introduce 2 stand alone Clubs for the 2 AFL Clubs (including Freo taking over the Mandurah debacle).

Obviously tweeking of the system would have been required as does tweeking of the current system (and I'm sure that will happen).

But I fear the WAFL has weakened it's own position.

This is not a paid political message, just my own humble opinion.

In all respects we have that now, Eagles and the Dockers run the league teams at both clubs that are in the WAFL.
it would be nice if the AFL and the WAFL clubs could sit down and for the greater good in WA try and work through a long term solution for all of this without deals being done behind people's backs or using a position of power to get others to agree to something.

on a side note, i see AFL players at East Perth and Peel play reserves during the year, in previous years they took players off WAFL clubs who played them in reserves - just more hypocrisy and shows they are only in it for themselves and not the greater good of WA footy.

interesting point there Mark. I do remember last year when one of the WAFL clubs had a bye and the AFL club wanted to give a player a run so he played for WP reserves.. Apparently the small print or regulations must of said they could do that. It only happened once and I did put a post on it at the time and had the system explained to me where a Dockers or Eagles player could play for a WAFL reserves side. The side I think was determined by a WAFL reserves club that was down on the bottom of the ladder..

Round 12 WP V CLA 2013 was the game in question here is our list for that game
Pick out the odd man out




Yep Simon Turnbridge not a listed WP player. on Eagles list

www.wafl.com.au/games/view/9549

Turnbridge profile

www.wafl.com.au/players/view/4477



The question here is if that rule still applies and if Peel or EP have a bye can they give a AFL listed player a run in another WAFL club reserves.

Not sure about your statement re WAFL players being taken off WAFL clubs maybe I have misunderstood what you mean?

AFL players have moved WAFL clubs as they were not happy with them playing reserves.
Swans lost some bloke Forster last year and a few years before we got Bollenhagen off Perth, there have been others.

Thanks Mark.. My point with Turnbridge though is he was not allocated to WP as part of the Host club arrangement but was listed with another WAFL club yet he played for WP on that one day as his club had a bye from memory and Eagles wanted him to have a run,. Apparently it was common practice.

And he did play in our reserves that day. Maybe the Eagles wanted him played in the League but the club would be under no obligation to drop a league player for him as he was not a WP AFL listed player if you catch my drift

I suspect the WAFC changes the rules and rewrites them to suit the AFL clubs and that is bloody obvious.. Just another example of Nepotism or rather Cronyism ..eg
cro·ny·ism noun \-nē-ˌi-zəm\
: the unfair practice by a powerful person (such as a politician) of giving jobs and other favors to friends

Demons Forever wrote: I'm confused, which is not necessarily all that hard.

The Commission owns the licences to WCE & Fremantle - understand that.
The Commission runs football in WA - understand that.
The Commission has a vested interest to protect WCE & Fremantle - understand that.

My question is who runs the Commission?

The Commissioners ?
or
The employee - CEO?

My answer is, I would have thought the Commissioners run the Commission.

The vested interest (ownership of) the 2 WA AFL clubs is the priority for the Commission I would have thought.

That in itself makes their management of the WAFL a conflict of interest.

Now the catch 22, the WAFL relies on funding from the owners of the AFL Clubs, i.e. the Commission, because the WAFL can't financially run the competition themselves.

The WAFL needs to be run by the WAFL but where do they get the funds to run the competition? Management was taken away from the WAFL in the 80s because they couldn't run their own finances. They were broke basically.

Maybe we need to point some fingers at the Club Presidents, had they sat down and found a solution for the AFL Clubs maybe all this would not have happened.

The best possible solution for all parties would have been to introduce 2 stand alone Clubs for the 2 AFL Clubs (including Freo taking over the Mandurah debacle).

Obviously tweeking of the system would have been required as does tweeking of the current system (and I'm sure that will happen).

But I fear the WAFL has weakened it's own position.

This is not a paid political message, just my own humble opinion.

DF The first problem is that the Commissioners require the support of the AFL clubs to be elected and to remain a Commissioner. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Second point is that it most certainly is not in the best interests of the WAFL clubs to have AFL aligned players removed from their club lists. Two cases in point are Davis and Hansen at Swans and the value they added to Swans. Also relating to stand alone teams for the two WA domiciled AFL clubs - how many other competitions would they compromise to enable them to field a second team? Further problem associated with that concept would be a repeat of Freo's selection policy in the penultimate round of the AFL in 2013.

Point number three you suggest that the WAFL Presidents were at fault in not coming to an agreement with the two WA domiciled AFL clubs. It takes two to tango and under no circumstances did the two AFL clubs want to come to any arrangement other than you did it our way or we will tarnish and diminish the WAFL competition; forever taint and probably sign the death warrant for one of the two aligned WAFL clubs and further reduce to below a laughing stock the other WAFL aligned club.

Perhaps you can enlighten me on what you think needs tweeking (sic) and how this will be done.