TOPIC:

As it is obvious that the WAFC will not do anything about changing the alignment structure in future can the members of this forum come up with a fair solution acceptable by all parties?

Ill start by throwing some out there, I am not saying all of these be implemented but if we build a list we may be able to get close to somewhat acceptable...All these apply unless the AFL affilliate is involved in AFL finals
1: AFL listed players with more than 20 AFL games experience do not qualify for WAFL finals
2: Maximum of 10 AFL games played in regular season to play WAFL finals
3: Maximum of 8 AFL listed players to play any WAFL finals
4: 5 minimum WAFL games played to qualify for WAFL finals
5: Any players wishing to transfer to other WAFL clubs for more opportunities can do so without restriction or transfer fees.

Now don't get stuck into me just make comment and add/adjust where you think appropriate...

maccastand wrote: As it is obvious that the WAFC will not do anything about changing the alignment structure in future can the members of this forum come up with a fair solution acceptable by all parties?

Ill start by throwing some out there, I am not saying all of these be implemented but if we build a list we may be able to get close to somewhat acceptable...All these apply unless the AFL affilliate is involved in AFL finals
1: AFL listed players with more than 20 AFL games experience do not qualify for WAFL finals
2: Maximum of 10 AFL games played in regular season to play WAFL finals
3: Maximum of 8 AFL listed players to play any WAFL finals
4: 5 minimum WAFL games played to qualify for WAFL finals
5: Any players wishing to transfer to other WAFL clubs for more opportunities can do so without restriction or transfer fees.

Now don't get stuck into me just make comment and add/adjust where you think appropriate...

Maccastand I won't shoot the messenger; however, all off the above, with the exception of 5, is predicated on the AFL clubs agreeing to those restrictions. Therein lies the problem because they WON'T agree to those restrictions.

Unfortunately, there is no solution unless the AFL clubs accept that the alignment is contrary to the best interests of the WAFL competion. The bottom line is they just don't care about the WAFL competition other than as a vehicle to get their players some match practice according to their game plan.

I know the NEAFL imposed some restrictions on AFL players within the Sydney Swans side.

Not sure how well it worked and if it was lifted, as the AFL reserves sides have now become so strong, the AFL have told fringe clubs such as the 4 sides from Canberra/QBN to fork out and form a single side.

Evidently, this has lead to the demise of Tuggeranong last season, and more recently Queanbeyan and Belconnen announcing they will no longer field a side within the NEAFL.

The Canberra/QBN teams were told to fork out $150,000 to fund a team so Sydney and GWS could have a competitive side for their reserves to play against.

The same will happen to the WAFL Clubs. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. Ie Claremont, Subiaco and say Swans to form a new club and financially contribute to one side within the competition.

The WAFL and traditional WAFL club days are numbered. There will be no compromising, as a compromise is not not in the best interest of WA's two AFL franchises.

The biggest stumbling block will be the fact the Eagles and it's players love how it's working this year. I'm sure once the same teams start making the finals every year Claremont, Subiaco etc the heat will go out of the debate. EP will be ordinary again soon and Peel will always struggle. I would think 15 games to qualify for finals is fair but whatever you do amicable won't enter into it.

The Eagles and the Dockers are less interested in the WAFL per se than the Tea Party candidates in the USA are in working with President Obama or Fox News becoming 'fair and balanced'.

I cant see why the two afl clubs would get too upset by 1-4 swan42. These only apply to finals IF the afl clubs are NOT participating?

maccastand wrote: I cant see why the two afl clubs would get too upset by 1-4 swan42. These only apply to finals IF the afl clubs are NOT participating?

Firstly, I don't think that the two WA domiciled AFL clubs are concerned about the WAFL other than to provide an outlet for their players to practise. With respect to limiting those depending on whether the AFL team is in the finals could make it even more inequitable. For example, say the Eagles made the finals this year and the first week of the WAFL finals corresponds with the first week of the AFL finals. The AFL aligned players would be available to the club formerly known as East Perth in the first week. If the Eagles lose in the first week, the limitations then come into effect. This would be even worse if a similar situation occurred where the AFL team only plays in the first week and the WAFL aligned club finished in 3rd or 4th position.

Whilst the previous arrangement was not completely equitable it is vastly fairer than the current host club alignment and far less damaging to the integrity of the WAFL competition.

If the AFL (and it is a pretty big IF) had any respect for the local leagues of each state or any bone that protected the long proud histories of those comps, they would have a stand alone AFL reserves comp funded by it's own money making empire

These two imposters over here do not need our comp for their weekly practice games - WCEFC & FFC could play each other twice a week if they wanted in full scale hitouts (with top ups from whatever toilet bowl they chose)

But we all know it's about getting their own way and nothing to do with anything else - they have no place in the WAFL , not now & not ever !!!

Best thing I ever did was turn my back on that Vicco crap

Maccastand -- Good Post
All -- I agree with the consensus: very few winners compromise in history, especially as the Eagles have the edge for the moment; as Swan42 has noted, some yanks don't even compromise when they lose Presidential and Congressional elections

Most know my views: we have this unfairness for four years, which means, in four years time, the seven must be ready with a strategy. For example, if there is a consensus for 'boycotts', then the boycotts must be carried equitably by all clubs; each club should take a turn in boycotting key WAFL meetings and it must be a continuous campaign. In a boycott strategy, boycotting matches should not be our first move.

We need to put our collective football community caps on lads and lasses.

Sounds more like a high school stunt to me Ark Royal. Whilst the AFL teams supply most of the revenue to football in this state they are in charge. Us old timers don't like it but talking and tinkering with it may be all we have in the short term. I firmly believe the AFL clubs are flexible as long as they have their players at one club mainly and playing their style. WAFL finals etc they couldn't care less Peel won't play finals but the Dockers could go deep that will be interesting will they be allowed to play reserves finals in the WAFL?