TOPIC:

swan42 wrote:
Mike respectfully I don't think you could be further from what would happen. I personally will walk away when Swans die and the taking over of the WAFL by the AFL would be a deeath sentence to the WAFL and the WAFL clubs as we know it. Does anyone think that the VFL in its current format is anything like its former selfof the VFA? The under 18s AFL competition is nothing more than a glorified training competition.

We sell the licences back to the AFL it will be the death of the WAFL.

RIP WAFL.

I'm with you, once Swans are gone I will have very little interest in WA Football.

The whole system is in dire straights. There will be no competition, less clubs and no supporters in the coming years at this rate.

The SANFL is a different story. They have done it right. The controlling body is the SANFL. They always seem to do it right to a degree.

Like most here, I have lost confidence with the WAFC's ability to sustain a strong WAFL competition, and if it is proved to be true, the WAFL is not a priority for the WAFC, then AFL Commission (AFL WA) option should not be overlooked.

If the WAFL was to become an under 23's comp (which I doubt it would based on what they have done with the NEAFL) with AFL funding, it would ensure that the history of WAFL clubs could be preserved.

I'd love to see a strong WAFL competition, with decent crowds, and be able to watch it from the east on TV, but I realise it will never be what was when I was a kid.

I don't think there is any choice in the matter with the AFL club licences. SA have lost theirs.

The money has run out... again...

Whilst I agree,the new VFL is not the same format as the VFA, it has thrown some of the VFA clubs a lifeline. They are financial and competitive.

swan42 wrote: If the WAFC "sell' the licences back to the AFL it will be the final nail in the coffin for the WAFL clubs and competition. Ther won't even be lip service paid to the WAFL. It will all be about the AFL competition and who gives a stuff about the WAFL. I would suggest that the propect of any of the supposed income going back to the WAFL clubs as less likely than me voting for Abbott's mob or Barnett's mob in the next Federal and State elections. The devils incarnate ressies' teams will play on the same WA ground as the devil incarnate (about 4-5 hours earlier). I would further suggest that within a matter of years there would be no ressies' competition in the "WAFL Competition".

Further to points made about the relevance and exposure of the WAFL - there won't be any relevance and the only exposure will be for Peel and the club formerly known as East Perth.


Wat I don't understand is why do WAFL supporters want the end of the WAFL competition!

Theres no future for the WAFL in the current structure, isnt that obvious to you? the last couple of years should demonstrate that, as long as the WAFL is beholden to the AFL.

westaussieguy wrote:

Greatwhiteshark wrote: He also informed me the WAFL is not a priority for anyone at the WAFC .

That is of no surprise. They are sitting back and going to give us the Ultimate
INSULT if the report is true.

Tell me something new.
.

anchorman wrote: Where does the $40mil come from. The licences only cost $4 mil each didn't they?

Each clubs most recent total values are $19 Mil dockers and $24 Mil Eagles, thats what they would be worth if the AFL want them back, as they would be sold on or floated to new owners.

Could it be possible for the clubs to break away and run the comp themselves?

Say if the WAFC sell the two licences to the AFL, what guarantee is there that the figure of $40 million will be seen by "the real WAFL"? It worries me that the "WAFC muppets" will see their "importance" fading so they'll keep control of the money and only let a portion slip out of their control. An independent body or at least the G7 Presidents need to control the money, otherwise we'll end up with a statue of Doro and Westar could return.
There is no way Peel/FART should get anything, they were no part of the competition when both local AFL clubs were formed, wasn't 1997 when they came in? East Perth have made their bed, for the 2nd time, so unlucky for them, and Perth seem to be sniffing around with the Eagles, so unlucky, and Subiaco have had an unfair market advantage due to geographic luck, so a deduction of what they gained commercially needs to be enforced.

interesting comment around Subi having an unfair advantage due to geographic luck...given Subi Oval was our home ground for near on 100 years and we were unceremoniously turfed out even though we held the controlling lease..I would think the club should be compensated..don't you? the to make matters worse Subi had to pay for their own premises at Leederville to the tune of $1 million whilst the ferals got theirs gratis from the WAFC. So yes, we do have an advantage in relation to the AFL seats deal but every other club was also offered the same.

BC wrote: interesting comment around Subi having an unfair advantage due to geographic luck...given Subi Oval was our home ground for near on 100 years and we were unceremoniously turfed out even though we held the controlling lease..I would think the club should be compensated..don't you? the to make matters worse Subi had to pay for their own premises at Leederville to the tune of $1 million whilst the ferals got theirs gratis from the WAFC. So yes, we do have an advantage in relation to the AFL seats deal but every other club was also offered the same.

Could not agree more BC.

Doesn't SFC still have "club rooms" at the western end of Subiaco oval where they make money holding lunches, pre-game and after game functions and a bar? Gold mine.

yes they do Jimmy...they're the old SFC social premises and were built back in the early 70's well before the beags or dorks. as i said, Subi Oval was our home ground for near on 100 years so it should come as no surprise the club has social infrastructure at the oval