TOPIC:

Will C7 now pay the clubs some money or will they just get rich at the WAFLs expense

The lighting or Camera's used must have been crap, came up very dark on TV, though enjoued the game.

I think 3 or 4 Thursday night games would be great Grassy. Only one for each team though.

What will Ch 7 broadcast in three years' time when the WAFL goes the same as the SSMFL, WAFA and SFL? Will it be an under 18s competition because unless drastic changes to the host club alignment and Subiaco's financial dominance there won't be a WAFL competition in the very near future. How much of a PROSTITUTED WAFL competition will it take for most WAFL supporters just not to bother following it anymore.

Apparently the primary consideration of the WAFC is that there is grass in the centre circle at Basso. Whilst the ground surface at Basso is not good at the moment if that is the primary problem with the WAFL competition then the WAFC are comletely and utterly certifiable.

One can only hope that when there is a change in government at the state election in March next year the incoming Labor government will tell the WAFC there primary consideration is to make decisions that support the WAFL clubs and competition and grass roots football. And if they don't, then they will be sacked. I am toroughly sick and tired of a WAFC that does everything possible to PROSTITUE, GUT, DECIMATE and RUIN the WAFL competition. They are an ABSOLUTE DISGRACE and SHOULD BE SACKED NOW.

As Bazza has previously mentioned and one of sf chiefs has also said on radio sf no longer rely on gate takings as a major source of income. They are all about sponsorship and their location makes for perfect exposure. That and the tv telecast...

DG wrote: As Bazza has previously mentioned and one of sf chiefs has also said on radio sf no longer rely on gate takings as a major source of income. They are all about sponsorship and their location makes for perfect exposure. That and the tv telecast...

DG an intriguing idea that the tv coverage raises any revenue for the wafl clubs considering it is costing $1,000,000.

swan42 wrote:

DG wrote: As Bazza has previously mentioned and one of sf chiefs has also said on radio sf no longer rely on gate takings as a major source of income. They are all about sponsorship and their location makes for perfect exposure. That and the tv telecast...

DG an intriguing idea that the tv coverage raises any revenue for the wafl clubs considering it is costing $1,000,000.

Swan when your team is televised all of your sponsors get exposure

DG wrote:

swan42 wrote:

DG wrote: As Bazza has previously mentioned and one of sf chiefs has also said on radio sf no longer rely on gate takings as a major source of income. They are all about sponsorship and their location makes for perfect exposure. That and the tv telecast...

DG an intriguing idea that the tv coverage raises any revenue for the wafl clubs considering it is costing $1,000,000.

Swan when your team is televised all of your sponsors get exposure

If that is correct, then isn't it incumbent on the WAFC to ensure that ALL CLUBS have the same number of home games broadcast? Secondly, does that also presumes that clubs can charge more under those circumstances. The corollary is that clubs would HAVE to CHARGE LESS otherwise.

Not having a go at poor old Chris, as he's probably just doing his job. But he "forgot" to mention the 1441 attendance for Subiaco's Home match is well below their current 2016 average home ground crowd figure. Even though the Thursday night match had the highest attendance of the 4 fixtures, it is still a lowly attended round. The lowest attended 18 week of fixturing for 6 years. Obviously that was glossed over as well. With the telecaster pushing for more night fixtures, I believe there will 4 next season?

The state election can't come quick enough so we can have the incoming Labor Government sack the lily-livered, gutless and incoptent WAFC and replace them with a board that has the brief that decisions are to be made that benefit the WAFL competition and clubs and ensure the longterm viability and integrity of the competition.