TOPIC:

ArkRoyal wrote: mikeh true enough -- Harding got emotional once at three-quarter time against EP which made for good tele.

Broadlly, I think one could put the position of the clubs as follows:

against

WP -- concertted campaign
SF
SD
CL

agnostic

EF

Favour

Subi
Perth
Peel
EP

which, of course, is very close to the majority of clubs; but, as others have pointted out in the past, all clubs are implicatted because they take the money attached to the alignment agreement.

Exactly what are you suggesting that the WAFL clubs should do? It was presented to the clubs as a fait accompli; there was no ability to change the decision. Are you seriously suggesting that Swans should have refused the money? Would that have changed the situation? Would it have given Swans' access to C Blakely, E Hughes, L Jetta et al?

From my understanding the directors of Swans' board have made their opposition of the alignment known to the WAFC directors. I will point out what was put up on our scoreboard during a match at Basso.

Please you can articulate exactly what the Swans' board could do to reverse the host club alignment.

mikeh -- a very funny post -- I might be being a bit hard on Old Easts too, as they, to their credit, have never taken on the alignment. The reason I put Subi in the in 'favour camp' is because it does have the financial clout to stand up a wee bit aloof from the Commission if it chose to do so.

swan 42 -- in the early days, there was talk of boycotts. What happened to that? In addition when I first joined this site -- a couple of years ago -- I wrote a long post about how the other clubs should try and us the Constitution of the WAFL to expel the two clubs from the competition.

Ever heard of this coming out of the clubs?



Having said all that Swan 42, I have learned to accept the position of the majority of clubs on this question. Most clubs support the alignment and only WP went public with a concertted campaign against it. I do indeed remember the scoreboard incident at Bassendean Swan 42, but even so, I would not call that a concertted public campaign by SD.

ArkRoyal wrote: swan 42 -- in the early days, there was talk of boycotts. What happened that?

I would suggest that the WAFC indicated that there would be draconian measures taken against any WAFL club; just look at what was threatened by the WAFC if Swans correctly put up the Eagles on the scoreboard again.

Quite simply the only hope the WAFC has of surviving in the long term is if there is a change of government in March next year and the incoming Labor Governments demands that the WAFC makes the long term viability of the WAFL Competition and its footy clubs as their number one priority. If they did that it would flow through the WAFL league, ressies and colts and also to their local junior clubs and country zones. If the WAFC is not willing to do that then they should be summarily dismissed and replaced with people who will commit to that task.

Swan 42: there are three things I would like to do to protect WAFL football

extend the draft age by a couple of years
remove the alignment
give the clubs a revenue stream from the new ground

whilst we're all passionate WAFL supporters, the problem is that outside the 6,000 who go to games every week no-one gives a stuff. ask your average eagle or docker supporter what they think of the WAFL and how the comp is travelling and they wouldn't have a clue. the state government doesn't give a shit because it's not a big vote catcher and the WAFC knows where its bread is buttered so will make decisions to appease the big end of town. it's up to the clubs to make noise which I'm hoping will happen when WART or FART win a flag with a team almost completely of aligned players.

BC wrote: whilst we're all passionate WAFL supporters, the problem is that outside the 6,000 who go to games every week no-one gives a stuff. ask your average eagle or docker supporter what they think of the WAFL and how the comp is travelling and they wouldn't have a clue. the state government doesn't give a shit because it's not a big vote catcher and the WAFC knows where its bread is buttered so will make decisions to appease the big end of town. it's up to the clubs to make noise which I'm hoping will happen when WART or FART win a flag with a team almost completely of aligned players.

What about the average Eagle or Docker who is my age or older that went to the WAFL in the 60,70, and 80s why aren't they going anymore.

I can n tell you the alignment has no bearing on whether I go to WAFL games or not in my case it has miore to do with the WAFL club I support, that's where my lack of interest comes from and would be the main reason for most Perth supporters and lack of crowd at Lathlain.

as a sharks and dockers supporter I care very much about what the alignment has done to the WAFL. I am totally against it as it is unfair and unnecessary.
A side should not be filled with AFL players unless they came from that club before entering the AFL.
I also believe that the amount of qualifying games should be increased from 5
to at least 10 games before a player is eligible to play finals.
Also even though it probably would not have made any difference to the result
of the game, I believe that Brown and Redden should not have been able to just
come into the side last week as neither was named in East Perth's list of 25
published players

BC -- correct there is actually a double split in the fabric of WA football -- the AFL/Wafl one and the second one, which is the split between the WAFL community and the WAFL boards, sometimes I do not know which is the more gapping.

the greatwhitepointer has some good proposals for re-writting the next alignment agreement in the future.

PN: good post pointting to the myriad of reasons why people don't attend the WAFL. I will add one simple one to the equation: in 1987, people could go to both because they were played on different days --Saturday and Sunday -- a phenomenon which simplly no longer applies.

ArkRoyal wrote: mikeh true enough -- Harding got emotional once at three-quarter time against EP which made for good tele.

Broadlly, I think one could put the position of the clubs as follows:

against

WP -- concertted campaign
SF
SD
CL

agnostic

EF

Favour

Subi
Perth
Peel
EP

which, of course, is very close to the majority of clubs; but, as others have pointted out in the past, all clubs are implicatted because they take the money attached to the alignment agreement.

Pretty much spot on and pretty much the same lines since 1986 and all the major decisions that have broken the back of the comp, from the intro of the eagles, SF and SD stood firm, to Peel to the Dockers and now the Alignment, dont forget the Wafc constitution pretty much disempowered the clubs as it gives the wafc a right of veto over them, that and the clubs complete financial reliance now on Afl dividends means they were powerless at the end of the day.

Anyone hear the boss of the wafc on 6pr yesterday morning? It will be very interesting to see what this major review comes up with, an international consultant has been briefed and is going through it with a fine tooth comb.