TOPIC:

would it not make more sense that the local junior club receives a fair cut of any draft money?

A young player spends 10 - 13 years at a junior club having volunteers poor endless hours into them, spend 5 minutes at WAFL colts and the WAFL club receives 100% pay cheque.

Common sense would tell us this is not right.

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote: Im really happy with the review , only issue I have is its about 10 years to late, but better late then never, very happy an os consultant has been appointed for a fresh look and honest assesment. Terms of ref seem good, very wide.

As for motivation, long term viability is the critical one for me. The current model will not take us forward.

Bazza are you happy with the prospect that the Colts' competition will be removed from the WAFL competition? The corollary to that decision is that any revenue stream from players drafted to the AFL will be removed from the WAFL clubs.

Are you also happy that there is absolutely nothing in the guidelines of the study that make it an imperative that the WAFL competition is to remain viable with a long term future.

Also, if you were going to have a review of the WAFL competition with an aim to ensure the long term viabililty of same would you conduct during the season where you could perhaps go to games and interview people WHO ACTUALLY go to the games and get their views or would you conduct it out of season? I know the one that is the more logical if you were interested in the WAFL competition.

Of course if you were to go to the games and get the views of the people you might find that some of the major contributing factors would be the following:

• the host club alignment;
• the financial dominance of Subiaco;
• the absurd times for the fixtures to fit in with Channel 7.

Grassy wrote: That's right.

This survey could be hijacked and the Consulting Group being none the wiser can conclude,the WAFL needs Radical Fixing,according the Overwhelming response of the public.

The Survey would be a complete waste of time then.Unless the Boston mob,remove the AFL respondents from the Equation and seriously look at what's bugging us and why.

And you reckon it doesn't need radical fixing?

and thats why the WAFC is critical, All leagues must be considered not just the WAFL. There is something fundamentally wrong with the system when a middle tier league has so much say in what is happening in football across the state.

I'm hoping this consulting group also seriously investigate the commission during the study. That also needs reshaping from what I can see!

anchorman wrote:

swan42 wrote: I will reserve my opinion until others have had the opportunity. I am especially interested in the view of A/man, BC, BH and mikeh. That is not to say that I am not interested in other opinions I just mentioned those four as I believe that they will provide an interesting range of views.

Swan , I had my say in the review.But Not going to divulge what I said here.

A/man just to clarify I wasn't asking for what you wrote in the survey but more what you thought of the way the survey was framed such as the absence of the host club alignment.

42 what is the current WAFC CEO's background in football if there is any at all?
What did Walton actually do of any note for his reported $400k per year other than the failed Perth Stadium Management bid not to mention his sidekick the bloke from Vic who's employment background wasn't checked too closely before taking up a senior role?
Did I hear correctly that PSM failed bid for the rights to the new stadium allegedly might have cost in the range of $7m WA football dollars completely down the tube?

Beasley Hutton wrote: 42 what is the current WAFC CEO's background in football if there is any at all?
What did Walton actually do of any note for his reported $400k per year other than the failed Perth Stadium Management bid not to mention his sidekick the bloke from Vic who's employment background wasn't checked too closely before taking up a senior role?
Did I hear correctly that PSM failed bid for the rights to the new stadium allegedly might have cost in the range of $7m WA football dollars completely down the tube?

What is unequivocal is that G Walton embarrassed himself by not wanting his own unabridged views known to WAFL supporters on this site.

We've probably all had enough of the P**s take thread so thought I'd start a more focused chat about the alignment going forward. There's a lot of passion by grassy, bazza and others and that should be respected but a lot of comments are very black and white and we all know that the world works in the grey areas of discussion and compromise.

Here's what my take is on the facts as they are and as we move forward.

Some form of alignment is here to stay, the money that flows from the AFL clubs to gain that alignment is absolutely critical to the WAFL clubs. Only my mob and EP currently have the financial ability to go it alone but that will change for EP once the current alignment finishes end of '17 and to a lesser extent for Subi when Subi oval closes.

Non of us like the alignment but to say we just piss them off and go it alone is just totally unrealistic. There is no one out there who will stump up the $$ that will disappear if that were to happen.

So where does that leave us? I think it is almost a given that WC will dump EP as their alignment team at the end of '17 and establish their own WAFL team based out of the new Lathlain facility, this will mean a game played at Lathlain every week which will be a financial bonus for the PFC through catering and bar takings as it has been for Subi who open their rooms on away game weekends. Freo will probably keep things as is which really doesn't mean anything as Peel have no history that can be trashed by an alignment. We then have a 10 team comp and remove the bye. There will be 2 rounds of 9 games for an 18 game season and final 5 will be kept. The 18 rounds also suits Ch 7 who are only broadcasting that many currently. There's a lot of bagging of the 7 coverage which I find is not too bad but what is the alternative? CH 2 will never again cover WAFL as they have no money and if CH 9 were to pinch it off 7 then the deal would not be much different, they are both commercial entities and don't do anything without making a dollar from it.

The only thing I think the Council of Presidents can push through is a change to the finals qualifications which will prevent what's happening with Peel this year from happening again. The SANFL proposal seems like a reasonable balanced approach where, if I'm correct, max 50% of the team are listed players, listed players must play a minimum of 10 SANFL games and must play at least 5 of the last 10 games prior to the finals. This would negate teams filling their list with fulltime pro footballers. Mind you if we have an 18 game season then the 10 games could be reduced to 9.

So over to anyone who wants to comment but please lets not just say remove them because that will not happen, lets see what creative ideas can be put forward that recognize the environment we are in and who has the power and the money which dictates who controls the game.

SS some observations:

(i) there can't be a 10 team competition unless the WAFL clubs agree to it;
(ii) if there is an 18 game season, that will mean a 10% cut in all the players' pay;
(iii) if there were a stand alone Eagles reserves' team in the WAFL what is the impact of the colts' and ressies' competitions?
(iv) where would the Eagles get the players they would require to allow then to field 22 players each week?
(v) on what basis do you believe that the revenue stream as part of a host club alignment would be maintained or increased?

hit nail head...SS. An excellent post which really sums up the situation beautifully. For anyone on here who thinks we'll go back to what we had where AFL listed players stay with their original club when playing WAFL and interstaters are distributed amongst the teams then they're in lala land....it just won't happen...and to some extent I can understand why. The 10 team scenario I think is the way to go and agree, a more equitable qualifying formula is required so the farce we currently have is not repeated. I only hope the WAFL reads your post but I won't hold my breath to them coming up with anything sensible.