TOPIC:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote: As a matter of interest there is nothing in the report that explains how the players reacted to the suggestion that the players will get not a 10% cut in their pay but it is actually a 20% pay cut.

Supposedly there will only be 16 games played by each WAFL club.

Probably because its NOT CERTAIN THAT WILL HAPPEN.

It is a recommendation in the report. Have you read the report?

I know the reduced fixture is , but does it specifically say there will be no top up payments to allow for the reduced games played?

Ostensibly it is to reduce costs. Seems to run counter to your assumption.

It is just an amazing coincidence that Channel 7 want an 18 round season. By the way I recommend the Hitchhikers trilogy in 5 parts - they're real as well.

I agree that putting more resources into the system should improve it but picking out Foster as an "exhibit" of something wrong with the system is inappropriate. Foster's best is bloody good. Foster is an example of massive success on a tight budget. We need more development of his quality, they have started to get in place, and more resources should get more quality but it is not correct to assert that they have to have played AFL or been in the AFL system - they have to be high quality development coaches (Foster is "exhibit A" for that proposition).
The big issue from the review is whether the WAFC and not the WAFL clubs should be in control of the development stream and the presumably increased $ that come with the change.

UHTB - clearly the review agrees with your last point - a complete separation of development and of WAFL premiership pursuit.
The issue is going to be whether the 2 are mutually exclusive

Does Foster become better if he is given more paid staff? Elite running conditioners? Experienced personal at junior matches watching for talent? Mentors with AFL experience? Paid courses to further enhance his own coaching?

More funding would deliver these.

Tugboat has no idea what he is talking about..
the model we are supposed to be in love with now - the TAC Cup in Victoria has only 3 ex AFL players as coaches out of 12 teams..

as for other points made, how is it not good for a young players development if he is physically capable to progress through reserves and league ?

MarkOlsen wrote: Tugboat has no idea what he is talking about..
the model we are supposed to be in love with now - the TAC Cup in Victoria has only 3 ex AFL players as coaches out of 12 teams..

as for other points made, how is it not good for a young players development if he is physically capable to progress through reserves and league ?

So Alistair Clarkson rocks up to the subiaco football club and apply for the colts job.

Do u think he would get it based on credentials?

Unholytugboat wrote:

Bazza wrote:

KCEF wrote: I've seen Foster in action when he was at EF Colts- very good coach. Brendan Bolton had no AFL experience either. Fosters brother played for Fremantle.
Being a good coach and a good development coach are different.

I agree he is a good coach, but they run it on a shoestring, I don't think Tug Boat is saying Foster is not doing his best, he is saying lifting it to another professional level is an entirely different matter.

Exactly,

And it's not limited to head coaches. An entire department focused not on wafl premiership s but development of talent.

Yep, that's it, although I think some clubs have already moved a long way in this direction, East Fremantle are very much focused on development its clearly been the club priority for a long time now, the league team is no longer the biggest priority at the club, Claremont are also highly geared to development.

if he was any good he would get a job at an AFL club wouldnt he ?
why would he coach a colts side ?

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote: As a matter of interest there is nothing in the report that explains how the players reacted to the suggestion that the players will get not a 10% cut in their pay but it is actually a 20% pay cut.

Supposedly there will only be 16 games played by each WAFL club.

Probably because its NOT CERTAIN THAT WILL HAPPEN.

It is a recommendation in the report. Have you read the report?

I know the reduced fixture is , but does it specifically say there will be no top up payments to allow for the reduced games played?

Ostensibly it is to reduce costs. Seems to run counter to your assumption.

It is just an amazing coincidence that Channel 7 want an 18 round season. By the way I recommend the Hitchhikers trilogy in 5 parts - they're real as well.

Can you post a link or a pdf of the report please.

There are a lot of match days costs apart from player payments that may represent savings? Does it say player payments cannot be increased?

Wtf has the Hitchikers got to do with it?

He would get the job because he would be the best candidate.