TOPIC:

Bazza wrote:

Dwert wrote:

Bazza wrote:

Dwert wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote: The SDFC board had their meeting last night. I am sure one of the agenda items would have been the review. If I hear anything that I am able to share I will post an update.

They will vent opposition.

and then the WAFC will tell them the way it is, chuck them some quids.

They will then duly roll over and comply.

That is why the WAFL clubs need to be all singing from the same hyme book otherwise the WAFC will pull them apart as they have previously. Getting an independant chair of the COP (Remove Gloede) Having an agreed position by all clubs on some bottom lines and the consequences of those bottom lines not being addressed.
The licence of the two AFL teams neeeds to be put fairly and sqarely on the table. for negotiation.Retaining control of the colts comp is a non negotiable.

Sound good mate but just cannot see it happening, Gloede needs to go ASAP, clubs should pass a vote of no confidence in him, he is a bloody joke, has done nothing at all in the office, between flogging houses and sitting in the WAFC private box he must be to busy.

A united front is OK but the WAFC have the clubs by the short and curlys, the constitution gives them power over all the clubs.

Bazza in your opinion is there scope for the WAFL clubs to seek support from the WA government to navigate their way thru this miriad of issues?

The WAFC constitution gives the WA Sports Minister an optional seat on the WAFC board, this has not been taken up since the first Minister of Sport set up the WAFC; if he takes it up I understand the Sport Minister (MIck Murray) has a right of veto over the WAFC Board, so yes I think they could defiantly assist, I think we need the new State Gov to be actively engaged from here on in. What's certain is there will be no more large scale tax payer support for WAFL or Football going forward with the way the States finances are, that's why its imperative the WAFL tries to secure some sort of independence and financial security going forward, the money the Eagles are holding in the bank is WAFL money as far as I'm concerned, its been built up on the backs of the WAFL Clubs, the licences themselves are the property of the WAFL, they voted to put the Eagles into the expanded VFL.

Cheers mate I appeal to you and any other WAFL person to lobby your WAFL Presidents , boards and CEO's. My apologies if you have already..

Bazza wrote:

Dwert wrote:

Bazza wrote:

Dwert wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote: The SDFC board had their meeting last night. I am sure one of the agenda items would have been the review. If I hear anything that I am able to share I will post an update.

They will vent opposition.

and then the WAFC will tell them the way it is, chuck them some quids.

They will then duly roll over and comply.

That is why the WAFL clubs need to be all singing from the same hyme book otherwise the WAFC will pull them apart as they have previously. Getting an independant chair of the COP (Remove Gloede) Having an agreed position by all clubs on some bottom lines and the consequences of those bottom lines not being addressed.
The licence of the two AFL teams neeeds to be put fairly and sqarely on the table. for negotiation.Retaining control of the colts comp is a non negotiable.

Sound good mate but just cannot see it happening, Gloede needs to go ASAP, clubs should pass a vote of no confidence in him, he is a bloody joke, has done nothing at all in the office, between flogging houses and sitting in the WAFC private box he must be to busy.

A united front is OK but the WAFC have the clubs by the short and curlys, the constitution gives them power over all the clubs.

Bazza in your opinion is there scope for the WAFL clubs to seek support from the WA government to navigate their way thru this miriad of issues?

The WAFC constitution gives the WA Sports Minister an optional seat on the WAFC board, this has not been taken up since the first Minister of Sport set up the WAFC; if he takes it up I understand the Sport Minister (MIck Murray) has a right of veto over the WAFC Board, so yes I think they could defiantly assist, I think we need the new State Gov to be actively engaged from here on in. What's certain is there will be no more large scale tax payer support for WAFL or Football going forward with the way the States finances are, that's why its imperative the WAFL tries to secure some sort of independence and financial security going forward, the money the Eagles are holding in the bank is WAFL money as far as I'm concerned, its been built up on the backs of the WAFL Clubs, the licences themselves are the property of the WAFL, they voted to put the Eagles into the expanded VFL.

Got some bad news on that 50mil mate - it's situated on top of Lathlain Park soil , they've separated it & stuck it away from reach

Southerner wrote: The first licence in 1986 decimated WANFL football overnight - the revenue return stream was always designed to return maximum returns for the league & it's clubs to compensate for losses of players
This was heightened when the second licence came in
The gate receipts were taken years ago because it was lucrative , too lucrative for the Vics to handle it seemed at the time
Without this competition there would not be any licences end of story - the WAFL took an enormous player drain hit , and has never recovered fully since that and that is unacceptable given the wankery promised initially - in fact everything has gone polar opposite

Spot On - the original had it as we were supposed to be getting a income from the Eagles as compensation for the drop in attendances and sponsors from the entry of the Eagles.

But it was a fragile start and it didn't help that they set up Indian Pacific as a parent company to own the Eagles, the loans of the WAFL and the start up costs of Indian Pacific, lack of early success and membership incomes meant the whole thing came crashing down in a financial mess, had they ridden it out with a sounder structure with the eagles owned wholly and solely by the WAFL clubs it would be the most cashed up second tier comp around, holding off on the entry of the dorks another 10 years would of been smarter as well.

Anyway the end result was the WAFL was bust by 1989 , the Burke Government had to bail out the whole deal, Well over a Million was injected in emergency loans - The Government stated the Cultural and Social importance of WA Football was to important to let it fold, it was looking pretty grim. They set up the WAFC , removing power from the council of presidents, effectively making the WAFL defunct as the power base of WA Football, but at least it survived as a operating competition.

And every spare cent has been spent on new Ovals - training ovals , so now you begin to understand why the royalties have be suddenly revised or renegotiated in this report

Unholytugboat wrote: They have you by the short and curlys for the simple fact they are the ones that fund you. Because the WAFL is not financially viable you need them to give you hand outs.

I would suggest the scariest proposition for the WAFL would be if the AFL licenses were sold. The WAFC would have a ton of money and if the WAFL wanted any of it they would need to jump thru not just some hoops but all of them to get any.

Why not just let them have there own teams in the WAFL and secure long term funding for the WAFL, every time a team played the Dockers or the Eagles (WAFL) attendance would surge. Works in the SANFL, both AFL teams pay for the privilege.

How many times do we have to put up with the LIE that attendances around WA domiciled AFL clubs. From the initial sell for the West Coast Eagles where the WAFL attendances would be minimally affected by a team in the VFL; the introduction that the Fremantle team wouldn't make much difference to WAFL attendances and then the host club alignment mach II would have a big impact in improving attendances of WAFL matches.

Unless the AFL are willing to pay $US500,000,000 for each licence the WAFC should not sell them for less. If the AFL are willing to pay that price the money should be held in trust and the interest accrued should be distributed to the non-aligned WAFL clubs to provide long term viability of the WAFL and its clubs and to be also used to provide a well-structured WAFL clubs' junior zones. None of the WAFC should be involved in the stewardship of the trust.

Threats of disaster from the WAFC if the current alignment model does not continue. Full AFL reserve comps, mergers and bankruptcy for WAFL clubs. East Perth meeting on Monday to decide on extension, well meeting to hear what Bronte has decided.

Larry Bird wrote: Threats of disaster from the WAFC if the current alignment model does not continue. Full AFL reserve comps, mergers and bankruptcy for WAFL clubs. East Perth meeting on Monday to decide on extension, well meeting to hear what Bronte has decided.

LB this is not directed at you as I know you are paraphrasing what has been reported in today's West. What was reported about the full reserves' competition if the host club alignment is scrapped is about as sensible as the following: goo ga ha ha ga ooo lo la.

It is purely utter nonsense.

swan42 wrote:

Larry Bird wrote: Threats of disaster from the WAFC if the current alignment model does not continue. Full AFL reserve comps, mergers and bankruptcy for WAFL clubs. East Perth meeting on Monday to decide on extension, well meeting to hear what Bronte has decided.

LB this is not directed at you as I know you are paraphrasing what has been reported in today's West. What was reported about the full reserves' competition if the host club alignment is scrapped is about as sensible as the following: goo ga ha ha ga ooo lo la.

It is purely utter nonsense.

Had to shake my head at one of the last paragraphs - AFLWA is developing it's policy of ditching the principle of winning games. It has now decided it will favour getting numbers through development phases for the AFLWA future

Southerner wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Larry Bird wrote: Threats of disaster from the WAFC if the current alignment model does not continue. Full AFL reserve comps, mergers and bankruptcy for WAFL clubs. East Perth meeting on Monday to decide on extension, well meeting to hear what Bronte has decided.

LB this is not directed at you as I know you are paraphrasing what has been reported in today's West. What was reported about the full reserves' competition if the host club alignment is scrapped is about as sensible as the following: goo ga ha ha ga ooo lo la.

It is purely utter nonsense.

Had to shake my head at one of the last paragraphs - AFLWA is developing it's policy of ditching the principle of winning games. It has now decided it will favour getting numbers through development phases for the AFLWA future

Southerner could you please use the correct abbreviation:

AWF(u)L

Thought you were in a self imposed exile swan??