TOPIC:

58shark wrote: Thought you were in a self imposed exile swan??

58s if the recommendations go ahead then we will all be silent because the WAFL will be no more. Hence my comments predominantly on this subject.

If anyone has read the report then they would realise the only hope for the WAFL as we know it to be saved is to garner enough opposition that it is scrapped. I would urge all supporters of the WAFL to voice their opposition to these changes to their local board, media and to the WAFC. Also, to their local members of parliament and the sports minister.

I hope that adequately explains my posting t this point in time 58s.

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.

Where do you get this from?

Bazza 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.

Where do you get this from?

It is a quote from today's West.

thewest.com.au/sport/wafl-clubs-east-per...-model-ng-b88436613z

Here is the link to the information relating to the review. If you scroll down you will see a section headed "The Structural Review of Football Report was completed based on:".

I recommend people read that section and pay particular note to the comment that BCG interviewed more than 70 WA football stakeholders. That figure is particularly interesting given when I asked a director of Swans had BCG spoken to Swans and the answer was no. One can presume given the reviews comments about the host club alignment continuing that BCG didn't speak to East Perth either given the angst within East Perth regarding the alignment.


www.wafootball.com.au/news/12028/structu...eview-of-wa-football

To quote from the section headed "Summary of the key reforms:

WAFL
To structure the WAFL to be a competitive broadcast-quality competition, that supports the AFL club alignment and sees the Clubs as the peak of the State's participation pathway and relevant to their local communities.

Completely and utterly nonsensical. Let's start with the "WAFL to be a competitive broadcast-quality competition". Who knows what "broadcast quality competition" means. Perhaps some one can explain how a team with 17 AFL listed players lends itself to a "competitive" competition.

There is also an area where you can provide feedback. Every WAFL supporter should themselves of that opportunity to oppose all the recommendations.

Swan, Iam seriously not trying to be antagonistic but the wafl is a very minor stakeholder. Whilst it's a very important one, when you compare it to the largest stakeholder which is community football it only makes up .2% of participants. Might be the reason the swans director u speak of didn't get a call.

I understand and value the wafl, but if it's not broadcast quality, financially viable and attracting crowds- then its hard to justify substantial funding at .2% participation.

Unholytugboat wrote: Swan, Iam seriously not trying to be antagonistic but the wafl is a very minor stakeholder. Whilst it's a very important one, when you compare it to the largest stakeholder which is community football it only makes up .2% of participants. Might be the reason the swans director u speak of didn't get a call.

I understand and value the wafl, but if it's not broadcast quality, financially viable and attracting crowds- then its hard to justify substantial funding at .2% participation.

To clarify I asked whether Swans had been contcted not whether the specific director had been contacted. The answer was that BCG had not contacted Swans as part of the review process.

What does "broadcast quality" mean? Without being too provocative (and my apologies to Dockers' supporters" are the Dockers performing at broadcast-quality?

I understand your agenda in trying to promote the WAAFL; but I am not sure that you quite understand that the AFL couldn't care less about the WAAFL. That just want to control everything. There is not one major footy competition below the AFL that has flourished. The VFA has gone; Tassie's two footy competition have gone. The next major competition to go will be the WAFL and then the final one to fall will be the SANFL.

I am sure you will quote the increase in the WAAFL but primarily that has been on the back of the demise of such competitions as the SFL (WAFA and SSMFL).

With respect to the finncials how much is the AFL spending in QLD and Sydney? If the AFL were to put a very small percentage of that annual spend into supporting the WAFL then the WAFL would be more bouyant and financially sustainable. That would then allow the WAFL clubs to be able to place more resources into junior footy that would in turn have a positive return for the WAAFL.

In my opinion the raison d'etre for the review was to allow the WAFC to be able to exist after the demise of the WAFL. Their hope was that if the WAFL league and ressies go they will still have a job in running the WA style TAC Cup competition.

I challenge anyone to list any of the recommendations that will enhance the WAFL. Part of the challenge is to explain how the recommendation(s) enhance the competition.

To the Swans' supporters and members I have been told that they will be collating responses from their members and supporters on Monday in preparation for the board to meet later in the week in a lengthy session to prepare a consolidated response to take up with WAFC later in the month. So if you have any comments I would suggest that you email your responses to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

I would also suggest that members and supporters of other WAFL clubs send their comments to their club.

Unholytugboat wrote: Swan, Iam seriously not trying to be antagonistic but the wafl is a very minor stakeholder. Whilst it's a very important one, when you compare it to the largest stakeholder which is community football it only makes up .2% of participants. Might be the reason the swans director u speak of didn't get a call.

I understand and value the wafl, but if it's not broadcast quality, financially viable and attracting crowds- then its hard to justify substantial funding at .2% participation.

tugboat what is your vision for footy in this country tier wise, would you like to see it go from afl and next level down is amateurs? Or under 23s? Or what?

swan42 wrote: To the Swans' supporters and members I have been told that they will be collating responses from their members and supporters on Monday in preparation for the board to meet later in the week in a lengthy session to prepare a consolidated response to take up with WAFC later in the month. So if you have any comments I would suggest that you email your responses to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

I would also suggest that members and supporters of other WAFL clubs send their comments to their club.

Great idea Swan42 ..I would suggest the SFFC posters do likewise....email the CEO ... This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Tiger of old wrote:

Unholytugboat wrote: Swan, Iam seriously not trying to be antagonistic but the wafl is a very minor stakeholder. Whilst it's a very important one, when you compare it to the largest stakeholder which is community football it only makes up .2% of participants. Might be the reason the swans director u speak of didn't get a call.

I understand and value the wafl, but if it's not broadcast quality, financially viable and attracting crowds- then its hard to justify substantial funding at .2% participation.

tugboat what is your vision for footy in this country tier wise, would you like to see it go from afl and next level down is amateurs? Or under 23s? Or what?

God no, WAFL is a must.

The WAFL just does not know its place, its a second tier comp, it needs to facilitate and support the top tier just like all the tiers under the WAFL that support it.

Swan42 comments around the WAFC justifying its existence is a perfect example of WAFL clubs attitude to WA Football. They don't understand that the WAFC is a very large organisation running football in WA. Many of you think the WAFC is just here to run the WAFL - the truth is much different, the WAFL would be a very very minor part of what they do. remember only .2% participation- not much for the WAFC to do here.

Whilst a few of you like to think that I am simply Pro-WAFC, I have been involved with junior football for a very long time and witness first hand the entitlement WAFL clubs are consumed with.

I have never heard anything so ridiculous as a second tier comp dictating how the rest of WA Football should be run.