TOPIC:

Dwert wrote:

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.

Some points that people might like to comment on include:

• the reduction from 20 home and away games to 16
• the removal of the reserves matches as curtain raisers to the league
• the availability of colts' players to play league
• the reduction in funding to the WAFL clubs
• how removing junior development teams, colts, and junior footy helps kids identify with a WAFL club
• where will the next generation of WAFL supporters come from when they junior footy players will have no relationship with the WAFL clubs

has anyone thought of playing WAFL league matches as curtain raisers for AFL matches at the new stadium?

swan42 wrote:

Dwert wrote:

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.

Some points that people might like to comment on include:

• the reduction from 20 home and away games to 16
• the removal of the reserves matches as curtain raisers to the league
• the availability of colts' players to play league
• the reduction in funding to the WAFL clubs
• how removing junior development teams, colts, and junior footy helps kids identify with a WAFL club
• where will the next generation of WAFL supporters come from when they junior footy players will have no relationship with the WAFL clubs

Like I said, never heard anything as ridiculous as a second tier competition dictating how Football in an entire state should be run.

Unholytugboat wrote:

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.

uhtb have you read the report? A very simple question to answer.

uhtb exactly what does the WAFC run and how well do they do it?

swan42 wrote:

Unholytugboat wrote:

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.

uhtb have you read the report? A very simple question to answer.

Skimmed over it, fairly common sense stuff in there, nothing ground breaking.

swan42 wrote: uhtb exactly what does the WAFC run and how well do they do it?

As a guide mate, think about every time a football is used in an organised format anywhere in Western Australia the wafc have a hand in it.

Instead of answering your question how about this, without considering the AFL or wafl, how well do u think the wafc is doing?

Unholytugboat wrote:

swan42 wrote: uhtb exactly what does the WAFC run and how well do they do it?

As a guide mate, think about every time a football is used in an organised format anywhere in Western Australia the wafc have a hand in it.

Instead of answering your question how about this, without considering the AFL or wafl, how well do u think the wafc is doing?

Pretty poor given that the SFL no longer exists. Pretty poor given the drop-out rates are and I QUOTE (from the report that you haven't read)

"The drop-off in participation between junior and youth levels in WA is more pronounced than in other states".

The fundamental difference between you and the WAFC and those who support the WAFL is that we want to retain the 100+ years of WAFL history. What the WAFC is proposing is the complete destruction of the WAFL. No one on here has claimed that the WAFL and our clubs are perfect or even close to perfect.

If the AFL put in a very small percentage of funds into the WAFL compared to what they have invested in the Gold Coast, Brisbane and GWS then the WAFL clubs could invest in the development of junior clubs in their district. The flow-on affect of that investment in junior footy clubs would mean more junior players being available for senior amateur clubs. Surely that is what you would hope to happen.

But the AFL won't invest in the WAFL because they don't want the WAFL to have any autonomy.

You dispute my claim that the WAFC is trying to find a reason to continue to exist after the demise of the WAFL. Having read the report, I stand by that comment. A strong WAFL and strong junior footy and adult amateur footy teams are not mutually exclusive.

Which bit don't u get? The wafc is massive, the wafl could shut down tomorrow and it would be business as usual. It's like a business with 10000 customers losing one client?? A minor blip.

Talking about justifying the wafc existence is ludicrous and unfathomable. - it's f-ing crazy to think that they exist to run the wafl.

In regards to drop out rates, can u tell me at what point do wafl clubs interfere with junior clubs? Surely it's not youth where they start creating the havs and have nots? I wonder if this was one of the reasons development is going to the wafc?

27% increase in participation in 12 months. And u picked the age group that wafl gets involved.

Swan 42 I would not waste my breathe arguing with Gavin Taylor . John Haines , Warren Nel whoever Tug boat is.

He has no interest in the WAFL surviving. Save your energy and put into actions that we can control...He is a 110 percent anti WAFL.