TOPIC:

[/quote]

Dwert if the recommendations go through I reckon the WAFL will struggle to be around in 2020.[/quote]

At least Griffen Logue will be in his prime by then 42...something to look forward to hey mate...

great to see two sides of a story...only way one can test their opinion by hearing the other side of the argument.

Freezin wrote:

Dwert if the recommendations go through I reckon the WAFL will struggle to be around in 2020.[/quote]

At least Griffen Logue will be in his prime by then 42...something to look forward to hey mate...

great to see two sides of a story...only way one can test their opinion by hearing the other side of the argument.[/quote]

I have read the report. If the TAC Cup is so good in terms of its player retention why is there a paucity of statistics to back up that claim?

It is nothing more nor less than a COMPLETE FALSEHOOD that the proposed change to the colts is not a clone of the TAC Cup format.

If you were charged with providing a report wouldn't you think that you would interview the WAFL clubs? Wouldn't you think that you would check what Swans were doing in terms of the vSwans programme?

Whatever Gavin , Warren , Jon , Tugboat
Whoever you are go and celebrate your contribution in the demise of the WAFL competition.

Job well done

anchorman wrote:

Freezin wrote:

Dwert if the recommendations go through I reckon the WAFL will struggle to be around in 2020.

At least Griffen Logue will be in his prime by then 42...something to look forward to hey mate...

great to see two sides of a story...only way one can test their opinion by hearing the other side of the argument.[/quote]
Well said freez.[/quote]

Therein lies the problem A/man when you mention G Logue. I won't revisit the argument about Swans' members and supporters not being able to see him play for Swans if not required Freo other than to say that with the proposed changes we won't even be able to see players of his ilk play league for Swans prior to getting drafted and most probably not be able to see him even in the colts. I believe that the colts will be removed from playing on the same day and at the same venue as the WAFL league match for the club they still supposed represent.

Let's not forget u guys dragged me in here from an amateur thread talking about TAC cup and colts.

Unholytugboat wrote: Let's not forget u guys dragged me in here from an amateur thread talking about TAC cup and colts.

Name and shame the person who has kidnapped you and forced you to post on this topic. I am sure that the ozfooty admin will not look kindly to a poster on here forcing against your will to post on this topic.

I think we have had a great discussion, I am more educated on how diehard many wafl fans are and that for many it's the number 1 league.
Tradition is greatly important for u and the reluctance to change is massive.

The wafc is going to have one hell of a shit storm to try and enforce the changes on the wafl. My bet is one hell of a stand off with east Perth threatening to pull the pin on the alignment.

I didn't know any of this before.

Unholytugboat wrote: I think we have had a great discussion, I am more educated on how diehard many wafl fans are and that for many it's the number 1 league.
Tradition is greatly important for u and the reluctance to change is massive.

The wafc is going to have one hell of a shit storm to try and enforce the changes on the wafl. My bet is one hell of a stand off with east Perth threatening to pull the pin on the alignment.

I didn't know any of this before.

A simple question that doesn't require you taking one side or the other on the review. It relates to the actual review process. How can BCG recommend that a continuance of the host club alignment without determining whether the clubs in the alignment?

Surely if that is the case it brings into question the quality of the review?

After all that I feel like the WAFC have got us all over a barrel and having their way with us and there is not huge amount that can be done...Not a great feeling I must confess.

Probably my last comment for tonight as it is getting late for me. I firmly believe that the review was skewered to giving the results that the WAFC wanted. Why do I say that? Of the 19 recommendations 18 were accepted and only one was rejected. The one that was rejected was an ambit claim to go down to 6 colts' teams. A proposition that no-one was going to accept. Remarkably there was virtually an identical recommendation to that save that there would be 9 teams to have a ratio of 1:1 with the WAFL clubs but the change was the same in all other points other than the number of teams.