TOPIC:

Unbelievable, perfect example how an important topic is completely ruined by utter garbage. OFA took action yesterday but a few of you just don't get it. More drastic action required I think!

After splitting this topic yesterday to give those who want to talk about facilities and grants to carry on that argument on another topic I see today more ranting back and forth nothing to do with this topic. I have deleted and moved about 6 pages of posts from this topic and I have identified Grassy as the antagonist here and he has been banned for two weeks. It's not your first warning Grassy, you know that.

I understand things can go off topic but when it becomes a rant for the sake of it and becomes a back and forth bitch session I won't put up with it.

Admin

The eagles proposal has merit but what concerns me is what happens when Fremantle then say they want their own side, which they will. The best scenario is if we could bugger off peel for good.

Are Fremantle saying that Tiger? As I understand they are quite happy with the arrangement and I imagine so are the WAFC because they don't have to deal with the embarrassment of the failed lab experiment. The only ones probably not happy are those genuine young Peel players that can't crack a league game and if they do, will miss out in September when Peel are trying to win a flag.

yep...agree 100% with all you've said DD...Peel will want to continue with the arrangement and can't see any valid reason why Freo wouldn't as well...and you're also correct on the pathway or lack thereof to play WAFL footy for the Peel locals.

Tiger of old wrote: The eagles proposal has merit but what concerns me is what happens when Fremantle then say they want their own side, which they will. The best scenario is if we could bugger off peel for good.

It wont work or stay that way long term, you cant have one team with a distinctive advantage over all the other clubs, once the eagles set up with amateurs they wont be as strong, I've always thought that long term Peel would just morph into the Dockers WAFL side, I think once Eagles set up alone, the Dockers will do the same, the only solution will be for Peel to set up in the same way as the Dockers stand alone, eventually they will be rebranded as the Dockers, Peel will be stripped away of colts and reserves , zones divided up again. The Dockers don't or wont want the constant hassel of the defacto running of zombie club in the form of Peel once they see the free hand West Coast with their stand alone, it also gives the WAFL a convenient way of disposing of Peel with honour.

South Australia uses the one AFL Reserves stand-alone and one AFL/SANFL hybrid set up and it seems to work OK there.
Disposing of Peel could also go some way to the (rejected) Boston recommendation to reduce the number of colts teams.
Having 2 "AFL Branded" teams in the WAFL might be adverse to the WAFL brand but I do not see how it can attract spectators to the WAFL.
Why would the WAFC think that losing Peel's southern presence would be a good thing when so much effort has gone into nurturing Peel and standing by the decision to let them in?

Your not seriously comparing Peel to the Port Adelaide Football Club are you?
There's reasons why the WAFC would want to ditch the Peel concept, i.e. end the financial burden on the WAFC, bring equity to the comp. and the fact that it hasn't taken on despite as you say years of "nurturing" in the local area, attendances even after a premiership are a joke.
But its not really about that its about what Fremantle want, and they will want the unfettered management of their squad along the same lines as WCE.

No Baz, I'm not comparing Peel and Port Adelaide. But PA (SANFL)/ PA (AFL) is a little closer to East Perth / WCE in the sense of a strong traditional State league club and there are problems with that situation.
What I'm saying is that Peel is not a traditional club that could lose its traditional identity with the alignment and as it works with that hybrid in SA, there is a precedent for the WAFC to follow with the WAFL (at least as an interim step).
Something makes it work in SA and PA (AFL) must be able to manage their squad through the Magpies in a way that both are happy enough with the arrangement. In what way is that NOT working for Peel and the Dockers now? I haven't noticed too many Dockers in the Reserves at Peel or anything that looks like a compromise in list management.
Can you be more specific about what would change with the Docker's list management if they went it alone?
WAFL Clubs did not want the stand alone model before, why are they going to endorse it now?

Bazza wrote:

Tiger of old wrote: The eagles proposal has merit but what concerns me is what happens when Fremantle then say they want their own side, which they will. The best scenario is if we could bugger off peel for good.

It wont work or stay that way long term, you cant have one team with a distinctive advantage over all the other clubs, once the eagles set up with amateurs they wont be as strong, I've always thought that long term Peel would just morph into the Dockers WAFL side, I think once Eagles set up alone, the Dockers will do the same, the only solution will be for Peel to set up in the same way as the Dockers stand alone, eventually they will be rebranded as the Dockers, Peel will be stripped away of colts and reserves , zones divided up again. The Dockers don't or wont want the constant hassel of the defacto running of zombie club in the form of Peel once they see the free hand West Coast with their stand alone, it also gives the WAFL a convenient way of disposing of Peel with honour.

You've absolutely summed up everything that I was hinting at bazza. I can't believe that DD and BC would think that the Dockers will be happy forever for their reserves to be "branded" ( that's AFL business lingo) as the Peel Thunder Football Club. NO WAY!
As I said before the best case scenario would be for Peel to be made extinct and the zone handed back to the WAFL mix. But what rights do Peel have? They've probably got a quite strong legal position to keep on existing, I'm not sure.