TOPIC:

Tiger Tales wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Country member wrote: What an exhilarating competition. Results today of 30, 46 and 53 points and the top 5 two games clear of 6th. And it's only July. Zzzzzzzz.....

So CM has finally realised what a disgraceful and incompetent job the WAFC is doing in ensuring the integrity of the WAFL and the financial viability of the WAFL clubs.

Not sure CM referenced any of that in his post which says that there is a big gap between the top 5 and bottom 4.

But draw whatever preconceived conclusions you want Swan...keep blaming everyone else.

TT I believe CM made comments about what an exhilarating competition it was. CM also made contest about the top 5 two games clear of the bottom 4 and today's games' margins. Given those comments and the fact that the WAFC control the WAFL competition it is a natural, logical and reasonable conclusion that he was speaking tothe bad job the WAFC are doing. If it is not the WAFC's fault because of the host club alignment and doing naught about Subiaco's dominance whose fault is it?

swan42 wrote:

Tiger Tales wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Country member wrote: What an exhilarating competition. Results today of 30, 46 and 53 points and the top 5 two games clear of 6th. And it's only July. Zzzzzzzz.....

So CM has finally realised what a disgraceful and incompetent job the WAFC is doing in ensuring the integrity of the WAFL and the financial viability of the WAFL clubs.

Not sure CM referenced any of that in his post which says that there is a big gap between the top 5 and bottom 4.

But draw whatever preconceived conclusions you want Swan...keep blaming everyone else.

TT I believe CM made comments about what an exhilarating competition it was. CM also made contest about the top 5 two games clear of the bottom 4 and today's games' margins. Given those comments and the fact that the WAFC control the WAFL competition it is a natural, logical and reasonable conclusion that he was speaking tothe bad job the WAFC are doing. If it is not the WAFC's fault because of the host club alignment and doing naught about Subiaco's dominance whose fault is it?

I understand the comments CM made but you're 'natural, logical and reasonable conclusion' that the win/loss ratios of the WAFL teams is the WAFC's fault is anything but natural, logical and reasonable.

Who allowed the host club arrangement...the clubs with the guarantee of more money
Who allowed an inadequate points system...the clubs
Who are paying too much money to underperforming players...the clubs in the bottom half of the competition
Who is responsible for clubs being unsustainable financially...the clubs.

Tiger Tales wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Tiger Tales wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Country member wrote: What an exhilarating competition. Results today of 30, 46 and 53 points and the top 5 two games clear of 6th. And it's only July. Zzzzzzzz.....

So CM has finally realised what a disgraceful and incompetent job the WAFC is doing in ensuring the integrity of the WAFL and the financial viability of the WAFL clubs.

Not sure CM referenced any of that in his post which says that there is a big gap between the top 5 and bottom 4.

But draw whatever preconceived conclusions you want Swan...keep blaming everyone else.

TT I believe CM made comments about what an exhilarating competition it was. CM also made contest about the top 5 two games clear of the bottom 4 and today's games' margins. Given those comments and the fact that the WAFC control the WAFL competition it is a natural, logical and reasonable conclusion that he was speaking tothe bad job the WAFC are doing. If it is not the WAFC's fault because of the host club alignment and doing naught about Subiaco's dominance whose fault is it?

I understand the comments CM made but you're 'natural, logical and reasonable conclusion' that the win/loss ratios of the WAFL teams in the WAFC fault is anything but natural, logical and reasonable.

Who allowed the host club arrangement...the clubs with the guarantee of more money
Who allowed an inadequate points system...the clubs
Who are paying too much money to underperforming players...the clubs in the bottom half of the competition

My God how can you possibly say that the WAFL clubs are responsible for the host club alignment? Without quoting G Walton as I "respect" his desire not to have his views available to the WAFL supporters the decision to allow the host club alignment was made by the WAFC. If you are seriously suggesting that the WAFL clubs have being presented with a fait accompli they should not accept the compensation (albeit grossly inadequate" then you must have absolutely no idea.

The clubs do not control the points caps either.

As for your comments that the WAFC have no responsibility for the win/loss ratios of the bottom temas is nothing but patent nonsense. Do you think that Swans would have been as bad we were last year if we had Pearce, Hughes, Blakely available to play for us rather than against us?

The clubs have no control because their answer every time the WAFC comes to them with an issue is to say ok, as long as you give us more money as compensation.

In regards to the host club, yes it was up to the clubs. East Perth and Peel said yes to the host club and the rest of the clubs agreed when extra money was thrown on the table.

Would Swans have been better with the players you listed? Yes they would have been but so would of CL, S, SF, WP, P & EF if their players hadn't been drafted into the AFL whether that be to WC and Freo or to any of the other 16 AFL clubs which resulted in them not playing for their WAFL club.

Would Swans have won the flag last year? No and they probably wouldn't have been anymore competitive because everyone else would have also been better including Subiaco.

Tiger Tales wrote: The clubs have no control because their answer every time the WAFC comes to them with an issue is to say ok, as long as you give us more money as compensation.

In regards to the host club, yes it was up to the clubs. East Perth and Peel said yes to the host club and the rest of the clubs agreed when extra money was thrown on the table.

Would Swans have been better with the players you listed? Yes they would have been but so would of CL, S, SF, WP, P & EF if their players hadn't been drafted into the AFL whether that be to WC and Freo or to any of the other 16 AFL clubs which resulted in them not playing for their WAFL club.

Would Swans have won the flag last year? No and they probably wouldn't have been anymore competitive because everyone else would have also been better including Subiaco.

It is a very simple concept. From G Walton's very own words the host club alignment decision WAS MADE By THE WAFC. No ifs, buts, maybes, no disclaimers and no qualifications.

As for your proposition that Swans would not have been able to kick more than two goals on at least three occasions (from memory) is just preposterous.

So if Peel and EP and the other 5 WAFL clubs all said no to the alignment, what would of happened even if the WAFC wanted it? EP and Peel said yes we will align ourselves and the other clubs said yes if we get an increase in annual funding.

You probably would have kicked more goals in those games, but I'm not convinced you would have won more games.

Peels GF Squad
Tendai Mzungu (P), Nick Suban (C), Matt de Boer (C), Shane Yarran (S), Ethan Hughes (SD), Darcy Tucker (?), Connor Blakely (SD), Harley Balic (?), Ed Langdon (?) , Alex Silvagni (C), Jack Hannath (PT), Josh Deluca (S), Sam Collins (?), Jon Griffin (EF), Michael Apeness (?) Ryan Nyhuis (?), Zac Clarke (EP), Clancee Pierce (SD) and the non-Freo listed Peel players Gerard Ugle, Rory O’Brien, Brayden Lawler, Josh Bootsma, Andrew Haydon, Blair Bell, Alexander Bray and Calvin Thorne.

Tiger Tales wrote: So if Peel and EP and the other 5 WAFL clubs all said no to the alignment, what would of happened even if the WAFC wanted it? EP and Peel said yes we will align ourselves and the other clubs said yes if we get an increase in annual funding.

You probably would have kicked more goals in those games, but I'm not convinced you would have won more games.

Peels GF Squad
Tendai Mzungu (P), Nick Suban (C), Matt de Boer (C), Shane Yarran (S), Ethan Hughes (SD), Darcy Tucker (?), Connor Blakely (SD), Harley Balic (?), Ed Langdon (?) , Alex Silvagni (C), Jack Hannath (PT), Josh Deluca (S), Sam Collins (?), Jon Griffin (EF), Michael Apeness (?) Ryan Nyhuis (?), Zac Clarke (EP), Clancee Pierce (SD) and the non-Freo listed Peel players Gerard Ugle, Rory O’Brien, Brayden Lawler, Josh Bootsma, Andrew Haydon, Blair Bell, Alexander Bray and Calvin Thorne.

TT are you being singularly or deliberately obtuse? I will repeat ONCE AGAIN that the host club alignment decision WAS MADE BY THE WAFC. Not by the WAFL clubs together. Not by East Perth. Not made by Peel. I repeat the host club alignment was MADE SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY by the WAFC.

You may ask how I can make such a claim. The answer is that G Walton the then Chief Executive of the WAFC told me in an email.

I did not claim that we would have won more games last year with those players. It might be difficult for you understand that. What I implied was that we wouldn't have been as bad and that we would have kicked more goals.

Stand alone AFL Reserves sides in the WAFL was the AFL clubs preference which was put forward by the WAFC to the 9 WAFL clubs. This was rejected by the WAFL clubs and the host club model was then proposed as an alternative. EP and PT broke ranks and brokered a deal with the AFL clubs and then the remaining WAFL clubs sought extra annual income as compensation for the host club model being introduced again.

If the WAFL clubs could reject the stand alone AFL reserves teams, that could have rejected the host club arrangement.

From what I hear WC will have a stand alone team within 2 years in the WAFL and Peel will host Freo so get used to the traditional WAFL clubs having their AFL listed players based out of those two clubs.

.

Tiger Tales wrote: Stand alone AFL Reserves sides in the WAFL was the AFL clubs preference which was put forward by the WAFC to the 9 WAFL clubs. This was rejected by the WAFL clubs and the host club model was then proposed as an alternative. EP and PT broke ranks and brokered a deal with the AFL clubs and then the remaining WAFL clubs sought extra annual income as compensation for the host club model being introduced again.

If the WAFL clubs could reject the stand alone AFL reserves teams, that could have rejected the host club arrangement.

From what I hear WC will have a stand alone team within 2 years in the WAFL and Peel will host Freo so get used to the traditional WAFL clubs having their AFL listed players based out of those two clubs.

.

As I am a particularly patient I will try one last time. Yes the idea of the two WA domiciled AFL clubs having a team in the WAFL was rejected by the WAFL clubs as was their right to make such a decision.

Now this is the part that you need to concentrate fully on. and I remind you that my source of the information was then Chief Executive of the WAFC G Walton. The host club alignment decision was made by the WAFC. let me say that one more time. The host club alignment decision was made by the WAFC. The decision WAS NOT MADE BY the WAFL clubs.

Further you are wrong to assert that the WAFL clubs could have rejected the decision made by the WAFC to allow Peel and East Perth to host the two WA domiciled AFL clubs.

Swan42 the WAFC does not have the ability to force a WAFL club to align with a WA AFL team. The Boards of both EP and PT had to agree and sign a contract to align with with WC and Freo. These contracts also have end dates with the WAFL clubs and AFL clubs both able to withdraw from the agreement or take the option to continue the agreement. EP failed to withdraw from the agreement before the required date this year which will see the alignment continue on.

Once again if none of the WAFL clubs agreed to align with the 2 AFL clubs and stand alone AFL Reserves teams were also rejected then what would have happened?

If EP or PT (unlikely) exercise their right to withdraw from the alignment, none of the other WAFL clubs agree to become aligned and they continue to reject the stand alone model will they not have to revert back to the players being spread across the comp?