TOPIC:

MarkOlsen wrote: so if we look at revamping the zones to equalize the G7 WAFL clubs then that would mean Subi's zones must get reduced to do something about their dominance ?

No MO your being selective by only looking at one aspect. If the WAFC go down an equalization path with actions like minimum % of local content and limiting the number of 10 point players and 6 point players on a clubs list which I would support, then once that is done it is vital that all clubs zones are equalized, you cant do one without the other otherwise it will lead to another form of imbalance where the clubs with big number zones and or special assets like multiple private boys colleges will dominate the comp. Imagine how dominant Claremont would be with a properly equalized format for local content and player points without looking at the distinct advantages their zone gives them. Genuine equalization means looking at every aspect of the competition from country and junior zones right up to player points an local content. IMHO local content should a minimum of 72% which equates to 16 locals. The definition of a local also needs to look at imports who have been at a club for a length of time, maybe a minimum of 100 games or 5 seasons should qualify as a local player.

we have a salary cap and a points system and one team has still dominated, both were introduced to even out the competition yet it is still dominated by one club.
i am not sure you have a grasp on equalization when you have a club dominate like Subi does.

you make some solid points there MO but I can see both sides and agree to some extent with you and SS. the points and salary cap should remain, zones should be as equal as possible plus a minimum % of locals in each club's senior squad should be imposed. according to Townsend article Subi's league team last weekend was a total of 63 points with only 3 ten point players. To me that's sounds like the points allocation process is wrong given the number of non-locals in Subi's side...so maybe that should be revisited as well.

Interesting debate lads just thought I would make a few comments to hear your thoughts.

at least 15 local players each week
2 Victorians allowed each week
4 players from other local clubs each week.

If you applied that to Subi each week we could still field a comination of Della, Kitchen and Tw.,
the limitation on local recuits would weaken us

Over the years, since 1987, our zone has porduced some good footballers , includding the best full-forward in the competition.

We would manage in such a situation

For me, it would be unwise to put anymore restrictions on the recruitment by clubs because it would encourage the Commission to push for an U-23 competition.

We cannot introduce such a system unless the alingment ends or is reformmed in some way --

MarkOlsen wrote: we have a salary cap and a points system and one team has still dominated, both were introduced to even out the competition yet it is still dominated by one club.
i am not sure you have a grasp on equalization when you have a club dominate like Subi does.

Yes we have both those things but every club would be breaking the cap so unless the WAFC gets serious about policing it it's next to useless. The points system also needs a major overhall and as I mentioned it needs to be tied in with a min % of locals and limits on high points players which in effect results in the points being reduced down from the current 130, so I do have a grasp on equalization, its not just looking at one aspect, it's looking at every aspect of a clubs playing list that could result in a club dominating. Points, salary, local content and zones all need to be part of the equation. But it will impact on limiting some wonderfull players coming into the comp that have provided great entertainment for the punters, players like Hockey, Kitchen, Twomey Geappen, Delahunty and the like.

16 locals plus maximum of 3 x 10 point players and 3 x 6 point players is a reasonable starting point.

Gone through 2017 WAFL Rules & Regulation & noticed " a player is inelligble if they play more than 10 AFL matches"
Suban (12), Sutcliffe (13), Logue (13), Ryan (11).
When was this rule rescinded?

Great spot LS.You might of opened a can of worms.

Leather Stops wrote: Gone through 2017 WAFL Rules & Regulation & noticed " a player is inelligble if they play more than 10 AFL matches"
Suban (12), Sutcliffe (13), Logue (13), Ryan (11).
When was this rule rescinded?

Send that through to John Townsend and let him loose on it. but surely it cant be true, that would mean Peelmantle would forfeit both their finals!! Sure it's not the 2016 rules?

Let me play the devil's advocate role and I am going to speak to the G7 clubs.

Whilst I accept that Subiaco's junior zone may not be the most fertile but would it be significantly better if Subiaco had ploughed significantly more funds into their zone rather than recruiting the likes of Robinson, Twomey et al?

Secondly as I have suggested previously a problem with the points cap is that there is no real penalty for a club like Subiaco recruiting players from the bottom team. To provide a significant disincentive there should be a premium for a club like Subiaco recruiting from the bottom teams. My proposal would be that, and I will use this year's positions, if Subiaco (1st) recruited a 10 point player from Perth (9th) the actual points for Subiaco would be the 10 points plus the difference in positions (9 - 1) 8 times a multiplier factor of 2.5 giving the cost in terms of Subiaco would be 30 points. The multiplier factor would only apply where the club recruiting the player finished higher than the player's current club.

Leather Stops wrote: Gone through 2017 WAFL Rules & Regulation & noticed " a player is inelligble if they play more than 10 AFL matches"
Suban (12), Sutcliffe (13), Logue (13), Ryan (11).
When was this rule rescinded?

changes-to-2017-wafl-rules-and-regulations.pdf