TOPIC:

Does anyone think that the WAFC care or support the WAFL?

I thought I would revisit my original email to Gary Walton that I sent to him in December, 2014. I would have liked to include his response but I will not do so to prevent the current owner of this site being compromised by those (read WAFC) who do not like their views known to the WAFL supporters.

Attn Gary Walton


Dear Sir,

It was with much disbelief and dismay I read your Q&A in today’s Sunday Times. I am a member of Swan Districts and whilst I suspect that some of my fellow Swans’ supporters might agree with my comments the views expressed are my own and under no circumstances do I represent them as the official views of the Swan Districts Football Club

Where does one start? Perhaps with your most damning answer to the reason for the lowest crowd at the Grand Final since the 1930s. It is incomprehensible to me that you can attribute the bad weather as the primary cause for the poor attendance at the WAFL GF. This ignores the angst and genuine anger of the vast majority of WAFL supporters, and I include significant numbers of supporters of the club which formerly was a separate entity known as East Perth, toward the host club alignment. If you care to look at any of a number of topics on ozfooty.net you will realise that a boycott of the WAFL GF had been mooted and supported for many months. You and the WAFC should be eternally grateful that Swan Districts were playing in the Colts’ GF and West Perth were playing in the Reserves’ Grand Final; without those two teams participating the WAFL GF attendance would have been fewer than 10,000. To further emphasise the acrimony toward the host club alignment and the real reason behind the poor attendance may I ask what percentage of the crowd left by quarter time of the League GF? As I was leaving after the Reserves GF the outflow was significantly higher than the inflow of supporters coming to watch the League GF.

Further if it was and I quote “It was a terrible day” perhaps you can try to rationalise the decision to rope off significant portions of the upper levels of the stands which would force those attending to sit in the open on such “a terrible day”.

Perhaps I can pose another task for you which relate to the financial viability of the WAFL clubs in the context of the host club alignment. How do you expect, for example, Swans’ supporters to continue to support the WAFL when we are faced with the prospect of being forced to go to Rushton Park next season to watch Connor Blakely, Ethan Hughes and possibly Clancee Pearce play against us? If you think Swans’ supporters relish that prospect then you are most assuredly deluding yourself.

The next point I would like to make concerns your answers to the questions relating to your response about the WAFL legends’ comments vis a vis the host club alignment and where the WAFL will be in ten years’ time. You said that you considered their views but the commission is an independent body to make the “best decision on behalf of football in WA”. You also stated that at the core of the WAFL competition is to have nine sustainable clubs. One may ask how is the host club alignment decision in the best interests of WA football and provides 9 sustainable WAFL clubs?

Now we get to the incredible assertion that the 2014 WAFL competition “was great”. How did you come to that conclusion? Was it because we had the lowest attendance at a WAFL GF since the 1930s? Could it have been because of the almost 20% drop in attendances at “East Perth’s” home game? Perhaps it was Fremantle’s complete disdain of the WAFL competition when they forced Peel to start a WAFL match two short? Maybe you take it as a positive outcome to alienate the vast majority of WAFL supporters through the implementation and continuance of the host club arrangements.

Now we come to the TV broadcast for next year. The mind boggles. On one hand you have suggested that the naming rights for the WAFL will be wrapped up with the broadcast deal and on the other hand you state that an amount has to be raised for the production costs. So not only will the WAFL clubs be forced to pay for the broadcasting of the WAFL Channel 7 will get naming rights to the WAFL. Exacerbating this will be the “flexible” timeslots. Of course this is but an euphemism for what the Eagles and Dockers want, through Channel 7, in terms of timeslots for their two host club aligned teams they will get. Not a scintilla of concern or consideration for the integrity of the WAFL competition, the other WAFL clubs and their supporters.

I could continue for a considerable time, but suffice to say I think you get the gist of my disdain for your answers and by implication your lack of concern for the viability and integrity of the WAFL competition.

May I thank you for your consideration of this email and I sincerely hope to not only receive a considered response but also a change in the attitude and direction of the WAFC toward the WAFL competition.

Does anyone think that the WAFC has addressed any of my concerns or rather have just exacerbated the drift away from the WAFL?

If I was to send a similar email to the current day Gary Walton, Gavin Taylor, I would be able to add the decisions being made around the colts' competition like the ALLEGED "super round" where the colts' games are removed from the normal ground. The divorcing of the colts' teams from their respective clubs. The next round of decisions I suspect will happen in 2019 will be that ALL GAMES will be played at the one venue EACH week and it would not be take too much imagination that the WAFC would like to see an EIGHT club colts' competition allowing the talent scouts of the VICTORIAN PARASITE LEAGUE to be able to watch all the players each week. One could also extrapolate that these games would be played on a Sunday to allow those same talent scouts the opportunity to watch the PSA games as well.

And let's not forget the "DECISION" to reduce the number of matches played to 18.

It is a very well penned message Swan - alas you forwarded this to an absolute flog of a homo sapien , and I use that species terminology extremely loosely in regard to a reknowned AFL stooge & stoolpigeon.
It was privy & in full knowledge of the Victorian desire to completely take over Australian Rules in every single corner of the country - and therefore sustain it's own backyard

The house of cards is teetering on the edge of self destruction and although that may suit the V(a)FL agenda in taking over every corner of the country and having little time, effort or money spent on state leagues like the WAFL in essence it is actually producing a far weaker V(a)FL as evidenced by the appalling standard of games seen this year which in turn will mean less broadcasting money as many turn the TV sets and tablets over or off and thus less advertising/sponsorship dollars as it is all interconnected and the self righteous Pricktorian snobs will only have themselves to blame!

It wont be too much longer before it is renamed AFL WA. The AFL can then take the name WAFL and use it for their womens competition.
If the WAFL want to survive,the need to sell the licences to WCE and Fremantle to the AFL. That will get rid of their interference at WAFL level and also inject some much needed cash to keep the competition and hopefully the non aligned clubs alive and set themselves up financially for years to come.

I would like to see a moratorium on AFL listed players in the WAFL so you that cannot play in the WAFL whilst you are on an AFL team list.

I’ve been asked to pass this on.

The AFL Executives are suits,which even Victorians don't like.

Eg - The VFL Reserves,which rob the Traditional VFA sides of an extra Team,plus extra fabric of each of those Clubs.

An Apalling decision made by suits with NO Feel for Australian Rules Football,whatso ever.

The AFL Chairman is Richard Goyder,from Western Australia.

If things were meant to get better for the WAFL with Goyder at the top,we are seeing very little signs from him,that things may change for the better.

That's the thing, there will be no change for the Wafl's benefit!!
Perhaps Gavin has been "too busy" since 2014 and hasn't enough "time" for a response to your well written communique s42? Several well known people have penned letters previously and hand delivered them, with no response. Then the question arises as to why hand delivered letters are letters being ignored?
Whilst the so called commission has been asleep at the wheel, the once great Wafl has degenerated to the current point. One feels the Wafl is on it's last legs and won't be around much longer.

.

westaussieguy wrote: That's the thing, there will be no change for the Wafl's benefit!!
Perhaps Gavin has been "too busy" since 2014 and hasn't enough "time" for a response to your well written communique s42? Several well known people have penned letters previously and hand delivered them, with no response. Then the question arises as to why hand delivered letters are letters being ignored?
Whilst the so called commission has been asleep at the wheel, the once great Wafl has degenerated to the current point. One feels the Wafl is on it's last legs and won't be around much longer.

.

WAG just to clarify I did receive a response from G Walton that i reproduced verbatim on this site. The WAFC lawyers, presumably on the instructions of G Walton, that the former owner of this site should remove G Walton's response or face the consequences.

As for G Taylor's CV he was the person in charge of the WAFC's FAILED ATTEMPT to get the new stadium's management rights. A bid that wasted millions of dollars.

Mr AFL wrote: I’ve been asked to pass this on.

The AFL Executives are suits,which even Victorians don't like.

Eg - The VFL Reserves,which rob the Traditional VFA sides of an extra Team,plus extra fabric of each of those Clubs.

An Apalling decision made by suits with NO Feel for Australian Rules Football,whatso ever.

The AFL Chairman is Richard Goyder,from Western Australia.

If things were meant to get better for the WAFL with Goyder at the top,we are seeing very little signs from him,that things may change for the better.

Mr AFL can we ask by whom?

swan42 wrote: [quote= WAG just to clarify I did receive a response.

No worries s42. In future I will learn to read properly.