TOPIC:

If you're going to change the rules then it's got to be unilateral and apply to all clubs. For arguments sake, if you put a 2 point premium for each place a club finishes ahead of a recruited players home club then that should be the same for everyone. If Marsh for example, was a 12 point player normally then Subi who finished 8 places ahead of East Freo would cop 12 + 16 = 28 points for him. If he went to Souths who finished 3rd then 12 + 12 = 24 points....SD in 8th spot 12 + 2 = 14 and so on.

BC wrote: If you're going to change the rules then it's got to be unilateral and apply to all clubs. For arguments sake, if you put a 2 point premium for each place a club finishes ahead of a recruited players home club then that should be the same for everyone. If Marsh for example, was a 12 point player normally then Subi who finished 8 places ahead of East Freo would cop 12 + 16 = 28 points for him. If he went to Souths who finished 3rd then 12 + 12 = 24 points....SD in 8th spot 12 + 2 = 14 and so on.

Hilarious BC. Which club did Marsh sign up to play for them in 2019. Swan Districts, Perth, East Freo are not the problem. The problem is Suibiaco. Unambiguously, it is Subiaco.

So what's your point Sean? Make it 3 points per place...5 points….whatever you like but the fact remains that any rule change should apply across the board...and on that point...I've not seen any official announcement from Marsh or Subi so perhaps it's all just speculation.

swan42 wrote:

BC wrote: If you're going to change the rules then it's got to be unilateral and apply to all clubs. For arguments sake, if you put a 2 point premium for each place a club finishes ahead of a recruited players home club then that should be the same for everyone. If Marsh for example, was a 12 point player normally then Subi who finished 8 places ahead of East Freo would cop 12 + 16 = 28 points for him. If he went to Souths who finished 3rd then 12 + 12 = 24 points....SD in 8th spot 12 + 2 = 14 and so on.

Hilarious BC. Which club did Marsh sign up to play for them in 2019. Swan Districts, Perth, East Freo are not the problem. The problem is Suibiaco. Unambiguously, it is Subiaco.

42 there is apparently nothing to see from the WAFC and $ubi as the likes of Adamson, Daniels, Ehlers x 2, Fimmano, Hancock, Heal, Latham, Litherland, Lockyer, Matera, Menegola, D.Nelson, Newton, Polak, Powell, Robinson, Rohde, Sokol, Sutherland, Twomey et al recruited from other WAFL clubs (let alone VIC) in the last few years is just a one off as apparently their zone is just so bad they have to recruit heavily to compete with the likes of PE, EF & SD!!

BC wrote: So what's your point Sean? Make it 3 points per place...5 points….whatever you like but the fact remains that any rule change should apply across the board...and on that point...I've not seen any official announcement from Marsh or Subi so perhaps it's all just speculation.

BC you are being particularly obtuse. The problem is not the 8th team recruiting a player from the 9th team. The problem is the 1st team recruiting players from the lowest placed team. At this present point in time there is one club that is so dominant to the extent that it represents an existential threat to the WAFL. Personally I would want the WAFL to continue to exist rather than be the catalyst that destroyed the WAFL.

If Subiaco chooses to ignore the damage they are doing to the WAFL competition, at this point in time, then the WAFC should place changes to the WAFL points structure to provide a disincentive for the top clubs from raiding the bottom clubs. As I have previously outlined this could be done for the teams that finish in the finals as per the following:

position of the club player recruited from - position of the recruiting club + 1 = multiplier factor

E.g 9(th) -1(st) + 1 = 9. 12 point player * 9 = 108 points

The multiplier factor is not applied when:

(i) the recruiting club did not make the finals; or
(ii) the player is recruited from a club that finished higher than the club recruiting the player.

swan42 wrote:

BC wrote: So what's your point Sean? Make it 3 points per place...5 points….whatever you like but the fact remains that any rule change should apply across the board...and on that point...I've not seen any official announcement from Marsh or Subi so perhaps it's all just speculation.

BC you are being particularly obtuse. The problem is not the 8th team recruiting a player from the 9th team. The problem is the 1st team recruiting players from the lowest placed team. At this present point in time there is one club that is so dominant to the extent that it represents an existential threat to the WAFL. Personally I would want the WAFL to continue to exist rather than be the catalyst that destroyed the WAFL.

If Subiaco chooses to ignore the damage they are doing to the WAFL competition, at this point in time, then the WAFC should place changes to the WAFL points structure to provide a disincentive for the top clubs from raiding the bottom clubs. As I have previously outlined this could be done for the teams that finish in the finals as per the following:

position of the club player recruited from - position of the recruiting club + 1 = multiplier factor

E.g 9(th) -1(st) + 1 = 9. 12 point player * 9 = 108 points

The multiplier factor is not applied when:

(i) the recruiting club did not make the finals; or
(ii) the player is recruited from a club that finished higher than the club recruiting the player.

Question what happens when the player doesn't want to return to his original club for some reason?? You lose him from the wafl for good? The VFL and SANFL would love for that rule they will get a lot of ex WAFL AFL players. Maybe other clubs need to change the way they work so they can move to the level Subiaco are at or would you prefer all clubs drop back to where the last place team is and have a mediocre competition instead of an Elite one?

Well that's the most ridiculous plan I've seen and coming from you that's saying something. 108 points when the total cap is 130. The problem is all clubs recruiting from others below them even SD given you took Rhys Palmer from EF. You don't want to stop recruiting from others completely just dis-incentivise it enough to make it problematic and too hard for the clubs on top and less so as you go down the ladder.

Beasley Hutton wrote:

swan42 wrote:

BC wrote: If you're going to change the rules then it's got to be unilateral and apply to all clubs. For arguments sake, if you put a 2 point premium for each place a club finishes ahead of a recruited players home club then that should be the same for everyone. If Marsh for example, was a 12 point player normally then Subi who finished 8 places ahead of East Freo would cop 12 + 16 = 28 points for him. If he went to Souths who finished 3rd then 12 + 12 = 24 points....SD in 8th spot 12 + 2 = 14 and so on.

Hilarious BC. Which club did Marsh sign up to play for them in 2019. Swan Districts, Perth, East Freo are not the problem. The problem is Suibiaco. Unambiguously, it is Subiaco.

42 there is apparently nothing to see from the WAFC and $ubi as the likes of Adamson, Daniels, Ehlers x 2, Fimmano, Hancock, Heal, Latham, Litherland, Lockyer, Matera, Menegola, D.Nelson, Newton, Polak, Powell, Robinson, Rohde, Sokol, Sutherland, Twomey et al recruited from other WAFL clubs (let alone VIC) in the last few years is just a one off as apparently their zone is just so bad they have to recruit heavily to compete with the likes of PE, EF & SD!!

Beautifully articulated BH and re-enforces my argument about putting a premium on top of points for players coming from clubs which finish below the destination club. If that had occurred some years ago, I would think your list would be considerably smaller.

jonnyboy wrote:

swan42 wrote:

BC wrote: So what's your point Sean? Make it 3 points per place...5 points….whatever you like but the fact remains that any rule change should apply across the board...and on that point...I've not seen any official announcement from Marsh or Subi so perhaps it's all just speculation.

BC you are being particularly obtuse. The problem is not the 8th team recruiting a player from the 9th team. The problem is the 1st team recruiting players from the lowest placed team. At this present point in time there is one club that is so dominant to the extent that it represents an existential threat to the WAFL. Personally I would want the WAFL to continue to exist rather than be the catalyst that destroyed the WAFL.

If Subiaco chooses to ignore the damage they are doing to the WAFL competition, at this point in time, then the WAFC should place changes to the WAFL points structure to provide a disincentive for the top clubs from raiding the bottom clubs. As I have previously outlined this could be done for the teams that finish in the finals as per the following:

position of the club player recruited from - position of the recruiting club + 1 = multiplier factor

E.g 9(th) -1(st) + 1 = 9. 12 point player * 9 = 108 points

The multiplier factor is not applied when:

(i) the recruiting club did not make the finals; or
(ii) the player is recruited from a club that finished higher than the club recruiting the player.

Question what happens when the player doesn't want to return to his original club for some reason?? You lose him from the wafl for good? The VFL and SANFL would love for that rule they will get a lot of ex WAFL AFL players. Maybe other clubs need to change the way they work so they can move to the level Subiaco are at or would you prefer all clubs drop back to where the last place team is and have a mediocre competition instead of an Elite one?

The problem is that there are a number of clubs that have tried to bring back players drafted fro their club and are trumped by one particular club. Let me address your last comment regarding what sort of competition I want. Taking a top player from a bottom club to move to Subiaco obviously helps Subiaco but much more significantly considerably weakens the bottom club.

I certainly don't want a WAFL competition that we currently have where one club goes through the season undefeated; wins all three GFs; and the likelihood is that Subiaco will again dominate the WAFL next year. There is no expectation that Subiaco's dominances is likely to wane in the foreseeable future.

swan42 wrote:

jonnyboy wrote:

swan42 wrote:

BC wrote: So what's your point Sean? Make it 3 points per place...5 points….whatever you like but the fact remains that any rule change should apply across the board...and on that point...I've not seen any official announcement from Marsh or Subi so perhaps it's all just speculation.

BC you are being particularly obtuse. The problem is not the 8th team recruiting a player from the 9th team. The problem is the 1st team recruiting players from the lowest placed team. At this present point in time there is one club that is so dominant to the extent that it represents an existential threat to the WAFL. Personally I would want the WAFL to continue to exist rather than be the catalyst that destroyed the WAFL.

If Subiaco chooses to ignore the damage they are doing to the WAFL competition, at this point in time, then the WAFC should place changes to the WAFL points structure to provide a disincentive for the top clubs from raiding the bottom clubs. As I have previously outlined this could be done for the teams that finish in the finals as per the following:

position of the club player recruited from - position of the recruiting club + 1 = multiplier factor

E.g 9(th) -1(st) + 1 = 9. 12 point player * 9 = 108 points

The multiplier factor is not applied when:

(i) the recruiting club did not make the finals; or
(ii) the player is recruited from a club that finished higher than the club recruiting the player.

Question what happens when the player doesn't want to return to his original club for some reason?? You lose him from the wafl for good? The VFL and SANFL would love for that rule they will get a lot of ex WAFL AFL players. Maybe other clubs need to change the way they work so they can move to the level Subiaco are at or would you prefer all clubs drop back to where the last place team is and have a mediocre competition instead of an Elite one?

The problem is that there are a number of clubs that have tried to bring back players drafted fro their club and are trumped by one particular club. Let me address your last comment regarding what sort of competition I want. Taking a top player from a bottom club to move to Subiaco obviously helps Subiaco but much more significantly considerably weakens the bottom club.

I certainly don't want a WAFL competition that we currently have where one club goes through the season undefeated; wins all three GFs; and the likelihood is that Subiaco will again dominate the WAFL next year. There is no expectation that Subiaco's dominances is likely to wane in the foreseeable future.

Can you answer the first 2 questions I actually asked? What if the player doesn't want to return to his original club? All good and well the club may want him but the player himself wants to give himself the best opportunity of getting redrafted or having success. You will lose these players to other comps. How does him not returning to his original club weaken them when he wasn't there the previous season?