TOPIC:

And thats the problem with the Gold Coast Suns who are struggling and bottom of the ladder - they are not bloody training hard enough. It's not like the AFL are going to recognise something is wrong and give them a priority pick and other possible concessions!!!...or are they?
Perhaps Taylor, Handy Randy, even little Beau Wardman could pop up to the Gold Coast and give them a good solid pep talk and put them through a few hard training sessions to let them know what it's all about.
Even better, perhaps the WAFC and the AFL could sponsor the Subiaco playing list to do a tour of the country - conducting clinics along the way showing everyone else what hard training is all about.

It is easy to come out with that mantra when the likes of Randall and Edwardes are instructing you.
There must be some action.
Points is the only way because you can't stop the paper bags.
We can all lift and pay our players with paper bags.
Sadly you have to have the money to fill the paper bags.
Fortunately I can see another Club on the horizon as a "destination club" that Club will just have to find the money.

the other thing the WAFC should consider is to set up Subi as WA's centre of excellence.
players and coaches from all over WA could spend a week there to learn how to train harder and for the coaches to learn how to coach better.

No doubt Horsley, Delahunty, Kitchin & co would be running that coaching course MO?

Guys, you don't understand. Subi aren't there to spoon feed other clubs, they are there to set an example for us all to aspire to. What I propose at Lathlain is motivational banners in the change rooms, and strapping on the players' arms saying "raise the standard." We will have pictures of Beau with a speech bubble saying "train harder." Just wait for the transformation.

Beasley Hutton wrote: Seriously guys what good would reducing Subis points cap across the squad to 100 points do as they would find a way to drop players off the squad each week as they have done previously?
They used 76 points alone between the 22 who took the field last week in the GF.
It should be a points cap based on the actual game per week capped at say 40 per game (SF used 37 in the GF).
Subi had the likes of Newton, Marsh, Powell, Litherland (all 10 point players) that would have filled the cap between them if we had a per game points cap.

BH I actually agree with the idea of this sort of game by game points cap as a way forward with equalisation, it gets around the restraint of trade issue as it's up to each club to choose a squad that fits the restrictions, but clubs will rotate players in and out to suit each opposition so clubs may still have 4 10 or 12 point players but only a couple can play in each game. By the way the WAFC closed the rules loophole that allowed clubs (Subi) to temporarily delist players, your proposal is different in that teams have the choice to rotate players in and out without delisting. As you say Powell, Marsh, Lith and Newton are 10 point players, Rohde is 5, Kitch & Lockyer are 3, Dela & Sok are 2 and Heal is 1 for a total of 16 points. so Subi could still field all those guys each game and rotate a couple of 10 pointers in and out each week. Somewhere in the range of 40-50 points is a realistic starting point.

DG wrote:

Absolute gold DGB)

Senior Seagull wrote:

DG wrote:

Absolute gold DGB)

That is fricken hilarious DG. I can't ever recall seeing that before, must have been a different era. Lol

Beasley Hutton wrote: Seriously guys what good would reducing Subis points cap across the squad to 100 points do as they would find a way to drop players off the squad each week as they have done previously?
They used 76 points alone between the 22 who took the field last week in the GF.
It should be a points cap based on the actual game per week capped at say 40 per game (SF used 37 in the GF).
Subi had the likes of Newton, Marsh, Powell, Litherland (all 10 point players) that would have filled the cap between them if we had a per game points cap.

I disagree it would be a nightmare for clubs and the WAFC calculating how many points their selected side adds up to each week.

Restricting Subiaco to 100 points will restrict their recruiting and weaken their depth. They will probably still be strong but not so dominant.

DD wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote: Seriously guys what good would reducing Subis points cap across the squad to 100 points do as they would find a way to drop players off the squad each week as they have done previously?
They used 76 points alone between the 22 who took the field last week in the GF.
It should be a points cap based on the actual game per week capped at say 40 per game (SF used 37 in the GF).
Subi had the likes of Newton, Marsh, Powell, Litherland (all 10 point players) that would have filled the cap between them if we had a per game points cap.

I disagree it would be a nightmare for clubs and the WAFC calculating how many points their selected side adds up to each week.

Restricting Subiaco to 100 points will restrict their recruiting and weaken their depth. They will probably still be strong but not so dominant.

How would it be a nightmare to calculate the points it is in the Football Budget every week next to their name for all to see?
The Amateurs (Perth Football League- an amateur body) already have this in place with no problems at all across more than 70 clubs and over 20 different levels of grades but yet you are saying the WAFC who run a football industry in this state worth 10/100s of millions and a CEO on $400k pa couldnt manage a simple task of calculating the player points of 9 teams across 5 games each week?
Having a cap for the whole squad of 100 would only work in conjunction with a game day cap as this mob will manipulate a squad points cap as they have done in the past, they had 76 points play in the GF alone!