TOPIC:

Beasley Hutton wrote:

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!

Spot on. If the WAFC could just pop for an abacus instead of swanning legions over to the GF on a massive junket even they might be able to handle it. Or a trained chimp.

Beasley Hutton wrote:

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!

Nup, still disagree. I think it would be farcical to allow a player to be on a list but he can't play because of some match day cap.

Go back to 2010 BH. How many out of Spandex, Krakouer, Geapen, Robinson, Roach, Twomey etc... have to miss out?

We are talking about a completely different WAFL from 2010 to now DD as we used to have the WCE/Freo blokes distributed evenly across all the clubs through a reverse draft just for starters so afl listed blokes the likes of Walters, Pearce, Hansen, Davis & Hinkley would be 0 points each like they are for both WCE & Peelmantle today.
Geappen, Twomey & Robinson would be only 2 or 3 point players coming from VFL or TFL football like Delahunty & Kichin are but quite simply you just dont recruit some of those 10 point players (Spandex, Roach) as you know you wont be able to fit them into your 40 point match day cap.

DD wrote: Did Central Districts have a massive financial advantage over the rest of the competition? Maybe they just got a bit lucky with a rich era of local talent and had a great coach at the time? Did they win premierships regardless of who coached them? Subiaco has had 4 different premiership coaches in the last 15 years, Peter German, Scott Watters, Jarred Schofield and now Beau "who" Warderman.

The only way to stop Subiaco dominating the competition is to restrict their ability to recruit and the WAFC can do that through the points system. Restrict them to 100 points for the next 5 years then reassess it after that. If that means they have to cut one or two of their recruits for the 2020 season so be it.

These flogs who say we can't drag Subiaco down we need to get more clubs up to their level are living in dreamland. Unless Gavin you can find 3 million to hand out to the other 7 stand alone WAFL clubs. Unless that happens it is impossible to compete with Subiaco.

Actually Mate, they did, CD was one of the richest clubs in the SANFL, mainly due to the fact they told the wowsers to go jump and got heavily into pokies, HOWEVER its worth noting that is a decision that any of the SANFL clubs could of made , some did it and did it well other chose not too. Unlike the WAFL.

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.

The whole points this is an utter waste of time, its been proven to be useless.

The only way is hit them finacially, as I have said before, reduce their footy revenues, and redistrubute it to other clubs, it will take a while but will work.

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 think your maths is a bit out, our GF team points were 68 not 76, still significant but i know you hate to get your facts wrong.
Powell 10
Marsh 10
Lith 10
Newton 10
Rohde 5
kitch 3
lockyer 3
dela 2
Sok 2
The other 13 were 1 pointers for a total of 68.

Bazza 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.

The whole points this is an utter waste of time, its been proven to be useless.

The only way is hit them finacially, as I have said before, reduce their footy revenues, and redistrubute it to other clubs, it will take a while but will work.

What footy revenues are you referring to Baz?

Bazza 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.

The whole points this is an utter waste of time, its been proven to be useless.

Salary caps have proven to be useless in nearly every competition they have been used in

Poorly designed Points caps, like the one currently in place in the WAFL, are useless but a well designed Points cap will create a more even playing field for the WAFL.


It would control the recruitment of high points players from other WAFL clubs, promote the development of players within the WAFL zones, increase the likelihood that players returning from the AFL will go back to their original WAFL club as a Club of Origin minimum points player.

If the Ammo clubs run by volunteers can work it out surely paid WAFL CEOs and Footy Managers can.

increase the annual funding to Claremont , East Fremantle , Perth , South Fremantle , Swan Districts & West Perth
a decrease or cessation of funding to the other 3 clubs due to the financial benefits gained in their individual agreements with the WAFC
there has not been anywhere near enough fair and equal

can anyone put up a copy of the rules for the cap system, please?