View Full Version : Peel Thunder - THE TRUE STORY
I get a tad incensed when the “Keep Peel Thunder In” brigade start babbling.
It is just a romanticism and lack of knowledge to think Peel should stay in the WAFL. Maybe even a sense of looking after the underdog, but this is dangerous for the WAFL.
Maybe we should look at the facts? Maybe the logic and statutes behind the original license being issued. Every one of the following points make up the criteria for granting Peel’s original license in 1996:
“High quality leadership, management and marketing skills”
How does Peel account for the fact in 1999 the WAFC had to intervene and request a change in the Presidency of the club? Since 1997 there has been 3 chairman/presidents, 5 general managers, 3 football managers, 4 marketing managers.
“Strong Regional Support from Peel Football Clubs and Associataions”
I believe that no other club with the exception of Mandurah supported their license, and that nothing has changed. No one talks about how the presence of a WAFL team in Mandurah has weakened community structures already in place. Expansion or strengthening of the Peel league is required to better serve the Peel community.
"Adequate Training, Spectator & Playing Facilities"
This speaks for itself considering the WAFC’s STILL requiring ground be upgraded. No one speaks on how a submission was made in 1996 to the City of Mandurah for $100,000 to assist in $600,000 worth of upgrades to their facilities. Not one of the aspects of this plan has been implemented to the year 2002. Seating for only 30 odd visiting supporters is not adequate. After 6 years one has to ask will it ever happen and where will these funds come from?
" The Capacity To Be Fully Competitive At WAFL level"
Between 1997-2000 Peel won a total of 6 games. Interestingly in 2000 they won 4 when the received the recruitment grant of $30,000. And in 2001 they won 7 games with the $20,000 grant for recruitment. This year another 7 games with the additional $10,000. The question to be asked is what happens next year when there is no grant money especially for recruiting?
“Strong Membership Potential"
How many of their members are cross members? That is members of kindred clubs being Mandurah Mustangs Football Club, Peel Districts Superules Club, Sportsman’s Dart Club, Ladies Dart Club and the Mandurah Basketball Association. It was even documented that official’s of other WAFL clubs receive multiple memberships. One WAFL President received four memberships! A more accurate measure is the revenue received from membership subscriptions. According to the Fong report membership of Peel has declined in 1997-2000.
So here we are 6 years later and Peel Thunder Football club still fail a majority of their original criteria.
Another fact not often known is the additonal funding Peel have received. Here is the payments made to WAFL clubs over and above the coaching & management grants 1997-2001:
Peel Thunder $298,000
West Perth - $119,525
Swan Districts - $52,244
Perth - $41,172
East Perth - $17,314
Claremont - $9,270
South Fremantle - $10,730
East Fremantle - $8,102
Subiaco - $5,770
Peel received more than double additional funding than any other WAFL club. Yet I rarely hear complaints about this obvious anomaly in the funding?
Also people fail to realise the artificial attempts to bolster Peel Thunder's playing strengths (through WAFL funding) by recruiting players outside Peel's regions.
Peel received an additional $60,000 in 2000-2002 from the WAFL just for recruiting! Let's look at their 2002 player list. Agnew, Blencowe, Broughton, Gaby, Hall, Hughes, Jas, Kirkham, Matheson, McGuiness, Mollica, Niven, Pears, Shawcross, Simister, Singh, Walkingshaw, Wooldridge are all from other clubs. That's 30% of their player list. If one looks at the Round 8 side, then players recruited from other clubs amounts to a whopping 60% of the side. Add to this Gilbert, Mourish, McPharlin, Thompson, Blurton which they recruited in the past and have since left.
A real worry is that some people consider we should increase go further and introduce more country sides in the WAFL. But what about all those juniors running around the Peel area I bet you'll squeal? Well what about the effects that Peel introduction has had on the Peel League. People forget that. If we put a team in Northam, a strong football town in a strong league (Avon) then how would Railways & Federals - the local teams survive? What if we also put one in Kalgoorlie, Bunbury.. how would country football survive? Short sightedness that's all this is. This is the reason why we have country matches - to give the regional areas a chance to see WAFL football “live” and promote the sport in general. Promotion, not the decimation of the country leagues by placing super teams in the region.
Obviously there are some positives (Sandover Medallist, Daniel Wells), but there are also many disadvantages (as listed above) to having Peel in the WAFL competition. Amazingly we are yet to read in the media report one single solitary negative about Peel. So I urge people to investigate and make a decision rather than comment on gut feel.
Peel have been a very very expensive mistake for WA football.
Hassa, I totally agree with you regarding Peel. It was a huge mistake on behalf of the WAFC and will continue to be a problem. There was no need to introduce a ninth team into the competition.
The "bye" because of Peel's inclusion has a disruptive effect on the fixturing.
Hardly anyone travels from Peel - or to Peel - for their games. Their ground attendance figures cannot be believed.
The facilities at Rushton Park are an absolute disgrace.
I don't know how the WAFC is going to remedy the situation - but I think is is going to cost WA football a bucketful of much needed money to extricate itself from this fiasco.
Money for WA football in very precious. With Fremantle making another HUGE loss this year (four million in two years) they will once again not contribute anything to the commision's coffers. Each WAFL club at the beginning of 2002 had their allocation from the WAFC cut by $50,000, mainly because of the ineptitude of Fremantle. What will happen this year I wonder. Football simply cannot afford a legal battle with Peel.
Just one correction - Alistair Pickett was the Sandover Medallist. Wells was a runner up with Ryan Turnbull.
Voice of Reason
10 Oct 2002, 15:49
On the other hand, we cannot ignore the changing demographics of Western Australia and the parlous state of the WAFL, even prior to Peel's entry.
vicki's points about Fremantle are spot on too. It's pretty hard to have a decent WAFL competition when one of the two AFL clubs at the top of the pyramid is doing so badly.
I love the tradition of the WAFL and enjoy going to Lathlain and Bassendean etc, but really we need a merger to get back to 8 clubs. Maybe Claremont-Subiaco or Perth-Swans or Peel-Someone. I understand the pain that will cause though and suspect it won't happen unless financial disaster strikes (which is quite possible).
I would like a review of the whole shooting match, but after the pathetic whitewash and non-event that was the Crawford report, I'm not holding my breath that it'll get better any time soon.
Sorry Vicki what I meant to say was (Sandover Medallist AND Daniel Wells). Indicating that the fact they produced a Sandover Medallist, albiet via East Perth (1992 colts?) and West Perth. AND they also produced a talent like Daniel Wells. Hope this is clear.
In regard to mergers, Voice of Reason, I think it may come to light very soon that Peel are bigger financial basket cases that the other four clubs you mentioned.... especially without the additional funding...
VOR: I can't see any of the traditional clubs being willing to merge. I know I would be absolutey horrified if East Perth were to merge. I don't see why they should anyway - to get back to an eight tem competition, all we need to do is get if of Peel. Simple really - except for the financial battle which will surely follow.
Originally posted by vicki
VOR: I can't see any of the traditional clubs being willing to merge. I know I would be absolutey horrified if East Perth were to merge. I don't see why they should anyway - to get back to an eight tem competition, all we need to do is get if of Peel. Simple really - except for the financial battle which will surely follow.
Which of course fails to address what would be a big gaping hole in the rapidly growing Peel area. You expect top level kids to do a 100km round trip 3 or 4 times a week just to play at WAFL colts level and have a shot at the AFL? Bugger that, they'll probably just play soccer.
People can bitch and moan about Peel, but the fact remains that a side is desperately needed in that area, just like a side was desperately needed in the Joondalup/Wanneroo area. This concept is generally accepted by a majority of footy fans other than the stupid and ignorant. Yet the kick out Peel brigade consistently refuse to even address the problem. You kick out just about any other club, the effect on footy would be minimal. Other than that club's supporters, no-one would really care. Kick out Peel, and you have a massive part of WA's population no longer supported by a team at WAFL level. Any decent youngster would essentially have to move to Perth to make it to WAFL level. And with a population now over 100,000 in the Mandurah/Rockingham/Pinjarra area (and growing fast), you'd have to have sh*t for brains to think that having no side in that region would be good for football. particularly when there are clubs (eg. Perth, East Perth, East Fremantle, Claremont) based in areas where the average age of residents is about 74 and the only time kids go anywhere near it is when they make the trip to grandma's house.
Blues_Brat
15 Oct 2002, 02:09
It's like any city, the original clubs sprang up where the population was, as it became more decentralised, that's where football clubs needed to have a presence. West Perth had the right idea, as did South Adelaide (although it was probably 20 years too late), Elizabeth was a great place to have a football club, another reason why I believe Swans need to be looked after. If one of the traditional clubs could have bitten the bullet and moved to the Mandurah region full time there wouldn't be this 'problem' with Peel.
Mr Eagle
15 Oct 2002, 02:12
Merger shmerger, the league needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, spreading the teams across the greater Perth area to ensure that all areas of the city (but particularly the boom areas north and south) are covered by a 'local side', with a Freo reserves team based at Freo Oval and an Eagles reserve side based at either Subiaco or maybe Claremont Oval.
Rob
You are the one with no idea. You need to look beyond the obvious and usually pronounced statement about the "where would the youngsters play"... Firstly ask yourself what the admission of Peel has done to the Peel Football Competition.
I have a friend who was an official a couple of years ago when Peel Thunder were admitted to the league. He said the impact on their local club was immediate, they found difficulty in fielding a colts side whereas prior they had a surplus of players. All the better local players wanted to play at the WAFL club. Really great situation for the country towns, eh Rob?
And you really show your ingnorance with the comment:
"particularly when there are clubs (eg. Perth, East Perth, East Fremantle, Claremont) based in areas where the average age of residents is about 74 and the only time kids go anywhere near it is when they make the trip to grandma's house."
Can't be sure of the exact numbers, but I think East Fremantle have produced over 20 AFL draftees in the past 5 years. Perth have definately produced 13. That's almost the entire squad of one AFL team. You certainly have no idea about the suburbs that lie in the zones of Perth and East Fremantle. Perths league side is the youngest in the competition, but you think the WAFC should kick them out because the club doesn't produce juniors. Unbelievable.
Get your facts right and stop the romantics.
I agree due to the population growth the Peel region should be given additional resources for junior development. Not for the recruitment of 30% of their player list. The likes of Gilbert, Mourish, McPharlin, Thompson, Blurton, Agnew, Blencowe, Broughton, Gaby, Hall, Hughes, Jas, Kirkham, Matheson, McGuiness, Mollica, Niven, Pears, Shawcross, Simister, Singh, Walkingshaw, Wooldridge - all from other clubs.
And not when their league side contains 60% of players recruited from other clubs.
Not when Peel receive so much extra funding, which is not going to junior development but into the pockets of recruits.
Let's see factual rebuttal of the above Rob and not just soppy retorical cr*p.
The first question to ask is why was Peel created?.
The main reason was to cover changing demorgraphics of population and also the WAFL was heading towards a basket case. Changes were required, and the only club to get off their derriere was West Perth. The rest just sat on their hands and were prepared to look after themselves, rather than the WAFL as a group.
Yes Peel has had its problems but there is a light at the end of the tunnel and I think the "powers who be" are seeing this and are more worried with some of the traditional clubs. The Gummies are having problems with the council, Subi may need to move to a new training location, Swans need to be competative etc.
One team, the Gummies, realise they have to extra the digit, but their members are not prepared to change with the recommendations from their committees.
In short, Peel is starting to slowly move into a positive manner, are all the other 8 teams moving forward.
Just an add on, I live in the East Perth district, it's junior district is almost dead and the only player I have seen turn up at junior clubs is a West Perth / Docker, work that out !!!. If that's the future for our "premier" club, god help the WAFL.
i_luv_westcoast
15 Oct 2002, 12:40
I lived in Mandurah up until this year. I support South Freo, but have a soft spot for Peel. Peel is a new club, they required financial help. Peel along with Rockingam has a population in excess of 120,000 and has a very high growth rate. In 10 years Peel will not require any assistence.
Peel is a club that is developing many players. Daniel Wells will be drafted this year as well as another (can't remember his name).
Other that have been drafted in it's short history include Brandon Hill, Daniel Haines and Darren Bolton. Dean Buszan was also once on the Eagles rookie list.
What is the point of disbaning Peel now when they have become competitive at last. They could be fighting for a spot in the finals next year. The other clubs are scared of Peel due to the strong population growth in the area.
Peel is like Centrals in South Australia. A team on the outskirts of the metro area. So many players will be lost to AFL if their is no WAFL prescence in the region.
If you are worried about anyone it should be Swan Districts. When were they last competitive? Look at the debt that is killing them. But in saying that I don't think they should be disbanded.
i_luv_westcoast, I think your name says it all. We are talking about the WAFL.
Swans you will find have more money in the bank than a majority of the other WAFL clubs, with the exception of probably Subiaco and South Fremantle. The campaign to save their club raised a heap of money, and in addition, their creditors wrote off a majority of their debts. Thus the money in the bank. As for success it is cyclical.
Double standards folks, Swans also have a large junior zone - yet i_luv_westcoast you want to get rid of them? Curious.
Masai, East Perth have a poor zone, no doubt. What they will do I don't know - I suspect the WAFC will rip some of Perths’ junior zones out from under them and give them to the Royals.
Finally, you people are so quick to target the existing traditional clubs - some of which have a tradition of over 100 years. But tradition doesn't count for much when the only history that counts is VFL/AFL history. Devalue all other codes and competitions is the usual AFL way and you people have succumbed to that method.
None has yet to answer any of my questions, especially what effect Peel has had on their local league. Maybe it’s a little too close to what the AFL did to the WAFL….
Hassa, what has happened is that the AFL has come in (or we joined) and taken all the best WAFL talent and distributed it around the country. The WAFL as the second tier is then left poorer in crowd numbers, but wealthier if you produce youngsters into the AFL system.
Do WAFL teams aim to win premierships (load your team with experienced players) or do you nurture the youngsters who will be nabbed by the AFL but bring you revenue?.
The only real point I would make is due to the AFL coming in, the WAFL as a whole must reconsider where it's going. Peel has been created but the other clubs are reluctant to reassess where they are going. Tradition is fine but sometimes a good shake is required.
I am of the opinion that removing Peel will not solve anything, we just go back 5 years and the same problems are there. Some hard decisions were required 5 years ago and the club presidents were too scared to think outside the "square".
Still no answer to my questions about Peel?
No one has addressed one single point I have made...
"Do WAFL teams aim to win premierships (load your team with experienced players) or do you nurture the youngsters who will be nabbed by the AFL but bring you revenue?. "
Why did Peel have so many players from other clubs last season - up to 60% of the side. Is that nurturing youngsters? Hopefully at least now there is no extra recruitment money so they will have to fall back on their own players.
Yet you bag the traditional clubs that are producing these AFL draftees....
All I want is some recognition of the WAFL by the AFL (less Saturday AFL games), and a reasonably fair playing field, not one club being almost totally subsidised by the WAFC. I would also like that club to adhere to the conditions of its license - instead of breaking just about every condition.
So please, some answers.
Voice of Reason
15 Oct 2002, 20:56
Originally posted by hassa
Still no answer to my questions about Peel?
No one has addressed one single point I have made...
"Do WAFL teams aim to win premierships (load your team with experienced players) or do you nurture the youngsters who will be nabbed by the AFL but bring you revenue?. "
Why did Peel have so many players from other clubs last season - up to 60% of the side. Is that nurturing youngsters? Hopefully at least now there is no extra recruitment money so they will have to fall back on their own players.
Yet you bag the traditional clubs that are producing these AFL draftees....
All I want is some recognition of the WAFL by the AFL (less Saturday AFL games), and a reasonably fair playing field, not one club being almost totally subsidised by the WAFC. I would also like that club to adhere to the conditions of its license - instead of breaking just about every condition.
So please, some answers.
I am not saying this is right or I know, but if I had been running Peel in the last year or two, I would have thought that the traditional clubs were all out to get me thrown out of the competition.
My strategy to stop that would be to get Peel to be competitive on the field asap, so that at least they can't throw the "Peel aren't competitive and are spoiling the competition" line at me, as has been done in past years.
Therefore I would have recruited more experienced players from other clubs to make Peel competitive in the short term and to support the good young players who are coming through.
In answer to your question, I believe that the best situation for the WAFL is to be a competitive State League. Therefore clubs should try to win the Premiership (at all levels, League, Reserves & Colts) and simultaneously build a club culture and individual success for the players. Feeding the AFL is a by-product of that, not the main game (though of course we wish our favourite sons well if they progress to AFL). Reality is most WAFL players are recruited from colts rather than first team anyway.
On AFL, my personal preference is AFL in Perth only on Friday nights and Sundays, to leave the WAFL free for Saturday afternoons. I voted this in some survey a year or two ago, but the AFL went the other way.
Originally posted by hassa
Rob
You are the one with no idea. You need to look beyond the obvious and usually pronounced statement about the "where would the youngsters play"... Firstly ask yourself what the admission of Peel has done to the Peel Football Competition.
Irrelevant. The issue is WA football as a whole, not just the Peel competition.
I have a friend who was an official a couple of years ago when Peel Thunder were admitted to the league. He said the impact on their local club was immediate, they found difficulty in fielding a colts side whereas prior they had a surplus of players. All the better local players wanted to play at the WAFL club. Really great situation for the country towns, eh Rob?
So you'd prefer the best players in the Peel region to be playing in a 2nd rate underage league rather than the only pathway to the AFL? In your scenario, Daniel Wells would be a no name playing for Kwinana in the Peel league, like most of the Peel Thunder colts players.
If you ae saying that those players would be better off playing in the Peel league colts than the WAFL colts then you're a f*cking moron.
And you really show your ingnorance with the comment:
"particularly when there are clubs (eg. Perth, East Perth, East Fremantle, Claremont) based in areas where the average age of residents is about 74 and the only time kids go anywhere near it is when they make the trip to grandma's house."
Can't be sure of the exact numbers, but I think East Fremantle have produced over 20 AFL draftees in the past 5 years. Perth have definately produced 13. That's almost the entire squad of one AFL team. You certainly have no idea about the suburbs that lie in the zones of Perth and East Fremantle. Perths league side is the youngest in the competition, but you think the WAFC should kick them out because the club doesn't produce juniors. Unbelievable.
Read the original comment d*ckhead.
East Fremantle, Perth, Claremont, whoever might have produced heaps of junior AFL draftees through their zone, but how many of those players actually lived near their local club? I played in the EF zone when I was a kid. I lived (and played) in Riverton. I heck of a long way from East Fremantle. Likewise areas like Warwick, Armadale, Jandakot are all heavily populated areas of Perth that would obviously be zoned to a WAFL club, yet the club would be located nowhere near the area where the players reside. Importantly, the club has absolutely no connection to the area either, ensuring crowds continue to dwindle as the population continues to grow into areas
Have a drive around Lathlain Park, particularly observe areas like Carlisle, Rivervale and Belmont. The average age in these suburbs is far higher than the Perth average. I'd be pretty safe in suggesting that Perth's colts team would be predominantly recruited from an area outside a 5km radius of Lathlain Park. the same would apply to a majority of WAFL clubs.
I'm talking about accessability to local clubs, not how many players have been drafted. The fact remains that other than West Perth, Swans and Peel, every club is located in an ageing area of Perth very close to either Perth and Fremantle. heavily populated areas of Perth have no WAFL team within miles.
Get your facts right and stop the romantics.
I agree due to the population growth the Peel region should be given additional resources for junior development. Not for the recruitment of 30% of their player list. The likes of Gilbert, Mourish, McPharlin, Thompson, Blurton, Agnew, Blencowe, Broughton, Gaby, Hall, Hughes, Jas, Kirkham, Matheson, McGuiness, Mollica, Niven, Pears, Shawcross, Simister, Singh, Walkingshaw, Wooldridge - all from other clubs.
And not when their league side contains 60% of players recruited from other clubs.
What do you expect when you start a side from scratch? A bunch of 18 year olds from Mandurah? This year was the first time their colts side made the finals. It takes a heck of a long time to build a competitive club.
Just out of interest, if they didn't get their players from other clubs, where would they have got them from? Nauru? Some fantasy land where WA's best really play?
Not when Peel receive so much extra funding, which is not going to junior development but into the pockets of recruits.
Let's see factual rebuttal of the above Rob and not just soppy retorical cr*p.
I'm not about to defend the Peel management or the activities of the Peel recruiting staff, because I wouldn't know the internal goings on of the club, and to be honest, I wouldn't care. But the facts are that the Peel region is in the top 5 fastest growing areas in Australia. Yet eithout Peel, the closest clubs are the 2 Fremantle clubs, a good 50km away. Are you saying this would be a suitable result? This would be beneficial for WA footy?
There simply has to be a side based full time in the Rockingham/Mandurah area. If you get rid of the Thunder, then they have to be replaced by another club. From memory, Peel have stated that they are more than happy to merge. The other club can even have the name, colours, jumper, logo and pretty much everything else. The only non-negotiable condition is that the club must be based in Mandurah. Completely reasonable, particularly seeing as though games at Rushton Park were the highest drawing games in the round on many occasions last year, despite a 1-10 (or something similar) start to the season. It would be fair to say a winning Peel side could realistically expect to draw 3-5,000 people a game. Something no other club could claim.
Thank you for the “you're a f*cking moron” and “Read the original comment d*ckhead” statements. Shows the quality of your person. Now I will address your statements without resorting to pathetic name-calling…
Irrelevant. The issue is WA football as a whole, not just the Peel competition.
So now the impact on the Peel league is irrelevant? Isn’t this league a part of the WA Football as a whole?
So you'd prefer the best players in the Peel region to be playing in a 2nd rate underage league rather than the only pathway to the AFL? In your scenario, Daniel Wells would be a no name playing for Kwinana in the Peel league, like most of the Peel Thunder colts players.
To call the Peel league 2nd rate underage competition is harsh. Look at the history of WA football and the best footballers produced… Barry Cable, Polly Farmer, Jack Clarke, the Krakouers, Bill Walker, Malcolm Brown, Mark Bairstow… even Alistair Picket all learnt their trade in a “second rate” competitions. A majority of country players play senior football at 15 or 16… don’t underestimate the advantages of country football. You will remember I did say the area requires additional funding for junior development which would eventually create a healthy junior area.
East Fremantle, Perth, Claremont, whoever might have produced heaps of junior AFL draftees through their zone, but how many of those players actually lived near their local club? I played in the EF zone when I was a kid. I lived (and played) in Riverton. I heck of a long way from East Fremantle. Likewise areas like Warwick, Armadale, Jandakot are all heavily populated areas of Perth that would obviously be zoned to a WAFL club, yet the club would be located nowhere near the area where the players reside. Importantly, the club has absolutely no connection to the area either, ensuring crowds continue to dwindle as the population continues to grow into areas
No doubt Peel is a growing region. But you are underestimating the metropolitan area as a growth zone. Swan Districts possess a burgeoning areas as do Perth. Where the club exists and where the players reside is a problem all footballers have had to overcome since the inception of the league. I would suggest a read of the Fong report (2001) and see what they said about the necessity of a club residing in the middle and not on the fringe of a clubs zone. It was deemed not to be necessary. If a youth has to travel to play in an elite competition, god forbid! Have a chat to some country people who have to drive 100’s of km just to have their kid play in the little league. If the player wants it badly then they will travel. If they want play in the AFL – they have to play WAFL. Troy Cook, Haddrill, Glass, Bateman, Scott Stevens, Leon Davis, Damon White all had to move to Perth to play WAFL... and eventually get drafted.
Have a drive around Lathlain Park, particularly observe areas like Carlisle, Rivervale and Belmont. The average age in these suburbs is far higher than the Perth average. I'd be pretty safe in suggesting that Perth's colts team would be predominantly recruited from an area outside a 5km radius of Lathlain Park. the same would apply to a majority of WAFL clubs.
You are mistaken again. Lathlain will slowly regenerate due to large blocks, Bemont is one of the growth areas I mention. What about Gosnells, Canning? Better review your figures.
I'm talking about accessability to local clubs, not how many players have been drafted. The fact remains that other than West Perth, Swans and Peel, every club is located in an ageing area of Perth very close to either Perth and Fremantle. heavily populated areas of Perth have no WAFL team within miles.
Some of the above is true. Do we have to move ALL clubs to the growth zones leaving minimal clubs in the city? Anyone in the Perth zone is maximum of approx 25km from Lathlain. If Peel move to Rockingham as touted then it would be the same situation would it not? Have another look at the growth zones in the Metro area - as the recently commission did.
What do you expect when you start a side from scratch? A bunch of 18 year olds from Mandurah? This year was the first time their colts side made the finals. It takes a heck of a long time to build a competitive club.
Just out of interest, if they didn't get their players from other clubs, where would they have got them from? Nauru? Some fantasy land where WA's best really play?
Exactly my point. The introduction of Peel didn’t give the Peel region players a chance at playing league, initially it is the total opposite. The money has gone into propping up an struggling league side and to players from outside the club when it should have been invested in junior development.
I'm not about to defend the Peel management or the activities of the Peel recruiting staff, because I wouldn't know the internal goings on of the club…
I am heavilly involved in WA football and have a broader view than you give me credit for and I would immediately state if you care so much get officially involved with Peel and at least help them in that way.
…a good 50km away. Are you saying this would be a suitable result? This would be beneficial for WA footy?
Hope Peel don’t move to Rockingham… see my previous posts about country players who want it badly.
The only non-negotiable condition is that the club must be based in Mandurah.
Why did the club then court the City of Rockingham about a move?
Completely reasonable, particularly seeing as though games at Rushton Park were the highest drawing games in the round on many occasions last year, despite a 1-10 (or something similar) start to the season. It would be fair to say a winning Peel side could realistically expect to draw 3-5,000 people a game. Something no other club could claim.
Could claim it but reality is a different thing. It's a well known fact that Peel inflated their crowds this year with some particularly good propaganda. When Perth played at Rushton Park on 1st June, the crowd was touted at around 5,000. When the WAFL looked at the gate takings a major anomaly was observed. Investigations revealed that there were around 1,000 school children taking part in a parade at half time (strategic showing of the junior sides in Mandurah which by coincidence inflates the crowd), and about a dozen corporate tents which offered free entry and free alcohol. So the gate takings were actually only a couple of thousand dollars.
Add to this the fact businesses within the region placed a full page advertisement in the local paper supporting Peel. Investigations again showed of the 50 or so businesses listed – only 2 or 3 paid for the ad. Propaganda at it’s best.
Peel are the worst traveled of all WAFL supporters. Ask any GM of the other WAFL clubs about Peel and they shudder because of the meager gate takings at Peel games.
One also senses if you realistically expect 3-5,000 at a game then Peel must urgently do something about the amount of seating available to opposition clubs. 20 odd seats is totally insufficient. For me to witness two ladies who have followed Perth for 30 years having stand and then finally giving up and sit in the sand on the boundary line was extremely difficult to digest. Peel promised upgrades to the facilities on admission to the league – yet we have not seen any major improvements done yet.
So in conclusion, forget Fremantle as your team of choice, become more involved and knowledgable in regard to grassroots footy, get down to Ruston and find out the true situation. Because I doubt the WAFC will bail Peel out again.
Originally posted by hassa
Thank you for the “you're a f*cking moron” and “Read the original comment d*ckhead” statements. Shows the quality of your person. Now I will address your statements without resorting to pathetic name-calling…
It's pretty obvious you have a vendetta against Peel for whatever reason. You don't read the whole post and you make ridiculous conclusions probably based on your own interests.
So now the impact on the Peel league is irrelevant? Isn’t this league a part of the WA Football as a whole?
Part? Yes. But even if the effect on the Peel league is poor, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is bad for WA footy as a whole. Assessing the Thunder solely on its impact on the Peel league is is ridiculous as assessing the Eagles and Dockers by the impact on the WAFL.
To call the Peel league 2nd rate underage competition is harsh. Look at the history of WA football and the best footballers produced… Barry Cable, Polly Farmer, Jack Clarke, the Krakouers, Bill Walker, Malcolm Brown, Mark Bairstow… even Alistair Picket all learnt their trade in a “second rate” competitions. A majority of country players play senior football at 15 or 16… don’t underestimate the advantages of country football. You will remember I did say the area requires additional funding for junior development which would eventually create a healthy junior area.
It's just a fact of life that a competition that only draws upon a population of 100-150,000 is going to be of a much lower standard than a competition that draws upon a population of over a million. A bit like comparing the AFL to the WAFL.
Seriously, what do you think the result would be if you played any WAFL side against the premiers of any country league? It would be a massacre. A combined WA country side got smashed in the pre-season comp.
No doubt Peel is a growing region. But you are underestimating the metropolitan area as a growth zone. Swan Districts possess a burgeoning areas as do Perth.
Swans I agree with. Perth do not, at least not where kids are likely to be. There's quite a bit of growth in the Ascot/East Perth area, but those areas are going to be predominanly populated by singles and couples with no kids.
Where the club exists and where the players reside is a problem all footballers have had to overcome since the inception of the league.
Crap. In the early to mid 1900's the WAFL covered most of the city. Of course, that's all changed.
I would suggest a read of the Fong report (2001) and see what they said about the necessity of a club residing in the middle and not on the fringe of a clubs zone. It was deemed not to be necessary.
I disagree, on 2 fronts.
1. Club support. Clubs will struggle to attract the support of people and businesses in areas where they are not geographically close to. Even though Gosnells might be in Perth's zone, why would people living there support Perth? The same goes for a vast majority of the southern and eastern suburbs. I currently live in Bullcreek. The closest ground is EF Oval, a solid 20-25 miniute drive with little public transport access. Why would I go? But relocate them to Willetton (as was suggested in the long dead football 2000 report) and they become far more attractive to me, as well as about another 100,000 more people in the southern suburbs.
2. Player travel. While more applicable to country (and semi country) residents, players will always be more likely to continue playing if you provide the incentives to do so. A semi decent player who would ordinarily be on the verge of being drafted is taking a damn big risk if he moved to Perth to follow his dream of playing AFL. It also depends a lot on the player's family. What if the parents have commitments preventing him from going to Perth? The end result is that a half decent player (who might have played AFL but more than likely would have been a strong WAFL prospect) is lost to the system. Football loses.
If a youth has to travel to play in an elite competition, god forbid! Have a chat to some country people who have to drive 100’s of km just to have their kid play in the little league. If the player wants it badly then they will travel.
Totally arrogant attitude. The fact remains football is competing with other sports for elite athletes. We should be making it as easy as possible for young footballers to reach the highest level within reason. A lot of top athletes excel at more than one sport, and with sports like soccer and basketball having a presence in major country centres at the top level, the last thing we should be doing is forcing 15 and 16 year old kids to have to travel 2 hours just to have a *shot* at the highest level. Obviously reality dictates we can't have a WAFL club covering every area in WA, but to resrict the competition to essentially inner city Perth sides it nothing short of arrogant shortsightedness.
A bit like McDonalds putting all it's restaurants in the inner city with the expectation that anyone living in the outer suburbs can just travel to them, while Hungry Jacks ensure their restaurants are evenly spred across the metro area. If a HJ's was 5 minutes away and McDonalds was 30 minutes away, guess which one most people would choose?
You underestimate accessibility.
If they want play in the AFL – they have to play WAFL. Troy Cook, Haddrill, Glass, Bateman, Scott Stevens, Leon Davis, Damon White all had to move to Perth to play WAFL... and eventually get drafted.
You'e forgetting the many that no doubt gave football away because they didn't want to come to Perth. Once again, we should be making it as easy as possible, not saying to kids 'If you want it bad enough you have to travel'.
You are mistaken again. Lathlain will slowly regenerate due to large blocks, Bemont is one of the growth areas I mention. What about Gosnells, Canning? Better review your figures.
Gosnells and Canning merely prove my point. Both are steady growth areas with little to no access to a WAFL club. Perth would do themselves big favours by relocating to either of those 2 areas. With the right sort of promotion, they might even attract more than family and friends to their matches.
Some of the above is true. Do we have to move ALL clubs to the growth zones leaving minimal clubs in the city? Anyone in the Perth zone is maximum of approx 25km from Lathlain.
Good call. That's pretty much most of Perth.
If Peel move to Rockingham as touted then it would be the same situation would it not? Have another look at the growth zones in the Metro area - as the recently commission did.
I'm not advocating all clubs move. I'd be surprised if anyone is. But clearly the glut of clubs in the inner city is unacceptable, particuarlly whole large chunks of heavily populated areas remain nowhere near a WAFL club.
Ideally, I would have thought the best place to put Peel would be somewhere near Lark Hill. But the area probably hasn't developed enough to warrant the construction of a semi-major football venue yet.
And where have the Peel colts players (and predominatly reserves) players come from? I've read enough footy budgets to know the origins of players of WAFL clubs.
And for the benefit of us all, could you let us know how Peel reserves have done over the past 5 years (which are dominated by Peel locals). At least Peel were competitive in the 2002 season, particularly late in the year. Given the bulk of the reserves team are locals and were consistently getting belted, how do you think they would be doing if those players were promoted into the league team?
[B]
I am heavilly involved in WA football and have a broader view than you give me credit for and I would immediately state if you care so much get officially involved with Peel and at least help them in that way.
Which begs the question as to whether you have a conflict of interest. Given every club is in favour of 8 teams, if Peel don't go, then about 3 other clubs are in the firing line. Are you involved with one of those clubs?
FYI, I am not involved, not do I support, any particular club. I have been to every venue (bar Joondalup and Bassendean) in the last 3 years to watch at least one WAFL game. I go to about 5 games a year when I can.
Hope Peel don’t move to Rockingham… see my previous posts about country players who want it badly.
Why did the club then court the City of Rockingham about a move?
From what i've read, Peel looked at playing some games in Rockingham, which IMO would be a sensible move. Over 50,000 people live in Rockingham, along with a lot of small businesses. Appealing to that group is a sound business decision. I don't think it would be all that bright to relocate fully to Rockingham unless they get a bloody good deal from the council in regard to facilities, a new ground, etc.
Could claim it but reality is a different thing. It's a well known fact that Peel inflated their crowds this year with some particularly good propaganda. When Perth played at Rushton Park on 1st June, the crowd was touted at around 5,000. When the WAFL looked at the gate takings a major anomaly was observed. Investigations revealed that there were around 1,000 school children taking part in a parade at half time (strategic showing of the junior sides in Mandurah which by coincidence inflates the crowd),
As does every club, and has been doing so since I can remember. I can remember participating in one of them at EF Oval about 15 years ago.
and about a dozen corporate tents which offered free entry and free alcohol. So the gate takings were actually only a couple of thousand dollars.
So what? At least they get bums on seats (or grass). I saw the Peel v Perth game on TV, and no doubt a lot of those people that showed up will come back. Even though the crowd figure may be inflated by freebies, the crowd was still there. And very few away fans at that.
Add to this the fact businesses within the region placed a full page advertisement in the local paper supporting Peel. Investigations again showed of the 50 or so businesses listed – only 2 or 3 paid for the ad. Propaganda at it’s best.
Can't really comment, because I wouldn't know. But once again, so what? Are you saying parochialism is a bad thing? The 'us vs them' attitude made the Eagles what they are today.
Peel are the worst traveled of all WAFL supporters. Ask any GM of the other WAFL clubs about Peel and they shudder because of the meager gate takings at Peel games.
Well, duh. When they live 50km away, you hardly can expect them to show up in their thousands. The same can be said for
One also senses if you realistically expect 3-5,000 at a game then Peel must urgently do something about the amount of seating available to opposition clubs. 20 odd seats is totally insufficient. For me to witness two ladies who have followed Perth for 30 years having stand and then finally giving up and sit in the sand on the boundary line was extremely difficult to digest. Peel promised upgrades to the facilities on admission to the league – yet we have not seen any major improvements done yet.
I agree, Rushton is a dump. But Claremont isn't that far ahead. neither is Fremantle Oval, the seats in the Victoria pavilion badly need replacing.
But building a stand that seats 1500 people is still going to cost a million dollars. With no guarantee that Peel will be in the comp after 2003, why would any group (whether that be the council, Mandurah footy & sporting club, the WA government etc) put that sort of money in?
So in conclusion, forget Fremantle as your team of choice, become more involved and knowledgable in regard to grassroots footy, get down to Ruston and find out the true situation. Because I doubt the WAFC will bail Peel out again.
I would suggest that you get over any funding provided in the past. Whether you agreed with it or not at the time, any prior money paid to Peel is a sunk cost. Kicking Peel out will not recover any of it. Most importantly, football will not benefit from it.
And you never know, I might even become a Peel member next year.
:D
Vendetta
I have no vendetta against Peel, sadly for the whole of WA football they are an expensive mistake. So I really don’t think your abuse was warranted.
ridiculous conclusions..
Rich considering my initial post is made up of facts which you conveniently shrug off with short comments... "Irrelevant, ", "I wouldn't know the internal goings on of the club"... who is making ridiculous conclusions? Where are your facts.?
Based on my own interests...
Yes I admit to my allegiance to the PFC, but still my view is in fact the bigger picture. Without a WAFL there will be no Perth. I continually see ourselves, Swans, West Perth – all with growing zones doing it tough with a severe lack of funding. Agreed some rationalisation must take place, relocating a team makes a great deal more sense than decimating a competition to include one. But move Perth to Gosnells you say, this was looked at seriously - but why would a club move to sub-standard facilities where the local council was not prepared to support or fund the move. The logistics involved aren’t as simple as moving… ask West Perth, who have on-flied success but are scraping for cash and eventual survival. The Falcons are yet to attract significant support from the Joondalup commercial sector even though they have been located there since 1993.
How you could possibly state I would think the country side would be competitive against a WAFL? I never suggested the like. It seems you are endeared to the elitism that is the scourge of our indigenous football – you see little value in localised competitions. I was simply stating have a look at the calibre of the footballers the rural areas have produced and that we should care a great deal about the country leagues and they deserve our continual support.
If you have a look at the figures and you will see that the numbers partaking in Football in the Perth zone rank in the top half of the competition for total numbers and includes increases in participation numbers. The growth statistics of the Perth zone is projected at 22.6% growth to 2011 compared to 32.6% for the South West Region (****burn/Rockingham/ Mandurah). Joondalup is growth is expected to be 35.3% to 2011. Swans area 29.1% growth by 2011.
Well, duh. When they live 50km away, you hardly can expect them to show up in their thousands. The same can be said for
I assume you were going to say same for the metropolitan clubs when they play at Rushton. Seems to me like we are going in the direction of the AFL where the interstate games are sterile because a majority of the crowd supports the home team. Lord help us if the WAFL succumbs to that. It is one of the main reasons I still like suburban grounds and the opposition banter.
And I can answer your question about the Peel reserves, the so-called local players…
1997 2 wins from 20 games
1998 7 wins from 20 games
1999 0 wins from 20 games
2000 6 wins from 18 games
2001 2 wins from 18 games
2002 3 wins from 18 games
That makes a grand total of 20 wins from 114 games – 17% winning ratio
For the Peel colts
1997 1 win from 20 games
1998 4 wins from 20 games
1999 13 wins from 20 games
2000 6 wins from 18 games
2001 7 wins from 18 games
2002 11 wins from 18 games
That makes a grand total of 42 wins from 114 games – 36% winning ratio
Interesting the improvement coincides with the $60000 recruitment grant 2000-2002. One would have though the relatively successful colts in 1999 would have, in turn, seen an increase in the reserves success? Maybe the imports have caused these young players to stagnate or leave?
Mr Rob, let’s now see your facts… because one needs them to make a balanced judgement.. The very area you say I fail in…
Hassa, this topic has made great reading but I reckon you are throwing darts at Peel (which may be warranted over some issues), but I get back to the reason Peel was created.
The WAFL has alot of items to look at, as it is now a second tier competition under the AFL. Alot of the clubs still have an attitude that is pre AFL, when most of the best W.A. players still played in the WAFL. The times have changed, so the WAFL must change.
A massive shake up of all clubs is required of all clubs. Alot of money has been spent on Peel, but what would be gained by kicking them out?. Are other clubs actively addressing where their club and the league is going?.
Seeing your age, I can see that you've been around the scene for a while (not a 15 year old who knows everything) and have actually seen Polly and Barry play. I can see where you're coming from in relation to Peel and the money spent, but maybe if some of the other clubs had been active when asked, they may have benefited from the money?.
You do appear to have your target sights set firmly on Peel, but step back a bit and look at the WAFL as a whole. Is Peel the only problem in the WAFL?, I doubt it.
Masai, you make me feel so old – I’m only 40!
I vaguely remember seeing Farmer play in 1969 and my earliest memory of Cable was 1972. But as for Jack Clarke, he was way before my time although he did play country football with my father in the early 50’s. Still, I’ll let you off.
All I am stating with Peel is that the public’s perceptions of them are simplistic and through rose coloured glasses. Yet people are so quick to jump on the “Swans/Perth” merger – two clubs with areas within their zones with projected population growth which is in the top 5 in the whole state. It feel it is my duty to educate the public that all isn’t what it seems at Peel.
We must remember a burgeoning junior zone is only one part of becoming a sustainable semi-professional WAFL club.
There are many other areas which require skill and work – which Peel has not shown since its’ inception. I am concerned once the additional grants stop, which is season 2003, then the club will fall to it’s knees financially. The WAFL were very, very close to closing Peel down in 1999. I have good authority there are currently significant financial problems at Peel as we speak, (be it electronically).
Maybe an outcome of my “vendetta” as Rob calls it, will be to force those managing the Peel club to act in a responsible and accountable manner in the future. But if we don’t show the flaws in their club now it will continue as per the past which will eventually see the club close. And if in a few years time it does, then the Peel experiment has been an even greater burden on WA Football and the millions would have been better spent on junior development in the region and assisting the Peel league.
I hope I am wrong.
OK, lets get a few things clear.
I am not saying that your 'facts' are inaccurate. Merely that your conclusions are irrational. For example:
You advocate that Peel be kicked out based on levels of funding made in the past. How are the 2 related? How will kicking Peel out recover any of that funding, or rectify any of the mistakes made? Go and get a basic accounting book and look up the term 'sunk cost'. Note that every book will strongly recommend managers to ignore sunk costs when making commercial decisions for the future. I suggest you do the same.
By all means, lobby for a level of financial support equal to that of other clubs. But kicking them out solves few problems, and probably creates new ones.
Zones - Perth may well have a lot of kids (and with it young footballers) in their zone. But you miss the point entirely. Just about every area of WA is allocated as part of a WAFL club's zone. The issue is that most WAFL clubs are located a long way away from most of the kids in their zone. These kids aren't just future footballers, but future supporters (i.e the lifeblood) of the clubs. The further away these clubs are located from their zone, the less and less likely the kids are going to feel any attachment to the club. If Peel goes, no matter which club you allocate the Peel region to (from memory most of it used to be East Perth's and South Fremantle's) the residents will lose touch of having a local club represent them. As i've said before, I have always lived (and played footy in) the East Fremantle zone, yet live nowhere near East Fremantle. I feel no association with them. Nodoubt i'm no different to many other footy fans like me. The game should be taken to the people. The easier the accessability, the more likely people are to go!
On-field results. I'm not sure what the point of your figures were, I knew how Peel have performed on field. The reserves performance vindicates the effort to recruit from other clubs. If they had have relied solely on local talent from the Peel league, they would have got done by 30 goals every game.
Country leagues - I was merely responding to your claims that country leagues (including the Peel league) was not second rate. The fact remains that the standard is well below WAFL level, and under 18's in particular would benefit much more playing in a higher level of football than in the Peel league (through both exposure to AFL & WA scouts as well as improving the standard of their own game). And I am not saying we should be ignoring the country leagues, but the standard of the Peel league should not be the only factor to judge the success of Peel Thunder.
West Perth have been an interesting example of finding the balance between traditional members and local support. They tried to change their name to Joondalup in response to their own market research which indicated local businesses were more reluctant to support a side named 'West Perth' as opposed to Joondalup. Of course as you would know, that annoyed the traditional support base, and the name was changed back. I don't know the solution. But I do know that local footy in the Joondalup/Wanneroo area is better off having a local footy team in the area.
Unfortunately at the moment WA football is not flush with funds. But that doesn't mean that decisions should be made with only the short term effect in mind. In 3 years when the Dockers win the flag and the WAFC is handing out millions in grants, maybe then perth sould look at securing funding to upgrade a local venue in the outer suburbs. :)