WA Football administrator quit in protests at WAFL club alignments

[Galileo9]

That still doesn't address the fact that any non-aligned club that produces AFL standard talent (this usually means putting a player through junior and colts level systems and sometimes ressies) is likely to have to watch that player they've put all that time and effort into playing in an opposing WAFL teams jumper the next year should they get drafted to one of the local AFL clubs. Rather than staying with their original club and maintaining a rough balance of AFL listed talent throughout the whole comp, this system concentrates them all into two teams and unbalances the comp.
It's bad for the comp and I can't see much in the way of an incentive for the non-aligned teams.

Claremont has certainly done well from it's zones over the last few decades, I'm not claiming anything other than that, but the fact remains, all our best players will go, year after year, and now we'll no longer get the services of the ones we've produced who get drafted locally.

Sure we'll have plenty of good players still, but I doubt we'll be that competitive against the aligned sides. I saw all this happen before under the previous alignment system.

It seems to me that it's completely insidious the influence the AFL has on the lower leagues. Everything is being constructed to serve that end only, and the whole game can only suffer because of that.

yeah they put in ALOT of effort into an 18 year old. please. juniors pay their fees to play and clubs get money for having a player who paid their fee to be at their club drafted.

i don't get why complaints are about where local players being drafted go to? only complaint i can see is that they are losing a player that played for them for free. remember they got a decent sum for having an 18 year old drafted. if they lose a player interstate they lose a player so not sure why should different rules apply if a player is drafted by wce or freo. defies logic really.

time an effort put in by wce or freo into these players is 1 million times bigger than wafl clubs.

 

[Underdog]

yeah they put in ALOT of effort into an 18 year old. please. juniors pay their fees to play and clubs get money for having a player who paid their fee to be at their club drafted.

Are you seriously suggesting that WAFL clubs don't put a lot of effort into developing kids in their districts? Particularly when you note their relatively tiny budget.

 

[Galileo9]

Are you seriously suggesting that WAFL clubs don't put a lot of effort into developing kids in their districts? Particularly when you note their relatively tiny budget.

what do you define as "a lot"? nowhere near as much as when they get to an afl club. and that is relevant.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

what do you define as "a lot"? nowhere near as much as when they get to an afl club. and that is relevant.

You have no idea have you?

 

[Rob]

Are you seriously suggesting that WAFL clubs don't put a lot of effort into developing kids in their districts? Particularly when you note their relatively tiny budget.

What's a lot? WAFL clubs run underage rep teams and provide a reasonable level of coaching. The reward for that is players for the senior team and the occasional AFL draftee to which they get paid pretty well for. But once they get drafted, they shouldn't then have any form of 'ownership' over the player, irrespective of who they're drafted by.

 

[Albert Ross]

Surely West Coast and Freo having their own clubs is the much lesser of two evils. Or at least West Coast having their own club and if Peel want to fold in to Freo Reserves then so be it.

This is what WCE and Freo wanted but was opposed by the other clubs.

I just can't understand a strong WAFL club being combined with the Eagles reserves. That's unfair.

Those aligned WAFL clubs are not allowed to recruit players. The will have their AFL-listed guys and guys out of their aligned Colts teams. A lot of the AFL listed 18yo kids they will be playing are a year or two away from being delisted and not able to hold their places in the WAFL on merit.

I like the idea of West Coast and Freo being limited by a tight salary cap for their non AFL players. It would their overall talent and any injuries would make them very susceptible to be beaten by any half decent WAFL side.

They are.

A lot of the speculation in this thread isn't based on an understanding of the rules the two new teams are operating under.

 

[pablo668]

yeah they put in ALOT of effort into an 18 year old. please. juniors pay their fees to play and clubs get money for having a player who paid their fee to be at their club drafted.

i don't get why complaints are about where local players being drafted go to? only complaint i can see is that they are losing a player that played for them for free. remember they got a decent sum for having an 18 year old drafted. if they lose a player interstate they lose a player so not sure why should different rules apply if a player is drafted by wce or freo. defies logic really.

time an effort put in by wce or freo into these players is 1 million times bigger than wafl clubs.

Ugh, yeah they do actually. Running kids through what would be close to four years of junior development. My sons have a step brother, he was in the Peel development squad, pretty sure he's had people from Peel involved in his footy since he was 14. He's now starting to play in their colts side. By the time he's 18 that will have been 4 years of effort put into his footy for the AFL to get a potentialyl AFL ready recruit.
It's not to be sneezed at really, regardless of the efforts put in later by whatever AFL club grabs him.

The AFL gets a lot of young talent via the WAFL. If arrangements by the AFL clubs here unbalance and weaken the comp here it can only harm the AFL in the long run.

And no, if a player gets drafted locally that means the player Xclub developed and put time and resources into will be playing against them eventually. So they wouldn't be overly thrilled by this eventuality. How does that defy logic?

 

[Damon_3388]

Not true.

No-one of any influence or significance has spoken out publicly like this guy in WA though.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

This is what WCE and Freo wanted but was opposed by the other clubs.



Those aligned WAFL clubs are not allowed to recruit players. The will have their AFL-listed guys and guys out of their aligned Colts teams. A lot of the AFL listed 18yo kids they will be playing are a year or two away from being delisted and not able to hold their places in the WAFL on merit.




They are.

A lot of the speculation in this thread isn't based on an understanding of the rules the two new teams are operating under.

Such as Albert? The Non aligned clubs have a cap of 370K and East Perth and peel have theirs at $280K Yet east Perth and Peel have available 24 AFL listed players to play for them.
The non aligned clubs have a point system they must operate under which is to limit how many good players they can recruit. Yet this system is not applied to east Perth and Peel?
East Perth and Peel by aligning themselves with an AFL club should now have to rely solely on their AFL listed players for success. Their cap should only be 15-25% of other clubs, the point system should be scrapped for other clubs and they can recruit from anywhere and as many as they want.
East perth already have over 18 Eagles players qualified to play in the finals, you reckon all of them will get a game? Of course they will so who is playing in the finals the Eagles or East Perth?
The rules you are talking about have been put in place to support the AFL clubs, unfortunatley it is heavily favouring the WAFL aligned club.

The alignment only bothers me because basically the aligned clubs are operating under nearly the same rules as the non aligned clubs yet they have all the AFL listed players. If you told East Perth their salry cap next year was just 50K then they would drop the alignment tomorrow. Yet that is how it should be.
East Perth and Peel get all the AFL listed players and then when East perth and Peel bring through their own players the other clubs simply come in and swoop on them.
You can't have your cake and eat it as well, yet it seems East Perth and Peel can.

 

[Galileo9]

Ugh, yeah they do actually. Running kids through what would be close to four years of junior development. My sons have a step brother, he was in the Peel development squad, pretty sure he's had people from Peel involved in his footy since he was 14. He's now starting to play in their colts side. By the time he's 18 that will have been 4 years of effort put into his footy for the AFL to get a potentialyl AFL ready recruit.
It's not to be sneezed at really, regardless of the efforts put in later by whatever AFL club grabs him.

The AFL gets a lot of young talent via the WAFL. If arrangements by the AFL clubs here unbalance and weaken the comp here it can only harm the AFL in the long run.

And no, if a player gets drafted locally that means the player Xclub developed and put time and resources into will be playing against them eventually. So they wouldn't be overly thrilled by this eventuality. How does that defy logic?

i have no doubt the boy goes through a lot. they train, they play. but my question isn't what the players do. what are these resources that these clubs put in? detailed development to me involves video analyses, one-on-one coaching, money spent on coaches and these sorts of things. but my familiarity is more pro soccer. if they just pay their fee, rock up to training and play on weekend, thats no different to what i did when i played local cricket. i had one coach who gave tips here and there during training, but i wouldn't say there is some massive effort put in or "resources" to justify some sort of ownership. especially since he did this for free.

still don't know how comp is weakened. wafl clubs, like afl clubs, have self interest first and foremost. costing say subiaco a premiership because of alignment doesn't mean competition is weakened. certainly not more so than say Gold Coast weakening AFL by beating say Hawthorn in 2015 afl grand final. only way competition is weakened is by lesser talent pool. thats it. and there are still same amount of players running around.

i am not sure what is logical. when that player gets drafted, he is NO LONGER that wafl clubs' player or employee or anything really. they get compensated by afl with whatever fee they get. player has also moved on in his career. so its not about making them happy, its more about why do they really have a right to feel 'thrilled'. maybe they are not happy they are even more reminded that they are not the premier competition, but thats just plain bad luck.

 

[The_Reaper]

i have no doubt the boy goes through a lot. they train, they play. but my question isn't what the players do. what are these resources that these clubs put in? detailed development to me involves video analyses, one-on-one coaching, money spent on coaches and these sorts of things. but my familiarity is more pro soccer. if they just pay their fee, rock up to training and play on weekend, thats no different to what i did when i played local cricket. i had one coach who gave tips here and there during training, but i wouldn't say there is some massive effort put in or "resources" to justify some sort of ownership. especially since he did this for free.

still don't know how comp is weakened. wafl clubs, like afl clubs, have self interest first and foremost. costing say subiaco a premiership because of alignment doesn't mean competition is weakened. certainly not more so than say Gold Coast weakening AFL by beating say Hawthorn in 2015 afl grand final. only way competition is weakened is by lesser talent pool. thats it. and there are still same amount of players running around.

i am not sure what is logical. when that player gets drafted, he is NO LONGER that wafl clubs' player or employee or anything really. they get compensated by afl with whatever fee they get. player has also moved on in his career. so its not about making them happy, its more about why do they really have a right to feel 'thrilled'. maybe they are not happy they are even more reminded that they are not the premier competition, but thats just plain bad luck.

The competition is weakened because East Perth has a masssive advantage.

 

[pablo668]

i have no doubt the boy goes through a lot. they train, they play. but my question isn't what the players do. what are these resources that these clubs put in? detailed development to me involves video analyses, one-on-one coaching, money spent on coaches and these sorts of things. but my familiarity is more pro soccer. if they just pay their fee, rock up to training and play on weekend, thats no different to what i did when i played local cricket. i had one coach who gave tips here and there during training, but i wouldn't say there is some massive effort put in or "resources" to justify some sort of ownership. especially since he did this for free.

still don't know how comp is weakened. wafl clubs, like afl clubs, have self interest first and foremost. costing say subiaco a premiership because of alignment doesn't mean competition is weakened. certainly not more so than say Gold Coast weakening AFL by beating say Hawthorn in 2015 afl grand final. only way competition is weakened is by lesser talent pool. thats it. and there are still same amount of players running around.

i am not sure what is logical. when that player gets drafted, he is NO LONGER that wafl clubs' player or employee or anything really. they get compensated by afl with whatever fee they get. player has also moved on in his career. so its not about making them happy, its more about why do they really have a right to feel 'thrilled'. maybe they are not happy they are even more reminded that they are not the premier competition, but thats just plain bad luck.

My understanding is that once they are in the development squads the boys spend a great deal of time with people from the club. They get advice on training, playing, what they need to improve on, weight training and diet. It's not a matter of just turning up.
That's pretty much anecdotal though.

As far as having some sort of ownership over the players? No not really. But after seeing so many players over the years move onwards and upwards, (Claremont has a long history of this) it was nice to have players sticking around and being involved at the club even though they were now on an AFL list.
We no longer have that. So it sucks.
It also sucks that any player of that quality we produce from here on in will be playing against us in a Royals or Peel jersey if we get to see them again at all.
Having all of the WAFL's listed players concentrated into two teams unbalances the comp. It's a nexus of the best talent. How are the other teams supposed to compete?
Short answer, they can't, the comp becomes pointless. Just like the last time this system was tried.

The WAFL has to put up with this just so the two AFL teams in town get there way.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

That still doesn't address the fact that any non-aligned club that produces AFL standard talent (this usually means putting a player through junior and colts level systems and sometimes ressies) is likely to have to watch that player they've put all that time and effort into playing in an opposing WAFL teams jumper the next year should they get drafted to one of the local AFL clubs. Rather than staying with their original club and maintaining a rough balance of AFL listed talent throughout the whole comp, this system concentrates them all into two teams and unbalances the comp.
It's bad for the comp and I can't see much in the way of an incentive for the non-aligned teams.

Claremont has certainly done well from it's zones over the last few decades, I'm not claiming anything other than that, but the fact remains, all our best players will go, year after year, and now we'll no longer get the services of the ones we've produced who get drafted locally.

Sure we'll have plenty of good players still, but I doubt we'll be that competitive against the aligned sides. I saw all this happen before under the previous alignment system.

It seems to me that it's completely insidious the influence the AFL has on the lower leagues. Everything is being constructed to serve that end only, and the whole game can only suffer because of that.

If you don't develop a depth of talent through the cults system it doesn't make a difference if your best players are pulled out year in year out, because that fundamentally won't change. In the end you're talking about a few players here and there from each club,

It certainly wouldn't be as big of an issue if more was extracted from under performing WAFL clubs and under performing regions. But WAFL clubs seem to concern with the politics of envy to address more practical matters.

In the end the base issues regarding the WAFL don't change, with or without AFL alignment or stand alone club.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

My understanding is that once they are in the development squads the boys spend a great deal of time with people from the club. They get advice on training, playing, what they need to improve on, weight training and diet. It's not a matter of just turning up.
That's pretty much anecdotal though.

As far as having some sort of ownership over the players? No not really. But after seeing so many players over the years move onwards and upwards, (Claremont has a long history of this) it was nice to have players sticking around and being involved at the club even though they were now on an AFL list.
We no longer have that. So it sucks.
It also sucks that any player of that quality we produce from here on in will be playing against us in a Royals or Peel jersey if we get to see them again at all.
Having all of the WAFL's listed players concentrated into two teams unbalances the comp. It's a nexus of the best talent. How are the other teams supposed to compete?
Short answer, they can't, the comp becomes pointless. Just like the last time this system was tried.

The WAFL has to put up with this just so the two AFL teams in town get there way.

If WAFL clubs are pragmatic they will find practical ways to bridge the gap, they could start by forwarding dev squad players which are closer to getting an AFL call up than their perennial league performers who don't have the skills or game to play at the highest level.

The idea that all of the G7 support equality is an absurd and dishonest one.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Ugh, yeah they do actually. Running kids through what would be close to four years of junior development. My sons have a step brother, he was in the Peel development squad, pretty sure he's had people from Peel involved in his footy since he was 14. He's now starting to play in their colts side. By the time he's 18 that will have been 4 years of effort put into his footy for the AFL to get a potentialyl AFL ready recruit.
It's not to be sneezed at really, regardless of the efforts put in later by whatever AFL club grabs him.

The AFL gets a lot of young talent via the WAFL. If arrangements by the AFL clubs here unbalance and weaken the comp here it can only harm the AFL in the long run.

And no, if a player gets drafted locally that means the player Xclub developed and put time and resources into will be playing against them eventually. So they wouldn't be overly thrilled by this eventuality. How does that defy logic?

The WAFL can be replaced as the primary development pathway if need be, but i doubt that will happen less the WAFL fails and the WAFL will fail if they lose AFL grade talent.

 

[pablo668]

If WAFL clubs are pragmatic they will find practical ways to bridge the gap, they could start by forwarding dev squad players which are closer to getting an AFL call up than their perennial league performers who don't have the skills or game to play at the highest level.

The idea that all of the G7 support equality is an absurd and dishonest one.

Yeah, not sure where I've actually said that though.
The situation pre-alignment was certainly not equal and I for one think it needed adjustment for teams that weren't doing so well zone-wise to get a leg up.
However, for the WAFL, the situation where the AFL listed players were spread throughout the comp was far better than what we have now, and what happened the last time we had alignments.

The argument really comes down to what is best for the WAFL vs what is best for the two local AFL clubs.
The thing that many are not getting is that the AFL is not the be all and end all for football for everyone. The majority, unfortunately that is the case (AFL), but the AFL needs strong semi-pro leagues under it to develop talent. Sure the AFL could start up it's own leagues/development path, but that is a shirtload of time, money and people to organize what is already happening at second tiers throughout the country.

The AFL needs to stop being so selfish and arrogant about the way it treats feeder comps.

 

[pablo668]

The WAFL can be replaced as the primary development pathway if need be, but i doubt that will happen less the WAFL fails and the WAFL will fail if they lose AFL grade talent.

Where do you think that 'AFL grade talent' comes from in the first place? It doesn't just drop off trees. It comes from the strong semi-pro leagues that already exist under the AFL currently. The AFL needs to get it's players from somewhere, no point in trashing the second tier feeder comps and then having to set up a new system to do the same thing.

 

[The Speaker]

Where do you think that 'AFL grade talent' comes from in the first place? It doesn't just drop off trees. It comes from the strong semi-pro leagues that already exist under the AFL currently. The AFL needs to get it's players from somewhere, no point in trashing the second tier feeder comps and then having to set up a new system to do the same thing.

I think the AFL would be perfectly fine with turning everything into franchises.

Unfortunately they're forgetting that the strength of Australian football has come from clubs, not franchises.

 

[royaldave]

Claremont has certainly done well from it's zones over the last few decades, I'm not claiming anything other than that, but the fact remains, all our best players will go, year after year, and now we'll no longer get the services of the ones we've produced who get drafted locally.

Sure we'll have plenty of good players still, but I doubt we'll be that competitive against the aligned sides. I saw all this happen before under the previous alignment system.

Claremont has been paid for every player it has had drafted over the years. This is the prime and intended benefit of having a player drafted.

Often a player is drafted locally and then the club has had the added bonus of getting more use of this player and not having to pay for them to play. This was a "bonus" of the system.

Claremont has had a clear advantage here for a long time given the number of players drafted locally. Was this fair? Some argue this is the benefit of producing more AFL players, but even so no one has control over how many players get drafted locally vs interstate. Regardless it made a mockery of the salary cap.

Hence the point is the system has never been fair.

The fairest solution would have been to have stand-alone eagles and dockers reserve sides. This was apparently unpalatable to the WAFL clubs, although while this was being thrown around there were 5 WAFL presidents "secretly" negotiating with the eagles and dockers to be partner clubs. So its a case of 4 clubs being left looking stupid, and 3 left looking like sore losers.

 

[saintal]

No-one of any influence or significance has spoken out publicly like this guy in WA though.

True, unfortunately.

 

[pablo668]

Claremont has been paid for every player it has had drafted over the years. This is the prime and intended benefit of having a player drafted.

Often a player is drafted locally and then the club has had the added bonus of getting more use of this player and not having to pay for them to play. This was a "bonus" of the system.

Claremont has had a clear advantage here for a long time given the number of players drafted locally. Was this fair? Some argue this is the benefit of producing more AFL players, but even so no one has control over how many players get drafted locally vs interstate. Regardless it made a mockery of the salary cap.

Hence the point is the system has never been fair.

The fairest solution would have been to have stand-alone eagles and dockers reserve sides. This was apparently unpalatable to the WAFL clubs, although while this was being thrown around there were 5 WAFL presidents "secretly" negotiating with the eagles and dockers to be partner clubs. So its a case of 4 clubs being left looking stupid, and 3 left looking like sore losers.

No I don't think it was fair either, hence my comment that it should have been worked with to iron the bugs out.
The biggest mockery of the Salary cap was the fact that the WAFL couldn't afford to actually monitor and enforce it. (So I heard).
To me the best solution was to leave things as they were and to keep AFL considerations out of the WAFL as much as possible. But I guess that's pipe-dream territory.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Claremont was one of the teams that had proposed being a partner club, even though it was a disaster the first time we tried it.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Claremont has been paid for every player it has had drafted over the years. This is the prime and intended benefit of having a player drafted.

Often a player is drafted locally and then the club has had the added bonus of getting more use of this player and not having to pay for them to play. This was a "bonus" of the system.

Claremont has had a clear advantage here for a long time given the number of players drafted locally. Was this fair? Some argue this is the benefit of producing more AFL players, but even so no one has control over how many players get drafted locally vs interstate. Regardless it made a mockery of the salary cap.

Hence the point is the system has never been fair.

The fairest solution would have been to have stand-alone eagles and dockers reserve sides. This was apparently unpalatable to the WAFL clubs, although while this was being thrown around there were 5 WAFL presidents "secretly" negotiating with the eagles and dockers to be partner clubs. So its a case of 4 clubs being left looking stupid, and 3 left looking like sore losers.

You know Dave I am sick of hearing how all these clubs wanted to be partner clubs from East Perth People and yet no one ever names them? So who are the 5 WAFL presidents?
You say the Eagles and Dockers wanting there own sides was not palatable for the WAFL clubs, interesting that East Perth voted against that as well? Wonder why?
Honestly Dave I agree with you that nothing has ever been fair no matter what system is in place but this system we have now has some things that need fixing and I can then live with it.

1) East Perth and Peel can only have a salary cap of 25% of the other clubs. If the 7 non aligned clubs have a salary cap of $370k then East Perth and Peels cap is 92.5k.

2) The points system must be totally removed from all clubs. Clearly with AFL listed players being the bulk of East Perth and Peels list the points system does not apply to them, so why should it apply to any other club.

3) East Perth and Peel football clubs must pay for their entire coaching staff. The Eagles and Dockers can pick them but they cannot pay them.

There are a few things more I would change also but these are the main ones. How the other clubs allowed these things to even pass is beyond me.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Given Atkinson's a West Perth stalwart, can't help but wonder if he'd hold such strong views if the "juggernaut" club hosting the Eagles reserves was any club other than East Perth.

 

[royaldave]

You know Dave I am sick of hearing how all these clubs wanted to be partner clubs from East Perth People and yet no one ever names them? So who are the 5 WAFL presidents?
You say the Eagles and Dockers wanting there own sides was not palatable for the WAFL clubs, interesting that East Perth voted against that as well? Wonder why?
Honestly Dave I agree with you that nothing has ever been fair no matter what system is in place but this system we have now has some things that need fixing and I can then live with it.

1) East Perth and Peel can only have a salary cap of 25% of the other clubs. If the 7 non aligned clubs have a salary cap of $370k then East Perth and Peels cap is 92.5k.

2) The points system must be totally removed from all clubs. Clearly with AFL listed players being the bulk of East Perth and Peels list the points system does not apply to them, so why should it apply to any other club.

3) East Perth and Peel football clubs must pay for their entire coaching staff. The Eagles and Dockers can pick them but they cannot pay them.

There are a few things more I would change also but these are the main ones. How the other clubs allowed these things to even pass is beyond me.

I don't know why the media doesn't just name them, but reading between the lines of what has been printed and other mail I've read i'd guess the other three were perth, Claremont and subi.

I won't get into why ep voted against standalone reserve sides when clearly the 9 wafl clubs were not united in the overall fight and it was not just ep and peel playing silly buggers.

Your other points

1. An aligned clubs salary cap should probably reflect the amount of players required on average. Clearly 25% is way off target.

2. The points system was introduced to hamstring cashed upped subi , do you want to see those arguements again? Otherwise I agree , the points system to me reduces the wafl's ability to attract more quality players overall anyway. I have always been against it.

3. That is just unworkable. The afl clubs coaching staff are too numerous and probably too well paid for a wafl club to pay for. Rather than chopping the legs out of the arrangement the other clubs should look to be compensated if they feel that strongly. Besides which, while it might work at ep, the freo staff are f@@king up peel.

 

[Albert Ross]

1) East Perth and Peel can only have a salary cap of 25% of the other clubs. If the 7 non aligned clubs have a salary cap of $370k then East Perth and Peels cap is 92.5k.

The WAFL 7 have a salary cap of $280k. The aligned clubs have $182k. 65% might not be your preferred number but most weeks those teams will have 6-10 WAFL players in their teams, plus their reserves player payments. East Perth beat Clarement with 11 of their own players, Peel with 13 and East Freo with 16.

The value of the fringe AFL players is debatable, often they are 6 months away from being delisted and fringe WAFL players. 12 months ago it would have been 'unfair' if the Evil2 got to field an AFL listed player in their line-up, now he is in South Freo's ressies.

We've had the same system in Victoria for a while and at the moment the stand-alone teams Port and Williamstown are in the top-6. North Ballarat and Werribee are basically stand-alone-light at the moment with only 3-4 North Melbourne players each. So 4 of the top-6 are not relying on AFL talent.

Fringe AFL talent is frequently massively over-rated, a heap of it is 18yo kids barely getting a game on merit. Guys who will be delisted in 12-24 months and then only go on to be OK state league players.