News East Perth Eagles and Peel Dockers

[Underdog]

Good call. I doubt the AFL ever will to the same extent until the WAFC hand over the two licenses.

We then have to consider who exactly would have the best interests of WA football, particularly grass-roots, at heart - the AFL or WAFC.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Good call. I doubt the AFL ever will until the WAFC hand over the two licenses.

We then have to consider who exactly would have the best interests of WA football, particularly grass-roots, at heart - the AFL or WAFC.

Yet they aren't making the 10 victorian clubs hand over their licenses to fund Victorian football

 

[Masto]

Good call. I doubt the AFL ever will until the WAFC hand over the two licenses.

We then have to consider who exactly would have the best interests of WA football, particularly grass-roots, at heart - the AFL or WAFC.

Definitely WAFC. AFL is so compromised its not funny. WA would become just another number to help balance their books.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Just a quick question in relation to the alignments - given the commitment from the AFL clubs to their aligned WAFL clubs - what obligation to the WAFL do the clubs now owe? other than both being behoven to the WAFC.

What really gives me the shits is the WAFL is considerably funded from earnings out of WC and Freo.

Yet in the VFL - where alignments like Richmond/Coburg are - Richmond only have to help fund the one club - they are not pouring millions of dollars each year into the local comp. I doubt they are making handouts each year to Port Melbourne as an example.

So why does WA football have to be largely funded by our two clubs and not the central AFL like the Victorian (and I assume NEAFL) leagues?

Just out of interest how do you think it should work here?

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Just out of interest how do you think it should work here?

I think that all AFL clubs should have to commit equally to fund grassroots football.

WC and Freo do not benefit anymore or less than the other 16 clubs when East Freo produces a gun colt that enters the draft - so why should we have to fund the WA grass roots footy anymore than say Richmond have to?

The easy solution is for the AFL to appropriately fund grassroots footy across the nation with a grant payment each year that is made to the WAFC to distribute - with similar payments made to the VFC and other controlling bodies. I'd imagine payments would be made on a pro-rata participation rate. i.e if Victoria has 300,000 registered footballers and WA has 100,000 - then Vic would get 3x that of WA.

If required - the 18 clubs should have to equally contribute to the fund - or perhaps simply less is dispersed by the AFL.

It doesn't however seem equitable that two clubs should have to considerably fund grass roots footy in one state to help produce and foster the next generation of footballers for the entire AFL and the general health of the sport at all.

That's not to say I want WC to stop funding grass roots footy - - it is just that Richmond/Collingwood/Melbourne et al should all have to contribute the same.

 

[kane249]

I very much doubt that he will ever be playing in the famous royal blue and black - can you see him being dropped??

The great South Fremantle / West Coast player Peter Matera had his legacy forever tarnished when he had to pull on a Claremont jumper due to him returning from injury and needing some time in the WAFL to get match fit

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I think that all AFL clubs should have to commit equally to fund grassroots football.

WC and Freo do not benefit anymore or less than the other 16 clubs when East Freo produces a gun colt that enters the draft - so why should we have to fund the WA grass roots footy anymore than say Richmond have to?

The easy solution is for the AFL to appropriately fund grassroots footy across the nation with a grant payment each year that is made to the WAFC to distribute - with similar payments made to the VFC and other controlling bodies. I'd imagine payments would be made on a pro-rata participation rate. i.e if Victoria has 300,000 registered footballers and WA has 100,000 - then Vic would get 3x that of WA.

If required - the 18 clubs should have to equally contribute to the fund - or perhaps simply less is dispersed by the AFL.

It doesn't however seem equitable that two clubs should have to considerably fund grass roots footy in one state to help produce and foster the next generation of footballers for the entire AFL and the general health of the sport at all.

That's not to say I want WC to stop funding grass roots footy - - it is just that Richmond/Collingwood/Melbourne et al should all have to contribute the same.

I agree with what you are saying but the alternative is to sell the licences back to the AFL and that is like selling your soul to the devil.
One thing i would like to see is the 2 AFL clubs each have one priority pick from our state every year outside of the trade and draft.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I agree with what you are saying but the alternative is to sell the licences back to the AFL and that is like selling your soul to the devil.
One thing i would like to see is the 2 AFL clubs each have one priority pick from our state every year outside of the trade and draft.

I'd rather maintain the current system we have now to that.

However - the Victorian clubs (and moreso their members) are not required to hand over their licenses to the AFL for their state leagues to be funded appropriately.

It makes no sense that the WAFC would have to.

 

[The_Reaper]

I just dont get why all the WAFL supporters are so pissed by this. If their clubs did not vote against the eagles having a stand alone club in the WAFL like every other club in the AFL this would not have happened.

Because the former VFA is a joke competition with every club except Port Melbourne having lost all dignity.

How is Box Hill separate from Hawthorn?
How is Preston separate from Carlton?

 

[sTeeL]

Yep. I am blown away that the WAFL would agree to alignment as it kills the competition far more than if we had stand alone non premiership point matches.

Was clearly all about the money.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I'd rather maintain the current system we have now to that.

However - the Victorian clubs (and moreso their members) are not required to hand over their licenses to the AFL for their state leagues to be funded appropriately.

It makes no sense that the WAFC would have to.

You have to remember we also recruit players from over East which we don't pay for development. I guess it comes with being a two team town in what is still basically a Victorian league.

I actually don't care how they do it anymore, as long as both the Eagles and Dockers continue to profit share into WA football. Of course if their bosses didn't make them I am sure they would not give a cent to WA football but that is another debate all together.

 

[Underdog]

Yep. I am blown away that the WAFL would agree to alignment as it kills the competition far more than if we had stand alone non premiership point matches.

I thought the same initially but from reading the proposal submitted to the WAFL clubs from West Coast and Freo, I'm pretty sure they WERE looking to play for premiership points and finals.

I suspect this idea of 'non premiership point matches' was merely speculation.

 

[The_Reaper]

You have to remember we also recruit players from over East which we don't pay for development. I guess it comes with being a two team town in what is still basically a Victorian league.

I actually don't care how they do it anymore, as long as both the Eagles and Dockers continue to profit share into WA football. Of course if their bosses didn't make them I am sure they would not give a cent to WA football but that is another debate all together.

We do pay for their development.

We help fund the TAC Cup for instance.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

You have to remember we also recruit players from over East which we don't pay for development. I guess it comes with being a two team town in what is still basically a Victorian league.

We contribute no less than any other AFL club

 

[Demons09]

Reading Vince Pendals quote in the West it sounded like he was annoyed the Eagles didn't choose Perth as the host club, i'm not trying to be an alarmist but i reckon this club will be close to closing its doors in a couple of years time, rumoured to be up to 13 players leaving as we speak the likes of F&B winner Ross Young, Davis,Bevan and Spandderman and the rest are best 22 as well. Take out the listed players it looks very grim going forward.

 

[Galileo9]

You ask him where his heart belongs EH, I can assure you it's not Midvale.



This is not the point and this is not why people are against it, those extra 24 (or whatever) players. It is the access to better medical facilities, coaching facilities, generally better resources. I recall in the 2000-02 flags there was a Royals player, not AFL listed, that was injured and iffy about getting up for the GF, or one of the other finals, but I think GF. That player, from what I recall, had recovery sessions and medical sessions at the Eagles, something which the opposing club didn't have access to. So it's not just the players, it's a number of other issues.
East Freo and Claremont also didn't have access to all AFL players, simply their own developed players or those allocated in a reverse draft.

one player or entire team had access to those medical facilities? i am also sure (although i dont have proof) that he isnt the only player ever to be looked at by medical staff at eagles. if you have the right contacts i am sure you can get looked at.

as for coaching facilities, better resources and all that, surely the eagles players only will have access to those. during the week, they will train at subiaco wont they? entire EP team isnt going to be coming along to subi training?

as for having 'own developed players', they get compensated when they get drafted. so lets not make it sound as those they are unfairly losing something. you cant claim that losing something is unfair when having it is somewhat unfair to begin with. so now they are annoyed that they get the money but cant use the players for free in addition?

i hear also arguements about "well we won 3 premierships without it". well we won two of those with just a coach and an assistant coach only. we won those with players drinking all the time. doesnt mean just because with won 2 with all those things that its proof that doing all of that is ok. its people trying to simplify an arguement to make a point whilst ignoring a wide range of other things. things arent one-on-one anymore. you have to have players playing together to get the most out of the team.

 

[Underdog]

It is worrying times at the Demons. The place has a terrible culture (which may explain why WC don't want to align with them). Their staffing choices are also suspect.

 

[Underdog]

one player or entire team had access to those medical facilities? i am also sure (although i dont have proof) that he isnt the only player ever to be looked at by medical staff at eagles. if you have the right contacts i am sure you can get looked at.

What a weird response.

So a few people at other clubs MIGHT have the right contacts but ALL the players at East Perth DO have the right contacts.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

We contribute no less than any other AFL club

I was not aware that the Eagles and Dockers also pay every year to fund other states football programs. How much do we give them?

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I was not aware that the Eagles and Dockers also pay every year to fund other states football programs. How much do we give them?

i didn't say we gave any... just that aside from contributions to their aligned VFL sides - neither do Victorian clubs pay any meaningful contributions.

Richmond for example aren't handing over $500,000 cheques to Port Melbourne are they?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

i didn't say we gave any... just that aside from contributions to their aligned VFL sides - neither do Victorian clubs pay any meaningful contributions.

Richmond for example aren't handing over $500,000 cheques to Port Melbourne are they?

I highly doubt it Falcon, but it is a different set up there. Our sides are owned by WA football which to be honest is a great model. However as you have rightfully pointed out we are developing players for other AFL clubs with this money and not sure that is the right way to go.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I highly doubt it Falcon, but it is a different set up there. Our sides are owned by WA football which to be honest is a great model. However as you have rightfully pointed out we are developing players for other AFL clubs with this money and not sure that is the right way to go.

I do have to add -we aren't just developing players for the other clubs - the WAFC supports amateur, junior and country footy as well. The vast majority of those participants (myself included) are never going to play at the elite level.

 

[Mighty Eagles]

This will just about be the kiss of death for Perth.

They've been on their knees for over a decade.

They've made the finals just 3 times since their last flag in '78, the last time being in 1997.

This year was the year that they were suppose to be a real challenger, yet they disapointed once again.

Not sure how long a club like that can continue for, their corporate support and membership must be drying up.

 

[flyinghi64]

I say yeah about time.
Everyone knew both AFL teams were looking at bringing all there players together to be more in line with most of the Melbourne clubs. Having players play against each other, out of position, playing a different game plan can't be good for fringe players, players developing or players coming back from injury.
They had to and were always going to do something.
A proposal, that I think would have been the best and fairest, to expand the WAFL and introduce 2 extra standalone teams was vehemently knocked back by the WAFL teams. So, they did the next best thing they could and found a couple of clubs willing to partner up/allign with them so they could still have all their players playing in the one "reserves" team.

Good on em I say and am interested to see how it pans out, particularly with the in and out fringe players.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I say yeah about time.
Everyone knew both AFL teams were looking at bringing all there players together to be more in line with most of the Melbourne clubs. Having players play against each other, out of position, playing a different game plan can't be good for fringe players, players developing or players coming back from injury.
They had to and were always going to do something.
A proposal, that I think would have been the best and fairest, to expand the WAFL and introduce 2 extra standalone teams was vehemently knocked back by the WAFL teams. So, they did the next best thing they could and found a couple of clubs willing to partner up/allign with them so they could still have all their players playing in the one "reserves" team.

Good on em I say and am interested to see how it pans out, particularly with the in and out fringe players.

Of course it makes sense for all the players to play together. Even every WAFL club believes in what they are trying to achieve. But the WAFL had to make sure their comp was not compromised. As it turns out with a back door deal the comp will be compromised.

I am not sure any players development has been effected under the existing system, it is not like the Eagles have not been succesfull is it. If they believe this is the magic formula then so be it. They will say whatever and most will believe them. make no mistake the fringe players will still be fringe players, they won't play any better football than they do now. But they will all be together holding hands which is important.

Terrible for WA football, but who cares as long as the dockers and Eagles are all ok.