Maybe, just maybe?

[Clay Davis]

Jumper changes are only a short term money making proposition, if at all. What happens next year?

Long-term support can only be guaranteed via premiership success. For a club that has struggled but done pretty well for sponsorships and members in spite of that, a cosmetic change that doesn't fix the fundamental problem is not needed.

The real problem monetarily is the yoke we are under in the arrangement with the WAFC. But so long as dumb parochialism rules the roost, we will never be free of that. It serves nothing in FFC's interest to give money to the WAFC. Collingwood don't have to. Why should we?

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

Jumper changes are only a short term money making proposition, if at all. What happens next year?

Long-term support can only be guaranteed via premiership success. For a club that has struggled but done pretty well for sponsorships and members in spite of that, a cosmetic change that doesn't fix the fundamental problem is not needed.

It's all a part of the puzzle. Even the small pieces play a part.

The real problem monetarily is the yoke we are under in the arrangement with the WAFC. But so long as dumb parochialism rules the roost, we will never be free of that. It serves nothing in FFC's interest to give money to the WAFC. Collingwood don't have to. Why should we?

Let us not think of he problem together Cassius, let us think of the solution!

 

[Nodgey]

There's two.

Incorrect. There are zero "member's reps" on the board.

There are, however, two "member elected board members". They are not there to represent members' interests - they are there to act as normal board members. So they actually "represent" the WAFC.

 

[moomba75]

Talking of member reps, there was a club constitution floating around the net late last year somewhere and I think it mentioned that there should be 4 member voted board members in due time.

Not much can do about it, cos the dockers could have been bought about ten years ago for about 5 mil, but I never liked our license holders also being the mob that kinda owns the Eagles too.

The thing is the WAFC is answerable to a minister in parliament, thats where you go for anything you wanna fix with our clubs.

 

[The Night Shift]

Talking of member reps, there was a club constitution floating around the net late last year somewhere and I think it mentioned that there should be 4 member voted board members in due time.

Not much can do about it, cos the dockers could have been bought about ten years ago for about 5 mil, but I never liked our license holders also being the mob that kinda owns the Eagles too.

The thing is the WAFC is answerable to a minister in parliament, thats where you go for anything you wanna fix with our clubs.

Interesting point. Whilst the WAFC has autonomy to conduct Australian rules footy within the state, they are still linked to the government apparatus however I wouldn't think the Minister for Sports & Recreation would have any real strong sway with the WAFC's polices and directions. The WAFC receives some state government funds. Does anyone know if it recieves federal government funding as well??