Peel, here to stay?

[Lionel Lyon]

They're doing quite well, I notice. Too well to demand their disbandment without the WAFL looking unreasonable...

 

[Blues_Brat]

Originally posted by Lionel Lyon
They're doing quite well, I notice. Too well to demand their disbandment without the WAFL looking unreasonable...

As I stated in previous posts, I hope the Thunder stay in the comp, the WAFL needs a team in the Mandurah region. Theyre playing quite well and are a damn good chance to make the 4, I hope they do it after all the calls to throw them out.

Having 9 clubs is no big deal, although not the perfect situation, if the draw is managed well then it can be OK. The SANFL have had it for 10 years now without many hassles.

 

[mud n blood]

Is there a reason they don't bring a country or northern side in to eliminate the bye ?

 

[RacerX]

I was discussing the same thing with a mate of mine the other day m&b. We came to the conclusion that we could not think of anywhere obvious to place the tenth wafl team.

Geraldton maybe? I dunno, what do guys think.

I also think its great to see the thunder doing well.

 

[mud n blood]

A combined WA-Country side maybe ?

 

[play on]

What is the reason for the league wanting to get rid of them?


------------------------------
Play on says the umpire
------------------------------

 

[GoEagles]

Glad that there is a bit of discussion regarding the future of Peel Thunder. As I've stated in earlier posts, I think they should remain in the competition for various reasons:

i) Peel - Mandurah region is a boom area in kids wanting to play footy, with the local side in place they can go through the grassroots footy and aspire to play WAFL footy for Peel. No Peel will surely be a big win for Soccer/Basketball...

ii) Peel are now doing quite well! They are just out of the top 4 and have won 5, lost 5. They are definately in the running for the finals.

iii) They have a niche for the supporters/marketing in their area and have often got the highest crowds of the round (Eg. They had 2300 last week)

Just to answer some questions:

mud n blood - The WAFL trialed a WA country side in the pre-season cup and they lost every game... give them time one might say - but the WAFL wants success on field here and now. I also don't think they want teams travelling all around the state for the games - although they have played games in Collie, Albany so far this year.

RacerX - Unfortunately most of the WAFL clubs have been alligned to a specific country area for zoning... West Perth had/has Merridin, Subiaco had/has Goldfields/Kalgoorlie, East Fremantle had/has Geraldton, Claremont had/has Albany... just to name a few.

play on - I think that the WAFL was pressured by the other 8 clubs to cut out Peel so that there wouldn't be a 'bye' as it interrupted their seasons, lowered crowds, yada yada... There could be a better solution to merge Perth & Swan Districs, or Subiaco & Claremont.

 

[tjrra]

To GoEagles, thanks for those comments about Peel and the WAFL in general. We have been going through many changes and there is a report into the WAFL due out soon, the new labour government has also said they want to look at the direction that football in Western Australia is taking.
Peel should not just be judged on its on-field success it will have to meet the other standards as will all the other teams.
I think you are correct when you called for Subiaco-Claremont merger or a Swans-Perth merger.

 

[RacerX]

I would prefer to see them expand out to 10 rather than merge it back to 8.

Besides there would be one big &^%$fight if they tried to merge the suggested clubs.

 

[Balip]

THe football commision stuffed it ten years ago when Kalgoorlie and Bunbury wanted to come into the competition. If they had done it then we would have none of the problems we have now.

In my view a merger between Claremont and Subi would be the best option but as racerX said there would be one hell of a fight if it was forced on two clubs.

 

[anchor man]

too many teams

RacerX If you put in another team it becomes the same as what is happening in Victoria too many teams and not enough money.Then you have the situationwhere you will have clubs fall over and then the whole sorry situation arises again.
It is better to have less teams than more to allow the standard to rise.Too many teams to many players not up to top standard and the quality runs down.Same as the AFL,too many teams and it forces kids to play who are not up to the standard of the competition.Less teams better players.

 

[anchor man]

One more thing

Just one more thing while on the subject we MUST repeat MUST get rid of the Football Commission here in the West as they are ruining the game here.In the early times when the Eagles were experiencing monetary problems and the WAFL clubs were spending like millionairs and couldn't afford it they were worth their weight in gold and helped save footy here in WA.But they have served their purpose now and doing more harm than good.People like Ovens,Dorrington and McKinnon are only feathering their own nests,and really should go.

 

[Lionel Lyon]

Re: too many teams

Originally posted by anchor man
RacerX If you put in another team it becomes the same as what is happening in Victoria too many teams and not enough money.Then you have the situationwhere you will have clubs fall over and then the whole sorry situation arises again.
It is better to have less teams than more to allow the standard to rise.Too many teams to many players not up to top standard and the quality runs down.Same as the AFL,too many teams and it forces kids to play who are not up to the standard of the competition.Less teams better players.

Hold on, WA has a considerably larger and more rapidly increasing population than SA, whose league also has 9 teams, and them quite comfortably, from what I understand. So why shouldn't WA reflect its demographics with the extra team? Then again, WA also pulls in the biggest soccer crowds in the country, so maybe the proportion of WA-ans who follow footy is not as high as in SA.

As for the "less teams better players" argument, could not the argument be made that more (strategically located) teams>>>>more interest>>>>more players>>>>broader gene pool>>>>>better players+better crowds to boot.

Let's see how much fruit will be borne of the Auskick project in NSW. Apparently it holds much promise, because its enrollment's rate of increase over the years has been nothing short of exponential. When this generation starts coming through the upper ranks we will begin to see not only better players, but also greater crowds as local interest is stimulated further by the local participation. Ultimately, I guess the key to it all is the strategic location of teams, which is related to the point Blues_Brat raised above about Peel FC and the Mandurah region.

 

[anchor man]

LL Just look at the number of players playing AFL who really shouldn't be playing.To many clubs the player base gets spread thinner.It's like puting water with you Scotch the more you put in the weaker it gets.SA's competition is stronger than ours,but because theres is succesful doesn't mean that ours is going to gain strength by having another team in the comp.

 

[RacerX]

Well anchor man, doesn't Peels performance prove the LL theory rather than your watered down scotch theory. Peel struggled for a while but is now starting to have a real impact on the competition.

Has there been a decrease in the leagues skill level or have Peel lifted to meet the standard of WAFL?

 

[anchor man]

RacerX look at the make up of the Thunder at the moment,it is a bit like the foreign legion.If they had to stand on there own two feet they would fall over.I posted here before that I want Peel to succeed and still stand by that but it must be with the merging of two other clubs.The bye is a killer for the clubs and especially the two AFL clubs.You get the situation where they have to bring players back into the comp with reserve sides that really have no affiliation with either club.The bye is a killer.
Again too many clubs too many players not up to standard.Bring in another club and it waters it down even further.My scotch and water theory still stands up.
Travel and cost is another reason not to bring in another team.Clubs are struggling now without having the extra burded of travel.

 

[WA]

I'm all for keeping Peel in, BUT, why does a merger between Claremont & Subiaco sound so appealing and appear to be the best option to some of you?

 

[RacerX]

Obviously we don't see eye to eye on this issue anchor man-

sure Peel may have a high "blow-in" content but I don't see how this is relevant. Peel have a competitive side at the moment. I don't think they have become competitive because of a watering down of the league.

Your scotch theory has merit, but only if the WAFL is too big for the WA footy population. The key for me here is the WA footy population, not the Perth footy population. The Perth football population is severely limited by the focus on the two AFL clubs. Maybe the WAFL should try and tap into the football markets outside the Freo/WCE dominated areas.

Lastly, you said WAFL byes can cause problems for the two AFL teams. While this is true I would argue that at some point the WAFL will have to put its own interests ahead of the AFL teams.

 

[anchor man]

I want the thunder to stay as well but it must be at the expense of one of the eight clubs who want them out.There has been talk of Subi and Claremont merging for a lot of years and I think it would be a good marriage as Claremont have a ground and Subi have the money.And I don't think either club would complain to much.You would get your died in the wool supporters but I believe the majority would be in agreeance with the merger.
With the AFL playing games here on Saturdays next year the dollar becomes even more important and the extra club or clubs would not survive.According to the paper this morning the WAFC have again put the clamps on the local league.We must go back to eight clubs for all to survive.
Peel will have to recruit for quite a few years until their junors begin to come through on a regular basis.They have recruited a lot of older players who will only play for one or two years at the most.
If the two clubs mentioned wont merge it must be Perth and Swans as I believe both clubs are struggling more than most.Swans are in real trouble and I think a merger is going to be the only thing to save them.
The competition here in the west can not afford to have teams travel to Gereldton or the likes as the cost would be too extreme.Kalgoorlie is not an option for the same reason and also the population is an itinerant one and it would be hard to maintain players in the region.
Money is the whole thing in this issue and until that is solved we can't afford another season of byes for the clubs.