Peel Thunder - whats the deal

[RacerX]

The Sunday Times (ever the source of reliable footy info ) reports that the eight original WAFL teams will vote Peel out of existence at the end of the season.

IMO this is a step backwards for the WAFL.

What does everyone else think of this, and could anyone contribute more info on what is going on?

 

[Blues_Brat]

A big step backwards for WA footy IMO. The fast growing Mandurah region needs a team in the WAFL, because none of the traditional clubs wanted to bite the bullet and move, a new club was formed.

Peel are doing pretty well this year and if they manage to sneak into the finals then I can't see how the other teams can justify their removal.

Most footy supporters want Peel to stay, it's only the other clubs management that want them gone. I think it's because Peel have the potential to be bigger than several of the traditional clubs and some clubs are worried that they could be the one axed if a move back to an 8 team competition is forced. Getting rid of Peel would give them a greater comfort zone.

One of the main reasons cited for their removal is the uneven number of teams which result in the bye. The problem with the bye in the WAFL is the way it is managed. The people who create the draw need their heads read, how can a club have a bye one week, play a game then have another bye? The SANFL has had 9 tems since 1991, although having a bye is not ideal, it is still managed pretty well and the effects are negligable. Perhaps the WAFL need to look at the SANFL draw and work from there.

 

[GoEagles]

The Presidents of the 8 clubs use the 'bye' as an excuse, but isn't the real reason the fact that they don't get as much money since it has to be shared to the extra team in Peel? Money talks here and unfortunately football is going to suffer.

Peel/Mandurah deserves a team and WA footy will be in a much healthier state if the team remains in the competition. Look at Dean Buszan, he's from Peel (although he was gobbled up at East Perth this year) and is certain to be an AFL player in the future. Peel is attracting reasonable crowds too - 2,300 last weekend which isn't a bad figure.

 

[Rob]

The reason the WAFL clubs (particularly the utterly useless clubs with no fans and no juniors like Claremont and Perth) want Peel out is because they see them as a threat. This season, Peel are consistently drawing larger crowds than most other clubs, despite a record of 4 wooden spoons and a 2nd last. Should they be in the top 2, you would expect 4000+ to rock up every game. Not bad given they can't rely on away support like the Perth clubs can.
And should that happen, it would give the green light for the WAFL to bring in at least one more country side (eg. Bunbury, Kalgoorlie or perhaps a composite South West side).
Admittedly, the bye is not a great thing. But if you're going to axe a club, surely you do it fairly and reasonably. Measure up factors such as:
- community support
- financial viability
- demographics (i.e age, population growth etc)
- playing strength and facilities
- etc etc, all done on a level playing field.

When Peel was admitted, they were given the right to be an equal club, not a 2nd division club in the top grade. If the WAFL clubs want to boot them out, then they should also justify their existence as well. Subiaco and Swans (for example) should have no more rights than Peel.

The latest farce is that the WAFL clubs are absolutely ****ting bricks at the prospects of being independently audited by one of the Big 5 accounting firms on behalf of the WAFC. It wouldn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that at least a couple of them would be a complete and utter shambles off the field, and an independent audit would reveal it publicly. The hypocrisy continues.

 

[tjrra]

Good comments Rob, this problem with the 9 team competion is just not going to go away as long as we have the bye. At this stage Peel have done enough on the field to stay but as you said you cannot base it only on on-field performance.
The report into the WAFL will show we need to make some changes, tough decisions will have to be made which will be unpopular for some but in the long run will have to be made.

 

[Balip]

Rob just a quick point claremont may not have many supporters but they certainly have the juniors. Its not very often that thier colts dont do well.

Because of stupidity of the WAFC Peel werent given the right to be an equal club. How the WAFC would let the other clubs vote on thier survival is beyond me.

No matter who the club is you cant just axe them as the clubs and WAFC are proposing. (otherwise we will have another south Sydney). You would alienate a huge number of supporters and it will end up in the courts.

THey either bring in a tenth team (which isnt likely) or they encourage a merger.

In hindsight Peel probably should not have been admitted in the first place. THe vote was 5-4 then and it only got up because Perth changed their vote. I cant remember what happended exactly but I think the WAFC lent on them.

 

[Rob]

Balip, you're right about Claremont, but that's more a reuslt of zoning anomalies than anything else. You'll find that a heap of Claremont's so called 'juniors' came from a long way away from Claremont. The same would apply for other inner city teams like East Perth, Subiaco and Perth. Most of their junior base comes from nowhere near where the club is based. Give West Perth credit where it's due, they moved to where the people are, and it's a pity a few other clubs don't do the same.
You only have to look at a map to see the whopping great holes in the metro area. For instance, the massive growth areas of Melville, Canning, Kwinana and Jandakot have absolutely no representation. The entire South East has no club. The big population areas of Stirling and Warwick have no club. They have affiliated clubs alright, but those clubs are based miles away from where their juniors are. Someone needs to have the guts to make the decisions to take local footy to the people.
And maybe Peel shouldn't have been admitted in the first place. Or at least the way it was done should have been very different (in hindsight a far better solution would have been to shift and existing club down there). But the fact remains that they exist, they are better supported than most, if not all other WAFL clubs, and have a better claim to a place in the WAFL than most, if not all other clubs. After years of abject failure, they are a success. Getting rid of them now is akin to selling shares in a mining company days before they strike gold. An utterly stupid, selfish decision. And the WAFL as a whole will suffer for it.

 

[Lionel Lyon]

Gee talk about lame! Peel's doin' pretty well this season both on the scoreboard and at the turnstiles, and the other sucks want to get rid of them. And it's doubly lame given that the current WA population is 1,798,100 (1997) (with Perth at 1,319,000) while SA's is 1,479,800 (1997) (with Adelaide at 1,083,100), and yet SA is doin' fine with nine (and considering expanding to ten with NT). Given the Bureau of Statistic's projections for 2051, where Perth-WA will be 2,342.6 & 3,133.1 (max.) million respectively, and Adelaide-SA a considerably less 1,155.7 & 1,550.7 (max.) million respectively, you'd think that the WAFL'd display a bit more foresight and just plain guts, and not only retain Peel, but plan on bringing in a tenth team, pronto! Lame, lame, bloody lame!

 

[Balip]

I found it interesting that the government said that they didn't want peel to get kicked out.

I think that everyone has finally caught up with the commision and it is going to be messy for a little while but hopefully they can sort it out for the best.

 

[Mobbs]

What an awful setup, for clubs to vote on the retention of an existing, albeit fledgling, club.

Also, what an awful eye-opener on the compassion of the other clubs, to hear they would probably vote them out.

If this happened in the AFL, Richmond would be the only team still in the league. Every other team has at least some remnant of compassion.

If they had serious debt problems, no fans/attendances, or simply haven't won in twenty years, then perhaps there's an argument, but aren't Peel only a couple of games out of the four at the moment? Isn't this year their best season to date? Don't they have large attendances, with a major population base to draw from in the Mandurah area?

Wheeling & dealing 1.
Respect for the original principles of the game 0.