Seriously , do these AFL honchos just sit around dreaming up ways to screw over WA football all day ?

[Elixuh]

Aka the Geelong model?
(Formerly Carlton’s)

Yes but you have structural advantages (1) you’re rich (2) you’ll continue to be rich with the mining companies (3) you’re on the other side of the planet and no one’s watching

 

[go_the_dockers]

Yes but you have structural advantages (1) you’re rich (2) you’ll continue to be rich with the mining companies (3) you’re on the other side of the planet and no one’s watching

How does money help ?

We still need to follow the salary cap and soft cap?

If you look at the last 30 years, the teams that gets A grade players cheaply through father son, academies etc (or via trade) are the successful clubs.

 

[Sherrinator]

The amount of SA and English that turn up there, they should be getting 1st generations white migrants into the NGA. I don’t think they are a traditional footy state anymore.

 

[Scotland]

WA complaining about not getting enough development funding but also allowing themselves governance independence from the AFL is the point here.

No, it isn't.

JFC this isn't that complicated.

$468m revenue. Divided between 18 clubs is $26m. WC receive $18.5m, Freo $20.9m. This has been a consistent pattern for years. Why? We're not equalising so everyone has the same amount of money to spend, not even close. Of the 14 results available WC are 5th and Freo 6th for total revenue. Richmond are almost 3:1 compared to Melbourne... and can spend that on what exactly?

Junior development (excluding current academy rorts) has nothing to do with club funding. That WC and Freo pay royalties to WA Football and they look after junior development (they get funding from Optus Stadium also) is kinda irrelevant. Let's pretend the AFL cares about WA and funds junior development. Are they going to reduce the revenue share going to WC and Freo down to $15m? $10m?

You can't have it both ways.

Having it both ways is the AFL's modus operandi.

The AFL and Northern clubs are quite happy to present (pretend) that the clubs fund and run academies, and then on top of draft concessions they pump an extra $29m into those states on top of what the average $26m per club would be.

Football is governed in the states with AFL teams by AFLQ, AFL NSW/ACT, SANFL and WA Football. The key difference in WA is ownership of the two AFL licenses.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

No, it isn't.

JFC this isn't that complicated.

$468m revenue. Divided between 18 clubs is $26m. WC receive $18.5m, Freo $20.9m. This has been a consistent pattern for years. Why? We're not equalising so everyone has the same amount of money to spend, not even close. Of the 14 results available WC are 5th and Freo 6th for total revenue. Richmond are almost 3:1 compared to Melbourne... and can spend that on what exactly?

You missed the part where that revenue comes from things like AFL Membership distribution when a club is nominated as club of support and minor things like signange and pourage rights to Docklands games to the home team that the AFL raises revenue for collects on behalf of the club's home game. WCE and Freo get this revenue directly from their home games - they're allowed to get money from signange at games, and they're not forced to allow away game access via AFL Membership and agreements where away fans get access to your home game - all of this is money that flow through AFL distributions. It's collected by WCE/Freo, it just comes up as direct club revenue, not the AFL distribution.

Other than that, West Coast and Freo get their fair share of funding.

And keep in mind, this is despite the fact that Perth people contribute far less to AFL TV revenues because fewer people watch the games (yes, I'm aware of time zones). If you want to talk about fairness, Perth football community still get funding via royalty payment via AFL TV money despite Perth as a city contributing very little to such a big TV deal.

You're meant to be the expert but your rant gets all the facts wrong.

 

[Scotland]

You missed the part where that revenue comes from things like AFL Membership distribution when a club is nominated as club of support and minor things like signange and pourage rights to Docklands games to the home team that the AFL raises revenue for collects on behalf of the club's home game. WCE and Freo get this revenue directly from their home games - they're allowed to get money from signange at games, and they're not forced to allow away game access via AFL Membership and agreements where away fans get access to your home game - all of this is money that flow through AFL distributions. It's collected by WCE/Freo, it just comes up as direct club revenue, not the AFL distribution.

WC aren't "allowed" to do anything. The agreement the WA clubs have with Optus Stadium is the agreement the WA clubs have with Optus Stadium. Geelong make more money out of Kardinia Park than anyone else makes anywhere - I don't see some campaign to punish Geelong for that. Collingwood and Essendon have "good stadium deals" with the MCG and Docklands respectively, because they negotiated those deals and they generate revenue for those venues. Ignoring travel, if any of the Vic sides were given the fixture that WC and Freo get each year they would squeal like stuck pigs about having to play so many Sunday games and not getting Friday nights etc. Not really our fault that "tribal" Vic fans are theatregoers.

Based on 2024 numbers WC were #1 for sponsorship and marketing, and #2 in membership and matchday revenue. Freo were 5th and 4th respectively. The WA clubs are self sufficient, but they aren't operating on a different level to everyone else.

It's the GST argument all over again. WA receives state mineral royalties and has a strong budget, so the feds cut GST to 30% when the next lowest is 80 or 90. Then when anyone raises that states with higher populations and bigger service sectors benefit from payroll tax or that federal income tax and corporate tax (much higher than GST) generated in WA goes straight to Canberra and isn't distributed back to the state from which it came you get blank looks and excuses.

If people want to play the "You didn't earn it, you don't deserve it" game then have at it. I look forward to a full H&A season in a 10-12 team competition if that's the path you want to go down. Central revenue is central revenue. You don't get to pick and choose who gets what based on who earned it, then turn around and spend an extra $30m a year in NSW and Qld.

Other than that, West Coast and Freo get their fair share of funding.

And keep in mind, this is despite the fact that Perth people contribute far less to AFL TV revenues because fewer people watch the games (yes, I'm aware of time zones). If you want to talk about fairness, Perth football community still get funding via royalty payment via AFL TV money despite Perth as a city contributing very little to such a big TV deal.

As opposed to the huge TV viewership in SA, Qld and NSW?

WA is an afterthought in the broadcast schedule. A gazillion more people watch Collingwood on Friday night than North on Saturday at 1pm. Are we going to start punishing North because they don't contribute as much as Collingwood?

You're meant to be the expert but your rant gets all the facts wrong.

I am? Thanks.

The facts are what they are. WC and Freo receive the lowest distribution from the AFL and the AFL distributes more money to clubs with higher overall revenues. If Richmond have $144m and the next best is $98m, why give the Tigers anything? They would still be $20m clear of the next best with 0 distribution from the AFL. It's amateur hour as usual at AFL HQ.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

WC aren't "allowed" to do anything.

Yes they are. They are allowed to refuse general admission access to their home games through alternate ticketing schemes such as AFL and away club membership, for the most part.

Most Melbourne clubs don't have that luxury.

The WA clubs are self sufficient,

So are the Melbourne clubs collectively, it just makes more sense to centralise revenue (such as through AFL membership and Medallion Club) in a way that doesn't exist or make sense for Perth.

If people want to play the "You didn't earn it, you don't deserve it" game then have at it. I look forward to a full H&A season in a 10-12 team competition if that's the path you want to go down. C

WTF are you on about? Every club in the league (maybe bar GWS and GC) is self sufficient because they're capable of selling enough tickets via pre-paid members (50,000+ members). Does your "10-12" teams count the Western Bulldogs, who averaged 39,982 people per game average to is Melbourne home games last year?

Central revenue is central revenue.

No, it's not, when the AFL's central venue includes Melbourne-based revenue raising (such as AFL memberships and the revenue raised from the operations of Docklands) but not Perth.

If you're claiming that Perth teams should double dip by having a stake in the revenue raised from advertising, signage and pourage rights at Docklands, even though, by definition, only Victorian teams are playing their home games there, even though this gets counted as the AFL's revenue and not Docklands', I don't know what to say.

As opposed to the huge TV viewership in SA, Qld and NSW?

SA gets bigger than WA for starters, but the whole point of the argument is that Qld and NSW football are not independent from the AFL, so it's irrelavent.

WAFC and its license owning of two clubs want to maintain independence from the AFL, but claim in its revenue generated by eastern seaboard watching of the AFL. How many Perth people are watching the increase in Thursday night games that led to the big increase in AFL central venue?

then turn around and spend an extra $30m a year in NSW and Qld.

But the AFL "owns" football in NSW and QLD - their state bodies and clubs are not independent from the AFL, they gave it up in order to access greater funding for the benefit of the code in their state.

You know, what WA people are refusing to do.

A gazillion more people watch Collingwood on Friday night than North on Saturday at 1pm. Are we going to start punishing North because they don't contribute as much as Collingwood?

But neither North nor Collingwood claim ownership or responsibility for the development of talent and operations of footy in Victoria, with a need to fund that through the revenue it generates - that's the point. They give and gave up any control of the football of the state. If they didn't, then maybe you would have a fair enough point.

The WAFC generates revenue via its ownership of WC and Fremantle, and prefer that as its ability to generate revenue to run the sport in the state. It would rather have the power to control footy in the state with less money than have more money by delegating that to the AFL. That's the stark reality. Wanting it both ways.

When WCE and Freo ented into the league, WA footy people wanted to remain WA footy people and control elements of footy in the state. That was the deal by getting access to the Melbourne footy market. The existing clubs and Melbourne footy people were entitled to set the rules. Once they did - and that included WA having to make do with the money they earned from their AFL clubs that actively sought to enter into a league where the majority of revenue was derived in Melbourne - you don't get to turn around and say "but we're not getting enough money" when that was the deal that was struck when maintained a level of independence of football within your state.

 

[Former Decathlete]

Yes they are. They are allowed to refuse general admission access to their home games through alternate ticketing schemes such as AFL and away club membership, for the most part.

Most Melbourne clubs don't have that luxury.


So are the Melbourne clubs collectively, it just makes more sense to centralise revenue (such as through AFL membership and Medallion Club) in a way that doesn't exist or make sense for Perth.

WTF are you on about? Every club in the league (maybe bar GWS and GC) is self sufficient because they're capable of selling enough tickets via pre-paid members (50,000+ members). Does your "10-12" teams count the Western Bulldogs, who averaged 39,982 people per game average to is Melbourne home games last year?


No, it's not, when the AFL's central venue includes Melbourne-based revenue raising (such as AFL memberships and the revenue raised from the operations of Docklands) but not Perth.

If you're claiming that Perth teams should double dip by having a stake in the revenue raised from advertising, signage and pourage rights at Docklands, even though, by definition, only Victorian teams are playing their home games there, even though this gets counted as the AFL's revenue and not Docklands', I don't know what to say.

SA gets bigger than WA for starters, but the whole point of the argument is that Qld and NSW football are not independent from the AFL, so it's irrelavent.

WAFC and its license owning of two clubs want to maintain independence from the AFL, but claim in its revenue generated by eastern seaboard watching of the AFL. How many Perth people are watching the increase in Thursday night games that led to the big increase in AFL central venue?

But the AFL "owns" football in NSW and QLD - their state bodies and clubs are not independent from the AFL, they gave it up in order to access greater funding for the benefit of the code in their state.

You know, what WA people are refusing to do.



But neither North nor Collingwood claim ownership or responsibility for the development of talent and operations of footy in Victoria, with a need to fund that through the revenue it generates - that's the point. They give and gave up any control of the football of the state. If they didn't, then maybe you would have a fair enough point.

The WAFC generates revenue via its ownership of WC and Fremantle, and prefer that as its ability to generate revenue to run the sport in the state. It would rather have the power to control footy in the state with less money than have more money by delegating that to the AFL. That's the stark reality. Wanting it both ways.

When WCE and Freo ented into the league, WA footy people wanted to remain WA footy people and control elements of footy in the state. That was the deal by getting access to the Melbourne footy market. The existing clubs and Melbourne footy people were entitled to set the rules. Once they did - and that included WA having to make do with the money they earned from their AFL clubs that actively sought to enter into a league where the majority of revenue was derived in Melbourne - you don't get to turn around and say "but we're not getting enough money" when that was the deal that was struck when maintained a level of independence of football within your state.

Brilliant post.

And what is even more hilarious is WA fans inference that their revenues are "independent" of the AFL.

As if somehow they would get the same number of members, game day crowds and sponsorship dollars on their own if they weren't in a high profile, coordinated and organised national competition.

And as I've also made clear, they have now sadly become dependent on the east coast for players as well which is a shame.

 

[bzparkes]

Maybe but a world exists where the AFL bring in another Qld team, move GWS to Canberra and have an 18 team national AFL league.

Freo and the Eagles can play each other every week with their local sub standard suburban players and you can all get behind the mighty Bears.

In that world the AFL no longer exists because the entire comp is propped up by the WA sides.

 

[Scotland]

Yes they are. They are allowed to refuse general admission access to their home games through alternate ticketing schemes such as AFL and away club membership, for the most part.

Most Melbourne clubs don't have that luxury.

Most Melbourne clubs aren't as viable then.

Collingwood memberships aren't capped. There is no AFL policy preventing them from

So are the Melbourne clubs collectively, it just makes more sense to centralise revenue (such as through AFL membership and Medallion Club) in a way that doesn't exist or make sense for Perth.

OK so now it's collective revenue but only in Victoria. How many times do you want to move the goal posts?

If you want your money to support your club, buy a proper membership. If WC fans stopped buying memberships in lieu of just buying match day tickets the club would make less money. You get that, right?

WTF are you on about? Every club in the league (maybe bar GWS and GC) is self sufficient because they're capable of selling enough tickets via pre-paid members (50,000+ members). Does your "10-12" teams count the Western Bulldogs, who averaged 39,982 people per game average to is Melbourne home games last year?

16 clubs are self sufficient? OK.

Memberships mean nothing any more. In 2024 WC's membership and match day returns were $38m, WB $13m. AFL distributions were $17m vs $24m. If you want to pretend that $7m is revenue you earned that the AFL are just giving back great, but we're still talking $38m vs $20m. WC make a lot of money because demand is high and prices are high. It always comes back to revenue per spectator one way or another. 100% higher revenue per spectator, 40% more spectators (without filtering out Gather Round). It stands to reason our revenue is much higher. Nothing against WB at all it's just the reality of different clubs in different markets.

No, it's not, when the AFL's central venue includes Melbourne-based revenue raising (such as AFL memberships and the revenue raised from the operations of Docklands) but not Perth.

If you're claiming that Perth teams should double dip by having a stake in the revenue raised from advertising, signage and pourage rights at Docklands, even though, by definition, only Victorian teams are playing their home games there, even though this gets counted as the AFL's revenue and not Docklands', I don't know what to say.

Well Docklands is an AFL asset, and WC are a member club of the AFL. Following your logic through to conclusion any revenue generated by BBL games or concerts or any other event shouldn't be used by the AFL to fund AFL things because no AFL clubs were involved.

Before the AFL owned Docklands, people complained. Now the AFL own it and lo and behold, people complain. You seem to be advocating that revenue generated by games at Docklands goes to the home club, and then the share that goes to the owner (the AFL) effectively just goes to the home club. Do you understand how stadium ownership works? WC don't own Optus Stadium, the WA govt does - and they make millions every year from 22 AFL games plus other events.

SA gets bigger than WA for starters, but the whole point of the argument is that Qld and NSW football are not independent from the AFL, so it's irrelavent.

WAFC and its license owning of two clubs want to maintain independence from the AFL, but claim in its revenue generated by eastern seaboard watching of the AFL. How many Perth people are watching the increase in Thursday night games that led to the big increase in AFL central venue?

Look it up? I'm sure the data is out there somewhere. The TV rights deal is negotiated in its entirety. Everyone knows some games are more sought after than others and which games in which markets will rate and which ones will not but it's sold on that basis. The rights keep going up and up and up and for now it's based on 18 teams, a 23 game season and a 5 week finals series. If you want to start itemising it go for it, but it will end up favouring certain teams over others.

But the AFL "owns" football in NSW and QLD - their state bodies and clubs are not independent from the AFL, they gave it up in order to access greater funding for the benefit of the code in their state.

You know, what WA people are refusing to do.

I tell you what, when the AFL offers the sort of advantages that the NSW and Qld AFL clubs are afforded I will consider WA Football handing over the licenses to WC and Freo as a good idea.

But neither North nor Collingwood claim ownership or responsibility for the development of talent and operations of footy in Victoria, with a need to fund that through the revenue it generates - that's the point. They give and gave up any control of the football of the state. If they didn't, then maybe you would have a fair enough point.

The WAFC generates revenue via its ownership of WC and Fremantle, and prefer that as its ability to generate revenue to run the sport in the state. It would rather have the power to control footy in the state with less money than have more money by delegating that to the AFL. That's the stark reality. Wanting it both ways.

When WCE and Freo ented into the league, WA footy people wanted to remain WA footy people and control elements of footy in the state. That was the deal by getting access to the Melbourne footy market. The existing clubs and Melbourne footy people were entitled to set the rules. Once they did - and that included WA having to make do with the money they earned from their AFL clubs that actively sought to enter into a league where the majority of revenue was derived in Melbourne - you don't get to turn around and say "but we're not getting enough money" when that was the deal that was struck when maintained a level of independence of football within your state.

You are way too hung up on who junior development.

The AFL distributed $468m to the 18 clubs last year. WC and Freo received the least. Again.

How WA Football is funded is pretty irrelevant to the discussion. No one is saying WC and Freo deserve an extra $10m each on top of the average distribution because we fund development, we're simply saying how about we actually get close to the average for once. WA Football could hand the two AFL licenses to the AFL tomorrow, it's not going to suddenly see WC and Freo get more central funding.

 

[Shane Heard]

Might need some introspection on behalf of the local WA Footy head honchos.

Nah. Screw that.

It's way easier to keep going with the imaginary "over east" stitch up job.

Bit confusing what your point is ..but..I’ll tell you I spent 12 years involved in coaching and development in WA junior footy.

It’s a flawed and corrupt system that does many talented kids no favours.

 

[Mogumber]

WA govt provided the $ to build Optus. 100%
MCG has been redeveloped with Fed coin. Vic Govt gets $ from GST from WA, not directly, but definitely indirectly.
Tassie needs Fed coin to even make it happen (oval).
WA - 11% of the population, 16/17% of the AFL footy cohort.
The best Indigenous talent has historically come from WA & SA.
It's a massive part of the Aussie Rules story. If they continue to ignore the cultural/$/history, then they will regret it.
They being the AFL. Q'ld is not going to be the panacea, neither is NSW. League still rules, and will forever imo

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Most Melbourne clubs aren't as viable then.

Collingwood memberships aren't capped. There is no AFL policy preventing them from



OK so now it's collective revenue but only in Victoria. How many times do you want to move the goal posts?

If you want your money to support your club, buy a proper membership. If WC fans stopped buying memberships in lieu of just buying match day tickets the club would make less money. You get that, right?



16 clubs are self sufficient? OK.

Memberships mean nothing any more. In 2024 WC's membership and match day returns were $38m, WB $13m. AFL distributions were $17m vs $24m. If you want to pretend that $7m is revenue you earned that the AFL are just giving back great, but we're still talking $38m vs $20m. WC make a lot of money because demand is high and prices are high. It always comes back to revenue per spectator one way or another. 100% higher revenue per spectator, 40% more spectators (without filtering out Gather Round). It stands to reason our revenue is much higher. Nothing against WB at all it's just the reality of different clubs in different markets.



Well Docklands is an AFL asset, and WC are a member club of the AFL. Following your logic through to conclusion any revenue generated by BBL games or concerts or any other event shouldn't be used by the AFL to fund AFL things because no AFL clubs were involved.

Before the AFL owned Docklands, people complained. Now the AFL own it and lo and behold, people complain. You seem to be advocating that revenue generated by games at Docklands goes to the home club, and then the share that goes to the owner (the AFL) effectively just goes to the home club. Do you understand how stadium ownership works? WC don't own Optus Stadium, the WA govt does - and they make millions every year from 22 AFL games plus other events.



Look it up? I'm sure the data is out there somewhere. The TV rights deal is negotiated in its entirety. Everyone knows some games are more sought after than others and which games in which markets will rate and which ones will not but it's sold on that basis. The rights keep going up and up and up and for now it's based on 18 teams, a 23 game season and a 5 week finals series. If you want to start itemising it go for it, but it will end up favouring certain teams over others.



I tell you what, when the AFL offers the sort of advantages that the NSW and Qld AFL clubs are afforded I will consider WA Football handing over the licenses to WC and Freo as a good idea.



You are way too hung up on who junior development.

The AFL distributed $468m to the 18 clubs last year. WC and Freo received the least. Again.

How WA Football is funded is pretty irrelevant to the discussion. No one is saying WC and Freo deserve an extra $10m each on top of the average distribution because we fund development, we're simply saying how about we actually get close to the average for once. WA Football could hand the two AFL licenses to the AFL tomorrow, it's not going to suddenly see WC and Freo get more central funding.

Right so your argument is basically "we should be allowed to sell signage rights at our home games, and claim jurisdiction over seating at our hames, but we should get a share of the signage rights from games we have no part in at Docklands, and from AFL memberships and Medallion Club memberships when people go to a game in Melbourne not involving West Coast when that fan nominates a Melbourne club of support.

One of the most ridiculous things I've heard.

Would you be willing to hand over all your marketing and membership revenue to the AFL and then claim only 1/18th of it back? Centralising revenue and all that.

 

[Former Decathlete]

WA govt provided the $ to build Optus. 100%
MCG has been redeveloped with Fed coin. Vic Govt gets $ from GST from WA, not directly, but definitely indirectly.
Tassie needs Fed coin to even make it happen (oval).
WA - 11% of the population, 16/17% of the AFL footy cohort.
The best Indigenous talent has historically come from WA & SA.
It's a massive part of the Aussie Rules story. If they continue to ignore the cultural/$/history, then they will regret it.
They being the AFL. Q'ld is not going to be the panacea, neither is NSW. League still rules, and will forever imo

Sure but shamefully WA is now ignoring it's own legacy and too busy bathing in mining money hubris and using the "over east" politics to deflect from making any changes to the development program which isn't working.

You also seem to be conflating different issues .. Federation has always worked like this. Tasmania have 12 senators. Do you want to re write Federation?

WA is an amazing place and I've lived there but is that 16/17% falling or is it just a short term glitch?

1 top 10 pick in the last three years is surely sign something ain't quite right and I think this is part of why WA fans are feeling anxious about their status in the league.

We all know WA have a heap of incredible athletes and talent. But something isn't working.

 

[Former Decathlete]

Bit confusing what your point is ..but..I’ll tell you I spent 12 years involved in coaching and development in WA junior footy.

It’s a flawed and corrupt system that does many talented kids no favours.

My main point is WA fans are feeling anxious about their status in the game. This is a proud footy state with an illustrious history as a powerhouse..They are used to being winners.

This is mostly to do with the Eagles struggling on field but partly to do with the lack of high end talent coming out of WA in the last few years.

So it's all causing anxiety and a want to blame the idea that over east is ganging up on them. That the system is rigged. And yes the system is rigged. WA travel is clearly a structural disadvantage.

I'm just trying to understand whats happening with the youth programs and obviously someone like yourself knows a bit about it so I appreciate the information and insight.

WA still have power over their own youth development and I think if they fix that then WA locals will start feeling better about themselves and the system overall.

 

[Purple Suit]

My main point is WA fans are feeling anxious about their status in the game. This is a proud footy state with an illustrious history as a powerhouse..They are used to being winners.

This is mostly to do with the Eagles struggling on field but partly to do with the lack of high end talent coming out of WA in the last few years.

So it's all causing anxiety and a want to blame the idea that over east is ganging up on them. That the system is rigged. And yes the system is rigged. WA travel is clearly a structural disadvantage.

I'm just trying to understand whats happening with the youth programs and obviously someone like yourself knows a bit about it so I appreciate the information and insight.

WA still have power over their own youth development and I think if they fix that then WA locals will start feeling better about themselves and the system overall.

The AFL puts no money into the WA system and then distributes the lowest amount to WC and Freo, which feeds that system. Qld gets 30m more pumped into it and they wonder why some many high draft picks with direct access are being picked up?

Money = Better development and more Kids in the draft. It's very simple fix that is seen at the Olympics if a country wants to improve.

Look at cricket as an example. Plenty of WA talent comes through since the system is balanced and historically we have punched above our size since we have set-up good pathways.

The WAFL has failed our youth and the AFL are deliberately choking us thinking that is the solution to gain control. Time for some leadership in this space but no one will do anything. WA3 could at least bring more money into the system and I would lobby the AFL to allow excess WC & Freo profits to be spent directly on wider academies without access. WC could easily fund a QLD style academy if it was allowed to even without 1st round access in the future. Freo would get there too.

 

[Bjo187]

The AFL puts no money into the WA system and then distributes the lowest amount to WC and Freo, which feeds that system. Qld gets 30m more pumped into it and they wonder why some many high draft picks with direct access are being picked up?

Money = Better development and more Kids in the draft. It's very simple fix that is seen at the Olympics if a country wants to improve.

Look at cricket as an example. Plenty of WA talent comes through since the system is balanced and historically we have punched above our size since we have set-up good pathways.

The WAFL has failed our youth and the AFL are deliberately choking us thinking that is the solution to gain control. Time for some leadership in this space but no one will do anything. WA3 could at least bring more money into the system and I would lobby the AFL to allow excess WC & Freo profits to be spent directly on wider academies without access. WC could easily fund a QLD style academy if it was allowed to even without 1st round access in the future. Freo would get there too.

I wouldn't mind seeing the AFL throw them $20 mill to set up a state academy like the SANFL have done. The club academies can only be indigenous and multicultural like the other southern clubs though. Like I said previously, with the wealth of teams like the Eagles, they should be actively head hunting the best multicultural athletes in the state from all sports and training them up, not sure why they aren't doing this already, it's a massive advantage they could have if they want to actually invest in it.

 

[Mat Mann]

And it sucks when Geelong scouts gun kids from local state schools and suddenly St. Joeys or Grammar come calling offering these kids scholarships to attend their private schools. Under Mick Turner kids were actively informed that they needed to change schools if they were going to ever get into the Falcons!

Go and have a look at Grammar's sports facilities (they put many AFL club's training and re-hab facilities to shame!)

Geelong has benefitted quite a bit from their "Academy" system (state schools>private schools>falcons> Cats

Like Jesse Mellor, who was in St. Kilda's NGA zone when Geelong came calling

 

[Mat Mann]

if any of the Vic sides were given the fixture that WC and Freo get each year they would squeal like stuck pigs about having to play so many Sunday games and not getting Friday nights etc. Not really our fault that "tribal" Vic fans are theatregoers

This is laughable, Saints, Dogs and North had exclusive domain over Sunday slots for 2 decades whilst WC were winning flags and acting superior. We were repeatedly belittled and told at that we had to be better, to get better fixture slots, then it was because other clubs had more members, The Dog's are decent and still get "unders".

What about the fixture is "unfair" for WC, 11 home games + a guaranteed double-up vs State-based rival, or is it Travel? and I have no idea how to solve that other than move WA closer to the East Coast

This Friday night cry is a hoot. Completely ignore the fact you get 24 games on FTA in WA, SA, NSW and QLD, whilst Vic was sold to subscription 20 years ago, hmm 24 games on FTA or 7...... is there any correlation to income and exposure? A quick Google seems to suggest that the Sunday slot rates well in WA, does Ch7 WA request that slot? so again exposure for your sponsors, who I'd guess pay up for that.

Hawks in 2024 played a majority of their games as Sunday slots. North is still a Sunday Team

 

[threenewpadlocks]

This is laughable, Saints, Dogs and North had exclusive domain over Sunday slots for 2 decades whilst WC were winning flags and acting superior. We were repeatedly belittled and told at that we had to be better, to get better fixture slots, then it was because other clubs had more members, The Dog's are decent and still get "unders".

What about the fixture is "unfair" for WC, 11 home games + a guaranteed double-up vs State-based rival, or is it Travel? and I have no idea how to solve that other than move WA closer to the East Coast

This Friday night cry is a hoot. Completely ignore the fact you get 24 games on FTA in WA, SA, NSW and QLD, whilst Vic was sold to subscription 20 years ago, hmm 24 games on FTA or 7...... is there any correlation to income and exposure? A quick Google seems to suggest that the Sunday slot rates well in WA, does Ch7 WA request that slot? so again exposure for your sponsors, who I'd guess pay up for that.

Hawks in 2024 played a majority of their games as Sunday slots. North is still a Sunday Team

Saints, Dogs and North have consistently been prevented from hosting home games and it's well below proportion at their usual home ground (Docklands) against Richmond, Essendon, Carlton and Collingwood, in part because there's constant whines from supporter sof those 4 clubs that they might have an uncomfortable viewer experience (sit in GA bays in an unfamiliar stadium). Fans of those clubs are very used to sitting in AFL Members, MCC or otherwise in the newer Ponsford/Olympic stands in away games at the G, where you don't even feel it's an awya game half the time.

Because of this, the AFL has completely dudded an opportunity for these clubs to generate revenue and be "self sufficient" in your words, because it isn't fair. North should host Collingwood in home games more often than not (11 home games from 17 other teams is obviously >50%). Instead, they've hosted them, what, four or five times in 15 years?

Of course, these three teams remain the only ones who have to host their home finals with fewer of their supporters in the crowed when the designated home team in the first 3 weeks of finals (e.g Dogs vs Hawks 2024 elimination final, Dogs 6th, Hawks 7th, MCG, more Hawks fans).

Given there's a reasonable chance that Dogs or St Kilda might finish 5th-8th and above Hawks or Collingwood this year, there's a reasonable chance it might happen again. West Coast fans having a whine when the Saints lose their "home finals" by 1 point against 70,000 baying Pies fans vs only 30,000 of their own.

Like you say, laughable.