Remove this Banner Ad

The AFL, WAFC and SANFL - and the WA/SA AFL Clubs

The_Wookie

The_Wookie

Kananook Oval
Gumbies FFC - Sweet F.A. Veteran 10k Posts 30k Posts Shiny Penny Podcaster
Jul 2, 2010
38,903
37,472
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Lately the issue of the Western Australian and South Australian AFL clubs and players not being able to be developed in ways the respective AFL clubs would like due to the needs and demands of state league clubs. When you consider that 4 of the last 5 premierships have been won by Geelong and Collingwood, its hardly a surprise that most clubs feel the need to emulate the reserves systems of those clubs.

Examples of this in the 2012 season include Salopek being taken by Port Adelaide (AFL) from Glenelg and being moved to Port Adelaide (SANFL) to get a decent game, and West Coast having to deal with Ashton Hamm not getting a game in the seniors because he was surplus to Claremonts needs in the WAFL.

The common theme to all WA and SA AFL clubs is that they believe they are disadvantaged under the current system, where the top Victorian clubs, as well as the Swans, have the distinct advantage of having all their players under the one coaching banner.

On August 14th, 2012 Sportsnewsfirst reported that the WA and SA clubs were likely to be invited to be part of a proposed new reserves competition being put forward by the big Victorian AFL Clubs. However costs estimated at 2 million a season including travel and accommodation are expected to be considerable stumbling blocks to any participation by WAFL and SANFL owned clubs. (QLD and NSW clubs are firmly entrenched in their NEAFL arrangements).

On August 30, The Age reported that SA and WA AFL clubs were looking for AFL assistance to set up their own breakaway reserves competition, with Freo not ruling out putting a team in the WA Amateur competitions and Adelaide implying it may join the VFL.

Aside from the thorny reserves issue, the AFL has apparently decided that its time to lose the state league dependency on its AFL clubs in WA and SA.

According to the AFLs official spokesman, Patrick Keane, "the league's preferred position was that the licences eventually would return to the clubs".

Port Adelaide, Adelaide and the SANFL
New Crows coach Brenton Sanderson proposed Adelaide have a reserves side in the SANFL in december 2011, with another proposal favouring the Eagles and Dockers "play state sides on their bye" plan (see below).
"For the development of our younger kids it's imperative at some stage down the track we have a reserves side. We understand it's a delicate issue but at the same time, from my point of view as senior coach, we would love to have it."
Click to expand...
Previous coach Neil Craig had been content to deal with the SANFL system as it stood, but Sanderson believed that it was important to keep track with developments at other clubs, namely Geelong and Collingwood.

In June 2012, the SANFL have flatly rejected any chance of reserves in the SANFL, with the Chairman of the SANFL, John Olsen, saying that Crows and Power reserves teams would not be part of the ongoing license discussions.
"Reserves teams in the SANFL for the two AFL clubs is not negotiable - that will not be part of our discussions on the licences, We will not compromise the SANFL competition (with AFL reserves teams)."
Click to expand...
On July 28th, 2012, the Advertiser reported that the SANFL had put off all talks regarding licenses and reserves sides until November 2014, allowing it at least a season at Adelaide Oval to gauge the financial value of the move more clearly.

The same article estimates the costs of playing a SANFL reserves side at $750,000 a year, almost double the cost an AFL side pays to have a reserve side in the VFL.

On August 7th, the Advertiser reported with the money from Adelaide Oval, Adelaide would be able to afford a reserves team in the VFL in 2015. The article also said that an option to be considered would be placing reserves teams in the SANFL reserves competition. This can be quite easily accommodated by Adelaide, but Port would have no have an entirely separate reserves team to its Port Adelaide SANFL reserves team. This would have some financial repurcussions for Port which is already struggling.

The article assumes that an AFL takeover of Ports license is a fait accompli, while Adelaide neither wants nor needs separation from the SANFL.

On August 23rd, the Advertiser reported that the Adelaide and Port Adelaide licenses will almost certainly be returned to the AFL, that the biggest sticking point was the worth of the Adelaide license (estimated at 20 million) while the Port license would appear to have been written off.
The article states that there are three critical outstanding issues:
  • TIMING. Should the licences be transferred back to the AFL Commission immediately or after the Crows and Power are playing at Adelaide Oval in 2014?
  • GOVERNANCE. Does the AFL Commission set up "self-appointed" boards or leave any seat for a member-elected director
  • VALUE. The debt-hit SANFL expects a compensation package from the AFL. This is the major sticking point.
On September 25th, the Advertiser reported that the license issues had all come down to the final hurdle - money. The article reports that the SANFL will not keep the profitable Crows and offload the loss making Port, with Leigh Whicker stating that "both licenses are equal". The Advertiser claims the SANFL want a resolution sooner rather than later.

The Article also notes that the Crows prefer a similar constitution to that given to Gold Coast and GWS where the clubs appoint most directors, the members one or two directors and only the AFL has the right to veto appointments.

On September 28th, the Advertiser reported that compensation for money contributed to keeping Port Adelaide afloat is a major stumbling block in the license handovers from the SANFL to the AFL with the SANFL believing that the AFL should apparently take over the portion of its debt attributed to keeping Port afloat (estimated around 14.5 milion)

On October 3rd, The Advertiser reported that the SANFL presidents were urgently seeking information on the progression of talks with the AFL over the license changes to Port and Adelaide with clubs warning the SANFL required their vote to offsell SANFL assets.

The Advertiser also claimed that:
  • There will be no lump sum paid for the return of the Adelaide license (SANFL valued at $26 million)
  • There will be no repayment of debt incurred in keeping Port alive (SANFL valued at 15 million)
  • There will be no repayment of the $4 million license fees paid by the SANFL
  • The AFL is offering between $800,000 and $1 million a year in compensation
  • The SANFL wants this to be kept for 20 years.
On October 11th, the Adelaide Advertiser reported that the Crows were considering buying the debt laden SANFL club, Sturt, but were mindful of the 2.2 million club debt and other issues involved. The Advertiser went on to list a number of issues with this
  • SANFL recruited players having to play against their original clubs
  • Adelaide no longer being consider the team for all South Australians
The Advertiser further reported that Adelaide views the reserves team as essential with Crows football Operations manager Phil Harper quoted as saying
"We need our players wearing one jumper from the day they are drafted to the Adelaide Football Club. We currently have (Woodville-West Torrens draftee) Cam Ellis-Yolmen spending two years at our club now and he has never worn the Crows jumper".
Click to expand...
SANFL Clubs are disturbed by the comments from the Crows with a number of club presidents quoted in the article.
"The image is the AFL clubs don't trust us to look after their players for two hours every weekend"
Click to expand...
- Gary Metcalf (Glenelg president)

"We embrace the AFL players and in doing so upset the balance of what we are trying to achieve by developing our under-18s. Then we face not having AFL players during the finals because they either are having surgery or don't want to play in the SANFL anymore. But do you hear us complaining?"
Click to expand...
- Joe Tripodi (Norwood president)​
In response to changes to the Dockers and Eagles alignments, the Advertiser quoted Port Adelaide chief Keith Thomas expressing concerns that the Power were being left behind.
"The clock is ticking against us, and we can't allow that to happen - we can't be left behind while every other AFL club has a reserves team or a development squad" - Keith Thomas
Click to expand...
The SANFL has responded by saying its not one of the top priorities right now, with Adelaide Oval and the license issues more pressing.
"No.1 is the move to Adelaide Oval in 2014. Then we have to resolve one way or the other if the (Crows and Power) licences are returned to the AFL. We're shifting to a new oval and trying to find a new structure for SA football. We're far more advanced than the West Australians on these issues"
Click to expand...
- John Olsen​
Fremantle, West Coast and the WAFL
WAFL clubs recently voted no as well, rejecting the latest suggestion by the Eagles and Dockers to take their players out of the league for the first 6 weeks of the season, and emphatically refusing to allow AFL expansion into the WAFL.

West Coast and Fremantle had originally given a 52 page proposal in June 2011 allowing for payments of 125,000 per WAFL team paid as a license, compensation payments to cover the loss of AFL players, and additional bar, gate and signage revenue.

The proposal also included a means to recruit up to 10 top up players, none of which would come from established WAFL lists, instead coming from country leagues, interstate or non WAFL listed metro players.

When the first proposal was rejected, West Coast and Fremantle presented a second option in December 2011, allowing for payments to teams who beat the AFL clubs reserves on their WAFL bye. In this model the AFL clubs reserves would not play in the WAFL at all, but would play WAFL teams on their week off and paying them an additional $15,000 if they defeated the AFL reserves side in question.

At the June 2012 presidents meeting, The WAFL presidents rejected all of the following suggestions
  • two stand alone teams in the WAFL
  • playing scratch matches during WAFL byes
  • WAFL club alignments - and threatened boycotts against clubs who would
At one point the WAFL presidents were insisting that each AFL club pay a 1.35 million annual license fee (Victorian AFL clubs pay $230,000) to have a reserves team.

South Fremantle president Haydn Raitt was quoted in the West Australian on June 30th 2012 as saying that it was time to say no once and for all.
"The WAFL clubs are together on this. We are 100 per cent united. This has been going back and forth for more than a year without any substance and it is time to say that it is over."
Click to expand...
The West Australian revealed on July 14th, that SAIL, a south african sporting company had tried to by 49% of West Coast in the early 90s, an attempt which was ultimately rejected by the WAFC and West Coast.

The article in the West Australian on July 14, 2012 also indicates that the AFL is intent on pushing its case for the WAFL to relinquish its licenses the next time they meet. The paper also believes such a deal is iminent with the SA clubs.

On July 25th, the West Australian reported that professional negotiators had been brought in to handle the stand off between the WAFL clubs and AFL clubs over the issue of AFL reserves.
"The future of both our clubs depends on the strength of all our players and not just the 22 playing AFL. This is not something that is going to go away,"
Click to expand...
- West Coast chief executive Trevor Nisbett.​
The WAFL clubs havent changed position either, and its understood that there wont be a quick resolution with club chiefs predicting a 3 month process, but expecting that the two sides will come to a mutually acceptable agreement.

On July 31st, the West Australian reported that the WAFL and AFL groups had a meeting which both sides categorised as positive.
"It was a good discussion and it was good for all of the parties to hear directly from each other. There was good recognition of the needs of the AFL clubs - to have their players training and playing together. But there was also good recognition that any change needs to enhance the WAFL."
Click to expand...
- WAFL Chairman Frank Cooper​
On August 24th, the West Australian reported that both Fremantle and West Coast would take advantage of an AFL Commission visit to Perth to push for control of their licenses. The WAFC maintains a position that the license can only change hands as long as the revenue stream remains unchanged. The Article puts AFl contributions to the WAFL at 1.8 million a year, but says this amount is reduced by transfer fees.

West Coash Chairman Alan Cransberg said he was keen to remove the middle man between his club and the AFL.
"We are very keen to have a direct licence with the AFL. Every other club does and the South Australian clubs are heading that way. Most of our dealings are done direct with the AFL and from an efficiency and bureaucracy point of view, we think it is better to have a direct licence arrangement with the AFL."
Click to expand...
WAFC Chairman Frank Cooper says the WAFC sees no real need for change at this time.
"The WAFC firmly believes that the integrated football structure in Western Australia has worked well for this State for two decades and has contributed greatly to the growth of all levels of footy, including community, club and the pathway via the WAFL to the AFL."
Click to expand...
On August 28th, the West Australian and WA today reported that Andrew Demetriou had said the AFL could not order any change to the license structure of the WA clubs, despite the desire of both West Coast and Fremantle, as well as the AFL to remove the clubs from the shadow of the WAFC. He also said there was no specific time frame for it to happen.

"This is a decision for WA and WA football," he said. "It is something the AFL does not seek to impose on WA football. These aren't our licences.
What was clearly stated by everyone around the room is that first and foremost everyone's priority is to continue the investment in the game in this State.
Whatever happens with the licences will be done collaboratively and will be done with the best interests of West Australian football at heart. There is no time line on it and we will work through with the football commission and the two clubs if we can offer any assistance
Click to expand...
."​
On September 29th, The Sunday Times reported that the Dockers were considering a host club in Peel Thunder, with Peel saying they would welcome it as long as they retained their identity. The Times reports that a return to the host club system could not occur before 2014.

On October 16th, The West Australian reported that the WAFC will pitch the idea of returning to host clubs for the 2014 season. Speculation is that the WAFC may greenlight East Perth-Eagles, and Peel-Fremantle. East Perth didnt comment, and Peel said they had not seen a proposal yet.
"We are waiting for the commission to put a proposal to us. We have heard the rumours like everyone else has but all we can do is wait to see what line the commission takes on this."
Click to expand...
- Peel Thunder President, John Ditchburn​
On October 31, the issue of reserves appeared settled, with The Age and The West Australian reporting that West Coast will be taking an alignment with East Perth, and Fremantle taking one with Peel. The new deals will take place from 2014 and will see both clubs pay $450 a season, while non aligned WAFL clubs will receive an increase in their funding (up from $425,000 - $525,000). Peel and East Perth will receive $350,000. The deals also allow for West Coast and Fremantle to have final say over coaching appointments to their aligned clubs.
"I hope (this alignment) is going to be in place forever and a day. This looks like a sustainable model - a model that can help the other (WAFL) clubs."
Click to expand...
- Trevor Nesbitt​
The new alignments bring the WA clubs into line with most Victorian clubs and their alignments with the VFL.

On November 1, however, the West Australian reported that the WAFL clubs were holding a meeting to thrash out the details as they had not expected any deal to be finalised and expected more consultation.
"They were expecting we would come back with a proposal that would then go into a further consulting phase"
Click to expand...
- Frank Cooper​
The Article also quoted the WAFL Council of Presidents, Hayden Raitt, as saying

"It did get a rough reception but we are meeting on Friday to short list the things that we believe they missed and resubmit them.
At the end of the day, the commission can do it without our consent anyway and we could end up with nothing.
I think we will all have a look at it from a sensible point of view. The commission has done rather a good job, they have just missed out some smaller detail. I think they tried to put a good deal to the WAFL and to help the WAFL
Click to expand...
"​
Media and references
cop
 
Good work bringing what are a number of issues together.

Underlying is the funding issue, how WA & SA footy is funded compared to Vic footy (ignoring the other jurisdictions only to narrow the discussion, to minmise muddying the water).
There is effectively only one cookie barrel from which so many mouths are fed.

WAFC/WANFL & SANFL footy get contributions from their AFL clubs, both also control the stadium management rights, with both going thru change in the next few years. By comparison Vic footy is funded from the AFL underwritten by the TV rights.

I think the effort by the WAFL clubs to access direct funding from the Dockers & Eagles & sideline the AFL ( WAFL presidents have informally endorsed a payment of $150,000 each to allow their clubs to play Dockers/Eagles teams during their bye rounds) is where the second tier clubs including Franga & Willy etc in Vic would like to position themselves.

The reserves issue will probably play out first followed by the stadium management rights, Adeaide Oval leading the way.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #4
In SA at least, the SMA already exists which includes the SANFL and SACA, and the SANFL dont expect any changes to that, meaning the SANFL will continue to reap the benefits of AFL footy at Adelaide Oval without owning the teams. In SA at least it would appear that license issues will play out first, then the reserve issue will take care of itself - with both teams likely to go to the VFL id suspect since distance and cost isnt as big an issue as it is for the WA clubs.

The VFL scenario at the moment is another kettle of fish altogether with several clubs trying to get out of their alignments (or in Carltons case simply taking over the club and rebadging it). By 2014, you'd expect Richmond and Essendon to join Collingwood and Geelong, and to a lesser extent Carlton as full fledged AFL reserves. A whole new funding model will need to be applied to the VFA/L to even keep it a viable competition since all but two VFL clubs are funded essentially through their AFL alignments and I dont see any way that a non AFL supported VFL would stay afloat long.

The other alternative for that may be the creation of a new NEAFL type division featuring all Victorian AFL teams, Frankston and Port Melbourne. And throw in Adelaide and Port. Say the SEAFL. Again, the tyranny of distance could preclude the WA teams from entering without massive subsidy from the AFL for travel and accommodation.

As for funding the VFL is as you say funded by the AFL directly from its resources, but then so are AFL Queensland, AFL NT, AFL NSW/ACT, AFL Tasmania and AFL Victoria (which the funding for the VFL is applied through as well as country footy and amateur and other areas).
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The_Wookie said:
In SA at least, the SMA already exists which includes the SANFL and SACA, and the SANFL dont expect any changes to that, meaning the SANFL will continue to reap the benefits of AFL footy at Adelaide Oval without owning the teams. In SA at least it would appear that license issues will play out first, then the reserve issue will take care of itself - with both teams likely to go to the VFL id suspect since distance and cost isnt as big an issue as it is for the WA clubs.

The VFL scenario at the moment is another kettle of fish altogether with several clubs trying to get out of their alignments (or in Carltons case simply taking over the club and rebadging it). By 2014, you'd expect Richmond and Essendon to join Collingwood and Geelong, and to a lesser extent Carlton as full fledged AFL reserves. A whole new funding model will need to be applied to the VFA/L to even keep it a viable competition since all but two VFL clubs are funded essentially through their AFL alignments and I dont see any way that a non AFL supported VFL would stay afloat long.

The other alternative for that may be the creation of a new NEAFL type division featuring all Victorian AFL teams, Frankston and Port Melbourne. And throw in Adelaide and Port. Say the SEAFL. Again, the tyranny of distance could preclude the WA teams from entering without massive subsidy from the AFL for travel and accommodation.

As for funding the VFL is as you say funded by the AFL directly from its resources, but then so are AFL Queensland, AFL NT, AFL NSW/ACT, AFL Tasmania and AFL Victoria (which the funding for the VFL is applied through as well as country footy and amateur and other areas).
Click to expand...

Not sure travel is the big cost for a reserves comp, in comparison to the cost of the extended lists - only revenue source might be the club websites offering reserves footy to the faithful.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #7
Howard Littlejohn said:
If the SA AFL clubs were to put teams into the VFL (or a SE Reserves comp), could that leave Port with an AFL team, a VFL team and an SANFL team?
Click to expand...

I dont think so. According to the Advertiser, Port have already indicated that they want to use the Magpies as their reserves side, and the SANFL clubs have said no to reserves teams in the SANFL. This would leave Port with no option but to play in another league.
 
The_Wookie said:
I dont think so. According to the Advertiser, Port have already indicated that they want to use the Magpies as their reserves side, and the SANFL clubs have said no to reserves teams in the SANFL. This would leave Port with no option but to play in another league.
Click to expand...
That would be the practical option in the circumstance, but a huge wrench for both Port and the SANFL one would have thought.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #9
Howard Littlejohn said:
That would be the practical option in the circumstance, but a huge wrench for both Port and the SANFL one would have thought.
Click to expand...

You'd think so, but its not uncommon to hear rhetoric that supports the idea coming from supporters of other clubs that STILL cannot let go of the events of 1990.
 
My understanding is that the AFL players of WC, Freo, Port and the Crows get shared around the all WAFL and SANFL clubs. (I may be working from old info, please correct me if I am).

So a WC and a Freo player can both end up playing for Claremont (the aim back in the day was to ensure that the AFL clubs did not affiliate with particular SANFL/WAFL clubs). This is nuts, its too complex to manage all the people that need to be invoved .... the AFL clubs should at least be affliated with specific WAFL or SANFL clubs as a first step.

For example, Port gets affiliated with Port (obvious!), WWT, West and North Adelaide. The Crows players get spread around the other Sanfl clubs. That will at least allow better communication between the AFL and SANFL clubs with fewer people having to negotiate around the issues that arrise during the season.
 
The_Wookie said:
On October 3rd, The Advertiser reported that the SANFL presidents were urgently seeking information on the progression of talks with the AFL over the license changes to Port and Adelaide with clubs warning the SANFL required their vote to offsell SANFL assets.
The Advertiser also claimed that:
  • There will be no lump sum paid for the return of the Adelaide license (SANFL valued at $26 million)
  • There will be no repayment of debt incurred in keeping Port alive (SANFL valued at 15 million)
  • There will be no repayment of the $4 million license fees paid by the SANFL
  • The AFL is offering between $800,000 and $1 million a year in compensation
  • The SANFL wants this to be kept for 20 years.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure Port paid for the license themselves, yet had no ownership.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #14
Papa G said:
So essentially both Port and the Crows paid for the licenses, not the SANFL. At the time the AFC was basically the SANFL, so they paid back themselves.
Click to expand...

essentially yes. hence the AFL saying no to repaying the license fees, since the clubs that paid them will remain separate entities
 
Perry Pie said:
My understanding is that the AFL players of WC, Freo, Port and the Crows get shared around the all WAFL and SANFL clubs. (I may be working from old info, please correct me if I am).

So a WC and a Freo player can both end up playing for Claremont (the aim back in the day was to ensure that the AFL clubs did not affiliate with particular SANFL/WAFL clubs). This is nuts, its too complex to manage all the people that need to be invoved .... the AFL clubs should at least be affliated with specific WAFL or SANFL clubs as a first step.

For example, Port gets affiliated with Port (obvious!), WWT, West and North Adelaide. The Crows players get spread around the other Sanfl clubs. That will at least allow better communication between the AFL and SANFL clubs with fewer people having to negotiate around the issues that arrise during the season.
Click to expand...
Why can't West Coast and Fremantle players play in the WAFL?

We only play each other twice in a season. And as intense as derbies are, I won't begrudge a Fremantle footballer from being mates with someone who plays for the Eagles. If the Eagles player at South Freo helps the Dockers kid grow, well, I'll take that.

We won't have alignments in the WAFL because it's unfair. I'd say the vast majority of South Fremantle fans are Dockers supporters, but Old Easts go both ways (probs in a sexual manner, as well...). Most other clubs are fairly torn, so it'd be unfair and it'd jeopardise a few supporters. It might sit awkwardly with a Freo and West Perth fan, just because WP are now a WCE affiliate.
 
Silent Alarm said:
Why can't West Coast and Fremantle players play in the WAFL?

We only play each other twice in a season. And as intense as derbies are, I won't begrudge a Fremantle footballer from being mates with someone who plays for the Eagles. If the Eagles player at South Freo helps the Dockers kid grow, well, I'll take that.

We won't have alignments in the WAFL because it's unfair. I'd say the vast majority of South Fremantle fans are Dockers supporters, but Old Easts go both ways (probs in a sexual manner, as well...). Most other clubs are fairly torn, so it'd be unfair and it'd jeopardise a few supporters. It might sit awkwardly with a Freo and West Perth fan, just because WP are now a WCE affiliate.
Click to expand...

I take your point about it sitting awkwardly with some fans - it would for some people. I agree that the players will not have a problem either. However, I was making the point in the context of a drive for the AFL clubs having greater control and input in how the players are used when playing in the WAFL/SANFL. Its much easier for coaching staff to build relationships and understanding with 4 or 5 clubs than with 9 - especially as the coaching staff in those 9 clubs each have 2 sets of AFL relationships to manage.

I think we are at the stage where the AFL clubs, especially in WA and SA, do not feel they are getting what they need to develop the players. The game is dominated by control freaks (coaches & administrators especially). If there is no change in the current system then the WA & SA AFL clubs will find a way of going their own way (probably to the cost all involved).
 
For Port the answer is easy. The Magpies become the Power's Reserves team. It is so bloody simple it is beyond debating.

The Crows is far more complex. They have 3 options. Make a stand alone team in the SANFL, take over an existing SANFL team (Sturt have massive debt.... again, unlikely to get out of it, they are probably the prime candidate) or join the VFL.

The toolbags at the SANFL clubs as well as SANFL have to think long and hard about which way they want to go, because it appears this matter is coming to a head. What does the SANFL want to become? Where is it headed? What will the new structure mean to them? Will they have relevance going forward? Are they just a league where not quite AFL standard Victorian's go to die or will they continue to play a meaningful part in the fabric of the game in South Autsralia? So many questions, but on form, I doubt they will get any of it right. This is the biggest moment for the SANFL since the establishment of the Crows. Their ability to look at the Big picture rather than petty self interest as well as long and deep seated jealousy will be interesting to say the least. The sale of most of the land around Football Park could set them up for an enternity, again lets see if they **** it up.
 
Firstly, clearly the Power and the Crows want Reserves teams. I imagine ideally for the Crows and Power these Reserves teams would compete in an AFL Reserves competition. If cost is prohibitive, I'd imagine the SANFL league competition would be 2nd choice.

From an SANFL viewpoint, they don't want the integrity of their competition compromised. This would clearly happen when the Crows and Power Reserves sides put development above winning. The SANFL would also like to attract the best players outside the AFL. Could SANFL clubs compete with AFL Reserves for the next best level players?

Ideally from an SANFL viewpoint the Crows and Power would compete in the SANFL Reserves competition, but doubt Port and Crows would want that due to standard of the competition.

Best case scenario for the SANFL is it becomes independent of the AFL and can challenge AFL Reserves for next best level players. This would maintain the standard and also remove the need to accommodate the AFL clubs. Worst case scenario is the AFL Reserves becomes a step above SANFL level and public interest in the SANFL drops further. It all depends if the SANFL clubs are financial enough to compete with player payments. If they decide they are not, then the SANFL might just need to bite the bullet and let Crows and Power reserves in to the SANFL - as the Magpies and an independent Crows.
 
Perry Pie said:
I take your point about it sitting awkwardly with some fans - it would for some people. I agree that the players will not have a problem either. However, I was making the point in the context of a drive for the AFL clubs having greater control and input in how the players are used when playing in the WAFL/SANFL. Its much easier for coaching staff to build relationships and understanding with 4 or 5 clubs than with 9 - especially as the coaching staff in those 9 clubs each have 2 sets of AFL relationships to manage.

I think we are at the stage where the AFL clubs, especially in WA and SA, do not feel they are getting what they need to develop the players. The game is dominated by control freaks (coaches & administrators especially). If there is no change in the current system then the WA & SA AFL clubs will find a way of going their own way (probably to the cost all involved).
Click to expand...
I reckon the players would care as well. I mean, the Western Australians. Kids from Victoria get thrown at any old WAFL side, so they don't (and kind of shouldn't) have a reason to worry about such a proposition.

But kids play for the WAFL club of their zone, or their family. To play colts for Swan Districts until you're 19 and drafted, then being made to play for East Freo, could be hard. Your family connection, friend connection, stuff like that... the WAFL is still reasonably entrenched in the identity of Sandgropers. And it's a lot more obvious at colts level. It'd be very hard to implement.
 

Join Bigfooty for Free

  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #20
On October 16th, The West Australian reported that the WAFC will pitch the idea of returning to host clubs for the 2014 season. Speculation is that the WAFC may greenlight East Perth-Eagles, and Peel-Fremantle. East Perth didnt comment, and Peel said they had not seen a proposal yet.
"We are waiting for the commission to put a proposal to us. We have heard the rumours like everyone else has but all we can do is wait to see what line the commission takes on this."
Click to expand...
- Peel Thunder President, John Ditchburn​
Media and references
 
It looks like the host club thing is going to happen and that the WAFL clubs are taking a softer stance towards helping the Eagles and Dockers.

But then yesterday the AFL announce that the Eagles will play on Monday night on Foundation day in WA. That day has been the WAFL day for ever, it is the one day a year there is no AFL footy, it is a public holiday in Perth and the two Local derby's East Freo v South Freo and West Perth V East Perth attract very good size crowds.

This will not sit well with the WAFL clubs especially if it has been driven by the Eagles which many believe it would have been.

The shit fight between the AFL clubs and the WAFL may now go on for a while longer.

Article in todays West.

Eagles to hurt WAFL profits​

Shayne Hope, The West AustralianOctober 18, 2012, 6:51 am​
​
​

WAFL clubs are up in arms over the prospect of losing around $100,000 in profit next year after it was confirmed West Coast would play a home game on the WA Day public holiday in June.
WA Day has traditionally been the biggest date on the WAFL home-and-away calendar, with East Fremantle playing arch rivals South Fremantle while West Perth tackle old foes East Perth.
The Fremantle derby has averaged crowds of 8206 on WA Day over the past seven years, with the Perth derby averaging 4869. Both are well above usual WAFL crowd figures, which are around 2000 a game.
South Fremantle's Haydn Raitt, the chairman of the WAFL council of presidents, said the bumper fixtures provided huge financial benefits worth around $50,000 net profit each game.
West Coast will host Richmond in a night game at Patersons Stadium on WA Day next year, with the game starting after the traditional WAFL fixtures have finished.
But the WAFL clubs felt they would take a huge financial hit due to reduced crowd numbers regardless of what time the Eagles game was played.
Raitt has asked the WA Football Commission to define its stance on the issue and will raise the issue with the commission at the next presidents meeting in a fortnight.
"A club would normally make around $50,000 on a day like that, so we'll send the bill to West Coast or the football commission," Raitt said.
West Perth president Brett Rap- oni said the WA Day derby against East Perth was "absolutely critical" to the Falcons' financial result each year and questioned West Coast's commitment to helping the nine WAFL clubs survive.
"West Coast constantly remind all and sundry about their concern for the welfare of the WAFL and its clubs and its development of players within the competition but a decision like this really makes you question their concerns and motives," Raponi said.
"I would have expected the WAFC to strongly support the WAFL, but it appears they have either been blindsided by the decision or simply have not batted hard enough for us. Certainly their role is to deliver the best outcome for football, not just the two AFL clubs.
"Frankly, I don't think they give a stuff about anyone else except themselves."
East Fremantle president Con Tripi claimed the Eagles had shown a lack of respect towards the WAFL clubs by scheduling a game on WA Day. He said smaller crowds would diminish exposure for sponsors and have a dramatic impact on the clubs' bottom lines.
"We've had some reasonable crowds for both derbies and put a lot of effort into promoting them," Tripi said.
"This is a bullet wound, really."
WAFL director Grant Dorrington said WA Day was an important fixture for the WAFL.
"After building this traditional event for WA footy, it would be great to see it remain a stand-alone fixture for the WAFL," he said.
I don't think they give a stuff about anyone else except themselves. " *Brett Raponi *
 
It is a huge bun fight here in WA.The footy sites here are going ballistic over the fact that the rumour is the host club situation.
This happened before and was a disaster.If it happens again, I think it will be the same thing.
It seems from rumour that three clubs may have broken rank and are interested in the proposal.I am led to believe they are Peel,Perth and East Perth.
Peel would be the host club for Fremantle and one of the other two host for the Eagles.
I think for the WAFL, the host club situation has to be the worst outcome.
I still think the WAFL should have allowed the two AFL clubs to have their own sides play in the WAFL. Only my opinion, but I am still a believer in that.
The main argument seems to be the question of where the AFL clubs get the players to make up their sides.I believe there are enough young kids who get thrown on the scrap heap,not just here in WA but all lover Australia,to make up the remainder for their teams.
Also the WAFL have a points system(have no idea how it works)for recruiting players.This is also a sticking point.Another is the salary cap and how the clubs will be able to keep within the bounds of the cap.
Sites from WA like footygoss and WAFLon line are rampant in their opposition to these AFL clubs taking any role in the WAFL.
At the moment is it still only rumour and innuendo as to what will happen,but sure is interesting.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #24
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/afl/15262882/eagles-happy-with-new-wafl-alignment/


West Coast chief executive Trevor Nisbett says the Eagles won't push for a stand-alone reserves side if their new alignment with WAFL club East Perth works
Fremantle and West Coast will also have the final say in appointing the senior coach of their aligned club, in consultation with that WAFL outfit.
Click to expand...

Effectively putting them on the same footing as several victorian clubs, and in a better position that victorian clubs split beween alignments. Its definitely a start.
 
Personally, and I think I may have already said this, but the SANFL and the WAFL need to realise that players aren't going to want to play in those leagues professionally. The TAC Cup, and to a lesser extent, the VFL, exist to "breed" (for a word) future AFL players, and that AFL clubs are going to want to use the lesser leagues for development for their players.

I don't know what the full situation is regarding the WAFL, Freo and WCE, however Port and Adelaide have both said that they want to use the SANFL to develop their players. Doesn't help when certain SANFL hierarchy's have personal agendas.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The AFL, WAFC and SANFL - and the WA/SA AFL Clubs

Similar threads

The_Wookie
Official Club Stuff 2025 AFL and Club Reports/Docs
Replies
0
Views
247
The_Wookie
The_Wookie
The_Wookie
The AFL has released the Total Player Payments for 2024, with the Total Player Payment limit set at $15.8m per club, up from $15.0m in 2023.
Replies
4
Views
445
The Educator
T
The_Wookie
AFL Clubs on Social Media 2024
Replies
1
Views
398
The_Wookie
The_Wookie
The_Wookie
Official Club Stuff Stadium and Facility Developments
Replies
10
Views
2K
Canberra Pear
Canberra Pear
The_Wookie
Release: AFL Announces three year radio deal extension
Replies
1
Views
280
Billy ray
Billy ray
1972championsofaust
AFL strong arms YouTube Content Creators!
Replies
5
Views
988
errant bounce
errant bounce
The_Wookie
2025 AFL/State & Womens Attendance
Replies
1
Views
426
Walshawk
Walshawk

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top