WAFL merger talks BAAAAAAAAD!

[pugnodocker]

Could we please comment on (the proposed) East Freo merging with Peel Flubber? Surely a club with as much heritage as the Mighty Sharks, wouldn't take the cash bait to join up with rabble. I think we are only 2nd to Port Adelaide in total flags in history. Surely we can't throw this away!

Just get rid of them, they cost money, in travel costs to teams, injuries that always pop up when you play bottom teams not to mention the UBD purchase that follows for each kid and his parents if drafted there. Then we must not forget the cost of counselling such players as they realise they will never play in a premiership team...

Surely it would be better for the comp just to get rid of em. With the Flubber in, i can't help but think the WAFL is considered the WOEFUL

 

[mud n blood]

no no no

I'm not in favour of any merger, but I don't believe they should be punted either. Introduce a 10th team .... a country side perhaps, or one from north of Perth.

 

[pugnodocker]

i think a tenth team would put too much strain on the already tight finances of the WAFL. perhaps merging them with a really strong country club. but as we've both said, mergers blow.

 

[Blues_Brat]

Just bloody leave Peel in. The reasons the 8 clubs have voted them out go deeper than the bye, they are frightened that Peel will be a force in a couple of years. Just look at Centrals in the SANFL, a club that was formed in a growing area got the arses kicked for a few years now they are a force in the league. If it wasn't for Centrals promoting the game in the area, a lot of kicks might've turned to soccer, something that the WAFC is worried about if there is no league club in the Mandurah area.

 

[RoosterWedgie]

As Yul Brynner said" Whatever you do, don't merge" or something to that effect.
My club looked like merging in the mid 90s, me and a group of friends started a group called RAM (Roosters Agaisnt Merger) and organised public rallies, media time, etc and shook up our board.
Our club has gone crap since then but I'd rather watch my team lose by 20 goals every week than support a merged team.
Merging is p*** weak and a soft option.
I'd rather die than merge!
Merge is the ugliest word in the dictionary!

 

[fabulousphil]

i reckon Claremont and Subi should merge, East Freo are smart and are after both cash and a growing junior base, they will not lose their jumper, still play some games at east freo oval and have a huge base of juniors ------but you have to hand it to them a smart progressive club.

But in reality why have a merger at all, many comps have a bye including i believe the SANFL and the NRL so its not the be all and end all if theres still 9 clubs is there

 

[Uncle Steve]

Originally posted by RoosterWedgie
I'd rather watch my team lose by 20 goals every week than support a merged team.

Quote of the year, Wedgie.

 

[Mobbs]

Originally posted by RoosterWedgie
I'd rather watch my team lose by 20 goals every week than support a merged team.

Hear Hear!

 

[flexible]

WAFL merger update

The vote by the other 8 WAFL clubs to give Peel a licence for three years will be undertaken this week.
I believe AFL boss Wayne Jackson has spoken to certain people in WA to ensure from the AFL's perspective that Peel will get the 3 year licence which the clubs will in turn benefit from having an increase in their grants from the WAFL.
There is the inside word that there will be no merger between East Fremantle and Peel.
There is strong vibes about a Claremont/Subiaco merger and there are two other clubs currently not all that financially stable, which could be forced into merger talks over the next year or two.

 

[Brian]

The There are three reasons why the WAFL want Peel out . Remove the bye , Keep the number of teams low , and to protect clubs country recruiting zones .
The WAFL has this idea of trying to get a crowd of 5000 at four quality games . Very commendable but it'll never succeed mainly because there is too much football .AFL on TV thursday through to possible Monday , WAFL on ABC , Amaturs , Sunday League and Juniors . Much easier to achieve 10 games with 2000 each .
Some clubs in the right communities achieve those figures when they have a derby .The other issue is money . If one AFL team sacrificed one player payment we could have a NT team playing in the WAFL .The cream of NT talent playing locally would be a big boost to crowds and AFL scouts .

 

[fabulousphil]

Originally posted by Brian
The There are three reasons why the WAFL want Peel out . Remove the bye , Keep the number of teams low , and to protect clubs country recruiting zones .
The WAFL has this idea of trying to get a crowd of 5000 at four quality games . Very commendable but it'll never succeed mainly because there is too much football .AFL on TV thursday through to possible Monday , WAFL on ABC , Amaturs , Sunday League and Juniors . Much easier to achieve 10 games with 2000 each .
Some clubs in the right communities achieve those figures when they have a derby .The other issue is money . If one AFL team sacrificed one player payment we could have a NT team playing in the WAFL .The cream of NT talent playing locally would be a big boost to crowds and AFL scouts .

Great post Brian, i reckon the AFL teams suck too much money out of community footy and if they are having a bad trot the commission starts losing money and WAFL clubs lose out.
I have said it before but the salary cap is about 5mill but clubs turnover on average 20mill( eagles about 24 ) where does the rest go----------------snouts in the trough----------just imagine an extra 1mill spent on WAFL, amatuer, junior football etc instead of a couple of extra staticians or skills coaches at AFL level

 

[Rob]

Originally posted by Brian
The There are three reasons why the WAFL want Peel out . Remove the bye , Keep the number of teams low , and to protect clubs country recruiting zones .

Utter crap. Firstly, the WAFL do not want Peel out. The people that voted Peel out are 7 of the 8 remaining WAFL club presidents. The WAFC (i.e the WAFL) have continually stated that a side based in Mandurah is an absolute necessity for the health of the competition. In addition to that, the AFL have declared that they also want a side in one of the fastest growing areas in Australia as well.

If the issue was just to remove the bye, then you'd have to be an idiot to get rid of Peel. At least metro clubs with no fans (i.e Claremont, Subi and Perth) contribute pretty much nothing to the competition. No crowds and the areas they are based in are all ageing tired communities with no juniors. A vast majority of their junior base comes from areas well away from their home. Peel on the other hand as a junior base actually in their own region, i.e Mandurah, Rockingham, Kwinana, Pinjarra etc. If you seriously think that, say, South Fremantle would do as good a job at developing footy in Mandurah as a local side would then you have no idea. Want to get rid of the bye? Get rid of Claremont. All 300 of their fans might tear their retirement home apart, but thats the price you pay.

There is one reason why the WAFL club presidents want Peel out, and that is they see them as a threat. Peel already draws bigger crowds than most other WAFL clubs (rarely this year has the game at Rushton Park not been the largest drawing game of the round) despite not attacting many away fans, and not being overly successful on the field. A Peel side in the top 4 would draw 4-5000 people every week, and the presidents know it.

The reasons you mentioned are nothing more than a cover up. Anyone who believes anything differently is deluding themselves.

 

[mud n blood]

Being a Brizzo, I obviously don't know anything about the demographics over there. But what I do know is axing teams - new or old - is not the answer.

I'm sure there would be plenty of applicants to be a tenth team .....

 

[Blues_Brat]

The Swans must be under the pump again. They rattled the tins a couple of years ago and are now sitting on the bottom of the ladder again. It's obvious what the reason is that Swans want Peel gone.

 

[Brian]

ROB you make one critical error in your statement .
It is the WAFL that rule the roost , that is why the WAFC is offering this merger carrot to circumvent the wishes of the WAFL.
Everybody except the WAFL (WP excluded) want Peel in .
As you stated the WAFL voted Peel out . The WAFL prevented the goldfields and Bunbury joining because this would impinge on existing clubs recruiting zones .I'm a Subiaco fan who dislikes Claremont intensely . But there is sense in a merger between these two clubs who could become the West Coast Cats .However relocation to the populous suburbs is the percentage play .And yes Peel is a longterm threat . All new clubs were initially thrashed before they became a power.If we look at the NRL , they have lost a lot of support by axing and merging teams . The AFL will lose if they lose any teams , but teams will survive if they relocate and are given longterm support .

 

[anchor man]

It is my belief that the WAFL is the name of the competition only.The competition is run by the WA Football Commission.
The commission run all football here in WA they own the Dockers and the Eagles,they control the purse of the game here in WA have for a long time.
Ther are three mergers that could happen.The most unlikely is the two Freo teams to merge.But this will never happen.
Perth and Swans.Both teams are struggling player wise and also financially.Would be a win win situation.
Subi and Claremont.This would also be a win win situation.Subi have the money and players but realistically do not have a ground.Claremont have the players as well and they have a ground to play on.The talk of Claremont and Subi merging has been around for years so really it is not going to be too hard for the supporters to take.The Peppy Grove Pussies[no just joking].
The major mistake was when they allowed Peel in in the first place.The competition was not ready for them,the time was not right.Yet again the WAFC got it wrong.But because of that now is not the time to look at giving them the boot.

 

[Rob]

Originally posted by Brian
ROB you make one critical error in your statement .
It is the WAFL that rule the roost , that is why the WAFC is offering this merger carrot to circumvent the wishes of the WAFL.
Everybody except the WAFL (WP excluded) want Peel in .
As you stated the WAFL voted Peel out . The WAFL prevented the goldfields and Bunbury joining because this would impinge on existing clubs recruiting zones .I'm a Subiaco fan who dislikes Claremont intensely . But there is sense in a merger between these two clubs who could become the West Coast Cats .However relocation to the populous suburbs is the percentage play .And yes Peel is a longterm threat . All new clubs were initially thrashed before they became a power.If we look at the NRL , they have lost a lot of support by axing and merging teams . The AFL will lose if they lose any teams , but teams will survive if they relocate and are given longterm support .

I think firstly we have to get some consistency in our terms. When I refer to the WAFL, I refer to the WAFC, not the WAFL council of presidents, which is the only body that has voted Peel out. The council of presidents are *not* the WAFL. The WAFL is run and funded by the WAFC. Hope you understood all of that.

Secondly, I agree that the council of presidents seem to have too much power. They are looking after their own club's interests and not that of the game. IMO, they should not be in a position to vote a club out of the league.

Thirdly, I also agree that the best way to take footy to the people is through relocation of teams. Peel should have come about not through a new club, but through a side moving to Mandurah (or Rockingham, or somewhere in between like Lark Hill). But no club had the guts or foresight to do it. There is a clear dearth of sides in growing areas of Perth. The Football 2000 report identified it, but little has been done since. There should be sides in the Gosnells/Canning Vale area, Armadale and Stirling. Zones should actually reflect where a club is based. As it stands at the moment, areas of Perth are zoned to clubs that are more than 20km away. Ridiculous.

Finally, while i'm not going to be campaigning too heavily for mergers, is one merger between 2 clubs in close proximity really going to cost the WAFL anything? It's not as if the WAFL is in a position of strength anyway. They might lose support from the 2 teams that merge, but I can't see (for example) West Perth supporters giving a fat rats clacker if Claremont and Subi merged.