I’m sorry but I agree with Bob, Salary cap breeches indicate you paid over the allowance which I believe was 245K and you still came last.
FMD what are they thinking spending like that and coming second last.
Thats no crack at any demon’s member on here, it’s more a crack at the club paying that much hard earnt members money to not success - it beggars belief they are in this conversation.
I think someone said it earlier might as well go all in buy a flag and enjoy getting busted
Well what’s interesting is Townsend among others have always said Perth spends well under the cap less than anyone in the league.
I’ll probably cop some flak and be accused of drawing a long bow, but I relate our salary cap issues to the well worn topic of our poor zones and lack of local talent. On top of that, we almost never get good players from rival WAFL clubs - it tends to be players who feel they will get more game time/preferred position at Perth. So that leaves us with no choice but to look to the Eastern States which involves travel costs that aren’t incurred with locals. In 2024 we had Clarke, Simpson, Constable, and Chaplin in their first year in Perth, Thompson, Howard and Shannon the second, then some players who have settled in WA: Cary, Schlensog and Stubbs. Then there was our FIFO psycho coach. It is highly likely that the contracts for a number of those players included flights home, during byes, etc.
The powers that be at the WAFC need to understand that are not doing the forensic auditing on a competition that’s the financial equivalent of the multi billion American N.B.A. Do the dumb bastards understand the WAFL is struggling for relevancy in today’s sporting landscape,and most clubs are treading water financially,and what purpose does it serve to hit perennial battlers Perth with a -12 penalty over a perceived advantage for what???and don’t get me started on the idiotic non disclosure of a player’s supposed lawyers fees which has no impact whatsoever on the composition of the WAFL ladder.Do the imbeciles understand that the competition is struggling to get bums on seats as it is,and then decide to compromise it even further by inflicting a stupid-12 penalty for 2 clubs before a ball is bounced is just breathtakingly idiotic and serves no valid purpose.
When one can see the Wafl is in terminal decline, it simply does not need all this silly nonsense happening!
[quote=“Demons Forever post=239059 userid=981”]Give it a rest Bazza.
We know about the paper bags SF have been using for decades.
[/quote]
Classic example of what I mean, give it a rest mate, caught with your pants down big time.
[quote=“royallucky post=239068 userid=2921”]The powers that be at the WAFC need to understand that are not doing the forensic auditing on a competition that’s the financial equivalent of the multi billion American N.B.A. Do the dumb bastards understand the WAFL is struggling for relevancy in today’s sporting landscape,and most clubs are treading water financially,and what purpose does it serve to hit perennial battlers Perth with a -12 penalty over a perceived advantage for what???and don’t get me started on the idiotic non disclosure of a player’s supposed lawyers fees which has no impact whatsoever on the composition of the WAFL ladder.Do the imbeciles understand that the competition is struggling to get bums on seats as it is,and then decide to compromise it even further by inflicting a stupid-12 penalty for 2 clubs before a ball is bounced is just breathtakingly idiotic and serves no valid purpose.
[/quote]
The problem you have with all this sooking is the precedent has been set when SFFC copped a two game penalty being the first time ever in over 100 years of WANFL/WAFL history, I seem to recall that most club commentary was that well do the wrong thing and you pay the price.
We have now had two seasons in a row with compromised points standings.
Perhaps if all the clubs had shown a far more united front on an OTT penalty of losing games then the WAFC might have backed down, thats not the case now and these penalties will be the standard going forward.
Hit the nail on the head Bazza.This situation gets back to the agreement reached at the time regarding the OTT and I’ll admit I don’t know the full circumstances under which the clubs agreed to points reductions but I bet it wasn’t under anything to do with FBT non declaration.I’ll bet it wasn’t mentioned or even a consideration.Why ? Because there is no benefit to the player in the club paying FBT.The cost of the flight yes but a government impost no.Yes the FBT is “part of the cost” it can be argued but the question of benefit(which is where the WAFC is coming down hard in the imposition of penalties) is arguable.Surely some people at headquarters can see that “benefit”doesn’t apply here.In the end it might be a moot point because the current agreement supposedly has the FBT costs covered in its declaration section (can’t confirm) but the above might be basis for change.
[quote=“TheFeds post=239073 userid=3849”]Hit the nail on the head Bazza.This situation gets back to the agreement reached at the time regarding the OTT and I’ll admit I don’t know the full circumstances under which the clubs agreed to points reductions but I bet it wasn’t under anything to do with FBT non declaration.I’ll bet it wasn’t mentioned or even a consideration.Why ? Because there is no benefit to the player in the club paying FBT.The cost of the flight yes but a government impost no.Yes the FBT is “part of the cost” it can be argued but the question of benefit(which is where the WAFC is coming down hard in the imposition of penalties) is arguable.Surely some people at headquarters can see that “benefit”doesn’t apply here.In the end it might be a moot point because the current agreement supposedly has the FBT costs covered in its declaration section (can’t confirm) but the above might be basis for change.
[/quote]
Feds, I think you might be putting too much faith in the staff at WAFC HQ. The whole place needs a clean out as WA footy deserves better than it has been getting for the last 20+ years and it starts from the management of Junior football all the way through to the WAFL and how much WA footy is dictated to by the 2 AFL clubs that WA footy owns. The tails been wagging the dog at all levels of WA footy for too long with too many WAFC staff more interested in justifying their roles and increasing their pay packets.
With regards to the FBT its ludicrous that it would even be considered to be included in the TPP. As you pointed out Feds, there is no benefit to the player in the FBT payment. its only the cost of the flight which benefits the player and therefore needs to be included in the TPP. If the player had been paid the extra $$$ in their contract rather than Perth purchasing flight/s to the same value for the player (employee) then FBT would not be required to be paid by Perth as the employer.
I’m sure Claremont has supplied flights home and back for some of interstate and country players previously and assume we still do! Shit a flight to Broome is often more expensive than a trip to Melbourne LOL
TT and Feds, good points but dont forget they have also missed 20K in Super Payements.
Fair call Bazza and I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a penalty of some sort.Just highlighting the FBT part.The real issue is the integrity of the competition.Posters on here quite correctly lament the diminution of that integrity with what’s been going on in recent seasons especially with the influence and concessions to the AFL sides.What amuses me is the intelligencia (and I use the term loosely) at WAFL headquarters bleats about the same issue but is happy to implement a system where a struggling for relevance competition has,as been mentioned already,will have 4 teams in 3 years starting a season in a minus points position.Integrity my arse. This season will see EP(who are a good side with an excellent coach) struggling if they don’t win early games.If they are 3 and 5 or 6 at around the halfway mark their season is gone.As for poor old P even if they improve wins wise from this season they are still behind the eight ball for another year.The solution for me is penalties applied to player points and salary caps only (although monetary could/should be applied- provided it doesn’t send anyone down the tubes).Yes it would restrict recruiting etc for probably a year or two but the upside is the younger colts etc get more game time which can produce long term benefits.It’s not an easy solution but if Integrity is tantamount it’s better than what we have now.
We got a big hit first up, in what appears to have been a shot across the bows of the entire comp.
All the clubs were on notice, from there on I guess.
Certainly agree it cooks an already struggling comp. which is what I said at the time we got hit.
Yeah agree Bazza that South being first cab off the rank was unfortunate when the WAFC wanted to flex their muscles.It’s going to be more unfair to all affected clubs (SF,EF,P and EP) if the head honchos grab a brain and change the penalties in the future. The only saving grace is that at least all clubs will start even on points like it’s been for around 120 years (excluding the last 2).
Everyone has got valid points here but I think to dock clubs premiership points is probably the harshest penalty and undermines the competition. I think apart from fines perhaps a better way to penalize a club is to apply salary and points cap reductions the following season. What Townsend was saying was Perth could receive a fine up to 50k, be docked -12 premiership points AND have our points cap deducted 20 points. FMD those things collectively are way too harsh.
And this in a period where we were given extra points and salary cap so we could recruit to try to be competitive. I was told in pre season last year that we had one more year of the extra concessions then we were on our own. Well this has fucked that.
Only a dominant Subiaco in their prime could overcome a 3 game deficit and still make top 2 or 3. No club in today’s competition could overcome this though I notice one Royal supporter on here is optimistic they could.
[quote=“TheFeds post=239081 userid=3849”]Yeah agree Bazza that South being first cab off the rank was unfortunate when the WAFC wanted to flex their muscles.It’s going to be more unfair to all affected clubs (SF,EF,P and EP) if the head honchos grab a brain and change the penalties in the future. The only saving grace is that at least all clubs will start even on points like it’s been for around 120 years (excluding the last 2).
[/quote]
Changing the penalty system going forward given that two clubs have already had seasons seriously impacted…would be seen as grounds for compensation for those clubs I would say.
The problem you have with all this sooking is the precedent has been set when SFFC copped a two game penalty being the first time ever in over 100 years of WANFL/WAFL history, I seem to recall that most club commentary was that well do the wrong thing and you pay the price.
We have now had two seasons in a row with compromised points standings.
Perhaps if all the clubs had shown a far more united front on an OTT penalty of losing games then the WAFC might have backed down, thats not the case now and these penalties will be the standard going forward.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t complain about the last two years as the WAFC has given you guys a free kick this year.
This is the new deal for Souths and they have more points and TPP than all teams except for Perth.
• Up to ninety-five (95) cumulative player points • Up to thirty-two (33) Protected Players • Senior Player list to be a minimum of fifty-five (55) players • Total Player Payments: 100% + Competitive Balance Base TPP + (Super) $235,000 + ($28,200) Competitive Balance Rules + (Super) $5,000 + ($600) Total Ex $240,000 + ($28,800) Total Inc Super $268,800.00
[quote=“chaddy22 post=239088 userid=1194”] I wouldn’t complain about the last two years as the WAFC has given you guys a free kick this year.
This is the new deal for Souths and they have more points and TPP than all teams except for Perth.
• Up to ninety-five (95) cumulative player points • Up to thirty-two (33) Protected Players • Senior Player list to be a minimum of fifty-five (55) players • Total Player Payments: 100% + Competitive Balance Base TPP + (Super) $235,000 + ($28,200) Competitive Balance Rules + (Super) $5,000 + ($600) Total Ex $240,000 + ($28,800) Total Inc Super $268,800.00
[/quote]
what’s the breakdown for the rest of the traditional WAFL clubs Chaddy?
Clearly all speculation at the moment but it seems to me that, if any of this speculation is true, the WAFC are trying to kill off this competition. 4 teams in 3 years. Doesn’t that ring alarm bells at the commission? Why is the system so bloody complex? Can’t it be simple? If a club overspends, do 2 things. Reduce the club’s cap for the next season by the amount they have overspent AND provide increased SUPPORT to the club to ensure it doesn’t happen again. Support not draconian sanctions. Isn’t that what the commission are meant to be there for?
I wouldn’t complain about the last two years as the WAFC has given you guys a free kick this year.
This is the new deal for Souths and they have more points and TPP than all teams except for Perth.
• Up to ninety-five (95) cumulative player points • Up to thirty-two (33) Protected Players • Senior Player list to be a minimum of fifty-five (55) players • Total Player Payments: 100% + Competitive Balance Base TPP + (Super) $235,000 + ($28,200) Competitive Balance Rules + (Super) $5,000 + ($600) Total Ex $240,000 + ($28,800) Total Inc Super $268,800.00
[/quote]
I’ll also add that this year is the first time since 2005 that South Fremantle will nudge the total points cap - we have been pretty careful to get our own players back from the VFL and also get lower raked players if not and don’t go near the limit