(i) do you support the host club arrangement your club has entered?
(ii) given that all the excess Eagles’ players not required to play for the Eagles will be playing in your club’s league team how do think that is compatible with your President’s claim that they want to be the leader in junior development?
(iii) in your opinion is the host club situation going to favour your club, disadvantage your club or be neutral for your club compared to the seven non-aligned clubs?
Most folks on this site hate it for a nhumber of reasons
EP have an age average for their teams each game (no-one has said anything against this, I think)
EP players who are deemed draftable (by EP) are alowed to nominate and go to another club for a nominal recompense ( not sure what is a fair amount but will stick with the original)
The clubs losing players to EP due to alignment will definitely continue to get AFL recompense.
A limit on the number of WCE players be set at 9 per game league and 5 for reservces.
All zones stay the same (frankly who would really want ours at the moment)
The rest of the convseration seemed to be side issues.
Have agreat day and perhaps someone who has ore sway could suggest something to the WAFC
(i) do you support the host club arrangement your club has entered?
(ii) given that all the excess Eagles’ players not required to play for the Eagles will be playing in your club’s league team how do think that is compatible with your President’s claim that they want to be the leader in junior development?
(iii) in your opinion is the host club situation going to favour your club, disadvantage your club or be neutral for your club compared to the seven non-aligned clubs?
[/quote]
(i) i don’t like the host club arrangement but i am a diehard follower.
(ii)i can only remind what was mentioned at the info meeting.we will have to develop our local players because recruiting non zone players ia expensive exercise.the proof is in the pudding we have less non zone players running around with us this year then anybody repeat anybody.it means we already are playing more local players then most teams. i will repeat this again east perth had a total of 5 non zone players and swans had 13 non zone players in the league and reserves.we had 15 players that were zone players in the league and because embley is a swannies afl recruit swans only had 13 zone players.unlike peels mad recruiting over the summer east perth are positioning themselves to not rely on non zone players.next year we may have even less then five.we have had at least 3 league debuts including mitchell fraser in the swans game.for those who want to criticise junior development just have a look at the amount of non zone players that clubs have and most will have a dozen.in other words non zone players are already stifling the development of young players.it could be next year that some clubs will have more non zone players playing for them then we have eagles players.we already lost six wafl players this year.we will lose some for sure thru players maybe going east to other wafl clubs,go country or retire so we will have no option but to develop some of our players.
(iii)this is the hardest question to answer.we had less players to manage in 2000 and 2001 and it was the experienced local players and non eagle recruits who contributed the most in those two years.if the eagles get a bad run of injuries and players head east, to other clubs,go country and retire it may work to our disadvantage.i do remember 1999 when claremont had more eagles players then we had in 2000/2001 and they failed to make the four.they quickly abandoned the host arrangement.even tho it is a five year plan if we become uncompetitive and i don’t mean premierships i don’t think the club or supporters will like to be just a development squad.we already see how just having more dockers players hasn’t made a great difference to peel.
Is that max of nine Eagles players per league game for next year set in stone Grump? If that’s the ruling, it’s a fair one. Particularly with the decision being made that East Perth and Peel can’t recruit from outside their zone from here on in.
Sorry Chaddy, still don’t understand the system for next year ,does it mean that EP or Peel can amass a squad of up to 130 points and then also have access to the entire Eagles or Dockers overruns as well or are they operating on a different points total to the other 7 clubs??
Also what measures will be in place to allow those young players in the EP and Peel zones opportunities in their league teams if 15 plus AFL fringe players are taking those places.
Is that max of nine Eagles players per league game for next year set in stone Grump? If that’s the ruling, it’s a fair one. Particularly with the decision being made that East Perth and Peel can’t recruit from outside their zone from here on in.
[/quote]
Don’t know it was my suggestions based on the commentary in the thread, would work for me!
I would like to sincerely thank all who contributed for their fairness and lack of sniping, was great to participate.
No amount of Money buys wins in football especially with our ceiling. Might in SA. So we lose quality players to EP and Peel who hold the monopoly on the AFL players.
Football is about winning ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.
OK this year we are not Guaranteed of having our AFL players each week and this applies to all clubs. E.g Hutchings is off East this weekend n/a to WPFC.. We have to replace him with 1 player… Whereas EP and Peel will always have the WC and Dockers players who are not selected in an equal amount each week. E.G 1 WC /Docker out of WAFL team and another takes his place… (unless injured)
I don’t like the alignment it isn’t fair, but the WAFL has not been fair for a long long time. I personally would have preferred the club folded and occupied a great part of WA history, I will continue to support them although any success is not meaningful. East Perth has contracted all of the required players for next year and beyond, although what does a contract mean. One of the top players may travel next year but will not play elsewhere. It is the the players who are on the fringe of league selection this year that may go or have signed elsewhere. These guys will not significantly strengthen other clubs. My best guess is six handy young players will move a few more will go bush.
I don’t like the alignment it isn’t fair, but the WAFL has not been fair for a long long time. I personally would have preferred the club folded and occupied a great part of WA history, I will continue to support them although any success is not meaningful. East Perth has contracted all of the required players for next year and beyond, although what does a contract mean. One of the top players may travel next year but will not play elsewhere. It is the the players who are on the fringe of league selection this year that may go or have signed elsewhere. These guys will not significantly strengthen other clubs. My best guess is six handy young players will move a few more will go bush.
[/quote]
dave i do agree don’t like the alignment.you are right about the comp not being fair.if the alignment was pulled it wouldn’t make things right.claremont to win third premiershup in a row.last year two teams made the league and reserves grand finals.these same two teams made the colts top four also.remember perth haven’t made the finals for 16 years.barring some disaster they could do it this year. peel have never made the finals.with or without the alignment there are structural problems with the comp and since they brought the points system in it has stifled subi.we live in interesting times and i have seen the best of the wafl pre 1987.still love the comp but only lots of money can get rid of the alignment and that ain’t gonna happen
i can’t give you a definite answer for next yeaqr as i don’t think any rules have been set in concrete.we have some clues by looking at the current rules and seeing what east perth have done this year and likely to do next year.
wafl rules are that all teams have to have a minimum 55 players on their senior list and no maximum but the list has to be a maximum 130 points.
at the moment east perth have 59 players and have used up 108 points well under
the 130 limit.in other words east perth could have another 22 local zone players if they want.most squads would be about 60 players as they have to field 22 league and 22 reserves and need spares to cover injuries.in this transitional year all clubs have afl listed players that are not included in their senior list and are zero point players.my gut feeling is that the wafc will limit the salary cap,points and non zone players.
if they limit the salry cap,points and non zone players i don’t think it will worry east perth.one reason we are 108 points is that adam prior went back east before the start of the season which freed up 10 points.two other non zone players have been left on the list but definitely are not playing so we are closer to using 100 points.if they do go with 100 points and we keep the same 5 non zone players we could have 44 local players for a total of 49.i suspect we will lose at least one maybe two non zone players and we most probably would go with a minimum 55 player list.also think if they give us a smaller salary cap it won’t worry us as they are the players who get the most pay it will be a financial saving.it will be interesting if they phase in non zone players for alignment clubs or once their contract is up they have to move.i don’t fancy 15 eagles playing for us next year hope they have a few injuries and it might be under 10.a point to think about is this.we already have clubs who are restricting their own juniors by recruiting non zone players.from last weeks league games here are totals.
swans 9,perth 8,subi,south and subi 6,peel 5,east perth 3,east fremantle 2.next year may see clubs playing half their sides as non zones if the right kind of players from east and peel decide to walk.
last week East Perth had 9 players from outside their zone:
Morton, Cripps, Wulf, Smith, Chartes,Johnson, Wilson, Lycett, Higgins.
where did you get 3 from ?
Firstly it is not possible for the WAFC to limit the number of AFL players who can play for Peel or the club formerly known as East Perth. If there are 18 Eagles’ players available to play in the WAFL and the Eagles want all 18 to play in the league they will play in the league.
There has been a lot said about the number of non-zone players that Swans had playing for them. Most of those players have been long term players of Swans and were recruited when we performing poorly in most of the grades for a number of years. Certainly in recent times we have had a number of locally produced players drafted to the AFL and as a consequence we have had a need to replace those players. It certainly could be argued that a number of those players are in the elite level of AFL players.
No matter how hard the spin the East Perth club have signed over control of their league squad to the Eagles. What the Eagles want is what they will get. I have a great deal of sympathy for long term East Perth supporters who have been forced to support a club which has sold out to the Eagles. If it had happened to Swans I am not sure I could have continued a 40 + years support of Swans.
Firstly it is not possible for the WAFC to limit the number of AFL players who can play for Peel or the club formerly known as East Perth. If there are 18 Eagles’ players available to play in the WAFL and the Eagles want all 18 to play in the league they will play in the league.
There has been a lot said about the number of non-zone players that Swans had playing for them. Most of those players have been long term players of Swans and were recruited when we performing poorly in most of the grades for a number of years. Certainly in recent times we have had a number of locally produced players drafted to the AFL and as a consequence we have had a need to replace those players. It certainly could be argued that a number of those players are in the elite level of AFL players.
No matter how hard the spin the East Perth club have signed over control of their league squad to the Eagles. What the Eagles want is what they will get. I have a great deal of sympathy for long term East Perth supporters who have been forced to support a club which has sold out to the Eagles. If it had happened to Swans I am not sure I could have continued a 40 + years support of Swans.
[/quote]
At no time have I commented abt Swans team etc, but I have to disagree with you abt the numbers of players the weagles will have on the field playing for EP.
The previous effort showed that there was a maximum of 10 but an average of 7. Worsfold and the dreaded ogre calling himself Nisbett have already stated that they believe it will be no more than 10. Now whilst I accept you cannot always beleive a car salesman, no apologies to any on the site, I think that I will wait and see.
The proposal I put foward was a way of limiting this and allowing every club to get some additional benefit not just the dollars.
At no time have I commented abt Swans team etc, but I have to disagree with you abt the numbers of players the weagles will have on the field playing for EP.
The previous effort showed that there was a maximum of 10 but an average of 7. Worsfold and the dreaded ogre calling himself Nisbett have already stated that they believe it will be no more than 10. Now whilst I accept you cannot always beleive a car salesman, no apologies to any on the site, I think that I will wait and see.
The proposal I put foward was a way of limiting this and allowing every club to get some additional benefit not just the dollars.
[/quote]
Grump whilst you may have every good intention to limit the damage the host club situation has on the integrity of the WAFL what the Eagles want they will get and to believe Worsfold is unreasonable. His promises are less than any politicians when it comes to the host club situation.
Haha you beat me to it MO ..“3 players” sounds a whole lot better to support their host club rubbish argument!
[/quote]
i was not talking about afl listed players.you obviously are ignorant of the rules spelled out in the rules as to what is constituted a zone or non zone player.wullfy played in our colts grand final and has been a one pointer and higgins counts as a non zone player because of the guidelines.there other players who are local zone players even tho they come from outside the district.obviously on your reasoning tallan ames must be non zone player as he is listed as trinty aquinas.wafl counts him as a one pointer because he meets the rules they make.on your reasoning tallan ames is a non zone player that would make you 10 i win
i was not talking about afl listed players.you obviously are ignorant of the rules spelled out in the rules as to what is constituted a zone or non zone player.wullfy played in our colts grand final and has been a one pointer and higgins counts as a non zone player because of the guidelines.there other players who are local zone players even tho they come from outside the district.obviously on your reasoning tallan ames must be non zone player as he is listed as trinty aquinas.wafl counts him as a one pointer because he meets the rules they make.on your reasoning tallan ames is a non zone player that would make you 10 i win
[/quote]
Tallan Ames is from Bassendean & played junior footy for Bassendean he went to school at Trinity College ..Wulf is from Thornlie (Perth’s zone), Higgins Swan Athletic (Swans zone) have another try chaddy!!
i was not talking about afl listed players.you obviously are ignorant of the rules spelled out in the rules as to what is constituted a zone or non zone player.wullfy played in our colts grand final and has been a one pointer and higgins counts as a non zone player because of the guidelines.there other players who are local zone players even tho they come from outside the district.obviously on your reasoning tallan ames must be non zone player as he is listed as trinty aquinas.wafl counts him as a one pointer because he meets the rules they make.on your reasoning tallan ames is a non zone player that would make you 10 i win
[/quote]
Tallan Ames is from Bassendean & played junior footy for Bassendean he went to school at Trinity College ..Wulf is from Thornlie (Perth’s zone), Higgins Swan Athletic (Swans zone) have another try chaddy!!
[/quote]
i’m not blushing because what is published in the budget is not what determines whether you are counted as a zone player it is complicated.needless to say some of your colts players who are zero points and will be one point local players are from mt lawley,clontarf,albany,cunderdin,is brookton pingelly in your country zone,maybe maybe not.in the end it doesn’t matter what you think about wullf and higgins because the wafl makes the rules on what is regarded as a non zone player and you are wrong and i am right because they are one pointers.you may think you are right but do some research.go to the wafl site and you might find a little bit more about zone and non zone players.some interesting reading.by the way clancee pearce played for noranda which is in the east perth zone.if i am not mistaken he is a mate of somebody at east perth i think clutterbuck.he was residentially bound to swans area as he lived just on the other side of the border.don’t take it to seriously what is in the budget.you are not going to win this arguement.
I don’t like the alignment it isn’t fair, but the WAFL has not been fair for a long long time. I personally would have preferred the club folded and occupied a great part of WA history, I will continue to support them although any success is not meaningful. East Perth has contracted all of the required players for next year and beyond, although what does a contract mean. One of the top players may travel next year but will not play elsewhere. It is the the players who are on the fringe of league selection this year that may go or have signed elsewhere. These guys will not significantly strengthen other clubs. My best guess is six handy young players will move a few more will go bush.
[/quote]
Royal 2019, I must give you credit for your post. You don’t like the alignment & no excuses. I also agree that the WAFL has not been fair for a long time. I do resent EP & the attitude of quite a few of the posters on this site & it is refreshing to see an EP supporter who is as unhappy as the majority of the non aligned supporters.
Although I resent EP, I hope the Eagles & Dockers & EP & Peel do not prosper under this arrangement over the next few years & the alignments are disbanded. As much as I loathe EP & Peel, I do not wish EP to fold as this would be unfair to the majority of EP supporters who love their club like you do & as non aligned supporters do.
I will be honest & say that while I have enjoyed watching the various EF AFL players play in the WAFL, I would prefer that the Eagles & Dockers enter a reserves side in the VFL. If the Crows & Power go the same way that would be even better. To me that is the more logical option. You have 10 AFL clubs with various affiliations with 11 VFL clubs. I think it would be more beneficial to the development of these players as they would be playing against other AFL aligned players as opposed to non aligned local WAFL players. It also removes the anomaly where sides have a larger portion of players recruited by the Eagles & Dockers than others.
With regards to the alignments, my major concern is that any restrictions imposed on EP & Peel are likely to be longer rather than shorter term. Logically the Eagles & Dockers will be more concerned with success at the AFL level rather than at the host club level. However that is more likely to occur if the 2 host clubs experience some level of early success themselves, as the players will probably enjoy playing more in winning sides.
I can’t see the AFL clubs being overly concerned with the concentration of AFL players in EP or Peel sides from week to week & I would expect that they would give a fair degree of protection to avoid a large exodus of players leaving these clubs due to an actual or perceived lack of opportunities. I am concerned that this protection may be excessive & allow these sides to continue to develop & protect their depth while other clubs are not allowed the same level of protection.
My concern is the creation of power clubs with little immediate restrictions with the potential to win quick flags & to dominate the completion. It may be one thing to place restrictions longer term, but how long will the current alignments last? 3, 5, 10 or more years. There has to be some reasonable short term restrictions placed on these club to at least to level up the playing field.
