I awoke did the usual and then went got the paper off the front lawn, wander in and something caught my eye.
The back page and page 93 indicate that the other 8 clubs are a little annoyed at WP about the channel 9 and broadcasting issues, so much so that they and the governing body are looking at removing WP from the finals unless they drop the STW logo.
Couple of interesting things for me, firstly the obvious refusal to recognise them as Joondalup, I think this is a small thing but suggests a bit of a put down. Second thing is that all of the other 8 clubs are part of the move and it appears that, to me at least, there is another motive about the move.
Perhaps the G7 has lost a little of its impetus and now it is more about the whole rather than the individual clubs. WP have moved away from the other clubs and are now seen as the bigger issue by those running football in this state with the 9 sponsorship.
I personally have no issue with WP and their 9 sponsorship. My angst in this issue is that the WAFC/WAFL did not or do not understand that they have a huge role in protecting the competition and that includes a role in approving any sponsorship deal. The EPL, NFL and AFL along with any number of other codes have set rules about how and who sponsorship deals are made, the WAFC have understood their corporate role in this and they are to blame for the fiasco, marginally less but still need to accept they need to do more in this area.
An interesting take on the entire fiasco
Excerpt from Perth Community News
A GLOBAL sponsorship expert has weighed in on the WAFL dispute between West Perth sponsor Channel 9 and TV rights holder Channel 7.
Chicago-based IEG is one of the world’s leading sponsorship advisory companies.
The Times contacted senior vice-president Jim Andrews for his opinion on Channel 7’s refusal to broadcast West Perth games because of the Falcons’ jumpers featuring the Nine News logo.
Mr Andrews explained sports teams would normally avoid sponsorship from a rival broadcaster because TV rights deals were typically a competition’s major source of revenue. But given Channel 7’s WAFL TV rights deal did not follow this model, he said it “changes everything” in terms of the expectations it should place on a team’s choice of sponsor.
He said if Channel 9’s sponsorship of West Perth pre-dated the Channel 7 agreement, then “negotiations to resolve the issue should have happened at that point, not after the sale (of the TV rights) was finalised”.
West Perth is adamant Nine sponsored the club before the WA Football Commission (WAFC) began negotiations with Channel 7.
But the WAFC claims it warned the Falcons of a possible Channel 7 broadcast deal, which they chose to ignore when signing with Nine.
It was a perplexing situation for Mr Andrews, who said it was “difficult to find a comparable deal”.
“The situation involving the West Perth Falcons and the two broadcasters is, as far as I know, truly unique,” he said.
“This is an unusual situation because the Channel 9-Falcons deal is atypical. Broadcast entities rarely purchase high visibility partnerships, such as jersey sponsorship.”
While Mr Andrews was unaware of any comparable dilemma in world sport, the Times found an example from American soccer in 2007.
In a Fox Soccer Channel-featured league known as USL-1, which at the time was second tier to the professional Major Soccer League, Miami FC was broadcast wearing GolTV sponsorship on its strips.
GolTV is a US pay-TV channel that competes with Fox Sports for the broadcast rights to worldwide soccer leagues.
American soccer analyst Kartik Krishnaiyer recalls Fox permitted the shirt sponsorship in exchange for highlights footage from the Copa America, to which GolTV had the rights.
“I believe Fox simply wanted GolTV to provide bumper coverage (highlights) of the Copa,” he said.
“They got that for the nightly show they used to run called Fox Soccer Report.
“It all worked out.”
Hmm this appears on the surface to be a mobbing tactic to force West Perth to comply. I am annoyed that as a Swans member I have not been told as to why my club has joined the WAFC and the other WAFL clubs in isolating West Perth instead of confronting the WAFC who have been totally incompetent in dealing with this situation.
If West Perth are ejected from the finals as a result of this action, I for one will not be attending any of the WAFL finals in protest even if Swans are a beneficiary of this decision in that they play a final because West Perth miss out. In this case the finals series will be a sham and I would not want to contribute any of my hard earned money towards watching this when one of the best teams in 2015 will not be competing
This only further highlights how amateur the running of this competition has become.
This all should have been negotiated into the initial talks and contract discussions with the service provider, the WAFC has had its 50 E/W from day 1. By stating that they advised against is not a satisfactory response. In an era where ALL clubs are doing what they can to survive whether it be through sponsorship or other relationships it is ludicrous to expect a club to put a lucrative deal on the back burner and wait for the outcome of an on again / off again deal between the commission and service provider.
Had the deal gone south between the commission and service provider, and Channel 9 withdrew its initial offer (or worse taken it elsewhere) where would have that left the club? Was the WAFC willing to write a cheque to cater for any financial losses?
I was under the impression the TV Rights was about putting the WAFL brand front and centre, promoting and growing the brand. Now due the lack of governance from the WAFC throughout this whole ordeal we instead face more negativity surrounding the brand which is becoming more farcical than a poorly run reality TV show.
Gee the G7 presidents have shown some real spine. Lets hope the emergency meeting between the WAFC and WP chaired by the Independant Chairman can come to a compromise.
I must say I am disappointed with the other G7 presidents ganging up on West Perth like this, I was under the belief that this comp was like a brotherhood and that they would look out for each other, in the past we have had clubs in financial difficulty and other clubs and supporters donate money and help out, so this just goes against the grain and goes to show how out of touch I am.
Thank you to the opposition supporters who understand and support us.
I’m with you on that mikeh. The league is already compromised enough without withdrawing teams from the comp because they have a sponsor who was prepared to invest in it. Bringing the game in to disrepute my arse.
I’m disgusted if my club Swans have backed the WAFC in this argument as suggested. After reading the article I noticed that there is also an article stating that the clubs want the reversal of the cut in draft fees. Call me a conspiracist but looking at the glaringly obvious it appears the WAFC have dangled a carrot in front of the other clubs to get them to back them in their argument with West Perth. What is bloody obvious is that these people in the WAFC don’t give a hoot about the integrity of the comp they manage when they are letting a sponsor dictate what is bringing the game in to disrepute. It will be the end of the WAFL for me if West Perth are removed from finals. I love my footy club SD but if they are to play in a competition where sponsors can dictate who does and doesn’t play finals then I will do something else with my Saturday afternoons. I hope West Perth fight this in every way possible and in court whereas people will be under oath when they make bold statements as to the truth, something those at the WAFC have a proven track record of manipulating.
Thanks for your support DW… You bring out some good points especially the carrot being dangled to clubs.. Not into conspiracies but it could be offers of support if they tow the WAFC Line. Hope your dont mind if I cut and paste your post and put it on the WPFC Thread.
As you say if they do this it can and would be the end of the WAFL as we know it
Whilst I support my club passionately I would have not choice but to move on and end my support for the WAFL.. It would be a HUGE step back on our comp that we love if this decision is followed through. I am sure many WAFL supporters will leave and not support the WAFL due to the decisions made by the WAFC an organisation that is being controlled by a TV Network and their obvious non support of the WAFL right down to advertising etc etc.
Time will tell.
This article gives a clear picture of the lies and incompetence of the WAFC is capable of.
Looking at the committee it is obvious the AFL is their prime concern and Grass roots footy is a thorn in their side.. gotta maintain it because of the feeder system to the AFL.
No probs Cardy…I will be heading straight to Hodes and Botts at this weekends game for answers as to why they have adopted a pro WAFC stance in an issue that clearly undermines the integrity of our comp even further.
No probs Cardy…I will be heading straight to Hodes and Botts at this weekends game for answers as to why they have adopted a pro WAFC stance in an issue that clearly undermines the integrity of our comp even further.
[/quote]
No worries.. I have it from another source that the article is not exactly true and not all presidents were for this action.. The media does slant things sometimes and get the FACTS wrong. Another point bought out by Brett on interview on 6PR is that the WAFC negotiations were a farce as the WAFC had made its mind up re Channel 7 before the bids were made by Chn 9
It is interesteing to to note that EP have CHN 7 as sponsers and Chn 9 would of know this when making their bid… I suspect knowing this they would not of made the same conditions that Channel 7 Now purport to have made re Chan 9 bid.
But as has already been said and if you read the article above WPFC had 9 sponsership before the decision was made as to who would get the rights.
Found it interesting that Dorro said on Sat morning ABC programme he didnt have a issue with CHN 7 getting the TV rights but had a issue with the major sponsers money being taken in one hand and going to CHN 7 in the other hand when the sponsership money is there to be used to support WAFL development and put back into the WAFL Junior clubs are struggling etc etc. A million dollars is a lot of money to pay a network when they also advertise the major sponsers during their FREE COVERAGE.. (Have a look the logo on top left of screen next time you watch a game)… Ok it is free to air but certainly not free for the WAFL.
Likewise I will be asking the same questions of Rait and Kemp when I see them over the weekend.Like DW has pointed out sounds like the G7 presidents have done the old backflip and are in the corner of the WAFC on this issue the carrot being the promise to reverse the cut in draft fee dollars
this comp has been rooted since they introduced that pointless crab club nearly 20 years ago. And its been rooted every year at every turn by the people responsible for running the thing since then.
all this over a local footy comp that in all honesty, most people don’t care about. You would think its a FIFA world cup deal the way they are carrying on. In the end Channel 7 are the dick heads. All of this bullshit has only given Channel 9 a heap of free publicity. If they just broadcasted WP games, nobody would care less. Because lets be real here, the public don’t actually give a rats arse about a logo while they are watching a game. I expect the WAFL GF crowd to be the smallest in history this year, because most people have had a gutful. Its bad enough my club is now one tenth of its original identity, now the rest of comp is just a charade too. Like Ive said before the SANFL must be absolutely pissing themselves looking at whats going on here in WA with the coconuts in charge.
What has actually McDonalds and C7 done to promote WAFL in 2015? Has the food chain done give-aways? promoted the wafl through their chains? I don’t know, I don’t visit the obesity centre. C7, what have they done? Get back to the ABC. All this for $250,000.
The G7 is a powerless joke that is nothing more than an illusionary group that is reliant on the AFL for their existance, they have zero say in anything in the end.
In saying that a few weeks ago I actually started to get tired of WP’s intranscient attitude on this whole issue, thyey have put their own bottom line ahead of the entire comp. basically WP seem to think they are more important than they actually are, if they were really serious about WAFL they would swallow their pride and move on.
pretty much spot on , I agree, actually the whole things been rooted since the eagles and then more and more so since peel the dockers and the story goes on and on.
on the flip side WP could do the same and just cover their ch 9 logo for a couple of games after all who gives a rats public wise.
I agree the WAFL GF could out do last year if its Peel v EP.
SANFL have spent the last 30 yrs laughing at the WAFL halfwits.
Lets hope the emergency meeting between the WAFC and WP chaired by the Independant Chairman can come to a compromise.
