G'day Punter!

In this Discussion

Who's Online

0 Members & 17 Non Members

WAFL Finals Series

Sport

Comments

  • TiversTivers    7,720 posts
    The WAFL teams are the ones who said no to the seperate reserves teams, so......
  • JayJayJayJay    7,630 posts
    edited September 2017
    Schofield spoke a lot of sense post match and it wasn't sour grapes, it was reality. It is a nonsense that Peel played Dockers players who in all probability will be de-listed Dawson etc) and DIDN'T player younger guys who may well be drafted (Naughton, Manning). After playing an average of 10 Dockers players throughout the season, they rock up with 15 and 17 in the finals series or whatever it was. The flag (not the Peel Footy Club...they just played by the stupid rules) has zero credibility amongst WAFL footy followers, none what so ever. The WAFC could not run a cold bath and will continue to dissolve the WAFL whilst building their castles.
    However, what Schofield didn't talk about was the magnificent financial arrangement that Subi had (to their advantage over all other WAFL clubs) via the SFC bar arrangements at AFL home games. Go ask the financially crippled WAFL clubs about that cosy arrangement. 

    VillageKid, Ridersonthestorm33, jum likes this post.

  • VillageKidVillageKid    2,275 posts
    Well said JJ.
    As a passionate SD & WAFL supporter it makes me sick in the guts to see what the alignment and the $ubiaco financial domination has done to our 133 year old comp.

    Ridersonthestorm33, jum likes this post.

  • JayJayJayJay    7,630 posts
    Cam Shepherd...Coach of the Year....oh pleeeze! Swap places with with the Demons, Old Easts or the Black Duck's  coaches and see how you go. Another call that has zero credibility amongst fair dinkum WAFL followers..If only George was still running ABC Sportstalk, he would have these WAFC Muppets for breakfast.

    Ridersonthestorm33, squid69 likes this post.

  • TiversTivers    7,720 posts
    You hit the answer spot on JJ.
    They should be allowed to play in finals only the number of listed players they AVERAGED throughout the season (rounded up).
    Doesn't deny the Freo reserves a game, and doesn't stack the team to the detriment of the competition once Freo are (inevitably) out.
  • dungydungy    9,278 posts
    Tivers said:

    You hit the answer spot on JJ.

    They should be allowed to play in finals only the number of listed players they AVERAGED throughout the season (rounded up).
    Doesn't deny the Freo reserves a game, and doesn't stack the team to the detriment of the competition once Freo are (inevitably) out.
    100% i think the new ruling will be you have to had played over 70% for Peel to qualify to play finals , i think its wrong but all these other clubs voted for the alignment so go figure 
  • VillageKidVillageKid    2,275 posts
    dungy said:

    Tivers said:

    You hit the answer spot on JJ.

    They should be allowed to play in finals only the number of listed players they AVERAGED throughout the season (rounded up).
    Doesn't deny the Freo reserves a game, and doesn't stack the team to the detriment of the competition once Freo are (inevitably) out.
    100% i think the new ruling will be you have to had played over 70% for Peel to qualify to play finals , i think its wrong but all these other clubs voted for the alignment so go figure 
    That is incorrect.
    The WAFL clubs did not vote for the alignment in fact they did not even get too have a vote as the former WAFC Chairman & CEO and the 2 WA AFL club sycophants Cooper & Walton forced it upon them as EP & Peel had jumped into bed behind the other G7 WAFL clubs back with WC & Freo respectively.

  • TiversTivers    7,720 posts
    Correct.
    They voted AGAINST the introduction of reserves teams.
    Didn't get a vote on the alignment.
Sign In or Register to comment.