2nds West Coast Eagles WAFL Watch 2024

[Alesana]

Is the game being broadcast anywhere?

There should a link on this page once it's live

AFL - News, Fixtures, Scores & Results - AFL.com.au

Australian Football League. All the latest AFL news, video, results and information

www.afl.com.au

 

[Grahame]

No that’s not what I meant. They changed the constitution to require that any proposed alignment has to be voted on by the members.

So it’s not impossible. We’d just have to come up with a model their members would accept.

Okay that’s good. What I have tried pointing out is it’s possible for a large number of new pro-amalgamation members joining who could then outvote the current anti-amalgamation members.

I did mention the word ‘coup’. In politics it’s called branch stacking.

And I also mentioned that in 1995 less than 200 members decided if Perth would head to Kalamunda. That is, a tiny number.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

You’re possibly right but there’s a few ‘ifs’ there that shouldn’t be the basis for a stable AFL reserves team.

And I know SFA about the situation but again I don’t think it is a winner to have players farmed out. It can hinder development with the senior team having no say over positions for players.

It seems alignment is the best option but I realise Perth have an anti Eagles constituent. But how many members do they have? Do members immediately get voting rights? Get my drift?

From Wiki:
There were unsuccessful plans by the WAFL to relocate the Demons to the Perth Hills to capture expanding outer suburbs as West Perth did by moving to Joondalup, but in spite of the trouble many players had travelling to Lathlain, the Perth board voted by 115 to 83 to remain there on 11 July 1995.


So 198 members decided the fate of the club then.
How many members now? And more importantly how many members to change the constitution?

So ... We should all just pony up the $5 to become Perth members and all vote for a West Coast alignment?

 

[Grahame]

So ... We should all just pony up the $5 to become Perth members and all vote for a West Coast alignment?

Just throwing it out there. But it’s something that the club could never (openly) agree with or initiate.

PS: that’s why I was asking about 1. how many current members?and 2. any current restrictions on voting on constitutional matters eg. only 5+ year members?

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Just throwing it out there. But it’s something that the club could never (openly) agree with or initiate.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Did that happen? Find that hard to believe.

See my other post. What I meant was, the constitution was changed so that the club can’t align with an AFL side without first putting it to the members to vote on.

 

[Grahame]

Does anyone know how many members Perth has? Simple question.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Does anyone know how many members Perth has? Simple question.

Somewhere between 500 and 700 based on the amount of membership revenue they recorded in their last annual report and the cost of a membership.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Does anyone know how many members Perth has? Simple question.

Most of the WAFL clubs have between 2k to 3k.
Exact numbers I am not sure.

 

[Underdog]

Just throwing it out there. But it’s something that the club could never (openly) agree with or initiate.

PS: that’s why I was asking about 1. how many current members?and 2. any current restrictions on voting on constitutional matters eg. only 5+ year members?

Because it is revolting behaviour...

 

[Underdog]

TBH, even if it's mandatory for members to vote on alignment, I'd suspect that the position would need to be endorsed by the board and/or committee before going to vote. Proper governance. You wouldn't just throw things out to the member base wily nily.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I don’t think a hostile takeover of a WAFL club is the answer to this issue, or in anyone’s interests including ours.

 

[Grahame]

I understand there is emotion about changes to clubs. We've all seen the irreparable damage done to the WAFL clubs, and I assume the SANFL clubs (plus Fitzroy and South Melbourne).

However, the Eagles need to find a solution to the Beagles lack of competitiveness. And ... Perth seems to be a perennial cellar dweller on (and off?) the field. Aligning with WCE brings them money at least, but back to that later.

There seem to be two relevant clauses in their constitution.

5.3.1 A person who desires to become a member must:
(b) be nominated for membership by two members;

19.3 Alignment with a WA Based AFL club
19.3.1 In the event that the Club is considering aligning with one of the WA based AFL clubs, to allow players from that club to play with Perth Football Club in WAFL sponsored games, full details of any such proposal must be submitted to members at a Special General Meeting as an ordinary resolution for approval.


So given WCE has 100K+ members (plus countless non-members) it would seem that it's not an impossible task to get 1. get sufficient (new) Perth members who'd support 2. getting alignment with an AFL club.

Okay cue the outrage. But first consider ... it could be a Win:Win. It would seem Perth FC have two options if the Eagles supporters are joining their club in numbers (which then eventually brings mega$$ from the WCE alignment) -

1. put their head in the sand (and possibly be perennial under achievers) and/or get completely washed away by a tsunami; or
2. get ahead of the tsunami while they still have leverage to ensure as much of the PFC remains as possible. This could e.g. be naming rights (so even if legally it has to be WCE then it could 'trading as Perth Football Club'); or, nominating a maximum number of WCE players in the 'Perth' firsts (say 1/2 or 2/3 of the team) to keep some sort of continuity given injury fluctuations; or, it could be playing in Perth jumpers etc etc etc.

This is all just off the top of my head. It is an attempt to find a left field solution to what seems an intractable problem in making the Beagles competitive - which is critical for the Eagles development, plus, it would put us on a more even level with most AFL clubs.

Constructive thoughts?

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

5.3.1 A person who desires to become a member must:
(b) be nominated for membership by two members

What a strange clause.

Maybe they anticipated this discussion

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I understand there is emotion about changes to clubs. We've all seen the irreparable damage done to the WAFL clubs, and I assume the SANFL clubs (plus Fitzroy and South Melbourne).

However, the Eagles need to find a solution to the Beagles lack of competitiveness. And ... Perth seems to be a perennial cellar dweller on (and off?) the field. Aligning with WCE brings them money at least, but back to that later.

There seem to be two relevant clauses in their constitution.

5.3.1 A person who desires to become a member must:
(b) be nominated for membership by two members;

19.3 Alignment with a WA Based AFL club
19.3.1 In the event that the Club is considering aligning with one of the WA based AFL clubs, to allow players from that club to play with Perth Football Club in WAFL sponsored games, full details of any such proposal must be submitted to members at a Special General Meeting as an ordinary resolution for approval.


So given WCE has 100K+ members (plus countless non-members) it would seem that it's not an impossible task to get 1. get sufficient (new) Perth members who'd support 2. getting alignment with an AFL club.

Okay cue the outrage. But first consider ... it could be a Win:Win. It would seem Perth FC have two options if the Eagles supporters are joining their club in numbers (which then eventually brings mega$$ from the WCE alignment) -

1. put their head in the sand (and possibly be perennial under achievers) and/or get completely washed away by a tsunami; or
2. get ahead of the tsunami while they still have leverage to ensure as much of the PFC remains as possible. This could e.g. be naming rights (so even if legally it has to be WCE then it could 'trading as Perth Football Club'); or, nominating a maximum number of WCE players in the 'Perth' firsts (say 1/2 or 2/3 of the team) to keep some sort of continuity given injury fluctuations; or, it could be playing in Perth jumpers etc etc etc.

This is all just off the top of my head. It is an attempt to find a left field solution to what seems an intractable problem in making the Beagles competitive - which is critical for the Eagles development, plus, it would put us on a more even level with most AFL clubs.

Constructive thoughts?

Let’s say hypothetically Perth agreed to align, would the Eagles make the sane mistakes again by trying to run Perth would they work with Perth.

I believe our development has been hurt by a poor football program under Simmo and the clubs fitness department, poor recruitment at AFL level in that we have recruited many average players.
We now have it all new at the club with a new coach and I am hoping a new fitness department. I expect our Beagles will improve sharply as long as our AFL list is fit and healthy. This will also help development of players as they will be in a much more competitive environment.

 

[Grahame]

I don’t think a hostile takeover of a WAFL club is the answer to this issue, or in anyone’s interests including ours.

I don't totally disagree. I get it, change hurts. But Perth FC are intransigent about aligning with us. Whether it is 600 or 2500 members it is minute compared with any AFL club (and especially us).

What is Perth's long term prospects? Is the current trajectory going to include success?

Anyway, I'm not wedded to the idea. I'm simply trying to look outside the box. And put a cat among the pigeons.

 

[Grahame]

We now have it all new at the club with a new coach and I am hoping a new fitness department. I expect our Beagles will improve sharply as long as our AFL list is fit and healthy. This will also help development of players as they will be in a much more competitive environment.

If ...

 

[chaddy22]

Okay that’s good. What I have tried pointing out is it’s possible for a large number of new pro-amalgamation members joining who could then outvote the current anti-amalgamation members.

I did mention the word ‘coup’. In politics it’s called branch stacking.

And I also mentioned that in 1995 less than 200 members decided if Perth would head to Kalamunda. That is, a tiny number.

Were the 200 members physically at the meeting or were letters sent to all their members to reply.
Their is a difference. Not all members of a club attend a AGM or a meeting.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I expect our Beagles will improve sharply as long as our AFL list is fit and healthy.

Last year we were relatively fit and healthy, and we averaged roughly 12 AFL-listed players in the WAFL each week. Max of 16 (once), two games of 15.

So, in any given week, we’re going to need 7-10 non AFL-listed players to fill out the side, ie a third to nearly half the side. And that’s without injuries hitting too hard.

Even with our AFL list improving, we’re going to be hit by the WAFL list going backwards, unless we can actually recruit a Ruscoe equivalent or two or three. Because the WAFL list is always going to be making up a large chunk of the onfield side each week.

 

[chaddy22]

5.3.1 A person who desires to become a member must:
(b) be nominated for membership by two members

What a strange clause.

Maybe they anticipated this discussion

Before i became a member of East Perth in the nineties you had to be nominated.
I think it varies club by club.
Membership is different in the Wafl. East Perth have member days. We can ask questions of the president and board members at the Agm. I had a brief talk with the coach.
Membership at a Wafl club is more democratic and viewpoints can at least be aired.
Apart from a seat at the footy what benefits do a Eagles member have. Do your views get listened to

 

[chaddy22]

I don't totally disagree. I get it, change hurts. But Perth FC are intransigent about aligning with us. Whether it is 600 or 2500 members it is minute compared with any AFL club (and especially us).

What is Perth's long term prospects? Is the current trajectory going to include success?

Anyway, I'm not wedded to the idea. I'm simply trying to look outside the box. And put a cat among the pigeons.

Unlike East Perth's financial mess which forced them into a alignment i think Perth are financially ok.
Some of their diehards would rather fold or stay down the bottom then align with the hope of success.
I have seen how the alignment worked at East Perth and it wasn't a partnership.
I am not sure lessons have been learnt.
Dockers have been a lot better in their alignment with Peel.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Unlike East Perth's financial mess which forced them into a alignment i think Perth are financially ok.
Some of their diehards would rather fold or stay down the bottom then align with the hope of success.
I have seen how the alignment worked at East Perth and it wasn't a partnership.
I am not sure lessons have been learnt.
Dockers have been a lot better in their alignment with Peel.

One would like to think the dictator attitude is now gone at the Eagles.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I have seen how the alignment worked at East Perth and it wasn't a partnership.
I am not sure lessons have been learnt.

Which is why I suggested Pyke sit down with Barich and ask what is it exactly that concerns members about an alignment, and what could we put in an alignment agreement to assuage those concerns?

For example:

• a limit on the number of AFL-listed players in the senior side (say 12)
• keep your own coaches and gameplan etc
• AFL club can provide input on how/where an AFL player can be played, but ultimately the decision is up to the game day coach.

Those sort of conditions would obviously make an alignment less beneficial to WCE than a complete takeover, where we’d get to implement our own gameplan and play players in their (our) preferred positions. But I think it’d still be more beneficial than the current shambles.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I was hoping we were secretly in talks with Hardie, turns out he’s joining Culley at Casey.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Be pretty hard to make a case the WAFL hasn’t given the Eagles respect. They constantly have to bend over to accommodate them.
But you could make a solid case the Eagles have not respected the WAFL and where they were born from.

Your case is so strong you didn't even attempt to make it....

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Which is why I suggested Pyke sit down with Barich and ask what is it exactly that concerns members about an alignment, and what could we put in an alignment agreement to assuage those concerns?

For example:

• a limit on the number of AFL-listed players in the senior side (say 12)
• keep your own coaches and gameplan etc
• AFL club can provide input on how/where an AFL player can be played, but ultimately the decision is up to the game day coach.

Those sort of conditions would obviously make an alignment less beneficial to WCE than a complete takeover, where we’d get to implement our own gameplan and play players in their (our) preferred positions. But I think it’d still be more beneficial than the current shambles.

You want us to go cap in hand to a nearly bankrupt football club?

He should be cosying up to us in the real world. In this crazy world, Pyke is too weak to do anything but beg