WEST v Glenelg.

Does Hardy come in this week?
Do we lose all our young ones and fall in a hole?
Do we just bring in three reserve players and power on? YES.

Reckon we might be up against former Blood Tom Carter this week

If Francis ,Snelling and Haysman are out this week I would bring in
Hardy,Anderson and Favretto and my line up would be

FF BEECH HARDY FIELKE
HF HELBIG TUCK GREEN
C SILVERLOCK SCHMIDT EZARD
HB HILL MILNE FAVRETTO
FB CAIRE KEOUGH WASLEY-BLACK

1st R WILLITS PORPS STEVENS

INT NELSON SCHILLER ANDERSON

It's one thing to lose League players to an U18 Carnival but I think it's outrageous that we lose them for an U18 trial game. Seriously, an U18 trial game now outranks a SANFL League game in importance?

PISS POOR MY OPINION ONLY.

It's not just your opinion, Bundy, I agree with you.

I think the SANFL are setting a really poor standard with this. I think we all accept that lads should play in the U18 Championships as a pathway to the AFL. That's the reality now. However, these championships are supposed to be about showcasing talent and developing them.

Lads who are playing League football are already on the radar of the AFL clubs. They'll see them over several games during the championships, so to insist that a trial game is about anything other than winning is a nonsense.

As F9 says, the SANFL are making it clear that their League is less important than a trial game. They also encourage clubs to develop juniors and not rely on interstate receruiting and paying transfer fees.

Well, this decision blows that approach away. Why would you develop juniors if you're going to lose them for a large chunk of a season reduced to 18 games? Why would you take any notice of the SANFL telling clubs not to recruit interstate?

Where do the clubs stand?

Last.

Why don't all the clubs stand up to the Sanfl, if they keep dragging our juniors where do they expect clubs to get more players from to field competitive sides .Whats the use of developing them, plus the costs involved no wonder clubs are struggling.

Lee, am I right in presuming that it's up to us to release (or not) these players for this trial? If so, can I also presume that we have some good reason for releasing them?

Really close game to call toss of the coin.Bloods to fall in by 50pts.

Yes Aldo

I asked this question and its possible if we don't release them the SANFL could de-register a player(s) for a period of time eg) The length of the carnival. As the rules stand, SANFL clubs are in a no win situation. We will lobby for change but it doesn't help us this year.

Challenge it !!!!!

We have made numerous calls to the SANFL and had chats with a commissioner.... We get they will play in U18 carnival but the trial...... Pointless...

It makes it hard to argue with Colleges that we should have access to U18 players for league premiership point games when our own competition seems to value a trial game above serious competition points. This must change for future seasons if for nothing else but arguments of senior team integrity - I understand this is the feeling of most if not all league clubs

The U18's could have played 6 quarters of footy rotating players on a weeknight if it wanted to trial set-ups, zones, ruck plays and have made available players for this weeks league games - Especially since the week after, we all have a bye with the state game -

So all supporters who  have enjoyed westies winning run, in the next weeks  could be crushed , u guys on the boards DONT know how to stand up for your clubs against the  AFL and the SANFL. And love  to drive your supporters away, no wonder memberships drop.5 people I know who don't even follow westies but other clubs have give it away since the the wort power con  to have a side in the sanfl, whats his name Sabastian bach, ck, or David Koch, kock. When they went into the Afl what were they called port power now its port adeliade , wake up all sanfl supporters , I cant believe the power still have a reserves side.Whats the deal with this .
Players from Woodville West Torrens zone allowed to play for Port . eagles not allowed to look at them first .
My understanding they can not play league for Port . So whats the Point .
Is it another case of Wort demanding and getting everything they want .Just remeber it isint just our club that will suffer so go out:affraid:

Mark Beswick wrote:Yes Aldo

I asked this question and its possible if we don't release them the SANFL could de-register a player(s) for a period of time  eg) The length of the carnival.   As the rules stand, SANFL clubs are in a no win situation.  We will lobby for change but it doesn't help us this year.

So it's "If they don't play for the U18s they don't play at all." If that's the suggestion that's coming from the SANFL it would show that the people involved come first, and the players' best interests second.

merrick wrote:So all supporters who  have enjoyed westies winning run, in the next weeks  could be crushed , u guys on the boards DONT know how to stand up for your clubs against the  AFL and the SANFL. And love  to drive your supporters away, no wonder memberships drop.5 people I know who don't even follow westies but other clubs have give it away since the the wort power con  to have a side in the sanfl, whats his name Sabastian bach, ck, or David Koch, kock. When they went into the Afl what were they called port power now its port adeliade , wake up all sanfl supporters , I cant believe the power still have a reserves side.Whats the deal with this .
Players from Woodville West Torrens zone allowed to play for Port . eagles not allowed to look at them first .
My understanding they can not play league for Port . So whats the Point .
Is it another case of Wort demanding and getting everything they want .Just remeber it isint just our club that will suffer so go out:affraid:  

I'm sorry, merrick, but the Board and the club have done everything possible to stand up to the SANFL on this.  We've had meetings at the highest level, communication with all parties and two Board members are not making themselves popular with the SANFL (no doubt) by campaigning against it on public forums like this.  We can't flout the rules and you and I wouldn't like the (correct) penalties if we did.

I should also add that, although I disagree with the SANFL on this point, they have been extraordinarily supportive of our club recently, they are good people and we owe them more than you could realise for our club continuing.


As for you saying we're driving away members, please let me know how we're doing this and what we should do to change that perception.

I would confidently say we are the most open Board with members in the history of our club.

I don't really care about the under 18s . It seems like everything now is about 4 under 18 players.  I just hope we win on Sunday.

While I agree that it is ridiculous u18 league players are forced to miss because of a trial game, I'm with ST on this one. We have known since the start of the year that this could happen, so why start complaining now. It just makes us look like whingers and looking for excuses if we happen to lose on sunday.

Anyway our squad for sunday still looks very strong while Glenelgs looks very weak. Be disappointed if we don't win by a good margin.

If we want to be know as a serious football club we shouldn't be relying on 18 year old boys

I think its a credit to club as a whole we can rely on 18 year olds. Also agree we knew these players would be used in the carnival. Our contention was playing in a trial not the carnival.

With luck, we will use the opportunity to give some more players an opportunity to play league and perform well. I may be wrong, but I think the U18 players in the carnival are rotated and are not allowed to play all games. Whether this means they may make an appearance before July with us again I'm not sure.

As Lee did say, the SANFL has supported our club in other ways, but we have not been passive with issues that we believe needed to be confronted - There are other issues we are still seeking changes for as well - Be assured, on one of these issues, our club stood alone with a vote while others caved in. These other clubs are now wanting certain changes that our board has stayed strong on and still canvassing. We are very united as a board and only want the best for our club, players and supporters but sometimes things move slower than we like and some issues wil be addressed in seasons ahead as a result of our determination to make our club and league as strong as we can.

Second Team wrote:. It seems like everything now is about 4 under 18 players.  I just hope we win on Sunday.

Agree ST.

Chalk up another thread talking about the SANFL v AFL.

I rate the boys coming into the side this week very highly and I am backing us to get up.

billrobs1 wrote:

Chalk up another thread talking about the SANFL v AFL.

Why wouldn't you talk about instances of SANFL clubs' interests being compromised by others?

[/quote]

Why wouldn't you talk about instances of SANFL clubs' interests being compromised by others?[/quote]

AR just think its a good topic to discuss but maybe deserving of its own thread.

Billrobs - Agree Anderson, Middleton are exciting - I really rate Mason and also agree with ST - Has a huge upside - Hardy is a past Ken Farmer Medal winner and with some luck going for him, could become a huge bonus for us

Another way of looking at this saga is its great we have this issue to discuss. I can;t ever remember us having so many quality juniors making league impacts from season 1 - I hope we can continue having sustained success with our CEO (U18) programme. But all WAFC people know with the zones we have had in the past, we have to make sure going forward we remain aggressive with our approach to building our zones, keeping them and expanding them when they are re-distributed after the next census. Squeaky doors in this day and age get oiled rather than ignored - You only have to see how often Port Adelaide has got its way over the years hence why we have been outspoken and will continue to be in as many places as possible to keep our club front and centre of issues that effect us.

Lee Harradine wrote:
I'm sorry, merrick, but the Board and the club have done everything possible to stand up to the SANFL on this.  We've had meetings at the highest level, communication with all parties and two Board members are not making themselves popular with the SANFL (no doubt) by campaigning against it on public forums like this.  We can't flout the rules and you and I wouldn't like the (correct) penalties if we did.

I should also add that, although I disagree with the SANFL on this point, they have been extraordinarily supportive of our club recently, they are good people and we owe them more than you could realise for our club continuing.


I would confidently say we are the most open Board with members in the history of our club.

Lee,
What was the reasoning behind the SANFLs stance on this matter?
It seems to me that the SANFL were caught napping, since its the first time (from my recollection) that a significant number of U18s are playing in one league team. So its interesting to hear that they have been supportive, leaving me confused as to their stance......do they really rank an U18 State trial higher than a League minor round?

And thanks to the club for having such an "open" Board.