2025 Season

[BeNatural]

Shame to see Flinders losing their best players to Comets after staying up this season.

[WNPL Hub]

There seems to be a lot of movement away from the clubs that finished near the bottom. It may be because of a number of reasons:

- change of coach
- lack of clear vision / new signings
- sick of continual underperformance

[Olimpico]

What's better for a player: playing seniors for a bottom team, or playing reserves for a top team?
I'm expecting, "It depends"

[Kranker]

What's better for a player: playing seniors for a bottom team, or playing reserves for a top team?
I'm expecting, "It depends"

Best thing is to play......find the level where your going to get a game in the first 11 every week.

[Riggles64]

Playing in Reserves for a top team is always beneficial. The pressure for the seniors with a strong reserves will generally deliver good results. Playing in the first team in a low ranked club is abysmal and would only deter a player from continuing. I applaude quite strongly any player that believes that they are probably better off looking at other options. What do they say? You'll never know what you don't know.

Comets have, since preparing for entry into the WNPL, always been active seeking new players to complement their team. And they've done it so well. List management 101.

Other teams that were at the top probably paid the price for being less active in that space and where they have been finishing the last couple of years is testament to poor list management.

What's better for a player: playing seniors for a bottom team, or playing reserves for a top team?
I'm expecting, "It depends"

[totsreds08]

Playing in Reserves for a top team is always beneficial. The pressure for the seniors with a strong reserves will generally deliver good results. Playing in the first team in a low ranked club is abysmal and would only deter a player from continuing. I applaude quite strongly any player that believes that they are probably better off looking at other options. What do they say? You'll never know what you don't know.

Comets have, since preparing for entry into the WNPL, always been active seeking new players to complement their team. And they've done it so well. List management 101.

Other teams that were at the top probably paid the price for being less active in that space and where they have been finishing the last couple of years is testament to poor list management.

What's better for a player: playing seniors for a bottom team, or playing reserves for a top team?
I'm expecting, "It depends"

Completely disagree. Why would anyone want to strive to play reserves at a top club? Show some ambition and actually fight to help the struggling clubs progress. Taking the easy way out will come boring for the players and if you wish to go play reserves because you’re at the top club, it just shows a lack of heart.

Clubs that have done well in reserves level doesn’t translate to seniors.
Previous ressies winners have been metro, Uni, metro. I doubt your top clubs are seeking wnpl players to play ressies anyways.

Comets and West do well because of their money and branding too. Its nothing to do with list management. If they want someone, chances are they’ll get them. When you have the financial backing and a good history, you can do as you please.


There isn’t much reward for the female focused clubs who actually put time and effort into their programs. Instead, your best get raided by a club who just values senior success.
It would be nice to see fsa want to grow the female pathway more and actually help those with strong programs retain players easier or put a cap on spending/signing.

[romarios shin]

Playing in Reserves for a top team is always beneficial. The pressure for the seniors with a strong reserves will generally deliver good results. Playing in the first team in a low ranked club is abysmal and would only deter a player from continuing. I applaude quite strongly any player that believes that they are probably better off looking at other options. What do they say? You'll never know what you don't know.

Comets have, since preparing for entry into the WNPL, always been active seeking new players to complement their team. And they've done it so well. List management 101.

Other teams that were at the top probably paid the price for being less active in that space and where they have been finishing the last couple of years is testament to poor list management.

What's better for a player: playing seniors for a bottom team, or playing reserves for a top team?
I'm expecting, "It depends"

Completely disagree. Why would anyone want to strive to play reserves at a top club? Show some ambition and actually fight to help the struggling clubs progress. Taking the easy way out will come boring for the players and if you wish to go play reserves because you’re at the top club, it just shows a lack of heart.

Clubs that have done well in reserves level doesn’t translate to seniors.
Previous ressies winners have been metro, Uni, metro. I doubt your top clubs are seeking wnpl players to play ressies anyways.

Comets and West do well because of their money and branding too. Its nothing to do with list management. If they want someone, chances are they’ll get them. When you have the financial backing and a good history, you can do as you please.


There isn’t much reward for the female focused clubs who actually put time and effort into their programs. Instead, your best get raided by a club who just values senior success.
It would be nice to see fsa want to grow the female pathway more and actually help those with strong programs retain players easier or put a cap on spending/signing.

Have to agree with totsreds08. It shows real lack of ambition to join a ‘big” club to play reserves, I feel it is just used as a badge of honour to show your peers who you play for. No one ever says they play for Comets/West Adelaide Reserves; they just say they play for Comets/West Adelaide
Having an open chequebook to sign whoever you please is not list management 101, its actually the opposite. The list management can’t be that good if every time a new coach comes in he/she looks at the current playing group and then decides to bring 4/5 new players with them.
Female football in SA now is full of clubs looking to piggyback off the success of those who put the effort into their programs (juniors and seniors) instead of actually doing the work themselves.

Of those clubs mentioned. How much success (however you measure it... league titles, cups, promotion of players) have they had a junior level, how are their U16/U17s going at the moment, these are the next players you look to break into the first team set up. This is list management.

[Riggles64]

Seems as if my well considered response is not well received. Thanks for the reply. Appreciated.

I have no skin in the game at all. Just 25 plus years of supporting someone in the game.

Players in the women's game are (or used to) transient and will move for many reasons. A reserves player at a top club is always going to be a part of a system that works and produces results consistently. They are integral for a seniors team to keep performing otherwise a player from reserves will take their spot. A first team player in a bottom side has zero pressure. May have a good team environment that is usually by lick and not design (off the hard work of coaches and managers and hard working players).

Correct me if I am wrong however I think that those that disagree may be a part of the latter group and not the former. As a player I know where I'd rather be. Yes a reserves player in a top side may be starved of opportunity and elect to go to a lower side where there is a promise of senior selection. A temporary sugar fix.

As far as wastes and comets goes, the money and opportunity comes because the club supports it women's program and sees value. That will trump any club that takes the high moral ground and refuse to remunerate players fairly. The proof as they say is in the pudding.

Thank you for the good discussion. This is my opinion. Unbiased and from the stands.

[Riggles64]

It's irrelevant to an extent about the un 16s and 17s.....good clubs will always look to recruit the best available talent. At that may come from outside. There is always the perennial group "what chance has home-grown player got if they keep bring ing in players from outside?" The answer is simple......Fail to plan and receipt you plan to fail and fall to the bottom and become an also ran. Best available talent equals coaches too. This is the WNPL.

Playing in Reserves for a top team is always beneficial. The pressure for the seniors with a strong reserves will generally deliver good results. Playing in the first team in a low ranked club is abysmal and would only deter a player from continuing. I applaude quite strongly any player that believes that they are probably better off looking at other options. What do they say? You'll never know what you don't know.

Comets have, since preparing for entry into the WNPL, always been active seeking new players to complement their team. And they've done it so well. List management 101.

Other teams that were at the top probably paid the price for being less active in that space and where they have been finishing the last couple of years is testament to poor list management.

What's better for a player: playing seniors for a bottom team, or playing reserves for a top team?
I'm expecting, "It depends"

Completely disagree. Why would anyone want to strive to play reserves at a top club? Show some ambition and actually fight to help the struggling clubs progress. Taking the easy way out will come boring for the players and if you wish to go play reserves because you’re at the top club, it just shows a lack of heart.

Clubs that have done well in reserves level doesn’t translate to seniors.
Previous ressies winners have been metro, Uni, metro. I doubt your top clubs are seeking wnpl players to play ressies anyways.

Comets and West do well because of their money and branding too. Its nothing to do with list management. If they want someone, chances are they’ll get them. When you have the financial backing and a good history, you can do as you please.


There isn’t much reward for the female focused clubs who actually put time and effort into their programs. Instead, your best get raided by a club who just values senior success.
It would be nice to see fsa want to grow the female pathway more and actually help those with strong programs retain players easier or put a cap on spending/signing.

Have to agree with totsreds08. It shows real lack of ambition to join a ‘big” club to play reserves, I feel it is just used as a badge of honour to show your peers who you play for. No one ever says they play for Comets/West Adelaide Reserves; they just say they play for Comets/West Adelaide
Having an open chequebook to sign whoever you please is not list management 101, its actually the opposite. The list management can’t be that good if every time a new coach comes in he/she looks at the current playing group and then decides to bring 4/5 new players with them.
Female football in SA now is full of clubs looking to piggyback off the success of those who put the effort into their programs (juniors and seniors) instead of actually doing the work themselves.

Of those clubs mentioned. How much success (however you measure it... league titles, cups, promotion of players) have they had a junior level, how are their U16/U17s going at the moment, these are the next players you look to break into the first team set up. This is list management.

[totsreds08]

I disagree, respectfully. I’ve seen enough from the past 5-10 years to suggest that it’s unlikely a player from west or comets ressies make the seniors. How many have gone from ressie level and actually solidified a spot?
Look at comets and west for example. Their ressieshave been okay of late, but they’ve both gone through and signed arguably the top 4-5 available players combined.
These players aren’t going to those clubs for reserves. Instead, players who put in at reserve level get thrown further behind the pack.
West have signed Nina Yamada and Maddy wright. Both are quality.
Comets have brought in Joel porter and Ana Willoughby. They aren’t looking at their ressies and I don’t think they’d sign established wnpl players to play ressies.

Myself, I am a big believer in junior development. It’s a little disappointing to see that the clubs with established and strong programs are the ones struggling in wnpl.
By all means, if you want to spend money, go for it. There aren’t rules to stop you, but I don’t agree it should be the case.
I just don’t believe that clubs truly value their female program if:
1) they’re just buying the best available and not developing.
2) they struggle to even compete in juniors.

Buying the best around doesn’t mean they value their program. There’s more to clubs than just their senior team.

I have no gripe with clubs doing what they’re doing at the moment as the rules allow them to do so, I just severely disagree with it.
Rules should be put in place to give those who value their juniors an opportunity to compete.

The FSA’s highest player pools clubs are the ones most struggling to sustain themselves in wnpl or even qualify for wnpl, minus birks of late because they have managed to have a sustained period of stability.
It would be a massive shame to see programs such as Uni, flinders, jags, vista not be in the top level. The growth of the game would stutter as they offer programs not many can match and that’s why I believe fsa should implement a few more rules to stop allowing the rich to be richer.

[WNPL Hub]

I disagree, respectfully. I’ve seen enough from the past 5-10 years to suggest that it’s unlikely a player from west or comets ressies make the seniors. How many have gone from ressie level and actually solidified a spot?
Look at comets and west for example. Their ressieshave been okay of late, but they’ve both gone through and signed arguably the top 4-5 available players combined.
These players aren’t going to those clubs for reserves. Instead, players who put in at reserve level get thrown further behind the pack.
West have signed Nina Yamada and Maddy wright. Both are quality.
Comets have brought in Joel porter and Ana Willoughby. They aren’t looking at their ressies and I don’t think they’d sign established wnpl players to play ressies.

Myself, I am a big believer in junior development. It’s a little disappointing to see that the clubs with established and strong programs are the ones struggling in wnpl.
By all means, if you want to spend money, go for it. There aren’t rules to stop you, but I don’t agree it should be the case.
I just don’t believe that clubs truly value their female program if:
1) they’re just buying the best available and not developing.
2) they struggle to even compete in juniors.

Buying the best around doesn’t mean they value their program. There’s more to clubs than just their senior team.

I have no gripe with clubs doing what they’re doing at the moment as the rules allow them to do so, I just severely disagree with it.
Rules should be put in place to give those who value their juniors an opportunity to compete.

The FSA’s highest player pools clubs are the ones most struggling to sustain themselves in wnpl or even qualify for wnpl, minus birks of late because they have managed to have a sustained period of stability.
It would be a massive shame to see programs such as Uni, flinders, jags, vista not be in the top level. The growth of the game would stutter as they offer programs not many can match and that’s why I believe fsa should implement a few more rules to stop allowing the rich to be richer.

Happy to be corrected, but to both your points:
1) to reference all clubs you've mentioned, in 2024 West used 26 players, Comets 24, Flinders 24, Uni 24. This to me highlights equal opportunities to reserves players
2) both West and Comets won junior girls trophies in 2024.

[totsreds08]

I disagree, respectfully. I’ve seen enough from the past 5-10 years to suggest that it’s unlikely a player from west or comets ressies make the seniors. How many have gone from ressie level and actually solidified a spot?
Look at comets and west for example. Their ressieshave been okay of late, but they’ve both gone through and signed arguably the top 4-5 available players combined.
These players aren’t going to those clubs for reserves. Instead, players who put in at reserve level get thrown further behind the pack.
West have signed Nina Yamada and Maddy wright. Both are quality.
Comets have brought in Joel porter and Ana Willoughby. They aren’t looking at their ressies and I don’t think they’d sign established wnpl players to play ressies.

Myself, I am a big believer in junior development. It’s a little disappointing to see that the clubs with established and strong programs are the ones struggling in wnpl.
By all means, if you want to spend money, go for it. There aren’t rules to stop you, but I don’t agree it should be the case.
I just don’t believe that clubs truly value their female program if:
1) they’re just buying the best available and not developing.
2) they struggle to even compete in juniors.

Buying the best around doesn’t mean they value their program. There’s more to clubs than just their senior team.

I have no gripe with clubs doing what they’re doing at the moment as the rules allow them to do so, I just severely disagree with it.
Rules should be put in place to give those who value their juniors an opportunity to compete.

The FSA’s highest player pools clubs are the ones most struggling to sustain themselves in wnpl or even qualify for wnpl, minus birks of late because they have managed to have a sustained period of stability.
It would be a massive shame to see programs such as Uni, flinders, jags, vista not be in the top level. The growth of the game would stutter as they offer programs not many can match and that’s why I believe fsa should implement a few more rules to stop allowing the rich to be richer.

Happy to be corrected, but to both your points:
1) to reference all clubs you've mentioned, in 2024 West used 26 players, Comets 24, Flinders 24, Uni 24. This to me highlights equal opportunities to reserves players
2) both West and Comets won junior girls trophies in 2024.

How many reserve players established themselves into those senior teams?
The point is that I don’t believe those top clubs in wnpl are signing players to just strengthen their ressies, but if they do, that’s even worse.
Some players would go to those clubs, but historically, you may get some chances in the first but they’re few and far between.
If you want to actually evenly spread the talent pool/reward those who are putting time and effort into their juniors, you have to cap the top clubs somehow. Otherwise it’s quickly becoming like any other league where 2-3 teams always compete and the rest make up the numbers.
I’d love to see clubs who put time and effort into junior girls programs be rewarded somehow.

As for the juniors, west have 3 competition teams, none compete in the red leagues.
1 team won the 17b league, 1 came second in the third tier of 13s and 1 really struggled in the 2nd tier in 15s. How many of those players in recent years have made fsa? Or cracked a senior program?
Comets didn’t win any trophies from what I have seen. Most of their teams finished near the bottom. Also, how many do they have in the program? Or are transitioning into their ressies/seniors?
That’s sort of my angle.
I wouldn’t define winning trophies as the sole reason for success. I would also factor in fsa pathway/senior pathway anyways.

As I said, nothing against those clubs for what they’re doing. They can clearly do this as they please, I just like to see the whole of SA have talented spread around and be rewarded for losing players to fsa or developing strong players who can make a name for themselves.

[WNPL Hub]

I disagree, respectfully. I’ve seen enough from the past 5-10 years to suggest that it’s unlikely a player from west or comets ressies make the seniors. How many have gone from ressie level and actually solidified a spot?
Look at comets and west for example. Their ressieshave been okay of late, but they’ve both gone through and signed arguably the top 4-5 available players combined.
These players aren’t going to those clubs for reserves. Instead, players who put in at reserve level get thrown further behind the pack.
West have signed Nina Yamada and Maddy wright. Both are quality.
Comets have brought in Joel porter and Ana Willoughby. They aren’t looking at their ressies and I don’t think they’d sign established wnpl players to play ressies.

Myself, I am a big believer in junior development. It’s a little disappointing to see that the clubs with established and strong programs are the ones struggling in wnpl.
By all means, if you want to spend money, go for it. There aren’t rules to stop you, but I don’t agree it should be the case.
I just don’t believe that clubs truly value their female program if:
1) they’re just buying the best available and not developing.
2) they struggle to even compete in juniors.

Buying the best around doesn’t mean they value their program. There’s more to clubs than just their senior team.

I have no gripe with clubs doing what they’re doing at the moment as the rules allow them to do so, I just severely disagree with it.
Rules should be put in place to give those who value their juniors an opportunity to compete.

The FSA’s highest player pools clubs are the ones most struggling to sustain themselves in wnpl or even qualify for wnpl, minus birks of late because they have managed to have a sustained period of stability.
It would be a massive shame to see programs such as Uni, flinders, jags, vista not be in the top level. The growth of the game would stutter as they offer programs not many can match and that’s why I believe fsa should implement a few more rules to stop allowing the rich to be richer.

Happy to be corrected, but to both your points:
1) to reference all clubs you've mentioned, in 2024 West used 26 players, Comets 24, Flinders 24, Uni 24. This to me highlights equal opportunities to reserves players
2) both West and Comets won junior girls trophies in 2024.

How many reserve players established themselves into those senior teams?
The point is that I don’t believe those top clubs in wnpl are signing players to just strengthen their ressies, but if they do, that’s even worse.
Some players would go to those clubs, but historically, you may get some chances in the first but they’re few and far between.
If you want to actually evenly spread the talent pool/reward those who are putting time and effort into their juniors, you have to cap the top clubs somehow. Otherwise it’s quickly becoming like any other league where 2-3 teams always compete and the rest make up the numbers.
I’d love to see clubs who put time and effort into junior girls programs be rewarded somehow.

As for the juniors, west have 3 competition teams, none compete in the red leagues.
1 team won the 17b league, 1 came second in the third tier of 13s and 1 really struggled in the 2nd tier in 15s. How many of those players in recent years have made fsa? Or cracked a senior program?
Comets didn’t win any trophies from what I have seen. Most of their teams finished near the bottom. Also, how many do they have in the program? Or are transitioning into their ressies/seniors?
That’s sort of my angle.
I wouldn’t define winning trophies as the sole reason for success. I would also factor in fsa pathway/senior pathway anyways.

As I said, nothing against those clubs for what they’re doing. They can clearly do this as they please, I just like to see the whole of SA have talented spread around and be rewarded for losing players to fsa or developing strong players who can make a name for themselves.

These are all fair points you are making. Keep in mind the Player Points System exists to deal with the issues you're addressing. And none of these problems exist in isolation within the women's game - they also exist in the men's game and have done so since the beginning of time!

But this then can slowly become a conversation about how clubs with strong juniors have been able to get into that position - by location, by size of facility, by creating red/blue/purple teams that hoard players at a particular age level rather than promote them based on ability. You could say that any perceivable cap applied at a senior level should be applied at a junior level too. Perhaps that's what the YCC will lead to.

[Riggles64]

Thank you to everyone for their respectful replies and differing perspectives. Many valid points. We can all agree to disagree because what we have all been discussing will continue to happen.

There are very good clubs stuck in mid to lower table that are running on the goodwill of many people (usually volunteers or remunerated poorly) and are doing an amazing job to attract players and develop them from junior to seniors.

I don't think you can cap or restrict movement because that is something that I and may others would see as counter productive to developing a strong club/team taught attracts as much as it loses.

On that point, why can't those clubs you have mentioned bene able to attract players from outside their club to complement their teams and push for a position higher up? is it reputation. Remuneartion. Lack of pathways or all the above/

[BeNatural]

Still got to feel for Flinders United, building their club to the NPL, coach leaves, and all their best players follower.

[totsreds08]

I disagree, respectfully. I’ve seen enough from the past 5-10 years to suggest that it’s unlikely a player from west or comets ressies make the seniors. How many have gone from ressie level and actually solidified a spot?
Look at comets and west for example. Their ressieshave been okay of late, but they’ve both gone through and signed arguably the top 4-5 available players combined.
These players aren’t going to those clubs for reserves. Instead, players who put in at reserve level get thrown further behind the pack.
West have signed Nina Yamada and Maddy wright. Both are quality.
Comets have brought in Joel porter and Ana Willoughby. They aren’t looking at their ressies and I don’t think they’d sign established wnpl players to play ressies.

Myself, I am a big believer in junior development. It’s a little disappointing to see that the clubs with established and strong programs are the ones struggling in wnpl.
By all means, if you want to spend money, go for it. There aren’t rules to stop you, but I don’t agree it should be the case.
I just don’t believe that clubs truly value their female program if:
1) they’re just buying the best available and not developing.
2) they struggle to even compete in juniors.

Buying the best around doesn’t mean they value their program. There’s more to clubs than just their senior team.

I have no gripe with clubs doing what they’re doing at the moment as the rules allow them to do so, I just severely disagree with it.
Rules should be put in place to give those who value their juniors an opportunity to compete.

The FSA’s highest player pools clubs are the ones most struggling to sustain themselves in wnpl or even qualify for wnpl, minus birks of late because they have managed to have a sustained period of stability.
It would be a massive shame to see programs such as Uni, flinders, jags, vista not be in the top level. The growth of the game would stutter as they offer programs not many can match and that’s why I believe fsa should implement a few more rules to stop allowing the rich to be richer.

Happy to be corrected, but to both your points:
1) to reference all clubs you've mentioned, in 2024 West used 26 players, Comets 24, Flinders 24, Uni 24. This to me highlights equal opportunities to reserves players
2) both West and Comets won junior girls trophies in 2024.

How many reserve players established themselves into those senior teams?
The point is that I don’t believe those top clubs in wnpl are signing players to just strengthen their ressies, but if they do, that’s even worse.
Some players would go to those clubs, but historically, you may get some chances in the first but they’re few and far between.
If you want to actually evenly spread the talent pool/reward those who are putting time and effort into their juniors, you have to cap the top clubs somehow. Otherwise it’s quickly becoming like any other league where 2-3 teams always compete and the rest make up the numbers.
I’d love to see clubs who put time and effort into junior girls programs be rewarded somehow.

As for the juniors, west have 3 competition teams, none compete in the red leagues.
1 team won the 17b league, 1 came second in the third tier of 13s and 1 really struggled in the 2nd tier in 15s. How many of those players in recent years have made fsa? Or cracked a senior program?
Comets didn’t win any trophies from what I have seen. Most of their teams finished near the bottom. Also, how many do they have in the program? Or are transitioning into their ressies/seniors?
That’s sort of my angle.
I wouldn’t define winning trophies as the sole reason for success. I would also factor in fsa pathway/senior pathway anyways.

As I said, nothing against those clubs for what they’re doing. They can clearly do this as they please, I just like to see the whole of SA have talented spread around and be rewarded for losing players to fsa or developing strong players who can make a name for themselves.

These are all fair points you are making. Keep in mind the Player Points System exists to deal with the issues you're addressing. And none of these problems exist in isolation within the women's game - they also exist in the men's game and have done so since the beginning of time!

But this then can slowly become a conversation about how clubs with strong juniors have been able to get into that position - by location, by size of facility, by creating red/blue/purple teams that hoard players at a particular age level rather than promote them based on ability. You could say that any perceivable cap applied at a senior level should be applied at a junior level too. Perhaps that's what the YCC will lead to.

I don’t know how the pps works exactly, but I’d be keen to look into it.
However I can’t imagine any of my points are relevant to that. I wouldn’t have thought anyone is breaking rules.

Ycc will see a lot of players board their talent in their age group. A number of clubs specifically told their players they are to only play in their year of birth group.
That has some positive and negatives. You don’t want to push players too early but you don’t want to also hold players back.
The club I’m involved in will hopefully be stable enough to see our golden era feature in seniors in the next 4-5 years.

[totsreds08]

Thank you to everyone for their respectful replies and differing perspectives. Many valid points. We can all agree to disagree because what we have all been discussing will continue to happen.

There are very good clubs stuck in mid to lower table that are running on the goodwill of many people (usually volunteers or remunerated poorly) and are doing an amazing job to attract players and develop them from junior to seniors.

I don't think you can cap or restrict movement because that is something that I and may others would see as counter productive to developing a strong club/team taught attracts as much as it loses.

On that point, why can't those clubs you have mentioned bene able to attract players from outside their club to complement their teams and push for a position higher up? is it reputation. Remuneartion. Lack of pathways or all the above/

I don’t know about all the clubs, but it seems that players just want to go to an established club.
Perhaps there isn’t enough of a link to a specific club to remain loyal.
Many players play majority of their time at fsa, and have no affiliation to help clubs succeed.
I’d be keen to know how many juniors have progressed and been 1 club players (minus any FSA involvement).

Capping clubs from spending or capping clubs from raiding others will evenly spread the pool.
I still firmly believe that a female club should be judged on their overall program, not just how many of the best talent that senior team can sign.
It might be a way that your strong female clubs can compete.
Clubs like Uni, flinders, metro, Fulham for example don’t have the ability to compete with west and comets either which doesn’t help.
There doesn’t seem to be enough desperation to want to drag a club from bottom to top and the strong clubs have the rep to do as they please and the funds to also do so.

[Marinos]

Thank you to everyone for their respectful replies and differing perspectives. Many valid points. We can all agree to disagree because what we have all been discussing will continue to happen.

There are very good clubs stuck in mid to lower table that are running on the goodwill of many people (usually volunteers or remunerated poorly) and are doing an amazing job to attract players and develop them from junior to seniors.

I don't think you can cap or restrict movement because that is something that I and may others would see as counter productive to developing a strong club/team taught attracts as much as it loses.

On that point, why can't those clubs you have mentioned bene able to attract players from outside their club to complement their teams and push for a position higher up? is it reputation. Remuneartion. Lack of pathways or all the above/

I don’t know about all the clubs, but it seems that players just want to go to an established club.
Perhaps there isn’t enough of a link to a specific club to remain loyal.
Many players play majority of their time at fsa, and have no affiliation to help clubs succeed.
I’d be keen to know how many juniors have progressed and been 1 club players (minus any FSA involvement).

Capping clubs from spending or capping clubs from raiding others will evenly spread the pool.
I still firmly believe that a female club should be judged on their overall program, not just how many of the best talent that senior team can sign.
It might be a way that your strong female clubs can compete.
Clubs like Uni, flinders, metro, Fulham for example don’t have the ability to compete with west and comets either which doesn’t help.
There doesn’t seem to be enough desperation to want to drag a club from bottom to top and the strong clubs have the rep to do as they please and the funds to also do so.

Like someone mentioned above you're treating the women's game like some sacred cow in comparison to the men's game, where none of what you mention is out of place.

3 of those 4 clubs you mentioned have at some point in the last 10 years outspent the majority of the others. 2 of those clubs had Cote Rojas on eyewatering amounts. You're just using recency bias, which makes it look like you've been in the women's game for a short time.

Evenly spreading the pool goes against the natural order of football and what makes it special - anyone can compete. Football leagues are pyramids that reward investment, coaching and development, not one or the other exclusively.

It may be West and Comets now but 4 years ago it was City and Inter, 4 years before that it was Metro and Fulham, and so on...

[totsreds08]

Thank you to everyone for their respectful replies and differing perspectives. Many valid points. We can all agree to disagree because what we have all been discussing will continue to happen.

There are very good clubs stuck in mid to lower table that are running on the goodwill of many people (usually volunteers or remunerated poorly) and are doing an amazing job to attract players and develop them from junior to seniors.

I don't think you can cap or restrict movement because that is something that I and may others would see as counter productive to developing a strong club/team taught attracts as much as it loses.

On that point, why can't those clubs you have mentioned bene able to attract players from outside their club to complement their teams and push for a position higher up? is it reputation. Remuneartion. Lack of pathways or all the above/

I don’t know about all the clubs, but it seems that players just want to go to an established club.
Perhaps there isn’t enough of a link to a specific club to remain loyal.
Many players play majority of their time at fsa, and have no affiliation to help clubs succeed.
I’d be keen to know how many juniors have progressed and been 1 club players (minus any FSA involvement).

Capping clubs from spending or capping clubs from raiding others will evenly spread the pool.
I still firmly believe that a female club should be judged on their overall program, not just how many of the best talent that senior team can sign.
It might be a way that your strong female clubs can compete.
Clubs like Uni, flinders, metro, Fulham for example don’t have the ability to compete with west and comets either which doesn’t help.
There doesn’t seem to be enough desperation to want to drag a club from bottom to top and the strong clubs have the rep to do as they please and the funds to also do so.

Like someone mentioned above you're treating the women's game like some sacred cow in comparison to the men's game, where none of what you mention is out of place.

3 of those 4 clubs you mentioned have at some point in the last 10 years outspent the majority of the others. 2 of those clubs had Cote Rojas on eyewatering amounts. You're just using recency bias, which makes it look like you've been in the women's game for a short time.

Evenly spreading the pool goes against the natural order of football and what makes it special - anyone can compete. Football leagues are pyramids that reward investment, coaching and development, not one or the other exclusively.

It may be West and Comets now but 4 years ago it was City and Inter, 4 years before that it was Metro and Fulham, and so on...

We are in a women’s forum. I am not involved in the men’s game, so I wouldn’t comment on that.

As I had already mentioned, I understand this happens and there is nothing in place to stop if from happening.
I don't agree that anyone can compete. The last 5 years have been dominated by west and inter with comets not far off.
At the moment, three clubs can compete. 2 of them barely scrape together competitive juniors.

I know you’re mentioning cote playing for uni and flinders, but flinders only had cote. The rest of the players were a little level behind. It’s not like these strong clubs who have 7-8 players on cote’s level of impact. I would be surprised if their wage bill exceeded everyone else.
Uni also had cote about 6 years ago. Times have changed since then. At that stage, Uni similarly only had cote, but their program was just finding its feet.

The game has grown. The two strongest teams in wnpl heading into 2025 arguably have the weakest juniors out of the lot.
At least when city and Fulham were rather dominant, they had the solid junior backing to do so.

I just think there has to be a different way to allow all clubs to compete. Flinders without Ana may very well struggle and go down, which would be shame as they’ve rebuilt a strong culture there after Cumberland struggled.

Not all will agree and that’s fine, it’s just my two cents.

[WNPL Hub]

Thank you to everyone for their respectful replies and differing perspectives. Many valid points. We can all agree to disagree because what we have all been discussing will continue to happen.

There are very good clubs stuck in mid to lower table that are running on the goodwill of many people (usually volunteers or remunerated poorly) and are doing an amazing job to attract players and develop them from junior to seniors.

I don't think you can cap or restrict movement because that is something that I and may others would see as counter productive to developing a strong club/team taught attracts as much as it loses.

On that point, why can't those clubs you have mentioned bene able to attract players from outside their club to complement their teams and push for a position higher up? is it reputation. Remuneartion. Lack of pathways or all the above/

I don’t know about all the clubs, but it seems that players just want to go to an established club.
Perhaps there isn’t enough of a link to a specific club to remain loyal.
Many players play majority of their time at fsa, and have no affiliation to help clubs succeed.
I’d be keen to know how many juniors have progressed and been 1 club players (minus any FSA involvement).

Capping clubs from spending or capping clubs from raiding others will evenly spread the pool.
I still firmly believe that a female club should be judged on their overall program, not just how many of the best talent that senior team can sign.
It might be a way that your strong female clubs can compete.
Clubs like Uni, flinders, metro, Fulham for example don’t have the ability to compete with west and comets either which doesn’t help.
There doesn’t seem to be enough desperation to want to drag a club from bottom to top and the strong clubs have the rep to do as they please and the funds to also do so.

Like someone mentioned above you're treating the women's game like some sacred cow in comparison to the men's game, where none of what you mention is out of place.

3 of those 4 clubs you mentioned have at some point in the last 10 years outspent the majority of the others. 2 of those clubs had Cote Rojas on eyewatering amounts. You're just using recency bias, which makes it look like you've been in the women's game for a short time.

Evenly spreading the pool goes against the natural order of football and what makes it special - anyone can compete. Football leagues are pyramids that reward investment, coaching and development, not one or the other exclusively.

It may be West and Comets now but 4 years ago it was City and Inter, 4 years before that it was Metro and Fulham, and so on...

We are in a women’s forum. I am not involved in the men’s game, so I wouldn’t comment on that.

As I had already mentioned, I understand this happens and there is nothing in place to stop if from happening.
I don't agree that anyone can compete. The last 5 years have been dominated by west and inter with comets not far off.
At the moment, three clubs can compete. 2 of them barely scrape together competitive juniors.

I know you’re mentioning cote playing for uni and flinders, but flinders only had cote. The rest of the players were a little level behind. It’s not like these strong clubs who have 7-8 players on cote’s level of impact. I would be surprised if their wage bill exceeded everyone else.
Uni also had cote about 6 years ago. Times have changed since then. At that stage, Uni similarly only had cote, but their program was just finding its feet.

The game has grown. The two strongest teams in wnpl heading into 2025 arguably have the weakest juniors out of the lot.
At least when city and Fulham were rather dominant, they had the solid junior backing to do so.

I just think there has to be a different way to allow all clubs to compete. Flinders without Ana may very well struggle and go down, which would be shame as they’ve rebuilt a strong culture there after Cumberland struggled.

Not all will agree and that’s fine, it’s just my two cents.

In the seasons Uni had Cote, they also had Emily Condon (Matilda), Jenna McCormick (Matilda), Fiona Worts (ALW), Chantelle Ryder (ALW), Laura Johns (ALW), Katherine Ebbs, Kristi Harvey, Mia Lundquist, Ellie Bills. They most certainly did not "only have Cote"

[n8]

Just a thought from reading above…I maybe wrong…

The 2 arguably strongest wnpl teams comets and west are investing in their seniors heavily (obviously to build the women’s game in their respective clubs), this investment would somewhat come from the limited junior programs they have (key word investment) so they are obviously trying to build from the top down so they can eventually be self sufficient, develop and grow their own talent pool for the future….

Where I gather clubs with the huge numbers, talent pool and juniors aren’t really doing anything with their seniors to reward them so they stay…it seems these clubs are happy to take the money for the junior program but don’t want to reinvest it into their seniors or reward these girls that have stayed with the club….it seems a little disrespectful to the women’s game

Comets, Westies etc should be applauded for recognising the women who have put in the hard work to get to where they are and to be actually wanted and have a value and thus be rewarded.

[totsreds08]

Thank you to everyone for their respectful replies and differing perspectives. Many valid points. We can all agree to disagree because what we have all been discussing will continue to happen.

There are very good clubs stuck in mid to lower table that are running on the goodwill of many people (usually volunteers or remunerated poorly) and are doing an amazing job to attract players and develop them from junior to seniors.

I don't think you can cap or restrict movement because that is something that I and may others would see as counter productive to developing a strong club/team taught attracts as much as it loses.

On that point, why can't those clubs you have mentioned bene able to attract players from outside their club to complement their teams and push for a position higher up? is it reputation. Remuneartion. Lack of pathways or all the above/

I don’t know about all the clubs, but it seems that players just want to go to an established club.
Perhaps there isn’t enough of a link to a specific club to remain loyal.
Many players play majority of their time at fsa, and have no affiliation to help clubs succeed.
I’d be keen to know how many juniors have progressed and been 1 club players (minus any FSA involvement).

Capping clubs from spending or capping clubs from raiding others will evenly spread the pool.
I still firmly believe that a female club should be judged on their overall program, not just how many of the best talent that senior team can sign.
It might be a way that your strong female clubs can compete.
Clubs like Uni, flinders, metro, Fulham for example don’t have the ability to compete with west and comets either which doesn’t help.
There doesn’t seem to be enough desperation to want to drag a club from bottom to top and the strong clubs have the rep to do as they please and the funds to also do so.

Like someone mentioned above you're treating the women's game like some sacred cow in comparison to the men's game, where none of what you mention is out of place.

3 of those 4 clubs you mentioned have at some point in the last 10 years outspent the majority of the others. 2 of those clubs had Cote Rojas on eyewatering amounts. You're just using recency bias, which makes it look like you've been in the women's game for a short time.

Evenly spreading the pool goes against the natural order of football and what makes it special - anyone can compete. Football leagues are pyramids that reward investment, coaching and development, not one or the other exclusively.

It may be West and Comets now but 4 years ago it was City and Inter, 4 years before that it was Metro and Fulham, and so on...

We are in a women’s forum. I am not involved in the men’s game, so I wouldn’t comment on that.

As I had already mentioned, I understand this happens and there is nothing in place to stop if from happening.
I don't agree that anyone can compete. The last 5 years have been dominated by west and inter with comets not far off.
At the moment, three clubs can compete. 2 of them barely scrape together competitive juniors.

I know you’re mentioning cote playing for uni and flinders, but flinders only had cote. The rest of the players were a little level behind. It’s not like these strong clubs who have 7-8 players on cote’s level of impact. I would be surprised if their wage bill exceeded everyone else.
Uni also had cote about 6 years ago. Times have changed since then. At that stage, Uni similarly only had cote, but their program was just finding its feet.

The game has grown. The two strongest teams in wnpl heading into 2025 arguably have the weakest juniors out of the lot.
At least when city and Fulham were rather dominant, they had the solid junior backing to do so.

I just think there has to be a different way to allow all clubs to compete. Flinders without Ana may very well struggle and go down, which would be shame as they’ve rebuilt a strong culture there after Cumberland struggled.

Not all will agree and that’s fine, it’s just my two cents.

In the seasons Uni had Cote, they also had Emily Condon (Matilda), Jenna McCormick (Matilda), Fiona Worts (ALW), Chantelle Ryder (ALW), Laura Johns (ALW), Katherine Ebbs, Kristi Harvey, Mia Lundquist, Ellie Bills. They most certainly did not "only have Cote"

Read the comment again.
I said flinders only had cote.
Uni had cote about 6 years ago.

[totsreds08]

Just a thought from reading above…I maybe wrong…

The 2 arguably strongest wnpl teams comets and west are investing in their seniors heavily (obviously to build the women’s game in their respective clubs), this investment would somewhat come from the limited junior programs they have (key word investment) so they are obviously trying to build from the top down so they can eventually be self sufficient, develop and grow their own talent pool for the future….

Where I gather clubs with the huge numbers, talent pool and juniors aren’t really doing anything with their seniors to reward them so they stay…it seems these clubs are happy to take the money for the junior program but don’t want to reinvest it into their seniors or reward these girls that have stayed with the club….it seems a little disrespectful to the women’s game

Comets, Westies etc should be applauded for recognising the women who have put in the hard work to get to where they are and to be actually wanted and have a value and thus be rewarded.

You could potentially argue that for west.
Kosta is a fantastic coach for culture and is trying to help build the junior program. West have never historically had a strong juniors from what I can remember but with Kosta at the helm, they may very well build a strong program in years to come.
I don’t agree re comets. They’ve had juniors for a long time. They should put a few more resources into a stronger program.

You’re wrong regarding giving a pathway to talented juniors. You’ll see over the next 2-3 years that the strong junior clubs will start to filter their players into wnpl if they can sustain their positions. A few clubs such as birks, uni, flinders and inter will have multiple juniors coming through. Hopefully these girls can get first team opportunities.
Losing a lot to FSA eventually takes its toll on the quality that does come through though, but the talent pool is starting to get bigger, so an increase in club players coming through will start to show.

[Riggles64]

Lots of good commentary. All have merit.

The one I like relates to the two top teams and how they are building top down. Agreed. Build it and they will come good quote). A strong peering WNPL will attract players, good coaches, sponsors, etc. The ones focusing predominantly on building their bases and sit at the bottom will only become feeder clubs.

You need a top down and bottom up approach. A Strong WNPL team means bringing in good players and getting top four results consistently.

A balance is required.

Someone mentioned Fulham. Sadly they lost the plot about a decade ago and failed to strengthen their senior with sustainable growth. Juniors very good. The revolving door of coaches and Max returning every now and then (no disrespect Max) meant your club lacked interest and foresight on how to move forward. They're not the only team that was once at the top to now be struggling. If it doesn't refresh with new ideas and focus then it will be fighting on the bottom 4.

[BAGGIO 15]

Lots of good commentary. All have merit.

The one I like relates to the two top teams and how they are building top down. Agreed. Build it and they will come good quote). A strong peering WNPL will attract players, good coaches, sponsors, etc. The ones focusing predominantly on building their bases and sit at the bottom will only become feeder clubs.

You need a top down and bottom up approach. A Strong WNPL team means bringing in good players and getting top four results consistently.

A balance is required.

Someone mentioned Fulham. Sadly they lost the plot about a decade ago and failed to strengthen their senior with sustainable growth. Juniors very good. The revolving door of coaches and Max returning every now and then (no disrespect Max) meant your club lacked interest and foresight on how to move forward. They're not the only team that was once at the top to now be struggling. If it doesn't refresh with new ideas and focus then it will be fighting on the bottom 4.

A few insights to add to the above discussion.

The dollars paid along with the chance to compete for titles are the primary drivers for most players.
The true motivations are personal and I wouldn't speak to individuals true drivers.

The quote of building from the top down is interesting as why try to out spend everyone to the tune of $40-$80K on player payments per season to win only $10K as champions and $4K for the premiers. (These dollars figures are factually correct across the league for those who may be surprised)

The PPS is currently 200 points and its easy to buy to win with this figure.

Maybe a salary cap along with a genuine reduction in the PPS total that promotes homegrown players more then it currently does may see SA better develop its talent better.
After all, what's more important a strong 2-3 WNPL and a state with limited to no Matilda's representation.

I'd like clubs to invest more money and resources in their youth coaches as the better these are the better the players you will produce.

Men's game again is even worse when you consider what's being spent on players.
Very little going into improving facilities to bring in spectators.
NPL prize money $18,000 for champion, $16,000 premiers.
Clubs spending $100-200K.

Each to their own.

[Riggles64]

Baggio good analysis and comments. There are many angles to this debate. One thing rises above all others; how committed are the clubs to the women's program? And I mean the senior. Juniors are ok. Little outlay and revenue ticks over nicely. Once we get to the seniors and underage just below, that is where the challenges lay.

I do not support social engineering moves where there are caps or points or limitations placed on managing movement. That is like tariffs to protect poor industry.

If you want to do a pulse check; the FS have just announced that croydon and fulham (yes that one) have withdrawn from the state league for next season. Sad? Expected? long time coming? lack of support and focus on developing/maintaining the program? or all of the above?

Survival of fittest or the committed (clubs).

[Crisps]

If you want to do a pulse check; the FS have just announced that croydon and fulham (yes that one) have withdrawn from the state league for next season. Sad? Expected? long time coming? lack of support and focus on developing/maintaining the program? or all of the above?

Survival of fittest or the committed (clubs).

The boost from the World Cup has flushed through the system and interest has now reduced.

There are not the number of players to support the number of teams.

Senior womens football is not financially viable as it is currently setup and that only gets worse as more clubs compete for a small pool of players.

[totsreds08]

If you want to do a pulse check; the FS have just announced that croydon and fulham (yes that one) have withdrawn from the state league for next season. Sad? Expected? long time coming? lack of support and focus on developing/maintaining the program? or all of the above?

Survival of fittest or the committed (clubs).

The boost from the World Cup has flushed through the system and interest has now reduced.

There are not the number of players to support the number of teams.

Senior womens football is not financially viable as it is currently setup and that only gets worse as more clubs compete for a small pool of players.

I still maintain that in 5-10 years now, you’ll see a very strong wnpl league as the talent/coaching coming through is exceptional compared to what it’s previously been. Hopefully that stage, the wnpl will still be in a good position.


Sad for Fulham, but the writing seemed to be on the wall. They used to be the place to be for females, but in the last 5 years, they’ve seriously gone downhill.
I’m not sure if it was because a lack of care or appreciation for their women’s, but besides 1 maybe 2 people, the care for the women’s program seemed to be second to the clubs priorities. Hopefully they’ll be back.

[Riggles64]

Hi Tots

5-10 years from now has been the catchy of the defunct SAWSA followed by the FS and now the FFSA. They failed to capitalise on zero AFL women's and they and other interstate counterparts did little. Then again with soccer way down the pecking order for OZ sport they had their work cut out.

Local comp and admin is inwardly focused (men and women) and only worry about building their own empires with little regard to the other. It's about how many people through the games, sausages sold, bar takings and the accolades of beating your rival/s. As a collective they are strong however, acting individually opens them up to the competition like afl men and women and women's cricket too.

If you want to do a pulse check; the FS have just announced that croydon and fulham (yes that one) have withdrawn from the state league for next season. Sad? Expected? long time coming? lack of support and focus on developing/maintaining the program? or all of the above?

Survival of fittest or the committed (clubs).

The boost from the World Cup has flushed through the system and interest has now reduced.

There are not the number of players to support the number of teams.

Senior womens football is not financially viable as it is currently setup and that only gets worse as more clubs compete for a small pool of players.

I still maintain that in 5-10 years now, you’ll see a very strong wnpl league as the talent/coaching coming through is exceptional compared to what it’s previously been. Hopefully that stage, the wnpl will still be in a good position.


Sad for Fulham, but the writing seemed to be on the wall. They used to be the place to be for females, but in the last 5 years, they’ve seriously gone downhill.
I’m not sure if it was because a lack of care or appreciation for their women’s, but besides 1 maybe 2 people, the care for the women’s program seemed to be second to the clubs priorities. Hopefully they’ll be back.

[totsreds08]

Hi Tots

5-10 years from now has been the catchy of the defunct SAWSA followed by the FS and now the FFSA. They failed to capitalise on zero AFL women's and they and other interstate counterparts did little. Then again with soccer way down the pecking order for OZ sport they had their work cut out.

Local comp and admin is inwardly focused (men and women) and only worry about building their own empires with little regard to the other. It's about how many people through the games, sausages sold, bar takings and the accolades of beating your rival/s. As a collective they are strong however, acting individually opens them up to the competition like afl men and women and women's cricket too.

If you want to do a pulse check; the FS have just announced that croydon and fulham (yes that one) have withdrawn from the state league for next season. Sad? Expected? long time coming? lack of support and focus on developing/maintaining the program? or all of the above?

Survival of fittest or the committed (clubs).

The boost from the World Cup has flushed through the system and interest has now reduced.

There are not the number of players to support the number of teams.

Senior womens football is not financially viable as it is currently setup and that only gets worse as more clubs compete for a small pool of players.

I still maintain that in 5-10 years now, you’ll see a very strong wnpl league as the talent/coaching coming through is exceptional compared to what it’s previously been. Hopefully that stage, the wnpl will still be in a good position.


Sad for Fulham, but the writing seemed to be on the wall. They used to be the place to be for females, but in the last 5 years, they’ve seriously gone downhill.
I’m not sure if it was because a lack of care or appreciation for their women’s, but besides 1 maybe 2 people, the care for the women’s program seemed to be second to the clubs priorities. Hopefully they’ll be back.

And that links in with my original suggestion to give clubs who aren’t as strong in terms of financial backing or popularity the chance to maintain some strong players. You may actually see a solid female club like Uni, birks, jags, flinders etc build a strong female program if there were some rules in place to help a strong senior team.