State Government steps in over controversial shark logo at redeveloped East Fremantle football facility

An extraordinary battle between a local council and a WAFL club has needed government intervention after councillors reportedly tried to ban a shark logo over fears it was confronting for families. East Fremantle Football Club — nicknamed the Sharks — are yet to return to their newly redeveloped home despite more than $32 million in upgrades being completed at the council-owned ground earlier this year. The club and the Town of East Fremantle have been unable to reach a lease agreement enabling the Sharks to return — with several sticking points holding up the deal. Now, an insider claims that councillors didn’t want the Sharks logo displayed at the facility because it was seen as confronting for those in the nearby playground. The West Australian can confirm the decision led to the State Government having to step in to help negotiations and shut the bizarre request down. The intervention means the town will also now allow the club to be sponsored by a mining company, after the council had tried to veto such a partnership as a condition of their return. A number of Other issues remain, however, including the council rejecting the club’s request to display memorabilia in the clubrooms on the basis it would affect the aesthetics of a cafe housed inside the facility. The Sharks’ bid for a fence to be built around the ground so entry fees can be charged on game days has also been rejected. The town said it did not want a fence around the East Fremantle Community Park, instead proposing the club pays for temporary fencing around the oval every home-game. It’s understood this would cost tens of thousands of dollars. While some councillors are understood to have wanted to vote against the logo, the town itself said it backed the signage. “The town supports the display of signage, logos and memorabilia throughout, and around, the club’s sub-lease footprint, grandstand and the grounds,” a spokesperson said. Although they did add that it was only supportive of “temporary display of logos . . . on game days/club events.” The drawn-out saga is believed to have cost the football club $500,000 in lost revenue over the past two seasons. And on Sunday the Sharks — last year’s WAFL premiers — were forced to play a “home” elimination final against Claremont . . . at Claremont’s home ground. The Sharks lost. Sources told The West that while protracted negotiations had put a financial strain on the club, it was not in danger of folding and would compete in the 2025 season. But they believe they are not far off coming to an agreement under the supervision of the State Government — which invested $26m in the facility. However, even if negotiations are finally concluded on the lease — allowing the Sharks to move in — the club faces a separate battle to actually host football games. At its August council meeting, the Town of East Fremantle resolved to allow the club back in once the sublease was finalised, by the end of month. But the resolution included a provision to terminate that sublease on three months notice if the parties “fail to execute the licence agreement within three months of the commencement date of the sublease”. The licence agreement — which actually allows for football to be played at the facility — is being negotiated separately. A Government spokesperson said: “The State Government is working with the Town of East Fremantle and the East Fremantle Football Club to ensure the redevelopment delivers for all parties. “We look forward to seeing WAFL footy return to East Fremantle Oval in 2025.” East Fremantle Football Club declined to comment. Meanwhile, the Sharks are on the hunt for a new football boss after the experienced Brad Dodd departed to take up the role at Perth. Dodd will oversee the Demons football program after being instrumental in both their WAFL and WAFL premierships last season.