QAFL 2016
- Thread starter Lifes a Beach1
- Start date
- Tagged users None
thunderdoc
Team Captain
Sorry but it wasn't me that suggested that playing for Aspley Under 18s was a leg up to playing NEAFL. Any one of draft potential doesn't play Under 18s at club level . They wil top up for the Lions and Suns at NEAFL.
My point is that when the NEAFL and QAFL licences were up for the taking it was clear that nEAFL clubs couldn't have colts at the StAte League level and a requirement of playing QAFL is that you must field Seniors,Reserves and Colts !
My point is that when the NEAFL and QAFL licences were up for the taking it was clear that nEAFL clubs couldn't have colts at the StAte League level and a requirement of playing QAFL is that you must field Seniors,Reserves and Colts !
No all good - I did realise that the Colts were supposed to be a part of any QAFL team but the surfers rule seems to be in place there doesnt it!! Wasnt aware of the NEAFL / Colts ruling BUT even so, there is very little correlation bn playing Colts at any of these 3 clubs and getting on their NEAFL list in due course. They cant use the Colts boys to top up (and wouldnt - nowhere near good enough) and the top ups to Lions for instance I know are prioritised alot of the time for boys from the sunshine coast bc there is no QAFL team up here. Our kids get a pretty good run at playing Lions - not sure where the to ups come from down GC way..
Is one of those furphys that occasionally drags a kid away from his home club to play at Aspley at that level which is unfortunately ridiculous but hard to convince some people.
QAFL_Fan
Club Legend
Why they fought for it is irrelevant. Even if its the right call (which it probably is) is also irrelevant.
The rules were clear, and those rules were bent just to suit them.
If the rules are dumb, change them. Don't just ignore them, otherwise you will find people want all sorts of rules ignored depending on their agenda, and will have strong grounds to argue for them to be ignored when a precedent is set.
what is their own agenda. come on tell us. the main reason they want want this team in the comp so they don't rip the heart of of the club and leave blokes who are all juniors just about not playing footy at all
you do realise that redlands have another team in local footy as well
QAFL_Fan
Club Legend
I don't know what their agenda is, I'd agree they just want to provide a home for non elite players who would like to play at Aspley.
I'm simply saying that AFLQ should just remove the rule, instead of allowing Aspley to break the rule. As it sets a precedent for rules being broken, and other clubs who have other agendas can argue this point if they choose to break a particular rule. Whats the point in having it as a license condition, then ignoring it?
As I understand it, Redlands don't have another team playing local footy. Victoria Point Sharks are not Redlands, and are an incorporated club in their own right.
I reiterate. I don't think Aspley shouldn't be allowed to have the team, I'm simply saying the rule shouldn't be there if it is going to be openly ignored!
I'm simply saying that AFLQ should just remove the rule, instead of allowing Aspley to break the rule. As it sets a precedent for rules being broken, and other clubs who have other agendas can argue this point if they choose to break a particular rule. Whats the point in having it as a license condition, then ignoring it?
As I understand it, Redlands don't have another team playing local footy. Victoria Point Sharks are not Redlands, and are an incorporated club in their own right.
I reiterate. I don't think Aspley shouldn't be allowed to have the team, I'm simply saying the rule shouldn't be there if it is going to be openly ignored!
Just FYI Damo.
I am President of the Woodsmen and have been playing there since we started. However in 2007 and 2008 we were the Western Magpies 3rds.
In fact we use to play against Aspley 3rds in 2007 and 2008.
Then when Aspley and the Magpies were both promoted to the QAFL in 2009, we were told by AFLQ that the Magpies werent permitted to have a 3rds team.
As a result, we went to the great trouble of forming and incorporating a brand new club - The Woodsmen. It took a great deal of time and effort, and to this day requires a seperate committee etc to run it.
Imagine our surprise when we started the 2009 season only to find that Aspley still had a 3rds team!
Was our 'agenda' any different? We just wanted a home for the surplus players and were flatly denied. I'm still confused why the rules were different on the northside...
Having said that, after all the effort it took we are now permitted to be the Magpies again but we like the autonomy of going it alone so it worked out well. Have a great working relationship with the Magpies, but we run ourselves
I am President of the Woodsmen and have been playing there since we started. However in 2007 and 2008 we were the Western Magpies 3rds.
In fact we use to play against Aspley 3rds in 2007 and 2008.
Then when Aspley and the Magpies were both promoted to the QAFL in 2009, we were told by AFLQ that the Magpies werent permitted to have a 3rds team.
As a result, we went to the great trouble of forming and incorporating a brand new club - The Woodsmen. It took a great deal of time and effort, and to this day requires a seperate committee etc to run it.
Imagine our surprise when we started the 2009 season only to find that Aspley still had a 3rds team!
Was our 'agenda' any different? We just wanted a home for the surplus players and were flatly denied. I'm still confused why the rules were different on the northside...
Having said that, after all the effort it took we are now permitted to be the Magpies again but we like the autonomy of going it alone so it worked out well. Have a great working relationship with the Magpies, but we run ourselves
They didn't break any rules. They fought to keep a team that was already in the club there for them to play. Breaking rules would starting a team after joining the neafl. As for the woodsman the league not giving them a license isn't aspleys fault
They fought to keep it in 2009 when they weren't allowed and good on them!
The point being, don't have the rule if its going to be broken. Especially if only some are allowed to break it, and not others. ..!
The point being, don't have the rule if its going to be broken. Especially if only some are allowed to break it, and not others. ..!
QAFL_Fan
Club Legend
Of course its not Aspley's fault. Nobody is blaming Aspley, they did the right thing by their players and the right thing for the club.
You are getting defensive and cranky for no reason.
Aspley absolutely should be able to have their amateur team. But why have a rule like that if you're going to allow it to be broken? Why allow one club to break the rule and not the other club?
The point being made here is that its just another example of AFLQ making things up as they go. Nobody is having a crack at Aspley, we're just pointing out the inconsistent way in which rules are applied.
you were implying aspley threw money at the league to keep them in, in your first post
QAFL_Fan
Club Legend
No, I was implying that Aspley as a big club with plenty of money - carries more clout than other clubs.
AFLQ are quite happy to bully some clubs around, while others they just fall at their feet. Aspley is one of the latter clubs.
AFLQ are quite happy to bully some clubs around, while others they just fall at their feet. Aspley is one of the latter clubs.
Fact
Aspley threatened to not enter neafl if weren't allowed to keep community team
Southport will always play in the highest competition available to them whatever the collateral damage
Redlands were financial enough to enter the NEAFL
Panthers at the time didn't think it was a good move to go into NEAFL
A my tip for the QAFL
Labrador unbeaten
Aspley threatened to not enter neafl if weren't allowed to keep community team
Southport will always play in the highest competition available to them whatever the collateral damage
Redlands were financial enough to enter the NEAFL
Panthers at the time didn't think it was a good move to go into NEAFL
A my tip for the QAFL
Labrador unbeaten
So Aspley called the governing bodies bluff basically....so be it. Interesting discussion though bc I agree with qafl; why have rules if they can be manipulated? And it is true that some clubs get a better run at aflq headquarters than others, maybe based on history and contribution to the game?? Not sure. A club that consistently is a pain in the backside with paying fees, complaints against, etc probably shouldn't get a great run. Tbh reckon the NEAFL side should have been called the nth bris hornets and have a loose affiliation with the Aspley fc. Not sure the QFA team gets too much of a leg up from them anyway?
I suppose the point made by qafl is why have rules in place?? Just be up front. The surfers, no colts, rule is another case in point.
I suppose the point made by qafl is why have rules in place?? Just be up front. The surfers, no colts, rule is another case in point.
2 Left feet
Debutant
- Jul 5, 2014
- 57
- 39
- AFL Club
- Carlton
There is already a drain on the Northside of kids flocking to Aspley with stars in their eyes, ask anyone from any of the surrounding clubs where some of their best kids have ended up in recent years. It's hard enough keeping kids in the game as they get older for a myriad of reasons, but when you lose them to your neighbouring super power it just burns.
Word on the street is the AFLQ view the colts comp as a 'participation competition' only, so not a huge amount of effort is put into enforcing their 'rules' or maybe they are just guidelines...
Word on the street is the AFLQ view the colts comp as a 'participation competition' only, so not a huge amount of effort is put into enforcing their 'rules' or maybe they are just guidelines...
Well it is a participation comp - they understand that if a kid is really any good at U18/19 level then he is playing senior footy, not Colts. Might be the odd Colts game. The issue is exactly what you alluded to though that kids/parents believe that playing at Aspley Colts is some sort of direct pathway to their NEAFL team - complete bollocks but hey, try telling that to some people. We even have 16s going down to play in their 17s comp bc they think the sc comp is too weak when the same boys would really benefit from playing Colts, esp if they are aspiring to play State 16s... The AFLQ really need to start asking what is the reason for this player drain bc it will end up looking pretty ugly if they continue to condone it.
QAFL_Fan
Club Legend
Good on them then, called AFLQ's bluff and they wilted like the wet lettuce they are.
Other clubs should try the same thing, I doubt the lettuce will always be so wet!
Innovativefwd
Senior List
Sorry for my ignorance guys but who is at the helm this year for Lab?
RAZ66
Senior List
Feeling so far away from Qld Footy down here in SA this year. so hope to hear lots of stories about games and how it all going.
The_Sherrin
Debutant
- Apr 3, 2012
- 115
- 14
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
I went out to Yeronga today, watched Morningside v Western Magpies in a practice match. Morningside side won by around 8 goals. Maggies looked like they had a few out. The biggest news was the injury to Staker. From a distance it looked like a Hammy.
The_Sherrin
Debutant
- Apr 3, 2012
- 115
- 14
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
It happen late into the 3rd Qtr. The 4th Qtr only went for 15min.
