recent activity
» Round 7 Predictions
reply from Sportsbet:06-May-25 18:32
» RE: Round 6 Results
reply from lol :06-May-25 12:49
» RE: Round 6 Results
reply from lol :06-May-25 12:33
» RE: Round 6 Results
reply from Telling :05-May-25 20:49
» RE: Round 6 Results
reply from Telling :05-May-25 19:25
Kenny
wrote on 08-May-24 19:54Just wanted to get an understanding on who is actually for the Flying Batts playing in our league.
I'm trying to protect my daughter.
No
wrote on 08-May-24 20:56Fine line here. There is perceived harm and actual harm. We are now walking a line which is not about opinions.
Truth
wrote on 09-May-24 01:13Flying batts arnt even in the district.
they are from St Peter's....
how is that in the Gladesville area?
Close enough
wrote on 24-Jun-24 05:14Tempe
watts
wrote on 05-Jul-24 11:44Close enough wrote:
------------------------------------------
>>Tempe
------------------------------------------
they should be in St George then,,
long way to fly /glide here
The Mole
wrote on 10-Jul-24 10:40Truth wrote:
------------------------------------------
>
>Flying batts arnt even in the district.
>
>they are from St Peter's....
>
>how is that in the Gladesville area?
------------------------------------------
It is my understanding that all Flying Bats did to ensure they were entitled to be in the association not as a guest club, but a member club was to have the official registered address of the club changed to an address in the geographical boundaries of NWS Football Association.
I don't believe that in contradiction to any rules or regulations but it does raise the question of whether it is morally right to do so and more importantly is it in the best interests of the association.
One thing I am confident with is they wouldn't get the same considerations and protections if the club was in a different association.
The Mole
wrote on 10-Jul-24 11:26After a quick search Flying Bats are in the 2133 postcode which clearly isn't in the geographical boundaries of the NWS Football Association, so my previous posts appears to be incorrect.
A guest club they still must be.
watts
wrote on 10-Jul-24 14:09They shld be registered in Granville
patty
wrote on 18-Sep-24 12:11The Mole wrote:
------------------------------------------
>
>After a quick search Flying Bats are in the 2133 postcode which clearly isn't in the geographical boundaries of the NWS Football Association, so my previous posts appears to be incorrect.
>
>A guest club they still must be.
>
------------------------------------------
Some could say the same as ST Pats who are based in strathfield...
The Mole
wrote on 23-Sep-24 10:13patty wrote:
------------------------------------------
>
>The Mole wrote:
------------------------------------------
>
>>After a quick search Flying Bats are in the 2133 postcode which clearly isn't in the geographical boundaries of the NWS Football Association, so my previous posts appears to be incorrect.
>>
>>A guest club they still must be.
>>
>
------------------------------------------
>
>Some could say the same as ST Pats who are based in strathfield...
------------------------------------------
Very true, if it applies to one, it should be applied to all.
Consistency is all one wants.
Actually
wrote on 25-Sep-24 14:44Bathurst 75 are making a comeback.
They were wondering if they could join too?