Capital 1

Jville relegated (as a result of today's CL playoff 1-1 draw).

Better auto-replace five with six in your planning document 

Kind of gutted NW went down, been in Cap1 as long as I can remember. Hope you guys come straight back up, from what I've seen and if you can retain your squad you shouldn't have any trouble doing so. Such a tight league it really could've been anyone.

Naenae have proven it can be done. Sure NW can get back up there.

Quite right. CL told Mar it was ok to play Fa'arodo. Turns out it wasn't.

One of them was not much chop though fatcontroller.  (See what I've done there).

Yes I see news. I must say the 2nd wave of players who jumped for the 2nd stint in cap2 definitely made room for the newbies to make an impression, which of course they did.

Don't worry I'll be back riding in on a white horse to save the day!

Looks like the NW drop thing is still an issue based on a recent CF comm. NW legal team must have been kept on post season

How does that happen? Surely you finish where you finish and that's that?

I heard a similar rumour...Can't remember details (didn't think the guy was telling the truth). He mentioned there could be an 11 team Cap 1.

It's ridiculous. You sign up to the rules at the start of the season and if you get relegated then unlucky. You should've been better. It'll be a farce if it's 11 teams.

You would have to rewrite the regs

Not sure what you are on about as normal Blew- but Mar lost the points ages ago

What I don’t get is the timeline finished off with a fleeting statement about fairness. Who has this been unfair to? Miramar yes – but it doesn’t affect them in the scheme of things and the law has ruled against  them and that’s that. Just as the law ruled in favour on NW (twice). If they hadn’t had Frodo they might not have won on paper.

Many of you will be aware of an issue that surfaced in relation to Capital One during the last week of the season, namely:

·Miramar Rangers (MR) approached Capital Football (CF) Operations Department seeking a clarification as to the re-grading of a player from Central League to Capital One; the game being played on 25/8.

·Technically this is able to be done albeit there was some ambiguity around the rule in relation to when the league finishes e.g. is it when the teams involvement finishes or the leagues itself;- Rule 6.1 No player can be re-graded down to another team following conclusion of their league, unless that player has not played in a higher graded team at any time during the season.

·CF's interpretation was made that it was the latter, being when the league itself finished. Some of you will remember a similar issue with the Eastbourne U 17 team earlier this season, and CF applied a consistent approach. MR picked its team on that basis.

·As is their right Brooklyn Northern United (BNU), whom MR  played, disputed the ruling and appealed to CF as the result of the game had a direct bearing on BNU’s potential relegation form Capital One.

·CF explained the decision to BNU and rejected their appeal, based on what is explained above.

·BNU then, as is their right, appealed to NZ Football(NZF).

·NZF agreed with BNU’s appeal and reversed CF’s ruling granting the match to BNU (2-0), as per the regulations, and with it  the 3 points.

·This then moved BNU from the potential relegation spot and replaced by North Wellington.

·All of the possible options regarding relegation were predicated against the result of the Stop Out Central League play-off match v Palmerston North Marist; played on 14/9 and 21/9.

·The result of this game went Palmerston North Marist’s way thus confirming North Wellingtons potential relegation.

·The Board of CF have discussed these series of events and have asked management to look at various options as to “where to from here”; given the inherent issue of fairness or otherwise that surrounds this issue.

·We will continue to update you once the Board of CF has considered the options presented.

rr

Just to put this in some further context. Karori lost points for fielding (quite late in the game) two kids who in no way affected the outcome of the game but who we (actually, I) had failed to get official dispensation for. They were a number of months shy of the right age. Dispensation was subsequently granted. So if we're about fairness where is the fairness there?

And, re Eastbourne 17s, they were advised the incorrect age group by the CF office and were playing a team made up of a number of kids who were actually U18. Despite the protests of a number of teams in the league, CF allowed them to continue to play older players. Island Bay were the club harmed most by this decision, their lost game against Eastbourne dropped them to second. How is that fair.

It's just a total shambles.

Ps This has been the best league EVER 

Seems a bit unfair to put the mistake under the name CF.

When both mistakes (Cap 1 re-grading & Eastbourne U17) have been made by a specific person...

JC

I believe that particular rule is to be rewritten for next season.

My personal opinion is that the rule as it stands at the moment is black and white with no ambiguity about it at all.

I'll just say that from my perspective the intent of a rule doesn’t triumph over the rule as written.  

Only on the weekends and in the privacy of my own home.

This is hilarious !

I'm casting the movie at the moment, I'm not sure whether to get Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise to play me, Steve Buscemi is already contracted to play Feverish. Any particular actor you would like me to approach on your behalf........ :)

Ok ok, let it not be said I am a director who does not listen, I'll call Daniel tonight......that was Craig you wanted and not Radcliffe correct?

Vinny is busy so I am looking for another nutter to play Horsehead.