Nike Cup 2014

Explain what you mean by "overseas-sourced". As far as I know Tade, Berlanga, Irving and Bilen came to this country of their own accord. Like Chris Bale, Danny Robinson, Brian Shelley and Sam Burfoot - why have you not included them? Once here, are they then to be refused allowance to play to the highest level they can achieve so that NZ-born players can fill their place? Also, Cardozo played for Waitakerie years ago. As an Australian should he be told to get back across the ditch and stay there if he wants a game? You're on shaky ground mate.

That's a chat that belongs in another thread. Check out the ACFC or ASB Prem threads, those discussions go round and round in those.

It's very hard to pick a winning argument on the foreign player issue. There are good points on both sides. Strong foreign players do make the league stronger, which is good, but they also take places of Kiwi players, which is bad. 

sorry, just for the record. The Miramar Under 17 beat this young Wests side 5-0 over 4 x 20 minute quarters.  However this doesnt take away from there excellent performance, they are a joy to watch having been well coached over a number of years. They just lack the depth of squad to compete with the bigger lads and the pace and power of the Miramar team were the deciding factors.   

Pomgolian

My question should probably be on a separate thread but..

Looks like Miramar Rangers is the only Capital team entered in the Auckland City Under 17 tournament on 21-23 March. Couple of teams from Nelson and good representative from Mainland Football. Is the interest in this tournament limited in the Capital?

KiwiChris

Good question, sorry I can’t speak for other clubs.  All I can say is Miramar has struggled to provide a competitive team at this level over the past couple of years due to players college commitments and the club itself having other priorities (i.e Senior level) it has taken a lot of hard work from certain members to push the case for more support.  Thankfully this is now changing and the club is taking a more long term view and can now see the benefit of offering a good environment for this age group, which in turn will hopefully help the senior teams in the not to distant future. Gaining entry to Auckland Cup and being competitive is part of it. 

Hey Pomgolian, will the Phoenix Academy boys turn out for Miramar?

I coached Karori's U17 team last year. We applied to enter the Auckland tourney but they gave priority to teams who had entered in the first year, and there were no spaces left. We lent Miramar a couple of players. 

Thanks Pomgolian

It will be good to see Miramar up here.

"Thankfully this is now changing and the club is taking a more long term view"  Well done Pomoglian.  That kind of committee wrangling isn't always fun.  I always found it weird how the mighty mar were happy to roll out juniors sides who were pretty average year after year....

College football is a blight on youth football, which should be run by clubs.

If you think Wellington College have some sort of stellar 1st XI programme then you haven't spoken to the players who play there...

School sport is for fun. That is all it should be.

there is a real issue in Auckland (particularly with schools like Westlake on the Shore), where the school actively make life difficult for the students if they want to play club football over school.

There was an incident which made the media a couple of years ago, and things haven't improved much since. Schools withdrawing privileges etc if kids choose club first.

Surely they should be celebrating their students' sporting achievement and not showing such a draconian, selfish approach.

Is this the same throughout NZ? if it is then shouldn't NZF be addressing this?

I coach at a school and know it's an on going problem "school vs club". Caused major problems at our school last year with a club demanding a boy play for them on Saturday instead of the school and dispite how you may feel. Isn't what is suppose to happen at the moment.

I think the dream was schools and clubs would work together but that hasn't happen and really I feel the best would be midweek games for school and weekend for clubs just like the girls currently do.

Interesting out from Capital football is the below so I'd say there is more to come of this problem.

"Dear Clubs,

Under the existing MoU Capital Football holds with College Sport, the understanding is that College Sport would deliver 15th Grade and above football competitions and that 14th Grade aged students play their football in a club environment.

Regionally this has not worked to the degree intended as a significant number of 14th Grade students have been playing in their College’s 15th Grade teams therefore making them unavailable to compete in their respective 14th Grade club teams.

In response to requests from clubs to have some clarity around this area; Capital Football and College Sport have reached an agreement whereby College Sport can deliver a 14th Grade mid-week competition.

This is on the understanding that players are then available to play for their club on a Saturday."

Why do the girls play midweek yet the boys first X1 don't? Also I note interesting development in Chch last year where a schoolgirls first XI played under a club banner on Saturday.

Don't know why girls get midweek it's one of those anyways has been.

Funny enough the school I coach at puts our junior boys in the capital football competition, they don't play for club. So don't know how that works. Maybe the school is treated as a "club" in that instance.

In Auckland AFF / NFF Boys school football is still played on Saturday mornings with 13th grade (Year 9) 9.00am games  thru to 1st XI (Senior A & A1) midday kick-off. The top tier of club youth club football (Metro & Conference competitions) where this is a potential clash with 1st XI's and 2nd XI's is then played on Sunday's i.e. 15th Grade, 17th and the top U19 league. (last year 2013) they tried an 16th grade which by all accounts was pretty average)

This seems to have been reasonably successful with kids able to play for both school and maintain their club affiliations. Training commitments can be a bit of a balance but many of the elite school programmes train early morning and during school hours in a dedicated slot.

The latest challenges up here in Auckland is an insistence of the AFF player development leadership that kids play in the correct age group despite ability to play up physical ability etc. Under the Sean Douglas era it was not uncommon for a number clubs to field teams in the 14th Metro comp (Sat) and 15th Metro comp (Sun) invariably a number of 14th grade kids would play 14's on the Sat then turn out for the 15's on Sun. This was all good until last year when some obscure rule around only playing 2 player up per grade were identified and enforced. 

I see under another thread Liam Jordan's achievements are being commented on. To the best of my knowledge Liam played 2 grades up pretty much all through his youth football, played 1st XI as a year 9 etc. Under the current ideals of the AFF leadership this basically won't happen irrespective ability etc. 

In which case he would be playing 16th grade this year instead of playing in a professional club environment. How many ways can we hold players back?

For those saying that "NZF should fix it" you're missing a key part of the picture which is that NZF have no leverage. They can't make schools do anything.

Schools on the other hand do have leverage. Kids have to go there. And schools are statutorily empowered to make rules about those kids' participation in school activities.

So it's very hard for NZF (or Capital Football or whoever) to get any traction.

I know this because I've had my crack at solving this when I was on the CF board. My suggestion was to move CLUB competitions off Saturday morning. Give up that ground to the schools, and run top level club comps either midweek under lights or on Sunday. Give kids genuine choice to play one or the other or both, and then put the onus on clubs to offer the best "product".

That seemed to me to be the solution because school didn't want to move from Saturdays. Overall the CF Board weren't in favour though.

Will be interesting to see how this school 14th grade midweek thing pans out. Wonder if it will just mean kids get two games a week for their school - Wednesday night 14s and Saturday morning 15s.

Main concern would be player overload. Kids that age think they're bulletproof. Modern Sports science thinks otherwise. 

Talking sports science: Whatever happened to Ed Baranowski? Is he still at Mainland? Apart from the early sessions a few years back where he was informing all of his pedigree and why chocolate milk after exercise was a good idea, don' think clubland has seen or heard from him since. Another part of the MF wage bill paid by all that only benefits a small group of FTC players?

Just revisiting the player "Loan" situation as something similar looks like happening in the Capital Football region for 2014 winter season....

As I understand it from what Ive heard....Basic background is Petone & Stop Out havent qualified for the 14th Grade 2014 JPL, whilst Eastbourne have, but are either struggling for players or just wouldnt be competative.....So, about 5/6 Petone players (I dont know anything about Stop Out being involved) will play for Eastbourne in the 14th Grade JPL in 2014, but will remain registered with Petone.

Apart from the should "loans" be allowed at all Q. it again throws up the eligability situation for 2015 Nike Cup .. Ive been told (though admittadly not from any official source) that Capital Football have "approved" the Petone / Stop Out? / Eastbourne situation , but as the Nike Cup is run by NZF dont know if anyone from the involved Clubs or Capital Football has either thought about it...cares about it....ignoring it.. or even maybe dealing with it.?  

I have no ties to any of the clubs mentioned - purely mentioning it for info & happy to be updated, corrected by anyone from the involved clubs , CF etc

Cheers

If rules remain the same as this year then whatever happened this year should also apply next

the nike cup had specific rules to stop loans of players to prop up teams while other domistic competitions world wide allow loans.

as for the eastbourne issue is it not better that the players being loaned get to play at a higher level???

and is it not better for the other teams in the comp to have competitive games?

Not sure where the "loan" story started but it is totally inaccurate from what I have been told.

The situation as I have had it explained to me is as follows:

- The player in question has had an association with Wynton for some time, thru ethnic football etc. and was part of a Wynrs Academy tour to the UK in 2012 http://www.wynrs.co.nz/wynrsauckland/page120/page4/page5/page7/

- At the start of 2013 he was part of ECB setup for the 2013 MUPC (like most kids and their parents he had no idea of the rules and the implications for turning out for ECB. NB: This year is the first year that I understand the MUPC handbook has been accessible via the AFF website. One questions how enforceable the rules would be in law given there is no contract signed etc. etc.)

- After turning out for ECB the kid then decided he wanted to play for Onehunga Sports in 2013. But the MUPC rules prevented this and the kid then found out he wouldn't be able to play for Onehunga Sports in the 2014 MUPC. Apparently he decided he would then sit out the 2013 winter season to enable the transfer to be completed. But ECB wanted him to play for their 14th & 15th Metro teams so a plan was confirmed, (apparently in consultation with the then CEO of NZF who obviously had strong links to ECB) whereby ECB wrote a letter confirming the kid would be released to play for Onehunga Sports in the 2014 MUPC and winter season. The letter was apparently prepared in April 2013 prior to the winter season commencing and acknowledged by ECB secretary / the then NZF CEO / & Wynton. (Apparently the 2013 version of the MUPC rules referred to players representing the club they played for in the previous winter season hence the declaration was seen as overriding this proviso. In the 2014 version of the rules, released in December 2013 this was changed to who the player was registered with as at the 30th Sept 2013)

- The player duly played the 2013 winter season for ECB and his transfer to Onehunga was apparently completed in Oct 2013 (after the transfer window opened again post the 30th Sept) (ref NZF Reg 5 clause 7.1.6)

- When Onehunga completed their entry the letter accompanied the team list as justification for the player not meeting the 30th Sept criteria. Apparently Akld football questioned this with NZF and the player was cleared to play.

- In the days / weeks leading up to the Auckland qualifiers apparently noises where being made by certain clubs from north of the bridge as to the players eligibility. Whilst Onehunga were advised by AFF / NZF the player was cleared to play it was however pointed out that there was a path of appeal to the NZF Appeals Committee, and that whilst unlikely a successful appeal could ultimately overturn the current eligibility ruling and result in the loss of points for any game the player played in per the MUPC rules.

- Onehunga then played the player in their final qualifying game of the Auckland round when they had already secured 6 points and were assured of a finals weekend berth. Ellerslie then obliged by appealing to gain the certainty desired by all parties. The matter was referred to the NZF Appeal Committee who apparently produced 5 pages of commentary but ultimately thru the appeal out and kicked for touch on the basis NZF had not ruled on the matter and as such the matter should not have been referred to them (go figure!)

 - So the tournament progressed a further 2 weekends to the Northern Region qualifiers where Onehunga then were able to include the player on the team card and he took the field again in game 8 (a dead rubber again they had secured sufficient points to qualify for the NZ finals.) Waitakere then appealed his involvement in this game and the Appeal Committee Ruled in their favour on the Thursday evening before the finals weekend and the player was removed from the Onehunga team list. I haven't heard if anyone has formally seen the basis for the Appeals Committee decision although I understand it hadn't been issued at the time of the final's weekend?

So the rest is history Waitakere won the final and are now Australia bound in May, Good Luck to them!

Onehunga chose not to appeal or drag the competition through the muck further. However as I understand it some question marks exist over the validity of players used in the 2013 Northern region finals and the 2014 National Finals. Having dug deeper I understand in 2013 & 2014 players from WaiBop federation clubs transferred to an Auckland Region club for the MUPC on the basis of a shift of over 50km for schooling etc. (Ref NZF regulation 5 rule 7.1.8) which was apparently sighted as the basis on which this is permitted.

http://aff.org.nz/fileadmin/user_upload/Files/Downloads/Regulations/2013/Regulation_5_-_2013_Final_appvd_by_Board.pdf

Having reviewed this it would appear this interpretation is flawed and fails to apply all relevant clauses as it is intended:

1. The MUPC rules establish their own definitive position on player eligibility and make no reference to NZF regulation 5 etc. unlike other parts of the MUPC rules eg disciplinary matters that refer to NZF regulation 7. From re reading the MUPC rules the clear intent of these rules are that players represent the clubs they played for in the previous winter season (i.e. whom they were registered with as at the 30th Sept)

2. Even if you accept there is a basis to consider NZF Reg 5. Reg 5 clause 7.1.8 specifically refers to the dates of 1st July to 30th Sept (the closed transfer period) which are setout in an earlier clause 7.1.6. As such, surely it is not valid to apply this rule outside of these dates and in a situation where the transfer is completed in Feb only days before the competition starts (NB Feb is obviously the open transfer period, but player eligibility fails on the basis of not meeting the 30th Sept criteria)

Surely per the MUPC rules the players should be playing for their WaiBop clubs in the MUPC (the club for whom they were registered with as at the 30th Sept / played the previous winter season? Or simply missing out as 100’s of kids who play for clubs who don’t enter have too?)

Having read all the reg’s it would seem that having played in the MUPC for the club who they were registered with as at the 30th Sept the correct approach is that they should then seek to have NZF Reg 5, clause 7.1.9 applied (exceptional circumstances) to enable them to shift to a local club post the MUPC for the winter season, when per the MUPC rules they would ordinarily be prevented from transferring!

Aren’t we all lucky no one has decided to pursue this matter! Maybe Mr T and others who have been so vocal re cheating etc. would like to see this matter pursued, and the club(s) involved banned? And I wouldn’t mind betting we don’t see any players being permitted on the basis of this interpretation in 2015

I think what we can all say with certainty here is that NZF are fucking clueless.

Thanks for the background 2boys (you must be VERY close to the situation to write in that detail). The overwhelming response to all this - in the light of a fuller story - is just plain sadness at the whole mess.

All I can say say is,"No wonder it is so hard for someone out of Auckland to get through".