Wow, weren't Cashmere the 3rd place qualifier from the Chch qualifier, how have they turned their form around in a week?
They did it last year too.... drew with Coastal and Nomads, nearly missed out on the semi's and went on to win it! Strength in depth across the ages. FC will probably be gutted
massive news if true
will the governing body actually enforce the rules however. down here it's seldom been the calling card of the administration.
E's Flat Ah's Flat Too
I'm sure wynton will find away to get round it he usually does , rules are rules they have been broken.
Why would a team be punished for playing a player who played for a team last year?
Especially at junior level... sounds stupid tbh.
Why would a team be punished for playing a player who played for a team last year?
Especially at junior level... sounds stupid tbh.
Pretty strict eligibility rules for Nike Cup designed to stop player poaching. Player has to be registered at a club by September 30th of the year to be able to play in following year Nike Cup.
Yes it sounds harsh but given the shocking levels of outright inducement and poaching something had to happen.
E's Flat Ah's Flat Too
Rumour from n.f.f. This morning . Onehunga ( wynr's) will be banned from the final's for playing a who played for e.c.b last season
Ahmed ? Onehunga may face a ban from 2015 also....
Rumour from n.f.f. This morning . Onehunga ( wynr's) will be banned from the final's for playing a who played for e.c.b last season
Ahmed ? Onehunga may face a ban from 2015 also....
it's not nearly as clear cut as this - this drama goes all the way to the top of NZ Football.
Supporter For Ever - Keep The Faith - Foundation Member - Never Lets FAX Get In The Way Of A Good Yarn
Rumour from n.f.f. This morning . Onehunga ( wynr's) will be banned from the final's for playing a who played for e.c.b last season
Ahmed ? Onehunga may face a ban from 2015 also....
it's not nearly as clear cut as this - this drama goes all the way to the top of NZ Football.
this is all I know and I have no personal opinion or preference as to how it plays out.
Onehunga "loaned" said player to ECB as he didn't make their metro team last year - there was an agreement penned and signed between Onehunga Sports and a representative of ECB who also until recently was the CEO of NZF.
When Sports submitted their Nike Cup team list to NZF they included a copy of the aforementioned letter and NZF approved their squad on a discretionary basis.
As it stands the only way to find out if the ruling stands is for it to be challenged by a club and NZF to review their own earlier call, which it appears has been signed off on by their former CEO.
clear as mud?
So an unregistered player played whole season for ecb "on loan" then didn't have to transfer back to Onehunga for Nike cup? How many ways are there to say cheat?
Didn't he read the nike cup rules? Or did he have a case of the blatters and thought he'd ride roughshod over them anyway. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Kotahitanga. We are one.
Prickly thistle -are you reading this? Cashmere, wests, Hamilton -refuse to play this bunch of cheats.
Kotahitanga. We are one.
Rumour from n.f.f. This morning . Onehunga ( wynr's) will be banned from the final's for playing a who played for e.c.b last season
Ahmed ? Onehunga may face a ban from 2015 also....
it's not nearly as clear cut as this - this drama goes all the way to the top of NZ Football.
What's sight without sound? Love without peace? Copulation without conception?
They played a player who was deemed eligible to play in the tournament by NZF when the team sheets were submitted. Seems to me that they have not broken any rules or done anything wrong given the following clause in this years regulations that I have sourced:
4.1. All issues with regard to player eligibility shall remain at the sole discretion of NZF. NZF shall make the final decision on eligibility matters, which will be binding, on all parties. No other body (including District Federations) will have the discretion to alter or vary any of the regulations with regard to player eligibility to ensure that this criterion is applied consistently throughout NZ.
Talk of NFF pushing to have them kicked out the comp seems far fetched as well given the following clause regarding eligibility should a club field an inleligible player:
4.10. Any team that is found guilty of fielding an ineligible player for whatever reason shall forfeit the match. Instead, victory and the resultant three points will be awarded to the opposing team as well as the score of 3–0.
So I cant see what all the fuss is about?
4.6 is the relevant one.
Players can only play in the MUPC 2014 for the club with which they were registered as at 30 September 2013.
My understanding of how Mainland clubs and fed are interpreting it is: you can't represent a club in MUPC 2014 that you did not play for in the preceeding (2013) season. While this rule states you can play for the club you are registered with on 30 Sept (ie after the 2013 playing season), you can't transfer to a club for the 2013 season after the 30 June.There is also the SPIRIT of the law go consider. At it's most simple it is: if you didn't play for Onehunga in 2013 you cant play for them in 2014 MUPC.
Kotahitanga. We are one.
This is a perfect example of why Nike Cup is considered a 'poison chalice' ...
NZF finds itself in a sticky situation because it appears to have initially agreed to allow two clubs to reach a private agreement about a player 'loan' and that act has created a playing field that is not level for other competitors.
Had the 'loan' option described above been made available to all teams, I am convinced that it would have been used by other clubs.
Hopefully proposed qualification changes to Nike Cup for 2015 will make it harder for this sort of nonsense to occur.
Another thought: Was player in question actually transferred to ECB from Onehunga ? If not and he played in Metro competition for ECB in 2013 it would seem that both clubs have also contravened those regulations as there is no such thing as player 'loans' at youth level - you are either registered for a club and are eligible to play for them or you are not.
The Nike cup should be a fed based tournament like it was 10 years ago, have a team from each federation ftc program play then there would be none of this crap going on!
This is a perfect example of why Nike Cup is considered a 'poison chalice' ...
NZF finds itself in a sticky situation because it appears to have initially agreed to allow two clubs to reach a private agreement about a player 'loan' and that act has created a playing field that is not level for other competitors.
Had the 'loan' option described above been made available to all teams, I am convinced that it would have been used by other clubs.
Hopefully proposed qualification changes to Nike Cup for 2015 will make it harder for this sort of nonsense to occur.
Another thought: Was player in question actually transferred to ECB from Onehunga ? If not and he played in Metro competition for ECB in 2013 it would seem that both clubs have also contravened those regulations as there is no such thing as player 'loans' at youth level - you are either registered for a club and are eligible to play for them or you are not.
good sportsmanship and fair playing field is all we ask for
but all we get is talk and goal posts moving
The Nike cup should be a fed based tournament like it was 10 years ago, have a team from each federation ftc program play then there would be none of this crap going on!
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Yeah I saw that clause as well but NZF would have taken that into consideration in making their decision and as clause 4.1 states - it is NZF that have sole discretion over decisions regarding player eligibility.
Looks like the club asked the question, were given the answer that he can play by NZF and that was it. So the club were given the green light to play the boy by the national govening body who the rules state is the sole body that can rule on player eligibility.
If the Onehunga Sports club were cheating and playing a player who was not allowed to play in the competition then they would have been punished as soon as the boy appeared on a team card in the Nike Cup and took the field by the tournament co ordinator and officials - that has not happened either.
Yeah I saw that clause as well but NZF would have taken that into consideration in making their decision and as clause 4.1 states - it is NZF that have sole discretion over decisions regarding player eligibility.
Looks like the club asked the question, were given the answer that he can play by NZF and that was it. So the club were given the green light to play the boy by the national govening body who the rules state is the sole body that can rule on player eligibility.
If the Onehunga Sports club were cheating and playing a player who was not allowed to play in the competition then they would have been punished as soon as the boy appeared on a team card in the Nike Cup and took the field by the tournament co ordinator and officials - that has not happened either.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Yeah I saw that clause as well but NZF would have taken that into consideration in making their decision and as clause 4.1 states - it is NZF that have sole discretion over decisions regarding player eligibility.
Looks like the club asked the question, were given the answer that he can play by NZF and that was it. So the club were given the green light to play the boy by the national govening body who the rules state is the sole body that can rule on player eligibility.
If the Onehunga Sports club were cheating and playing a player who was not allowed to play in the competition then they would have been punished as soon as the boy appeared on a team card in the Nike Cup and took the field by the tournament co ordinator and officials - that has not happened either.
I think Global Game was off the mark accusing them of cheating. As you say, if it's been signed off by NZF then you can't blame the club for playing the player.
But will that eligibility decision be overturned on appeal if anyone has a crack?
and that seems to be the million dollar question.
So NZF allow 1 player to play for a different club in 2013 than they will play in 2014, yet when 5 players move to a completely different city for Footballing reasons, they won't allow them to transfer to a new team after they would have finished in the Nike Cup!!!!
It's not like these players didn't play for the team they would have in the Nike Cup last season!
In my book, it is cheating if one club gets an unfair advantage when other clubs are not offered the same opportunity. The principle is also at stake - the intent is you are not meant to play for one club in 2013 and represent a different club in 2014 MUPC.
Also, it appears NZF don't know, or disregarded, their own regulations re player transfers.
Kotahitanga. We are one.
The only other thing I can really add is that this players eligbility has already been appealed once (during the AFF Qualifiers) and the appeal was thrown out by NZF on a technicality. In the official ruling NZF refused to rule out that this players eligibility could be overturned on a later appeal. Having said that will Sports play said player in the next round? Because of the silly appeal process sports games up to this point can not be appealed because the time has lapsed - hence Sports can't be thrown out for a previous indiscretion - if it is infact ruled to be one.
The only other thing I can really add is that this players eligbility has already been appealed once (during the AFF Qualifiers) and the appeal was thrown out by NZF on a technicality. In the official ruling NZF refused to rule out that this players eligibility could be overturned on a later appeal. Having said that will Sports play said player in the next round? Because of the silly appeal process sports games up to this point can not be appealed because the time has lapsed - hence Sports can't be thrown out for a previous indiscretion - if it is infact ruled to be one.
What a complete shambles!! In my opinion NZF have shot themselves in both feet with what has gone on here.
I don't agree that you can call it cheating. If you have a question on the rules, and you raise that question with the rule-keeper, and get a green light, you can't be said to be cheating.
Cheating implies an element of dishonesty or trickery, which can't be said to exist if you've put your hand up and asked for a ruling.
Anger at New Zealand Facepalm Football I can understand. But the club/player/coach in question don't deserve any grief in my opinion. At least not on the facts disclosed so far in this thread.
Up to one of the clubs to appeal.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
I don't agree that you can call it cheating. If you have a question on the rules, and you raise that question with the rule-keeper, and get a green light, you can't be said to be cheating.
Cheating implies an element of dishonesty or trickery, which can't be said to exist if you've put your hand up and asked for a ruling.
Anger at New Zealand Facepalm Football I can understand. But the club/player/coach in question don't deserve any grief in my opinion. At least not on the facts disclosed so far in this thread.
Up to one of the clubs to appeal.
Unfair advantage gained to onehunga at their instigation. If that decision had been made public and all clubs advised they could do similar, you would have had a completely different set of players playing for MUPC clubs.
BTW, is there any inference that this is one rule for winton...? or simple NZF incompetence.. or as referenced elsewhere.. massive conflict of interest?
Kotahitanga. We are one.
Quite a turn around by CTFC after losing to both Halswell and FC2010 the previous week. Use of Prescription pills and Caffeine rumoured, since confirmed by coaching staff.
Players though stuck to their milk and Girl Guide Biscuits.
Nice little tournament with 3 point control at all games. Very close games, really good competition. Great to see Green Island involved.
It is such a pity that adult arguments over rules sometimes get in the way of these kids chasing their dreams.
I don't agree that you can call it cheating. If you have a question on the rules, and you raise that question with the rule-keeper, and get a green light, you can't be said to be cheating.
Cheating implies an element of dishonesty or trickery, which can't be said to exist if you've put your hand up and asked for a ruling.
Anger at New Zealand Facepalm Football I can understand. But the club/player/coach in question don't deserve any grief in my opinion. At least not on the facts disclosed so far in this thread.
Up to one of the clubs to appeal.
Unfair advantage gained to onehunga at their instigation. If that decision had been made public and all clubs advised they could do similar, you would have had a completely different set of players playing for MUPC clubs.
BTW, is there any inference that this is one rule for winton...? or simple NZF incompetence.. or as referenced elsewhere.. massive conflict of interest?
It's been going on with WYNRS for years. Remember the first NIKE cup winners in NZ? It was Soccer2, way back in 2005 with Tommy Smith (yeah adopted from Fed1 I know) and all. Well believe it or not the Soccer2 team the following year was even stronger, featuring some players that were to kick on quite well (Nick Branch, Colin Murphy, Pomare Te Anau, Stefan Marinovich). Paul Temple was the coach and the side looked like they would sweep aside all NZ opposition. But then NZF ruled Federation teams were no longer eligible. And fair enough I think - it should be a comp for club sides. But it was a rule change at the last minute and it left a bad taste. Anyway it so happened that many of the Soccer2 boys were with Three Kings - but were they allowed to enter? No. NZF ruled entry was only for U-15 teams. But the Three Kings side was all U-15 players!! Hold on - they were playing in the U-17 Metro comp so were ruled ineligible. The Three Kings lads were heartbroken - it was the chance of a lifetime for them, but Wynton was smirking. Their coach at the time is a friend - and he even spent money on a lawyer to get expert opinion. I had a kid in the team so you can see where I'm coming from. You see it's the same old BS repeated.
Quite a turn around by CTFC after losing to both Halswell and FC2010 the previous week. Use of Prescription pills and Caffeine rumoured, since confirmed by coaching staff.
Players though stuck to their milk and Girl Guide Biscuits.
Nice little tournament with 3 point control at all games. Very close games, really good competition. Great to see Green Island involved.
It is such a pity that adult arguments over rules sometimes get in the way of these kids chasing their dreams.
You can ascertain what your opponent is afraid of by observing the means by which he attempts to frighten you
Having witnessed the type of challenge the winners will face in Australia first hand and observed the results of the antipodes representatives in the finals it has to be acknowledged that you need a good team to progress.
Obviously the further you progress the greater the experience and to their credit Onehunga have given their lads a couple of great experiences in recent years.
I have no issue with clubs targeting the event and players to play in it. It is at the sharp end the best club football we can offer players of this age. With the demise of National Representative Tournaments it is our only chance to play against top players from across the country.
I like this years format, no one off games and tournament based from start to finish.
The rules are clear about prior involvement with a club and I think that is fair. I do not though believe in restricting the players after the event. If someone was to be picked up by a pro club overseas then he would have to wait until the end of the next season to transfer.
If an Academy or school in NZ spotted him and offered a scholarship he would have to wait, it just does not seem right to me.
The exclusion of the Canterbury boys because they were taking up opportunities at an Academy in Wellington and the loss of opportunity to play for the rest of their team mates simply stinks.
I do not know about the loaning of players, not something we would do in Canterbury and does sound a bit fishy.
I don't agree that you can call it cheating. If you have a question on the rules, and you raise that question with the rule-keeper, and get a green light, you can't be said to be cheating.
Cheating implies an element of dishonesty or trickery, which can't be said to exist if you've put your hand up and asked for a ruling.
Anger at New Zealand Facepalm Football I can understand. But the club/player/coach in question don't deserve any grief in my opinion. At least not on the facts disclosed so far in this thread.
Up to one of the clubs to appeal.
How many other players in NZ elligible to play in nike cup in 2014 were provided with the same level of, argh, flexibility? How many other federations/clubs were advised that this same arrangement was available to them if they had players this would be beneficial to?
I don't agree that you can call it cheating. If you have a question on the rules, and you raise that question with the rule-keeper, and get a green light, you can't be said to be cheating.
Cheating implies an element of dishonesty or trickery, which can't be said to exist if you've put your hand up and asked for a ruling.
Anger at New Zealand Facepalm Football I can understand. But the club/player/coach in question don't deserve any grief in my opinion. At least not on the facts disclosed so far in this thread.
Up to one of the clubs to appeal.
Let's put the player to one side, because given his age he is at the affect of what is going on around him. But the club and coach are party to an arrangement they know is being put in place as an exception/precedent so they have agreed to be party to this "arrangement of convenience" - so they deserve any and all the grief any reader of this thread feels moved to throw in their direction.
I don't agree that you can call it cheating. If you have a question on the rules, and you raise that question with the rule-keeper, and get a green light, you can't be said to be cheating.
Cheating implies an element of dishonesty or trickery, which can't be said to exist if you've put your hand up and asked for a ruling.
Anger at New Zealand Facepalm Football I can understand. But the club/player/coach in question don't deserve any grief in my opinion. At least not on the facts disclosed so far in this thread.
Up to one of the clubs to appeal.
Except this was the rule keeper giving the green light to a question, the answer of which benefited his own club?
Let's put the player to one side, because given his age he is at the affect of what is going on around him. But the club and coach are party to an arrangement they know is being put in place as an exception/precedent so they have agreed to be party to this "arrangement of convenience" - so they deserve any and all the grief any reader of this thread feels moved to throw in their direction.
who said anything about it being his son - where did that come from? this is not accurate as far as I know.
I don't agree that you can call it cheating. If you have a question on the rules, and you raise that question with the rule-keeper, and get a green light, you can't be said to be cheating.
Cheating implies an element of dishonesty or trickery, which can't be said to exist if you've put your hand up and asked for a ruling.
Anger at New Zealand Facepalm Football I can understand. But the club/player/coach in question don't deserve any grief in my opinion. At least not on the facts disclosed so far in this thread.
Up to one of the clubs to appeal.
Let's put the player to one side, because given his age he is at the affect of what is going on around him. But the club and coach are party to an arrangement they know is being put in place as an exception/precedent so they have agreed to be party to this "arrangement of convenience" - so they deserve any and all the grief any reader of this thread feels moved to throw in their direction.
who said anything about it being his son - where did that come from? this is not accurate as far as I know.
Whoa, what a huge fail on my part!!