Regional Football - powered by Park Life

Olympic/Naenae

221 replies · 9,549 views

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

No one stopped you saying what you wanted to say, just stopped you saying it in a fashion that was offensive to everyone else. As per the forum rules.

This forum is a dictatorship, this isn't a free-for-all, it's a forum run by an organisation and sometimes that organisation will make a decision on what is acceptable or not.

yes i can see it would be offensive to you as you have a conflict of interest being a naenae man yourself!!!! i'm starting to think you also belong to the chinese communist party as well the way you suppress my comments as a whole rather than simply ** the bits u find offensive as you do to others on this thread....dictatorships don't like the opposition and the truth hurts aye.

so to put a new spin on it why aren't your club investing nz charity into developing nz youth rather than giving it to pomes, are they in fact holding work permits and paying tax? have they not breached transfer reg's as per fifa because nobody questioned it till now?? if not your

club are not playing in the spirit of the game and there may be an issue to contest!!! IRD and customs might like to hear your explanation. the can has only just been opened....

if i was a rich greek ( next life maybe ), i would definately be taking this to court, and i hope they do!!

the current governing bodies just can't handle the brain power needed to remedy this simple dispute, it's to easy that's why.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

this was an enjoyable discussion till you got involved

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

the point is steelo that naenae aren't saints also and should forever tread lightly

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Oldbutwise that is almost what the rule amendment I proposed at the start of this season however the manager at the time could not explain it to the clubs and therefore the clubs voted to leave the current rule in place

Interesting comment from NZF to the effect that CF have had ample time to have the rule clarified.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

You keep going Pizda, all you are doing is making a fool of yourself (once again).

Incidentally I have made no secret of the fact that I play for Naenae, so it's hardly a great revelation to anyone. It's no revelation to Da Boss who I have chatted too on a number of accassions about this situation.

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Poor old CF and NZF are they copping it; clubs have known for years that if a protest goes to NZF they will only look at the protest as to the letter of the law, not the spirit of the game.

The blame as I see it is 70% goes to Olympic for asking clarification to a rule that they knew that other clubs and maybe they have used to their benefit in the past

To me once Olympic knew that Naenae would protest, it was they who took the chance of a protest by Naenae to NZF, remember collectively CF had only less than 12 months experience in interoperating the senior rules.

30% to CF for contacting Naenae.

Have a happy day and now I stand back and cop the flack

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Hard News wrote:

This iis very much correct from Hard News. no issue there at all

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

oldbutwise wrote:

I have also just found out that apparently Marist played an inelegiable player in the first game against Olympic and that said player got booked hence CF wrere suppose to notify Olympic and Marist, take the points away from them and give them to Olympic at which point this would not have happened as Olympic would have won the league. Funny all this, at the end of the day CF and make an absolute mess of all of this so it will be interesting to see what they will do for all clubs concerned to make amends. I think overall as someone mentioned above they are new and need time to be allowed to get to grips with every thing but they also need to stand up front say they have made mistakes make a decision that is in favor of football in general and move forward.

does it require Olympic to still protest post game (within the time period)?

Feverish2009-10-30 14:02:48

Founder

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Pull your head in pizda. Or I'll ban you.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Question is critter if you can not rely on the advise from the governing body to whom should be 100% accurate in their decision making process, enough so to be accurate enough to stand up to appeal by NZF where do you go. To me at least by asking the question CF should have questioned there advice postpone the game if they were unsure and resolved the issue prior to play then this mess wouldn't have happened. All sports people need to rely on the advise given by the governing body they are the Representative as such they are the ones that need to take responsibility for their actions. All governing bodies need to be beyond reproach this just shows that CF really are not sure about what they are doing. Why would you as a governing body advise something to a club knowing that they would appeal and that appeal could be upheld. Surely you would want to make sure of your facts rather than make yourself look like an idiot?

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Play-Offs have been around only for the last few years and it is only in the last 2-3 years that clubs have been using this loophole of dropping players down and then brining them up to get around of this reg.

The ï¿½regardingï¿½ is a regulation and regulations can at ANY time be amended by the manager, such amendments stay in force until changed by a remit at an AGM.

It is the ï¿½rules that can only, with the backing of NZF be allted at the AGM.

Therefore CF could have just allted the regulation, informed both clubs prior the match and this situation would never have arisen.

If I was still at CF, I would have given the same ruling i.e. the player could play, however I would not have informed Naenae.

I, Sole and Keith were consistent in our interpretation of the reg for the past 15 years, that ï¿½regardingï¿½only applied to players going downï¿½.

The wordï¿½downï¿½was never in the regulation but was on a form that clubs use to submit to CF prior to the match, this form was done away with at the request of the clubs.

I would assume there would have been a lot correspondence from both clubs on this matter between ,CF, Olympic and Naenae, so why did CF not rework the regulation and word it in such a way to either allow the player to play or stop the player from playing.

To me that a question that need be addressed to CF.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Who drafted the rules in the first place?

Shoddy job.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

The origin is way back in the WSA days and all amendments until Keith arrived were done by clubs submitting remits at the AGM, and voted by the clubs.

Since the arrival of KP it was him and on advice from his ï¿½advisorsï¿½ who have made amendments to the regs and never submitted to the AGM.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

ok so my lower class straight shooting wit was to sensitive for your upper class aristocatic ears.

i APOLOGISE , however people living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones ie angus.

naenae , shame on your club which i used to hold in high regard for its friendly atmosphere.

how can u face ur peers , knowing fully well u were ********* beaten by a side that had been

together for a whole season, and with the player in question having been loyal to his team and club.His only fault was by assisting their 1st team occassionly on the bench.your actions can only be seen as pety. It reminds me of KZ7 vs stars and stripes courtroom saga that put me off yachting since!!! We don't need lawyers settling what should be done on a pitch. Yes, if they dropped regular 1st teamers down for the play-off i could see your point.

olympic, i feel for ur club strongly, u deserve better than wot has been dished out. hopefully there is a satisfactory outcome to this conspiracy. Your club can only grow to become one of the capitals greats in years to come, with the depth a capital premier side will create.

CF u need to take the bull by the horns and remedy this outrageous situation, not only in the interests of fairness, but to regain some respect and credibility for the orginisation. accept your part in this, allow an extra team in the comp, albeit a bye week. run cap 1 with 1 less team and a bye. at the end , play-off 2nd(cap1) with 3rd bottom in prem's and relegate bottom 2 and everything will be back to normal 2011.

hope that's not to simple....have a good day all ....good-bye

pizda2009-11-04 11:00:31

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Feverish wrote:

toehacker wrote:

Who has acted within the spirit of the rules and the game in this case? I would say

1. Capital Football - for giving a ruling that seemed to represent the spirit of the rule

2. Olympic - for trying to play within the rules and seeking a ruling when in doubt.

Who hasn't acted within the spirit of the game

3. NZ Football - for upholding an appeal that overrules CF and does not appear to represent the spirit of the rule (Not sure how much scope they had to make any other decision though)

4. Naenae - For lodging the appeal when they were not good enough to win the match on the park.

I think you have those groups round the wrong way buddy

How have Olympic not acted within the spirit of the rules and game here Feverish?

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I think Greenie has his "if its Greek I don't like it" hat on.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

pizda wrote:

,,,knowing fully well u were resoundly beaten by a side that had been

Losing by 1 penalty in a shootout now counts as resoundly beaten does it ? Okay I'll note that for future reference.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

uncle steve wrote:

Feverish wrote:

toehacker wrote:

Who has acted within the spirit of the rules and the game in this case? I would say

1. Capital Football - for giving a ruling that seemed to represent the spirit of the rule

2. Olympic - for trying to play within the rules and seeking a ruling when in doubt.

Who hasn't acted within the spirit of the game

3. NZ Football - for upholding an appeal that overrules CF and does not appear to represent the spirit of the rule (Not sure how much scope they had to make any other decision though)

4. Naenae - For lodging the appeal when they were not good enough to win the match on the park.

I think you have those groups round the wrong way buddy

How have Olympic not acted within the spirit of the rules and game here Feverish?

I'm pretty much stoking the fire, but I believe once Olympic decided to play RE in CL, they should not have played him. He kept O'Connor out the team and played in the CHatham CUp final didn't he? Wouldn't argue that he is a second team player. Perhaps a first team played who played down a fair bit.

Founder

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Feverish wrote:

uncle steve wrote:

Feverish wrote:

toehacker wrote:

Who has acted within the spirit of the rules and the game in this case? I would say

1. Capital Football - for giving a ruling that seemed to represent the spirit of the rule

2. Olympic - for trying to play within the rules and seeking a ruling when in doubt.

Who hasn't acted within the spirit of the game

3. NZ Football - for upholding an appeal that overrules CF and does not appear to represent the spirit of the rule (Not sure how much scope they had to make any other decision though)

4. Naenae - For lodging the appeal when they were not good enough to win the match on the park.

I think you have those groups round the wrong way buddy

How have Olympic not acted within the spirit of the rules and game here Feverish?

You know what happens when you play with(or stoke...!) the fire...

RE kept playing for the CL team due to injuries to certain players, that is the role of the any reserve team isn't it...??????? to be able to help the 1st team ....

Lets hope that CF make the" right decision" this week...if not then I am affraid it will be a very long summer for some of the people concerned...,

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

But can you not see that Olympics First Team ambitions at the time were to keep wining - obviously.

And give or take, it is usually the second team of any club to act as a type of feeder into the first team. What would a club be without interchangeable players really? So it was only rudimentary that a player of resonable calibre be 'promoted' to first team to fill the gaps no?

There is no argument against RE being a second team player. He played 98% of the 2nd teams matches and you cannot say he was a first team player filling voids in the seconds, rather the opposite.

Plus it wasn't till later in the season he started having a role with the first team. I mean FFS the guy was the 2nd team captain.

I just see this whole situation as ridiculous and anyone who see's Olympic in the wrong, or shame on you crap Olympic knew blah blah, then your an idiot.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

did he play in the play-off game last year? did he captain the CL side in their last game last season? Feverish2009-11-02 15:52:59

Founder

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

uncle steve wrote:

So really,you'd just have 11 first team players,name the rest of the squad as "co-captains" of the 2nd team,then have a CL (sorry,backup for the CL side) team playing in the 2nd teams playoff. I mean,theyre all just injury cover for the first team and they are captain of the 2nd team after all.

Rules are rules. And theyre rules for a reason.

EDIT: the only thing that i feel sorry for on olympics side is that CF told them that it was ok,and that is a very valid argument on their side. However on the other side of the coin is Naenae,who have a reasonable expectation that the team they played against was allowed to be playing as per the rules (which RE was not),so they were within their rights to appeal,and technically it was a correct decision. So its easy to see that both sides were in the right here. Peoples opinions are different depending to which way they lean,im personally with Naenae,but I can certainly see someone who is in the olympic camps point of view too.

Fairest decision would be for them both to play in the division next season. Easy.

Tegal2009-11-02 16:02:11

Allegedly

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

They canï¿½t have both in there. Man up, bite the bullet and choose one (or demote Marist)

Founder

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Tegal wrote:

uncle steve wrote:

Rules are rules. And theyre rules for a reason.

Fairest decision would be for them both to play in the division next season. Easy.

We not talking about anyone else in the squad.

The person in the spotlight is Ryan Edwards and the circumstances surrounding him.

He WAS 2nd team captain, not the other 4 people on the Olympic first team bench so don't know what your point is there. Plus he is one of probably only 3 players that was dropped all year anyway.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Da Boss wrote:

Lets hope that CF make the" right decision" this week...if not then I am affraid it will be a very long summer for some of the people concerned...,

I have a lot of sympathy for Olympic on this - there doesn't seem to be much doubt that they have simply acted on bad advice from CF and got burned.

However, I think there's a need for some perspective here. This is not actually the end of the world. Yes, CF made a bad call, but these things happen. There were many other calls made by all sorts of people during the season that contributed to where both Olympic and Naenae ended up in their respective leagues. Players, referees, coaches and administrators. Penalties awarded and turned down. Shots blasted over the bar. Bad substitutions. Players selected and dropped, you get my drift.

The thing that disturbs me is that there have been a few references in this thread to Olympic taking further action if they don't get their way. For f**ks sake - it's because CF spend so much time dealing with a constant stream of this type of crap that mistakes get made in the first place. And CF certainly cannot afford to spend any money on this if Olympic decide to take legal action (and of course it's actually our money anyway).

Olympic - do the right thing and take this one on the chin. You have a lot of sympathy at the moment but that will evaporate quickly if you decide to dig in. On the other hand you will earn a lot of respect if you make a decision that is ultimately for "the good of the game".

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

uncle steve wrote:

Tegal wrote:

uncle steve wrote:

Rules are rules. And theyre rules for a reason.

Fairest decision would be for them both to play in the division next season. Easy.

It was a theoretical situation that could be created by your interpretation of the rules to bend for this one player.

Allegedly

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

terminator_x wrote:

Da Boss wrote:

Lets hope that CF make the" right decision" this week...if not then I am affraid it will be a very long summer for some of the people concerned...,

Oh man I shouldn't respond to this but I will.

"it's because CF spend so much time dealing with a constant stream of this type of crap that mistakes get made in the first place"

So it's Olympic's fault that CF misinterpreted their own rules?

I think you have the cart before the horse.

In fact it's because a constant stream of these types of mistakes are being made that we have to deal with so much of this type of crap.

I think suggesting that they should "take one for the team" is a bit rich. That is what Naenae should have done "for the good of the game" but they didn't.

.....

Also, don't mistake the angry postings of a few in the Olympic club for their official view. They are taking it very calmly for the most part and I think that is a credit to them.

Capital Football I understand are being very receptive and that is also a credit to them. The knee jerk response in this situation would have been to batten down the hatches and say that no further correspondence will be entered into. Fair play to CF, that is not what they've done.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

From an outsiders perspective, I feel sorry for Naenae.

They didn't perform well enough during the season to warrant staying in Champs Premier. Now due to a technicality and staying up, they've missed the opportunity to give some young players the chance to form a good team and win cap 1.

And now, dare I say it, they have to wait another year to be given that opportunity.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Toe Knee wrote:

Founder

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I detect sarcasm?

Allegedly

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

toe knee find me a squad of young players good enough in naenae to compete in capital 1? just doesn't happen like that

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

but Olympic seem to have a squad that can compete at that level or possibly higher? Maybe Naenae should head down to compete at a level they can without paying for players?

Not meaning to stir just find your argument a little flawed.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

its well known though that there is a good youth population in town not to mention the large numbers of greek youth lining up to play for their local club. just pointing out that Naenae doesn't exactly have the same social demographic as a lot of other clubs..

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Smithy wrote:

Oh man I shouldn't respond to this but I will.

"it's because CF spend so much time dealing with a constant stream of this type of crap that mistakes get made in the first place"

So it's Olympic's fault that CF misinterpreted their own rules?[/QUOTE]

Not at all. When I say that I am really making reference to Naenae's technically "correct" but not very sporting appeal. As you point out yourself:

Smithy wrote:

That is what Naenae should have done "for the good of the game" but they didn't.

I agree totally with that. I'm just suggesting that Olympic don't have to play the same game and if they decide to take one on the chin rather than spin this farce out any further I would totally respect them for that.

[QUOTE=Smithy]Also, don't mistake the angry postings of a few in the Olympic club for their official view. They are taking it very calmly for the most part and I think that is a credit to them.

Sounds good. Let's hope for a peaceful resolution that limits the impact on everyone's precious time and resources.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I think its a bit rich some of the olympic representitives in this discussion. Call it karma.......sounds as though the dropping down of this particular player sounds legit. But they have been dropping players in the past seasons more often than not, and up in levin last year a first team couldnt beat a second team!

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

That's true Nik but it's not like they've been doing anything that Wests, Lower Hutt, Karori, and others haven't done over the past few seasons.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Yarn. Any truth you are the Bubsï¿½s legal counsel?

Founder

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

James Dean has admitted to it in other threads Greene. And besides, I'm saying it's not that big of a deal and everyone's doing it.

And, no. They wanted to pay me in ouzo and souvlaki so I said no.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

he did. It wasnt a play-off - which is the whole point of this. We have already flogged the other side of things.

Founder

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Baiter wrote:

pizda wrote:

,,,knowing fully well u were resoundly beaten by a side that had been

Losing by 1 penalty in a shootout now counts as resoundly beaten does it ? Okay I'll note that for future reference.

you're right u know! I'll edit that word out with *'s, the result was of more significance, ty.

i've sacked my proof-reader he must've been thinking of the tawa/diamonds game lol.

Permalink