Capital 1

I will miss wellington football dearly but I'm not fussed about not being part of this league next season. The league has had more drama off the field than on it and it will continue, as much as Teza says everyone needs to move on they won't.

Yeah you're right. It's only me, Tez, Horseiehead and a couple of others that give a shit. Doesn't matter in the scheme of things.

Deep breath. Move along.

North Wellington put themselves in this position by not earning enough points. What would have happened if another team had been relegated because of the points NW earned from their appeals? 

The thing I find weird about this is the match in question didn't involve NW. If it was Mar in the drop zone then it's a different story. It's completely unrelated in my view. If the game had been played on the first day of the season would they still rule the same (not that it could have been)? Maybe BNU only lost because of farodo being another level. Letter of the law says BNU win- much like it did when wharf and Vic were docked points when NW appealed.

I blame Smith for getting booted off the board. If he had been on there there might have actually been someone who knows the views of those involved in men's football and had a pair to not toe the line. Be interesting to know who voted for what - but then judging by the lack of info in the comms I doubt whether transparency is the name of the game here.

I agree. There is no way Norf Welly deserve to remain in Capital 1. The controversy they have created all season demonstrates the struggles this club has on the field. Capital footy should apply some of the same leniency dished out to those clubs that lost point to Norf off the field. They should have been relegated before this whole end of season saga. Good luck next year as every single team has added motivation playing against Tezas tantrums.  

Does Cap2 get reduced subs for less games?

Totally ridiculous. Jville should be relegated.

They relied on a silly technical protest to get three points off Wharf.

Who lives by the sword should die by it.

CF are making a joke of the game.

Guy's the ruling has been made, it's happened so jog on, all this bitterness will eat you up, go out and enjoy your summer and we can start the angst all over again next season.

It's all a moot point anyway as this coming season is more than likely the last for the present competition structure.

Sorry teza but you dont get to decide wen or if we shud accept what has happened here and I doubt that this saga is over by any stretch of the imagination.

Love you Tez

CF has opened a massive can of worms with its decision that third party protests can influence the outcome of a match. From now on if a team plays a non-eligible player, or even it maybe does so, or a ref or lino (aka an AR) makes a dodgy call, CF will have to consider, quite seriously, complaints from half a dozen other clubs not involved in the game and maybe some not even playing in that division. Come to think of it, I might lodge an appeal myself. Howzzzaaat!

Whatever you do, don't ask Mainland Federation for advice !!!

tldr; someone fill me in on the basics of what happened?

What happened was that leading into the last round of games, it was clear that either team A or team B would be relegated. As they both lost their final game, it seemed that team B would be relegated. But  team B alleged that their final opponent team C had played an ineligible player, and on appeal team B was awarded the match, thus relegating team A. Then in a bizarre move team A appealled, saying that team C had every right to select the player, who we will call Frodo. Capital Footy then agreed that the rule/ruling concerning Frodo was unclear, so team A would not be relegated and next season the division will have 11 teams and that below will have only 9 teams. Some of us think it is crazy that a third party can appeal a result. As for the issue of "fair" play, team A stayed in the league only by winning three points via a protest against team D in mid-season on a technical and thoroughly miserable ground. "Fair?" Yeah right. Hence the comment about dying by the sword.  

Absolute, undeniable farce. Major fail from capital football, muppets+++. The bottom feeders of Wellington football norf welly avoid the noose AGAIN. Abysmal.

I dont get why everyone is having a go at NW, its clearly CF at fault here. If they had made the correct decision in the first place re: Mar vs BNU, then this wouldnt have happened. Its the conflicting outcomes of CF and NZF that have caused this. Once youve told a team theyre safe, and then tell them 'oh no wait youre relegated' well... pretty piss poor really.

So the decision to make it an 11 team league is based purely on the fact the Mar BNU game ended in a protest resulting in points switched? How can anyone on the board seriously justify that?

Hi All

I write to clubs in Capital 1 and 2 to confirm the decision made this week by the Capital Football Board regarding the make-up of Capital 1 and 2 for 2014.

The situation as explained in the email dated 1 October (and copied below), has been discussed at length by the Capital Football Board. The situation involves exceptional circumstances.  A team has acted in reliance on an interpretation of the regulations given by Capital Football.  Another team has (completely within its rights) appealed and that interpretation has been overturned by NZF (after the game).  While we accept the NZF ruling, the consequences for North Wellington (who were not involved at all) were severe. Accordingly, the Board has decided that North Wellington will not be relegated and will retain their position in the Capital 1 League for the 2014 season, therefore making Capital 1 an 11 team league.

As a result, Capital 2 will be a 9 team league in 2014. Both Capital 1 and 2 will have a bye round due to the uneven number of teams however if the clubs so wish there is the possibility of crossover friendly games between the Capital 1 and 2 teams.

For the following season in 2015, both Capital 1 and Capital 2 will revert back to a 10 team league competition. The normal relegation/promotion process will be followed.

This decision has not been taken lightly, it is intended to be a one-off, and is not expected to set a precedent. 

We are taking two further measures:

·The Men’s Advisory Group are currently reviewing and refining the wording and clarification of the playing regulations before the normal process of seeking Board approval.

·The Capital Football office will be instigating a new system and process on how Playing Regulation enquiries are managed. The details on this process will be communicated in the new year.

Please contact me at [email protected] if you have any questions.

Regards
Chris Canton

Chair, Capital Football Board

All,

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.

Send your questions or comments to..

Please contact me at [email protected] if you have any questions.

Regards
Chris Canton

Interesting that Teza is claiming the last year of the current structure when Chris's email says:

"For the following season in 2015, both Capital 1 and Capital 2 will revert back to a 10 team league competition. The normal relegation/promotion process will be followed."

I think teza's lawyer wrote that

I'd like to know if this has been approved by NZF or do they not need to and/or if other clubs were to appeal this decision to NZF could it be overturned?

The playing of Frodo was dodgy, the two mid-season protests by Jville did not win them any friends, and the ambiguous "season end" rule needs changing. But the key issue for me is whether a third party (ie a third club) can appeal the result of a match. I say absolutely not. 

As do I but here's the thing, NW appeal was obviously unsuccessful as the 2-0 result to BNU of the game from the initial appeal still stands, therefore that should be the end of it but clearly was not. So what was the following process that lead to CF board meeting and coming to this decision. I'm sorry but this just reeks of the sort of politics that goes on at FIFA level.

Where has the 2rd club business come from? BNU appealled because they were the team that played Miramar, and were set to be relegated if that result stood.

I would say this is something Richard Reid has instigated based on a whinge from NW. He seems to be all about fairness and equity which is all good, but without the background knowledge on matters I think that can come unstuck. Like the decision to amend the Kelly Cup which went pear shaped. Good bloke but he has kind of opened a can of worms with this one if that is the case. The realities are that odd team leagues at the top level are shit house. And the fact that everyone is hating on NW in the first place anyway.

If it actually is the board then they all need an uppercut

@2ndbest
Which relegated NW so they appealed BNU's successful appeal.

from CF email.

·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).

BNU's appeal to NZF was successful handing them 2-0 victory therefore relegating NW who in turn appealed. Very messy.

Who said NW appealed?

So I've hunted around to find where I read about NW's appeal and all I could find was a post f4om Loftus Road 2days ago so not sure how reliable or accurate this is.

zero. Maybe a whinge but not an appeal (as they wouldn't have a case)

Noted.