CCF CIRCA 2010

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Those games were played at BTS years ago  - glad to see it's been reinstated.

I reckon it'd be awesome if one grade was chosen at random to be a curtain raiser for a CCM match.

I have no problem with the better grades being given a better ground

 

[dibo]

If the ground had fieldturf or similar lots more games could be played there.

 

[Gibbsy]

Massive news form the CCF ...
M18A, M21A, WPL, MPL Res and Firsts GF's to be played at Bluetongue on Sat. 4 September

YAY GO THEM. OMFG IM SO f**kING HAPPY.

Whatever. What about the rest of us who paid our fees, and never actually get to play?

Pretty sure there are more players than just the First Graders etc.

So we are supposed to let the 12 E's and WAA6's play on Bluetongue??
It gives something for players to strive for.. e.g If you want to play on Bluetongue you work hard to get into an A grade team (even though its just PL First/Res atm) or you keep quiet and play your "social" game at Pluim 3

Or is this an attack at wet weather arrangements Poko?

 

[jiggles]

I'm still cranky about wet weather I will continue to whinge because really, I can. And I'm half English. And according to Thurbs, that's perfectly fine.

I'm more than happy for them to play on Bluetongue etc etc whatever...I cannot wait for the "It'll ruin the pitch" brigade to rock up in this thread though

 

[dibo]

Artificial turf farken!

 

[Gibbsy]

I'm still cranky about wet weather I will continue to whinge because really, I can. And I'm half English. And according to Thurbs, that's perfectly fine.

I'm more than happy for them to play on Bluetongue etc etc whatever...I cannot wait for the "It'll ruin the pitch" brigade to rock up in this thread though

Fair enough. We might actually get to play this weekend?

 

[offtheball]

Had lots of ticks for the new board to date, in hind sight there are obviously problems with the wash out policy but they seem to be onto this for next year.

I am interested, however,  in the boards explanation of the kid glove approach to teams that have flaunted the playing of ineligible player rule, some teams more than once in ten rounds. I thought it was a no brainer, play an ineligible player and you lose your points.

 

[WELL INFORMED]

I was wondering as to when this topic would raise its head but from reading the forum regularly i feel that the majority of contributors are those from lower WAA and MAA and O35's which this does not greatly affect. I will give you a bit of history on the debacle so you can decide for yoursleves as to whether or not this rates as the worst decision by a CCF board ever or not.

This year CCF have been checking EVERY team sheet carefully to ensure that the teams have met the regulations and in particular the using of subs from other teams. Over the first 6-7 weeks they found 39 times that teams had breached the regulations.(20 of those teams won their games) At a meeting of club representatives (most clubs had 2-3 people  there) in may this year,  the topic was brought up and a vote in relation as  to if the penalties that should be applied to teams that breached ,should/should not be applied. The vote was 13-10 in favour of the penalties being applied. Most clubs I think left that meeting that night feeling that the penalties(loss of points) would be applied and that was the end of the matter.
The next day all clubs received notification from the Chairman that the CCF board  agreed that the penalties would be applied BUT suspended and only actually be applied if they reoffended. This means that in 20 games teams that had offended and won would keep their points for the  time being, a very soft option because  what idiot team would do it again and think that they would get away with it. Whilst in no way am i saying that all teams did it intentionally , the point still stands that they gained an advantage by playing an ineligible player. It may have only been the fact that they were able to have an extra player that was the advantage, enough in some cases to win a game.

A couple of days later the Woongarrah club appealed the decision to FNSW Sydney branch ( as that is where appeals against a board decision must go)and 7 days later
won the appeal. So now we have the penalties going to be applied immediately. CCF decided to appeal the decision to another  section of FNSW and whilst i have not seen anything officially yet I have heard that they have won that appeal so the suspended penalties will stand.

What gets me is that we teach our kids to play the game fairly and now have to tell them that the opposition did not play within the rules but are still going to get the points, this is farcical to say the least. Another point I would like to make is that some Directors(not all) on the CCF board have close links to particular clubs. In one case a Director who plays for the KDS MAA2 team( who breached regulations twice in the first 7 weeks) had the opportunity to vote  in relation to this matter. I wonder which way he would vote??? As far as I am concerned the vote was far from impartial and they should have just agreed with the clubs.

What if these offending teams end up being league champions or possibly represent to coast in Champion of Champions. They may even displace a rule abiding team from a place in the semis, not fair at all .
And just to show consistency any team that offended from 21 may will have the penalties applied.

any coments from anyone?

 

[Wilsons]

I was wondering as to when this topic would raise its head but from reading the forum regularly i feel that the majority of contributors are those from lower WAA and MAA and O35's which this does not greatly affect. I will give you a bit of history on the debacle so you can decide for yoursleves as to whether or not this rates as the worst decision by a CCF board ever or not.

This year CCF have been checking EVERY team sheet carefully to ensure that the teams have met the regulations and in particular the using of subs from other teams. Over the first 6-7 weeks they found 39 times that teams had breached the regulations.(20 of those teams won their games) At a meeting of club representatives (most clubs had 2-3 people  there) in may this year,  the topic was brought up and a vote in relation as  to if the penalties that should be applied to teams that breached ,should/should not be applied. The vote was 13-10 in favour of the penalties being applied. Most clubs I think left that meeting that night feeling that the penalties(loss of points) would be applied and that was the end of the matter.
The next day all clubs received notification from the Chairman that the CCF board  agreed that the penalties would be applied BUT suspended and only actually be applied if they reoffended. This means that in 20 games teams that had offended and won would keep their points for the  time being, a very soft option because  what idiot team would do it again and think that they would get away with it. Whilst in no way am i saying that all teams did it intentionally , the point still stands that they gained an advantage by playing an ineligible player. It may have only been the fact that they were able to have an extra player that was the advantage, enough in some cases to win a game.

A couple of days later the Woongarrah club appealed the decision to FNSW Sydney branch ( as that is where appeals against a board decision must go)and 7 days later
won the appeal. So now we have the penalties going to be applied immediately. CCF decided to appeal the decision to another  section of FNSW and whilst i have not seen anything officially yet I have heard that they have won that appeal so the suspended penalties will stand.

What gets me is that we teach our kids to play the game fairly and now have to tell them that the opposition did not play within the rules but are still going to get the points, this is farcical to say the least. Another point I would like to make is that some Directors(not all) on the CCF board have close links to particular clubs. In one case a Director who plays for the KDS MAA2 team( who breached regulations twice in the first 7 weeks) had the opportunity to vote  in relation to this matter. I wonder which way he would vote??? As far as I am concerned the vote was far from impartial and they should have just agreed with the clubs.

What if these offending teams end up being league champions or possibly represent to coast in Champion of Champions. They may even displace a rule abiding team from a place in the semis, not fair at all .
And just to show consistency any team that offended from 21 may will have the penalties applied.

any coments from anyone?

What did they do last year when clubs breached the regs?? I thought the clubs appealed to Football NSW??

 

[footballmama]

In one case a Director who plays for the KDS MAA2 team( who breached regulations twice in the first 7 weeks) had the opportunity to vote  in relation to this matter. I wonder which way he would vote??? As far as I am concerned the vote was far from impartial and they should have just agreed with the clubs.

If the above statement is true then this disgusts me. Playing an ineligible player is CHEATING.
I would expect our Directors to be setting the right example!

 

[WELL INFORMED]

Wilsons, read paragraph 3. a club  did appeal and won but now it appears that CCF have appealed the first decision and won, so CCF's original decision stands.


Footballmama, it is true that the KDS MAA2 breached twice and won both those games. To say that the director knowingly cheated is another thing. I am not sure if he played in those games and, I also believe that a  lot of the teams that breached the regulations  just did not know the rules or bother to check to see if they had changed this year. They may have also done it in previous years and as the team sheets have never been scrutinised like they are now, got away with it. I  prefer to say that the teams gained an unfair advantage rather than cheat, but I am aware of a 21's team that were aware of the regulations and still chose to play an ineligible player. I call that stupid!!  my biggest problem is that the same director was allowed to vote on something that had a direct influence on a result for HIS team.

 

[Wilsons]

Wilsons, read paragraph 3. a club  did appeal and won but now it appears that CCF have appealed the first decision and won, so CCF's original decision stands.


Footballmama, it is true that the KDS MAA2 breached twice and won both those games. To say that the director knowingly cheated is another thing. I am not sure if he played in those games and, I also believe that a  lot of the teams that breached the regulations  just did not know the rules or bother to check to see if they had changed this year. They may have also done it in previous years and as the team sheets have never been scrutinised like they are now, got away with it. I  prefer to say that the teams gained an unfair advantage rather than cheat, but I am aware of a 21's team that were aware of the regulations and still chose to play an ineligible player. I call that stupid!!  my biggest problem is that the same director was allowed to vote on something that had a direct influence on a result for HIS team.

I dont care what paragraph 3 says. The CCF did not appeal the decision made by Sydney branch clubs did!

 

[WELL INFORMED]

WILSONS- just received a copy of the "official" determination of CCF's appeal (not clubs appeal) to FNSW. For your info it is headed up -" Case no: 10/03 -Appeal by CENTRAL COAST FOOTBALL against a decision by Sydney branch appeal panel dated 7th june 2010".

This clearly points out that CCF had the power to do what it did which I do not deny  but, to allow directors that have a 'conflict of interest" in the matter to vote was a very poor decision by the board.

 

[goingtoadisco]

Who cares its just a game.

 

[FFC Mariner]

Who cares its just a game.

 

[Part_Timer]

Who cares its just a game.

wrong

Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.

 

[bjw]

Who cares its just a game.

when I did play, football was just a game for me. I didnt take much notice of how other teams went, and I certaintly wasnt deflated or elated after winning or losing. I just didnt care that much. I played for fun.

for me, supporting has been the thing that I view as 'much more than a game.'

 

[From the dug out]

All directors are associated with a team/club either by current or past playing history or through their children, siblings, partners and possibly parents.

Somewhere somehow you will always be able to throw mud if your intention is to smear someone's intergrity.

I just dont know why you try so hard to bag them on here and never talk to them directly at the delegates meetings you attend.

 

[offtheball]

All directors are associated with a team/club either by current or past playing history or through their children, siblings, partners and possibly parents.

Somewhere somehow you will always be able to throw mud if your intention is to smear someone's intergrity.

I just dont know why you try so hard to bag them on here and never talk to them directly at the delegates meetings you attend.

Of course everyone will have some sort of affiliation with one club or another, however, having a son or daughter playing under 12's is a little different to voting on an issue that directly affects the team you play in every weekend.

Even if you vote in a totally impartial manner there will always be the perception of bias.

 

[From the dug out]

All directors are associated with a team/club either by current or past playing history or through their children, siblings, partners and possibly parents.

Somewhere somehow you will always be able to throw mud if your intention is to smear someone's intergrity.

I just dont know why you try so hard to bag them on here and never talk to them directly at the delegates meetings you attend.

Of course everyone will have some sort of affiliation with one club or another, however, having a son or daughter playing under 12's is a little different to voting on an issue that directly affects the team you play in every weekend.

Even if you vote in a totally impartial manner there will always be the perception of bias.

No there's not.

If you are associated with a team then you are associated with a team. There is no difference to being a dad of a 12A team, a M45 or a MAA8 player. 1 opinion, 1 vote.

Oops, I forgot, if you are associated with a team then you must be bias towards that club...how silly of me to forget. Similar to how people manipulate this forum for the benefit of their personal or club stance on a given scenario.

I see you have two options, either bring it up tonight or hide on this forum.