Mainland Juniors (please play nice)

I get that, and in this case it's not a biggie at all. But misquoting others and posting it as their quote is a no no. The basic principles around copyright etc. no one likes being misquoted. 

Good idea to have senior coach looking at youngsters. JB looking at the players Danny left behind; prob already seen most of Danny's Napier team (except for guest players, one of which at least is from another Chch club). 

Point of order: Hey Ronaldoknow, If u are going to quote me don't edit my posts. Correct me, disagree with me etc but don't edit to include a sponsor and then post it as my quote; or I'll call the moderators, OK? Thanks

All good ronnie, moving on....

Hey bencher, I'm not in the loop on cashmere's Napier squad, but I had heard a coastal player was to be a guest player (totally within rules BTW); hopefully the lad has done the right thing and consulted with his own club first. Can't comment on your comment that some players who committed to club first for LOTTO U19 tournament hosted by Coastal Spirit, are doing u turn when better offer comes along; but tough position for the player isn't it? 

I can't believe Coastal players are being picked off for other club tournament teams. 

The question is then how many players are they allowed in Napier as with 1 Coastal guest player, plus another 2 I've heard of being approached.... without their existing club knowing anything about it.... 

*edit - just found on the Napier thread that it's 2... so 2 + 1 was 3 last time I went to school.... so something can't be right!

True SE.... but the only thing stopping them being selected in the squad at the moment is the players themselves confirming for definite what they are doing....

Do we know if the players club has to have allowed permission for them to play in the Napier tournament like they do in the Coastal one? Or does it only apply in the Coastal one for teams that are in the tournament themselves?

If I remember correctly for Coastal's Lotto U19 tournament you have to get the correct club's permission to play in the tournament if they themselves are in it. Otherwise they are listed as a guest but no permission needed.

So, are you asking because you/your kid has been approached and you are wondering whether to tell your club or not; or because your club is going to have a good player play for Cashmere at Napier and you're worried about losing him? If it's the latter, maybe you need to consider what pathways your club offers good players.

On a related note: can anyone confirm that some ex-Chch players (now in north island) are playing for FC20 in Napier 2nd tier tournament (as guest players, or are moving back to chch)? A while back I'd heard FC were asking for written commitment from players that if you played in the Napier team you had to play for FC next year.

Let's put it this way.... I don't have a kid.... for a few more months anyway!

And the players in question have been treated well by the club... in fact they were rescued when they were unwanted from another club and have had plenty of 1st team action this season.... You can't go much further in terms of pathways at the club short term. The players would never be stopped from playing at a higher level, it's just the way they committed to a team, which means others have committed to the same team to play alongside them, but then no-one has had the decency to talk to the club..... The club have found out 2nd hand from someone completely different!

There are principals and ways of doing things that some of the youth players need to start thinking about in terms of their growing up. As I said, the players have been told now that the club know, that should they want to go to Napier that is their choice, but there are ways of doing such things. If clubs show commitments and openness to players, surely there should be something mutual, especially when you start reaching 17/18 years of age. 

Let's put it this way.... I don't have a kid.... for a few more months anyway!

And the players in question have been treated well by the club... in fact they were rescued when they were unwanted from another club and have had plenty of 1st team action this season.... You can't go much further in terms of pathways at the club short term. The players would never be stopped from playing at a higher level, it's just the way they committed to a team, which means others have committed to the same team to play alongside them, but then no-one has had the decency to talk to the club..... The club have found out 2nd hand from someone completely different!

There are principals and ways of doing things that some of the youth players need to start thinking about in terms of their growing up. As I said, the players have been told now that the club know, that should they want to go to Napier that is their choice, but there are ways of doing such things. If clubs show commitments and openness to players, surely there should be something mutual, especially when you start reaching 17/18 years of age. 

Dougie Rydal

October 16, 2013 11:24am #5507
Waimak getting stroppy with Mainland Football...(email just received)

North Canterbury Representative Football

It was pleasing to see so many of our club members representing our district proudly over the holiday period.  We gained some excellent results considering generally we have only one team at each agegroup that plays at Division One level during the regular season, compared to a lot of other districts such as Canterbury, Otago, Nelson, Marlborough, and South Canterbury, who all run their own Division One competitions with 6-8 teams of players to choose from.  So we congratulate all of the representative players on their effort and dedication.

Now that the South Island tournaments are complete we wish to inform our members of the situation surrounding District representation going forward.  As a club, charged with administering the North Canterbury rep program, we were forced to sign a Governance Protocol agreement to ensure our rep teams could attend tournaments this year.  This protocol stipulates that essentially the management of the district representative program can no longer be administered by our Board, and also includes the need for all new uniforms by 2014 for all North Canterbury rep teams, separate and distinct from our black Waimak strip.  There are also a number of other rulings around player eligibility that will affect our membership.

As the Waimak United Board will no longer manage the Representative program, we are unsure if or what future there is for North Canterbury teams at tournaments.  We cannot answer any questions relating to this program as new administration may be setup in due course to run the North Canterbury rep program.  We can only suggest that you address any queries to Mainland Football.  The protocols were advised by Mike Coggan so he may be able to assist, contact details are: [email protected]

It is the view of the Waimak United Board that we would like our representative players to attend tournaments and will be looking at the option of sending teams to club Nationals similar to those currently attended by our 9 and 10 year old teams.  These tournaments will be more evenly fought competitions with clubs of similar membership to ourselves.

Again, we congratulate our representative players on their efforts, and the proud history we have forged.

North Canterbury population growing, yet Dougie's message indicates players will potentially have to trial, train and play for Canterbury (Christchurch city), unless separate entity is established to run the North Canterbury rep programme. Selwyn district also growing but they seemed to be heeding Mainland advice - (smoke and mirrors probably but well done) & set up a new website dedicated entirely to Selwyn rep football. Not sure of the reason behind this. Anyone hazard a guess? More work for volunteers by the looks of it.Should current Canterbury rep teams really just be called Christchurch; or do Selwyn and North Canterbury merge in with a wider Chch/Canterbury selection & Mainland run the entire rep programme? Consolidation vs Regionalisation.

Putting someones email address into a news update and saying "contact this guy if you are not happy" is a pretty snippy thing to do. Its almost club sponsored harassment by proxy. I believe there is a competitions admin guy who would be the better avenue...

To be fair, it does seem a little bit "we are in charge" by Mainland, but that sort of playground, niggly response wont help. Having been on the sidelines of Waimak games and heard what some of the parents say then, I dread to think what they would do from behind a keyboard...

Just a thought on Canterbury teams being called Christchurch teams, that may work. Chch Red, Chch Green, Chch Black and Chch Yellow. Doesn't leave much room for Bays though...

TS, IIRC not directly, no. 

83 kids at summer football tonight. F***ing magic turn out I reckon. 

Can a junior player be registered to 2 different clubs ?

eg: play U14 for 1 x club and U17 for a different club

Cheers

Wrong; the ridiculous dual registration formula is another Mainland brainfart to appease those that want to both play for school and a club. It in in contradiction to NZF and FIFA rules, and no doubt will become another anomaly in their range of concocted illegal variations  that will cause them grief sooner or later.

All Div1 clubs upwards are asked to sign a waiver that states they as a club will not challenge dual registration for a player that plays Junior Football for his school and Senior football for a club. A number of interesting facts here; (1) Putting the player first, how can it be beneficial to potentially play two games in one day? Who (the school in the morning or club in the afternoon) is the primary "club" responsible for the players welfare with regard to managing training / playing load? (2) Why is this only allowed between a school and a club, not club and club? What makes schools so different/special more privileged than a club ? (3) One cannot "opt-out" of FIFA rules, so what happens should anyone holds his club administrators to task over a signed waiver that tries to do just that: Illegal !  (4) If the best place for an under 18 year old is to play senior football, then he should make (or be able to make) his own decision at which club to play. ie chose ONE just like every other player in the world has to. (5) Schools can and should play in their own competition during week, but this does not get around (1).   

Wrong; the ridiculous dual registration formula is another Mainland brainfart to appease those that want to both play for school and a club. It in in contradiction to NZF and FIFA rules, and no doubt will become another anomaly in their range of concocted illegal variations  that will cause them grief sooner or later.

All Div1 clubs upwards are asked to sign a waiver that states they as a club will not challenge dual registration for a player that plays Junior Football for his school and Senior football for a club. A number of interesting facts here; (1) Putting the player first, how can it be beneficial to potentially play two games in one day? Who (the school in the morning or club in the afternoon) is the primary "club" responsible for the players welfare with regard to managing training / playing load? (2) Why is this only allowed between a school and a club, not club and club? What makes schools so different/special more privileged than a club ? (3) One cannot "opt-out" of FIFA rules, so what happens should anyone holds his club administrators to task over a signed waiver that tries to do just that: Illegal !  (4) If the best place for an under 18 year old is to play senior football, then he should make (or be able to make) his own decision at which club to play. ie chose ONE just like every other player in the world has to. (5) Schools can and should play in their own competition during week, but this does not get around (1).