New Zealand Football Appeals committee has rejected an appeal by Tauranga club AFC Fury against an Auckland Football Federation (AFF) ruling that it played two ineligible players in otherwise comfortably winning last year's northern league entry playoffs
It effectively confirms Papakura City as playoff winners and entrants to the 2014 northern league, while condemning Fury to another season in the lower-tiered Waikato-Bay of Plenty competition.
And notwithstanding future amendments to football regulations, it also brings to a close one of the more controversial chapters in northern league politics in recent years.
Papakura president Gavin Findlay welcomed the ruling, saying it gave certainty for coaches, administrators and players about what level the club was competing at in 2014.
But Fury chairman Dave Cook savaged the appeals committee decision, saying it affected "the credibility of football in the whole northern region".
In something of a fishing expedition, in October Papakura appealed to the AFF against the eligibility of 12 Fury players - all with foreign-sounding names - after losing the playoffs.
An initial inquiry by the Waikato-Bay of Plenty football federation found no breach of the regulations.
But the AFF decided further investigation was required and took signed statements from Fury players and then engaged New Zealand Football to track whether they had previously been registered with clubs in Argentina, Uruguay and Italy, without being subjected to formal clearance.
The national body duly found two of them had not been properly transferred and were ineligible to play for Fury.
In its appeal Fury argued that northern league regulations imposed an impossible obligation upon clubs, who are typically dependent on an "ask-the-player" method to determine the eligibility of foreign "Pablo Backpacker-types" often seeking to play while on working holidays in New Zealand.
And Fury contended the Auckland federation unfairly employed a research system not available to Waikato-Bay of Plenty clubs at the time, in finally globally unearthing Pablo Savia (Gavagnin) and Alejandro Ferrari Acosta as ineligible players.
But the appeals committee, headed by Simon Jefferson QC, rejected the Fury proposition that the absence of a pathway to background-check the players - and the lack of equal access to information - led to a breach of natural justice.
The committee ruled that nothing detracted from "the fundamental proposition that the obligations under Section 11 of the regulations devolves squarely to the clubs".
Further, the committee did not find any merit in Fury's submission that the subsequent introduction of a new system by which clubs can now forward player details for checking was a tacit acknowledgement a problem existed.
Fury also complained that Papakura's processes in protesting were "pot luck", and improperly left it for the AFF - the adjudicating body - to dig for evidence that was clearly not available to clubs themselves.
But the AFF submitted that its rules gave it the power to investigate when allegations of rule breaches were made.
The AFF was then within its rights to mobilise New Zealand Football to inquire with national associations in Europe and South America.
Cook said the game could simply not afford for this to be the end of the matter.
"Otherwise, football is left in one whole mess where clubs have no idea whether the opposition is 'clean' or not," he said, in highlighting a host of inconsistencies.
He noted that one of his ineligible players, Alejandro Ferrari Acosta, had simply been transferred from fellow Bay of Plenty club Tauranga City United - which had escaped punishment for non-compliance in failing to earlier gain an international clearance.
And if the same rule interpretations were applied across the board, clubs such as Hamilton Wanderers, Tauranga City United, Fencibles United, Manukau City, and Onehunga Sports would all have been guilty of fielding ineligible foreign players over the past two seasons.
Cook said Chilean-born players Alexis Varela and Eder Franchini who played for Hamilton Wanderers in 2013 were also retrospectively found to be ineligible - while the same was true for Sergio Bustos at Fencibles.
"Football, in the northern region at least, is crazy and lacks credibility," Cook said.
"We need a thorough examination of rules for guest players and international transfers, which would help clean up the code.
"At present it is a pointless exercise in determining champions of the various leagues. Clubs need to get a grip of this situation rather than passively let things slide by."
He said it was legally bizarre that a protesting club (Papakura) could initiate action without any evidence, and then rely on the adjudicating authority to prosecute.
"Papakura City did not have a finite case. It was simply suspicion. They gave 12 names to the "court" and asked them to investigate.
"One could not do that in a civil situation. You have to have a specific case to take to court. And in a civil court situation, each party must have equal opportunity to
access information."
But Findlay pointed out Papakura had no choice but to immediately submit a broad appeal - before evidence came to hand - given regulations only allow a 72-hour window to lodge a protest.
Cook said a thorough examination of rules for guest players and international transfers was now needed "to clean up the code".
"Fury have been penalised for playing a player that Tauranga City United did not properly get cleared to register - but Tauranga City United receive no penalty at all.
"There are vague processes and rules that can be overridden with clubs playing ineligible players for up to a whole season and not being penalised."
And while he did not advocate punishing Hamilton Wanderers - who similarly received players from other clubs without knowing they lacked the correct international clearance - he saw a double standard there as well.
"Any person from outside looking in would wonder why Wanderers have not had all their points gained last season wiped and the club relegated given what has occurred with Fury.
"In some cases the breaches are blatant. In other cases, clubs sign players who originate from overseas but come from other New Zealand clubs not knowing those players have never been cleared to play in New Zealand."
Papakura have not received a copy of the appeal committee's written decision and Findlay said he would only have expected one if the AFF ruling was overturned.
But the case was very straight forward from Papakura's perspective.
"Under the rules and processes in place at the time everything we did was quite ethical in questioning player eligibility," Findlay said.
However, like Cook, as a long-serving administrator he welcomed a wider debate on the merits of football rules governing international transfers and guest players.
"There is scope for debate on whether these rules are good, and at what level they are applied."
"Given in New Zealand it is a predominantly amateur game it is worth having a look at player eligibility and how the regulations are designed, governed and implemented.
"But off-hand I don't know of any alternative solution that would be more pleasing for the game. We certainly don't want it so that somebody with deep pockets can bring in a lot of overseas players and effectively manipulate the game."
