Corduff FC learned last night that arbitration has ruled in favour of Cherry Orchard in relation to the playing of a player that had been playing and registered with another club for some time whilst also registered with Cherry Orchard.
Corduff FC initially won an appeal with the FAI as the player was deemed to have broken rule 31 of the SFAI that states in part that no team or player may register in more than two divisional leagues.
Cherry orchard were then found on the basis of that to have played an ineligible player “based on breaking a rule, regardless of correct registration”.
It was established in the arbitration meeting that the father of the player in question, informed Cherry Orchard that he was taking his lad out of the club as he was not receiving a game. Subsequently it has been accepted by all that this father/player signed for and played for Transport FC for quite some time. No transfer was sought or received as the transfer deadline had passed - but procedure and rules were ignored regardless.
It has then been explained that the manager of Cherry Orchard who had since lost quite a number of players in the latter part of the season, decided to call the father in question and ask for the player to come back. This is quite a useful way of running a team as the first club believes they have full call on a player due to first registration no matter what rules and processes’ where not adhered to by the player.
The arbitrator decided in part, and most crucially that the FAI rules take precedence over SFAI rules where there is a discrepancy. Rule 31 of the SFAI and rule 30 of the FAI in our opinion have no discrepancy at all. One rule tells you the process to transfer to another club, and the other tells you that you cannot be registered in more than one divisional league.
So what is the consequence of breaking both rule 31 of the SFAI and rule 30 of the FAI and more importantly not following the rule 30 transfer process? According to the arbitrator, there is no censure what so ever and the player is free to play for the his original club due to the fact that the player may have registered and played for another club in defiance of rules and procedures, however, the player did not move correctly using a transfer so by breaking and not following rule 30 the player could continue playing with his second club and go back to the first club at any time he so wishes because technically the player never moved anywhere. Essentially nothing ever happened.
What arbitration has told us and we can tell you is that a player can leave your club as things currently stand - especially if they are not getting a game. The player/parent can register with another club in another league and play on there. There is no need to worry about transfer deadline because the best part is to come.
The player can then be called back at any stage by the original club and is not deemed ineligible to play for that club and suffers no censure what so ever after enjoying a period of play elsewhere. This is the closest you will see where a schoolboy player has been loaned out to another club for a number of months.
When you consider the rules this incident broke in the SFAI, the FAI and the SDFL - effectively it’s business as usual.
This lad has now played in the DDSL for Cherry Orchard and won a league cup medal, he finished runner-up with Transport FC and moved back to Cherry Orchard and will now contest an all Ireland final - and there is not one single thing untoward what so ever because the loophole of never looking for a transfer effectively allows all of this. Is the failure to follow a transfer process also a disciplinary matter?
We feel the FAI should not accept this decision as it leaves the door open for technicalities left right and center. The decision does not necessarily need to be accepted if in breach of rules. Rule 30 of the FAI has been broken by the player as he did not follow procedure. Rule 30 has also been used to allow the lad go back to his original club without censure. In the ruling of the arbitrator, one rule is broken and that broken rule is used in tandem to make a decision to allow the player to go on his way without any disciplinary action. (hey - you might have signed and played for Transport FC but hey, you didn’t do it correctly, now go back and play for the club you left and let that be the end of it). SHOCKING.
The best bit of this decision is that no matter what rules were broken and what procedures were not followed, this player is free to play on without being deemed ineligible due to the fact that the lad was 11 and the player cannot be deemed responsible for his actions?
I will repeat who is responsible for the actions: “It was established in the arbitration meeting that the father of the player in question, informed Cherry Orchard that he was taking his lad out of the club as he was not receiving a game. Subsequently it has been accepted by all that this father/player signed for and played for Transport FC for quite some time. No transfer was sough or received as the transfer deadline had passed - but procedure and rules were ignored regardless.
It has then been explained that the manager of Cherry Orchard who had since lost quite a number of players in the latter part of the season, decided to call the father in question and ask for the player to come back. This is quite a useful way of running a team as the first club believes they have full call on a player due to first registration no matter what rules and processes were not adhered to by the player”.
There are no sour grapes from Corduff FC on this - but this is an astonishing way to allow the game of soccer to be abused without censure. Corduff FC and clubs who have expressed their support to us and there has been many, all expressed that if rules are broken and accepted by all, a player is ineligible to do what they like until the matter is resolved. The matter was no resolved.
The message to all and sundry is that players do what they like, when caught, their age is a factor that ignores any defiance of rules. Take every decision to arbitration in future as an independent person can tell you that a kid cannot be held accountable for the rules that are and accepted to be broken - kids go free:)
