Effecting Change at NZF

2ndBest
Moderator
Fever Funder Appiah without the pace
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post 1620805 10152445803254239 1114551251 n
terminator_x wrote:

I'm not sure I like the sound of that.

All-elected Boards sound like a wonderful, utopian idea in theory but in practice are too easily dominated by poorly qualified numpties who can't see past their own specific agendas in order to govern in the best interests of the whole game.

It's possibly not such a big issue at NZF level but at Federation level - yuck. People are fond of saying "the clubs need more representation" or "the clubs should be running the game" but the truth is "the clubs" themselves don't often agree on very much.

The appointed positions at least allow for a bit of quality control, and there's still a basic level of democracy because on a seven member board the three elected members (presuming they agree on something) only need to influence one appointed member to get a majority. I've always thought that provides a nice buffer against letting clubs (at Fed level) and Feds (at NZF level) completely run the asylum.

That said I don't much like the way the current system only lets most NZF members vote at club committee level but not Federation or NZF.

I guess the devil's in the detail of what a new system might look like. And I suppose after a few go-rounds of having idiots elected to Boards the voters might actually start to take it seriously, which would be an improvement.

The most interesting line in that release to me is "No new elections or appointments will be made to the NZ Football board until new rule changes are in place". There were two elected positions meant to be up for grabs at the next Congress. Does that mean they won't get elected now until after the new rules are adopted at Congress? Does that mean Frank van Hattum gets yet another reprieve? It's going to be getting close to a year since he announced his resignation. He resigned in January. Congress was meant to be in May but got shifted to September. Now it sounds like they won't elect any new Board members until after that.

Think we are in a unique situation here. 
Removing unelected positions is to prevent corruptions/nepotism. Which is something we have very little of. 
However, our small population size, and lack of money, means there is a potential that the elected people are muppets.

On a side note, I think the congress was shifted to accommodate the changes they need to make.
Feverish
Legend
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post picture 6

Where are we at with releasing the AW WC report now?

Founder

terminator_x
Still Believin'
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post picture 47
2ndBest wrote:
terminator_x wrote:

I'm not sure I like the sound of that.

All-elected Boards sound like a wonderful, utopian idea in theory but in practice are too easily dominated by poorly qualified numpties who can't see past their own specific agendas in order to govern in the best interests of the whole game.

It's possibly not such a big issue at NZF level but at Federation level - yuck. People are fond of saying "the clubs need more representation" or "the clubs should be running the game" but the truth is "the clubs" themselves don't often agree on very much.

The appointed positions at least allow for a bit of quality control, and there's still a basic level of democracy because on a seven member board the three elected members (presuming they agree on something) only need to influence one appointed member to get a majority. I've always thought that provides a nice buffer against letting clubs (at Fed level) and Feds (at NZF level) completely run the asylum.

That said I don't much like the way the current system only lets most NZF members vote at club committee level but not Federation or NZF.

I guess the devil's in the detail of what a new system might look like. And I suppose after a few go-rounds of having idiots elected to Boards the voters might actually start to take it seriously, which would be an improvement.

The most interesting line in that release to me is "No new elections or appointments will be made to the NZ Football board until new rule changes are in place". There were two elected positions meant to be up for grabs at the next Congress. Does that mean they won't get elected now until after the new rules are adopted at Congress? Does that mean Frank van Hattum gets yet another reprieve? It's going to be getting close to a year since he announced his resignation. He resigned in January. Congress was meant to be in May but got shifted to September. Now it sounds like they won't elect any new Board members until after that.

Think we are in a unique situation here. 

Removing unelected positions is to prevent corruptions/nepotism. Which is something we have very little of. 

However, our small population size, and lack of money, means there is a potential that the elected people are muppets.

On a side note, I think the congress was shifted to accommodate the changes they need to make.


Yeah, I'll be really interested to see what they come up with.

Elections also only really work where you have engaged voters, which by and large we don't. Most club committees in NZ are elected by the 15-20 people who can be bothered turning up to the AGM, and the committee members themselves are often elected unopposed because no-one else wants to do it. That's then your pool of candidates for Fed Board elected positions, and on up to NZF (under the current set-up).

We also have these voting rules where only club reps can vote for Fed Board members and only Fed Board reps can vote for NZF Board members. I think that's probably historical and largely to do with making election administration easy and cheap (in the past, if you allowed all NZF members to vote for Fed and NZF Boards how do you easily/cheaply verify legitimate votes?).

Maybe it's time to take advantage of technology (and the Sporting Pulse database) and actually allow all NZF members to vote electronically for their local Fed Boards and the NZF Board? You would still have a major problem of voter ignorance/apathy though.

Edited by terminator_x June 10, 2014 12:45

terminator_x
Still Believin'
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post picture 47
Feverish wrote:

Where are we at with releasing the AW WC report now?


They're not going to. Andy Martin's explanation on the podcast was basically that the public will find out everything it needs to know when the new High Performance Plan comes out, which will have taken into account all the recommendations from the review.

That's a bit like saying you can find out everything you need to know about Star Wars by watching The Empire Strikes Back.

Edited by terminator_x June 10, 2014 12:49

Feverish
Legend
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post picture 6

time to stop raising player subs?

NZF records 2013 surplus

Monday 16 June, 2014

For immediate release


New Zealand Football announced on Monday a surplus of $6.1 million for the 2013 year.

For the sixth year in succession, New Zealand Football has delivered a positive financial return, again highlighting the success of the Whole of Football Plan, now entering its fourth year, and the continued growth in the game allowing continued investment into both community and international football.

New Zealand Football chairman Bill Moran says while the surplus was boosted by television revenue from the FIFA World Cup Intercontinental playoff with Mexico, the day-to-day operations produced another strong result.

“While our surplus was boosted by the significantly higher than expected broadcasting revenue received from the November 2013 FIFA World Cup qualifier, I am pleased to confirm our underlying business was once again positive,” Moran said.

“Due to the strength of our position, we remain totally committed to investing in both the community and international game whilst retaining our focus on robust financial management.”

The strong financial results for 2013 has seen $3.1 million transferred into the International Teams Activity Reserve, set up in 2010, to fund the next four year cycle and beyond for New Zealand’s elite representative sides.

At grassroots level the code continued to expand and strengthen as the number of registered players grew by 13 percent across all age groups – the third year since 2010 in which player numbers have grown from the previous year.

Underpinning that increase in players, $3 million was invested in grassroots programmes, of which $1.5 million was delivered to the seven regional football federations who continue to deliver the award-winning Whole of Football plan.

A further $500,000 was transferred to a newly created Whole of Football Reserve set up to ensure additional funding will be available to support the coaching, development and infrastructure costs of the award-winning plan in future years.

Meanwhile, the Football Foundation - established in 2011 - passed the $500,000 mark in grants made to the grassroots game.

After a successful 2013 result, Moran identified the key milestones for the organisation in the next 12 month period as the build up continues towards the 2015 FIFA U-20 World Cup in New Zealand.

“For 2014 the focus is very much on aligning ourselves to new FIFA standards for the game as a whole, resetting our ambitions as a country for the elite game and continuing to drive the Whole of Football programme into the youth bracket.”

The full financial results will be presented later in the year at New Zealand Football’s Annual Congress scheduled for September.


ENDS


For further information contact New Zealand Football Communications Manager Steven Upfold on the details below.

Founder

Smithy
Moderator
Stage Punch
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post wewant7

So the thing that strikes me about this is...

When they made an actual loss, they transferred money in from the international fund and called it a surplus.

Now, they appear to have an actual surplus, and be transferring money OUT to the international fund, without deducting it from the total.

Is that right?

If so. What the f.?

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

2ndBest
Moderator
Fever Funder Appiah without the pace
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post 1620805 10152445803254239 1114551251 n

Did it last time. Set aside some money from a large payment now (TV rights, WC participation last time) in the expectation it will be needed to fund games later in the cycle when regular income is much lower. They then draw money from that fund for the upcoming year.

Seems logical to me.

Dino11
Phoenix Academy
FilledFilledEmptyEmptyEmpty
For post mickey quinn

There is some accounting/media spin on the release. 

Considering where NZF have been it is positive that they are in surplus and able to build reserves. 

Before anyone moans about the cost of NZF fees there is only a couple of other sports cheaper than Football. 

"Who ate all the pies"

Royz
First Team Squad
FilledFilledFilledEmptyEmpty
For post meobay angry dog  605

TV rev + playoff home game gate money = $3.5mil take that away from $6.1mil = $2.6 million. ???

Feverish
Legend
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post picture 6

Dino11 wrote:

There is some accounting/media spin on the release. 

Considering where NZF have been it is positive that they are in surplus and able to build reserves. 

Before anyone moans about the cost of NZF fees there is only a couple of other sports cheaper than Football. 

Don't NZRFU actually contribute not collect?

Founder

patrick478
Moderator
Listen here Fudgeface
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post siggy hit2

I'm okay with the adding/deducting of money to the fund, but like Smithy says, not deducting money that is added to the fund from the years total is bizarre considering they've include money added from the fund in past years.

Yellow Fever - Misery loves company

Jerzy Merino
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post pirate mickey

Anyone got any idea how much $$$$ the Under-20 World Cup will convey into NZF's coffers? Do we sell TV rights? Or does FIFA pocket the lot then give us a handout?

"At the end of the drive the lawmen arrive...

I'll take my chance because luck is on my side or something...

Her name is Rio, she don't need to understand...

Oh Rio, Rio, hear them shout across the land..."

FU BLU
Must try harder
FilledFilledFilledEmptyEmpty
For post default

"For 2014, the focus is very much on aligning ourselves to new Fifa standards for the game as a whole, resetting our ambitions as a country for the elite game and continuing to drive the Whole of Football programme into the youth bracket."

The last sentence concerns /excites me ....

james dean
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post normo

terminator_x wrote:
Feverish wrote:

Where are we at with releasing the AW WC report now?

They're not going to. Andy Martin's explanation on the podcast was basically that the public will find out everything it needs to know when the new High Performance Plan comes out, which will have taken into account all the recommendations from the review.

That's a bit like saying you can find out everything you need to know about Star Wars by watching The Empire Strikes Back.

They absolutely got away with this one..  No way the High Performance Report will be anything other than aspirational goals etc, you are not going to get any analysis of what specifically needed addressing

Normo's coming home

james dean
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post normo

Dino11 wrote:

There is some accounting/media spin on the release. 

Considering where NZF have been it is positive that they are in surplus and able to build reserves. 

Before anyone moans about the cost of NZF fees there is only a couple of other sports cheaper than Football. 

Football should absolutely be the cheapest sport to play.  No special equipment needed, infrastructure is generally in place.

Normo's coming home

terminator_x
Still Believin'
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post picture 47

Smithy wrote:

So the thing that strikes me about this is...

When they made an actual loss, they transferred money in from the international fund and called it a surplus.

Now, they appear to have an actual surplus, and be transferring money OUT to the international fund, without deducting it from the total.

Is that right?

If so. What the f.?

They are a bit cheeky with their press releases.

This is a real surplus - but completely a one-off windfall that won't be repeated for at least another 3 years.

And their claim that this is the 6th successive surplus in a row is total BS. They haven't been making operating surpluses for the last few years - just transferring money from reserves, which had run out until we lucked out (?) getting Mexico for the WC play-off.

Anyone who bothers to actually read the accounts will see the true picture though. Let's just hope they use the topped up international reserve very wisely leading up to the next WC.

james dean
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post normo

terminator_x wrote:

Smithy wrote:

So the thing that strikes me about this is...

When they made an actual loss, they transferred money in from the international fund and called it a surplus.

Now, they appear to have an actual surplus, and be transferring money OUT to the international fund, without deducting it from the total.

Is that right?

If so. What the f.?

They are a bit cheeky with their press releases.

This is a real surplus - but completely a one-off windfall that won't be repeated for at least another 3 years.

And their claim that this is the 6th successive surplus in a row is total BS. They haven't been making operating surpluses for the last few years - just transferring money from reserves, which had run out until we lucked out (?) getting Mexico for the WC play-off.

Anyone who bothers to actually read the accounts will see the true picture though. Let's just hope they use the topped up international reserve very wisely leading up to the next WC.

They should really take that Mexico TV money over a 4 year world cup cycle

Normo's coming home

chopah
Starting XI
FilledFilledFilledEmptyEmpty
For post 2006 05 05 07.33.00 1

Dino11 wrote:

There is some accounting/media spin on the release. 

Considering where NZF have been it is positive that they are in surplus and able to build reserves. 

Before anyone moans about the cost of NZF fees there is only a couple of other sports cheaper than Football. 

this dosn't sound right to me - do you have some stats to back this up?

2ndBest
Moderator
Fever Funder Appiah without the pace
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post 1620805 10152445803254239 1114551251 n

http://www.foxsportspulse.com/get_file.cgi?id=3234276

Rule changes move NZ Football forwards New Zealand Football Chairman Bill Moran has released proposed changes to NZF’s constitution as the national body participates in a worldwide move to modernise its governance arrangements and be more inclusive.

Consultation document http://www.foxsportspulse.com/get_file.cgi?id=3234273

Questionarie http://www.foxsportspulse.com/get_file.cgi?id=3234274

Edited by 2ndBest July 31, 2014 14:01
Jeff Vader
Cock
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post capture1

Parts of it I have read are interesting.

If I read it right, it says that the Phoenix get a decent say in what happens in the game? I can see a mushroom cloud over Kiwitea...

Grumpy old bastard alert

Post New Reply

Please Login or Create an account to post a reply.