Effecting Change at NZF

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

8.3% in fact.

patrick478
Moderator
Listen here Fudgeface
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post siggy hit2

2ndBest wrote:

8.3% in fact.

Compared to 0.59% for Auckland City (assuming that the NZ premier leagues vote is split evenly among the 28 designated teams)

Edited by patrick478 July 31, 2014 14:41

Yellow Fever - Misery loves company

Global Game
Fever Funder Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post screen shot 2019 03 17 at 11.36.45 am

FARK. this is huge.

How do people read p6 of the doc re Proposed Structure....'Private Providers'....sit outside? or part of Other stakeholders group?

Kotahitanga. We are one.

Smithy
Moderator
Stage Punch
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post wewant7

Global Game wrote:

FARK. this is huge.

How do people read p6 of the doc re Proposed Structure....'Private Providers'....sit outside? or part of Other stakeholders group?

 

I read that as private providers sitting outside. Which is exactly what you'd expect to be fair.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Global Game
Fever Funder Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post screen shot 2019 03 17 at 11.36.45 am

Smithy wrote:

Global Game wrote:

FARK. this is huge.

How do people read p6 of the doc re Proposed Structure....'Private Providers'....sit outside? or part of Other stakeholders group?

 

I read that as private providers sitting outside. Which is exactly what you'd expect to be fair.

I concur...to a point. Those private providers have 'members' - who pay a levy to NZF to play in their competitions, or attend coaching courses etc; should they not have a say as part of the stakeholder group? As a counter-point, are futsal clubs more or less worthy than private providers to be a part of the "other stakeholder' group?

Kotahitanga. We are one.

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

They would come under the umbrella of each Fed if they played in competitions etc?

Global Game
Fever Funder Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post screen shot 2019 03 17 at 11.36.45 am

2ndBest wrote:

They would come under the umbrella of each Fed if they played in competitions etc?

It gets messy. WYNRS private provider (outside the tent) have members who play for Onehunga Sports (club, inside). Similar situation with Ole/Wests. But Phoenix Academy (outside) have some players playing for Mar (inside) and others only non competition games.

However rather than getting bogged down on this level of detail, it's more the principle of the thing, surely. It's arguable whether they are or are not a member organisation, but surely they have a stakehold in the game?

Kotahitanga. We are one.

Napier Phoenix
Life and death
FilledFilledFilledEmptyEmpty
For post image
To most organisations 'stakeholder' means someone who contributes money in some form [pays for services, pays a membership fee etc], in an organisation like this i think its fair to deem academies etc as stakeholders as they play an important role in the development of the game and players/coaches.
Global Game
Fever Funder Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post screen shot 2019 03 17 at 11.36.45 am

Note, only 2 week consultation/feedback period.

Kotahitanga. We are one.

Global Game
Fever Funder Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post screen shot 2019 03 17 at 11.36.45 am

Are fans considered stakeholders? Any sports organisations would do well to consider this. German clubs, establishment process of western Sydney Wanderers, et alia

Kotahitanga. We are one.

hellobeaver
WeeNix
FilledFilledEmptyEmptyEmpty
For post default

My word.

Can we please get educated on the issues before having another pop at futsal based on how you imagine things to be?

In the document, if you read it, there are TWICE as many registered futsal players as women. And 20% less than school players.

And guess what? A year round futsal player gets pinged FOUR times for affiliation fees in a year, for four "seasons".

Plus KiwiSport funding, plus one million from the legacy project from U2ö world cup. Because guess what? Nobody else at NZ Football could put together a document with a plan or application for the money. Except the futsal staff. Who by the way is one person.

So yes, futsal are working WITHIN the structure, dictated terms by NZ Football, who profit nicely from it to prop up an organistation otherwise making a loss.

Smithy wrote:

Global Game wrote:

FARK. this is huge.

How do people read p6 of the doc re Proposed Structure....'Private Providers'....sit outside? or part of Other stakeholders group?

I read that as private providers sitting outside. Which is exactly what you'd expect to be fair.

I concur...to a point. Those private providers have 'members' - who pay a levy to NZF to play in their competitions, or attend coaching courses etc; should they not have a say as part of the stakeholder group? As a counter-point, are futsal clubs more or less worthy than private providers to be a part of the "other stakeholder' group?

Edited by hellobeaver August 01, 2014 05:26
Oh Wellington is wonderful. We got the wind, the rain and the phoenix. Oh Wellington is wonderful.
Global Game
Fever Funder Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post screen shot 2019 03 17 at 11.36.45 am

hellobeaver wrote:

My word.

Can we please get educated on the issues before having another pop at futsal based on how you imagine things to be?

In the document, if you read it, there are TWICE as many registered futsal players as women. And 20% less than school players.

And guess what? A year round futsal player gets pinged FOUR times for affiliation fees in a year, for four "seasons".

Plus KiwiSport funding, plus one million from the legacy project from U2ö world cup. Because guess what? Nobody else at NZ Football could put together a document with a plan or application for the money. Except the futsal staff. Who by the way is one person.

So yes, futsal are working WITHIN the structure, dictated terms by NZ Football, who profit nicely from it to prop up an organistation otherwise making a loss.

Smithy wrote:

Global Game wrote:

FARK. this is huge.

How do people read p6 of the doc re Proposed Structure....'Private Providers'....sit outside? or part of Other stakeholders group?

I read that as private providers sitting outside. Which is exactly what you'd expect to be fair.

I concur...to a point. Those private providers have 'members' - who pay a levy to NZF to play in their competitions, or attend coaching courses etc; should they not have a say as part of the stakeholder group? As a counter-point, are futsal clubs more or less worthy than private providers to be a part of the "other stakeholder' group?

Relax hellobeaver, 

I know Dave is doing a great job with futsal. My point was not to have a pop at futsal but to highlight that there are many stakeholders in the game. SOME (not me I hasten to add), would argue that futsal and football private providers (academies, essentially) are not part of the wider stakeholder group - as has been highlighted with private providers sitting outside the tent in the proposed new structure. I was merely trying to make a point that I consider ALL of those groups to be stakeholders.

Edited by Global Game August 01, 2014 09:38

Kotahitanga. We are one.

Smithy
Moderator
Stage Punch
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post wewant7

Two week consultation period is poor I agree. Especially considering the length of time this has been in the wind.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Doloras
Fever Funder Opinion Privileges revoked
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post gettyimages 1064883800 1024x1024

More to the point, how many women are futsal players?

Ramming liberal dribble down your throat since 2009
This forum needs less angst and more Kate Bush threads

james dean
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post normo

I thought the breakdown of senior footballers was interesting - Auckland less than both Chch and Wgtn?

Normo's coming home

hellobeaver
WeeNix
FilledFilledEmptyEmptyEmpty
For post default

Global Game wrote:

hellobeaver wrote:

My word.

Can we please get educated on the issues before having another pop at futsal based on how you imagine things to be?

In the document, if you read it, there are TWICE as many registered futsal players as women. And 20% less than school players.

And guess what? A year round futsal player gets pinged FOUR times for affiliation fees in a year, for four "seasons".

Plus KiwiSport funding, plus one million from the legacy project from U2ö world cup. Because guess what? Nobody else at NZ Football could put together a document with a plan or application for the money. Except the futsal staff. Who by the way is one person.

So yes, futsal are working WITHIN the structure, dictated terms by NZ Football, who profit nicely from it to prop up an organistation otherwise making a loss.

Smithy wrote:

Global Game wrote:

FARK. this is huge.

How do people read p6 of the doc re Proposed Structure....'Private Providers'....sit outside? or part of Other stakeholders group?

I read that as private providers sitting outside. Which is exactly what you'd expect to be fair.

I concur...to a point. Those private providers have 'members' - who pay a levy to NZF to play in their competitions, or attend coaching courses etc; should they not have a say as part of the stakeholder group? As a counter-point, are futsal clubs more or less worthy than private providers to be a part of the "other stakeholder' group?

Relax hellobeaver, 

I know Dave is doing a great job with futsal. My point was not to have a pop at futsal but to highlight that there are many stakeholders in the game. SOME (not me I hasten to add), would argue that futsal and football private providers (academies, essentially) are not part of the wider stakeholder group - as has been highlighted with private providers sitting outside the tent in the proposed new structure. I was merely trying to make a point that I consider ALL of those groups to be stakeholders.

I'm fine, just asking for facts, not speculation.

To say that SOME would argue, when you are the one that said it seems odd. Appears your bicycle has been knocked into reverse gear?As I said, if the definition of Stakeholder includes being part of the strategic direction, and bringing in plenty of $$ via user pays and funding (x four seasons)...you do the maths, futsal punches well above.

I private provider is someone or organisation doing their own thing. Not necessarily inline with the direction of the governing body, and usually taking money out of the game.

Doloras - they are counted separately, as they pay separately. Or else footballers would be total footballers - players that play both, which isn't the case.

Oh Wellington is wonderful. We got the wind, the rain and the phoenix. Oh Wellington is wonderful.
Global Game
Fever Funder Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post screen shot 2019 03 17 at 11.36.45 am

james dean wrote:

I thought the breakdown of senior footballers was interesting - Auckland less than both Chch and Wgtn?

Figures are based on Feds, so mainland includes Nelson/Marlborough

Kotahitanga. We are one.

Global Game
Fever Funder Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post screen shot 2019 03 17 at 11.36.45 am

hellobeaver wrote:

Global Game wrote:

hellobeaver wrote:

My word.

Can we please get educated on the issues before having another pop at futsal based on how you imagine things to be?

In the document, if you read it, there are TWICE as many registered futsal players as women. And 20% less than school players.

And guess what? A year round futsal player gets pinged FOUR times for affiliation fees in a year, for four "seasons".

Plus KiwiSport funding, plus one million from the legacy project from U2ö world cup. Because guess what? Nobody else at NZ Football could put together a document with a plan or application for the money. Except the futsal staff. Who by the way is one person.

So yes, futsal are working WITHIN the structure, dictated terms by NZ Football, who profit nicely from it to prop up an organistation otherwise making a loss.

Smithy wrote:

Global Game wrote:

FARK. this is huge.

How do people read p6 of the doc re Proposed Structure....'Private Providers'....sit outside? or part of Other stakeholders group?

I read that as private providers sitting outside. Which is exactly what you'd expect to be fair.

I concur...to a point. Those private providers have 'members' - who pay a levy to NZF to play in their competitions, or attend coaching courses etc; should they not have a say as part of the stakeholder group? As a counter-point, are futsal clubs more or less worthy than private providers to be a part of the "other stakeholder' group?

Relax hellobeaver, 

I know Dave is doing a great job with futsal. My point was not to have a pop at futsal but to highlight that there are many stakeholders in the game. SOME (not me I hasten to add), would argue that futsal and football private providers (academies, essentially) are not part of the wider stakeholder group - as has been highlighted with private providers sitting outside the tent in the proposed new structure. I was merely trying to make a point that I consider ALL of those groups to be stakeholders.

I'm fine, just asking for facts, not speculation.

To say that SOME would argue, when you are the one that said it seems odd. Appears your bicycle has been knocked into reverse gear?As I said, if the definition of Stakeholder includes being part of the strategic direction, and bringing in plenty of $$ via user pays and funding (x four seasons)...you do the maths, futsal punches well above.

I private provider is someone or organisation doing their own thing. Not necessarily inline with the direction of the governing body, and usually taking money out of the game.

Doloras - they are counted separately, as they pay separately. Or else footballers would be total footballers - players that play both, which isn't the case.

The definition of stakeholder is NOT "being part of the strategic direction and bringing in $". In that case we would have only YES men and women and sales people (which may be exactly what NZF desire). Isn't a stakeholder someone who cares and contributes in their own way? 

Edited by Global Game August 05, 2014 07:47

Kotahitanga. We are one.

hellobeaver
WeeNix
FilledFilledEmptyEmptyEmpty
For post default

Ideally yes. In reality no. Eg private providers are outside. Yes they care. But do they contribute in their own way?

Weaken the talent pool across multiple programmes, kids get played off between programmes and some do about nine sessions a week which perhaps isn't the best. No quality control, and charge to make a good living, thus taking money out of the game and into business owners pockets.

Oh Wellington is wonderful. We got the wind, the rain and the phoenix. Oh Wellington is wonderful.
Global Game
Fever Funder Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post screen shot 2019 03 17 at 11.36.45 am

<p>We'll just have to agree to disagree Hello Beaver as I don't think monopolies are the best model. In my experience private providers look to go far beyond the lowest common denominator - through training programmes, overseas tournament experiences, and generally  aiming higher than playing local footy. They operate in that part of the NZF 'strategic direction' that seeks to produce players who are capable of playing professionally/internationally. I think on that basis alone, most private providers are stakeholders. </p><p>Why would NZF want to exclude them? Becasue they affect the revenue stream into NZF coffers or because they're difficult to work with, or heaven forbid, have their own ideas?  Any of those reasons appear a) short-sighted or b) extreme protectionism based on fear. People have 10 days to have their say - ridiculous in itself.</p>

Edited by Global Game August 05, 2014 08:57

Kotahitanga. We are one.

Post New Reply

Please Login or Create an account to post a reply.