Think the parents are giving it the big fk off
Funding of NZF Youth Sides
Do have to say, NZF saying that the cost is for the 2 year programme, then turning around and charging the U17s for the World Cup this year is off. Trying to have their cake and eat it too with that one.
So if NZF youth sides have to contribute money because of the benefit they receive from coaching, does that mean that the All Whites don't contribute money because Ricki doesn't provide any benefit to those players?
OOOOOOOOH !!!
Think the parents are giving it the big fk off
I think you're right. Power to the people!
Danny Hay's so on top of this issue he now thinks the $2k has been halved for all age-grade teams, not just the current U17 men's team.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/9222747/Hay-Watch-for-ripple-effect-in-womens-football
"In halving the $2000 fees, NZ Football will demand from youth players in order to represent the nation at world cups, it begs the question: What is the point? What does $21,000 mean to NZ Football?"
Think the parents are giving it the big fk off
I think you're right. Power to the people!
Whatever. People are idiots. I bet none of these parents will ever even bother to question how come junior's club can afford to pay him $200 a game. And even if they do they won't give a fuck.
Anyway, NZF should kick this policy for touch and hike NTC fees to recover the same amount. Good luck to the parents getting the media to show any interest in that.
Then they should commission a full independent review of the funding of football in NZ, with recommendations on priorities and how to achieve the best value for money.
Think the parents are giving it the big fk off
I think you're right. Power to the people!
Whatever. People are idiots. I bet none of these parents will ever even bother to question how come junior's club can afford to pay him $200 a game. And even if they do they won't give a fuck.
I'm not sure where you're getting your info from, but I know four kids in the squad and I know none of them gets paid to play winter football. Three of them played for Island Bay this winter. They're all at Ole at considerable expense to their parents.
And as for your $200/game figure. I know a fair few first team footballers in Wellington and it'd be very rare indeed for anyone to be getting more than $50/100 a week. That just covers their training expenses. Most of them would only get that amount as a win bonus, not a flat fee.
'Training expenses'
My only training expenses were $6 worth of bus fare, can't imagine how that racks up to $50-100, and why it's just a given that they're entitled to be reimbursed for this so called expense. But that's a different conversation.
As for the $2k, I'm on the fence about it and sympathise with arguments from both sides. But had a brief interesting convo with ifill about it in twitter where I put forward that some of these players are perfectly happy to take $ out of the game, but as soon as they're asked to give some back, its a big deal. He went on to say fair enough, but that they'll give back when they go pro but shouldn't be asking them before then. I agreed but also said that currently the ratio of players who end up going pro isn't exactly great at the moment.
Think the parents are giving it the big fk off
I think you're right. Power to the people!
Whatever. People are idiots. I bet none of these parents will ever even bother to question how come junior's club can afford to pay him $200 a game. And even if they do they won't give a fuck.
I'm not sure where you're getting your info from, but I know four kids in the squad and I know none of them gets paid to play winter football. Three of them played for Island Bay this winter. They're all at Ole at considerable expense to their parents.
And as for your $200/game figure. I know a fair few first team footballers in Wellington and it'd be very rare indeed for anyone to be getting more than $50/100 a week. That just covers their training expenses. Most of them would only get that amount as a win bonus, not a flat fee.
I'm generalising about players of all ages right across the game.
If some of these specific kids are yet to lose their innocence in the murky world of player payments, then great, long may that continue.
Interesting reading that the age group teams budgets are around $250,000 for the boys. I recall hearing that the girls U17/U20 budgets were only around $140,000. What is the difference and why when the girls side of the game is having greater success do the boys still get more $$$?
I'd love for someone to explain that $250k figure. It seems outlandishly large to me. Remember that all the outside-of-Auckland kids pay their own way up and down to Auckland.
My guess (and it's pure speculation) is that most of it is salaries for coaches and training staff. I just can't see how the number could be that big unless it was that.
If that is right, that is not something that should fall on the shoulders of players.
Junior Subs pays Adult Wages
it occurs at every level of the game
I'm not sure that it will be salaries! I remember one of the age group coaches telling me he got paid $10,000 for the two years of their World Cup campaign! So Head coach 10k, assistant coach maybe 5k, GK coach 5k, physio 5k, manager I recall only getting expenses so about 2k, that totals $27,000.
If out of Auckland players also pay their own expenses to get to trainings, I see the only other costs being clothing (surely sponsored by nike as part of the national team agreement) and the costs of a week long qualifying tournament in Auckland, which I reckon could be done for around 20k max..
Would love to know where the other $200,000 goes...
I think De Jong should give a breakdown of the figure if he is gonna throw it out there
Some of these kids will never be paid to play club football. If their goal is a USA University scholarship they would be ineligible under the NCAA rules if they got paid, as they would be deemed to not be amateur.
soccer mom they don't get paid to play! they get paid to train and "coach", plenty of young lads have played national league and been payed then gone to NCAA teams.
Some of these kids will never be paid to play club football. If their goal is a USA University scholarship they would be ineligible under the NCAA rules if they got paid, as they would be deemed to not be amateur.
And what about when they return from college and are hacking around in Northern Premier League?
Anyway, I'm tired and grumpy today, sorry everybody.
I think De Jong should give a breakdown of the figure if he is gonna throw it out there
It would be nice to see NZF's entire accounts broken down a bit more, especially on the cost side (I accept that some of the sponsorship revenue will be commercially sensitive).
Can't see why the stakeholders of the game shouldn't be able to see where the money goes.
Some of these kids will never be paid to play club football. If their goal is a USA University scholarship they would be ineligible under the NCAA rules if they got paid, as they would be deemed to not be amateur.
That's an epic yarn I'm afraid.
I think De Jong should give a breakdown of the figure if he is gonna throw it out there
It would be nice to see NZF's entire accounts broken down a bit more, especially on the cost side (I accept that some of the sponsorship revenue will be commercially sensitive).
Can't see why the stakeholders of the game shouldn't be able to see where the money goes.
So much this. It is outrageous that the last NZF accounts declared a "profit" when in fact they had made a massive loss and covered it up by transferring money from one bank account to another.
Imagine if Trade Me (who I work for) made a $10m loss, but had put aside $30m the year before so declared a $20m profit. Our finance director would be in jail.
slightly confused writes;
Smithy, NZF had a loss but decleared a profit?
Correct foal30
If you look at the accounts themselves you can see exactly what is going on here:
1. NZF has not actually made a surplus for the last two years. They only way they achieved a "surplus" of $212k in 2011 was by transferring $828k from the international teams reserve. They actually made a $616k operating loss in 2011 (incl $300k spent on the 2015 U20 WC). They only way they achieved a "surplus" of $309k in 2012 was by transferring $1,273k from the international teams reserve. They actually made a $964k operating loss in 2012.
2. As you can probably guess from above the international teams reserve is pretty much spent. It has dropped from the initial $2.5m set aside at the start of 2011 to $1.7m at the end of 2011 to $0.4m at the end of 2012. If the 2013 international programme is even half the amount of activity of 2011 or 2012 then the reserve is already gone. As such, any future activity has to come from general operating which is already running at a loss. This will be the exact reason why they are asking for this contribution from teams.
3. The statement in that Summary that "reserves increased by 4% to $2.2m" is completely misleading. The accumulated funds certainly did increase but as noted above the international teams reserve decreased by $1.2m. The net result was that in 2012 Total Equity dropped from $3.7m at the start of the year to $2.5m at the end of the year - a 32% decrease.
What's also obvious is that the prize money from the Confederations Cup would not have made much difference to the overall picture. We also have a lot staked on qualification for the 2014 WC if we are to sustain anywhere near the amount of international activity that we have.
As I discussed in a previous post it seems clear to me that since 2006 NZF has been running an international programme it simply cannot afford to pay for. The Kiwibank loan and qualification for the 2010 WC allowed us to paper over the cracks and make it this far but we are rapidly running out of money unless something changes. You may disagree with charging players on a point of principle but I can see little argument with it from a purely financial perspective.
I think the players who got to attend a WC over the last seven years just got lucky really. Prior to 2006 they never would have had the chance (because Aussie pretty much always qualified) and in the future they will be asked to make a financial contribution, unless a better way can be found.
Think the parents are giving it the big fk off
I think you're right. Power to the people!
Then they should commission a full independent review of the funding of football in NZ, with recommendations on priorities and how to achieve the best value for money.
Pretty sure that was done by SPARC when they bailed out NZF a few years ago. I'm not quite sure what you're driving at with this angle T-X, are you getting at a specific probelm that you've identified or are you just saying "there must be a better way"?
Think the parents are giving it the big fk off
I think you're right. Power to the people!
Then they should commission a full independent review of the funding of football in NZ, with recommendations on priorities and how to achieve the best value for money.
Pretty sure that was done by SPARC when they bailed out NZF a few years ago. I'm not quite sure what you're driving at with this angle T-X, are you getting at a specific probelm that you've identified or are you just saying "there must be a better way"?
The second one - there must be a better way. I'm sure there is sufficient money sloshing around football in NZ to achieve all of our key priorities, but there is no overall strategy and no mechanism through which to coordinate (although I think the specific problem of declining pokie money and the proposed tightening of the rules currently being consulted on by the DIA does need addressing).
I remember talk of that SPARC report also although I've never seen it. I suspect it might have been focused just on NZ Football rather than football in NZ? There are a few reports around that look at grassroots sport in general or gambling money in general but I'm not aware of anything focused specifically on all funding going to all of football.
This looks like a useful resource: http://www.srknowledge.org.nz/. It has a few things that are kind of like what I mean, but not quite.
crikey.
Think the parents are giving it the big fk off
I think you're right. Power to the people!
Then they should commission a full independent review of the funding of football in NZ, with recommendations on priorities and how to achieve the best value for money.
Pretty sure that was done by SPARC when they bailed out NZF a few years ago. I'm not quite sure what you're driving at with this angle T-X, are you getting at a specific probelm that you've identified or are you just saying "there must be a better way"?
The second one - there must be a better way. I'm sure there is sufficient money sloshing around football in NZ to achieve all of our key priorities, but there is no overall strategy and no mechanism through which to coordinate
I have to say I completely disagree with you there. We could spend 10mn on the All Whites alone
Think the parents are giving it the big fk off
I think you're right. Power to the people!
Then they should commission a full independent review of the funding of football in NZ, with recommendations on priorities and how to achieve the best value for money.
Pretty sure that was done by SPARC when they bailed out NZF a few years ago. I'm not quite sure what you're driving at with this angle T-X, are you getting at a specific probelm that you've identified or are you just saying "there must be a better way"?
The second one - there must be a better way. I'm sure there is sufficient money sloshing around football in NZ to achieve all of our key priorities, but there is no overall strategy and no mechanism through which to coordinate
I have to say I completely disagree with you there. We could spend 10mn on the All Whites alone
Yeah, OK, I see what you mean. But doesn't that just reinforce my main point? We don't have that kind of money (well, not unless you shut down every other part of the game) so we need to be much smarter and squeeze as much value as possible out of every dollar available to football.
Think the parents are giving it the big fk off
I think you're right. Power to the people!
Then they should commission a full independent review of the funding of football in NZ, with recommendations on priorities and how to achieve the best value for money.
Pretty sure that was done by SPARC when they bailed out NZF a few years ago. I'm not quite sure what you're driving at with this angle T-X, are you getting at a specific probelm that you've identified or are you just saying "there must be a better way"?
The second one - there must be a better way. I'm sure there is sufficient money sloshing around football in NZ to achieve all of our key priorities, but there is no overall strategy and no mechanism through which to coordinate
I have to say I completely disagree with you there. We could spend 10mn on the All Whites alone
we need to be much smarter and squeeze as much value as possible out of every dollar available to football.
As a statement of intent, I completely agree. I really can't comment on whether we do or do not do this currently but I can't immediately see any major blowouts in the NZF budget or obvious areas to trim back.
Think the parents are giving it the big fk off
I think you're right. Power to the people!
Then they should commission a full independent review of the funding of football in NZ, with recommendations on priorities and how to achieve the best value for money.
Pretty sure that was done by SPARC when they bailed out NZF a few years ago. I'm not quite sure what you're driving at with this angle T-X, are you getting at a specific probelm that you've identified or are you just saying "there must be a better way"?
The second one - there must be a better way. I'm sure there is sufficient money sloshing around football in NZ to achieve all of our key priorities, but there is no overall strategy and no mechanism through which to coordinate
I have to say I completely disagree with you there. We could spend 10mn on the All Whites alone
we need to be much smarter and squeeze as much value as possible out of every dollar available to football.
As a statement of intent, I completely agree. I really can't comment on whether we do or do not do this currently but I can't immediately see any major blowouts in the NZF budget or obvious areas to trim back.
That's because you can't see the NZF budget. Neither can we. Because their annual report is a piece of single ply loo paper.
Absolutely - and it's a completely bizarre practice that obviously makes people suspicious. On the other hand it's not as if you get the sense they're wiping arses with $100 notes up at Albany. There does seem to be a focus on keeping costs down
There is JD, but only this year from what I know and hear.
The 2013 budget, they were told going into this year to trim it all back to the point that a couple of departments had a budget of zero (I kid you not). This was done to avoid a cost blow out. I am intrigued to see how the bottom line looks coming out of this year because if we post a profit, it's been only because significant budget cuts and at what cost? What happens then when you can't hold those departments at zero the year after?
I don't know where this money goes but you have to wonder exactly who is getting what and as Smithy said, the budget/annual report for all it's printed glossiness, has about as much worth as glorified crapper paper with zero absorption.
Absolutely - and it's a completely bizarre practice that obviously makes people suspicious. On the other hand it's not as if you get the sense they're wiping arses with $100 notes up at Albany. There does seem to be a focus on keeping costs down
Well, there is a some middle ground between controlling stray fecal matter with benjamins and being thrifty, and if you asked me to put NZF on a spectrum they'd certainly be tending to wasteful.
At the Chatham Cup final last year at Newtown Park I think pretty much the entire office was in attendance, along with half the Board.
No point in just looking at the trough ......
Any more on the youih payment revolt ?
Have they formed a committee yet ...?
NZ football say in their media release "The contribution of $2000 asked of squad members is put towards the cost of the entire two-year campaign not simply attendance at the respective World Cup."
Where else could you be charged in retrospect for a service provided without agreeing to pay for the service in the first place?
I know some people would debate the services received over the supposed 2 years. Some were with the squad for 2 years and didn't get selected so got the training etc but don't have to pay while others have just joined the squad in recent months yet have to pay. Then there is the difference in costs for families depending on where the kids were coming from to join the squad.
The 2 year campaign has already been a burden on the parents and they are not prepared to pay anymore.
The way they have gone about it is Mickey Mouse and to be frank pretty rude! Not sure NZF thought through how they would convince anyone to pay.
Yep I agree, they shouldn't be charging in retrospect if that is the reasoning that they're giving. I made that point a wee while back.
They could maybe get away with charging $1000 for next years campaigns, then start the $2000 for campaigns in 2 years. But charging people for this year isn't on given the reasoning they have given
In that case good point :)
I have been following the discussion but obviously not closely enough and really just wanted to get it off my chest.
Quite a good article although I thought it lost its way a little in the middle...
But mostly I'm amazed it was written by someone called Cordwainer Bull.
Quite a good article although I thought it lost its way a little in the middle...
But mostly I'm amazed it was written by someone called Cordwainer Bull.
Some good questions asked. And no, that's not his real name haha.
interesting that the herald is letting someone publish under an alias...
It is suspected it is Bruce Holloway.
NZ Football has confirmed age-group representatives will no longer be required to pay a contribution towards participation in national sides
— Jason Pine (@pineyzb) February 19, 2015