"Shamateurism" in NZ football

I'm not attempting to justify anything or even offer an opinion but the "fact" looks to be a case of Tim getting paid $54,000 a year to be a coach/whatever (year round) and some helpful stirrer has come along and divided $54,000 / 18 (Handa Prem games) to arrive at some Daily Mail styled "$3000 per game!!!?!!!" headline

If Tim was actually doing 30-40 hours a week at Eastern Suburbs in some other role (I have no idea if he does or not) then that's not really that much.

That aside, I have in the past been "offered" money for NRFL Div 1. It was absolutely fudge all compared to what some of the other figures quoted, but it was billed as "travel costs". Had a similar situation in central league as well. So I've definitely seen it to varying extents.

Ugly rumour (i.e. the Northern League Forum) suggests that Sam Burfoot is on $650 a game for Bay Olympic.

That's almost a livable full-time wage.

And people wonder why talented Kiwis won't trial for the Nix.

That's only $13k for a 20 game season?

Meanwhile I'm reliably informed that NRFL Women's teams only rate something like $50 a game... as a win bonus only.

To play devil's advocate, as previously discussed, what are his extra commitments to the club?

That is ridiculous money and hard to believe - although Bay Olympic, 3 kings etc have more money then sense thanks to sponsorship and big junior and senior teams paying big fees.

Don't know how they can justify paying players much in the NRFL as there is no real money in it. Especially when they get relegated!

Exactly - I'm a bit dubious about this argument that players wouldn't trial because they are on more at their Auckland clubs.  

That's fine, but you're comparing the ASBP maximum with the A-League minimum.  meaning if they were successful they would get paid far more to play football than they do currently.  Maybe what they really felt was they either weren't up to it, or they would always be no. 20 - 23 in a 23 man squad, or they would rather play football than make up squad numbers.  You look at Reuben Way's experience of pro football and wouldn't think it had a lot to recommend it.

But I am not convinced by the argument that it's a purely financial decision that allowed them to play the minimum number of games possible while earning the same money.   

I don't thin those that are throwing out the 'won't trial for the Nix' line even know what their argument is..

Hmmm.

$13k for Bay Olympic $20k for Waitakere and whatever he gets from his 'job'

He has $33k already. If he gets a job earning $45k he basically makes $78k to be a big fish in a small pond and not even have to try.

Yup I can completely understand why they don't go and trial for $48k.

where did you get 20k Waitak  from?

Still struggle with the idea that local players would prefer to play asbp rather than be signed with an ALeague club, so I still think there is more to this

I think people overestimate the drive to go pro in a lot of guys playing in the prem. I get the feeling there are plenty of pretty good players that have given up on that dream and moved into careers where they see a long-term future and don't want to disrupt that when they can still play at the top level in this country. Others have been pros before and might just be more comfortable where they are. It takes time for your body to adjust to the higher pace, so you're unlikely to be in the first team frame for the first few months, and you would have to really believe you are capable of moving up from last in the pecking order to the bench or the first 11 if it's going to make it worth your while unless you really value the chance to be professional footballer that highly.

I think you pretty much nailed it. Probably a combination of different factors - and different for each individual. 

Rudan has stated that he was interested in certain Kiwi players, who were prepared to come to the Nix but didn't want to trial. So on that basis doesn't appear that the money the Nix were prepared to offer, was the sole problem. Howieson & Payne are the names most often bandied about. They have both been recent AWs, and both have been conspicuous by their absence as trialists in Wellington.

If you look at Howieson (Burnley & St Mirren) and Payne (Blackburn & Portland), both tried pro football and both have effectively just been fringe squad players. Maybe they just both good sick of that grind of having to prove themselves all the time, with a high level of uncertainty month to month. Similar in a way as to why Kip Colvey gave up pro football.

At ASB level they are some of the main players in their teams. They may just feel happier that way. As much as I'd love to have as many quality Kiwis at the Phoenix as possible (and I criticised these guys when they initially failed to trial) - on reflection you can't begrudge them, doing whatever makes them happiest.

The one factor that could change things, is whether part of their 'no trial' reasoning was that the Nix had stunk for a few years. The club's reputation wasn't great. Rudan & co have turned it around big time. Howieson & Payne may just be tempted to change their minds.

They will always know that they were AWs, and good "shamteur" players at a domestic NZ level. But in the right pro environment, could they have been better players? Could they like Sigmund, Krishna, Riera make the jump and become regular starters for the next 5 odd years? That might just nag away enough to make them change their minds.

I don't think you can underestimate the fact that footballers want to play football.

Payne and Howieson and others would be aware of their limitations and where they are likely to sit in the pecking order. Both are now in their mid 20's and other that gaining experience / smarts, both are now probably past it in terms of making really dramatic improvements that would see them holding a regular A league slot.

Play regularly for a Handy Prem side with your mates, make a bit of coin on the side or be a bit player , the occasional run due to injuries / suspensions or off the bench and occasionally get a full game with 16 and 17 year olds with the Wee Nix.

Sometimes pragmatism plays a part

I'd be cautious about drawing any conclusions without having the full facts, we really just don't know what was communicated or offered to these players.  This is really all just pure speculation...

Oh please. They were asked to come and trial for a couple of weeks but decided that they wanted a contract first which unsuprisingly a coach and club who had never seen them in an A-League environment weren't willing to back.

It's like the "rumour" players have pulled 6 figures out of Auckland for a Season, it's rumoured, it's believable and off the record it's been confirmed.

Sigmund stated somewhere that he definitely became a better player in a full time pro environment.

He found there was a big jump in fitness standards for starters.

Unsurprisingly someone might want a contract first too. 

Well, to get back to my original gripe: the main issue for me with "shamateurism" isn't whether it discourages top domestic players from trying to go pro. It's that it's essentially dishonest, and therefore unsustainable.

I wouldn't get a toss how much our top domestic men footballers get paid for Handy Prem / NRFL / Central League / SI League, except that (a) they're not supposed to be getting paid at all except for expenses, and there is a culture where we all agree to lie about this to preserve pokie funding; (b) our top women don't get jack except for, I'm told, paltry win bonuses.

Just FYI Sam has a very good business going selling shade sails - he is not short of a few bob.

Yep, careers outside of football in Auckland, partners with careers, children with support groups, etc all add to the multitude of reasons why someone wouldn't want to become the 23rd player at the Phoenix.

When you look back at the many clubs who have disappeared or come close, its nearly always down to paying money to players that they didn't have. 

Whatever, can you cite some examples of "clubs who have disappeared" for paying money they didn't have?

Yes, I can think of two former national league clubs where that might have fitted the bill.

But I think a lot more clubs have disappeared as a result of things such as mergers, changing demographics, or dearth of administrators etc as precipitating a downfall. 

Recent examples in the Central Region which I am familar with  are Gisborne gone and Manawatu also gone.  Wellington United saved by the Nix and now Lower Hutt also saved by the Nix. In both cases they are/ were in dire financial difficulties.

Also Stop Out went within a whisker of  disppearing and so did WDU when they operated under that name. 

Gisborne City have gone - they were a club that relied on imports, but they did bring a hell of a lot of quality ones into NZ that stayed for good such as Ken Armstrong, Kevin Fallon, Ken Dugdale (OK he left but he did make a pretty significant contribution to NZ Football)

Manawatu merged with Red Sox and are now known as Red Sox Manawatu

WDU were never near disappearing, in fact with the DB sponsorship and the Dutchie's backing them they were probably one of the richest clubs in the country at the time. You may be getting confused with them in the 90s (they became Wellington United in 1986) there were issues at the beginning of the 90s due to lack of accountability over funds. They recovered from that and entered the first summer league, but they did withdraw from that after the second season due to money issues and lack of volunteers

The Phoenix deal with Wellington United was cost neutral, I assume it will be the same with Lower Hutt

Stop Out's issues in the early 90s was down to lack of members and volunteers, they only had 3 teams left

In answer to Bruce's question the only clubs that can really come under "examples of "clubs who have disappeared" for paying money they didn't have?"  are probably Courier Rangers, Dunedin City and Mt Maunganui

While money spent on players at National League level was a big factor in clubs survival, clubs like Mt Wellington and Christchurch United tended to struggle more because realistically they were one team clubs and ended up suffering from a dearth of administrators

The Manawatu team from the current National League no longer exists. Wellington United was insolvent when The Nix stepped in and Lower Hutt has recorded large loses in recent years.

Stop Out's problems were mainly financial as they had being paying players  and when the money ran out players left in droves. Probably similar to how players  are now leaving Lower Hutt after the pokie money dried up with the demise of their pub.

If you go on line and look at the performance of various Wellington clubs, it is not healthy.

Oh sorry didn't realise you were talking about Youngheart Manawatu, which was a team created solely for the National League, when NZF punted them so they could put the U20 team in they did play youth league for a couple of years but it was a team not a club

I'm involved in Wellington United and know the club wasn't insolvent when the Nix stepped in, I have no idea about Lower Hutt.

From what I understand of what happened at Stop Out in the early 90s was that there was alot of resentment that Lower Hutt City were allowed to take over the mantle of number one Hutt Valley team after the demise of Hutt Valley United. And as I have been told there was a lot of infighting between families at the club which led a lot of people to leave. If it hadn't been for Mr Stop Out, Jim McCreadie, the club would no longer be here. - I do have to acknowledge here that I only have one persons view on this 

Anyway none of these examples answer the question which was

"Whatever, can you cite some examples of "clubs who have disappeared" for paying money they didn't have?"

Tks Dave, yes Courier Rangers and Mt Maunganui were the two "disappeared" clubs I was thinking of. Mt Maunganui was liquidated in 1997 with debts of about $250,000. 

A host of clubs have withdrawn from competitions in advance to ensure they DIDN'T get into financial trouble - eg Wellington United from 97-98 summer league - but not so many for paying money they didn't have, which is quite a different proposition.

Interesting discussion (even if it does veer from the original question). In earlier times a lot of clubs went bankrupt contesting the Chatham Cup. 

This argument is an interesting one - would the better question be how many clubs have "disappeared" using money for players that was unsustainable.

Lack of members, volunteers etc can all be by products of clubs who invested the cash they have on players and not on infrastructure, and when the cash dries up and the players leave they have nothing. 

In which case, UniMount were wise to invest in Bill McKinlay park, which has kept them in existence.

There are three issues for me: a) the question of whether the current level of payer payments in "amateur" football is sustainable financially; b) whether it is legally questionable when pokie funding is involved; c) the fact that top women players seem to get virtually none of it.

a) No

b) No it's normally from other sources

c) Shouldn't be an issue as neither gender should pocket money to play

I am not sure if neither gender shouldnt be paid to play. The problem to me is how to make it sustainable and fair. There is even at the amateur level of regional premier division the expectations on training and commitment are pushing pretty hard. For anyone involved at that level they will know just how much is sacrificed, how much is expected. 

Pokie money or any types of grant need to be kept out of player payments, that money should be directed towards junior, youth or club infrastructure but other revenue streams could be used for player payments. The big problem of which I have no answer for is where does the money come.

In my original quote I said that there were clubs who disappeared or who came close to disappearing due to spending on players and I have quoted those.  Wellington United were insolvent. If you go to the Company's Office and look up Wellington United under Incorporated Societies you will see that before the Nix got involved they had negative equity of around $40k and their current liabilities were well in excess of their current assets which made them insolvent. 

If you also look up at Lower Hutt you will see their current financial predicament, they have suffered significant loses in recent seasons once their cash cow went belly up.  In the early 90s Stop out were playing big money for Dugdale as coach and players who did not come cheap and who they could not afford. 

1 - If Wellington United were insolvent they would no longer exist, yes they were in a bad way financially but it wasn't down to the paying of players

2 - Lower Hutt, I'm not sure what their cash cow that you refer to was so can't really comment

3 - Dugdale never had an association with Stop Out after he got banned for life in 1979. North Wellington helped him get the ban lifted so he was allowed to coach and in the early 90s he was working for the Wanganui FA and Wanganui Athletic, he also had a couple of seasons at Petone before moving to Wellington United for the summer league. Then he moved to Wests and set up the Ole Academy with Dave Wilson and was there until 1999 when he got the NZ job.

I'm not sure who the Stop Out coach was in the early 1990s, I wouldn't be surprised though if you were thinking of Fred Goodwin, but that was the late 80s. in the early 90s he spent time in charge at Hutt Valley United and Waterside Karori

In your original quote you said that there were clubs who disappeared or who came close to disappearing due to spending on players

as has been discussed above there are only 2, possibly 3 clubs that we can really say that about (Courier Rangers, Mt Maunganui & Dunedin City), although there have been many clubs that have payed for players but stopped when they realised it wasn't sustainable. A lot more clubs have disappeared due to lack of numbers or willing administrators \ volunteers

and this all deviates from Dolaras original questions which were

a) the question of whether the current level of payer payments in "amateur" football is sustainable financially;

is it sustainable? 

the answer is no probably not, or it is as long as a club has someone (or a group) or people willing to bankroll them

b) whether it is legally questionable when pokie funding is involved

Pokie funding is very tightly controlled now that I don't think this is an issue, you won't get money to pay players from pokie funding. You will get money to pay players who are performing coaching duties. What may be questionable is how much you claim to pay a player to do 16 hours of coaching a week.

c) the fact that top women players seem to get virtually none of it.

as others have said it shouldn't really matter on gender, but some of the top women players do get paid, in fact I've heard there is a club in Auckland that is well known for paying players and their top earner last season was female

Off-topic, I know, but what was Dugdale banned for? I'm an entitled millennial and I've never heard about this before.

He headbutted a referee during a Chatham Cup game between WDU and Stop Out (he was playing for Stop Out)

Ref was called John "Polly" Perkins

Russel Gray wrote a great story about years later, I'll see if I can find that

I edited the original post and somehow replied, can mods delete it please :-)

While pokie funding is tightly controlled these days, funding can end up paying for players in effect, or whatever else a club may want to spend on. You just get the funding for things you otherwise needed to spend club money on, and now you save money on that, you use what you've saved to pay players. Don't know the extent this happens, but well possible.