I think people on here recognise that having an NZ Nix is better than no Nix at all.
Sure, we'd love the status quo but clearly something has to change or we'll have nothing.
Absolutely. A lot of the fan base would pack a shark initially, but if it was the only way then its the only way.
There's a few reasons why I'm uncomfortable with NZF just writing a cheque to the FFA (or even Welnix) as a few people seem to be advocating:
1. NZF can't afford it. Forget all that BS about big money from the Mexico game. That's in reserves and is our only hope to have even a half-arsed international programme for the AWs. The truth is that without the 2010 World Cup winnings and the money from the Mexico game NZF would have been running big deficits for the past 5 years.
2. The policy rationale seems weak. I know the FFA will say "we're contributing to the development of NZ football" and it's probably true, but how exactly? And what's that actually worth? The youth development side of the Nix operation is one area where NZF can actually say they have helped, via participation in the ASB Prem and youth league. Also, the FFA's "A-League participation helps drive youth development" argument would be stronger if they hadn't radically scaled back their own National Youth League. If NZF were to put in $ would that give them a say in the running of the A-league? If not, why not? Too much of this feels like a shakedown rather than a genuine discussion about the value to all parties of having an NZ team in the A-League.
3. The A-League itself should be moving in the opposite direction, towards being independently run, rather than having any direct involvement, let alone funding, from national associations.
I think NZF's role should be more about facilitation between all the big players in this, including the FFA, OFC, broadcasters (current and potential), sponsors and government, both local and central. For example, if there really is a link between A-League participation and youth development/participation then Sport NZ should be way more involved in this than they seem to be.
But that's why I was really disappointed with NZF's press release today. Words like "continue to be in close dialogue" and "once we receive their proposals" are lacking the urgency and pro-activeness required from them.
In summary, I have some sympathy with NZF that they are essentially facing a shakedown from the FFA (which Welnix now appear to be complicit in, perhaps for no better reason than they are glad to have the spotlight shine somewhere else) but I do think NZF should be showing a lot more leadership.
Everybody thinks the NZF should be showing any amount of leadership.
There's a few reasons why I'm uncomfortable with NZF just writing a cheque to the FFA (or even Welnix) as a few people seem to be advocating:
1. NZF can't afford it. Forget all that BS about big money from the Mexico game. That's in reserves and is our only hope to have even a half-arsed international programme for the AWs. The truth is that without the 2010 World Cup winnings and the money from the Mexico game NZF would have been running big deficits for the past 5 years.
2. The policy rationale seems weak. I know the FFA will say "we're contributing to the development of NZ football" and it's probably true, but how exactly? And what's that actually worth? The youth development side of the Nix operation is one area where NZF can actually say they have helped, via participation in the ASB Prem and youth league. Also, the FFA's "A-League participation helps drive youth development" argument would be stronger if they hadn't radically scaled back their own National Youth League. If NZF were to put in $ would that give them a say in the running of the A-league? If not, why not? Too much of this feels like a shakedown rather than a genuine discussion about the value to all parties of having an NZ team in the A-League.
3. The A-League itself should be moving in the opposite direction, towards being independently run, rather than having any direct involvement, let alone funding, from national associations.
I think NZF's role should be more about facilitation between all the big players in this, including the FFA, OFC, broadcasters (current and potential), sponsors and government, both local and central. For example, if there really is a link between A-League participation and youth development/participation then Sport NZ should be way more involved in this than they seem to be.
But that's why I was really disappointed with NZF's press release today. Words like "continue to be in close dialogue" and "once we receive their proposals" are lacking the urgency and pro-activeness required from them.
In summary, I have some sympathy with NZF that they are essentially facing a shakedown from the FFA (which Welnix now appear to be complicit in, perhaps for no better reason than they are glad to have the spotlight shine somewhere else) but I do think NZF should be showing a lot more leadership.
But it turns out the A-League can't afford to run itself, the Socceroos are subsidising the A-League with the justification being that it provides domestic player development. If the A-League was independent it would be like the NBL and constnatly have money problems and be a shambles.
3. The A-League itself should be moving in the opposite direction, towards being independently run, rather than having any direct involvement, let alone funding, from national associations.
Agree with all of your post but the reality of this point is that it won't happen in the foreseeable future (NZF showing leadership seems a more likely happening).
I have been totally swayed/enamoured by Shirley Bright and the need to get rid of the FFA.
Asking FFA to discuss problems of football "metrics" in New Zealand is like asking Sweeney Todd for a nice short sides and back.
METRICS = $$$$$$$$
There are no other metrics that will motivate the FFA. That's it. They want (lots) more money.
There's a few reasons why I'm uncomfortable with NZF just writing a cheque to the FFA (or even Welnix) as a few people seem to be advocating:
1. NZF can't afford it. Forget all that BS about big money from the Mexico game. That's in reserves and is our only hope to have even a half-arsed international programme for the AWs. The truth is that without the 2010 World Cup winnings and the money from the Mexico game NZF would have been running big deficits for the past 5 years.
2. The policy rationale seems weak. I know the FFA will say "we're contributing to the development of NZ football" and it's probably true, but how exactly? And what's that actually worth? The youth development side of the Nix operation is one area where NZF can actually say they have helped, via participation in the ASB Prem and youth league. Also, the FFA's "A-League participation helps drive youth development" argument would be stronger if they hadn't radically scaled back their own National Youth League. If NZF were to put in $ would that give them a say in the running of the A-league? If not, why not? Too much of this feels like a shakedown rather than a genuine discussion about the value to all parties of having an NZ team in the A-League.
3. The A-League itself should be moving in the opposite direction, towards being independently run, rather than having any direct involvement, let alone funding, from national associations.
I think NZF's role should be more about facilitation between all the big players in this, including the FFA, OFC, broadcasters (current and potential), sponsors and government, both local and central. For example, if there really is a link between A-League participation and youth development/participation then Sport NZ should be way more involved in this than they seem to be.
But that's why I was really disappointed with NZF's press release today. Words like "continue to be in close dialogue" and "once we receive their proposals" are lacking the urgency and pro-activeness required from them.
In summary, I have some sympathy with NZF that they are essentially facing a shakedown from the FFA (which Welnix now appear to be complicit in, perhaps for no better reason than they are glad to have the spotlight shine somewhere else) but I do think NZF should be showing a lot more leadership.
But it turns out the A-League can't afford to run itself, the Socceroos are subsidising the A-League with the justification being that it provides domestic player development. If the A-League was independent it would be like the NBL and constnatly have money problems and be a shambles.
[quote=zonknz]
to be honest, I love the nix because I love going. If the team played here less, I would need to reevaluate the season membership. I simply don't watch any non nix a league games, perhaps outside the final.
Assuming you are an Arsenal fan, would you watch any other EPL games other than Arsenal? This is part of the "Matrix" that the FFA point out....TV viewership. It's not just the Nix games, it's the whole A-League package, the FFA claim we do not generate enough interest in the A-League in New Zealand through TV viewership. As for making us the New Zealand Phoenix...........this would be one Foundation Member saying "Cherio". There's only one "New Zealand " team that I support and that would be ...............The All Whites.
Just to remind you, Midfielder: your gate attendances aren't any better than ours, so if they can do this to us, next thing you know the CCM licence will be pulled in favour of the North Sydney Metrics.
dear owe dear ...
Golly gosh all I asked was did I have a brief summary right as I am not as up to date with it as you guys... and BOOM no answer sorta get lost and CCM are next if they don't improve...
OK I came back briefly but .... I leave it there ...
Just to remind you, Midfielder: your gate attendances aren't any better than ours, so if they can do this to us, next thing you know the CCM licence will be pulled in favour of the North Sydney Metrics.
dear owe dear ...
Golly gosh all I asked was did I have a brief summary right as I am not as up to date with it as you guys... and BOOM no answer sorta get lost and CCM are next if they don't improve...
OK I came back briefly but .... I leave it there ...
Emotional times.
Dot dot dot
Midfielder, we're all a little sick of your passive aggressive ....ness... around here.....
Dot dot dot
Midfielder, we're all a little sick of your passive aggressive ....ness... around here.....
I would This it twice if I was able. Midfielder you only appear to turn up when you want to talk shark
What is still pissing me off about the whole thing is that as a club we are not in the financial crap of at least two Australians clubs yet Lowry & Gallop are making a big song and dance about us having to give more dosh. Sure things could be better, I acknowledge that but really, they need to sort out their own teams financial woes before worrying about us. Just give us the ten year licence to show we can do something long term...and get another Auckland side up and running, make it quite interesting and it gives Australian players another door in which to try and make a name for themselves. Thus having two opportunites instead of one such as South Sydney for example.
Well apparently its socceroos money that is paying for the A-League cap, i.e. out of the 40 million broadcast deal most of that is for the Socceroos while a smaller amount is for the A-League. So if that's the case then you can see why the FFA think that they are subsidising NZ football and want some contribution from the NZ stakeholders. That was mentioned by Ryans Rovers on twitter and as we all know here he's not prone to posting shark for no reason.
I'd like to know a bit more about that. The A-League is approx. 140 games per season. How many games do the Socceroos play each year? The ratings of those games must be astronomical if they can be seen as "subsidising" the A-League. I can see that it's possible though.
RR - do you have any more detail around the breakdown?
METRICS = $$$$$$$$
There are no other metrics that will motivate the FFA. That's it. They want (lots) more money.
FFA are backing themselves that if they cut us loose the only fallout would be from the NZ public and that it wouldn't harm them domestically. They obviously think they can either get some more money from us or have us jump first and clear the deck for a better replacement. Hence the bullshark aggro posturing and a lot of hot air.
Just on the NBL thing, It use to partly fund FOXTEL, But since Oct 2016 they signed a new TV deal with Foxtel and Nine network worth around $40 mil per season. Nine network FTA deal shows one game on Sundays and finals games why'll FOX shows all games live in HD.
2. *snip* Too much of this feels like a shakedown rather than a genuine discussion about the value to all parties of having an NZ team in the A-League.
3. The A-League itself should be moving in the opposite direction, towards being independently run, rather than having any direct involvement, let alone funding, from national associations.
I think that's key. If the A League was its own beast then feasibly (based on my very uneducated opinion) what ever national funding could be proportional.
I.e. its good for NZ football and Aus football. So the national bodies give some money to help the A League and it would be 90% Aus, 10% NZ. and that changes depending on the number of teams involved. e.g. if they expanded with an Auckland team and a Queensland team then it would change to 17% NZ and 83% Aus. But ultimately it would be up to the league to find ways to keep itself running and its decisions would be in the best interest of the league, not Football australia.
That's my opinion anyway, based on absolutely no knowledge of how to run a sport or league, so I could be completely wrong.
It does feel dirty the FFA demanding money from NZF, how they would find the point where we arent being funded by Aus and Aus arent being funded by NZF I dont know.
lightbox tweeted me "never say never" in response to a tweet about them picking up the A League.
As Royz said in another thread before all of this licence stuff happened, send them an email or other kinds of feedback as to why they should get the A league coverage.
