Anyway back to one part of the OP - summer football is awesome. getting sunburnt on sunday at Newtown park is preferable to getting pissed on in the winter.
National League review and future
The fed one would be interesting but definitely a step bac kfrom the professional arrangement others are advocating and what we have now.
It would move towards a much more amateur competition and a much harder sell to football purists (and some players). It would however probably appeal to the Rugby fixated media if we called it the Football ITM cup.
Also. Federations from time to time are train wrecks.
If you had to take pokie money out of the picture (whether as a purely theoretical exercise or for real) then you are talking about an amateur competition. End of. There is absolutely no evidence to support any other possible conclusion. The crowd numbers, the interest, the sponsorship, the philanthropy etc are simply not there to support semi-professionalism, let alone professionalism.
Which is not to say we can't still have a good national league that supports a number of different possible agendas. But let's be realistic about how we do that.
Its amateur for some of the teams now but they still need pokie money how else would they find the 65k entry fee?
for me the ASB Premiership probably needs to move to a semi-pro or pro league at some point if we are going to improve as a country at football - but this needs to happen without effecting grassroots football which will feed into this league.
The irony is that maybe with ACFC and Waitak to one side there is more money in Regional leagues than there is in the ASBP - certainly in Auckland there is more money in NRFL Premier League than in the ASBP (sans the big aforementioned 2).
so how do we get those guys with the money to invest in making a pro league?
I know there will be some issues with funding money and what not but instead of blaming each other there must be a solution somewhere for this to exist.
Not any more. The rules have changed and you can now do whatever you like for a year (or two?) after high school and still be NCAA eligible.
I think it's one free year and every year after that eats into how many years you can play at college.
If you had to take pokie money out of the picture (whether as a purely theoretical exercise or for real) then you are talking about an amateur competition. End of. There is absolutely no evidence to support any other possible conclusion. The crowd numbers, the interest, the sponsorship, the philanthropy etc are simply not there to support semi-professionalism, let alone professionalism.
Which is not to say we can't still have a good national league that supports a number of different possible agendas. But let's be realistic about how we do that.
You have access to the books of Glenfield R, Waitak, ACFC, Rapa, East Subs, Olympic, Lower Hutt, West Springs, Mangere Utd. etc. tx?
Its amateur for some of the teams now but they still need pokie money how else would they find the 65k entry fee?
And why the 65K fee anyway? Refs wages? linos? NZF IT fees? balls? cutting the grass?
Its amateur for some of the teams now but they still need pokie money how else would they find the 65k entry fee?
And why the 65K fee anyway? Refs wages? linos? NZF IT fees? balls? cutting the grass?
They've got to pay for those new electronic boards somehow.
If you had to take pokie money out of the picture (whether as a purely theoretical exercise or for real) then you are talking about an amateur competition. End of. There is absolutely no evidence to support any other possible conclusion. The crowd numbers, the interest, the sponsorship, the philanthropy etc are simply not there to support semi-professionalism, let alone professionalism.
Which is not to say we can't still have a good national league that supports a number of different possible agendas. But let's be realistic about how we do that.
You have access to the books of Glenfield R, Waitak, ACFC, Rapa, East Subs, Olympic, Lower Hutt, West Springs, Mangere Utd. etc. tx?
In a way, what you are alluding to is what worries me. My club isn't really on a firm financial footing yet I can support it and a local franchise and still feel like I am loyal to both institutions. Frankly, I would find it difficult to support Miramar, Olympic, etc so would probably just flag going to the ASB Prem. Going back to clubs for the ASB Prem might just disenfranshise (terrible pun) a lot of football supporters.
Its amateur for some of the teams now but they still need pokie money how else would they find the 65k entry fee?
And why the 65K fee anyway? Refs wages? linos? NZF IT fees? balls? cutting the grass?
I believe that includes travel costs, ground hire, referee costs and admin overhead.
NZF have, since the dawn of the ASBP, operated it on an arm's length financial basis. It pays for itself. The clubs cover the basic costs of the league.
This has led to a frustrating situation where the clubs (quite rightly) feel like they own the league but NZF feels like the league it operated only on its say so and it is the boss. Conflict city.
If the future of the league is to be franchise based then we should copy the Australian model and fully centralise. All revenue comes to NZF, and NZF distributes it based on agreed criteria.
Its amateur for some of the teams now but they still need pokie money how else would they find the 65k entry fee?
And why the 65K fee anyway? Refs wages? linos? NZF IT fees? balls? cutting the grass?
I believe that includes travel costs, ground hire, referee costs and admin overhead.
NZF have, since the dawn of the ASBP, operated it on an arm's length financial basis. It pays for itself. The clubs cover the basic costs of the league.
This has led to a frustrating situation where the clubs (quite rightly) feel like they own the league but NZF feels like the league it operated only on its say so and it is the boss. Conflict city.
If the future of the league is to be franchise based then we should copy the Australian model and fully centralise. All revenue comes to NZF, and NZF distributes it based on agreed criteria.
Oooh nooooo...... this way lies disaster , let the league run itself ..." those with skin in the game , get to play the game ...etc "
Its amateur for some of the teams now but they still need pokie money how else would they find the 65k entry fee?
And why the 65K fee anyway? Refs wages? linos? NZF IT fees? balls? cutting the grass?
They've got to pay for those new electronic boards somehow.
All the better to know how the "B" teams score ....
I couldn't support my local club and then it's arch rival in the national league. Doesn't compute.
I couldn't support my local club and then it's arch rival in the national league. Doesn't compute.
That's why there has to be a pathway for yr club to get into the national league. Common sense.
or support club in winter, and your city in summer. Best of both worlds.
or support club in winter, and your city in summer. Best of both worlds.
This is what Im talking about. I don't think you can have every club in the country trying to get into the national league.
oh yeah sorry it wasn't clear but I was agreeing with you
Yer I did get that I just had Jerzy saying my club, and I guess all clubs, need to have a plan and aspiration to get into the national league.
for me the ASB Premiership probably needs to move to a semi-pro or pro league at some point if we are going to improve as a country at football - but this needs to happen without effecting grassroots football which will feed into this league.
The irony is that maybe with ACFC and Waitak to one side there is more money in Regional leagues than there is in the ASBP - certainly in Auckland there is more money in NRFL Premier League than in the ASBP (sans the big aforementioned 2).
so how do we get those guys with the money to invest in making a pro league?
I know there will be some issues with funding money and what not but instead of blaming each other there must be a solution somewhere for this to exist.
Allow promo/relegation and let market forces apply, same as everywhere else.
was that the reason we shifted to a franchise base system. Club threw money around when they couldn't afford it?
I'm not aware of any clubs that actually went bust, so I wonder whether that's just a bit of a myth. There were a couple of law suits against NZF regarding promotion/relegation.
It's not just that though, the franchises were meant to combine the various football "communities" in each of the regions so they could do a better, more professional job of coaching, running match days, improving sponsorship, facilities etc. If it is just clubs fronting it then I'm not sure it's met those aims.
I guess I'd start by asking, what's good about the franchise system? To start:
- theoretically players can both play for franchise in summer and winter clubs so get all year round games, but maintains even winter competitions
- funders can see consistent programmes so should be more comfortable providing funding long term, and they can plan in advance to get the money they need rather than having to come up with it year to year IF they are in the national division
- franchises can recruit knowing they will be in the top league each year
- franchises can play at the best available ground in the region
On the negative side:
- competition is very boring and very little interest in watching the same teams play each other year after year. Actually, this just about sums it up for me, it's boring and clearly there isn't buy in from fans to support these franchises other than ACFC
- no promotion relegation is a real problem, hampering the interest in the league
- most of the proposed benefits haven't actually occurred. Especially facilities and gamedays, which I think is really disappointing. It doesn't take much to improve this stuff yet no-one seems able to do anything even slightly interesting (at least since they got rid of Raf's Pizza truck at Newtown Park)
I would say on balance I'd prefer going back to a club based league, but with a more regulated league that does try and introduce some elements of budget caps, centralised funding etc. Needs more thought, but personally I have to say I think the franchise system has been a failure in terms of what its goals were
And to answer Terminator X's point regarding funding, there is no way that the current model can be removed without something equivalent replacing it. It would kill amateur sport in NZ, this isn't just football it is EVERY sport (look at league, look at Netball, look at Rugby). And the VAST majority of money is used to fund real expenses. So it's not worth spending too thinking about a league without that funding, there has to be something to replace it.
On the negative side:
- competition is very boring and very little interest in watching the same teams play each other year after year. Actually, this just about sums it up for me, it's boring and clearly there isn't buy in from fans to support these franchises other than ACFC
- no promotion relegation is a real problem, hampering the interest in the league
- most of the proposed benefits haven't actually occurred. Especially facilities and gamedays, which I think is really disappointing. It doesn't take much to improve this stuff yet no-one seems able to do anything even slightly interesting (at least since they got rid of Raf's Pizza truck at Newtown Park)
I would say on balance I'd prefer going back to a club based league, but with a more regulated league that does try and introduce some elements of budget caps, centralised funding etc. Needs more thought, but personally I have to say I think the franchise system has been a failure in terms of what its goals were
As the NZF stopped trying to enforce whatever targets they originally set [ covered stands , etc ] its hard to remember what its goals were ....does give NZF jobsworths a place to go and look self important at least once a year ...
On the negative side:
- competition is very boring and very little interest in watching the same teams play each other year after year. Actually, this just about sums it up for me, it's boring and clearly there isn't buy in from fans to support these franchises other than ACFC
- no promotion relegation is a real problem, hampering the interest in the league
- most of the proposed benefits haven't actually occurred. Especially facilities and gamedays, which I think is really disappointing. It doesn't take much to improve this stuff yet no-one seems able to do anything even slightly interesting (at least since they got rid of Raf's Pizza truck at Newtown Park)
I would say on balance I'd prefer going back to a club based league, but with a more regulated league that does try and introduce some elements of budget caps, centralised funding etc. Needs more thought, but personally I have to say I think the franchise system has been a failure in terms of what its goals were
I think you're fitting your argument to your personal philosophy here JD.
The key drivers of moving away from summer super league were (more or less):
1. Getting all the best players playing against each other to increase the quality of the league.
2. Taking the burden of national travel off resource-poor winter clubs.
3. Easing the boom-bust player recruitment rat race in the winter leagues to increase winter club stability.
I think the key point is #1 which I would say has been achieved.
My two cents worth having watched National League football in it's various incarnations since the first game in 1970 (Evans Bay Parade - Western Suburbs v Mt Wellington) , and having been involved in the administration of a National League club.
1. can't see us ever having a Pro League - the monster known as Rugby sucks up all the various resources required to make a viable league.
2. Needs to be in summer.
3. Club based - given that it's going to be an amateur/semi professional league , it will be reliant on volunteer admin , etc. These people need to be passionate about the team in order to give up their free time and I can only see that passion coming from club people. Most of the franchises are effectively clubs in disguise anyway , for that reason. Tribalism has its weaknesses but it tends to get things done in my view.
If you had to take pokie money out of the picture (whether as a purely theoretical exercise or for real) then you are talking about an amateur competition. End of. There is absolutely no evidence to support any other possible conclusion. The crowd numbers, the interest, the sponsorship, the philanthropy etc are simply not there to support semi-professionalism, let alone professionalism.
Which is not to say we can't still have a good national league that supports a number of different possible agendas. But let's be realistic about how we do that.
You have access to the books of Glenfield R, Waitak, ACFC, Rapa, East Subs, Olympic, Lower Hutt, West Springs, Mangere Utd. etc. tx?
Not sure if you're taking the piss but yes: www.societies.govt.nz
It's a great resource actually, although not all clubs have their submission of accounts as up to date as they should be.
And to answer Terminator X's point regarding funding, there is no way that the current model can be removed without something equivalent replacing it. It would kill amateur sport in NZ, this isn't just football it is EVERY sport (look at league, look at Netball, look at Rugby). And the VAST majority of money is used to fund real expenses. So it's not worth spending too thinking about a league without that funding, there has to be something to replace it.
Of course. I'm not advocating that pokie funding be ripped off like a sticking plaster. My view on pokie funding is basically:
1. Ideally, there should no pokie funding of football at any level in NZ
2. However, achieving 1 will be extremely difficult and should be considered a long-term goal
3. As long as there is pokie funding in football it should be centralised as far as possible in order to coordinate its allocation to the game's highest priorities.
4. Under no circumstances should pokie funding ever be used to pay a player to play either directly or indirectly. Further, any club paying players from any non-pokie source really shouldn't have access to pokie funding (because their priorities are questionable).
I'm really just saying that I think any talk of our national league being pro or semi-pro (in any meaningful sense) should be off the table. The game can't afford to do it without pokie funding and we shouldn't be allowed to do it with pokie funding.
No pokies at all. Please
I still think that we're missing a trick in terms of the starting point for a discussion.
It's impossible to talk about the role and design of the national league without considering the wider strategic context of elite football in NZ - specifically professionalism. There's clearly a view amongst some that the national league should be the vehicle to deliver elite, professional football in NZ. I personally doubt that's actually possible but it's still a valid point of view. On the other hand you could argue that's what the A-League gives us and we should focus on developing additional A-League franchises as the way to expand professionalism in NZ. If that's the case then the national league probably starts to look more like a development/feeder type of league that supports that.
Either way, it seems to me that it's impossible not to discuss the role of the A-League in NZ first because that then fundamentally affects what the national league is about.
EDIT: btw, I think the creation of the A-League, and the success of the Phoenix as a viable entity within the A-League, is probably the major environmental change we've seen since the NZFC/ASBP was launched. It really can't be ignored.
Problem is if you take smoking, drinking and gambling off the table in terms of potential sponsors, you're not left with an awful lot.
If you assume there will always be income from gambling (pokies, TAB etc) what should be done with that money? Is the issue not that the money is used for sport etc but that the existing rules aren't enforced?
Problem is if you take smoking, drinking and gambling off the table in terms of potential sponsors, you're not left with an awful lot.
If you assume there will always be income from gambling (pokies, TAB etc) what should be done with that money? Is the issue not that the money is used for sport etc but that the existing rules aren't enforced?
I'm not trying to use this thread for a discussion about the pros and cons of pokie funding per se. But as the current ASBP's most significant funding stream (and a significant source of funds in regional leagues) it is a major factor in the review. And you're absolutely right that it is how the money is used that's important.
If we decide that our national league is primarily about youth development then there's a more obvious place for pokie funding in that model. Using pokie money to fund that type of activity is much closer to the intent and spirit of the Gambling Act.
If not, then that's where we really need much stronger regulation and enforcement to ensure the pokie funding rules aren't being abused.
Either way, I think we also need greater centralisation and coordination of pokie funding within the game. It's such a precious resource that is should be directed towards the game's highest priorities.
The one thing that I think is certain is that professionalism in our national league is just a complete pipedream. But, of course, it's that fact that keeps pokie funding in the picture.
Problem is if you take smoking, drinking and gambling off the table in terms of potential sponsors, you're not left with an awful lot.
Hard News' friend endorses this.
^ Newssplash! NZF announce the exciting new Chow Championship Mermaid League for 2015
"Our motto is 'Go hard but no pokies'.
^ Newssplash! NZF announce the exciting new Chow Championship Mermaid League for 2015
"Our motto is 'Go hard but no pokies'.
I still think that we're missing a trick in terms of the starting point for a discussion.
It's impossible to talk about the role and design of the national league without considering the wider strategic context of elite football in NZ - specifically professionalism. There's clearly a view amongst some that the national league should be the vehicle to deliver elite, professional football in NZ. I personally doubt that's actually possible but it's still a valid point of view. On the other hand you could argue that's what the A-League gives us and we should focus on developing additional A-League franchises as the way to expand professionalism in NZ. If that's the case then the national league probably starts to look more like a development/feeder type of league that supports that.
Either way, it seems to me that it's impossible not to discuss the role of the A-League in NZ first because that then fundamentally affects what the national league is about.
EDIT: btw, I think the creation of the A-League, and the success of the Phoenix as a viable entity within the A-League, is probably the major environmental change we've seen since the NZFC/ASBP was launched. It really can't be ignored.
But what format should the national league take?
Even if I wave a magic wand and coerce FFA, AFC and NZFC to incorprate a second A-League team from NZ, say in Auckland, do we persist with franchise football or club for the national league format? I guess that's why a few of us don't think it's hugely relevant because you still have to decide on a format whether it's 1 or 4 A-League teams from NZ.
Let's just say there are X players in NZ of ability or potential who can play professional football. What national league model encourages them to develop and achieve this? No one ever said the Phoenix were the only pathway to professionalism.
Is it too reductionist to say that we have to go all in on (a) the fairly standard club/promo/relegation model that is essentially deregulated by the governing body; versus (b) the regulated franchise model of, say, Australia that doesn't seem to have consequences for on-field under-performance? Another option perhaps?
I think someone worried a few posts back that Rob Sherman might bring in a European mentality (my take is more option A above) rather than considering down in this part of the world a large number of our major sports are more option B (I think NRL, NZ Rugby, Super Rugby, AFL reflect these) and that's a strong consideration with our sporting culture.
I'm enjoying the constructive aspects of this debate. There is some great insight coming from people who've been involved with administration at various levels which I hadn't really considered too much in the past.
Great post liberty
What if they opt for club-based, but no promotion/relegation.
I reckon that is a serious contender, because it will eliminate the financial pressure argument and give clubs certainty for fundraising, but do away with the mythical franchises.
It's also a half way house that will solve fk all but I think it is a good chance to be what they do.
I had a post typed out but it died damn it.
Essentially I wrote
*great idea, ticks a few boxes (also in terms of youth development and using winter regional football to develop players for that level)
*whats the criteria (effectively you are back to the NZFC criteria from 10 years ago)
*whats the spread geographically. You could find 10 teams from AKL, WEL and CHR alone.
I am interested in the detail if this happens
I still think that we're missing a trick in terms of the starting point for a discussion.
It's impossible to talk about the role and design of the national league without considering the wider strategic context of elite football in NZ - specifically professionalism. There's clearly a view amongst some that the national league should be the vehicle to deliver elite, professional football in NZ. I personally doubt that's actually possible but it's still a valid point of view. On the other hand you could argue that's what the A-League gives us and we should focus on developing additional A-League franchises as the way to expand professionalism in NZ. If that's the case then the national league probably starts to look more like a development/feeder type of league that supports that.
Either way, it seems to me that it's impossible not to discuss the role of the A-League in NZ first because that then fundamentally affects what the national league is about.
EDIT: btw, I think the creation of the A-League, and the success of the Phoenix as a viable entity within the A-League, is probably the major environmental change we've seen since the NZFC/ASBP was launched. It really can't be ignored.
But what format should the national league take?
Even if I wave a magic wand and coerce FFA, AFC and NZFC to incorprate a second A-League team from NZ, say in Auckland, do we persist with franchise football or club for the national league format? I guess that's why a few of us don't think it's hugely relevant because you still have to decide on a format whether it's 1 or 4 A-League teams from NZ.
Let's just say there are X players in NZ of ability or potential who can play professional football. What national league model encourages them to develop and achieve this? No one ever said the Phoenix were the only pathway to professionalism.
Is it too reductionist to say that we have to go all in on (a) the fairly standard club/promo/relegation model that is essentially deregulated by the governing body; versus (b) the regulated franchise model of, say, Australia that doesn't seem to have consequences for on-field under-performance? Another option perhaps?
I think someone worried a few posts back that Rob Sherman might bring in a European mentality (my take is more option A above) rather than considering down in this part of the world a large number of our major sports are more option B (I think NRL, NZ Rugby, Super Rugby, AFL reflect these) and that's a strong consideration with our sporting culture.
I'm enjoying the constructive aspects of this debate. There is some great insight coming from people who've been involved with administration at various levels which I hadn't really considered too much in the past.
Good comments liberty although even in the bit I've highlighted above you seem to be assuming that the national league's main purpose is to develop players. Not everyone would actually agree with that.
I'm not saying that the Phoenix (or the A-League) are the only pathway to professionalism, but I probably am saying that the A-League should be the only vehicle for delivering professionalism in NZ (because we cannot afford to do that on our own).
The question is whether we see the A-League as being the top tier of the NZ football pyramid or not. That's an important question because I don't think any country's top tier should be for development. Ideally, the top tier should just be be hard out competitive football.
If we decide that the top tier of football in NZ is going to be the A-League (with NZ ideally represented by 2 or 3 franchises) then maybe our domestic national league should be a development league (which would be a very similar model to what the Aussies are trying to achieve with the National Premier Leagues below the A-League). Alternatively, you could just treat the Phoenix as a total aberration (and the A-League as irrelevant) and take the view that our domestic national league is just a straight out competition to be the best team in NZ and if it takes a team of 30 year old imports to win it then so be it.
My whole point here is that you can't start to talk about formats until you are absolutely clear what it is you're trying achieve. Different formats will be better suited to achieving different things. For example, if you want really good development of youth I don't think you would go for the standard club/promo/relegation model. There would simply be too many other factors in play to guarantee careful development of youth, so you go for something more regulated.
Desired future state of ASB (see p.20 of NZF High Performance Report)
"an extended and adequately resourced ASB"
10 clubs playing 3 rounds each plus finals series
No NZ Under 20 team
Oceania teams invited to join.