Also in regard to money - let's not forget that there were nearly 35,000 at Eden Park the other day. If we get a match like that every year against a decent/top quality nation (especially one that NZ has traditional sporting ties with) and build it up like they built up this one, you easily get that kind of attendance again and the game can at least break even - at which point the whole financial prudence thing would be irrelevant.
I get the 'financially prudent' thing, and in a way applaud it after the organisation's history in different eras. I get the 'we won't play if we don't qualify' idea as well, as at the time of that decision it may have seemed best, particularly if the players were still down about missing out, why trot them out for something that could seem meaningless etc.
But if there are European teams potentially approaching us, and potentially offering to host our team for a friendly, and we could realistically assemble a decent squad mainly drawn from that region, and so perhaps the usual squad/assembling tour costs may be a bit less than usual, it would have to be at least investigated, surely? If it was, and found to not be viable, then fine, explain that, most people I think would understand the rationale. But if it was "no, we said we're not going to play, so we're not going to play", that does seem a bit obstinate and not overly wise.
I mean, playing a top 20 nation, based on what I saw at Eden Park, well, maybe that does more harm than good... but a top 50 team with a decent lineup, chance for our squad to play in a Euro venue in Euro conditions, even if we're not 100% full strength (perhaps no Aus based guys?) but still a decent line-up - has to be a thing to look at, doesn't it?
Have said it before, but this resonates with the kind of stuff that used to be said in the past by Rufer. And then Hay. And then Nelsen. And then Smith. And Reid, and Wood, and and and... we get guys into pro environments, and they realise quick the lack of professionalism in how things are done back home. Yes it's improved compared to what it was - but that doesn't mean that is has got to where it needs to be. And this is not about throwing money at stuff randomly. It's about mindset.
What if FIFA hadn't changed the World Cup to a "half the world participation fest" - what would the future of the AWs be then?
The Fern get about $500k per year from high sport NZ because they are at the Olympics. That probably funds at least 2 windows. Any comparison to the ferns is stupid.
Remember when Graeme Seatter used to comment on here? I don’t know who he was outside his plan to get the AWs playing. But watched the AWs in that era.
But I guess the AWs is a show up and play 6 or 7 games in the WC year cycle as far as NZ football are concerned.
You do feel that if the AWs had played more and been more settled then they would have had a better chance. Team cohesion is usually regarded as the most important value. Despite some excellent individual form from Nelsen, Paston, Smeltz and others the AWs leading up to that campaign knew each other very well and had been through a lot together.
It’s more difficult than it was too, with the Nation’s League, to get good friendlies. Also the potential of being embarrassed by NZ isn’t a great upside for any manager or FA.
I mean rock and hard place. Those AWs get a public campaign going, get sponsors, get us playing! I think Nelsen, Brownie, Siggie et al were very committed to promoting the team.
There’s definitely a public there if you can make it happen. Is it enough to fund a globetrotters who won’t play any Nation’s League teams?
Comparisons to the Football Ferns are mischievous because the AWs get invites almost nowhere.
The Fern get about $500k per year from high sport NZ because they are at the Olympics. That probably funds at least 2 windows. Any comparison to the ferns is stupid.
Which considering the joke qualifying path they have to navigate compared to pretty much every other NZ Olympian, is undeserved stolen loot.
Why don't the 2 teams throw their combined 'earnings' (HSNZ cash, FIFA money, TV rights cash etc etc) into the International Teams Fund - and then draw out enough cash for each side to fund a roughly equal number of games over a 4 yearly window period. Socialist utopia at work surely then.
Also in regard to money - let's not forget that there were nearly 35,000 at Eden Park the other day. If we get a match like that every year against a decent/top quality nation (especially one that NZ has traditional sporting ties with) and build it up like they built up this one, you easily get that kind of attendance again and the game can at least break even - at which point the whole financial prudence thing would be irrelevant.
One big match and some smaller ones- if we can get funding for our ‘Olympic’ side a couple of games for them or a mini tournament with the Island teams and a guest…
But the AWs probably have to do it themselves to a large degree. Their connections are probably better than NZ football’s anyway!
The Fern get about $500k per year from high sport NZ because they are at the Olympics. That probably funds at least 2 windows. Any comparison to the ferns is stupid.
Which considering the joke qualifying path they have to navigate compared to pretty much every other NZ Olympian, is undeserved stolen loot.
Why don't the 2 teams throw their combined 'earnings' (HSNZ cash, FIFA money, TV rights cash etc etc) into the International Teams Fund - and then draw out enough cash for each side to fund a roughly equal number of games over a 4 yearly window period. Socialist utopia at work surely then.
It's not to qualify. It's to help them perform at the Olympics. And they can't pool that money. It's tagged to the ferns.
The Fern get about $500k per year from high sport NZ because they are at the Olympics. That probably funds at least 2 windows. Any comparison to the ferns is stupid.
the comparison is not mine, Piney and whoever he was interviewing this afternoon raised it, essentially suggesting that the mens team essentiall funded most of NZF's endeavours.
Im no fan of Hay but I remember watching the AWs at the 1999 Confeds cup and they were playing better than any side in the previous couple of years. One contributing factor was a run of games leading up to the confeds cup (9 or 11 I think?). Anyway we have one of the more talented collection of players in recent years playing and they and Hay deserve as many games together as possible. No games in November is a huge missed opportunity.
It will only be a huge missed opportunity if from March 2023 onwards it proves near impossible to find quality oppoents to play, ie is back to playing Oman, Thailand & Mynamar away. As sounds like for Nov-Dec there are some quality Euro teams available, even a top 20 side reportedly.
But in a recent AV article, he noted that with UEFA Euros qualifying draw coming up in October, there will be lots of groups that have 5 teams in 2023, and so hopefully teams looking for a friendly when they have a bye round next year. Just like Ireland & Lithuania in 2019. Think I have that right??
Also the above reponse by NZF to Wood & Co, highlighting in clear detail their financial Reserves plus cost of running international teams - shows how vital qualifying for future World Cups is - to fund all the internatiuonal team programs.
That alone should kill the 'move to AFC' agrument. A combined East AFC/OFC Nations League comp would be great, a full move to AFC dumb.
No the combined AFC/OFC nations league is not possible, look at this intense schedule for AFC world cup/asian cup qualifiers. Screenshot 2022-10-01 172034.png44.07 KB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(AFC)Screenshot 2022-10-01 172147.png32.26 KB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2027_AFC_Asian_Cup_qualification#Third_round
"As the team unfortunately did not qualify for the FIFA World Cup 2022, our players do not automatically get released by their club sides in November as it is not an official FIFA window for non-World Cup qualified sides."
So potentially we would have a weakened side, playing 3.5 years before the next world cup. If the tradeoff is between that and a full squad playing next year then it seems like a no brainer to me
seems like a pretty weak response to the players letter, especially after the intial response was effectively "we broke, go away" when all the players wanted was to open a dialogue. It shouldnt be a "if you qualify for the WC we'll work to get you more games" situation. It should always be "we have several windows in the year, we must have meaningful games regardless of player availablility to conrinue to make the game better." Even playing without the "best" players in November is better than not playing at all.
"The team will also be looking to play in every subsequent official FIFA window."
Huge if they can keep their word
I'll believe it when I see it.
Most, if not all of us here have heard that line a number of times before from NZF/SNZ yet how many windows over the past 20/30 years have we not played or only played one game?
Nelsen, Reid, Vicelich, Wood, Elliott, Jackson, Smeltz, Coveny, Batty, W. Rufer, Killen and Zoricich should all have had far more caps and goals to their names then they have due to our bodies inability to organise matches whenever possible over the years.
Ivan should have easily made 100+ full caps for us and Wood should be close to it too but he's still 31 games away from that record and at the rate we play games he might well never make it.
You do realise that NZF gets a cut from every womens WC the ferns go to as well as the age group world cups and not to mention Olympics. Funding the Ferns is not the reason the AWs are missing out on games. theprof
NZF funding the Ferns, U-20's which make no money, in fact cost money to put games on with no payback, that's the kind of dumb investment that you stay away from. The team NZF can and should be maing money from is the mens team! This kind of poor decision making will cost us, the team, the management and NZF bucket loads in the longer term.
You do realise that NZF gets a cut from every womens WC the ferns go to as well as the age group world cups and not to mention Olympics. Funding the Ferns is not the reason the AWs are missing out on games. theprof
NZF funding the Ferns, U-20's which make no money, in fact cost money to put games on with no payback, that's the kind of dumb investment that you stay away from. The team NZF can and should be maing money from is the mens team! This kind of poor decision making will cost us, the team, the management and NZF bucket loads in the longer term.
the cost to send the team to those events would outweigh any share of income from the event, most women's games have small crowds in comparison the the men's games. I'd be confident that the profit from bringing the men home to play would be well above any women's game being played.
The cost would outweigh any share of income? You know this for certain or are you just sharing a reckon with us? Again, the problem with the AWs not playing enough games is not because of the funding to the Ferns or womens teams.theprof
AlfStamp
You do realise that NZF gets a cut from every womens WC the ferns go to as well as the age group world cups and not to mention Olympics. Funding the Ferns is not the reason the AWs are missing out on games. theprof
NZF funding the Ferns, U-20's which make no money, in fact cost money to put games on with no payback, that's the kind of dumb investment that you stay away from. The team NZF can and should be maing money from is the mens team! This kind of poor decision making will cost us, the team, the management and NZF bucket loads in the longer term.
the cost to send the team to those events would outweigh any share of income from the event, most women's games have small crowds in comparison the the men's games. I'd be confident that the profit from bringing the men home to play would be well above any women's game being played.
The cost would outweigh any share of income? You know this for certain or are you just sharing a reckon with us? Again, the problem with the AWs not playing enough games is not because of the funding to the Ferns or womens teams.theprof
AlfStamp
You do realise that NZF gets a cut from every womens WC the ferns go to as well as the age group world cups and not to mention Olympics. Funding the Ferns is not the reason the AWs are missing out on games. theprof
NZF funding the Ferns, U-20's which make no money, in fact cost money to put games on with no payback, that's the kind of dumb investment that you stay away from. The team NZF can and should be maing money from is the mens team! This kind of poor decision making will cost us, the team, the management and NZF bucket loads in the longer term.
the cost to send the team to those events would outweigh any share of income from the event, most women's games have small crowds in comparison the the men's games. I'd be confident that the profit from bringing the men home to play would be well above any women's game being played.
its a reckon, but based on experts commentary in the past. I've never said that the AW's playing is down to other teams playing. I'm just saying that given the men's team is likely to be abigger draw card for crowds and therefore a bigger earner its seems odd to shelve them and focus on other teams that are likely not to make a profit. and that is given the boss man has siad that the reason the AW's are not playing is down to a lack of cash in the bank.
The goal should be all NZ teams to play as much as possible. But the fact is because the AWs failed to make Qatar and obtain the whopping $16.5M payday, NZF now need to watch their pennies somewhat over the next 4 years, re funding their international teams.
Main reason given by NZF for not trying to find AWs friendlies in Nov/Dec during the World Cup. Other factor being that the period is not an official FIFA window, so seems a grey area as to whether the clubs need to release non WC internationals. Though for example Italy who of course ain't going to Qatar will be playing 2 friendlies then.
NZF's senior & age group teams are primarily funded from the International Teams Fund (ITF). Yipe the Ferns get some HPSNZ funding (Olympics) and presumably some FIFA cash for making World Cups, but as with the age group teams alot of their costs are financed from that ITF - cash accumulated from the AWs (2010 WC & Mexico 2013 TV rights).
If the AWs play every window from March next year, up to the 2026 WC (incl games at home) as Pragnell has promised, then any agrument is moot. Lets see what happens.
“While Danny was offered the opportunity to reapply for the position, we respect his decision not to put himself forward and wish him the best of luck with whatever he chooses to do next.
What does Hay and playing group expect? End of a un-successful world cup cycle. Coaches contract is up. Why wouldn't NZF advertise the job and see who else is out there. If they didn't and result went backward. Fingers would be pointed at NZF for not going through a proper recruiting process. NZF ain't perfect. But rock and hard place comes to mind.
