Andy Martin - All you expect and less

Ok, but how often do hear of elite/national rep footballers that have only taken up the sport in their teens? 

Or, sprinters not able to qualify for the Olmpics taking up rugby in their 20s and being able to represent the 5th best sevens national team (possibly even their 15 a side team).

Not saying rugby is not skilful, just athleticism helps/shines out more. 

Rugby is such a different sport (even from league)  in that the positions all have very different physical and technical requirements. Over the last decade we have seen the "fatties" as they are referred to being a lot more mobile and better and catching and passing but you would have a farce of a game if you got the forwards and backs to swap!

The forwards in rugby probably couldn't play elite level sport in as many sports as the backs and I think that it's the forwards that people are referring to as not real athletes perhaps because of this limitation.

The backs on the other hand - NZF would give the password to the fax machine for the athletes that are playing in the backs in super rugby, first 15 etc. These are the guys football is missing out on. You still see this is rep NZ sides- unfortunately the speed and power of our football players appears less than the wingers and inside backs playing rugby and school boy rugby. We still have "plodders" playing rep football. Eg the U20 team would not have been accused of having heaps of pace (Joel Stevens aside). They probably have guys who can do 16 plus in a beep test but football also requires speed.

Anyway, off topic. Just read all of the above and couldn't resist! 

Okay, off topic posts will now be hidden. Thanks.

NZ Football retweeting Veitch.  I'm about one Ronaldo retweet from an unfollow.

Andy seeks help...Sponsorship Manager

Wonder if the Nix would be willing to let their commerical manager go off to NZF...

NZF reported a 989,000 surplus* today. Yet they can't afford to play a friendly.

*after transferring some money fro the international team fund.

Can some accountant please explain why NZ football has to transfer one million dollars from their international team fund to make a surplus of 989,000 please?

It shouldn't take an accountant to tell you that they lose more money than they can gain on a yearly basis. They have no secured income stream from anywhere that I can think of due to the lack of public interest in NZF and ASBP. They are solely reliant on our national and club rep teams punching above their weight for bonus payments and the odd world cup cycle from opposition TV rights. We can only envy what the FFA have even if they think its not enough money for broadcasting rights being offered atleast they have bidders lined up for their national league.

No sorry I still don't understand. 

I can understand that a loss is not a great look and you need to pay your bills. Why however do you have to take $1000,000 across to make a surplus of 989,000?

Wouldn't you just take $11,000?

Might be because a surplus of $989,000 looks better than $11,000? 

The answer is that NZF had budgeted (planned) to take that million and spend it on their international programme and did and the end effect is a 989,000 surplus. They 'brought it across' to spend it, not just as a neat trick at the end of the year.

it's all about short-termism

they're window dressing their performance by moving money from one part of the balance sheet to another

the fact is they made a small loss, despite making $877k on the u20 world cup

which really means their operations lost close to a million. but hey, let's call it a profit of $989k and pat each other on the back

- they spent $3.2m  on personnel (up a whopping $675k)

- and $414k on professional services (up $287k)

We all know what 'professional services' means here though (eligibility legal fees).

"Professional Services"? 

hookers

the difference between a budget and the actual spend is not a surplus, it's a variance

the surplus has come from inflating revenue with this paper transfer of funds from the 'reserves fund' to 'revenue'

at some point in time, i assume quite a while ago, the reserves fund money was made and put aside. this, of course will pre-date martin. i seem to vaguely recall NZF doing the same last year; performing a paper transfer of funds out of the 'reserves' to 'revenue' to fudge a loss (correct me if i am wrong)

so, sooner or later, the reserves fund will be gone. i assume by then, so will martin. i also assume that martin has plans for that reserves fund over the next year or so and these plans probably have more to do with saving his own arse that actually playing games

the 'international teams' reserves fund is a fund specifically to pay for international teams, so it's hardly just a paper transfer if they're being used for that purpose. i'd imagine it will be topped up next time we get a decent chunk of money (it was after the mexico TV money I think?). they'd planned on taking the million - it's not like they've got to the end of the year and gone 'oh lets transfer this so we look good'

It started all the way back after the 2010 World Cup. The purpose of it is to smooth out revenue because it typically comes in 4 year cycles. Pretty astute I think.

My problem is nzf saying they have a surplus/'surplus' while also claiming they couldn't afford/organise some international games.

are you kidding me? that's exactly what they have done

The approach has been around since 2011 reg http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10723441

As Dale said, the fund exists to provide a base of $$$ for the international programme, that isn't subject to the fluctuations of when income is received. 

Every year, NZF plans to take $$$ from that fund, i.e. the $1M it did this year, to pay for the international programme. 

The intent will be for the fund to be topped up in the future (to continue providing that base to avoid fluctuation) when prize money/tv money comes in, and to again be drawn on every year, and so on and so on (and maybe one day they will have such regular income that the fund isn't nec-hahahaha)

cheers dale, yeah i thought it had some history and i totally get the smoothing out of revenue etc

the bottom line is that andy martin is trumpeting  good performance. it's not. 

they made $877k from the u20 world cup and they played no games and still came out less than break even

then they transfer money, set aside for games, that were not played, and... ba ba da ba ba ba baaa - profit!

what international programme exactly?

the reserve is just to spunk out press releases like they did today. My god they polished a turd.

you said it better than me greene man

An U20 team that prepared for and contested a world cup, an U23 team that travelled to (PNG?) for Olympic qualifying, an u17 team that qualified, prepared for, and contested a world cup, the All Whites' three games, U20 and U17 women's teams that had camps and Oceania qualifying (bulk of Football Ferns' costs would come from their HPSNZ funding, but some would be here too). I imagine the Futsal Whites (god help us) get some too.

When you say they make a loss then transfer money, you're describing a situation where they've paid for the international programme (leaving them at the loss), but not paid for it fully (which is what the transfer is for)

Fair to argue they could have spent more and copped a friendly, but with the intl reserve now down to 1.7, and the fact that future income to pay for it is far from secure, registering a surplus seems handy

 Now I know why The NZF Board declared a vote of confidence in Andy Martin because they knew that he was pulling a "rabbit out of the hat" and declaring a  surplus.

Wow what a " Financial Wizard"

Guys, the international fund has been used (ie cash spent) on funding the Ferns and the few AW fixtures they did play. 

It works as follows- accounting nonsense... 

When they got the $4m (or whatever cash I was) they went:

Debit Cash (ie cash Goes up) and Credit Reserves on the balance sheet (rather than recognise it as income in that year as a big one off)

When it's spent they go:

Debit Reserve (ie decrease it by what is spent) and Credit Income Statement (ie recognise the income).

It's income smoothing, it's highly misleading (but not illegal or anything), it is hiding the fact that without the u20s cash of circa $900k and this transfer of the same they would have made a loss of $900k or so.

What these financial statements tell us is this- NZF cannot actually fund (in fact lose almost a million dollars) their annual operations in  a year when the AWs haven't played.

If his was a business as an auditor (or a stakeholder like a half decent director) you'd be asking " so to remain a going concern what are you going to do at the end of the WC cycle when the international reserve has been spent?". "Where are your recurring commercial (ie non prizemoney windfall) revenues coming from Andy". The answer cannot be "we hope the AWs play Brazil in the qualifier and we make $5m. 

To think Martin has increased expenditure on staff etc by the almost the amount of the deficit means he is spending tomorrow's windfall today.... (In this case he's spending increased FIFA handouts announced at the last congress) 

It's scary, it's incompetent.

In his CEO's report I don't want to read about all the soft stuff. I want him to tell us as stakeholders how successful he has been in growing he commercial revenue streams. In short - he hasn't- they have shrunk after losing the ASB.

I heard John Key today at a post Budget function talk about "getting people to stop always talking about how much we are spending and on now we can grow and make more money". "To live like the first world country we need to earn like one".

So the same goes for NZF - don't just ask Martin to justify what he is and isn't spending- he should be telling us how is is going to grow the commercial revenue streams.

I read speculation that Andy Martin sold the TV rights to all age/men women WC games to SKY TV for $40k a year over four years $180,000. That's pretty sh1t if true , Looking at what funds they show public I couldn't see any TV money included.

I've been asking the question about Martin's ability to bring in commercial revenue for a while. Given his career background, this had to be one of the key reasons Martin landed the job over other applicants. Afterall, he has no specific football or NZ professional experience. I think coming up 2.5 years in the job is a reasonable time to say "show me the money!"

Barclays loan @ %0 

Wow. Just caught up with this thread after not reading a 100 or so posts. 

These guys are due some immense scrutiny. I think I heard we got ASB sponsorship cos the boss there liked football and decided to do it before he left. Just need some more folk like that!!

Maybe we should hire this former ASB guy as our CEO. Surely a NZ banker who likes football might be better then a British banker who likes rugby?

yeah, a former international had a good position there. but still we would have had to have bought a good preso to the table

So I tweeted this during the game on Wednesday. Just had word that someone who interacted with it, has received a phone call and an email from someone at NZF to express their disappointment because they disrespected the brand of the All Whites. Err were they not watching the game. Team did that themselves.

Assume the black arm bands are to mourn the death of the beautiful game in New Zealand

— Dale Warburton (@Dale_Warburton) June 8, 2016