Effecting Change at NZF

8.3% in fact.

Compared to 0.59% for Auckland City (assuming that the NZ premier leagues vote is split evenly among the 28 designated teams)

FARK. this is huge.

How do people read p6 of the doc re Proposed Structure....'Private Providers'....sit outside? or part of Other stakeholders group?

I read that as private providers sitting outside. Which is exactly what you'd expect to be fair.

I concur...to a point. Those private providers have 'members' - who pay a levy to NZF to play in their competitions, or attend coaching courses etc; should they not have a say as part of the stakeholder group? As a counter-point, are futsal clubs more or less worthy than private providers to be a part of the "other stakeholder' group?

They would come under the umbrella of each Fed if they played in competitions etc?

It gets messy. WYNRS private provider (outside the tent) have members who play for Onehunga Sports (club, inside). Similar situation with Ole/Wests. But Phoenix Academy (outside) have some players playing for Mar (inside) and others only non competition games.

However rather than getting bogged down on this level of detail, it's more the principle of the thing, surely. It's arguable whether they are or are not a member organisation, but surely they have a stakehold in the game?

Note, only 2 week consultation/feedback period.

Are fans considered stakeholders? Any sports organisations would do well to consider this. German clubs, establishment process of western Sydney Wanderers, et alia

My word.

Can we please get educated on the issues before having another pop at futsal based on how you imagine things to be?

In the document, if you read it, there are TWICE as many registered futsal players as women. And 20% less than school players.

And guess what? A year round futsal player gets pinged FOUR times for affiliation fees in a year, for four "seasons".

Plus KiwiSport funding, plus one million from the legacy project from U2ö world cup. Because guess what? Nobody else at NZ Football could put together a document with a plan or application for the money. Except the futsal staff. Who by the way is one person.

So yes, futsal are working WITHIN the structure, dictated terms by NZ Football, who profit nicely from it to prop up an organistation otherwise making a loss.

Smithy wrote:

Relax hellobeaver, 

I know Dave is doing a great job with futsal. My point was not to have a pop at futsal but to highlight that there are many stakeholders in the game. SOME (not me I hasten to add), would argue that futsal and football private providers (academies, essentially) are not part of the wider stakeholder group - as has been highlighted with private providers sitting outside the tent in the proposed new structure. I was merely trying to make a point that I consider ALL of those groups to be stakeholders.

Two week consultation period is poor I agree. Especially considering the length of time this has been in the wind.

More to the point, how many women are futsal players?

I thought the breakdown of senior footballers was interesting - Auckland less than both Chch and Wgtn?

I'm fine, just asking for facts, not speculation.

To say that SOME would argue, when you are the one that said it seems odd. Appears your bicycle has been knocked into reverse gear?As I said, if the definition of Stakeholder includes being part of the strategic direction, and bringing in plenty of $$ via user pays and funding (x four seasons)...you do the maths, futsal punches well above.

I private provider is someone or organisation doing their own thing. Not necessarily inline with the direction of the governing body, and usually taking money out of the game.

Doloras - they are counted separately, as they pay separately. Or else footballers would be total footballers - players that play both, which isn't the case.

Figures are based on Feds, so mainland includes Nelson/Marlborough

The definition of stakeholder is NOT "being part of the strategic direction and bringing in $". In that case we would have only YES men and women and sales people (which may be exactly what NZF desire). Isn't a stakeholder someone who cares and contributes in their own way? 

Ideally yes. In reality no. Eg private providers are outside. Yes they care. But do they contribute in their own way?

Weaken the talent pool across multiple programmes, kids get played off between programmes and some do about nine sessions a week which perhaps isn't the best. No quality control, and charge to make a good living, thus taking money out of the game and into business owners pockets.

<p>We'll just have to agree to disagree Hello Beaver as I don't think monopolies are the best model. In my experience private providers look to go far beyond the lowest common denominator - through training programmes, overseas tournament experiences, and generally  aiming higher than playing local footy. They operate in that part of the NZF 'strategic direction' that seeks to produce players who are capable of playing professionally/internationally. I think on that basis alone, most private providers are stakeholders. </p><p>Why would NZF want to exclude them? Becasue they affect the revenue stream into NZF coffers or because they're difficult to work with, or heaven forbid, have their own ideas?  Any of those reasons appear a) short-sighted or b) extreme protectionism based on fear. People have 10 days to have their say - ridiculous in itself.</p>

Anyone with an appetite for constitutional change? These processes take time generally but joe public has been given less than 2 weeks to comment. Anyone done so yet?

Yep. I think what they have proposed is fairly sensible. 

Is there anything in there that is outrageous or left field? I started reading it and kinda nodded off...

You could argue that Federations shouldn't have 50% of the votes - because they could theoretically smoke everyone if they got their shit together. However, Federations currently have 100% of the votes, and are the most (notionally anyway) broadly representative groups, so I don't mind it.

Otherwise nothing too scary as far as I saw. Devil will be in the detail a bit.

Done mine. 15 mins to read the doc. 5 minutes to fill in the form. Easy. Should be no excuses for not doing it.

bit different you doing it to a club submitting something

Most club board meetings are monthly. With a 2 week consultation period I would expect very few truly considered responses from clubs, probably the single most important collective entity.

he was talking about so public. Rather than a club.

same with clubs though

But then the same could be said for the Phoenix. Not an NZF 'interest' and they would be afforded some rights. I am being argumentative on that point for the sake of it if no more than that to unfortunately illustrate that 'interests' that sit outside of NZF and/or AFF do contribute to our football landscape

maybe not an NZF interest but they are an important part of the football landscape - certainly more so than some Auckland schools..

Capital Football's submission

http://www.foxsportspulse.com/get_file.cgi?id=3293569

I don't get it?.

Very good from Capital

Capital submission recommends private academies should be included as a stakeholder. Kudos to capital for sharing. What about the other Feds?

http://www.nzfootball.co.nz/index.php?id=11&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=3161&tx_ttnews[backPid]=10&cHash=e1ec1922ff