Subsidies, ASB, WC and other partners. I would be interested in what government handouts it got because I doubt it be much if any.
Fisher and Paykel, VW, McDs, tab handout... Any others?
Subsidies, ASB, WC and other partners. I would be interested in what government handouts it got because I doubt it be much if any.
Fisher and Paykel, VW, McDs, tab handout... Any others?
I'm a believer that representing your country is a reward for performance (and for those out of form, talent that is justified) not those that can afford it.
The next question I have is, is De Jong going to ask Winston, Tommy and the lads to cough up their $2k? If the AWs qualify for the next WC and get their promised share (was it 40% so nearly $5m?) how is that going to look to parents that have to cough up $2k that can't afford it when these pro guys on average, make more than the going average salary...
I don't dispute that Tegal as I raised in my points above that they are prepared to help in hardship cases but to what extent? What are they going to do though if they get 5 or 6 that cannot afford it? What if it's a fringe player and they go 'well he is on the cusp, let's pick the next kid down that can afford it'
If you had to stump up $2k next month, could you?
I don't know the ins and outs of it, but I suspect neither do you.
Maybe its a payment plan they work out. Or any number of things. You say its a reward, but perhaps We don't have the luxury of giving out 'rewards' to kids? As long as the best kids are still there, I have no problem with it. I also do accept that it isn't exactly ideal, but that's life, you have to prioritise your allocation of scarce resources.
No I don't know the it's and out's of it either, but when you are in an information gap, you fill it with speculation as happens on forums.
I disagree with you on the reward thing. Kids are frequently told, work hard, train hard, play well, perform and the honours will come. To be picked for a national team in any sport recognises your ability and that you have demonstrated that. The only outlier is probably Wayne Gretzky whom is a difference being in the ice hockey field.
If you play well in Super 15, your reward is an AB jersey usually. Of course being picked for a national team is a reward or if you prefer a world that sportsman frequently use, a bestowed honour.
And the $2k?
I don't know the ins and outs of it, but I suspect neither do you.
Maybe its a payment plan they work out. Or any number of things. You say its a reward, but perhaps We don't have the luxury of giving out 'rewards' to kids? As long as the best kids are still there, I have no problem with it.
The best kids may well not be, how will the public know ??
I also do accept that it isn't exactly ideal, but that's life, you have to prioritise your allocation of scarce resources. As parents have to even more now.. what more to sacrifice, clothes, family holidays, the insurance, school fees,.. ??
I dont know how NZF spend their money, but when it comes to this type of arrangement coming in as a practice, then questions are entitled to be asked
No I don't know the it's and out's of it either, but when you are in an information gap, you fill it with speculation as happens on forums.
I disagree with you on the reward thing. Kids are frequently told, work hard, train hard, play well, perform and the honours will come. To be picked for a national team in any sport recognises your ability and that you have demonstrated that. The only outlier is probably Wayne Gretzky whom is a difference being in the ice hockey field.
If you play well in Super 15, your reward is an AB jersey usually. Of course being picked for a national team is a reward or if you prefer a world that sportsman frequently use, a bestowed honour.
The other thing is that this throws the door open to 'not necessarily' the best kids being there
A couple of points here
1, why is that the kids have to cough up $2000 to represent their country at a FIFA tournament when the adult men(AW's) get to share $5 million from their participation at a FIFA tournament. OK they are pro,s but surely they might have been happy with $1 million less, which could have funded the other 8 teams. We do not have the luxury of paying $5million to one team however hard they worked to get it.
2, If you start charging to represent your country then you will get a team from rich white families. People are saying that $2000 is not much. Tell that to a brown family from South Auckland(where I am sure there are potentially some very good talent) Also if some kids are paying and some get sponsored what does this do to team harmony?
3, Fred made a good point about Oceania being such a weak Confederation that we end up getting just about every age group (eight)qualifying for just about every FIFA tournament. This is very hard to support for such a small country. In fact we are probably the only country that does have such a heavy commitment to every FIFA tournement.
4, Funny how we live in a country where kids have to pay to represent their country, yet the Government gives $30+ million so a bunch of rich yachtsmen can sail off against some of the richest men in the world in a wank fest contest that nobody on the planet cares about.
Ok so you are saying its a reward but we don't have the luxury of giving out rewards? I don't follow you
A couple of points here
1, why is that the kids have to cough up $2000 to represent their country at a FIFA tournament when the adult men(AW's) get to share $5 million from their participation at a FIFA tournament. OK they are pro,s but surely they might have been happy with $1 million less, which could have funded the other 8 teams. We do not have the luxury of paying $5million to one team however hard they worked to get it.
2, If you start charging to represent your country then you will get a team from rich white families. People are saying that $2000 is not much. Tell that to a brown family from South Auckland(where I am sure there are potentially some very good talent) Also if some kids are paying and some get sponsored what does this do to team harmony?
3, Fred made a good point about Oceania being such a weak Confederation that we end up getting just about every age group (eight)qualifying for just about every FIFA tournament. This is very hard to support for such a small country. In fact we are probably the only country that does have such a heavy commitment to every FIFA tournement.
4, Funny how we live in a country where kids have to pay to represent their country, yet the Government gives $30+ million so a bunch of rich yachtsmen can sail off against some of the richest men in the world in a wank fest contest that nobody on the planet cares about.
I don't know the ins and outs of it, but I suspect neither do you.
Maybe its a payment plan they work out. Or any number of things. You say its a reward, but perhaps We don't have the luxury of giving out 'rewards' to kids? As long as the best kids are still there, I have no problem with it. I also do accept that it isn't exactly ideal, but that's life, you have to prioritise your allocation of scarce resources.
No I don't know the it's and out's of it either, but when you are in an information gap, you fill it with speculation as happens on forums.
I disagree with you on the reward thing. Kids are frequently told, work hard, train hard, play well, perform and the honours will come. To be picked for a national team in any sport recognises your ability and that you have demonstrated that. The only outlier is probably Wayne Gretzky whom is a difference being in the ice hockey field.
If you play well in Super 15, your reward is an AB jersey usually. Of course being picked for a national team is a reward or if you prefer a world that sportsman frequently use, a bestowed honour.
But they'll still be rewarded with that. Its still an honour that is bestowed upon them.
Sigh. I'm basing my opinion on the fact that they said they'd help out people who can't afford it. So its not just going to be people with trust funds who go.
I hoped to have a reasonable discussion about this, because it is interesting,and I do sympathise with the opposite point of view to the one I hold. But it seems that isn't possible on here, as usual.
Yawn
But do they? This is my point. Is NZF really doing such a bad job or is this just the realities facing football in New Zealand?
I'm not making apologies for NZF but I also get tired of hearing people toss out "NZF are crap" or "same old NZF" without ever backing it up.
That said, I definitely think it would be good if having made this decision Fred de Jong could give a bit more detail about how these international programmes are funded, cash inflows, cash outflows etc and actually demonstrate the case for needing to do this.
At the same time, there are a lot of other variables in play. Who actually benefits from these programmes? When you're looking for the answer to the question "who should pay for something?" you usually don't need to look much further than "who benefits the most?". I'd venture that the players themselves benefit quite a lot. So if they are not making a contribution who's subsidising them? The rest of us? Sponsors? FIFA? Someone else? Why? What's the rationale? How is this any different to attending a private football academy? What would the reaction have been if NZF had said "we need to raise all subs by x% to pay these costs?"
I don't know what the answer is, and it would certainly help to have more info, but I do know it requires a bit more thought than "NZF are shit".
I think its an equality thing, regardless of how little income it brings in. Women should have the same opportunity to go to these tournaments.
I agree. I think if you make a cut to the women's program, then you will get an uproar. If they wanted to cancel programmes, they'd need to do the same on each of the mens/woman's coin i.e both u17s or both u20s
Sigh. I'm basing my opinion on the fact that they said they'd help out people who can't afford it. So its not just going to be people with trust funds who go.
I hoped to have a reasonable discussion about this, because it is interesting,and I do sympathise with the opposite point of view to the one I hold. But it seems that isn't possible on here, as usual.
Still reckon that the AW's should not have got such a big slice of the WC payout. More of that money should have gone to grassroots football. Sure the players worked hard to get us to the WC but we could not afford to splurge such a big slice of $$$ on such a small group. Surely in such a small country like ours playing in a WC is reward enough for a player.(plus standard international match payments) Qualifying for the WC should have been a windfall for NZ football overall.......more so than the players.
The reality is that if we don't qualify for this years WC then NZF will be staring down a financial black hole. We will not be able to afford to send teams to FIFA tournements unless alternative funding is found.....which brings us full circle.....where is that money going to come from if it is not from parents?
I'm a believer that representing your country is a reward for performance (and for those out of form, talent that is justified) not those that can afford it.
The next question I have is, is De Jong going to ask Winston, Tommy and the lads to cough up their $2k? If the AWs qualify for the next WC and get their promised share (was it 40% so nearly $5m?) how is that going to look to parents that have to cough up $2k that can't afford it when these pro guys on average, make more than the going average salary...
Its not just for those who can afford it though. Those who can't afford it will receive help etc. He made that perfectly clear. Its not ideal, but its a reality. Pretty sensible imo. $2000 for a 3 week once in a lifetime trip to play in a World Cup is a bargain.
Partially from the parents anyway.
Payments to players for tournaments like the World Cup is always a big issue. I will always think they get too much, its clear NZF needed that money more than the players. There is obviously some unknown (to me) sequence of events that led to such a payout.
I'm a believer that representing your country is a reward for performance (and for those out of form, talent that is justified) not those that can afford it.
The next question I have is, is De Jong going to ask Winston, Tommy and the lads to cough up their $2k? If the AWs qualify for the next WC and get their promised share (was it 40% so nearly $5m?) how is that going to look to parents that have to cough up $2k that can't afford it when these pro guys on average, make more than the going average salary...
Its not just for those who can afford it though. Those who can't afford it will receive help etc. He made that perfectly clear. Its not ideal, but its a reality. Pretty sensible imo. $2000 for a 3 week once in a lifetime trip to play in a World Cup is a bargain.
By asking kids to pay, NZF are pretty much saying they can't find $46K to cover the cost. I don't believe that for one moment. They are just about to sell out a stadium at $60 bucks a ticket. Take $2 of each ticket and that would cover it.
There still remains a question about what the cut off point is for families who can't afford it. How many people can they afford to waive the cost?
Remember there are a number of kids who are flying up to Auckland every few weeks to take part in camps just to make the squad. That cost adds up pretty quickly.
Yeah fair call that. I think I'm coming across as more concrete on my opinion than I actually am. JV is right, I think we are on the same sort of page. I'm just taking the position of 'well, if that's the reality of it...then I don't really have a problem with it'
But at the same time I recognise that its far from ideal. For most of the reasons that others have given (aside from the 'rich kids only' argument)
The cost is interesting. 46k per tournament adds up, considering the number of age group men's and women's tournaments we enter in. Someone else can do the math.
2 youth tournaments a year. WC for U17 + U20 mens one year. WC for U17 + U20 women's the other year
True. I will say then, it does seem strange to do something that would cause such an uproar just to save 92k (probably less if they help some out) a year.
They obviously do need to balance the books up in some way, and these kids seemed like a good way to get some revenue to help do that. I mean, what are they going to do, not pay it and miss out on the world cup? This does raise some pretty valid questions, and as I've said, I understand why people are asking them.
The money that the players got from WC2010 was negotiated between the PFA and NZF of which Glading said he was happy with the arrangement. I think his attitude was essentially 'If you guys get us there, we'll get a large whack of cash and we are prepared to give you a sizable chunk of that as incentive as any money is better than no money'
The thing I think they need to do is try to get one off sponsors for each tournament. If you sponsor this team for this WC, they'll be known as the XYZ Junior AWs. With it being on TV and being on shirts (although I don't think FIFA allow sponsorship on shirts) you'll get exposure and they will be known as that team for 2 years. The reality is, they will get TV time for it as well because the island teams wont be going anytime soon.
When you think $50k naming rights for 2 years, thats not too outrageous is it?
But do they? This is my point. Is NZF really doing such a bad job or is this just the realities facing football in New Zealand?
I'm not making apologies for NZF but I also get tired of hearing people toss out "NZF are crap" or "same old NZF" without ever backing it up.
That said, I definitely think it would be good if having made this decision Fred de Jong could give a bit more detail about how these international programmes are funded, cash inflows, cash outflows etc and actually demonstrate the case for needing to do this.
At the same time, there are a lot of other variables in play. Who actually benefits from these programmes? When you're looking for the answer to the question "who should pay for something?" you usually don't need to look much further than "who benefits the most?". I'd venture that the players themselves benefit quite a lot. So if they are not making a contribution who's subsidising them? The rest of us? Sponsors? FIFA? Someone else? Why? What's the rationale? How is this any different to attending a private football academy? What would the reaction have been if NZF had said "we need to raise all subs by x% to pay these costs?"
I don't know what the answer is, and it would certainly help to have more info, but I do know it requires a bit more thought than "NZF are shit".
it's arguably rich kids only from 12th Grade , when FTC kicks in
IMO if pay to play (or be selected) is offensive then start from the beginning.
it's arguably rich kids only from 12th Grade , when FTC kicks in
IMO if pay to play (or be selected) is offensive then start from the beginning.
2 youth tournaments a year. WC for U17 + U20 mens one year. WC for U17 + U20 women's the other year
Still reckon that the AW's should not have got such a big slice of the WC payout. More of that money should have gone to grassroots football. Sure the players worked hard to get us to the WC but we could not afford to splurge such a big slice of $$$ on such a small group. Surely in such a small country like ours playing in a WC is reward enough for a player.(plus standard international match payments) Qualifying for the WC should have been a windfall for NZ football overall.......more so than the players.
The reality is that if we don't qualify for this years WC then NZF will be staring down a financial black hole. We will not be able to afford to send teams to FIFA tournements unless alternative funding is found.....which brings us full circle.....where is that money going to come from if it is not from parents?
Surely in such a small country like ours playing in a WC is reward enough for a player.(plus standard international match payments)
What sort of $ might that be?
Maybe everyone could try reading NZF's 2012 annual report before we go any further?
At least then the discussion can begin from a position of partial ignorance rather than complete ignorance.
it's arguably rich kids only from 12th Grade , when FTC kicks in
IMO if pay to play (or be selected) is offensive then start from the beginning.
2 youth tournaments a year. WC for U17 + U20 mens one year. WC for U17 + U20 women's the other year
I have no idea of the number(s) who choose not to participate in FTC due to financial priorities. Here in Chch a fund was set up by Mainland Football to help address this problem. I'm pretty sure it can also help out with club subs, boots, and Rep Program (Sth Island Tournament)
What can be seen is that after 20 months of FTC that group of players is very much stronger than those not in the scheme. I would say that the gap was nowhere near as wide in Jan 2012. So money well spent? It indicates to me that the Federation has to get that initial intake bang on. Personally I think it is madness to identify at 11 years your U-17 squad (for instance). I also think that worrying about players missing out is inevitable and also for reasons not restricted to $. Parental choices around their kids sporting options would cause more to miss out then straight economic opportunities.
My eldest boy is Year 2000. This year is the first year of eligibility for NTC. Assuming because he is "in the system" or at least identified early he makes the cut for the duration of the program.
so 4 x $700 FTC then 6 x $485 NTC and 2x Sth Island Tournaments and 1 x National Comp at approx $1100
= $6700 over 4 years to possibly get a trial for U-17's which Sth Island players never make anyway (cheap dig, yes)
if we then got asked for another 2K to do a World Cup , given the above acceptance of forking out we would hardly bat an eyelid.
For sure the longer FTC goes and the increased likelihood the same players always get picked the more it'll be viewed as an elitist closed shop. But if the organizer can show "the FTC are the best players" then it will not change.
That of course still don't make pay for play right.