Funding of NZF Youth Sides

Did they walk to Turkey and sleep on the beach?

I'm just telling you what i've been told

Hey, I did that!

I'm not going to rag on you nufc like I normally would because I can see you are genuinely trying.

FIFA pay for the airfares to and from the tournament. I believe the 3 days out thing is correct but if NZF choose to get there early or schedule detours or anything else, then NZF cover that. They might well have given NZF $50k but the two are not related.

Maybe the $50k was the prize money for qualifying. There has obviously been information lost in translation here. But anyway,  NZF has taken away money from the u21s or at least has not given some to them for their hard work.

I don't think the players would get it. I would suspect the only level they would share prize/qualification money with the players would be in the AW team and WC winnings. The rest would be NZF. Considering they paid for the team to go to qualifying, I think they are perfectly justified to keep that $50k.

 

I think your source is just confused about how the money flows between FIFA and NZF and for what purpose.

Most likely FIFA gave NZF a $50k grant to pay for flights and accommodation and that's what it was spent on (unless they actually did walk there and sleep on the beach). That's hardly the same as "NZF has taken away money from the u21s or at least has not given some to them for their hard work".

Wasn't there originally the suggestion that this team was also going to be asked for a contribution but they got around it by cutting back their build-up and support staff? Pretty sure I remember Chris Milicich being asked about that on the podcast.

Correct Tx. The U20s cut their management team back in order to stave off charging the kids.

You'll have to elaborate on this one....

So,

Players register for their club (Their parents pay)

They then are identified for FTC ( The parents pay for this somewhat dubious coaching- in the case of the Wgtn current u17 group in 1 year alone they had 8+ different coaches, of these alot of time the coach spent most of the time on cell phones  and this was when the coaches actually turned up, parents were roped in to coach part of the time)

They then may get identified fot NTC ( Their parents pay)

If they are identified as possibly being of the calibre for our next u17 they may be invited to camps, games in Auckland ( The parents pay for flights and accomodation to trial.)

If they are still in the possible mix,they will be expected to make the move to Auckland and play in the u17 ASB team (parents pay for move,schooling,accomodation,flights etc)

Then if they are lucky enough to be called into the team.(parents will then be asked to pay another $2k to go to WC.)

They may follow all the so called pathways of NZF and then be thrown out for someone who has just attended club and then becomes of interest to NZF.Because NZF pathways do not show this possible outcome, in fact they say at NTC this will not happen.

Do you think if NZF were up front to parents about all of the above, they would chose to encourage their sons/daughters to follow the pathways?

Do you really think that some players will not be disadvantaged by the cost of this sport?

So it you play Rugby or Cricket, do they ask this of their future National players?

and no I`m not a disgruntled parent or player, just concerned about the way football is becoming a sport for the rich, and who you know.

Would anyone have a problem with the $2000 charge if it were used for funding, say, scholarships for these earlier pathways and academies? 

nice post

Interesting, so the main point seems to be that NZF pathway is effectively a private academy.

I'd also love to know how much they make off this stuff or whether they just cover costs

 

My local federation is pretty clear that FTC charges are a cost-recovery exercise.  Looking back over the past few months the charge per training session is around the $10 mark - not unreasonable given there are three coaches involved with the group.

my god, that'd soon add up.

as a former rep coach who used to volunteer his time, i find that disgusting.

and i assume there are about 20 kids there?  if so, that's $200 a session.

This is pretty accurate.

An important point to note though - FTC fees go to local Federations, not to NZF. NTC fees however do go straight to NZF.

The point about outcomes is well made. Being in or out of NTC or FTC is not a good predictor of future success. To trot out the most obvious examples: Marco got cut from FTC at a young age, and Jeremy Brockie never made an age group team. 

Slightly off topic, sorry, but this is from the 2012 NZF annual report.

I wonder what it means for the NTC system if we perform better/worse with this group than we have done with previous groups?

From the same annual report:

So what's changed?

And lastly this:

Two points to note here:

1. There is money in the bank. Annual surplus of $309k (2011: $212k) adding to reserves totalling $2.2m.

2. No suggestion in the commentary that the international team fund is exhausted. There should be $402k remaining in it. The balance at the end of 2011 was $1.672m.

"NTC system" is the zenith of the WOF pyramid. The concept of NTC effectiveness is therefore a bit of a misnomer, as NTC is only 2 x 1 week camps per year on a regional basis. It is only a benchmark against other identified players.

The effectiveness of the WOF pyramid can only be measured over a longer time frame, ie for players who entered the First Kicks programmes etc from  a young age - as this is where habits are formed. It is critical the FTC 40+ weeks per year, 2-4 sessions per week programme then kicks on to develop technically skillful, creative players who are comfortable with the ball at their feet under pressure.

The future performance of U17 at World Cups will be an indicator the the WOF programme - in about 10 years time.

Further off topic, I know.

Sorry Smithy, but you need to ignore that "Summary". It is literally the financial highlights and conveniently ignores some significant lowlights.

If you look at the accounts themselves you can see exactly what is going on here:

1. NZF has not actually made a surplus for the last two years. They only way they achieved a "surplus" of $212k in 2011 was by transferring $828k from the international teams reserve. They actually made a $616k operating loss in 2011 (incl $300k spent on the 2015 U20 WC). They only way they achieved a "surplus" of $309k in 2012 was by transferring $1,273k from the international teams reserve. They actually made a $964k operating loss in 2012.

2. As you can probably guess from above the international teams reserve is pretty much spent. It has dropped from the initial $2.5m set aside at the start of 2011 to $1.7m at the end of 2011 to $0.4m at the end of 2012. If the 2013 international programme is even half the amount of activity of 2011 or 2012 then the reserve is already gone. As such, any future activity has to come from general operating which is already running at a loss. This will be the exact reason why they are asking for this contribution from teams.

3. The statement in that Summary that "reserves increased by 4% to $2.2m" is completely misleading. The accumulated funds certainly did increase but as noted above the international teams reserve decreased by $1.2m. The net result was that in 2012 Total Equity dropped from $3.7m at the start of the year to $2.5m at the end of the year - a 32% decrease.

What's also obvious is that the prize money from the Confederations Cup would not have made much difference to the overall picture. We also have a lot staked on qualification for the 2014 WC if we are to sustain anywhere near the amount of international activity that we have.

As I discussed in a previous post it seems clear to me that since 2006 NZF has been running an international programme it simply cannot afford to pay for. The Kiwibank loan and qualification for the 2010 WC allowed us to paper over the cracks and make it this far but we are rapidly running out of money unless something changes. You may disagree with charging players on a point of principle but I can see little argument with it from a purely financial perspective.

I think the players who got to attend a WC over the last seven years just got lucky really. Prior to 2006 they never would have had the chance (because Aussie pretty much always qualified) and in the future they will be asked to make a financial contribution, unless a better way can be found.

The devil is in the details Smithy. They transferred money out of the team fund to balance their books. McKavanagh took a grilling on it and his attitude was 'so what, we made a profit' of which the press called him out and said, 'well yeah if you transfer money from your team fund you do but if you did not have that, you would be in a hole'.

 

I suggest to you that is what has changed. The transfer of that money to balance the books as opposed to spending on national teams is the issue right there

 

And I have just found partially what I am looking for. There was a piece in the Herald where by the writer called McKavanagh and said his report was misleading as they had not made a profit and in fact made a loss. NZF has to issue a clarification later in the day.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/8801378/NZ-Football-eyes-Sky-TV-deal-as-gamebreaker

"The initial reserve of $2.5m is down to $400,000 after $828,000 was moved onto the books in 2011 and $1.2m in the last financial year."

Found it

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/6867349/A-surplus-of-spin-from-New-Zealand-Football

Great summary Tx, and you're not wrong about the misleading nature of some of the annual report figures.

But, still two points remain: there is money in the bank - $2.5m of which $0.4m is earmarked specifically for international teams. And, the total of $0.05m that is going to brought in through this move is inconsequential in the overall scheme of it.

As I've said in previous posts, you've got to wonder whether this is a philosophical move - that more money should be sourced from youth international players - or a move made out of necessity - that more money must come from youth internationals.

I still don't see that the financial straits are so dire that must can be the answer. 

If it is, then NZF haven't made that point at all.

Jeff, your points about the misleading accounting process are interesting but (imho) not specifically on point.

Sorry I had posted mine the same time as TX. Had I seen his post, I would not have posted mine as his says it much better so agree with you Smithy

That's a great summary TX and it emphasises what I have been banging on about for so long and I know I sound like a broke ass cunt with a beating drum but they are in a hole and questions need to be asked. By the same token, if they think that $50k is going to fix the issues, they are even more deluded than I thought. They asked all departments to drop their budgets by 33% across the board so they obviously know that they are not living within their means. In some respects you can applaud them for taking action but then why are they not just upfront. "The game and environment we operate in does not work and is not sustainable" and as TX says, the WC2010 papered over a lot of stuff but for how long? I suggest that if we don't hit WC2014, we are going to be back in the same hole as 2006 looking for hand-outs if we continue to trade outside our means (which they are trying to fix).

$50k from kids may help slightly, but its not really a fix and its just penny pinching. I'd love to know the amount of hangers on that are in that organisation on a donut because it does not strike me as a lean efficient organisation.

Wouldn't it be more like $100k per year? 2 teams at $50k each. I suppose it all helps. That's $400k every World Cup cycle. 

We also lose the multi million funding from ASB soon as well. I just checked and it was $10m over 5 years ( I actually thought it was 4 but it is 5) so I suspect we have $2m next year and $2m in 2015.... Once that is gone......

It does, but when you are an organisation with annual monies each year around the $10m, we are only talking 1%. Its chicken feed in the scheme of things.

I think part of the problem lies with the fact that NZ Football seem to be crap at commmunicating effectively and equally crap at planning for the future (or perhaps they are just crap at communicating what their plans for the future are...)

If they were just to say, 'look guys we just can't continue to sustain this model in the future, so unless anyone has a better idea, here's what we are planning' in a reasonable timeframe - they would get a lot more sympathy from the rest of us.  The problem is that to many outside NZF it all seems like a bit of an 'Old Boys Club'.

I get the impression (and happy to be corrected if I'm wrong) that this change of tack to ask U17 payers to contribute funds was somewhat of a surprise to those players. Probably a little unfair to expect players to front up with that level of funding in a relatively short timeframe, whereas if NZF had thought this out at the start of the year and announced their intentions, then at least other options could have been explored - e.g. I'm certain that some of these players clubs would have helped with raising extra funds.

Between clubs, schools, federations and NZF we really are fairly average at getting our act together sometimes. Given that NZF levy a not inconsequential amount from players each year, they really don't much act like the governing body of the sport in New Zealand.

The age-grade WC's are every two years though, for men and women, so that's $100k per year coming in (assuming this policy will be applied across the board). We also don't know if it will be applied to other teams/tournaments. Combined with the cost savings maybe they think that's enough to balance the books?