All Whites, Ferns, and other international teams

UnSeatted

78 replies · 10,194 views
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
convict wrote:
 
Plz, Since when did they play for anything? Its the NZF funding that pays for all the new shirts,balls,etc,etc And the fact that all Feds have leasing and or part owenship of grounds that the cost is so damn minimal is not funny - Kids are playing in shirts that are more then 3 years old.
I could go on all night about it, but fact is the Feds can be self funding now yet choose not to be.


I don't know where you get this idea. 

Parents are at the bottom of the pyramid and funding goes up to the top, which is NZ Football.  As equipment officer for Stop Out Juniors for a number of years, I know we have never had any money provided for gear from anyone other than subs and sponsors. 

Sorry, I tell a lie there.  One year we received some cones as part of the Small Whites package, sponsored by McDonalds.  They were great, but from recycled plastic and they almost exploded when they got broken. Quite spectacular when a kid lands heavily on one

The annual Small Whites package comes with booklets, posters and player of the day certificates - No real gear included.

In terms of grounds, Capital Football lease the grounds from the Council, and pay a massive amount for so-called upkeep.  According to the info presented in November, CF spent 90,000 on grounds last year for the club games within the Federation.  This needs to be paid for by the 11,053 players somehow.

The major money coming the other way, that I am aware of, is the Community Trust money which has (locally) been invested in the Futsall for the 12-15 year old retention program, and from memory, this was in the region of $300k for Capital Football (Don't quote me on this figure...I can't find anything in my stuff to confirm it).
Crazy-Horse2008-03-24 22:50:23
Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
AllWhitebelievr wrote:
convict wrote:
Agent 47 wrote:
I'd actually like to throw a different name into the CEO mixWynton Rufer. Why is he left out in the cold especially when you look at his successes as a footballer, ambassador for football and his academy (as a business man)Am I missing something here?

Its almost like u cant be seccessful to take a job with NZF, I remeber Rufer losing the job of U17 coach for some stupid reason.



May I suggest a couple of people who is involved with the business round table with actual ability? There are plenty of ideal people there.

Here's a half of them that may be suited to the sporting arena if they would dare and their personal topics of interest;


Dr Kevin Thompson 

     
 
um, I'll think you'll find that Thommo is not a doctor.  Also, appearing on a couple of podcasts does not qualify you to run NZ football.

All I do is make the stuff I would've liked
Reference things I wanna watch, reference girls I wanna bite
Now I'm firefly like a burning kite
And yousa fake fuck like a fleshlight

Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
convict wrote:
nightz wrote:
Crazy-Horse wrote:
convict wrote:
As its been spoken of before more then 100,000 kids play football in NZ, Were is this registering money going? Why is it these fee`s are always fluctuating from club to club and year & year?
Just taking the Wellington situation.� Most clubs are charging juniors at around $60.00 per player..

�

Or $100 if your kids play for Wests.

Strange isnt it, That the junior leagues rely on parents or the odd Under 17 player to Ref games for nothing. All the funds from NZF across the years and still clubs up North are playing with footballs that were around when i played in Jr leagues or as i am told the balls are always flat.

�

I guess i know why the federations are doing fine financialy.


Well Bill McGown and Seatter helped make those federation and they are in better state than being smaller local associations. What the NZF get is little compare to some of the Feds. NZF has smaller percentage return and the money is only half of what an average federation gets in revenue. The calculations I did one day made NZF very poor compare to the federation and yet they are running like a federation expense. When NZF thought about rasing fees for themselves, the federation complain but the federation gets larger percentage of the fee money compare to NZF percentage. That is not really fair because the cost for NZF is larger. NZF has a tougher budget to work with. And still the clubs are not getting much themselves and go to trust funding etc. The federation has most things in place for their regional age group teams but NZF has to fund for the national age group teams on the same budget expense.AllWhitebelievr2008-03-24 23:01:33
Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Frankie Mac wrote:
AllWhitebelievr wrote:
convict wrote:
Agent 47 wrote:
I'd actually like to throw a different name into the CEO mixWynton Rufer. Why is he left out in the cold especially when you look at his successes as a footballer, ambassador for football and his academy (as a business man)Am I missing something here?

Its almost like u cant be seccessful to take a job with NZF, I remeber Rufer losing the job of U17 coach for some stupid reason.
May I suggest a couple of people who is involved with the business round table with actual ability? There are plenty of ideal people there. Here's a half of them that may be suited to the sporting arena if they would dare and their personal topics of interest; Dr Kevin Thompson       

�

um, I'll think you'll find that Thommo is not a doctor.� Also, appearing on a couple of podcasts does not qualify you to run NZ football.


Kevin Thompson joined Opus in March 1998. He was appointed Chief Executive in April 2001 and Managing Director in August 2007. He has been responsible for leading Opus� growth, particularly in offshore markets. Kevin has been instrumental in lifting Opus� market share, brand and profile in New Zealand and in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom through organic growth and acquisitions. Opus listed on the NZX on 30 October 2007.

Prior to joining Opus, Kevin had been Chief Executive of Works Civil Construction from April 1989 and was responsible for the successful transformation of the physical works resources of the former Ministry of Works and Development into a successful private sector owned contracting company.

Kevin holds a Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) with First Class Honours and a PhD in Civil Engineering from the University of Canterbury. In 1993, he attended the Stanford Executive Programme at Stanford University.

Kevin is a Fellow of the Institution of Professional Engineers of New Zealand; a Chartered Professional Engineer; a member of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering; and a member of the New Zealand Concrete Society. He received the American Society of Civil Engineers T Y Lin Award in 1981 and the Institution of Professional Engineers of New Zealand Structural Award in 1988.


. . . . He looks like a doctor to me with the PhD. Very good in growing Opus with great making private companies and list things on the market. I think his CV is much stronger than Seatter's CV.
Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
AllWhitebelievr wrote:
Frankie Mac wrote:
AllWhitebelievr wrote:
convict wrote:
Agent 47 wrote:
I'd actually like to throw a different name into the CEO mixWynton Rufer. Why is he left out in the cold especially when you look at his successes as a footballer, ambassador for football and his academy (as a business man)Am I missing something here?

Its almost like u cant be seccessful to take a job with NZF, I remeber Rufer losing the job of U17 coach for some stupid reason.
May I suggest a couple of people who is involved with the business round table with actual ability? There are plenty of ideal people there. Here's a half of them that may be suited to the sporting arena if they would dare and their personal topics of interest; Dr Kevin Thompson       

 

um, I'll think you'll find that Thommo is not a doctor.  Also, appearing on a couple of podcasts does not qualify you to run NZ football.


Kevin Thompson joined Opus in March 1998. He was appointed Chief Executive in April 2001 and Managing Director in August 2007. He has been responsible for leading Opus� growth, particularly in offshore markets. Kevin has been instrumental in lifting Opus� market share, brand and profile in New Zealand and in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom through organic growth and acquisitions. Opus listed on the NZX on 30 October 2007.

Prior to joining Opus, Kevin had been Chief Executive of Works Civil Construction from April 1989 and was responsible for the successful transformation of the physical works resources of the former Ministry of Works and Development into a successful private sector owned contracting company.

Kevin holds a Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) with First Class Honours and a PhD in Civil Engineering from the University of Canterbury. In 1993, he attended the Stanford Executive Programme at Stanford University.

Kevin is a Fellow of the Institution of Professional Engineers of New Zealand; a Chartered Professional Engineer; a member of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering; and a member of the New Zealand Concrete Society. He received the American Society of Civil Engineers T Y Lin Award in 1981 and the Institution of Professional Engineers of New Zealand Structural Award in 1988.


. . . . He looks like a doctor to me with the PhD. Very good in growing Opus with great making private companies and list things on the market. I think his CV is much stronger than Seatter's CV.
 
Thompson, expert and qualified in everything but football.
FOR CHRIST'S SAKE GIVE THE THRICKING JOB TO DAVIE PARKER for a lot less than 200+k.
For once can we not do the right thing.eg Also rid us of that other t*sser .... part time teacher and named after crappy pommy car.
Spud2008-03-25 07:38:47
Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Agent 47 wrote:
Are you advocating a CEO that is more Financial/Administration based and then getting in the football minded people around him/her to do the football stuff?

There is merit to that but wasn't that Seatters story, Marketing Director at Lion Breweries?
 
 Marketing Director at Lion Breweries........sacked with no pay out.
So what's his severance pay from nzf?
Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Glyn Taylor is not a name of a British car but he is a t**ser....

Was he fired from Lion or did he apply for it whilst still employed at Lion?
Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
AllWhitebelievr wrote:
. . . . He looks like a doctor to me with the PhD. Very good in growing Opus with great making private companies and list things on the market. I think his CV is much stronger than Seatter's CV.


Oh dear, reeled in by Frankie... if you check the Fever Podcast, one of the presenters is ex-Miramar player and victorious second team coach Kevin Thompson.

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

The world famous Kevin Thompson on the podcast is not the Dr Kevin Thompson from Opus, a fact which brings the following ditty to mind...

 '2 Kevin Thompsons, there's only 2 Kevin Thompsons....' etc etc
Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
AllWhitebelievr wrote:


Well Bill McGown and Seatter helped make those federation and they are in better state than being smaller local associations. [/QUOTE]
 
You what?
 
MacGowan established the Federations in 2000/2001.  Seatter didn't have anything to do with it.
 
And I think you'll find that most Associations were quite solvent on the whole whereas that can't be said for a number of Federations over the past 8 years.
 
Capital Football being the notable exception to the rule.
 
[QUOTE=AllWhitebelievr]
What the NZF get is little compare to some of the Feds. NZF has smaller percentage return and the money is only half of what an average federation gets in revenue.
 
The calculations I did one day made NZF very poor compare to the federation and yet they are running like a federation expense.
 
When NZF thought about rasing fees for themselves, the federation complain but the federation gets larger percentage of the fee money compare to NZF percentage. That is not really fair because the cost for NZF is larger.
 
NZF has a tougher budget to work with. And still the clubs are not getting much themselves and go to trust funding etc. The federation has most things in place for their regional age group teams but NZF has to fund for the national age group teams on the same budget expense.
 
Again, you what?
 
NZF gets considerable revenue from OFC/FIFA and SPARC.  More than enough to grow the game on if they hadn't pissed it all away on meaningless matches and executive trips overseas.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Smithy wrote:
Again, you what?
 
NZF gets considerable revenue from OFC/FIFA and SPARC.  More than enough to grow the game on if they hadn't pissed it all away on meaningless matches and executive trips overseas.
Smithy your talking out your arse, NZF never got a cent from SPARC until now, And if OFC/FIFA did give NZF anything it was sweet FO....Even the OFC admit it should have funded/help fund NZF with WC commitments etc.
For the game to grow u need money, but u seem to like the dark ages of none international football for the AW and Ferns - with no spending and/or growth of football.
convict2008-03-26 22:19:44
Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I'm not sure whether to bother replying to someone so clearly out of their f**king mind.  But I will.

Every time New Zealand qualifies for any kind of FIFA event they get money from OFC.  They get money when a New Zealand team participates in the O League.  They get an annual grant as well.

What OFC have said is that they should have given NZF more than their regular allocation because they are the Confederation's flagship.

SPARC fund NZF annually just like they fund almost every sport.  They don't give them as much as they used to but they still give them a significant sum.

You're right (accidentally) about one thing.  For the game to grow you DO need money.  The game HAD money until your pal Graham Seatter spent it all flying around the world.

Now get back in your box you f**king turkey.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
convict wrote:
Smithy wrote:
Again, you what?
 
NZF gets considerable revenue from OFC/FIFA and SPARC.  More than enough to grow the game on if they hadn't pissed it all away on meaningless matches and executive trips overseas.
Smithy your talking out your arse, NZF never got a cent from SPARC until now, And if OFC/FIFA did give NZF anything it was sweet FO....Even the OFC admit it should have funded/help fund NZF with WC commitments etc.
For the game to grow u need money, but u seem to like the dark ages of none international football for the AW and Ferns - with no spending and/or growth of football.
 
I wouldnt have thought Fifa giving over 1 million dollars for an artifical pitch at North Harbour is "sweet FO"

A dog with a bone :)

Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Whatever "sweet FO" is...?

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

LOL dumb-ass, Your still talking sh*t - your basing your facts on a old system that did not work.

Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Fair enough.  Run me through how the new system works?

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Actually i wont run u through it, purely its not worth trying to explain the POV of dark ages Vs new era. I'm not a Setts fan i am a fan of the game and what has been good for the fans of NZ football was the exposer at a international level (Even if some games may have been costly) . I belive  the  Football Ferns show true facts of improvements from this spending(over budget).
 
I guess i cant explain about a new system as NZF is now going through a change (Again) .
So Smithy u got me there.
Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I think someone's decidedly misinformed here, although I'm not surprised - it is a very common misconception on which I pick people up regularly.

As a member of one of their committees, the bulk of Graham's travel has been at FIFA's expense, not that of NZF. That's the same with any NZF staff member who is also a FIFA committee member.
 
However, it is not cheap organising travel for international fixtures outside of the various FIFA World Cup Finals (travel for the finalists is paid for by FIFA). Usually the host nation of these friendlies covers the accommodation and other expenses (team bus hire, etc.), but getting to the venue is where the bulk of NZF's travel costs arise.
 
Hypothetical case. For a squad of eighteen plus five staff to play a couple of games in the USA next month, you'd be looking at return airfares of $2750 per head minimum - there goes $60,000 just like that. And that's just one tour.
 
With that in mind, and the number of international trips NZ teams have made over the course of the last few years as teams prepare for World Cup Finals and qualifying series, it's little wonder red figures dominate the accounts.
 
But I'd far rather that situation, with national teams playing matches on a regular basis, than seeing said teams denied the chance to take to the field because some parsimonious suit-wearing prat has greater regard for a balance sheet than for player development and international relations.
 
 
Cheers,
 
JR
Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
So you're happy to see the game bankrupt as long as you can watch the Football Ferns play JR?

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Smithy wrote:
I'm not sure whether to bother replying to someone so clearly out of their f**king mind.  But I will.

Every time New Zealand qualifies for any kind of FIFA event they get money from OFC.  They get money when a New Zealand team participates in the O League.  They get an annual grant as well.

What OFC have said is that they should have given NZF more than their regular allocation because they are the Confederation's flagship.

SPARC fund NZF annually just like they fund almost every sport.  They don't give them as much as they used to but they still give them a significant sum.

You're right (accidentally) about one thing.  For the game to grow you DO need money.  The game HAD money until your pal Graham Seatter spent it all flying around the world.

Now get back in your box you f**king turkey.


Thats how I understand the funding model works too Smithy.

Explain how it works Convict if its so wrong.
Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
At the risk of sounding repetitive, Smithy, given I posted the below in another topic on the forum ...
 
"The people who come to watch us play, who love the team and regard it as part of their lives, would never appreciate Liverpool having a huge balance in the bank. They want every asset we possess to be wearing a red shirt". (King Kenny Dalglish)
 
I'm sure that philosophy (with the changing of a couple of key words in strategic places) applies where the followers of New Zealand football and/or Wellington Phoenix are concerned.
 
 
Cheers,
 
JR
Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I'll agree with Smithy on this one. The difference JR is that NZF dont have "a huge balance in the bank".
We all want the All Whites and various age group teams to play as much as possible and might I add be properly prepared for tournments they are entering but these games have to be funded first and not be bankrupting our game. The game has to survive first and than grow.
 
 

A dog with a bone :)

Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
What nightz said.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
nightz wrote:
I'll agree with Smithy on this one. The difference JR is that NZF dont have "a huge balance in the bank".
We all want the All Whites and various age group teams to play as much as possible and might I add be properly prepared for tournments they are entering but these games have to be funded first and not be bankrupting our game. The game has to survive first and than grow.
 
 
 
I think it can safely be assumed that NZF aren't well off they now owe a further $1.5mill, and certainly don't have that much in $$ in the bank.

Queenslander 3x a year.

Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Scousekiwi wrote:
At the risk of sounding repetitive, Smithy, given I posted the below in another topic on the forum ...
 

 
Cheers,
 
JR


In a similar vein, Shankly also said "At a football club, there's a holy trinity - the players, the manager and the supporters. Directors don't come into it. They are only there to sign the cheques".

but being a canny Scot, I don't think even he would have liked the directors of his club to do a "Risdale at Leeds' and keep signing cheques to the extent that the club (NZF) ends up in the Financial crap.
 
Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Smithy wrote:
What nightz said.
 
Just for the record, When NZF had money Not one team ever qualified for anything except the Comfed cup which the AW done so based on luck.
 
So retard..coff.coff.coff smithy money was needed to fund friendlys for all age groups and money needed to be put into the game, The money u talk about that NZF did recive from all these WC etc went back into the game, it was only a poor attendance @ wellinton and the Fiji game being reschedule that stuffed it up money wise.
 
You really make out as if NZF f**ked up because of the AW,s friendlys and trips overseas taken buy some NZF employers.
 
U keep asking me how NZF should be ran, Why dont u cut your own cake and teach us all how u would see it run, What teams u would like to see do nothing for years untill it suites NZF budget?
 
 
 
Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
convict wrote:
Smithy wrote:
What nightz said.
 
Just for the record, When NZF had money Not one team ever qualified for anything except the Comfed cup which the AW done so based on luck.
 
So retard..coff.coff.coff smithy money was needed to fund friendlys for all age groups and money needed to be put into the game, The money u talk about that NZF did recive from all these WC etc went back into the game, it was only a poor attendance @ wellinton and the Fiji game being reschedule that stuffed it up money wise.
 
You really make out as if NZF f**ked up because of the AW,s friendlys and trips overseas taken buy some NZF employers.
 
U keep asking me how NZF should be ran, Why dont u cut your own cake and teach us all how u would see it run, What teams u would like to see do nothing for years untill it suites NZF budget?
 
 
 
 
I think he should start by spending some of the budget on your spelling lessons..

Founder

Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
How hard is it to type 'you' ?

Like Feverish points out - Rules are no text speak... please abide by them.

Incidentally, we qualified for two Confederations Cups and an Under-17 World Cup.  Under the recent regime the only qualifications have been since Australia packed up and shifted to Asia, would we have qualified against Australia ?  Highly unlikely.

That makes it an invalid comparison.  Try again.


Hard News2008-03-27 21:29:13

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Smithy wrote:

MacGowan established the Federations in 2000/2001.� Seatter didn't have anything to do with it.

�

And I think you'll find that most Associations were quite solvent on the whole whereas that can't be said for a number of Federations over the past 8 years.

�

Capital Football being the notable exception to the rule.

[[/quote]

I know Bill had laid the foundations but Seatter still has to do reviews and checks like assessing whether the NZFC franchise were financially able to make the next NZFC season. He did provide ample feedback in those cases. For the federation to expand their profile and budget is a lot of hard work which couldn't just happen without NZS/NZF CEO being involved.

�


[QUOTE=Smithy]
NZF gets considerable revenue from OFC/FIFA and SPARC.� More than enough to grow the game on if they hadn't pissed it all away on meaningless matches and executive trips overseas.


On the balance sheet the revenue that OFC/FIFA is spent on specific OFC/FIFA projects in the country and OFC/FIFA's preparation, training for qualifying and world cup tournament events. It is basically FIFA dollar in and dollar out for FIFA. FIFA doesn't spend extra unless it's one of their special goal project development for an undeveloped football nations. The money is specifically for those things only and not for any other regional or national developmental initiatives. If any money is left over, it's because of the exchange rate of the NZ to US, nothing else. FIFA and OFC has their own budget to take care of, they are not splashing out money for a country development they leave that to the countries association. (imagine splashing extras on 200+ countries domestic development, thats not justifiable for FIFA)They only give money for national squads that qualifies for the final tournaments and they gain money from TV coverage, sponsors, memorabilias etc from the tournament as well as personal backroom deals of building development and construction contacts.

. . . It's not money for glassroots, clubs, regional, national leagues but for qualified tournament teams.

While both FIFA and OFC are money specified for tournament spending only, each national association are expected to provide some small money amount themselves. In most countries, their government provides the national association that money source, like what SPARC is doing for our Oly-whites at the moment. Even you must know that we haven't been given that attention from our government until recently. Hopefully the government can see eye to eye from now on on the other world tournaments for our national squads.

The money from OFC/FIFA does not go far at all.AllWhitebelievr2008-03-28 01:30:52
Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
convict wrote:
Just for the record, When NZF had money Not one team ever qualified for anything except the Comfed cup which the AW done so based on luck.
[/QUOTE]
 
That's just plain wrong so I'll ignore it.
 
convict wrote:
 
So retard..coff.coff.coff smithy money was needed to fund friendlys for all age groups and money needed to be put into the game, The money u talk about that NZF did recive from all these WC etc went back into the game, it was only a poor attendance @ wellinton and the Fiji game being reschedule that stuffed it up money wise.
 
[/QUOTE]
 
That's not quite right either.  NZF had cash reserves when Seatter took over.  Now they have a $1.5m loan.  You can't pin all of that on those two games.
 
The problem has been significant overspending and not just on friendlies.    We played friendlies under MacGowan as well just not often because of the huge expense.  Beyond the friendlies you have to look at the size of the wage budget at Soccer Towers and the amount of additional activity that they have been undertaking around the country.  None of it is bad stuff it's just that NZF have clearly done more of it than they can afford.
 
Don't forget that under MacGowan NZS did some f**king expensive sh*t.  Paul Smalley wasn't cheap for a start and he didn't turn out to be a shining success either but MacGowan didn't bankrupt the game for the sake of a couple of pie in the sky projects.
 
[QUOTE=convict] 
You really make out as if NZF f**ked up because of the AW,s friendlys and trips overseas taken buy some NZF employers.
 
They did f**k up.  How can you argue that they haven't f**ked up?  The game is broke!  That's why they've gone.  I think everyone is in agreement - except you of course - that Seatter has been a failure and has cost the game dearly.
 
[QUOTE=convict]
U keep asking me how NZF should be ran, Why dont u cut your own cake and teach us all how u would see it run, What teams u would like to see do nothing for years untill it suites NZF budget?
 
No what I keep asking you to do is substantiate your bullsh*t with some fact which I suppose is a bit like asking a snake to do a handstand.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Smithy wrote:
I'm not sure whether to bother replying to someone so clearly out of their f**king mind.  But I will.

Every time New Zealand qualifies for any kind of FIFA event they get money from OFC.  They get money when a New Zealand team participates in the O League.  They get an annual grant as well.

What OFC have said is that they should have given NZF more than their regular allocation because they are the Confederation's flagship.

SPARC fund NZF annually just like they fund almost every sport.  They don't give them as much as they used to but they still give them a significant sum.

You're right (accidentally) about one thing.  For the game to grow you DO need money.  The game HAD money until your pal Graham Seatter spent it all flying around the world.

Now get back in your box you f**king turkey.
[/QUOTE]

convict wrote:

LOL dumb-ass, Your still talking sh*t - your basing your facts on a old system that did not work.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Smithy]Fair enough.  Run me through how the new system works?

[QUOTE=convict]
U keep asking me how NZF should be ran, Why dont u cut your own cake and teach us all how u would see it run, What teams u would like to see do nothing for years untill it suites NZF budget?


No he didn't ask you that.
I know I'm pretty nifty at cut and paste but the wrtting is all there in black and white.
I'm pretty sure the only Smithy asked you to do was explain how the funding model worked since you clearly told him he was quite wrong. Enlighten us. If we are that wrong, tell us how the funding model works.

Maybe you should learn to read as well as write.
Agent 472008-03-28 10:07:23
Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
The simple fact is numbers talk - cash in the bank 3 years ago, huge deficit now... several major corporate cash sponsors on board 3 years ago, almost all of them gone or pulled back now...

The most basic premise of business is, don't spend more than you earn... I'm no MacGowan apologist, but he sorted the ship by appointing the right people to find the money needed to fix things... they inherited massive debt from the previous regime, but within a couple of years the person designated to sort things had exited unsatisfactory arrangements and put in place significant deals with Adidas, McDonalds, Milo, Bluebird foods (and later Nike), which pulled NZS out of the mire... there was even Southern Trust on board to help fund the National League... this was done by creating products/programmes/brands that sponsors could hook on to and leverage, not just empty associations with a team... sure, the All Blacks have sponsors linked to them for big cash, but the AWs haven't earned that appeal in NZ corporate world yet, so it's silly to think otherwise...

Things were run tightly under MacGowan, but not without mistakes... after all, Smalley was an utter disaster, and the Confeds campaign in France had its "issues"... but there were also positives, such as AWs campaigns, including friendlies against China, Jamaica, Singapore, Poland, Estonia, Scotland, USA (Croatia was organised but they withdrew on NZ late in the piece)... Olympic team went close in 2000, U20s only lost to a Golden Goal against Aus in 2001... so not all doom and gloom... and if they hadn't have lost to Vanuatu in Adelaide, the 18 months of inactivity never would have happened, so it's just dumb to point at that as the regime's fault when it was only unfortunate circumstances and not deliberate design.

The single best decision of Seatter's reign was made by not by Graeme, but by Frank Lowy... Aus's move to Asia gave NZS several qualifications on a plate, making "statistics" look very impressive... would the U17s, U20s, Oly Whites, and Women's sides have gone to their respective comps in the last 3 years if they'd have had to play Aus teams?  I hope some would have, but there's a high chance they would not have...

So just stop blatting on about the individuals, and simply look at the facts and numbers... and the fact is that sponsors were lost, no new cash ones were added, TV coverage went backwards, and all the eggs were put in a World Cup basket which may well not come to fruition...

but what the hell, not Mr Seatter's worry anymore, huh?  he can go concentrate on coaching race-walkers instead.

Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Agent 47 wrote:

No he didn't ask you that.
I know I'm pretty nifty at cut and paste but the wrtting is all there in black and white.
I'm pretty sure the only Smithy asked you to do was explain how the funding model worked since you clearly told him he was quite wrong. Enlighten us. If we are that wrong, tell us how the funding model works.

Maybe you should learn to read as well as write.
[/QUOTE]

I believe it was this =
Smithy wrote:

 
Again, you what?
 
NZF gets considerable revenue from OFC/FIFA and SPARC.  More than enough to grow the game on if they hadn't pissed it all away on meaningless matches and executive trips overseas.
[/QUOTE]
i wanted to know what trips and what meaningless matches?? did this money go towards?
Thats why i said she is talking out her arse.

[QUOTE=Hard News] How hard is it to type 'you' ?
Like Feverish points out - Rules are no text speak... please abide by them.
 
Talk about having a admin off side? Since when have u ever pulled up "other members" for typing WC=World Cup or NZF or AW and Nixs or Bling and EPL or MLS and ACL, It really goes to show there are two standards for members here.
 
[QUOTE=Hard News]
Incidentally, we qualified for two Confederations Cups and an Under-17 World Cup.  Under the recent regime the only qualifications have been since Australia packed up and shifted to Asia, would we have qualified against Australia ?  Highly unlikely.
That makes it an invalid comparison.  Try again.

 
No your comments are redundant - since when did NZF (sorry New Zealand Football) ever put so much time and money into there teams to have a chance of qualifying for anything? If they had would a team from New Zealand  have beaten Australia = more then likely. But since it was not the case from 1986 onwards i can see why you are blind to this.
Try again.
 
convict2008-03-28 18:03:37
Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Appears some of us are reading two different conversations then....

"Smithy your talking out your arse, NZF never got a cent from SPARC until now, And if OFC/FIFA did give NZF anything it was sweet FO....Even the OFC admit it should have funded/help fund NZF with WC commitments etc."

If you are saying they haven't been funding NZF and Smithy and I are saying they have been, tell us how we are wrong?

Nothing personal, I'm just waiting to see you justify this point because to me, its completely wrong.
Agent 472008-03-28 18:07:59
Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Two points. 

1. Use of u rather than you vs established abbreviations (NZF as an example) are two completely different things.  Basic tenets of the English language.  Plenty of others have been warned for the same things so you can cut the persecution complex.  No more discussion on this.  The warning stands.

2. More than likely ?  How ?  Our Under-20 side were the best prepared side since the 1999 squad yet they dropped points to island nations.  You think they would have strolled past Australia when they couldn't beat the Solomon Islands ?
Hard News2008-03-28 18:14:41

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Hard News wrote:
Two points. 

1. Use of u rather than you vs established abbreviations (NZF as an example) are two completely different things.  Basic tenets of the English language.  Plenty of others have been warned for the same things so you can cut the persecution complex.  No more discussion on this.  The warning stands.

2. More than likely ?  How ?  Our Under-20 side were the best prepared side since the 1999 squad yet they dropped points to island nations.  You think they would have strolled past Australia when they couldn't beat the Solomon Islands ?
 
Um, remember that Aussie has stuggled too in recent times against Solomons and Venuatu just like us, esp. at youth level.
Supporter world's best and worst football teams: Waikato/WaiBop, Kingz, Knights, Phoenix, The Argyle, The Whites & the All Whites

Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
And now Morris has gone too.
Another one bites the dust.
 
 
To quote, "The rationale behind my decision has little to do with the dark days of December and January, dispiriting and disappointing as they were, but rather more to do with the fact the board will be operating in a more operational manner at least in the medium term," he said.

"This change in the role requires a greater commitment than I could possibly give as chairman."

Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
This deserves its own thread. And under "News" because the whole point here is that this is about more than the All Whites. Not that Morris ever acknowledged that.

Permalink Permalink
almost 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
disco_mart wrote:
[QUOTE=Hard News] Two points. 

1. Use of u rather than you vs established abbreviations (NZF as an example) are two completely different things.  Basic tenets of the English language.  Plenty of others have been warned for the same things so you can cut the persecution complex.  No more discussion on this.  The warning stands.

2. More than likely ?  How ?  Our Under-20 side were the best prepared side since the 1999 squad yet they dropped points to island nations.  You think they would have strolled past Australia when they couldn't beat the Solomon Islands ?
 
We must remember that the U20's beat the aussie u20's twice a year before they went to the world cup and before any real build up. I think they did what they had to do at the qualifiers you cant just query what might have been. Australia is no longer part of oceania
Permalink Permalink