Martin's a journey man. Only interested in his CV and financial exit. We've had so so many before him.
SOS to the few remaining passionate football people to take control and rescue us from these self serving corporate types?
National League review and future
Do we think NZF are going to try and come up with a national league that will sell itself or do they think marketing and broadcasting it will help it become a better league as a product of added interest? I'm not sure the former is the right way to go but I don't know if I can see them pouring money into marketing/broadcasting in hope of it being the answer.
I'm not even sure I'd like to see them pour money into all of that just to get an extra 20 people or so to games. I guess more people viewing the competition is the first stepping stone to sponsors coming on board though?
The National league needs to be provincial based. No point having it club based - this gives the league such a limited base to launch from starting from club members and then hoping those that become passionate for that club over time support that team in the league.
The current format has failed because of limited promotion and from that limited promotion limited association from 'Joe Public'.
NZF needs to make a stand on this and differentiate clubs from province. Put the dollars in and promotion and it will work. No half arsed league like we have had in the past few years.
Martin's a journey man. Only interested in his CV and financial exit. We've had so so many before him.
SOS to the few remaining passionate football people to take control and rescue us from these self serving corporate types?
You are so right - the main reason they hang in has been the upfront and underhand benefits from FIFA that probably gives them more than the paid position they are in.
You can't assume only club stalwarts would turn up to watch club based National League.
I know it was in " the old days" but Stop Out, WDU, Blockhouse Bay, Nth shore etc all got crouds well in excess of and beyond their membership
You can't assume only club stalwarts would turn up to watch club based National League.
I know it was in " the old days" but Stop Out, WDU, Blockhouse Bay, Nth shore etc all got crouds well in excess of and beyond their membership
That was in the 'olden days' - where your footy on TV was limited to the midday footy show. You had to then get your dose from your local club....
I think our player and financial base is too thin to have a club based competition with promotion and relegation etc. It would totally undermine the youth systems at clubs if the first teams were just made up by mercenaries who went from club to club to play in the national league for a few bucks. So we either have 8 franchises that are better linked to clubs or just 8 clubs themselves.
I think they should stick with the franchises- they have some history now and some credibility thanks to ACFC's recent exploits. The A League has shown that a franchise model can work.
The discussion about this is not about who participates (ie club or franchises) as the product will be exactly the same under both (as players will be the same).
The discussion should be about how we make the product more relevant and engage with the wider public. To do this the league needs to be more visible and smartly promoted. This will ensure sponsors get on board.
One issue with pushing for a televised league and fighting for credibility is whether you can still have the Wanderers and Wee Nix teams in the league. I think having them has obviously helped the U20s etc but if you are serious about having a National League you can't include these teams.
I think our player and financial base is too thin to have a club based competition with promotion and relegation etc. It would totally undermine the youth systems at clubs if the first teams were just made up by mercenaries who went from club to club to play in the national league for a few bucks. So we either have 8 franchises that are better linked to clubs or just 8 clubs themselves.
I think they should stick with the franchises- they have some history now and some credibility thanks to ACFC's recent exploits. The A League has shown that a franchise model can work.
The discussion about this is not about who participates (ie club or franchises) as the product will be exactly the same under both (as players will be the same).
The discussion should be about how we make the product more relevant and engage with the wider public. To do this the league needs to be more visible and smartly promoted. This will ensure sponsors get on board.
One issue with pushing for a televised league and fighting for credibility is whether you can still have the Wanderers and Wee Nix teams in the league. I think having them has obviously helped the U20s etc but if you are serious about having a National League you can't include these teams.
Totally agree about Nix B and Youth teams they need to go...
The rumours of NZF setting up their own academy might tie in with Martin reneging on the nix B deal to play ASBP. But to do that he would have to want a shark storm with the nix. Surely he could not be that much of a fudge wit. I would prefer this debate was framed differently. Rather than it's gone and we'll see what we can do, how about we continue as is until a better, funded league can be constructed.
The rumours of NZF setting up their own academy might tie in with Martin reneging on the nix B deal to play ASBP. But to do that he would have to want a shark storm with the nix. Surely he could not be that much of a fudge wit. I would prefer this debate was framed differently. Rather than it's gone and we'll see what we can do, how about we continue as is until a better, funded league can be constructed.
Depends who the puppet master is now that Van H has gone? Who is pulling the strings?
Hudson. #alignment
You can't assume only club stalwarts would turn up to watch club based National League.
I know it was in " the old days" but Stop Out, WDU, Blockhouse Bay, Nth shore etc all got crouds well in excess of and beyond their membership
when the summer league started in 1996 the crouds were good eg 1-2000 for Wellington United, but that's because it got good promotion. people will go if its promoted well, doesn't cost a lot and the local team is winning (and for NZ crouds this is a huge thing). Whether its a club or a franchise most people wouldn't care, but if its not promoted well and you have age group teams in it people won't want to know
I think our player and financial base is too thin to have a club based competition with promotion and relegation etc. It would totally undermine the youth systems at clubs if the first teams were just made up by mercenaries who went from club to club to play in the national league for a few bucks. So we either have 8 franchises that are better linked to clubs or just 8 clubs themselves.
I think they should stick with the franchises- they have some history now and some credibility thanks to ACFC's recent exploits. The A League has shown that a franchise model can work.
The discussion about this is not about who participates (ie club or franchises) as the product will be exactly the same under both (as players will be the same).
The discussion should be about how we make the product more relevant and engage with the wider public. To do this the league needs to be more visible and smartly promoted. This will ensure sponsors get on board.
One issue with pushing for a televised league and fighting for credibility is whether you can still have the Wanderers and Wee Nix teams in the league. I think having them has obviously helped the U20s etc but if you are serious about having a National League you can't include these teams.
I "thised" this but disagree with your view on the WeeNix. I think them being in the competition strengthens its public awareness and helps benefit all NZ football. Glad to see the back of the Wanderers though.
I'm in favour of the current franchise system, mainly because that's what I'm accustomed to and I guess I don't have a particular allegiance to any club (Metro or Central I guess).
I disagree with what Andy Martin is trying to do because if he wants to invest why take numerous steps backwards? Why not invest in the franchise system where one of the reasons it's failing is a lack of investment?
If we were to go with a club based system I'd rather Central became ACFC by name and branding etc.
Not in favour at all of ACFC in the A-League.
Those who argue for the club based system are perhaps older and as things develop, perhaps that mindset will change as kids grow up with the franchise system.
Persevere and give it some investment and time to develop.
"The nine existing league entrants (plus) clubs and federations are all involved ,along with Sky TV and various hand-picked experts in discussing problems and solutions ...
"Hopefully we will be in a position where we have some options and ideas that we can talk about. ...
"One of the answers might be that we continue with what we've got and make it a lot better if that's the only (option) that can be afforded and set up. ...
But it's right that we lift the lid and look at everything. ...
(for) It is encumbent upon us to make sure we find a solution that is sustainable, is broadcast-able, and connects the game across the country."
Still at the juggling stage. But it sounds fair enough to me. So far.
"The nine existing league entrants (plus) clubs and federations are all involved ,along with Sky TV and various hand-picked experts in discussing problems and solutions ...
"Hopefully we will be in a position where we have some options and ideas that we can talk about. ...
"One of the answers might be that we continue with what we've got and make it a lot better if that's the only (option) that can be afforded and set up. ...
But it's right that we lift the lid and look at everything. ...
(for) It is encumbent upon us to make sure we find a solution that is sustainable, is broadcast-able, and connects the game across the country."
Still at the juggling stage. But it sounds like vague bullshark to me. So far.
"The nine existing league entrants (plus) clubs and federations are all involved ,along with Sky TV and various hand-picked experts in discussing problems and solutions ...
"Hopefully we will be in a position where we have some options and ideas that we can talk about. ...
"One of the answers might be that we continue with what we've got and make it a lot better if that's the only (option) that can be afforded and set up. ...
But it's right that we lift the lid and look at everything. ...
(for) It is encumbent upon us to make sure we find a solution that is sustainable, is broadcast-able, and connects the game across the country."
Still at the juggling stage. But it sounds fair enough to me. So far.
It seems they are progressing on the right track in terms of involving wide variety of people in the discussions
Martin's a journey man. Only interested in his CV and financial exit. We've had so so many before him.
SOS to the few remaining passionate football people to take control and rescue us from these self serving corporate types?
Reckon the same could be said of Hudson based on his CV to date.
I think our player and financial base is too thin to have a club based competition with promotion and relegation etc. It would totally undermine the youth systems at clubs if the first teams were just made up by mercenaries who went from club to club to play in the national league for a few bucks. So we either have 8 franchises that are better linked to clubs or just 8 clubs themselves.
I think they should stick with the franchises- they have some history now and some credibility thanks to ACFC's recent exploits. The A League has shown that a franchise model can work.
The discussion about this is not about who participates (ie club or franchises) as the product will be exactly the same under both (as players will be the same).
The discussion should be about how we make the product more relevant and engage with the wider public. To do this the league needs to be more visible and smartly promoted. This will ensure sponsors get on board.
One issue with pushing for a televised league and fighting for credibility is whether you can still have the Wanderers and Wee Nix teams in the league. I think having them has obviously helped the U20s etc but if you are serious about having a National League you can't include these teams.
I "thised" this but disagree with your view on the WeeNix. I think them being in the competition strengthens its public awareness and helps benefit all NZ football. Glad to see the back of the Wanderers though.
So OK to have an Australian Reserve side in there that changes every week and who ask the opposition who they can play against them and can have non NZ eligible players, But not a team full of young NZ eligible players preparing for World Cups??
Gotta love you Phoenix fans.......
In terms of public profile and media attention I think the WeeNix are a positive for the competition, but I can see why people feel they damage the credibility of the league.
I think our player and financial base is too thin to have a club based competition with promotion and relegation etc. It would totally undermine the youth systems at clubs if the first teams were just made up by mercenaries who went from club to club to play in the national league for a few bucks. So we either have 8 franchises that are better linked to clubs or just 8 clubs themselves.
I think they should stick with the franchises- they have some history now and some credibility thanks to ACFC's recent exploits. The A League has shown that a franchise model can work.
The discussion about this is not about who participates (ie club or franchises) as the product will be exactly the same under both (as players will be the same).
The discussion should be about how we make the product more relevant and engage with the wider public. To do this the league needs to be more visible and smartly promoted. This will ensure sponsors get on board.
One issue with pushing for a televised league and fighting for credibility is whether you can still have the Wanderers and Wee Nix teams in the league. I think having them has obviously helped the U20s etc but if you are serious about having a National League you can't include these teams.
I "thised" this but disagree with your view on the WeeNix. I think them being in the competition strengthens its public awareness and helps benefit all NZ football. Glad to see the back of the Wanderers though.
So OK to have an Australian Reserve side in there that changes every week and who ask the opposition who they can play against them and can have non NZ eligible players, But not a team full of young NZ eligible players preparing for World Cups??
Gotta love you Phoenix fans.......
Every team can have non NZ eligible players in them.
I think our player and financial base is too thin to have a club based competition with promotion and relegation etc. It would totally undermine the youth systems at clubs if the first teams were just made up by mercenaries who went from club to club to play in the national league for a few bucks. So we either have 8 franchises that are better linked to clubs or just 8 clubs themselves.
I think they should stick with the franchises- they have some history now and some credibility thanks to ACFC's recent exploits. The A League has shown that a franchise model can work.
The discussion about this is not about who participates (ie club or franchises) as the product will be exactly the same under both (as players will be the same).
The discussion should be about how we make the product more relevant and engage with the wider public. To do this the league needs to be more visible and smartly promoted. This will ensure sponsors get on board.
One issue with pushing for a televised league and fighting for credibility is whether you can still have the Wanderers and Wee Nix teams in the league. I think having them has obviously helped the U20s etc but if you are serious about having a National League you can't include these teams.
I "thised" this but disagree with your view on the WeeNix. I think them being in the competition strengthens its public awareness and helps benefit all NZ football. Glad to see the back of the Wanderers though.
So OK to have an Australian Reserve side in there that changes every week and who ask the opposition who they can play against them and can have non NZ eligible players, But not a team full of young NZ eligible players preparing for World Cups??
Gotta love you Phoenix fans.......
Every team can have non NZ eligible players in them.
Really? So how many Wanderers SC players were'nt eligible for NZ?
In terms of public profile and media attention I think the WeeNix are a positive for the competition, but I can see why people feel they damage the credibility of the league.
Yeah I know what you mean.
Every Sunday night on TV3 News they'd have the results and highlights of all Phoenix Reserve games as well as other ASBP matches. And The Herald would have a reporter at all there games and Radio commentaries etc......
It was saturating the coverage they brought to the league.
Was there not a review done that lead to the creation of the NZFC in the first place?
What, if anything, would have significantly changed since then?
NZF has had an English takeover?
I'm saying you can't have either. Maybe have a youth policy for each franchise complimented by a youth league but I struggle with having a Wanderers side in the comp if you want joe public to engage. Us football fans "get" the benefit of having a developmental side - the question for the marketing and sponsorship experts is whether this detracts from the comp for the wider audience.
Then you ask the question what is more important? Is it a senior league with wider public acceptance or a league to develop the next generation of all whites, Nix and overseas pros?
Strangely I think some of his debate would go away if we had a second A League team. You'd have much more profile and more avenues for aspiring professional players. So if there is money to invest/ open minds at NZF maybe that should be factored into the equation as may actually deliver on the strategic aims with potentially less risk...
I think our player and financial base is too thin to have a club based competition with promotion and relegation etc. It would totally undermine the youth systems at clubs if the first teams were just made up by mercenaries who went from club to club to play in the national league for a few bucks. So we either have 8 franchises that are better linked to clubs or just 8 clubs themselves.
I think they should stick with the franchises- they have some history now and some credibility thanks to ACFC's recent exploits. The A League has shown that a franchise model can work.
The discussion about this is not about who participates (ie club or franchises) as the product will be exactly the same under both (as players will be the same).
The discussion should be about how we make the product more relevant and engage with the wider public. To do this the league needs to be more visible and smartly promoted. This will ensure sponsors get on board.
One issue with pushing for a televised league and fighting for credibility is whether you can still have the Wanderers and Wee Nix teams in the league. I think having them has obviously helped the U20s etc but if you are serious about having a National League you can't include these teams.
I "thised" this but disagree with your view on the WeeNix. I think them being in the competition strengthens its public awareness and helps benefit all NZ football. Glad to see the back of the Wanderers though.
So OK to have an Australian Reserve side in there that changes every week and who ask the opposition who they can play against them and can have non NZ eligible players, But not a team full of young NZ eligible players preparing for World Cups??
Gotta love you Phoenix fans.......
A number of issues you raised there were restrictions put on the Nix by the likes of ACFC who has significant numbers of foreigners too. No one is interested in a team of kids who if good enough should be playing for the other sides (Nix, WaiBop, Southern etc).
In another post you made mention of the WeeNix dominating broadcast news. Well if it was not for them and ACFC the ASBP would not be on tv at all.
Marto, I think you missed Ren's attempt at being sarcastic. The Phoenix ressies may have added some column inches but not much more.
And if there's nothing the Premiership and myself need more than column inches.
I got an email from NZF saying I would get a link to a survey about nz comps. Never came. They said it is too late now. Anyone do it?
I got an email from NZF saying I would get a link to a survey about nz comps. Never came. They said it is too late now. Anyone do it?
I got the same but never got the link either.
Email? Faxed mine back but the machine spat it out!
I think our player and financial base is too thin to have a club based competition with promotion and relegation etc. It would totally undermine the youth systems at clubs if the first teams were just made up by mercenaries who went from club to club to play in the national league for a few bucks. So we either have 8 franchises that are better linked to clubs or just 8 clubs themselves.
I think they should stick with the franchises- they have some history now and some credibility thanks to ACFC's recent exploits. The A League has shown that a franchise model can work.
The discussion about this is not about who participates (ie club or franchises) as the product will be exactly the same under both (as players will be the same).
The discussion should be about how we make the product more relevant and engage with the wider public. To do this the league needs to be more visible and smartly promoted. This will ensure sponsors get on board.
One issue with pushing for a televised league and fighting for credibility is whether you can still have the Wanderers and Wee Nix teams in the league. I think having them has obviously helped the U20s etc but if you are serious about having a National League you can't include these teams.
I "thised" this but disagree with your view on the WeeNix. I think them being in the competition strengthens its public awareness and helps benefit all NZ football. Glad to see the back of the Wanderers though.
So OK to have an Australian Reserve side in there that changes every week and who ask the opposition who they can play against them and can have non NZ eligible players, But not a team full of young NZ eligible players preparing for World Cups??
Gotta love you Phoenix fans.......
What has ACFC got to do with it? The comment was about a Phoenix Fan wanting there Reserve side in but not the U20s.
As usual you've ignored the point and gone off on an ACFC tangent.
I think our player and financial base is too thin to have a club based competition with promotion and relegation etc. It would totally undermine the youth systems at clubs if the first teams were just made up by mercenaries who went from club to club to play in the national league for a few bucks. So we either have 8 franchises that are better linked to clubs or just 8 clubs themselves.
I think they should stick with the franchises- they have some history now and some credibility thanks to ACFC's recent exploits. The A League has shown that a franchise model can work.
The discussion about this is not about who participates (ie club or franchises) as the product will be exactly the same under both (as players will be the same).
The discussion should be about how we make the product more relevant and engage with the wider public. To do this the league needs to be more visible and smartly promoted. This will ensure sponsors get on board.
One issue with pushing for a televised league and fighting for credibility is whether you can still have the Wanderers and Wee Nix teams in the league. I think having them has obviously helped the U20s etc but if you are serious about having a National League you can't include these teams.
aren't all top tier winter clubs this already?
What has ACFC got to do with it? The comment was about a Phoenix Fan wanting there Reserve side in but not the U20s.
As usual you've ignored the point and gone off on an ACFC tangent.
Oh dear Jeffrey......
I think one day I would like the real Wellington Phoenix to leave the A-league and enter the ASBP to make the league more competitive and hopefully push it towards a professional league. At the moment theres only Auckland City, Teedubs and daylight. We could run it off the Spanish league model where theres 3 really good teams and then more daylight. Sometimes I think the phoenix playing in the A-league hampers our chance to develop a professional league but having the phoenix helps develop players which is what we need for now.