Post history

History for Tegal

National League review and future

Back to topic

Current version

Posted April 15, 2015 05:59 · last edited April 15, 2015 06:14

Blew.2 wrote:

Global Game wrote:

Hmm, would take major reversal of stated policy from most funding organisations. For example the Lion Foundation states:

Our policy is to return 90% of the funds available for grants to their community of origin. The remaining 10% supports major and highly effectual national causes like St John, Plunket, Coastguard and Surf Life Saving that save, nurture and protect kiwi life around the clock and across the country.

I honestly think a decent review will start with this premise: what national competition structure will best support the development of football in NZ? Answer: 9-10 months competitive football. With that goal, given the 'community of origin' nature of trust funding, there are only two commercial models to support this: centralised and decentralised approach. The latter is fraught with a litany of wrecked, broken clubs and people. However some will still be willing to raise a minority percentage of the overall budget. This leaves, in my humble opinion, NZF to deliver a commercial means of supporting the clubs/franchises/entities who are willing and able, having met certain criteria, for a 9 month season. 

Assuming they have the will, they need to find and pay the people who can make it happen - because they don't currently work at NZF.

 return 90% of the funds available for grants to their community of origin.   This is clause of many and Auckland is the land of venues. Lion is a national trust. Trillian is not.   This why build the football model first then try funding it.

So Lion - 10% of the available funding is available National. ACFC could not live off that. 

  

May be ignorant here, but if every club had less, doesn't that just mean they'd pay players less? Would the player pool (Aucklands foreigners aside) really suffer that badly as a result? These players probably aren't good enough to get paid to play anywhere else, it may even mean a few more youngsters get a go. A more even playing field would dangle the carrot of the club world champs to more players who may then want to take part as a result - instead we have a bunch of foreigners paid to 'coach' representing us every year. 

This is probably simplistic thinking, so feel free to rip it to bits. But would less money, distributed more evenly really be the end of the world? Would it really be so bad if a few journeyman (or foreigners) who are only playing in the league to take money out of the game leave, and those who actually want to play in the league or youngsters who will use the league as a pathway end up taking their place? (If many even drop out at all). 

FYI: I don't know enough to have a strong opinion, just throwing the questions out there out of interest. 

Previous versions

4 versions
Tegal edited April 15, 2015 06:14
Blew.2 wrote:
Global Game wrote:

Hmm, would take major reversal of stated policy from most funding organisations. For example the Lion Foundation states:

Our policy is to return 90% of the funds available for grants to their community of origin. The remaining 10% supports major and highly effectual national causes like St John, Plunket, Coastguard and Surf Life Saving that save, nurture and protect kiwi life around the clock and across the country.

I honestly think a decent review will start with this premise: what national competition structure will best support the development of football in NZ? Answer: 9-10 months competitive football. With that goal, given the 'community of origin' nature of trust funding, there are only two commercial models to support this: centralised and decentralised approach. The latter is fraught with a litany of wrecked, broken clubs and people. However some will still be willing to raise a minority percentage of the overall budget. This leaves, in my humble opinion, NZF to deliver a commercial means of supporting the clubs/franchises/entities who are willing and able, having met certain criteria, for a 9 month season. 

Assuming they have the will, they need to find and pay the people who can make it happen - because they don't currently work at NZF.

 return 90% of the funds available for grants to their community of origin.   This is clause of many and Auckland is the land of venues. Lion is a national trust. Trillian is not.   This why build the football model first then try funding it.

So Lion - 10% of the available funding is available National. ACFC could not live off that. 

May be ignorant here, but if every club had less, doesn't that just mean they'd pay players less? Would the player pool (Aucklands foreigners aside) really suffer that badly as a result? These players probably aren't good enough to get paid to play anywhere else, it may even mean a few more youngsters get a go. A more even playing field would dangle the carrot of the club world champs to more players who may then want to take part as a result - instead we have a bunch of foreigners paid to 'coach' representing us every year. 

This is probably simplistic thinking, so feel free to rip it to bits. But would less money, distributed more evenly really be the end of the world? Would it really be so bad if a few journeyman (or foreigners) who are only playing in the league to take money out of the game leave, and those who actually want to play in the league or youngsters who will use the league as a pathway end up taking their place? (If many even drop out at all). 

FYI: I don't know enough to have an opinion, just throwing the questions out there out of interest. 

Tegal edited April 15, 2015 06:03
Blew.2 wrote:
Global Game wrote:

Hmm, would take major reversal of stated policy from most funding organisations. For example the Lion Foundation states:

Our policy is to return 90% of the funds available for grants to their community of origin. The remaining 10% supports major and highly effectual national causes like St John, Plunket, Coastguard and Surf Life Saving that save, nurture and protect kiwi life around the clock and across the country.

I honestly think a decent review will start with this premise: what national competition structure will best support the development of football in NZ? Answer: 9-10 months competitive football. With that goal, given the 'community of origin' nature of trust funding, there are only two commercial models to support this: centralised and decentralised approach. The latter is fraught with a litany of wrecked, broken clubs and people. However some will still be willing to raise a minority percentage of the overall budget. This leaves, in my humble opinion, NZF to deliver a commercial means of supporting the clubs/franchises/entities who are willing and able, having met certain criteria, for a 9 month season. 

Assuming they have the will, they need to find and pay the people who can make it happen - because they don't currently work at NZF.

 return 90% of the funds available for grants to their community of origin.   This is clause of many and Auckland is the land of venues. Lion is a national trust. Trillian is not.   This why build the football model first then try funding it.

So Lion - 10% of the available funding is available National. ACFC could not live off that. 

May be ignorant here, but if every club had less, doesn't that just mean they'd pay players less? Would the player pool (Aucklands foreigners aside) really suffer that badly as a result? These players probably aren't good enough to get paid to play anywhere else, it may even mean a few more youngsters get a go. A more even playing field would dangle the carrot of the club world champs to more players who may then want to take part as a result - instead we have a bunch of foreigners paid to 'coach' representing us every year. 

This is probably simplistic thinking, so feel free to rip it to bits. But would less money, distributed more evenly really be the end of the world? Would it really be so bad if a few journeyman (or foreigners) who are only playing in the league to take money out of the game leave, and those who actually want to play in the league or youngsters who will use the league as a pathway end up taking their place?

FYI: I don't know enough to have an opinion, just throwing the questions out there out of interest. 

Tegal edited April 15, 2015 06:02
Blew.2 wrote:
Global Game wrote:

Hmm, would take major reversal of stated policy from most funding organisations. For example the Lion Foundation states:

Our policy is to return 90% of the funds available for grants to their community of origin. The remaining 10% supports major and highly effectual national causes like St John, Plunket, Coastguard and Surf Life Saving that save, nurture and protect kiwi life around the clock and across the country.

I honestly think a decent review will start with this premise: what national competition structure will best support the development of football in NZ? Answer: 9-10 months competitive football. With that goal, given the 'community of origin' nature of trust funding, there are only two commercial models to support this: centralised and decentralised approach. The latter is fraught with a litany of wrecked, broken clubs and people. However some will still be willing to raise a minority percentage of the overall budget. This leaves, in my humble opinion, NZF to deliver a commercial means of supporting the clubs/franchises/entities who are willing and able, having met certain criteria, for a 9 month season. 

Assuming they have the will, they need to find and pay the people who can make it happen - because they don't currently work at NZF.

 return 90% of the funds available for grants to their community of origin.   This is clause of many and Auckland is the land of venues. Lion is a national trust. Trillian is not.   This why build the football model first then try funding it.

So Lion - 10% of the available funding is available National. ACFC could not live off that. 

May be ignorant here, but if every club had less, doesn't that just mean they'd pay players less? Would the player pool (Aucklands foreigners aside) really suffer that badly as a result? These players probably aren't good enough to get paid to play anywhere else, it may even mean a few more youngsters get a go. A more even playing field would dangle the carrot of the club world champs to more players who may then want to take part as a result - instead we have a bunch of foreigners paid to 'coach' representing us every year. 

This is probably simplistic thinking, so feel free to rip it to bits. But would less money, distributed more evenly really be the end of the world? Would it really be so bad if a few journeyman (or foreigners) who are only playing in the league to take money out of the game leave, and those who actually want to play in the league or youngsters who will use the league as a pathway end up taking their place?

Tegal edited April 15, 2015 06:01
Blew.2 wrote:
Global Game wrote:

Hmm, would take major reversal of stated policy from most funding organisations. For example the Lion Foundation states:

Our policy is to return 90% of the funds available for grants to their community of origin. The remaining 10% supports major and highly effectual national causes like St John, Plunket, Coastguard and Surf Life Saving that save, nurture and protect kiwi life around the clock and across the country.

I honestly think a decent review will start with this premise: what national competition structure will best support the development of football in NZ? Answer: 9-10 months competitive football. With that goal, given the 'community of origin' nature of trust funding, there are only two commercial models to support this: centralised and decentralised approach. The latter is fraught with a litany of wrecked, broken clubs and people. However some will still be willing to raise a minority percentage of the overall budget. This leaves, in my humble opinion, NZF to deliver a commercial means of supporting the clubs/franchises/entities who are willing and able, having met certain criteria, for a 9 month season. 

Assuming they have the will, they need to find and pay the people who can make it happen - because they don't currently work at NZF.

 return 90% of the funds available for grants to their community of origin.   This is clause of many and Auckland is the land of venues. Lion is a national trust. Trillian is not.   This why build the football model first then try funding it.

So Lion - 10% of the available funding is available National. ACFC could not live off that. 

May be ignorant here, but if every club had less, doesn't that just mean they'd pay players less? Would the player pool (Aucklands foreigners aside) really suffer that badly as a result? These players probably aren't good enough to get paid to play anywhere else, it may even mean a few more youngsters get a go. A more even playing field would dangle the carrot of the club world champs to more players who may then want to take part as a result - instead we have a bunch of foreigners paid to 'coach' representing us every year. 

This is probably simplistic thinking, so feel free to rip it to bits. But would less money, distributed more evenly really be the end of the world?