Can anyone tell me if there is a stipulation on how the Franchises spend the CWC cash? Is it meant for Youth Development, coaching development or to pay debts due to poor administration?
Permalink
Permalink
Be interesting to hear how it gets spent across the board - my understanding is that it can be spent any way the club chooses (although I could be wrong).
Here's hoping it gets used wisely by all.
Here's hoping it gets used wisely by all.
Permalink
Permalink
Surely it does need to be shown how it is spent. Not doing so gets clubs in all sorts of problems such as the investigation into pokie funding at Waitakere Utd. What happened there in the end?
I let my guitar speak for me
Permalink
Permalink
Ongoing.
My understanding is that there is a discussion going on at the moment about who gets to decide how the CWC money gets spent...
TeeDubs have some plans for it already I believe.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
Why would TW get any of it, they are'nt even a club.
Permalink
Permalink
Because they are the franchise playing in the NZFC? 
Permalink
Permalink
Why would TW get any of it, they are'nt even a club.
Yikes, we've had this discussion several times.
They're a legal entity and they hold player registrations and NZF/OFC/FIFA recognise them as a club, so they're a club. Viz Auckland playing at the CLUB World Cup.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
Be interesting to hear how it gets spent across the board - my understanding is that it can be spent any way the club chooses (although I could be wrong).
Here's hoping it gets used wisely by all.
Here's hoping it gets used wisely by all.
Very disappointing to hear about a few franchises challenging the split of cash. Trying to take more of NZ Football's cut for the second round matches.
Has anyone heard more around the details of this? My knowledge of the ins and outs are a little sketchy at this stage - but I'm pretty disheartened by it.
Permalink
Permalink
Someone whose heard something off the record go on the record...
Why disheartened?
Normo's coming home
Permalink
Permalink
I'm looking into it JD - trying to get some more facts rather than conjecture. I'm also stating that I don't know the full details as yet - so I am only posting what I do know. Happy to be corrected if anything below is factually incorrect.
JD: I'm disheartened that all of the franchises agreed to their split of the prize money before the tournament, but as soon as some extra cash became involved - the split became contested over "technicalities" in the original agreement. They all agreed to it, so it's disappointing to hear that it's being contested, and more so that it's NZ Football's cut that's being contested.
It's doubly disheartening as it shows how factionalised the game is in this country, and that we're still incapable of uniting as franchises - even when an agreement has previously been reached. Self-interest still seems to be the order of the day.
The other franchises did nothing to help Auckland get through to the second round (most didn't even send congratulations - to my knowledge, only two did in short order - and Waitakere was the first of these, and another did so when prompted), so I don't see why they should start squabbling over the extra funds - especially as they had already agreed to their cut before the tournament.
And before anyone climbs into me for being pro-Auckland City. My understanding of the situation is that this has no effect on their share of the prize money.
Cnut2010-02-03 00:03:02
JD: I'm disheartened that all of the franchises agreed to their split of the prize money before the tournament, but as soon as some extra cash became involved - the split became contested over "technicalities" in the original agreement. They all agreed to it, so it's disappointing to hear that it's being contested, and more so that it's NZ Football's cut that's being contested.
It's doubly disheartening as it shows how factionalised the game is in this country, and that we're still incapable of uniting as franchises - even when an agreement has previously been reached. Self-interest still seems to be the order of the day.
The other franchises did nothing to help Auckland get through to the second round (most didn't even send congratulations - to my knowledge, only two did in short order - and Waitakere was the first of these, and another did so when prompted), so I don't see why they should start squabbling over the extra funds - especially as they had already agreed to their cut before the tournament.
And before anyone climbs into me for being pro-Auckland City. My understanding of the situation is that this has no effect on their share of the prize money.
Cnut2010-02-03 00:03:02
Permalink
Permalink
I have to leave that alone, but my understanding is that your understanding is wrong.
Permalink
Permalink
Any chance you can clarify via PM or phone? Happy to edit or take back anything if wrong.
Permalink
Permalink
I'm looking into it JD - trying to get some more facts rather than conjecture. I'm also stating that I don't know the full details as yet - so I am only posting what I do know. Happy to be corrected if anything below is factually incorrect.JD: I'm disheartened that all of the franchises agreed to their split of the prize money before the tournament, but as soon as some extra cash became involved - the split became contested over "technicalities" in the original agreement. They all agreed to it, so it's disappointing to hear that it's being contested, and more so that it's NZ Football's cut that's being contested.It's doubly disheartening as it shows how factionalised the game is in this country, and that we're still incapable of uniting as franchises - even when an agreement has previously been reached. Self-interest still seems to be the order of the day.The other franchises did nothing to help Auckland get through to the second round (most didn't even send congratulations - to my knowledge, only two did in short order - and Waitakere was the first of these, and another did so when prompted), so I don't see why they should start squabbling over the extra funds - especially as they had already agreed to their cut before the tournament.And before anyone climbs into me for being pro-Auckland City. My understanding of the situation is that this has no effect on their share of the prize money.
Ont the face of it, it seems wrong, and I would agree with you, but I will withhold further comment until further details come out for fear of making an arse of myself without knowing the full picture.
Permalink
Permalink
But you have added conjecture Cnut, and since you have, it allows others. You were actually better off saying nothing at all. If it doesn't affect ACFC, why raise it and then say 'Oh well its not cause I'm from ACFC'
Why would the clubs go after the NZF share of the money when they have said they are going to re-invest (I think $450,000) back into the running of the NZFC? Either way NZF can invest it themselves or give it to the clubs and increase the financial responsibility on them. Its like mum saying I can take you to the movies for free or I can give you $15 and you can pay for yourself.
It just doesn't make any sense. I guess its because they are not going after NZFs share...
My guess (pure speculation) is that people want ACFC's money and I wouldn't be surprised if its in the guise of 'transfer fee' because that player we had last year played well for you this year. Jason Hayne and Daniel Koprivcic would fit that bill (pure speculation)
Grumpy old bastard alert
Permalink
Permalink
Jeff Vader that sounds pretty far fetched.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
Fair enough Jeff - I freely admit adding my speculations.
As to why the NZFC clubs want more of a cut - that's the operative point here.
Personally I don't necessarily mind it, provided that what it gets spent on is transparent. If it's for development of facilities, or something that can help the game, then I am all for it - provided that it's spent in a constructive way. That's my over-riding objection to having it taken from NZ Football - that, and the reneging of their original agreement.
Although if I'm being truly objective, you could argue that NZF won't necessarily spend it on development either.
As to why the NZFC clubs want more of a cut - that's the operative point here.
Personally I don't necessarily mind it, provided that what it gets spent on is transparent. If it's for development of facilities, or something that can help the game, then I am all for it - provided that it's spent in a constructive way. That's my over-riding objection to having it taken from NZ Football - that, and the reneging of their original agreement.
Although if I'm being truly objective, you could argue that NZF won't necessarily spend it on development either.
Permalink
Permalink
Fair enough Jeff - I freely admit adding my speculations.
As to why the NZFC clubs want more of a cut - that's the operative point here.
Personally I don't necessarily mind it, provided that what it gets spent on is transparent. If it's for development of facilities, or something that can help the game, then I am all for it - provided that it's spent in a constructive way. That's my over-riding objection to having it taken from NZ Football - that, and the reneging of their original agreement.
Although if I'm being truly objective, you could argue that NZF won't necessarily spend it on development either.
As to why the NZFC clubs want more of a cut - that's the operative point here.
Personally I don't necessarily mind it, provided that what it gets spent on is transparent. If it's for development of facilities, or something that can help the game, then I am all for it - provided that it's spent in a constructive way. That's my over-riding objection to having it taken from NZ Football - that, and the reneging of their original agreement.
Although if I'm being truly objective, you could argue that NZF won't necessarily spend it on development either.
Like, for example, taking a plane load of hangers-on to the Club World Cup on a junket?
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
Jeff Vader that sounds pretty far fetched.
Absolutely it is but I've made my point.Grumpy old bastard alert
Permalink
Permalink
The original point of this question was if there was a stipulation on how the cash was spent. the reason being is that the local franchise use it to dig them out the crap by paying off debts.
Permalink
Permalink
Fair enough Jeff - I freely admit adding my speculations.
As to why the NZFC clubs want more of a cut - that's the operative point here.
Personally I don't necessarily mind it, provided that what it gets spent on is transparent. If it's for development of facilities, or something that can help the game, then I am all for it - provided that it's spent in a constructive way. That's my over-riding objection to having it taken from NZ Football - that, and the reneging of their original agreement.
Although if I'm being truly objective, you could argue that NZF won't necessarily spend it on development either.
As to why the NZFC clubs want more of a cut - that's the operative point here.
Personally I don't necessarily mind it, provided that what it gets spent on is transparent. If it's for development of facilities, or something that can help the game, then I am all for it - provided that it's spent in a constructive way. That's my over-riding objection to having it taken from NZ Football - that, and the reneging of their original agreement.
Although if I'm being truly objective, you could argue that NZF won't necessarily spend it on development either.
Like, for example, taking a plane load of hangers-on to the Club World Cup on a junket?
Lol - difference being that Auckland City earned their share
Permalink
Permalink
Actually - I'm closing the thread. Until more is known we should let sleeping dogs lie.
I know, I stirred it up in the first place, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.
If it ever comes out in the wash, I'll re-open it.
If any other mods disagree - up to you guys to re-open it.
I know, I stirred it up in the first place, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.
If it ever comes out in the wash, I'll re-open it.
If any other mods disagree - up to you guys to re-open it.
Permalink
Permalink
Adam if the NZFC licence agreement set out the allocation of monies in black and white - what is there to argue about?
Perhaps you have your facts wrong and it is NZF who is wanting to deviate from what was signed off?
Does anyone have the NZFC licence agreement?
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
this is what Michael Brown said in the Herald:
</>Agreement was then reached on any prize money won above that, with Auckland City receiving a larger share of that.
Feverish2010-02-03 14:16:15
A formula was worked out prior to the tournament's kickoff. The first US$500,000 ($703,000) of the prize money was split nine ways, with the other seven franchises receiving seven per cent, NZF 10 per cent and Auckland City the rest.
The seven franchises received three per cent of the additional winnings, Auckland City 50 per cent and NZF the rest (29 per cent).
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
Adam if the NZFC licence agreement set out the allocation of monies in black and white - what is there to argue about?
Absolutely, as I said, I was only going off rumour - so readily admit I'm not is possession of any facts.
Perhaps you have your facts wrong and it is NZF who is wanting to deviate from what was signed off?
Absolutely, as I said, I was only going off rumour - so readily admit I'm not is possession of any facts.
Permalink
Permalink
so potentially a better post would have been "apparently there is conjecture over CWC monies" rather than steaming into the franchises?
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
But you have added conjecture Cnut, and since you have, it allows others. You were actually better off saying nothing at all. If it doesn't affect ACFC, why raise it and then say 'Oh well its not cause I'm from ACFC'
�
Why would the clubs go after the NZF share of the money when they have said they are going to re-invest (I think $450,000) back into the running of the NZFC? Either way NZF can invest it themselves or give it to the clubs and increase the financial responsibility on them. Its like mum saying I can take you to the movies for free or I can give you $15 and you can pay for yourself.
It just doesn't make any sense. I guess its because they are not going after NZFs share...
�
My guess (pure speculation) is that people want ACFC's money and I wouldn't be surprised if its in the guise of 'transfer fee' because that player we had last year played well for you this year. Jason Hayne and Daniel Koprivcic would fit that bill (pure speculation)
Auckland City signed Jason Hayne from Surfers Paradise
Apollo
and Daniel Koprivcic from Papatoetoe
whats your point?
Permalink
Permalink
Michael brown is a poisonous little toad anyway!!!
And why should any of the other NZFC clubs get a penny of the money?
Its a disgrace they have done nothing to warrant getting any money at all
And why should any of the other NZFC clubs get a penny of the money?
Its a disgrace they have done nothing to warrant getting any money at all
Permalink
Permalink
Phil,
Any reason you retired HappyTed ?
Any reason you retired HappyTed ?
Permalink
Permalink
The Legend of Happyted needs to be put to rest!!
Permalink
Permalink
Michael brown is a poisonous little toad anyway!!!
And why should any of the other NZFC clubs get a penny of the money?
Its a disgrace they have done nothing to warrant getting any money at all
And why should any of the other NZFC clubs get a penny of the money?
Its a disgrace they have done nothing to warrant getting any money at all
apart from investing the money to run a league that allowed Akld City to compete in the CWC?
Feverish2010-02-03 21:50:58Founder
Permalink
Permalink
Michael brown is a poisonous little toad anyway!!! And why should any of the other NZFC clubs get a penny of the money? Its a disgrace they have done nothing to warrant getting any money at all
�
apart from investing the money to run a league that allowed Akld City to compete in the CWC?
If the money really did go to running the league then it would be kept by NZF as payment of the franchises entrance fee but it is not
Permalink
Permalink
And why should any of the other NZFC clubs get a penny of the money?
Its a disgrace they have done nothing to warrant getting any money at all
Its a disgrace they have done nothing to warrant getting any money at all
Oh happyted, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Well, smell of something anyway.
You lot at Kiwitea Street are fond of asking questions like "how is this helping NZ football?". Why not try answering that question in regard to the CWC prize money. A more sensible split of that cash could support the NZFC for a long time - something else you are always banging on about.
Permalink
Permalink
Michael brown is a poisonous little toad anyway!!! And why should any of the other NZFC clubs get a penny of the money? Its a disgrace they have done nothing to warrant getting any money at all
apart from investing the money to run a league that allowed Akld City to compete in the CWC?
If the money really did go to running the league then it would be kept by NZF as payment of the franchises entrance fee but it is not
I think you might be missing Feverish's point that ACFC needs the other franchises and the NZFC to even be in a position to qualify for the CWC. It's in nobody's interest for franchises, or the league, to go broke.
Your attitude that they've "done nothing" seems a little short-sighted.
Permalink
Permalink
Michael brown is a poisonous little toad anyway!!! And why should any of the other NZFC clubs get a penny of the money? Its a disgrace they have done nothing to warrant getting any money at all
apart from investing the money to run a league that allowed Akld City to compete in the CWC?
If the money really did go to running the league then it would be kept by NZF as payment of the franchises entrance fee but it is not
now try that again in sentences that make sense please..
I was talking about the money the clubs stump up with the fund the running of the league by the way. No league- no Akld City in CWC.
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
Fair enough Jeff - I freely admit adding my speculations.
As to why the NZFC clubs want more of a cut - that's the operative point here.
Personally I don't necessarily mind it, provided that what it gets spent on is transparent. If it's for development of facilities, or something that can help the game, then I am all for it - provided that it's spent in a constructive way. That's my over-riding objection to having it taken from NZ Football - that, and the reneging of their original agreement.
Although if I'm being truly objective, you could argue that NZF won't necessarily spend it on development either.
As to why the NZFC clubs want more of a cut - that's the operative point here.
Personally I don't necessarily mind it, provided that what it gets spent on is transparent. If it's for development of facilities, or something that can help the game, then I am all for it - provided that it's spent in a constructive way. That's my over-riding objection to having it taken from NZ Football - that, and the reneging of their original agreement.
Although if I'm being truly objective, you could argue that NZF won't necessarily spend it on development either.
It's got nothing to do with Auckland how the money gets spent. If one club wants to spend the entire package on players in the hope that they can compete on the pitch, win the O-League and then go to the CWC themselves how is that wrong? That's all Auckland did themselves.
Adam, I think this all comes across a bit holier than thou and I've seen it from other ACFC fans, it's an attitude of we saved the NZFC and everyone should love us.
I mean did Auckland spend their last CWC money when Waitakere went in a "transparent manner" and to develop facilities?
james dean2010-02-03 23:00:08Normo's coming home
Permalink
Permalink
and potentially Adam you could have been spun a line from Akld City heads who support NZF's side over the franchises (even if it is the franchises in the right), beacuse if AC's share was staying the same regardless- the less the share that went to the other franchises the better (as it would give them less opportunity to strengthen).
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
Also Adam, I agree that what you're saying isn't necessarily wrong, it's just that it's a bit hypocritical
Normo's coming home
Permalink
Permalink
perhaps in the allocation, a portion should have gone to 'the league'?
Founder
Permalink
Permalink