I tell you one thing. Auckland are the most boring side to watch in the league hands down. They have one tactic and that’s to pass the ball to death until the other team falls asleep.
These ideas of regions losing a spot for one teams poor performance or teams/cities having guaranteed places just won't work - it would just add more complexity and I think the old super rugby is proof that doesn't work.
It's pretty clear that the Central League is the easiest to qualify from at the moment, but you can make amends for that by expanding to 12 teams with an Auckland A-League reserves and one more Southern League spot. Keep it simple.
I tell you one thing. Auckland are the most boring side to watch in the league hands down. They have one tactic and that’s to pass the ball to death until the other team falls asleep.
These ideas of regions losing a spot for one teams poor performance or teams/cities having guaranteed places just won't work - it would just add more complexity and I think the old super rugby is proof that doesn't work.
It's pretty clear that the Central League is the easiest to qualify from at the moment, but you can make amends for that by expanding to 12 teams with an Auckland A-League reserves and one more Southern League spot. Keep it simple.
Alternatively, to arrest the decline in quality from the ISPS Handa Premiership era, keep it at 10 teams. Drop a Central League qualifying spot for the Auckland A-League entry.
These ideas of regions losing a spot for one teams poor performance or teams/cities having guaranteed places just won't work - it would just add more complexity and I think the old super rugby is proof that doesn't work.
It's pretty clear that the Central League is the easiest to qualify from at the moment, but you can make amends for that by expanding to 12 teams with an Auckland A-League reserves and one more Southern League spot. Keep it simple.
Alternatively, to arrest the decline in quality from the ISPS Handa Premiership era, keep it at 10 teams. Drop a Central League qualifying spot for the Auckland A-League entry.
Central already have a spot dropped because the Phoenix have an automatic spot. The problem is that the Phoenix squad that qualifies for National League is different to the one that plays it. All the best players go up to train with the first team leaving greenie with nobody to work with
Haha Roslyn didn't even deserve to be in the qualifier, and you just want to give them a national league spot because there's some 5yo kids running around in their shirts on a saturday morning... madness.Podderick
Don't really think there is an easy fix to the system. With NZF giving the ok for teams like University of Canterbury, which has no junior club, no pathway, unless you go to University, not sure how they fit the Licencing requirements anyway to enter the Southern League over Roslyn, historic club, juniors through to old buggers...who knows what will happen
Don't disagree with them being there by default. Mosgiel were top, but clubs under the NZF licencing, should be providing football for 5 year olds. Where do you think the university players learnt the game? Partnerships with clubs with a junior program does not give the juniors a pathway as the prerequisite for player for a university team is going to university.
Don't disagree with them being there by default. Mosgiel were top, but clubs under the NZF licencing, should be providing football for 5 year olds. Where do you think the university players learnt the game? Partnerships with clubs with a junior program does not give the juniors a pathway as the prerequisite for player for a university team is going to university.
Gender equality works both ways. On the womans side both Otago University and Canterbury University clubs were in the South Island Womens leagues and had their resulting plane travel subsidised by NZF (along with the other teams), those students didn't hold sausage sizzles in order to fly to Nelson. If NZF said UC aren't eligible for mens southern league, it would result in some awkward conversations.
Don't disagree with them being there by default. Mosgiel were top, but clubs under the NZF licencing, should be providing football for 5 year olds. Where do you think the university players learnt the game? Partnerships with clubs with a junior program does not give the juniors a pathway as the prerequisite for player for a university team is going to university.
Gender equality works both ways. On the womans side both Otago University and Canterbury University clubs were in the South Island Womens leagues and had their resulting plane travel subsidised by NZF (along with the other teams), those students didn't hold sausage sizzles in order to fly to Nelson. If NZF said UC aren't eligible for mens southern league, it would result in some awkward conversations.
I'm curious to understand this - I know quite a bit about OUAFC and you don't have to be a student to play in that team, although it tends to be students so doesn't that mean it's not the same as the UC (if it's true what someone said earlier that you have to be a student to play)
Don't disagree with them being there by default. Mosgiel were top, but clubs under the NZF licencing, should be providing football for 5 year olds. Where do you think the university players learnt the game? Partnerships with clubs with a junior program does not give the juniors a pathway as the prerequisite for player for a university team is going to university.
Theres nothing in the NZF club licencing that says they should be providing football for 5 years old. There is provision for youth teams but not juniors.
Don't disagree with them being there by default. Mosgiel were top, but clubs under the NZF licencing, should be providing football for 5 year olds. Where do you think the university players learnt the game? Partnerships with clubs with a junior program does not give the juniors a pathway as the prerequisite for player for a university team is going to university.
Theres nothing in the NZF club licencing that says they should be providing football for 5 years old. There is provision for youth teams but not juniors.
My mistake, but again my point is development of junior players and player pathway. UC don't have this. Don't know of many clubs that don't provide football to juniors down to 5 though.
Don't disagree with them being there by default. Mosgiel were top, but clubs under the NZF licencing, should be providing football for 5 year olds. Where do you think the university players learnt the game? Partnerships with clubs with a junior program does not give the juniors a pathway as the prerequisite for player for a university team is going to university.
University clubs shouldn't be prohibited from playing at the top level on merit because of not having junior sides; it's pretty obvious why their clubs don't have that setup. It's very different to a traditional-model club just completely neglecting juniors.
People seem to think that development stops at 17 or 18 - fact is that clubs such as UC and OUAFC have some of the biggest senior memberships in Christchurch and Dunedin respectively, and keep players in the game who may otherwise not join a traditional club.
Don't disagree with them being there by default. Mosgiel were top, but clubs under the NZF licencing, should be providing football for 5 year olds. Where do you think the university players learnt the game? Partnerships with clubs with a junior program does not give the juniors a pathway as the prerequisite for player for a university team is going to university.
University clubs shouldn't be prohibited from playing at the top level on merit because of not having junior sides; it's pretty obvious why their clubs don't have that setup. It's very different to a traditional-model club just completely neglecting juniors.
People seem to think that development stops at 17 or 18 - fact is that clubs such as UC and OUAFC have some of the biggest senior memberships in Christchurch and Dunedin respectively, and keep players in the game who may otherwise not join a traditional club.
Not denying they have lots of players, but they are a 'school' playing in a club competition and have to follow the licencing rules. Just not sure how they are.
I don't know about football, but Auckland University Cricket Club has junior/kids' teams
I played for the Vic Uni Hunters RL for a few seasons when I thought I was tough (I am not) and they have a massive juniors contingent. That's driven by the guys in charge having kids and wanting to keep them in sport, but it also coincided with Harbour City Eagles falling over and Hunters stepping in.
Don't disagree with them being there by default. Mosgiel were top, but clubs under the NZF licencing, should be providing football for 5 year olds. Where do you think the university players learnt the game? Partnerships with clubs with a junior program does not give the juniors a pathway as the prerequisite for player for a university team is going to university.
University clubs shouldn't be prohibited from playing at the top level on merit because of not having junior sides; it's pretty obvious why their clubs don't have that setup. It's very different to a traditional-model club just completely neglecting juniors.
People seem to think that development stops at 17 or 18 - fact is that clubs such as UC and OUAFC have some of the biggest senior memberships in Christchurch and Dunedin respectively, and keep players in the game who may otherwise not join a traditional club.
Not denying they have lots of players, but they are a 'school' playing in a club competition and have to follow the licencing rules. Just not sure how they are.
They aren't a 'school' club, they are a club in their own right and have been since 1945. under club licensing rules they need to provide a youth team, which according to their web site they have 2
The prerequisite to play for university is you are a student, which implies you are going to 'school'. If they open trials to any players who don' t go to there 'school' then all good.
The prerequisite to play for university is you are a student, which implies you are going to 'school'. If they open trials to any players who don' t go to there 'school' then all good.
Is it? I doubt any of the university clubs have that as a prerequisite, obviously most of their players will be students, but they won't be restricted to students.
There is nothing in UC's website to indicate they are restricted to students only.
I know plenty of people in Wellington that have played for Vic Uni who aren't and haven't been students and I'm pretty sure Frank van Hattum and his team mates didn't enrol in Auckland University when they played in the National League in the 1980s
Don't disagree with them being there by default. Mosgiel were top, but clubs under the NZF licencing, should be providing football for 5 year olds. Where do you think the university players learnt the game? Partnerships with clubs with a junior program does not give the juniors a pathway as the prerequisite for player for a university team is going to university.
University clubs shouldn't be prohibited from playing at the top level on merit because of not having junior sides; it's pretty obvious why their clubs don't have that setup. It's very different to a traditional-model club just completely neglecting juniors.
People seem to think that development stops at 17 or 18 - fact is that clubs such as UC and OUAFC have some of the biggest senior memberships in Christchurch and Dunedin respectively, and keep players in the game who may otherwise not join a traditional club.
Not denying they have lots of players, but they are a 'school' playing in a club competition and have to follow the licencing rules. Just not sure how they are.
They aren't a 'school' club, they are a club in their own right and have been since 1945. under club licensing rules they need to provide a youth team, which according to their web site they have 2
Just on club licensing rules, isn't it at least two youth (in different grade) and two junior (in different grades). UC two youth teams are both U19 so don't meet that criteria. I'd imagine that they (and any other university based club with national league aspirations) would need a MOU with a nearby community club that does have the requisite youth/junior teams. Similarly service/trade clubs such as Navy/Air Force might face same hurdle should they ever make their way up the pyramid.
The prerequisite to play for university is you are a student, which implies you are going to 'school'. If they open trials to any players who don' t go to there 'school' then all good.
Like the other uni clubs you do not need to be a student to play for them. The club is just affiliated with the student union.
yup, Bidois not Toomey. Toomey was in the academy for a couple years but left after 21/22 I believe to play in Finland for six months.
Interestingly, Bidois had his headshots taken with the rest of the team in October, but obviously wasn't signed. The only player for which this was the case, pretty weird
The prerequisite to play for university is you are a student, which implies you are going to 'school'. If they open trials to any players who don' t go to there 'school' then all good.
Like the other uni clubs you do not need to be a student to play for them. The club is just affiliated with the student union.
The prerequisite to play for university is you are a student, which implies you are going to 'school'. If they open trials to any players who don' t go to there 'school' then all good.
Like the other uni clubs you do not need to be a student to play for them. The club is just affiliated with the student union.
I tell you one thing. Auckland are the most boring side to watch in the league hands down. They have one tactic and that’s to pass the ball to death until the other team falls asleep.
Olympic to head into next weeks Final as favourites? be interesting to see what TAB do with the odds!!
Yes but Auckland City get home advantage for finishing fir- I mean being in the same city as NZF. So that will help even it up.
Home advantage by virtue of not having to cross the Harbour Bridge. In 10 years time the final will be in Hamilton in another 30 at Sky Stadium, eventually it hopes to be in Stewart Island before our impending apocalypse.
Maybe time to just go to top 2 out of each league. 6 teams, home and away. 10 weeks. Probably a bit more marketable. Reduce foreign players to 2 or 3, and a minimum of 2 u20s on pitch at all times. Somethings got to change, the league was a bit boring this year. Possibly run same for 3&4 in each league, home and away as well. WPX get no special places, have to finish in top four to participate in either National 'Premier' Group or ' Championship' group. Winner of each could play for a trophy to kick of domestic season the following year like the UEFA Super Cup.
Interesting finish to the league compared to predictions.
South Island teams did very well and Northern teams not so well. Although as predicted, the Central League teams (with one obvious exception) did poorly.
That was enjoyable! Although I guess at the end it’s the same teams doing well.
Maybe time to just go to top 2 out of each league. 6 teams, home and away. 10 weeks. Probably a bit more marketable. Reduce foreign players to 2 or 3, and a minimum of 2 u20s on pitch at all times. Somethings got to change, the league was a bit boring this year. Possibly run same for 3&4 in each league, home and away as well. WPX get no special places, have to finish in top four to participate in either National 'Premier' Group or ' Championship' group. Winner of each could play for a trophy to kick of domestic season the following year like the UEFA Super Cup.
That makes no sense. Why should NZF spend on a nationwide B league for 3rd and 4th teams? Why should an already small/short National League be made even smaller?Tyler
Interesting finish to the league compared to predictions.
South Island teams did very well and Northern teams not so well. Although as predicted, the Central League teams (with one obvious exception) did poorly.
That was enjoyable! Although I guess at the end it’s the same teams doing well.
Interesting finish to the league compared to predictions.
South Island teams did very well and Northern teams not so well. Although as predicted, the Central League teams (with one obvious exception) did poorly.
That was enjoyable! Although I guess at the end it’s the same teams doing well.
It's a shame that AC and Olympic seem to have developed a power base and become very difficult to best over a round robin, would be better to see some variation. Chch Utd were decent but disappointing compared to last year when AU/Birko pushed the top two harder.
Do you fix that by making finals top four? Not sure. Do Christchurch United and Eastern Suburbs deserve a shot at the title on merit?
Interesting finish to the league compared to predictions.
South Island teams did very well and Northern teams not so well. Although as predicted, the Central League teams (with one obvious exception) did poorly.
That was enjoyable! Although I guess at the end it’s the same teams doing well.
It's a shame that AC and Olympic seem to have developed a power base and become very difficult to best over a round robin, would be better to see some variation. Chch Utd were decent but disappointing compared to last year when AU/Birko pushed the top two harder.
Do you fix that by making finals top four? Not sure. Do Christchurch United and Eastern Suburbs deserve a shot at the title on merit?
Nah. Having a final to decide a league is bad enough.
More interested in making each regional leagues more interesting. Big budget teams leave rest playing for places of no consequence except the relegation battles, if your in them.
He will be also filling the role as the clubs General Manager as well. Unsure if that means he may have to sack himself if the results on the pitch are not flash.
