I know ACFC are dodgy but I see plenty of their players talking and interacting with kids on game days. (They're obviously their coaches)... so are fair amount of them are actually coaching.
Whether that translates to a fair market rate, who knows.
Trillian Trust, monthly grants, Auckland City FC + Central United + Super City Youth Academy = distorted league: June Auckland City FC Incorporated Sport $50,849.48 Central United FC Incorporated Sport $30,064.40 Super City Youth Academy Incorporated Sport $21,968.33 Steptoe
carlind
chubbs
It is concerning that Auckland City have won the league with so long to go. I doubt very much that they are doing anything outside the regulations which NZF do audit and I would not be surprised if Auckland City were audited more rigorously than others. It is quite okay to pay players to coach and they have to justify the remuneration against the hours put in. Perhaps Auckland City just do it better than others (along with a lot of other things) The big worry is that all 3 leagues - Northern,Central and Southern have their National League entrants all but finalised 2/3 of the way through the season. Same thing happened in the Superclub (nothing super about it) in the mid 90's. It only became interesting when the National rounds started.But NZF has never been great at learning from past errors. Corporate types with no institutional knowledge. If I was a betting man I would put money on a return to a club based National League within 3 years. My biggest worry is what happens if the law changes and pokies get outlawed (or heavily restricted). The National League(and some other sports) never recovered from the loss of tobacco sponsorship.No apologist for big tobacco but the amount that Rothmans put into the game was significant.
Auckland City's dominance isn't good, but it's not surprising. Even in the old summer league, where the talent was condensed into 10 teams nationally as opposed to 10 just in Auckland (21 in the top two tiers), they won the league every year since 13/14. Of 126 franchise league games from 13/14 to 20/21 they only lost 12, and won all their games except for one draw (same as this Northern League) in 18/19, so this domination is nothing new. The only way to have stopped this was if Auckland City had dissolved similar to how Team Wellington did, but the brand was too strong to throw away.
It's no secret that they pay their players, but they are not alone in doing that, I would be surprised if any team was not paying their players. North Shore is a perfect example of this, you don't lose so many players to go from surviving to being one of the worst ever sides over a year for no reason. There doesn't seem to be any desire by anyone to stop it, and if they did clubs would find 'creative' ways to get around it anyway. The City players also know that they have a very good chance at winning the OFC Champions' League (and every chance a treble too) which would get them the Club World Cup bonuses. Depending on how well they do, that could be a five figure sum, so it's no surprise that they can have three recent All Whites and two international quality keepers.
The National League places being all but decided is also not great, but I'm not sure what can be done to change that from happening again. Top players are finite, and know they can get money, so you have to pay; organic growth is almost a pipe dream. The current top four has three teams from last season's (City, Auckland Utd and Birkenhead) with Suburbs and Melville swapping fortunes. Wanderers are the only side who could break into it. In City and Utd you have probably the two richest clubs, and Birkenhead hoover up all North Shore talent, and then the Hamilton sides have 50/50 access to the entire Waikato.
Central and Southern League are the same; Olympic and Miramar have the biggest budgets and halved TW between them, and in third (fourth) is Napier City Rovers who have access to an entire region as well. Cash Tech is Canterbury Utd under a different name and Chch Utd are just as rich as Olympic, Rangers, City or Auckland Utd. This gravitation to richer teams becoming more dominant is hardly endemic to New Zealand, it happens everywhere in Europe and will continue to do so.
I don't know how feasible a change back to the old format would be. As it was, it was held up by considerable trust funding and Club World Cup money, and when both dried up it was game over. Having the two season thing was also awkward, and the franchise system worked worse than having a clear club format. It also suffered the same issues about little competition, with only Auckland City and Waitakere Utd ever winning the actual league in the 17 seasons it ran for (TW won three finals and Suburbs one, but never the league format). The concentration of talent was greater, but the league was still weak compared to anything in Europe, and it's tough to argue it moved players into professional leagues better than the current format, as the majority of development was done in club environments anyway.
The recent requirement to sign (and lodge with NZF) Amateur Player Agreements is intended to level the playing field re player's remuneration. There are only so many hours in the week that players are available to coach and with hourly rates being required to be 'reasonable', coaching income should not be a major source of differential player income. NZF is only able to audit club accounts so as long as external funding streams are used to remunerate a player outside the level defined in the Player Agreement, such payments will be not be picked up during an audit. But the NZ football community is small and most players & supporters know which clubs are cynically transgressing the National League regulations. It is only a matter of time before a club is exposed and loses points for fielding ineligible players.
Am I wrong for thinking that the emergence of "superclubs" like ACFC is actually a desired outcome, not a bug, of NZF strategy? I think the only think they'll be worried about is that there's not a Wellington or Christchurch equivalent let
Am I wrong for thinking that the emergence of "superclubs" like ACFC is actually a desired outcome, not a bug, of NZF strategy? I think the only think they'll be worried about is that there's not a Wellington or Christchurch equivalent let
Am I wrong for thinking that the emergence of "superclubs" like ACFC is actually a desired outcome, not a bug, of NZF strategy? I think the only think they'll be worried about is that there's not a Wellington or Christchurch equivalent let
You're definitely wrong - having the same teams dominate qualification every year is not what NZF intended and suggests the point of why even have qualification leagues in the first place.
I would argue that NZ Footballs Stalinist philosophy is exactly the opposite - drag everyone down to the same level.Unfortunately for them clubs like Auckland City (and I am not a member or supporter) refuse to lower their standards and defeat the NZ Football aim. The same is happening in the other regions. The cream always rises to the top.The same thing happened in the Superclub of the mid 1990's. The composition of the national rounds was very similar every year.
Am I wrong for thinking that the emergence of "superclubs" like ACFC is actually a desired outcome, not a bug, of NZF strategy? I think the only think they'll be worried about is that there's not a Wellington or Christchurch equivalent let
You're definitely wrong - having the same teams dominate qualification every year is not what NZF intended and suggests the point of why even have qualification leagues in the first place.
Or you are both wrong in that they don’t care either way
Not even in my city, but what a fantastic little development this could be. We need to see some more of this throughout NZ. I know there is a lot of cost involved, but those boutique style setups along with some class new/upgraded facilities could be a great asset for regions, in this case in the mighty Waikato.
Am I wrong for thinking that the emergence of "superclubs" like ACFC is actually a desired outcome, not a bug, of NZF strategy? I think the only think they'll be worried about is that there's not a Wellington or Christchurch equivalent let
Whilst not an ideal outcome, I am sure it is desired that our Oceania Champions League representatives do well, and qualify and sneak a win or two at the Club World Champs, and bring some FIFA cash back to the local game. That does not equate to 32 near equal sides across the 3 regional leagues.
NZ football needs to progress to a bigger National league say 16 teams two rounds that runs March to October with a championship round promotion and relegation back to Southern/Northern/Central.
Would ensure the best players play in the top league and would make things far more fair and enjoyable for all clubs competing.
The current format is a sure fired bet on burnt out players and coaches giving them effectively a month off between end of season and pre seasons starting.
NZ football needs to progress to a bigger National league say 16 teams two rounds that runs March to October with a championship round promotion and relegation back to Southern/Northern/Central.
Would ensure the best players play in the top league and would make things far more fair and enjoyable for all clubs competing.
The current format is a sure fired bet on burnt out players and coaches giving them effectively a month off between end of season and pre seasons starting.
So they'd play 30 league games? When currently the top teams would play 31 league games (Northern qualifiers) or 27 games (Central/Southern qualifiers)? How exactly would this have any effect on player burnout?
Am I wrong for thinking that the emergence of "superclubs" like ACFC is actually a desired outcome, not a bug, of NZF strategy? I think the only think they'll be worried about is that there's not a Wellington or Christchurch equivalent let
Yes, you are wrong...
So I hallucinated reading in NZF strategies a few years ago precisely that what they wanted to see was really big clubs establishing themselves in the various centres, local equivalents of Manchester United? Possible.
NZ football needs to progress to a bigger National league say 16 teams two rounds that runs March to October with a championship round promotion and relegation back to Southern/Northern/Central.
Would ensure the best players play in the top league and would make things far more fair and enjoyable for all clubs competing.
The current format is a sure fired bet on burnt out players and coaches giving them effectively a month off between end of season and pre seasons starting.
So they'd play 30 league games? When currently the top teams would play 31 league games (Northern qualifiers) or 27 games (Central/Southern qualifiers)? How exactly would this have any effect on player burnout?
Plus the extensive extra taxing travel requirements of a true National League.
Not even in my city, but what a fantastic little development this could be. We need to see some more of this throughout NZ. I know there is a lot of cost involved, but those boutique style setups along with some class new/upgraded facilities could be a great asset for regions, in this case in the mighty Waikato.
Anyone else with any thoughts on this?
Only had a brief skim but looks absolute class.
A few Auckland clubs should be looking at something similar.
NZ football needs to progress to a bigger National league say 16 teams two rounds that runs March to October with a championship round promotion and relegation back to Southern/Northern/Central.
Would ensure the best players play in the top league and would make things far more fair and enjoyable for all clubs competing.
The current format is a sure fired bet on burnt out players and coaches giving them effectively a month off between end of season and pre seasons starting.
So they'd play 30 league games? When currently the top teams would play 31 league games (Northern qualifiers) or 27 games (Central/Southern qualifiers)? How exactly would this have any effect on player burnout?
If they had a championship/relegation split, that would be adding seven more games on top of the 30. The European leagues that typically have a split are 12 team (eg Denmark, Scotland, Israel or Finland), as opposed to 16, as 30 is usually seen as enough, but 22 not.
With adding in Chatham Cup and OFC Champions' League, you'd have a heavy season. At the moment, the very most a New Zealand side can play (excluding any CWC) is: 22 Northern League, 6 Chatham Cup, 11 (10 if they don't do semifinals) National League and 5 OCL (44 all up). A straight 16 team league would have maximum 39, and if it had a top/bottom 8 split, then up to 48. In terms of workload it's not massively different I suppose, and it would give more matches a season.
The main roadblock remains the same as it has been since they started a national league, the cost. The travel costs weekly for teams in the South Island would be very restrictive in getting to Auckland or Wellington, let alone places like Hamilton or Napier. As far as I know, no club in the country gets any sort of ticket revenue, so the funding for the travel would have to come from either NZF, trust funding, or if you're lucky, a generous sponsor. Straight away that means you're building your foundations on unstable ground; there is a possibility that having a proper national league would allow for clubs to charge people, but I'd be surprised.
The current method, just as the franchise method and the mooted franchise pro/rel hybrid, guarantees geographical representation. If there was a fully open 16 team league, then there is a high possibility the concentration of talent in the cities increases, with several clubs becoming the main beneficiaries. I'm biased towards Auckland/Northern League sides, but I'd imagine a large portion of the teams would be from there, so 'smaller' clubs would have even less chance of holding onto their players. Though that's not necessarily a bad thing, as it would be meritocratic.
That being said, if it were feasible, it would be beneficial to the players, as they'd get more games in a higher level of competition, whilst maintaining the club base that the franchise league lacked. It would halve the current 'National League' from 32 teams across three leagues to 16 in one, and, whilst I said it would detriment some clubs' ability to hold onto their players, it could also have the opposite effect. Due to the strength in the Southern League, several players left to go north for competition, whereas they wouldn't need to if they played the stronger teams every week.
Just for fun, a prospective 16 team National League for next year might've looked like: Auckland City, Auckland Utd, Bay Olympic, Birkenhead, Cashmere Tech, Christchurch Utd, Eastern Suburbs, Hamilton Wanderers, Manukau, Melville, Miramar Rangers, Napier City Rovers, Nelson Suburbs, Phoenix, Wellington Olympic, Western Springs
Bunch of criminales and desperados out there in Sandringham
Seriously, if they were playing at Centre Park, it wouldn't have been a BB gun
Firsty played at Centre Park last week, bog of a pitch and we actually won and no fights so yeah!
Secondly I remember a story that after a game at Gallagher Park between Manurewa and Central, one of the Central players spat on the club chairmans photo hung on the wall, not sure if true or not, but yeah.
NZ football needs to progress to a bigger National league say 16 teams two rounds that runs March to October with a championship round promotion and relegation back to Southern/Northern/Central.
Would ensure the best players play in the top league and would make things far more fair and enjoyable for all clubs competing.
The current format is a sure fired bet on burnt out players and coaches giving them effectively a month off between end of season and pre seasons starting.
So they'd play 30 league games? When currently the top teams would play 31 league games (Northern qualifiers) or 27 games (Central/Southern qualifiers)? How exactly would this have any effect on player burnout?
If they had a championship/relegation split, that would be adding seven more games on top of the 30. The European leagues that typically have a split are 12 team (eg Denmark, Scotland, Israel or Finland), as opposed to 16, as 30 is usually seen as enough, but 22 not.
With adding in Chatham Cup and OFC Champions' League, you'd have a heavy season. At the moment, the very most a New Zealand side can play (excluding any CWC) is: 22 Northern League, 6 Chatham Cup, 11 (10 if they don't do semifinals) National League and 5 OCL (44 all up). A straight 16 team league would have maximum 39, and if it had a top/bottom 8 split, then up to 48. In terms of workload it's not massively different I suppose, and it would give more matches a season.
The main roadblock remains the same as it has been since they started a national league, the cost. The travel costs weekly for teams in the South Island would be very restrictive in getting to Auckland or Wellington, let alone places like Hamilton or Napier. As far as I know, no club in the country gets any sort of ticket revenue, so the funding for the travel would have to come from either NZF, trust funding, or if you're lucky, a generous sponsor. Straight away that means you're building your foundations on unstable ground; there is a possibility that having a proper national league would allow for clubs to charge people, but I'd be surprised.
The current method, just as the franchise method and the mooted franchise pro/rel hybrid, guarantees geographical representation. If there was a fully open 16 team league, then there is a high possibility the concentration of talent in the cities increases, with several clubs becoming the main beneficiaries. I'm biased towards Auckland/Northern League sides, but I'd imagine a large portion of the teams would be from there, so 'smaller' clubs would have even less chance of holding onto their players. Though that's not necessarily a bad thing, as it would be meritocratic.
That being said, if it were feasible, it would be beneficial to the players, as they'd get more games in a higher level of competition, whilst maintaining the club base that the franchise league lacked. It would halve the current 'National League' from 32 teams across three leagues to 16 in one, and, whilst I said it would detriment some clubs' ability to hold onto their players, it could also have the opposite effect. Due to the strength in the Southern League, several players left to go north for competition, whereas they wouldn't need to if they played the stronger teams every week.
Just for fun, a prospective 16 team National League for next year might've looked like: Auckland City, Auckland Utd, Bay Olympic, Birkenhead, Cashmere Tech, Christchurch Utd, Eastern Suburbs, Hamilton Wanderers, Manukau, Melville, Miramar Rangers, Napier City Rovers, Nelson Suburbs, Phoenix, Wellington Olympic, Western Springs
You just added some Northern teams and Nelson lmao
NZ football needs to progress to a bigger National league say 16 teams two rounds that runs March to October with a championship round promotion and relegation back to Southern/Northern/Central.
Would ensure the best players play in the top league and would make things far more fair and enjoyable for all clubs competing.
The current format is a sure fired bet on burnt out players and coaches giving them effectively a month off between end of season and pre seasons starting.
So they'd play 30 league games? When currently the top teams would play 31 league games (Northern qualifiers) or 27 games (Central/Southern qualifiers)? How exactly would this have any effect on player burnout?
If they had a championship/relegation split, that would be adding seven more games on top of the 30. The European leagues that typically have a split are 12 team (eg Denmark, Scotland, Israel or Finland), as opposed to 16, as 30 is usually seen as enough, but 22 not.
With adding in Chatham Cup and OFC Champions' League, you'd have a heavy season. At the moment, the very most a New Zealand side can play (excluding any CWC) is: 22 Northern League, 6 Chatham Cup, 11 (10 if they don't do semifinals) National League and 5 OCL (44 all up). A straight 16 team league would have maximum 39, and if it had a top/bottom 8 split, then up to 48. In terms of workload it's not massively different I suppose, and it would give more matches a season.
The main roadblock remains the same as it has been since they started a national league, the cost. The travel costs weekly for teams in the South Island would be very restrictive in getting to Auckland or Wellington, let alone places like Hamilton or Napier. As far as I know, no club in the country gets any sort of ticket revenue, so the funding for the travel would have to come from either NZF, trust funding, or if you're lucky, a generous sponsor. Straight away that means you're building your foundations on unstable ground; there is a possibility that having a proper national league would allow for clubs to charge people, but I'd be surprised.
The current method, just as the franchise method and the mooted franchise pro/rel hybrid, guarantees geographical representation. If there was a fully open 16 team league, then there is a high possibility the concentration of talent in the cities increases, with several clubs becoming the main beneficiaries. I'm biased towards Auckland/Northern League sides, but I'd imagine a large portion of the teams would be from there, so 'smaller' clubs would have even less chance of holding onto their players. Though that's not necessarily a bad thing, as it would be meritocratic.
That being said, if it were feasible, it would be beneficial to the players, as they'd get more games in a higher level of competition, whilst maintaining the club base that the franchise league lacked. It would halve the current 'National League' from 32 teams across three leagues to 16 in one, and, whilst I said it would detriment some clubs' ability to hold onto their players, it could also have the opposite effect. Due to the strength in the Southern League, several players left to go north for competition, whereas they wouldn't need to if they played the stronger teams every week.
Just for fun, a prospective 16 team National League for next year might've looked like: Auckland City, Auckland Utd, Bay Olympic, Birkenhead, Cashmere Tech, Christchurch Utd, Eastern Suburbs, Hamilton Wanderers, Manukau, Melville, Miramar Rangers, Napier City Rovers, Nelson Suburbs, Phoenix, Wellington Olympic, Western Springs
You just added some Northern teams and Nelson lmao
Didn’t know Miramar, Napier, Olympic and Nix kids played in the Northern league.
NZ football needs to progress to a bigger National league say 16 teams two rounds that runs March to October with a championship round promotion and relegation back to Southern/Northern/Central.
Would ensure the best players play in the top league and would make things far more fair and enjoyable for all clubs competing.
The current format is a sure fired bet on burnt out players and coaches giving them effectively a month off between end of season and pre seasons starting.
So they'd play 30 league games? When currently the top teams would play 31 league games (Northern qualifiers) or 27 games (Central/Southern qualifiers)? How exactly would this have any effect on player burnout?
If they had a championship/relegation split, that would be adding seven more games on top of the 30. The European leagues that typically have a split are 12 team (eg Denmark, Scotland, Israel or Finland), as opposed to 16, as 30 is usually seen as enough, but 22 not.
With adding in Chatham Cup and OFC Champions' League, you'd have a heavy season. At the moment, the very most a New Zealand side can play (excluding any CWC) is: 22 Northern League, 6 Chatham Cup, 11 (10 if they don't do semifinals) National League and 5 OCL (44 all up). A straight 16 team league would have maximum 39, and if it had a top/bottom 8 split, then up to 48. In terms of workload it's not massively different I suppose, and it would give more matches a season.
The main roadblock remains the same as it has been since they started a national league, the cost. The travel costs weekly for teams in the South Island would be very restrictive in getting to Auckland or Wellington, let alone places like Hamilton or Napier. As far as I know, no club in the country gets any sort of ticket revenue, so the funding for the travel would have to come from either NZF, trust funding, or if you're lucky, a generous sponsor. Straight away that means you're building your foundations on unstable ground; there is a possibility that having a proper national league would allow for clubs to charge people, but I'd be surprised.
The current method, just as the franchise method and the mooted franchise pro/rel hybrid, guarantees geographical representation. If there was a fully open 16 team league, then there is a high possibility the concentration of talent in the cities increases, with several clubs becoming the main beneficiaries. I'm biased towards Auckland/Northern League sides, but I'd imagine a large portion of the teams would be from there, so 'smaller' clubs would have even less chance of holding onto their players. Though that's not necessarily a bad thing, as it would be meritocratic.
That being said, if it were feasible, it would be beneficial to the players, as they'd get more games in a higher level of competition, whilst maintaining the club base that the franchise league lacked. It would halve the current 'National League' from 32 teams across three leagues to 16 in one, and, whilst I said it would detriment some clubs' ability to hold onto their players, it could also have the opposite effect. Due to the strength in the Southern League, several players left to go north for competition, whereas they wouldn't need to if they played the stronger teams every week.
Just for fun, a prospective 16 team National League for next year might've looked like: Auckland City, Auckland Utd, Bay Olympic, Birkenhead, Cashmere Tech, Christchurch Utd, Eastern Suburbs, Hamilton Wanderers, Manukau, Melville, Miramar Rangers, Napier City Rovers, Nelson Suburbs, Phoenix, Wellington Olympic, Western Springs
You just added some Northern teams and Nelson lmao
Didn’t know Miramar, Napier, Olympic and Nix kids played in the Northern league.
I meant out of the 6 teams Carlind added (on top of the 10 that will qualify this year)
NZ football needs to progress to a bigger National league say 16 teams two rounds that runs March to October with a championship round promotion and relegation back to Southern/Northern/Central.
Would ensure the best players play in the top league and would make things far more fair and enjoyable for all clubs competing.
The current format is a sure fired bet on burnt out players and coaches giving them effectively a month off between end of season and pre seasons starting.
So they'd play 30 league games? When currently the top teams would play 31 league games (Northern qualifiers) or 27 games (Central/Southern qualifiers)? How exactly would this have any effect on player burnout?
If they had a championship/relegation split, that would be adding seven more games on top of the 30. The European leagues that typically have a split are 12 team (eg Denmark, Scotland, Israel or Finland), as opposed to 16, as 30 is usually seen as enough, but 22 not.
With adding in Chatham Cup and OFC Champions' League, you'd have a heavy season. At the moment, the very most a New Zealand side can play (excluding any CWC) is: 22 Northern League, 6 Chatham Cup, 11 (10 if they don't do semifinals) National League and 5 OCL (44 all up). A straight 16 team league would have maximum 39, and if it had a top/bottom 8 split, then up to 48. In terms of workload it's not massively different I suppose, and it would give more matches a season.
The main roadblock remains the same as it has been since they started a national league, the cost. The travel costs weekly for teams in the South Island would be very restrictive in getting to Auckland or Wellington, let alone places like Hamilton or Napier. As far as I know, no club in the country gets any sort of ticket revenue, so the funding for the travel would have to come from either NZF, trust funding, or if you're lucky, a generous sponsor. Straight away that means you're building your foundations on unstable ground; there is a possibility that having a proper national league would allow for clubs to charge people, but I'd be surprised.
The current method, just as the franchise method and the mooted franchise pro/rel hybrid, guarantees geographical representation. If there was a fully open 16 team league, then there is a high possibility the concentration of talent in the cities increases, with several clubs becoming the main beneficiaries. I'm biased towards Auckland/Northern League sides, but I'd imagine a large portion of the teams would be from there, so 'smaller' clubs would have even less chance of holding onto their players. Though that's not necessarily a bad thing, as it would be meritocratic.
That being said, if it were feasible, it would be beneficial to the players, as they'd get more games in a higher level of competition, whilst maintaining the club base that the franchise league lacked. It would halve the current 'National League' from 32 teams across three leagues to 16 in one, and, whilst I said it would detriment some clubs' ability to hold onto their players, it could also have the opposite effect. Due to the strength in the Southern League, several players left to go north for competition, whereas they wouldn't need to if they played the stronger teams every week.
Just for fun, a prospective 16 team National League for next year might've looked like: Auckland City, Auckland Utd, Bay Olympic, Birkenhead, Cashmere Tech, Christchurch Utd, Eastern Suburbs, Hamilton Wanderers, Manukau, Melville, Miramar Rangers, Napier City Rovers, Nelson Suburbs, Phoenix, Wellington Olympic, Western Springs
You just added some Northern teams and Nelson lmao
Didn’t know Miramar, Napier, Olympic and Nix kids played in the Northern league.
I meant out of the 6 teams Carlind added (on top of the 10 that will qualify this year)
There's 5 northern league teams and Nelson.
Yet it’s fair enough, with Auckland being by far the biggest talent base with the most room for expansion
I think what we have right now is an ideal starting place to keep our game sustainable and we can also make some adjustments to even out the competitions. I still think the Northern League clubs are lucky and unlucky at the same time, lucky that travel distances are not too far but unlucky for the number of games.
The teams that don't qualify for the National Series ideally need as many games but its easier said than done as travel costs and volunteer hours add up but it also gives those teams something more to play for which is why I think a regional series is something that could work after the regional leagues.
This is what we currently have and the options I have come up with. I prefer Option 2 but who knows how sustainable it is, maybe every club will go bankrupt.. * note this doesn't take into account for Cup matches or OCL.
## 1) Current National League ## National Series, 10 Teams - 9 Matches - Top 4 Northern League Qualified - Top 3 Central League + Phoenix Reserves Qualified - Top 2 Southern League Qualified ## Northern League, 12 Teams - 22 Matches Central League, 10 Teams - 18 Matches Southern League, 10 Teams - 18 Matches ## Max of 31 or 27 Matches per season Min of 22 or 18 Matches per season
## 2) My Preferred National/Regional Series ## National Series, 10 Teams - 18 Matches - Top 4 Northern League Qualified - Top 3 Central League + Phoenix Reserves Qualified - Top 2 Southern League Qualified Northern Series, 8 Teams - 14 Matches - Remaining Northern League Teams Qualified Central Series, 8 Teams - 14 Matches - Remaining Central League Teams Qualified Southern Series, 8 Teams - 14 Matches - Remaining Southern League Teams Qualified ## Northern League, 12 Teams - 11 Matches Central League, 12 Teams - 11 Matches Southern League, 10 Teams - 9 Matches ## Max of 29 or 27 Matches per season Min of 25 or 23 Matches per season
## 3) A Slightly Cheaper National/Regional Series ## National Series, 10 Teams - 9 Matches - Top 4 Northern League Qualified - Top 3 Central League + Phoenix Reserves Qualified - Top 2 Southern League Qualified Northern Series, 8 Teams - 7 Matches - Remaining Northern League Teams Qualified Central Series, 8 Teams - 7 Matches - Remaining Central League Teams Qualified Southern Series, 8 Teams - 7 Matches - Remaining Southern League Teams Qualified ## Northern League, 12 Teams - 22 Matches Central League, 12 Teams- 22 Matches Southern League, 10 Teams - 18 Matches ## Max of 31 or 27 Matches per season Min of 29 or 25 Matches per season
## 4) The Budget National League ## National Series, 10 Teams - 9 Matches - Top 4 Northern League Qualified - Top 3 Central League + Phoenix Reserves Qualified - Top 2 Southern League Qualified Northern Series, 8 Teams - 7 Matches - Remaining Northern League Teams Qualified Central Series, 8 Teams - 7 Matches - Remaining Central League Teams Qualified Southern Series, 8 Teams - 7 Matches - Remaining Southern League Teams Qualified ## Northern League, 12 Teams - 11 Matches Central League, 12 Teams- 11 Matches Southern League, 10 Teams - 9 Matches ## Max of 20 or 18 Matches per season Min of 18 or 16 Matches per season
Do we have a problem with Auckland City being too far in front of anyone else in the country? Unless they have a really off day against someone like Olympic or Miramar they are odds on for a treble.
Do we have a problem with Auckland City being too far in front of anyone else in the country? Unless they have a really off day against someone like Olympic or Miramar they are odds on for a treble.
Do we have a problem with Auckland City being too far in front of anyone else in the country? Unless they have a really off day against someone like Olympic or Miramar they are odds on for a treble.
Do we have a problem with Auckland City being too far in front of anyone else in the country? Unless they have a really off day against someone like Olympic or Miramar they are odds on for a treble.
Quadruple, right?
You are right, i forgot the OFC.
If there's still a Charity Cup and I mean a real one (Chatham Cup Champs vs National League Champs) it could be haul of 5
Do we have a problem with Auckland City being too far in front of anyone else in the country? Unless they have a really off day against someone like Olympic or Miramar they are odds on for a treble.
I think they will eventually regress to the mean, but I think a factor that will help to bring them down/push others up is to get more NZ teams into the Oceania Champions League. Ideally an OCL with 4 groups of 4 with a NZ team in each group.
I think what we have right now is an ideal starting place to keep our game sustainable and we can also make some adjustments to even out the competitions. I still think the Northern League clubs are lucky and unlucky at the same time, lucky that travel distances are not too far but unlucky for the number of games.
The teams that don't qualify for the National Series ideally need as many games but its easier said than done as travel costs and volunteer hours add up but it also gives those teams something more to play for which is why I think a regional series is something that could work after the regional leagues.
This is what we currently have and the options I have come up with. I prefer Option 2 but who knows how sustainable it is, maybe every club will go bankrupt.. * note this doesn't take into account for Cup matches or OCL.
## 1) Current National League ## National Series, 10 Teams - 9 Matches - Top 4 Northern League Qualified - Top 3 Central League + Phoenix Reserves Qualified - Top 2 Southern League Qualified ## Northern League, 12 Teams - 22 Matches Central League, 10 Teams - 18 Matches Southern League, 10 Teams - 18 Matches ## Max of 31 or 27 Matches per season Min of 22 or 18 Matches per season
## 2) My Preferred National/Regional Series ## National Series, 10 Teams - 18 Matches - Top 4 Northern League Qualified - Top 3 Central League + Phoenix Reserves Qualified - Top 2 Southern League Qualified Northern Series, 8 Teams - 14 Matches - Remaining Northern League Teams Qualified Central Series, 8 Teams - 14 Matches - Remaining Central League Teams Qualified Southern Series, 8 Teams - 14 Matches - Remaining Southern League Teams Qualified ## Northern League, 12 Teams - 11 Matches Central League, 12 Teams - 11 Matches Southern League, 10 Teams - 9 Matches ## Max of 29 or 27 Matches per season Min of 25 or 23 Matches per season
## 3) A Slightly Cheaper National/Regional Series ## National Series, 10 Teams - 9 Matches - Top 4 Northern League Qualified - Top 3 Central League + Phoenix Reserves Qualified - Top 2 Southern League Qualified Northern Series, 8 Teams - 7 Matches - Remaining Northern League Teams Qualified Central Series, 8 Teams - 7 Matches - Remaining Central League Teams Qualified Southern Series, 8 Teams - 7 Matches - Remaining Southern League Teams Qualified ## Northern League, 12 Teams - 22 Matches Central League, 12 Teams- 22 Matches Southern League, 10 Teams - 18 Matches ## Max of 31 or 27 Matches per season Min of 29 or 25 Matches per season
## 4) The Budget National League ## National Series, 10 Teams - 9 Matches - Top 4 Northern League Qualified - Top 3 Central League + Phoenix Reserves Qualified - Top 2 Southern League Qualified Northern Series, 8 Teams - 7 Matches - Remaining Northern League Teams Qualified Central Series, 8 Teams - 7 Matches - Remaining Central League Teams Qualified Southern Series, 8 Teams - 7 Matches - Remaining Southern League Teams Qualified ## Northern League, 12 Teams - 11 Matches Central League, 12 Teams- 11 Matches Southern League, 10 Teams - 9 Matches ## Max of 20 or 18 Matches per season Min of 18 or 16 Matches per season
You upscaled the Central League to 12 teams in some of your options. One thing the current split of 12/10/10 gives is a total of 32 which is a good number for competition formats. (Note that the 32 total could also be achieved with a 12/12/8 split with the 8 team SI league playing a triple round robin)
With 32 across the national leagues, that gives an option for an additional knock out cup featuring just those teams, a league cup so to speak. It also gives an option for a champions league like format, 8 groups of 4, top 2 qualify into 16 team K/O, or if as a reward for being in top half, 4 groups of 4, top 2 qualify into 8 team K/O
Do we have a problem with Auckland City being too far in front of anyone else in the country? Unless they have a really off day against someone like Olympic or Miramar they are odds on for a treble.
I think they will eventually regress to the mean, but I think a factor that will help to bring them down/push others up is to get more NZ teams into the Oceania Champions League. Ideally an OCL with 4 groups of 4 with a NZ team in each group.
Won't happen unfortunately... OFC would never advantage us hahaha.
Even though it's pretty ridiculous we only get 2 out of 16 teams (1 out of 8) each time, I can't see it changing soon. Even though it would be so bloody good to have 4 Kiwi in OCL.
Do we have a problem with Auckland City being too far in front of anyone else in the country? Unless they have a really off day against someone like Olympic or Miramar they are odds on for a treble.
I think they will eventually regress to the mean, but I think a factor that will help to bring them down/push others up is to get more NZ teams into the Oceania Champions League. Ideally an OCL with 4 groups of 4 with a NZ team in each group.
Won't happen unfortunately... OFC would never advantage us hahaha.
Even though it's pretty ridiculous we only get 2 out of 16 teams (1 out of 8) each time, I can't see it changing soon. Even though it would be so bloody good to have 4 Kiwi in OCL.
The three winners of the Northern, Central & Southern Leagues? I think that'd be a pretty good shout, although can not see the OFC wanting to do that...
I have seen bugger all of the Southern League to be able to comment, but from what I have seen, the sides below CU, & Cashmere Tech are bang average. Miramar & Olympic would be the best out of Central, and then of course ACFC. Dreams are free of course...
Probably down the line put the likes of Birko, AUFC and even a side like Melville as possible challengers to Auckland City dominance.
Do we have a problem with Auckland City being too far in front of anyone else in the country? Unless they have a really off day against someone like Olympic or Miramar they are odds on for a treble.
I think they will eventually regress to the mean, but I think a factor that will help to bring them down/push others up is to get more NZ teams into the Oceania Champions League. Ideally an OCL with 4 groups of 4 with a NZ team in each group.
Won't happen unfortunately... OFC would never advantage us hahaha.
Even though it's pretty ridiculous we only get 2 out of 16 teams (1 out of 8) each time, I can't see it changing soon. Even though it would be so bloody good to have 4 Kiwi in OCL.
The three winners of the Northern, Central & Southern Leagues? I think that'd be a pretty good shout, although can not see the OFC wanting to do that...
I have seen bugger all of the Southern League to be able to comment, but from what I have seen, the sides below CU, & Cashmere Tech are bang average. Miramar & Olympic would be the best out of Central, and then of course ACFC. Dreams are free of course...
Probably down the line put the likes of Birko, AUFC and even a side like Melville as possible challengers to Auckland City dominance.
Would be a bit silly if you gave a spot to CU for winning Southern League then they came like 6th in the National League though, right?
Do we have a problem with Auckland City being too far in front of anyone else in the country? Unless they have a really off day against someone like Olympic or Miramar they are odds on for a treble.
I think they will eventually regress to the mean, but I think a factor that will help to bring them down/push others up is to get more NZ teams into the Oceania Champions League. Ideally an OCL with 4 groups of 4 with a NZ team in each group.
Won't happen unfortunately... OFC would never advantage us hahaha.
Even though it's pretty ridiculous we only get 2 out of 16 teams (1 out of 8) each time, I can't see it changing soon. Even though it would be so bloody good to have 4 Kiwi in OCL.
The three winners of the Northern, Central & Southern Leagues? I think that'd be a pretty good shout, although can not see the OFC wanting to do that...
I have seen bugger all of the Southern League to be able to comment, but from what I have seen, the sides below CU, & Cashmere Tech are bang average. Miramar & Olympic would be the best out of Central, and then of course ACFC. Dreams are free of course...
Probably down the line put the likes of Birko, AUFC and even a side like Melville as possible challengers to Auckland City dominance.
I've seen plenty of Southern League, in terms of relative strength I'd say: CT and CU: Better or at least as good as Birko/Melville Nelson, Ferrymead, DCR: Probably around the level of Springs, Manukau, Bay Olympic. Coastal, Nomads: Both inconsistent as heck, but probably somewhere between Waiheke/North Shore and Takapuna. GI, Mosgiel, Selwyn: Honestly rubbish, would fit in well to the NRFL league whatever it's name is now.
Do we have a problem with Auckland City being too far in front of anyone else in the country? Unless they have a really off day against someone like Olympic or Miramar they are odds on for a treble.
I think they will eventually regress to the mean, but I think a factor that will help to bring them down/push others up is to get more NZ teams into the Oceania Champions League. Ideally an OCL with 4 groups of 4 with a NZ team in each group.
Won't happen unfortunately... OFC would never advantage us hahaha.
Even though it's pretty ridiculous we only get 2 out of 16 teams (1 out of 8) each time, I can't see it changing soon. Even though it would be so bloody good to have 4 Kiwi in OCL.
The three winners of the Northern, Central & Southern Leagues? I think that'd be a pretty good shout, although can not see the OFC wanting to do that...
I have seen bugger all of the Southern League to be able to comment, but from what I have seen, the sides below CU, & Cashmere Tech are bang average. Miramar & Olympic would be the best out of Central, and then of course ACFC. Dreams are free of course...
Probably down the line put the likes of Birko, AUFC and even a side like Melville as possible challengers to Auckland City dominance.
Would be a bit silly if you gave a spot to CU for winning Southern League then they came like 6th in the National League though, right?
Was thinking more along the lines of trying to get a good spread/cross section of footy sides from more than just the North Island. But you do make a fair point.
Went to Taharoto Park today for Birko (4) v Takapuna (2) Good afternoons entertainment . Birko up 2-0 midway first half before Taka had really fired a shot in anger and things did not look good for Taka. Could have turned into a rout . To their credit Taka got it back to 2-2 quickly. Second half quite even and Birko took their chaces better. Milicichs stated aim with Taka was to avoid relefation and it looks like he has acheived it although North Shore absolute rubbish this year (club has a problem in my view of a sense of entitlement that they need to address otherwise they could find it hard going in the second division) and Waiheke with p;layer eligibility issues so perhaps not a difficult aim to achieve. Interesting to see Silvio Rodic in goal for Birko. Transfer from North Shore after the deadline as an injury replacement for Damien Hirst who has been struggling for a while. Never knew such a provision existed.Probably a pragmatic provision but one that could be subject to abuse ? Certainly a little bit of work to do in settling him in as both Taka goals came from a bit of certainty in defence. Thought the two Birko wing backs - Oleary (right) and Jackson Woods (left) were outstanding. A lot of Birkos chances came from that outlet. Every time I have seen Jackson Woods this season I have been impressed. He actually started at LWB abd went to RWB when Oleary went off inhured. Truly two footed and I wonder what his best side is ? Basically an inverted winger at times. Referee was good but let Taka get away with a few brutal challenges early on.Bad foul by Taka in the first 5 minutes that would have been a certain yellow later in the game, Bloody cold but rain largely stayed away and pitch in good comdition considering the rain this week. looked like a couple of entetaining encounters on the Number 2 pitch.
That is a really good article and the words sham , dishonesty , hypocrisy are very apt. From my recollection under Fifa statutes there is no such thing as professional and amateur players.All are just players. The only reason I can see for NZ Football insisting on the amatuer categorisation is to retain access to pokie money.That avenue of funding is inherently unstable. We have seen cigarette sponsorship go , alcohol under pressure , and surely gaming machines are next on the list. When players train 3 nights a week , sometimes spend all of one day on the weekend playing , what is amateur about that. it is semi professional and should be remunerated as such. I feel sorry for Glenfield being thrown under the bus by Donegan but everybody new that was the case.Everyone is also aware of the clubs that are "big spenders" and its no coincidence that most are all near the top of the 3 leagues. As an aside paying players is not a sure fire way to success.I am sure that we can all think of clubs that have paid players in the past and are languishing down the leagues. The best" professionals" in the game in NZ are usually the amateur administrators at our top clubs I don'y know what the answer is but everybody knows the current situation is a sham and easily worked around.
Edit I have re read a few things Apparently there are still amateurs and professionals. Some countries however don't recognise the amateur thing.No such thing as semi professionals.US college thing complicates it even more.Given so many of the "youth" players decamp to US colleges part way through the season not sure that we should worry about that too much. Hell its a mess
Personally I don't see a problem with players being paid, its not going to change not matter what either. Rugby clubs have been doing this for a hundred years and no one seems to care so why is it such a big deal that it does happen? I think that as long as the clubs can commit to trying to develop good young players that may go pro they are all good in my book.
Sure one could argue that these top clubs make things unfair on those that don't have money but when have sports ever been fair? There are always teams at the top and always some at the bottom, the A-league is a great example of how financial restrictions don't make the league more equal.
This thread shows a total misunderstanding of the challenges around amatuer vs professional. The terms are very important distinctions as outlined by FIFA. There's no such thing as semi-pro because they simply count as professional.
If one player in a league is professional, it becomes a professional league. This adds a whole level of complexity to:
Transfer rules, switching clubs, players moving between amateur / professional status
Contract rules
Compensating former clubs
etc
I won't claim to be an expert, but calling the league professional is a big deal and adds a lot of complexity.
Most clubs can't even deal with entering the right details into comet each week.
This thread shows a total misunderstanding of the challenges around amatuer vs professional. The terms are very important distinctions as outlined by FIFA. There's no such thing as semi-pro because they simply count as professional.
If one player in a league is professional, it becomes a professional league. This adds a whole level of complexity to:
Transfer rules, switching clubs, players moving between amateur / professional status
Contract rules
Compensating former clubs
etc
I won't claim to be an expert, but calling the league professional is a big deal and adds a lot of complexity.
Most clubs can't even deal with entering the right details into comet each week.
Add to that, probably the biggest factor is that pokie money cannot go to professional sport, so if you declare it professional the clubs will lose basically all their funding. There's no revenue streams like overseas clubs for tv rights, no gate revenue, maybe some small sponsorship but that's it. There will never be a market for a professional football league in NZ; the Phoenix just about stand up but that's it. The APAs are going nowhere.
