Pro/Reg system for the NZFC? Time to set new goals

Pro/Reg system for the NZFC? Time to set new goals

Well, FIFA has talked it up in Sydney about getting the pro/reg system up for all countries top club leagues.

The cheap and quick way would be having to reinvite the submissions that were entered the last time when YH Manawtu nearly lost their NZFC licence. If you bother counting the submissions that time and also the original submissions at the NZFC advent, then you have 8 franchises plus any new submissions this time round. Just have the criteria for the second division with less restrictive rules. Ok it might be a bit tough but franchise have to show that they could fund their own trips to play.

Have the highest 2nd division place getter with the required NZFC criteria as part of the promotion. It would be very similar to J-league 1 and 2 over the years. Get the NZFC franchise numbers getting up 12 as minimum expected for 2012 members in the AFC (to prepare for any possible future AFC entry at least) in the top division.

Quite doable?

I like to see building up of the NZFC team numbers slowly after each season with teams entering from the second division and any new club franchise interest in joining the second division.

Goals to work on for the next 4 years;
(adapted from a recent AFC assessment)

1.) At least 12 NZFC teams.
2.) At least 33 league game per NZFC team.
3.) 10 months of Football season (including preseason,league, cup tournament.)
4.) Mantain at least 6 international referees.
5.) increase up to at least 8 international assistant referees.
6.) Keeping a public copy of the regulation and disciplinary code of the leagues.
7.) Aim for average attendance of 5,000 by 2012.
8.) Having the league governing body is a legal entity governed by it's football association. i.e. have a sub-committee/exective committee for the NZFC and the second division to fully manage the competition.
9.) Having the league governing body has a management structure which controls competition marketing, media and finance. i.e. have a sub-committee for the NZFC and the second division to fully manage the competition.
10.) i.) Club representives ii.) representatives for the football association and iii.) representatives from the league's top management are members of the highest decision making body (exective committee) of the league.
11.) A full-time CEO of the NZFC and second division.
12.) The league has an audited profit and loss Statement and balance sheet i.e. independent of the NZF.
13.) The league has an auditor.
14.) The league has promotion strategies.
15.) Publication tools such as i.) league guidebook, ii.) match programme and iii.) website are available ( i.e. made more public)
16.) All 3 elements of i.) media rights, ii.) sponsorship and iii.) merchandising are the main sources of income in the league by 2012.
17.) Different circulations for the spectator, media, players, officials and VIP are secured (i.e. it needs improvements)
18.) Increase the leagues' hospitality programme for VIP and sponsors.
19.) The league has a media related department in the league secretariat.
20.) Each club has a media officer
21.) Each Stadium has a media tribune.
22.) Each Stadium has a working space and required facilities for TV boardcasting.
23.) About 50% of the league matches are broadcasted in full length per season.
24.) Improved Match report is distributed to the media and fans.
25.) Have a monthly football magazine.
26.) At Least 4 �A-Class stadium� which could be used for O-league with a minimum capacity of 5,000 seats.
27.) Getting 16-20 players under professional contract in top team of each club.
28.) All the clubs have the revenues such as i.) gate receipts, ii.) sponsorship, h.) merchandising, iii.) transfer fee income and iv.) revenue distributed from the league.
29.) All clubs have submission of an audited Profit and Loss statement and Balance Sheet to the league governing body.
30.) Cross-ownership of club is not allowed
31.) The directors and employees of one club are not employed by any other club nor do they possess the shares of any other club, either.
32.) All clubs have youth development programmes with youth teams in the clubs or affiated to the clubs.
33.) All clubs head coaches possess OFC professional Licence Diploma or equivalent licence approved by OFC.
34.) All clubs have competent management staff who are in charge of the tasks such as competition, marketing, media and finance.
35.) All clubs have or guarantee the use of home stadium with the minimum capacity of 3,000 seats.
36.) All clubs have or can guarantee the use of the training sites (i.e. there must be developments towards this)
37.) All clubs conduct activities contributing to the local community of the hometowns.
38.) All clubs can prove the support local government in the following areas; use of the home stadium, use of training site, improvement of access to the stadium for fans.

Time to actively pursue these goals.

Hopefully the NZF will look closer to these goals. NZF should have a league governing body managing the NZFC and future second division separable from the rest of NZF functions.

Not all can be done, but at least some expected ground work is actively taken up.

Is it impossible? Not really, the worry is the form and the shape of the club and areas they represent.

Can you summerise this in 3 sentences that are funny?

33 games/10 months means players don't play for their winter clubs, vastly lowering the standard (especially if you expand up to 12 teams). I'd rather not effectively ruin club football in order to promote the NZFC - I think both can co-exist.

A lot of these changes also involve a heck of a lot of money we don't have.

Personally, I'd rather take baby steps. I'd like to see a salary cap to prevent Auckland from becoming the NZFC's Glasgow, a 10 team league with an 18 round schedule followed by a 5 team playoff and at least "game of the week".  Thats just me though :P

I also personally don't see promotion and relegation being necessary in a franchise league. Winter club competitions, I'm all for it. Summer, just leave it static. This is mostly the case of their being few teams. I could add Bay of Plenty, Porirua, North Shore and either South/East Auckland in terms of interested parties - I doubt Gisborne will still want to enter considering their recent restructuring strategy and there's no historical bids from anywhere else. That's twelve - splitting that into two six-team leagues doesn't seem like a good idea. I'd rather keep it at eight team leagues minimum.

Most importantly, if we do make any changes, we have to make changes that make the game work in New Zealand, not in Asia. We're not part of the AFC and won't be anytime soon. It's more important that we have the game thrive and make the NZFC a more reputable competition before aiming to become part of Asia. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it, for now we need to focus on the present.

I would image that some of the North shore clubs would be very keen to gain a NZFC licence and therefore escape the misery of the US1 Premiership!

Get money. Get sh*t sorted. Let Smithy play.

As I understand it, currently New Zealand has an allocation of 4 FIFA Referees and 6 FIFA Assistant Referees (this excludes Women, Beach and Futsal) that are allowed to hold a FIFA badge in any 1 calendar year. The process of holding/attaining the FIFA Badge is a yearly nomination provided you meet set criteria.

Currently we have 3 Referees and 4 Assistant Referees (men) and 1 Referee and 1 Assistant Referee (female) that hold FIFA Badges. This information is available on FIFA.com (Not sure of Beach and Futsal)
DrQuack322008-06-05 00:10:54

AWB, your goal is to create some realistic goals for a country of 4 million people where football is well down the list of sports in popularity,  a national team ranked in the 100s and a semi-professional national league that has no commercial sponsors, has never been shown live, actually costs the national body money to run and has average crowds of less than 1000.

Obviously we don't have the money/resources/management power as the top 20 AFC countries.

But the list does have some goals that we should work towards.

The fact that we don't have a separate league entity to govern the NZFC from the NZF, let alone have separate auditors on the league financial statement, is something we should really consider. The management structure which controls competition marketing, media and finance should function separate from the NZF like the group that is running the FIFA U17 WC in NZ (although they are FIFA funded).

We don't have i.) Club representives ii.) representatives for the football association and iii.) representatives from the league's top management being members of the highest decision making body (exective committee) of the league. . . . That can be arranged smartly.

I mean how hard it that to form? It wouldn't cost too much extra to place in some stablilzers.

BTW robbwatson, the top division is the NZFC. And I expect that to be at least 12 teams by 2012. As for the second division, they are not NZFC and they would be under another name. As for 10 months playing NZFC, NZFC players would not be able to play for their winter club, they will be playing more at a higher level and under contact for the stipated time period. The normal process of the footballer is to dominate the lower grades before they are noticed for NZFC selections. There will be a natural turnover of players who will/will not succeed at higher levels. It's the franchise, winter club and players responsibility to succeed. Those who are unable to succeed at NZFC level will naturally be back at the top premier winter league being off contact and keeping that natural level of competitiveness. Those who are successful will have another NZFC contact to keep the level or placing themselves on the NZ market for other franchises if their own franchises does not want them. We need a competitive football market to keep the NZFC clubs on their toes. Let the market induce the high standard of footballers. As for the winter club football, if they have the will and means, they can submit their club application for the lower second division and building towards getting that NZFC licence or stay as a feeder club to the respective NZFC franchise. Club football standards will not die. Basically both club and franchise club football will improve with more competitiveness to improve standards by making it tough so there is more work to improve more players. The perceived lowering of standards is temporary and both franchise clubs and winter club will adjust to eventually be stronger.

The forseeable problems are obviously;

7.) Aim for average attendance of 5,000 by 2012?
16.) All 3 elements of i.) media rights, ii.) sponsorship and iii.) merchandising are the main sources of income in the league by 2012.
22.) Each Stadium has a working space and required facilities for TV boardcasting.
23.) About 50% of the league matches are broadcasted in full length per season.
27.) Getting 16-20 players under professional contract in the top team of each club.
28.) All the clubs have the revenues such as i.) gate receipts, ii.) sponsorship, h.) merchandising, iii.) transfer fee income and iv.) revenue distributed from the league.

. . . because they are due to TV and sponsorship money. But everything else are very straight forward to change.

The first piloted idea is to at least get one game per round live on free to air TV to start off with. A large sponsor or a group of sponsors could be involved in funding that TV piece. I think that it is a essential cost to stimulate the football market.

These next two can surely be sorted quickly;

30.) Cross-ownership of club is not allowed
31.) The directors and employees of one club are not employed by any other club nor do they possess the shares of any other club, either.

. . . only a few instances in NZ but why the heck we don't have a policy on something simple as that? or have I missed something?

People quote that we are only a country of 4 million. For goodness sake, we are the most played sport until get to the senior ranks. Our problem is that we have not provided a local professional career pathway for the sport so why should our best sportpeople bother with our sport when there is no local return in wages.

NZ Cricket stuck a deal with NZCPA for $5.1 million for 86 contracted players when they started professionalism.

Having 16 professionals in each of the 8 clubs gives us 128 players. So using Crickets figures that is about $7.6 million for salary payment to start some decent professional league with the existing 8 NZFC franchises. It's under a million for each club for player salary.

A hard aim: To get a five year $38 million deal is an ideal start but it is a bit too much as we don't the crowds that NZ Cricket has at national games.

However, Fox Sport initial deal with FFA was only $750,000 a year for three years and now FFA can get $20 million a year for a longer time period.

So a reasonable TV deal and then sponsors coming on board to get exposure on TV will basically fund a professional league at a minimal start.

So why are TV people so tight?

That is the question everyone should be asking.

For a sport that get very little exposure in NZ, we have plenty of people who are involved in it. Yet if a bit more exposure the more popular it is.

When that London ITV show "big league soccer" was on, there was plenty of NZers watching the FA cup final at night. When it was off the air and "match of the day" appears, TVNZ did not take it up and then there was a slow death of the late night FA cup final showing. No one could follow their London clubs anymore. It took over two decades before TVNZ took away the live FA Cup final, because of the lasting impressions it had to the NZ sporting public.

Find a deal, any deal that has NZFC football shown on the TV. I remember that when the chatham cup finals was shown, there were some NZ secondary kids at the airport who never seen top club football ever on TV and they were impressed with the goals. We need regular local football on TV.

NZF should look for any TV deal to showcase NZFC, work the cost into the expenses and then the crowds will come and the expenses will turn into revenue and grow with some careful development.

In regards to your comments that removing NZFC players from winter competitions will not lower the standard of NZ football - perhaps there's some confusion as to what I mean by "quality" and "standards". I'm referring to the quality of football being played in each competition:

Say you have 12 franchises, each with a squad of say 25 players. That equals 300 players. Now, completely ignoring the Phoenix, you'd have to assume that those 300 are effectively the best 300 footballers plying their trade in New Zealand, or else they wouldn't be deserving of their spot on an NZFC team. Now, by removing those 300 players from their club competitions, you are SIGNIFICANTLY lowering the standard of football for the club competitions. I'm pretty certain this lowered standard won't do club football any favours. Maybe it would help the NZFC, but at this stage in the sports national development I think we need to keep the club setup, at least until the NZFC is more well recognised and developed.

To put it on a larger metaphor - take rugby. What you're proposing is along the lines of Graham Henry's idea of not letting the All Blacks play Super Rugby. The pulling power of the five Super 14 teams was drastically reduced, because the overall rugby ability of those teams was drastically reduced. And rugby is still recovering from the damage of it. I'm not saying that NZFC players are as much of a drawcard to their winter teams as All Blacks are to Super 14 teams, but I highly doubt anyone could say the quality of football isn't improved by their presence.

Let's also not forget that some of the more experienced players in the NZFC have a significant impact on the development of our younger players. By having them play winter football as well, they can serve as mentors/examples/player-coaches to the younger plays who might be good enough to play for Miramar or Wests Central League team, but not quite up to Team Wellington's standards.

As for feeder clubs becoming second division sides - it sounds trying to bring back the National Soccer League. Personally I prefer franchises to clubs when it comes to top level football - Team Wellington represents the entire city, hence it has that entire population to tap into. Clubs don't have that luxury. I'm not saying pro/reg is a bad idea in the future, I personally think the idea worked fine for rugby's old NPC, and a similar idea may work for football - but I'd rather keep club football and franchise football separate in that respect. Even if the franchise is effectively a branch of a club ie early Hawke's Bay United/Napier City Rovers.

Perhaps at some stage in the future the NZFC will be popular enough to get large enough crowds that club football will be redundant as top level - like the Air New Zealand Cup has become when compared to Super 14. But until that stage I'd rather put off sacrificing the quality of the club game to promote a league that is still getting off the ground.

That being said, I do agree that there are some goals there we should strive to aim for - no cross-ownership, more/any TV coverage, more sponsorship etc. There's some good ideas, and some bad ideas, as with pretty much any plan.

Thats not exactly the point.

I know that NZFC football is not breathtaking football. But over the recent years, the number of experienced players at the top end are no longer about for the inexperienced players simply because there is not incentive (like been paid to play) to stick around. As a result we have kids running around playing elite football without enough experience and so we are exposed to shocking football at the top end. However the TV deal at first will only show one game per round and would probably be a highlighted game to show the good bits plus a quick tie up of the goals of the other league games. Sure it is not great quality but you have to start somewhere. This programme format would do fine and retain good players as well as having a reasonable payout. The wages shouldn't have to big for an average living at first but we do need to start doing some professional work rather than semi-professional stuff that leaves plenty of uncompleted training.

What club quality are there really? The range of difference in levels is not that much compared to many other countries to be a concern. You are not really sacrificing much at all. Most people can play up and down as a floater in the lower club football (they just play at a level to suit themselves in reality) until they touch local premier league that has the fittest amateur players but only a few with some real football skill in each team. These few will get to start in the top level playing against their peers at the top level and really be tested if this type of league is created. The rest will have to get fit, improve their football skill and their positional play to get the call up for higher football like anyone else.

This show existed.  Funding was pulled and it was cancelled.  NZF is now more precarious financially than it was when the funding was cut.  Chances of it being re-instated ?  Nil, or pretty damn close to it, unless some private venture works out how to fund it from sponsorship.

Can U has a TV deal for its home games

Well Robbwatson, I suppose that there is maybe a reason for a national winter club league again to keep the non-NZFC players and newcomers some intermediate development with maybe a rule to have a club can only allow up to three NZFC players on the field for any club. Just for club development and local development reasons. It would develop the club scene in the definite long term.

Then some of the exposured club players at the national club league may get a call up to the NZFC side, or getting into the second division franchise side during the summer.

It also means to allocating a decent off-season for the top players between the winter and the summer leagues. There is no reason why the two seasonal leagues can add up to the ten months football season of five months in each and a rest of a month in between. This is very possible and within reach if we had a NZFC league committee separate from Federation but yet working together within the general committee.

Well, this would be another reason why I believe that the NZF executive committee has to be separate from the NZFC league committee and the Federations grassroot development as legal entities but have all three wings have equal voting powers on a NZF general committee on NZ football issues. This way, by having the NZF executive committees focusing on the international programme, NZF league committee focus on the national programme and the federations focus on the local club development programme. The club national league will be a joint venture in the winter, between the league and federation groups.

Getting players released for the international programme can be a joint venture between the executive committee and the club or league committee depending on the time of the year.

In the general committee meeting, between the vocals of the three legal entities, they would develop transtitional policies that would satisfy by working together than against each other. All fundamental aspects of the football organisation are accountable for each other and have equalable rights. Much better than having the NZF excecutive board tell us that we have do something that everyone else e.g federation, clubs and football player, have no clue why we have to do it and then go through the same arguments, wasting time and creating more trouble than needed at times or slows down normal development. In my version of having separate legal entities with one entity answerable to the other two entities before making final decisions.

Football solutions can be maded without affecting other areas quick and smart, this way and when two entities can't decide the third entity breaks the deadlock because they are think of what is best for NZ football. Especially when most football issues affect two of the entities and not the third entity. Very rarely, all three football wings are involved in a football issue.

I love how the world works in your head.  Click your fingers and make the league professional, sign a TV deal and hey presto it's all sorted.

This is:

a) not a fair reflection of the current situation.
b) almost incomprehensible and I'm tired of trying to decypher it.

I don't see how creating more, competing, organisations is going to help things.  Isn't it better to have one organisation, NZF, running the show?  Seriously dude, think about what you are saying here.  The reality is so far divorced from what you are proposing, which I agree is a completely best practice model, that what you are suggesting is just ridiculous.

Because you are at work with nothing better to do?

Building towards the future makes means making certain clearer policies, Although some things are not need yet, does not mean that you can't make foundation rules for later on. The off season rules are mainly to prevent the over rigorous season crossovers that may occur if there was any chance of creating professional leagues. The problem are overseas, that is for sure, but in light of creating an vision of how things we would like to do for maximum benefit we have to place stablizers that prevent things from happening in an non-benefital way to our game. This is merely a vicarious learning form the mistakes of other professional leagues. Some NZFC franchises have created some enforced off seasons for NZFC players away from most of their winter clubs season. This is, over the top. A minimial two months is all you need for an off-season, three-four months is absolutely silly, just look at what happan to the YH Manawatu team. What a disasterous season (plus losing totori). A rule from a general committe would give these NZFC players also the same right to play for their winters clubs without the fear for losing their place in the NZFC squad. Simply because there is a rule for minimal off season.

. . . actually the EPL does very well for having a separate league committee, but more than half the AFC countries have a separate league committee and by 2012 all are making sure that is the case.

As for the NZF board members being separate from the federations, then why is Mainland Football chairman Mark Stewart just been elected on the NZF. Sure, he has a impressive CV, but it looks like that he is not going to resign from being Mainland Football Chairman any time soon, eh?

An example of what a separatation of powers could have with a potential professional league would be like what is happening with the non-released decable of the Phoenix over age players to the Olympic squad. OK, the phoenix don't play in our domestic league but in the A-league. But if they did, and if the NZFC league was professional, then this issue would be taken to the general committe to be resolved. If the league committee and the federations committee don't then having 2/3rds on the issue voting will overturn the federation committee that might have been working on that club's behalf. Even though, it would be likely that 6/7 federation would vote against this. But if the league committee decide that it was OK for the club to not release the players for the olympics although with the 1/7 of that federation committe with supports this club, then the executive committee votes with the 6/7 of the federation committee vote will overvote them because the other federations obviously thinks that it was important enough for their player to play in the olympic, it should important for that club player to player also. The issue is publically decided then resolved. So are you starting to get some picture about how it could work?

There are plenty of overseas cases when players are not released because the clubs have total control over their contracts and the national bodies were not able to gain their release because the clubs are not answerable to them. In this case, you would have the executive committee at logger head at the regional committee (e.g. the federation representing the club) and so with the even votes on the issue on the general committtee, the decision of the league committee upon which the players and clubs play in their competition can decide which of the other two wings have a sustainable arguement and vote accordingly at the general committee.

Another example of how the separation of powers could work, the general committe would be informed that Auckland NZFC player that returned from NZ 'A' trip under the injury. So the federation/regional committee would be able to communicate to the club that he would not be able to play in the NZFC game or risk Auckland city losing NZFC competition points. Having that communication channel within the general committee to the three sections of NZ football saves a lot of headaches and embarrassing situations. Just an imagine how YH Manawatu feel, if they then be able to go the O-league instead of Waitakere city because of the free points they got from a game that Auckland won but then was overturned. The moeny that they missed out on, because of one stupid situation that could have easily been avoided.

Remember I am talking about working towards building a future rather than looking totally at state that we are in at the present. But then what i am saying is that, we could make some decent changes with little and no cost. As for the TV showpiece, we would have to cross that bridge when we get there. But without changes in the right place, we are going nowhere. A change of the NZF board members can just be the same old problems despiting have decent blokes on board. The way we do things have impacts around the sport and lowers our status in the public eye. I just think that many of the embarrassments were so easily avoid under the separation of powers that allow voice from all sections of the sport in a streamlined fashion and adjust our focus correctly. The new NZF is going to have an orientation toward one of the three wings over the other two. In Settler reign, he focused on the executive side of things with the internationl football programme and then to the side issue of the Phoenix, but NZFC issuses was hohum and the Federation issues are hardly spoken. So the shock to the federation when they were told to pull finger then backfired onto the NZF for the money lost in NZF financial statement. The federation didn't want to have to pay up for NZF miscaluations of their budget and so they won't raise player levies. this could have been prevents if the federation was part of the general committee as equal to executive committee decisions at the beginning, the concern would have been duty noted and action could have been placed much earlier with the league committte help to prevent the NZF executive committee making more poor forecasts. everyone would know what the other did and stop anything that would make things worse.

As for money, wages, marketing plan, TV show etc, leave that to the league committee under the watchful eyes of the executive and federation in the general committee setting, to help assist and promote or simply prevent costing mistakes. There is a need to focus on domestic league with specialist. There are no real specialist at the helm, let alone expecting the NZF to work on the NZFC league with the lack of people. If there was a separation of powers, then the budget of the NZF financial failure would have not affect the budget of the league committee. So the NZFC would not potentially be cut back, or even the youth league needing to be bankrolled by Manakau or have silly talks of the Women league being removed before it started. All that loose talk would not even happen with the separatation of powers, simply because the finanical problems of the NZF will only affect the international programme and not the domestic leagues.

It's amazing what separate football legal entities can do to save other football entities. If one fall, the other two will be unaffected.

This is utter garbage...I'll be back later

I don't even understand? 

Federations telling NZF to tell clubs what to do.  Clubs telling Federations to tell the NZFC committee to tell NZF who to sign.  Federations forming a committee to oversee the oversight of the steering team.  Three way separation of powers with crossover of responsibilities.

Jeepers.

Facts:

1. NZFC is run by a committee.  A committee of one.

2. The Federations and NZF are separate legal entities.  That doesn't stop people sitting on the Board of more than one of them.  This is a common commercial practice.  Why would it be any different in football?

....oh f**k it.  I give up.

I'm sure JD will reply more fulsomely.

Smithy2008-06-25 21:21:02

This is my new favourite thread.

I have to stop this now, that took up half my morning...

f**king hell JD - what is happening to my 'no claim, no fee' case that you are supposed to be representing me in?  A stubbed toe is a real injury, and London City Council should pay for it.

At the moment it's looking like no-ones going to get paid...

May not have been a typo.

OK the direction has been suggested. The franchise clubs will likely to comprise a new NZFC league committee which will likely run the NZFC separate and independent of the NZF national body.

Again this means that money will be saved.

Dawkins and de Jong will now meet this week to discuss the independent NZFC proposal. Hopefully they will have a general football committee as a double=check so that the franchises of this possible league committee will not get too carried away with it.



http://msn.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=86&objectid=10518958

This looks very positive for the NZFC in terms of better management, marketing, promotions and TV Deals with the added focus of getting better opportunties for commercial sponsorship.

As a possible future investor, this is the beginning of the common sense business that I have been looking for a number of years. Now only if they are able to float a decent % of their shares in the Market to make it have some viability, then we are in the money!

Um, no-one is going to do an IPO of the NZFC...just a hint.