Post history

History for terminator_x

Team Wellington... no longer an association with Ole. Chur

Back to topic

Current version

Posted November 18, 2013 23:51 · last edited November 18, 2013 23:51

reg22 wrote:

i feel like i need to lodge my 'vote' on this issue

my personal opinion is that auckland and waitak should not be punished for being better both on the field and off than the other franchises.  and i include their ability to raise funds via whatever source in this statement

they are setting a standard to which the rest of the league should aspire.

i am aware of many factors which hold the other franchises back and most of them are factors over which they should have control

nzf need to run the league better.  this will give the other franchises a chance to lift their performance.



How would introducing an expenditure cap "punish" Auckland and Waitakere? If anything it makes things easier for them - less fundraising required. It would also lessen the risks they currently face from relying so heavily on a single income stream. If you think that trying to create a more competitive league in which they are less likely to dominate is "punishing" them then that's a bizarre point of view, and kind of antithetical to the whole point of sport, especially when trying to generate public interest. Even at the Americas Cup they are talking about making the requirements less financially onerous in order to create more competition and interest - and those guys are total fucking capitalists!

And how would an expenditure cap lower the standard? The same talent would be there but likely to be spread more evenly around the league. Unless you think players will actually leave the game altogether?* My view on that is that if it requires the proceeds of gambling to motivate elite footballers to play at the highest levels of the game then we are well past being morally bankrupt. A more competitive league will also raise than standard in and of itself because every team will know they have a decent chance at the title and it will be what you do on the pitch that makes the difference between winning and losing. Isn't that the very essence of sport?

I agree that NZF need to run the league better. But I think that an expenditure cap and possibly centralising gaming funding are two important components of doing that.

*unless talking about imports. I don't care about them. If the overall standard of the league is temporarily reduced because of fewer imports and more Kiwis are getting a chance then great.


Previous versions

1 version
terminator_x edited November 18, 2013 23:51
reg22 wrote:

i feel like i need to lodge my 'vote' on this issue

my personal opinion is that auckland and waitak should not be punished for being better both on the field and off than the other franchises.  and i include their ability to raise funds via whatever source in this statement

they are setting a standard to which the rest of the league should aspire.

i am aware of many factors which hold the other franchises back and most of them are factors over which they should have control

nzf need to run the league better.  this will give the other franchises a chance to lift their performance.



How would introducing an expenditure cap "punish" Auckland and Waitakere? If anything it makes things easier for them - less fundraising required. It would also lessen the risks they currently face from relying so heavily on a single income stream. If you think that trying to create a more competitive league in which they are less likely to dominate is "punishing" them then that's a bizarre point of view, and kind of antithetical to the whole point of sport, especially when trying to generate public interest. Even at the Americas Cup they are talking about making the requirements less financially onerous in order to create more competition and interest - and those guys are total fucking capitalists!
And how would an expenditure cap lower the standard? The same talent would be there but likely to be spread more evenly around the league. Unless you think players will actually leave the game altogether?* My view on that is that if it requires the proceeds of gambling to motivate elite footballers to play at the highest levels of the game then we are well past being morally bankrupt. A more competitive league will also raise than standard in and of itself because every team will know they have a decent chance at the title and it will be what you do on the pitch that makes the difference between winning and losing. Isn't that the very essence of sport?
I agree that NZF need to run the league better. But I think that an expenditure cap and possibly centralising gaming funding are two important components of doing that.
*unless talking about imports. I don't care about them. If the overall standard of the league is temporarily reduced because of fewer imports and more Kiwis are getting a chance then great.