doesn,t anyone out there think about- in a time when there are so many opportunities for the game - the absurd set up of the nz game
the nz soccer board is an autonomus body that elects itself and is answerable only to itself
underneath that we have the federations who again vote themselves in to power but are not elected by the clubs and are not answerable to nz soccer (as soccer 1 proved)
then we have the clubs who are expected to pay subs to both the afore mentioned but have no real voting rights and have over the last 10 years been dis enfranchised ,weakened and denegrated (Mc Gowan called them social entities) and have almost been stripped of ambition!!
Even in the UK where the premier league is "god" a little club like Aylesbury United in the Blue star 3 rd Division know that if they get a team good enough they can battle their way through non league into the football league and their is nothing stopping them reaching the premier league!!
We usedto have that in NZ - Napier, Waitakere (formerly Kelston) and Auckland City/Central all started in the lower reaches of the regional leagues and played their way to the top of the game.
isn,t time the clubs/players took bac k the game!!!
Permalink
Permalink
Sorry Bob, there are so many inaccuracies in what you've posted it's hard to know where to start.
For one thing there is elected representation at all of the levels you've described above. In the Federations 3 out of 7 Board members are elected, 4 are appointed. I can't be bothered checking the NZF Board rules but I think it's about the same (with the 7 Feds doing the electing).
At the last Capital Football AGM all 3 incumbent elected board members were re-elected by the clubs, which hardly indicates any kind if widespread dissatisfaction.
The Aylesbury example also confuses progression through the leagues with the governance of the sport, which seems to be what you are actually complaining about. They are two separate things.
For one thing there is elected representation at all of the levels you've described above. In the Federations 3 out of 7 Board members are elected, 4 are appointed. I can't be bothered checking the NZF Board rules but I think it's about the same (with the 7 Feds doing the electing).
At the last Capital Football AGM all 3 incumbent elected board members were re-elected by the clubs, which hardly indicates any kind if widespread dissatisfaction.
The Aylesbury example also confuses progression through the leagues with the governance of the sport, which seems to be what you are actually complaining about. They are two separate things.
Permalink
Permalink
It also ignores the problem with club football here is NZ is that NZ really isn't big enough to support a successful club competition - the resources to play in a national league has proven to be too much for so many club sides. Auckland University, Nelson, Christchurch United, Wellington Diamond United etc all struggled to stay financial in the old Rothmans League and the real risk is that you end up having one club representing the main centres, which pulls players from other clubs (rich get richer - so to speak).
At least with the franchise system and the split between summer (NZFC) and winter (club comps) there is the ability to have NZFC players fanning out for their winter football and sharing the costs over a wider base
Mossman2009-07-11 15:31:29UniGoldenrods - Propping up Capital Football since 1994
Permalink
Permalink
Sorry Bob, there are so many inaccuracies in what you've posted it's hard to know where to start.
For one thing there is elected representation at all of the levels you've described above. In the Federations 3 out of 7 Board members are elected, 4 are appointed. I can't be bothered checking the NZF Board rules but I think it's about the same (with the 7 Feds doing the electing).
At the last Capital Football AGM all 3 incumbent elected board members were re-elected by the clubs, which hardly indicates any kind if widespread dissatisfaction.
The Aylesbury example also confuses progression through the leagues with the governance of the sport, which seems to be what you are actually complaining about. They are two separate things.
For one thing there is elected representation at all of the levels you've described above. In the Federations 3 out of 7 Board members are elected, 4 are appointed. I can't be bothered checking the NZF Board rules but I think it's about the same (with the 7 Feds doing the electing).
At the last Capital Football AGM all 3 incumbent elected board members were re-elected by the clubs, which hardly indicates any kind if widespread dissatisfaction.
The Aylesbury example also confuses progression through the leagues with the governance of the sport, which seems to be what you are actually complaining about. They are two separate things.
that's got a couple of inaccuracies
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
Yeah - I meant to write "any kind of widespread dissatisfaction" not "any kind if widespread dissatisfaction". Thanks for pointing that out.
But seriously, I was led to believe by this very forum that there was only one other challenger for the elected positions on the CF Board and that all three incumbents got re-elected. Is that not correct? People may have their grumbles but surely they're not that thick?
I say this as a someone who's been involved with clubs and their administration for 20 odd years but I get a little sick of this "clubs are holier than thou" attitude. If you want to find the root of many problems in NZ football just look at the clubs. Half of them are run by ego-maniacs and the other half by incredibly well-intentioned and hard-working people who either don't have the time or the skills to actually get the job done. I'm one of those people so I mean no disrespect but it's a just a fact that most of the inefficiency and wastefulness in NZ Football is actually at club level. Payments to players anyone??
Just heaping the blame at the door of NZF and the Federations is too easy (and sure, they do deserve some of the blame). It's like the worst kind of lazy union politics - just blame management, all the time, for everything, regardless.
The idea that clubs and players need to "take back the game" is nonsense and a gross over-simplification of the issues football in NZ faces. The truth is that the players and clubs are getting exactly the level of management and governance that they deserve.
Rant over.
But seriously, I was led to believe by this very forum that there was only one other challenger for the elected positions on the CF Board and that all three incumbents got re-elected. Is that not correct? People may have their grumbles but surely they're not that thick?
I say this as a someone who's been involved with clubs and their administration for 20 odd years but I get a little sick of this "clubs are holier than thou" attitude. If you want to find the root of many problems in NZ football just look at the clubs. Half of them are run by ego-maniacs and the other half by incredibly well-intentioned and hard-working people who either don't have the time or the skills to actually get the job done. I'm one of those people so I mean no disrespect but it's a just a fact that most of the inefficiency and wastefulness in NZ Football is actually at club level. Payments to players anyone??
Just heaping the blame at the door of NZF and the Federations is too easy (and sure, they do deserve some of the blame). It's like the worst kind of lazy union politics - just blame management, all the time, for everything, regardless.
The idea that clubs and players need to "take back the game" is nonsense and a gross over-simplification of the issues football in NZ faces. The truth is that the players and clubs are getting exactly the level of management and governance that they deserve.
Rant over.
Permalink
Permalink
apart from the argument about the election process - wasnt Jim M wasnt one of the elected ones last time was he?
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
Not sure of the names but I thought I read on here that the 3 people elected were all re-elected.
That might not be quite right but it's hardly like blood was running in the streets as the poor down-trodden clubs over-threw the military junta was it? That would require someone actually giving a sh*t.
That might not be quite right but it's hardly like blood was running in the streets as the poor down-trodden clubs over-threw the military junta was it? That would require someone actually giving a sh*t.
Permalink
Permalink
then we have the clubs who are expected to pay subs to both the afore mentioned but have no real voting rights and have over the last 10 years been dis enfranchised ,weakened and denegrated (Mc Gowan called them social entities) and have almost been stripped of ambition!!
I do think that makes a very good point. When I was over there and watching Northern League (as it was in 2007), a lot of people in clubrooms could be heard saying it was a competition that needed a radical overhaul because there wasn't even any prize money at the end of it. That's why Uni-Mt Wellington dropped out. So in essence, the winter clubs are playing for nothing. When I first went to NZ in 1998, the Northern League actually meant something and you could see it. In 2007, it was little more than Sunday league with the odd ex-international here and there.
Also, I would add that having two different competitions for 12mths of the year is a daft system. How can you have players playing National League in the summer and then picking and choosing when to play winter league games? It's farcical. It should be one or the other and both competitions running at the same time.
I remember being at the Central v Bay Olympic game in early 2008. Bay won and I remember a guy from Bay saying to me that it was a good job they'd played Central early in the season as they'd have all their NZFC players back soon. How the bloody hell can that be right? So basically a different side turns up later in the season? Or if an important Chatham Cup game comes up what's to stop a club calling an NZFC player and offering a few bucks to get them through that round? It's bizarre and needs an overhaul ASAP.
PaulSG2009-07-11 22:16:16Freelance Football Writer
Permalink
Permalink
Why don't NZF run the NZFC and the regional leagues in the summer then and turn football into a summer sport across the board? Facilities? God knows its the only thing that hasn't been tried yet. Club football in this country is just that - a bunch of social entities. The game is going nowhere fast at that level.
Permalink
Permalink
Thats the point terminator
only 3 are voted by clubs and 4 are self appointed according to board members special interests -all board members should be voted in by the clubs,schools,junior clubs
its like the nz goverment allowing the population to vote for 3/7ths of the mp,s and they vote in 4/7ths so they are always in the majority!!
do you think that is right terminator!!!
Permalink
Permalink
Another great mis-representation of what actually happens Bob.
I think it's sad that you have such a dim view of the current governance structure and I maintain that if the club and players of NZ feel truly under-represented at regional and national level it is because of their own apathy not some hidden Orwellian agenda as you seem to think.
Yes - the appointed members are chosen based on their skills and experience and what they can bring to the game but guess what - in most cases the appointed members are also people with very strong past or present club affiliations. The true representation of the clubs on most Fed Boards would be easily closer to 5/7 or 6/7 if not 7/7.
The balance of elected and appointed members on Fed Boards still gives the elected members a lot of power. In fact, in any vote they only need the support of one of the appointed members (at least some of whom will also be members of clubs).
So where's the problem? The problem is that at the most recent CF Board election, for example, there was only one challenger from outside the current Board for the 3 elected positions which either indicates mass apathy or that the clubs think who they've got are the best they're going to get. Given that the most recent challenger didn't get in I'd suggest it's the latter, although I would never rule mass apathy out!
But keep trying to drum up support for your people's revolution, I wish you all the best. And if you genuinely do have the support you should be able to make a difference, even within the current rules.
I think it's sad that you have such a dim view of the current governance structure and I maintain that if the club and players of NZ feel truly under-represented at regional and national level it is because of their own apathy not some hidden Orwellian agenda as you seem to think.
Yes - the appointed members are chosen based on their skills and experience and what they can bring to the game but guess what - in most cases the appointed members are also people with very strong past or present club affiliations. The true representation of the clubs on most Fed Boards would be easily closer to 5/7 or 6/7 if not 7/7.
The balance of elected and appointed members on Fed Boards still gives the elected members a lot of power. In fact, in any vote they only need the support of one of the appointed members (at least some of whom will also be members of clubs).
So where's the problem? The problem is that at the most recent CF Board election, for example, there was only one challenger from outside the current Board for the 3 elected positions which either indicates mass apathy or that the clubs think who they've got are the best they're going to get. Given that the most recent challenger didn't get in I'd suggest it's the latter, although I would never rule mass apathy out!
But keep trying to drum up support for your people's revolution, I wish you all the best. And if you genuinely do have the support you should be able to make a difference, even within the current rules.
Permalink
Permalink
When I was over there and watching Northern League (as it was in 2007), a lot of people in clubrooms could be heard saying it was a competition that needed a radical overhaul because there wasn't even any prize money at the end of it. That's why Uni-Mt Wellington dropped out. So in essence, the winter clubs are playing for nothing. When I first went to NZ in 1998, the Northern League actually meant something and you could see it. In 2007, it was little more than Sunday league with the odd ex-international here and there.
PRIZE MONEY!?
Who the hell needs prize money in a supposedly amateur competition!? Play for the pride of the club. Football would be in a much better state in this country if some of the clubs put their chequebooks away and funded more important things than players wages!
Permalink
Permalink
("The balance of elected and appointed members on Fed Boards still gives
the elected members a lot of power. In fact, in any vote they only need
the support of one of the appointed members (at least some of whom will
also be members of clubs).
So where's the problem? The problem is that at the most recent CF Board election, for example, there was only one challenger from outside the current Board for the 3 elected positions which either indicates mass apathy or that the clubs think who they've got are the best they're going to get. Given that the most recent challenger didn't get in I'd suggest it's the latter, although I would never rule mass apathy out!)
Thats the point again Terminator
-Why should they have to persuade an "inbred board member" to agree to what the club representatives are proposing!! its not a logical process
There has always been an amount of club apathy( that is a different topic) which has now become worse because they have become disenfranchised.
So where's the problem? The problem is that at the most recent CF Board election, for example, there was only one challenger from outside the current Board for the 3 elected positions which either indicates mass apathy or that the clubs think who they've got are the best they're going to get. Given that the most recent challenger didn't get in I'd suggest it's the latter, although I would never rule mass apathy out!)
Thats the point again Terminator
-Why should they have to persuade an "inbred board member" to agree to what the club representatives are proposing!! its not a logical process
There has always been an amount of club apathy( that is a different topic) which has now become worse because they have become disenfranchised.
Permalink
Permalink
But seriously, I was led to believe by this very forum that there was only one other challenger for the elected positions on the CF Board and that all three incumbents got re-elected. Is that not correct? People may have their grumbles but surely they're not that thick?
Correct - and by comfortable margins too.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
Thats the point terminator
only 3 are voted by clubs and 4 are self appointed according to board members special interests -all board members should be voted in by the clubs,schools,junior clubs
its like the nz goverment allowing the population to vote for 3/7ths of the mp,s and they vote in 4/7ths so they are always in the majority!!
do you think that is right terminator!!!
They're not 'self-appointed'. They appointed by (if I remember correctly) a representative from NZF, a representative from SPARC and a third person who I can't remember, might be the President?
The reason for having appointed Board members is because in the past an open election process didn't yield the quality or quantity of Board candidates that are needed to run the game. That same failing can be seen in clubs up and down the country.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
I think the structure is more to dowith SPARCs prescription for NSOs.
And I still think Jim was appointed last time as opposed to elected this time. anywho..
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
They're not 'self-appointed'. They appointed by (if I remember correctly) a representative from NZF, a representative from SPARC and a third person who I can't remember, might be the President?
The reason for having appointed Board members is because in the past an open election process didn't yield the quality or quantity of Board candidates that are needed to run the game. That same failing can be seen in clubs up and down the country.
Indeed. I think most sane people in the Welly football community would actually dread the idea of all 7 CF Board positions being elected. Put simply it would be a clusterf**k.
Although a lot of the appointed members also have strong club connections at least the appointments process puts the emphasis on skills and experience, rather than politicking.
Permalink
Permalink
(They're not 'self-appointed'. They appointed by (if I remember correctly) a representative from NZF, a representative from SPARC and a third person who I can't remember, might be the President?
The reason for having appointed Board members is because in the past an open election process didn't yield the quality or quantity of Board candidates that are needed to run the game. That same failing can be seen in clubs up and down the country.)
The reason for having appointed Board members is because in the past an open election process didn't yield the quality or quantity of Board candidates that are needed to run the game. That same failing can be seen in clubs up and down the country.)
Sorry Smithy you seem very niave
they are appointed by NZF who in turn are SELF APPOINTED and riddled with self interest and by SPARC who are an ineffective government quango(look at the state of sport in the country) so the people put in place in the majority on the boards do not democratically represent the people who are the life blood of the game the clubs and players.
the fact that some of the club adminstrators are not very good is a seperate issue -the nzf should be addressing the quality of club administration -they should be a conduit for empowering the clubs and promoting good practice in the clubs.NOT emasculating the clubs.
The clubs are like business outlets if we have vibrant well run flourishing sports entities throughout the country will strengthen the game.The federations and NZF don,t even think that way they don,t support the grassroots basis of the game - the clubs are the cradle of the game
But what we got at the moment is tantamount to Mc Donalds letting their restaraunts go to "pot" and then complaining that profits are down!!
Permalink
Permalink
terminator are you saying the self appointed representatives are better than the elected representatives!!
Look at the state of the game man!!
I think you must have a conflict of interest here!!
Permalink
Permalink
This is like arguing with a three year old about bedtime. Bob - your blind determination to keep pushing certain factually incorrect points makes this debate a waste of time.
But anyway, good luck with your little crusade. If you're right I'm sure people will be flocking to support you, although this thread doesn't seem to be a great start.
But anyway, good luck with your little crusade. If you're right I'm sure people will be flocking to support you, although this thread doesn't seem to be a great start.
Permalink
Permalink
"If you're right I'm sure people will be flocking to support you, although this thread doesn't seem to be a great start."
You still don,t get it terminator
the "not flocking " is a sign of the inbuilt apathy that the present system has engendered.You have to empower and involve people in the game not disempower,and limit their horizons.
We want great, well run clubs throughout the country that grow stronger year by year and are servicing the needs of the game at all levels - supported by an administration that represents their interests and facilitates their financial,organisational and quality development.
NZ Football and local federations do nothing like this.
Permalink
Permalink
Bob
yes we do want great well run clubs
but no we will not get off our ass and do it
I went to the AGM
22 people
I reckon we have 32 junior teams
plus whatever amount of seniors
so that's 320 kids and 600 odd parents
yet only 22 people make it along...
still Football seems to be a perfect microcosm of the Western Democracy. Your as free as you can afford to be.
yes we do want great well run clubs
but no we will not get off our ass and do it
I went to the AGM
22 people
I reckon we have 32 junior teams
plus whatever amount of seniors
so that's 320 kids and 600 odd parents
yet only 22 people make it along...
still Football seems to be a perfect microcosm of the Western Democracy. Your as free as you can afford to be.
E's Flat Ah's Flat Too
Permalink
Permalink
Foal30, football clubs are their own worst enemies when it comes to AGMs. Every other sports club I have/do belong to sends their members a formal notice of the AGM along with a copy of the annual report and all get very good turnouts. The football clubs Ive belonged to hope word gets around and some people turn up than moan that no-one gets off their arses to help.
A dog with a bone :)
Permalink
Permalink
good point Foal
I believe these are the issues nz soccer should be addressing
how to help ,empower and facilitate their clubs to grow and operate in a more inclusive and vibrant manner
part of the problem is that clubs and members don,t know why they are there or where they stand - the people at nzsoccer and the federations just see them as money cows
Permalink
Permalink
i'm no fan of topdown management Bob
the Parents should be getting in there for their kids you know
bit of hard work never hurt anyone.
if we organize our clubs then we can organize NZF eh...
Advertise your AGM
I think our club did this... I would suggest that we haven't in the past though
people can be apathetic for sure.
the Parents should be getting in there for their kids you know
bit of hard work never hurt anyone.
if we organize our clubs then we can organize NZF eh...
Advertise your AGM
I think our club did this... I would suggest that we haven't in the past though
people can be apathetic for sure.
E's Flat Ah's Flat Too
Permalink
Permalink