Danny Hay (Auckland FC)

So there are no ASBP franchises paying players with pokie money either directly or indirectly i.e. employing players as "coaches" on condition that they play for that franchise?

I've always said I have no problem with franchises spending money that they generate themselves through gate-takings, advertising and genuine commercial sponsorships (not pokie grants) on anything they want. However, it's obvious in many cases that is not what is happening.

It is an interesting balance which deserves discussion (and it has been discussed many times) - while the level of football at national level would be better with all the Club World Cup and pokie money (how it is now, basically), does the basic, club-first, import-paying mentality of the best clubs in the ASBP really benefit New Zealand football as a whole? 

You could argue that more money = better players on our shores, better facilities, better results on the world stage, and more spectators who want to see the higher-quality play. Not the best example, but one I'll run with - if Auckland City hadn't signed Albert Riera, then as a result, do the Phoenix's results suffer this season, therefore losing fans on gameday and revenue etc as a flow-on effect? It's a strenuous link, but a real one.

On the other hand, if Kiwi talent (and youth) continues to be rejected on large in favour of overseas players, then do those imports foster enough growth in the game and publicity/revenue inside football to outweigh the potential massive positives of playing Kiwi youth at the highest level. 

It's really a battle between the short-term, money now scenario, and a long-term scenario which would almost certainly result in an improved state of football both on the pitch and off the pitch. How the main ASBP clubs could be convinced that their short term woes in terms of finances and on-field product is worth the long-term gain of NZ football is the big question.

Anyway, I've talked in circles enough on this, if only I had the journalistic skill required to pen something coherent, but it's certainly a topic which should be talked more about on all levels.

If we can get quality players earning a living within the game (coaching) - I'd argue that was a good thing in moving the game forward, regardless of whether the funding source comes from advertising or community grants.

No doubt. But the problem is that pokie money can only be used for amateur sport. Disagreeing with that, or wishing it was different, doesn't make breaking the existing rules OK.

If players are being contracted to do coaching (using pokie money) on condition that they also play for the franchise that is a clear breach of the rules.

The excuse that "everyone is doing it" doesn't wash either. Nobody should be doing it, and some franchises are doing it on a scale that goes well beyond what could maybe be over-looked as not being a significant problem.

There is a damn good reason why pokie money can't be used to pay professionals by the way. Or are we so blinkered about the apparent importance of football and "winning" that we've forgotten where that money comes from and what it's meant to be used for?

I just wish there was a decent journalist in NZ who was really prepared to get stuck into this topic.

I see your point in an academic sense

What I don't understand is why anyone within the game would want to crusade against a situation where a top player can do a good job coaching within the code - totally legit - at the same time as he plays as an amateur.

I'm not sure that I see enough of an 'injured party' to make a fuss about it. Win-win to me.

Umm, because it is morally, and most likely legally, wrong?

Football doesn't exist in a vacuum. Campaign to have the gaming legislation (and by extension the authorised purposes of trusts) changed to allow it if you want but until then stay within the rules. Are you honestly saying that because you don't happen to agree with a particular law you just ignore it, because you can't see an 'injured party'?

And if you really want some 'injured parties' take at a look at the list of declined applications on the Trillion Trust website as a starter for 10.

When you see Auckland City get 110k in November which you know is going into players pockets as wages for 'coaching' and see Child Cancer Foundation rejected, which is a far better cause than playing guys (who should not be paid) to play football, thats just plain wrong.

hang on, let's back the truck up...

If a club applies for funding for one of its club members to coach in the community, there is NOTHING illegitimate about that.

And it often serves a wider purpose - many many years ago I recall my kids learning the game at the hands of national league players doing after school coaching....

It was something that met approved purpose by the funding agency, served the players, the club, and the kids... it nurtured their love of the game.  While agencies may not be able to fund everyone, should we shoot down those who can prepare, organise and make something work?

On the other hand, if you see a scheme operating illegally, it is your perogative to complain or crusade against it, but as far as i can see the greater good rests with community funded coaching.

Is there anything irregular or unnatural for any club applying for funding, in the first instance to employ those who meet the critieria from within their own ranks?

Welcome argument and evidence of the case for illegality and/or immorality.

Jeff, you will be aware a lot of funders these days actually won't fund for stuff they consider is primarily the domain of central or local government...

Someone getting funding for coaching from some sports-focused agency does not necessarily imply a cancer crowd have missed out. 

Bruce, I've got no problem with community funded coaching, and if a trust determines that is a good use of funds then fine, ultimately they will be answerable to the DIA and the community if it is felt too much of their funding is going to a particular purpose.

The problem is when the coaching contract with the player is linked to an obligation to play for the franchise. That's being paid to play, which is clearly outside the rules, and may be something that the trust is not even aware of.

Can you definitively say that in your own experience at Waikato, and from what you have also heard around the traps, that this mechanism is not being used by any ASBP franchise to recruit and pay players? If not, can you explain how some franchises can afford to attract and pay players who are clearly not playing for free or expenses only? (foreign imports, for example).

Also, can you explain why it is even necessary for an ASBP franchise to deliver coaching in the community when there are already many other organisations doing this.

Many of those organisations who missed out in a particular funding period will have simply put in poor applications also.

However, if you look at the funding distribution of a trust like Trillion Trust over a long enough period of time you start to see a consistent picture of funding certain organisations and activities at the expense of others.

Well said Bruce - it's good to see someone who can write well putting a balanced and reasonable side across this argument.

Terminator - I don't know you and you're probably a nice person but on this issue you come across like you're on a personal crusade to bring down the ASB Premiership and, in particular ACFC. As Bruce points out there is nothing illegitimate about paying players to coach and it's a great benefit to the community. I know for a fact that Andrew Milne, Adam Dickinson and James Pritchet are part of an initiative that goes into kindy's to introduce the kids to ball sports - an excellent thing if you ask me. No idea who pays for this but the idea of not getting paid for this would be ridiculous.   

They are quite explicitly being paid to coach, not play. It is the coaching programme and the contracts which will be audited and scrutinised, not their playing, which is done in their own time. I can't see your allegation of illegality stacks up here.

When you apply for a grant, you submit a copy of the relevant contract. ie, you must have a signed contract for the application. You don't go fishing for funding and then find someone to fit. Those terms are set by the funders, not the clubs.

And of course clubs look to find synergies between their coaching and playing operations, but this is neither illegal nor immoral. As a volunteer club administrator I would argue it makes bloody good sense.

Why WOULDN'T entities deliver coaching in the community if there was an opportunity and it helped put together the jigsaw at national league level, linking some of our best local players with budding juniors? I would argue that it is often to the betterment of the game to have such links, and if it helps the huge challenge of making the national league work, well and good. 

Often clubs try to find work for personnel they feel will add to the fabric of their operations (as do most organisations in the not for profit sector)

My club last year found work for a tractor driver. He was skilled in that area. We were more concerned about how many goals he could score, admittedly, but he seemed to dig good ditches also. It worked well. 

If I understand your beef, it is that coaching employment - done under contract and financed through community grants - is somehow more dubious (with a sub-plot of playing ability being more primary than coaching ability). 

But I would say if someone can coach and play, terrific. Better to be working within the game than digging ditches, because there are synergies there in attracting the junior population to matches etc (NB some may also think it is immoral to use work links to engender support for a team at the weekends).

Rather than blanket illegality, I would respectfully suggest your concerns are matters for the terms of contract, qualifications etc - and audit of delivery.  I certainly can't see that you have established a case for illegality or immorality.

There are avenues open if you have evidence the system is being abused in particular cases.

As someone who has occasionally been at the business end of applying for coaching grants from time to time over the past 10 years, I have noticed a few things.

1. The higher the grant amount, the more scrutiny attached both in terms of application and audit.

2. Quite often conditions are attached to funding. For instance, I found it frustrating when partial funding was awarded - but it was tagged to SPECIFIC coaches within a group application because the funding agency, for whatever subjective reason, was particularly taken with the work being done by, say, a coach with significant name recognition, while the first team coach missed out.

3. I wouldn't wish anyone in football to find themselves the focus of an audit investigation. The process is rigorous, and if you have done something wrong, or lied, I would wager it will be discovered. 

4. If there is bad track record of service delivery, future funding is unlikely.

Hope this helps.

You're comparing paying spaniards to coach kindy kids (and happen to play for the same club paying them to do this in their spare time) to a programme that helps people with drug and alcohol addictions? 

Ok....

"Andrew Milne, Adam Dickenson, James Pritchett".

I think this here answers your question Ali.

Would it make you feel better if I edited "Spanish" out? 

A football team is hardly a charity. 

West Ham are like the Make a Wish foundation at the moment

They are being paid to play/coach?

Wow.

It is weird how many coaches are also young enough that they can play in their spare time for the same club that they are paid by to coach kindy kids. 

I assume they have all sorts of coaching qualifications at such a young age if they're getting paid to do it too. Such dedication. The coaching pool in nz must be looking bright for the future that's for sure. 

I also assume that all of these players continue to get paid to coach the kids after they stop playing football for the club right? I mean they are getting paid as coaches after all, so there is no reason for that to stop just because they've retired from playing football right? 

^ Perhaps you might like to read B Holloway on this topic (post #133). But probably you might not.

^ plus his post #128

Hello there.

Just as some agencies specialise in the charitable sector, others specialise in the sports sector of society. 

It would seem some posters here oppose the basic proposition of community funding being directed towards football coaching in the community - even though the provider agencies have their own empirical data that there is a community good derived from it. (As I alluded to previously, I have found agencies will often prefer funding to be directed at youth and community programmes with lower qualified personnel than top level stuff with higher qualified people. But that is the perogative of those disbursing the funds.)

Others here would appear to be happy to have such programmes - as long as those not working in them are not also playing top level football.

I haven't yet heard a convincing argument here for de-funding. But there you go, maybe that's just me.

However for the sake of argument, if you oppose the synergies between community coaching and playing, how do you feel about someone like, say, Waibop coach Peter Smith, who works for the federation - AND coaches the national league team. ie, his day job allows him to coach at national league level, and it is derived from community funding.

It would be fair to say the overhwelming chunk of his salary is derived from community trust funds (the same ones that give to sport, cancer, alcoholism etc). Is this immoral, illegal etc?

And what of the national league players who are employed directly by federations, where the money is sourced from the same agencies? Is it okay as long as they are full-time as opposed to part time? If so, why?

Where is the line of demarcation for those who want to see this line of funding cease?

Enough from me. Appreciate a few alternate views

Bruce I respect your opinion on this and you have posted some stuff in the last 24 hours where I have gone 'Hmmm ok I may have to rethink that'. I guess the issue is not 'coaching in the community' as such. Its coaching in the community and the direct correlation that they be tied to that very club.

As an example, are ACFC prepared to submit an application for funding for coaching kids (which as you propose is fine and it certain is) but the coach is Jake Butler. High profile player, current AW......? I bet you that would never happen because Jake does not play for ACFC.

Thus the inference is that the player is directly tied to that club, which is where the issue is. I have absolutely no issue with coaching kids in the community (and if we were honest, in summer when no one is really thinking football?) and I totally get that finding work for your tractor driver is fine, but the issue here is that it in this case, it is disguised as a way to pay a player full time to play for the club. Does Ivan need to get 70k for coaching kids for a couple of hours a week, and lets be honest, at kindy level, those kids may not know Ivan and he basically baby sits them for 60 mins while they run about with a ball and have fun. Would they still be prepared to do that for Ivan if he retired from ACFC today? I seriously doubt it.

That's where the issue is.

I'll phrase all of that differently.

 

What do you think the DIA would do if ACFC announced that 'Our players are paid to be full time footballers and we achieve that by getting funding from poker machine charities for them to coach kids'

 

They would dance all over that in a heartbeat.

I think you should back this up with a contract that states this, otherwise you are making a case built on supposition, and that isnt strong enough.
It may look to be the practice to you, but to carry on your vendetta against the ASBP, I think you need to give more proof that it is an illegal matter.
Your ideas of egalitarianism across the clubs are nice, but they wont work in practice because of the nature of humanity running those organisations, they will always try to get the best deals for themselves.

The organisations dont have to name the coaches, they just name the position the funds will be used for.
(I know this as I work for a charity that gets funding from various quarters. If the person had to be named and then left, that would invalidate the funding, but the need for the work would still be there. The organisation just appoints a new person to do the work, so it isnt a matter of personalities. )

Bruce, this is not what I'm saying at all. As already stated a number of times I have no problem with "community funding being directed towards football coaching" nor do I want to prevent those working in coaching programmes from playing top level football. However, a franchise paying someone to coach contingent upon them playing for that franchise is an abuse of the system. Any talk of synergies is just rubbish in my view. The fact is gaming trusts do not fund professional sport. Further, as far as NZF and FIFA are concerned the ASBP is an amateur competition and subject to the rules/regulations of an amateur competition. So if players are being paid beyond simply claiming expenses is there also not an issue? (jokes that Albert Riera is probably not being paid that much more at the Phoenix than at ACFC have a serious sub-text).

It's very simple - would ACFC be prepared to continue paying Ivan Vicelich to coach if he transferred to another franchise or club? If the answer to the question is yes, then we don't have a problem. If the answer is no, then we do have a problem. Please note, however, that regardless of the answer Ivan is not being prevented from either coaching or playing - it's whether he has the right to stop playing for his team without it affecting his coaching employment that is the key issue.

In the case of ACFC the situation is even more clear cut. The authorised purpose of the Trillion Trust includes "Promotion of any amateur sport where that sport is conducted for the recreation of the general public. Includes, but is not limited to, the provision of ground fees, equipment and uniforms for amateur sporting clubs and teams. No donations and/or payments to professional sportspersons". In addition, their expenses not permitted includes "wages/salary" among a long list of other things. Can someone please explain to me how the kind of coaching/playing arrangements that seem to commonly accepted as being used at ACFC can possibly fit within those criteria? (and forgive me, ACFC fans, for once again singling out your club as an example. I simply haven't got the time to review the authorised purposes of every other gaming trust funding the ASBP. They will be similar, however. The scale of pokie funding being received by your club also demands more scrutiny).

No it doesnt JV, it is another sideswipe line from Tegal

By the way, take a good long look at that list of expenses not permitted on the Trillion Trust website. If ACFC are receiving approx $500k from Trillion but not spending it on any of the things on that list then what the hell are they spending it on?

This is where the DIA's proposal to make trusts publish what the grant was for will be very useful and allow communities to monitor and analyse what gaming trusts are actually funding at the global level.

And for once Jeff managed to be more succint than me. Kudos.

I have no knowledge of Auckland's applications with Trillian, or even if they have players working on coaching schemes, or if these are bulk-funded programmes, so certainly can't comment on their workings, or wordings of contracts.

But 2 things....

1. My own experiences tell me these things are subject to significant audit scrutiny these days.

2. I wouldn't find it in any way remarkable that a club would choose to employ its own players on schemes or programmes it had arranged funding for - or anything unduly remiss in this. In fact it is totally unremarkable.

OK, 3 things.... And I simply can't see that it would promote or negate the wider interests of the game at large one iota if it was player A or player B the club chose to engage in such work. 

Anyway, enough from me. Some of youse guys obviously have a longstanding itch to scratch on this subject, whereas I don't see it as anything that deserves any sort of traction in the wider scheme of things.

I have no agenda here or link with Auckland city, but reading people's posts here criticizing the funding of City is laughable. If these guys had the nous and brains to link up with a trust, then good on them and having a go at them only sounds Ike sour grapes.  Other clubs simply need to get their houses in order and follow their example. Players being paid, players ending up at the Phoenix, kids being coached, not embarrassing the country at the world club championship., beating the phoenix. What is the problem here?

Thats how I thought it was too but Bruce did just say above that funding has in the past only been granted for some coaches and not others because of their profile so you could well assume that a person whom is high profile is likely to received funding than a person that is lower profile, if you were listing say 6 coaches in an application and they only wanted to partially fund it.

If profile is an issue (and again, I did not think it was, I was taking what Bruce said) then surely ACFC would love to get Jake some money for coaching. Current AW, club captain, ASBP champions........... Thats a great profile over Adam Dickinson, Adam Milne....... After all, it about the kids, right? (and yes, that was a swipe)

What happens the day that house of cards all falls apart? Its not far away you know and Totori was stupid enough a couple of years back to proclaim that he was paid to be full time by Waitakere via the trusts (or words to that effect) that caused some parties to look a lot closer.
Its no secret that the funding by charities keeps the league alive. If thats all gone because people flout the rules, what do you have left?

Looked on the DIA website and they raised a very specific anecdote when describing behaviour that is against the rules. 

'I went to a sports event and the trusts name was on the shirt and they were thanked for being 'great sponsors' along with other commercial sponsors of the team' 

Reminded me a lot of Auckland city having trillian basically as a sponsor on their shirts etc. It really is only a matter of time.