NZF donating regular money to Phoenix

59 replies · 3,616 views

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/4168790/NZ-Football-admits-Phoenix-cash-aid

Slightly worrying development IMO...although the state of the entire A-League is starting to become a bit of a concern.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Don't tell the knitting circle

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Considering the Aussie clubs seem to all be propped up by the FFA at some point, and the benefit the Nix have had towards the All Whites and football in New Zealand in general, I have no problem with this - depending on how much it is and where it goes.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Yeah I have no problem with this either, we're still a young club and it's money well spent imo

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Dont have a problem with it.

Yet another effort by the media to take a pot shot at football and the Phoenix.Getting really PO with some of the negative sh*t that gets written at times.Is even worse when some of it gets written by so called football supporters.Then again that really isnt a surprise to many with their own agendas at times.

GET YOUR SHIRTS OFF FOR THE BOYS

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

ballane wrote:

The Doom Post seem to be all but running a vindictive campaign against Terry - which the Nix gets caught up in.

One or two stories fine but barely a week goes by without another "shock horror" revelation about Terry's business dealings.

I wonder whose missus he bonked.

Whitby boy2010-09-26 14:57:42

He dribbles a lot and the opposition dont like it - you can see it all over their faces. (Ron Atkinson)

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

pretty sure the dom is paying their journos to dig up as muck muck as they can on Terry, it sells copies for them. He's the biggest regular news we've got....and of course any support from NZF who the nix have helped immensly means that the nix club is folding......I'm hapy with some of the money the AW's have earned been paid to the nix, we do keep a decent number of the players in regular footy and the coach.

Queenslander 3x a year.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

think this is old news- wasn't it kind of a deal that NZF paid part of Ricki's salary?

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

What troubles me the most about this is NZF telling us that they can't say what they are paying for and how much. Bugger commerical sensitivity, they are giving away my money and I want to know who to?, how much? and why? They are my representatives and I expect some transparency about how they run things.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

It could be spent on anything. If you really wanted an answer,they could give you dome random expense that's about the same as the money they're giving,but it wouldn't really be useful.

Allegedly

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Whitby boy wrote:

ballane wrote:

The Doom Post seem to be all but running a vindictive campaign against Terry - which the Nix gets caught up in.

One or two stories fine but barely a week goes by without another "shock horror" revelation about Terry's business dealings.

I wonder whose missus he bonked.

The Terry bashing is not surprising. The Dom Post is a Wellington paper, Terry is one of the richest people in Wellington. People like to read stories knocking anyone richer than they are. Tall poppies and all that. They're in the business of selling papers, after all, and commercial imperatives will always win out.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Footpaul wrote:

Whitby boy wrote:

ballane wrote:

The Doom Post seem to be all but running a vindictive campaign against Terry - which the Nix gets caught up in.

One or two stories fine but barely a week goes by without another "shock horror" revelation about Terry's business dealings.

I wonder whose missus he bonked.

The Doom Post is also ultimately dependent for its survival on being tuned in to the local (Wellington) community.

The Nix are important to Wellington's economy and give a lot of people a lot of pleasure - there is only so long you can run a vindictive campaign that swims against the tide of local passion and popularity before it bites you in the arse.

He dribbles a lot and the opposition dont like it - you can see it all over their faces. (Ron Atkinson)

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Simon Plumb = cockmongler

Ramming liberal dribble down your throat since 2009
This forum needs less angst and more Kate Bush threads

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I am alittle happier this morning on hearing what Terry says the money is for [but that is a seperate arguement]. I'm pissed that NZF make these types of decisions without being prepared to open themselves up to audit from it's membership - zero transparency. If they are concerned about business confidentiality they need to state at the outset, we are a public organisation funded by our members and we need to show them what,when and why we spend their money - there can be no confidentiality about this from us.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Napier Phoenix wrote:

I'm pissed that NZF make these types of decisions without being prepared to open themselves up to audit from it's membership

I think that's a ridiculous call. Do you really think NZF should email you personally every time they want to spend some money? How much of an outlay do you think that the duly-elected leaders of NZF should be able to spend without your say-so?

I think that paying (a) part of Ricki's salary; (b) the set-up costs for the Youth/Reserves team are what I would have expected NZF to be doing. Do you require "accountability and transparency" when Frank van Hattum gets a new office chair? If not, why not?

Ramming liberal dribble down your throat since 2009
This forum needs less angst and more Kate Bush threads

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

You need to be careful with your argument because you are attacking me without any knowledge of my circumstances. Of course no one expects an email over every little decision but I am a club representative within Central Football and Ii expect to be informed of these things so I can inform our membership. We get consulted on a whole raft of issues and on something like this we hear nothing? I don't know about you, but I care about how the organisation, I am an active member of, spends our money and I do that out of a duty to my immediate membership [at my club] and in a wider sense for the paying football community. You might be happy to rubber stamp everything NZF do, others do not. We take such an active interest because we don't want to return to the NZF of old where they spend all our money and come back to us to bail them out.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/4169246/Serepisos-denies-Phoenix-being-propped-up

This is exactly what I thought any money would be going towards before reading this article.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Thats BS and part of the reason football in NZ has struggled for a considerable time.To many people thinking they should/need to be in the know about far to may things.
Its not a case of rubber stamping anything its either them running NZ football or do we go back to the good old days again.

GET YOUR SHIRTS OFF FOR THE BOYS

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Napier Phoenix wrote:

I don't know about you, but I care about how the organisation, I am an active member of, spends our money and I do that out of a duty to my immediate membership [at my club] and in a wider sense for the paying football community.

No, I don't deny that you and other people in the apparatus deserve to be informed and consulted about major, out-of-the-ordinary spends. The question is whether these qualify under that heading, or whether they qualify as the kind of thing the central leadership should have discretion over. I suggest the latter, since if the central leadership can't make calls off its own bat sometimes, there's no point in having one.Doloras2010-09-27 15:29:04

Ramming liberal dribble down your throat since 2009
This forum needs less angst and more Kate Bush threads

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

ballane wrote:

This.

Allegedly

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

ballane wrote:

No, what is bullsh*t is that you are prepared to give NZF carte blanche to decide how to spend our money without any transparency or mandate from its membership. That is the reason why in the past NZF got us in the finacial poo. No one is suggesting that every little thing has to be put to the membership, NZF have to be left to run the game but I would suggest they need to seek a mandate on the most important things it wants to spend money on. I'd say spending money on a privately owned professional team is one of those. As it happens, I agree that NZF should be contributing to the Phoenix for a whole lot of reasons surrounding the use of RH, contributing to the development of the game etc but I don't want my representative hiding behind some commercially sensitive bullsh*t in an attempt to stop people from asking the hard questions and having them justify their actions.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I really don't get it. You think that NZF made the right call. And yet you're spitting angry because they made that call without asking you first? Did you get angry when they organised the matches with Honduras and Paraguay without asking you first?

Ramming liberal dribble down your throat since 2009
This forum needs less angst and more Kate Bush threads

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Doloras wrote:

I really don't get it. You think that NZF made the right call. And yet you're spitting angry because they made that call without asking you first?

Yes I am, I'm afraid if you don't understand the point I'm trying to make, then there is nothing more I can do. You disagree, so be it.

Have a look at NZF's strategic plan here: http://www.nzfootball.co.nz/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/Strategic_Plan_Football_in_NZ.pdf

Page 6, RESPECT - we are honest and TRANSPARENT in all our dealings.

Someone thought it important enough to put into the strategic plan as an organisational value. I'm just expecting NZF to live by that.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Who is to day they kept it secret? Just because they didn't tell you personally doesn't make it not transparent.

Allegedly

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Yeah, did you ask them personally? If they refused to tell you then maybe you can claim that..

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Transparency <> running all spending of money past a CF club representative. I have to ask again: did you expect to be consulted over the decision to schedule the Honduras and Paraguay games? Or whether Frank van Hattum buys a new office chair?

Ramming liberal dribble down your throat since 2009
This forum needs less angst and more Kate Bush threads

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Tegal wrote:

Who is to day they kept it secret? Just because they didn't tell you personally doesn't make it not transparent.

Guys, read the original article will you? Frank VH refused to say how much and what on the grounds of commercial sensitivity.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Doloras wrote:

I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt before but now you're just being thick. I've made my point, if you can't grasp that then I'm afraid I can't be bothered trying to help you further.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Good to hear Miles Davis put my very concerns to Frank van Hattum on Radio Sport today. They were obviously concerns shared with many others. Still wasnï¿½t overly impressed with FvHï¿½s response still banging on about commercial sensitivity. He seemed to allude that the information would be available to NZF membership as he was not prepared to air it in the media. I can live with that, if it was the case. Fair enough that he doesnï¿½t tell us how much RH is earning as coach of the All Whites and Phoenix combined but the amount paid to RH as the AW coach and how much compensation is being paid to the Nix for his services is information that the NZF has a right to know. Before some of you go off ï¿½ as a tax payer you know how much the prime minister and heads of government departments are paid, as a rate payer you know how much your mayor and councillors are paid ï¿½ that is all transparent because you have a financial stake in those organisations. They donï¿½t need your permission to make decisions but they are accountable for what they actually do ï¿½ NZF is the same with its membership, a pity that some of you donï¿½t care enough to make them accountable. Rant over.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

why are you so upset about NZF supporting a team you too support......there are degrees of transparancy....NZF have told us that they are giving money to the nix, do we really need to be asked and told how much? why do you particularly care that the numbers haven't been run passed you?

Queenslander 3x a year.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Napier Phoenix wrote:

Before some of you go off ï¿½ as a tax payer you know how much the prime minister and heads of government departments are paid, as a rate payer you know how much your mayor and councillors are paid ï¿½ that is all transparent because you have a financial stake in those organisations.

You're comparing government institutions with private organisations which need to make a profit, and keep their staff from being poached by overseas moneybags. That's totally ridiculous.

Ramming liberal dribble down your throat since 2009
This forum needs less angst and more Kate Bush threads

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Doloras wrote:

Napier Phoenix wrote:

You're comparing government institutions with private organisations which need to make a profit, and keep their staff from being poached by overseas moneybags. That's totally ridiculous.

No I'm not, NZF is not a private organisation. If I am a shareholder of a public company, I also will know how much the CEO and staff are being paid and what my company spends their money on. I'm beginning to think you know absolutely nothing about governance, business ethics or anything else associated with business public or private.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Napier Phoenix wrote:

If I am a shareholder of a public company, I also will know how much the CEO and staff are being paid[/quote]

So if I own shares in Apple, I have the right to know not only what Steve Jobs gets paid but that of the guy who does their website? You might have a point that you have the right to know what admin staff like FvH earn; the coach of the NZ team is a different matter.

[quote]I'm beginning to think you know absolutely nothing about governance, business ethics or anything else associated with business public or private.

And I'm beginning to think that personalised insults don't do anything to persuade people that you're right.

Ramming liberal dribble down your throat since 2009
This forum needs less angst and more Kate Bush threads

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Doloras wrote:

So if I own shares in Apple, I have the right to know not only what Steve Jobs gets paid but that of the guy who does their website? You might have a point that you have the right to know what admin staff like FvH earn; the coach of the NZ team is a different matter. [/QUOTE]
Doloras, you obviously don't know what you're talking about, if I was in such a position and wanted to learn that information, I could do so. In fact the salaries of the top dogs would most likely be written in the company annual report. How do you differentiate between the Chairman and the coach of the national side? they both have the same employer [NZF]

[QUOTE=Doloras] And I'm beginning to think that personalised insults don't do anything to persuade people that you're right.

I gave up long ago thinking I could change your view, the personalised insult is just that - a personalised insult.

Unless you say something that completely upsets me, I've finished with responding to you in this thread.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Napier Phoenix wrote:

Dear me.

Basic mistake you've made there.

You are taxed money by the Government. It is inescapable. In return you get certain rights to know how that money is spent. It's worth noting that those rights are limited in may ways, although that is not relevant to the point here.

You voluntarily subscribe to a club. You being a club member, in basic terms, makes you a member of New Zealand Football Inc. This is a choice you make, and you are entitled at any time to cease to be a member of New Zealand Football/your club.

That is the fundamental difference between being a taxpayer and a member.

It does not follow that because you are a member you should get similar rights as a taxpayer to know the private financial details of every transaction entered into by the body you are a member of.

A better comparison is that of member and shareholder. If you are a shareholder in a company you get to know what is requierd to be disclosed in the annual accounts of that company. You don't get to know the amount of money the company pays its sales manager.

Boards of incorporated societies, like boards of companies, are accountable to members/shareholders through the election process set out in the governing document of that organisation.

Boards and managers don't have to be accountable to the media, or to any individual member, on an ad hoc basis about any decision in which the media or a member happens to take an interest.

So suck it up.

Additionally, the private earning information of Ricki Herbert is absolutely not a matter for public disclosure. The fact that you think that it is gives a pretty strong indication to me that you're some sort of retard.

Just because you and the press might be interested in what someone earns, and the fact that you may somehow, indirectly, have made a contribution to those earnings, does not give you any right to know how much they are.

You make a contribution to the earnings of your local supermarket owner too, but I'd be surprised if you demanded to know what he got paid. Or maybe I wouldn't.

That is all.

Smithy2010-09-29 15:47:23

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Queenslander 3x a year.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

NP you seem to have a vested interest in where your money goes in relation to NZF. Is there a reason for this?

Three for me, and two for them.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Buffon, yes I do have a vested interest in that I care how NZF money is spent. Its not as if NZF don't have any form here, it was only last year that we [members] had to bail them out financially. I'm not expecting every little thing to be passed by the membership and if NZF had performed better in the past, I probably wouldn't have such a bee in my bonnet over this matter. To my mind the new NZF leadership need to demonstrate that our faith in them is justified, my view is that van Hattum's response to the whole issue is not in keeping with a desire to restore the faith of the membership, that's all.

Now to address Guy Smith who called me a retard in his posting; I certainly don't appreciate being insulted in that way and I rang him personally to make that point. To say he wasn't apologetic would be an understatement. Without attempting to be too precious, I think we should expect better from our Forum moderators than this, its the type of comment that wouldn't surprise us coming from some of the serial posters on here, but from a founder of the YF????

One of the rules of forum posting should be not to call anyone anything that you wouldn't do to their face. I would doubt very much if Smithy would have said that if I was standing in front of him. Shame on you Mr. Smith, being the intelligent man you are; you probably have had time to reflect on your childish behaviour. You don't have to ring me to apologise, something nice in the forum would do.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Napier Phoenix wrote:

You clearly don't know me very well or you'd know that I certainly would say it to your face.

The fact that you took the time to find me, ring me, and then say you "look forward to having this conversation face to face" kind of reinforces my point don't you think?

I stand by what I said and how I said it.

Now jog on. This is very boring for everyone else.

I'm going back into forum hibernation.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink