Shortfall Fee for All Clubs

Shortfall Fee for All Clubs

So we're all going to pay $10 or so to bail out NZ Soccer.  How much of the $8ook shortfall in our national body is due to the lack of the Fiji game, the lack of a gate, lack of tv rights paid and having to foot the bill for travel and setting it up?

http://www.nzsoccer.com/plugins/newsfeed.cgi?rm=content&plugin_data_id=22068 $511,000 or $311,000 for the cost of the Fijian game?

Either way the Government needs to front up. NZ Football was going to make a loss this year - that'll happen when Seatss etc have said that the national team need to be playing regularly to be taken seriously. If we play regularly, build a reputation and our ranking better teams will want to play us - it wont happen straight away - it's a long term plan. We will lose money for a while but when we are geographically as far away from football strong holds as we can be that is just a fact of life. Too many short sighted egotists with an axe to grind are seeing this as an opportunity to get rid of leadership that will take us places. Christ we're better off now as football fans and as a footballing culture than when McGowan was in charge. He's now attempting to f**k golf up as much as he f**ked football up.

Just how much would they have earned from the Fiji qualifier? Would they have got 10000 adults? I highly doubt they would have drawn in even $250,000 in ticket sales. The TV sales can presumably still be sold for the game in Samoa and may even be worth slightly more. I think football should get compensated but I still think this board is incompetent and needs to get sacked. The lack of advertising and odd time slot for the qualifier in Wellington was disgraceful. And expenses in general are far too high allied with the fact that you don't see any positive initiatives from them at all.

Crowd numbers would have been interesting - there is a massive Fijian community in Auckland - they had a big turn out for the Waitak v Ba game last year.

Your right on the crowd numbers, a thousand "locals" and 8,000 Fijians at the Waitak Ba match.

If the Football Federations don't give Seatter Morris and co a vote of no confidence mid year (why wait to then?) we're doomed.

$311,000 for the cancelled game plus $200,000 for the rescheduled game away from Home Stadium. Great that accounts for $511,000.

And where are the other $323,000?

The game against Vananatu was not at full capacity. The Nix or more specifically Terry had spent 1.51 million on the Beckham show and recover all the financial cost. So are we not packaging the game well enough? Outside of the Phoenix that is.

Hopefully we nab the oceania nations cup and so nab some 1 million cash for being at the confederation cup 09. if we get to the world cup 2010, thats another 4.5 million. So a four year cycle of loss and profit is a real pain in the neck.

Hopefully it's not a spiral downwards.


I am a bit concern that there was some anger directed at Seatters. It was said that the document was to explore four options to recover the shortfall because it was necessary if we are going to lift our international profile, which is frankly is the main source of profit as well as our main source of loss, as well as increasing domestic football standards.

If not, we are always going to be at a shortfall in trying to promote football, improve NZFC and cope with the normal economic inflation. It's hard to keep up to 5% annual inflation while not raising fees since 2004.

But lets not forget what Seatter has done for us? Grabbing internationals against European and South America teams. Not just some international teams but really good ones to measure our mettle and see how we are globally. Lucky to get decent opposition games against Brazil, Hungry, Estonia, Chile Venezuela, Costa Rica and Georgia starting with Australia in England three years ago. internationally that is how things are going to be like being in the big fish in a small pond (NZ in OFC) since Australia has left OFC this year and we need to lift a higher international profile by playing outside the OFC confederation or we would not climb the rankings into the 80s and into the 50s.. We have not been in the top 50s since like the mid-1980's. And frankly we need to be very strong side to pass through the qualifiers, besting the 5th best in Asia along the way. We need those friendlies, its an necessary evil. We will reap the benefits after we play the world cup finals when more teams invite us for matches after the world cup finals and then with some extra money arrange broadcast international home matches of our own. then the cycle continues for the domestic games and hopefully secure some lucrative sponsorship for the NZFC and propel us into full professionalism.

Hopefully this is the an upward spiral.

But lets not forget what Seatter has done for us?      REALLY. More to the point what has Seatts done for himself...............very nicely thanks very much. Montana/Lion Nathan sacked Seatter and NZS/morris hired him. One successful company .............school teacher. Those that can can ........Those that can't teach. Spud2008-01-24 22:19:15

THIS BETTER NOT HAPPEN. Being a club captain - I will send NZF an invoice for $200,000 for the time it takes me to collect this.

A Board and CEO cannot oversee three years of continual losses and a full depletion of what little cash reserves the game had and expect to retain their positions. The current predicament sounds dire and is yet to be fully disclosed. I am sure Sparc along with the government and the game itself, via an incresed player levy will bail the National Body out of this current mire. However, the administration who have overseen this financial disater will no doubt be asked to fall on their swords.

Uli,

You don't by chance drive a Honda CR-V do you ?
Hard News2008-01-25 11:05:52

If you have read the strategic direction of nzsoccer 2006, they have addressed many issues over the last three years that was not ever possible before. Although the strategy plan was ambitious to say the least, they have achieve half of the objectives but also have estimated the weakness and threat to achieving the other objectives. This at least had show that they were very aware of the downfalls if they had lack of support from the public and federations and independent providers.

All of this has happen against their ambitious and optimistic approach. The sponsors and government are still not happy with the infrastructure despite it being stretched as it is to provide competitiveness and so are still holding back with the cash. On that side of things, the potential sponsors and government funding and broadcasting rights people are still not happy with the crowd turn outs at the NZFC and see it as being a ongoing loss.

Until there are like 5,000 to 10,000 people at each NZFC game, hardly any of these potential cash injectors are likely to budge. Broadcasters are not going to do much if there are little crowds at the games, because it looks bad on TV, and would unlikely to see crowds returning and therefore it is a big risk. Sponsors are not get much pubicity because there are are small crowd to advertise to as well as no broadcasting of their broad advertising on TV. The government funders are not convinced that senior soccer is that popular enough for any long term financial return.

THE ONLY REAL WAY FOR THE MONEY TO COME INTO THE SPORT IS FOR A LARGE CROWD ATTENDANCE AT THE NZFC GAMES . . . as well as for the Phoenix.

Only this will persuade money to come in and get some financial return. Even if a little profit % and demonstration of big crowds will the money be coming because of decent exposure, far better than radio or cinema advertising.

The root problem is the lack of crowds, crowds and lack of more crowds.

Why are there not enough people wanting to watch their NZFC teams?

Answer. . . because the ordinary joe on the street doesn't know diddy squat about local soccer football.

Answer to the answer. . . have quota of freetickets giveways to boost crowd numbers. e.g. have 10,000 free tickets and screw the $5 per tickets gate taking, let the increase in federation affillation fee cover that shortfall. Yes it means that we use some of the soccer membership money to get the crowds for the matches (we benefit by getting free access to games). . . but by getting the crowds in, it would be investing to the chance to grab bigger sponsorship/government/broadcasting rights money. A much better trade-off and once they are on board, then cut the fees back.

After having about 5-10 seasons of decent crowd number, we can cut back some of the free tickets quota, because there would gate takings for crowds above 10,000 quota and a slow cut back of 500 free tickets per season.

How do you give away free tickets? . . . Dunno, competitions maybe, but just a random letter box dump should do the trick if you ask me.

I bet you that increasing the crowd number, we would get plenty of sponsors big or small because of it.

I reckon that is the way to start the ball rolling. . .AllWhitebelievr2008-01-25 14:47:01

"NZF Strategy Plan" over the last couple of years...you're dreaming! They've had no business plan whatsoever.

I'd just like to remind everyone of the forum rules here in relation to comments about messrs Seatter, Gray and other NZS officials. Obviously they've led us into a very precarious position and there are a lot of strong feelings on the matter but let's please focus on what they've done and not the individuals concerned.

Cheers
YF

4. sl*gging players off. The forums are not a place for sl*gging players, fans, or officials off. It is ok to express an informed view on why a particular player did or did not play well. It is not ok to start a thread along the lines of "so and so is crap". People who start such threads, or continue to comment along those lines, will be banned. If you see any posts that are offensive use the "report" button.

10,000 at the NZFC? Get real, that will NEVER happen in our lifetimes because there are not 40,000 people in NZ each weekend who are interested in domestic football and keen to attend. This is fantasy. NZS is in charge of a largely amateur game in this country and we and they have to realise that and adjust the management of the game accordingly. They've tried to professionalise the output of the organistaion, fine. But there hasn't been a corrosponding input in terms of funding, and that doesn't take a genius to work out that's a problem.

on this shortfall fee. If it was implemented I understand that some clubs might get something of a fright. One very small Wellington club has 200+ players on its register. They have never kept it properly updated and most of those on their register aren't connected with the club anymore....

NZFC needs to be declared bankrupt paving the way for a new board made up of people who have a clue about what they're trying to achieve!!!

Don't see how the clubs could get a fright from this.  They must current take in registration monies from their players. And they must also be paying Capital Football for each of those players. They just have to add ten bucks to that amount.  It's not logistically difficult.

"Registered Player" doesn't mean "player on an email list somewhere" it means player holding a current registration for this season.

Boy JD, you are negative.

By 2005 season, we had over 100,000 junior players and 64,000 senior players on the books. That not even counting the youth players from school or even these players family. Is it that hard to reach at least 0.1% of the population? I am sure we are not that much in the minority.

Besides, if you are able to read what I am suggesting. I was merely say that is the goal we need to achieve is to use FREE TICKETS as a regular promotional exercise to get people in through the door and a couple of hours of entertainment.

You be surprise who will get in for FREE entertainment. Kiwi's love FREEBEES. Remember the two for one combo with the Beckham game and the A-League game against Adelaide United? Well 30,000+ at the Beckham game and 20,000+ at the Adelaide Game. where did the other 10,000 come from? eh? They came in for the FREE entertainment.

Again the four main money revenue comes from the sponsors, government funding, broadcasting rights, gatetakings. I say that to get the ball rolling is to not worry about the gatetakings but provide 10,000 free tickets and gather some gatetakings from the others outside of the 10,000 free tickets. How much would difference does that gatetaking make? Not much at $5 for an average of 500 a game ($2,500). We get more by small sponsorship and the chances we would get a sizable number above the free tickets. To get 10,000 people through the door, we need to hand out about 15,000 tickets because about only 2/3rds would go for the freebee.

Sponsors, government funding, broadcasting rights will follow after the crowd numbers are up at the games. Thats good advertising to a large local crowd. It's all good for business. Everyone wins..

The trick is to have FREE tickets in their hands rather than a radio announcement of free entry. The tickets are the advertising and a constant remainder to the ticket owner. The great thing is that the owner may even give the ticket to someone who is interested. Also if you run a competition to draw the ticket number for some really good free prizes (using some sponsors), people can't resist a good prize at half time. It would be like a good family outing.

Family Entertainment, free entertainment with benefits and publicity for the sponsors and the broadcaster would know there is actually more people interested in the game by the crowd size. And so there is plenty of room to make good coverage of the local game.

The broadcasting rights are where the real money is. This money is where we are able to pay our players and staff to be fully professional and the quality of the players would naturally lift up with better time spent of their game.

Then government funders are interested in the improvements to the quality of life and family entertainment and community initiative. The bigger the crowd and interest, the bigger the funding because it have economic stimulation. Why do you think that America's cup was government funding or their willness to fund the waterfront stadium in partnership if Auckland when ahead? It become economically viable and good for the economy and local businesses with big crowds.

Fantasy? No, just business entrepreneurship.AllWhitebelievr2008-01-27 06:28:40

Here is the strategy plan 2006-2010. It covers vision, purpose and attributes, 6 strategic challenges of 1.) Align our sport and control our game, 2.) Achieve financial sustainability, 3.) grow the game, 4.)achieve international success, 5.) Improve communications, 6.) Optimise internal capability. It has a strategy map. Appendix of financials, PEST Analysis and SWOT analysis tools.

http://www.nzsoccer.com/files/nz_soccer_strategic_plan_2006_2010.pdf

It's interesting to note that in the 2005, there was $400,000 loss. they only cut half of that in 2006 and 2007 making $77,000 from what I heard. Current we only get half the picture from their points of clarification on their website. We have no idea of their sponsorship levels, or SPARC on their website confirmed $340,000 2007 funding whereas the actual 2005 SPARC was more at $425,000, NZF wanted $660,000 for 2007 not $340,000. A shortfall of $320,000. The trust funding remain the same at 1.3 million from 2005 to 2007 but NZF wanted 1.5 million inn 2006 and 1.6 million in 2007. a shortfall of the projected 1.6 million by $300,000. The $630,000 was at expected level and in fact for 2007 it was up by $10,000 approximately. I don't know about their gate-takings but it was $597,000 in 2005 but they expected $1.45 million in 2006, and $1.5 million in 2007. FIFA/OFC revenue was suppose to increase from $456,000 to $600,000 (2006) to $650,000 (2007). I expected that they missed a bit of that from the Vanuatu game and the fiji games or they would have probably broke even with the broadcasting rights.

On the expenditure side, Domestic Women football was probably $50,000 underfunded, but the international program was likely to increase, due to the world cups qualifiers and finals. As for the increase and cost, I don't know. the high performance has increased as to the cost in the domestic game in the projections but it is unclear where it would be as there an increase of the international program in the last two years. some of the cut backs were suppose to be the administration across the broad and then one person was plan for hire, in which they keep to.

It's gets hard to compare the financial project to the actual without any more information but it seems that they have only progressed though most of the 2006 revenue, but most of the expenditure 2006 with some differences. I say that they didn't change much with the 2007 actual and operated at the same level at 2006 projection. My guess is that the previous shortfall was covered by not promoting the NZFC domestic game as much as so there was no improvements.

So they are telling the truth that the money coming in was not expected, especially the SPARC cutback of $320,000 and no change to the sponsorship levels and the trust funding. So I estimate that the domestic game and high performance retain 2005 level and the women football expenditure had a slashed back to 2005 level and the rest of the budget was to 2006 levels. Well that is how I read and summarized as and that would what I would do in something like this as well. No wonder people were worried that the National women league seems under threat. They had a slashed to the local scene of probably $50,000 although an increase of the international program would have given them headaches. And yet they were able to cover at least $77,000 of the $400,000 lost they had in 2005.

So that is all I could summarized in the financial sustainability budget. Reading the objectives, they achieved half of the targets.

Of the strategic challenges, they have achieve some of the aligned of the sport and control of game (via federations), achieve little of the financial sustainability, achieve half of the grow of the game, achieve most of the international success, achieve half of the improve communications, and unknown how much of the optimise internal capability is achieve.

So roughly half of the strategy is achieved, but the other strategy half is much harder than the half that they achieved.

Until that financial situation is sorted, it is unlikely they would get remotely close in achieving the harder half of the strategy plan. They practical been hitting a wall, without any revenues. and it is unlikely they or anyone else would improve until there are some out of the square thinking.

I suggested a few ideas which has no reason to not to trial it somewhere to check the financial market status. Does anyone else had any ideas they like to suggest? I am sure Seatts be interested reading some.

But that SPAC cutback of $320,000 annually was a slap in the face and it would account for the $323,000 shortfall outside of the $511,000 lost in the FIFA world cup against Fiji and Vananatu.

Other than that we were basically on thin budget.AllWhitebelievr2008-01-27 22:21:26

Going back to my original question: what have they achieved for their losses; let's have a look shall we.

2007 Key Performance Indicators.

1. Federations aligned to NZS strategy: FAIL - Federations all still broadly independent and in many cases not aligned with NZF at all.
2. Income $6.6m and accumulated reserves of $260k: FAIL FAIL FAIL.
3. Increase participation by 4%: probably a PASS.
4. Qualify for FIFA tournaments: PASS
5. Improve rankings: PASS, although only just.

I'll leave the other ones because I can't comment on whether they've been achieved.

In summary then NZF have achieved 3, 4 and 5 but you'd have to say they haven't had a huge challenge to do any of those.  What they have done is smoked a considerable amount of money without any kind of step change in the game.

Well it seems obvious that John Morris is going to be replaced and it seems that Frank Van Hattum who is on the board is approved from the seven federation as the next chairman. It seems that some have thought that Graham Seatter although he has mixed results in grabbing youth tournaments etc was very much out of his reach simply because he doesn't know the game as well as others who may more suitable to the job when he was first hired. It seems that John Morris was backing Seatters to be hire the first place.

It's interesting that Federation aligned to the strategy was fail thing despite the fact they were invented by the NZF to get some alignment which had some bearing back to bit them. I do say that the Federation should still existed,

I personally think that there should be a seat for each of the federation on the board, and so represents the Federation interest as well when making approvals for the CEO to make a decision of many things.

BUT financial strategy has to be the number one priority compared to the other strategy objective.

I expect the resignation of the at least Morris and maybe Seatter. Seatters has a number of good ideas but was perhaps was between a rock and a hard place.

To be honest, the CEO is a glamourous but it is bit of a poison chalice. I know that very few people would touch that job. Only the brave or the stupid would dare.

I think that I would be happy to have seats on the board that represents each of the seven federations. Then I would be very satisfied if that would happen, so that each the federation are more than well informed about the NZF direction.

Soccer: NZF loss less than initially expected 5:00AM Sunday January 27, 2008
By Michael Brown 

New Zealand Football's losses are not as bad as first thought and are closer to $450,000 rather than the $834,000 previously reported. etc.....

Rules are rules so I'm unable to further criticize the perpetrators of 'crimes against football in NZ'

1. Doesn't NZF receive a payment from FIFA for all of our teams that go to World Cup Finals?

Gee took you guys long enough.

Good point, well presented.

Ok we did get to 47th place in August 2002. After the confeds and oceania nation cup win against the ugly foes from the west, we went backwards. It was the closest that we got to passing them in the FIFA rankings since they started in August 1993. They were 46th place and the Australia Soccer Association was at their lowest. The world was surprised. ASA was doing what the NZF are doing now i.e. relied on tournament money as top OFC and got completely bankrupted.

I hope we revamp almost in the same manner.