Capital Football Fees - Are they Daylight Robbery?

I agree with all of this. 

As an aside, CF has been pleading poverty for some time even on significant safety issues: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/sport/7244940...

You know what, if Capital Football were up front about this stuff in a more open way, i'd have so much more sympathy and would temper my reaction to fees. If I knew kids needed goalposts, I'd talk to all the welders/engineers/metal workers I knew to try and donate some stuff - but instead, it's a stonewall.

Make people an advocate for your organisation by being open about your successes and challenges and you'll go a lot further, rather than a somewhat passive aggressive approach.

I'd say if CF had to explain their five year financial plan every time Joe Public asked then they would have to create a new role

Joe Public wouldn't need to ask if they made it part of a newsletter or blog that they could attach to a response email or share a link to.

Short term piece of work with a long term payoff in regards to relationships which then could lead onto a better feeling about CF and less objection to parting with hard earned cash.

Just from the information Smithy was able to provide me above, I feel less animosity and am more likely to pay that money and encourage others to, rather than question it. Naturally, I'd still like to know more about where my money goes but that's for me to do and with a more level head.

Your money gets paid to your club

Who then pass a majority (3/4 of it) onto Capital Football.

bullet point list all your questions here

• How much of the money paid in levies filters back down to the club and across the grades?
• A levy increase for the artificial pitches has been included in recent times. Does FIFA contribute to any upkeep given they have contributed to the building of some of these grounds?
• Surely with more games on less pitches, the levy previously paid for grass pitches has reduced hugely which should offset cost of artificial pitch up-keep. If not, why? 
• Is there a long term plan that involves reducing costs/bringing more into line with other winter sports for clubs and players to encourage more participation in or Football or does Capital Football feel participation is at a good level despite costs?
• Does Capital Football audit clubs to see where their income is going?

EDIT: Some of these have been answered in previous links/answers - just indicating areas of interest.

As a side note CF fees went up steeply under the previous CEO (Keith Palmer I think) and have been fairly stable (ignoring some rejigging) since then.

-who is this question for? Is this referring to subs paid to the club and therefore not a CF question?

-FIFA gave some seed capital for Petone I believe. Nothing else

-CF are trying to fully use grass pitches due to them being  a fraction of the cost (from WCC). There are pretty much no savings to be had on grass pitches

-clearly the aim is to grow the game and cap/reduce costs. If they had a plan to make foootball as affordable as underwater hockey in five years time would that make you happy?

-No and why would they? CF exists for the clubs.

1. For CF initially, then when we know how much they hand to the club, we can ask where that goes.
2. OK
3. So do they pay a flat hireage fee rather than a per-ground or per-timeframe fee?
4. I'm not sure if there is a reference here I'm missing regarding Underwater Hockey. If they have shown "Here is what we want to do, here are the roadblocks" then I'd certainly be keen to see that.
5. CW audits clubs on a random basis to ensure money going into the club is being used responsibly and for the overall club, not just for the benefit of a few. Just wondered if CF did the same, for example, player payments.

what $ are CF handing to clubs?

That's the question, sorry, it was badly worded. Should probably have read...

• Does any of the money paid in levies filter back down to the clubs and across the grades later in the season?

you've lost me mate.

Looks like the Rapa will have less dosh to chuck around now that Phil is bank rolling local motor cross....

Clubs pay levies, etc. to Capital Football. Once all money is collected, bills paid, salaries sorted etc, is there then any kick back of cash/funding to the clubs who made the initial payment?

no, if by some freak reason they had a big surplus then it will be factored into the following years budget/ fee level

note: saying that - this year they will assess whether there has been an over collection of grounds $ fee portion (when they finalise council fees) and pay some back to clubs if there has been

Cool, got there in the end.

Just to pick up on a thing that has come up in a couple of posts above. Feverish said that CF exists for the clubs, and LeighboNZ wondered if CF was independent or an NZF lapdog.

I think, with the utmost respect for my elders, that Feverish is wrong and LeighboNZ asks an interesting question.

Capital Football is a branch of New Zealand Football. It's constitution dictates, broadly, that it does what it's told by NZF and that its money belongs, ultimately, to NZF. 

The membership of the branch isn't the clubs. Clubs don't actually exist as far as the constitution of CF is concerned. The membership of CF is anyone who plays football - whether recreationally or for a club or at school or otherwise.

So to answer your question as best I can LeighboNZ: Capital Football is effectively bound by what NZF determines. In reality CF has not inconsiderable influence in deciding its own destiny within NZF's framework. It is neither a lapdog nor an independent actor.

The membership of CF is anyone who plays football - whether recreationally or for a club or at school or otherwise

not really

Only affiliated clubs ( try getting a funding application past 1st base without a letter of affiliation from your local Fed) and their members.

So 'anyone who plays football' is incorrect.  

Read the Rules of Federation 5 of New Zealand Football and come back to me Greeneman.

I'll save you both the effort...

And the real giggle is this one:

So to break that down...

Club means any club (great start) established within the Fed District and operating in relation to activities promoted by the Fed (so, football).

So any group of people (doesn't have to be incorporated) playing football is a Club. Any Club is a Member. So is any individual who is registered.

says 'registered'

Smithy - you're missing the important bit: "in competitions run or promoted by the District Federation"..... and....."in relation to competitions and activities promoted and controlled by the district Federation".

Plenty of football (when was 'soccer' ditched - time to update the rulebook ;-) played that has nothing to do with the federations.

Here are the rules in case anyone would like a read. They are quite bad. 

http://www.foxsportspulse.com/get_file.cgi?id=1719...

VERY bad!

They have.  Sunday League.

Yep - using fields kindly set up with goals and linemarkings courtesy of clubs that pay affiliation fees etc.

Most games are played at Boyd Wilson or on school fields that clubs have not funded.  Sunday League sides that have home grounds that are council grounds pay the council for use of those grounds the same as any clubs do.  They don't just turn up and play on a pitch.

Should have qualified: all the rage in christchurch, where they do just rock up and play on a pitch. Easy to keep subs down by avoiding costs that 'proper' clubs are in for.

This thread has been an interesting read, it's a subject I've always found interesting but I've never been involved enough in any club/admin to know much about it. What strikes me is that for profit organizations that run Sunday leagues, twilight, indoor football etc can offer a similar product for a similar price per game as a non-profit group like CF - but I could be way wrong about that. Its just what it looks like from an uninformed outsider's perspective. Anyway, at least now with the artificial pitches the number of cancelled and postponed games has gone down. That at least makes it feel like you're getting a bit more for your buck.

Hmm, or ratepayers, depending on your pov. 

The Wellington Sunday league plays quite a number of its games on Vic Uni's field which isn't council-owned.

They did. Juniors only I think. And for a while it was quite succesful until NZF descended on the joint and talked them around. They were rebelling against the lack of value for money.

Yeah but teams need to show that they have permission to use that ground. Meaning they pay for any use (or the person who paid for the lines etc allows them to use it). 

Definitely not just rocking up and using/freeriding someone elses pitch.