CF Governance

Healthy debate about current issues being discussed in other forums about CF.

Do you know this person you are talking about Mossimo? Are you on the CF board?

How do you know he is the driving force behind CL 2nd tier?  Even if he is, how do you know that he doesn't just truly believe that it is a great idea? 

How does CL 2nd tier benefit any Cap Prem clubs any more than Cap Prem?

I think everyone would agree that we would like your own agendas to be left at the door when you are in a governance position, but I still haven't really read anything that would suggest that people aren't. Sounds like more hear say bollocks really

He is talking about Canton. Obviously he isn't on the board or he wouldn't be posting here.

Canton tabled the paper.

Your other question doesn't make sense

good to see this thread paolo

Smithy ::

Why not though - where is the forum for that discussion?

That's something that niggles me, is that if you do speak out against decisions of the Board you get tagged as "difficult" or "chasing your own agenda" or some such.

The reality is, if you're on a Board, you're there representing people. Consequently, you are going to be talked about and disagreed with. It's part of the gig.

Unfortunately in New Zealand we have this stupid attitude that because you're a volunteer you are immune from criticism.

who is spartacus::

you are quite correct there as i can testify to

you ask a few curly questions and get no real answer so ask another then get labeled as a monster by the CEO to my club…...

feverish::

nobody says diddle in CF club meetings. I reckon CF could say they were changing the shape of the ball to oval and no one would say boo. 

Not sure if the club reps just want to toe the line, are out of touch with goings-on, or if they just don't give a rats. 

That makes it important that there is a good mix on the Board. I'm not sure (m)any could relate to the Cap 1 'issue'.

who is spartacus:::

i did, See above post on smithy's comments

but one is not enough it takes all members to actually read and understand what is happening and ask questions and make suggestions .

part of this is information is not given before the meetings so people what to take it back it to discuss before saying anything.this is not the way of the past (20 years back) but it seems to be the way things are done now.

 funny how in a world of electronics and computers we get worse communications than in the days of letters and phones

most clubs would see the 11 team league issue as a stupid idea but feel it is not there place to comment but it is really there place to have a say and be counted.

my issue with Capital football  on the 11 team league is

(1) no consultation with other clubs affected

(2) who would be affected if we apply the normal rules of relegation and is there a real reason to change this rule to benefit all clubs affected ( lots of club/teams thought they were saved from relegation but have to take the bitter pill of 3 teams down) cap2 should have 10 teams perhaps then all leagues would be normal 2 down?

(3) why do anything if no complaint or lobbing to the board has been done as previously stated in other forum threads

(4) even NZF see's there are floors in there reasoning

rant over

i still think they will stick with there decision 

That's what I'm asking for, FACTS! I ask questions to get facts and not bull crap half assed babel so that I can form a proper opinion.

Question makes sense, my point is if Mr Canton was putting forward CL 2nd tier for his own agenda (stop out) as suggested by mossimo, how does that idea work out so much better for stop out than their current situation of cap prem?

IMO they would not have to compete with any CL playing clubs Prem teams. Hic - from pub talk pre and post Nix games (a lot of people in football don't take not of the volunteers) So quicker to the top of the pot. 

People who are prepared to put their name to a paper, believe it is in the best interest of Who/What/Where they see the situation from. 

Right or wrong, good on them for standing up and presenting it. 

But debate in person, not in alias will decide the out come.

If that makes sense - get me another #Steineken

Good night or is it have a good night

agreed it has to follow the process you mention and also what Blew.2 said in #13 about stand up and be counted

i feel the CL2 proposal is not just a capital football issue as CL should include teams outside the CF area and i feel is a call to return to the past before the Capital premier league  when football was played by men from Gisbourne to Seatoun and the best played in CL1 and the worse Played in CL3 or 4 and travel was the killer if you had the wrong teams in your grade.

so i feel not really a self interest paper for one club or who's idea was this situation, as it has been pretty transparent and open 

when is the next North Wellington training session?  It would be great if they could get some new faces down there.

Dissapointing in CF that with the FTC programme starting in about a week,  the Hutt Valley(2000's) coach is still TBC....  

The quoting in this thread is attrocious. I have no idea who said what ...

I have another situation where the CF Board and management have made remarkable decisions with poor information and no consultation with the affected clubs.

the situation for us in the Wairarapa local league is we are facing a 70% increase in fees from 2013 per team. Our fee increase is approximately $700 extra per team (Senior). This was justified by Capital Football stating that ground user costs were approx. 20K and they needed a cost recovery from this.

Our clubs received no consultation on the proposed fees, no opportunity to explore options with our councils or for the facts broken down being produced to us for comment.

When we found out about this increase ...on the off chance of visiting the website, we have joined together and researched the costings. turns our the 20K is in fact for 20 junior pitches to get marked by a third party, no money spent on the seniors and we are expected to pick up the cost. We have 5 clubs in the wairarapa and 4 believe without having to increase subs by an additional $60-$70 per head to cover the cost that we will need to close our doors.

Where is the governance and transparency from this board???

thoughts?

So does CF get charged by the councils for grounds? Must be a handful of teams who play in Wgtn comps?

I'd imagine that the situation is the same as in HB, where Central Football pay the costs of all grounds to the respective Councils and they recoup that cost via fees charged to clubs. That includes the use of grounds for training too. Not sure of the set up in the Rapa but I'm not aware of any differentiation between field costs for seniors or the different junior grade and field marking requirements. I'd imagine it is easier just to share the cost across all clubs. Not sure how that should work when some clubs are only junior clubs or some clubs only have 1 team etc. I will say that its a little rough to up the affiliation fees without letting anyone know [if that was the case and it justw asn't a situation of you not knowing] but you expect your governing body to fight to make every saving possible to prevent cost hikes like these going to the clubs. As an old administrator it makes bugeting for the year an absolute nightmare and you always have drama trying to justify rises in team registration fees.

the subs matrix for 2014 was the result of a complicated calculation which involved the allocation of costs to the different groupings (wgtn senior, junior, rapa, etc...). It was to get more of a true cost rather than cross subsidisation which was occurring. To what degree is debatable  - but I think it is safe to say that Rapa was underpaying. 

No Charge from the Wai councils for ground usage. they see it is apart of supporting active communities.

The teams that play in the wellington comps. get there pitched marked once a fortnight. this is covered in the fees they play which is the same as the wellington teams. approx. 3K per team..... so its a separate charge

The only costs attributed to our senior teams is capital football administration fees..... the issue is how can they do a comprehensive model and when they look at the breakdown of costs not know what the 20K was being charged for..... it is about open , transparent communication.

Agreed Feverish that the data presented indicated that we were not paying our fair share. But the Data is flawed which is the issue, the costs are not senior related they are junior related and they are expecting the seniors to cover the costs.... hopefully that provides some context.

You would think the people working this out are paid enough money to ensure all data is correct and transparent before a 70% increase is applied!!

Rapa has an assigned FDO doesn't it? I can't recall if that is in the model but there is value there. You used to have your own specific one.

So just to clarify your beef- are you saying that rapa councils only charge for usage of junior fields but not for senior fields (which sounds a bit upside down)?

We don't have a Dedicated FDO - Tim Bush spends some time.... in all my years we have had no relationship with an FDO even when Juan was dedicated there, his focus was on junior football and ran one senior coaching clinic a year. hardly support (personal opinion)

The wairarapa councils (being all three) don't charge for the use of grounds for either that is juniors or seniors.... the cost I am speaking of is to mark the grounds in which CF and a third party have an established relationship. Marking costs have never being associated with the fees our senior clubs pay. we all mark our own fields at our expense. hence the reduced fees.

We were informed that ground costs were 20K but our investigation has found this was for marking not ground costs.... hopefully clarify things :)

sounds like your seniors are subsidising your juniors then. Might be good for game growth :)

WAIlocal

i sugest you go to the capital football site and look at documents http://www.foxsportspulse.com/assoc_page.cgi?c=1-4205-0-0-0&sID=233815

then find the 10 Dec 2012 meeting minutes that feverish and i were at  and read the finance section but it was actually brought up in general part towards the end of the meeting but has been put into the correct area/dept.

but there is also a few other items that are not quite as i remember or add up with the answers given on the night and the final catalogue that was supplied at the AGM.

so you are on the right track to get the facts sorted with your information from your local gov

i hope you can get information of previous costings so you can put the best case forward to keep the status quo unless there is a real charge that has increased for 2014 that needs to be passed on.

good luck

Bob and The Dictators coming to a clubrooms near you.

things have gone a bit quite on here and i wonder if it is because of the 29th january statement from the chairman of the board Chris Canton???

i have just received a copy and can see how he has tried to close the door on the problem of the 11 team league but i feel it has just opened a few more questions for me…..

firstly in his summery of what happened he fails to explain Cf response to the initial protest by BNU and what there reasons and rational to dismiss it were as if they upheld it this problem would not of occurred as the change in points would be with in the normal time frame of the competition.

he also refuses to mention that North wellington has been relegated by CF as per the 2013 rules and confirmed by NZF on appeal 

i also note his mention of the board member as abstained in regard to board discussions/decisions and votes which should go without saying  but i would also of liked to have seen a reference to a chinese wall policy so that this board member was not compromised in anyway to these possible allegations as have been mentioned by him in his letter and this i would of thought would be standard policy for keeping conflicts of interest out of the way at CF.

as for the openness he talks about i am sure the minutes of the meetings for the BNU appeal as well as the subsequent meetings would be available to all stake holders to examine and show the process and method he has laid out?

so the need for this letter if it is as open and fair as he said puzzles me as i would of thought he would refer stake holders to the minutes of the meetings and in these documents all would be explained….

just my thoughts and i am open to being told i am wrong as i have not been privileged to all the information and can only go on what i see and hear around the traps as they say.

Allegedly the MAG was told that the reasons for interference are 

a) to teach Jamie Cross a lesson for making a mistake (um what?)

b) they didn't want NW bad-mouthing CF in the press (or litigation) (um pretty sure you've bought yourselves ten times worse press)

Can anyone confirm this?

So this MAG is made up of a selection of stakeholders with years of experience at senior level of football? so i would of thought they might see the folly of  using the protest procedure as a tool to punish a staff member when there are better options available like disciplinary action under the employment act.

who is the chair of this group?

i am sure he would have some opinion on the revelations Feverish has put forward. 

This one matter is showing up lots of holes in the system we rely on to control our game or is it showing us that the people in the seats do not know what they are doing with the system provided?

Last day for nominations for one CF elected board member.

I nominate Kim Dotcom. CF needs a funny man.

Chairman Canton appears to have problems remembering where he played his football during the 1990s. He has told a number of people that he has been with Stop Out all of his playing life. In fact he has posted on Old Friends website under Clubs/Stop Out that he has been with Stop Out from 1966 until present. I have taken a photo of the said screen off old friends

I can recall Chairman Canton playing for Stokes Valley for several seasons during the 1990s. I can remember games at Delaney Park and his eldest boy was just a toddler on the sideline.

So it seems that Capital Football has a Chairman with a bad memory or is it a case of Pants On Fire Mr Chairman?

Who cares?