Kids playing for school or at least the one i've been involved with don't pay any subs plus full kit including track suits, warm up kit and after match tops all supplied no charge.
Compare that to what a family has to fund with juat a couple of kids playing at a club.
People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.
think we had to pay a tiny fee to play at school. Nothing anywhere near what I'd pay at a club though.
All of the school sport I played involved subs and having to pay for things like shorts and socks. Scottie, you must be involved with a pretty flush school.
At school it was like $40 subs and playing for a club as a senior was something like $400. It would be cheaper for juniors though. I think going to a club system would definitely reduce the level of participation in college sport. People prefer to play with their friends I think especially at that age.
it's something you have to actively seek out to do, as well as coordinate for you to roughly all be in the same team. Vs just signing up at school and more or less knowing everybody.
You're talking about very casual players here, the kind who will just sign up for whatever sport is going at school.
it's something you have to actively seek out to do, as well as coordinate for you to roughly all be in the same team. Vs just signing up at school and more or less knowing everybody.
You're talking about very casual players here, the kind who will just sign up for whatever sport is going at school.
The reverse argument is also true though, and cancels this thinking out in my view.
When you impose College sport at age 13, you break up teams that have been together for some time - almost ten years if the kids started playing together.
So you are fracturing one set of friends, which also makes kids stop playing.
As to the cost issue, the schools I know all charge an activity fee in the school "donations" as well as a "sub" to play football. So the "sub" might not look like much but you're certainly paying for it one way or another.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Guess that is the tradeoff with creating a better (IMO) pathway for better players. But I doubt there would be anything stopping the clubs from going into schools to sign people up.
yeah agree. There is a trade off. Also one year at school when you signed up for football (Think I was 4th form) we had the option of two clubs, and it was still just as cheap. Imagine there was a whole lot of politics involved in that, but that makes it easier to coordinate just getting your mates to tick the same club box, rather than actively having to seek out a club etc.
My son's school subs (first year ever not playing for the club, only due to no team) was $90 this year.
I let my guitar speak for me
I don't class it as a club though, they play on a Satdy yes (until next year when Chch removes the school first XI's from the comp and create a Wed comp) but they are a school.
I let my guitar speak for me
I don't class it as a club though, they play on a Satdy yes (until next year when Chch removes the school first XI's from the comp and create a Wed comp) but they are a school.
Sounds like the Wellington College situation here in Wellington.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
I don't class it as a club though, they play on a Satdy yes (until next year when Chch removes the school first XI's from the comp and create a Wed comp) but they are a school.
You can ascertain what your opponent is afraid of by observing the means by which he attempts to frighten you
Not when they are excluded from the competition.
I let my guitar speak for me
At school it was like $40 subs and playing for a club as a senior was something like $400. It would be cheaper for juniors though. I think going to a club system would definitely reduce the level of participation in college sport. People prefer to play with their friends I think especially at that age.
What club charges 400 notes?
Founder
At school it was like $40 subs and playing for a club as a senior was something like $400. It would be cheaper for juniors though. I think going to a club system would definitely reduce the level of participation in college sport. People prefer to play with their friends I think especially at that age.
What club charges 400 notes?
it costs up to and over $1000 play in some of the junior first teams in Auckland
At school it was like $40 subs and playing for a club as a senior was something like $400. It would be cheaper for juniors though. I think going to a club system would definitely reduce the level of participation in college sport. People prefer to play with their friends I think especially at that age.
What club charges 400 notes?
it costs up to and over $1000 play in some of the junior first teams in Auckland
Wow- so what does that cover?
At school it was like $40 subs and playing for a club as a senior was something like $400. It would be cheaper for juniors though. I think going to a club system would definitely reduce the level of participation in college sport. People prefer to play with their friends I think especially at that age.
What club charges 400 notes?
it costs up to and over $1000 play in some of the junior first teams in Auckland
Wow- so what does that cover?
The clubs senior first team wages presumably
At school it was like $40 subs and playing for a club as a senior was something like $400. It would be cheaper for juniors though. I think going to a club system would definitely reduce the level of participation in college sport. People prefer to play with their friends I think especially at that age.
What club charges 400 notes?
it costs up to and over $1000 play in some of the junior first teams in Auckland
Wow- so what does that cover?
The clubs senior first team wages presumably
ACFC junior levy $5000 (acc to my sauces)
"At the end of the drive the lawmen arrive...
I'll take my chance because luck is on my side or something...
Her name is Rio, she don't need to understand...
Oh Rio, Rio, hear them shout across the land..."
At school it was like $40 subs and playing for a club as a senior was something like $400. It would be cheaper for juniors though. I think going to a club system would definitely reduce the level of participation in college sport. People prefer to play with their friends I think especially at that age.
What club charges 400 notes?
it costs up to and over $1000 play in some of the junior first teams in Auckland
Wow- so what does that cover?
The clubs senior first team wages presumably
;-)..Serious question.......
Can't judge if it's fair value without knowing what it covers. Some clubs charging $150 may be returning less value for $!
Oh I thought it was school boy first teams.... My mistake. Carry on.
Grumpy old bastard alert
At school it was like $40 subs and playing for a club as a senior was something like $400. It would be cheaper for juniors though. I think going to a club system would definitely reduce the level of participation in college sport. People prefer to play with their friends I think especially at that age.
What club charges 400 notes?
it costs up to and over $1000 play in some of the junior first teams in Auckland
Wow- so what does that cover?
The clubs senior first team wages presumably
;-)..Serious question.......
Can't judge if it's fair value without knowing what it covers. Some clubs charging $150 may be returning less value for $!
Some teams charge a coaching levy for the first team in junior grades. This supposedly gives players access to better coaching - often first team players drafted in, but also there are some 'dad' coaches out there coaching teams that ask for a first team levy.
I know of 2 teams in Auckland that ask for approx. $700 and $1200 for annual subs. Others in region of $4-500
Ironically some of the most successful junior teams have the cheapest subs - go figure?
At school it was like $40 subs and playing for a club as a senior was something like $400. It would be cheaper for juniors though. I think going to a club system would definitely reduce the level of participation in college sport. People prefer to play with their friends I think especially at that age.
What club charges 400 notes?
it costs up to and over $1000 play in some of the junior first teams in Auckland
Wow- so what does that cover?
The clubs senior first team wages presumably
;-)..Serious question.......
Can't judge if it's fair value without knowing what it covers. Some clubs charging $150 may be returning less value for $!
Some teams charge a coaching levy for the first team in junior grades. This supposedly gives players access to better coaching - often first team players drafted in, but also there are some 'dad' coaches out there coaching teams that ask for a first team levy.
I know of 2 teams in Auckland that ask for approx. $700 and $1200 for annual subs. Others in region of $4-500
Ironically some of the most successful junior teams have the cheapest subs - go figure?
I cannot believe this!
Karori, the last club I coached for, charged less than a hundred bucks for juniors, about $150 for youth, and a couple of hundred bucks for seniors iirc.
Players got looked after too. Decent gear, jacket and shirt provided (byo shorts and socks). Reasonable training facilities. Mediocre coaches obv.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Not when they are excluded from the competition.
You can ascertain what your opponent is afraid of by observing the means by which he attempts to frighten you
Don't mainland make the rules, or at least make them as it goes?
if you dine with the devil, take a long spoon.
That is the general belief, yes.
You can ascertain what your opponent is afraid of by observing the means by which he attempts to frighten you
Not when they are excluded from the competition.
Shush Shushy.
This time, they've got it right.
I let my guitar speak for me
some interesting comments on here
re: the elephant in the room on this issue.
and that is a thing called collage sport.
how it is funded and who gets to play with that cash.
i was a NO vote when the big call came in the late 80's early 90's for the collage's to take over the Under 19 grade in wellington.
i was called lot's of ugly names by parents and others who thought they knew best and then my own club told me to change my vote to yes as the chair was in favour of the policy as he had been told that funding would improve and the kids would get better coaching than our club was able to supply
i refused and so stood down as one of our WSA rep's
all these promise's did not happen and the local collages who used to have top teams in the local collage comp ended up relegated to the low ranks of the Under 19 grade as the money seemed to not appear and the only real coaching the kids ended up getting was from our clubs ex coach who gave up in the end because the parents had all the say as this is how the collage system works and he had little input to make it otherwise.
Unlike a good club system where the coach and manager are usually independent of players as they are not parents but proper coach's looking to bring players up to a senior level and get them starts or bench time in higher grades.
so i feel for the youth today as i feel some are getting a raw deal while some are getting the proper treatment and will develop into senior players and possibly play some top football.
The new FIFA rules re elections may turn some of the issues on there heads as the clubs should get back some power to decide the destiny of the game and so may reverse the decisions of past federation boards to allow some schools to be clubs which they are not.
all clubs as far as i know are operated with a open membership while these school clubs are not.
all this will require people to stand up and be counted and put some effort back into the sport or if we get the usual apathy of let someone else sort it out we will keep the status quo and i feel the local game will not progress to the high level of the past.
good sportsmanship and fair playing field is all we ask for
but all we get is talk and goal posts moving
For school to be a club and have all he rights of a club, all they need to do is adhere to one simple reg, which is in shined in football all over the world.
“Allow players to transfer from one (school) club to any other of the player’s choice”, it is this reg that colleges refuse to play ball with.
It was for this reason that in the mid 2000’s that Wgtn College did not become a club, they refused transfers.They tried every trick in the book to get me and Graeme to back down on this particular reg.
How and why, the incompetent Capital Football administration at the time allow Wgtn College to to be given the status of club and not enforce its own rules. One never knows.
The club v college problem goes back to at least 1921 (Evening Post).
For school to be a club and have all he rights of a club, all they need to do is adhere to one simple reg, which is in shined in football all over the world.
“Allow players to transfer from one (school) club to any other of the player’s choice”, it is this reg that colleges refuse to play ball with.
It was for this reason that in the mid 2000’s that Wgtn College did not become a club, they refused transfers.They tried every trick in the book to get me and Graeme to back down on this particular reg.
How and why, the incompetent Capital Football administration at the time allow Wgtn College to to be given the status of club and not enforce its own rules. One never knows.
The club v college problem goes back to at least 1921 (Evening Post).
Lol Critter come off it fella. It was way back in your day that Wellington College got admitted to club competitions!
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Yes Smithy it is old news,you as the legal beaver and people like you need to do the proper clubs a favour and get back on the board, sort out the regs, kick out all clubs that are not prepared to play by the rules, slash fees, and hand all football under 19 to Mr Hornell
Have a happy night
Not when they are excluded from the competition.
Shush Shushy.
This time, they've got it right.
So whilst I too hope they have got it right this time, I still have concerns that it could be derailed by the old boys network and cries of foul play from the rest of the school folk.
You can ascertain what your opponent is afraid of by observing the means by which he attempts to frighten you
For school to be a club and have all he rights of a club, all they need to do is adhere to one simple reg, which is in shined in football all over the world.
“Allow players to transfer from one (school) club to any other of the player’s choice”, it is this reg that colleges refuse to play ball with.
It was for this reason that in the mid 2000’s that Wgtn College did not become a club, they refused transfers.They tried every trick in the book to get me and Graeme to back down on this particular reg.
How and why, the incompetent Capital Football administration at the time allow Wgtn College to to be given the status of club and not enforce its own rules. One never knows.
The club v college problem goes back to at least 1921 (Evening Post).
Lol Critter come off it fella. It was way back in your day that Wellington College got admitted to club competitions!
if i recall it was allowed to admit a team to play in the normal league because they laid a claim that the U19 comp (now collage only) did not have the standard to challenge there players and were given a dispensation because they had a recognised club to support there admission.
i think this was around the Chatham cup inclusion of all comers for the celebration of 75 years…..
i do not recall the AGM (clubs/stake holders) agreeing to make Wellington College a club but i am happy to be corrected with details provided to back it up that it was agreed.
i think it was done by the board formed under the federation rules that have now been classified by FIFA as non compliant to there new policy.
and what about OLE Academy ??????
what's the policy from CF there ????
good sportsmanship and fair playing field is all we ask for
but all we get is talk and goal posts moving
Not when they are excluded from the competition.
Shush Shushy.
This time, they've got it right.
So whilst I too hope they have got it right this time, I still have concerns that it could be derailed by the old boys network and cries of foul play from the rest of the school folk.
I'm betting not many of you have read the relevant regulations.
When NZF implemented the Federations, they put them all on a standard set of new incorporated society rules which, with all due respect (none) for their author, were written by chumps.
A "club" in those rules is a defined thing. And it is drafted extraordinarily widely. I'm paraphrasing but basically it means anyone who delivers football. So "club" under the Federation rules includes clubs as we know them, schools, private providers, etc etc etc. This was done at the time (iirc) to maximise the number of players NZF could "claim" nationwide for funding purposes.
But clubs in those rules don't have any rights except voting rights.
Whether your federation admits one organisation or another into their competitions is a matter for them.
Membership of your federation does not give you a unilateral right to play in any particular competition.
It is open to each federation to set its playing rules for its competitions. An easy reg to establish would be that only clubs who allow open freedom of membership are allowed in the competitions.
But, that is not the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue is how the schools view sport. It is partly a marketing tool for them, partly a thing they use to build collegiality in students, partly a perk for their staff (trips away on tour etc) and partly a chance to obtain funding.
As long as schools WANT to deliver football they will. Whether they are excluded from federation competitions or included. Nobody can make schools stop offering sport.
And if they are offering sport, then nobody will ever stop coaches and administrators on both sides of the equation from trying to convince young players to play for them.
So it's basically a lost cause imho unless you can separate the two competitions sufficiently to allow players to do both if they want to. Avoid the conflict rather than impose a decision on players.
That is something I have banged on about in Wellington for approximately five years. But it is not a popular opinion.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Well said Mr Smith, congratulations I take it that you have just signed you application form to be the new Chairman of Capital Football and sort all the crap out
WC was allowed to enter a team in a senior league because clubs at the time did not want a bye, however, this was only allowed after full consultation with all teams in the particular league.
For a few seasons prior, WC had been killing the College Premier Grade, The CPG was used as a qualification to the National College Tournament.
This grade controlled by College Sport but administrated by Wgtn Soccer/Capital Soccer. (grounds, draws, results)
Dispensation was given by College Sport for WC to not play in the CPG but still was given direct entry to the NCT
The only other time that a WC team played in a senior grade, was when there was a reserve grade to the top federation grade, but on the condition that the team was to be known as Miramar and transfers were allowed.
All players were registered as Miramar players but when they left school, a transfer had to be obtained from Miramar.
It is the apathy of clubs nation wide that let decisions made by boards against there own regs,happen, especially without consultation.
If clubs, once given back the power, still just stand back and do nothing, then they deserve all they get.
As for the OLE Academy, I can only comment on what happen during my time.
OLE put aproposal to the administrators, that they be allowed to rack in all the best players in Wgtn and enter them into teams in the Regional Leagues
Ole’s proposal was based, that they could supply better coaching instead of the inferior quality coaching, that they felt clubs supplied.
The advantagewas to help Wgtn Soccer/CF teams be more completive at the National tournaments.
There was also an offer that they would supply free office space at Porirua for WgtnSoccer/CF to move the office to,
Ole’s proposal was rejected because one of the regs basically stated “that no new club can be accepted if there is a club servicing that area”. (Tawa, WesternSuburbs)
For me, Smithy has nailed this debate.
Big schools have way too much invested to let the clubs run things and until there are two separate competitions allowing kids to play for both (if they chose to) kids football will always be splintered. I don't believe a centralised system would be best either. But until you take away the question by having two competitions, as I believe Smithy has suggested, the two sides will continue to conflict.
I also think the suggestion clubs are better placed to run things is misguided. I have coached at big clubs in big centres and small clubs in small centres (from 8 to 14 year olds) and have seen both internal politics and egocentric individuals destroy any chance for the kids to do well.
I've been following NZF's WOFP for a number of years and there is lots to like about it. I've seen all sorts of kids really benefit from it. But I still regularly meet people who absolutely despise it.
Kids from those environments end up at a college (many lacking the basic skills WOFP could teach them) and so having lost the best years of their learning lives they plod through another couple of years and give up once they leave school because they split with their mates. How is that of benefit to NZ football in the long run I don't know.
For talented kids there are just so many choices now. College, club, FTC, and private provider. Each having their own view on how to coach and how to teach, as well as their own price tags. I despair for parents of talented kids who know nothing of football themselves and I worry for those kids because they just drop out thanks to a lack of support and through missing opportunities they should've been given.
For me, Smithy has nailed this debate.
Big schools have way too much invested to let the clubs run things and until there are two separate competitions allowing kids to play for both (if they chose to) kids football will always be splintered. I don't believe a centralised system would be best either. But until you take away the question by having two competitions, as I believe Smithy has suggested, the two sides will continue to conflict.
I also think the suggestion clubs are better placed to run things is misguided. I have coached at big clubs in big centres and small clubs in small centres (from 8 to 14 year olds) and have seen both internal politics and egocentric individuals destroy any chance for the kids to do well.
I've been following NZF's WOFP for a number of years and there is lots to like about it. I've seen all sorts of kids really benefit from it. But I still regularly meet people who absolutely despise it.
Kids from those environments end up at a college (many lacking the basic skills WOFP could teach them) and so having lost the best years of their learning lives they plod through another couple of years and give up once they leave school because they split with their mates. How is that of benefit to NZ football in the long run I don't know.
For talented kids there are just so many choices now. College, club, FTC, and private provider. Each having their own view on how to coach and how to teach, as well as their own price tags. I despair for parents of talented kids who know nothing of football themselves and I worry for those kids because they just drop out thanks to a lack of support and through missing opportunities they should've been given.
Well said.
If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid
My perspective is from an ex junior club president and out of the loop for a few years since my son stopped playing and moved to another sport. I think it depends to a degree on what schools are in the area and what they actually provide. In our local case in Napier [I think it still is and is probably replicated elsewhere] there is only 1 high school with a decent football team. I say team rather than programme because they do well with their first eleven but anyone below that level or not known is left to flounder and in many instances lost to the game. At other schools that don't have football teams, their better/keener players end up playing 3rd XI at a local club.
So my gripe is that there is a whole host of kids that are being lost to the game because the schools don't care and the clubs aren't equipped to cater for them. However, if schools picked their best players early and then allowed the clubs to have the remainder, things would be a lot better.
I have no problem with schools having the best players if they look after them but don't like it when they leave the others in limbo to faff around in a school team with no coach and with a piss poor attitude. Clubs aren't able to organise teams with any certainty while schools fuck around and name their teams at the last moment and it doesn't give clubs time to organise coaches, uniforms ,equipment and to confirm with other clubs that there is sufficient teams and interests to run a competition.
There is no reason why we can't have both, both sides need to recognise that we run football for the kids sake and nothing else.