Mainland Juniors (please play nice)

There's a bit of stink brewing out Waimak way about the subs increase, it's now 30% more than last year at $130 per kid.

Waimak have been asked to be transparent and provide a breakdown of where the sub goes but have so far refused to.

My 6 yr old is expected to pay $130 which seems an incredible amount.

What subs do other clubs charge?

That seems steep -  Selwyn 6yr old $80, 8 yr old $100, 10 yr old $120

Fines and lawyer fees.  Snigger.

Ok - fair enough some passionate club administrators on here obviously.

I'm on the board of a Premier Cricket Club in town and we administer both the Senior and Junior sections and our kids pay $40 per season ($60 if there's two or more from the same family) for the entire time that they're at Primary or Intermediate School, and goes to $75 for their time at High School.

My kids play for another cricket club and pay $60 each...

So I'm fully aware of what goes into running a club, setting budgets, fund raising, Gaming Machine Grants etc.We do a break down which is easy for parents or club members to view which shows their $40 sub and where each part of it goes. Which to most people is a lot more digestible than reading 6 pages of accounts.

I mentioned it on Twitter a month or so ago and about half a dozen of the guys based in Wellington replied and quoted prices from 3 clubs and they were $70, $85 and $90.

I just thought a jump this season from $100 to $130 was a bit steep...

I'd be expecting a resignation from deputy chair of the mainland board on Monday!

Could get interesting, the Mainland Chair is previous FC2011 chair Craig Rhodes and the deputy chair is current Christchurch Football Academy trustee Mike Killick.

I hear FC are about to ask for a please explain from Mainland.

AFAIK Uni have never entered a team in the junior leagues and all new club entries need to be strictly in line with mainland 'new club' guidelines - pretty exhaustive they are too. If these kids play in the Mainland junior leagues they are a new club and should be subject to those rules (probably wouldn't qualify on basis that there is not a need for a new club in that area). Also, if they ARE allowed into Mainland junior leagues, it sets a major precedent - Burnley or any other private provider could enter their academy teams into the Mainland leagues right? APFA could've been there. Finally, how on earth could Mainland see it any differently?

Agree a big jump. They usually occur when previous year(s) no or very small increases are implemented. If then for whatever reason (artificial turf costs around $25-30k  pa to maintain and budget for replacement at 15 to 20  years old)  the need arises to raise subs it may seem steep. Look at the value proposition though.  How realistic is it to compare football with cricket?

They're both sports my kids play and both sports I coach/administer in Christchurch?

In addition we provide the kids with a full set of cricket equipment and a playing shirt. I'd imagine the gear bag we give our cricket teams is more expensive than the shirts and half a dozen balls/cones I receive for the football team i coach.

By the sounds of it the levy imposed by either NZF or Mainland Football or both, which was quoted as $64 is the main issue.

Interestingly Canterbury Cricket are surveying the clubs now asking for opinions on a player levy, $17 per adult and $8 per child.

The essential difference is that NZ Football are broke and NZ Cricket get money from broadcasting rights, arranged by BCCI.

Wow.  This new football venture in the West is causing a bit of a stir, and rightly so. Altho when I explained it to my 15 year old son he said it sounded like a good thing, which I suppose it is. However what does it mean for others and is it abiding by rules is another question.

About the same you"ll find....

Usual moan by people that only care/think about cost and "their" club at registration time about when it's time to play. Not many of them front at AGM's when subs are discussed and set for the coming season by most clubs, or even realise what work is still needing doing in the "off season". 

Instead of asking volunteers to explain and justify, just 30 minutes visiting neighbouring clubs websites will quickly show that subs are generally high compared with say rugby. What it will show is that $130 is well in line, and when it is worked back to a per session/week basis It is quite reasonable.

Visit mainlands website and find how much is taken out for NZF/MF/Canty United fees/competition fees for the various age groups. Then if you don't like it, find a cheaper club that can deliver the same experience for less.

Way too much $$s by the rates at other club not far away from your ground.

Nomads subs for 2014 which includes all levies and add ons are.

4 to 6 years $40

7 to 8 years $75

9 to 18 years or a student $110 plus each additional player in this age group from same family is only $90.

So Waimak milking the parents, must be cow cockies running that club.

Gossip I heard on the sideline at tonights pre-season game is that the new CFA is backed by some rich Russian who has bought the land. Probably doesn't matter where the money comes from, as not all Russian money would be sourced through the normal Abromovich and Putin sources but an interesting change in the football landscape for sure. Anyone know any other gossip about it all? Flyers being handed out at local primary schools.

Gossip I heard on the sideline at tonights pre-season game is that the new CFA is backed by some rich Russian who has bought the land. Probably doesn't matter where the money comes from, as not all Russian money would be sourced through the normal Abromovich and Putin sources but an interesting change in the football landscape for sure. Anyone know any other gossip about it all? Flyers being handed out at local primary schools.

Yes two sand base pitches going in.

It is all a bit of a mess is not it?

We have had one reasonably successful Academy quit town and move to Wellington, taking a number of good young players with them. The reason, no integration or support from the establishment (Mainland and NZF). Welcomed with open arms in wellington. They leave behind a great facility, is it being used?  No public comment from Mainland. No explanation to the major stakeholders.

We now have a new program and another facility, apparently supported by Mainland's Board but being developed by a separate private provider. Looking at their web page, no mention of "Whole of Football"  "First Kicks" or  "Fun Football" .No word publicly from Mainland. No explanation to the major stakeholders.

We have clubs and players being forced to follow blindly the edicts of NZ Football through Mainland. Edicts not being followed in the North Island. Players in Mainland told they must attend FTC to make National teams. Paying thousands to support an enormously expensive administration, when the truth is the most developed players in the North Island ignore the FTC programme. These are the players that will play for New Zealand.   

Just been to Nike finals, of the other teams involved less than 15% of players have anything to do with regular FTC. These, according to their coaches are the least developed. As a club coach I am convinced we are being terribly short changed.

Mushrooms, that is how we are treated like Mushrooms 

What leads you to believe that Mainland's board supports this new private provider? Just because one board member has acted independently doesn't mean the whole federation board is behind it. If that were the case they would surely advise their stakeholders (clubs) of such a massive change in the strategic plan, right?

The other point is a NZ wide issue. Different rules applied by each of the feds - to academies and individuals, it appears.

Hmmmm, I see trouble on the horizon.

Mainland fully supporting a brand new private venture that is a direct threat (through their advertised free subscriptions) to one of their constituent clubs? Doesn't sound like the act of a supportive on to it governing body to me. I think FC have a legitimate gripe here. They are a merger of 2 former clubs who thought they would do football in the area a service by combining resources rather than continually compete with each other and are run by a group of dedicated volunteers like most clubs, this must feel like an absolute kick in the guts to them.

The Chairman of Mainland also chaired  FC2011 through amalgamation, I believe.

Obviously this major development not worthy of sharing with the clubs during the "Information Nights".

I  simply find it hard to believe the lack of information shared.

The clubs, once again left in the dark and fed even more manure.

Just read the letter from "The Chair". I really can not believe that something so beneficial and exciting for us all has been kept under wraps.

Surely this major development should have been seen as a positive, something worth shouting about.

Something doesn't smell right here.

Tetso ringing around this arvo as "head of university juniors" looking for 10th grade teams to play at their new facility on the very day of their opening. Now there's ways and ways.....sounds like quite a few clubs have said thanks but no thanks.

Again - no mention of affiliation fees getting paid, so if MF is comfortable and supportive of the academy running what is in effect inhouse programs then it shouldn't be surprised if every club in town  decides to split off its under 10's.

so only teams in competitions will pay affiliation and competition fees?   If they are allowed to do this then surely Selwyn and waimak won't be far behind with their Burnley based teams???  They could potentially discount their training fees by a significant amount.

That is completely misleading - the new CFA (oddly enough this was once the acronym of the old Canterbury Football Association - you know, the governing body that did serve the clubs?) has committed to paying the affiliation fees. All organised football of any description must pay these fees. In another interesting anomaly FC through their parent Burnside club were the pioneers of the in-house league model (along with Halswell) where the 9th grade and below played only at Burnside Park and therefore didn't pay affiliation fees to Mainland and NZF as they weren't entered in local leagues, forcing Mainland to pursue this revenue streams as other clubs cottoned on to this little money spinner, which is now a thing of the past. If CFA weren't paying affiliation fees you can bet your boots there is no way in the world Mainland would have supported the venture. The fact that FC appear to have their financial security threatened obviously doesn't bother Mainland one little bit, truly bizarre.

Sugar daddy building major new facilities for the sport. Is this future new mainland HQ?

So now we have CFA, English park, new developments at selwyn and Waimak underway, and what about APFA's facilities? How about some communication? The big picture etc

right. So how does mainland know if the players are just doing private training or playing in-house?

They rely on clubs registering them. Open to abuse. Hence the move to online registrations through Goalnet where parents can register players directly - they don't trust the clubs?

Let's remember: more facilities, more football = good.
Everything else is change, redistribution etc by whatever means you care to name it. This is where the governing body needs to show some leadership and some nous.