Regional Football - powered by Park Life

THE Capital Football Thread

146 replies · 4,214 views
about 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Smithy wrote:
Nobody's having a go at Palmer as a bloke.� He's an affable guy and always fancies a chat about the game.Righstr makes a very valid point about the Board.� A number have left and you wouldn't know it unless you knew it.Perhaps most interesting is the lack of interest in this thread.� Could be tought to fill up that Board with the apathy that's floating around!


It's the credit crunch.
Permalink Permalink
about 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
cheers Regan for the overview.
 
I think you're a bit close to doing the old "no one is allowed to gripe cos the board work quite hard and have day jobs" , but take your point

Founder

Permalink Permalink
about 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Without a doubt Regan your most compelling point is "if you don't like it, get in and do a better job." 
 
That's a sentiment I entirely share.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
about 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Well yes and no. I take that angle from a club perspective, where two blokes do everything and hundreds do jack, but this is a different scenario � or do they struggle to fill the CF board?

Founder

Permalink Permalink
about 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

You'd have to ask Regan for up to date info but I know in the past they've had to tap people up.

I don't really see the distinction though between the Club and the Federation.  The Federation is just a club of Clubs.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
about 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
with full time employees
 
Im just saying gripes at CF are more about strategic decisions whereas with clubs its more about limited resources
Feverish2009-03-05 10:02:27

Founder

Permalink Permalink
about 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Feverish wrote:
cheers Regan for the overview.
 
I think you're a bit close to doing the old "no one is allowed to gripe cos the board work quite hard and have day jobs" , but take your point
 
I certainly didn't mean to do that. I'm really just trying to give a bit of a reality check. People are welcome to gripe (and should if they really feel the need to), it's just that often the griping is mis-informed or based on expectations that are just way out of line with reality.
 
It may not always be true in the short-term but over the long run the game gets the governance it deserves, if you see what I mean (see my next post).
 
F A Cup2009-03-05 12:42:08
Permalink Permalink
about 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Smithy wrote:
You'd have to ask Regan for up to date info but I know in the past they've had to tap people up.
 
It's not like there's a huge number of people trying to elected to the Board, that's for sure!
 
When I was first elected in 2005 it was unopposed. There were two nominees for two vacant positions.
 
In 2007, the were five nominees for three vacant positions.
 
The last time they advertised for appointed members, however, there was a pretty good response - something like 12 candidates for 4 positions (but I can't remember exactly and I couldn't tell you how many of those were just not suitable).
 
It's certainly not the case that Board positions are so highly-prized that there is stiff competition to get one.
 
Permalink Permalink
about 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Smithy wrote:
About this time last year (I think it was) I approached CF on our behalf with an offer to sponsor something, anything, for them.  Keith Palmer suggested his new fangled Junior Finals Day and Super 6 competition.
 
I agreed we'd be happy to put some cash in and try and make a big day out of it.
 
I heard nothing back.  When I followed it up he said that "it had been decided" that it wasn't the right image to associate CF with YF because YF was essentially an organisation of drinking and swearing.
 
I'm paraphrasing, but he made it clear they wanted no association.  About the same time we lost our web link from their home page.
 
Childish.


Hang on, if Yellow Fever isn't essentially an organisation of drinking and swearing then I'm getting the f**k outta here!

What's the bid deal if CF want to keep a bit of distance? Surely it's better for YF to not be under any pressure to tone down the content etc just because you've got links (literally and metaphorically) to CF. The Phoenix site doesn't have a link to YF either by the way (not an obvious one anyway).

I'm sure there are plenty of people at both CF and the Phoenix who love YF, but keeping things nice and informal means everybody gets to say what they want without causing too much stress. 

A big strength of YF is that it is an independent fans organisation/site. The more you cosy up with these other organisations the more you risk losing that.

You gotta keep it real, you feel me?






Permalink Permalink
about 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Yeah fair point.  Side issue really.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
about 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Does anyone know when the draw is going to be put out for the first rounds for Cap 1 down?
Permalink Permalink
about 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Pudleypool wrote:
Does anyone know when the draw is going to be put out for the first rounds for Cap 1 down?
 
+1. When is the draw released??? It feels quite close to the season start to not have heard anything...
Permalink Permalink
about 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Pudleypool wrote:
Does anyone know when the draw is going to be put out for the first rounds for Cap 1 down?
 
The draw is up now
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
So today I hear some interesting news:
 
1. Capital Football, who have increased the cost to young players of going to Federation National Touranment to over $600, have just bought another new car.
 
2. Olympic have sent around an email looking for support for a vote of no confidence in the Board.
 
3.  The Board have indicated that they intend to fill the vacant role of CEO prior to the AGM on 4 May at which time they will almost all be at the end of their tenure and a new Board will come in.
 
Thoughts?
Smithy2009-03-24 10:01:07

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
thought the bubbles only cared about themselves?
 
on the tournie thing- we're further reducing our pool of potentilal elite players by making the costs at that age to play top footy so restrictive. Drive them up in the new car?

Founder

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Request for special General Meeting

I,                                 being the Club Representative of                                 club , which is  a club registered and affiliated to the District Federation supports the resolution for a Special General Meeting in terms of Rule 23.2.1 (a) of No. 5 District Federation of New Zealand Soccer Incorporated Rules.
 
Please note Rule 23.2.1 (a) The secretary on receiving a requisition signed on behalf of clubs amounting to not less than one third (1/3) of the total number of clubs who are members of the District Federation (calculated excluding any club which has any pecuniary liability to the district federation which is due and remains unpaid in whole or in part).
 
Resolution: "That this meeting has no confidence in the Board of Capital Football".
 
EXPLANATION: It has come to the attention of clubs that the outgoing Board is setting up a selection committee to expedite the appointment of a Chief Executive, prior to the AGM. While this may be within the rules it does raise a possible situation where the new CEO is appointed with a philosophy that is contrary to the direction sought by the incoming Board, especially as the tenure of all current Board members ends at the forthcoming AGM scheduled for 4th May.
 
It is requested that in this situation the Board empower the appointment team that would appoint the four "appointed" Board members, to appoint the new CEO, being "The President", a member from New Zealand Football and a representative from SPARC .
 
Please reply no later than Noon Thursday 26 March.
 
George Neonakis, Chairman, Wellington Olympic

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Are things really that bad in Wellington Football that a SGM is required? Most of us at Clubs are just itching to get the season underway having spent the last three months organising things so that enough guys and gals are in the right place at the right time on the opening weekend. Perhaps there is a governance issue at CF with the old board appointing the new CEO, but I regard that as minor given that the new CEO merely implements the policy of the new Board whether he likes it that policy or not - he has no remit to implement his/her own philosophical direction (just check out the job description). If he/she really disagrees with board policy then go find another job. As for the board, it must still follow in the direction set by the 2007 to 2010 strategic plan that was agreed by all clubs in 2007. So I'm not sure what the resolution is trying to achieve. To oust the board before the AGM? If so why? To buy time so that the new CEO is more 'friendly' toward those clubs that support the motion because the new board is also more 'friendly'?  And what does a passed vote of no confidence actually mean? Timing is also an issue - there has to be 21 days notice given so that makes the earliest date for a SGM the 16th of April - two weeks before the AGM! And 21 days is enough time to appoint a new CEO. Why not just wait until the AGM (and by then we will know the new CEO) and if enough clubs are unhappy things will go their natural course. And as far as the issues of the and those fees go Smithy, why not ask those questions at the AGM?
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
And Smithy as far as I can see CF don't own cars. Aren't they Toyota sponsored ones? The were no cars listed on the asset schedule in the 2008 accounts.
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Semantics Kenny.  More cars = more expense whether they're owned or leased.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
rightstr wrote:
Are things really that bad in Wellington Football that a SGM is required?
 
Isn't it concerning that a number of clubs think so?
 
When was the last Special General Meeting called, if ever?

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Smithy wrote:
rightstr wrote:
Are things really that bad in Wellington Football that a SGM is required?
 
Isn't it concerning that a number of clubs think so?
 
When was the last Special General Meeting called, if ever?
A number of clubs? You must have inside knowledge. Only one is named so far, that's Olympic. 
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Smithy wrote:
Semantics Kenny.  More cars = more expense whether they're owned or leased.
You don't know the ins and outs of this. There may be part of an employment package, hence potential for a salary trade-off. Who knows? I'm actually pro having cars, it means they have even less excuse for getting out and about (as long as they don't cost the earth).
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Smithy wrote:
So today I hear some interesting news:
 
1. Capital Football, who have increased the cost to young players of going to Federation National Touranment to over $600, have just bought another new car.
 
2. Olympic have sent around an email looking for support for a vote of no confidence in the Board.
 
3.  The Board have indicated that they intend to fill the vacant role of CEO prior to the AGM on 4 May at which time they will almost all be at the end of their tenure and a new Board will come in.
 
Thoughts?
 
1. This kind of superficial, "cherry-picking" analysis of an organisation's cost structure is lazy and ill-informed. I don't know if there's an issue here but I sure as hell can't tell from this carefully selected snippet of information. I'm sure CF's business is a little more complex than is presented here.
 
2. What's the point of this if most of the Board are apparently at the end of their tenure anyway? Olympic have a track-record of this sort of thing - it's actually anti-democratic despite the way they will present it. A more positive response by them to any concerns they have about they way CF is run would be to engage in the process and nominate some candidates for the upcoming Board vacancies [By the way, Olympic are a small club who contribute very little as a percentage of CF's total revenue. You wouldn't know it by the amount of noise they make. Bring on proportional representation ie. one vote per each registered team at a club].
 
3. The current Board would be negligent if they didn't get on with the job of appointing a new CEO ffs! That's what they're there to do and they need to discharge their duties up until the point where they are replaced.
 
In summary, this seems like a waste of everybody's time and an abuse of the governance processes in place, which actually work fine as long as you don't have a chip on your shoulder or a personal agenda to pursue.
 

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
terminator_x wrote:
Smithy wrote:
So today I hear some interesting news:
 
1. Capital Football, who have increased the cost to young players of going to Federation National Touranment to over $600, have just bought another new car.
 
2. Olympic have sent around an email looking for support for a vote of no confidence in the Board.
 
3.  The Board have indicated that they intend to fill the vacant role of CEO prior to the AGM on 4 May at which time they will almost all be at the end of their tenure and a new Board will come in.
 
Thoughts?
 
1. This kind of superficial, "cherry-picking" analysis of an organisation's cost structure is lazy and ill-informed. I don't know if there's an issue here but I sure as hell can't tell from this carefully selected snippet of information. I'm sure CF's business is a little more complex than is presented here.
 
2. What's the point of this if most of the Board are apparently at the end of their tenure anyway? Olympic have a track-record of this sort of thing - it's actually anti-democratic despite the way they will present it. A more positive response by them to any concerns they have about they way CF is run would be to engage in the process and nominate some candidates for the upcoming Board vacancies [By the way, Olympic are a small club who contribute very little as a percentage of CF's total revenue. You wouldn't know it by the amount of noise they make. Bring on proportional representation ie. one vote per each registered team at a club].
 
3. The current Board would be negligent if they didn't get on with the job of appointing a new CEO ffs! That's what they're there to do and they need to discharge their duties up until the point where they are replaced.
 
In summary, this seems like a waste of everybody's time and an abuse of the governance processes in place, which actually work fine as long as you don't have a chip on your shoulder or a personal agenda to pursue.
 
I agree with this and add another 2 cents worth. It only takes 1/3 of clubs to call a SGM. However voting rights at General Meetings are in proportion to number of teams. It is 5 votes for every senior team for which NZS Senior registration fees have been paid and 2 votes for every other team for which the NZS levy has been paid (i assume this means junior teams). So first up affiliation fees have to be paid by the time of the SGM. Then number of teams comes into consideration.
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
If I could add my two cents:
 
- TX, I think there are a few issues with Capital Football not accepting the genuine offer of asistance.  YF are only trying to do what we believe is good for the game and it seems a little churlish to ignore much of the good stuff that goes on in order to make a point.  YF can remain independent while giving assistance.  Small things like not providing a link are fairly petty in my mind.
 
- the phoenix are prevented by the FFA from linking to YF, but would if they could
 
- I think FA Cup's explanation is very fair.  I think the tension within both Capital Football and NZF is between the elite and the amateur.  The elite expect/want an elite product at next to no cost (or in many cases to be paid), which effectively means the amateur game subsidises (until we can generate some real funding streams outside the gaming trusts).  That will always be a difficult balancing act from an administration perspective.  I appreciate the point about growing organisation size, but the real question is not about the size of the organisation but its effectiveness (which others are in a far better position than me to judge).
 
- I think both Capital Football and NZF (I lump them in together because I think many of the issues are similar) have an extremely poor grasp of the power of the web/ email/ facebook/ twitter/ youtube etc etc to enhance their product.  I think both organisations need to wake up and understand that for many many football players (including many older players, spectators etc) the internet is the only place that they use to get their information.  That should be the number one place that they use to advertise, communicate and seek feedback - it can often be extremely cheap and easy to use.  Simple things like not updating a website are symptomatic of a general lack of understanding of new technology, and I think that is an example of where YF is useful.  The Phoenix understand that, but so far NZF don't appear to, and Capital Football certainly don't

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
terminator_x wrote:
Smithy wrote:
So today I hear some interesting news:
 
1. Capital Football, who have increased the cost to young players of going to Federation National Touranment to over $600, have just bought another new car.
 
 
1. This kind of superficial, "cherry-picking" analysis of an organisation's cost structure is lazy and ill-informed. I don't know if there's an issue here but I sure as hell can't tell from this carefully selected snippet of information. I'm sure CF's business is a little more complex than is presented here.
 
 
TX,
 
Take your point on 1.  It perhaps would have been more instructive if I'd split it out a bit.
 
1a - there is an issue to do with the rapidly-increasing cost to players of junior elite programs in light of ballooning organisational costs - see discussion earlier in this thread.
 
1b - there is a stand-alone issue of those ballooning organisational costs.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
terminator_x wrote:
Smithy wrote:
So today I hear some interesting news:
 
2. Olympic have sent around an email looking for support for a vote of no confidence in the Board.
 
3.  The Board have indicated that they intend to fill the vacant role of CEO prior to the AGM on 4 May at which time they will almost all be at the end of their tenure and a new Board will come in.
 
Thoughts?
 
2. What's the point of this if most of the Board are apparently at the end of their tenure anyway? Olympic have a track-record of this sort of thing - it's actually anti-democratic despite the way they will present it. A more positive response by them to any concerns they have about they way CF is run would be to engage in the process and nominate some candidates for the upcoming Board vacancies [By the way, Olympic are a small club who contribute very little as a percentage of CF's total revenue. You wouldn't know it by the amount of noise they make. Bring on proportional representation ie. one vote per each registered team at a club].
 
3. The current Board would be negligent if they didn't get on with the job of appointing a new CEO ffs! That's what they're there to do and they need to discharge their duties up until the point where they are replaced.
 
In summary, this seems like a waste of everybody's time and an abuse of the governance processes in place, which actually work fine as long as you don't have a chip on your shoulder or a personal agenda to pursue.
 
 
In re your other points:
 
2. I think the intention is to hold up the appointment of a new CEO until the clubs in question feel they have a Board that reflects their interests.  I make no comment about whether that's reasonable or not, just that I believe that's the intention.  And I guess if you feel you're not being listened to then your number of avenues of appeal are relatively few - a SGM being the easiest.
 
3. Your analysis of the Board's role is correct, but there is a wider issue here about the working relationship between the Board and the CEO.  If a Board appoints a CEO only a matter of days before the Board disbands is that really fair to the incoming Board?  Surely there is logic in waiting those remaining days and allowing the new Board to constitue an interview panel and select a candidate of their preference?
 
Your last paragraph is a little churlish.
 
In fact this is exactly the purpose of SGM's.  Think of Olympic what you will, but they are one club on whose behalf the Board is supposed to be running the game in Wellington.  They get to have their say just like everyone else.  It's hardly an abuse of the process to exercise your rights and I'm sure they are merely acting in the best interests - as they see them - of their members, as they should do.
 
If it constitutes a "chip on your shoulder" and a "personal agenda" to disagree with or oppose the sitting management of the game in the district then something is seriously wrong.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
so who is on the Capital Football board?

Founder

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
cmon - I know the answer just looking for banter.
 
sounds like there's a storm brewing at CF towers at the mo

Founder

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Smithy wrote:
In re your other points:
 
2. I think the intention is to hold up the appointment of a new CEO until the clubs in question feel they have a Board that reflects their interests.  I make no comment about whether that's reasonable or not, just that I believe that's the intention.  And I guess if you feel you're not being listened to then your number of avenues of appeal are relatively few - a SGM being the easiest.
 
3. Your analysis of the Board's role is correct, but there is a wider issue here about the working relationship between the Board and the CEO.  If a Board appoints a CEO only a matter of days before the Board disbands is that really fair to the incoming Board?  Surely there is logic in waiting those remaining days and allowing the new Board to constitue an interview panel and select a candidate of their preference?
 
You're talking about the appointment of the CEO like it's a political appointment though, which is the last thing it should be.
 
The Board at any point in time should appoint the best candidate for the job - end of story. Board members will come and go but the CEO could be there for years so it's the job of the Board and CEO at any one time to work together and have a good understanding of their respective roles.
 
By my understanding it's only a quirk of recent history that CF actually has a number of Board members all due for re-appointment or re-election around the same time. Under normal circumstances the transition would be a lot more staggered which means the idea of "the new Board selecting a candidate of their preference" is a bit of a red herring. There really shouldn't be the situation of a "new Board" but rather a healthy turn-over of Board members over time. And looking at it the other way round if Keith Palmer wasn't leaving and what is effectively a new Board came in there's no way they could justify getting rid of him just because they didn't like him.
 
There's an opportunity here to get the new CEO of CF in right at the start of the season and probably enjoy a hand-over from the old one. That would seem to have much more value to the game overall than worrying about playing politics wouldn't you think?

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

so why are Olympic particularly interested in the CEO process? Have they got a potential candidate they favour?

Founder

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Why would you be wondering that Feverish? I suggest you just ask Smithy the kingmaker.
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
so has Steve gone on holiday or what?

Founder

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
rightstr wrote:
Why would you be wondering that Feverish? I suggest you just ask Smithy the kingmaker.


Kingmaker?  How so?

TX's point is completely right.  The Board should be appointing the best candidate. From what I hear - and not just from Olympic - not everyone is convinced that is likely to happen.

I honestly don't know why that is, but it probably has something to do with a series of decisions taken by the current administration that the clubs - or at least some of them - feel  (rightly or wrongly) that they didn't have any input into.

In point of fact I have never met any of the current Board, except Jim Murphy, so am in no position to comment.  I am simply relaying what I hear.  Righstr thinks that's gossiping, I just think it's open discussion.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
This is a terrible time to be recruiting a top dog. There is a crap load to be done at this time of year. Trying to recruit and with the sht hitting the fan over it all - important things are not going to be done.
Is Graham R Sole a candidate?
 
Here is the info on the current board status:
 

Current Elected Board Members David Meiklejohn (current Chairman of Capital Football; to be nominated by Wainuiomata Club) and Matt Snaddon (to be nominated by North Wellington) are standing for re-election.

Regan Dooley (formerly Deputy Chairman of Capital Football; nominated in 2007 by Brooklyn Northern United) retired from the Board late 2008 and is not standing for re-election.

This letter constitutes the calling of nominations for Elected Members of the Board.

Other current Board Members are Jim Murphy Andy Foster, Warwick Jones (all appointed), and Chris Canton (co-opted). All positions will have expired by the conclusion of the AGM. However, the Board will co-opt two Board Members before the AGM to enable a working Board to be constituted after the election. The Board would otherwise consist of just the three newly elected Board Members, and therefore would not have a quorum or be able to operate.

Andrew van Bunnik (appointed) retired prior to last year�s AGM and Cliff Bowden (co-opted) has recently retired form the Board to take up the Operations and Communications Manager role at Capital Football. Lisa Jones is the current Horowhenua-Kapiti Liaison person at the Board table and as such does not have voting rights.
Feverish2009-03-27 16:13:00

Founder

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Smithy wrote:
rightstr wrote:
Why would you be wondering that Feverish? I suggest you just ask Smithy the kingmaker.


Kingmaker?  How so?

TX's point is completely right.  The Board should be appointing the best candidate. From what I hear - and not just from Olympic - not everyone is convinced that is likely to happen.

I honestly don't know why that is, but it probably has something to do with a series of decisions taken by the current administration that the clubs - or at least some of them - feel  (rightly or wrongly) that they didn't have any input into.

In point of fact I have never met any of the current Board, except Jim Murphy, so am in no position to comment.  I am simply relaying what I hear.  Righstr thinks that's gossiping, I just think it's open discussion.
many apologies Smithy. I was just looking for a reaction and got one. I need to be more serious in future, so I will be. That's after I agree with Feverish that we are 1 week out from kick off and there is plenty to do without having to worry about Wgtn football making a public ass of itself.
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
what the heck is going on at CF at the moment? I have a list of regos as long as Hard News's dinner order

Founder

Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
rightstr wrote:
 
I agree with this and add another 2 cents worth. It only takes 1/3 of clubs to call a SGM. However voting rights at General Meetings are in proportion to number of teams. It is 5 votes for every senior team for which NZS Senior registration fees have been paid and 2 votes for every other team for which the NZS levy has been paid (i assume this means junior teams). So first up affiliation fees have to be paid by the time of the SGM. Then number of teams comes into consideration.


My understanding is that team numbers are based on last year, because new affiliation fees are not actually due yet. They are normally invoiced at the start of the season (as at 31 March IIRC) but there is a period of grace.  However all other outstanding fines etc should be paid.
Crazy-Horse2009-03-30 23:03:58
Permalink Permalink
almost 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
CH you are right on that one. However since the push for an SGM has failed I'm going back to worrying about getting my teams on the park. 
Permalink Permalink