CF Information evening (/mass sht fight) next Wed including the items:
- the report of the Working Group led by David Meiklejohn to look at how we pay for the cost of using 3-4 artificial fields next year
- affiliation fees for 2012
Someone has to pay for the use of the more expensive artificials � but who?
If CF team levies go up � how much is too much?
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
The problem with a levy across the board is that every team in every grade will demand their fair share of artificial use. Is that going to cause CF some problems?
Fuck this stupid game
Permalink
Permalink
I can't see the lower grade guys wanting to pay hiked up fees when they only see one of the 4 artificials once or twice a season.
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
The problem with a levy across the board is that every team in every grade will demand their fair share of artificial use. Is that going to cause CF some problems?
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
How about just putting all the card fines towards it for one season. That should cover it nicely with some extra for a new turf.
Its no longer a problem.
Permalink
Permalink
How about just putting all the card fines towards it for one season. That should cover it nicely with some extra for a new turf.
nah i dont play much these days
anyway no - that's already budgeted for (refs end of season knees up ft Jamie Cross)
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
Well, I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that the number of capital football bookings are going up each year so maybe they have planned for it? TopLeft072011-11-23 16:38:42
Fuck this stupid game
Permalink
Permalink
not sure what you're on about here
Come on needs more sensible models pls. Someone come up with an algorithm.
Is $20 per player increase too much?
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
Okay jokes aside I thought I heard it was likely to be a very small levy added, something like less than $5 each? I could be wrong it was awhile ago.
$20 is too much.
$20 is too much.
Fuck this stupid game
Permalink
Permalink
yeah $5 is closer to it for me. $7 do-able. $20 which someone threw out there would be crazy
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
How many senior teams are registered with CF?
I counted roughly 246 (excluding central leagues).
246 x approx 16 players per team = 3936 players.
3936 x $5 is $19,680
3936 x $10 is $39360
3936 x $20 is $78720
I guess the question is what do they need per season to cover costs of construction/maintenance of the artificials over the supposed 10 year life span?
Will the juniors be charged levies as well?
I counted roughly 246 (excluding central leagues).
246 x approx 16 players per team = 3936 players.
3936 x $5 is $19,680
3936 x $10 is $39360
3936 x $20 is $78720
I guess the question is what do they need per season to cover costs of construction/maintenance of the artificials over the supposed 10 year life span?
Will the juniors be charged levies as well?
Fuck this stupid game
Permalink
Permalink
juniors is a toughie. prob JPL would use them but maybe not much else?
so what extra costs we looking at for ground charges for say 4 new turfs?
Feverish2011-11-23 19:08:15Founder
Permalink
Permalink
Teams that are playing the majority of their home games on the turfs should naturally pay more.
Permalink
Permalink
yeah $5 is closer to it for me. $7 do-able. $20 which someone threw out there would be crazy
Probably not representative of most parents, but for Junior football my kids have used Nairnville extensively. I'd say that $10-15 would not be unreasonable for junior - $20 possible too (but would need to have a guarantee of a good number of games).
Of course for those who haven't used the artificials before it might seem a large price - but being able to play a decent amount of games in a season when you can bank on 5+ games that are cancelled due to ground closures is worth paying for.
"Phoenix till they lose"
Posting 97% bollox, 8% lies and 3.658% genuine opinion.
Genuine opinion: FTFFA
Permalink
Permalink
What we need is a wealthy property developer to save football in Wellington and pay for the turfs. Any ideas?
Its no longer a problem.
Permalink
Permalink
What we need is a wealthy property developer to save football in Wellington and pay for the turfs. Any ideas?
errm...
"Phoenix till they lose"
Posting 97% bollox, 8% lies and 3.658% genuine opinion.
Genuine opinion: FTFFA
Permalink
Permalink
so CF chucked 100k at Wakefield. They are chucking 400k at Memorial. Good use of our funds? This includes a loan (not sure how much). Is creating debt an imporant issue that should have been discussed with clubs (rather than reading about it in the paper)?
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
obviously no one cares about this..
but a CF doc on levy recommendations does come in at least $20 pp. That should be fun for club captains to sell to club members.
Planning to have 2 games every week night they can on every artificial they can is a poor decision. Surely we can get through the games without going to these lengths - we have in the past and that was without artificials. A) It costs a sh*t load and B) I dont think a lot of players are interested in playing weeknights.
I'm sure this will be great for clubs whose home ground are turfs - not to mention the revenue that will pass through their clubrooms. Oh hang on let's look at who was on the working group. hmm
Craig Deadman: Petone
Nick Goodall: IBU
Peter Thomas: Upper Hutt
Steve Hearn: Waikanae
Craig Hopkins: Olympic
Peter O�Shea: BNU
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
Gonna be mighty p*ssed off at having to pay an extra $20 and than have games midweek, I as will as several others in my team travel for work so wouldnt be able to play weeknights yet would be paying extra not to play 
A dog with a bone :)
Permalink
Permalink
With the increased games on artificials I assume there will be decreased costs in council fees for ground maintenance, maybe one should offset the other.
An across the board "levy' sounds the right approach, but why not levy it against the club based on club membership levels (junior and senior) it is up to the clubs on how they pass this on i.e. the average increase might be $2 or $3 dollars a player, and the club can decide whether to increase junior/senior fees to cover. But if it was anymore than $5 then yeah i think there would be a big back-lash from members.
Juniors will get benefit by either playing on the pitches, or at least if senior players are playing less on grass, then maybe juniors will get more games as the pitches will be in better condition..
I also assume teams that train on the pitches will pay more i.e. if Petone 1st/2nd team train on the pitch they should pay x$ per session.
Permalink
Permalink
just to let you know how it works Sid - councils charge Cap Footy for ground usage - this does not include any $ for usage by clubs for their own training. CF then set the levies based on their costs - council fees being a major factor. Levie are charged to the clubs on a per team basis. Clubs then set the fee levels that their players pay.
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
I have just booked Te Whaea for this Sunday and it will cost me $150. I realise that WCC may charge more or less for capital footballs use.
But maybe $20 is fair considering.
I personally dont mind mid week games, because it means game on the turf.
Permalink
Permalink
probably not the in depth debate I'm looking for here Stefan, but um thanks
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
Surely the turf should be used midweek for previously cancelled weekend games only. Also during the weekends there are probably enough turfs now that a grade that is behind in games from others is designated artificials so they are gauranteed a game.
Personally,I work nights so midweek games at late notice cost me money as I have to give up a shift at work - that is even if I manage to.
I'd understand it if it becomes a situation of midweek or nothing but with the season not even begun yet that clearly isn't the case.
Personally,I work nights so midweek games at late notice cost me money as I have to give up a shift at work - that is even if I manage to.
I'd understand it if it becomes a situation of midweek or nothing but with the season not even begun yet that clearly isn't the case.
Allegedly
Permalink
Permalink
It's an interesting question Feverish. Until this point the model WCC have been pushing is usage for every second of the day as they try to recover costs and take use off grass fields and those costs arent small.
By my reckonining the region will have 6 artificials (Wakefield x2, Te Whaea, Well Coll, Memorial and Maidstone) by the end of next year with another 1 probable or close to being finished (St Pats) with another two not far after that. As this happen WCC will have to look seriously at the model they are using.
Playing weeknights is fine but at what point will people start pushing back saying they don't want to play weeknights because given all these artificials we have there is space on decent condition grass pitches at 2.30 on a Saturday afternoon?
As for costs, the cost of using these things are pretty massive. No matter how you levy it peopel will be pissed off but for those saying that teams that play on them more should get charged more think of it this way, because those teams are playing on the turf they are freeing up time for other teams to play on better condition grass fields. So it's an everyone wins scenario.
www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com
Permalink
Permalink
probably not the in depth debate I'm looking for here Stefan, but um thanks
Why nopt just post the dicussion paper. Then it will hit the papers and we all get to pay any way. Cancellations will be out the door.
Permalink
Permalink
Looks like the increase to CF senior levies will be just over 20 dollars per person based on a 16 player team. It seems like it�s been signed off barring something major coming to the table.
We asked for artificials - and it turns out they cost (lots). The model adopted plans to fully utilise artificials (including weekdays). Seems like we might have been backed into a corner somehow with having to use them. This will mean putting some of the poorer pitches out to pasture and playing less on others. Does that mean that if we have a relatively rain free winter, that we will be not using perfectly playable grass pitches on Saturday, and instead playing game midweek on turf? Will there be less people coming to clubrooms because of this, and thus clubs losing the social side of club footy?
Personally, I�ve had quite a lot of feedback, and it hasn�t been the subs rise that has been the main point � but the weekday games. The reality is that people have put Saturdays aside to commit to footy, and work and family commitments on weekdays make football impossible for some and difficult for others. I don�t think this is something that should be taken lightly. There has been no indication as to what the weekday load will be for a single team. The complicated workings of the draw make this challenging apparently. I think generally teams would be up for a couple of games a season, but any more would be stretching it.
It would be a shame if we see a load of defaults due to teams having social obligations on a friday night (I�m sure even Cliff hits the town occasionally (hi Cliff)), unable to get from Wgtn to UH for a 6.30 game, or a team where half of them work night shifts. You might say stiff sh*t that�s life � but we risk losing these players to the game if they are paying more to play less. We don�t want to end up like Hockey, where unpredictable playing times has led to a drop in player numbers.
So what can we do to make this less of an issue? Get the draw out earlier - say, a month or two in advance - giving people time to plan? I can�t be bothered thinking of any others � so someone else can�
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
I've known you for almost four years and I was completely unaware that you could speak in complete sentences.
I agree with you 100% too.
Who knew?
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
It's in a different front so chances are someone else wrote it.
Permalink
Permalink
It's in a different front so chances are someone else wrote it.
$10 on Andy Foster.
Permalink
Permalink
2ndbest...as in "English is my 2ndbest language."
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
BTW - Successful thread hijack. Well done team.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
obviously no one cares about this..
but a CF doc on levy recommendations does come in at least $20 pp. That should be fun for club captains to sell to club members.
Planning to have 2 games every week night they can on every artificial they can is a poor decision. Surely we can get through the games without going to these lengths - we have in the past and that was without artificials. A) It costs a sh*t load and B) I dont think a lot of players are interested in playing weeknights.
I'm sure this will be great for clubs whose home ground are turfs - not to mention the revenue that will pass through their clubrooms. Oh hang on let's look at who was on the working group. hmm
Craig Deadman: Petone
Nick Goodall: IBU
Peter Thomas: Upper Hutt
Steve Hearn: Waikanae
Craig Hopkins: Olympic
Peter O�Shea: BNU
Feel free not to indulge in the wonderful food and drinks supplied by our hard working club members next time you are at Island bay !!
Kiwi Jambo2011-12-01 12:36:19
The answer to life's problems are rarely found at the bottom of a beer glass - but it's always worth a look.
Permalink
Permalink
I think draws in advance is key. We had a Saturday game followed by a Monday game last season. Team didn't twig to it until 12pm on Monday, needless to say a shambles trying to get it together.
Other hard point is for futsal and other 5 aside games/other winter sports is factoring in those commitments with your mid-week games.
End of the day if you're charging me more for better quality pitches I'm in, because it is more enjoyable. And I'd much rather I pay the cost than the kiddies do.
Final thoughts, over-all re-work of how we communicate game times, especially mid-week ones to teams could alleviate frustration. For those who can't make mid-week games offer them a box of tui to shut them up.
Other hard point is for futsal and other 5 aside games/other winter sports is factoring in those commitments with your mid-week games.
End of the day if you're charging me more for better quality pitches I'm in, because it is more enjoyable. And I'd much rather I pay the cost than the kiddies do.
Final thoughts, over-all re-work of how we communicate game times, especially mid-week ones to teams could alleviate frustration. For those who can't make mid-week games offer them a box of tui to shut them up.
Permalink
Permalink
the scheduling is going to be key, twice last season we had a game at Tewhaea on a monday - I and 5 others of the team play indoor on a monday - first time we played indoor then outdoor within 30 minutes of each ither - not good for unfit guys, the second clashed so we had to default indoor.
For mine, I don't mind the week night games as replacements for cancelled saturday games, but if theya re to be party of the regular season I can't see it working.
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
The cost of $20 is only for next season, and from memory I believe the end cost will be something in the vicinty of $60 per player, so expect hefty increases over the next couple of seasons. Players may accept $20 to play games on an artificial and to ensure they can complete a season, but if the costs continue to rise it just becomes unafforable and unacceptable.
As some others have pointed out mid-week games or Saturday evening games will be a real challenge for a number of teams due to work commitments etc. The biggest challenge for me is understanding well ahead of time when and where I will be playing. With Saturday games, you could plan weekend activities knowing Saturday afternoon and evenings (clubrooms) were committed. This season you won't know until the week before if you have a mid-week game, a Saturday game or playing on a Sunday. Will create havoc with the social and famliy life.
Permalink
Permalink