The ASBP was set up as a franchise-based competition representing the main regions, so the Under 20 team is a major change. It doesn't represent any part of the country and dilutes the local identity of teams like ACFC, Waitakere, Hawkes Bay, Canterbury, Otago, Waikato, Wellington. It also places young players in a difficult situation. They may want to play for their local franchise like Canterbury or ACFC but will feel under pressure if NZF wants them in the Under 20 team. Likewise coaches will be under pressure from NZF to let their best young players play for the Under 20 side when they want them for their team as well. I just think it was a short-sighted decision made for the convenience of the NZF rather than to benefit our national league which is in need of rejuvination.
Ok now we are getting down to it. Took a while but I clipped the rest out to focus on this, which appears to be your reason why you are against it.
I can understand your view. I think when you look at the whole thrust of the invention of the ASBP, one of the main considerations I guess was representation/identity. In my opinion, OU, CU, HBU have this sorted out well. From what I can see from the outside, TW is turning into a Miramar/Phoenix entity, WFC have pretty much been an Auckland team in disguise for most of their incarnation, ACFC/Waitakere = Central/Waitakere and YHM have been a Manawatu team but recently, buy back retreads who went to Wairarapa who in turn, seem to think they can field a better team with the same players.
If you take the above as I see it (and I accept I may well be the only one who sees it like this) then the whole identity thing doesn't come into it because a lot of the teams don't have that representation/identity already other than in name.
The thing with the kids and the pressure, yes I can see that as well. I do think though that if you look at the mix of players in the league, it's young, but not under 19 young so I don't think we are talking about a whole lot of players that are making an impact already and them leaving their team, will leave that team in a weaker position. There are none that are major players at Waitakere and ACFC, the kids at TW are nix tied, OU have them from university considerations so are unlikely to move so really the only teams that might suffer are HBU, WFC and CU and I didn't see many young ones in CU this year. We are also talking a window of 2 years. It's not a lifetime and if you are a kid that wants to go to a WC, you might be inclined to increase your chances being in the 'circle of trust' as opposed to being outside it. I think if I was 19, and was faced with being a squad player if I stayed with a franchise, or potentially starting for an u20 team and putting myself in the shop window for WC, well then for that two years, I'd take that because when you are 30, you can be a 30 yo that's been an ASBP footballer for 12 years, or be an ASBP footballer, who also went to a WC, potentially got seen and signed up elsewhere with scouts watching.
I think if these kids are good enough, they will play ASBP regardless after they have done their u20s stint. Look at the players that transition from ACFC to Waitakere and back and there is no bad blood. Milos is playing for Central but spent the summer at Waitakere so this I don't think is a big deal. As for the coaches.... are you going to put your own personal glory (and the pressure is greater at Waitakere and ACFC as repeat participants at O League) ahead of the development cycle of footballers in NZ. I'm no Calcott fan but even he sees the bigger picture vs the fortunes of TW and I respect that greatly.