ASB Premiership: Changes Needed Next Season

You keep banging on that only winning matters, well being competitive matters as well and getting to three ASBP finals is not mean feat for Canterbury and TW. By saying their efforts are worthless you're belittling the whole competition. Does that mean a team like Spurs is worthless because it hasn't recently won the English premiership. A competition is about all the teams who compete, not just the winner.

I love how NZF are willing to clim prize money for a competition they are not willing to enter (O-League).  I find that fundamentally outrageous

Hence really, this competition is a two horse race because the only winners have been ACFC and Waitakere and with the exception of one season where YHM were also included, ACFC and Waitakere have been in the O League. Saying that Canty came within a penalty shoot out of winning does not justify this competition as being meaningful or competitive. What was the phrase used to describe the ASB by an ACFC supporter a couple of posts back.... cabbage?

That's the point so no, I was not banging on about winning is the only thing that matters.

Not sure they are willing. Probably more the fact they aren't allowed to enter.

Getting dizzy yet guys?

I think you and JV are becoming confused. If any team is in the top two spots at the end of the season or wins the final they go into the O League. Canterbury and TW have come close. They can do it, despite your inference of a two-team jackup. I simply don't share your assessment that the ASBP is rubbish. What did you call it once JV - "dismal crap". You're way too negative.

Can we examine some facts for a moment.

Yes I have said its dismal crap - because I really do not rate the football shown in it. Its ACFC, Waitakere and the also rans. The also rans are not flash although TW and Canty have their days. Some of the football is down right abysmal. I was at Kiwitea last year when ACFC trounced YHM and Stu Jacobs gave MOM to the worst player on the pitch in Nathan Cooksley. I could have done a better job and I'm over 60!!! The TV games this year (I think TW v Canty was it) was just utter shit. That being said, the competition has a purpose in NZ and it fills that purpose - provides a national league.

There are also ACFC fans saying 'ASB doesn't count' 'O League is where its at' 'Cabbage' so to say I'm way too negative... well I can suggest you throw that same stone at your own mates because the same supporters you hang out with share this view. Read back a couple of pages. I'm not being negative at all. I am telling you that there is no justification for calling this a competitive comp because....

The only teams to win the competition and make O League are ACFC and Waitakere. 'Come close' does not make it competitive or meaningful. What did Canty and TW get in those seasons where they came close that the teams that finished 8th didn't get. The answer is nothing because 'coming close' gets you nothing. If for the next 20 years, TW and Canty come close yet ACFC and Waitakere are still winning and still making O League, it wont make it a competitive comp. Which leads me to....

Making the final is irrelevant because making the final does not guarantee you anything. What did Canty get the year they made that final that Adam Cowan and co didn't get at YHM. The answer is nothing. You can also argue that you guys should give a bigger share of the money to Waitakere because without them winning (Say it was a Canty or TW) then you would have..... nothing (and that point is me stirring so don't take that one with any seriousness). The league is set up in such a way that reality is that going hard to the end, gets you nothing. You get rewarded for consistent league performance (and I have no issue with that)

Stop putting words in my mouth about it being all about winning or I am being negative or diverting away from the stated point. The argument is simply that you have zero grounds to argue that this is a competitive competition. By the facts above (and going back further to the very original point) why is there whinging about U20s and YHM when the result is a foregone conclusion. Please, argue the point. Come back to me because the facts show, there is none. I also urge caution not to use the 'participation' line or 'why turn up then' line because its just more red herrings. The point of the U20s inclusion is to give these kids exposure and of you noted back a couple of pages, I did agree with some of your points. Them being involved will make zero difference to the fact that either ACFC or Waitakere will win the league next year and will make zero difference to the fact that ACFC and Waitakere will make the O League. If we go back to the points you and 2nd Best were arguing, you can rightful argue if the U20s will get anything out of that considering the final make up of the team will change anyway. That's where the real argument is. Giving exposure to an U20s team which is likely to change anyway so what is the point of dressing it up as that exercise?

When you are prepared to discuss those points, then we have a conversation but do not make the above or my opinion out to be anything else that what I have stated.

I would also like to add that the Tottenham and EPL arguments are also red herrings. How has Scottish Football gone over the last 30 years. Its been Celtic, Rangers and a couple of other teams that have made the final. Say, doesn't that sounds like the ASB? Fact is, both are not comparisons to what we have.

Bluddy hell....wot a lot of writeing .,...

Can YHM get back into the league?

I think NZF will look at all youth teams systems for suitability to integrate into the ASB premiership if not all ready there. 

That is when expansion is reviewed again.

I'm actually hoping to generate conversation, that's not pointed at ACFC or Waitakere. I do like our national league for what it is even though the football is hit and miss. I guess fundamentally, if the u20s improve that, then how would that be a bad thing?

I love the national league, I look forward to every Waikato FC home game (so that should well show how in favour of it I am!), but I do still agree, we are deluding ourselves if we think this competition is an extremely meaningful, close-run, world-renowned competition. Most of all, it is a stepping stone for our bright young talent, as well as a competitive environment for those who are lucky enough to get paid a small amount. Adding the under 20's may have slight logistical issues but on the whole it benefits kiwi football, and that's what the ASBP is meant to do.

Crikey - what a response. My point JV is still TW ousted ACFC in the finals playoffs recently and came withing the final of qualifying for the O League. Canterbury came within one penalty goal of the same. The fact they didn't doesn't mean they can't. Manawatu did one season and that to me alone is reason for them to be allowed to compete if they can do it. You know I think the Under 20 team demeans the competition to a training ground for the NZF and belittles the hugely professional efforts of ACFC to be competitive on a decent level, as is Waitakere. If the Under 20 team takes any of the O League prizemoney won by ACFC or any other team then that just rubs salt into the wound by the NZF. You mention the Scottish premier league, well the likes of St Johnson and Aberdeen have pride and can dream of cracking the top two. Just as Spurs are knocking on the door in England. I don't care if one team wins it nine years out of ten, the dream is what matters (speaking from knowledge as a Crystal Palace supporter).

I have never thought the ASBP was ever "dismal crap" and I think your sometimes caustic dismissal of domestic football says more about where your head is at than what is happening on the field in front of you. I appreciate you go to local games and wish there were more like you but I think you should sometimes temper your views.  

So now it's the dream that matters? Ok, you change your stance to suit your position a lot.

Please tell me how participation.... er 'the dream' makes the competition competitive? You can't because it doesn't. The fact remains, ASB, SPL are not competitive and people in the UK have been saying the SPL has been poked for years. The rich get richer in Europe and the also rans keep being the also rans. Celtic and Rangers were active in trying to get out of Scotland and into something else because its such a crap league for years. Lets not rewrite history to suit your argument. Stop throwing up these red herrings.

The U20s have a dream of doing well at the local WC. This helps facilitate that. Does that fit in with your 'dream' statement?

Taking out YHM and adding U20s does not turn the comp into a training ground. If that's your argument then it's been that way for a couple years with a mandate of having to field x amount of youth players or whatever that policy was so you have no argument. Spoonley hasn't sat on the bench because ACFC choose to put a kid as the reserve GK - a classic example. Whether its YHM coming last again, replacing them does not change the competition. If you decide to deny entry to the 60 yo guy at the Auckland marathon because he has come last the last few years and let someone else who could potentially do better, does not make any difference to the other participants or change the makeup of the marathon. Because this decision has zero effect on your club or the competition, the bare faced facts suggest you just don't like change or have a greater bugbear. This does nothing to affect your club and arguing it makes the league less competitive when it's not competitive already is a circular argument.

Again, how does U20 being in this league instead of YHM makes the competition worse? I want you to tell me.

I also don't have to temper my views because if it looks like spam and tastes like spam, I'm not going to sell it as scotch fillet.

My argument JV is you often use ridiculous extreme language - like "dismal crap" - when I don't think it's a fair assessment. The ASBP is a reasonable standard and players put in a lot of effort on and off the pitch. I think they deserve more respect.

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.

No football league in the world is equal, there are always heavyweight teams and those fighting to catch up. ACFC and Waitakere set the standard and Canterbury and TW aren't far behind. But there is always the dream of cracking it. It's what it is all about. If you don't understand that I can't explain it to you.

agree

Take someone like Simon Arms. Would you prefer to be at ACFC and in the Fifa Club World Cup or in an Under20 side in the ASBP which can't be in the O League? I think it's unfair on our young players. There are more than a few who could be in this position.

Putting the Under20 side in the ASBP means NZF doesn't have a plan to enhance it's struggling (as far as the bottom four teams go) national league. Instead they're just being expedient. I've been arguing this from the beginning so I don't know where your reference to "now getting down to it" comes from. Nice to see you reasoning your opinion so perhaps it is for you.

Are there any other leagues where a national age-group side are slotted in with club sides? I suppose you could argue Dragon in Tahiti is close but its still a club side.

I don't think can look at this in a backwards applicable manner because Arms is not eligible for the team and thus it does not apply to him. Neither was Rojas and neither was Wood. You can only apply it going forward and I don't really see who this applies to.

Is a 19 yo footballer going to be starting at CWC for ACFC (or in fact get game time) because let's be honest, that's who you are referring to? Unlikely so I don't think that's a relevant argument because the team gets stacked with imports and guest players are bought in. As for being in the O League, we are talking 1 maybe 2 seasons at the most and with the timing of when qualifiers and the tournament is, may not be able to play in it anyway.

More than a few... Throw out some names and lets discuss them realistically rather than hypothetically. I think the list is far smaller than you think. Otherwise, we are just guessing and not proving your argument or mine.

As for enhancing the bottom 4 of the league, I think it's been well accepted for a long while but the answer is cash, and there is none, so that won't be fixed anytime soon. I will say though in respect of those bottom 4, they provided a development opportunity so it does not improve the competition but will improve young footballers whom may go back to their areas and improve their teams.

As for this happening elsewhere in the world, I have no idea, but as you did say, other leagues are not comparable.

Remember this is Under20 players for 2015. So they will be 17 now won't they? Would a 17 year old be starting ASB Premiership?

The promising David Browne has had game time for ACFC this past season and he's only 16-years-old. I know he's technically Papua New Guinea but it's likely he'll become a NZer. So just who are all these Under20 players who are going to fill the 16-18 places in this guest Under20 team, surely there will be a number who would have turned out for franchises? 

Doesn't Fifa rules mean they can actually be over 20 when they play in the World Cup as long as they're under 20 when the team qualifies? Also, aren't some over-age players allowed too?

I suspect NZF is using the O League prizemoney won by ACFC and spread around the ASBP to provide the cheaperst build-up it can get away with for the Under20 team. Remember NZF take a nice slice of the O League money and this'll pay for the Under20 team so Frank the Bank and co don't have to raid their junket funds. They have millions invested from the last World Cup, they just don't want to use it. Look I'm all for the Under20 AWs getting as much game time as possible but not at the expense of injecting some much needed new interest and funding into the ASBP. Having a South Auckland side would be been a big lift for the competition. The Under20 side are not going to bring in new spectators or sponsors.

Players eligible are those born on 1 January 1995 or after. No other players allowed.

Players would still be able to play for the u-20 side and in the FIFA Club World Cup by simply tranfering to clubs competing in the OFC Champions Lge after the end of the ASB Premiership. Players already do this e.g. Darren White transferred from Canterbury United to Auckland City to play OFC Champions Lge. I can't see NZ football standing in the way of players doing this.

I back NZ football's move to include an u-20 side because the u-20 World Cup is such a big and unique opportunity to promote football here, the biggest football event ever to happen here, the likes of which many of us will never see again. And it's important we field a credible side. I, for one, would actually enjoy seeing my local side Canterbury United v NZ u-20 and if a few Mainland Football youngsters were turning out for NZ u-20, all the better...

I agree with Big Pete

any Mainland footballer in the U-20 gets my support. we are not gettign numbers into these rep sides. 

Nil x Mainlanders in 2013 U20s and 2 in 2013 U17s

You have just got to watch the 2 club rule for transfers.

Good chat here lads.

For mine, you've both got good points. I agree with Trueblue that NZF hasn't invested in the league, and has taken the easy option by kicking out Manawatu and slotting in the 20s. It is, in his words, expedient. +1 on that from me.

But I also agree with Big Pete 65 when he says that the 2015 U20 WC is such a massive thing for us, we need to field a credible side and give them a decent build up. And it has to be a build up we can afford of course.

Where does that leave me? Firmly with a fence in my arse? Yes, that is correct.

I think I would have preferred it if NZF had replaced Manawatu with another team (South Auckland) implemented rules about a minimum number of U20s on the field for all games, and then played exhibition games as build up in the style of the ASB Challenge games against the Phoenix. 

But from what I hear that South Auckland franchise was enthusiastic but not ready, and there are question marks over the competitiveness and usefulness of exhibition games.

So I can understand the decision they've reached. And I'm not particularly bothered by it. 

The thing that worries me the most is how it will or won't work alongside the Phoenix's proposed Academy expansion, and how that might play out for the players.

I don't think anyone is under any illusion of doubt that NZF has not invested in the league. That's one battle True Blue and I will never have. Coupled by a complete idiot in Glyn Taylor who was running it - well we have what we have.

I think the only real question mark I have around their inclusion is "Are the u20 players in this team likely to get the benefit of 'time together as a team' when the final make up will probably have overseas players come in as always does". The rest, I don't think is really an issue contributing to the mass doom and gloom 'downgraded to a training comp' that's get flouted about.

As it stands, there is a matchday squad quota of age group players that much be in the team. I think what NZF have effectively done is rather than (mandating as you suggested Smithy) the fielding of a minimum number of age group players on the field, they have said 'stuff the quota, here is 1 team'. I think putting in quotas doesn't really change what was there in the first place (and to be honest, was not really used as intended)

One other question, presumably players will actually remain registered to their club (as they won't be able to register with the U20s) - does that mean they won't actually need a transfer at the end of the season to an ASBP side for O-League etc?

This may have already be mentioned so apologies if it already has, but with the inclusion of the U20's will the franchises still be required to have 2 youth players in their match day squad?

I take your points Smithy and I'll grudgingly accept the benefits of having the Under20 side in the ASBP in order to have our best side in the 2015 World Cup. My first interest has always been to promote the ASBP which is losing its appeal. Thank heavens for the O League.

I don't think we going to see a change anytime soon unfortunately.

With the $10m from the WC and ASB investing $2.5m every year for 4 years, where is this money going cause we were turning profits in 2009 prior to this cash and now we are not.