Fans' Forum

[FFC Mariner]

That would do it

 

[Ancient Mariner]

Local amateurs do not like it when the pros come in and tell them how things will be in the future.

"We have run local soccer this way for years and know what is best. We do not want a new bunch coming in and taking over our comfortable set up. We have plenty of local players funding us, this is our money, and we will keep spending it as we have always done it."

Thank goodness CCM is talking directly to the clubs.

The sooner the whole game is professionally and competently run cannot happen soon enough. Ypu never know one day the top may fund the grass roots like what happens in other sports.

 

[Einstein]

Local amateurs do not like it when the pros come in and tell them how things will be in the future.

"We have run local soccer this way for years and know what is best. We do not want a new bunch coming in and taking over our comfortable set up. We have plenty of local players funding us, this is our money, and we will keep spending it as we have always done it."

Thank goodness CCM is talking directly to the clubs.

The sooner the whole game is professionally and competently run cannot happen soon enough. Ypu never know one day the top may fund the grass roots like what happens in other sports.

Ha the irony...Professional? They have no money..

 

[bistro]

Totally agree! Time for the old guard at CCF to roll over and let CCM take coast football into the future.

 

[true believer]

this was for AM

I agree with your point of view . but dibo point was well put as well.
charlesworth handled this poorly .being good at business doesn't mean you have skills
handling people . people that bust their gut getting a few hundred bucks each weekend
for basic equipment. doesn't need to be told their a pack of hacks.

 

[style_cafe]

My nephew plays and his team thinks the year has been great! Training is the best they have ever had! This year they got a new guy in and he has worked at other A-League clubs and a few acadmeies.
Sure results have not been that good, but they have said they have learnt more this year than ever.
In my opinion if the Mariners want to run it they should pay for it, not the clubs. I already fork out enough in rego's for my kids to play! I have always thought that Associations should run representative football. Not big business.

As an ex Chairman of an Association I always put the interest of the kids development first & foremost.
It is the Association`s role to fund rep teams but it is also the Associations responsibility to get them the best coaching possible.

Hopefully somewhere in between the CCM & CCA will meet.

 

[Einstein]

As an ex Chairman of an Association I always put the interest of the kids development first & foremost.
It is the Association`s role to fund rep teams but it is also the Associations responsibility to get them the best coaching possible.

Hopefully somewhere in between the CCM & CCA will meet.

Excellent post!!

 

[dibo]

As an ex Chairman of an Association I always put the interest of the kids development first & foremost.
It is the Association`s role to fund rep teams but it is also the Associations responsibility to get them the best coaching possible.

Hopefully somewhere in between the CCM & CCA will meet.

As I'm sure everyone can agree long as the Association is funding it, they call the shots. It's up to them to determine what is financially responsible and appropriate - it's their members' money. If it's their responsibility to fund it, it's their right to run it as they see fit. If that happens to be the way CCM wants it run, all good. But it's up to CCM to convince CCF, but it's not CCF's responsibility to agree with every (or any) request from CCM.

I'm sure we'd all agree that when CCM are funding it, they can call the shots.

 

[Einstein]

Seems fair.. Why cant the CCM focus on financal stability and getting that in order?

 

[Forum Phoenix]

Ok, this feels weird, I never seem to disagree with you Dibo, but actually, what I want is the pople with the most expertise calling the shots. Much as I do when I'm investing in something. I also think that the Mariners brand and expertise brings a very considerable amount of "worth" into the equation.

What I think we should all be able to agree on, is that the money, beyond running costs, always needs to be being spent on developing and supporting football on the coast. So the question is who can best advise and actualise this. By my reckoning, even if they are all absolutely terrific people at CCF, (and they may not be) it's very very hard to believe that they can compete with the level of expertise that CCM has to offer. We are talking a mix of world class players, world class coaching and world class businessmen... add a very high profile and a very successful brand into the mix, both of which are of huge potential value and importance, and CCM clearly have an incredible amount to offer...

 

[bikinigirl]

. alrighty, i am a bit late to this so i'll need to jump around a bit

. firstly i don't think we should be 'taking sides' ... but we really shouldn't need to. i have never played football on the coast so have no understanding of ccf - the people, structure or finances/funding

. the article dibo quoted above presents a very bad picture of charlesworth ... but he had just taken control and was being asked for his opinion - he may have learnt from that, but maybe he hasn't. i could understand the ccf reaction if some 'johnny-come-lately' swans in throwing his weight around and whinging in the media

. it is one thing to say 'the past is the past' ... but it seems he wasn't even interested in knowing what the issues were. he can't expect to fix things if he hasn't bothered to understand the problem

. part of the problem the mariners have is that they have very few staff themselves so people like charlesworth are taking advice from only a select group within that organisation. one bad (personal?) relationship/experience can determine what advice he receives. this, in itself, means we must be careful not to over-estimate the 'professionalism and expertise' of the mariners

. also, while charlesworth may be a successful businessman and turnbull has not been without success too ... if local football was run like a business nobody would be able to afford to participate

 

[bikinigirl]

. now for my take on the comments at the forum (with regard to ccf)

. charlesworth is playing politics ... publicly stating that he needs 'our' support whilst not actually saying what the problem is. he offered up what he saw as the benefits but would not elaborate on what the 'issues' were beyond saying that he had them. he was using the forum to his advantage

. funding is a tricky thing and it didn't really get a mention - but it was noted that the mariners have no w-league team and that they support women's football via the academy (i don't know if this 'support' is financial). at the previous forum turnbull stated the mariners mates program would be sponsored by ccf - at this forum he said there would be a mariners mates program (grant's responsibility?) but there was no mention of ccf, funding or structure of the program ... as a related side note: a comment from the floor was that many families were holding off on their membership renewals until the mates program was sorted

. but ... what i think was actually being discussed at the forum is not necessarily what has been discussed in this thread. imo, what the mariners said they were offering was coaching expertise ... but it was more of a coach the coaches type thing. i am unsure why or how this could be a bad thing for ccf, but charlesworth said there was a bottleneck with the ccf stopping this from happening

. oh and the comment from the floor was not about losing young players to sfc or wsw but back to other nsw premier league clubs ... and beyond the 'influence' of the mariners 'academy'

. now what arnie was talking about was building a legacy ... where the ccf / academy coaches are educated in the 'mariners way' to a plan being developed and documented by patrick. being on the payroll of the mariners and offering his (and his team's) expertise to the ccf / academy to make sure the coaches are well educated and therefore the players learn 'the system' - this would involve helping to appoint the right coaching staff

. the issue from the player / player's family point of view is that it was this 'expertise' (careful to distinguish between business/management and coaching expertise) which attracts players to the academy ... if this is not what they are getting, the options appear better elsewhere

. so, in the end, the debate shouldn't be about funding and control ... it should be about what benefit can be obtained by using the resources available. the potential is there ... but unfortunately the politics and 'history' are still there as well

 

[bikinigirl]

. oh and one more thing about the mariners going direct to the clubs ... i didn't think that was setup to undermine ccf. the planned meeting is for the launch of the ambassador program (players getting back into the local clubs)

. as the discussion moved on ... and charlesworth requested people bring up their issues (ccf / academy /mariners) with their club presidents ... it was suggested the presidents would then be better informed (of their member's views) when the mariners meet with the clubs at the ambassadors launch and feedback can be given

. interesting though that charlesworth also mentioned he was looking at reaching out to the ffa to resolve the 'bottleneck' in dealings with ccf

 

[scottmac]

So the rumours that relationships with the academy/CCF are toxic are possibly true.

Also, is anything Charlesworth said in the media untrue?

I mean come on, we've all been part of amateur football associations for the better part of our lives. Lets not kid ourselves as to their ability to run like a democracy where the desire of the majority is adhered to (or even listened to!!)

Its a classic case of old time soccer relations. Here we have the chance to get together & create an awesome entity un matched in modern day Australian football, but we're too busy killing it from inside. Funny thing is that by the time this kind of relationship really bears consistent fruit, those who right now think they know best will be gone.

 

[Ancient Mariner]

As I'm sure everyone can agree long as the Association is funding it, they call the shots.

I'm sure we'd all agree that when CCM are funding it, they can call the shots.

It is the local parents funding it and it is almost impossible to find out where the money goes.

I played rugby as a kid and it cost a pittance. My friends played League and it cost them nothing and they were provided with all their gear (less boots) to keep each season.

My son played football from the age of 6 to 16 and it cost me a packet each year with very little idea as to where the money went that left the club. Trying to understand the structure of "soccer" in Australia was impossible. Like what was the relationship between my son's under 9 side and Marconi. It was more convoluted than one of Alan Bond's company set ups.

It seemed to me that a lot of this money went up the line to fund second rate professionals playing in second rate comps that were rather meaningless except for those involved. Whenever you did find out who was involved in looking after your funds up the line confidence and trust was the last thing you felt. There was never any sense of being part of a greater organisation. It also seemed to me that these associations were very comfortable with their structure while the kids got coached by the dads.

Until there is a clear, transparent, direct control, responsibiliy and relationship from the bottom to the top in this game other codes will have the edge.

 

[midfielder]

As I'm sure everyone can agree long as the Association is funding it, they call the shots. It's up to them to determine what is financially responsible and appropriate - it's their members' money. If it's their responsibility to fund it, it's their right to run it as they see fit. If that happens to be the way CCM wants it run, all good. But it's up to CCM to convince CCF, but it's not CCF's responsibility to agree with every (or any) request from CCM.

I'm sure we'd all agree that when CCM are funding it, they can call the shots.

HHHHMMMMMmmm why and how ... CCF is not a corporation with managers appointed to run a business model... it's a local association ... to develop football and look after local park teams ...

Back in 1955 this same issue caused a major spilt in Australian football and was the primary cause of the break away ethnic clubs .... Association want to do things there way and professional folk wanted a different way...

I have no idea who is more right both would things that should be kept... all I can say is the most vocal at the forum on this issue was Arnie [not Charlesworth] Arnie said the coaching methods he wanted to put in place where not and inferior methods were being used... someone from the floor said a number of kids from Sydney where going back to SFC & WSW because of how poor the coaching was...

My very simple understanding is people are put in charge of associations to do the best for the players and the park teams... the floor of the forum who kept driving the issue, not Charlesworth ... were demanding Charlesworth do something...

Charlesworth said there where some issue ... the issue as I said was driven from the floor and Arnie was the one who said the most ...

 

[dibo]

Tin tacks time.

CCF holds the licence to compete. CCF provides the financial backing. Mariners are bringing a brand. The juniors will pay for themselves* and CCF will be funding the seniors. I don't know what CCF's contribution is, but I'll have a stab in the dark and say that it's $100k.

Based on the 2012 Annual Report, that's coming out of a budget of approximately $2.2 million and a player base of 12,500, that's a shitload of money. It's relatively more when you consider that more than $600k goes to affiliation fees**, so the 'discretionary spend' is only $1.6m.

It's a crowded budget already - finding things to cut is never easy, so given that they've cut a staff member compared to last year, it looks to me like they're trying to do this without hurting local players by jacking up fees.

In this context, if CCF are cutting back on what they do for 12,500 community players for the privilege of paying for less than 300 players to run around wearing Mariners logos on their shirts, then it'd have to be more than a little galling for CCM to come in and tell national media that they're shit at their jobs and need to be side-stepped. If I were on the Board or staff I'd be wanting to pull up the drawbridge at that point too.

Whether it's $50k, $100k or $500k, it's a much smaller drop in CCM's bucket than CCF's, given CCM will have an operating budget perhaps 3x or 4x larger than CCF and far greater capacity to raise more money through sponsorship etc.

I don't think anybody is going to think that strengthening the links and developing a 'Mariners way' is a bad idea, but a bit of basic diplomacy wouldn't hurt, and simple ignorance of the scale of the Association's situation and task load is not going to help.

* ...and a little bit of cross-subsidy is the usual pattern - 6 boys NPL1 teams and 3 girls' WPL teams plus 3 SAP squads gives up to 212 players and somewhere in the order of $300k, the *vast* majority of which is simply cost recovery, but some will inevitably cross-subsidise the 4 senior sides.

** A lot of this goes to insurance, a lot goes to FNSW, but based on the player numbers $200k of this goes to the FFA for the privilege of (among other things) having A-League clubs publicly shitcan the Association. Maybe CCM should simply ask if these funds could be redirected to CCMA as a direct contribution?

 

[Einstein]

WOW.... Great post Dibo!

 

[dibo]

It is the local parents funding it and it is almost impossible to find out where the money goes.

I played rugby as a kid and it cost a pittance. My friends played League and it cost them nothing and they were provided with all their gear (less boots) to keep each season.

My son played football from the age of 6 to 16 and it cost me a packet each year with very little idea as to where the money went that left the club. Trying to understand the structure of "soccer" in Australia was impossible. Like what was the relationship between my son's under 9 side and Marconi. It was more convoluted than one of Alan Bond's company set ups.

It seemed to me that a lot of this money went up the line to fund second rate professionals playing in second rate comps that were rather meaningless except for those involved. Whenever you did find out who was involved in looking after your funds up the line confidence and trust was the last thing you felt. There was never any sense of being part of a greater organisation. It also seemed to me that these associations were very comfortable with their structure while the kids got coached by the dads.

Until there is a clear, transparent, direct control, responsibiliy and relationship from the bottom to the top in this game other codes will have the edge.

CCF and FNSW have annual reports that are publicly available. They're accountable to their members. Your club's reports should also be available. FFA and HAL clubs don't produce reports publicly.

For what it's worth, the other codes don't provide clear reports either, but they earn money at the top that flows down rather than up - in CCF's case this is $600k going up. If the flow was reversed and they were able to receive $600k, the net $1.2m change in revenue could be spent on things like cutting CCF's component of the rego fee by around 50% for most age groups, co-investing (with councils) to light a bunch of pitches or improve sheds etc.

 

[dibo]

HHHHMMMMMmmm why and how ... CCF is not a corporation with managers appointed to run a business model... it's a local association ... to develop football and look after local park teams ...

Back in 1955 this same issue caused a major spilt in Australian football and was the primary cause of the break away ethnic clubs .... Association want to do things there way and professional folk wanted a different way...

I have no idea who is more right both would things that should be kept... all I can say is the most vocal at the forum on this issue was Arnie [not Charlesworth] Arnie said the coaching methods he wanted to put in place where not and inferior methods were being used... someone from the floor said a number of kids from Sydney where going back to SFC & WSW because of how poor the coaching was...

My very simple understanding is people are put in charge of associations to do the best for the players and the park teams... the floor of the forum who kept driving the issue, not Charlesworth ... were demanding Charlesworth do something...

Charlesworth said there where some issue ... the issue as I said was driven from the floor and Arnie was the one who said the most ...

There's a way of solving that problem then. Go in, have a cup of coffee with the CCF TD, help to map out a syllabus for the year. Help with coach selection, help to train the coaches.

One constant in rep football is people bagging the coaches, and the grass is always greener. CCM can help, but they can't dictate.