Glenorchy Knights have adopted a tough stance on the eve of the Summer Cup competition against their players who have not paid their fees and the club are prepared to forfeit matches rather than play 'fee evaders'.
I have been told that at least one other southern club will adopt the same attitude.
"Someone has to do it,and it may as well be the Knights," said Knights official John Peter.
"We are making a stand, but not because we cannot pay their registrations.
"Far from it. But, we are getting weary chasing players for money each year and some players going from club to club getting a free ride.
"Players have got to learn that here in Tasmania we are strictly amateur and it is a user-pays system.
"It is like any other amateur sport or gym, where you must pay for the things you use.
"Football is no exception, with players paying for FFT and other national body fees, including insurance and membership or affiliation fees, ground hire, including training, referees' fees, coaching fees and licences, equipment such as strips, balls, training aides, first aid and so on.
" Players must also understand that their player fees do not go near to what it costs a club to put a player on the park. Tthe rest is made up through sponsorship and fundraising activities.
"Furthermore, I would suggest that most clubs are not-for-profit organisations, so they do not retain a lot of money in the bank and so require player fees to be paid so that they can have a cash flow and pay their own bills on time.
"Not to do so could see a club fined, penalised or charged interest.
"I am not suggesting that the Knights are not financial. Far from it. But, we need to be vigilant to maintain our cash flow."
That is a well-presented argument and it is hoped that players will do the right thing.
The last thing the game needs at the top level is forfeited games.
I also think the current transfer system is a joke, even though it is an amateur game.
A situation where players can simply leave a club one day of their own volition and with no strings attached and play for another the next makes a mockery of the competition.
18 comments:
Hopefully all clubs will adopt the same approach.
FFA insists that all amateur players a free to transfer at will - subject a maximum number of registrations per season - 3 I think.
clubs need to do so much more in terms of getting into their local communities.
local clubs need do adopt an 'Auskik' style junior system. Hit the primary schools in their area. Make locals feel like they can be a part of the club -
If you can get kids coming to watch from local schools they in turn have their parents along - even if it's $2 entry flat you'll make more than enough through a canteen etc with the added numbers.
clubs simply aren't doing enough, and simply are running themselves intelligently enough -
players aren't the reason the game is amateur in Tasmania, the clubs are.
without the infrastructure players can not grow.
you only have to look at South Hobart who are putitng back into the players as to the results -
Imagine the improvement if they actually got paid...1-1 against players who are making 500+ a week is an outstanding result
clubs need to get off players and get real about their own structure and development financially.
A truly poor show.
i would liketo say that south hobart isnot the only club looking after juniors. Metro football club also. Have couple teams going toMelbourne to play before the juniors start.Every oportunity is given tothe players also some do get the oportunity to play over seas with Victorian Countrysides each year when they go away.
Two comments.
FFT could if they wished revert to the old " if you owe money " we "wont" sanction the new registration system .
I am sure they have the capacity to make such a condition a "LOCAL COMPETITION " Rule.
Check the reverse of the original rego forms used last year .Also mentioned at the 1st briefing on the new rego system by the visiting presenter.
Re the comment about getting involved in community affairs . Most clubs have only sufficient staff to run their club let alone adult ed for locals.
Clarence are doing plenty with juniors/youth - involved in Eastern Region, have an academy set up, good coaching, many teams...
If you don't like the Club you're at shop around or better still improve the Club you're at.
Brian
FFA were very clear when the topic of no pay no play was discussed.
As you should be only too aware FFT , as a member of FFA, must follow FFA policy.
FFT have NO SAY in whether a player may register without having paid dues at a previous club.
They have NO CAPACITY to make the local rule you suggest.
In response to the anonymous, re noFFT have no power!.
Sorry that is a cop out , blame FFA not allowing such and such , who runs the game ? what do you elect directors for ? they are supposed to represent the clubs , the members , surely they have the fortitued to stand up and make a decision and or find a way with the brothers at FFA which stops such stupid rules being put in place!
Clubs are run by volunteers, most club boards are family members of long serving servants at clubs , provide support mechanisms to assist in the running of clubs not hinder.
Perhaps common sense will prevail once many more clubs no longer exist because it has all got to hard to run know, as a club director i believe i am now working for FFT or FFA , we are the only ones who seem to be doing the work , what with benchmarks , new registration systems , costs to participate day to day requirements just answering emails and calls football related , not sure it is worth it !!
the no pay - no play is certainly an easy issue to resolve - just as Knights have done. NO PAY - NO PLAY. In the past the old system allowed the clubs to rely on FFT to be their debt collector - that is not appropriate.
FFT have had changes agreed to by FFA in certain areas should a semi-pro state league come into play - so yes FFT does represent Tasmanian clubs and players.
Anonymous??? , I guess we can all beg to differ , i am only speaking from club perspective - not had your experience working with FFT .
Maybe you could explain some of the following ; costs 3,000 to enter teams for 1,000prizemoney , that equates to 30,000 last year in 1,000 out - good business if you are the in!
Increases in 3 years Referee fees up 15%, regos up 20% , team fees up 25% and so on .
Match balls we have to buy to use a sponsored ball and the sponsorship doesn't cover any freebies .....!
have a look at the 2008 financials that all the clubs have received recently - its all there!
Have to agree Juventus seems to me that the clubs do more and more work each year and the govening bodies get more and more for less work!!
Mark NRFC
Mark
The clubs need to re-evaluate then just what it is that they expect / want FFT to do.
Most clubs participated in the Strategic plan meetings which is the perfect place to identify what club expectations are.
IF the strategic plan hasnt been followed then questions, particularly at AGM's, need to be asked.
If the Strategic plan is not what clubs thought it was then get it reviewed. Part of the process is continual review.
The Board actually measure the performance of the organisation against the Strategic Plan. Ask the Board for a copy of their latest evaluations.
Anonymous .
I regret I disagree .
What FFT lacked at the time was intestinal fortitude .
At the briefing for the new rego system late 2008 the question was raisewd . I have given the presenters response .
Have any of us checked what occurs elsewhere in the Commonwealth.
brian
then the presenter obviously hadnt spoken to FFA's legal department.
The issue was pursued at length!!
Brian , will probably find that maybe the right questions were asked to suit the governing body, not the clubs, those that do all the work , the ones tha have to chase themoney from the players and get them out on the park each week, (anon - thats the members ).
Strategic plans make great door stoppers if they are not owned by the participants , they are great for ticking off for government funding requirements but they don't keep clubs afloat , they just create more work!
The rule of thumb here, Brian, is that if a player is owing money to a club that he/she has played for and in the course of the season (minimum amount of games stipulated per association rules as seasons varey), they are classified as members to that club and cannot move to another club without a clearance. The clearance would stipulate the amount owing to that club which would be then sent to the the governing body. The player is invalid to play for any other club until that outstanding amount owing is paid in full to the club. However, and here is the crux. There is a window to "deregister" any player who has not paid or played (yet again within a set number of games), whereby the only amount the player has to pay is to the Assocation and Insureance costs, but not the club. In other words, a player cannot sign for any other club until he/she is "financial" with his/her previous club.
However, there is no reason why the new club cannot buy out his contract and continue with his/her wages.
Refer my comment re local rule
I find it hard to see what the issue is here.
How many player's don't know that they will be charged rego sometime early in 2009 - and that the season starts sometime in March?
Really! There is little excuse for players not paying. Everyone knows the season is coming.
If a club allows a player not to pay it is their choice, their risk.
I was told this am the old Soccer Tas system still functions in the Northern Territory .
Post a Comment