December 12, 2006
One down…
It appears that the new compulsory coaching accreditation requirements has claimed it’s first victim. University have had to “put on hold” the appointment of Ric Peterson as the senior coach according to Walter Pless on the FFT website.
University were obviously pleased with Peterson’s appointment yet FFT’s directorate dictates that University can’t appoint who they want and Peterson can’t hold a job he wants.
Does anyone else get the sense of BIG BROTHER in all of this??
Uni must be entitled to appoint who they want. If the appointment proves to be unwise through poor coaching or players leaving the club in droves, then they must act. FFT should have no right to interject in this appointment.
Is this not a democracy in which we live?
Not happy FFT!!!
I believe the requirements re coaching accreditation is a FFA requirement, FFT purely run in line with that.
Comment by Juice — December 12, 2006 @ 12:58 pm
No other state demands mandatory qualifications. Sorry Juice, this is purely FFT being big brother and looking after our interests.
Comment by Blackjack — December 12, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
While I suppor the mandatory coaching accreditation for all senior coaches, it is not that easy if you suddenly decide to undertake your coaching courses as they obviously must be done in order. Lets look at Middlesbrough in the EPL, their coach does not have the mandatory FIFA PRO Licence, but is allowed to coach because he has given an undertaking to complete it in a certain time frame. Lets see FFT do a similar type of thing.
Comment by charlie white — December 12, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
Doesnt hurt at all to have our coaches have the proper accreditation. Can only improve the game. Leniency should be given as with anything new there is generally some teething problems
Comment by Juice — December 12, 2006 @ 5:15 pm
I think mandatory qualifications are a good idea, provided FFT make the courses accessible and affordable and use some common sense in situations like the one described. There has to be some leeway to allow time for a new coach to attend a course and get the appropriate licence.
Surely if Uni want to appoint a coach he could do the junior and youth courses scheduled for early next year and gain the licence before the season even begins?
Comment by Ben — December 18, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
Absolutey right Ben. And dont forget the clubs were told of the benchmarks more tha 12 months in advance of their application.
Comment by sj — December 19, 2006 @ 6:43 pm
Re mandatory coaching qualifications
The memo from the CEO of FFT stated the following ;
As you would be aware from the Benchmark Document that was distributed to clubs in November 2005, from next year there is a requirement that all coaches of senior age group teams at your club are required to hold, as a minimum, a Youth Licence.
Similarly, coaches of junior age group teams are required to hold a Junior Licence.
I have broken the statement down to two parts , as per above ,
1. Doubt if any club or player who are fielding teams in the three tier Premier , Women’s Premier or two tier Division One would have any problems with this statement especially as clubs were made aware as in the memo in November 2005 and FFT have offered (x) amount of courses during 2006 a number of other States have gone down this line and most have raised the bar to at least a senior licence for the Premier League.
I like many of your other blog contributors believe that to mandate requirements on lower senior leagues is unnecessary and unworkable , how do FFT manage this rule ? can clubs appoint coaches to more than one team ? does the accredited coach have to be present at all times team playing ? who is going to check ???
2. All junior teams must have an accredited coach at Junior licence level , what equates a junior team ? is this for FFT run competitions or all junior comps ie Under 6 -18 , This really is pipe dream stuff . Do FFT have the authority to stop an under 6 team from from Hutchins ( for example ) from playing in the central region comp because the mum who has volunteered because nobody else will coach the team is not accredited ? that is how i read the memo !!
If FFT had mandated that FFT Youth league teams ie 13-18 need to have an accredited coach for 2007 to be eligible to enter a team in the competition and or any coach that is un accredited and appointed to coach a team in a FFT youth competition in 2007 must attend a junior licence on such and such a date prior to the season commencing , maybe this rule has a chance of being accepted by clubs and schools !! Most are aware of the work Junior regions are undertaking with coaches - volunteers - junior referees to keep the growing numbers of children who want to play the “world game”,
.
In an ideal world mandatory minimum coaching regulations are tremendous way to assist with the development , however we live in the volunteer world , surely the FFA grassroots certificate is the first stepping stone this is the introduction to coaching tool designed for the beginner coach - non accredited but a starting point which can be delivered at club level in an evening not over two days which is the major bugbear for the heavily committed volunteer.
I then read the second to last paragraph !!
Please be assured that the Board is determined to enforce the requirements of the benchmark document, so please ensure that your coaches meet the requirements that have been set. Failure to do so will result in your club not being able to enter teams for the leagues.
Why did they have to take the big stick approach !!! wouldn’t it have made much more sense to have worked with the clubs to have subsidised clubs and coaches to have their coaches attend the coaching courses at a greatly reduced cost !! maybe this is to obvious , perhaps it doesn’t fit into the budget !! don’t sports get State government funding for this sort of thing ? surely sport and rec could have been approached if FFT don’t have the money ( say 30 clubs - 2 coaches per club 60 coaches full cost for a youth licence $150 if FFT had subsidised 50% total cost would have been $4500 ) real break the bank type of money , probably less than .5% of total turnover.
If FFT had used forward thinking initiative rather than the “do it or else ultimatum ” it would have sent a real message to all involved that the governing body was committed to this reform and willing to assist those involved.
As previously stated I agree in principle with the initiative to have some form of mandatory coaching requirement for club coaches just believe it needed to have been better thought out and sold to the football community.
Merry Xmas
Comment by Squeezer — December 20, 2006 @ 8:04 am