Comments on: Futsal minefield

By: Corey Smith

Corey Smith — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:07:03 +0000

lol sj i would have thought that was pretty obvious from the previous posts. Don’t exactly get where you are going but each to their own i guess? FFA are reluctant to obviously have competitions running that they don’t govern i guess? if we knew the answer to that question you are asking i guess we would be half way to trying to fix it?

By: sj

sj — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:04:47 +0000

Corey - tell the full story as to why FFA wont sanction it!

By: Corey Smith

Corey Smith — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 01:36:56 +0000

Hugo-
just on the strength of the tournaments you talked about. The vikings national school titles in which you went away with us was a School based competition in which players are picked from their respective school teams. Obviously there will be players who don’t get picked as their school does not enter. This is a Vikings run tournament in which over 1000 teams Australia wide compete in the lead up in various regions. It is the biggest single sporting event in Australasia for numbers of participation.
The tournament in canberra you would have gone to with FFT would be the FFA national titles in which state teams are picked (usually from trials, not sure how FFT do it?) so obviously the level of competition is higher due to it being club based and not school based but it caters only for the elite player. In most states as previously stated the State teams are Vikings teams or Vikings associated teams at this National Titles anyway other than Tasmania and New South Wales. We would love to send state teams and give our kids a chance to go to this event also. The only snag is that we could pick the team etc and then without FFT sanctioning nothing could go forward and therefore the kids once again “miss out”……
If any of you are interested in the same problems people are having in NSW in which they have hundreds of kiddies who were already selected and paid up for a trip to our National School Titles in Melbourne in October (FFA do not have the same event so there is no clash) but now NSW and FFA will not sanction these kids to go to the tournament. http://goalnetforum.proboards22.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1187306668 is the address for a forum discussing this…… see how dissappointed some kids will be…… how is the child supposed to benefit from this ridiculous politics? and as a parent as some of you are…. can you imagine explaining to your child that he can’t go anymore because FFA wont sanction it? i would think the child would find this hard to understand……

By: A Whisper

A Whisper — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 05:04:17 +0000

I might be mistaken but from the comments here…is Vikings better organised and more progressive than the FFT version?

By: Corey Smith

Corey Smith — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:05:41 +0000

Very very interesting points raised and at the end of the day as someone has already pointed out….. why not let the kiddies play both versions. If something can be worked out with FFT long term and Futsal Tasmania as an organisation would be very open to this that would be wonderful. In the meantime we will keep plugging away giving as many kids the opportunity to develop as we can.
Yesterday we ran our Winter Carnival for grade 5 and 6 children in which we had over 60 School teams entered. Was an amazing day and i am sure all the kids had a marvellous time……This is whats important……the kids having fun and the kids getting opportunity…..
Hugo- we will be starting very very soon.

By: A Whisper

A Whisper — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:15:43 +0000

SJ
Yes FFT were already in the market place. My proposal is that this is not the market place that they should be in. When FFT took on Futsal a number of the Clubs were looking at it as a fund raising exercise. The rights or wrongs of who should run Futsal are not the purpose of my comment, however. For example, EPL Clubs sell their own replica shirts and the EPL takes a license fee. The Premier League themselves do not actually sell the shirts. FFT just need to be careful that, in their search for dollars, they don’t enter into a competitive market place with their own clubs. Futsal may be a case in point where this has occurred. If FFT were to have taken the state license for both versions of the game they could have on-sold those licenses to an entrepreneurial club or organisation and this discussion would not be taking place now.

By: Hugo

Hugo — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:03:46 +0000

Well lucky you lot down south, up in the North West we have neither Viking or FFT futsal at this stage. I have taken an under age team to the mainland with both Vikings and FFT and both trips were great, the standard was much higher with FFT. At the moment though we have one day a year for a futsasl tournament and no roster what so ever. Both Vikings and recently, and I think more seriously, FFT have been talking about getting it going up here. If they do all I can say is I hope it is well supported because I would love to see it go well up here.

By: Oncesackedcoach

Oncesackedcoach — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 06:59:58 +0000

What is the problem , they both run on seperate nights , FFT have a licenced FFA program , Vikings are a private company who are owned by individual-(s) and run as a business to make money - long term .
FFT can make money by increasing fees ..lol or having gained a licence run a competition as am oney making venture. A.W in your previous life as a club president you would never support a non affiliate ( that is Vikings - they are not members - in fact not joined in any way to the governing body ) why the change now?.
Contract a provider ? what a club ? why has indoor - now futsal been successful for near 5-8 years - as a parent who has had two children go through the system , well organised - well controlled and cheap, we all have a go at FFT for doing things badly , they have a success and we want to take it off them ???
I am happy for them to co exist in fact my son - he pays his own way is going to play in both , bring on the summer

By: sj

sj — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 05:17:34 +0000

AW
FFT were already in the market place. Vikings is not an affiliate. FFA do not, to my knowledge, prescribe exactly how each state body is to run each football “type”. IF FFT running Futsal directly (rather than by contracting a provider) is a better result for participants financially why should it not be so?

By: A Whisper

A Whisper — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 03:33:26 +0000

Overall policy should be that the parent organisation, in this case FFT, may license their product to make money. They should not, at any stage, enter into a competitive marketplace with their own affiliates. This means that FFT could take on Futsal and license it to someone to run, thus receiving a license fee. They should not run it themselves. The reason for this is that it sets up too many possibilities for conflict.