August 27, 2007
Futsal minefield
It looks like we are going to have a clash of interests and two groups going head to head for the patronage of futsal interests in Southern Tasmania.
Vikings Futsal has launched a well thought out and potentially spectacular initiative by taking Futsal outdoors during the summer. All games will be located the Tasmanian Hockey Centre. This initiative could prove to be a huge boon to the futsal programme if it is run well and in a family orientated fashion. I could easily feel rather comfortable sitting at the Hockey Centre on a barmy weekday evening watching my youngsters run around enjoying themselves. It could be brilliant.
FFT have also launched their new season of Futsal under the banner of ‘FFA approved Futsal competition’. Is this meant to imply all other futsal is not FFA approved and is therefore wrong or is it just meant to be a way of trying to attract players?
Personally, I would prefer to see Vikings & FFT sit down for talks to see if common ground could be achieved for the benefit of ALL futsal players.
I am sure both bodies have their interests to protect but WHO is futsal to be established for??
Can our North and North-Western friends fill us in on what is taking place up there?
BJ, As soon as our summer season is up an running we are looking to start our summer seasons in Burnie and Launceston. Obviously we need to get one right before we start going too big too early!!
Just on working together, i am in total support of this and if there is anyone from FFT who is willing to sit down and talk about the future of Futsal and what we can offer by working together i am more than happy to do so.
and how can we benefit the kids development? that is my issue….. this is not an us vs you issue it is a “lets benefit the players” the best we can issue.
Looking forward to the summer season and wish the best of luck to FFT in their initiative also…. at the end of the day kids are playing the sport we love!
Comment by Corey Smith — August 27, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
Here is also some food for thought? in most other regions barring NSW and Tasmania the state bodies either work in unison to Vikings or they at least appreciate and SANCTION the opportunities young aspiring futsal players get through vikings programs ie, overseas trips, nationals teams, state teams etc.
Could it be beneficial to sanction these sort of opportunities and let these kids have the pathways they deserve? it is in no way a hindrance to FFT as they will have players traveling and coming back as much better outdoor players at a young age with greater technique etc and it is no effort at all for them apart from saying “yes” we allow these kids to go away with our blessing……
Politics as in every aspect of life is always the down fall and i am sure in time this can be overcome.
Comment by Corey Smith — August 27, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
Sorry Corey,BJ and ALL futsal players..I am certain you will find its a dollars and cents exercise. FFT has done very nicely out of indoor since it started running competitions and I feel very sure they would not be keen to either hand over the running of the game or sanction a rival league..
As Corey rightful points out in most other regions barring NSW and Tasmania the state bodies either work together for the good of the game.
However one thing both NSW and Tasmania do have in common is that both states insist they be the controlling body for all versions of Football.
I would love to see beach football as well on either Sandown, Bellerive or Wentwork Park beaches perhaps another example of being too progressive.
Comment by interested spectator — August 27, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
Sorry to sound so cynical but if it did get off the ground and was a success FFT would certainly be looking to hope on board as the
FFA approved competition’.
Comment by interested spectator — August 27, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
interested spectator
FFA mandate that Beach Soccer in Tasmania is the responsibilty of FFT. If anyone wanted to run beach football they would need FFT sanction for the participants to be recognised by FFA. So it would simply be a matter of asking FFT what the requirements would be BEFORE starting the competition. That is, start it as an FFT sanctioned competition. This may bring with it insurance coverage provided the participants were registered players wth FFT(and therefore FFA).
Futsal is matter of money no doubt to some extent at least. From recollection the FFT version is cheaper for participants than Vikings, and any ‘profits’ go back into FFT, and not a bottom line of some mainland based organisation. Both competitions could be run better - but we usually say that about something we have no involvement with !
Comment by sj — August 27, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
One can only assume that futsal must be financially rewarding for FFT to suddenly be interested!!!! Some things never change…
Comment by one eyed — August 27, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
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.
Comment by A Whisper — August 28, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
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?
Comment by sj — August 28, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
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
Comment by Oncesackedcoach — August 28, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
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.
Comment by Hugo — August 28, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
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.
Comment by A Whisper — August 29, 2007 @ 8:15 am
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.
Comment by Corey Smith — August 29, 2007 @ 11:05 am
I might be mistaken but from the comments here…is Vikings better organised and more progressive than the FFT version?
Comment by A Whisper — August 29, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
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……
Comment by Corey Smith — August 30, 2007 @ 11:36 am
Corey - tell the full story as to why FFA wont sanction it!
Comment by sj — August 30, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
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?
Comment by Corey Smith — August 30, 2007 @ 11:07 pm