 robbie
|
Posted: 4 August 2009, 1:35 PM
where is the spell check?
|
|
darren
|
Posted: 4 August 2009, 2:54 PM
We could raise the levies the clubs pay to the NZOF. I'm serious!
|
|
robbie
|
Posted: 4 August 2009, 3:00 PM
Thanks Darren, welcome to the debate. No its not my answer!
|
|
Ellmo1769
|
Posted: 4 August 2009, 3:10 PM
Mick I don't think there is a clearing on that map.
|
|
valerie
|
Posted: 4 August 2009, 4:36 PM
I have NO idea what you are up to robbie....but am keen to learn what your idea iS?? Praps if we get some sort of national coverage we get Pete Snell as our frontman as the whole country knows who he is and may sit up and take notice....god im tired am going to bed! LOL
|
|
mick finn
|
Posted: 5 August 2009, 1:35 AM
true, Aiden, true
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 5 August 2009, 2:37 AM
The real costs of international campaigning are such that we can only ever pay a small proportion - even if the event levy was quadrupled Darren! From what we are prepared to pay we rightly devote the greater proportion to senior elite competition. Then we seek gaming funds for specific teams, and the results will be at the mercy of random factors such as how much money a particular trust has at a particular time.
We would be able to support teams better if we were selective in the world events that we attended. We once had a strategy to attend one out of two world championships. This was changed, I suspect because individuals didn't want their own goals to be subservient to the national goals. There's some justification in that - they are paying most of the cost. But I think we should go back to that. I believe annual world championships were a mistake, but given they are here, we should only go to each second one.
Now what this thread is really about - juniors. When we had the one-out-of-two policy in the High Performance plan, it didn't apply to the juniors, "because you are only 20 once". Well it is clear that being 20 is not as important as we thought for JWOC performance. And even JWOC performance is not an end in itself, we support it for the experience of international competition. We could support the JWOC team twice as well if we went every second year.
|
|
Jamie
|
Posted: 5 August 2009, 3:14 AM
How about we only select two athletes of each gender each year for JWOC, the best and a lucky dip of the others. To enter the draw each athlete has to put in $1000. The pool is split between the best and the winner of the lucky dip.
Or: over each summer before JWOC to both meet selection standards and secure the required fundraising JWOC candidates are required to run the length of the country from Bluff to Cape Reinga. Those that don't make it in a certain time frame are clearly not up to and cede any money they have collected along the way to their rivals.
Or: we could open a brothel like that Tae Kwon do guy that wants to go to the Olympics again and advertise it as a summer holiday job for poverty stricken orienteers from eastern europe, and then explot them.
Or: we could apply to the people that collect the proceeds from solo mothers and drug addicts using their benefit to stare into the blinking lights for a while and gain hope of good fortune.
Or: we could make sure to send our first three children out into the fields to save up for their youngest sibling to attend JWOC (or alternatively university)
Or: we could just get real and see that when there is a will there is a way and that plenty of NZers seem to make it to JWOC, that JWOC, while an amazing experience, is probably not as important as some people make it out to be and that our juniors would be better off making one decent trip to Europe and doing all the big five days than several two week trips to the other side of the world for an event they get to do bugger all races in....and that we have far bigger problems in NZ orienteering than JWOC participation....for example quality new maps coming on-line on new areas.
|
|
Tane Cambridge
|
Posted: 5 August 2009, 4:43 AM
Or: my TV rights idea...money from basically nothing...if anyone would buy them of course...worth a try I reckon.
Bottom line I think is that Orienteering will always struggle for funding unless it becomes an Olympic sport as its Sparc's main goal in life to obtain Olympic medals, the America's Cup and the Rugby World cup.
|
|
valerie
|
Posted: 5 August 2009, 6:26 AM
Its such a hopeless situation...there is NO money,there will never be any from Sparc or the like and yet this sport could be participated in by far more people than do rugby,rowing, yatching(to name a few that have so much money thrown at them) and for a much longer time! Seems bloody unfair!! Kids, just live the dream.... most of you will be poor in $$ but rich in experience! Oh well, back to work. LOL
|
|
rob.g
|
Posted: 5 August 2009, 7:09 AM
I dont agree with sending schools overseas, except for the aussie trip each year, so that doesn't cost 50k, but more like 15k and WOC this year has 4 runners, so that would cost 20k if we are aiming for 5k each, so a total of 85k not 150k. Some of this can be funded by grants, and clubs usually pay something towards team members, so maybe we get to a total of 60k needed. Unfortunately most of it has to be paid by the individuals, and it's really tough if you have a tribe of good orienteers like you, Val.
I, like Jamie wonder at the worth of these big races overseas that everyone is so obsessed with, and if I was a parent I would encourage a few weeks doing all the multiday events, and getting heaps of orienteering experience, before aiming for a JWOC or WOC.
Alistair Landels did 2 months when he was 17 and felt that plus some of the trips to Aus made the biggest difference to his rapid improvement as a junior.
|
|
Dave
|
Posted: 5 August 2009, 7:20 AM
Hi all..
couple of things.. Firstly Tane ... the TV rights thing .. good luck to you .. while it may appear like the companies throw money at sports to televise them that is only a very very small number of sports. Most sports that do get coverage have to pay to be there.. so instead of getting paid you are shelling out cash..
SPARC has a new strategic plan - they are steamlining their operation to focus back predominently on sport and rec away from previous health based intiatives. This will mean more money for the sector as government funding is the same. but bare in mind SPARC will be targeting their investment carefully and only into high performing sports. Funding comes at two levels HP and participation - there can often be a disconnect between these and there is a gap in the development space. what every sport has to do is realise this is the environment and work within it. remember there are alot of sports out there and if you want funding then you have to perform. its not ideal but it is reality.
http://www.sparc.org.nz/about-sparc/about-us/reports/sparcs-strategic-plan
|
|
Dave
|
Posted: 5 August 2009, 7:54 AM
... and not to try and be negative but the peter snell institute went under early this year - only months after a number of its graduates (for want of a better word) won medals in Beijing
They were over ambitious in what they tried to achieve and that just didn't work out in this economic climate.
So just having big name backing doesn't guarantee sucess.
People have to be very smart when going for funding these days - sponsorship should be partnership these days - about the mutual gain - find where can can add value to the funders and work it for all its worth.
The same even applies to organisations like SPARC - they will invest for outcomes - so look carefuly at what the sport can deliever for them. don't view it like a hand out.
Its time for sports to be creative - you have to be to get the $$ at the moment.
|
|
James
|
Posted: 5 August 2009, 8:31 AM
Apologies in advance, this post is probly gonna be a biggie..........
I have had a bit to do with Triathlon NZ over the past few years (and was also offered a full time position) and have seen the enormous growth and progress which they have made.
They have put in a few key strategies a number of years ago, and now seem to be reaping the rewards. I realise that Triathlon is slightly more appealing to the general market:
1. Being an Olympic Sport
2. Having TV coverage (albeit in a small capacity)
3. Having a string of world class athletes coming out of NZ.
4. A more spectator friendly sport which can be staged in city centres.
However, I believe that we could still use some of their strategies to accomplish similar outcomes.
Firstly they invested money into employing Full time paid positions to do the work properly. This included a Development officer to promote and market participation at the grass roots level. We have already seen progress from the likes of Derek & Geoff Morrison, Mike Beveridge and Robbie & Val, in bringing large numbers of school age kids into the sport. But they have done this as a side interest while trying to juggle full time jobs and run a family! If this could be done whole-heartedly by an individual(s), I think the growth potential is huge. Kids do love the sport when they get into it, as long as they have a few friends competing as well, going away to orienteering competitions are highlights for many secondary school kids. Increasing numbers = increased revenue into the sport. Triathlon affiliated members have increased about 10-fold over the past 5 years. The large events attract big numbers which then become more appealing to potential sponsors.
They also have paid full time employment for their High Performance and development squads which are aimed at their specific events the Olympics in 2012 and 2016 (one person to coach/manage each of the following squads, plus an overall national coach, as well as a HP advisory board):
2012 Target Squad: The top echelon athletes who bring in the top 10 results to get the sport exposure (orienteering equivalent: Ross, Chris, Darren, Tania, Lizzie, plus Karl & Rachel when they fit and compete; capable of the top 20 results). They receive an annual training grant to this squad as well as sports science, camps, event and other support. Max number of 8 athletes.
2012 Potential Squad: The second tier group, have achieved some top results, but need more consistency at the elite level. (Orienteering equivalent: next tier of national squad, Brent, Aaron, Neil, Bryn, James, Greg, Amber, Penny, Rebecca, Rita, Lara etc&&.). They receive an annual training grant (less than the target squad) to this squad as well as sports science, camps, event and other support. They also have compulsory training camps/environments that each athlete must attend. Max number of 8 athletes.
2016 Development Squad: The younger athletes, top results at junior world level and those up and coming that have shown the potential to be the top of NZ in the next few years. (Orienteering equivalent: our top D-squad athletes or JWOC team). They receive an annual grant, as well as sport science, camp and event support. These guys have regular training camps, and must meet regular performance criteria including top results at selected events (equivalent to our A-grade events), and also meeting time trial criteria (although a little less relevant in orienteering, but still loosely applicable I believe). Max number of 12 athletes.
Not to mention that all of these athletes have access to training bases in Boulder, Colorado, USA and also Southern France. An awesome training environment for their international athletes to go prior to competition for training camps, or just to base themselves while competing in the world circuit. (Orienteering equivalent, getting a clubhouse in Sweden and another in Switzerland or France). There is obviously room for other development type squads, but these dont get the funding.
|
|
addison
|
Posted: 5 August 2009, 10:41 AM
James thats like comparing Apples to Monkeys.
You are forgetting that Contact Energy has pumped a heap of sponsorship into it as well - because their CEO is into it.
Jamie for once I absolutely concur.
|
|
© Ruffneck Productions