Second National League Tournament in CHCH

[evil vish]

I see the second, and grand final National League tournament is to be held in Christchurch again. That's a serious financial burden on every single North Island team. I note that in the travel equalisation explanation, the author insists that teams use the least expensive method of travel available. That's an interesting point to make in the guidelines when the (approximately) 10 teams from the North Island have to travel to Christchurch (3 teams?) for the final tournament.

I remember the travel equalisation from last time. (See the Northern forum, http://www.voy.com/56556/33.html ). When I look at travel equalisers I see nothing calculated about acceptable travel times for those two events. It seems we're prepared to accept decreased performance from athletes travelling overnight by car to play the next day to afford the league. I can't reconcile the experience of 2002 NL with the theory. "For the good of the sport, attend a surplus tournament in the QE2 dive well."

I've seen requests for people to put in their opinions about the National League, but did the NZCPA publicly pass on information about the specific issues of the league that they had to discuss? Did they actively circulate a draft proposal for the 2003 National League, that would encourage discussion or give structure to the public input? What was the deadline for people to make their submissions by? Is the guideline document on the NZCPA website a draft? That would be nice. I don't suppose it's too late to do so, or to modify the guidelines, considering that it's only December and people aren't filling in applications for the league just yet.

Consider for a moment, the schedule for 2003 and the various activities that your clubs, regional associations, and yes, your players, will be expected to raise funds or outright pay for:

1. Bimonthly NZ training camps
2. Australian Interstate Champs in Adelaide
3. Proposed tour to Brisbane in October
4. National League tournaments (Wellington and CHCH)
5. National League Round Robin pool costs, travel costs and accommodation
6. Interregionals travel and accomodation
7. Let's face it, saving up for Miyoshi 2004

We all know it takes time and volunteers to fill out those pub charity forms and sell lollies/sausages/movie tickets. If you were deciding where the money went, and what to apply for, how would you choose between the list above?

I wonder if the National League clause will be on those national squad contracts.

[James]

Over the past 6 months I have repeat ably asked for your and the rest of New Zealand’s hints/ recommendations and out-right grips. Members of NZCPA have had plenty of opportunity to have their say both direct with me and over the forum on various occasions.

We have set the dates on National League this far in advance because of the restrictions with getting the required pool times. Unfortunately the pool venues and dates are not what we had in mind. Originally we were looking at holding the finals in Auckland and the first competition in Christchurch, but due to there being no pool available in Auckland during the month of July, the decision was made to one round down to Wellington. We were only able to get a pool for the Middle of the month as well; this necessitated the finals again being held in Christchurch.

The rationale behind having the national league season at this time of year:
· Island based round robin to be played at a time when cheaper out-door pools can be used.
· Starting after the Universities (and schools) have gone back.
· Start not to interfere with teams/region wishing to go to Australian Inter-state champs.
· Island Based season length is set just long enough to allow teams to play all there fixtures week-in week –out without having to have double headers. By opting to play double headers, teams are then able to have bye weekends.
· Allow polo players to have a defined representative season they are able to participate in.

The rationale behind two tournaments:
· The first tournament allows the two island based leagues come together in a system that allows the top teams from each league play each other, visa versa with the bottom ranked teams.
· The second tournament allows the teams who are on the fringes of the bottom of the top pool and top of the bottom pool to move up or down. This allows the final end results to truly reflect a teams over-all placing in the country (means that is one island-based league is significantly stronger than the other this will b reflected in the end results.
· By having one in each island allows B-grade teams to opportunity to compete at a national level tournament with out having to leave their island.

James Mitchell
NZCPA Competition Director

[James]

As far as travel equalization goes, it is just that: Equalization. It was never meant as a method of making travel free to far away venues, rather it is a method of ensuring that all players are faced with equal travel costs for the two tournaments. What this means in practice is that if you are not having to travel too great a distance, you will have to pay for your own travel plus the difference between that cost and the cost the “average” player is faced with. Same applies the other way around, if traveling great distances you will only be expected to pay what the “average” player pays, the rest will be refunded in the form of a rebate.

James mitchell
NZCPA Competition Director

[evil vish again]

Last year I conducted a survey of female players in Auckland and Northern, giving them information and discussion points as well as the opportunity to share opinions. Their comments were publicly displayed and their viewpoints were well informed. Those players felt that they had been represented, and other players were of the opinion that they would have preferred to have had that level of involvement. It is important that the decisions made are transparent and that the issues considered are circulated. What level and sort of input did you receive, and what impact has it had?

Travel equalisation insists that the cheapest method of transportation be taken. Last year, the travel subsidy was based on attendance to Christchurch. The Christchurch trip easily tips the financial balance and seems to be a main cost of the National League. A commitment to visiting every two years is surely more reasonable given the considerable cost of having ten teams travelling to play 3.

I guess you are explaining the timing of the league with respect to the limitations you had in organising pool bookings. My chief concern is that there are limited volunteers and we are expected to gain funding from similar sources for a large range of activities. The funds received from fund raising need to stretch far, and they would stretch further if the cheapest option for the tournament was considered as well.

The Home and Away format is the process by which the teams are ranked and seeded. To have two tournaments in order to do what the Home and Away format should have done, suggests that it would be worthy of considering a three tournament format instead.

I am grateful for your response and the efforts that you have made, but would like to have had the opportunity to consult with other people and even attend committee meetings that discussed the issues. With all due respect, I have only seen an invitation to submit opinions in November- chiefly on the Northern site. I had minimal information to provide for discussion, and the NZCPA site displayed the request later in November. Although people have unofficially discussed the National League, I think they should have had proposals to consider and a deadline to meet.When I'm not evil vish, I have nice jobs to do for other polo players, and it would have been nice to be able to do that job with the information that you have now provided, before it became set in stone.

Cheers.

[Josie]

I think that the Executive does a great job, and that we have to put a little faith in them when making decisions which are ultimately theres to make. Consultation can only go so far, soemone has to make a call as to how things will be done.

As for the cost of travelling to Chch, as a Wellington based player I have no prefernece for either Auckland or Chch in terms of cost and time in getting there. There's probably other "North Islanders" who share my views.

In addition, where is the evidence that Auckland would have been a cheaper option over all, for example what is the comparison in pool and accomodation costs. Anz finally, if one of the NZCPA's goals is to develop polo further in the somewhat unrepresented South, then perhaps a tournament in Chch is the best thing.

Perhaps I'm just lucky to be a centrally based player, but ultimately you can't please all of the people all of the time.

[becks.c]

At first I was a little surprised at the repeat of tournament venues.
But I agree with Josie in that we have to have a little faith.

Additionally, I don't think the tournament locations are particularly unfair/fair to anyone.

Another thing that came into my head, was if you had a NZ map and put one pin in for one NL team, from what I know of 2003 entries it would go kind of like this (not official, just my guestimate)

2 pins Auck
2 pins HB
3 pins PN
1 pin Mastn
3 pins Wgtn
1 pin Nelson
3 pins ChCh

When I pictured this in my head, the approxiamate center seemed to be Masterton. - in terms of travelling times.
This is rather academic as I'm sure we all would oppose masterton purely bc we cannot fly into it and this would increase the expense and time for most. But you get an idea that selecting venues requires consideration of a variety of variables.

As for consultation - I do not think there was much more effort that should have gone into consultation. SOmetimes in a project you can get caught up with planning rather than implementing.

All those involved in the desicision making process are easily accessible by email or mobile phone and it was widely advertised that they could be contacted for comment, additionally regional reps were always another option.

I think having an open invitation to contact the Comps Director or Executive Director re NL2002 was quite an empowering way to solicit ideas. - I'm sure those who felt strongly enough about the way it was run got in contact with the organisers.

[James]

Well I have done a bit of research of my own to try quantifying these costs an Auckland based women player could incur:
Entry fee: 500/ 7 players = $71.50
Round-robin travel:
· Hawkes bay via car of 4: $40 (included ice-creams)
· Palmerston North via car of 4: $40 (included ice-creams)
· Wellington fly: $127.80 (includes various airline “taxes”)

Wellington comp: $127.80 (includes various airline “taxes”)
Chch Comp: $147.80 (includes various airline “taxes”)

Total costs incurred: $554.90
Less NL travel equalization rebate: $150 (this is guess………less than actual from 2002)
Total cost: $404.90 per player

I assumed that the Auckland based player would host their home games in the quarry…at no cost.

Well that’s not bad really…3 flights and 2 other drive away events plus home matches over a period of 4 months ………say $25 a week should cover it. Plus the best polo around.

Of –course there could be other costs added: accommodation (but billeting is available), food cost (you were going to eat at home weren’t you?), mental anguish etc etc. I just stuck with the bare bones.

As a point, I would have spent about $500-600 on national league last season; this includes having to hire all our pools ($70/hr) and traveling to more teams than the women have too. Admittedly we did drive to Auckland and Christchurch to save a dollar or two; also includes the travel equalization that we had to pay out.



:viking:

[Jac]

Hi all,

Have done some rough costings for this year for Wellington (based on 2002 NL) with the following assumptions:

1. All Wellington players drive to all home and away meets (including AKLD)
2. Trip to Akld in hired van with trailer, all other meets in personal cars
3. All home fixtures to be played in either Otaki or Naenae pools
4. All Wellington players to fly to the Chch comp booking tickets asap to take advantage of the smart saver fares but also including the increased cost to $50 one way for Kayaks.
5. Amt of teams in NL to stay roughly the same therefore cost of our travel equalisation to be simlilar to 2002
6. This estimate is disregarding the funds we received from WCPA last year which we will try and re-negotiate this year.
7. Costs to be equalised between both the mens and womens squads for ease of administration.
8. Costs (apart from the airfare to Chch) are estimated for the highest possible cost and based on last years estimates these are likely to be lower.

Approximate cost per player
If 8 players per squad: $450- $550 for the entire season. Which I don't think is too bad for the amount and quality of play.

The only thing that I want improved is earlier notice of all teams involved as we got caught out with pool closures for maintanence!

p.s. now for the Wellington publicity bit.... anyone interested in playing for either the Wellington Knights/Sirens (and you are eligible!) please contact me at jacinda.dalziell@m-co.co.nz or Jason Papps on jason.papps@xtra.co.nz

[last frm vish]

This is my last personal post on the matter on this forum, as my responsibilities will now lie with my official duties for my club. Thanks for the input and replies so far.

I've contacted administrators in Masterton and Hawkes Bay to see if CHCH is their preferred location and so far, it isn't. The Masterton manager would like to be quoted as saying that he would prefer to subsidise three teams from Mainland to come North, rather than have the financial cost of ten teams travelling South. He would prefer not to take his team to CHCH to play the same two teams his players had already met in the North Island, like last time. (Plus, they like the AKL road trip.)

I guess the other factor is that although the ability to fly boats in to a location is mentioned, neither Napier nor Palmerston North, nor Masterton have the ability to fly out with boats in order to fly boats in. Certainly, Masterton and Hawkes Bay have also driven to CHCH but whether they would like to take the time to do so this following year is a matter for them to consider.

I believe last year I was advised that holding the tournaments in CHCH and WTN then, would even out, because there would be a tournament in AKL or Northern next time round. Faith is nice, but it doesn't get you the tournaments you want. This is especially relevant when your region is under-represented (like Northern, for instance), and you are one of the handful of people gunning for the NZCPA (like me and the rest of PCC, for instance). None of this makes it easy for us to make the NZCPA's services seem real enough to pay for, to other clubs and players in our region. It's a subject we receive criticism for, but the NZCPA's activities are it's own best advertisement.

The budget for NL for Auckland last year was at about $500 for plane tickets to CHCH and WTN, then about $25 boat costs each way which would be charged at the counter. Entry fees and the Home and Away costs were in addition to that. After an initial unsuccessful attempt with the quarry, pool time was arranged and paid for. For this year, pool hire is a cost, and it appears that boat transportation will cost $100 per player to fly per tournament, not including any Home and Away locations. Looking at my expenses from last year, and James' estimation and assumptions for our budget for 2003, I see that we will pay around $180 to travel to tournaments, plus $200 in boat travel fees, plus Home and Away travel expenses, plus pool hire etc etc. A round figure would be about $627 per player, not including any travel to WTN for Home and Away games or pool hire and not including any travel equalisation.

After speaking with the Executive Director, I have ascertained that travel equalisation is based solely on the tournament travel, so any team that doesn't travel for Home and Away to fixtures, (for example, Palmerston North women did not come to AKL last year) doesn't lose anything other than points and those points are irrelevant after the initial tournament anyway.

Mind you, if the quarry is considered appropriate for National league games, then I assume that the cost of the entry fees for the entire National League would decrease, if the NL held the first tournament at the start of the season in a location with "no cost". You could even make placings count for points on the NL table, making the first tournament count and the Home and Away fixtures build up towards the Final tournament. Yeah, right....

[Troy]

Great discussion thread! Dear to my heart!

I whole-heartedly support Vish in her gripes, although I no doubt suggest a different remedy (which Vish may well [probably will] disagree with)...

but the essence of Vish's gripes is that 'eventually even the most committed polo players are going to be turned away from our sport unless we develop a sustainable, affordable programme for national competition'.

My suggestion -
- Cut out the two national tournaments for most of the teams
- Hold island championships for the top 3-4 places in each island
- Hold a national championship for only the top few (1-3) in each island
-- this will halve the cost for many league participants (to around $200) because a large number won't have to travel across the strait
-- your travel equalisation (not that I agree with it) will go further because participation from each island will be matched and therefore travel costs will be equate to halve the cost of getting across the strait.
--what will you have to concede - lower ranked teams will get dropped out and not everyone will make it to the final comps
--- hey, I think this will be great for the national game:
----- it's a fact of sport
----- I think it will give more incentive in the earlier rounds
----- it offers lower level of participation at a lower cost (for teams that don't expect to make it to the finals) but I think still great value for money (even better value for money than the current programme
---- it will save a truckload of money for a large number of players which they can then put into training camps and Inter-regionals etc.
---- it will mean less teams in attendance at the final championship meetings - less time will be needed - easier on competitiors with travel arrangements and the burden of a refereeing and duties - more availability of pool times?,
---- less time wasted playing mismatched teams
---- if temas don't get as far as they hoped they'll just have to try harder next year

I know many of you have heard my views before but I'll say it once more just in case some new people are listening, or maybe even others like Vish are ready to consider alternatives.

Now some of the reasons I hear in support of these mass tournaments I think are seriously flawed:
- like "the mass tournaments let lower-grade teams see higher level competition"
what a crock!! it is better to leave the choice with the individual players - they can target the level to which they want to compete (and pay accordingly) and if they don't make finals, those that wish to see the higher level competition can make their own choice to travel as spectators - much the same cost for much the same value - but the difference is that the cost isn't being imposed on all of these players and so fewer will be discouraged by an excessive cost.
- other reasons I've heard are similarly flawed - if you think you've got some argument, please elaborate and I'll have a go at countering it!

As for travel equalisation - I think we should give that a miss.
--- it's not much incentive when there is a mismatch in the number of teams crossing the strait (it was more like charity last year with the 3 SI teams and 10 NI teams - the 80% of an average travel fare paid by each of the 3 SI teams didn't go far towards subsidising the few NI teams they really wanted to play and who (I think) really earned their place at the final champs.
--- a bit of effort into rotating venues, and non-travelling teams (islands) covering host (venue) costs will go a long way towards equalising the overall costs each year and from year to year.
--- (this point may be a bit contentious but I'll mention it anyway) people have made a choice of where they reside, and generally accept/enjoy the corresponding increase/reduction in living and travel costs, and to some extent, they each benefit from greater remuneration or more local support - to equalise travel costs isn't a rational economic solution.

Hope this is some food for thought, and I hope that there are now more people out there interested and open-minded about these issues and that this reaches some of them.

Cheers
Troy

(PS hope I haven't missed out any key words like 'not' that will completely change the meaning of a sentence - I always seem to make some error)

[James]

Well this is certainly a long reply Troy, great to hear that you care enough to comment. Unfortunately NZCPA has no intention of changing the National League format for the 2003 season. The main reason for this is we are trying to provide our membership with some certainty with regards to National polo commitments. During and after the NL season I will be gathering input from as many sources as possible as to the future direction of our National Competitions. If there are clear logical reasons to change the structures, it will happen. NL should be an evolving entity.
Never before have we had such a long-term focused national competition. Polo is maturing as a sport, we expect our elite athletes to commit to a defined national season. No longer are teams able just to be a gathering of some polo mates, getting together before the “nationals”. Athletes now are required to commit to their sport, sure we loose some along the way, but the long term benefits far out-way short-term player losses.
With regards to the players financial burdens:
· I agree with the comments that the costs are high and we have to be careful that we don’t make it impossible for some players to compete
· I think that with the better planning at a national level, better planning is being implemented at a local club level. E.g. last year in PN most of our NL players bore the cost of competing totally themselves. For the 2003 season, the financial planning (and fundraising) has already started. This is a common thread I am getting from other clubs in the country.
· Clubs are starting to take responsibility for their player’s financial burdens. In the next 3-5 years I don’t think it is out of the realm of possibility that NL teams will be fully funded by the activities of their clubs (fund-raising activities that is!)
· Is $4-600 per year too much any-way???

Tournaments:
· The reason we hold the tournaments together with the B-grades is to allow teams to participate at a “National level” without the commitment to enter a 3-month national league. NZCPA canvassed our membership, there was overwhelming support for B-grade national tournaments….especially from small/ newer clubs.
· I will concede that there is an argument for holding separate B-grade tournaments, this will probably happen at some stage in the near future. When it become too big a task to hold them all together.
· With regards to exposing B-grade players to a higher level, I stick to the argument that they benefit. The reality is that most players will not travel to see a big game of polo, but if they are there, they (some) will stay and watch..
· Often there are clubs that don’t have the opportunity to easily see national league clashes, having the tournaments together allow these smaller/ newer clubs to be exposed to a higher level of play. The players themselves then have higher expectations of their own level of play……….we benefit as a country.

Travel equalisation (Always going to be a contentious issue):
· I agree with Troy with regards to comments made about players making choices about where they live and the relative advantages and dis-advantages associated. There are some flaws in that argument, it does assume perfect mobility of the population and this is not the reality of our polo community.
· Polo players are in general young, being at school or at some sort of tertiary institution. Generally they make the choice of where to live based upon courses offered, support from parents, financial burdens of flatting vs. home etc.
· Travel equalisation also tries to rectify some artificial constraints imposed by the national body on the distribution of the tournaments. The reason we have a tournament in Christchurch at all is to try and develop the regions (Mainland and Southern), and give then cheaper access to National level competitions.
· NZCPA is also trying to have a long-term focus with regards to the future development of National Level Polo, it is felt that including a south island venue every year would benefit the country as a whole.

This will do for now

James Mitchell
NZCPA Competitions Director :viking: