This is not so much an interview as a Football discussion - with the CEO Capital Football. Always a pleasure to talk to Heather Reid.
This program does not follow a "question / answer" approach,. Its a discussion and discussions generally don't go that way, they tend to be on an "issue' and simply follow their own path. That's communication. It doesn't necessarily mean "agreement" either, but it does enable the issue to be pulled apart from all angles. That's pretty much what happens in "Part 1" of this "discussion" and the "Parts" that will follow.
The NPL has been critical of a number of Capital Football policy and implementation matters in recent times. One of the most persistent complaints by Football Club officials, players and supporters is the proposition that "Capital Football" just doesn't consult effectively with Clubs or the wider football constituency - but particularly with Clubs.
This complaint has substance on several fronts and was clearly acknowledged as a major area of concern /endeavour by the new CF President, Racheal Harrigan, during her address at the recent Annual General Meeting which saw her re-elected to the CF Board. The two new CF Board members also focussed their remarks on the same issue. So too the new Technical Director, who was asked to speak by the CEO at the AGM and who has undertaken to work closely with the Clubs in the ACT region. Indeed, the current CEO, with whom we speak in this program, acknowledges the need to make the "communication" issue a priority.
So there it is - its official - there is a serious communication deficit / problem between Capital Football and Clubs. It would appear, as they say, that there is definately an "elephant in the room"!
So how did it get to the point that it is such a problem? I guess there is a lot going on these days.
Nevertheless, it is a matter which imperils the development and operation of the game in the ACT region.
Nevertheless, it is a matter which imperils the development and operation of the game in the ACT region.
Too often it seems that Capital Football acts as though it is the "client", rather than the Clubs. The current structure both within the Capital Football headquarters and the wider organisational structure, which Clubs are obliged to operate within, does not seem to be well positioned to meet the challenges that surround us today, and certainly not going forward. As one Club President pointed out at the AGM, he was rasing issues at that meeting which he had raised at the last AGM (a year before) and which had from his Club's perspective, got no response from Capital Football.
The Mens and Womens Premier Leagues seem to be very good examples at the present time. Clubs not part of the Premier League which service junior / state league players, or provide teams to Premier League Clubs, and of course the Junior Clubs which focus on players (18 years and under), also have issues with Capital Football. Its easy to see that not all Clubs are configured in the same fashion, that it too say, they service their player / parent constituencies as the need arises and are not always in every player age group or category. Some Premier League Clubs put next to nothing into Junior development, preferring to feed off the work of other clubs. Another tension in the Club mix!
My point is that Clubs are a varied group of Football organisations and its only a fool for an administrator that thinks you can speak to them all with one voice, or no voice at all, and at a distance.
Then there is the issue of the funds that all these clubs need to raise each season to make things work, through their all too small army of volunteers. Capital Football is dependent on the money these Clubs initiate through registrations and development programs. On that basis alone, you would think it wise to engage and manage Clubs with care at close range, rather than risk doing it at a distance in a top down, do as you are told fashion. More talk is better than less with community volunteer orgainsations. Talking, communicating and assisting this diverse grouping that is our Football community, requires skill, patience, flexibility and persistance.
Its a long way from a Club issue to the Zone rep to the Standing committees to whom? Capital Football staff? The CEO? The Board? It just doesn't seem to be always working for everyone outside Capital Football headquarters. That must change - and quickly.
The Mens and Womens Premier Leagues seem to be very good examples at the present time. Clubs not part of the Premier League which service junior / state league players, or provide teams to Premier League Clubs, and of course the Junior Clubs which focus on players (18 years and under), also have issues with Capital Football. Its easy to see that not all Clubs are configured in the same fashion, that it too say, they service their player / parent constituencies as the need arises and are not always in every player age group or category. Some Premier League Clubs put next to nothing into Junior development, preferring to feed off the work of other clubs. Another tension in the Club mix!
My point is that Clubs are a varied group of Football organisations and its only a fool for an administrator that thinks you can speak to them all with one voice, or no voice at all, and at a distance.
Then there is the issue of the funds that all these clubs need to raise each season to make things work, through their all too small army of volunteers. Capital Football is dependent on the money these Clubs initiate through registrations and development programs. On that basis alone, you would think it wise to engage and manage Clubs with care at close range, rather than risk doing it at a distance in a top down, do as you are told fashion. More talk is better than less with community volunteer orgainsations. Talking, communicating and assisting this diverse grouping that is our Football community, requires skill, patience, flexibility and persistance.
Its a long way from a Club issue to the Zone rep to the Standing committees to whom? Capital Football staff? The CEO? The Board? It just doesn't seem to be always working for everyone outside Capital Football headquarters. That must change - and quickly.
The issues of concern are beginning to stack up. They are the source of aggravation and resentment to Clubs.
Here's how silly it can get.
Its been suggested to me by one CF person that the lack of complaint to Capital Football staff by Clubs is a clear indication that all are happy in Club land. Just amazing, delusionary and wondrously self serving was my thought at the time. What type of organisation could possibly allow itself to entertain that notion I asked myself. Hmmm! Hard to communicate anything in this sort of environment - harder for Clubs.
Its been suggested to me by one CF person that the lack of complaint to Capital Football staff by Clubs is a clear indication that all are happy in Club land. Just amazing, delusionary and wondrously self serving was my thought at the time. What type of organisation could possibly allow itself to entertain that notion I asked myself. Hmmm! Hard to communicate anything in this sort of environment - harder for Clubs.
It was also pointed out to me that criticism of Capital Football was criticism of the "staff". In some cases, on some issues, that may well be true. In an environment where there is a lack of effective communication with the football constituency, its not surprising to that Clubs conclude that the decisions are made by "Capital Football"! And in these circumstances, CF staff take the brunt of cricitism - sometimes it seems earned, sometimes not. Importantly, Capital Football exists to serve the Clubs and the Football constituency, not the other way around. If staff feel unsettled by this notion - move on. The CEO, not the Clubs have the responsibility of keeping the staff focussed and productive and all lines of communication open in all weather states. On the other side of things, Clubs must be prepared to be active communicators and make the process work for them - not remain silent - even when their best efforts seem to bring little to assist them going forward on issues that matter to them. Anything else just gets in the way.
Clubs float on volunteer efforts, they are people who give their time and money to build, maintain and sustain Clubs and they usually have precious little time to dwell on the unsatisfactory nature of CF decisions - they have a Clubs to run so that people can play the game. In the vast majority of cases these people do not get paid for their work. If Clubs say nothing it’s usually because they feel their views are seldom sort and less frequently acknowledged. When the peak body makes decisions at short notice or gives important advice at short notice, when consultation in advnace was a reasonable expactation at Club level - the outcome does not favour effective communcation. If it’s a choice between making complaint and pursuing the issue with vigour, or, simply doing the ordinary Club business so that players can play – its no contest – do the Club work. That makes Clubs a bit vulnerable, but it does not pave the way for understanding and collaboration.
Clubs that do pursue issues with vigour, risk being perceived as troublemakers at Capital Football and that makes then go a bit quite, but the issues are not forgotten. Capital Football must work very , very hard to achieve effective and continuous communication with Clubs - not just talk to itself about it, nor allow itself to become insulated by a succession of seemingly bureaucratic layers of organisational structure (zone reps, standing committees). Its would be a massive mistake by Capital Football to conclude that silence from Clubs indicates satisfaction or agreement. Where that does occur, they deny access to a wealth of talented people in the Football community. Clubs already know they do not proposer under these arrangements.
Clubs that do pursue issues with vigour, risk being perceived as troublemakers at Capital Football and that makes then go a bit quite, but the issues are not forgotten. Capital Football must work very , very hard to achieve effective and continuous communication with Clubs - not just talk to itself about it, nor allow itself to become insulated by a succession of seemingly bureaucratic layers of organisational structure (zone reps, standing committees). Its would be a massive mistake by Capital Football to conclude that silence from Clubs indicates satisfaction or agreement. Where that does occur, they deny access to a wealth of talented people in the Football community. Clubs already know they do not proposer under these arrangements.
The new President of Capital Football is correct to identify the need to communicate with the Football constituency as a top priority. Every other part of the organisational structure (including Clubs) should follow her example.
Just look at some of the range of issues that sit on the table in ACT Football at the moment. You can't fix this lot without Club particpation, mobilising a lot more of the football community's talented / capable / thoughtful / experienced people that reside in all these Clubs, than is available on a daily basis at Capital Football. You have to work to get their engagement and then you have to keep it:
Just look at some of the range of issues that sit on the table in ACT Football at the moment. You can't fix this lot without Club particpation, mobilising a lot more of the football community's talented / capable / thoughtful / experienced people that reside in all these Clubs, than is available on a daily basis at Capital Football. You have to work to get their engagement and then you have to keep it:
The game has been progressing very quickly in recent years, particularly so since the FFA's release of the National Football Curriculum and National Development Plan. To that, add a root and branch reworking of Coach Education and Training, so vital to the successful implementation of the curriculum and development plans and a process that reaches down to the youngest playing level in our game. The Premier League Clubs in the ACT region are leaping ahead in their thinking about what it means to be in a "premier league" as they struggle to find the scarce dollars and volunteers to make it a reality. Their thinking seems to be well ahead of Capital Football. The whole "player development" sphere of operations, centred as it is on the Junior Club base, is galloping ahead and probably without much meaningful input from Capital Football to Junior Clubs. The talented player stream has been reviewed to death here in the ACT and by some very smart Football people and what is left now is "action". So what is the plan - in detail? The deficit (that tragic vacant space") in player development post ACTAS haunts the Mens game, while the Womens game enjoys the W League. Problem identified but no solution for the talented young men - yet. Junior Clubs are the real player / parent powerhouse in Football and a few too many seem unhappy with a range of decisions and lack of consultation by Capital Football, and probably just as unhappy with the Junior Standing committee as an effective means of representing their concerns. For Clubs with juniors, mens and womens teams, teh same can also be said of the Means and Womens standing committees. We campaign our junior representative teams at the National Junior Championships and its all hard work and, despite our coach's best efforts, find our most talented players relegated further down the State / territory team result lists - its seems tobe getting hrader to be competitive - why and can it be fixed? The recent review of the HPP that produced the players for these teams, pointed out that they were not high performance programs. Other States move moved closer to that reality, but not the ACT. By contrast, ACTAS mens have delivered the results, but then, they do have a truly high performance program. The ACTAS womens program is very different in character to the Mens program, the players are often in it for several years, where they have time to mature and develop as players (fantastic outcome). But it has given rise to difficulties with clubs that has as much to do with poor communication, lack of consultation and unnecessary regulation; as it does with the desire of some Womens Premier League Clubs to be competitive and taken new and additional responsibilities for the development of players going forward. Capital Football's involvement in this last matter is not as productive or helpful to Clubs as it might be. And so it goes.........
In Part 1 of this discussion with CEO Capital Football, Heather Reid, we begin with a talk about the prospect of an A League team in Canberra and that $26m of ACT Government funds that went to the AFL. Then we start talking about the Womens Premier League and the ACTAS womens players. Its a good discussion and their should be more of it. Don't say I agree with all I hear, but I appreciate the opportunity to discuss that subject. You form your own views and if you feel inclined, let the NPL know how you feel about what you hear. Better still, talk in your club. If I don’t hear from you, I promise I won't assume you agree!
So sit back, cup of tea to hand and listen. Hope you enjoy.
