In a previous Post titled "As Good As It Is - Have We Missed An Opportunity Here", I asked a simple question - couldn't we have raised an ACT Youth League style team to play the Mariners when they visit?
Capital Football has made a response to this Post and the relevant extracts with regard to not conducting a youth league style game are as follows, together with my comments:
“..The main reason for the lack of a representative team was time. The Mariners visit was only confirmed around a fortnight ago and that, unfortunately, did not afford Capital Football the requisite time to select a coaching group, hold trials and put together a structured formation that would give the Mariners the kind of ‘hit-out’ they were looking for at senior or youth level. I agree that a representative selection would have been the ideal but, alas, the logistics surrounding it made it impossible at this late stage. …”
Nevertheless, the question put in the title to this Post is “As Good As It Is - Have We Missed An Opportunity Here?” I think the answer, whatever the reason(s) is self evident – yes, we have missed an opportunity.
Could we have done better, knowing that there was the possibility of a Mariners training visit and given that there is a history of these visits by the Mariners? Again the only answer is that we have appeared to missed an opportunity. What will CF do to ensure there is a lead time they can work with and what other plans do they have to create opportunities for the U17-20 ACT players? There are no answers to these questions in the CF response, which is shame because that was the purpose of the Post.
“….The selection of the teams to play the Mariners this time round was actually very simple. Canberra FC, as the pre-eminent force in the Rock Premier League and the fact that they have a superb stadium with floodlights of course, as you mentioned in your blog, fit the criteria. Belconnen United was selected as the second team as originally, back in 2007 it was they who forged the initial links with the Mariners and indeed played the first match against them on 1st July 2007. Since then the match with the Blue Devils has become an annual fixture on the calendar whenever the Mariners come to town. Current form wasn’t taken into consideration when this decision was made…..”
Not sure why this was part of the CF response as I believe I acknowledged these matters in my original Post. Obvious really.
And finally – it has been suggested to me by a CF spokesperson that this Post is “negative”. Now that's a bit rich! I believe I made it clear that these were fixtures I would support, indeed, said I would be at the games. Again, check the title of the Post “As Good As It Is - Have We Missed An Opportunity Here?”
Two things – it’s a good thing that these games are happening and could we have done more with the opportunity when it presented. I conclude that two weeks notice ( not including any earlier discussions) is currently beyond Capital Football's operational capability at this point in time. And that is the problem, isn't it? We all agree that an ACT Youth League style team game is a good idea, but we can't make it happen to take advantage of a two week notice of an impending visit and playing opportunity. That needs to be fixed - not accepted as the status quo.
There is nothing negative in my Post in respect of the fixtures that will be played – but there is a question. A question that will continue to be asked for as long as we do not have a coherent solution to the lack of a prospective pathway for our talented ACT U17 – 20 players – that tragic vacant space.
It seems to me we need to make the best of every opportunity presented to us and that implies a rate of staff effort in forward operational planning that can deal with these shorter notice opportunities.
We are permitted to question Capital Football decisions. This was not a complicated matter to contemplate. Harder to resolve – yes – all the big one are in my experience.
And now that I have asked a question on this matter it leads me to another – what decision making process was used in contemplating this potential playing opportunity and what is planned for the future in order to take advantage of these playing opportunites for our youth players?
Wow, Pete you must hate Capital Football.... what have they done to you for you to have this personal vendetta?
ReplyDeleteIn most posts you moan there's no communication and, when it appears they have responded, you still rip into them.
Did you work there in teh past and they sacked you or something?
Yes I suppose that is one conclusion. This si no pesonal vendetta, its a line of enquiry, a subject for examination and comment. I have never worked in at Capital Football. Where do you work?
ReplyDeleteI'll tell you what I have done though. I have interviewed a number of staff over time, including the CEO, now ACTing General manager, Technical Director(s), Game Development Officer, Futsal Co-ordinator, Mens League Manager (on disciplinary processes) and the Kanga Cup Co-ordinator. Then there is the President(s) of CApital Football (see the broadcast / Podcast this week) and one Board member (before he became a Board member). Not one complaint, fairly treated, good discussion and plenty of direct talking "left on the cutting room floor". In all interviews with Capital Football staff and Board members I have been careful to ensure they are never "ambushed", nor put in a position that would cause personal discomfort. Some interviews are more interesting than others, all depends on how forthright the interviewee is willing to be. But it is important to hear what the principal staff and Board members (President) have to say. As I say, not one complaint.
Do I criticise Capital Football - yes, where it is in view warranted. "Communication" is a very big issue and as I keep pointing out - it is an issue that the CEO and more importantly, the CF President (together with other Board members) hvae stressed time and again. See the past interiew witht he President Rachel Harrigan. I'm not sure this is getting through and communication is still a long way from good. So this issue is still held up for critical examination. Some people are slow learners - CF is not proactive, seems to have no coherent communication strategy with its constituency and resents any form of critical exmination / questioning. Not healthy for a sercice oriented orgainsation that is paid for by its constituency. They are stuck in a very unproductive paradigm that does not serve thegame as well as it might. I challeneg that situation - simple as that.
You should see a few of the emails I have received from Capital Footaball, railing against issues being commented upon or questioned. The usual accusation is that you don;t know all the facts - but when challeneged it seems that there is often not much left to know. I have specifically excluded some responses to me at the request of Capital Football. You join the dots together.
So when CF did respond, as CF has in this last example, I felt it was time to let a bit through the net. I have not done so in the past. I just got a bit tired of the patroninsing, sometimes very rude, on a couple of ocassions threatening (toward me)that I thought it time to publish a littel on this subject. I did and look at my response, I think it adequately demonstrated the CF failure to come to grips with the underlying proposition put in the original Post - did we miss an opportunity? Yes we did. Did they have reasons? Yes and I forshadowed them in my original Post - but got them back as reasoned response! Do I accept that it was beyond the CF present capability to organise at this time? Yes, but I don;t accept that this is the way ot should be. I conclude from the CF response that they are happy with things as they stand on this one. I don't think this is a good operational position for CF going forward. And what follows from the CF response (as it failed to cover it) - what are we doing about it in the future (big question that one, when you dig a bit)?
Capital Football should not be scared of critical examination - they should engaged with it and preferrably in advance and at there initiative. They don't, then resent commentary or opinion or analysis that doesn't fit with their present operational structure and method of operation. They need to improve. Simple as that.
Hope that clears it up for you.