South Pacific talent camp run in New Zealand for South Pacific Under 16 squad

Welcome to World Footy News Tuesday, November 19 2024 @ 10:18 am ACDT

South Pacific talent camp run in New Zealand for South Pacific Under 16 squad

Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:30 pm ACST
Contributed by: Michael Christiansen
Views: 3,247

Across late last week and the weekend, many of the best young footy talent in the Pacific region converged on New Zealand. A 4 day camp was conducted to trial the players. The partial squad selected as a result is to be the basis of the full squad that will jet to Sydney for the AFL National Under 16 titles.

AFL’s Andrew Cadzow commented that “.. the standard and attitude of all was of the highest level.”

All players will receive an AFL Talent Camp certificate – which will list their individual fitness and skill testing results along with comments from their coach’s from their individual reviews held as part of the camp.

2012 South Pacific Squad Members selected from NZ Trials :

Shem Tatupu (NZ)
Rhys Paui-Leth (NZ)
Ben Miller (NZ)
Kurt Heatherley (NZ)

(the above four are all Hawthorn international rookie listed)

Misitoi Levita (NZ)
Dayne Emms (NZ)
Brock Messenger (NZ)
John Tabaiwalu (Fiji)
Toutai Hawea (Tonga)
Kitione Taulani (Tonga)
Salesuar Sablon (Vanuatu)
Kade Riddell (NZ)
Alex Frew (NZ)
Michael Williams (NZ)
Chris McNoe (NZ)

Emergencies :

Hugo Phillips (NZ)
Kerry Katalong (Vanuatu)
Alex Chapman (NZ)
Joseph Falesa(Samoa)

Final selection will be completed after PNG/Nauru have competed in the Queensland Under 16 championships across late April and early May.

South Pacific talent camp run in New Zealand for South Pacific Under 16 squad | 5 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Comments are closed and no new posts are allowed.

South Pacific talent camp run in New Zealand for South Pacific Under 16 squad

Authored by: Brett Northey
on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 09:55 pm ACST

Great to see some Nauru boys getting a run with PNG.

Funny how Hawthorn are doing great things for NZ development but look unlikely to be one of the teams that will play there. I suspect it would've been very good for NZ if the Hawks-Tassie agreement had fallen over. A possibility is if North Melbourne become unviable (they keep telling everyone they're fine, people keep speculating they aren't) and ultimately become a true Tassie team (currently starting to play some games in Hobart) then perhaps Hawthorn will embrace NZ fully as their home away from home.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

South Pacific talent camp run in New Zealand for South Pacific Under 16 squad

Authored by: Michael Christiansen
on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 07:30 am ACST

This is one of those interesting time and place things now. If the AFL were to never assume ownership of Etihad then something would have to 'break' somewhere. However, that's not the case and were the AFL to use its Future Fund and buy out Etihad sooner rather than later - then, one presumes that clubs such as North and the Doggies and St Kilda will get better stadium deals at Etihad and the incentive to take games to places such as Hobart, or Darwin or New Zealand would be (in a way, sadly) greatly reduced.

I guess we all hope the AFL controlling Etihad (when it happens) will become a licence to print money - but, no doubt the player group at the time will regard it all their doing and demand massive chunks of the revenue!!! (at least, we can hope the car parking will be cheaper)

At any rate - the economics for North Melb have seen a few years back, hosting Sydney at Docklands for a 28K crowd and a $1000 loss. Not a big loss. But a waste of a 28K crowd that at Kardinia Park would generate perhaps a $600,000 profit. That variance is the bigger concern than just a minor loss.

Obviously for North - hosting interstate sides in Hobart is far better - for a decent return - compared to a much larger loss for say a 15,000 attendance at Etihad.

North though has been pursuing the Ballarat option and I reckon we'd all love to see semi regular games in regional Victoria other than just Geelong.

re NZ - I guess first see if any one off game and then 3 games annually can gain any traction. It's a far different proposition even to taking games to Cairns or Darwn or Canberra.

Ultimately though - when the AFL controls Etihad, and presumably pushes a better deal at the MCG - perhaps then the best hope for Tassie will be TAS19, and NZ might be NZ-Pac20.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

South Pacific talent camp run in New Zealand for South Pacific Under 16 squad

Authored by: Brett Northey
on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:23 am ACST

I am curious about the concept that Etihad is a bad deal for clubs playing there but when the AFL own it it will become a good deal. Where is the AFL getting the money to buy it, as in, who is effectively paying for it in the first place? Is the AFL competition as a whole effectively building/buying the stadium so it can then hand out usage at below market rates to just a few clubs? If that's the case, why does everyone have to pay for a privileged few clubs? The AFL hasn't been forthcoming in putting a lot of money into other stadia. We'd all love one with a roof.

I certainly hope if it becomes a license to print money that money is shared around across all clubs and other AFL programs.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

South Pacific talent camp run in New Zealand for South Pacific Under 16 squad

Authored by: Aaron Richard
on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 06:22 pm ACST

Worth remembering that a lot of the income the AFL will make from Etihad once they own it isn't from footy. It gets hired out for numerous concerts, corporate events (RMIT spend multiple 100s of thousand dollars to hold their graduation there each year), other sporting events etc etc. So in that regard, it would presumably be a significant money spinner.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

South Pacific talent camp run in New Zealand for South Pacific Under 16 squad

Authored by: Michael Christiansen
on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 08:55 am ACST

The AFL contractually have the option for a nominal fee (of I think I read somewhere just $30) to exercise an option of assuming 100% ownership of Etihad stadium around 2025, land, management rights - lock, stock and barrel - inclusive of the parking beneath. (me thinks AFL plan ownership before 2025 and was am extra reason that Docklands was not to be available for a 2022 FIFA WC bid).

This is based on the $30 million the AFL paid up front - effectively purchasing this 'option'. And, that the venue wouldn't have gone ahead without the AFL and the AFL wouldn't give up a venue it owned (Waverley) without the end result being a fully owned venue.

That the venue is being run to generate profits for private enterprise - it's heavily invested in by super annuation funds - and that it was well publicised a few years back that both the MCG and Docklands were the 2 (if not most, then amongst the) most expensive venues in the country for AFL clubs to host matches. Since then, there's been some negotiation and an extra $100,000 a game was freed up becuase the AFL was providing 'overs' on the deals.

Where will the money come from? Well, even if current rates of charge were continued - then, the money would go into the AFL rather than private funds. (perhaps not good for our super investments). That would increase the centralised power of the AFL regarding it's distributions. Or - should rates reduce - then the tennant clubs will get a better return. Probably a bit of the two.

Hopefully then - greater power to deal with the MCG would flow on. State Govt's in Vic have had it too easy for too long regarding the AFL. In the old VFL days - the VFL was set to shift the GF to Waverley - pending Govt planning approval to increase capacity to about 100,000. This was blocked, as were the promised public transport links to Waverley. The outcome of the VFL/AFL trapped at the MCG and cricket club members retaining priority access - with the VFL (Park) members having promised rights as well - leaves a bitter taste still today not just during finals - but for any sell out match where 1000s of empty seats are seen in the members reserves.

That combined with the lack of state govt fundig - i.e. zero (money, but land was provided) for Docklands and $77 mill for the 2006 C'wealth games - but, for the 100% MCG rebuild - only $77 mill out of about $576 million. The MCG and Docklands combine for over $1 billion of stadia - mostly funded by the AFL. And then the state govt went and put about $270 million into AAMI Park without a cent from the codes.

So - I'd love to see an end game of the AFL forcing the state govt to put more money into the MCG.....and there's a part funding of a $55 mill clean up of the GSS which is something at least. Perhaps state govt should assist AFL in buying out Etihad early??

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

RSS news	RSS events
Twitter	Facebook

World Footy News

South Pacific talent camp run in New Zealand for South Pacific Under 16 squad

Search

Translate

User Functions

Events

Featured Sites

Older Stories

Friday 06-Sep

Saturday 31-Aug

Friday 30-Aug

Monday 26-Aug

Saturday 10-Aug

Friday 09-Aug

Socials

Who's Online

Random Image

What's New

Articles last 2 weeks

Comments last 2 weeks

Links last 2 weeks

Advertisements