View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

At the NSO there was consensus that this relationship had since developed into a
positive one. When asked what had sparked this change in the relationship, participants
made mention of a number of key personnel in both organisations. NSO1 affirmed, “Prior
to PSF6 coming on board, it was almost at a stage where there was no communication”
(personal communication, April 18, 2008). Other members supported this current positive
relationship:
• “I think that the relationship between [the NSO] and the PSF is potentially [a] very
good [one]” (NSO2, personal communication April 21, 2008).
• “It’s fair to say that it probably hasn’t, but it is and it will. Yes, it’s growing” (NSO1,
personal communication, April 18, 2008).
• “The guys up there, [at the PSF] I think that we’ve kind of realised that we’re all in this
for the same reasons, and have really moved to pool [ours NSO] resources” (NSO4,
personal communication, April 23, 2008).
When discussing the type of relationship that existed there was no overall agreement on
the form it took. NSO3 used the word ‘partnership’:
Probably, there’s certainly a, partnership, I think would be the best way to describe
in terms of… there’s some share, certainly some shared goals and some shared sort
of vision…So certainly, working in coordination and there’s definitely a working
relationship. (personal communication, April 22, 2008)
NSO5 commented that it was an informal relationship, at a formal level, due to the
NSOs involvement in regards to the licence of the PSF:
A requirement of the license application was that they needed to get approval from
the federation that they came from, not represented. So because the team was [a]
resident, wanted to be the resident of New Zealand, they were required under [the
international governing body] regulations to get the approval of the federation that
controlled [the sport] in that country. (personal communication, 22 May, 2008)
54