Half you cnuts are the most inbred fucks ever. No wonder posters like lollywood take the piss. 

I dont think the stadium even meets the minimum requirements for a club stadia. There would be much money needed to bring it up to code. Aside from the other hundred reasons this club should be nowhere near the HAL, they simply don't have the money. A lot of noise is made about the club being plenty solvent, but under their current structure they simply can't afford to be a professional club, simple as that.

LOL 

Where is this criteria?

We have had a scaffolding stadium in Wellington, AFL stadium in Cairns, Coffs Harbour and NSO with a cricket pitch....

I wasn't aware any of those stadiums were regular club venues...

Im sure someone on here will be able to dig up the minimum stadia requirements. The stadium is not suitable for a professional club in a national competition. Move on.

Im sure they wont.

I'm sure that person would be you. Obviously you have them on hand. Because you wouldn't want to be that guy who said they don't meet requirements without knowing what they are, would you.

Who said anything about entering under the current structure? And Give me these hundred reasons? The money is no issue, the people that have the money arent gonna tip in just to win the npl, The stadium in its current form is only 5 years old and is still in its 1st phase of development..hand over a license and it will be up to scratch within 6-12 months. What is the criteria anyway? 

There has never been any entry criteria. Greg O'Rouke was given the job after Damo to write one up and do the research. FFA has postponed it, then again, then again. 

It doesnt exist...... yet. 

So there is no minimum stadium criteria. The only thing we have ever gotten is what Greg and FFA call "success factors."

Head of A-League Greg O’Rourke said the success factors required for entry into the A-League includes government support and involvement, player numbers, interest from the broader community and investors.

https://www.fourfourtwo.com.au/news/geelongs-a-league-success-factors-450086

Usually with arguments there are strong points on both sides

Against South Melbourne:
. ZOMG !!!!!!1!!!! The crowds !!!!
. People will kill each other. Think of the children
. 50k nationally are happy to watch CCM vs Perth on a Sunday afternoon because they are interested in the A League as a competition but literally nobody will watch when South Melbourne plays because the NSL and NPL did not / do not have high levels of interest
. Even though they will have the same balanced budget, using the same player pool, and taking it in turns in being successful - they will be playing exactly as they are now

When I read reasons against the inclusion of South Melbourne I don't even need to read what the other side has to say to walk away thinking that its a fucking good idea

http://www.the-afc.com/uploads/afc/files/AFC_CLR_Booklet_2016.pdf

http://www.the-afc.com/uploads/afc/files/afc_stadium_regulations.pdf

Because we want to be recognised by the AFC as a top tier club competition, we are required to adhere to the documents as linked above.
Feel free to knock yourselves out.

Latest AFC stadium regulations:-

http://www.the-afc.com/uploads/afc/files/afc_stadium_regulations_2017.pdf

FFA criteria will be back engineered for the 2 already chosen franchises.

FFA don't really want to be recognised by FIFA,

Can't see anyone giving a fuck about AFC anytime soon

Still need time to diplomatically put "can't be ethnic" in the fine print  

If you are gonna reduce it down to finances, there are a number of current HAL clubs that wouldn't meet that criteria. If south were to be allowed in, firstly they would receive the same grant money all other HAL clubs receive. They would also attract higher more lucrative sponsorship deals which comes with the increase coverage. Crowd numbers and membership numbers would increase over current numbers. Granted there may be some reasons why South shouldn't be granted a HAL license but finances is not one of them.

The cost to run an A-League club is $7.5m.  Does South have that kind of money available?  The big 5 clubs in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne spend $12m to $18m pa.

Its not a matter of having $7.5 Million available in the bank right this minute. That's not how Business works.
Your talking Working  Capital when the issue is Revenues.
But anyway based on what you're implying.
$3million FFA distribution
$2 Million Gate Receipts and Memberships
$0.5 Corporate Hospitality
$0.5 Events and Fundraisers
$1.5 Million in Corporate Sponsorship (that's the big one) Can SMFC find $1.5 in Corporate Sponsorship in a Saturated Market?

I was meaning did they have that level of projected annual revenue.  Currently the struggling clubs don't.

A few years ago now from figures from a number of clubs the revenue from gate receipts and memberships averaged $18 to $24 per attendee and using that and your $2m revenue figure South would average around 7.5k attendance which would be pretty good if it could be achieved or bettered.

Yep the viewing behind the goals is horrendous.

Lets be serious here the games against Victory and City will be blockbusters with say these three home games attracting 60,000 to 75,000 accumulatively at either AAMI or Ettihad Stadium. Assuming league of 12 with 33 rounds, 13-14 home games at Lakeside you're talking an average attendance of around 4,500 to 5,000 to achieve figures you and I quoted. Should be a cakewalk.

Again really comes down to Sponsorship levels.

My ch as I find SMs constant self promotion a little bit annoying I do believe they would be a valuable addition to the comp

I don't think its as black and white as that

The first is the cost of a professional club vs the cost to run a club in the current model
The second is the cost of a minimal club in the current model vs the cost of a competitive club

It doesn't cost $7.5m to run a club by any stretch of the imagination. A youth league teams costs Perth $700k. Add about $500k for the cost of independence. Then about $1.5m - $2m for salaries. You are looking at $3m-$3.5m for an A League club, which is entirely covered by the TV deal

This of course doesn't meet the FFA's requirements of the top team being the same size as the bottom team. It also doesn't meet their requirements in playing in state of the art stadia with all tiers open

When the FFA took over the Jets they spent about $6m and lost about $2.5m. This $2.5m is the cost of competing upwards and meeting ridiculous criteria. Its the single reason why we cant expand because we need to be looking for people willing to lose $2.5m a year on something they don't own. The best selling point by the FFA is the resale value a few years after ownership should cover the losses. Poor business model


I don't think South Melbourne would enter the A League under the current model. So there is no need for them to be looking for $3.5m-$4m (by your estimates) of sponsorship or somebody to write off a substantial loss. Or even $2.5m if they were to do the minimal required without pissing off the FFA like CCM and GCU have done in the past

Under a sensible model where teams only need to meet minimal costs, any A League team will simply be riding on funds made available by a TV deal driven by the value of the biggest teams and biggest games. Its the position we were in when the last TV deal was announced (until costs went up). Which means all South Melbourne need to do is manage cash flow. They will get about $3.5m and the costs will be $3.5m

P/R will make them earn it

Can they refresh this stale conversation?

I dont think anyone really understands the costs associated with running an A League club, bt consider these:

1. Players basic salary $3.3m including SUPER
2. Coaches $700k (3 teams)
3, Ladies team $400k
4. Youth Team $300k
5. Admin costs $500k
6. Insurance $50k
7. Travel and Accomodation $900k (3 teams)
8. Training Ground $300k
9. Stadium Rental $1000k ($1m)
10. Academy $600k
11. Marketing $250k
12. Medical $250k
13. Otehr $500k

Thats at least $9m and I doubt I've got all of it

it's Cranky Friday

The cost of running a professional club is not determined by your limited model.  It is determined by what FIFA, the AFC and the FFA say is required of a professional club.  Both FIFA and the AFC have set out minimum standards for top tier clubs.  Your minimal club as I understand it falls way short of these mandated minimum standards

The Jets made an operating loss slightly more than the $1m budgeted on expenditure of $7m due to a shortfall in revenue.  The $2.5m loss was due to greater than expected payments to creditors that the FFA inherited from the previous owners.  i.e. the majority of it was not operational costs.

It doesn't take long to get costs in excess of $10m when you run a "professional" club professionally. 

Yeah I was pretty disappointed with the view from the drone I was hovering in 50m above the ground. SM out.

That's not true or all clubs in Asia will cost ~$7m to run. In fact when we first entered the ACL we didn't have $7m clubs

The FIFA and AFC benchmarks are reasonable. A 5k seater stadium with lighting requirements, change rooms and other facilities. And obviously there will be requirements for coaching, medical and player numbers

NQF were a club running 5 years ago and their cost was around the $3m mark

All other costs are mandated by the FFA. We have seen the negativity surrounding the league when you have a CCM or GCU sitting at the bottom of the table with a youth league team dishing out 3 points to clubs just to save money. A single tier balanced league requires all clubs to be at a certain level. It means small clubs competing upwards and big clubs competing downwards

The cost of running a football club is ambiguous. Its one of those "how long is a piece of string" thingos. Before the last TV deal the cost of an A League clubs was about $3.5m-$4m to run. Wellington, after the $2.5m from the TV deal, and knowing $1m from sponsorship is reasonable, announced the league is finally at a stage where the money received is enough to cover running costs. The FFA at this point decided not to expand to keep things going, and expand in the next TV deal

But shit hey. Costs are now $6m. Because they go up. We didn't double our TV deal so we couldn't expand. History repeats

In a sensible model costs will only go up about $100k a year as not much changes. Small cost of living increase. Small amount of CPI. Over 4 years a $3.5m club will cost $3.9m

But in a balanced model where clubs have to compete upwards or the value of the league as a whole suffers, we have seen an increase of about $500k a year. $3.5m is now $6m. 6 years from now (before the next TV deal) it will be $9m. Clubs are asking for $6m from the FFA knowing that with about $1m of sponsorship and other revenue they can hit the $7.5m mark (which is what you are talking about). But 4 years from now it wont be enough. In the next TV deal we will need $90m to cover the current clubs so once again doubling the TV deal is only enough to keep the current rot going

This is not an Asian thing. This is not a FIFA thing. This is the cost of having a balanced league. Too small and you have a dozen NQFs and nobody will be watching. Too big and you have no expansion options

A sensible model is the FFA covering the minimal club (about $3.5m), and all other spending discretionary. As you said, bigger clubs spend about $12m to $16m and that's at a held back level. They can afford to do that with a $2.5m grant because they have larger sponsorship, commercial opportunities, fan base and investors. These clubs drive the TV deal up to ensure the FFA can always cover the costs of the smaller clubs

You cant say this isn't possible because we compete in the same confederation as countries with much smaller budgets who do play ACL. Even the A League a dozen years ago was small. Everything you see is entirely a result of the FFA choosing a balanced model. One the AFL / NRL need over a billion to sustain and that's where we are heading

It does not cost $7.5m to run an A League club. Its something we have chosen