Phillip Micallef, from SBS asks what has always been an issue with me, and while beyond yes we need to move on from existing FFA systems. What do the clubs have in mind.

Micallef is no way supporting FFA, more questioning those who will be the new kings.. I found it interesting an a decent article.

https://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/ffa-have-few-friends-left-but-can-we-trust-the-a-league-clubs

The A-League's 10 professional clubs are seeking a larger representation at the pointy end of the game's administration but have been conspicuously absent from the debate surrounding the make-up of Football Federation Australia's congress.

The long-running dispute between the professional side of the club game and the governing body, led by chairman Steven Lowy, that forced FIFA to intervene will come to a head on October 2 when an FFA extraordinary general meeting will determine if the Congress Review Working Group's recommendations will be passed.If they are accepted it would be the end of the FFA board as we know it and reforms would be on their way.

If three of the four rebel states throw their support behind FFA, FIFA will either install a normalisation committee to supervise the transition of power or take the drastic step of suspending Australia.

Either way, with the A-League starting in a month and the AFC Asian Cup coming up in January, the game would be immersed in absolute chaos.

At stake, therefore, is the future of the game that has a history of false dawns and seems to be unable to take that decisive step towards fulfilling its huge potential.Fans at large are worried that the outcome of this bitter confrontation could have serious repercussions on the game at club and national level.FFA's reputation at home and abroad must be at an all-time low but stakeholders are worried that they do not really know what to expect from a new congress dominated by the A-League.Some fans might wonder if, despite FFA's draconian management and their clear ineptitude in finding football solutions to football problems, the game would be better or worse off under a new regime which would include an independent A-League.

I offered Australian Professional Football Clubs Association spokesman Greg Griffin, the one-time chairman of Adelaide United, an opportunity to discuss several issues that are gnawing at many fans' confidence.Griffin declined to comment on the situation, saying only he had nothing to add to the association's stated position, which essentially is a preference for an independent A-League and a larger representation for its clubs and players in the governance process. Which is a shame, really, because the game's stakeholders would have loved to hear from the professional clubs themselves about issues that will have a huge bearing on the immediate future of our game.The most pertinent questions fans would like answered are the following:

Grassroots

What happens to the game at grassroots if the incumbent FFA board is booted out?The FFA have maintained all along that giving too much power to the professional clubs would affect the progress of grassroots football. Many people fear that an independent league would do what's best for itself and further distance itself from the game at the lower levels.

Club owners

Would the owners of the 10 clubs do all they can to recoup their losses at the expense of national football?It is fair to say that the owners who have dug deep into their pockets and have complained since day one that they are not being given a fair share of the kitty will be foolish not to take an opportunity to redress the imbalance when in a position of influence.Making deals at congress level in order to cut costs associated with the running of Australia's national teams could be one way to 'balance the books'.

Television

Would an independent A-League ditch the Fox deal?There are strong rumours that if the A-League gets its way and wins a larger representation at congress level, one of the first things it would do is cancel its agreement with its broadcasting partner that expires in 2023. Fox have been the lifeblood of the game since day one and have done a fantastic job in promoting the league.The broadcaster pays $57m a year for the privilege. But the clubs believe their product is worth much more and want a larger part of the cake.

Money

If Fox are given the flick where will the money come from?It is unclear how much of the Fox money have FFA passed on to the clubs but whatever it is the clubs are unhappy. But if the Fox deal is scuppered it remans to be seen who will come up with the cash to keep the league going.

League independence

Would the club owners create an independent and self-funded 'super league'?If club owners come up with the financial shortfall from Fox's no-deal they would be entitled to run an independent league any way they want, possibly even entertaining the prospect of playing some matches in Asia.

Fans would not like this because there is nothing worse than not being able to follow your team in home games.An independent league would appear to be the way forward for Australia but the quewtion remains: Can the A-League clubs be trusted to do the right thing by the game they are part of?These are all questions that need to be answered before the vital meeting in October.

The clubs' refusal to elaborate on their intentions could be counter-productive and could add fuel to the suspicion raised in some parts that, despite all their failings and appalling record, FFA might just have a point in steadfastly refusing to buckle under considerable pressure.

What's that saying again?

Better the devil you know ...Follow @MicallefPhilip

I read the article earlier and ignored it because it was so bad

Totally misses the fact that the 'independent' HAL  won't get to totally control the League or the money

Griffins silence is Bill-Shorten-obvious at the moment.

Gaz you’re right. Doesn’t mean these questions aren’t important. We already know sage wants Singapore in. I agree why would griffin say anything when the ffa dig their own grave daily including their A-League ideas. Still would be good to see a future plan for the league from the clubs. Didn’t they develop an alternative operating model but refused to release it? Why?

An independent A-league doesn't mean free rein for club owners to do what ever they want. They will still have to abide by rules set out by the FFA. They will have more control of the A-league competition and get a fairer share of the revenue they generate. Most likely the clubs will own their IPs which would give them a greater chance to generate extra revenue. They will have more say as part of the FFA, but the state federations will still be in control. 

If CRWG gets adopted (or forced), most likely their recommendation for the NLWG will also be where any new ideas/models will be considered

It’s not an irrelevant question but farks sake. Many, many countries make this work are we really saying Australians are so dumb they can’t make this work?

The key element is a League is run under licence so it’s independence with a small “i” and things such as size of league, when it’s run, expansion, foreign player quotas, pro/rel, revenue split etc can be taken care of in any agreement.

The ffa have demonstrated they can’t run the league effectively, nor be trusted to open a second division, or have a pathway to pro/rel ... it’s time to let the clubs run their competitions and let the ffa focus in other areas.

waz

agree, but the question still remains and I understand we disagree on this but FFA operations like the 9 national teams, player selection training programs, government compliance etc still needs to be funded. As does the W-League.

The professional game does not sit in isolation, from the rest of the football community, in fact the professional game benefits from all other aspects of the game.

No one is talking about it and according to Mecallef the clubs don't want to even talk about it.... I think its important to get some answers on these issues.

I don't want to stop the change, nor whats happening more to understand how any new system will support short falls in Footballs development away from the professional competitions.

Mid

It is not the A Leagues job to fund the national teams. It’s not. The best thing we can do for national teams is have a well funded, sustainable national competition.

The FFA receives $5m from FIFA every year, SA are also crowing about how much they give the sport, they get a further $8m in registrations, $1m for every away WC game, they sell home games, they get participation money for every/most tournaments they participate in ... the ffa is not short of cash to fund national teams and it’s a distraction to suggest otherwise.

I wouldn’t say the ffa have been inept at running the pro league. It’s in pretty good shape, from scratch. Agree the clubs should have greater say and independence seems the answer but I do worry about people like sage and his Asian ideas. All the clubs need to do is get a couple of feds on board, they already are aligned so do the feds know their league plans, and force decisions through the new congress. Somethings gotta change though and I don’t agree with mcailef. I’d rather know a new devil.

Not completely inept at running the league, but they are completely inept at growing the league. In the HAL history we have gone from 8-10 clubs, had 3 failed clubs and average attendances are pretty much unchanged with very little growth.

@ Coverdale

Sage and his Asian expansion is a good example of the fear that independence might bring. I hate the idea.

But if Sage pursuades the other A League clubs it’s a good idea, and enough of the State Federations think it’s a good idea and support it, and the FFA and AFC can’t block it then so be it. That is democracy, we get Asian teams in.

The alternative is Lowy-land where one man and his father decide what we want and what we’ll get.

We can’t keep throwing up worse case scenarios to drive fear, uncertainty and doubt about change. It’s entirely possible we may f’ck this up, but that possibility shouldn’t stop change ... it’s entirely possible lowy will f’ck this up anyway, only he’s got a head start on Sage.

The obvious answer is the professional clubs want whatever is best for them.Duh!That means individually.The objectives of CCM would have differences to those of City Group.

With regard to running football in this country,they wont have control and shouldn't have control,so it's largely irrelevant.You could ask the same question of every other stakeholder.Unless there is enough agreement amongst stakeholders then there will be insufficient numbers to change anything.
Compare the potential future to now and whatever the thoughts of professional clubs ,at least the process will be more democratic than now.

I guess FFA will need to stop wasting their money on consultants (mates) and use their money wisely then from now on. 

Not to mention the fact that the entire department is grossly overstaffed.

The truth is, none of us know what we're going to get.

Fourteen years ago, when we wiped the slate clean, it was pretty clear that things were going to be better almost immediately, but no one can predict that that will be the case now.  It might be, but we don't really know.

It's not a distraction. It's a very legitimate concern that needs to be addressed with something more substantial than 'well the FFA need to learn to save money better'.

I'm not certain they can fund the national teams (and definitely not to the same level) without the a-league revenue. I dunno, are we really prepared to hamstring the national teams just so Melbourne City can make more money? I'm not. I want the socceroos to continue to receive every advantage, including charter flights with massage tables. I simply don't care about the CFG's profits,  but do care about the national team. If chucking in some a-league revenue is what it takes to keep it well funded, then I want that to continue. 

Heres a way they can save money, considering I keep hearing they are one of the most paid teams in the world why don't they take a pay cut, it should be enough just to wear the jersey with pride. 

What percentage of expenditure is reasonable for the engagement of consultants and what number of staff is reasonable for the operation of a business like the FFA?

At the end of the day something needs to give. The clubs cant continue with this current unfair arrangement. Have a good long look at the current situation. On a yearly basis we can all agree that football generates approx 100-120 M in revenue when it is all said and done. This includes merchandise, ticket sales, international revenue from matches, sponsorship, registrations, licence fees and agreements, government grants and commissions, world cup fees and finally the fox deal for the A-league. Out of all that the clubs want the majority of the fox deal which in all fairness is a reasonable request. Right now that deal is approx worth 60-65M per year and the A-league clubs get about half of that amount when in all fairness they should be getting 70-80% depending on the structure. I don't know about anyone else but the current situation is a RAW deal for the A-league clubs. In fact its highway robbery. 

unbridled horseshit

The value of the Fox deal this year is about $50m and will rise to $57m in the 6th year of the deal if Fox's metrics are met.  The APFCA claim is that based on 4 years of Nielsen data the A-League generates 90% of the value of the deal.  That equates to $45m this year.  The distribution to the clubs this season is budgeted to be $34m or 76% of the deal.  Claims from club owners vary between $65m and $80m as the A-League generated value of FFA revenue and it is these levels that the clubs use to claim a higher distribution from the FFA not just the revenue from Fox.

I remember when Lowy Jr took over and he commented on how precarious the whole situation was - financially.

Sure, I don’t trust him now, but I remember thinking “fark, if that’s what our new chairman is saying publicly, the whole show must be running on a knife edge”.

It must be how it is.

And so he thinks if he lets it go, the whole thing will fall over.
Of course, if he doesn’t let it go, it falls over.

So let go and we’ll see what happens.

Got the numbers on how much of that is cash vs kind?  The clubs often use the grossed up figures as public negotiation points.

Overall, not to panic too much at the grassroots level.  The truth is glaringly simple.  A local club does not have to affiliate with the Federation.
If it becomes a burden, that is to say the benefit is far less than the cost, we just walk.
There is a huge swathe of non-affiliated clubs out there running their comps just fine.  If the A-League Clubs get enough influence to fuck it up then there is no further need to communicate with them, let alone pay them, or support them.  Everybody out!

Dunno if they have worked that out themselves yet.

As regards the NT.  Yeah it's probably about to be dumped into the reality that the players are over-paid and over-hyped.  OTOH the Clubs need the PFA to get what they want.  The PFAs new position of power is pivotal.  Should be a laugh or two watching that marriage break down.

What a fucking FFA apologist lol.

-PB

Of the $50m from Fox I think $5m is contra so the A-League share of it on the Nielsen figures would be $4.5m.  Contra is quite significant in the $28m sponsorship as well.  I did some numbers on allocating contra some months ago and about $7.5m of the A-League revenue is contra.  The other thing that the clubs don't allow for is that with both the broadcast rights and sponsorship there are costs for sponsor hosting that come with the revenue.

This article is extremely biased and makes incorrect statements ....another Lowy crony...God their tentacles reach a long way .

should that be $45m?

Pardon my ignorance but if Fox are given the flick where will the money come from?

The A-Leagues share of the $50m using the Nielsen ratings analysis is $45m but they also "inherit" a 90% share of the contra which would be $4.5m leaving $40.5m in cash.

Micallef's magic wand?