|
crimsoncrusoe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Nice Roar vs Strikers has potential.South Brisbane vs North Brisbane
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
williamn
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.1K,
Visits: 0
|
So spent the past week in Tasmania and I just wanted to share a few of my observations.
Firstly its a no brainer that a team in Tasmania would be in Hobart and not Launceston. Hobart is significantly bigger with a larger population and more of a bustling cbd and the idea of targeting both cities despite a 2.5 hour drive is impossible. It was really good to see the hobart newspaper embracing the opportunity to have a new a-league club.
Secondly, the streets of hobart are filled with teens who look like they have nothing to do. Theyre dressed as though they are part of the North Terrace and looked bored. There is a lack of concerts or sports in the city and the youth would hop on board to a new sporting team the way they embrace the hobart hurricanes and even the tasmanian sheffield shield team. However the negative was that i watched wanderers vs glory in an irish bar and from the conversations of those around, the older generations seem to have the AFL belief that sockah is for weak pussies ingrained into them, so a new team would be relying a lot on the youth.
Thirdly based on location, North Hobart oval would be a better go than Bellereive however they are both terrible oval shaped stadiums. might have to team up with athletics to get a venue.
And as for team name ideas:
Hobart Cascades (reference to brewing industry)
Hobart Tasmans (reference to the name of the state)
Hobart Timbers (reference to logging industry)
Hobart Red Devils (reference to tasmanian devil)
Hobart Demons (reference to former name of the state)
in b4 they chooses united or fc.
|
|
|
|
|
Volrath2002
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 903,
Visits: 0
|
So all this expansion talk hasbeen interesting reading while I have been in the UK this past month catching alot of football.
I think this suggestion that in order for a bid to get over the line and approvedit needs to have heavy hitting owners is a limited view. We gotta stopnarrowing our view on ownership to solely rich owners dipping into the pocketsand instead look to other models. There is no reason why a community owned andrun club could not be successful.
When it comes to Tasmania I think it is good that there is some interest ingetting a team established in the state. Like Canberra, Wollongong and Geelong,Tasmania does not have a lot of competition as far as clubs to support in thesummer. When looking outside establishing derbies in Brisbane/South-East Qld,Adelaide and Perth these would be ideal locations for expansion.
The talk about the lack of a rectangle ground in Tasmania as a hurdle toovercome is a fair point. I really hope bids like this would be looking atmapping out a plan to build the football infrastructure needed for the future.On my recent travels I got to experience all sorts of stadiums and grounds fromthe large Manchester stadia to the Dripping Pan in Lewes and everything inbetween. Out of all the stadiums I visited the best stadium I experienced wasBrighton's Amex Community Stadium. I would hope any of the larger clubs wouldwant to model their grounds on that one. It is truly a beautiful stadium withcomfy seating for all, roofing that covers every seat, a design that enablessound to echo and build atmosphere, views from every seat that are fantasticand the ability to expand on the design overtime.
Canberra United - Member
KSV Hessen Kassel - Supporter
Lewes FC - Owner
|
|
|
|
|
azzaMVFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSecondly, the streets of hobart are filled with teens who look like they have nothing to do. Theyre dressed as though they are part of the North Terrace and looked bored. Had a chuckle at this. Not sure about those names though mate. I think the FFA would go for a United/FC thing for sure. I like the idea of Hobart United Football Club, just to really put the emphasis on that this is Hobarts one true football club. A kind of 'rally the community together' thing, 'let's all get behind our local club'.
|
|
|
|
|
CapitalFootball
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 39,
Visits: 0
|
A Canberra team is a must. We have the NZ capital, but not our capital represented.
Also, Wollongong and perhaps Geelong
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xthe premier mentioned putting temporary stands in North Hobart Oval. When did the Premier mention this? Exciting news if so. Its the Cockerill article posted on page 5 of the FFA set for Tasmania meeting thread. But it's MP Andrew Wilkie not the premier. Got abit excited myself. No quotes but it says in the article he's said he'll find $12million dollars to install seating and upgrade lights/coporate/media facilites to standard. I also saw your previous photoshop on page 5 in the same thread and really liked how you incorporated the stands and terracing. Only issue I see it that they just spent a fortune rebuiling/replicating the original 1920s little old heritage grandstand (at the southern end of my photoshop) that got burnt down so I couldnt imagine them wanting to get rid of that.   Bugger, didn't realise it was rebuilt. Maybe they can move it!
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAnd as for team name ideas: Hobart Cascades (reference to brewing industry) Hobart Tasmans (reference to the name of the state) Hobart Timbers (reference to logging industry) Hobart Red Devils (reference to tasmanian devil) Hobart Demons (reference to former name of the state) Please no. Vom.
|
|
|
|
|
SpongeBobFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xAnd as for team name ideas: Hobart Cascades (reference to brewing industry) Hobart Tasmans (reference to the name of the state) Hobart Timbers (reference to logging industry) Hobart Red Devils (reference to tasmanian devil) Hobart Demons (reference to former name of the state) Please no. Vom. 
|
|
|
|
HortoMagiko
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOn the question of infrastructure I prefer Lakeside over Hutt Recreational ground. However, the Phoenix home ground is Westpac Stadium. That's what the comparison should be. Saying that Lakeside is better that Hutt Recreational ground is like saying that Lakeside is better than Jubilee Oval where Sydney FC have played in the HAL. If Sydney wanted to make that their home ground they would certainly need to be improvements. As an alternate ground it is fine. Hmmm. a cavernous empty shithole with zero atmosphere is probably not the best example to be drawn. Im clearly talking apples and apples. A big part of Souths allure is their boutique stadium as opposed to playing out of aami or etihad . Thats one point. The other point is that hutt looks a hell of a lot better than cake tin on air, sure their home ground is westapc but fat lotta good that's doing them or much more importantly, fat lotta good its doing our TV product..,,,and here we are actually already utilising apparently unfinished boutique stadium, in hutt, to play and televise our games out of.... Edit. If hutt is already good enough for our product then sure as shit lakeside is. You don't have to convince me - you have to convince the FFA. They want a certain standard of infrastructure for the main games. Lakeside at the moment doesn't fit. That doesn't mean it would cost the earth to at least put in temporary seating at both ends.
"They want a certain standard of infrastructure for the main games."Yes they have set the standard with hutt. " Lakeside at the moment doesn't fit."Yes in the same way hutt doesnt fit. but it didnt stop them solving the "problem" overnight and televising games out of it. its disingemous to say one is fit and the other isnt. For the main stadium - not the alternate stadium. So by your logic a third melbourne team has to play out of etihad?? My logic is a boutique stadium is fine for a-league. And Thats smfcs point of difference. Not to mention adelaide play out of one. Your idea that everything has to be on an etihad scale isnt necesaerily viable or sustainable for any and all expansion clubs. and it not like your club exactly plays out of a westpac size arena anyway. Bit of a stretch getting that a third Melbourne team has to play out of Etihad out of what I said. No my logic is that you need to install temporary seating. Adelaide play out of a 16500 stadium with a seated capacity of 15000. CCM play out of an all seater 20059. The FFA will put up with some non-standing on the main grounds a la Adelaide and Newcastle. Their standards on alternate grounds is lower - see Hutt Recreational. If you want Lakeside to be the main stadium it needs to be a much greater ratio of seating to non-seating. GIO Stadium, WIN Stadium, Kardinia Park, Robina Stadium all fit the criteria. If SMFC put in temporary seating so will they (as well as bringing the crowds closer to the action). If you want Agree. would be a shame to hold back aus football by way of farcical standards that tie a nix 3000 member club to a 35k seater and/or the selective implementation of temporary seating. Yep - but the FFA make the decision. Wouldn't it be better for SMFC to help steer the decision and make it part of their submission instead of complaining when they are not selected. If SMFC want the result they would compromise - not tell the FFA they were wrong when they miss out. Whos complaining? you keep disrespectfully making accusations. Can you provide a link to smfc complaining please? if you cant substantiate such idiotic and inflammatory claims it would be in your best interests to STFU.
Is Wellington diverse? Dont know, however this is a club that has no historical or existing link to a specific migrant group - Rusty Einstein
The negative stereotypes are perpetuated by people who either have no idea or are serving a vested interest; neither viewpoint should get anywhere near running Australian football - Ange Postecoglou
|
|
|
|
|
azzaMVFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOn the question of infrastructure I prefer Lakeside over Hutt Recreational ground. However, the Phoenix home ground is Westpac Stadium. That's what the comparison should be. Saying that Lakeside is better that Hutt Recreational ground is like saying that Lakeside is better than Jubilee Oval where Sydney FC have played in the HAL. If Sydney wanted to make that their home ground they would certainly need to be improvements. As an alternate ground it is fine. Hmmm. a cavernous empty shithole with zero atmosphere is probably not the best example to be drawn. Im clearly talking apples and apples. A big part of Souths allure is their boutique stadium as opposed to playing out of aami or etihad . Thats one point. The other point is that hutt looks a hell of a lot better than cake tin on air, sure their home ground is westapc but fat lotta good that's doing them or much more importantly, fat lotta good its doing our TV product..,,,and here we are actually already utilising apparently unfinished boutique stadium, in hutt, to play and televise our games out of.... Edit. If hutt is already good enough for our product then sure as shit lakeside is. You don't have to convince me - you have to convince the FFA. They want a certain standard of infrastructure for the main games. Lakeside at the moment doesn't fit. That doesn't mean it would cost the earth to at least put in temporary seating at both ends.
"They want a certain standard of infrastructure for the main games."Yes they have set the standard with hutt. " Lakeside at the moment doesn't fit."Yes in the same way hutt doesnt fit. but it didnt stop them solving the "problem" overnight and televising games out of it. its disingemous to say one is fit and the other isnt. For the main stadium - not the alternate stadium. So by your logic a third melbourne team has to play out of etihad?? My logic is a boutique stadium is fine for a-league. And Thats smfcs point of difference. Not to mention adelaide play out of one. Your idea that everything has to be on an etihad scale isnt necesaerily viable or sustainable for any and all expansion clubs. and it not like your club exactly plays out of a westpac size arena anyway. Bit of a stretch getting that a third Melbourne team has to play out of Etihad out of what I said. No my logic is that you need to install temporary seating. Adelaide play out of a 16500 stadium with a seated capacity of 15000. CCM play out of an all seater 20059. The FFA will put up with some non-standing on the main grounds a la Adelaide and Newcastle. Their standards on alternate grounds is lower - see Hutt Recreational. If you want Lakeside to be the main stadium it needs to be a much greater ratio of seating to non-seating. GIO Stadium, WIN Stadium, Kardinia Park, Robina Stadium all fit the criteria. If SMFC put in temporary seating so will they (as well as bringing the crowds closer to the action). If you want Agree. would be a shame to hold back aus football by way of farcical standards that tie a nix 3000 member club to a 35k seater and/or the selective implementation of temporary seating. Yep - but the FFA make the decision. Wouldn't it be better for SMFC to help steer the decision and make it part of their submission instead of complaining when they are not selected. If SMFC want the result they would compromise - not tell the FFA they were wrong when they miss out. Whos complaining? you keep disrespectfully making accusations. Can you provide a link to smfc complaining please? if you cant substantiate such idiotic and inflammatory claims it would be in your best interests to STFU. He's probably referring to this: http://www.smfc.com.au/media-release-the-possible-end-of-aspirational-football/Make of it what you will.
|
|
|
|
HortoMagiko
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOn the question of infrastructure I prefer Lakeside over Hutt Recreational ground. However, the Phoenix home ground is Westpac Stadium. That's what the comparison should be. Saying that Lakeside is better that Hutt Recreational ground is like saying that Lakeside is better than Jubilee Oval where Sydney FC have played in the HAL. If Sydney wanted to make that their home ground they would certainly need to be improvements. As an alternate ground it is fine. Hmmm. a cavernous empty shithole with zero atmosphere is probably not the best example to be drawn. Im clearly talking apples and apples. A big part of Souths allure is their boutique stadium as opposed to playing out of aami or etihad . Thats one point. The other point is that hutt looks a hell of a lot better than cake tin on air, sure their home ground is westapc but fat lotta good that's doing them or much more importantly, fat lotta good its doing our TV product..,,,and here we are actually already utilising apparently unfinished boutique stadium, in hutt, to play and televise our games out of.... Edit. If hutt is already good enough for our product then sure as shit lakeside is. You don't have to convince me - you have to convince the FFA. They want a certain standard of infrastructure for the main games. Lakeside at the moment doesn't fit. That doesn't mean it would cost the earth to at least put in temporary seating at both ends.
"They want a certain standard of infrastructure for the main games."Yes they have set the standard with hutt. " Lakeside at the moment doesn't fit."Yes in the same way hutt doesnt fit. but it didnt stop them solving the "problem" overnight and televising games out of it. its disingemous to say one is fit and the other isnt. For the main stadium - not the alternate stadium. So by your logic a third melbourne team has to play out of etihad?? My logic is a boutique stadium is fine for a-league. And Thats smfcs point of difference. Not to mention adelaide play out of one. Your idea that everything has to be on an etihad scale isnt necesaerily viable or sustainable for any and all expansion clubs. and it not like your club exactly plays out of a westpac size arena anyway. Bit of a stretch getting that a third Melbourne team has to play out of Etihad out of what I said. No my logic is that you need to install temporary seating. Adelaide play out of a 16500 stadium with a seated capacity of 15000. CCM play out of an all seater 20059. The FFA will put up with some non-standing on the main grounds a la Adelaide and Newcastle. Their standards on alternate grounds is lower - see Hutt Recreational. If you want Lakeside to be the main stadium it needs to be a much greater ratio of seating to non-seating. GIO Stadium, WIN Stadium, Kardinia Park, Robina Stadium all fit the criteria. If SMFC put in temporary seating so will they (as well as bringing the crowds closer to the action). If you want Agree. would be a shame to hold back aus football by way of farcical standards that tie a nix 3000 member club to a 35k seater and/or the selective implementation of temporary seating. Yep - but the FFA make the decision. Wouldn't it be better for SMFC to help steer the decision and make it part of their submission instead of complaining when they are not selected. If SMFC want the result they would compromise - not tell the FFA they were wrong when they miss out. Whos complaining? you keep disrespectfully making accusations. Can you provide a link to smfc complaining please? if you cant substantiate such idiotic and inflammatory claims it would be in your best interests to STFU. He's probably referring to this: http://www.smfc.com.au/media-release-the-possible-end-of-aspirational-football/Make of it what you will. Youve posted an irrelevant link. I dont see one iota of complaining. Do they make a criticism of ffa? yes. They criticise the lack of pathway to the top tier...... and To criticise the lack of pathway to the top tier not only has NOTHING to do with the use of temporary seating and or farcical and contradictory stadium requirements, but is JUSTIFIED in the eyes of many..... including major stakeholders......and cough.... the rest of the goddamn footballing world except for Australia,. ... they merely share a belief that is widely held in the worldwide football community....all that said, its an entitely different conversation.What smfc said, was polite, but honest... and i again reiterate, has NOTHING to do with the utilisation of temporary seating and or stadium requirements. I hope youre not aspiring to join the ranks of people posting utter agenda driven bullshit.
Is Wellington diverse? Dont know, however this is a club that has no historical or existing link to a specific migrant group - Rusty Einstein
The negative stereotypes are perpetuated by people who either have no idea or are serving a vested interest; neither viewpoint should get anywhere near running Australian football - Ange Postecoglou
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIf recent media reports are correct, we have potential bidders... AU City... long standing club and could share existing facilities for matches and the team has a history and local support. South Melbourne... Long History existing ground is HHHHHmmmmm needs work but their appears to be investors willing to invest. Tassie .... is putting in a bid ... looks like using an oval ground, small population and would the AFL just invade with matches ... Geelong ... not sure about this bid a regional centre very AFL town ... Canberra ... Strong Rugby Union / League town with The Great Waste of Space playing some games very crowded sports market ... having access to a quality playing surface could be an issue.... there are bidders ... South Western Sydney ... Son of the the Drive Bys huge potential, stadium ready to go only issue is the Macauthur area is not a Football heartland like Liverpool / Fairfield up the road ... however has a lot going for it. Southern Sydney ... Could it kill SFC is the issue as many SFC fans come from this area .... two small stadiums to choose from ... will either work or drag fans from SFC... but there is a bidder ... A Sydney United along with a couple of other former NSL clubs add to SU stadium at Liverpool similar issue to South Melbourne in many ways... but they have backers ... Brisbane former Strikers and Lyons teams making noises and a bid expected to arrive soon... stadium is the big issue... Me I would go for AU City + Sydney United along with some former NSL clubs in Liverpool ... will hurt WSW but WSW should be able to deal with it.. Nice to see so many bidders ... sorta puts pressure on the Nux board to pick up their game otherwise the "M" word could hurt them in 3 or so years. Maybe not that far out FFA reporting 6 bids ... http://www.fourfourtwo.com.au/news/ffa-six-bids-vying-to-join-a-league-440931
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
Until specifics and timelines are mentioned and confirmed, these are just more sound bites. We have had 10 years and only 2 teams have been added. There's 148 pages in this thread and no one idea from the ffa.
|
|
|
|
|
Glory Recruit
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
Tasmania, Brisbane Strikers, Southern Sydney, and Geelong confirmed, 2 other unknown bids.
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
+xTasmania, Brisbane Strikers, Southern Sydney, and Geelong confirmed, 2 other unknown bids. Where in Tassie? Who from Southern Sydney? Sutherland? Who from Geelong? How serious are the 2 unknown bidders? Where will they be based? There is no point to the article and there is no point to say anything really. It's a nothing article. We are no further in knowing than we were before. We always knew there were bidders from ex NSL clubs in particular. We had South, we had Wollongong, Ipswich, Bris SAtrikers, Geelong , Tassie United, P&R, Div 2 etc etc rah rah blah blah. Do it or shut up. That's all I want.
|
|
|
|
|
patjennings
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOn the question of infrastructure I prefer Lakeside over Hutt Recreational ground. However, the Phoenix home ground is Westpac Stadium. That's what the comparison should be. Saying that Lakeside is better that Hutt Recreational ground is like saying that Lakeside is better than Jubilee Oval where Sydney FC have played in the HAL. If Sydney wanted to make that their home ground they would certainly need to be improvements. As an alternate ground it is fine. Hmmm. a cavernous empty shithole with zero atmosphere is probably not the best example to be drawn. Im clearly talking apples and apples. A big part of Souths allure is their boutique stadium as opposed to playing out of aami or etihad . Thats one point. The other point is that hutt looks a hell of a lot better than cake tin on air, sure their home ground is westapc but fat lotta good that's doing them or much more importantly, fat lotta good its doing our TV product..,,,and here we are actually already utilising apparently unfinished boutique stadium, in hutt, to play and televise our games out of.... Edit. If hutt is already good enough for our product then sure as shit lakeside is. You don't have to convince me - you have to convince the FFA. They want a certain standard of infrastructure for the main games. Lakeside at the moment doesn't fit. That doesn't mean it would cost the earth to at least put in temporary seating at both ends.
"They want a certain standard of infrastructure for the main games."Yes they have set the standard with hutt. " Lakeside at the moment doesn't fit."Yes in the same way hutt doesnt fit. but it didnt stop them solving the "problem" overnight and televising games out of it. its disingemous to say one is fit and the other isnt. For the main stadium - not the alternate stadium. So by your logic a third melbourne team has to play out of etihad?? My logic is a boutique stadium is fine for a-league. And Thats smfcs point of difference. Not to mention adelaide play out of one. Your idea that everything has to be on an etihad scale isnt necesaerily viable or sustainable for any and all expansion clubs. and it not like your club exactly plays out of a westpac size arena anyway. Bit of a stretch getting that a third Melbourne team has to play out of Etihad out of what I said. No my logic is that you need to install temporary seating. Adelaide play out of a 16500 stadium with a seated capacity of 15000. CCM play out of an all seater 20059. The FFA will put up with some non-standing on the main grounds a la Adelaide and Newcastle. Their standards on alternate grounds is lower - see Hutt Recreational. If you want Lakeside to be the main stadium it needs to be a much greater ratio of seating to non-seating. GIO Stadium, WIN Stadium, Kardinia Park, Robina Stadium all fit the criteria. If SMFC put in temporary seating so will they (as well as bringing the crowds closer to the action). If you want Agree. would be a shame to hold back aus football by way of farcical standards that tie a nix 3000 member club to a 35k seater and/or the selective implementation of temporary seating. Yep - but the FFA make the decision. Wouldn't it be better for SMFC to help steer the decision and make it part of their submission instead of complaining when they are not selected. If SMFC want the result they would compromise - not tell the FFA they were wrong when they miss out. Whos complaining? you keep disrespectfully making accusations. Can you provide a link to smfc complaining please? if you cant substantiate such idiotic and inflammatory claims it would be in your best interests to STFU. You made the point that your boutique stadium would be a point of difference. 'A big part of Souths allure is their boutique stadium as opposed to playing out of aami or etihad'
The Strikers and Tasmanian consortiums also have smaller stadiums but are talking of what they can do to there stadiums as part of their proposal. I didn't accuse SMFC of complaining in the past - simply suggesting that it would be better to work the FFA to see what they would accept so that they won't be disappointed and complain if they do miss out in the future. Hardly idiotic or inflammatory. 'Wouldn't it be better for SMFC to help steer the decision and make it part of their submission instead of complaining when they are not selected.'
|
|
|
|
|
GDeathe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xTasmania, Brisbane Strikers, Southern Sydney, and Geelong confirmed, 2 other unknown bids. Hutt River Plate
|
|
|
|
|
MCMH
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 344,
Visits: 0
|
Should we start a new thread for all things the Tasmanian A-League bid?
|
|
|
|
|
SpongeBobFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xTasmania, Brisbane Strikers, Southern Sydney, and Geelong confirmed, 2 other unknown bids. Where in Tassie? Who from Southern Sydney? Sutherland? Who from Geelong? How serious are the 2 unknown bidders? Where will they be based? There is no point to the article and there is no point to say anything really. It's a nothing article. We are no further in knowing than we were before. We always knew there were bidders from ex NSL clubs in particular. We had South, we had Wollongong, Ipswich, Bris SAtrikers, Geelong , Tassie United, P&R, Div 2 etc etc rah rah blah blah. Do it or shut up. That's all I want. I heard the CEO of Wolves a few weeks back on the Daily Football Show talk about the clubs medium to long term plans in regards to infrastructure and having enough in place for an eventual crack at the A-League.All this expansion talk has come around pretty much from nowhere and has probably caught them unprepared. Hopefully we get some sort of statement from them soon
|
|
|
|
|
Glory Recruit
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
as I thought a potential bid from Adelaide by West Adelaide.
West Adelaide target Fowler for A-League bid National Premier League club West Adelaide are set to meet with Liverpool legend Robbie Fowler about a future coaching role for their ambitious A-League bid. 8 Nov 2016 - 1:19 PM UPDATED YESTERDAY 1:19 PM Fowler, who arrives in Australia on Tuesday night, will meet with West Adelaide vice-chairman Andy Haralampopoulos as the club prepares their case join the A-League, The Advertiser reports.
West Adelaide officials have also confirmed that the former National Soccer League powerhouse are currently negotiating with English Premier League champions Leicester City in an effort to form a partnership between the clubs. "I have been invited to talk to Robbie Fowler about our plans to put our club in the A-League," Haralampopoulos said. "He also wants to coach as well, and he’d be great to be the coach. "Our intermediary also met with the directors of the English Premier League club [Leicester] last week at a match. "We’re looking at modelling [our] A-League club on Melbourne Victory’s model [where investors own the club] but we also want to have major input from an EPL club." Fowler, who amassed 460 career appearances as a player, including a stint in the A-League between 2009-2011 with the North Queensland Fury and Perth Glory, has limited coaching experience with his only effort in 2012 as player/coach of Thai club Muangthong United. West Adelaide are the latest National Premier League club to express their interest to join the A-League, with Adelaide City and Brisbane Strikers working on bids to join the top echelon. "We expressed our interests in writing to FFA last year after we met with [former A-League chief] Damien de Bohun," Haralampopoulos said. "Our [latest] submission will be good and well weighted with EPL interest, changing the dynamics of the whole venture." http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/article/2016/11/08/west-adelaide-target-fowler-league-bid
|
|
|
|
|
Glory Recruit
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
Possible 'B-League' candidates
Former national league clubs, new entities and ambitious NPL clubs are all keen on playing on the national stage if FFA is willing to give them a chance
As the momentum surrounding the introduction of a second division and promotion-relegation in the A-League continues to grow, Goal Australia has investigated where the clubs could come from. Critics of introducing promotion-relegation to the A-League often question, amongst other things, whether Australia can support enough clubs for multiple national divisions. But while the discussion surrounding the expected expansion of the A-League to 12 teams has generally focused on new entities from locations like Tasmania and Brisbane, there are plenty of existing clubs at lower levels that harbour aspirations to play on the national stage. Goal Australia has looked at three case studies to identify the different organisations that could make up an expanded A-League and an eventual 'B-League' or second division. Former national league clubs Case study: Adelaide City Other examples: South Melbourne, Wollongong Wolves, Brisbane Strikers 
One of the weaknesses of the A-League is its lack of genuine history, with the majority of clubs having been formed for the competition's inaugural season of 2005-06. The return of famous old clubs - like Adelaide City - would strengthen the cultural fabric of football's top tier. City are celebrating their 70th birthday this year and have three national championships to their name from their time in the NSL. Club chairman Alf Ianniello believes one of City's major strengths is their "very strong brand". "I think the whole historical element will be a very positive thing for the A-League," he told Goal Australia. Ianniello concedes City would need to "beef up" their management structure to thrive at a professional level but is bullish about the NPL South Australia club's ability to make an impact on the national stage if given the opportunity. "In five-to-ten-years' time we would like to be one of the two Adelaide A-League clubs - 100 per cent," he said. "In the short term, as of today, we would be - I believe - able to join a 'B-League' within zero to three years but in five-to-ten-years' time, we definitely want to be back on the A-League stage and that's what we're striving for." Ianniello added that more clubs in both the A-League and a second division will give more people a connection with football's top tier and improve the opportunities for the next tier of Australian footballers. New entities Case study: Football West Other examples: Tasmania, Canberra, Geelong 
The A-League has effectively been built on new entities and there are some who believe any expansion of Australia's top division should focus solely on similar bespoke organisations. Football West - football's governing body in Western Australia - believes there is room for another club in their state alongside Perth Glory. With Football Federation Australia (FFA) very keen on adding more derbies to the A-League, Football West CEO James Curtis has argued Perth is ripe for such a rivalry. "Since Perth Glory effectively started 20 years ago, we've seen the population increase in Perth from 1.2 million to a bit over 2 million, and you've seen a fair bit of the population being migrant population coming in from overseas," he told Goal Australia. Football West are planning to talk to the Western Australian football community over the next 12 months to discuss what a second Perth-based A-League team would look like as they would like to mimic the success Western Sydney Wanderers had in including the public in shaping the club. "The process in which you get a second A-League licence up is quite important," Curtis said. "I think if it's a top-down decision then you may miss some of those local, unique cultural understandings." While Football West's first priority is to earn an A-League licence within the next five years, Curtis insisted they would be interested in playing in a second division if the opportunity arose. "I think it would be important, if [Australian football] was going to go into that two-tiered system that WA is represented across both of those tiers to make sure there's still a strong pathway... so that would be certainly something we'd look at," he said. Ambitious NPL clubs Case study: Hume City Other examples: Far North Queensland Heat, Sutherland Sharks, Western Pride 
Few would expect a club like Hume City to ever be a part of the A-League but the great thing about the potential introduction of promotion-relegation and a national second division is that ambitious clubs in the National Premier Leagues would have the opportunity to grow. Hume City, who were founded as Holland Park FC in 1979, have no previous national league experience but have a clear drive to be the best club they can possibly be. Right now that means the NPL Victoria club want to be the best second-tier club in the country but captain Nick Hegarty reckons Hume would be perfectly placed for any potential B-League. "The main thing for us right now is that we have our own facilities. We're not playing at somebody else's home, we're not training at somebody else's facility, we are a club with our own ground and our own facilities," Hegarty told Goal Australia. "We've come through a five-year journey so far that's kind of put us in probably the top bracket in the NPL and starting from realistically nothing." Hume never stand still and they plans to expand the capacity and seating of their home ground ABD Stadium. "For us to be at [a national] level, 100 per cent we would need extra seating, extra stands and that is definitely on the agenda and in the pipeline," Hegarty said. Hegarty concedes the Broadmeadows-based club would need to attract more fans to be a genuine option for a second division, although the English midfielder argued Hume could be financially sound with crowds of around 5,000.
|
|
|
|
|
Glory Recruit
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
Tasmania, Brisbane Strikers, Southern Sydney, Geelong, West Adelaide confirmed, sixth potential bid might be football wa?
|
|
|
|
|
Reedy
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 925,
Visits: 0
|
Regarding names - why not just Hobart F.C? If they wear a green jersey, they can be informally referred to as the greens or whatever.
EDIT - So there is an AFL team called Hobart F.C. Keeping on the same theme then, just keep it simple. FC Hobart. AFC Hobart. Hobart Town etc etc. So much better than "Hobart Perseverance" or "Hobart Angry" or whatever
|
|
|
|
|
melbourne_terrace
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+xRegarding names - why not just Hobart F.C? If they wear a green jersey, they can be informally referred to as the greens or whatever. EDIT - So there is an AFL team called Hobart F.C. Keeping on the same theme then, just keep it simple. FC Hobart. AFC Hobart. Hobart Town etc etc. So much better than "Hobart Perseverance" or "Hobart Angry" or whatever Lol can't wait for "Pride" to be inevitably suggested by some numpty.
Viennese Vuck
|
|
|
|
|
bigpoppa
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
I've always liked Hobart Town FC.
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xYou'd have to put in two teams. One must be South Melbourne. They tick the boxes. Reasonable sized stadium with lux. In the right TV zone. Have an existing fan base. But effniks doe Pretty sure South Melbourne said they'd play in red and white (south melbourne colours). Their current kit is pretty decent. Dark blue for home, white with red fed v for away. No need to change.
|
|
|
|
|
azzaMVFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOn the question of infrastructure I prefer Lakeside over Hutt Recreational ground. However, the Phoenix home ground is Westpac Stadium. That's what the comparison should be. Saying that Lakeside is better that Hutt Recreational ground is like saying that Lakeside is better than Jubilee Oval where Sydney FC have played in the HAL. If Sydney wanted to make that their home ground they would certainly need to be improvements. As an alternate ground it is fine. Hmmm. a cavernous empty shithole with zero atmosphere is probably not the best example to be drawn. Im clearly talking apples and apples. A big part of Souths allure is their boutique stadium as opposed to playing out of aami or etihad . Thats one point. The other point is that hutt looks a hell of a lot better than cake tin on air, sure their home ground is westapc but fat lotta good that's doing them or much more importantly, fat lotta good its doing our TV product..,,,and here we are actually already utilising apparently unfinished boutique stadium, in hutt, to play and televise our games out of.... Edit. If hutt is already good enough for our product then sure as shit lakeside is. You don't have to convince me - you have to convince the FFA. They want a certain standard of infrastructure for the main games. Lakeside at the moment doesn't fit. That doesn't mean it would cost the earth to at least put in temporary seating at both ends.
"They want a certain standard of infrastructure for the main games."Yes they have set the standard with hutt. " Lakeside at the moment doesn't fit."Yes in the same way hutt doesnt fit. but it didnt stop them solving the "problem" overnight and televising games out of it. its disingemous to say one is fit and the other isnt. For the main stadium - not the alternate stadium. So by your logic a third melbourne team has to play out of etihad?? My logic is a boutique stadium is fine for a-league. And Thats smfcs point of difference. Not to mention adelaide play out of one. Your idea that everything has to be on an etihad scale isnt necesaerily viable or sustainable for any and all expansion clubs. and it not like your club exactly plays out of a westpac size arena anyway. Bit of a stretch getting that a third Melbourne team has to play out of Etihad out of what I said. No my logic is that you need to install temporary seating. Adelaide play out of a 16500 stadium with a seated capacity of 15000. CCM play out of an all seater 20059. The FFA will put up with some non-standing on the main grounds a la Adelaide and Newcastle. Their standards on alternate grounds is lower - see Hutt Recreational. If you want Lakeside to be the main stadium it needs to be a much greater ratio of seating to non-seating. GIO Stadium, WIN Stadium, Kardinia Park, Robina Stadium all fit the criteria. If SMFC put in temporary seating so will they (as well as bringing the crowds closer to the action). If you want Agree. would be a shame to hold back aus football by way of farcical standards that tie a nix 3000 member club to a 35k seater and/or the selective implementation of temporary seating. Yep - but the FFA make the decision. Wouldn't it be better for SMFC to help steer the decision and make it part of their submission instead of complaining when they are not selected. If SMFC want the result they would compromise - not tell the FFA they were wrong when they miss out. Whos complaining? you keep disrespectfully making accusations. Can you provide a link to smfc complaining please? if you cant substantiate such idiotic and inflammatory claims it would be in your best interests to STFU. He's probably referring to this: http://www.smfc.com.au/media-release-the-possible-end-of-aspirational-football/Make of it what you will. Youve posted an irrelevant link. I dont see one iota of complaining. Do they make a criticism of ffa? yes. They criticise the lack of pathway to the top tier...... and To criticise the lack of pathway to the top tier not only has NOTHING to do with the use of temporary seating and or farcical and contradictory stadium requirements, but is JUSTIFIED in the eyes of many..... including major stakeholders......and cough.... the rest of the goddamn footballing world except for Australia,. ... they merely share a belief that is widely held in the worldwide football community....all that said, its an entitely different conversation.What smfc said, was polite, but honest... and i again reiterate, has NOTHING to do with the utilisation of temporary seating and or stadium requirements. I hope youre not aspiring to join the ranks of people posting utter agenda driven bullshit. Settle down champ.. I was assuming what he was referring to, not that I agree with it.
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Angry Hobart's a goer
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHobart Cascades (reference to brewing industry) Already done.
|
|
|
|
|
maninorange
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 235,
Visits: 0
|
AFC Hobart
|
|
|
|