|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBitza there is a difference between operational costs and optional expenditure Cahill cost $4m. Do you think City will get that back by merchandise or gate keepings? This isn't a loss. Its an investment by the owner into their club (at least it would be if we had clubs instead of franchises). Every owner as you pointed out has their own business where they make millions. In many instances owning a club is a good will gesture into community / sport, much like Hyundai sponsoring the A League The answer isn't to give the clubs more money. That just means City spends $2m on Cahill instead of $4m The answer is to give clubs more control of what they are spending so much money on. Give them ownership and remove limitations on how they can spread their brand and make money. Let them keep merchandise sales, and even finals gate keepings as a reward for being the best The other answer is to fuck off this stupid balanced model. If the FFA pay minimal operating costs and all other spending is discretionary, then the league is viable. Whether owners are pouring in $200m extra should be seen as a win for our game, not a bad thing I do actually agee with you in principle. I just dont think the r.o.i has been positive. But the main point i was trying to make is i believe clubs would be in favour of more teams. Maybe not rel/pro but more teams yes. And i agree the balanced model needs to go. If we let big clubs vecome big we will have a better league imo. We're not Scotland with a country the half the size of Tasmania and little commercial competition from other sports. Two big clubs that swipe everything will destroy the interests following the other 80 or 90% just like Scotland with their miniscule crowds. How interested would investors and advertisers be then given their alternative sporting options? There is competition in Scotland - they are in the same time zone as the major European leagues. Doesn't need to be a different sport to be competition. We don't view it as that in Australia because the "competition" is only ever going to be playing at 10pm-4am. Unless the respective football association and league is financially favoured by TV, mainstream and politicians like in Scotland, Spain etc a two team league here will be a failure. Lol at local Football being favoured at all in Scotland. TV pay them fuck all, Mainstream has become rapidly more interested in Premier League and Europe since the 90's and the Politicians wouldn't dare being affiliated with a football club and in fact spend half their time attacking it. Bollocks. So which sport is favoured the most? He wrote local football. EPL is the biggest. Still the same sport. You should read instead of rage post. EPL is not in Scotland. Stop rage posting. EPL is favoured. F1 is probably bigger in Scotland than SPL. EPL is the biggest sport in the Scottish market. The Angry Ass!  -PB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
Over 18 months means from 18 months ago until this week where they have suddenly put it back on the agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+xFFA haven't done anything. Rumors of expansion because it's what the tv wants. I don't believe all the statements FFA have made over the past 18 months saying expansion is not on the agenda was a big ruse.Nothing has happened yet. Going back 18 months now are we. they will to the extent they want to in a timeframe they seem fit. No independent league Expansion within 4 years (consistent with expenion not it the near future of two years ago) A2 someday in the future P&R not even thinking about it And certainly no lifting the cap for a couple of run-a-way teams Where's that egg in face gif.
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
FFA haven't done anything. Rumors of expansion because it's what the tv wants. I don't believe all the statements FFA have made over the past 18 months saying expansion is not on the agenda was a big ruse.
Nothing has happened yet.
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x? I can't take your opinion seriously. Everything with you comes back to race. Try to make a point using the biggest ethnic club in the world, Celtic, and Barcelonia, who not only have a different language, want independence for their region. Enjoy your Friday sesh as always. Having no cap and allowing two strong teams in the A-League over the current system is about race is it? LOL We saw how you've been right off in your predictions what FFA would do so this is no surprise. Your mind is corrupt.
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
?
I can't take your opinion seriously. Everything with you comes back to race.
Try to make a point using the biggest ethnic club in the world, Celtic, and Barcelonia, who not only have a different language, want independence for their region.
Enjoy your Friday sesh as always.
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
A two strong team league does not make for a better league so like the P&R issue stop dreaming. It will never happen in your lifetime.
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBitza there is a difference between operational costs and optional expenditure Cahill cost $4m. Do you think City will get that back by merchandise or gate keepings? This isn't a loss. Its an investment by the owner into their club (at least it would be if we had clubs instead of franchises). Every owner as you pointed out has their own business where they make millions. In many instances owning a club is a good will gesture into community / sport, much like Hyundai sponsoring the A League The answer isn't to give the clubs more money. That just means City spends $2m on Cahill instead of $4m The answer is to give clubs more control of what they are spending so much money on. Give them ownership and remove limitations on how they can spread their brand and make money. Let them keep merchandise sales, and even finals gate keepings as a reward for being the best The other answer is to fuck off this stupid balanced model. If the FFA pay minimal operating costs and all other spending is discretionary, then the league is viable. Whether owners are pouring in $200m extra should be seen as a win for our game, not a bad thing I do actually agee with you in principle. I just dont think the r.o.i has been positive. But the main point i was trying to make is i believe clubs would be in favour of more teams. Maybe not rel/pro but more teams yes. And i agree the balanced model needs to go. If we let big clubs vecome big we will have a better league imo. We're not Scotland with a country the half the size of Tasmania and little commercial competition from other sports. Two big clubs that swipe everything will destroy the interests following the other 80 or 90% just like Scotland with their miniscule crowds. How interested would investors and advertisers be then given their alternative sporting options? There is competition in Scotland - they are in the same time zone as the major European leagues. Doesn't need to be a different sport to be competition. We don't view it as that in Australia because the "competition" is only ever going to be playing at 10pm-4am. Unless the respective football association and league is financially favoured by TV, mainstream and politicians like in Scotland, Spain etc a two team league here will be a failure. Lol at local Football being favoured at all in Scotland. TV pay them fuck all, Mainstream has become rapidly more interested in Premier League and Europe since the 90's and the Politicians wouldn't dare being affiliated with a football club and in fact spend half their time attacking it. Bollocks. So which sport is favoured the most? He wrote local football. EPL is the biggest. Still the same sport. You should read instead of rage post. EPL is not in Scotland. Stop rage posting. EPL is favoured. F1 is probably bigger in Scotland than SPL. EPL is the biggest sport in the Scottish market. So Scottish corporate dollars rather go a club from another country and not their own? What about sponsorship? Councils don't favour Scottish football clubs over others when allocating grounds either? You're confusing this with popularity. 
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBitza there is a difference between operational costs and optional expenditure Cahill cost $4m. Do you think City will get that back by merchandise or gate keepings? This isn't a loss. Its an investment by the owner into their club (at least it would be if we had clubs instead of franchises). Every owner as you pointed out has their own business where they make millions. In many instances owning a club is a good will gesture into community / sport, much like Hyundai sponsoring the A League The answer isn't to give the clubs more money. That just means City spends $2m on Cahill instead of $4m The answer is to give clubs more control of what they are spending so much money on. Give them ownership and remove limitations on how they can spread their brand and make money. Let them keep merchandise sales, and even finals gate keepings as a reward for being the best The other answer is to fuck off this stupid balanced model. If the FFA pay minimal operating costs and all other spending is discretionary, then the league is viable. Whether owners are pouring in $200m extra should be seen as a win for our game, not a bad thing I do actually agee with you in principle. I just dont think the r.o.i has been positive. But the main point i was trying to make is i believe clubs would be in favour of more teams. Maybe not rel/pro but more teams yes. And i agree the balanced model needs to go. If we let big clubs vecome big we will have a better league imo. We're not Scotland with a country the half the size of Tasmania and little commercial competition from other sports. Two big clubs that swipe everything will destroy the interests following the other 80 or 90% just like Scotland with their miniscule crowds. How interested would investors and advertisers be then given their alternative sporting options? There is competition in Scotland - they are in the same time zone as the major European leagues. Doesn't need to be a different sport to be competition. We don't view it as that in Australia because the "competition" is only ever going to be playing at 10pm-4am. Unless the respective football association and league is financially favoured by TV, mainstream and politicians like in Scotland, Spain etc a two team league here will be a failure. Lol at local Football being favoured at all in Scotland. TV pay them fuck all, Mainstream has become rapidly more interested in Premier League and Europe since the 90's and the Politicians wouldn't dare being affiliated with a football club and in fact spend half their time attacking it. Bollocks. So which sport is favoured the most? He wrote local football. EPL is the biggest. Still the same sport. You should read instead of rage post. EPL is not in Scotland. Stop rage posting. EPL is favoured. F1 is probably bigger in Scotland than SPL. EPL is the biggest sport in the Scottish market. So Scottish corporate dollars rather go a club from another country and not their own? What about sponsorship? Councils don't favour Scottish football clubs over others when allocating grounds either? You're confusing this with popularity.
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBitza there is a difference between operational costs and optional expenditure Cahill cost $4m. Do you think City will get that back by merchandise or gate keepings? This isn't a loss. Its an investment by the owner into their club (at least it would be if we had clubs instead of franchises). Every owner as you pointed out has their own business where they make millions. In many instances owning a club is a good will gesture into community / sport, much like Hyundai sponsoring the A League The answer isn't to give the clubs more money. That just means City spends $2m on Cahill instead of $4m The answer is to give clubs more control of what they are spending so much money on. Give them ownership and remove limitations on how they can spread their brand and make money. Let them keep merchandise sales, and even finals gate keepings as a reward for being the best The other answer is to fuck off this stupid balanced model. If the FFA pay minimal operating costs and all other spending is discretionary, then the league is viable. Whether owners are pouring in $200m extra should be seen as a win for our game, not a bad thing I do actually agee with you in principle. I just dont think the r.o.i has been positive. But the main point i was trying to make is i believe clubs would be in favour of more teams. Maybe not rel/pro but more teams yes. And i agree the balanced model needs to go. If we let big clubs vecome big we will have a better league imo. We're not Scotland with a country the half the size of Tasmania and little commercial competition from other sports. Two big clubs that swipe everything will destroy the interests following the other 80 or 90% just like Scotland with their miniscule crowds. How interested would investors and advertisers be then given their alternative sporting options? There is competition in Scotland - they are in the same time zone as the major European leagues. Doesn't need to be a different sport to be competition. We don't view it as that in Australia because the "competition" is only ever going to be playing at 10pm-4am. Unless the respective football association and league is financially favoured by TV, mainstream and politicians like in Scotland, Spain etc a two team league here will be a failure. Lol at local Football being favoured at all in Scotland. TV pay them fuck all, Mainstream has become rapidly more interested in Premier League and Europe since the 90's and the Politicians wouldn't dare being affiliated with a football club and in fact spend half their time attacking it. Bollocks. So which sport is favoured the most? He wrote local football. EPL is the biggest. Still the same sport. You should read instead of rage post. EPL is not in Scotland. Stop rage posting. EPL is favoured. F1 is probably bigger in Scotland than SPL. EPL is the biggest sport in the Scottish market.
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xBitza there is a difference between operational costs and optional expenditure Cahill cost $4m. Do you think City will get that back by merchandise or gate keepings? This isn't a loss. Its an investment by the owner into their club (at least it would be if we had clubs instead of franchises). Every owner as you pointed out has their own business where they make millions. In many instances owning a club is a good will gesture into community / sport, much like Hyundai sponsoring the A League The answer isn't to give the clubs more money. That just means City spends $2m on Cahill instead of $4m The answer is to give clubs more control of what they are spending so much money on. Give them ownership and remove limitations on how they can spread their brand and make money. Let them keep merchandise sales, and even finals gate keepings as a reward for being the best The other answer is to fuck off this stupid balanced model. If the FFA pay minimal operating costs and all other spending is discretionary, then the league is viable. Whether owners are pouring in $200m extra should be seen as a win for our game, not a bad thing I do actually agee with you in principle. I just dont think the r.o.i has been positive. But the main point i was trying to make is i believe clubs would be in favour of more teams. Maybe not rel/pro but more teams yes. And i agree the balanced model needs to go. If we let big clubs vecome big we will have a better league imo. We're not Scotland with a country the half the size of Tasmania and little commercial competition from other sports. Two big clubs that swipe everything will destroy the interests following the other 80 or 90% just like Scotland with their miniscule crowds. How interested would investors and advertisers be then given their alternative sporting options? Your right. We are not Scotland. Why are you making that point. Just because we un shackle the league doesnt mean two clubs will engulf all the others. You want just two clubs representing just two geographical areas in a country the size of Australia to clean up all and sundry before them? Any consideration about the spread of interest and using this tool to help grow the game? As an aside you open up the purses and watch the waste from some overstretching clubs which will lead to instability - just like the NSL. No wonder most of the Scottish clubs are shit. Ragers gotta rage Deflection
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBitza there is a difference between operational costs and optional expenditure Cahill cost $4m. Do you think City will get that back by merchandise or gate keepings? This isn't a loss. Its an investment by the owner into their club (at least it would be if we had clubs instead of franchises). Every owner as you pointed out has their own business where they make millions. In many instances owning a club is a good will gesture into community / sport, much like Hyundai sponsoring the A League The answer isn't to give the clubs more money. That just means City spends $2m on Cahill instead of $4m The answer is to give clubs more control of what they are spending so much money on. Give them ownership and remove limitations on how they can spread their brand and make money. Let them keep merchandise sales, and even finals gate keepings as a reward for being the best The other answer is to fuck off this stupid balanced model. If the FFA pay minimal operating costs and all other spending is discretionary, then the league is viable. Whether owners are pouring in $200m extra should be seen as a win for our game, not a bad thing I do actually agee with you in principle. I just dont think the r.o.i has been positive. But the main point i was trying to make is i believe clubs would be in favour of more teams. Maybe not rel/pro but more teams yes. And i agree the balanced model needs to go. If we let big clubs vecome big we will have a better league imo. We're not Scotland with a country the half the size of Tasmania and little commercial competition from other sports. Two big clubs that swipe everything will destroy the interests following the other 80 or 90% just like Scotland with their miniscule crowds. How interested would investors and advertisers be then given their alternative sporting options? There is competition in Scotland - they are in the same time zone as the major European leagues. Doesn't need to be a different sport to be competition. We don't view it as that in Australia because the "competition" is only ever going to be playing at 10pm-4am. Unless the respective football association and league is financially favoured by TV, mainstream and politicians like in Scotland, Spain etc a two team league here will be a failure. Lol at local Football being favoured at all in Scotland. TV pay them fuck all, Mainstream has become rapidly more interested in Premier League and Europe since the 90's and the Politicians wouldn't dare being affiliated with a football club and in fact spend half their time attacking it. Bollocks. So which sport is favoured the most? He wrote local football. EPL is the biggest. Still the same sport. You should read instead of rage post. EPL is not in Scotland.
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|
adrtho2
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBitza there is a difference between operational costs and optional expenditure Cahill cost $4m. Do you think City will get that back by merchandise or gate keepings? This isn't a loss. Its an investment by the owner into their club (at least it would be if we had clubs instead of franchises). Every owner as you pointed out has their own business where they make millions. In many instances owning a club is a good will gesture into community / sport, much like Hyundai sponsoring the A League The answer isn't to give the clubs more money. That just means City spends $2m on Cahill instead of $4m The answer is to give clubs more control of what they are spending so much money on. Give them ownership and remove limitations on how they can spread their brand and make money. Let them keep merchandise sales, and even finals gate keepings as a reward for being the best The other answer is to fuck off this stupid balanced model. If the FFA pay minimal operating costs and all other spending is discretionary, then the league is viable. Whether owners are pouring in $200m extra should be seen as a win for our game, not a bad thing I do actually agee with you in principle. I just dont think the r.o.i has been positive. But the main point i was trying to make is i believe clubs would be in favour of more teams. Maybe not rel/pro but more teams yes. And i agree the balanced model needs to go. If we let big clubs vecome big we will have a better league imo. We're not Scotland with a country the half the size of Tasmania and little commercial competition from other sports. Two big clubs that swipe everything will destroy the interests following the other 80 or 90% just like Scotland with their miniscule crowds. How interested would investors and advertisers be then given their alternative sporting options? There is competition in Scotland - they are in the same time zone as the major European leagues. Doesn't need to be a different sport to be competition. We don't view it as that in Australia because the "competition" is only ever going to be playing at 10pm-4am. Unless the respective football association and league is financially favoured by TV, mainstream and politicians like in Scotland, Spain etc a two team league here will be a failure. Lol at local Football being favoured at all in Scotland. TV pay them fuck all, Mainstream has become rapidly more interested in Premier League and Europe since the 90's and the Politicians wouldn't dare being affiliated with a football club and in fact spend half their time attacking it. Bollocks. So which sport is favoured the most? He wrote local football. EPL is the biggest. Still the same sport. You should read instead of rage post. Ardtho the monkey, paulc the donkey haha. -PB it great 442 has posters like you paulbagzFC....willing to spend time finding cartoon that match your Intelligence
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBitza there is a difference between operational costs and optional expenditure Cahill cost $4m. Do you think City will get that back by merchandise or gate keepings? This isn't a loss. Its an investment by the owner into their club (at least it would be if we had clubs instead of franchises). Every owner as you pointed out has their own business where they make millions. In many instances owning a club is a good will gesture into community / sport, much like Hyundai sponsoring the A League The answer isn't to give the clubs more money. That just means City spends $2m on Cahill instead of $4m The answer is to give clubs more control of what they are spending so much money on. Give them ownership and remove limitations on how they can spread their brand and make money. Let them keep merchandise sales, and even finals gate keepings as a reward for being the best The other answer is to fuck off this stupid balanced model. If the FFA pay minimal operating costs and all other spending is discretionary, then the league is viable. Whether owners are pouring in $200m extra should be seen as a win for our game, not a bad thing I do actually agee with you in principle. I just dont think the r.o.i has been positive. But the main point i was trying to make is i believe clubs would be in favour of more teams. Maybe not rel/pro but more teams yes. And i agree the balanced model needs to go. If we let big clubs vecome big we will have a better league imo. We're not Scotland with a country the half the size of Tasmania and little commercial competition from other sports. Two big clubs that swipe everything will destroy the interests following the other 80 or 90% just like Scotland with their miniscule crowds. How interested would investors and advertisers be then given their alternative sporting options? There is competition in Scotland - they are in the same time zone as the major European leagues. Doesn't need to be a different sport to be competition. We don't view it as that in Australia because the "competition" is only ever going to be playing at 10pm-4am. Unless the respective football association and league is financially favoured by TV, mainstream and politicians like in Scotland, Spain etc a two team league here will be a failure. Lol at local Football being favoured at all in Scotland. TV pay them fuck all, Mainstream has become rapidly more interested in Premier League and Europe since the 90's and the Politicians wouldn't dare being affiliated with a football club and in fact spend half their time attacking it. Bollocks. So which sport is favoured the most? He wrote local football. EPL is the biggest. Still the same sport. You should read instead of rage post. Ardtho the monkey, paulc the donkey haha. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xBitza there is a difference between operational costs and optional expenditure Cahill cost $4m. Do you think City will get that back by merchandise or gate keepings? This isn't a loss. Its an investment by the owner into their club (at least it would be if we had clubs instead of franchises). Every owner as you pointed out has their own business where they make millions. In many instances owning a club is a good will gesture into community / sport, much like Hyundai sponsoring the A League The answer isn't to give the clubs more money. That just means City spends $2m on Cahill instead of $4m The answer is to give clubs more control of what they are spending so much money on. Give them ownership and remove limitations on how they can spread their brand and make money. Let them keep merchandise sales, and even finals gate keepings as a reward for being the best The other answer is to fuck off this stupid balanced model. If the FFA pay minimal operating costs and all other spending is discretionary, then the league is viable. Whether owners are pouring in $200m extra should be seen as a win for our game, not a bad thing I do actually agee with you in principle. I just dont think the r.o.i has been positive. But the main point i was trying to make is i believe clubs would be in favour of more teams. Maybe not rel/pro but more teams yes. And i agree the balanced model needs to go. If we let big clubs vecome big we will have a better league imo. We're not Scotland with a country the half the size of Tasmania and little commercial competition from other sports. Two big clubs that swipe everything will destroy the interests following the other 80 or 90% just like Scotland with their miniscule crowds. How interested would investors and advertisers be then given their alternative sporting options? Your right. We are not Scotland. Why are you making that point. Just because we un shackle the league doesnt mean two clubs will engulf all the others. You want just two clubs representing just two geographical areas in a country the size of Australia to clean up all and sundry before them? Any consideration about the spread of interest and using this tool to help grow the game? As an aside you open up the purses and watch the waste from some overstretching clubs which will lead to instability - just like the NSL. No wonder most of the Scottish clubs are shit. Ragers gotta rage
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBitza there is a difference between operational costs and optional expenditure Cahill cost $4m. Do you think City will get that back by merchandise or gate keepings? This isn't a loss. Its an investment by the owner into their club (at least it would be if we had clubs instead of franchises). Every owner as you pointed out has their own business where they make millions. In many instances owning a club is a good will gesture into community / sport, much like Hyundai sponsoring the A League The answer isn't to give the clubs more money. That just means City spends $2m on Cahill instead of $4m The answer is to give clubs more control of what they are spending so much money on. Give them ownership and remove limitations on how they can spread their brand and make money. Let them keep merchandise sales, and even finals gate keepings as a reward for being the best The other answer is to fuck off this stupid balanced model. If the FFA pay minimal operating costs and all other spending is discretionary, then the league is viable. Whether owners are pouring in $200m extra should be seen as a win for our game, not a bad thing I do actually agee with you in principle. I just dont think the r.o.i has been positive. But the main point i was trying to make is i believe clubs would be in favour of more teams. Maybe not rel/pro but more teams yes. And i agree the balanced model needs to go. If we let big clubs vecome big we will have a better league imo. We're not Scotland with a country the half the size of Tasmania and little commercial competition from other sports. Two big clubs that swipe everything will destroy the interests following the other 80 or 90% just like Scotland with their miniscule crowds. How interested would investors and advertisers be then given their alternative sporting options? There is competition in Scotland - they are in the same time zone as the major European leagues. Doesn't need to be a different sport to be competition. We don't view it as that in Australia because the "competition" is only ever going to be playing at 10pm-4am. Unless the respective football association and league is financially favoured by TV, mainstream and politicians like in Scotland, Spain etc a two team league here will be a failure. Lol at local Football being favoured at all in Scotland. TV pay them fuck all, Mainstream has become rapidly more interested in Premier League and Europe since the 90's and the Politicians wouldn't dare being affiliated with a football club and in fact spend half their time attacking it. Bollocks. So which sport is favoured the most? He wrote local football. EPL is the biggest. Still the same sport. You should read instead of rage post.
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xBitza there is a difference between operational costs and optional expenditure Cahill cost $4m. Do you think City will get that back by merchandise or gate keepings? This isn't a loss. Its an investment by the owner into their club (at least it would be if we had clubs instead of franchises). Every owner as you pointed out has their own business where they make millions. In many instances owning a club is a good will gesture into community / sport, much like Hyundai sponsoring the A League The answer isn't to give the clubs more money. That just means City spends $2m on Cahill instead of $4m The answer is to give clubs more control of what they are spending so much money on. Give them ownership and remove limitations on how they can spread their brand and make money. Let them keep merchandise sales, and even finals gate keepings as a reward for being the best The other answer is to fuck off this stupid balanced model. If the FFA pay minimal operating costs and all other spending is discretionary, then the league is viable. Whether owners are pouring in $200m extra should be seen as a win for our game, not a bad thing I do actually agee with you in principle. I just dont think the r.o.i has been positive. But the main point i was trying to make is i believe clubs would be in favour of more teams. Maybe not rel/pro but more teams yes. And i agree the balanced model needs to go. If we let big clubs vecome big we will have a better league imo. We're not Scotland with a country the half the size of Tasmania and little commercial competition from other sports. Two big clubs that swipe everything will destroy the interests following the other 80 or 90% just like Scotland with their miniscule crowds. How interested would investors and advertisers be then given their alternative sporting options? Your right. We are not Scotland. Why are you making that point. Just because we un shackle the league doesnt mean two clubs will engulf all the others. You want just two clubs representing just two geographical areas in a country the size of Australia to clean up all and sundry before them? Any consideration about the spread of interest and using this tool to help grow the game? As an aside you open up the purses and watch the waste from some overstretching clubs which will lead to instability - just like the NSL. No wonder most of the Scottish clubs are shit.
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xBitza there is a difference between operational costs and optional expenditure Cahill cost $4m. Do you think City will get that back by merchandise or gate keepings? This isn't a loss. Its an investment by the owner into their club (at least it would be if we had clubs instead of franchises). Every owner as you pointed out has their own business where they make millions. In many instances owning a club is a good will gesture into community / sport, much like Hyundai sponsoring the A League The answer isn't to give the clubs more money. That just means City spends $2m on Cahill instead of $4m The answer is to give clubs more control of what they are spending so much money on. Give them ownership and remove limitations on how they can spread their brand and make money. Let them keep merchandise sales, and even finals gate keepings as a reward for being the best The other answer is to fuck off this stupid balanced model. If the FFA pay minimal operating costs and all other spending is discretionary, then the league is viable. Whether owners are pouring in $200m extra should be seen as a win for our game, not a bad thing I do actually agee with you in principle. I just dont think the r.o.i has been positive. But the main point i was trying to make is i believe clubs would be in favour of more teams. Maybe not rel/pro but more teams yes. And i agree the balanced model needs to go. If we let big clubs vecome big we will have a better league imo. We're not Scotland with a country the half the size of Tasmania and little commercial competition from other sports. Two big clubs that swipe everything will destroy the interests following the other 80 or 90% just like Scotland with their miniscule crowds. How interested would investors and advertisers be then given their alternative sporting options? There is competition in Scotland - they are in the same time zone as the major European leagues. Doesn't need to be a different sport to be competition. We don't view it as that in Australia because the "competition" is only ever going to be playing at 10pm-4am. Unless the respective football association and league is financially favoured by TV, mainstream and politicians like in Scotland, Spain etc a two team league here will be a failure. Lol at local Football being favoured at all in Scotland. TV pay them fuck all, Mainstream has become rapidly more interested in Premier League and Europe since the 90's and the Politicians wouldn't dare being affiliated with a football club and in fact spend half their time attacking it. Bollocks. So which sport is favoured the most?
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x"This follows the governing body allowing two representatives of the club owners to be involved in the negotiations of the new A-League broadcast deal."
So the "Clubs" have been in the negotiations anyway ? You'd think from the shit that you read on these pages that it was a one man show. I've got to remind myself that if I read anything on 442 forums it's made-up and brainless at best. "Clubs" kept that close to their chest amongst all the whingeing. At least they can't claim it's been a secret process and they could've done better etc.
He said a second division and with it, promotion and relegation, had been discussed for “10 seconds”
I'm willing to bet that is exactly the value that the A League owners group place upon the concept. A 10 second laugh. Fair enough too. A second division has nothing to do with their priorities or interests. It's far more in the interest of the FFA and rest of the game in this country. It's certainly not (and shouldn't be) a matter for discussion or decision making from the A League owners group or committee or whatever. Good that they don't want to put a finger in it, or on it. More reason for the States to hold the line on their representation and shows why it is up to the clubs and interested groups to start working toward a launch. Have it packaged and ready to go and make it so that it just needs a rubber stamp. Get it working first. Worry about pro/rel from underneath, get that working, then go for the top tier.
Keep the A League owners as far away from it as possible - restrict their involvement to 10 second updates at meetings and the game will be well served.
:laugh: so true,,,,,,
I think they all believe, if anybody but Lowy and David Gallop was in control, that Australia will end up wit P and R and a 2nd Div. :laugh: More like with B1 and B2 in charge P/R is impossible, and with a football person in charge it's possible. Agreed. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x"This follows the governing body allowing two representatives of the club owners to be involved in the negotiations of the new A-League broadcast deal."
So the "Clubs" have been in the negotiations anyway ? You'd think from the shit that you read on these pages that it was a one man show. I've got to remind myself that if I read anything on 442 forums it's made-up and brainless at best. "Clubs" kept that close to their chest amongst all the whingeing. At least they can't claim it's been a secret process and they could've done better etc.
He said a second division and with it, promotion and relegation, had been discussed for “10 seconds”
I'm willing to bet that is exactly the value that the A League owners group place upon the concept. A 10 second laugh. Fair enough too. A second division has nothing to do with their priorities or interests. It's far more in the interest of the FFA and rest of the game in this country. It's certainly not (and shouldn't be) a matter for discussion or decision making from the A League owners group or committee or whatever. Good that they don't want to put a finger in it, or on it. More reason for the States to hold the line on their representation and shows why it is up to the clubs and interested groups to start working toward a launch. Have it packaged and ready to go and make it so that it just needs a rubber stamp. Get it working first. Worry about pro/rel from underneath, get that working, then go for the top tier.
Keep the A League owners as far away from it as possible - restrict their involvement to 10 second updates at meetings and the game will be well served.
:laugh: so true,,,,,,
I think they all believe, if anybody but Lowy and David Gallop was in control, that Australia will end up wit P and R and a 2nd Div. :laugh: More like with B1 and B2 in charge P/R is impossible, and with a football person in charge it's possible.
|
|
|
|
adrtho2
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x"This follows the governing body allowing two representatives of the club owners to be involved in the negotiations of the new A-League broadcast deal."
So the "Clubs" have been in the negotiations anyway ? You'd think from the shit that you read on these pages that it was a one man show. I've got to remind myself that if I read anything on 442 forums it's made-up and brainless at best. "Clubs" kept that close to their chest amongst all the whingeing. At least they can't claim it's been a secret process and they could've done better etc.
He said a second division and with it, promotion and relegation, had been discussed for “10 seconds”
I'm willing to bet that is exactly the value that the A League owners group place upon the concept. A 10 second laugh. Fair enough too. A second division has nothing to do with their priorities or interests. It's far more in the interest of the FFA and rest of the game in this country. It's certainly not (and shouldn't be) a matter for discussion or decision making from the A League owners group or committee or whatever. Good that they don't want to put a finger in it, or on it. More reason for the States to hold the line on their representation and shows why it is up to the clubs and interested groups to start working toward a launch. Have it packaged and ready to go and make it so that it just needs a rubber stamp. Get it working first. Worry about pro/rel from underneath, get that working, then go for the top tier.
Keep the A League owners as far away from it as possible - restrict their involvement to 10 second updates at meetings and the game will be well served.
:laugh: so true,,,,,,
I think they all believe, if anybody but Lowy and David Gallop was in control, that Australia will end up wit P and R and a 2nd Div. :laugh:
|
|
|
|
|
SWandP
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
"This follows the governing body allowing two representatives of the club owners to be involved in the negotiations of the new A-League broadcast deal."
So the "Clubs" have been in the negotiations anyway? You'd think from the shit that you read on these pages that it was a one man show. I've got to remind myself that if I read anything on 442 forums it's made-up and brainless at best. "Clubs" kept that close to their chest amongst all the whingeing. At least they can't claim it's been a secret process and they could've done better etc.
He said a second division and with it, promotion and relegation, had been discussed for “10 seconds”
I'm willing to bet that is exactly the value that the A League owners group place upon the concept. A 10 second laugh. Fair enough too.
A second division has nothing to do with their priorities or interests. It's far more in the interest of the FFA and rest of the game in this country. It's certainly not (and shouldn't be) a matter for discussion or decision making from the A League owners group or committee or whatever. Good that they don't want to put a finger in it, or on it.
More reason for the States to hold the line on their representation and shows why it is up to the clubs and interested groups to start working toward a launch. Have it packaged and ready to go and make it so that it just needs a rubber stamp. Get it working first. Worry about pro/rel from underneath, get that working, then go for the top tier.
Keep the A League owners as far away from it as possible - restrict their involvement to 10 second updates at meetings and the game will be well served.
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xBitza there is a difference between operational costs and optional expenditure Cahill cost $4m. Do you think City will get that back by merchandise or gate keepings? This isn't a loss. Its an investment by the owner into their club (at least it would be if we had clubs instead of franchises). Every owner as you pointed out has their own business where they make millions. In many instances owning a club is a good will gesture into community / sport, much like Hyundai sponsoring the A League The answer isn't to give the clubs more money. That just means City spends $2m on Cahill instead of $4m The answer is to give clubs more control of what they are spending so much money on. Give them ownership and remove limitations on how they can spread their brand and make money. Let them keep merchandise sales, and even finals gate keepings as a reward for being the best The other answer is to fuck off this stupid balanced model. If the FFA pay minimal operating costs and all other spending is discretionary, then the league is viable. Whether owners are pouring in $200m extra should be seen as a win for our game, not a bad thing I do actually agee with you in principle. I just dont think the r.o.i has been positive. But the main point i was trying to make is i believe clubs would be in favour of more teams. Maybe not rel/pro but more teams yes. And i agree the balanced model needs to go. If we let big clubs vecome big we will have a better league imo. We're not Scotland with a country the half the size of Tasmania and little commercial competition from other sports. Two big clubs that swipe everything will destroy the interests following the other 80 or 90% just like Scotland with their miniscule crowds. How interested would investors and advertisers be then given their alternative sporting options? There is competition in Scotland - they are in the same time zone as the major European leagues. Doesn't need to be a different sport to be competition. We don't view it as that in Australia because the "competition" is only ever going to be playing at 10pm-4am. Unless the respective football association and league is financially favoured by TV, mainstream and politicians like in Scotland, Spain etc a two team league here will be a failure. Lol at local Football being favoured at all in Scotland. TV pay them fuck all, Mainstream has become rapidly more interested in Premier League and Europe since the 90's and the Politicians wouldn't dare being affiliated with a football club and in fact spend half their time attacking it. That and when you watch scotish football the scotish commentators sit there crying about how shit scotish football is lol. "this is puuerrr!!! this is so peurrr!"
|
|
|
|
|
bitza
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xBitza there is a difference between operational costs and optional expenditure Cahill cost $4m. Do you think City will get that back by merchandise or gate keepings? This isn't a loss. Its an investment by the owner into their club (at least it would be if we had clubs instead of franchises). Every owner as you pointed out has their own business where they make millions. In many instances owning a club is a good will gesture into community / sport, much like Hyundai sponsoring the A League The answer isn't to give the clubs more money. That just means City spends $2m on Cahill instead of $4m The answer is to give clubs more control of what they are spending so much money on. Give them ownership and remove limitations on how they can spread their brand and make money. Let them keep merchandise sales, and even finals gate keepings as a reward for being the best The other answer is to fuck off this stupid balanced model. If the FFA pay minimal operating costs and all other spending is discretionary, then the league is viable. Whether owners are pouring in $200m extra should be seen as a win for our game, not a bad thing I do actually agee with you in principle. I just dont think the r.o.i has been positive. But the main point i was trying to make is i believe clubs would be in favour of more teams. Maybe not rel/pro but more teams yes. And i agree the balanced model needs to go. If we let big clubs vecome big we will have a better league imo. We're not Scotland with a country the half the size of Tasmania and little commercial competition from other sports. Two big clubs that swipe everything will destroy the interests following the other 80 or 90% just like Scotland with their miniscule crowds. How interested would investors and advertisers be then given their alternative sporting options? Your right. We are not Scotland. Why are you making that point. Just because we un shackle the league doesnt mean two clubs will engulf all the others.
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xBitza there is a difference between operational costs and optional expenditure Cahill cost $4m. Do you think City will get that back by merchandise or gate keepings? This isn't a loss. Its an investment by the owner into their club (at least it would be if we had clubs instead of franchises). Every owner as you pointed out has their own business where they make millions. In many instances owning a club is a good will gesture into community / sport, much like Hyundai sponsoring the A League The answer isn't to give the clubs more money. That just means City spends $2m on Cahill instead of $4m The answer is to give clubs more control of what they are spending so much money on. Give them ownership and remove limitations on how they can spread their brand and make money. Let them keep merchandise sales, and even finals gate keepings as a reward for being the best The other answer is to fuck off this stupid balanced model. If the FFA pay minimal operating costs and all other spending is discretionary, then the league is viable. Whether owners are pouring in $200m extra should be seen as a win for our game, not a bad thing I do actually agee with you in principle. I just dont think the r.o.i has been positive. But the main point i was trying to make is i believe clubs would be in favour of more teams. Maybe not rel/pro but more teams yes. And i agree the balanced model needs to go. If we let big clubs vecome big we will have a better league imo. We're not Scotland with a country the half the size of Tasmania and little commercial competition from other sports. Two big clubs that swipe everything will destroy the interests following the other 80 or 90% just like Scotland with their miniscule crowds. How interested would investors and advertisers be then given their alternative sporting options? There is competition in Scotland - they are in the same time zone as the major European leagues. Doesn't need to be a different sport to be competition. We don't view it as that in Australia because the "competition" is only ever going to be playing at 10pm-4am. Unless the respective football association and league is financially favoured by TV, mainstream and politicians like in Scotland, Spain etc a two team league here will be a failure. Lol at local Football being favoured at all in Scotland. TV pay them fuck all, Mainstream has become rapidly more interested in Premier League and Europe since the 90's and the Politicians wouldn't dare being affiliated with a football club and in fact spend half their time attacking it. For such a league up against the giant of the EPL, it goes alright. Especially in a country of 4mill. Not to mention the Scottish Championship is ticking just under 5k.
|
|
|
|
|
HeyItsRobbie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.5K,
Visits: 0
|
HAHAHAHAHA im stealing this one :D
|
|
|
|
|
melbourne_terrace
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xBitza there is a difference between operational costs and optional expenditure Cahill cost $4m. Do you think City will get that back by merchandise or gate keepings? This isn't a loss. Its an investment by the owner into their club (at least it would be if we had clubs instead of franchises). Every owner as you pointed out has their own business where they make millions. In many instances owning a club is a good will gesture into community / sport, much like Hyundai sponsoring the A League The answer isn't to give the clubs more money. That just means City spends $2m on Cahill instead of $4m The answer is to give clubs more control of what they are spending so much money on. Give them ownership and remove limitations on how they can spread their brand and make money. Let them keep merchandise sales, and even finals gate keepings as a reward for being the best The other answer is to fuck off this stupid balanced model. If the FFA pay minimal operating costs and all other spending is discretionary, then the league is viable. Whether owners are pouring in $200m extra should be seen as a win for our game, not a bad thing I do actually agee with you in principle. I just dont think the r.o.i has been positive. But the main point i was trying to make is i believe clubs would be in favour of more teams. Maybe not rel/pro but more teams yes. And i agree the balanced model needs to go. If we let big clubs vecome big we will have a better league imo. We're not Scotland with a country the half the size of Tasmania and little commercial competition from other sports. Two big clubs that swipe everything will destroy the interests following the other 80 or 90% just like Scotland with their miniscule crowds. How interested would investors and advertisers be then given their alternative sporting options? There is competition in Scotland - they are in the same time zone as the major European leagues. Doesn't need to be a different sport to be competition. We don't view it as that in Australia because the "competition" is only ever going to be playing at 10pm-4am. Unless the respective football association and league is financially favoured by TV, mainstream and politicians like in Scotland, Spain etc a two team league here will be a failure. Lol at local Football being favoured at all in Scotland. TV pay them fuck all, Mainstream has become rapidly more interested in Premier League and Europe since the 90's and the Politicians wouldn't dare being affiliated with a football club and in fact spend half their time attacking it.
Viennese Vuck
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xBitza there is a difference between operational costs and optional expenditure Cahill cost $4m. Do you think City will get that back by merchandise or gate keepings? This isn't a loss. Its an investment by the owner into their club (at least it would be if we had clubs instead of franchises). Every owner as you pointed out has their own business where they make millions. In many instances owning a club is a good will gesture into community / sport, much like Hyundai sponsoring the A League The answer isn't to give the clubs more money. That just means City spends $2m on Cahill instead of $4m The answer is to give clubs more control of what they are spending so much money on. Give them ownership and remove limitations on how they can spread their brand and make money. Let them keep merchandise sales, and even finals gate keepings as a reward for being the best The other answer is to fuck off this stupid balanced model. If the FFA pay minimal operating costs and all other spending is discretionary, then the league is viable. Whether owners are pouring in $200m extra should be seen as a win for our game, not a bad thing I do actually agee with you in principle. I just dont think the r.o.i has been positive. But the main point i was trying to make is i believe clubs would be in favour of more teams. Maybe not rel/pro but more teams yes. And i agree the balanced model needs to go. If we let big clubs vecome big we will have a better league imo. We're not Scotland with a country the half the size of Tasmania and little commercial competition from other sports. Two big clubs that swipe everything will destroy the interests following the other 80 or 90% just like Scotland with their miniscule crowds. How interested would investors and advertisers be then given their alternative sporting options? There is competition in Scotland - they are in the same time zone as the major European leagues. Doesn't need to be a different sport to be competition. We don't view it as that in Australia because the "competition" is only ever going to be playing at 10pm-4am. Unless the respective football association and league is financially favoured by TV, mainstream and politicians like in Scotland, Spain etc a two team league here will be a failure.
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xBitza there is a difference between operational costs and optional expenditure Cahill cost $4m. Do you think City will get that back by merchandise or gate keepings? This isn't a loss. Its an investment by the owner into their club (at least it would be if we had clubs instead of franchises). Every owner as you pointed out has their own business where they make millions. In many instances owning a club is a good will gesture into community / sport, much like Hyundai sponsoring the A League The answer isn't to give the clubs more money. That just means City spends $2m on Cahill instead of $4m The answer is to give clubs more control of what they are spending so much money on. Give them ownership and remove limitations on how they can spread their brand and make money. Let them keep merchandise sales, and even finals gate keepings as a reward for being the best The other answer is to fuck off this stupid balanced model. If the FFA pay minimal operating costs and all other spending is discretionary, then the league is viable. Whether owners are pouring in $200m extra should be seen as a win for our game, not a bad thing I do actually agee with you in principle. I just dont think the r.o.i has been positive. But the main point i was trying to make is i believe clubs would be in favour of more teams. Maybe not rel/pro but more teams yes. And i agree the balanced model needs to go. If we let big clubs vecome big we will have a better league imo. We're not Scotland with a country the half the size of Tasmania and little commercial competition from other sports. Two big clubs that swipe everything will destroy the interests following the other 80 or 90% just like Scotland with their miniscule crowds. How interested would investors and advertisers be then given their alternative sporting options? There is competition in Scotland - they are in the same time zone as the major European leagues. Doesn't need to be a different sport to be competition. We don't view it as that in Australia because the "competition" is only ever going to be playing at 10pm-4am.
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xBitza there is a difference between operational costs and optional expenditure Cahill cost $4m. Do you think City will get that back by merchandise or gate keepings? This isn't a loss. Its an investment by the owner into their club (at least it would be if we had clubs instead of franchises). Every owner as you pointed out has their own business where they make millions. In many instances owning a club is a good will gesture into community / sport, much like Hyundai sponsoring the A League The answer isn't to give the clubs more money. That just means City spends $2m on Cahill instead of $4m The answer is to give clubs more control of what they are spending so much money on. Give them ownership and remove limitations on how they can spread their brand and make money. Let them keep merchandise sales, and even finals gate keepings as a reward for being the best The other answer is to fuck off this stupid balanced model. If the FFA pay minimal operating costs and all other spending is discretionary, then the league is viable. Whether owners are pouring in $200m extra should be seen as a win for our game, not a bad thing I do actually agee with you in principle. I just dont think the r.o.i has been positive. But the main point i was trying to make is i believe clubs would be in favour of more teams. Maybe not rel/pro but more teams yes. And i agree the balanced model needs to go. If we let big clubs vecome big we will have a better league imo. We're not Scotland with a country the half the size of Tasmania and little commercial competition from other sports. Two big clubs that swipe everything will destroy the interests following the other 80 or 90% just like Scotland with their miniscule crowds. How interested would investors and advertisers be then given their alternative sporting options?
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|