|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
FFA and A-League club owners establish joint consortium to restructure the leagueFor the first time since the establishment of the Football Federation Australia in 2004, clubs will have a major say in the governance of domestic football after forming a joint consortium to restructure the A-League's administration. A landmark meeting in Melbourne took place on Wednesday morning, in which all 10 A-League club owners agreed to establish an eight-man committee that will oversee a plan for expansion and financial remodelling of the competition.
For the next five months, a committee involving four representatives each from the clubs and the FFA will look to trim the hefty financial losses for the owners by devising a new governance system for the competition. The foundation of this venture follows years of the owners' frustration at losing money, said to be in excess of $200 million collectively since the start of the competition 11 years ago. Despite a bullish history when it comes to relinquishing power to the clubs, the FFA appeased the owners by expressing newfound willingness to make significant structural change. The new FFA board will give the clubs an equal opportunity to end the contentious centralised merchandising, finding a true valuation of the A-League and increase revenue streams from within the game. 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. Both the clubs and the FFA ruled out the chance of a breakaway administration severing ties with the FFA to govern the A-League independently, similar to most high-profile leagues in the world. However, the door remains open for this new joint committee between the clubs and FFA governing the competition in the future. "There is a great momentum and excitement around the game at the moment and it is important that we work together to ensure the game's operating model evolves and takes advantage of the opportunities ahead of it," FFA chief executive David Gallop said. "The suggestion that a break away from the FFA is imminent is off the mark. The recent FIFA/AFC visit has seen an in-principle agreement to make some changes and FFA is committed to work collaboratively with all the game's stakeholders to reach a model that meets the game's future needs." At Wednesday's meeting, the governing body approved the clubs' request to have an increased representation at the membership tier of the FFA, giving the clubs a major influence over the make-up of the board. World football governing body, FIFA, was notified of the move to raise the clubs' voice from one seat of 10, to three seats at the membership level, which elects the board members to the FFA. "Today's meeting was both collaborative and productive. It included extensive discussion about exploring the optimum commercial model for the Hyundai A-League and its next phase of growth and expansion," Adelaide United chairman Greg Griffin said.
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/soccer/ffa-and-aleague-club-owners-establish-joint-consortium-to-restructure-the-league-20161012-gs0uxw.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
HeyItsRobbie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.5K,
Visits: 0
|
HAHAHAHAHA im stealing this one :D
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
I see no reason FFA would do this unless their backs were to the wall.
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI see no reason FFA would do this unless their backs were to the wall. Honestly I think their chests were pressed pretty firmly against the wall
|
|
|
|
|
Gayfish
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI see no reason FFA would do this unless their backs were to the wall. Honestly I think their chests were pressed pretty firmly against the wall Bent over the table with their pants down, you could say.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI see no reason FFA would do this unless their backs were to the wall. Honestly I think their chests were pressed pretty firmly against the wall 
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI see no reason FFA would do this unless their backs were to the wall. Honestly I think their chests were pressed pretty firmly against the wall 
|
|
|
|
adrtho2
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
so FFA become more fix around the A-League owners needs, and not rest of Football in Australia....
why the Fuk, would 3 out of those 10 boards members , want to take money from the A-League and place it into women football
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
Good. Although why the FFA needs 4 members on this is a little beyond belief?
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
Marco Monteverde - @marcothejourno, The Courier-Mail  BRISBANE Roar’s improving relationship with Football Federation Australia has them fully supportive of the sport’s national governing body retaining control of the A-League. Roar managing director Mark Kingsman represented the club at a meeting in Melbourne between A-League chairmen and FFA. The outcome of the talks was encouraging for FFA, who had been under pressure following calls for them to give up control of the A-League. “The suggestion that a break away from FFA is imminent is off the mark,” FFA chief executive David Gallop said. “FFA is committed to work collaboratively with all the game’s stakeholders to reach a model that meets the game’s future needs.” Australian Professional Football Clubs’ Association chairman Greg Griffin, who is also Adelaide United chairman, said the meeting was both “collaborative and productive”. Kingsman, who also attended a separate meeting of club chairmen on Tuesday, stressed the Roar were fully behind FFA. “We’re working with FFA to move forward,” said Kingsman, who admitted he inherited a tense relationship between the Roar and FFA when he took charge of the then besieged three-time A-League champions in August. “It was strained before because of what had happened in the past with the club but I’ve seen a significant change in our relationship in recent weeks. “When I got here there was a lot of finger pointing going on but that’s all stopped now.” Kingsman said a blueprint of what an expanded A-League could look like in the future was agreed upon. He said a second division and with it, promotion and relegation, had been discussed for “10 seconds”
http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/football/brisbane-roar-supportive-of-ffa-retaining-control-of-aleague/news-story/a4f2b6e6596efa96178520895472d016
|
|
|
|
adrtho2
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
why would this new 10 member FFA board (with the 3 A_league clubs owners appointed board members ) now want to have
1. P and R
2, 2nd Div
3 move money away from the A-League to state Fed or Women Football
unless you want to see more money stay with in the A_league clubs, and have FFA become even more of being A_league focus , I don't understand why you support this changes
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+xwhy would this new 10 member FFA board (with the 3 A_league clubs owners appointed board members ) now want to have 1. P and R 2, 2nd Div 3 move money away from the A-League to state Fed or Women Football unless you want to see more money stay with in the A_league clubs, and have FFA become even more of being A_league focus , I don't understand why you supports this changes The 3 positions the clubs are to get are not board members just members of the association.
|
|
|
|
adrtho2
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xwhy would this new 10 member FFA board (with the 3 A_league clubs owners appointed board members ) now want to have 1. P and R 2, 2nd Div 3 move money away from the A-League to state Fed or Women Football unless you want to see more money stay with in the A_league clubs, and have FFA become even more of being A_league focus , I don't understand why you supports this changes The 3 positions the clubs are to get are not board members just members of the association. so, that at the level with the State Fed ? so this means it go from 10 to 12 ?
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xwhy would this new 10 member FFA board (with the 3 A_league clubs owners appointed board members ) now want to have 1. P and R 2, 2nd Div 3 move money away from the A-League to state Fed or Women Football unless you want to see more money stay with in the A_league clubs, and have FFA become even more of being A_league focus , I don't understand why you supports this changes The 3 positions the clubs are to get are not board members just members of the association. so, that at the level with the State Fed ? so this means it go from 10 to 12 ? What the membership total goes to is dependent on discussions between the FFA and FIFA. The model statutes allow for membership for referees, players and other stakeholders. I understand that is to be sorted out by Feb next year.
|
|
|
|
adrtho2
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xwhy would this new 10 member FFA board (with the 3 A_league clubs owners appointed board members ) now want to have 1. P and R 2, 2nd Div 3 move money away from the A-League to state Fed or Women Football unless you want to see more money stay with in the A_league clubs, and have FFA become even more of being A_league focus , I don't understand why you supports this changes The 3 positions the clubs are to get are not board members just members of the association. so, that at the level with the State Fed ? so this means it go from 10 to 12 ? What the membership total goes to is dependent on discussions between the FFA and FIFA. The model statutes allow for membership for referees, players and other stakeholders. I understand that is to be sorted out by Feb next year. Membership is the 9 states and 1 A-League ??? so if 2 more A-League places are given , then I'm sure they would not take a place away from one of the state Fed so there will be even more Membership then just state Fed amd A-League clubs come Feb next year.?
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
"Kingsman, who also attended a separate meeting of club chairmen on Tuesday, stressed the Roar were fully behind FFA." Hahahahah I bet they are considering they will probably need a bail out next off season. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
aufc_ole
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x"Kingsman, who also attended a separate meeting of club chairmen on Tuesday, stressed the Roar were fully behind FFA." Hahahahah I bet they are considering they will probably need a bail out next off season. -PB Yep. Can't see the Roar roasting the FFA anytime soon
|
|
|
|
|
Barca4Life
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
Did i hear something like this in 2012?
|
|
|
|
|
crimsoncrusoe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Roar fully behind the FFA lol.Lined up with the other owners.Gallop being drilled.Not a pretty thought.
2nd div & P&r talked about for 10secs..so that's......The next topic is ...all in favour. .....No!.......end of discussion.
Rofl.
|
|
|
|
|
bitza
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
I dont knowwhy eveyone thinks clubs would be against expansion.
In the past several clubs have talked in davour of expanding the league and CCM said the lack if expansion was detrimental to their security.
If all clubs want more tv money, which inthink they do, they know that correct expansion will only benefit the league.
The best thing to happen to SFC was the inclusion of the WSW. And i believe the best thing for BR would be the right kind of expansion in Brisbane.
I dont think the owners are as selfish and greedy as you guys think they are. If they were they would never, ever, EVER, own a football club.
$200m in losses and MV, the biggest club only just making a profit the last few years. It cant be money and it cant be stupidity. All these guys have made millions beforw football (which is why they own the club in the first place) and all want to see the best for their team.
|
|
|
|
|
bitza
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI dont knowwhy eveyone thinks clubs would be against expansion.
In the past several clubs have talked in davour of expanding the league and CCM said the lack if expansion was detrimental to their security.
If all clubs want more tv money, which inthink they do, they know that correct expansion will only benefit the league.
The best thing to happen to SFC was the inclusion of the WSW. And i believe the best thing for BR would be the right kind of expansion in Brisbane.
I dont think the owners are as selfish and greedy as you guys think they are. If they were they would never, ever, EVER, own a football club.
$200m in losses and MV, the biggest club only just making a profit the last few years. It cant be money and it cant be stupidity. All these guys have made millions beforw football (which is why they own the club in the first place) and all want to see the best for the *sport* *edit*
Hard to write this when lying down in bed
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
Bitza 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
|
|
|
|
|
bitza
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+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.
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
A-League clubs are in favour of expansion.
They are not in favour of P&R any time soon.
They probably don't care is state league teams make their own second divison as long as no money comes from the pool of money they can claim.
A-League clubs are happy with the salary cap and foreign player restrictions.
Done.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 23K,
Visits: 0
|
+xA-League clubs are in favour of expansion. They are not in favour of P&R any time soon. They probably don't care is state league teams make their own second divison as long as no money comes from the pool of money they can claim. A-League clubs are happy with the salary cap and foreign player restrictions. Done. ^^ This ^^
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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+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
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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!"
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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+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+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. 
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
And Everyone Blamed Clive
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Kingsman said a blueprint of what an expanded A-League could look like in the future was agreed upon. He said a second division and with it, promotion and relegation, had been discussed for “10 seconds”
Winner of Official 442 Comment of the day Award - 10th April 2017
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x Kingsman said a blueprint of what an expanded A-League could look like in the future was agreed upon. He said a second division and with it, promotion and relegation, had been discussed for “10 seconds”
FFA have made it pretty clear they have no intention of it, whether it involves pro rel or not. It does not fit the 10 green bottles mindset. Once/if FIFA says Australia does not need to have it, that is when the NPL clubs will start kicking up a stink and hopefully have the want to set up a league.
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
A think tank. Perfect. Couldn't ask for more.
In a resort somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
And Everyone Blamed Clive
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Do the HAL CEO's really think DG is the best to negotiate this deal ?
Winner of Official 442 Comment of the day Award - 10th April 2017
|
|
|
|
|
melbourne_terrace
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+xDo the HAL CEO's really think DG is the best to negotiate this deal ? It's the standard Lowy way to do business. Networking lists and Mates Rates over Integrity and ability and Gallop has mates at News Ltd and is a guaranteed Yes Man for both sides. I'm sure the CEO's would rather go to the networks themselves.
Viennese Vuck
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
?
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
|
+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
|
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
|
+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
|
Over 18 months means from 18 months ago until this week where they have suddenly put it back on the agenda.
|
|
|
|