|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. +x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Have the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. No bidding Page 23 "Widest Feasible Geographic spread " & qualification through
Competitive football matches That is a nonsense. Set up the competition based on the best bids and then let P/R sort it out after and short steadying period for the competition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. I think you are making a lot of assumptions before a ball is kicked. The best interest is the best clubs playing in the best competition, not forcing something that doesn't fit. I'm not sure why you think I am trying to force something that doesn't fit. I am simply stating that a regulatory framework will exist for the league that will cover the non football merit requirements for annual licensing of each club. In May this year FA issued club licensing regulations, based on the FIFA and AFC regulations, that at the moment cover the ALM and ALW competitions and they made it clear that the licensing process will also apply to the NSD clubs. As far as locations "deserving" a club my point is that no location "deserves" a club over another simply based on population of a larger region. If population is to be one of the bid criteria then it is the population of the area/constituency served that is the important fact. What are the best clubs? In a P/R system the best clubs are those that don't get relegated plus the clubs that earn promotion as long as they each can get licensed to compete. In setting up a new competition it is not so easy. Someone has to assess the bids against the criteria advised prior to bids being received. For me the large regional cities with no current representatives in the ALM have to be a good chance if they meet the criteria.
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
Does anyone know the other 2 models theyare discussing on top of the aafc endorsed one and the champions league one? (Boo to the champions league model unless its a bridge to the 2nd div)
the only other possible model i could imagine would be some hybrid between an spl system and a conference system to cut travel time. Maybe split into two leagues with the most geographically close teams play a short home and away season. Then for the second half of the season the top teams from each conference go into a champions bracket and the bottom into a relegation bracket
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. No bidding Page 23 "Widest Feasible Geographic spread " & qualification through Competitive football matches
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. Well western sydney is another example to be fair in any case p and r will take care of who is represented i hope we one day manage a semi pro third division to go with two pro divisions as i honestly think its too hard a landing to go from a national comp to a division with 90 clubs in a country as spread out as ours
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Under the AAFC proposal there is no bidding process
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI really hope 2023 is the start. It is probably at least 7 years before it trickles up to our national team and takes us to another level I think the value will be almost immediate. 7 years for full effect but undiscovered talent will rise straight away when they are competing with the best. That would be nice, but if its semi professional to start its hard to imagine a player going from the division to the roos before the next world cup any idea what semi professional means? Does that mean some fulltime some part time? Or all part time? Or different mix for different teams? yer look lets just get the NSD going first up forget anything re Roo's for now agreed. That last document I read mentioned a % of Clubs will be able to turn Pro whereas the balance of said 16 Club comp will be semi...... Obviously we all know nothing at this stage how this is going work, maybe its changed behind the scenes as discussions have developed. Just can't wait to see once all is finally announced. Arthur may have a good idea but likely cannot let it out of the kit bag at this stage. Please be a proper H A comp. Even one fully pro club makes a big difference imo. That would be great. Gotta get there first. Do you have info on whether any clubs plan to be fully pro from the start? Anyone have any ideas on how the NSD will interlace with the AL re P/R. Will the 2034 licenses get in the way before then? I've always thought the best model might be to plan for NSD promotion to the AL if we can't yet have full P/R. Aim for a 16 team league (in both divisions) with a winter league by 2034 and bob's your mum's brother. Too early to discuss. Get the NSD up first and then those questions of P/R to AL will be asked. But then again maybe some AL sides might think being part of an affordable NSD might be a solution for their finances? Interesting last sentence, Arthur. Any chance of expanding it into more detail? Ta. Given the Cap has been virtually rendered pointless by the 2 marquee rule today, not much point half the Franchises bothering anymore
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. I think you are making a lot of assumptions before a ball is kicked. The best interest is the best clubs playing in the best competition, not forcing something that doesn't fit.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted.
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem. In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. The Geographical Spread plan by the AAFC is just to get things started, P&R will change the make up from then on. The alternate is to fill the starting 12 with NPL clubs that also didn't win their League. Apart from being unearnt on the pitch, how the fillers are selected would be an unnecessary bun-fight. Just get it going and let P&R run it from then on.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem. In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. Couldn't agree more.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem. In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch.
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem. In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric 2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. Agree. Cricket national teams are stronger as the game has become more widespread. All states have teams playing at the highest level.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAt this stage I have NO CARE interlacing with the APL........its not a football model. I'll be NSD through and through and lower grades currently supporting. I'm with you bud..... enough waiting around to FIT the foreign franchisee model,of acceptance... If this NST or NSD or whatever they chose to call it is the highest league tier nationally that a club can be promoted to on sporting merit. And it links to the majority of leagues and clubs throughout Australia, then that is the first division in my books. As Arthur cheekily inferred above, the franchises will already be in the pyramid via their respective NPL squads. If they chose to focus on this aspect of their club, treat the competition with respect by fielding full age squads and pull out of the series of entertainment "encounters" that the APL tragically calls a "league", then WELCOME.... It will be great to compete against them on equal footing.
|
|
|
|
|
RDSA
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 216,
Visits: 0
|
Have the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI really hope 2023 is the start. It is probably at least 7 years before it trickles up to our national team and takes us to another level I think the value will be almost immediate. 7 years for full effect but undiscovered talent will rise straight away when they are competing with the best. That would be nice, but if its semi professional to start its hard to imagine a player going from the division to the roos before the next world cup any idea what semi professional means? Does that mean some fulltime some part time? Or all part time? Or different mix for different teams? yer look lets just get the NSD going first up forget anything re Roo's for now agreed. That last document I read mentioned a % of Clubs will be able to turn Pro whereas the balance of said 16 Club comp will be semi...... Obviously we all know nothing at this stage how this is going work, maybe its changed behind the scenes as discussions have developed. Just can't wait to see once all is finally announced. Arthur may have a good idea but likely cannot let it out of the kit bag at this stage. Please be a proper H A comp. Even one fully pro club makes a big difference imo. That would be great. Gotta get there first. Do you have info on whether any clubs plan to be fully pro from the start? Anyone have any ideas on how the NSD will interlace with the AL re P/R. Will the 2034 licenses get in the way before then? I've always thought the best model might be to plan for NSD promotion to the AL if we can't yet have full P/R. Aim for a 16 team league (in both divisions) with a winter league by 2034 and bob's your mum's brother. Fuck 2034, it doesn't mean shit. It's an APL mind trick This fallacy needs to get through people's thick heads. It has been confirmed again and again that the licenses don't preclude performance-based relegation from being instated. And in the unbundling process between FA and the APL, FA retained decision-making powers on pro-rel and the season calendar. So it's in their hands. Would obviously be difficult to impose it against the will of the APL. But once an NSD is around for a few years, I think the momentum for pro-rel will be unstoppable. It's just you can't put the cart before the horse: you need a viable, stable second division in place first before A-League clubs will be willing to accept the possibility of being relegated to it. But what exactly does that mean? Clubs have been kicked out in the past for financial (or other non-football metric) non-performance but not for being crap on teh park. The current licenses are until 2034 and there would be one hell of a court action if the powers that be tried to relegate a club for being consistently crap. I've spoken to Chris Nikou about exactly this point and he confirmed it. No loss of license before 2034. It seemS Mr Nikou tailors his opinions depending on who is hosting him and his tremendous gastronomical appetites. The reverse was expressed at a few NPL grounds around Victoria last year ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xId be surprised if p and r happen before crowd averages are around 2-3k and nsd teams are full time not sure how licenses will work i like the idea of promotion for a couple of years before promotion and relegation at the moment aafc are planning for p and r maybe a decade away to the a league but instantly to the npl, will be surprised if it happens sooner incidentally we got rid of p and r in the early 90s and the golden gen emerged from the post p and r era I think it might be easier to do p and r if there is a second division as a buffer between the first and the state leagues. Licensed promotion would be simple. You take the top-placed team(s) from the NSD and ask them a couple of simple questions: - do you have access to a ground that is suitable for top-flight football next season (capacity, media facilities, dressing rooms, broadcast-quality floodlights, etc.)? - do you have the necessary financial backing that would allow you to field a professional squad for the next season? If the answer is yes they get promoted. If the answer is no then either the relegated A-League team is spared or they ask the next best NSD team the same questions. This is how it works in plenty of league systems around the world, particularly in the step-up from semi-pro to pro divisions. Bang on the money df.... This SHOULD all be covered by the club licensing system FA is introducing btw....
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xIf there is scepticism amongst football fans, it can be divided predominantly into two camps: 1. those who think it can't work, NSD clubs will go broke trying to be professional, etc. etc. 2. those who think the APL clubs don't want it and will do everything they can to at least stall it, and/or sabotage future prospects for P&R (like trying to get their reserves teams in there). I'm definitely in the latter camp. Yeah reddit folk seem in camp one i mean for the game there are nearly 100 sides in the npl, if 12 of them go broke with a failed nsd the loss to oz football as a whole isnt large. If they succeed, the standard of the national team could improve quite dramatically so the risks to australian football seem asymmetric. If the risks are large for the individual clubs its up to them whether that risk is acceptable, and they have put their hand up as for p and r to the a league. I am a bit conservative myself. But it depends on what happens. If a club gets 4k crowd averages im ok with promotion being available from the start so long as they can committ to a league wage standards Hey Grazor, so when the new Aleague franchises can't average 4k ( I don't believe they do now but anyway let's turn a blind eye to the "creative" attendance numbers at some of these "football" events) what should their punishment be, relegation? Point is who cares how many people,turn up, if the club is well run and can sustain itself without relying on attendances.?
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI really hope 2023 is the start. It is probably at least 7 years before it trickles up to our national team and takes us to another level I think the value will be almost immediate. 7 years for full effect but undiscovered talent will rise straight away when they are competing with the best. That would be nice, but if its semi professional to start its hard to imagine a player going from the division to the roos before the next world cup any idea what semi professional means? Does that mean some fulltime some part time? Or all part time? Or different mix for different teams? yer look lets just get the NSD going first up forget anything re Roo's for now agreed. That last document I read mentioned a % of Clubs will be able to turn Pro whereas the balance of said 16 Club comp will be semi...... Obviously we all know nothing at this stage how this is going work, maybe its changed behind the scenes as discussions have developed. Just can't wait to see once all is finally announced. Arthur may have a good idea but likely cannot let it out of the kit bag at this stage. Please be a proper H A comp. Even one fully pro club makes a big difference imo. That would be great. Gotta get there first. Do you have info on whether any clubs plan to be fully pro from the start? Anyone have any ideas on how the NSD will interlace with the AL re P/R. Will the 2034 licenses get in the way before then? I've always thought the best model might be to plan for NSD promotion to the AL if we can't yet have full P/R. Aim for a 16 team league (in both divisions) with a winter league by 2034 and bob's your mum's brother. Fuck 2034, it doesn't mean shit. It's an APL mind trick This fallacy needs to get through people's thick heads. It has been confirmed again and again that the licenses don't preclude performance-based relegation from being instated. And in the unbundling process between FA and the APL, FA retained decision-making powers on pro-rel and the season calendar. So it's in their hands. Would obviously be difficult to impose it against the will of the APL. But once an NSD is around for a few years, I think the momentum for pro-rel will be unstoppable. It's just you can't put the cart before the horse: you need a viable, stable second division in place first before A-League clubs will be willing to accept the possibility of being relegated to it. But what exactly does that mean? Clubs have been kicked out in the past for financial (or other non-football metric) non-performance but not for being crap on teh park. The current licenses are until 2034 and there would be one hell of a court action if the powers that be tried to relegate a club for being consistently crap. I've spoken to Chris Nikou about exactly this point and he confirmed it. No loss of license before 2034. 2034 is a bit long for my taste but it can be used as a period to make both leagues grow to 16 to make p and r more viable. The time will also seem shorter if promotion is available to clubs before 2034
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric 2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI really hope 2023 is the start. It is probably at least 7 years before it trickles up to our national team and takes us to another level I think the value will be almost immediate. 7 years for full effect but undiscovered talent will rise straight away when they are competing with the best. That would be nice, but if its semi professional to start its hard to imagine a player going from the division to the roos before the next world cup any idea what semi professional means? Does that mean some fulltime some part time? Or all part time? Or different mix for different teams? yer look lets just get the NSD going first up forget anything re Roo's for now agreed. That last document I read mentioned a % of Clubs will be able to turn Pro whereas the balance of said 16 Club comp will be semi...... Obviously we all know nothing at this stage how this is going work, maybe its changed behind the scenes as discussions have developed. Just can't wait to see once all is finally announced. Arthur may have a good idea but likely cannot let it out of the kit bag at this stage. Please be a proper H A comp. Even one fully pro club makes a big difference imo. That would be great. Gotta get there first. Do you have info on whether any clubs plan to be fully pro from the start? Anyone have any ideas on how the NSD will interlace with the AL re P/R. Will the 2034 licenses get in the way before then? I've always thought the best model might be to plan for NSD promotion to the AL if we can't yet have full P/R. Aim for a 16 team league (in both divisions) with a winter league by 2034 and bob's your mum's brother. Too early to discuss. Get the NSD up first and then those questions of P/R to AL will be asked. But then again maybe some AL sides might think being part of an affordable NSD might be a solution for their finances? Interesting last sentence, Arthur. Any chance of expanding it into more detail? Ta.
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI really hope 2023 is the start. It is probably at least 7 years before it trickles up to our national team and takes us to another level I think the value will be almost immediate. 7 years for full effect but undiscovered talent will rise straight away when they are competing with the best. That would be nice, but if its semi professional to start its hard to imagine a player going from the division to the roos before the next world cup any idea what semi professional means? Does that mean some fulltime some part time? Or all part time? Or different mix for different teams? yer look lets just get the NSD going first up forget anything re Roo's for now agreed. That last document I read mentioned a % of Clubs will be able to turn Pro whereas the balance of said 16 Club comp will be semi...... Obviously we all know nothing at this stage how this is going work, maybe its changed behind the scenes as discussions have developed. Just can't wait to see once all is finally announced. Arthur may have a good idea but likely cannot let it out of the kit bag at this stage. Please be a proper H A comp. Even one fully pro club makes a big difference imo. That would be great. Gotta get there first. Do you have info on whether any clubs plan to be fully pro from the start? Anyone have any ideas on how the NSD will interlace with the AL re P/R. Will the 2034 licenses get in the way before then? I've always thought the best model might be to plan for NSD promotion to the AL if we can't yet have full P/R. Aim for a 16 team league (in both divisions) with a winter league by 2034 and bob's your mum's brother. Fuck 2034, it doesn't mean shit. It's an APL mind trick This fallacy needs to get through people's thick heads. It has been confirmed again and again that the licenses don't preclude performance-based relegation from being instated. And in the unbundling process between FA and the APL, FA retained decision-making powers on pro-rel and the season calendar. So it's in their hands. Would obviously be difficult to impose it against the will of the APL. But once an NSD is around for a few years, I think the momentum for pro-rel will be unstoppable. It's just you can't put the cart before the horse: you need a viable, stable second division in place first before A-League clubs will be willing to accept the possibility of being relegated to it. But what exactly does that mean? Clubs have been kicked out in the past for financial (or other non-football metric) non-performance but not for being crap on teh park. The current licenses are until 2034 and there would be one hell of a court action if the powers that be tried to relegate a club for being consistently crap. I've spoken to Chris Nikou about exactly this point and he confirmed it. No loss of license before 2034. No one loses their license. They just get relegated  
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric 2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI think some may not have caught up with what happened with the governance upheaval of 2018. We went from dictatorship (where one person decided absolutely everything, and was in a position to do almost anything) to broad-based democratic representation. That sounds good, if your interested in endless stakeholder engagement and nothing concrete happening. In the meantime, while we go through endless stakeholder engagement and non-action, the professional clubs went from having zero say in anything, absolutely zero, to controlling around 40 to 45% of the board, and in fact, only need the support of one large state to control the board. In effect, they already have the Chairman in their backpocket, and I've seen no evidence that the CEO is out of step with the Chairman. The one big achievement of the CEO is the 2023 WWC, and it is a good achievement, no doubt they will hang their hat on that one for many years to come. But where is the increased infrastructure investment that was meant to usher in? I can't see a heap of evidence for it. So in the end, the upshot will be that all else that needs to happen in the game will be overcome with circuses and a lot of back-slapping on what a great show us Aussies put on. Yay us! Your view on control of the board is worth analysing:- 1. The A-League clubs share a fixed number of votes pro-rata to each full member and that will not change when Western and Macarthur get full membership, Newcastle regains full membership or with expansion. Currently there are only 8 clubs that are full members and each has 3.5 votes. Total votes - 282. The player's member I believe is a PFA appointee. Total votes - 73. Women's Football Council has a role right across football from grassroots to Matildas. Each member of the council has 1 vote. Total votes - 10
4. The 9 State members share their allocation equally. Each has 6.1 votes. Total votes - 55
Current number of votes - 1005. AAFC is a qualifying member and will have voting rights when they attain full membership. Total votes - 26. Football Coaches Australia is a provisional member and currently has 250 members from right across the football ecosystem. It will gain voting rights when it becomes a full member. Total Votes - 2
Future number of votes - 104One would expect that the APL clubs could count on the Players Member's votes but could not count on the other 65/69 votes in voting for Board members so your conclusion that they effectively control the Board is debatable. PS I wonder what will happen once the NSD is up and running. Should the clubs in it share say, 14 votes? From my point of view, I have no problem if the FA remove state federations. My issue, and one for the whole game id who votes at AGM's EGM's and for the Board? My view is it has to be by the Clubs, as it is done in every non-English speaking country. The large distances involved in an enormous country like Australia, with a relatively small population, is possibly why we need to have a unique scenario of state football federations. The state federations have extrapolated a lot of national HQ coaching methodology for coaches in remoter regions to access.
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Cleansheets
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 944,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI really hope 2023 is the start. It is probably at least 7 years before it trickles up to our national team and takes us to another level I think the value will be almost immediate. 7 years for full effect but undiscovered talent will rise straight away when they are competing with the best. That would be nice, but if its semi professional to start its hard to imagine a player going from the division to the roos before the next world cup any idea what semi professional means? Does that mean some fulltime some part time? Or all part time? Or different mix for different teams? yer look lets just get the NSD going first up forget anything re Roo's for now agreed. That last document I read mentioned a % of Clubs will be able to turn Pro whereas the balance of said 16 Club comp will be semi...... Obviously we all know nothing at this stage how this is going work, maybe its changed behind the scenes as discussions have developed. Just can't wait to see once all is finally announced. Arthur may have a good idea but likely cannot let it out of the kit bag at this stage. Please be a proper H A comp. Even one fully pro club makes a big difference imo. That would be great. Gotta get there first. Do you have info on whether any clubs plan to be fully pro from the start? Anyone have any ideas on how the NSD will interlace with the AL re P/R. Will the 2034 licenses get in the way before then? I've always thought the best model might be to plan for NSD promotion to the AL if we can't yet have full P/R. Aim for a 16 team league (in both divisions) with a winter league by 2034 and bob's your mum's brother. Fuck 2034, it doesn't mean shit. It's an APL mind trick This fallacy needs to get through people's thick heads. It has been confirmed again and again that the licenses don't preclude performance-based relegation from being instated. And in the unbundling process between FA and the APL, FA retained decision-making powers on pro-rel and the season calendar. So it's in their hands. Would obviously be difficult to impose it against the will of the APL. But once an NSD is around for a few years, I think the momentum for pro-rel will be unstoppable. It's just you can't put the cart before the horse: you need a viable, stable second division in place first before A-League clubs will be willing to accept the possibility of being relegated to it. But what exactly does that mean? Clubs have been kicked out in the past for financial (or other non-football metric) non-performance but not for being crap on teh park. The current licenses are until 2034 and there would be one hell of a court action if the powers that be tried to relegate a club for being consistently crap. I've spoken to Chris Nikou about exactly this point and he confirmed it. No loss of license before 2034.
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xNO to bidding You reach the criteria, then the starting 12 are geographically balanced from the qualified applicants as per AAFC proposal NO to taking any notice of APL bullshit and failing experiments P&R sets the makeup from then on. Yeah, I didn't mean literally bidding like in an auction. I meant establishing a proposal that best meets the criteria. Presumably you will have more applicants than there will be spots available, so you have to determine the best-ranked candidates somehow. Aside from geographical spread I would make it the four Fs: - football (i.e. on-field performances in the NPL, where this is relevant, as well as strength of junior programmes and the like) - facilities (stadium and training grounds) - finances - fanbase Facilities and Finance are part of the criteria, so that's already passed Fan base? , why ? and would be a nightmare to quantify if you did. Performance. NPL winners get first dibs, It's P&R now
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xAll I can tell everyone on this forum about a NSD is that it will happen. Right now the FA is 100% behind it. The campaign for a NSD is over. Clubs have been meeting with AAFC to see what they can do in a NSD, based on FA modelling. Timetables are being put in place. Models put out to the AAFC by FA, to work out what is doable. I expect kickoff will be March 2024 (though a 2023 is not an impossibility), 2023 will see the agreement of a model, application process and selection. Most importantly JJ is implementing a Football structure that we recognise as Football. Club Licencing, NSD, Pro/Rel, Domestic Transfer System... A breath of fresh air.... Great stuff. I don't mind if the start gets pushed back a year if it means they get the model right (and that means a proper round-robin second division, not some Champions League thing). It would also give more time for clubs to get their house in order for bidding for a spot. It will be interesting to see if any new teams emerge to bid for spots. right now I can think of the following regions that don't really have any adequate NPL representation but could well prosper in an NSD: - Canberra (unified team, potentially backed by the federation) - Hobart (same) - Geelong - Townsville - Cairns - Penrith - Ipswich - Bendigo - Ballarat - Mandurah/Bunbury - Darwin (distance may be an issue) - Albury-Wodonga - NSW north coast (Coffs Harbour etc.) Of course, it depends what happens with A-League expansion. Potentially the A-League could get, say, Canberra and the Gold Coast in by 23-24, then any two from Hobart, Wollongong and Auckland a couple of years down the track. It would be good to have some coordination there so you don't end up with rival bids or whatever. The NSD season should just be aligned with the NPL, and pro-rel start immediately. Just have two promotion spots every year, with post-season playoffs between the VIC/WA/SA/TAS and NSW/QLD/NNSW/ACT NPL winners to decide the two spots. Have one relegation spot from the NSD every year until it expands to 16 teams, then increase that to two relegation spots. Pro-rel with the A-League will probably require the A-League to also switch to winter. This won't happen within the current broadcasting agreement, but it's an inevitability at some point (especially with climate change making summer increasingly unpalatable for top level sport). It could potentially come in around 2028, by which time hopefully both the A-League and the NSD have 16 teams. Then we'd really have a proper football pyramid on our hands. It will be up to those that have facilities, finances and football IP. You forgot a team from Perth. Also you have to consider that in the early years this will require bottom up funding. That means Clubs will have to stump up any where from $250K a year just to be a part of it. So too early for wishful thinking Is that $250k+ on top of operating their NSD squad and their NPL(?) and junior commitments. Travel and operational costs. They edtimate the league costs 2.5 to 3 mil
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI really hope 2023 is the start. It is probably at least 7 years before it trickles up to our national team and takes us to another level I think the value will be almost immediate. 7 years for full effect but undiscovered talent will rise straight away when they are competing with the best. That would be nice, but if its semi professional to start its hard to imagine a player going from the division to the roos before the next world cup any idea what semi professional means? Does that mean some fulltime some part time? Or all part time? Or different mix for different teams? yer look lets just get the NSD going first up forget anything re Roo's for now agreed. That last document I read mentioned a % of Clubs will be able to turn Pro whereas the balance of said 16 Club comp will be semi...... Obviously we all know nothing at this stage how this is going work, maybe its changed behind the scenes as discussions have developed. Just can't wait to see once all is finally announced. Arthur may have a good idea but likely cannot let it out of the kit bag at this stage. Please be a proper H A comp. Even one fully pro club makes a big difference imo. That would be great. Gotta get there first. Do you have info on whether any clubs plan to be fully pro from the start? Anyone have any ideas on how the NSD will interlace with the AL re P/R. Will the 2034 licenses get in the way before then? I've always thought the best model might be to plan for NSD promotion to the AL if we can't yet have full P/R. Aim for a 16 team league (in both divisions) with a winter league by 2034 and bob's your mum's brother. Too early to discuss. Get the NSD up first and then those questions of P/R to AL will be asked. By the end NSD season 1, the only conversation will be comparing the NSD champs with the A-league spooner. Will be fun watching Lederer magically invent P&R
|
|
|
|