|
Lightbulb
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 347,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
A-League club owners set to reject FFA funding modelA-League clubs are set to enter the new financial year not knowing the size of their grant for next season after rejecting Football Federation Australia's latest funding offer. The rift between club chairmen and the FFA deepened on Tuesday when several clubs rejected the governing body's latest proposal, some labelling it "a slap in the face".  FFA CEO David Gallop has rejected the clubs' claim they were being undervalued. Photo: Getty ImagesAfter all 10 club owners stormed out of a meeting with the FFA in early May in response to the initial offer of $3.25 million, an improved offer of $3.55 million with several conditions failed to appease the clubs, who are demanding a significant improvement in their share of broadcast, merchandising, sponsorship and ticketing revenue after years of incurring significant losses. Despite signing a record broadcast deal with Fox Sports in December worth $56 million per season, the FFA is yet to reach an agreement with the clubs on their share of the windfall. The clubs are suggesting the A-League is responsible for 85 per cent of the value of the broadcast deal as well as other revenue streams received by the FFA, such as its sponsorship deal with Hyundai. However, the clubs were frustrated after an improved offer worked out at around 61 per cent of the value of the broadcast deal alone, which – while an improvement on previous grants – is proportionately less as a percentage share of the previous TV rights deal. The previous deal provided the clubs with $2.6 million each, the same figure as the previous salary cap. Fairfax Media understands several clubs rejected the FFA's proposed grant on Tuesday. Their initial asking price was $6 million per season, but sources suggest the clubs would accept a lower amount of no less than $4 million in cash. One club chairman warned of an impending stand-off akin to the one playing out in rugby league, which pitted the majority of NRL clubs against Australian Rugby League Commission chairman John Grant, who recently resigned from his post. Adelaide United chairman Greg Griffin was one who rejected the FFA's proposal on Tuesday. The proposal came with significant conditions on how an additional $300,000 could be spent. It's understood the governing body was willing to grant the clubs extra funding for the purpose of marketing, but only with the agreement of head office on how the clubs intended to use the additional money. "The latest offer from the FFA is again deficient and is conditioned so as to allow the FFA to attempt to impose further unwarranted control over the clubs whilst starving the professional game of funds to enable it to exist on the efforts and investment in the game by the A-League clubs," Griffin said. FFA chief executive David Gallop rejected the clubs' claim they were being undervalued, suggesting the deal included contra valued at $470,000. "The clubs have been formally notified of the funding distribution for the coming season following a series of meetings during which the likely outcome was explained. Funding for 2017-18 is just over $4 million per club," Gallop said. "This is a significant increase over last season and has been achieved through increased revenue from the new broadcast arrangements and a reduction in FFA's own operating costs. FFA as the national governing body has a broad agenda and distributes its revenue to the clubs, the grassroots and the national teams with the largest share going to the clubs," Gallop said. "The arrangement should be seen in the context where we are currently working with the clubs on a new ownership and operating model for the Hyundai A-League and Westfield W-League that will be designed to attract more capital into the game and provide better returns over time to the existing clubs and any new clubs."
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
" is proportionately less as a percentage share of the previous TV rights deal"
I noticed this before. It is outragous. How can people defend it?
but but we need da grassroots.
|
|
|
|
|
SWandP
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Happy to see the A League go personally.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHappy to see the A League go personally. Perhaps you are right, the APFCA should set up a rebel league and make their own deal with FOXTEL. FFAs contract will be void. Im sure they could get more than FFA want to pay them and it will be cheaper for FOXTEL also. Will need new clubs though. Sydney Sky Blues FC Melbourne Victorious FC Adelaide Reds FC Gosford City FC etc
|
|
|
|
|
Footballer
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
This.
The club owners must be absolutely spitting chips at this.
Gallop will be gone soon. Then it can begin.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
The A League owners can set up their own competition, this is where this is heading - the tv deal will follow the 10 clubs, the IP ownership is a minor issue that CFG will bog the ffa down in an expensive court action for a couple of years. FIFA would back the clubs, AFC certainly will; this will play out one way it's just when Gallop blinks now.
|
|
|
|
|
Barca4Life
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
Gallop and Steven Lowy gotta go, just not good enough.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe A League owners can set up their own competition, this is where this is heading - the tv deal will follow the 10 clubs, the IP ownership is a minor issue that CFG will bog the ffa down in an expensive court action for a couple of years. FIFA would back the clubs, AFC certainly will; this will play out one way it's just when Gallop blinks now. I don't think Gallop really appreciates the sort of danger he is in. He will be in charge of an FFA with no A-league clubs under him, NPL clubs will be loathe to follow him. Welcome to the FFA in charge of the National team and grassroots. Just how we want it.
|
|
|
|
|
HeyItsRobbie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.5K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe A League owners can set up their own competition, this is where this is heading - the tv deal will follow the 10 clubs, the IP ownership is a minor issue that CFG will bog the ffa down in an expensive court action for a couple of years. FIFA would back the clubs, AFC certainly will; this will play out one way it's just when Gallop blinks now. The FFA cheerleaders will say its bad but I dont think it is. Every year more and more people/kids are playing which increases FFAs revenue. People arent leaving the sport. The grassroots (and womens) is arguement is crap. Gallop says FFA has cut costs, dumped the CoE for example then put that cost onto clubs. Develop their own vision without consulting clubs etc. I agree with Griffin on this - "The latest offer from the FFA is again deficient and is conditioned so as to allow the FFA to attempt to impose further unwarranted control over the clubs whilst starving the professional game of funds to enable it to exist on the efforts and investment in the game by the A-League clubs," Griffin said. To me the tv money should stay in the professional game. FFA have limited this to 10 clubs when it could be over 2 divisions (or extra clubs). Its not important how much the clubs gets but how much of the money goes to the professional game. We all want more clubs.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThe A League owners can set up their own competition, this is where this is heading - the tv deal will follow the 10 clubs, the IP ownership is a minor issue that CFG will bog the ffa down in an expensive court action for a couple of years. FIFA would back the clubs, AFC certainly will; this will play out one way it's just when Gallop blinks now. I don't think Gallop really appreciates the sort of danger he is in. He will be in charge of an FFA with no A-league clubs under him, NPL clubs will be loathe to follow him. Welcome to the FFA in charge of the National team and grassroots. Just how we want it. and the cup..... but they cant even get that right. Rigging and A-League teams using 5 visa players while most NPL clubs are limited to 2. Its stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
HeyItsRobbie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.5K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
HeyItsRobbie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.5K,
Visits: 0
|
seriously, im loving the fact that these offers are being rejected. the a-league clubs are sick and tired of being treated like shit. we deserve the best league we can possibly get and the FFA are holding them back.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Until the governance changes are agreed AND the management of the A-League changes, it's the FFA which has the TV deal with Foxtel because they currently own and run the league.
Some may not like it, but as things currently stand, the club owners have to negotiate with the FFA for a slice of the TV money.
Presumably all the refs come under the FFA banner as well. So you'd think that Foxtel would stick firm with the FFA if the club owners tried to walk (in fact, I wonder how easy it is for them to walk given the licensing agreements they have signed).
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Just another standard day of Gallop having no idea about the shit he's in
|
|
|
|
|
Mr B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
And Everyone Blamed Clive
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHappy to see the A League go personally.
Winner of Official 442 Comment of the day Award - 10th April 2017
|
|
|
|
|
And Everyone Blamed Clive
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Gallop could introduce P&R That'll bring things back into FFA control
Winner of Official 442 Comment of the day Award - 10th April 2017
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xGallop could introduce P&R That'll bring things back into FFA control that would cause a splash 
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xUntil the governance changes are agreed AND the management of the A-League changes, it's the FFA which has the TV deal with Foxtel because they currently own and run the league. Some may not like it, but as things currently stand, the club owners have to negotiate with the FFA for a slice of the TV money. Presumably all the refs come under the FFA banner as well. So you'd think that Foxtel would stick firm with the FFA if the club owners tried to walk (in fact, I wonder how easy it is for them to walk given the licensing agreements they have signed). It's not difficult. If the clubs really wanted to they could go directly to FIFA with the NPL clubs and say that the A-league is not following FIFA statutes. In comes FIFA taking control of the A-league, who do you think Fox will have to deal with in order to show games.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xUntil the governance changes are agreed AND the management of the A-League changes, it's the FFA which has the TV deal with Foxtel because they currently own and run the league. Some may not like it, but as things currently stand, the club owners have to negotiate with the FFA for a slice of the TV money. Presumably all the refs come under the FFA banner as well. So you'd think that Foxtel would stick firm with the FFA if the club owners tried to walk (in fact, I wonder how easy it is for them to walk given the licensing agreements they have signed). It's not difficult. If the clubs really wanted to they could go directly to FIFA with the NPL clubs and say that the A-league is not following FIFA statutes. In comes FIFA taking control of the A-league, who do you think Fox will have to deal with in order to show games. Yeh, but that can't override contractual agreements already in place back here in Australia. An Australian court would insist on the parties meeting their contractual obligations. The FIFA statutes would mean nothing within the Australian court system (unless the actual licensing agreement has something in there about the FFA abiding by FIFA statutes, which is possible I guess) or unless one or more of the clubs can point to other guarantees made to that effect.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xUntil the governance changes are agreed AND the management of the A-League changes, it's the FFA which has the TV deal with Foxtel because they currently own and run the league. Some may not like it, but as things currently stand, the club owners have to negotiate with the FFA for a slice of the TV money. Presumably all the refs come under the FFA banner as well. So you'd think that Foxtel would stick firm with the FFA if the club owners tried to walk (in fact, I wonder how easy it is for them to walk given the licensing agreements they have signed). It's not difficult. If the clubs really wanted to they could go directly to FIFA with the NPL clubs and say that the A-league is not following FIFA statutes. In comes FIFA taking control of the A-league, who do you think Fox will have to deal with in order to show games. Yeh, but that can't override contractual agreements already in place back here in Australia. An Australian court would insist on the parties meeting their contractual obligations. The FIFA statutes would mean nothing within the Australian court system (unless the actual licensing agreement has something in there about the FFA abiding by FIFA statutes, which is possible I guess) or unless one or more of the clubs can point to other guarantees made to that effect. Who says they won't fulfill them. The FFA don't have to comply but that would mean getting kicked out of FIFA and not going to the World Cup. Unacceptable.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xUntil the governance changes are agreed AND the management of the A-League changes, it's the FFA which has the TV deal with Foxtel because they currently own and run the league. Some may not like it, but as things currently stand, the club owners have to negotiate with the FFA for a slice of the TV money. Presumably all the refs come under the FFA banner as well. So you'd think that Foxtel would stick firm with the FFA if the club owners tried to walk (in fact, I wonder how easy it is for them to walk given the licensing agreements they have signed). It's not difficult. If the clubs really wanted to they could go directly to FIFA with the NPL clubs and say that the A-league is not following FIFA statutes. In comes FIFA taking control of the A-league, who do you think Fox will have to deal with in order to show games. Yeh, but that can't override contractual agreements already in place back here in Australia. An Australian court would insist on the parties meeting their contractual obligations. The FIFA statutes would mean nothing within the Australian court system (unless the actual licensing agreement has something in there about the FFA abiding by FIFA statutes, which is possible I guess) or unless one or more of the clubs can point to other guarantees made to that effect. Who says they won't fulfill them. The FFA don't have to comply but that would mean getting kicked out of FIFA and not going to the World Cup. Unacceptable. Well, I guess it depends on how bloody minded the FFA wants to be. Certainly, as far as the licensing arrangements go, the courts would be on their side. Arguably, the drastic situation of not being able to compete in the world cup would be more the fault of the parties railing against the FFA, given the FFA would be in its rights to adhere to the current licensing arrangements.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
@ pippinu
You have a strong AFL background and it looks like you are struggling to understand how Football runs.
FIFA is a much criticised organisation but underneath the corrupt executive layer is a civil service-like layer that implements the principles of the organisation religiously; FIFAs principles are that the sport should be organised for the benefit of the players and their clubs. This is fundamentally where the FFA are in bother.
If there is a dispute between football association and players FIFA will look to back the players wherever possible. It does not back football associations over players, that's proven throughout history.
Providing the clubs and players of the A league consult with the AFC on any breakaway and follow their advice then AFC will back any breakaway over the FA. The FFA will have to sanction the new league or have a bloody good reason why not .... if they don't sanction it then the FFA are gone, the IP is a trivial matter. 5 years ago the ffa could have used that and hid behind it, today FIFA would back the clubs and allocate an appropriate fee for the IP transition. If the ffa don't agree, they're gone.
The A League clubs now have the power in this situation, the smart thing would be if the AAFC and PFA and HAL clubs aligned as that would be an unbreakabke alliance.
If you have the inclination take a pen and paper and map out the personal connections CFG and Nirwen Bakrie have with the AFC. If you understand these relationships you'll understand how this is playing out, that's before Ledman Groups contacts are added in.
The clubs are playing a smart game and the FFA know it. The FFA are non-compliant with FIFA regulations and the clubs know it. The politics are clear and playing out in a way that suggests there is only one way this ends - and it will end with FIFA backing one side: the players & their clubs.
This is not an Australian question, unlike the AFL and NRL who govern themselves, this is a FIFA question.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xUntil the governance changes are agreed AND the management of the A-League changes, it's the FFA which has the TV deal with Foxtel because they currently own and run the league. Some may not like it, but as things currently stand, the club owners have to negotiate with the FFA for a slice of the TV money. Presumably all the refs come under the FFA banner as well. So you'd think that Foxtel would stick firm with the FFA if the club owners tried to walk (in fact, I wonder how easy it is for them to walk given the licensing agreements they have signed). It's not difficult. If the clubs really wanted to they could go directly to FIFA with the NPL clubs and say that the A-league is not following FIFA statutes. In comes FIFA taking control of the A-league, who do you think Fox will have to deal with in order to show games. Yeh, but that can't override contractual agreements already in place back here in Australia. An Australian court would insist on the parties meeting their contractual obligations. The FIFA statutes would mean nothing within the Australian court system (unless the actual licensing agreement has something in there about the FFA abiding by FIFA statutes, which is possible I guess) or unless one or more of the clubs can point to other guarantees made to that effect. Who says they won't fulfill them. The FFA don't have to comply but that would mean getting kicked out of FIFA and not going to the World Cup. Unacceptable. Well, I guess it depends on how bloody minded the FFA wants to be. Certainly, as far as the licensing arrangements go, the courts would be on their side. Arguably, the drastic situation of not being able to compete in the world cup would be more the fault of the parties railing against the FFA, given the FFA would be in its rights to adhere to the current licensing arrangements. FFA can cry all they like but football fans all over Australia will want the FFA gone if we get kicked out of FIFA. Everyone will pillar the FFA and rightly so, it's a battle they can't win.
|
|
|
|
|
And Everyone Blamed Clive
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x@ pippinuYou have a strong AFL background and it looks like you are struggling to understand how Football runs. FIFA is a much criticised organisation but underneath the corrupt executive layer is a civil service-like layer that implements the principles of the organisation religiously; FIFAs principles are that the sport should be organised for the benefit of the players and their clubs. This is fundamentally where the FFA are in bother. If there is a dispute between football association and players FIFA will look to back the players wherever possible. It does not back football associations over players, that's proven throughout history. Providing the clubs and players of the A league consult with the AFC on any breakaway and follow their advice then AFC will back any breakaway over the FA. The FFA will have to sanction the new league or have a bloody good reason why not .... if they don't sanction it then the FFA are gone, the IP is a trivial matter. 5 years ago the ffa could have used that and hid behind it, today FIFA would back the clubs and allocate an appropriate fee for the IP transition. If the ffa don't agree, they're gone. The A League clubs now have the power in this situation, the smart thing would be if the AAFC and PFA and HAL clubs aligned as that would be an unbreakabke alliance. If you have the inclination take a pen and paper and map out the personal connections CFG and Nirwen Bakrie have with the AFC. If you understand these relationships you'll understand how this is playing out, that's before Ledman Groups contacts are added in. The clubs are playing a smart game and the FFA know it. The FFA are non-compliant with FIFA regulations and the clubs know it. The politics are clear and playing out in a way that suggests there is only one way this ends - and it will end with FIFA backing one side: the players & their clubs. This is not an Australian question, unlike the AFL and NRL who govern themselves, this is a FIFA question. #WazFactChecker Meltdown
Winner of Official 442 Comment of the day Award - 10th April 2017
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xUntil the governance changes are agreed AND the management of the A-League changes, it's the FFA which has the TV deal with Foxtel because they currently own and run the league. Some may not like it, but as things currently stand, the club owners have to negotiate with the FFA for a slice of the TV money. Presumably all the refs come under the FFA banner as well. So you'd think that Foxtel would stick firm with the FFA if the club owners tried to walk (in fact, I wonder how easy it is for them to walk given the licensing agreements they have signed). It's not difficult. If the clubs really wanted to they could go directly to FIFA with the NPL clubs and say that the A-league is not following FIFA statutes. In comes FIFA taking control of the A-league, who do you think Fox will have to deal with in order to show games. Yeh, but that can't override contractual agreements already in place back here in Australia. An Australian court would insist on the parties meeting their contractual obligations. The FIFA statutes would mean nothing within the Australian court system (unless the actual licensing agreement has something in there about the FFA abiding by FIFA statutes, which is possible I guess) or unless one or more of the clubs can point to other guarantees made to that effect. Who says they won't fulfill them. The FFA don't have to comply but that would mean getting kicked out of FIFA and not going to the World Cup. Unacceptable. Well, I guess it depends on how bloody minded the FFA wants to be. Certainly, as far as the licensing arrangements go, the courts would be on their side. Arguably, the drastic situation of not being able to compete in the world cup would be more the fault of the parties railing against the FFA, given the FFA would be in its rights to adhere to the current licensing arrangements. FFA can cry all they like but football fans all over Australia will want the FFA gone if we get kicked out of FIFA. Everyone will pillar the FFA and rightly so, it's a battle they can't win. Unless they have government onside (and they may will do), and are able to argue bullying on the part of FIFA (already viewed as corrupt by government), the argument being that an extra-territorial body is trying to force an Australian entity to not meet its obligations under Australian law.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
Are pippinu and P&RTimmy one and the same lol?
|
|
|
|