|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
+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.
|
|
|
|
|
Barca4Life
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
Gallop and Steven Lowy gotta go, just not good enough.
|
|
|
|
|
HeyItsRobbie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.5K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
HeyItsRobbie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.5K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
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).
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+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. What are you on about. FIFA will just kick us out, they won't care what the Aust govt wants. FIFA just cares about the FFA's obligations to FIFA.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+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. What are you on about. FIFA will just kick us out, they won't care what the Aust govt wants. FIFA just cares about the FFA's obligations to FIFA. Yes, of course FIFA can kick us out, and I am saying it's not a given that the FFA would be viewed as the bad guy by government and the Australian public. In fact, I would argue that FIFA would be more likely to be the one viewed as the bad guy. Government created the FFA, and the FFA has properly drawn and agreed licensing agreements with the ten clubs - do not underestimate the advantage of having both Government and Australian law on your side.
|
|
|
|
|
miron mercedes
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
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. Actually no .....if a party can show a contract is unfair a judge may rule it invalid.There may be a case for this here.There may also be grounds for the clubs to apply for breach of contract. Without knowing what the exact terms and conditions are are we can't really know. In many cases the mere threat of years of litigation may be more motivation than what the contract actually says anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Just another standard day of Gallop having no idea about the shit he's in
|
|
|
|
|
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 
|
|
|
|
|
Razor Ramon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 884,
Visits: 0
|
+xGallop could introduce P&R That'll bring things back into FFA control Promotion and Relgation wont do much. Let me guess, P and R is also a cure for cancer I see. I rather this fight for money gets sorted out sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
|
|
aufc_ole
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xGallop could introduce P&R That'll bring things back into FFA control Promotion and Relgation wont do much. Let me guess, P and R is also a cure for cancer I see. I rather this fight for money gets sorted out sooner rather than later. It would make the fight so much easier/clearer.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x 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. NSW and Vic may also be willing to join such an alliance.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x 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. NSW and Vic may also be willing to join such an alliance. But we already know the other state bodies sided with the FFA, so I'm not convinced things are as clearcut as people make out on here.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
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. Sorry Waz, you might be able to explain the bullying of an extra-territorial body such as FIFA, but you are not really explaining how one party bound by a properly drawn contract under Australian law can just walk away from it. Also, let's not forget that the FFA was actually a creation of government and its set up was funded by government.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+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. Sorry Waz, you might be able to explain the bullying of an extra-territorial body such as FIFA, but you are not really explaining how one party bound by a properly drawn contract under Australian law can just walk away from it. They aren't walking away. Football will still be played, it's just Fox will have to deal with FIFA and a new FFA. FIFA has that power.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+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. Sorry Waz, you might be able to explain the bullying of an extra-territorial body such as FIFA, but you are not really explaining how one party bound by a properly drawn contract under Australian law can just walk away from it. They aren't walking away. Football will still be played, it's just Fox will have to deal with FIFA and a new FFA. FIFA has that power. No - FIFA has the power to throw the FFA out. FIFA does not have the power to quash contracts properly drawn up under Australian law.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+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. Sorry Waz, you might be able to explain the bullying of an extra-territorial body such as FIFA, but you are not really explaining how one party bound by a properly drawn contract under Australian law can just walk away from it. They aren't walking away. Football will still be played, it's just Fox will have to deal with FIFA and a new FFA. FIFA has that power. No - FIFA has the power to throw the FFA out. FIFA does not have the power quash contracts properly drawn up under Australian law. I am sure Fox will happily deal with a new FFA so no problem.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+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. Sorry Waz, you might be able to explain the bullying of an extra-territorial body such as FIFA, but you are not really explaining how one party bound by a properly drawn contract under Australian law can just walk away from it. They aren't walking away. Football will still be played, it's just Fox will have to deal with FIFA and a new FFA. FIFA has that power. No - FIFA has the power to throw the FFA out. FIFA does not have the power quash contracts properly drawn up under Australian law. I am sure Fox will happily deal with a new FFA so no problem. Well, let us tease this out a bit. The government created the FFA and for the time being continues to support the FFA. Foxtel has contracts in place with the FFA. FIFA throws Australia out of FIFA (although I'm not sure how easily they would take such a drastic action as that). The FFA still exists as a legal entity under Australian law, it still owns the A-League, and it has a TV deal with Foxtel to broadcast five games per week. Granted, there might be clauses under the TV deal which would make it null and void under extreme circumstances such as this, although we don't know that for sure. FIFA might support a new government body, and a new league owned and run by the ten clubs - but I tell you what - that's a lot of stuff to organise in a short space of time with zero contracts in place for anything, and no refs.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+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. Sorry Waz, you might be able to explain the bullying of an extra-territorial body such as FIFA, but you are not really explaining how one party bound by a properly drawn contract under Australian law can just walk away from it. They aren't walking away. Football will still be played, it's just Fox will have to deal with FIFA and a new FFA. FIFA has that power. No - FIFA has the power to throw the FFA out. FIFA does not have the power quash contracts properly drawn up under Australian law. There is more than 1 path. FIFA can take over control of FFA, like he has said. Foxtel can also choose (however unlikely) to cancel the deal mutually.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
Are pippinu and P&RTimmy one and the same lol?
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
@ pippinu.
As I said, you'd have to understand how football works this is not AFL.
Australian law is relevant, of course it is. The ffa also agreed to a set of rules when they applied to become a member of FIFA and they have been non-compliant for 7 years or so. Australian law will back FIFA in that.
The simple outcome here is the FFA either get the clubs on side with a compromise or find themselves out of their positions and FIFA running the ffa show in the interim. Happened countless times worldwide.
A good case study is the set up of the EPL.
You and your P&RTimmy multi can carry on the false debate, but this is all heading in a familiar direction.
And to answer your contracts question - FIFA assume control of the FFA, the FFA then cancel their own contracts with the clubs.
So far there's only one party in the wrong and in breach of governance- that's the ffa lol 😜
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x@ pippinu. As I said, you'd have to understand how football works this is not AFL. Australian law is relevant, of course it is. The ffa also agreed to a set of rules when they applied to become a member of FIFA and they have been non-compliant for 7 years or so. Australian law will back FIFA in that. The simple outcome here is the FFA either get the clubs on side with a compromise or find themselves out of their positions and FIFA running the ffa show in the interim. Happened countless times worldwide. A good case study is the set up of the EPL. You and your P&RTimmy multi can carry on the false debate, but this is all heading in a familiar direction. It's happened countless time you reckon Waz? Countless? Remind me again which side the Bakries were on when FIFA took action in Indonesia, and then tell me how keen FIFA would be to back the Backries this time round.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
FFA greed has come to shoot them in the foot.
Imo they had a chance from the outset to sign a deal with APFCA. Something lile 20-25% of revenue from the next 4 tv deals etc. They want to give 61% and are letting everyone know they are not happy about it and want to give less. The time for peace has gone.
61%!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
If I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. If they want to fulfill the obligations of the TV deal, they must show the A-League, which, will still be owned by the FFA which still exists as a legal entity and which, most probably, would still have government support. If any clubs have chosen to break their licensing agreements with the FFA, there'd probably be court action. If clubs pull out of the A-League, the FFA will need to find new clubs to meet the 5 games per week obligation - becomes more difficult if we no longer a member of FIFA, but not impossible (it just means that only rank amateurs would be playing in the A-League).
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. If they want to fulfill the obligations of the TV deal, they must show the A-League, which, will still be owned by the FFA which still exists as a legal entity and which, most probably, would still have government support. If any clubs have chosen to break their licensing agreements with the FFA, there'd probably be court action. If clubs pull out of the A-League, the FFA will need to find new clubs to meet the 5 games per week obligation - becomes more difficult if we no longer a member of FIFA, but not impossible (it just means that only rank amateurs would be playing in the A-League). What don't you understand, the FFA board will just be replaced by one run by FIFA. Fox will have no choice but to deal with that FIFA board. The FFA under Gallop would have no power at all. No one will want to deal with them, not the clubs, nor Fox. There is no way fox will allow an amateur league on Fox, they will just rubber stamp the existing deal with the new board. NO ONE WILL SUPPORT THE FFA under Gallop if we get kicked out of FIFA. NO ONE.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. If they want to fulfill the obligations of the TV deal, they must show the A-League, which, will still be owned by the FFA which still exists as a legal entity and which, most probably, would still have government support. If any clubs have chosen to break their licensing agreements with the FFA, there'd probably be court action. If clubs pull out of the A-League, the FFA will need to find new clubs to meet the 5 games per week obligation - becomes more difficult if we no longer a member of FIFA, but not impossible (it just means that only rank amateurs would be playing in the A-League). What don't you understand, the FFA board will just be replaced by one run by FIFA. Fox will have no choice but to deal with that FIFA board. The FFA under Gallop would have no power at all. No one will want to deal with them, not the clubs, nor Fox. There is no way fox will allow an amateur league on Fox, they will just rubber stamp the existing deal with the new board. NO ONE WILL SUPPORT THE FFA under Gallop if we get kicked out of FIFA. NO ONE. So, you're trying to tell me that an extra-territorial body will just come in and replace the board of an Australian legal entity in complete contradiction of a host of Australian laws? Who else here actually believes this? Waz, do you honestly believe this can happen? PLease note, kicking Australia out of FIFA is one thing - no doubt that can happen - but this other thing you are suggesting is a completely different kettle of fish.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. If they want to fulfill the obligations of the TV deal, they must show the A-League, which, will still be owned by the FFA which still exists as a legal entity and which, most probably, would still have government support. If any clubs have chosen to break their licensing agreements with the FFA, there'd probably be court action. If clubs pull out of the A-League, the FFA will need to find new clubs to meet the 5 games per week obligation - becomes more difficult if we no longer a member of FIFA, but not impossible (it just means that only rank amateurs would be playing in the A-League). What don't you understand, the FFA board will just be replaced by one run by FIFA. Fox will have no choice but to deal with that FIFA board. The FFA under Gallop would have no power at all. No one will want to deal with them, not the clubs, nor Fox. There is no way fox will allow an amateur league on Fox, they will just rubber stamp the existing deal with the new board. NO ONE WILL SUPPORT THE FFA under Gallop if we get kicked out of FIFA. NO ONE. So, you're trying to tell me that an extra-territorial body will just come in and replace the board of an Australian legal entity in complete contradiction of a host of Australian laws? Who else here actually believes this? Waz, do you honestly believe this can happen? PLease note, kicking Australia out of FIFA is one thing - no doubt that can happen - but this other thing you are suggesting is a completely different kettle of fish. The legal entity will still exist. It just wont have authority to run the game under FIFA.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. If they want to fulfill the obligations of the TV deal, they must show the A-League, which, will still be owned by the FFA which still exists as a legal entity and which, most probably, would still have government support. If any clubs have chosen to break their licensing agreements with the FFA, there'd probably be court action. If clubs pull out of the A-League, the FFA will need to find new clubs to meet the 5 games per week obligation - becomes more difficult if we no longer a member of FIFA, but not impossible (it just means that only rank amateurs would be playing in the A-League). What don't you understand, the FFA board will just be replaced by one run by FIFA. Fox will have no choice but to deal with that FIFA board. The FFA under Gallop would have no power at all. No one will want to deal with them, not the clubs, nor Fox. There is no way fox will allow an amateur league on Fox, they will just rubber stamp the existing deal with the new board. NO ONE WILL SUPPORT THE FFA under Gallop if we get kicked out of FIFA. NO ONE. So, you're trying to tell me that an extra-territorial body will just come in and replace the board of an Australian legal entity in complete contradiction of a host of Australian laws? Who else here actually believes this? Waz, do you honestly believe this can happen? PLease note, kicking Australia out of FIFA is one thing - no doubt that can happen - but this other thing you are suggesting is a completely different kettle of fish. The legal entity will still exist. It just wont have authority to run the game under FIFA. But nor does FIFA have the authority to put its own directors in. So a new body would have to be created, which may or may not have government support, which may or may not be able to quickly assemble sponsors, which may or may not to quickly put together a TV deal, which may or may not be able to assemble sufficient refs. The FIFA support governing body might be in the box seat to gradually win precedence over the FFA - but I put it to you that that would not necessarily happen over night.
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. If they want to fulfill the obligations of the TV deal, they must show the A-League, which, will still be owned by the FFA which still exists as a legal entity and which, most probably, would still have government support. If any clubs have chosen to break their licensing agreements with the FFA, there'd probably be court action. If clubs pull out of the A-League, the FFA will need to find new clubs to meet the 5 games per week obligation - becomes more difficult if we no longer a member of FIFA, but not impossible (it just means that only rank amateurs would be playing in the A-League). What don't you understand, the FFA board will just be replaced by one run by FIFA. Fox will have no choice but to deal with that FIFA board. The FFA under Gallop would have no power at all. No one will want to deal with them, not the clubs, nor Fox. There is no way fox will allow an amateur league on Fox, they will just rubber stamp the existing deal with the new board. NO ONE WILL SUPPORT THE FFA under Gallop if we get kicked out of FIFA. NO ONE. So, you're trying to tell me that an extra-territorial body will just come in and replace the board of an Australian legal entity in complete contradiction of a host of Australian laws? Who else here actually believes this? Waz, do you honestly believe this can happen? PLease note, kicking Australia out of FIFA is one thing - no doubt that can happen - but this other thing you are suggesting is a completely different kettle of fish. The legal entity will still exist. It just wont have authority to run the game under FIFA. But nor does FIFA have the authority to put its own directors in. So a new body would have to be created, which may or may not have government support, which may or may not be able to quickly assemble sponsors, which may or may not to quickly put together a TV deal, which may or may not be able to assemble sufficient refs. The FIFA support governing body might be in the box seat to gradually win precedence over the FFA - but I put it to you that that would not necessarily happen over night. Reference missing
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. If they want to fulfill the obligations of the TV deal, they must show the A-League, which, will still be owned by the FFA which still exists as a legal entity and which, most probably, would still have government support. If any clubs have chosen to break their licensing agreements with the FFA, there'd probably be court action. If clubs pull out of the A-League, the FFA will need to find new clubs to meet the 5 games per week obligation - becomes more difficult if we no longer a member of FIFA, but not impossible (it just means that only rank amateurs would be playing in the A-League). What don't you understand, the FFA board will just be replaced by one run by FIFA. Fox will have no choice but to deal with that FIFA board. The FFA under Gallop would have no power at all. No one will want to deal with them, not the clubs, nor Fox. There is no way fox will allow an amateur league on Fox, they will just rubber stamp the existing deal with the new board. NO ONE WILL SUPPORT THE FFA under Gallop if we get kicked out of FIFA. NO ONE. So, you're trying to tell me that an extra-territorial body will just come in and replace the board of an Australian legal entity in complete contradiction of a host of Australian laws? Who else here actually believes this? Waz, do you honestly believe this can happen? PLease note, kicking Australia out of FIFA is one thing - no doubt that can happen - but this other thing you are suggesting is a completely different kettle of fish. The legal entity will still exist. It just wont have authority to run the game under FIFA. But nor does FIFA have the authority to put its own directors in. So a new body would have to be created, which may or may not have government support, which may or may not be able to quickly assemble sponsors, which may or may not to quickly put together a TV deal, which may or may not be able to assemble sufficient refs. The FIFA support governing body might be in the box seat to gradually win precedence over the FFA - but I put it to you that that would not necessarily happen over night. It doesn't need government support. If governments get involved as Waz pointed out the country gets kicked out of FIFA.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. If they want to fulfill the obligations of the TV deal, they must show the A-League, which, will still be owned by the FFA which still exists as a legal entity and which, most probably, would still have government support. If any clubs have chosen to break their licensing agreements with the FFA, there'd probably be court action. If clubs pull out of the A-League, the FFA will need to find new clubs to meet the 5 games per week obligation - becomes more difficult if we no longer a member of FIFA, but not impossible (it just means that only rank amateurs would be playing in the A-League). What don't you understand, the FFA board will just be replaced by one run by FIFA. Fox will have no choice but to deal with that FIFA board. The FFA under Gallop would have no power at all. No one will want to deal with them, not the clubs, nor Fox. There is no way fox will allow an amateur league on Fox, they will just rubber stamp the existing deal with the new board. NO ONE WILL SUPPORT THE FFA under Gallop if we get kicked out of FIFA. NO ONE. So, you're trying to tell me that an extra-territorial body will just come in and replace the board of an Australian legal entity in complete contradiction of a host of Australian laws? Who else here actually believes this? Waz, do you honestly believe this can happen? PLease note, kicking Australia out of FIFA is one thing - no doubt that can happen - but this other thing you are suggesting is a completely different kettle of fish. The legal entity will still exist. It just wont have authority to run the game under FIFA. But nor does FIFA have the authority to put its own directors in. So a new body would have to be created, which may or may not have government support, which may or may not be able to quickly assemble sponsors, which may or may not to quickly put together a TV deal, which may or may not be able to assemble sufficient refs. The FIFA support governing body might be in the box seat to gradually win precedence over the FFA - but I put it to you that that would not necessarily happen over night. It doesn't need government support. If governments get involved as Waz pointed out the country gets kicked out of FIFA. No, we need to separate out government interference and government financial support - the latter does not necessarily mean the former. The FFA only exists because the Commonwealth wiped out tens of millions of dollars of debt from the former Soccer Australia. Let us assume a new body needs to start from scratch - will the Commonwealth Government come to the party again and provide seed funding?
|
|
|
|
|
hames_jetfield
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. If they want to fulfill the obligations of the TV deal, they must show the A-League, which, will still be owned by the FFA which still exists as a legal entity and which, most probably, would still have government support. If any clubs have chosen to break their licensing agreements with the FFA, there'd probably be court action. If clubs pull out of the A-League, the FFA will need to find new clubs to meet the 5 games per week obligation - becomes more difficult if we no longer a member of FIFA, but not impossible (it just means that only rank amateurs would be playing in the A-League). What don't you understand, the FFA board will just be replaced by one run by FIFA. Fox will have no choice but to deal with that FIFA board. The FFA under Gallop would have no power at all. No one will want to deal with them, not the clubs, nor Fox. There is no way fox will allow an amateur league on Fox, they will just rubber stamp the existing deal with the new board. NO ONE WILL SUPPORT THE FFA under Gallop if we get kicked out of FIFA. NO ONE. So, you're trying to tell me that an extra-territorial body will just come in and replace the board of an Australian legal entity in complete contradiction of a host of Australian laws? Who else here actually believes this? Waz, do you honestly believe this can happen? PLease note, kicking Australia out of FIFA is one thing - no doubt that can happen - but this other thing you are suggesting is a completely different kettle of fish. The legal entity will still exist. It just wont have authority to run the game under FIFA. But nor does FIFA have the authority to put its own directors in. So a new body would have to be created, which may or may not have government support, which may or may not be able to quickly assemble sponsors, which may or may not to quickly put together a TV deal, which may or may not be able to assemble sufficient refs. The FIFA support governing body might be in the box seat to gradually win precedence over the FFA - but I put it to you that that would not necessarily happen over night. It doesn't need government support. If governments get involved as Waz pointed out the country gets kicked out of FIFA. No, we need to separate out government interference and government financial support - the latter does not necessarily mean the former. The FFA only exists because the Commonwealth wiped out tens of millions of dollars of debt from the former Soccer Australia. Let us assume a new body needs to start from scratch - will the Commonwealth Government come to the party again and provide seed funding? I don't think the Commonwealth want their governing body shut out from the sport either.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. If they want to fulfill the obligations of the TV deal, they must show the A-League, which, will still be owned by the FFA which still exists as a legal entity and which, most probably, would still have government support. If any clubs have chosen to break their licensing agreements with the FFA, there'd probably be court action. If clubs pull out of the A-League, the FFA will need to find new clubs to meet the 5 games per week obligation - becomes more difficult if we no longer a member of FIFA, but not impossible (it just means that only rank amateurs would be playing in the A-League). What don't you understand, the FFA board will just be replaced by one run by FIFA. Fox will have no choice but to deal with that FIFA board. The FFA under Gallop would have no power at all. No one will want to deal with them, not the clubs, nor Fox. There is no way fox will allow an amateur league on Fox, they will just rubber stamp the existing deal with the new board. NO ONE WILL SUPPORT THE FFA under Gallop if we get kicked out of FIFA. NO ONE. So, you're trying to tell me that an extra-territorial body will just come in and replace the board of an Australian legal entity in complete contradiction of a host of Australian laws? Who else here actually believes this? Waz, do you honestly believe this can happen? PLease note, kicking Australia out of FIFA is one thing - no doubt that can happen - but this other thing you are suggesting is a completely different kettle of fish. The legal entity will still exist. It just wont have authority to run the game under FIFA. But nor does FIFA have the authority to put its own directors in. So a new body would have to be created, which may or may not have government support, which may or may not be able to quickly assemble sponsors, which may or may not to quickly put together a TV deal, which may or may not be able to assemble sufficient refs. The FIFA support governing body might be in the box seat to gradually win precedence over the FFA - but I put it to you that that would not necessarily happen over night. It doesn't need government support. If governments get involved as Waz pointed out the country gets kicked out of FIFA. No, we need to separate out government interference and government financial support - the latter does not necessarily mean the former. The FFA only exists because the Commonwealth wiped out tens of millions of dollars of debt from the former Soccer Australia. Let us assume a new body needs to start from scratch - will the Commonwealth Government come to the party again and provide seed funding? I don't think the Commonwealth want their governing body shut out from the sport either. I agree - but it would be far too simplistic to assume that the Commonwealth will ignore the body they set up and align itself with a new body overnight.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. If they want to fulfill the obligations of the TV deal, they must show the A-League, which, will still be owned by the FFA which still exists as a legal entity and which, most probably, would still have government support. If any clubs have chosen to break their licensing agreements with the FFA, there'd probably be court action. If clubs pull out of the A-League, the FFA will need to find new clubs to meet the 5 games per week obligation - becomes more difficult if we no longer a member of FIFA, but not impossible (it just means that only rank amateurs would be playing in the A-League). What don't you understand, the FFA board will just be replaced by one run by FIFA. Fox will have no choice but to deal with that FIFA board. The FFA under Gallop would have no power at all. No one will want to deal with them, not the clubs, nor Fox. There is no way fox will allow an amateur league on Fox, they will just rubber stamp the existing deal with the new board. NO ONE WILL SUPPORT THE FFA under Gallop if we get kicked out of FIFA. NO ONE. So, you're trying to tell me that an extra-territorial body will just come in and replace the board of an Australian legal entity in complete contradiction of a host of Australian laws? Who else here actually believes this? Waz, do you honestly believe this can happen? PLease note, kicking Australia out of FIFA is one thing - no doubt that can happen - but this other thing you are suggesting is a completely different kettle of fish. The legal entity will still exist. It just wont have authority to run the game under FIFA. But nor does FIFA have the authority to put its own directors in. So a new body would have to be created, which may or may not have government support, which may or may not be able to quickly assemble sponsors, which may or may not to quickly put together a TV deal, which may or may not be able to assemble sufficient refs. The FIFA support governing body might be in the box seat to gradually win precedence over the FFA - but I put it to you that that would not necessarily happen over night. It doesn't need government support. If governments get involved as Waz pointed out the country gets kicked out of FIFA. No, we need to separate out government interference and government financial support - the latter does not necessarily mean the former. The FFA only exists because the Commonwealth wiped out tens of millions of dollars of debt from the former Soccer Australia. Let us assume a new body needs to start from scratch - will the Commonwealth Government come to the party again and provide seed funding? Who is soccer Australia. What does this have to do with the entity called FFA. Does the FFA owe the government millions or is it SA?
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. If they want to fulfill the obligations of the TV deal, they must show the A-League, which, will still be owned by the FFA which still exists as a legal entity and which, most probably, would still have government support. If any clubs have chosen to break their licensing agreements with the FFA, there'd probably be court action. If clubs pull out of the A-League, the FFA will need to find new clubs to meet the 5 games per week obligation - becomes more difficult if we no longer a member of FIFA, but not impossible (it just means that only rank amateurs would be playing in the A-League). What don't you understand, the FFA board will just be replaced by one run by FIFA. Fox will have no choice but to deal with that FIFA board. The FFA under Gallop would have no power at all. No one will want to deal with them, not the clubs, nor Fox. There is no way fox will allow an amateur league on Fox, they will just rubber stamp the existing deal with the new board. NO ONE WILL SUPPORT THE FFA under Gallop if we get kicked out of FIFA. NO ONE. So, you're trying to tell me that an extra-territorial body will just come in and replace the board of an Australian legal entity in complete contradiction of a host of Australian laws? Who else here actually believes this? Waz, do you honestly believe this can happen? PLease note, kicking Australia out of FIFA is one thing - no doubt that can happen - but this other thing you are suggesting is a completely different kettle of fish. The legal entity will still exist. It just wont have authority to run the game under FIFA. But nor does FIFA have the authority to put its own directors in. So a new body would have to be created, which may or may not have government support, which may or may not be able to quickly assemble sponsors, which may or may not to quickly put together a TV deal, which may or may not be able to assemble sufficient refs. The FIFA support governing body might be in the box seat to gradually win precedence over the FFA - but I put it to you that that would not necessarily happen over night. It doesn't need government support. If governments get involved as Waz pointed out the country gets kicked out of FIFA. No, we need to separate out government interference and government financial support - the latter does not necessarily mean the former. The FFA only exists because the Commonwealth wiped out tens of millions of dollars of debt from the former Soccer Australia. Let us assume a new body needs to start from scratch - will the Commonwealth Government come to the party again and provide seed funding? Who is soccer Australia. What does this have to do with the entity called FFA. Does the FFA owe the government millions or is it SA? No, the FFA owe the government nothing - but it was government largesse which helped estalish the FFA.
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. If they want to fulfill the obligations of the TV deal, they must show the A-League, which, will still be owned by the FFA which still exists as a legal entity and which, most probably, would still have government support. If any clubs have chosen to break their licensing agreements with the FFA, there'd probably be court action. If clubs pull out of the A-League, the FFA will need to find new clubs to meet the 5 games per week obligation - becomes more difficult if we no longer a member of FIFA, but not impossible (it just means that only rank amateurs would be playing in the A-League). And yet you're somehow trying to argue here that FFA is in an advantaged position. If the clubs want to break away then FFA can go to court and take on 10 aleague clubs and 120 of the next biggest clubs. That will be one hell of a day in court. Frank, Steve and Dave going head to head with the 130 biggest football clubs in the country, threatening to replace them with the Sydney Pirates, Melbourne Blues and with the full support of 1% of football fans left that have faith in the FFA. Bring it the fuck on
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. If they want to fulfill the obligations of the TV deal, they must show the A-League, which, will still be owned by the FFA which still exists as a legal entity and which, most probably, would still have government support. If any clubs have chosen to break their licensing agreements with the FFA, there'd probably be court action. If clubs pull out of the A-League, the FFA will need to find new clubs to meet the 5 games per week obligation - becomes more difficult if we no longer a member of FIFA, but not impossible (it just means that only rank amateurs would be playing in the A-League). And yet you're somehow trying to argue here that FFA is in an advantaged position. If the clubs want to break away then FFA can go to court and take on 10 aleague clubs and 120 of the next biggest clubs. That will be one hell of a day in court. Frank, Steve and Dave going head to head with the 130 biggest football clubs in the country, threatening to replace them with the Sydney Pirates, Melbourne Blues and with the full support of 1% of football fans left that have faith in the FFA. Bring it the fuck on The FFA is advantaged to the extent that it currently has 7 of 10 votes to change the constitution, it only needs one more vote to succeed. Put another way, the recalcitrants only have 3 of 10 votes. So who is closest to getting 80% of the vote to change the constitution? It's the FFA. So even if FIFA set up a new body which is controlled by the 3 recalcitrants, doesn't it follow that another bunch of stakeholders are going to be upset? (that's before we even get to everything the new body would need to do to get things going again).
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. How happy would you be in hindsight to pay a 39% commission fee?
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. How happy would you be in hindsight to pay a 39% commission fee? Well the clubs know they will get more money - probably 75-85% of it.
|
|
|
|
nomates
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
What if the clubs went on strike? That would piss off FOX and fk up the FFA. Its the only logical solution if the FFA don't give them what they need, Or the clubs could boycott the FFA Cup and Finals series.
Wellington Phoenix FC
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWhat if the clubs went on strike? That would piss off FOX and fk up the FFA. Its the only logical solution if the FFA don't give them what they need, Or the clubs could boycott the FFA Cup and Finals series. Would probably result in court action, the FFA would seek that the clubs meet their obligation under the licensing agreement. Let's recall that in the first season of the A-League, the FFA made next to nothing from the TV deal, so my guess is that the existing licensing agreement does not include generous provisions about how much the clubs can expect from any TV deal.
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
aufc_ole
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7K,
Visits: 0
|
Oh boy. This gun be gud
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
@ pippinu
Guatemala, Indonesia, Kuwait, Argentina, Nigeria, Maldives, Israel all suspended or faced suspension in the recent past.
If you understand the history of the A league you'll know how much effort went into avoiding australias suspension when the government set up Crawford.
It should be noted that government interference in a national association generally leads to suspension.
If the FFA don't like the rules they can resign from FIFA. The clubs, players, referees then have a choice - they can go with the ffa or wait and see if a FIFA compliant organisation emerges? What do you think would happen??
And you like contracts soooo much, all player, referee, sponsorship, tv contracts etc are all written under FIFAs umberella - if the FFA leave the individuals concerned can choose to honour them or null and void them.
FIFA is not any rush to fix this, we are neither unique or special, but they will fix it. Gallop is going and Lowe won't be far behind.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x@ pippinuGuatemala, Indonesia, Kuwait, Argentina, Nigeria, Maldives, Israel all suspended or faced suspension in the recent past. If you understand the history of the A league you'll know how much effort went into avoiding australias suspension when the government set up Crawford. It should be noted that government interference in a national association generally leads to suspension. If the FFA don't like the rules they can resign from FIFA. The clubs, players, referees then have a choice - they can go with the ffa or wait and see if a FIFA compliant organisation emerges? What do you think would happen?? And you like contracts soooo much, all player, referee, sponsorship, tv contracts etc are all written under FIFAs umberella - if the FFA leave the individuals concerned can choose to honour them or null and void them. FIFA is not any rush to fix this, we are neither unique or special, but they will fix it. Gallop is going and Lowe won't be far behind. He is so used to the AFL being its own governing body. They don't have to answer to their own version of FIFA.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x@ pippinuGuatemala, Indonesia, Kuwait, Argentina, Nigeria, Maldives, Israel all suspended or faced suspension in the recent past. If you understand the history of the A league you'll know how much effort went into avoiding australias suspension when the government set up Crawford. It should be noted that government interference in a national association generally leads to suspension. If the FFA don't like the rules they can resign from FIFA. The clubs, players, referees then have a choice - they can go with the ffa or wait and see if a FIFA compliant organisation emerges? What do you think would happen?? And you like contracts soooo much, all player, referee, sponsorship, tv contracts etc are all written under FIFAs umberella - if the FFA leave the individuals concerned can choose to honour them or null and void them. FIFA is not any rush to fix this, we are neither unique or special, but they will fix it. Gallop is going and Lowe won't be far behind. Nice list Waz, I can really see how a first world country like Australia sits in that company. As I said earlier, remind me again which side the Backries were on when FIFA took action in Indonesia, and tell me how keen they'd be to back the Backries this time round. What about we go back to basics, wasn't FIFA's interest in this matter initially about wanting the FFA to broaden representation to have as many stakeholders represented. The FFA has not been able to achieve it because 3 of the current 10 stakeholders have voted against the most recent proposal put to members, afterall, there are strict processes to abide by to change a constitution. So are you arguing that FIFA is going to throw the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy? What about the other 7 stakeholders? Don't they count?
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x@ pippinuGuatemala, Indonesia, Kuwait, Argentina, Nigeria, Maldives, Israel all suspended or faced suspension in the recent past. If you understand the history of the A league you'll know how much effort went into avoiding australias suspension when the government set up Crawford. It should be noted that government interference in a national association generally leads to suspension. If the FFA don't like the rules they can resign from FIFA. The clubs, players, referees then have a choice - they can go with the ffa or wait and see if a FIFA compliant organisation emerges? What do you think would happen?? And you like contracts soooo much, all player, referee, sponsorship, tv contracts etc are all written under FIFAs umberella - if the FFA leave the individuals concerned can choose to honour them or null and void them. FIFA is not any rush to fix this, we are neither unique or special, but they will fix it. Gallop is going and Lowe won't be far behind. Nice list Waz, I can really see how a first world country like Australia sits in that company. As I said earlier, remind me again which side the Backries were on when FIFA took action in Indonesia, and tell me how keen they'd be to back the Backries this time round. What about we go back to basics, wasn't FIFA's interest in this matter initially about wanting the FFA to broaden representation to have as many stakeholders represented. The FFA has not been able to achieve it because 3 of the current 10 stakeholders have voted against the most recent proposal put to members, afterall, there are strict processes to abide by to change a constitution. So are you arguing that FIFA is going to throw the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy? What about the other 7 stakeholders? Don't they count? Well obviously there are two issues at play here. The first is the governance of the FFA and the FFA's refusal to increase the congress. Currently the number of congress votes is only 10 and the FFA would love to keep this is as small as possible. For goodness sake they don't even want to increase it to 13 which would still be a figure to low for FIFA. The FFA know that if they increase the congress past 12 that they would be voted out. Looking more and more likely. The other issue is the current clubs are not happy with the dividend from the TV deal which is a separate issue but will ultimately drag the FFA down but also ties into the governance issues currently causing the FFA some headache.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x@ pippinuGuatemala, Indonesia, Kuwait, Argentina, Nigeria, Maldives, Israel all suspended or faced suspension in the recent past. If you understand the history of the A league you'll know how much effort went into avoiding australias suspension when the government set up Crawford. It should be noted that government interference in a national association generally leads to suspension. If the FFA don't like the rules they can resign from FIFA. The clubs, players, referees then have a choice - they can go with the ffa or wait and see if a FIFA compliant organisation emerges? What do you think would happen?? And you like contracts soooo much, all player, referee, sponsorship, tv contracts etc are all written under FIFAs umberella - if the FFA leave the individuals concerned can choose to honour them or null and void them. FIFA is not any rush to fix this, we are neither unique or special, but they will fix it. Gallop is going and Lowe won't be far behind. Nice list Waz, I can really see how a first world country like Australia sits in that company. As I said earlier, remind me again which side the Backries were on when FIFA took action in Indonesia, and tell me how keen they'd be to back the Backries this time round. What about we go back to basics, wasn't FIFA's interest in this matter initially about wanting the FFA to broaden representation to have as many stakeholders represented. The FFA has not been able to achieve it because 3 of the current 10 stakeholders have voted against the most recent proposal put to members, afterall, there are strict processes to abide by to change a constitution. So are you arguing that FIFA is going to throw the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy? What about the other 7 stakeholders? Don't they count? Well obviously there are two issues at play here. The first is the governance of the FFA and the FFA's refusal to increase the congress. Currently the number of congress votes is only 10 and the FFA would love to keep this is as small as possible. For goodness sake they don't even want to increase it to 13 which would still be a figure to low for FIFA. The FFA know that if they increase the congress past 12 that they would be voted out. Looking more and more likely. The other issue is the current clubs are not happy with the dividend from the TV deal which is a separate issue but will ultimately drag the FFA down but also ties into the governance issues currently causing the FFA some headache. Your first para is the main reason why FIFA took an interest, and has things stand, with 7 of 10 stakeholders supporting the FFA, I cannot see FIFA throwing the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy. Re the 2nd para, everyone is starting to speculate that that would be enough for FIFA to step in, but that is far removed from the original reason for FIFA getting involved.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x@ pippinuGuatemala, Indonesia, Kuwait, Argentina, Nigeria, Maldives, Israel all suspended or faced suspension in the recent past. If you understand the history of the A league you'll know how much effort went into avoiding australias suspension when the government set up Crawford. It should be noted that government interference in a national association generally leads to suspension. If the FFA don't like the rules they can resign from FIFA. The clubs, players, referees then have a choice - they can go with the ffa or wait and see if a FIFA compliant organisation emerges? What do you think would happen?? And you like contracts soooo much, all player, referee, sponsorship, tv contracts etc are all written under FIFAs umberella - if the FFA leave the individuals concerned can choose to honour them or null and void them. FIFA is not any rush to fix this, we are neither unique or special, but they will fix it. Gallop is going and Lowe won't be far behind. Nice list Waz, I can really see how a first world country like Australia sits in that company. As I said earlier, remind me again which side the Backries were on when FIFA took action in Indonesia, and tell me how keen they'd be to back the Backries this time round. What about we go back to basics, wasn't FIFA's interest in this matter initially about wanting the FFA to broaden representation to have as many stakeholders represented. The FFA has not been able to achieve it because 3 of the current 10 stakeholders have voted against the most recent proposal put to members, afterall, there are strict processes to abide by to change a constitution. So are you arguing that FIFA is going to throw the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy? What about the other 7 stakeholders? Don't they count? Well obviously there are two issues at play here. The first is the governance of the FFA and the FFA's refusal to increase the congress. Currently the number of congress votes is only 10 and the FFA would love to keep this is as small as possible. For goodness sake they don't even want to increase it to 13 which would still be a figure to low for FIFA. The FFA know that if they increase the congress past 12 that they would be voted out. Looking more and more likely. The other issue is the current clubs are not happy with the dividend from the TV deal which is a separate issue but will ultimately drag the FFA down but also ties into the governance issues currently causing the FFA some headache. Your first para is the main reason why FIFA took an interest, and has things stand, with 7 of 10 stakeholders supporting the FFA, I cannot see FIFA throwing the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy. Re the 2nd para, everyone is starting to speculate that that would be enough for FIFA to step in, but that is far removed from the original reason for FIFA getting involved. They are already unhappy. NOT BECAUSE 3 are not happy, but because there should be more than 10 votes. Most congresses around the world number at least 50. The congress in Germany as an example has over 300 votes.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x@ pippinuGuatemala, Indonesia, Kuwait, Argentina, Nigeria, Maldives, Israel all suspended or faced suspension in the recent past. If you understand the history of the A league you'll know how much effort went into avoiding australias suspension when the government set up Crawford. It should be noted that government interference in a national association generally leads to suspension. If the FFA don't like the rules they can resign from FIFA. The clubs, players, referees then have a choice - they can go with the ffa or wait and see if a FIFA compliant organisation emerges? What do you think would happen?? And you like contracts soooo much, all player, referee, sponsorship, tv contracts etc are all written under FIFAs umberella - if the FFA leave the individuals concerned can choose to honour them or null and void them. FIFA is not any rush to fix this, we are neither unique or special, but they will fix it. Gallop is going and Lowe won't be far behind. Nice list Waz, I can really see how a first world country like Australia sits in that company. As I said earlier, remind me again which side the Backries were on when FIFA took action in Indonesia, and tell me how keen they'd be to back the Backries this time round. What about we go back to basics, wasn't FIFA's interest in this matter initially about wanting the FFA to broaden representation to have as many stakeholders represented. The FFA has not been able to achieve it because 3 of the current 10 stakeholders have voted against the most recent proposal put to members, afterall, there are strict processes to abide by to change a constitution. So are you arguing that FIFA is going to throw the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy? What about the other 7 stakeholders? Don't they count? Well obviously there are two issues at play here. The first is the governance of the FFA and the FFA's refusal to increase the congress. Currently the number of congress votes is only 10 and the FFA would love to keep this is as small as possible. For goodness sake they don't even want to increase it to 13 which would still be a figure to low for FIFA. The FFA know that if they increase the congress past 12 that they would be voted out. Looking more and more likely. The other issue is the current clubs are not happy with the dividend from the TV deal which is a separate issue but will ultimately drag the FFA down but also ties into the governance issues currently causing the FFA some headache. Your first para is the main reason why FIFA took an interest, and has things stand, with 7 of 10 stakeholders supporting the FFA, I cannot see FIFA throwing the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy. Re the 2nd para, everyone is starting to speculate that that would be enough for FIFA to step in, but that is far removed from the original reason for FIFA getting involved. They are already unhappy. NOT BECAUSE 3 are not happy, but because there should be more than 10 votes. Most congresses around the world number at least 50. The congress in Germany as an example has over 300 votes. Yes, and the FFA Commission put up a proposal to its members to extend membership, and 3 of 10 voted against it. I simply say to you, that is not sufficient reason for FIFA to throw Australia out because the FFA still has the support of 7 of 10 members (but under the consitution, that is not enough to change the constitution). Anyway, the divvying up of the TV rights is far removed from this central issue.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x@ pippinuGuatemala, Indonesia, Kuwait, Argentina, Nigeria, Maldives, Israel all suspended or faced suspension in the recent past. If you understand the history of the A league you'll know how much effort went into avoiding australias suspension when the government set up Crawford. It should be noted that government interference in a national association generally leads to suspension. If the FFA don't like the rules they can resign from FIFA. The clubs, players, referees then have a choice - they can go with the ffa or wait and see if a FIFA compliant organisation emerges? What do you think would happen?? And you like contracts soooo much, all player, referee, sponsorship, tv contracts etc are all written under FIFAs umberella - if the FFA leave the individuals concerned can choose to honour them or null and void them. FIFA is not any rush to fix this, we are neither unique or special, but they will fix it. Gallop is going and Lowe won't be far behind. Nice list Waz, I can really see how a first world country like Australia sits in that company. As I said earlier, remind me again which side the Backries were on when FIFA took action in Indonesia, and tell me how keen they'd be to back the Backries this time round. What about we go back to basics, wasn't FIFA's interest in this matter initially about wanting the FFA to broaden representation to have as many stakeholders represented. The FFA has not been able to achieve it because 3 of the current 10 stakeholders have voted against the most recent proposal put to members, afterall, there are strict processes to abide by to change a constitution. So are you arguing that FIFA is going to throw the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy? What about the other 7 stakeholders? Don't they count? Well obviously there are two issues at play here. The first is the governance of the FFA and the FFA's refusal to increase the congress. Currently the number of congress votes is only 10 and the FFA would love to keep this is as small as possible. For goodness sake they don't even want to increase it to 13 which would still be a figure to low for FIFA. The FFA know that if they increase the congress past 12 that they would be voted out. Looking more and more likely. The other issue is the current clubs are not happy with the dividend from the TV deal which is a separate issue but will ultimately drag the FFA down but also ties into the governance issues currently causing the FFA some headache. Your first para is the main reason why FIFA took an interest, and has things stand, with 7 of 10 stakeholders supporting the FFA, I cannot see FIFA throwing the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy. Re the 2nd para, everyone is starting to speculate that that would be enough for FIFA to step in, but that is far removed from the original reason for FIFA getting involved. They are already unhappy. NOT BECAUSE 3 are not happy, but because there should be more than 10 votes. Most congresses around the world number at least 50. The congress in Germany as an example has over 300 votes. Yes, and the FFA Commission put up a proposal to its members to extend membership, and 3 of 10 voted against it. I simply say to you, that is not sufficient reason for FIFA to throw Australia out because the FFA still has the support of 7 of 10 members (but under the consitution, that is not enough to change the constitution). Anyway, the divvying up of the TV rights is far removed from this central issue. The FFA has to follow its own constitution wouldn't you think. Come up with a new proposal, one acceptable to the clubs and the FFA.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x@ pippinuGuatemala, Indonesia, Kuwait, Argentina, Nigeria, Maldives, Israel all suspended or faced suspension in the recent past. If you understand the history of the A league you'll know how much effort went into avoiding australias suspension when the government set up Crawford. It should be noted that government interference in a national association generally leads to suspension. If the FFA don't like the rules they can resign from FIFA. The clubs, players, referees then have a choice - they can go with the ffa or wait and see if a FIFA compliant organisation emerges? What do you think would happen?? And you like contracts soooo much, all player, referee, sponsorship, tv contracts etc are all written under FIFAs umberella - if the FFA leave the individuals concerned can choose to honour them or null and void them. FIFA is not any rush to fix this, we are neither unique or special, but they will fix it. Gallop is going and Lowe won't be far behind. Nice list Waz, I can really see how a first world country like Australia sits in that company. As I said earlier, remind me again which side the Backries were on when FIFA took action in Indonesia, and tell me how keen they'd be to back the Backries this time round. What about we go back to basics, wasn't FIFA's interest in this matter initially about wanting the FFA to broaden representation to have as many stakeholders represented. The FFA has not been able to achieve it because 3 of the current 10 stakeholders have voted against the most recent proposal put to members, afterall, there are strict processes to abide by to change a constitution. So are you arguing that FIFA is going to throw the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy? What about the other 7 stakeholders? Don't they count? Well obviously there are two issues at play here. The first is the governance of the FFA and the FFA's refusal to increase the congress. Currently the number of congress votes is only 10 and the FFA would love to keep this is as small as possible. For goodness sake they don't even want to increase it to 13 which would still be a figure to low for FIFA. The FFA know that if they increase the congress past 12 that they would be voted out. Looking more and more likely. The other issue is the current clubs are not happy with the dividend from the TV deal which is a separate issue but will ultimately drag the FFA down but also ties into the governance issues currently causing the FFA some headache. Your first para is the main reason why FIFA took an interest, and has things stand, with 7 of 10 stakeholders supporting the FFA, I cannot see FIFA throwing the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy. Re the 2nd para, everyone is starting to speculate that that would be enough for FIFA to step in, but that is far removed from the original reason for FIFA getting involved. They are already unhappy. NOT BECAUSE 3 are not happy, but because there should be more than 10 votes. Most congresses around the world number at least 50. The congress in Germany as an example has over 300 votes. Yes, and the FFA Commission put up a proposal to its members to extend membership, and 3 of 10 voted against it. I simply say to you, that is not sufficient reason for FIFA to throw Australia out because the FFA still has the support of 7 of 10 members (but under the consitution, that is not enough to change the constitution). Anyway, the divvying up of the TV rights is far removed from this central issue. The FFA has to follow its own constitution wouldn't you think. Come up with a new proposal, one acceptable to the clubs and the FFA. AS things currently stand, no - the FFA does not have to put something up which is acceptable to the clubs (who only have the one vote), if either of Vic or NSW voted in favour of the proposal, it would get up unchanged.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x@ pippinuGuatemala, Indonesia, Kuwait, Argentina, Nigeria, Maldives, Israel all suspended or faced suspension in the recent past. If you understand the history of the A league you'll know how much effort went into avoiding australias suspension when the government set up Crawford. It should be noted that government interference in a national association generally leads to suspension. If the FFA don't like the rules they can resign from FIFA. The clubs, players, referees then have a choice - they can go with the ffa or wait and see if a FIFA compliant organisation emerges? What do you think would happen?? And you like contracts soooo much, all player, referee, sponsorship, tv contracts etc are all written under FIFAs umberella - if the FFA leave the individuals concerned can choose to honour them or null and void them. FIFA is not any rush to fix this, we are neither unique or special, but they will fix it. Gallop is going and Lowe won't be far behind. Nice list Waz, I can really see how a first world country like Australia sits in that company. As I said earlier, remind me again which side the Backries were on when FIFA took action in Indonesia, and tell me how keen they'd be to back the Backries this time round. What about we go back to basics, wasn't FIFA's interest in this matter initially about wanting the FFA to broaden representation to have as many stakeholders represented. The FFA has not been able to achieve it because 3 of the current 10 stakeholders have voted against the most recent proposal put to members, afterall, there are strict processes to abide by to change a constitution. So are you arguing that FIFA is going to throw the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy? What about the other 7 stakeholders? Don't they count? Well obviously there are two issues at play here. The first is the governance of the FFA and the FFA's refusal to increase the congress. Currently the number of congress votes is only 10 and the FFA would love to keep this is as small as possible. For goodness sake they don't even want to increase it to 13 which would still be a figure to low for FIFA. The FFA know that if they increase the congress past 12 that they would be voted out. Looking more and more likely. The other issue is the current clubs are not happy with the dividend from the TV deal which is a separate issue but will ultimately drag the FFA down but also ties into the governance issues currently causing the FFA some headache. Your first para is the main reason why FIFA took an interest, and has things stand, with 7 of 10 stakeholders supporting the FFA, I cannot see FIFA throwing the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy. Re the 2nd para, everyone is starting to speculate that that would be enough for FIFA to step in, but that is far removed from the original reason for FIFA getting involved. They are already unhappy. NOT BECAUSE 3 are not happy, but because there should be more than 10 votes. Most congresses around the world number at least 50. The congress in Germany as an example has over 300 votes. Yes, and the FFA Commission put up a proposal to its members to extend membership, and 3 of 10 voted against it. I simply say to you, that is not sufficient reason for FIFA to throw Australia out because the FFA still has the support of 7 of 10 members (but under the consitution, that is not enough to change the constitution). Anyway, the divvying up of the TV rights is far removed from this central issue. The FFA has to follow its own constitution wouldn't you think. Come up with a new proposal, one acceptable to the clubs and the FFA. AS things currently stand, no - the FFA does not have to put something up which is acceptable to the clubs (who only have the one vote), if either of Vic or NSW voted in favour of the proposal, it would get up unchanged. Well they have to negotiate with Vic or NSW, but once FIFA gets involved we might have to add another 50 voters to a new congress. Edit - Would it stand to reason that all those NPL clubs in NSW and Victoria fall under those two associations who are not voting the way the FFA want. Even if they did vote in favour of the FFA would FIFA find 12 votes acceptable for a new congress or even 13 for that matter.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x@ pippinuGuatemala, Indonesia, Kuwait, Argentina, Nigeria, Maldives, Israel all suspended or faced suspension in the recent past. If you understand the history of the A league you'll know how much effort went into avoiding australias suspension when the government set up Crawford. It should be noted that government interference in a national association generally leads to suspension. If the FFA don't like the rules they can resign from FIFA. The clubs, players, referees then have a choice - they can go with the ffa or wait and see if a FIFA compliant organisation emerges? What do you think would happen?? And you like contracts soooo much, all player, referee, sponsorship, tv contracts etc are all written under FIFAs umberella - if the FFA leave the individuals concerned can choose to honour them or null and void them. FIFA is not any rush to fix this, we are neither unique or special, but they will fix it. Gallop is going and Lowe won't be far behind. Nice list Waz, I can really see how a first world country like Australia sits in that company. As I said earlier, remind me again which side the Backries were on when FIFA took action in Indonesia, and tell me how keen they'd be to back the Backries this time round. What about we go back to basics, wasn't FIFA's interest in this matter initially about wanting the FFA to broaden representation to have as many stakeholders represented. The FFA has not been able to achieve it because 3 of the current 10 stakeholders have voted against the most recent proposal put to members, afterall, there are strict processes to abide by to change a constitution. So are you arguing that FIFA is going to throw the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy? What about the other 7 stakeholders? Don't they count? Well obviously there are two issues at play here. The first is the governance of the FFA and the FFA's refusal to increase the congress. Currently the number of congress votes is only 10 and the FFA would love to keep this is as small as possible. For goodness sake they don't even want to increase it to 13 which would still be a figure to low for FIFA. The FFA know that if they increase the congress past 12 that they would be voted out. Looking more and more likely. The other issue is the current clubs are not happy with the dividend from the TV deal which is a separate issue but will ultimately drag the FFA down but also ties into the governance issues currently causing the FFA some headache. Your first para is the main reason why FIFA took an interest, and has things stand, with 7 of 10 stakeholders supporting the FFA, I cannot see FIFA throwing the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy. Re the 2nd para, everyone is starting to speculate that that would be enough for FIFA to step in, but that is far removed from the original reason for FIFA getting involved. They are already unhappy. NOT BECAUSE 3 are not happy, but because there should be more than 10 votes. Most congresses around the world number at least 50. The congress in Germany as an example has over 300 votes. Yes, and the FFA Commission put up a proposal to its members to extend membership, and 3 of 10 voted against it. I simply say to you, that is not sufficient reason for FIFA to throw Australia out because the FFA still has the support of 7 of 10 members (but under the consitution, that is not enough to change the constitution). Anyway, the divvying up of the TV rights is far removed from this central issue. The FFA has to follow its own constitution wouldn't you think. Come up with a new proposal, one acceptable to the clubs and the FFA. AS things currently stand, no - the FFA does not have to put something up which is acceptable to the clubs (who only have the one vote), if either of Vic or NSW voted in favour of the proposal, it would get up unchanged. Well they have to negotiate with Vic or NSW, but once FIFA gets involved we might have to add another 50 voters to a new congress. Edit - Would it stand to reason that all those NPL clubs in NSW and Victoria fall under those two associations who are not voting the way the FFA want. Even if they did vote in favour of the FFA would FIFA find 12 votes acceptable for a new congress or even 13 for that matter. As I said, the FFA only needs one of Vic or NSW to get its proposal up. In other words, the ten clubs are at the polar extreme of getting anything up. FFA could rightly argue that they are so close to getting their proposal up, needing just the one vote, that they deserve time to lobby the members.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x@ pippinuGuatemala, Indonesia, Kuwait, Argentina, Nigeria, Maldives, Israel all suspended or faced suspension in the recent past. If you understand the history of the A league you'll know how much effort went into avoiding australias suspension when the government set up Crawford. It should be noted that government interference in a national association generally leads to suspension. If the FFA don't like the rules they can resign from FIFA. The clubs, players, referees then have a choice - they can go with the ffa or wait and see if a FIFA compliant organisation emerges? What do you think would happen?? And you like contracts soooo much, all player, referee, sponsorship, tv contracts etc are all written under FIFAs umberella - if the FFA leave the individuals concerned can choose to honour them or null and void them. FIFA is not any rush to fix this, we are neither unique or special, but they will fix it. Gallop is going and Lowe won't be far behind. Nice list Waz, I can really see how a first world country like Australia sits in that company. As I said earlier, remind me again which side the Backries were on when FIFA took action in Indonesia, and tell me how keen they'd be to back the Backries this time round. What about we go back to basics, wasn't FIFA's interest in this matter initially about wanting the FFA to broaden representation to have as many stakeholders represented. The FFA has not been able to achieve it because 3 of the current 10 stakeholders have voted against the most recent proposal put to members, afterall, there are strict processes to abide by to change a constitution. So are you arguing that FIFA is going to throw the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy? What about the other 7 stakeholders? Don't they count? Well obviously there are two issues at play here. The first is the governance of the FFA and the FFA's refusal to increase the congress. Currently the number of congress votes is only 10 and the FFA would love to keep this is as small as possible. For goodness sake they don't even want to increase it to 13 which would still be a figure to low for FIFA. The FFA know that if they increase the congress past 12 that they would be voted out. Looking more and more likely. The other issue is the current clubs are not happy with the dividend from the TV deal which is a separate issue but will ultimately drag the FFA down but also ties into the governance issues currently causing the FFA some headache. Your first para is the main reason why FIFA took an interest, and has things stand, with 7 of 10 stakeholders supporting the FFA, I cannot see FIFA throwing the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy. Re the 2nd para, everyone is starting to speculate that that would be enough for FIFA to step in, but that is far removed from the original reason for FIFA getting involved. They are already unhappy. NOT BECAUSE 3 are not happy, but because there should be more than 10 votes. Most congresses around the world number at least 50. The congress in Germany as an example has over 300 votes. Yes, and the FFA Commission put up a proposal to its members to extend membership, and 3 of 10 voted against it. I simply say to you, that is not sufficient reason for FIFA to throw Australia out because the FFA still has the support of 7 of 10 members (but under the consitution, that is not enough to change the constitution). Anyway, the divvying up of the TV rights is far removed from this central issue. The FFA has to follow its own constitution wouldn't you think. Come up with a new proposal, one acceptable to the clubs and the FFA. AS things currently stand, no - the FFA does not have to put something up which is acceptable to the clubs (who only have the one vote), if either of Vic or NSW voted in favour of the proposal, it would get up unchanged. Well they have to negotiate with Vic or NSW, but once FIFA gets involved we might have to add another 50 voters to a new congress. Edit - Would it stand to reason that all those NPL clubs in NSW and Victoria fall under those two associations who are not voting the way the FFA want. Even if they did vote in favour of the FFA would FIFA find 12 votes acceptable for a new congress or even 13 for that matter. As I said, the FFA only needs one of Vic or NSW to get its proposal up. In other words, the ten clubs are at the polar extreme of getting anything up. FFA could rightly argue that they are so close to getting their proposal up, needing just the one vote, that they deserve time to lobby the members. Do you think FIFA will allow 12 votes for a new congress. That figure of 12 is the FFA's number they would like, apparently 13 votes is too much for them. Still has to pass FIFA's scrutiny which it wont.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x@ pippinuGuatemala, Indonesia, Kuwait, Argentina, Nigeria, Maldives, Israel all suspended or faced suspension in the recent past. If you understand the history of the A league you'll know how much effort went into avoiding australias suspension when the government set up Crawford. It should be noted that government interference in a national association generally leads to suspension. If the FFA don't like the rules they can resign from FIFA. The clubs, players, referees then have a choice - they can go with the ffa or wait and see if a FIFA compliant organisation emerges? What do you think would happen?? And you like contracts soooo much, all player, referee, sponsorship, tv contracts etc are all written under FIFAs umberella - if the FFA leave the individuals concerned can choose to honour them or null and void them. FIFA is not any rush to fix this, we are neither unique or special, but they will fix it. Gallop is going and Lowe won't be far behind. Nice list Waz, I can really see how a first world country like Australia sits in that company. As I said earlier, remind me again which side the Backries were on when FIFA took action in Indonesia, and tell me how keen they'd be to back the Backries this time round. What about we go back to basics, wasn't FIFA's interest in this matter initially about wanting the FFA to broaden representation to have as many stakeholders represented. The FFA has not been able to achieve it because 3 of the current 10 stakeholders have voted against the most recent proposal put to members, afterall, there are strict processes to abide by to change a constitution. So are you arguing that FIFA is going to throw the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy? What about the other 7 stakeholders? Don't they count? Well obviously there are two issues at play here. The first is the governance of the FFA and the FFA's refusal to increase the congress. Currently the number of congress votes is only 10 and the FFA would love to keep this is as small as possible. For goodness sake they don't even want to increase it to 13 which would still be a figure to low for FIFA. The FFA know that if they increase the congress past 12 that they would be voted out. Looking more and more likely. The other issue is the current clubs are not happy with the dividend from the TV deal which is a separate issue but will ultimately drag the FFA down but also ties into the governance issues currently causing the FFA some headache. Your first para is the main reason why FIFA took an interest, and has things stand, with 7 of 10 stakeholders supporting the FFA, I cannot see FIFA throwing the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy. Re the 2nd para, everyone is starting to speculate that that would be enough for FIFA to step in, but that is far removed from the original reason for FIFA getting involved. They are already unhappy. NOT BECAUSE 3 are not happy, but because there should be more than 10 votes. Most congresses around the world number at least 50. The congress in Germany as an example has over 300 votes. Yes, and the FFA Commission put up a proposal to its members to extend membership, and 3 of 10 voted against it. I simply say to you, that is not sufficient reason for FIFA to throw Australia out because the FFA still has the support of 7 of 10 members (but under the consitution, that is not enough to change the constitution). Anyway, the divvying up of the TV rights is far removed from this central issue. The FFA has to follow its own constitution wouldn't you think. Come up with a new proposal, one acceptable to the clubs and the FFA. AS things currently stand, no - the FFA does not have to put something up which is acceptable to the clubs (who only have the one vote), if either of Vic or NSW voted in favour of the proposal, it would get up unchanged. Well they have to negotiate with Vic or NSW, but once FIFA gets involved we might have to add another 50 voters to a new congress. Edit - Would it stand to reason that all those NPL clubs in NSW and Victoria fall under those two associations who are not voting the way the FFA want. Even if they did vote in favour of the FFA would FIFA find 12 votes acceptable for a new congress or even 13 for that matter. As I said, the FFA only needs one of Vic or NSW to get its proposal up. In other words, the ten clubs are at the polar extreme of getting anything up. FFA could rightly argue that they are so close to getting their proposal up, needing just the one vote, that they deserve time to lobby the members. Do you think FIFA will allow 12 votes for a new congress. That figure of 12 is the FFA's number they would like, apparently 13 votes is too much for them. Still has to pass FIFA's scrutiny which it wont. I actually thought the latest proposal had moved beyond 12. Either way, as of today, 7 of 10 members support the FFA.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x@ pippinuGuatemala, Indonesia, Kuwait, Argentina, Nigeria, Maldives, Israel all suspended or faced suspension in the recent past. If you understand the history of the A league you'll know how much effort went into avoiding australias suspension when the government set up Crawford. It should be noted that government interference in a national association generally leads to suspension. If the FFA don't like the rules they can resign from FIFA. The clubs, players, referees then have a choice - they can go with the ffa or wait and see if a FIFA compliant organisation emerges? What do you think would happen?? And you like contracts soooo much, all player, referee, sponsorship, tv contracts etc are all written under FIFAs umberella - if the FFA leave the individuals concerned can choose to honour them or null and void them. FIFA is not any rush to fix this, we are neither unique or special, but they will fix it. Gallop is going and Lowe won't be far behind. Nice list Waz, I can really see how a first world country like Australia sits in that company. As I said earlier, remind me again which side the Backries were on when FIFA took action in Indonesia, and tell me how keen they'd be to back the Backries this time round. What about we go back to basics, wasn't FIFA's interest in this matter initially about wanting the FFA to broaden representation to have as many stakeholders represented. The FFA has not been able to achieve it because 3 of the current 10 stakeholders have voted against the most recent proposal put to members, afterall, there are strict processes to abide by to change a constitution. So are you arguing that FIFA is going to throw the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy? What about the other 7 stakeholders? Don't they count? Well obviously there are two issues at play here. The first is the governance of the FFA and the FFA's refusal to increase the congress. Currently the number of congress votes is only 10 and the FFA would love to keep this is as small as possible. For goodness sake they don't even want to increase it to 13 which would still be a figure to low for FIFA. The FFA know that if they increase the congress past 12 that they would be voted out. Looking more and more likely. The other issue is the current clubs are not happy with the dividend from the TV deal which is a separate issue but will ultimately drag the FFA down but also ties into the governance issues currently causing the FFA some headache. Your first para is the main reason why FIFA took an interest, and has things stand, with 7 of 10 stakeholders supporting the FFA, I cannot see FIFA throwing the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy. Re the 2nd para, everyone is starting to speculate that that would be enough for FIFA to step in, but that is far removed from the original reason for FIFA getting involved. They are already unhappy. NOT BECAUSE 3 are not happy, but because there should be more than 10 votes. Most congresses around the world number at least 50. The congress in Germany as an example has over 300 votes. Yes, and the FFA Commission put up a proposal to its members to extend membership, and 3 of 10 voted against it. I simply say to you, that is not sufficient reason for FIFA to throw Australia out because the FFA still has the support of 7 of 10 members (but under the consitution, that is not enough to change the constitution). Anyway, the divvying up of the TV rights is far removed from this central issue. The FFA has to follow its own constitution wouldn't you think. Come up with a new proposal, one acceptable to the clubs and the FFA. AS things currently stand, no - the FFA does not have to put something up which is acceptable to the clubs (who only have the one vote), if either of Vic or NSW voted in favour of the proposal, it would get up unchanged. Well they have to negotiate with Vic or NSW, but once FIFA gets involved we might have to add another 50 voters to a new congress. Edit - Would it stand to reason that all those NPL clubs in NSW and Victoria fall under those two associations who are not voting the way the FFA want. Even if they did vote in favour of the FFA would FIFA find 12 votes acceptable for a new congress or even 13 for that matter. As I said, the FFA only needs one of Vic or NSW to get its proposal up. In other words, the ten clubs are at the polar extreme of getting anything up. FFA could rightly argue that they are so close to getting their proposal up, needing just the one vote, that they deserve time to lobby the members. Do you think FIFA will allow 12 votes for a new congress. That figure of 12 is the FFA's number they would like, apparently 13 votes is too much for them. Still has to pass FIFA's scrutiny which it wont. I actually thought the latest proposal had moved beyond 12. Either way, as of today, 7 of 10 members support the FFA. Yes but they need 8 so they can change the constitution and change it from 10 votes to 12 votes, which FIFA wont allow anyway. Just watch.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
@ pippinu
"So, you're trying to tell me that an extra-territorial body will just come in and replace the board of an Australian legal entity in complete contradiction of a host of Australian laws?" ..... err, no. Not in contradiction to Australian laws but with the full support of Australian laws.
The FFA joined FIFA, no one forced them to, but because they joined FIFA they must follow their rules. That's protected by Australian and contract law which you live so much.
FFA must comply with the FIFA law and regulations or they're gone.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x@ pippinu"So, you're trying to tell me that an extra-territorial body will just come in and replace the board of an Australian legal entity in complete contradiction of a host of Australian laws?" ..... err, no. Not in contradiction to Australian laws but with the full support of Australian laws. The FFA joined FIFA, no one forced them to, but because they joined FIFA they must follow their rules. That's protected by Australian and contract law which you live so much. FFA must comply with the FIFA law and regulations or they're gone. Yes, but FIFA being able to throw out the FFA is a different matter to FIFA being able to take over an Australian legal entity - I have been arguing that the latter is an impossibility.
|
|
|
|
|
hames_jetfield
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Australian government and our laws maybe on the FFA's side - I'm not a corporate lawyer. But can't FIFA just ban the FFA from the sport so no Socceroos - no World Cup, Asian Cup, Women's World Cup, etc. until FFA fall in line? Would the FFA and the Australian government really want that? It's not like FIFA need Australia in the game like the traditional European and South American powers and China and the US.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAustralian government and our laws maybe on the FFA's side - I'm not a corporate lawyer. But can't FIFA just ban the FFA from the sport so no Socceroos - no World Cup, Asian Cup, Women's World Cup, etc. until FFA fall in line? Would the FFA and the Australian government really want that? It's not like FIFA need Australia in the game like the traditional European and South American powers and China and the US. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xAustralian government and our laws maybe on the FFA's side - I'm not a corporate lawyer. But can't FIFA just ban the FFA from the sport so no Socceroos - no World Cup, Asian Cup, Women's World Cup, etc. until FFA fall in line? Would the FFA and the Australian government really want that? It's not like FIFA need Australia in the game like the traditional European and South American powers and China and the US. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xAustralian government and our laws maybe on the FFA's side - I'm not a corporate lawyer. But can't FIFA just ban the FFA from the sport so no Socceroos - no World Cup, Asian Cup, Women's World Cup, etc. until FFA fall in line? Would the FFA and the Australian government really want that? It's not like FIFA need Australia in the game like the traditional European and South American powers and China and the US. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps. So a new entity needs to be created, new contracts are needed, new sponsorship, new TV deal, etc, etc - and where is the seed funding coming from to create the new entity? I keep mentioning government support because the FFA only came into existence because of government funding.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xAustralian government and our laws maybe on the FFA's side - I'm not a corporate lawyer. But can't FIFA just ban the FFA from the sport so no Socceroos - no World Cup, Asian Cup, Women's World Cup, etc. until FFA fall in line? Would the FFA and the Australian government really want that? It's not like FIFA need Australia in the game like the traditional European and South American powers and China and the US. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps. So a new entity needs to be created, new contracts are needed, new sponsorship, new TV deal, etc, etc - and where is the seed funding coming from to create the new entity? I keep mentioning government support because the FFA only came into existence because of government funding. FOX will just rubber stamp it. If they don't show football they will lose a lot of subscriptions. Edit - I would assume if FIFA come in they will have their own admin. They might even be paid in Swiss marks.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xAustralian government and our laws maybe on the FFA's side - I'm not a corporate lawyer. But can't FIFA just ban the FFA from the sport so no Socceroos - no World Cup, Asian Cup, Women's World Cup, etc. until FFA fall in line? Would the FFA and the Australian government really want that? It's not like FIFA need Australia in the game like the traditional European and South American powers and China and the US. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps. So a new entity needs to be created, new contracts are needed, new sponsorship, new TV deal, etc, etc - and where is the seed funding coming from to create the new entity? I keep mentioning government support because the FFA only came into existence because of government funding. FOX will just rubber stamp it. If they don't show football they will lose a lot of subscriptions. Well, in fact, if Foxtel was forced to the negotiation table with a brand new entity, new league, maybe different teams, who knows - I would not count on Foxtel automatically offering the same amount again.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xAustralian government and our laws maybe on the FFA's side - I'm not a corporate lawyer. But can't FIFA just ban the FFA from the sport so no Socceroos - no World Cup, Asian Cup, Women's World Cup, etc. until FFA fall in line? Would the FFA and the Australian government really want that? It's not like FIFA need Australia in the game like the traditional European and South American powers and China and the US. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps. So a new entity needs to be created, new contracts are needed, new sponsorship, new TV deal, etc, etc - and where is the seed funding coming from to create the new entity? I keep mentioning government support because the FFA only came into existence because of government funding. FOX will just rubber stamp it. If they don't show football they will lose a lot of subscriptions. Well, in fact, if Foxtel was forced to the negotiation table with a brand new entity, new league, maybe different teams, who knows - I would not count on Foxtel automatically offering the same amount again. I would happily ask FIFA to re-negotiate the TV deal. Would Fox want the same. Hmmmm I don't know. I think the tv deal could have been better myself. Most on the forum think so as well.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAustralian government and our laws maybe on the FFA's side - I'm not a corporate lawyer. But can't FIFA just ban the FFA from the sport so no Socceroos - no World Cup, Asian Cup, Women's World Cup, etc. until FFA fall in line? Would the FFA and the Australian government really want that? It's not like FIFA need Australia in the game like the traditional European and South American powers and China and the US. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps. So a new entity needs to be created, new contracts are needed, new sponsorship, new TV deal, etc, etc - and where is the seed funding coming from to create the new entity? I keep mentioning government support because the FFA only came into existence because of government funding. FOX will just rubber stamp it. If they don't show football they will lose a lot of subscriptions. Well, in fact, if Foxtel was forced to the negotiation table with a brand new entity, new league, maybe different teams, who knows - I would not count on Foxtel automatically offering the same amount again. I would happily ask FIFA to re-negotiate the TV deal. Would Fox want the same. Hmmmm I don't know. I think the tv deal could have been better myself. Most on the forum think so as well. You reckon FIFA would take a direct interest in how much ten Australian clubs can get from its TV deal? Mate, there are leagues all over the world which don't make a cracker from TV.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAustralian government and our laws maybe on the FFA's side - I'm not a corporate lawyer. But can't FIFA just ban the FFA from the sport so no Socceroos - no World Cup, Asian Cup, Women's World Cup, etc. until FFA fall in line? Would the FFA and the Australian government really want that? It's not like FIFA need Australia in the game like the traditional European and South American powers and China and the US. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps. So a new entity needs to be created, new contracts are needed, new sponsorship, new TV deal, etc, etc - and where is the seed funding coming from to create the new entity? I keep mentioning government support because the FFA only came into existence because of government funding. FOX will just rubber stamp it. If they don't show football they will lose a lot of subscriptions. Well, in fact, if Foxtel was forced to the negotiation table with a brand new entity, new league, maybe different teams, who knows - I would not count on Foxtel automatically offering the same amount again. I would happily ask FIFA to re-negotiate the TV deal. Would Fox want the same. Hmmmm I don't know. I think the tv deal could have been better myself. Most on the forum think so as well. You reckon FIFA would take a direct interest in how much ten Australian clubs can get from its TV deal? Mate, there are leagues all over the world which don't make a cracker from TV. Do you think any of the existing A-league clubs will follow Gallop under the current TV deal with Fox. You must be joking. The FFA will own the names and that's it. All the CEO's of the existing clubs will walk away and form a new body and deal directly with Fox or another TV company. Meanwhile David Gallop will still have to honor the contract with Fox and find 10 A-league clubs for them to show every week.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAustralian government and our laws maybe on the FFA's side - I'm not a corporate lawyer. But can't FIFA just ban the FFA from the sport so no Socceroos - no World Cup, Asian Cup, Women's World Cup, etc. until FFA fall in line? Would the FFA and the Australian government really want that? It's not like FIFA need Australia in the game like the traditional European and South American powers and China and the US. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps. So a new entity needs to be created, new contracts are needed, new sponsorship, new TV deal, etc, etc - and where is the seed funding coming from to create the new entity? I keep mentioning government support because the FFA only came into existence because of government funding. FOX will just rubber stamp it. If they don't show football they will lose a lot of subscriptions. Well, in fact, if Foxtel was forced to the negotiation table with a brand new entity, new league, maybe different teams, who knows - I would not count on Foxtel automatically offering the same amount again. I would happily ask FIFA to re-negotiate the TV deal. Would Fox want the same. Hmmmm I don't know. I think the tv deal could have been better myself. Most on the forum think so as well. You reckon FIFA would take a direct interest in how much ten Australian clubs can get from its TV deal? Mate, there are leagues all over the world which don't make a cracker from TV. Do you think any of the existing A-league clubs will follow Gallop under the current TV deal with Fox. You must be joking. The FFA will own the names and that's it. All the CEO's of the existing clubs will walk away and form a new body and deal directly with Fox or another TV company. Meanwhile David Gallop will still have to honor the contract with Fox and find 10 A-league clubs for them to show every week. Back to basics - the clubs want at least $4 mill per annum, last FFA offer was $3.55 mill per annum. Will FIFA step in merely because the two parties are yet to agree an amount, which is currently not all that far apart? No, next to zero chance. Now if by chance something extreme like that did happen, with new governing body, new league, maybe new clubs - I would bet that Foxtel would be negotiating a lesser TV deal, afterall, it's a brand new comp, new risks, major disruption, why would they want to offer the same amount?
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAustralian government and our laws maybe on the FFA's side - I'm not a corporate lawyer. But can't FIFA just ban the FFA from the sport so no Socceroos - no World Cup, Asian Cup, Women's World Cup, etc. until FFA fall in line? Would the FFA and the Australian government really want that? It's not like FIFA need Australia in the game like the traditional European and South American powers and China and the US. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps. So a new entity needs to be created, new contracts are needed, new sponsorship, new TV deal, etc, etc - and where is the seed funding coming from to create the new entity? I keep mentioning government support because the FFA only came into existence because of government funding. FOX will just rubber stamp it. If they don't show football they will lose a lot of subscriptions. Well, in fact, if Foxtel was forced to the negotiation table with a brand new entity, new league, maybe different teams, who knows - I would not count on Foxtel automatically offering the same amount again. I would happily ask FIFA to re-negotiate the TV deal. Would Fox want the same. Hmmmm I don't know. I think the tv deal could have been better myself. Most on the forum think so as well. You reckon FIFA would take a direct interest in how much ten Australian clubs can get from its TV deal? Mate, there are leagues all over the world which don't make a cracker from TV. Do you think any of the existing A-league clubs will follow Gallop under the current TV deal with Fox. You must be joking. The FFA will own the names and that's it. All the CEO's of the existing clubs will walk away and form a new body and deal directly with Fox or another TV company. Meanwhile David Gallop will still have to honor the contract with Fox and find 10 A-league clubs for them to show every week. Back to basics - the clubs want at least $4 mill per annum, last FFA offer was $3.55 mill per annum. Will FIFA step in merely because the two parties are yet to agree an amount, which is currently not all that far apart? No, next to zero chance. Now if by chance something extreme like that did happen, with new governing body, new league, maybe new clubs - I would bet that Foxtel would be negotiating a lesser TV deal, afterall, it's a brand new comp, new risks, major disruption, why would they want to offer the same amount? Who said its going to Fox?
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAustralian government and our laws maybe on the FFA's side - I'm not a corporate lawyer. But can't FIFA just ban the FFA from the sport so no Socceroos - no World Cup, Asian Cup, Women's World Cup, etc. until FFA fall in line? Would the FFA and the Australian government really want that? It's not like FIFA need Australia in the game like the traditional European and South American powers and China and the US. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps. So a new entity needs to be created, new contracts are needed, new sponsorship, new TV deal, etc, etc - and where is the seed funding coming from to create the new entity? I keep mentioning government support because the FFA only came into existence because of government funding. FOX will just rubber stamp it. If they don't show football they will lose a lot of subscriptions. Well, in fact, if Foxtel was forced to the negotiation table with a brand new entity, new league, maybe different teams, who knows - I would not count on Foxtel automatically offering the same amount again. I would happily ask FIFA to re-negotiate the TV deal. Would Fox want the same. Hmmmm I don't know. I think the tv deal could have been better myself. Most on the forum think so as well. You reckon FIFA would take a direct interest in how much ten Australian clubs can get from its TV deal? Mate, there are leagues all over the world which don't make a cracker from TV. Do you think any of the existing A-league clubs will follow Gallop under the current TV deal with Fox. You must be joking. The FFA will own the names and that's it. All the CEO's of the existing clubs will walk away and form a new body and deal directly with Fox or another TV company. Meanwhile David Gallop will still have to honor the contract with Fox and find 10 A-league clubs for them to show every week. Back to basics - the clubs want at least $4 mill per annum, last FFA offer was $3.55 mill per annum. Will FIFA step in merely because the two parties are yet to agree an amount, which is currently not all that far apart? No, next to zero chance. Now if by chance something extreme like that did happen, with new governing body, new league, maybe new clubs - I would bet that Foxtel would be negotiating a lesser TV deal, afterall, it's a brand new comp, new risks, major disruption, why would they want to offer the same amount? Who said its going to Fox? True, it might go to one of the other bidders who missed out.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAustralian government and our laws maybe on the FFA's side - I'm not a corporate lawyer. But can't FIFA just ban the FFA from the sport so no Socceroos - no World Cup, Asian Cup, Women's World Cup, etc. until FFA fall in line? Would the FFA and the Australian government really want that? It's not like FIFA need Australia in the game like the traditional European and South American powers and China and the US. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps. So a new entity needs to be created, new contracts are needed, new sponsorship, new TV deal, etc, etc - and where is the seed funding coming from to create the new entity? I keep mentioning government support because the FFA only came into existence because of government funding. FOX will just rubber stamp it. If they don't show football they will lose a lot of subscriptions. Well, in fact, if Foxtel was forced to the negotiation table with a brand new entity, new league, maybe different teams, who knows - I would not count on Foxtel automatically offering the same amount again. I would happily ask FIFA to re-negotiate the TV deal. Would Fox want the same. Hmmmm I don't know. I think the tv deal could have been better myself. Most on the forum think so as well. You reckon FIFA would take a direct interest in how much ten Australian clubs can get from its TV deal? Mate, there are leagues all over the world which don't make a cracker from TV. Do you think any of the existing A-league clubs will follow Gallop under the current TV deal with Fox. You must be joking. The FFA will own the names and that's it. All the CEO's of the existing clubs will walk away and form a new body and deal directly with Fox or another TV company. Meanwhile David Gallop will still have to honor the contract with Fox and find 10 A-league clubs for them to show every week. Back to basics - the clubs want at least $4 mill per annum, last FFA offer was $3.55 mill per annum. Will FIFA step in merely because the two parties are yet to agree an amount, which is currently not all that far apart? No, next to zero chance. Now if by chance something extreme like that did happen, with new governing body, new league, maybe new clubs - I would bet that Foxtel would be negotiating a lesser TV deal, afterall, it's a brand new comp, new risks, major disruption, why would they want to offer the same amount? Who said its going to Fox? True, it might go to one of the other bidders who missed out. Whoever it is I am signing up and cancelling fox.
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAustralian government and our laws maybe on the FFA's side - I'm not a corporate lawyer. But can't FIFA just ban the FFA from the sport so no Socceroos - no World Cup, Asian Cup, Women's World Cup, etc. until FFA fall in line? Would the FFA and the Australian government really want that? It's not like FIFA need Australia in the game like the traditional European and South American powers and China and the US. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps. So a new entity needs to be created, new contracts are needed, new sponsorship, new TV deal, etc, etc - and where is the seed funding coming from to create the new entity? I keep mentioning government support because the FFA only came into existence because of government funding. FOX will just rubber stamp it. If they don't show football they will lose a lot of subscriptions. Well, in fact, if Foxtel was forced to the negotiation table with a brand new entity, new league, maybe different teams, who knows - I would not count on Foxtel automatically offering the same amount again. I would happily ask FIFA to re-negotiate the TV deal. Would Fox want the same. Hmmmm I don't know. I think the tv deal could have been better myself. Most on the forum think so as well. You reckon FIFA would take a direct interest in how much ten Australian clubs can get from its TV deal? Mate, there are leagues all over the world which don't make a cracker from TV. Do you think any of the existing A-league clubs will follow Gallop under the current TV deal with Fox. You must be joking. The FFA will own the names and that's it. All the CEO's of the existing clubs will walk away and form a new body and deal directly with Fox or another TV company. Meanwhile David Gallop will still have to honor the contract with Fox and find 10 A-league clubs for them to show every week. Back to basics - the clubs want at least $4 mill per annum, last FFA offer was $3.55 mill per annum. Will FIFA step in merely because the two parties are yet to agree an amount, which is currently not all that far apart? No, next to zero chance. Now if by chance something extreme like that did happen, with new governing body, new league, maybe new clubs - I would bet that Foxtel would be negotiating a lesser TV deal, afterall, it's a brand new comp, new risks, major disruption, why would they want to offer the same amount? Seriously wtf. No. Just no. The broadcaster goes with the incumbent clubs. See: English Premier League break away If the clubs break away then FFA cannot meet its contractual obligation to Fox. Fox will tear up the contract and deal with the existing clubs in a new league. They will not take your utterly braindead strategy of dealing with an upstart FFA backed league comprised of new clubs formed with the leftovers from the 130 largest football clubs in the land. FFA will have proven themselves incapable of honouring contracts and won't be dealt with ever again. You are just so far up the arse of the AFL it isn't funny
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
@ pippinu
Probably best if you bring up one of your multi's to continue the argument now lol
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
@rbb
Of course it is higher than 61% with refs, admin and travel. But FFA is still taking way too much.
It should something like -the league cost this to run (marketing, admin, refs, insurance, travel etc)
$xxx
Total - $xxx = $yyy
Professional league system (APFCA) gets 75% of $yyy , FFA gets 25% of $yyy
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x@rbbOf course it is higher than 61% with refs, admin and travel. But FFA is still taking way too much.It should something like -the league cost this to run (marketing, admin, refs, insurance, travel etc)$xxxTotal - $xxx = $yyyProfessional league system (APFCA) gets 75% of $yyy , FFA gets 25% of $yyy I know which one I am choosing if I am an A-league club.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
@rbb
This is before we even start talking about finals revenue
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
I assuming at this stage the article is factual or close to it.
Assuming this arguably the most stupid mistake ever made by FFA has just been made.
The original offer was 3.25 million to 3.55 plus some additional contra's.
Under but maybe getting close enough to sit down and talk.
Then for the additional funding you have to spend in on what FFA say and run it by them before you spend it.
My personal view is FFA wanted it rejected god can only know why but to say you have to spend the extra money effectively where we say and then run it by FFA.
FFA IMO would have know that would be rejected... this is beyond stupid... the amount IMO with no conditions would have at least got the parties to the table.
Why The F would FFA offer something I am absolutely sure they knew would be rejected ... unless the Lowy want for control knows no limits.
As to FIFA stepping in ... tad to early ... but this is going down to the wire ... maybe Lowy had a chat at the Conf Cup with FIFA... who knows..
Pip
FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think .
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xPip FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think . Well, it's certianly true that FIFA love to flex their muscle against 3rd world nations.
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI assuming at this stage the article is factual or close to it. Assuming this arguably the most stupid mistake ever made by FFA has just been made. The original offer was 3.25 million to 3.55 plus some additional contra's. Under but maybe getting close enough to sit down and talk. Then for the additional funding you have to spend in on what FFA say and run it by them before you spend it. My personal view is FFA wanted it rejected god can only know why but to say you have to spend the extra money effectively where we say and then run it by FFA. FFA IMO would have know that would be rejected... this is beyond stupid... the amount IMO with no conditions would have at least got the parties to the table. Why The F would FFA offer something I am absolutely sure they knew would be rejected ... unless the Lowy want for control knows no limits. As to FIFA stepping in ... tad to early ... but this is going down to the wire ... maybe Lowy had a chat at the Conf Cup with FIFA... who knows.. Pip FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think . +x+xPip FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think . Well, it's certianly true that FIFA love to flex their muscle against 3rd world nations. Pip Thats just silly on your part ... I still thinks FIFA are not stepping in tomorrow but FFA can be replaced and quickly and Fox will work with whoever is in charge.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI assuming at this stage the article is factual or close to it. Assuming this arguably the most stupid mistake ever made by FFA has just been made. The original offer was 3.25 million to 3.55 plus some additional contra's. Under but maybe getting close enough to sit down and talk. Then for the additional funding you have to spend in on what FFA say and run it by them before you spend it. My personal view is FFA wanted it rejected god can only know why but to say you have to spend the extra money effectively where we say and then run it by FFA. FFA IMO would have know that would be rejected... this is beyond stupid... the amount IMO with no conditions would have at least got the parties to the table. Why The F would FFA offer something I am absolutely sure they knew would be rejected ... unless the Lowy want for control knows no limits. As to FIFA stepping in ... tad to early ... but this is going down to the wire ... maybe Lowy had a chat at the Conf Cup with FIFA... who knows.. Pip FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think . +x+xPip FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think . Well, it's certianly true that FIFA love to flex their muscle against 3rd world nations. I still thinks FIFA are not stepping in tomorrow but FFA can be replaced and quickly and Fox will work with whoever is in charge. Well we agree on your first point, but I am still amazed that there are so-called football fans on here who honestly believe that having FIFA take such an extreme action is somehow good. Firstly, are you forgetting how it was that the FFA came into existence? Even with government throwing tens of millions of dollars at it, it was anything but quick and easy. Why do people think it will be quick and easy the next time? Why do people think that such major disruption is a good thing? Why do people suppose that everyone will fall into lock-step with whoever FIFA puts forward to run Australian Football. That seems like a mighty big assumption based on nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI assuming at this stage the article is factual or close to it. Assuming this arguably the most stupid mistake ever made by FFA has just been made. The original offer was 3.25 million to 3.55 plus some additional contra's. Under but maybe getting close enough to sit down and talk. Then for the additional funding you have to spend in on what FFA say and run it by them before you spend it. My personal view is FFA wanted it rejected god can only know why but to say you have to spend the extra money effectively where we say and then run it by FFA. FFA IMO would have know that would be rejected... this is beyond stupid... the amount IMO with no conditions would have at least got the parties to the table. Why The F would FFA offer something I am absolutely sure they knew would be rejected ... unless the Lowy want for control knows no limits. As to FIFA stepping in ... tad to early ... but this is going down to the wire ... maybe Lowy had a chat at the Conf Cup with FIFA... who knows.. Pip FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think . +x+xPip FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think . Well, it's certianly true that FIFA love to flex their muscle against 3rd world nations. I still thinks FIFA are not stepping in tomorrow but FFA can be replaced and quickly and Fox will work with whoever is in charge. Well we agree on your first point, but I am still amazed that there are so-called football fans on here who honestly believe that having FIFA take such an extreme action is somehow good. Firstly, are you forgetting how it was that the FFA came into existence? Even with government throwing tens of millions of dollars at it, it was anything but quick and easy. Why do people think it will be quick and easy the next time? Why do people think that such major disruption is a good thing? Why do people suppose that everyone will fall into lock-step with whoever FIFA puts forward to run Australian Football. That seems like a mighty big assumption based on nothing. It is a big deal. I am not sure why the FFA is treating this situation so lightly. All they have to do is have more votes in their congress. Not an unreasonable request.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI assuming at this stage the article is factual or close to it. Assuming this arguably the most stupid mistake ever made by FFA has just been made. The original offer was 3.25 million to 3.55 plus some additional contra's. Under but maybe getting close enough to sit down and talk. Then for the additional funding you have to spend in on what FFA say and run it by them before you spend it. My personal view is FFA wanted it rejected god can only know why but to say you have to spend the extra money effectively where we say and then run it by FFA. FFA IMO would have know that would be rejected... this is beyond stupid... the amount IMO with no conditions would have at least got the parties to the table. Why The F would FFA offer something I am absolutely sure they knew would be rejected ... unless the Lowy want for control knows no limits. As to FIFA stepping in ... tad to early ... but this is going down to the wire ... maybe Lowy had a chat at the Conf Cup with FIFA... who knows.. Pip FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think . +x+xPip FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think . Well, it's certianly true that FIFA love to flex their muscle against 3rd world nations. I still thinks FIFA are not stepping in tomorrow but FFA can be replaced and quickly and Fox will work with whoever is in charge. Well we agree on your first point, but I am still amazed that there are so-called football fans on here who honestly believe that having FIFA take such an extreme action is somehow good. Firstly, are you forgetting how it was that the FFA came into existence? Even with government throwing tens of millions of dollars at it, it was anything but quick and easy. Why do people think it will be quick and easy the next time? Why do people think that such major disruption is a good thing? Why do people suppose that everyone will fall into lock-step with whoever FIFA puts forward to run Australian Football. That seems like a mighty big assumption based on nothing. It is a big deal. I am not sure why the FFA is treating this situation so lightly. All they have to do is have more votes in their congress. Not an unreasonable request. Well, we both know the answer - Lowy was allowed to do whatever he wanted in setting up the FFA (Government asked him to do it, gave him the funds, Lowy wanted carte blanche and got it). Lowy set up a structure that meant the game would never fall into the hands of those pesky wogs again. He, and his son now, achieve this by having all the smaller state federations in their back pocket. He can go to 13 seats at the table and still control things via the 7 smaller state federations (just). Anything higher than that, and Lowy loses control. So we know and understand why, but the problem remains that he does have those 7 votes in his back pocket, and the disgruntled stakeholders only have 3. That's where things currently stand, and Lowy can rightly argue that he is closer to having the numbers to change the constitution than the other 3 members.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xI assuming at this stage the article is factual or close to it. Assuming this arguably the most stupid mistake ever made by FFA has just been made. The original offer was 3.25 million to 3.55 plus some additional contra's. Under but maybe getting close enough to sit down and talk. Then for the additional funding you have to spend in on what FFA say and run it by them before you spend it. My personal view is FFA wanted it rejected god can only know why but to say you have to spend the extra money effectively where we say and then run it by FFA. FFA IMO would have know that would be rejected... this is beyond stupid... the amount IMO with no conditions would have at least got the parties to the table. Why The F would FFA offer something I am absolutely sure they knew would be rejected ... unless the Lowy want for control knows no limits. As to FIFA stepping in ... tad to early ... but this is going down to the wire ... maybe Lowy had a chat at the Conf Cup with FIFA... who knows.. Pip FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think . +x+xPip FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think . Well, it's certianly true that FIFA love to flex their muscle against 3rd world nations. I still thinks FIFA are not stepping in tomorrow but FFA can be replaced and quickly and Fox will work with whoever is in charge. Well we agree on your first point, but I am still amazed that there are so-called football fans on here who honestly believe that having FIFA take such an extreme action is somehow good. Firstly, are you forgetting how it was that the FFA came into existence? Even with government throwing tens of millions of dollars at it, it was anything but quick and easy. Why do people think it will be quick and easy the next time? Why do people think that such major disruption is a good thing? Why do people suppose that everyone will fall into lock-step with whoever FIFA puts forward to run Australian Football. That seems like a mighty big assumption based on nothing. It is a big deal. I am not sure why the FFA is treating this situation so lightly. All they have to do is have more votes in their congress. Not an unreasonable request. Well, we both know the answer - Lowy was allowed to do whatever he wanted in setting up the FFA (Government asked him to do it, gave him the funds, Lowy wanted carte blanche and got it). Lowy set up a structure that meant the game would never fall into the hands of those pesky wogs again. He, and his son now, achieve this by having all the smaller state federations in their back pocket. He can go to 13 seats at the table and still control things via the 7 smaller state federations (just).Anything higher than that, and Lowy loses control. So we know and understand why, but the problem remains that he does have those 7 votes in his back pocket, and the disgruntled stakeholders only have 3. That's where things currently stand, and Lowy can rightly argue that he is closer to having the numbers to change the constitution than the other 3 members. There are currently 10 votes in the congress. Currently as I understand Vic and NSW want 13 votes, FFA would like to have 12. In order to even get to an expanded congress of 12 or even 13 they need to be able to change the constitution. They need 8 votes to do this. 7/10 is only 70% they need 75% Even if the FFA get what they want it is still very unlikely that FIFA will agree to those low numbers as their congress.
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Alternative idea .... There is in Australia today a well resourced well led and Football knowledgeable body with over 100 million dollars in assets that could replace FFA tomorrow and it is already FIFA accepted. The NSW Football Federation could become the head body with the Northern NSW Federation taking over the parts of NSW that are controlled by the NSW Federation. Think i am kidding Have a look at Valentine Park and look at what they have link .. http://valentinesportspark.com.auThen look at the youtube FIFA could as I understand it NSWFC as the head body .. . http://valentinesportspark.com.au/
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAlternative idea .... There is in Australia today a well resourced well led and Football knowledgeable body with over 100 million dollars in assets that could replace FFA tomorrow and it is already FIFA accepted. The NSW Football Federation could become the head body with the Northern NSW Federation taking over the parts of NSW that are controlled by the NSW Federation. Think i am kidding Have a look at Valentine Park and look at what they have link .. http://valentinesportspark.com.auThen look at the youtube FIFA could as I understand it NSWFC as the head body .. . http://valentinesportspark.com.au/ Already too Sydney centric. We need a national league run out of Melbourne. Sydney is already "won". There needs to be a seperation away from FFA. An expansion on your idea would be to have a co-run federation (NSW and Vic). These 2 could form a union and invite A-League teams from outside of NSW and Vic control (BR, NJ, AU & PG) to play in their combined league system/league. Further teams from NNSW, Qld, Tas, ACT, SA and WA could be granted permission to join after application. Yes, a Sydney and Melbourne league plus extras. This is a way to success.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xAlternative idea .... There is in Australia today a well resourced well led and Football knowledgeable body with over 100 million dollars in assets that could replace FFA tomorrow and it is already FIFA accepted. The NSW Football Federation could become the head body with the Northern NSW Federation taking over the parts of NSW that are controlled by the NSW Federation. Think i am kidding Have a look at Valentine Park and look at what they have link .. http://valentinesportspark.com.auThen look at the youtube FIFA could as I understand it NSWFC as the head body .. . http://valentinesportspark.com.au/ Already too Sydney centric. We need a national league run out of Melbourne. Sydney is already "won". An expansion on your idea would be to have a co-run federation (NSW and Vic). These 2 could form a union and invite A-League teams from outside of NSW and Vic control (BR, NJ, AU & PG) to play in their combined league system/league. Further teams from NNSW, Qld, Tas, ACT, SA and WA could be granted permission to join after application. Yes, a Sydney and Melbourne league plus extras. This is a way to success. It doesn't matter where its run from, run it from Adelaide for all I care. The whole point is that the FFA under Gallop is in trouble and he knows it. Hence the unnecessary delay in changing the constitution and the congress numbers. Its not a difficult task. At the end of the day football will change and Gallop I will be surprised if he survives.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xAlternative idea .... There is in Australia today a well resourced well led and Football knowledgeable body with over 100 million dollars in assets that could replace FFA tomorrow and it is already FIFA accepted. The NSW Football Federation could become the head body with the Northern NSW Federation taking over the parts of NSW that are controlled by the NSW Federation. Think i am kidding Have a look at Valentine Park and look at what they have link .. http://valentinesportspark.com.auThen look at the youtube FIFA could as I understand it NSWFC as the head body .. . http://valentinesportspark.com.au/ Already too Sydney centric. We need a national league run out of Melbourne. Sydney is already "won". An expansion on your idea would be to have a co-run federation (NSW and Vic). These 2 could form a union and invite A-League teams from outside of NSW and Vic control (BR, NJ, AU & PG) to play in their combined league system/league. Further teams from NNSW, Qld, Tas, ACT, SA and WA could be granted permission to join after application. Yes, a Sydney and Melbourne league plus extras. This is a way to success. It doesn't matter where its run from, run it from Adelaide for all I care. The whole point is that the FFA under Gallop is in trouble and he knows it. Hence the unnecessary delay in changing the constitution and the congress numbers. Its not a difficult task. At the end of the day football will change and Gallop I will be surprised if he survives. Do you mean Lowy and Gallop, or just Gallop?
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xAlternative idea .... There is in Australia today a well resourced well led and Football knowledgeable body with over 100 million dollars in assets that could replace FFA tomorrow and it is already FIFA accepted. The NSW Football Federation could become the head body with the Northern NSW Federation taking over the parts of NSW that are controlled by the NSW Federation. Think i am kidding Have a look at Valentine Park and look at what they have link .. http://valentinesportspark.com.auThen look at the youtube FIFA could as I understand it NSWFC as the head body .. . http://valentinesportspark.com.au/ Already too Sydney centric. We need a national league run out of Melbourne. Sydney is already "won". An expansion on your idea would be to have a co-run federation (NSW and Vic). These 2 could form a union and invite A-League teams from outside of NSW and Vic control (BR, NJ, AU & PG) to play in their combined league system/league. Further teams from NNSW, Qld, Tas, ACT, SA and WA could be granted permission to join after application. Yes, a Sydney and Melbourne league plus extras. This is a way to success. It doesn't matter where its run from, run it from Adelaide for all I care. The whole point is that the FFA under Gallop is in trouble and he knows it. Hence the unnecessary delay in changing the constitution and the congress numbers. Its not a difficult task. At the end of the day football will change and Gallop I will be surprised if he survives. Do you mean Lowy and Gallop, or just Gallop? Gallop.............Lowy is never there to make a decision.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
I can translate this is in Latin - Lowius Hippocratius
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI can translate this is in Latin - Lowius Hippocratius If ya can't beat 'em 
|
|
|
|
|
miron mercedes
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 0
|
...that is something that Lowy would surely wish would disappear
|
|
|
|
|
bigpoppa
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
For the FFA to ba apart of FIFA, I would assume ANY contract the FFA either signs or puts forward to be signed, no matter who the other party is, would have all the correct FIFA conditions in place.
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
I'm feeling more and more disillusioned each day.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
The HAL is run as a franchise system with the clubs being issues licenses to participate. FFA as the master franchisor controls & owns everything, the intellectual property, the names, the brands, team colors, websites. Everything. If your interested in seeing what options current Franchise owners have, just google how Clive Palmer & Gold Coast untied went when they took on the FFA when they pulled Clive's license. With regard to setting up a rebel league, assuming current owners would be able to get past non-compete clauses in their license agreements (which will be there without a doubt), how many HAL fans will swap to Sydney City FC, Western Sydney Rovers or Melbourne Victorious, each wearing different team colors as FFA owns current strips? Doubt many would, so value of tv deals or sponsorship would be minimal. Also other than the big 3, the other teams are already on their knees financially so where will funds to set up new clubs & league come from? Plus as we have seen in the past with GC, Brisbane and Newcastle, if current owners pull the pin, FFA could just take over the running of the teams themselves, costs would be covered by the Fox TV money and they could then flog them to new owners when they wanted. The average fan doesn't care who the owners are. Personally I believe many of the current issues are caused by the lack of a traditional "football club" organisation in the HAL, but unfortunately, the current system is based on the "Jim's Mowing" business model and Jim (FFA) is the king.
|
|
|
|
|
SWandP
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe HAL is run as a franchise system with the clubs being issues licenses to participate. FFA as the master franchisor controls & owns everything, the intellectual property, the names, the brands, team colors, websites. Everything. If your interested in seeing what options current Franchise owners have, just google how Clive Palmer & Gold Coast untied went when they took on the FFA when they pulled Clive's license. With regard to setting up a rebel league, assuming current owners would be able to get past non-compete clauses in their license agreements (which will be there without a doubt), how many HAL fans will swap to Sydney City FC, Western Sydney Rovers or Melbourne Victorious, each wearing different team colors as FFA owns current strips? Doubt many would, so value of tv deals or sponsorship would be minimal. Also other than the big 3, the other teams are already on their knees financially so where will funds to set up new clubs & league come from? Plus as we have seen in the past with GC, Brisbane and Newcastle, if current owners pull the pin, FFA could just take over the running of the teams themselves, costs would be covered by the Fox TV money and they could then flog them to new owners when they wanted. The average fan doesn't care who the owners are. Personally I believe many of the current issues are caused by the lack of a traditional "football club" organisation in the HAL, but unfortunately, the current system is based on the "Jim's Mowing" business model and Jim (FFA) is the king. Good summation. Most people on 442 forums (and editorial staff) will never understand it and they will somehow think that this A League is something it can never be. The "Owners" are the actual worst thing about the League. Always have been. Lowy Sr. knew that would be the case apparently and set it up to protect the League itself and more, from them. Think about this for a minute. For $5M a foreign privately held entity can buy a portion of it. At the moment, that investment allows them to operate in a sandbox where they have no power and limited influence. That could all change dramatically. Horribly. If those owners, by way of their very small investment on a global scale, get control of the national football organisation then we have something completely different and scary happening. There would be absolutely nothing to stop them stripping the asset and throwing the husk away. That's the complete reversal of the current situation. While it's arguable that these owners bought in with their eyes open, the same can't be said for everybody that has a stake in Football in this country. You might be asking where your $6.00 registration fee goes now? You really want to be asking that question of a future organisation which is to be run exclusively for the benefit of foreign and a couple of local billionaires? You trust these people? Let me remind you: Brisbane - Indonesian. Sydney - Russian. Wellington - New Zealand. Newcastle - China. Central Coast - English. Melbourne City - Abu Dhabi. The other remaining four are at least Australian, but there are only two that I would trust to run a football club for the benefit of football above anything else. This isn't a xenophobic rant - it's a comment that if your only stake in this country is to extract money from it, then you have to be dealt with as a banker-investor not as a benevolent benefactor who has the warm and fuzzy about advancing football here. They may be a bunch of idealists but they don't look like it from this distance. The A League has to die as it currently exists. It worked for the best part of 10 years but now it is apparent that it is holding back the professional game here. Above and beyond that, it now threatens all that lies beyond the professional game. The crown jewels are the million people that have nothing to do with the A League and sure as hell don't want the faux-clubs running their organisation and putting their interests behind the further enrichment of already very rich people. We do need a new ownership model (vis a vis the current A League model). If the League cannot be held separate from the mainstream organisation then it is a very real problem. Creating an independent professional League body will be a requirement whether the same League is kept and adjusted, or a totally new one is formed. It will have to be responsible for its own fortunes and future, but failure should not threaten anything beyond its remit. The FFA should give it rope, but retain a hand on it so that cannot get quasi-control of the whole sport here. There is time and opportunity now (only just arisen really) whereby the FFA could create a completely new body to run Professional Football but bind it to an expansive model broadly governed by the FIFA statutes. Anybody stepping into the Professional game in Australia would immediately know where the short and long term lies and so informed, could choose their path. If I was FFA I would take two seriously disruptive steps and one big brave one: 1. Tell the A League Clubs that they can take it or leave it. If they say "we'll leave" say goodbye to them. Issue new franchises to make up the numbers if necessary. There are very willing players in each "market" that would step up. Players suddenly out of contract would be snapped up again. Easier actually than starting from scratch. Ugly, but very very workable. 2. Simultaneously with above, announce the creation of a body to independently run the Professional game in Australia. It should be constituted by truly independent people with the majority of the expertise brought in from abroad initially. Japan, Germany and perhaps the US might be good places to start looking - not so much Bern(e). The body would have to be in place and fully running the pro game here 2018-2019 with a clearly timetabled transition. 3. "Balls move" (as if the others aren't). Genuinely reform the Congress so that it is truly representative. Stephen Lowy doesn't want to be doing this shit for the rest of his life, so his best move is to create a power structure that is genuinely democratic and move on from the benevolent oligarchy. Fill the Congress with seats and votes that cover all the interests of the game nationally and thereby insure against the seizure of control by narrow and greedy interests (or benevolent ones) because if you look at the long history of the game in this country - that is the path that it has always taken and then fallen by. Democracy is inefficient and frustrating but it is enduring and ultimately enriching.
|
|
|
|
|
Canada70
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 122,
Visits: 0
|
Excellent summation of what the privatisation of the game has done to Aust football.
One point to add:
How much of the money received for selling Mooy do u estimate the Abu Dahbi owners of Melb City will invest in Australia football ?
My guess : next to nothing.
How do we invest & grow football in Aust with the current model ?
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xExcellent summation of what the privatisation of the game has done to Aust football.One point to add:How much of the money received for selling Mooy do u estimate the Abu Dahbi owners of Melb City will invest in Australia football ?My guess : next to nothing. How do we invest & grow football in Aust with the current model ? Melbourne City lost 8 million in its first season. That is a net investment flow in to Australian football. They built multi million dollar training facilities. That is an investment. They bought the cub. That is an investment. They have already spent more than what they earned from the Mooy deal before they even knew they would have a Mooy. Your guess it not even close.
|
|
|
|
|
FullBack4
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 697,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xExcellent summation of what the privatisation of the game has done to Aust football.One point to add:How much of the money received for selling Mooy do u estimate the Abu Dahbi owners of Melb City will invest in Australia football ?My guess : next to nothing. How do we invest & grow football in Aust with the current model ? Melbourne City lost 8 million in its first season. That is a net investment flow in to Australian football. They built multi million dollar training facilities. That is an investment. They bought the cub. That is an investment. They have already spent more than what they earned from the Mooy deal before they even knew they would have a Mooy. Your guess it not even close. As a South's man I have plenty of disdain for both Melbourne sides squatting on our licence. But it is impossible to argue that CFG have not made a major financial investment in to teh Sport well above the sale of Mooy
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xExcellent summation of what the privatisation of the game has done to Aust football.One point to add:How much of the money received for selling Mooy do u estimate the Abu Dahbi owners of Melb City will invest in Australia football ?My guess : next to nothing. How do we invest & grow football in Aust with the current model ? Melbourne City lost 8 million in its first season. That is a net investment flow in to Australian football. They built multi million dollar training facilities. That is an investment. They bought the cub. That is an investment. They have already spent more than what they earned from the Mooy deal before they even knew they would have a Mooy. Your guess it not even close. Add to this a fully funded women's side and yeah, CFG are doing more than their fair share for the domestic scene tbh - even if their men's team is a basketcase.
|
|
|
|
|
Canada70
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 122,
Visits: 0
|
The point I was trying to make was that private business syndicates are predominantly looking at pocketing windfalls or growing a business to on sell it, rather than plowing any windfalls locally.
In regards to the Abu Dhabi owners, they bought a very undercapitalised joke of a franchise. The Heart group if you all recall, were using wheelie bins for their players' ice baths. It certainly needed basic amenities. Just to get it out of that embarrassing situation.
The question I raise again is: how much of the future windfalls do we expect these private businesses to invest in Australia's football growth?
Melbourne Victory train their senior players out of a public park where you can walk your dog and many A-League clubs are in a similar situation.
Hence, investing in the minimum requirements that are stipulated in their A-League licenses Is not anything special but the expected minimum.
Just imagine if they were not forced to have youth, womens teams etc whether they would bother incurring the expense.
Please don't make me delve into to much explanation for obvious points we all should be aware of, particularly before I've had a couple of coffees :)
|
|
|
|
|
Eldar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe point I was trying to make was that private business syndicates are predominantly looking at pocketing windfalls or growing a business to on sell it, rather than plowing any windfalls locally. In regards to the Abu Dhabi owners, they bought a very undercapitalised joke of a franchise. The Heart group if you all recall, were using wheelie bins for their players' ice baths. It certainly needed basic amenities. Just to get it out of that embarrassing situation.The question I raise again is: how much of the future windfalls do we expect these private businesses to invest in Australia's football growth? Melbourne Victory train their senior players out of a public park where you can walk your dog and many A-League clubs are in a similar situation. Hence, investing in the minimum requirements that are stipulated in their A-League licenses Is not anything special but the expected minimum. Just imagine if they were not forced to have youth, womens teams etc whether they would bother incurring the expense.Please don't make me delve into to much explanation for obvious points we all should be aware of, particularly before I've had a couple of coffees :) Sure, they are in the business of developing players and enhancing their brand by winning stuff, for which they invest the requisite infrastructure and resources. Just imagine if they were not forced to have youth, womens teams etc whether they would bother incurring the expense
They don't just have a Womens and Youth team, they have the benchmark womens and youth teams.
Beaten by Eldar
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe point I was trying to make was that private business syndicates are predominantly looking at pocketing windfalls or growing a business to on sell it, rather than plowing any windfalls locally. In regards to the Abu Dhabi owners, they bought a very undercapitalised joke of a franchise. The Heart group if you all recall, were using wheelie bins for their players' ice baths. It certainly needed basic amenities. Just to get it out of that embarrassing situation.The question I raise again is: how much of the future windfalls do we expect these private businesses to invest in Australia's football growth? Melbourne Victory train their senior players out of a public park where you can walk your dog and many A-League clubs are in a similar situation. Hence, investing in the minimum requirements that are stipulated in their A-League licenses Is not anything special but the expected minimum. Just imagine if they were not forced to have youth, womens teams etc whether they would bother incurring the expense.Please don't make me delve into to much explanation for obvious points we all should be aware of, particularly before I've had a couple of coffees :) To be fair, that public park you speak of is adjacent to some of the best sports facilities in the country in AAMI Park - there is a reason why the Victory, Demons, Storm and Rebels all have their administrative and training base situated within AAMI Park. If anything, Victory having the best facilities (at least for their senior side) in the country at AAMI Park has been quite detrimental to the development of an Academy/training base as there has been no incentive to move - City had that incentive, hence why the excellent facilities were built at Bundoora.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThe point I was trying to make was that private business syndicates are predominantly looking at pocketing windfalls or growing a business to on sell it, rather than plowing any windfalls locally. In regards to the Abu Dhabi owners, they bought a very undercapitalised joke of a franchise. The Heart group if you all recall, were using wheelie bins for their players' ice baths. It certainly needed basic amenities. Just to get it out of that embarrassing situation.The question I raise again is: how much of the future windfalls do we expect these private businesses to invest in Australia's football growth? Melbourne Victory train their senior players out of a public park where you can walk your dog and many A-League clubs are in a similar situation. Hence, investing in the minimum requirements that are stipulated in their A-League licenses Is not anything special but the expected minimum. Just imagine if they were not forced to have youth, womens teams etc whether they would bother incurring the expense.Please don't make me delve into to much explanation for obvious points we all should be aware of, particularly before I've had a couple of coffees :) To be fair, that public park you speak of is adjacent to some of the best sports facilities in the country in AAMI Park - there is a reason why the Victory, Demons, Storm and Rebels all have their administrative and training base situated within AAMI Park. If anything, Victory having the best facilities (at least for their senior side) in the country at AAMI Park has been quite detrimental to the development of an Academy/training base as there has been no incentive to move - City had that incentive, hence why the excellent facilities were built at Bundoora. I heard on SEN the other day that the Victory had been investigating building a facility at Footscray Park, across the river from Flemington, next door to the Victoria University campus which has an excellent sports science program. From memory, Footscray Rugby used to be located at Footscray Park.
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThe point I was trying to make was that private business syndicates are predominantly looking at pocketing windfalls or growing a business to on sell it, rather than plowing any windfalls locally. In regards to the Abu Dhabi owners, they bought a very undercapitalised joke of a franchise. The Heart group if you all recall, were using wheelie bins for their players' ice baths. It certainly needed basic amenities. Just to get it out of that embarrassing situation.The question I raise again is: how much of the future windfalls do we expect these private businesses to invest in Australia's football growth? Melbourne Victory train their senior players out of a public park where you can walk your dog and many A-League clubs are in a similar situation. Hence, investing in the minimum requirements that are stipulated in their A-League licenses Is not anything special but the expected minimum. Just imagine if they were not forced to have youth, womens teams etc whether they would bother incurring the expense.Please don't make me delve into to much explanation for obvious points we all should be aware of, particularly before I've had a couple of coffees :) To be fair, that public park you speak of is adjacent to some of the best sports facilities in the country in AAMI Park - there is a reason why the Victory, Demons, Storm and Rebels all have their administrative and training base situated within AAMI Park. If anything, Victory having the best facilities (at least for their senior side) in the country at AAMI Park has been quite detrimental to the development of an Academy/training base as there has been no incentive to move - City had that incentive, hence why the excellent facilities were built at Bundoora. I heard on SEN the other day that the Victory had been investigating building a facility at Footscray Park, across the river from Flemington, next door to the Victoria University campus which has an excellent sports science program. From memory, Footscray Rugby used to be located at Footscray Park. I believe it's progressed a little further than investigating - it's now at the negotiation stage with Council and all the red tape associated with that. But yes, that is the plan put forward by the club - nice central location in Victory heartland and marry it up with the sports science program at Victoria University.
|
|
|
|
|
Canada70
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 122,
Visits: 0
|
So the point still stands.
To date they're renting public parks & have no 'hard' assets. The same applies for most HAL franchises. They are complying with the minimum standards required.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSo the point still stands.To date they're renting public parks & have no 'hard' assets. The same applies for most HAL franchises. They are complying with the minimum standards required. It's not that unusual for all forms of professional football clubs in Australia to use facilities which are community-owned.
|
|
|
|
|
FullBack4
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 697,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe point I was trying to make was that private business syndicates are predominantly looking at pocketing windfalls or growing a business to on sell it, rather than plowing any windfalls locally. In regards to the Abu Dhabi owners, they bought a very undercapitalised joke of a franchise. The Heart group if you all recall, were using wheelie bins for their players' ice baths. It certainly needed basic amenities. Just to get it out of that embarrassing situation.The question I raise again is: how much of the future windfalls do we expect these private businesses to invest in Australia's football growth? Melbourne Victory train their senior players out of a public park where you can walk your dog and many A-League clubs are in a similar situation. Hence, investing in the minimum requirements that are stipulated in their A-League licenses Is not anything special but the expected minimum. Just imagine if they were not forced to have youth, womens teams etc whether they would bother incurring the expense.Please don't make me delve into to much explanation for obvious points we all should be aware of, particularly before I've had a couple of coffees :) You are now starting to come across as a bit of a Troll, you're looking more and more like you are part of the problem with Australian football and not part of teh solution. Not everything the HAL clubs have done is wrong, in fact given the FFA interference and model it is amazing what they have done. The challenge now is not to get rid of the HAL but to expand it, and to create a National Second division, and to introduce p/r. and then a third division divided along geography (east/west or north/south) and then sustainable state leagues. We need ALL involved not just a new faction who says "its my time at the trough". NPL clubs are not perfect, I say that with a Souths hat on, they rip parents off for excessive academy fees, they block p/r at their local level, they fight amongst themselves, the AAFC model for a second division is a crazy 24 two conference systems - why? because they cant agree amongst themselves who should be in and who should be out. crazy, vested self-interest exists at our level as well Canada70, this sport does not need another agitator - where the HAL clubs can improve we should say so, where they have done well, we should say so, same NPL, One football is needed not a faction driven agenda that you have, disaster awaits your sort
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThe point I was trying to make was that private business syndicates are predominantly looking at pocketing windfalls or growing a business to on sell it, rather than plowing any windfalls locally. In regards to the Abu Dhabi owners, they bought a very undercapitalised joke of a franchise. The Heart group if you all recall, were using wheelie bins for their players' ice baths. It certainly needed basic amenities. Just to get it out of that embarrassing situation.The question I raise again is: how much of the future windfalls do we expect these private businesses to invest in Australia's football growth? Melbourne Victory train their senior players out of a public park where you can walk your dog and many A-League clubs are in a similar situation. Hence, investing in the minimum requirements that are stipulated in their A-League licenses Is not anything special but the expected minimum. Just imagine if they were not forced to have youth, womens teams etc whether they would bother incurring the expense.Please don't make me delve into to much explanation for obvious points we all should be aware of, particularly before I've had a couple of coffees :) You are now starting to come across as a bit of a Troll, you're looking more and more like you are part of the problem with Australian football and not part of teh solution. Not everything the HAL clubs have done is wrong, in fact given the FFA interference and model it is amazing what they have done. The challenge now is not to get rid of the HAL but to expand it, and to create a National Second division, and to introduce p/r. and then a third division divided along geography (east/west or north/south) and then sustainable state leagues. We need ALL involved not just a new faction who says "its my time at the trough". NPL clubs are not perfect, I say that with a Souths hat on, they rip parents off for excessive academy fees, they block p/r at their local level, they fight amongst themselves, the AAFC model for a second division is a crazy 24 two conference systems - why? because they cant agree amongst themselves who should be in and who should be out. crazy, vested self-interest exists at our level as well Canada70, this sport does not need another agitator - where the HAL clubs can improve we should say so, where they have done well, we should say so, same NPL, One football is needed not a faction driven agenda that you have, disaster awaits your sort I'm not sure Canada warrants such a response. For starters, no single person can be a major part of the problem (apart from maybe one candidate who set the whole thing up). Also, you correctly point out that football does not need another faction driven agenda, but as we speak, there already exist at least two distinct factions with their own agendas, and I would suggest that no poster on this board is responsible for that being the case.
|
|
|
|
|
FullBack4
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 697,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThe point I was trying to make was that private business syndicates are predominantly looking at pocketing windfalls or growing a business to on sell it, rather than plowing any windfalls locally. In regards to the Abu Dhabi owners, they bought a very undercapitalised joke of a franchise. The Heart group if you all recall, were using wheelie bins for their players' ice baths. It certainly needed basic amenities. Just to get it out of that embarrassing situation.The question I raise again is: how much of the future windfalls do we expect these private businesses to invest in Australia's football growth? Melbourne Victory train their senior players out of a public park where you can walk your dog and many A-League clubs are in a similar situation. Hence, investing in the minimum requirements that are stipulated in their A-League licenses Is not anything special but the expected minimum. Just imagine if they were not forced to have youth, womens teams etc whether they would bother incurring the expense.Please don't make me delve into to much explanation for obvious points we all should be aware of, particularly before I've had a couple of coffees :) You are now starting to come across as a bit of a Troll, you're looking more and more like you are part of the problem with Australian football and not part of teh solution. Not everything the HAL clubs have done is wrong, in fact given the FFA interference and model it is amazing what they have done. The challenge now is not to get rid of the HAL but to expand it, and to create a National Second division, and to introduce p/r. and then a third division divided along geography (east/west or north/south) and then sustainable state leagues. We need ALL involved not just a new faction who says "its my time at the trough". NPL clubs are not perfect, I say that with a Souths hat on, they rip parents off for excessive academy fees, they block p/r at their local level, they fight amongst themselves, the AAFC model for a second division is a crazy 24 two conference systems - why? because they cant agree amongst themselves who should be in and who should be out. crazy, vested self-interest exists at our level as well Canada70, this sport does not need another agitator - where the HAL clubs can improve we should say so, where they have done well, we should say so, same NPL, One football is needed not a faction driven agenda that you have, disaster awaits your sort I'm not sure Canada warrants such a response. For starters, no single person can be a major part of the problem (apart from maybe one candidate who set the whole thing up). Also, you correctly point out that football does not need another faction driven agenda, but as we speak, there already exist at least two distinct factions with their own agendas, and I would suggest that no poster on this board is responsible for that being the case. Youre an AFL stooge. GO AWAY your opinion does not count here
|
|
|
|
|
FullBack4
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 697,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThe point I was trying to make was that private business syndicates are predominantly looking at pocketing windfalls or growing a business to on sell it, rather than plowing any windfalls locally. In regards to the Abu Dhabi owners, they bought a very undercapitalised joke of a franchise. The Heart group if you all recall, were using wheelie bins for their players' ice baths. It certainly needed basic amenities. Just to get it out of that embarrassing situation.The question I raise again is: how much of the future windfalls do we expect these private businesses to invest in Australia's football growth? Melbourne Victory train their senior players out of a public park where you can walk your dog and many A-League clubs are in a similar situation. Hence, investing in the minimum requirements that are stipulated in their A-League licenses Is not anything special but the expected minimum. Just imagine if they were not forced to have youth, womens teams etc whether they would bother incurring the expense.Please don't make me delve into to much explanation for obvious points we all should be aware of, particularly before I've had a couple of coffees :) You are now starting to come across as a bit of a Troll, you're looking more and more like you are part of the problem with Australian football and not part of teh solution. Not everything the HAL clubs have done is wrong, in fact given the FFA interference and model it is amazing what they have done. The challenge now is not to get rid of the HAL but to expand it, and to create a National Second division, and to introduce p/r. and then a third division divided along geography (east/west or north/south) and then sustainable state leagues. We need ALL involved not just a new faction who says "its my time at the trough". NPL clubs are not perfect, I say that with a Souths hat on, they rip parents off for excessive academy fees, they block p/r at their local level, they fight amongst themselves, the AAFC model for a second division is a crazy 24 two conference systems - why? because they cant agree amongst themselves who should be in and who should be out. crazy, vested self-interest exists at our level as well Canada70, this sport does not need another agitator - where the HAL clubs can improve we should say so, where they have done well, we should say so, same NPL, One football is needed not a faction driven agenda that you have, disaster awaits your sort @ Canada70 If you feel you do not warrant such a response then I await YOUR reply and not some AFL duch-bag. Football needs a uniting force not a divisive force. If you look at your constant critical posts on the HAL how do you expect them to listen and cooperate? The HAL revenues could be shared to create a national division 2 but we need them to cooperate with us not be threatened by us
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThe point I was trying to make was that private business syndicates are predominantly looking at pocketing windfalls or growing a business to on sell it, rather than plowing any windfalls locally. In regards to the Abu Dhabi owners, they bought a very undercapitalised joke of a franchise. The Heart group if you all recall, were using wheelie bins for their players' ice baths. It certainly needed basic amenities. Just to get it out of that embarrassing situation.The question I raise again is: how much of the future windfalls do we expect these private businesses to invest in Australia's football growth? Melbourne Victory train their senior players out of a public park where you can walk your dog and many A-League clubs are in a similar situation. Hence, investing in the minimum requirements that are stipulated in their A-League licenses Is not anything special but the expected minimum. Just imagine if they were not forced to have youth, womens teams etc whether they would bother incurring the expense.Please don't make me delve into to much explanation for obvious points we all should be aware of, particularly before I've had a couple of coffees :) You are now starting to come across as a bit of a Troll, you're looking more and more like you are part of the problem with Australian football and not part of teh solution. Not everything the HAL clubs have done is wrong, in fact given the FFA interference and model it is amazing what they have done. The challenge now is not to get rid of the HAL but to expand it, and to create a National Second division, and to introduce p/r. and then a third division divided along geography (east/west or north/south) and then sustainable state leagues. We need ALL involved not just a new faction who says "its my time at the trough". NPL clubs are not perfect, I say that with a Souths hat on, they rip parents off for excessive academy fees, they block p/r at their local level, they fight amongst themselves, the AAFC model for a second division is a crazy 24 two conference systems - why? because they cant agree amongst themselves who should be in and who should be out. crazy, vested self-interest exists at our level as well Canada70, this sport does not need another agitator - where the HAL clubs can improve we should say so, where they have done well, we should say so, same NPL, One football is needed not a faction driven agenda that you have, disaster awaits your sort @ Canada70 If you feel you do not warrant such a response then I await YOUR reply and not some AFL duch-bag. Football needs a uniting force not a divisive force. If you look at your constant critical posts on the HAL how do you expect them to listen and cooperate? The HAL revenues could be shared to create a national division 2 but we need them to cooperate with us not be threatened by us Stacks of posters are putting up critical posts about the HAL and FFA. Why are you picking on Canada?
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThe point I was trying to make was that private business syndicates are predominantly looking at pocketing windfalls or growing a business to on sell it, rather than plowing any windfalls locally. In regards to the Abu Dhabi owners, they bought a very undercapitalised joke of a franchise. The Heart group if you all recall, were using wheelie bins for their players' ice baths. It certainly needed basic amenities. Just to get it out of that embarrassing situation.The question I raise again is: how much of the future windfalls do we expect these private businesses to invest in Australia's football growth? Melbourne Victory train their senior players out of a public park where you can walk your dog and many A-League clubs are in a similar situation. Hence, investing in the minimum requirements that are stipulated in their A-League licenses Is not anything special but the expected minimum. Just imagine if they were not forced to have youth, womens teams etc whether they would bother incurring the expense.Please don't make me delve into to much explanation for obvious points we all should be aware of, particularly before I've had a couple of coffees :) You are now starting to come across as a bit of a Troll, you're looking more and more like you are part of the problem with Australian football and not part of teh solution. Not everything the HAL clubs have done is wrong, in fact given the FFA interference and model it is amazing what they have done. The challenge now is not to get rid of the HAL but to expand it, and to create a National Second division, and to introduce p/r. and then a third division divided along geography (east/west or north/south) and then sustainable state leagues. We need ALL involved not just a new faction who says "its my time at the trough". NPL clubs are not perfect, I say that with a Souths hat on, they rip parents off for excessive academy fees, they block p/r at their local level, they fight amongst themselves, the AAFC model for a second division is a crazy 24 two conference systems - why? because they cant agree amongst themselves who should be in and who should be out. crazy, vested self-interest exists at our level as well Canada70, this sport does not need another agitator - where the HAL clubs can improve we should say so, where they have done well, we should say so, same NPL, One football is needed not a faction driven agenda that you have, disaster awaits your sort @ Canada70 If you look at your constant critical posts on the HAL how do you expect them to listen and cooperate? Hang on, did someone expect that? I thought it was just a bit of fun or a school project sort of thing?
|
|
|
|
|
Canada70
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 122,
Visits: 0
|
First thing people need to always do BEFORE they begin down the road of Reform is: A) understand the root causes of failures B) then work through the entrails of the process & look at the dependencies or linkages that produced those failiures C) then study the results of the repercussions that those dependencies created (the list is on other threads) Thats just a basic summary Now the points I've made in reference to the HAL clubs i think are valid. The Aleague model/experiment is in many ways over. It's only a matter of time now. The FFA has said much the same, that's why they have brought in Deloittes to look at a different/sustainable model. See FFA statement 28 Feb 2017 So the Aussie franchise football club model with its "unique" licencing system lends itself to mediocrity & has brought us to where we are today. If there is anyone that thinks " that all is ok & dandy" they are either fools or been living under a rock. We need to look beyond our support of franchises or clubs. Now there's half of the HAL clubs that want to maintain the current monopoly & are fighting the reforms. They are probably on here scribing their thoughts. And I understand them as they are looking at an environment of change that will probably force them to compete. To compete costs more money, I understand that. But that's way the game operates world wide. Remembering the HAL franchises assumed they had a 20 year monopoly (from June 2013 to 2033) !! So by privatising our game in 2005 we now have to untangle it. It's gonna hurt. People's intentions back then might have been noble, no problem, but the end result is we now need to reform the game & migrate it to a normal international accepted model or FIFA will forcibly do it for us. In Victoria they have full promotion/ relegation from state teams to NPL 2 to NPL & back the other way. Fullback4 please check your facts. By the way : HAL clubs are charging kids in Sydney $2500 for their "junior Academies" too. And they are private businesses !! NPL clubs are all non-for profit member based clubs so whatever they charge goes back to the club & football. Certainly not to shareholders. You gotta check your facts please. Do NPL clubs need to improve? Ofcourse they do. Do we have to reform the game? Fucken oath we do. Anyway Gotta take the missus out, it's her birthday. Last thing: This announcent below is significant. It all but gurantees massive reforms coming soon. 
|
|
|
|
|
Canada70
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 122,
Visits: 0
|
I nearly chocked on my marinara!!
So we have a potential new owner wishing to join a private business monopoly, arguing against a tried & tested world wide system that rewards excellence, merit & hard work.
I'm just so surprised !!
That's indicative of the incredible mediocrity & flawed thinking we've been acclimatised to.
I think he needs to do some more reading of where things are heading. He's a bit behind the news.
Fortunately for the game, reform is now inevitable.
I'm going back to my now cold pasta. Good night
|
|
|
|
|
Canada70
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 122,
Visits: 0
|
One last thing I promise What happened to FullBack4 I responded to his queries Just in case he missed it, I've copied it here too. ---------------- First thing people need to always do BEFORE they begin down the road of Reform is: A) understand the root causes of failures B) then work through the entrails of the process & look at the dependencies or linkages that produced those failiures C) then study the results of the repercussions that those dependencies created (the list is on other threads) Thats just a basic summary Now the points I've made in reference to the HAL clubs i think are valid. The Aleague model/experiment is in many ways over. It's only a matter of time now. The FFA has said much the same, that's why they have brought in Deloittes to look at a different/sustainable model. See FFA statement 28 Feb 2017 So the Aussie franchise football club model with its "unique" licencing system lends itself to mediocrity & has brought us to where we are today. If there is anyone that thinks " that all is ok & dandy" they are either fools or been living under a rock. We need to look beyond our support of franchises or clubs. Now there's half of the HAL clubs that want to maintain the current monopoly & are fighting the reforms. They are probably on here scribing their thoughts. And I understand them as they are looking at an environment of change that will probably force them to compete. To compete costs more money, I understand that. But that's the way the game operates world wide. Remembering the HAL franchises assumed they had a 20 year monopoly (from June 2013 to 2033) !! So by privatising our game in 2005 we now have to untangle it. It's gonna hurt. People's intentions back then might have been noble, no problem, but the end result is we now need to reform the game & migrate it to a normal international accepted model or FIFA will forcibly do it for us. In Victoria they have full promotion/ relegation from state teams to NPL 2 to NPL & back the other way. Fullback4 please check your facts. By the way : HAL clubs are charging kids in Sydney $2500 for their "junior Academies" too. And they are private businesses !! NPL clubs are all non-for profit member based clubs so whatever they charge goes back to the club & football. Certainly not to shareholders. You gotta check your facts please. Do NPL clubs need to improve? Ofcourse they do. Do we have to reform the game? Fucken oath we do. Anyway Gotta take the missus out, it's her birthday. Last thing: This announcent below is significant. It all but gurantees massive reforms coming soon. 
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThe HAL is run as a franchise system with the clubs being issues licenses to participate. FFA as the master franchisor controls & owns everything, the intellectual property, the names, the brands, team colors, websites. Everything. If your interested in seeing what options current Franchise owners have, just google how Clive Palmer & Gold Coast untied went when they took on the FFA when they pulled Clive's license. With regard to setting up a rebel league, assuming current owners would be able to get past non-compete clauses in their license agreements (which will be there without a doubt), how many HAL fans will swap to Sydney City FC, Western Sydney Rovers or Melbourne Victorious, each wearing different team colors as FFA owns current strips? Doubt many would, so value of tv deals or sponsorship would be minimal. Also other than the big 3, the other teams are already on their knees financially so where will funds to set up new clubs & league come from? Plus as we have seen in the past with GC, Brisbane and Newcastle, if current owners pull the pin, FFA could just take over the running of the teams themselves, costs would be covered by the Fox TV money and they could then flog them to new owners when they wanted. The average fan doesn't care who the owners are. Personally I believe many of the current issues are caused by the lack of a traditional "football club" organisation in the HAL, but unfortunately, the current system is based on the "Jim's Mowing" business model and Jim (FFA) is the king. Good summation. Most people on 442 forums (and editorial staff) will never understand it and they will somehow think that this A League is something it can never be. The "Owners" are the actual worst thing about the League. Always have been. Lowy Sr. knew that would be the case apparently and set it up to protect the League itself and more, from them. Think about this for a minute. For $5M a foreign privately held entity can buy a portion of it. At the moment, that investment allows them to operate in a sandbox where they have no power and limited influence. That could all change dramatically. Horribly. If those owners, by way of their very small investment on a global scale, get control of the national football organisation then we have something completely different and scary happening. There would be absolutely nothing to stop them stripping the asset and throwing the husk away. That's the complete reversal of the current situation. While it's arguable that these owners bought in with their eyes open, the same can't be said for everybody that has a stake in Football in this country. You might be asking where your $6.00 registration fee goes now? You really want to be asking that question of a future organisation which is to be run exclusively for the benefit of foreign and a couple of local billionaires? You trust these people? Let me remind you: Brisbane - Indonesian. Sydney - Russian. Wellington - New Zealand. Newcastle - China. Central Coast - English. Melbourne City - Abu Dhabi. The other remaining four are at least Australian, but there are only two that I would trust to run a football club for the benefit of football above anything else. This isn't a xenophobic rant - it's a comment that if your only stake in this country is to extract money from it, then you have to be dealt with as a banker-investor not as a benevolent benefactor who has the warm and fuzzy about advancing football here. They may be a bunch of idealists but they don't look like it from this distance. The A League has to die as it currently exists. It worked for the best part of 10 years but now it is apparent that it is holding back the professional game here. Above and beyond that, it now threatens all that lies beyond the professional game. The crown jewels are the million people that have nothing to do with the A League and sure as hell don't want the faux-clubs running their organisation and putting their interests behind the further enrichment of already very rich people. We do need a new ownership model (vis a vis the current A League model). If the League cannot be held separate from the mainstream organisation then it is a very real problem. Creating an independent professional League body will be a requirement whether the same League is kept and adjusted, or a totally new one is formed. It will have to be responsible for its own fortunes and future, but failure should not threaten anything beyond its remit. The FFA should give it rope, but retain a hand on it so that cannot get quasi-control of the whole sport here. There is time and opportunity now (only just arisen really) whereby the FFA could create a completely new body to run Professional Football but bind it to an expansive model broadly governed by the FIFA statutes. Anybody stepping into the Professional game in Australia would immediately know where the short and long term lies and so informed, could choose their path. If I was FFA I would take two seriously disruptive steps and one big brave one: 1. Tell the A League Clubs that they can take it or leave it. If they say "we'll leave" say goodbye to them. Issue new franchises to make up the numbers if necessary. There are very willing players in each "market" that would step up. Players suddenly out of contract would be snapped up again. Easier actually than starting from scratch. Ugly, but very very workable. 2. Simultaneously with above, announce the creation of a body to independently run the Professional game in Australia. It should be constituted by truly independent people with the majority of the expertise brought in from abroad initially. Japan, Germany and perhaps the US might be good places to start looking - not so much Bern(e). The body would have to be in place and fully running the pro game here 2018-2019 with a clearly timetabled transition. 3. "Balls move" (as if the others aren't). Genuinely reform the Congress so that it is truly representative. Stephen Lowy doesn't want to be doing this shit for the rest of his life, so his best move is to create a power structure that is genuinely democratic and move on from the benevolent oligarchy. Fill the Congress with seats and votes that cover all the interests of the game nationally and thereby insure against the seizure of control by narrow and greedy interests (or benevolent ones) because if you look at the long history of the game in this country - that is the path that it has always taken and then fallen by. Democracy is inefficient and frustrating but it is enduring and ultimately enriching. Definitely Not no 1. I could live with 2 but we should be able to run football on our own but outside help would be welcome and then gone when they are done. We should be able to get to 3 but the FFA doesn't want to be part of a democratic process. All FIFA wants is for the congress to have more votes, the FFA doesn't even want to add 3 votes to the congress, they should be adding 100+ if we want to be real.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThe HAL is run as a franchise system with the clubs being issues licenses to participate. FFA as the master franchisor controls & owns everything, the intellectual property, the names, the brands, team colors, websites. Everything. If your interested in seeing what options current Franchise owners have, just google how Clive Palmer & Gold Coast untied went when they took on the FFA when they pulled Clive's license. With regard to setting up a rebel league, assuming current owners would be able to get past non-compete clauses in their license agreements (which will be there without a doubt), how many HAL fans will swap to Sydney City FC, Western Sydney Rovers or Melbourne Victorious, each wearing different team colors as FFA owns current strips? Doubt many would, so value of tv deals or sponsorship would be minimal. Also other than the big 3, the other teams are already on their knees financially so where will funds to set up new clubs & league come from? Plus as we have seen in the past with GC, Brisbane and Newcastle, if current owners pull the pin, FFA could just take over the running of the teams themselves, costs would be covered by the Fox TV money and they could then flog them to new owners when they wanted. The average fan doesn't care who the owners are. Personally I believe many of the current issues are caused by the lack of a traditional "football club" organisation in the HAL, but unfortunately, the current system is based on the "Jim's Mowing" business model and Jim (FFA) is the king. Good summation. Most people on 442 forums (and editorial staff) will never understand it and they will somehow think that this A League is something it can never be. The "Owners" are the actual worst thing about the League. Always have been. Lowy Sr. knew that would be the case apparently and set it up to protect the League itself and more, from them. Think about this for a minute. For $5M a foreign privately held entity can buy a portion of it. At the moment, that investment allows them to operate in a sandbox where they have no power and limited influence. That could all change dramatically. Horribly. If those owners, by way of their very small investment on a global scale, get control of the national football organisation then we have something completely different and scary happening. There would be absolutely nothing to stop them stripping the asset and throwing the husk away. That's the complete reversal of the current situation. While it's arguable that these owners bought in with their eyes open, the same can't be said for everybody that has a stake in Football in this country. You might be asking where your $6.00 registration fee goes now? You really want to be asking that question of a future organisation which is to be run exclusively for the benefit of foreign and a couple of local billionaires? You trust these people? Let me remind you: Brisbane - Indonesian. Sydney - Russian. Wellington - New Zealand. Newcastle - China. Central Coast - English. Melbourne City - Abu Dhabi. The other remaining four are at least Australian, but there are only two that I would trust to run a football club for the benefit of football above anything else. This isn't a xenophobic rant - it's a comment that if your only stake in this country is to extract money from it, then you have to be dealt with as a banker-investor not as a benevolent benefactor who has the warm and fuzzy about advancing football here. They may be a bunch of idealists but they don't look like it from this distance. The A League has to die as it currently exists. It worked for the best part of 10 years but now it is apparent that it is holding back the professional game here. Above and beyond that, it now threatens all that lies beyond the professional game. The crown jewels are the million people that have nothing to do with the A League and sure as hell don't want the faux-clubs running their organisation and putting their interests behind the further enrichment of already very rich people. We do need a new ownership model (vis a vis the current A League model). If the League cannot be held separate from the mainstream organisation then it is a very real problem. Creating an independent professional League body will be a requirement whether the same League is kept and adjusted, or a totally new one is formed. It will have to be responsible for its own fortunes and future, but failure should not threaten anything beyond its remit. The FFA should give it rope, but retain a hand on it so that cannot get quasi-control of the whole sport here. There is time and opportunity now (only just arisen really) whereby the FFA could create a completely new body to run Professional Football but bind it to an expansive model broadly governed by the FIFA statutes. Anybody stepping into the Professional game in Australia would immediately know where the short and long term lies and so informed, could choose their path. If I was FFA I would take two seriously disruptive steps and one big brave one: 1. Tell the A League Clubs that they can take it or leave it. If they say "we'll leave" say goodbye to them. Issue new franchises to make up the numbers if necessary. There are very willing players in each "market" that would step up. Players suddenly out of contract would be snapped up again. Easier actually than starting from scratch. Ugly, but very very workable. 2. Simultaneously with above, announce the creation of a body to independently run the Professional game in Australia. It should be constituted by truly independent people with the majority of the expertise brought in from abroad initially. Japan, Germany and perhaps the US might be good places to start looking - not so much Bern(e). The body would have to be in place and fully running the pro game here 2018-2019 with a clearly timetabled transition. 3. "Balls move" (as if the others aren't). Genuinely reform the Congress so that it is truly representative. Stephen Lowy doesn't want to be doing this shit for the rest of his life, so his best move is to create a power structure that is genuinely democratic and move on from the benevolent oligarchy. Fill the Congress with seats and votes that cover all the interests of the game nationally and thereby insure against the seizure of control by narrow and greedy interests (or benevolent ones) because if you look at the long history of the game in this country - that is the path that it has always taken and then fallen by.
Democracy is inefficient and frustrating but it is enduring and ultimately enriching. One tale has him taking control of an unruly A-League owners meeting a few years ago, in a room full of other success business leaders and entrepreneurs, by suddenly slamming his fist on the table and loudly exclaiming: "Gentlemen, let me remind you: this is not a democracy."
Frank Lowy passes to son Steven as he blows whistle on soccer | afr.com
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThe HAL is run as a franchise system with the clubs being issues licenses to participate. FFA as the master franchisor controls & owns everything, the intellectual property, the names, the brands, team colors, websites. Everything. If your interested in seeing what options current Franchise owners have, just google how Clive Palmer & Gold Coast untied went when they took on the FFA when they pulled Clive's license. With regard to setting up a rebel league, assuming current owners would be able to get past non-compete clauses in their license agreements (which will be there without a doubt), how many HAL fans will swap to Sydney City FC, Western Sydney Rovers or Melbourne Victorious, each wearing different team colors as FFA owns current strips? Doubt many would, so value of tv deals or sponsorship would be minimal. Also other than the big 3, the other teams are already on their knees financially so where will funds to set up new clubs & league come from? Plus as we have seen in the past with GC, Brisbane and Newcastle, if current owners pull the pin, FFA could just take over the running of the teams themselves, costs would be covered by the Fox TV money and they could then flog them to new owners when they wanted. The average fan doesn't care who the owners are. Personally I believe many of the current issues are caused by the lack of a traditional "football club" organisation in the HAL, but unfortunately, the current system is based on the "Jim's Mowing" business model and Jim (FFA) is the king. Good summation. Most people on 442 forums (and editorial staff) will never understand it and they will somehow think that this A League is something it can never be. The "Owners" are the actual worst thing about the League. Always have been. Lowy Sr. knew that would be the case apparently and set it up to protect the League itself and more, from them. Think about this for a minute. For $5M a foreign privately held entity can buy a portion of it. At the moment, that investment allows them to operate in a sandbox where they have no power and limited influence. That could all change dramatically. Horribly. If those owners, by way of their very small investment on a global scale, get control of the national football organisation then we have something completely different and scary happening. There would be absolutely nothing to stop them stripping the asset and throwing the husk away. That's the complete reversal of the current situation. While it's arguable that these owners bought in with their eyes open, the same can't be said for everybody that has a stake in Football in this country. You might be asking where your $6.00 registration fee goes now? You really want to be asking that question of a future organisation which is to be run exclusively for the benefit of foreign and a couple of local billionaires? You trust these people? Let me remind you: Brisbane - Indonesian. Sydney - Russian. Wellington - New Zealand. Newcastle - China. Central Coast - English. Melbourne City - Abu Dhabi. The other remaining four are at least Australian, but there are only two that I would trust to run a football club for the benefit of football above anything else. This isn't a xenophobic rant - it's a comment that if your only stake in this country is to extract money from it, then you have to be dealt with as a banker-investor not as a benevolent benefactor who has the warm and fuzzy about advancing football here. They may be a bunch of idealists but they don't look like it from this distance. The A League has to die as it currently exists. It worked for the best part of 10 years but now it is apparent that it is holding back the professional game here. Above and beyond that, it now threatens all that lies beyond the professional game. The crown jewels are the million people that have nothing to do with the A League and sure as hell don't want the faux-clubs running their organisation and putting their interests behind the further enrichment of already very rich people. We do need a new ownership model (vis a vis the current A League model). If the League cannot be held separate from the mainstream organisation then it is a very real problem. Creating an independent professional League body will be a requirement whether the same League is kept and adjusted, or a totally new one is formed. It will have to be responsible for its own fortunes and future, but failure should not threaten anything beyond its remit. The FFA should give it rope, but retain a hand on it so that cannot get quasi-control of the whole sport here. There is time and opportunity now (only just arisen really) whereby the FFA could create a completely new body to run Professional Football but bind it to an expansive model broadly governed by the FIFA statutes. Anybody stepping into the Professional game in Australia would immediately know where the short and long term lies and so informed, could choose their path. If I was FFA I would take two seriously disruptive steps and one big brave one: 1. Tell the A League Clubs that they can take it or leave it. If they say "we'll leave" say goodbye to them. Issue new franchises to make up the numbers if necessary. There are very willing players in each "market" that would step up. Players suddenly out of contract would be snapped up again. Easier actually than starting from scratch. Ugly, but very very workable. 2. Simultaneously with above, announce the creation of a body to independently run the Professional game in Australia. It should be constituted by truly independent people with the majority of the expertise brought in from abroad initially. Japan, Germany and perhaps the US might be good places to start looking - not so much Bern(e). The body would have to be in place and fully running the pro game here 2018-2019 with a clearly timetabled transition. 3. "Balls move" (as if the others aren't). Genuinely reform the Congress so that it is truly representative. Stephen Lowy doesn't want to be doing this shit for the rest of his life, so his best move is to create a power structure that is genuinely democratic and move on from the benevolent oligarchy. Fill the Congress with seats and votes that cover all the interests of the game nationally and thereby insure against the seizure of control by narrow and greedy interests (or benevolent ones) because if you look at the long history of the game in this country - that is the path that it has always taken and then fallen by. Democracy is inefficient and frustrating but it is enduring and ultimately enriching. Great post and you highlight an important aspect whatever we get or move too must be better than what we have now ... Agree totally on each of your three points especially number 2...
|
|
|
|
|
FullBack4
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 697,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThe HAL is run as a franchise system with the clubs being issues licenses to participate. FFA as the master franchisor controls & owns everything, the intellectual property, the names, the brands, team colors, websites. Everything. If your interested in seeing what options current Franchise owners have, just google how Clive Palmer & Gold Coast untied went when they took on the FFA when they pulled Clive's license. With regard to setting up a rebel league, assuming current owners would be able to get past non-compete clauses in their license agreements (which will be there without a doubt), how many HAL fans will swap to Sydney City FC, Western Sydney Rovers or Melbourne Victorious, each wearing different team colors as FFA owns current strips? Doubt many would, so value of tv deals or sponsorship would be minimal. Also other than the big 3, the other teams are already on their knees financially so where will funds to set up new clubs & league come from? Plus as we have seen in the past with GC, Brisbane and Newcastle, if current owners pull the pin, FFA could just take over the running of the teams themselves, costs would be covered by the Fox TV money and they could then flog them to new owners when they wanted. The average fan doesn't care who the owners are. Personally I believe many of the current issues are caused by the lack of a traditional "football club" organisation in the HAL, but unfortunately, the current system is based on the "Jim's Mowing" business model and Jim (FFA) is the king. Good summation. Most people on 442 forums (and editorial staff) will never understand it and they will somehow think that this A League is something it can never be. The "Owners" are the actual worst thing about the League. Always have been. Lowy Sr. knew that would be the case apparently and set it up to protect the League itself and more, from them. Think about this for a minute. For $5M a foreign privately held entity can buy a portion of it. At the moment, that investment allows them to operate in a sandbox where they have no power and limited influence. That could all change dramatically. Horribly. If those owners, by way of their very small investment on a global scale, get control of the national football organisation then we have something completely different and scary happening. There would be absolutely nothing to stop them stripping the asset and throwing the husk away. That's the complete reversal of the current situation. While it's arguable that these owners bought in with their eyes open, the same can't be said for everybody that has a stake in Football in this country. You might be asking where your $6.00 registration fee goes now? You really want to be asking that question of a future organisation which is to be run exclusively for the benefit of foreign and a couple of local billionaires? You trust these people? Let me remind you: Brisbane - Indonesian. Sydney - Russian. Wellington - New Zealand. Newcastle - China. Central Coast - English. Melbourne City - Abu Dhabi. The other remaining four are at least Australian, but there are only two that I would trust to run a football club for the benefit of football above anything else. This isn't a xenophobic rant - it's a comment that if your only stake in this country is to extract money from it, then you have to be dealt with as a banker-investor not as a benevolent benefactor who has the warm and fuzzy about advancing football here. They may be a bunch of idealists but they don't look like it from this distance. The A League has to die as it currently exists. It worked for the best part of 10 years but now it is apparent that it is holding back the professional game here. Above and beyond that, it now threatens all that lies beyond the professional game. The crown jewels are the million people that have nothing to do with the A League and sure as hell don't want the faux-clubs running their organisation and putting their interests behind the further enrichment of already very rich people. We do need a new ownership model (vis a vis the current A League model). If the League cannot be held separate from the mainstream organisation then it is a very real problem. Creating an independent professional League body will be a requirement whether the same League is kept and adjusted, or a totally new one is formed. It will have to be responsible for its own fortunes and future, but failure should not threaten anything beyond its remit. The FFA should give it rope, but retain a hand on it so that cannot get quasi-control of the whole sport here. There is time and opportunity now (only just arisen really) whereby the FFA could create a completely new body to run Professional Football but bind it to an expansive model broadly governed by the FIFA statutes. Anybody stepping into the Professional game in Australia would immediately know where the short and long term lies and so informed, could choose their path. If I was FFA I would take two seriously disruptive steps and one big brave one: 1. Tell the A League Clubs that they can take it or leave it. If they say "we'll leave" say goodbye to them. Issue new franchises to make up the numbers if necessary. There are very willing players in each "market" that would step up. Players suddenly out of contract would be snapped up again. Easier actually than starting from scratch. Ugly, but very very workable. 2. Simultaneously with above, announce the creation of a body to independently run the Professional game in Australia. It should be constituted by truly independent people with the majority of the expertise brought in from abroad initially. Japan, Germany and perhaps the US might be good places to start looking - not so much Bern(e). The body would have to be in place and fully running the pro game here 2018-2019 with a clearly timetabled transition. 3. "Balls move" (as if the others aren't). Genuinely reform the Congress so that it is truly representative. Stephen Lowy doesn't want to be doing this shit for the rest of his life, so his best move is to create a power structure that is genuinely democratic and move on from the benevolent oligarchy. Fill the Congress with seats and votes that cover all the interests of the game nationally and thereby insure against the seizure of control by narrow and greedy interests (or benevolent ones) because if you look at the long history of the game in this country - that is the path that it has always taken and then fallen by. Democracy is inefficient and frustrating but it is enduring and ultimately enriching. Great post and you highlight an important aspect whatever we get or move too must be better than what we have now ... Agree totally on each of your three points especially number 2... Midfileder, you are a turkey voting for Christmas, If they start again its bye-bye Mariners LoL
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xThe HAL is run as a franchise system with the clubs being issues licenses to participate. FFA as the master franchisor controls & owns everything, the intellectual property, the names, the brands, team colors, websites. Everything. If your interested in seeing what options current Franchise owners have, just google how Clive Palmer & Gold Coast untied went when they took on the FFA when they pulled Clive's license. With regard to setting up a rebel league, assuming current owners would be able to get past non-compete clauses in their license agreements (which will be there without a doubt), how many HAL fans will swap to Sydney City FC, Western Sydney Rovers or Melbourne Victorious, each wearing different team colors as FFA owns current strips? Doubt many would, so value of tv deals or sponsorship would be minimal. Also other than the big 3, the other teams are already on their knees financially so where will funds to set up new clubs & league come from? Plus as we have seen in the past with GC, Brisbane and Newcastle, if current owners pull the pin, FFA could just take over the running of the teams themselves, costs would be covered by the Fox TV money and they could then flog them to new owners when they wanted. The average fan doesn't care who the owners are. Personally I believe many of the current issues are caused by the lack of a traditional "football club" organisation in the HAL, but unfortunately, the current system is based on the "Jim's Mowing" business model and Jim (FFA) is the king. Good summation. Most people on 442 forums (and editorial staff) will never understand it and they will somehow think that this A League is something it can never be. The "Owners" are the actual worst thing about the League. Always have been. Lowy Sr. knew that would be the case apparently and set it up to protect the League itself and more, from them. Think about this for a minute. For $5M a foreign privately held entity can buy a portion of it. At the moment, that investment allows them to operate in a sandbox where they have no power and limited influence. That could all change dramatically. Horribly. If those owners, by way of their very small investment on a global scale, get control of the national football organisation then we have something completely different and scary happening. There would be absolutely nothing to stop them stripping the asset and throwing the husk away. That's the complete reversal of the current situation. While it's arguable that these owners bought in with their eyes open, the same can't be said for everybody that has a stake in Football in this country. You might be asking where your $6.00 registration fee goes now? You really want to be asking that question of a future organisation which is to be run exclusively for the benefit of foreign and a couple of local billionaires? You trust these people? Let me remind you: Brisbane - Indonesian. Sydney - Russian. Wellington - New Zealand. Newcastle - China. Central Coast - English. Melbourne City - Abu Dhabi. The other remaining four are at least Australian, but there are only two that I would trust to run a football club for the benefit of football above anything else. This isn't a xenophobic rant - it's a comment that if your only stake in this country is to extract money from it, then you have to be dealt with as a banker-investor not as a benevolent benefactor who has the warm and fuzzy about advancing football here. They may be a bunch of idealists but they don't look like it from this distance. The A League has to die as it currently exists. It worked for the best part of 10 years but now it is apparent that it is holding back the professional game here. Above and beyond that, it now threatens all that lies beyond the professional game. The crown jewels are the million people that have nothing to do with the A League and sure as hell don't want the faux-clubs running their organisation and putting their interests behind the further enrichment of already very rich people. We do need a new ownership model (vis a vis the current A League model). If the League cannot be held separate from the mainstream organisation then it is a very real problem. Creating an independent professional League body will be a requirement whether the same League is kept and adjusted, or a totally new one is formed. It will have to be responsible for its own fortunes and future, but failure should not threaten anything beyond its remit. The FFA should give it rope, but retain a hand on it so that cannot get quasi-control of the whole sport here. There is time and opportunity now (only just arisen really) whereby the FFA could create a completely new body to run Professional Football but bind it to an expansive model broadly governed by the FIFA statutes. Anybody stepping into the Professional game in Australia would immediately know where the short and long term lies and so informed, could choose their path. If I was FFA I would take two seriously disruptive steps and one big brave one: 1. Tell the A League Clubs that they can take it or leave it. If they say "we'll leave" say goodbye to them. Issue new franchises to make up the numbers if necessary. There are very willing players in each "market" that would step up. Players suddenly out of contract would be snapped up again. Easier actually than starting from scratch. Ugly, but very very workable. 2. Simultaneously with above, announce the creation of a body to independently run the Professional game in Australia. It should be constituted by truly independent people with the majority of the expertise brought in from abroad initially. Japan, Germany and perhaps the US might be good places to start looking - not so much Bern(e). The body would have to be in place and fully running the pro game here 2018-2019 with a clearly timetabled transition. 3. "Balls move" (as if the others aren't). Genuinely reform the Congress so that it is truly representative. Stephen Lowy doesn't want to be doing this shit for the rest of his life, so his best move is to create a power structure that is genuinely democratic and move on from the benevolent oligarchy. Fill the Congress with seats and votes that cover all the interests of the game nationally and thereby insure against the seizure of control by narrow and greedy interests (or benevolent ones) because if you look at the long history of the game in this country - that is the path that it has always taken and then fallen by. Democracy is inefficient and frustrating but it is enduring and ultimately enriching. Great post and you highlight an important aspect whatever we get or move too must be better than what we have now ... Agree totally on each of your three points especially number 2... Midfileder, you are a turkey voting for Christmas, If they start again its bye-bye Mariners LoL AS this unfolds, it's definitely a case of: be careful what you wish for.
|
|
|
|
|
pv4
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+xeach wearing different team colors as FFA owns current strips? When I read this at first I thought "pfft, whatever" but then remembered Melbourne City being stopped from changing their kit to City Blue. Big Brother is watching, innit. It is interesting - with all these teams surfacing at the moment in a hope for A-League Expansion, the FFA have basically ready-made alternatives if like you said the clubs decide to "leave it". If say Adelaide United weren't happy with the deal and handed their franchise licence back, would your South Melbourne, Dandenong upstart, Wollongong, second Brisbane, etc say no to filling the void, almost scab-like? Of course they would accept the offer.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe HAL is run as a franchise system with the clubs being issues licenses to participate. FFA as the master franchisor controls & owns everything, the intellectual property, the names, the brands, team colors, websites. Everything. If your interested in seeing what options current Franchise owners have, just google how Clive Palmer & Gold Coast untied went when they took on the FFA when they pulled Clive's license. With regard to setting up a rebel league, assuming current owners would be able to get past non-compete clauses in their license agreements (which will be there without a doubt), how many HAL fans will swap to Sydney City FC, Western Sydney Rovers or Melbourne Victorious, each wearing different team colors as FFA owns current strips? Doubt many would, so value of tv deals or sponsorship would be minimal. Also other than the big 3, the other teams are already on their knees financially so where will funds to set up new clubs & league come from? Plus as we have seen in the past with GC, Brisbane and Newcastle, if current owners pull the pin, FFA could just take over the running of the teams themselves, costs would be covered by the Fox TV money and they could then flog them to new owners when they wanted. The average fan doesn't care who the owners are. Personally I believe many of the current issues are caused by the lack of a traditional "football club" organisation in the HAL, but unfortunately, the current system is based on the "Jim's Mowing" business model and Jim (FFA) is the king. Well put. The main comeback, and it's a good comeback, is that FIFA can throw Australia out, so the league which the FFA continues running will not have FIFA or AFC endorsement. That has a host of implications, not least of which will be that the league will only be able to attract rank amateurs to play for it. Anyway, however it unfolds, it will end up as a huge disruption, and no football fan should be wishing for this to happen. ps some history - Australia was thrown out of FIFA back in the 1960s, it meant that the socceroos couldn't compete in FIFA sanctioned tournaments, but at the same time the various state leagues continued with minimal effect - but that was a different era.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+xThe HAL is run as a franchise system with the clubs being issues licenses to participate. FFA as the master franchisor controls & owns everything, the intellectual property, the names, the brands, team colors, websites. Everything. If your interested in seeing what options current Franchise owners have, just google how Clive Palmer & Gold Coast untied went when they took on the FFA when they pulled Clive's license. With regard to setting up a rebel league, assuming current owners would be able to get past non-compete clauses in their license agreements (which will be there without a doubt), how many HAL fans will swap to Sydney City FC, Western Sydney Rovers or Melbourne Victorious, each wearing different team colors as FFA owns current strips? Doubt many would, so value of tv deals or sponsorship would be minimal. Also other than the big 3, the other teams are already on their knees financially so where will funds to set up new clubs & league come from? Plus as we have seen in the past with GC, Brisbane and Newcastle, if current owners pull the pin, FFA could just take over the running of the teams themselves, costs would be covered by the Fox TV money and they could then flog them to new owners when they wanted. The average fan doesn't care who the owners are. Personally I believe many of the current issues are caused by the lack of a traditional "football club" organisation in the HAL, but unfortunately, the current system is based on the "Jim's Mowing" business model and Jim (FFA) is the king. Well put. The main comeback, and it's a good comeback, is that FIFA can throw Australia out, so the league which the FFA continues running will not have FIFA or AFC endorsement. That has a host of implications, not least of which will be that the league will only be able to attract rank amateurs to play for it. Anyway, however it unfolds, it will end up as a huge disruption, and no football fan should be wishing for this to happen. ps some history - Australia was thrown out of FIFA back in the 1960s, it meant that the socceroos couldn't compete in FIFA sanctioned tournaments, but at the same time the various state leagues continued with minimal effect - but that was a different era. FIFA expulsion is very rare and if you look at the history of counties which were booted, the reasons were far more serious than what is happening in Oz.The only real implications with suspension are Aus clubs/teams couldn't compete in WC & qualifiers or AFC, plus they couldn't benefit from FIFA development programs. The league would continue and HAL isn't the first choice league for most payers, so expect similar level players would still come here for the $. Also having less foreigners wouldn't be such a bad thing for youth development as HAL may change from a retirement league to a development league so could actually be a positive! FFA would then have time to structure the congress to be more friendly and re-apply for admittance to FIFA (just like what happened in Indonesia recently).
|
|
|
|
|
Eldar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Yeah, I think the clubs need to be careful because going in for a fight now just for the sake of it could end up damaging them even more, financially. Everyone can see that the system needs to change, away from the franchise/FFA controlled league to a more independent league that incorporates secondary divisions and grassroots, but going all out in that fight now for the sake of $500k a year might not be wise. Absolutely the clubs need to agitate for more say/representation in the running of the game and gradually from there we would like to see things like independent league with clubs given more control of their recources and income and the building of the football pyramid but I'm not sure that getting into a fight about it at this time and dragging the game through the mud is the right option.
Beaten by Eldar
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xYeah, I think the clubs need to be careful because going in for a fight now just for the sake of it could end up damaging them even more, financially. Everyone can see that the system needs to change, away from the franchise/FFA controlled league to a more independent league that incorporates secondary divisions and grassroots, but going all out in that fight now for the sake of $500k a year might not be wise. Absolutely the clubs need to agitate for more say/representation in the running of the game and gradually from there we would like to see things like independent league with clubs given more control of their recources and income and the building of the football pyramid but I'm not sure that getting into a fight about it at this time and dragging the game through the mud is the right option. The clubs are fine. The FFA are the ones in trouble here.
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+xYeah, I think the clubs need to be careful because going in for a fight now just for the sake of it could end up damaging them even more, financially. Everyone can see that the system needs to change, away from the franchise/FFA controlled league to a more independent league that incorporates secondary divisions and grassroots, but going all out in that fight now for the sake of $500k a year might not be wise. Absolutely the clubs need to agitate for more say/representation in the running of the game and gradually from there we would like to see things like independent league with clubs given more control of their recources and income and the building of the football pyramid but I'm not sure that getting into a fight about it at this time and dragging the game through the mud is the right option. So when is the right time?
|
|
|
|
|
Eldar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xYeah, I think the clubs need to be careful because going in for a fight now just for the sake of it could end up damaging them even more, financially. Everyone can see that the system needs to change, away from the franchise/FFA controlled league to a more independent league that incorporates secondary divisions and grassroots, but going all out in that fight now for the sake of $500k a year might not be wise. Absolutely the clubs need to agitate for more say/representation in the running of the game and gradually from there we would like to see things like independent league with clubs given more control of their recources and income and the building of the football pyramid but I'm not sure that getting into a fight about it at this time and dragging the game through the mud is the right option. So when is the right time? As I said, seek to change the system of governance first, that can start now. Things like a strike or a rebel league would be a disaster for the game.
Beaten by Eldar
|
|
|
|
|
Arthur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.1K,
Visits: 0
|
It just goes to show that the current FFA model for a National Competition is all wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Feed_The_Brox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.3K,
Visits: 0
|
while i don't know the ins and out of this and don't know how much the FFA is screwing over the clubs with the funding model, but the reality of the situation is that the more money the clubs get, the less likely expansion will happen... because the expansion clubs will need this funding too. I'm of the view that expanding by 2 teams is not enough. it should be 4.
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
I don't have a problem with the clubs (as a collective) getting more money. But $40m for 20 clubs is better than $40m for 10 clubs. The club owners are being selfish by demanding more money and making it difficult for expansions and further tiers IMO the answer is simple: 1/ Give clubs full ownership and IP 2/ Give clubs full control of merchandising, gate keepings, preseason friendlies and finals 3/ Give clubs $2.75m for 12 tier 1 clubs and $1m for 8 tier 2 clubs as a minimum subsidy Every club who enters the league knows they have a minimal viability subsidy, an expectation to attract $500k to $1m a year in sponsorship or investment (ie- they cant just ride on funds created by MV and SFC), and reward for investment. The bigger they become they more they get. If they host the grand final they end up with $1m from the gate as a reward Having the FFA try to run and pay for 10 clubs is nothing short of stupidity. Having club owners do little more than manage cash flow is also detrimental to the game If this is the new "ownership" model then these clowns need to go. We need a complete and utter change. Fuck off this franchise shit and balanced model. There is more than one way to run a professional sports competition. We need more than one trick ponies
|
|
|
|
|
SWandP
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Interesting observation: There is a raft of genuine fans of the A League Clubs.
That is very evident from what you see posted in these forums. They believe they are fighting for something they belong to. Something real, almost tangible.
Remember Townsville and GCU and beyond? It complicates things immensely.
How many Melbourne Victory members are football fans first and Victory fans second? I'm genuinely afraid to guess.
I do know this. Owners like Palmer, Tinkler and their ilk are quite willing to ruthlessly exploit that genuine sense of belonging for their own personal advantage. In effect, they've paid money for that devoted following. They don't actually own much else when they get a licence.
These people really get hurt when that sense of belonging is stripped from them. The threat of that loss makes them fearful and angry. It sure as hell is a complication that I haven't fully factored into a reform agenda. It is also the big gun that owner-group will use ruthlessly. Hmmmm.
|
|
|
|
|
azzaMVFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHow many Melbourne Victory members are football fans first and Victory fans second? I'm genuinely afraid to guess. That's a tough question, but I genuinely see myself as both. Many members of this forum would be the same. Many of my mates are the same as well. But there can't be too many of us.
|
|
|
|
|
SWandP
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xHow many Melbourne Victory members are football fans first and Victory fans second? I'm genuinely afraid to guess. That's a tough question, but I genuinely see myself as both. Many members of this forum would be the same. Many of my mates are the same as well. But there can't be too many of us. Well mate, we've been on this ride before. :) Will meet up and stand you a drink one day and we'll reminisce.
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xHow many Melbourne Victory members are football fans first and Victory fans second? I'm genuinely afraid to guess. That's a tough question, but I genuinely see myself as both. Many members of this forum would be the same. Many of my mates are the same as well. But there can't be too many of us. Well mate, we've been on this ride before. :) Will meet up and stand you a drink one day and we'll reminisce. Sorry a football fan. What the fuck is that? I don't go around supporting the linesman, ref and ball. I go for my team and that's it. One of the big parts of why I want pro/rel is to relegate shit fans and their shit clubs. You should be ashamed of yourself tbh.
|
|
|
|
|
slipperypigeon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 420,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xHow many Melbourne Victory members are football fans first and Victory fans second? I'm genuinely afraid to guess. That's a tough question, but I genuinely see myself as both. Many members of this forum would be the same. Many of my mates are the same as well. But there can't be too many of us. Well mate, we've been on this ride before. :) Will meet up and stand you a drink one day and we'll reminisce. Sorry a football fan. What the fuck is that? I don't go around supporting the linesman, ref and ball. I go for my team and that's it. One of the big parts of why I want pro/rel is to relegate shit fans and their shit clubs. You should be ashamed of yourself tbh. Too right. Follow your team first, that is where the blood, sweat and tears are shed in the stands.
|
|
|
|
|
SWandP
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xHow many Melbourne Victory members are football fans first and Victory fans second? I'm genuinely afraid to guess. That's a tough question, but I genuinely see myself as both. Many members of this forum would be the same. Many of my mates are the same as well. But there can't be too many of us. Well mate, we've been on this ride before. :) Will meet up and stand you a drink one day and we'll reminisce. Sorry a football fan. What the fuck is that? I don't go around supporting the linesman, ref and ball. I go for my team and that's it. One of the big parts of why I want pro/rel is to relegate shit fans and their shit clubs. You should be ashamed of yourself tbh. Why because I don't support an A League team? That I've placed the good of the game above notions of narrow self-interest? Not me that should be ashamed mate.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+xHow many Melbourne Victory members are football fans first and Victory fans second? I'm genuinely afraid to guess. That's a tough question, but I genuinely see myself as both. Many members of this forum would be the same. Many of my mates are the same as well. But there can't be too many of us. Hypothetical question for you, if the owners of Victory shut down the club and started a new team with different name & different colours (remember these belong to FFA), would you change over and support them?
|
|
|
|
|
SWandP
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xHow many Melbourne Victory members are football fans first and Victory fans second? I'm genuinely afraid to guess. That's a tough question, but I genuinely see myself as both. Many members of this forum would be the same. Many of my mates are the same as well. But there can't be too many of us. Hypothetical question for you, if the owners of Victory shut down the club and started a new team with different name & different colours (remember these belong to FFA), would you change over and support them? No. I don't support them now. I wouldn't support them in the future no matter how many times they change their shirt colour and logo. They don't offer me anything, It's not about them being a "real" club or a franchise either. They have exactly zero appeal to me as an entity. I like watching the football played by the team they hire though. I could say the same about Colombia or Germany. I count Victory as one of the two A League organisations that seem to be more interested in football than money and/or influence. That's good from my perspective. They have done a lot for the game here. Great. Gone tomorrow? Too bad. Life goes on. The new generation of supporters is what I am concerned about. We must keep them or try harder to. Look how strong your positive feelings are toward a commercial entity that has the annual turnover and less clout than a regional Safeway outlet. Football is amazing.
|
|
|
|
|
And Everyone Blamed Clive
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xHow many Melbourne Victory members are football fans first and Victory fans second? I'm genuinely afraid to guess. That's a tough question, but I genuinely see myself as both. Many members of this forum would be the same. Many of my mates are the same as well. But there can't be too many of us. Hypothetical question for you, if the owners of Victory shut down the club and started a new team with different name & different colours (remember these belong to FFA), would you change over and support them? Melbourne Gypsies 
Winner of Official 442 Comment of the day Award - 10th April 2017
|
|
|
|
|
And Everyone Blamed Clive
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xInteresting observation: There is a raft of genuine fans of the A League Clubs. That is very evident from what you see posted in these forums. They believe they are fighting for something they belong to. Something real, almost tangible. Remember Townsville and GCU and beyond? It complicates things immensely. How many Melbourne Victory members are football fans first and Victory fans second? I'm genuinely afraid to guess. I do know this. Owners like Palmer, Tinkler and their ilk are quite willing to ruthlessly exploit that genuine sense of belonging for their own personal advantage. In effect, they've paid money for that devoted following. They don't actually own much else when they get a licence. These people really get hurt when that sense of belonging is stripped from them. The threat of that loss makes them fearful and angry. It sure as hell is a complication that I haven't fully factored into a reform agenda. It is also the big gun that owner-group will use ruthlessly. Hmmmm. Owners come and go It's the FFA who decided to just delete the 'sense of belonging' They shouldn't be able to do that, and P&R would mean they have no (feeble) excuse to
Winner of Official 442 Comment of the day Award - 10th April 2017
|
|
|
|
|
crimsoncrusoe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Without seeing the FFA constitution,I would expect that FFA are bound by rules of FIFA.
As covered in another topic,FIFA can replace the board of FFA,which negates any possibility of FFA legally breaking away from FIFA.
If FFA fail to keep FIFA happy then FIFA have the power to move in and kickout Gallop and Lowy.They are both just people,with no special powers ,except those they think they have.
FFA structured the HAL assuming they could keep total control of the clubs and control all the money,but arrogantly have ignored the power of FIFA.
FFA are not constituted like AFL and NRL.There is no overseeing body that has any control over them.
If FFA are totally beholden to FIFA.They have played the special circumstances card for eleven years and its now proved to be lame,with npl clubs calling for a second division.It's just a matter of whether FIFA want to do anything.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
SEN radio about to talk about the FFA v clubs v FIFA stoush.
|
|
|
|
|
azzaMVFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSEN radio about to talk about the FFA v clubs v FIFA stoush. I don't ever listen to that station, due to its AFL bias, however if you could fill us in that would be great. Who was on to speak about it?
|
|
|
|
|
FullBack4
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 697,
Visits: 0
|
The A League raises $75m in revenues which:
$26m goes to clubs for salaries
$10m is spent on marketing
$5m is spent on administration
$2m is spent on FFA salary
That leaves $34m for the rest of football.
That works out at about $60 per registered player per year. The HAL is NOT cross-funding teh rest of foootball, there is not enough money there
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe A League raises $75m in revenues which: $26m goes to clubs for salaries $10m is spent on marketing $5m is spent on administration $2m is spent on FFA salary That leaves $34m for the rest of football. That works out at about $60 per registered player per year. The HAL is NOT cross-funding teh rest of foootball, there is not enough money there Is that $75 million combined tv money, finals revenue, sponsorship revenue (Hyundai etc) and comission from club merchandise sales plus outright merchandise sales plus $250000 per A-League club game against Europans teams?
|
|
|
|
|
FullBack4
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 697,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThe A League raises $75m in revenues which: $26m goes to clubs for salaries $10m is spent on marketing $5m is spent on administration $2m is spent on FFA salary That leaves $34m for the rest of football. That works out at about $60 per registered player per year. The HAL is NOT cross-funding teh rest of foootball, there is not enough money there Is that $75 million combined tv money, finals revenue, sponsorship revenue (Hyundai etc) and comission from club merchandise sales plus outright merchandise sales plus $250000 per A-League club game against Europans teams? No one really knows exactly what revenues the FFA has and from where but tellingly no one from the FFA has ever tried to distance themselves from the number, $75-$80m on the old TV contract seems to be "acceptable".One FFA insider once told me he thought the FFA could fund a national second division just out of efficiency and cost savings at the FFA alone, dont know how true it is but it is believable
|
|
|
|
|
aussie pride
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
True Walnuts.
MVFC use all the gym, recovery facilities @ AAMI Park which is apparently first class.
Melbourne Demons also use Gosch's paddock too and it hasn't been a hindrance to them either.
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+xTrue Walnuts. MVFC use all the gym, recovery facilities @ AAMI Park which is apparently first class. Melbourne Demons also use Gosch's paddock too and it hasn't been a hindrance to them either. I think there is also sports medicine specialists who have their practices in AAMI Park, so they can get everything done in the one location. It really is a world class facility, and Gosch's Paddock has always looked in immaculate condition. Besides, I think it's nice that the players are 'easily accessible' for the public - they can simply come down and watch the team go through their paces.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Romsey Rom
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
Rob Cavallucci, the main figure behind FC Brisbane Citys bid, has tweeted his opposition to pro/rel??
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xRob Cavallucci, the main figure behind FC Brisbane Citys bid, has tweeted his opposition to pro/rel?? This isnt surprising. He wants to buy/invest his way in. With guaranteed tv revenue and derbies v BR why would he want to get relegated. If I owned a club I wouldnt support it either in theory if I was in the A-League...
|
|
|
|
|
bigpoppa
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xRob Cavallucci, the main figure behind FC Brisbane Citys bid, has tweeted his opposition to pro/rel?? This isnt surprising. He wants to buy/invest his way in. With guaranteed tv revenue and derbies v BR why would he want to get relegated. If I owned a club I wouldnt support it either in theory if I was in the A-League... It would be amusing if expansion came in the form of a second division and he had to win promotion... on the other hand would he buy into a second division?
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xRob Cavallucci, the main figure behind FC Brisbane Citys bid, has tweeted his opposition to pro/rel?? This isnt surprising. He wants to buy/invest his way in. With guaranteed tv revenue and derbies v BR why would he want to get relegated. If I owned a club I wouldnt support it either in theory if I was in the A-League... It would be amusing if expansion came in the form of a second division and he had to win promotion... on the other hand would he buy into a second division? They would/should just play as Brisbane City in that instance.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xRob Cavallucci, the main figure behind FC Brisbane Citys bid, has tweeted his opposition to pro/rel?? This isnt surprising. He wants to buy/invest his way in. With guaranteed tv revenue and derbies v BR why would he want to get relegated. If I owned a club I wouldnt support it either in theory if I was in the A-League... It would be amusing if expansion came in the form of a second division and he had to win promotion... on the other hand would he buy into a second division? As soon as a potential A-league owner is against something you know it must be a good idea. P & R already keeping him on his toes and he doesn't like it. No one should just have an automatic right to the top tier. This is football.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xRob Cavallucci, the main figure behind FC Brisbane Citys bid, has tweeted his opposition to pro/rel?? This isnt surprising. He wants to buy/invest his way in. With guaranteed tv revenue and derbies v BR why would he want to get relegated. If I owned a club I wouldnt support it either in theory if I was in the A-League... Precisely why we need to question what things would be like if the 10 club owners controlled the A-League tomorrow. There are no guarantees that they would opt to diminish their investments by giving themselves a one in ten chance of being relegated. Also, it's a brave assumption that they would willingly share a pretty low revenue base with a bunch of semi-pro clubs.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xRob Cavallucci, the main figure behind FC Brisbane Citys bid, has tweeted his opposition to pro/rel?? Should we all start trolling him with tweets. Not in a nasty way.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xRob Cavallucci, the main figure behind FC Brisbane Citys bid, has tweeted his opposition to pro/rel?? Should we all start trolling him with tweets. Not in a nasty way. I asked him a question
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xRob Cavallucci, the main figure behind FC Brisbane Citys bid, has tweeted his opposition to pro/rel?? Should we all start trolling him with tweets. Not in a nasty way. I asked him a question Yeah I saw that. I thought it was a reasonably question. But yes his business plan would be in tatters :D
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xRob Cavallucci, the main figure behind FC Brisbane Citys bid, has tweeted his opposition to pro/rel?? Should we all start trolling him with tweets. Not in a nasty way. I asked him a question Yeah I saw that. I thought it was a reasonably question. But yes his business plan would be in tatters :D
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
Ha Ha @ ckeanslater 😂 saw that. Let's see if he replies
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
So FFV will support the proposed 13 seat Commission model, if they can receive certain guarantees and a timeline for the intro of a 2nd division and P&R..
Now this is the most important bit of the FFV's statement: they don't trust the HAL clubs any more than they trust the FFA.
And with good reason.
This is actually more complicated than what many on here realise.
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
Brisbane City not part of the AAFC. Getting absolutely taken to the cleaners.
|
|
|
|
|
bigpoppa
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Reading those tweets it's appears to me that Brisbane City have been given the green light and they'll be in the league in 12 months with $12mill and a broadcast/capacity standard stadium(although this stadium tweet appears deleted now)
|
|
|
|
|
bigpoppa
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Someone quiz him a hypothetical if HAL expansion happened in the form of a second division would Brisbane city still want part and if he would still invest?
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSomeone quiz him a hypothetical if HAL expansion happened in the form of a second division would Brisbane city still want part and if he would still invest? IM not sure if this answers your question....
|
|
|
|
|
bigpoppa
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
@scott
Cheers for that
I find Twitter so confusing. It's like a labyrinth
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xReading those tweets it's appears to me that Brisbane City have been given the green light and they'll be in the league in 12 months with $12mill and a broadcast/capacity standard stadium(although this stadium tweet appears deleted now)
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
"Come up with a list of NPL clubs that can come up with $12m within 2 months?"
"The NPL won't be ready for promotion for ten years"
"Come up with a list of NPL clubs that can come up with a broadcast ready stadium today"
To be fair to Cavallucci all these are fair statements but re-enforce the wrong thinking.
We need a commitment to a pyramid system that changes thinking to "how do we make it work". P/R doesn't exist in NPL/BPL QLD so Cavallucci is regurgitating the current local situation.
The NPL is not the second tier of football, at best it's the third tier - that's why a national second division is crucial and must run in parallel to the HAL. Within 10 years it can be ready.
Stadiums are not broadcast ready in the second tier, correct - no argument. Some clubs don't even have stadiums but again why can't we start improvements on that - lights, big screens, temporary stand planning, infrastructure investment?? A 11k minimum capacity can't be that hard?
The problem is not what Cavallucci has said, bug that this is the thinking of the ffa who care about themselves, the Socceroos and only see the HAL as a cash cow to find the first two b
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x "Come up with a list of NPL clubs that can come up with a broadcast ready stadium today" Show me which HAL clubs have their own (not leased) broadcast ready stadium
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
On someone's earlier comment "reading between the lines, FCBC see themselves as already in" .... that is astute, they do, and they do believe that. The battle for a second Brisbane team is over as far as they are concerned and as far as Fox are concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xOn someone's earlier comment "reading between the lines, FCBC see themselves as already in" .... that is astute, they do, and they do believe that. The battle for a second Brisbane team is over as far as they are concerned and as far as Fox are concerned. This is exactly the entitlement that we need to weed out. This sort of thinking is dragging football down and causing this stagnation and malaise. What's worse is that he is supposed to be a "football" person and he still doesn't get it.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
@ RBB
Agree. Again another ffa stuff-up over what the expansion criteria is and how the process runs. Cavallucci and Co basically seem to have pitched to FoxSports again and again to the point where Fox only see one credible brisbane bid.
Mind you, the stadium situation is still the biggest roadblock and there is now a political interest (due to the coming election) in putting a stadium on the agenda. Roar, the FFA and BNE2 would be smart in combining efforts to try and make that happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Footballking55
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x@ RBB Agree. Again another ffa stuff-up over what the expansion criteria is and how the process runs. Cavallucci and Co basically seem to have pitched to FoxSports again and again to the point where Fox only see one credible brisbane bid. Mind you, the stadium situation is still the biggest roadblock and there is now a political interest (due to the coming election) in putting a stadium on the agenda. Roar, the FFA and BNE2 would be smart in combining efforts to try and make that happen. The political scene up here is hotting up with a real race for the Premier's chair on so, as you say, a real chance for the FFA to put some serious effort into lobbying for a new/upgraded stadium in the Brisbane metrop area. Pity they (the FFA) can only do one thing at a time, just not sure what that one thing is at the moment!
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
@ AJF
That's a flippant statement that misses a point that needs addressing.
But every HAL team has its own broadcast ready stadium, it's not about owning it it's about having access to one, and one quickly (within 3-6 months)
So let's say Strikers get promoted where will they play? Not Suncorp because there is no room, so where?
And what if the side promoted is from Ipswich or Toowoomba is promoted where would they play? Brisbane?
What if 4 Victorian sides get promoted - are they all going to try and play out of AAMI park. That would be fucking madness. Imagine a side from Ballarat playing there lol
It's a valid question and the HAL teams are not relevant to the discussion - they were all selected/created based on where the stadiums were but p/r doesn't work that way - and the NPL sides have the basic infrastructure they just need a plan and funding to develop that.
There's a place called Dolphin park in Brisbane's north, it's a great little stadium built for a lower tier RL team - why can't every second division team have a stadium like that then this question goes away??
Or we can just bitch about HAL sides?
|
|
|
|
|
And Everyone Blamed Clive
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x And what if the side promoted is from Ipswich or Toowoomba is promoted where would they play? Ipswich or Toowoomba
Winner of Official 442 Comment of the day Award - 10th April 2017
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
P&R Timmy
Exactly that's where they should play. Not friggin move to the nearest big stadium.
But there aren't any facilities in those two City's so instead of letting RL suck up all the grants we need to access that cash and redevelop what we have and what we can.
Brisbane City could have their own boutique stadium at Spencer 'Corporate Travel Managenent' Park but instead they've chosen to refurbish a rugby ground. Why???
And Strikers have a perfect location but plan on moving into Suncorp where there is literally no room.
Pen Power will be taking their FFA Cup game v City to Dolphin Park, a RL ground. The pattern needs breaking.
The FFA (unlikely) or the AAFC need a plan, it's not hard but it won't happen on its own
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x@ AJF That's a flippant statement that misses a point that needs addressing. But every HAL team has its own broadcast ready stadium, it's not about owning it it's about having access to one, and one quickly (within 3-6 months) So let's say Strikers get promoted where will they play? Not Suncorp because there is no room, so where? And what if the side promoted is from Ipswich or Toowoomba is promoted where would they play? Brisbane? What if 4 Victorian sides get promoted - are they all going to try and play out of AAMI park. That would be fucking madness. Imagine a side from Ballarat playing there lol It's a valid question and the HAL teams are not relevant to the discussion - they were all selected/created based on where the stadiums were but p/r doesn't work that way - and the NPL sides have the basic infrastructure they just need a plan and funding to develop that. There's a place called Dolphin park in Brisbane's north, it's a great little stadium built for a lower tier RL team - why can't every second division team have a stadium like that then this question goes away??Or we can just bitch about HAL sides? It doesn't make much difference regardless. Every league in the world has its share of big and small clubs. While it's nice to have every club Equalized (Where have I heard that B4) it's not possible, nor should we aim for that. The biggest and best will rise to that position over time. Most clubs in big leagues are built off the back of tv money. Nothing wrong with some teams with small stadiums that are packed with great atmosphere. If in the end they aren't good enough they will get relegated.
|
|
|
|
|
hotrod
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x@ AJF That's a flippant statement that misses a point that needs addressing. But every HAL team has its own broadcast ready stadium, it's not about owning it it's about having access to one, and one quickly (within 3-6 months) So let's say Strikers get promoted where will they play? Not Suncorp because there is no room, so where? And what if the side promoted is from Ipswich or Toowoomba is promoted where would they play? Brisbane? What if 4 Victorian sides get promoted - are they all going to try and play out of AAMI park. That would be fucking madness. Imagine a side from Ballarat playing there lol It's a valid question and the HAL teams are not relevant to the discussion - they were all selected/created based on where the stadiums were but p/r doesn't work that way - and the NPL sides have the basic infrastructure they just need a plan and funding to develop that. There's a place called Dolphin park in Brisbane's north, it's a great little stadium built for a lower tier RL team - why can't every second division team have a stadium like that then this question goes away??Or we can just bitch about HAL sides? It doesn't make much difference regardless. Every league in the world has its share of big and small clubs. While it's nice to have every club Equalized (Where have I heard that B4) it's not possible, nor should we aim for that. The biggest and best will rise to that position over time. Most clubs in big leagues are built off the back of tv money. Nothing wrong with some teams with small stadiums that are packed with great atmosphere. If in the end they aren't good enough they will get relegated. That's the AFL and ARL mentality coming through into the A-League. They want all this equalisation crap so that all clubs have an equal chance to win over a couple of seasons. Time for this thinking to go. As much I would like all teams to have a go at the title, it makes more sense that the league should have its 1-3 big clubs and then the rest to fill out the ladder.
|
|
|
|
|
bigpoppa
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
@waz
We have countless bids offering up to build stadium because their is an opportunity for a HAL side. Give some of the NPL sides a reason to invest through pro/rel and they just might.
It's abit rich for Cavallucci to throw that card out their when all the FCBC investors will be doing is giving a lick of paint, some new seats, etc. to someone else Stadium Down the street.
The infrastructure is already 90% there at Ballymore, some of these other clubs will have to build from the ground up.
There is a huge difference in making over a stadium as opposed to building grandstands etc.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x@ AJF That's a flippant statement that misses a point that needs addressing. But every HAL team has its own broadcast ready stadium, it's not about owning it it's about having access to one, and one quickly (within 3-6 months) So let's say Strikers get promoted where will they play? Not Suncorp because there is no room, so where? And what if the side promoted is from Ipswich or Toowoomba is promoted where would they play? Brisbane? What if 4 Victorian sides get promoted - are they all going to try and play out of AAMI park. That would be fucking madness. Imagine a side from Ballarat playing there lol It's a valid question and the HAL teams are not relevant to the discussion - they were all selected/created based on where the stadiums were but p/r doesn't work that way - and the NPL sides have the basic infrastructure they just need a plan and funding to develop that. There's a place called Dolphin park in Brisbane's north, it's a great little stadium built for a lower tier RL team - why can't every second division team have a stadium like that then this question goes away??Or we can just bitch about HAL sides? Are you seriously saying Suncorp is fully utilized during the summer? Perhaps you should check Suncorps event calendar, they could easily host a second HAL team if a big Brisbane City wanted to play in a big stadium with lights full of empty seats . Plus not sure what the facination is with stadiums. If Ballarat was to get in, they could use their existing facility as it is a great facility and appropriate for their area. Lights might need upgrading but big deal. If another Melbourne team made it, why couldn't they use Lakeside (the original home of Victory). There are any number of similar smaller stadiums in each stte that could easily be upgraded. As a final correction, this isnt a bitch about HAL teams, it is the stupid fascination many people have with playing in big empty stadiums because apparently the lights are TV ready. Would suggest small stadiums like Lakeside would provide better viewing and atmosphere for TV for majority of teams like Melb City who struggle to get 10K to non-derby matches..
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
@ AJF
You made it about the HAL not me?
I was talking about the need to upgrade small stadiums so teams could play there, you brought up the HAL?
And yes, Suncorp is fully utilised in summer by one A League team, the Global Tens and the expansion as a concert venue. Even Roar can't get a full fixture list in there and regularly move home games away.
And expansion will extend the A league season increasing the period football overlaps with Union and league
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x@ AJF You made it about the HAL not me? I was talking about the need to upgrade small stadiums so teams could play there, you brought up the HAL? And yes, Suncorp is fully utilised in summer by one A League team, the Global Tens and the expansion as a concert venue. Even Roar can't get a full fixture list in there and regularly move home games away. And expansion will extend the A league season increasing the period football overlaps with Union and league Sorry, I didn't make it about HAL, I just pointed out no HAL teams have their own stadiums so this cant be used as an excuse to try limit entry of other teams. Expansion doesn't mean more rounds, it means less repetition as teams wont play each other 3 times so this wont have any impact on season length. .
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
The best thing about P&R will be the investment that will be done at 2nd & 3rd tier level and this will also push those at the A-league level to maintain and exceed their own standards.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
@ RBB
That's exactly what I'm saying. We should have a mix of big and small stadiums. That's exactly MY point.
But those small stadiums aren't ready - most don't even have floodlights fit for tv.
But Dolphin RL did it and they have zero prospect of getting promotion to the NRL. So it can be done so rather than slag Cavallucci off for the comment I'm saying we accept the criticism and go build/expand/redevelop small stadiums. I'd go as far as prioritising clubs with their own stadiums not those planning to refurbish a competitors - I'd like to see the look on Cavallucci'a face then lol
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x@ RBB That's exactly what I'm saying. We should have a mix of big and small stadiums. That's exactly MY point. But those small stadiums aren't ready - most don't even have floodlights fit for tv. But Dolphin RL did it and they have zero prospect of getting promotion to the NRL. So it can be done so rather than slag Cavallucci off for the comment I'm saying we accept the criticism and go build/expand/redevelop small stadiums. I'd go as far as prioritising clubs with their own stadiums not those planning to refurbish a competitors - I'd like to see the look on Cavallucci'a face then lol The whole point is we need to plan for this like you said. If everyone for example knows the criteria of stadiums, lighting, money expected etc etc etc then clubs will invest. If there is forward thinking and something to aim for then clubs will invest ie We aim to have a 2nd tier in 5 yrs time or whatever the time frame is, people will work towards it. Right now of course there would be few clubs ready to come up with 12m, that's not the point. Why would clubs look to invest and plan for something on the back of a maybe and no certainty or any criteria.
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
HA ha AdamOsAussies' serial pest tweeting is basically the reason I stopped going on twitter for football content
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Reading those tweets provides great insight on not only a prospective licensee's views of P&R, but most probably on the current ten licensees.
They have collectively lost over $200 million over the past 12 years.
Do not expect them to do anything which impinges on them making up even a tiny bit of that shortfall.
That means, without doubt, do not expect them to willingly share revenues with tinpot clubs.
|
|
|
|
|
And Everyone Blamed Clive
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xReading those tweets provides great insight on not only a prospective licensee's views of P&R, but most probably on the current ten licensees. They have collectively lost over $200 million over the past 12 years. Do not expect them to do anything which impinges on them making up even a tiny bit of that shortfall. That means, without doubt, do not expect them to willingly share revenues with tinpot clubs. 80% of twice as much is more
Winner of Official 442 Comment of the day Award - 10th April 2017
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
@ AJF
No one had said they had to own their own grounds so introducing the HAL clubs kinda deflected the discussion unnecessarily. They just havd to be up to a certain (minimum) standard.
And expansion does increase the number of rounds - we're never playing much less than 27 rounds as it's already too short (the AFC also have guidelines on this plus fewer games round reduce the TV contract value)
12 teams = 33 rounds
14 teams = 26
16 teams = 30
18 teams = 34
I hope we can get to 16 teams with p/r
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x@ AJF No one had said they had to own their own grounds so introducing the HAL clubs kinda deflected the discussion unnecessarily. They just havd to be up to a certain (minimum) standard. And expansion does increase the number of rounds - we're never playing much less than 27 rounds as it's already too short (the AFC also have guidelines on this plus fewer games round reduce the TV contract value) 12 teams = 33 rounds14 teams = 26 16 teams = 30 18 teams = 34 I hope we can get to 16 teams with p/r Thats wrong 14 teams is enough 4.01Minimum number of matches perteam in national top division(including league, cuptournament, and grand final ifapplicable)Minimum 27 Includes cupmatches 4.02Duration of national top division(including league, cup tournamentand grand final if applicable)Minimum 8 monthsMA should identifywhich competition isthe national topdivision league andnational cupcompetition http://www.the-afc.com/uploads/afc/files/entry_manual_entry_manual_for_afc_club_competitions_2017-2020_09112016.pdfIt even says "grand final" special for Straya. Every team would play 26 plus finals which are our cup. FFA Cup is not included. Our 3 (or even 4) teams would all play 26 +1 finals at least.
|
|
|
|