Do you own it?

Aren't the Chinese more Box Hill and the East? They certainly love the CBD. South West has a lot of Africans, giving us the next Dengs and Gerias, but with house prices as they are I think they're a growth area for every immigrant demographic new and old as well as local borns starting young families.

Obviously my preference is root and branch reform of the game where all clubs get their chance and South would fit just fine, and I'd like to see South get in asap as a bit of a bridge before all the people who went to NSL games literally die of old age, but the argument that Knights also has a venerable list of players like the one I named actually works against you because I can say then how many more could come from that area of 1.5 million if they did have represenation at the highest level?

Yeah this gets to me a bit about many clubs in Australia owning things. As far as I can make out there is only CCM that actually own any thing, all the rest are just leasing or have an "agreement" where they pay to share facilities. 

That's true, but Australia isn't like England where clubs could buy grounds in the late 19th century for seventeen pounds and hold on to them, or like the US with investors willing to spend huge money and their culture of private ownership. Even AFL clubs don't own any of their infrastructure (Docklands is oned by the league, not clubs) but their strength is their ability to get the best "agreements" as you say for their deals.

Did you know that the WAFL gets paid $10.3 million a year by the WA state government to agree to let the two local AFL teams there play at their new stadium on top of matchday revenue? No, not the other way around!

The best we can do in the infrastructure game unless one of us forumites comes into a few billion dollars and has a stadium fetish is to play the government deals game as well as the AFL, and South's long-term deal at Lakeside and Victory's deal that forced the capacity at AAMI Park up to 30k instead of 20k are good examples of this, hopefully Dandenong Stadium can be one more.

This ffs

-PB

The proposed stadium site by Dandenong Station from Google Maps 3D view: 

The problems that football has are much deeper than structural issues like p/r and a football pyramid.  The problems need to be addressed before getting on to how we do football otherwise any structural changes that are made will still be stymied long term by the underlying issues that have been around for 60 years.  Unless the various parts of the game learn and commit to working together for the good of the game we will just bounce from crisis to crisis because its all we know.  We need to learn how to replace adversarial behaviour with collaborative behaviour.  All stakeholders need to accept that every decision needs to be made on the basis of what is best for the game instead of what is best for my part of the game.

Do we need root and branch reform of the domestic game? Yes, we do.
Is one of those reforms expansion of the top tier? Of course, obviously.
Is getting that decision right in the short term right as well as getting the bigger decisions right in the long term important? Of course it is.

Well yes but if we wait another 60 years for everything to be tickety boo we'll be waiting forever.  Have you not absorbed anything that Aussieshorter or Bluebird has posted dozens of times on this forum here.  

There's enough interest for bids into the A-League to set up a 2nd division starting next year.  Do that and go from there.  The league will evolve over time.  For every team that meets the requirements of the top league and gets promoted, bring in another into the 2nd division. Then get cracking on how the third division will work. And so on.... 

This expansion rubbish is a dead end.  They want to be like the MLS whereby prospective owners are forking over 100's of millions of dollars for a license.  Even if that ever happened it's still not a solution.

I know what you're saying but you can either try and herd cats that are wandering in every direction or grab these pricks by the scruff of the deck and say 'this is how it is, get on board or miss out.'  

Imagine if the FFA came out tomorrow and said something like, irrespective of where the 'metrics' are, if your bid is assessed as viable, you're in either the expanded 1st division or going into a fledgling 2nd division with a view to a p/r model in 5 years time.  Imagine that.  A vision for something better.  And you know what, even if it all fell over, at least they had a crack.


 

well played picking stadium loc as well

yep best bid by country mile

We have done what you finish with on 2 major occasions in my life time.  The 1957 split in Sydney where a solution was imposed on football without dealing with the real issues first and the New Football-Old Football solution that was imposed by the current national admin.  Both have had major consequences with the negatives outweighing the positives.  Both involved separation of part of football from the other whether intended or not.  No wonder football doesn't know how to work together and no wonder the various parts of football are blinded by their wants to what is best for the whole of the game.

I'm hopeful that the chair of the working group will hold a mirror up to the various stakeholders and the FFA to show them how selfish they all are.  FIFA has given us a great opportunity to sort it out together once and for all under the guidance of a skilled mediator.  They could have taken over and imposed their solution but chose to let us do it ourselves because there is much to be learned from the process.  Its now up to the people on the working group to face up to the challenge.

I know that. The point is with no major pooled source of revenue the A League was run on sponsorship, a bit of investment, but largely clubs looking after their own affairs

Its the other extreme to the current "FFA pays for everything model"

This is the second consecutive TV deal where the only movement has been using a shared pool of funds in an attempt to nullify owner expenditure. In a dog eat dog competitive environment where if we give them $3m, they spend $5m. If we give them $5m, they spend $10m

Sport is not a business. Football is not the AFL / NRL

The two main mistakes the FFA have made

The best we can do is to invest in solid assets at a level we can afford to build up the capacity to buy more expensive assets in the future. I am not talking about jumping in and building a stadium, but purchasing a couple of acres and throwing up a training facility plus academy, with associated businesses leased off is within the reach of most clubs and provides an independent means to solidify growth at a club level rather than a league level. 

Currently the FFA distribution to each club is $3.5m but the average club spend is about $10m.  The FFA do also pick up the operating costs of the A-League thought to be near $15m pa so of an annual expenditure on the League of $115+m the cost to the FFA's budget is about $50m.  How is that a "FFA pays for everything model"?  Sure its a high cost model and has been since O'Neill convinced the board to run with its bells and whistles but the owners have put in a substantial amount of their personal funds.  After 5 years the combined losses of the clubs made up by the owners was $40m and now they claim that to be over $200m.  I take that with a grain of salt because the Smith report showed that 50% of those losses was the result of discretional spending which is a choice not the result of the model and its not something that the owners should be bellyaching about like they currently do.  Bellyaching about "forced" losses is reasonable however.

Your assessment that the last two broadcast deals have only been used to nullify owner expenditure is not accurate.  The 2012 deal was used to eliminate the reliance the FFA had on special funding from the ASC which had averaged around $7m pa, and gone as high in one year as $12m, as well as to cover the clubs salary cap which cost the FFA's budget $6m pa.  This latest rights deal has been used to fund the increase in the salary cap which combined is about $3m pa and to make a distribution to the clubs for the first time ever in excess of A-League salary costs of $6m pa combined.  Between the two deals the FFA has been able to make a distribution of funds to the state feds for running specific player development programs that from memory sits at $6m pa.  As well as this the FFA has negotiated and funded in the CBA  increased payments for the national team players both men's and women's and increased payments to W-League players.  The increase in the cash value of the two broadcast rights together with relatively small increase in sponsorship has been split between A-League/W-League expenditure and other central responsibilities at a guess 60:40.

What are the short, medium and long term goals for Australian football?

This will be a medium term goal at least considering a stadium will have to be approved and then built and will tale 4 years minimum. So will we have a 10 team 1st tier for the next 4 years? A second tier could be established in two and link this medium term goal with a long term goal of pro rel. 

The key being the FFA sticking to their own goals. Which they NEVER do.

So why did the FFA give each club an extra $1m instead of adding 4 new clubs? Expansion was the priority for the league. There is a reason why we walked away with little more than the same amount we were offered last time. Same team, same players, same ratings, same attendances

The FFA's inaction cost them an estimated $30m a year

Your figures show just how fruitless it is trying to "cover the salary cap" when it is less than 30% of what the average club is spending. As I said, give clubs $3m, they spend $5m. Give them $5m, they spend $10m

The FFA should not be trying to cover the costs of the club. The tender process in choosing clubs should do this. The FFA should be giving clubs a fair and equal portion of A League revenue - whatever this figure is - and continue to press forward until the league has been finished

The gap will close overtime as the TV deal grows. That's how other leagues survive. We should be $80m by now, and possibly $120m three years from now. Instead we have $50m (conditional) for the next 5 years. But this hinges on being able to continue to build on the league and offer broadcasters something worthwhile

The A League should be a minimal grant with all other spending discretionary. The opportunities for MV differ substantially than those for CCM. As too does the appeal as your own TV ratings figures have conclusively demonstrated

The FFA have not been adaptable in their approach. They started with the answer, which was the one they encountered in their previous line of work, and they continue to force it down our throats. The financial difficulties they have to push through are entirely side effects of their own approach

The FFA have a short 5 years to turn things around or the next TV deal will be little more than another $1m for each club with no real interest. This requires an ambitious model that gives fans what they want instead of what the FFA want them to have. This requires an adaptable model that works for football, not a made up "Australian market"

No salary cap and P/R is the answer, regardless of the initial outlay

I’m sceptical of any bids selling themselves heavily on the back of imaginary stadia. Easy strategy to gain attention with a few shiny mock ups. Will we actually see any of these get built in reasonable time or at all though? The way Australia does stadia policy (so poorly), I’d say not likely.

Because the current franchisees were demanding more ($6m was original request)
 https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/aleague-club-owners-set-to-reject-ffa-funding-model-20170627-gwzr49.html

Why no expansion, because the franchisees dont want it
https://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/article/2018/03/29/league-clubs-fume-ffas-expansion-plans 

I hope FIFA sort it out too.  I'm not hopeful though. 

I'm sure the FFA looks at the different models around the world and sees the MLS, or something like it, as something to aspire to.

And....

If the clubs want $6m each then they need to be part of a game that produces $6m x the number of eventual clubs (whatever that looks like) plus league operating costs

They could have had an extra $30m if the league lived up to its potential which would have been $4.5m for 14 clubs. Instead we see $3.5m for 10 clubs just so they can have a $6.5m gap to cover on what they are voluntarily expending instead of a $7.5m gap

FFA looks at Frank and does what it's told in return for paypacket

Frank looks at WestField and thinks he's invented the way the World should work. 

Frank doesn't want to hear it's not

Actually, I don't believe franchisees need any more money from the FFA, they just need to get off their arses and actively look for income streams, rather than spending all their time whingeing and looking for more handouts.

Full details in below link but MV's gross revenue for the 2014-15 financial year was $18.5m  & they made a profit of $1.5M, Anyone that  thinks that isnt enough to run a HAL franchise is kidding themselves. 

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/football/a-league/teams/victory/melbourne-victory-post-a-record-15-million-profit-for-the-financial-year/news-story/38131799294b64d12d7699ce9b68eedf?nk=bacc0ea7625ce4e8c11d4caa4e1e1ee2-1525135301

Agree 100%. The whole point of the club tender process is to identify these opportunities. The FFA handout should be little more than an insurance policy for taking over a bust club and running it with minimal bare bones costs until an owner can be found

Each region will have a varying amount of opportunities and we need a model that reflects this

If the $2.5m distribution had been retained the FFA would have been in default on its agreement with the players and the clubs to increase the cap and cover that increase in the distribution to the clubs.  With the distribution increased to $2.9m there would be a shortfall of at least $5m in funding a 14 club league even allowing for the $6m increase in the rights in Yr3 of the current deal.  Thats without facing up to the clubs claim for a more equitable distribution of the revenue raised by the A-League/W-League which is part covered by the $3.5m distribution.

The broadcaster values expansion by 2 clubs at $6m pa.  Where do you get $30m from?  I hope your not using Frank Lowy's ambit claim before negotiations commenced of $80m for the broadcast rights.

Whether you see trying to cover the cap as fruitless or not it is what the clubs expect and they demand more.  Thats the reality of the situation and its not much use creating fanciful models based on personal ideals when the FFA does not have the right to vary contracts except by negotiations with the clubs.

I agree that the FFA needs to push on with expansion until the league fulfils its purpose but that can only happen within the budgetary constraints that exist.  A different model will probably free up funds to achieve the ends faster but that model cannot be unilaterally enforced on the clubs but as I said previously it has to be negotiated.  The clubs see the congress working group process as the opportunity to escape that negotiation and do their own thing but in the end the FFA Board will have to enact Regulations detailing the authorities they cede to the independent body so the negotiations will have to happen then anyway.

And who wrote these contracts if not the FFA? The corner the FFA have painted the code into was done entirely by their paint brush

The Salary Cap is a ceiling, not a requirement. To stipulate that the FFA must cover the increase just goes to show what kind of amateur show we have being run. And when not all clubs are spending the full amount it just goes to show how much commitment to the idea the clubs really have. Thanks for the $500k increase. Another coke machine in the foyer

Expansion wont get us $30m extra. A sensible model will. By your own stats in the ratings thread that is a open league where the biggest clubs can reach their potential

If the FFA have gone full retard and put clauses that they will cover all salary increases for all clubs then the game will grow at the pace the FFA can afford. This means that 5 years from now the cap will be not a cent more than $3.5m, or the FFA will be cutting Futsal for funding for even longer

It goes back to the point I was making about the FFA trying to fund the whole league. If they cant afford to give CCM $4m for players then MV can't spend $4m on the core of their squad

Back on the topic of this thread, the Dandenong Stadium and a bid from that area is a welcome addition to those expressing interest in expansion.  With the model we have expansion by 2 clubs appears viable.  I trust whoever gets to make the decisions on it choose wisely.

Berisha inaugural marquee.

Back in the mid 90's, there was a very large Albanian Mafia presence in Dandenong. The leaders used to play cards in a small shop about 800 metres east of this stadium site on Foster street. they might very well be interested in putting some sponsorship money together to get Bes to the club.

Also worth noting that Dandenong Thunder is of Albanian extraction. One of the healthiest clubs in Victoria.