|
southmelb
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xBerisha 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. They havent been healthy for a good 6-7 years, most of its fanbase walked out on them after the grand final fiasco in 2012. Had about 500 odd when we played them in march and id say we outnumbered them. What was most noticeable to me was how much Victory gear was in the crowd though. Most of the albanians in dandenong actually live right by the ground and you can actually see them coming out of their homes and walking to it lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xExpand to 14, these bids are delicious nay expand to 16 ... one of the Brisbane bids the two Sydney bids Gong Casey / Dand Adl City Thats 6 Then out with the Nix in with South Melbourne. +x+x+xExpand to 14, these bids are delicious nay expand to 16 ... one of the Brisbane bids the two Sydney bids Gong Casey / Dand Adl City Thats 6 Then out with the Nix in with South Melbourne. Realistically only 2-3 spots are up for grabs, its between southern expansion, the plastic version of brisbane city and this team11 thing. You would have to be delusional to think the likes of wolves, sm and adl city have a chance under the current model. Not necessarily..... Costs in running a business are generally broken down between Fixed & Variable costs ... the Fixed costs don't change that much, and Variable costs change in relation to size. We can assume in the existing media deal FFA have covered all their fixed costs meaning all new revenue can go to the teams... another screaming reason to expand... Consider Fox have paid 50 million for 10 teams so 5 million per teams, the same rate thats 5 million per team that can be spent on the team by FFA which is more than they currently do.... Take 10 & 9 largely without sport we have say 4 games available for FTA [ie 10 deal is for only two years]. Assume 5 million per game thats another 20 million less the 4 million 10 currently pay. So an additional 16 million or one million per team.. FFA claim they spent with travel and wages 4.8 million per team, add one million to this and its close to the 6 million the clubs want.... All the new revenue can't go to the clubs. A 12 team competition increases the number of games by 63 which increases all the FFA's variable costs for the likes of match officials, transport etc etc by about 45%. A 14 team league of 2 rounds has less games than 12x3 rounds but the overall cost would increase due to the distribution to the extra clubs. Fox hasn't paid $50m for the broadcast rights for the A-League either. Currently the rights are worth $44m but that includes the rights for the Socceroos friendlies and the rights to the Matildas. These rights are said to be worth $7m but that hasn't been confirmed. The $37m left for the A-League includes contra of around $4m-$5m leaving cash of around $32m-$35m which only covers the existing distribution to the clubs.. And that's the problem You go back 5 years ago and the entire show was being run on $17m a year with the exact same number of clubs and effectively the same playing stock The very first year of operating the A-League the FFA's revenue was $27m up $13m from the last year of the old regime. In his report to the AGM after 5 years Lowy stated that revenue has reached $85m including $20m broadcast rights, $17m in sponsorship and $17m in gate receipts. In another of his addresses to the AGM Lowy indicated spending on the A-League including distribution to the clubs was $31m. The $15m Lowy got out of the Government to establish the FFA included $6m as a loan and $3m pa for 3 years. It was to supplement the FFA's revenue over that 3 year period not the cost to operate the A-League. 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 Currently the FFA distribution to each club is $3.5m but the average club spend is about $10m 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 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. 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 I believe the high cost model and the agreements around it were the work of O'Neill and Carroll and were strengthened by Buckley. You can thank them.
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 The salary cap is part of the requirements for participating clubs. The FFA agreed to cover it by a distribution from central funds at the request of the owners.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 So you are suggesting that the model be renegotiated. I agree. Pity O'Neill took us up the wrong high cost path isn't it.
My stats show that one of the major factors that determines the ratings for clubs is the markets they are in. An example worth thinking about is Adelaide who had the second highest player spend that season but was below the average ratings for the league and 6th on the list.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 I'm not sure why the cap would go up from its current $2.9..m unless the players expect the $6m for expansion and the further $6m for meeting metrics is to be shared with them.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 You keep putting up the fallacy that the FFA is trying to fund the whole of the league. They haven't, they aren't and they don't intend to. (and they probably won't be in charge of the purse strings for the league soon anyway).
. I'm not sure why the cap would go up from its current $2.9..m unless the players expect the $6m for expansion and the further $6m for meeting metrics is to be shared with them. The AFL Players Association negotiates for players with the AFL on the topic of average salary. In June 2017, the AFL and AFL Players Association agreed to a new CBA deal which resulted in a 20% increase in players salary. The six-year deal, which begins in 2017 and ends in 2022 means that the average player wage rises from $309,000 to $371,000 and the player salary cap from $10.37m to $12.45m. In 2022, the final year of the agreement, the average player wage will be $389,000 with a salary cap of $13.54m How can the A League present itself as a serious professional option if 5 years from now players haven't even been given a cost of living increase, let alone what is being offered by rival codes they can walk into and start playing The current allocation only allows for a $100k increase every year for the remaining 5 years of the TV deal. Compare this to the AFL which increases at ~$500k per year, and the average wage $200k higher than the A League Why is the 5 year plan to continue to be the poor sibling?
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xExpand to 14, these bids are delicious nay expand to 16 ... one of the Brisbane bids the two Sydney bids Gong Casey / Dand Adl City Thats 6 Then out with the Nix in with South Melbourne. +x+x+xExpand to 14, these bids are delicious nay expand to 16 ... one of the Brisbane bids the two Sydney bids Gong Casey / Dand Adl City Thats 6 Then out with the Nix in with South Melbourne. Realistically only 2-3 spots are up for grabs, its between southern expansion, the plastic version of brisbane city and this team11 thing. You would have to be delusional to think the likes of wolves, sm and adl city have a chance under the current model. Not necessarily..... Costs in running a business are generally broken down between Fixed & Variable costs ... the Fixed costs don't change that much, and Variable costs change in relation to size. We can assume in the existing media deal FFA have covered all their fixed costs meaning all new revenue can go to the teams... another screaming reason to expand... Consider Fox have paid 50 million for 10 teams so 5 million per teams, the same rate thats 5 million per team that can be spent on the team by FFA which is more than they currently do.... Take 10 & 9 largely without sport we have say 4 games available for FTA [ie 10 deal is for only two years]. Assume 5 million per game thats another 20 million less the 4 million 10 currently pay. So an additional 16 million or one million per team.. FFA claim they spent with travel and wages 4.8 million per team, add one million to this and its close to the 6 million the clubs want.... All the new revenue can't go to the clubs. A 12 team competition increases the number of games by 63 which increases all the FFA's variable costs for the likes of match officials, transport etc etc by about 45%. A 14 team league of 2 rounds has less games than 12x3 rounds but the overall cost would increase due to the distribution to the extra clubs. Fox hasn't paid $50m for the broadcast rights for the A-League either. Currently the rights are worth $44m but that includes the rights for the Socceroos friendlies and the rights to the Matildas. These rights are said to be worth $7m but that hasn't been confirmed. The $37m left for the A-League includes contra of around $4m-$5m leaving cash of around $32m-$35m which only covers the existing distribution to the clubs.. And that's the problem You go back 5 years ago and the entire show was being run on $17m a year with the exact same number of clubs and effectively the same playing stock The very first year of operating the A-League the FFA's revenue was $27m up $13m from the last year of the old regime. In his report to the AGM after 5 years Lowy stated that revenue has reached $85m including $20m broadcast rights, $17m in sponsorship and $17m in gate receipts. In another of his addresses to the AGM Lowy indicated spending on the A-League including distribution to the clubs was $31m. The $15m Lowy got out of the Government to establish the FFA included $6m as a loan and $3m pa for 3 years. It was to supplement the FFA's revenue over that 3 year period not the cost to operate the A-League. 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 Currently the FFA distribution to each club is $3.5m but the average club spend is about $10m 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 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. 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 I believe the high cost model and the agreements around it were the work of O'Neill and Carroll and were strengthened by Buckley. You can thank them.
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 The salary cap is part of the requirements for participating clubs. The FFA agreed to cover it by a distribution from central funds at the request of the owners.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 So you are suggesting that the model be renegotiated. I agree. Pity O'Neill took us up the wrong high cost path isn't it.
My stats show that one of the major factors that determines the ratings for clubs is the markets they are in. An example worth thinking about is Adelaide who had the second highest player spend that season but was below the average ratings for the league and 6th on the list.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 I'm not sure why the cap would go up from its current $2.9..m unless the players expect the $6m for expansion and the further $6m for meeting metrics is to be shared with them.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 You keep putting up the fallacy that the FFA is trying to fund the whole of the league. They haven't, they aren't and they don't intend to. (and they probably won't be in charge of the purse strings for the league soon anyway).
. I'm not sure why the cap would go up from its current $2.9..m unless the players expect the $6m for expansion and the further $6m for meeting metrics is to be shared with them. The AFL Players Association negotiates for players with the AFL on the topic of average salary. In June 2017, the AFL and AFL Players Association agreed to a new CBA deal which resulted in a 20% increase in players salary. The six-year deal, which begins in 2017 and ends in 2022 means that the average player wage rises from $309,000 to $371,000 and the player salary cap from $10.37m to $12.45m. In 2022, the final year of the agreement, the average player wage will be $389,000 with a salary cap of $13.54m How can the A League present itself as a serious professional option if 5 years from now players haven't even been given a cost of living increase, let alone what is being offered by rival codes they can walk into and start playing The current allocation only allows for a $100k increase every year for the remaining 5 years of the TV deal. Compare this to the AFL which increases at ~$500k per year, and the average wage $200k higher than the A League Why is the 5 year plan to continue to be the poor sibling? I don't know where you get your figures from but it is clear that the agreement with the players is for a 30% share of the increase in the broadcast rights. If that share of any uplifts in the rights has to go to the existing players or the agreement can be fulfilled by covering the cap for expansion clubs is not clear to me but no doubt the signatories to the agreement have it sorted. The CBA runs out in 2019 so it will be interesting to follow and see the outcome of negotiations on that. Whether those negotiations wii involve the FFA is not at all known at this stage. As to your last statement I hope you have pointed out that view to the bods from AAFC who keep sprouting on about the A-League players being paid too much. No doubt some of them would be happy to go back to the semi amateur NSL days when the average player payment was $40k.
|
|
|
|
|
#Blessed
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 155,
Visits: 0
|
+xStadium site on Google street view. You can see Dandenong Station right behind it. Are you sure this isn't private land zoned for high-density housing? There is literally a sign advertising 'multi-level apartment parcels for sale' on this site.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xStadium site on Google street view. You can see Dandenong Station right behind it. Are you sure this isn't private land zoned for high-density housing? There is literally a sign advertising 'multi-level apartment parcels for sale' on this site. LOL! You gotta love football in Australia.
|
|
|
|
|
MarkfromCroydon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Land is owned by council. They tried to flog it as apartment sites but developers didn't take it up
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xStadium site on Google street view. You can see Dandenong Station right behind it. Are you sure this isn't private land zoned for high-density housing? There is literally a sign advertising 'multi-level apartment parcels for sale' on this site. LOL! You gotta love football in Australia. I don't get it.
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xExpand to 14, these bids are delicious nay expand to 16 ... one of the Brisbane bids the two Sydney bids Gong Casey / Dand Adl City Thats 6 Then out with the Nix in with South Melbourne. +x+x+xExpand to 14, these bids are delicious nay expand to 16 ... one of the Brisbane bids the two Sydney bids Gong Casey / Dand Adl City Thats 6 Then out with the Nix in with South Melbourne. Realistically only 2-3 spots are up for grabs, its between southern expansion, the plastic version of brisbane city and this team11 thing. You would have to be delusional to think the likes of wolves, sm and adl city have a chance under the current model. Not necessarily..... Costs in running a business are generally broken down between Fixed & Variable costs ... the Fixed costs don't change that much, and Variable costs change in relation to size. We can assume in the existing media deal FFA have covered all their fixed costs meaning all new revenue can go to the teams... another screaming reason to expand... Consider Fox have paid 50 million for 10 teams so 5 million per teams, the same rate thats 5 million per team that can be spent on the team by FFA which is more than they currently do.... Take 10 & 9 largely without sport we have say 4 games available for FTA [ie 10 deal is for only two years]. Assume 5 million per game thats another 20 million less the 4 million 10 currently pay. So an additional 16 million or one million per team.. FFA claim they spent with travel and wages 4.8 million per team, add one million to this and its close to the 6 million the clubs want.... All the new revenue can't go to the clubs. A 12 team competition increases the number of games by 63 which increases all the FFA's variable costs for the likes of match officials, transport etc etc by about 45%. A 14 team league of 2 rounds has less games than 12x3 rounds but the overall cost would increase due to the distribution to the extra clubs. Fox hasn't paid $50m for the broadcast rights for the A-League either. Currently the rights are worth $44m but that includes the rights for the Socceroos friendlies and the rights to the Matildas. These rights are said to be worth $7m but that hasn't been confirmed. The $37m left for the A-League includes contra of around $4m-$5m leaving cash of around $32m-$35m which only covers the existing distribution to the clubs.. And that's the problem You go back 5 years ago and the entire show was being run on $17m a year with the exact same number of clubs and effectively the same playing stock The very first year of operating the A-League the FFA's revenue was $27m up $13m from the last year of the old regime. In his report to the AGM after 5 years Lowy stated that revenue has reached $85m including $20m broadcast rights, $17m in sponsorship and $17m in gate receipts. In another of his addresses to the AGM Lowy indicated spending on the A-League including distribution to the clubs was $31m. The $15m Lowy got out of the Government to establish the FFA included $6m as a loan and $3m pa for 3 years. It was to supplement the FFA's revenue over that 3 year period not the cost to operate the A-League. 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 Currently the FFA distribution to each club is $3.5m but the average club spend is about $10m 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 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. 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 I believe the high cost model and the agreements around it were the work of O'Neill and Carroll and were strengthened by Buckley. You can thank them.
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 The salary cap is part of the requirements for participating clubs. The FFA agreed to cover it by a distribution from central funds at the request of the owners.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 So you are suggesting that the model be renegotiated. I agree. Pity O'Neill took us up the wrong high cost path isn't it.
My stats show that one of the major factors that determines the ratings for clubs is the markets they are in. An example worth thinking about is Adelaide who had the second highest player spend that season but was below the average ratings for the league and 6th on the list.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 I'm not sure why the cap would go up from its current $2.9..m unless the players expect the $6m for expansion and the further $6m for meeting metrics is to be shared with them.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 You keep putting up the fallacy that the FFA is trying to fund the whole of the league. They haven't, they aren't and they don't intend to. (and they probably won't be in charge of the purse strings for the league soon anyway).
. I'm not sure why the cap would go up from its current $2.9..m unless the players expect the $6m for expansion and the further $6m for meeting metrics is to be shared with them. The AFL Players Association negotiates for players with the AFL on the topic of average salary. In June 2017, the AFL and AFL Players Association agreed to a new CBA deal which resulted in a 20% increase in players salary. The six-year deal, which begins in 2017 and ends in 2022 means that the average player wage rises from $309,000 to $371,000 and the player salary cap from $10.37m to $12.45m. In 2022, the final year of the agreement, the average player wage will be $389,000 with a salary cap of $13.54m How can the A League present itself as a serious professional option if 5 years from now players haven't even been given a cost of living increase, let alone what is being offered by rival codes they can walk into and start playing The current allocation only allows for a $100k increase every year for the remaining 5 years of the TV deal. Compare this to the AFL which increases at ~$500k per year, and the average wage $200k higher than the A League Why is the 5 year plan to continue to be the poor sibling? The AFL TV deal is 8 times the size of the A-League deal, so hardly surprising that our salaries aren't keeping up.
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
So has Team11 officially scrapped the Greaves Reserve and opted for that empty lot straight over the tracks from the station? It's a good location urban planning wise but the pitch orientation will be strange. It's not especially large either. Ideally everyone would take the train, but reality says they won't and there's no parking available.
Greaves Reserve is a better spot IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSo has Team11 officially scrapped the Greaves Reserve and opted for that empty lot straight over the tracks from the station? It's a good location urban planning wise but the pitch orientation will be strange. It's not especially large either. Ideally everyone would take the train, but reality says they won't and there's no parking available. Greaves Reserve is a better spot IMO. Why will the orientation be strange? NE-SE isn't too bad and its the same as was proposed for Greaves Reserve. I agree on the parking issue though.
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xSo has Team11 officially scrapped the Greaves Reserve and opted for that empty lot straight over the tracks from the station? It's a good location urban planning wise but the pitch orientation will be strange. It's not especially large either. Ideally everyone would take the train, but reality says they won't and there's no parking available. Greaves Reserve is a better spot IMO. Why will the orientation be strange? NE-SE isn't too bad and its the same as was proposed for Greaves Reserve. I agree on the parking issue though. Typically north south orientations are recommended by FAs with a maximum 15 degree variance. There are issues related to sun glare for players but also broadcast considerations when trying to account for shadowing. Can be a bitch for live play when the cameraman/producer struggle with the light shifts. It's not too bad where an even shadow is cast but not so ideal with a diagonal shadow on the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xSo has Team11 officially scrapped the Greaves Reserve and opted for that empty lot straight over the tracks from the station? It's a good location urban planning wise but the pitch orientation will be strange. It's not especially large either. Ideally everyone would take the train, but reality says they won't and there's no parking available. Greaves Reserve is a better spot IMO. Why will the orientation be strange? NE-SE isn't too bad and its the same as was proposed for Greaves Reserve. I agree on the parking issue though. Typically north south orientations are recommended by FAs with a maximum 15 degree variance. There are issues related to sun glare for players but also broadcast considerations when trying to account for shadowing. Can be a bitch for live play when the cameraman/producer struggle with the light shifts. It's not too bad where an even shadow is cast but not so ideal with a diagonal shadow on the ground. The 15 degree variance was in old texts that I remember but now its a bit more sophisticated and orientation should be optimised according to the specific site, prevailing wind direction, other environmental conditions, the time games are to be played, the season they are to be played and even the type of stadium planned. As a general principle players don't like looking into the sun and neither do spectators. Anything 30 degrees off the optimal orientation should be fine although even that can be stretched. Of course the further away from optimal orientation the stadium is the greater the compromise but all designs are a balancing act of competing priorities anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie pride
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Greaves Reserve doesn’t have that much capacity for significant parking neither.
There’s existing grounds being used for sport and there’s no way they’d let cars park on them.
I thought this stadium option at Dandy Station noted there was viable parking options nearby
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xSo has Team11 officially scrapped the Greaves Reserve and opted for that empty lot straight over the tracks from the station? It's a good location urban planning wise but the pitch orientation will be strange. It's not especially large either. Ideally everyone would take the train, but reality says they won't and there's no parking available. Greaves Reserve is a better spot IMO. Why will the orientation be strange? NE-SE isn't too bad and its the same as was proposed for Greaves Reserve. I agree on the parking issue though. Typically north south orientations are recommended by FAs with a maximum 15 degree variance. There are issues related to sun glare for players but also broadcast considerations when trying to account for shadowing. Can be a bitch for live play when the cameraman/producer struggle with the light shifts. It's not too bad where an even shadow is cast but not so ideal with a diagonal shadow on the ground. At Melbourne's latitude about 15 degrees to the east is spot on for what you want, and funnily enough, the train line lines up with that pretty well. Here's a guide recommending a 15-degree orientation for Perth: 
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xSo has Team11 officially scrapped the Greaves Reserve and opted for that empty lot straight over the tracks from the station? It's a good location urban planning wise but the pitch orientation will be strange. It's not especially large either. Ideally everyone would take the train, but reality says they won't and there's no parking available. Greaves Reserve is a better spot IMO. Why will the orientation be strange? NE-SE isn't too bad and its the same as was proposed for Greaves Reserve. I agree on the parking issue though. Typically north south orientations are recommended by FAs with a maximum 15 degree variance. There are issues related to sun glare for players but also broadcast considerations when trying to account for shadowing. Can be a bitch for live play when the cameraman/producer struggle with the light shifts. It's not too bad where an even shadow is cast but not so ideal with a diagonal shadow on the ground. This stuff is my jam. At Melbourne's latitude about 15 degrees to the east is spot on for what you want, and funnily enough, the train line lines up with that pretty well. Here's a guide recommending a 15-degree orientation for Perth. Not questioning your jam. To my eye the pitch orientation could be up to 30 degrees. The reason I suggested the "variance" rather than 15 degrees absolute is because I had a vague sense that at that latitude 0 degrees wouldn't be the correct assumption. If someone wants to get a protractor out and get the angle I'd be interested. It's a bit hard to estimate going by alignment with the rail way as there appears a small spur on the line that affects the shape of the site. I see from the images though that they're proposing to build over it. In the end that could be half the job getting this stadium up - negotiating with the state government to release that bit of land.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xSo has Team11 officially scrapped the Greaves Reserve and opted for that empty lot straight over the tracks from the station? It's a good location urban planning wise but the pitch orientation will be strange. It's not especially large either. Ideally everyone would take the train, but reality says they won't and there's no parking available. Greaves Reserve is a better spot IMO. Why will the orientation be strange? NE-SE isn't too bad and its the same as was proposed for Greaves Reserve. I agree on the parking issue though. Typically north south orientations are recommended by FAs with a maximum 15 degree variance. There are issues related to sun glare for players but also broadcast considerations when trying to account for shadowing. Can be a bitch for live play when the cameraman/producer struggle with the light shifts. It's not too bad where an even shadow is cast but not so ideal with a diagonal shadow on the ground. This stuff is my jam. At Melbourne's latitude about 15 degrees to the east is spot on for what you want, and funnily enough, the train line lines up with that pretty well. Here's a guide recommending a 15-degree orientation for Perth. Not questioning your jam. To my eye the pitch orientation could be up to 30 degrees. The reason I suggested the "variance" rather than 15 degrees absolute is because I had a vague sense that at that latitude 0 degrees wouldn't be the correct assumption. If someone wants to get a protractor out and get the angle I'd be interested. It's a bit hard to estimate going by alignment with the rail way as there appears a small spur on the line that affects the shape of the site. I see from the images though that they're proposing to build over it. In the end that could be half the job getting this stadium up - negotiating with the state government to release that bit of land. Just using the measurement tool on google earth pro the orientation is about 30 degrees plus a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
I mean, like I said it's just might be a little strange. Or apparently maybe not. It's nowhere on the list of priorities though in determining the strength of the bid. This bid appears a bloody strong one if they can deliver what they're promising.
Wouldn't suprise me though if Gallop goes for Geelong over this because, like, Geelong has an AFL team, then comes up with some story about how he spent his whole life dedicated to the cause of pitch orientation when he lived with a West Brom fan in London and hence totally gets football.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI mean, like I said it's just might be a little strange. Or apparently maybe not. It's nowhere on the list of priorities though in determining the strength of the bid. This bid appears a bloody strong one if they can deliver what they're promising. Wouldn't suprise me though if Gallop goes for Geelong over this because, like, Geelong has an AFL team, then comes up with some story about how he spent his whole life dedicated to the cause of pitch orientation when he lived with a West Brom fan in London and hence totally gets football. I wish there was enough money to go to 14 clubs with 2 rounds making 182 games a season instead of 12x3 with 198 games. That way the competition is improved without increasing individual clubs costs and the expansion can include Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane plus a regional city like Canberra or Wollongong.
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Is 26 rounds plus finals enough for ACL requirements?
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIs 26 rounds plus finals enough for ACL requirements? Yes. The minimum is 27 including cup matches. http://www.the-afc.com/afc/documents/PdfFiles/entry-manual-afc-club-competitions-2017-2020-33728What is also relevant to our participation in the ACL is our AFC geographical ranking. We just assume our place is a given but it's not. We can't afford to stagnate. http://www.the-afc.com/afc-ranking/latest
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIs 26 rounds plus finals enough for ACL requirements? Pretty damn embarrassing that we should be worried about scraping by on minimum AFC requirements, but here we are. We're already below them on some metrics, like how we might have four teams in the ACL, but with the perfectly reasonable rule whereby not more than one-third of the league can qualify, with Phoenix making it just nine Australian teams we're just on a third of the league with three teams qualifying as it is.
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xIs 26 rounds plus finals enough for ACL requirements? Pretty damn embarrassing that we should be worried about scraping by on minimum AFC requirements, but here we are. We're already below them on some metrics, like how we might have four teams in the ACL if not for the perfectly reasonable not more than one third of the league can qualify, and with Phoenix making it just nine Australian teams we're just on a third with three teams as it is. 3 is nothing to sniff at. No matter how elite a league is, the maximum is 4. If Wellington stays we would need a 13 team league to get 4 spots and even then we wouldn't get direct qualification for all of them.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 23K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI mean, like I said it's just might be a little strange. Or apparently maybe not. It's nowhere on the list of priorities though in determining the strength of the bid. This bid appears a bloody strong one if they can deliver what they're promising. Wouldn't suprise me though if Gallop goes for Geelong over this because, like, Geelong has an AFL team, then comes up with some story about how he spent his whole life dedicated to the cause of pitch orientation when he lived with a West Brom fan in London and hence totally gets football. I wish there was enough money to go to 14 clubs with 2 rounds making 182 games a season instead of 12x3 with 198 games. That way the competition is improved without increasing individual clubs costs and the expansion can include Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane plus a regional city like Canberra or Wollongong. If the FFA hadn't pissed away so much funding on consultants and first class travel, if they had expanded in the interests of the league rather than for the World Cup bid, and if they had stayed onside with the owners and the PFA rather than being confrontational, there's a good chance they would have had the funds to support expansion when it was needed, which would in turn have kept the game 'hot', leading to better media/advertising in the future, leading to growth of the game and further expansion (and ultimately pro/rel). However, because they don't trust (or won't take responsibility for) their own decisions, they had to go for big consultancy fees; and because they got offside with the owners and the PFA they found themselves having to hand every spare $ over... Which ultimately stifled the game at the exact moment it needed to move forward.
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xBerisha 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. They havent been healthy for a good 6-7 years, most of its fanbase walked out on them after the grand final fiasco in 2012. Had about 500 odd when we played them in march and id say we outnumbered them. What was most noticeable to me was how much Victory gear was in the crowd though. Most of the albanians in dandenong actually live right by the ground and you can actually see them coming out of their homes and walking to it lol. I know some of them too 🤣🤣 great people but can be a little moronic
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
aussie pride
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Good to see they’ve already committed to investing 4 pitches and change rooms regardless
|
|
|
|
|
kavorka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 647,
Visits: 0
|
to me, of all of the Victorian bids, this is the one that makes most sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
24m from a local council is pretty solid.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 23K,
Visits: 0
|
Note that this $24m appears to be community funding for facilities for local clubs. Team11 might be able to take advantage of it - but it wouldn't be theirs, they would always be sharing.
The fanfare about this funding also brings into sharp focus the lack of funding for the stadium. I assume they would have to play at Etihad for the first year or two as three teams can't share the same home venue and there's no way they will have their own venue ready in time... So good luck to a new team starting up, playing their home games in an oversized venue 35km from the people they represent.
West Melbourne side self-financing their stadium sounds like a better bet if we want something completely new... Assuming they can build their venue in a year.
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xNote that this $24m appears to be community funding for facilities for local clubs. Team11 might be able to take advantage of it - but it wouldn't be theirs, they would always be sharing. The fanfare about this funding also brings into sharp focus the lack of funding for the stadium. I assume they would have to play at Etihad for the first year or two as three teams can't share the same home venue and there's no way they will have their own venue ready in time... So good luck to a new team starting up, playing their home games in an oversized venue 35km from the people they represent. West Melbourne side self-financing their stadium sounds like a better bet if we want something completely new... Assuming they can build their venue in a year. It can't be done in a year. As a private venture not linked with a council they'd be going through the process like anyone else proposing a private development. I'd estimate planning and approvals to be at least 2 years. Add on negotiations for acquiring the land which could easily be a year. If it's proposed for a green field then the stadium negotiations will be nothing compared to the haggling over surrounding infrastructure. This West Melbourne "bid" if it exists would be a lot of work for a lot of people for up to 10 years.
|
|
|
|