|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
New $170m soccer stadium proposed in Dandenong by Team 11 franchiseEXCLUSIVE: A $170 MILLION soccer stadium built in the heart of Dandenong is at the centre of plans to transform Melbourne’s southeast. The 15,000-seat ground would be home to the A-League’s 11th franchise and a W-League team, and would host concerts, festivals, and NRL and rugby union games. Businessman and Dandenong local Gerry Ryan said the concept would revitalise the region through the creation of jobs and investment. “This is a game-changer for the city of Dandenong and for the southeast of Victoria,” Mr Ryan told the Herald Sun. “We want to provide our children — and all members of our culturally diverse community — a cause they can unite behind, be inspired by and feel connected to. “A football team playing out of a venue such as this would do just that.” The site of the stadium — just 100m from the Dandenong train station — will be gifted by the Greater Dandenong Council. The council and a “Team 11” steering committee is working with Development Victoria on concepts but state government funds are yet to be committed. A significant revitalisation project in Melbourne’s southeast could be a critical vote-winner in November’s state election, with nine marginal seats in the region — seven held by Labor and two by the Coalition. The southeast bid team is competing against the South Melbourne Football Club, a third group from Melbourne’s western suburbs and eight interstate consortiums for two new A-League licences. A decision will be made by Football Federation Australia in October. Construction of “Dandenong Stadium” — designed by Cox Architecture, creator of Melbourne’s AAMI Park — is predicated on Team 11 being admitted into the A-League. Its initial capacity is slated at 12,000-15,000 with the ability to expand to 20,000. The City of Casey and Cardinia Shire Council have also backed the plan. Socceroos legend and Team 11 ambassador Vince Grella said the stadium would boast an intimacy to rival all others. “Football fans in Australia have been crying out for boutique venues in which to house our clubs — Dandenong Stadium is perfect,” Grella said. “There are more people playing football than any other sport. “Not only will Team 11 be able to enjoy this facility, but the potential for Socceroos, Matildas and youth internationals to be played here is very real, as well as local club games and regional gala events and tournaments.” The state government committed $260 million to revitalising Dandenong’s city centre 12 years ago. The proposal is being pitched as stage two of a plan to re-establish Dandenong as the capital of the state’s southeast. source
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MarkfromCroydon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Streaming announcement live now on the team 11 Facebook page.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
They should go with the name “South Melbourne” ... might pick up a few Greek supporters too
|
|
|
|
|
MarkfromCroydon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Colours and name will be up to community/ public vote. Likely to happen after team bid is accepted.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
I was just being mischievous Mark.
Any bid that builds football infrastructure should get a priority imo.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
From the bid's site: Dandenong Stadium Plans Announced
Melbourne’s south-east will be home to one of Australia’s most accessible sport and entertainment venues if its bid for A-League and W-League admission is successful.
The prime location of Cheltenham Road, next to Dandenong Train Station, has been confirmed as the site of Team 11’s proposed stadium build.
Concepts designed by Cox Architecture – designers of Melbourne’s AAMI Park – has Dandenong Stadium capacity initially slated in the range of 12,000-15,000, with the ability to expand to 20,000 in the future.
The site, less than 100m walk from one of Victoria’s busiest train and bus stations and within five kilometres of the Monash Freeway and EastLink, will provide for easy access from all corners of Victoria’s south-east.
Australian business icon and Dandenong local Gerry Ryan, the founder and owner of Jayco Caravans, said, given the proposed location, the stadium would revitalise Dandenong and revolutionise the wider south-east Melbourne region through the creation of jobs and injection of commercial investment.
Ryan also said there would be profound social impacts on the community.
“This is a game-changer for the city of Dandenong and for the south-east of Victoria,” Ryan said.
“We want to provide our children – and all members of our culturally diverse community – a cause they can unite behind, be inspired by and feel connected to. A football team playing out of a venue such as this would do just that.
“To also have community and education programs running from the stadium in partnership with local tertiary, training and not-for-profit organisations would ensure our residents benefit significantly from this development.”
Dandenong-born Simon McKeon, chair of the South East Melbourne group of councils, said south-east Melbourne is crying out for a professional sporting club to train and play here.
“There are more than 1.2 million people living in south-east Melbourne and families would love the opportunity to come together with the wider community to support a team they can identify strongly with and watch playplay at a purpose-built stadium,” McKeon said.
McKeon said the region provides a large, ready-made army of diverse, enthusiastic supporters who already love the world game.
“It’s a no-brainer,” McKeon said. “The beautiful game would find a perfect home among a massive group of professional supporters at an easily accessible location next to Dandenong Train Station.”
Various funding options for the stadium build are being explored, with Development Victoria, Ernst and Young, Cox Architecture and Greater Dandenong Council working together on development plans for the site.
The stadium build is predicated on Team 11 being admitted into the A-League.
Socceroos legend and Team 11 ambassador Vince Grella said the new club would be playing at a football-specific venue with an intimacy that would rival all others in the country. There are also safe standing provisions for active home fans.
“Football fans in Australia have been crying out for boutique venues in which to house our clubs. Dandenong Stadium is perfect,” Grella said.
“There are more people playing football than any other sport in this country. The game deserves venues such as this.
“Not only will Team 11 be able to enjoy this facility, but the potential for Socceroos, Matildas and youth internationals to be played here is very real, as well as local club games and regional gala events and tournaments.”
The land proposed for the stadium is owned by the City of Greater Dandenong.
Greater Dandenong Councillor and Team 11 steering committee member Jim Memeti said the unveiling of stadium plans demonstrates the seriousness of the region’s bid, spearheaded by the Greater Dandenong, City of Casey and Cardinia Shire councils.
“With Greater Dandenong being the most multicultural municipality in Australia, football is the No.1 sport of choice for our residents and so it is fitting that a rectangular venue would sit pride of place in the heart of our Central Business District,” Cr Memeti said.
“But this stadium is not just about the creation of what can be an enormous football club, this will be a prized asset for our region, catering for a wide range of sporting events, multicultural festivals, concerts and functions.” https://www.weareteam11.com/dandenong-stadium-plans-announced/
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Now that is a good proposal.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
I’m starting to think Brisbane 2’s chances are dimming somewhat though; assuming south Sydney are in I’d say Wolves and this bid are head and shoulders above FCBC and Strikers stealth bid.
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
Is this conditional on the team having a guaranteed spot in the league for the next century or will they have to earn their spot by continual investment and effort? I don't think development of a local stadium is apt reward for a permanent spot in a league. We have seen teams drop off before Take CCM for instance. Yes they have built a venue for youth development or whatever but they have been non competitive for 4 years and continue to squat on a spot that could easily go to another team The AFL as a closed off invitational only league needs a model for choosing long term candidates. This has never worked for our game
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIs this conditional on the team having a guaranteed spot in the league for the next century or will they have to earn their spot by continual investment and effort? I don't think development of a local stadium is apt reward for a permanent spot in a league. We have seen teams drop off before Take CCM for instance. Yes they have built a venue for youth development or whatever but they have been non competitive for 4 years and continue to squat on a spot that could easily go to another team The AFL as a closed off invitational only league needs a model for choosing long term candidates. This has never worked for our game I thought you were an advocate of not all teams need to be equal. Or do you just make it up as you go along?
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xIs this conditional on the team having a guaranteed spot in the league for the next century or will they have to earn their spot by continual investment and effort? I don't think development of a local stadium is apt reward for a permanent spot in a league. We have seen teams drop off before Take CCM for instance. Yes they have built a venue for youth development or whatever but they have been non competitive for 4 years and continue to squat on a spot that could easily go to another team The AFL as a closed off invitational only league needs a model for choosing long term candidates. This has never worked for our game I thought you were an advocate of not all teams need to be equal. Or do you just make it up as you go along? Of course they don't have to be equal they just have to earn their fucking spot in the league or be replaced by a tier 2 team
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xIs this conditional on the team having a guaranteed spot in the league for the next century or will they have to earn their spot by continual investment and effort? I don't think development of a local stadium is apt reward for a permanent spot in a league. We have seen teams drop off before Take CCM for instance. Yes they have built a venue for youth development or whatever but they have been non competitive for 4 years and continue to squat on a spot that could easily go to another team The AFL as a closed off invitational only league needs a model for choosing long term candidates. This has never worked for our game I thought you were an advocate of not all teams need to be equal. Or do you just make it up as you go along? Of course they don't have to be equal they just have to earn their fucking spot in the league or be replaced by a tier 2 team Well we still need to expand the first division and apparently a club who could be hovering near the bottom their bid should be rejected? So the only criteria which fits for you would be another imaginary big city CBD team and forget about the fact they'd run at a loss renting a stadium to big for the fans they won't have.
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xIs this conditional on the team having a guaranteed spot in the league for the next century or will they have to earn their spot by continual investment and effort? I don't think development of a local stadium is apt reward for a permanent spot in a league. We have seen teams drop off before Take CCM for instance. Yes they have built a venue for youth development or whatever but they have been non competitive for 4 years and continue to squat on a spot that could easily go to another team The AFL as a closed off invitational only league needs a model for choosing long term candidates. This has never worked for our game I thought you were an advocate of not all teams need to be equal. Or do you just make it up as you go along? Of course they don't have to be equal they just have to earn their fucking spot in the league or be replaced by a tier 2 team Well we still need to expand the first division and apparently a club who could be hovering near the bottom their bid should be rejected? So the only criteria which fits for you would be another imaginary big city CBD team and forget about the fact they'd run at a loss renting a stadium to big for the fans they won't have. I never said any of that We need to establish a second tier of 10 teams to replace the youth league pronto and scrap the cap. And then after a year promote 2 teams to the A League. Then after 3 years introduce an unconditional 1 on and 1 out system If Dandenong want to be one of those 2 clubs promoted then they need to be top 2 of 10 teams that meet the same criteria fighting the same fight. And if they want to be in the A League 10 years from now then they have to make sure they don't finish 12th Of course teams 11 and 12 are going to be small. Whichever team ends up being 12th shouldn't have a permanent spot in the league ahead of the 8 teams fighting hard below them
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xIs this conditional on the team having a guaranteed spot in the league for the next century or will they have to earn their spot by continual investment and effort? I don't think development of a local stadium is apt reward for a permanent spot in a league. We have seen teams drop off before Take CCM for instance. Yes they have built a venue for youth development or whatever but they have been non competitive for 4 years and continue to squat on a spot that could easily go to another team The AFL as a closed off invitational only league needs a model for choosing long term candidates. This has never worked for our game I thought you were an advocate of not all teams need to be equal. Or do you just make it up as you go along? Of course they don't have to be equal they just have to earn their fucking spot in the league or be replaced by a tier 2 team Well we still need to expand the first division and apparently a club who could be hovering near the bottom their bid should be rejected? So the only criteria which fits for you would be another imaginary big city CBD team and forget about the fact they'd run at a loss renting a stadium to big for the fans they won't have. I never said any of that We need to establish a second tier of 10 teams to replace the youth league pronto and scrap the cap. And then after a year promote 2 teams to the A League. Then after 3 years introduce an unconditional 1 on and 1 out system If Dandenong want to be one of those 2 clubs promoted then they need to be top 2 of 10 teams that meet the same criteria fighting the same fight. And if they want to be in the A League 10 years from now then they have to make sure they don't finish 12th Of course teams 11 and 12 are going to be small. Whichever team ends up being 12th shouldn't have a permanent spot in the league ahead of the 8 teams fighting hard below them But this is really a moot point, with the FFA in charge there isn't going to be P and R and a 2nd division anytime soon but the bids accepted should be sustainable clubs. In which actually having a region defining them with definite support and their own stadium which will have lower costs than renting at AAMI park is a very good first step to being sustainable.
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xIs this conditional on the team having a guaranteed spot in the league for the next century or will they have to earn their spot by continual investment and effort? I don't think development of a local stadium is apt reward for a permanent spot in a league. We have seen teams drop off before Take CCM for instance. Yes they have built a venue for youth development or whatever but they have been non competitive for 4 years and continue to squat on a spot that could easily go to another team The AFL as a closed off invitational only league needs a model for choosing long term candidates. This has never worked for our game I thought you were an advocate of not all teams need to be equal. Or do you just make it up as you go along? Of course they don't have to be equal they just have to earn their fucking spot in the league or be replaced by a tier 2 team Well we still need to expand the first division and apparently a club who could be hovering near the bottom their bid should be rejected? So the only criteria which fits for you would be another imaginary big city CBD team and forget about the fact they'd run at a loss renting a stadium to big for the fans they won't have. I never said any of that We need to establish a second tier of 10 teams to replace the youth league pronto and scrap the cap. And then after a year promote 2 teams to the A League. Then after 3 years introduce an unconditional 1 on and 1 out system If Dandenong want to be one of those 2 clubs promoted then they need to be top 2 of 10 teams that meet the same criteria fighting the same fight. And if they want to be in the A League 10 years from now then they have to make sure they don't finish 12th Of course teams 11 and 12 are going to be small. Whichever team ends up being 12th shouldn't have a permanent spot in the league ahead of the 8 teams fighting hard below them But this is really a moot point, with the FFA in charge there isn't going to be P and R and a 2nd division anytime soon but the bids accepted should be sustainable clubs. In which actually having a region defining them with definite support and their own stadium which will have lower costs than renting at AAMI park is a very good first step to being sustainable. But if the FFA don't change their model then expansion itself is a moot point because it is going to be an unsustainable and expensive exercise There is no right way to add dressing to a turd sandwich
|
|
|
|
|
marconi101
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIs this conditional on the team having a guaranteed spot in the league for the next century or will they have to earn their spot by continual investment and effort? I don't think development of a local stadium is apt reward for a permanent spot in a league. We have seen teams drop off before Take CCM for instance. Yes they have built a venue for youth development or whatever but they have been non competitive for 4 years and continue to squat on a spot that could easily go to another team The AFL as a closed off invitational only league needs a model for choosing long term candidates. This has never worked for our game Oh look some more bluebird intellectual-sounding cynicism
He was a man of specific quirks. He believed that all meals should be earned through physical effort. He also contended, zealously like a drunk with a political point, that the third dimension would not be possible if it werent for the existence of water.
|
|
|
|
|
marconi101
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
Expand to 14, these bids are delicious
He was a man of specific quirks. He believed that all meals should be earned through physical effort. He also contended, zealously like a drunk with a political point, that the third dimension would not be possible if it werent for the existence of water.
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+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.
|
|
|
|
|
southmelb
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+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.
|
|
|
|
|
Feed_The_Brox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+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. yep agree. maybe SMH might be better off having some sort alignment with Team 11? this is a great announcement. exciting. but I would like to see more details. how much are the 3 local councils contributing? How much is Gerry Ryan contributing? How much funding do they want from the government? certainly good timing with an election coming in 7 months. $170 million feels like a pittance in comparison to the $500+ million they are handing the AFL
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+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....
|
|
|
|
|
P&R will fix it 2.0
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+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.... 
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+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..
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+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 There is no point whatsoever in going through a financial viability tender process for clubs when the end result is the FFA are not only going to pay for the running of the club but also help them make a profit. Throw two darts at a board and that's the club selection process. Stanhope and Tongala When the A League started Lowy only wanted $15m for the whole of football. Clubs had to pay for themselves. It wasn't long ago that clubs were only getting $800k from the shared pool Now obviously we want to close the gap so we don't have clubs folding mid season but there has to be a common sense balance between a bigger premium for clubs and actually finishing the league framework If the last TV deal was to give clubs $2.5m to help close that gap, then not a dollar more should have been given until we had at least 14 clubs, or even 20 clubs split into two tiers (with bigger handouts for the top tier). But instead we saw the exact same mistake of trying to close the gap once again. Clubs were even demanding $6m Any A League team should be able to muster $1m-$1.5m in sponsorship, corporate partners, local government assistance and gate keepings. If NQF cost $3.5m and they are no worse than the Mariners today then a $2m-$2.5m hand out until the league has been finished is very reasonable The $10m that went to the same 10 clubs when the FFA opted to give them $3.5m instead of $2.5m could have paid for 4 more teams! Instead we are stuck in a situation where expansion will cost $7m, and that's assuming the clubs aren't going to ask for more money 5 years from now
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+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.
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+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
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+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. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+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
|
|
|
|
|
CHEP
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 227,
Visits: 0
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+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? 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.htmlWhy no expansion, because the franchisees dont want it
https://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/article/2018/03/29/league-clubs-fume-ffas-expansion-plans
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+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? 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.htmlWhy no expansion, because the franchisees dont want it
https://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/article/2018/03/29/league-clubs-fume-ffas-expansion-plans 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
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+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? 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.htmlWhy no expansion, because the franchisees dont want it
https://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/article/2018/03/29/league-clubs-fume-ffas-expansion-plans 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 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
|
|
|
|
|
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? 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.htmlWhy no expansion, because the franchisees dont want it
https://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/article/2018/03/29/league-clubs-fume-ffas-expansion-plans 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 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
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+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 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.
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+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 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
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+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).
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Kamaryn
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+xExpand to 14, these bids are delicious
|
|
|
|
|
Savic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 975,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xExpand to 14, these bids are delicious Well said. FFA need to get their shit together and get the hell on with it. I'd consider moving back to the Dandenongs to be within cooee of this club. I was always a big supporter of the original Heart idea. Just so much potential in this area..
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+xExpand to 14, these bids are delicious This ffs -PB
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
Great location next to Dandenong Station, even better than the showgrounds as it'll be easier to hit the bars and restaurants etc.
If they can get this stadium up they're the front-runner for the next A-League spot, hands down.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
P&R will fix it 2.0
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
top idea everyone trawl through 6 years of posts , see if anyone mentioned anything slightly like what some Journo's running this week.
|
|
|
|
|
Iknowbest
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+xtop idea everyone trawl through 6 years of posts , see if anyone mentioned anything slightly like what some Journo's running this week. Actually I think you have to give some credit to "paladisious". He called the exact site and you are just looking silly having a go at him for doing so.
Full trophy cabinet (but yours looks a bit empty) !
Reigning BACK2BACK 442 A League and World Cup (Mens and Womens) Tipping Champion - so yeap, I do know best !
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xtop idea everyone trawl through 6 years of posts , see if anyone mentioned anything slightly like what some Journo's running this week. Actually I think you have to give some credit to "paladisious". He called the exact site and you are just looking silly having a go at him for doing so. Pala has brought up that site quite a number of times. I remember posting that its too tight for a stadium and it is but they have squeezed a small stadium on it with the ability for a small expansion in future. The location is perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xtop idea everyone trawl through 6 years of posts , see if anyone mentioned anything slightly like what some Journo's running this week. Actually I think you have to give some credit to "paladisious". He called the exact site and you are just looking silly having a go at him for doing so. Pala has brought up that site quite a number of times. I remember posting that its too tight for a stadium and it is but they have squeezed a small stadium on it with the ability for a small expansion in future. The location is perfect. Cheers :)
|
|
|
|
|
Nachoman
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 0
|
Do you have next month's winning lotto numbers too ? happy to split the earning if its a 7 figure win :) Seriously , is the south east melbourne area a growing pot off junior football teams and culture ? thought South Melbourne and their strong heritage would be the best for a 3rd team in Victoria
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+xDo you have next month's winning lotto numbers too ? happy to split the earning if its a 7 figure win :) Seriously , is the south east melbourne area a growing pot off junior football teams and culture ? thought South Melbourne and their strong heritage would be the best for a 3rd team in Victoria 27,000 posts, I guess I was due to be right about something in one of them lol According to the bid's own page, Dandenong is the "most diverse" municipality in the country, and they claim over 90 football clubs in the area with 17k players, which is probably hard to dispute.
|
|
|
|
|
Davo1985
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.6K,
Visits: 1
|
well played picking stadium loc as well
|
|
|
|
|
MarkfromCroydon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Remember last week when I said this was a strong bid?
It has EVERYTHING!
The stadium in this location, with the land gifted by the Council is a GAME Changer.
It's a win-win-win.
Win for football with: more local derbies for Victory and City, in the heartland of Melbourne's football community (more local clubs and registered players than any other LGA), demographics that are likely to support football (high immigrant population from countries with strong football traditions), great location for opposition supporters with train/bus access and freeway access, most Victory/City supporters are probably less than an hour travel from the stadium. The team should be well supported.
Win for South East Melbourne: This area is one of the fastest growing areas in the nation. All 3 local Councils want to "bring Melbourne to the south east" not have to go to Melbourne CBD. The Monash freeway is a nightmare. It takes anywhere from 1.5 to nearly 2 hours to drive to and from the CBD on the Monash carpark in peak hour to the biggest. It takes about 35-45 minutes going on the Monash when you're going 'the other way' in peak hour. There are people out here who are 'fatigued' from driving the Monash every day who will not go to the city to attend football matches or other events, even though they are not on at the peak hour travel times. However, these people just might go to a local stadium.
Win for FFA and Fox: Melbourne t.v timeslot. Fish where the fish are, backed by investors with money and previous experience in the competition (Gerry Ryan).
Really, it's a great bid.
|
|
|
|
|
southmelb
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xRemember last week when I said this was a strong bid? It has EVERYTHING! The stadium in this location, with the land gifted by the Council is a GAME Changer. It's a win-win-win. Win for football with: more local derbies for Victory and City, in the heartland of Melbourne's football community (more local clubs and registered players than any other LGA), demographics that are likely to support football (high immigrant population from countries with strong football traditions), great location for opposition supporters with train/bus access and freeway access, most Victory/City supporters are probably less than an hour travel from the stadium. The team should be well supported. Win for South East Melbourne: This area is one of the fastest growing areas in the nation. All 3 local Councils want to "bring Melbourne to the south east" not have to go to Melbourne CBD. The Monash freeway is a nightmare. It takes anywhere from 1.5 to nearly 2 hours to drive to and from the CBD on the Monash carpark in peak hour to the biggest. It takes about 35-45 minutes going on the Monash when you're going 'the other way' in peak hour. There are people out here who are 'fatigued' from driving the Monash every day who will not go to the city to attend football matches or other events, even though they are not on at the peak hour travel times. However, these people just might go to a local stadium. Win for FFA and Fox: Melbourne t.v timeslot. Fish where the fish are, backed by investors with money and previous experience in the competition (Gerry Ryan). Really, it's a great bid. Will they be crowd pullers interstate? Unlikely Will they command top tier tv ratings? Also unlikely. Of course this shouldnt matter but since everything is about metrics these things fo go into consideration. Adelaide united v dandenong doesnt exactly wet the appetite.
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xRemember last week when I said this was a strong bid? It has EVERYTHING! The stadium in this location, with the land gifted by the Council is a GAME Changer. It's a win-win-win. Win for football with: more local derbies for Victory and City, in the heartland of Melbourne's football community (more local clubs and registered players than any other LGA), demographics that are likely to support football (high immigrant population from countries with strong football traditions), great location for opposition supporters with train/bus access and freeway access, most Victory/City supporters are probably less than an hour travel from the stadium. The team should be well supported. Win for South East Melbourne: This area is one of the fastest growing areas in the nation. All 3 local Councils want to "bring Melbourne to the south east" not have to go to Melbourne CBD. The Monash freeway is a nightmare. It takes anywhere from 1.5 to nearly 2 hours to drive to and from the CBD on the Monash carpark in peak hour to the biggest. It takes about 35-45 minutes going on the Monash when you're going 'the other way' in peak hour. There are people out here who are 'fatigued' from driving the Monash every day who will not go to the city to attend football matches or other events, even though they are not on at the peak hour travel times. However, these people just might go to a local stadium. Win for FFA and Fox: Melbourne t.v timeslot. Fish where the fish are, backed by investors with money and previous experience in the competition (Gerry Ryan). Really, it's a great bid. Will they be crowd pullers interstate? Unlikely Will they command top tier tv ratings? Also unlikely. Of course this shouldnt matter but since everything is about metrics these things fo go into consideration. Adelaide united v dandenong doesnt exactly wet the appetite. Dandenong vs the other Melbourne clubs would though, there would be an extra 4-6 derbies a season which fits the metrics.
|
|
|
|
|
southmelb
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xRemember last week when I said this was a strong bid? It has EVERYTHING! The stadium in this location, with the land gifted by the Council is a GAME Changer. It's a win-win-win. Win for football with: more local derbies for Victory and City, in the heartland of Melbourne's football community (more local clubs and registered players than any other LGA), demographics that are likely to support football (high immigrant population from countries with strong football traditions), great location for opposition supporters with train/bus access and freeway access, most Victory/City supporters are probably less than an hour travel from the stadium. The team should be well supported. Win for South East Melbourne: This area is one of the fastest growing areas in the nation. All 3 local Councils want to "bring Melbourne to the south east" not have to go to Melbourne CBD. The Monash freeway is a nightmare. It takes anywhere from 1.5 to nearly 2 hours to drive to and from the CBD on the Monash carpark in peak hour to the biggest. It takes about 35-45 minutes going on the Monash when you're going 'the other way' in peak hour. There are people out here who are 'fatigued' from driving the Monash every day who will not go to the city to attend football matches or other events, even though they are not on at the peak hour travel times. However, these people just might go to a local stadium. Win for FFA and Fox: Melbourne t.v timeslot. Fish where the fish are, backed by investors with money and previous experience in the competition (Gerry Ryan). Really, it's a great bid. Will they be crowd pullers interstate? Unlikely Will they command top tier tv ratings? Also unlikely. Of course this shouldnt matter but since everything is about metrics these things fo go into consideration. Adelaide united v dandenong doesnt exactly wet the appetite. Dandenong vs the other Melbourne clubs would though, there would be an extra 4-6 derbies a season which fits the metrics. Derbies are derbies. You could throw in dandy thunder or dandy city and it would have the same effect. Its how you do away from the derbies that counts, what sort of crowd pulling ability you have away from home. Before the CFG takeover Melb Heart had brutal interest interstate and even less so on tv. Theyre gonna have to go big here and chase names to meet the metrics mark. As i said this shouldnt matter but we have such a stupid flawed model it will impact.
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xRemember last week when I said this was a strong bid? It has EVERYTHING! The stadium in this location, with the land gifted by the Council is a GAME Changer. It's a win-win-win. Win for football with: more local derbies for Victory and City, in the heartland of Melbourne's football community (more local clubs and registered players than any other LGA), demographics that are likely to support football (high immigrant population from countries with strong football traditions), great location for opposition supporters with train/bus access and freeway access, most Victory/City supporters are probably less than an hour travel from the stadium. The team should be well supported. Win for South East Melbourne: This area is one of the fastest growing areas in the nation. All 3 local Councils want to "bring Melbourne to the south east" not have to go to Melbourne CBD. The Monash freeway is a nightmare. It takes anywhere from 1.5 to nearly 2 hours to drive to and from the CBD on the Monash carpark in peak hour to the biggest. It takes about 35-45 minutes going on the Monash when you're going 'the other way' in peak hour. There are people out here who are 'fatigued' from driving the Monash every day who will not go to the city to attend football matches or other events, even though they are not on at the peak hour travel times. However, these people just might go to a local stadium. Win for FFA and Fox: Melbourne t.v timeslot. Fish where the fish are, backed by investors with money and previous experience in the competition (Gerry Ryan). Really, it's a great bid. Will they be crowd pullers interstate? Unlikely Will they command top tier tv ratings? Also unlikely. Of course this shouldnt matter but since everything is about metrics these things fo go into consideration. Adelaide united v dandenong doesnt exactly wet the appetite. Dandenong vs the other Melbourne clubs would though, there would be an extra 4-6 derbies a season which fits the metrics. Derbies are derbies. You could throw in dandy thunder or dandy city and it would have the same effect. Its how you do away from the derbies that counts, what sort of crowd pulling ability you have away from home. Before the CFG takeover Melb Heart had brutal interest interstate and even less so on tv. Theyre gonna have to go big here and chase names to meet the metrics mark. As i said this shouldnt matter but we have such a stupid flawed model it will impact. But which teams would actually create immediate interstate interest apart from your lot
|
|
|
|
|
redsfan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xRemember last week when I said this was a strong bid? It has EVERYTHING! The stadium in this location, with the land gifted by the Council is a GAME Changer. It's a win-win-win. Win for football with: more local derbies for Victory and City, in the heartland of Melbourne's football community (more local clubs and registered players than any other LGA), demographics that are likely to support football (high immigrant population from countries with strong football traditions), great location for opposition supporters with train/bus access and freeway access, most Victory/City supporters are probably less than an hour travel from the stadium. The team should be well supported. Win for South East Melbourne: This area is one of the fastest growing areas in the nation. All 3 local Councils want to "bring Melbourne to the south east" not have to go to Melbourne CBD. The Monash freeway is a nightmare. It takes anywhere from 1.5 to nearly 2 hours to drive to and from the CBD on the Monash carpark in peak hour to the biggest. It takes about 35-45 minutes going on the Monash when you're going 'the other way' in peak hour. There are people out here who are 'fatigued' from driving the Monash every day who will not go to the city to attend football matches or other events, even though they are not on at the peak hour travel times. However, these people just might go to a local stadium. Win for FFA and Fox: Melbourne t.v timeslot. Fish where the fish are, backed by investors with money and previous experience in the competition (Gerry Ryan). Really, it's a great bid. Will they be crowd pullers interstate? Unlikely Will they command top tier tv ratings? Also unlikely. Of course this shouldnt matter but since everything is about metrics these things fo go into consideration. Adelaide united v dandenong doesnt exactly wet the appetite. I'd more likely do a weekend or holiday away down mornington peninsula with the missus/family and attend a AUFC v dandenong match than a trip to Melbourne with or without the family to see either of the current Melbourne clubs.
|
|
|
|
|
Savic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 975,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xRemember last week when I said this was a strong bid? It has EVERYTHING! The stadium in this location, with the land gifted by the Council is a GAME Changer. It's a win-win-win. Win for football with: more local derbies for Victory and City, in the heartland of Melbourne's football community (more local clubs and registered players than any other LGA), demographics that are likely to support football (high immigrant population from countries with strong football traditions), great location for opposition supporters with train/bus access and freeway access, most Victory/City supporters are probably less than an hour travel from the stadium. The team should be well supported. Win for South East Melbourne: This area is one of the fastest growing areas in the nation. All 3 local Councils want to "bring Melbourne to the south east" not have to go to Melbourne CBD. The Monash freeway is a nightmare. It takes anywhere from 1.5 to nearly 2 hours to drive to and from the CBD on the Monash carpark in peak hour to the biggest. It takes about 35-45 minutes going on the Monash when you're going 'the other way' in peak hour. There are people out here who are 'fatigued' from driving the Monash every day who will not go to the city to attend football matches or other events, even though they are not on at the peak hour travel times. However, these people just might go to a local stadium. Win for FFA and Fox: Melbourne t.v timeslot. Fish where the fish are, backed by investors with money and previous experience in the competition (Gerry Ryan). Really, it's a great bid. Will they be crowd pullers interstate? Unlikely Will they command top tier tv ratings? Also unlikely. Of course this shouldnt matter but since everything is about metrics these things fo go into consideration. Adelaide united v dandenong doesnt exactly wet the appetite. I'd more likely do a weekend or holiday away down mornington peninsula with the missus/family and attend a AUFC v dandenong match than a trip to Melbourne with or without the family to see either of the current Melbourne clubs. Here here, see there's plenty of people in the rest of the country that realise Melbourne is an overblown shithole worth staying away from but that the rest of Victoria is pretty great.
|
|
|
|
|
southmelb
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xRemember last week when I said this was a strong bid? It has EVERYTHING! The stadium in this location, with the land gifted by the Council is a GAME Changer. It's a win-win-win. Win for football with: more local derbies for Victory and City, in the heartland of Melbourne's football community (more local clubs and registered players than any other LGA), demographics that are likely to support football (high immigrant population from countries with strong football traditions), great location for opposition supporters with train/bus access and freeway access, most Victory/City supporters are probably less than an hour travel from the stadium. The team should be well supported. Win for South East Melbourne: This area is one of the fastest growing areas in the nation. All 3 local Councils want to "bring Melbourne to the south east" not have to go to Melbourne CBD. The Monash freeway is a nightmare. It takes anywhere from 1.5 to nearly 2 hours to drive to and from the CBD on the Monash carpark in peak hour to the biggest. It takes about 35-45 minutes going on the Monash when you're going 'the other way' in peak hour. There are people out here who are 'fatigued' from driving the Monash every day who will not go to the city to attend football matches or other events, even though they are not on at the peak hour travel times. However, these people just might go to a local stadium. Win for FFA and Fox: Melbourne t.v timeslot. Fish where the fish are, backed by investors with money and previous experience in the competition (Gerry Ryan). Really, it's a great bid. Will they be crowd pullers interstate? Unlikely Will they command top tier tv ratings? Also unlikely. Of course this shouldnt matter but since everything is about metrics these things fo go into consideration. Adelaide united v dandenong doesnt exactly wet the appetite. I'd more likely do a weekend or holiday away down mornington peninsula with the missus/family and attend a AUFC v dandenong match than a trip to Melbourne with or without the family to see either of the current Melbourne clubs. Here here, see there's plenty of people in the rest of the country that realise Melbourne is an overblown shithole worth staying away from but that the rest of Victoria is pretty great. 1) this is part of Melbourne 2)nobody willingly goes to Dandenong.
|
|
|
|
|
Savic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 975,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xRemember last week when I said this was a strong bid? It has EVERYTHING! The stadium in this location, with the land gifted by the Council is a GAME Changer. It's a win-win-win. Win for football with: more local derbies for Victory and City, in the heartland of Melbourne's football community (more local clubs and registered players than any other LGA), demographics that are likely to support football (high immigrant population from countries with strong football traditions), great location for opposition supporters with train/bus access and freeway access, most Victory/City supporters are probably less than an hour travel from the stadium. The team should be well supported. Win for South East Melbourne: This area is one of the fastest growing areas in the nation. All 3 local Councils want to "bring Melbourne to the south east" not have to go to Melbourne CBD. The Monash freeway is a nightmare. It takes anywhere from 1.5 to nearly 2 hours to drive to and from the CBD on the Monash carpark in peak hour to the biggest. It takes about 35-45 minutes going on the Monash when you're going 'the other way' in peak hour. There are people out here who are 'fatigued' from driving the Monash every day who will not go to the city to attend football matches or other events, even though they are not on at the peak hour travel times. However, these people just might go to a local stadium. Win for FFA and Fox: Melbourne t.v timeslot. Fish where the fish are, backed by investors with money and previous experience in the competition (Gerry Ryan). Really, it's a great bid. Will they be crowd pullers interstate? Unlikely Will they command top tier tv ratings? Also unlikely. Of course this shouldnt matter but since everything is about metrics these things fo go into consideration. Adelaide united v dandenong doesnt exactly wet the appetite. I'd more likely do a weekend or holiday away down mornington peninsula with the missus/family and attend a AUFC v dandenong match than a trip to Melbourne with or without the family to see either of the current Melbourne clubs. Here here, see there's plenty of people in the rest of the country that realise Melbourne is an overblown shithole worth staying away from but that the rest of Victoria is pretty great. 1) this is part of Melbourne 2)nobody willingly goes to Dandenong. Yes you just sit tight in the inner city where it's best. Already far too many Melbournians looking to get out of Melbourne on the weekends as it is. Yes it's true Melbourne really is the best place in the whole world, haha..
|
|
|
|
|
aufc_ole
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xRemember last week when I said this was a strong bid? It has EVERYTHING! The stadium in this location, with the land gifted by the Council is a GAME Changer. It's a win-win-win. Win for football with: more local derbies for Victory and City, in the heartland of Melbourne's football community (more local clubs and registered players than any other LGA), demographics that are likely to support football (high immigrant population from countries with strong football traditions), great location for opposition supporters with train/bus access and freeway access, most Victory/City supporters are probably less than an hour travel from the stadium. The team should be well supported. Win for South East Melbourne: This area is one of the fastest growing areas in the nation. All 3 local Councils want to "bring Melbourne to the south east" not have to go to Melbourne CBD. The Monash freeway is a nightmare. It takes anywhere from 1.5 to nearly 2 hours to drive to and from the CBD on the Monash carpark in peak hour to the biggest. It takes about 35-45 minutes going on the Monash when you're going 'the other way' in peak hour. There are people out here who are 'fatigued' from driving the Monash every day who will not go to the city to attend football matches or other events, even though they are not on at the peak hour travel times. However, these people just might go to a local stadium. Win for FFA and Fox: Melbourne t.v timeslot. Fish where the fish are, backed by investors with money and previous experience in the competition (Gerry Ryan). Really, it's a great bid. Is this still under the current broken operating model? Just asking for a friend..
|
|
|
|
|
Davo1985
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.6K,
Visits: 1
|
+xRemember last week when I said this was a strong bid? It has EVERYTHING! The stadium in this location, with the land gifted by the Council is a GAME Changer. It's a win-win-win. Win for football with: more local derbies for Victory and City, in the heartland of Melbourne's football community (more local clubs and registered players than any other LGA), demographics that are likely to support football (high immigrant population from countries with strong football traditions), great location for opposition supporters with train/bus access and freeway access, most Victory/City supporters are probably less than an hour travel from the stadium. The team should be well supported. Win for South East Melbourne: This area is one of the fastest growing areas in the nation. All 3 local Councils want to "bring Melbourne to the south east" not have to go to Melbourne CBD. The Monash freeway is a nightmare. It takes anywhere from 1.5 to nearly 2 hours to drive to and from the CBD on the Monash carpark in peak hour to the biggest. It takes about 35-45 minutes going on the Monash when you're going 'the other way' in peak hour. There are people out here who are 'fatigued' from driving the Monash every day who will not go to the city to attend football matches or other events, even though they are not on at the peak hour travel times. However, these people just might go to a local stadium. Win for FFA and Fox: Melbourne t.v timeslot. Fish where the fish are, backed by investors with money and previous experience in the competition (Gerry Ryan). Really, it's a great bid. yep best bid by country mile
|
|
|
|
|
southmelb
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.8K,
Visits: 0
|
I know this will be sold as the next wanderers but its important to keep expectations in check. Its more likely to be a mariners type club. If its viable and this is whats wanted good luck to them.
Its also noteworthy that you dont have 15 professional sporting clubs in melbourne playing in the cbd for no reason...this is going to need some serious local goodwill and people prepared to switch allegiances, because the rest of melbourne isnt going there to watch sport.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
Stadium site on Google street view. You can see Dandenong Station right behind it.
|
|
|
|
|
#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.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
marconi101
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
This bid, South Sydney, Wollongong, Brisbane City, South Melbourne and Campbelltown all making the right impression.
He was a man of specific quirks. He believed that all meals should be earned through physical effort. He also contended, zealously like a drunk with a political point, that the third dimension would not be possible if it werent for the existence of water.
|
|
|
|
|
chondro
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.3K,
Visits: 0
|
I'd like to see...
A League/W League/AY League program/WY League program
26 team (3 tier comp) 10-8-8
Qld (6)
Brisbane, Brisbane City, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Cairns, Townsville
Nsw (6)
Sydney, Sydney City, Western Sydney, Newcastle, Central Coast, Wollongong
Vic (6)
Melbourne, Melbourne City, Sth Melbourne, Dandenong, Geelong, Bendigo
Sa (3)
Adelaide, Adelaide city, West Adelaide
Wa (2)
Perth, Perth city
Tas (1)
Hobart
Act (1)
Canberra
Nt (1)
Darwin
|
|
|
|
|
rbs
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 439,
Visits: 0
|
+xNsw (6)Sydney, Sydney City, Western Sydney, Newcastle, Central Coast, Wollongong What the hell is "Sydney City" supposed to represent? If you are going to have 6 teams, it would probably be better to have something like: Sydney FC, WSW, either South-West Sydney or Nepean, Wollongong, Central Coast, Newcastle
|
|
|
|
|
Bocca
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Great location for a team and stadium imo. Derbies against Melbourne teams will be massive occasions. No new team introduced (except South Melbourne) is going to have any interstate rivalries. I personally think a small intimate stadium packed out with passionate fans every week is the best viewing on TV.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
All this bid process does is prolong the inevitable. Let's assume 2 bids get selected (or 3 if Wellington gets booted). Interest will go up for 2, 3, 4 or 5 years and then we'll be back to square one with the same repetition, top 6 (maybe top 8 to maintain interest) and no link to any sort of pyramid. It's fucked. I was an A-League fan for a long time, loved the finals on Friday and Saturday night which were great theatre, but this thing is dying a slow death.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
P&R will fix it 2.0
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAll this bid process does is prolong the inevitable. Let's assume 2 bids get selected (or 3 if Wellington gets booted). Interest will go up for 2, 3, 4 or 5 years and then we'll be back to square one with the same repetition, top 6 (maybe top 8 to maintain interest) and no link to any sort of pyramid. It's fucked. I was an A-League fan for a long time, loved the finals on Friday and Saturday night which were great theatre, but this thing is dying a slow death. Can I interest you in a Relegation Battle ? http://forum.insidesport.com.au/2496954/The-Practice-Relegation-Battle-Thread
|
|
|
|
|
bigpoppa
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Just letting you guys know I'm holding a press conference later...
I have a piece of land and would love to build a stadium on it, I just need the government to give me $170 million for it.
Hopefully they'll promise it to me as an election promise for an election that won't be won till after the two new franchises are announced.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
jas88
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.8K,
Visits: 0
|
reminds me of the old NSL: where if you had mates in high places things can get done
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
I love how much wank is on this thread. There is zero commitment with nothing but ifs and buts. Its also an election year so theres certainly no guarantee. As for people as a result of this speculative bid adding in darwin 5 sydneys and whatever. Get real. Seriously need to pull your heads in when we have grown by 2 teams in the last almost 13 years now and none of whom have their own stadium.
|
|
|
|
|
MarkfromCroydon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
I don't think you understand how big a deal it is for the team11 bid to have the local council gifting them the land and Gerry Ryan on board.
These moves have pretty much sealed the deal that this WILL be one of the bids that is accepted.
Already investors are trying to get on board.
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI don't think you understand how big a deal it is for the team11 bid to have the local council gifting them the land and Gerry Ryan on board.These moves have pretty much sealed the deal that this WILL be one of the bids that is accepted.Already investors are trying to get on board. Pretty much is not actually.
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI love how much wank is on this thread. There is zero commitment with nothing but ifs and buts. Its also an election year so theres certainly no guarantee. As for people as a result of this speculative bid adding in darwin 5 sydneys and whatever. Get real. Seriously need to pull your heads in when we have grown by 2 teams in the last almost 13 years now and none of whom have their own stadium. i think the idea is fairly serious. melbourne is fucked if it doesnt decentralise better. it's going to crack 5 million this year and is already struggling to cope. if you are going to pull new arrivals away from the city centre you need somewhere else for them to go that is actually liveable. they are going to have to spend billions to acquire property and increase road and public transport capacity - doing it away from the city centre is much more viable.
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI love how much wank is on this thread. There is zero commitment with nothing but ifs and buts. Its also an election year so theres certainly no guarantee. As for people as a result of this speculative bid adding in darwin 5 sydneys and whatever. Get real. Seriously need to pull your heads in when we have grown by 2 teams in the last almost 13 years now and none of whom have their own stadium. i think the idea is fairly serious. melbourne is fucked if it doesnt decentralise better. it's going to crack 5 million this year and is already struggling to cope. if you are going to pull new arrivals away from the city centre you need somewhere else for them to go that is actually liveable. they are going to have to spend billions to acquire property and increase road and public transport capacity - doing it away from the city centre is much more viable. I agree regarding decentralisation however this is not a great idea .The plan is based upon Casey Fields, a football oval.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI love how much wank is on this thread. There is zero commitment with nothing but ifs and buts. Its also an election year so theres certainly no guarantee. As for people as a result of this speculative bid adding in darwin 5 sydneys and whatever. Get real. Seriously need to pull your heads in when we have grown by 2 teams in the last almost 13 years now and none of whom have their own stadium. i think the idea is fairly serious. melbourne is fucked if it doesnt decentralise better. it's going to crack 5 million this year and is already struggling to cope. if you are going to pull new arrivals away from the city centre you need somewhere else for them to go that is actually liveable. they are going to have to spend billions to acquire property and increase road and public transport capacity - doing it away from the city centre is much more viable. I agree regarding decentralisation however this is not a great idea .The plan is based upon Casey Fields, a football oval. Its not at Casey Fields, its 100m from Dandenong station. Casey Fields is where their training grounds will be.
|
|
|
|
|
Barca4Life
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
This looks brilliant!
|
|
|
|
|
Barca4Life
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
12 teams is not enough, if the iron is white hot we need to move to 14 teams quickly.
2 in 2019/20 and 2 in the following season or after that.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Band aid solution to a gaping hole in the femoral artery.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+xBand aid solution to a gaping hole in the femoral artery. For which p/r is not the solution.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xBand aid solution to a gaping hole in the femoral artery. For which p/r is not the solution. Maybe, maybe not. But what about we start with a 2nd division and a promotion only system for the first X amount of years (promotion dependent on ducks in a row) and go from there?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xBand aid solution to a gaping hole in the femoral artery. For which p/r is not the solution. Maybe, maybe not. But what about we start with a 2nd division and a promotion only system for the first X amount of years (promotion dependent on ducks in a row) and go from there? 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.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xBand aid solution to a gaping hole in the femoral artery. For which p/r is not the solution. Maybe, maybe not. But what about we start with a 2nd division and a promotion only system for the first X amount of years (promotion dependent on ducks in a row) and go from there? 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xBand aid solution to a gaping hole in the femoral artery. For which p/r is not the solution. Maybe, maybe not. But what about we start with a 2nd division and a promotion only system for the first X amount of years (promotion dependent on ducks in a row) and go from there? 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. 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.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xBand aid solution to a gaping hole in the femoral artery. For which p/r is not the solution. Maybe, maybe not. But what about we start with a 2nd division and a promotion only system for the first X amount of years (promotion dependent on ducks in a row) and go from there? 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. 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 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.' 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xBand aid solution to a gaping hole in the femoral artery. For which p/r is not the solution. Maybe, maybe not. But what about we start with a 2nd division and a promotion only system for the first X amount of years (promotion dependent on ducks in a row) and go from there? 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. 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 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.' 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 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.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
P&R will fix it 2.0
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBand aid solution to a gaping hole in the femoral artery. For which p/r is not the solution. Maybe, maybe not. But what about we start with a 2nd division and a promotion only system for the first X amount of years (promotion dependent on ducks in a row) and go from there? 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. 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 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.' 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 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. 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
|
|
|
|
|
aufc_ole
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xBand aid solution to a gaping hole in the femoral artery. For which p/r is not the solution. 
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xBand aid solution to a gaping hole in the femoral artery. For which p/r is not the solution. Hmmm and a franchise without a stadium or fan base or anything is? Hmmmm
|
|
|
|
|
Angus
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Am I alone in wanting their name to stay as "Team 11" if they join the comp?
|
|
|
|
|
SEroos
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 111,
Visits: 0
|
+xAm I alone in wanting their name to stay as "Team 11" if they join the comp? yes
|
|
|
|
|
P&R will fix it 2.0
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAm I alone in wanting their name to stay as "Team 11" if they join the comp? "Team 14" would be more accurate, but hey, everyone's playing let's pretend
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAm I alone in wanting their name to stay as "Team 11" if they join the comp? There's Once Caldas in Colombia. Caldas is the name of the department (equivalent to a state), "once" means eleven in Spanish.
|
|
|
|
|
MarkfromCroydon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Don't forget, the local governments are also trying to get the 3rd airport (domestic) at Clyde, and that's also looking like it's getting some love from above by the state.
|
|
|
|
|
HeyItsRobbie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.5K,
Visits: 0
|
i dont really like the name team 11/14 what ever.
id just use the name Dandenong Rangers F.C.
|
|
|
|
|
southmelb
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Getting out of Melbourne? It is Melbourne lol, just a shit part of it.
I’ve just seen the bid presentation and all this talk of football heartland is pure tripe, the area never had an NSL team, never done anything of note. The heartland of football in Melbourne has always been central (south), the north (Heidelberg, Preston, Brunswick)and the west (knights, George cross), we had over half a dozen NSL teams in this city and none of them were from there.
If it gets up good luck to them, but don’t try tell people where the heartland of the game is in this city.
At least when the Wanderers talked themselves up the area had the history to back it up.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+xGetting out of Melbourne? It is Melbourne lol, just a shit part of it. I’ve just seen the bid presentation and all this talk of football heartland is pure tripe, the area never had an NSL team, never done anything of note. The heartland of football in Melbourne has always been central (south), the north (Heidelberg, Preston, Brunswick)and the west (knights, George cross), we had over half a dozen NSL teams in this city and none of them were from there. If it gets up good luck to them, but don’t try tell people where the heartland of the game is in this city. At least when the Wanderers talked themselves up the area had the history to back it up. Paul Wade, Vince Grella, Mark Bresciano, Steph Cately, Jackson Irvine, Bailey Wright, Scott McDonald, Ljubo Milisevic, Eugine Galekovic, Ajdin Hrustic and many more didn't appear from thin air, you know. The population is almost 1.5 million right now down there and growing fast, including higher representation of immigrant communities and young families, so perhaps the argument shouldn't be about where the heartland of football was, but rather where it is now, and where it will be in the future? Addendum after having to deal with Horto: I'm sure you understand that I'd like to see the ready-made South Melbourne get in as well, but that doesn't take away from the compelling points of this bid.
|
|
|
|
|
southmelb
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xGetting out of Melbourne? It is Melbourne lol, just a shit part of it. I’ve just seen the bid presentation and all this talk of football heartland is pure tripe, the area never had an NSL team, never done anything of note. The heartland of football in Melbourne has always been central (south), the north (Heidelberg, Preston, Brunswick)and the west (knights, George cross), we had over half a dozen NSL teams in this city and none of them were from there. If it gets up good luck to them, but don’t try tell people where the heartland of the game is in this city. At least when the Wanderers talked themselves up the area had the history to back it up. Paul Wade, Vince Grella, Mark Bresciano, Steph Cately, Jackson Irvine, Bailey Wright, Scott McDonald, Ljubo Milisevic, Eugine Galekovic, Ajdin Hrustic and many more didn't appear from thin air, you know. The population is almost 1.5 million right now down there and growing fast, including higher representation of immigrant communities and young families, so perhaps the argument shouldn't be about where the heartland of football was, but rather where it is now, and where it will be in the future? Addendum after having to deal with Horto: I'm sure you understand that I'd like to see the ready-made South Melbourne get in as well, but that doesn't take away from the compelling points of this bid. Throwing up 10 players that have come from that region has very little relevance, melbourne knights produced the same amount and most of them lived in 2-3 suburbs out west lol. However i do conceed that the bid fits the model of what the ffa tends to go for. Granted of those 1.5 mill a significant chunk of the south east is considered indian/chinese hotbeds who have very little interest in our game. Which is why the traditional football history was always concentrated in other areas which i memtioned before. Its not quite the wanderers clone they seem to be boasting about. Im actually not interested in the South bid, we have no business being in this version of the top flight, we would be out of place and any bid should be binned.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xGetting out of Melbourne? It is Melbourne lol, just a shit part of it. I’ve just seen the bid presentation and all this talk of football heartland is pure tripe, the area never had an NSL team, never done anything of note. The heartland of football in Melbourne has always been central (south), the north (Heidelberg, Preston, Brunswick)and the west (knights, George cross), we had over half a dozen NSL teams in this city and none of them were from there. If it gets up good luck to them, but don’t try tell people where the heartland of the game is in this city. At least when the Wanderers talked themselves up the area had the history to back it up. Paul Wade, Vince Grella, Mark Bresciano, Steph Cately, Jackson Irvine, Bailey Wright, Scott McDonald, Ljubo Milisevic, Eugine Galekovic, Ajdin Hrustic and many more didn't appear from thin air, you know. The population is almost 1.5 million right now down there and growing fast, including higher representation of immigrant communities and young families, so perhaps the argument shouldn't be about where the heartland of football was, but rather where it is now, and where it will be in the future? Addendum after having to deal with Horto: I'm sure you understand that I'd like to see the ready-made South Melbourne get in as well, but that doesn't take away from the compelling points of this bid. Throwing up 10 players that have come from that region has very little relevance, melbourne knights produced the same amount and most of them lived in 2-3 suburbs out west lol. However i do conceed that the bid fits the model of what the ffa tends to go for. Granted of those 1.5 mill a significant chunk of the south east is considered indian/chinese hotbeds who have very little interest in our game. Which is why the traditional football history was always concentrated in other areas which i memtioned before. Its not quite the wanderers clone they seem to be boasting about. Im actually not interested in the South bid, we have no business being in this version of the top flight, we would be out of place and any bid should be binned. 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?
|
|
|
|
|
Savic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 975,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xGetting out of Melbourne? It is Melbourne lol, just a shit part of it. I’ve just seen the bid presentation and all this talk of football heartland is pure tripe, the area never had an NSL team, never done anything of note. The heartland of football in Melbourne has always been central (south), the north (Heidelberg, Preston, Brunswick)and the west (knights, George cross), we had over half a dozen NSL teams in this city and none of them were from there. If it gets up good luck to them, but don’t try tell people where the heartland of the game is in this city. At least when the Wanderers talked themselves up the area had the history to back it up. Paul Wade, Vince Grella, Mark Bresciano, Steph Cately, Jackson Irvine, Bailey Wright, Scott McDonald, Ljubo Milisevic, Eugine Galekovic, Ajdin Hrustic and many more didn't appear from thin air, you know. The population is almost 1.5 million right now down there and growing fast, including higher representation of immigrant communities and young families, so perhaps the argument shouldn't be about where the heartland of football was, but rather where it is now, and where it will be in the future? Addendum after having to deal with Horto: I'm sure you understand that I'd like to see the ready-made South Melbourne get in as well, but that doesn't take away from the compelling points of this bid. Good post, agree with all that. It's about 2018 not 1977. And to stress, i want Souths and this bid in also. I've lived in or near to and have an understanding of both these areas. Both are particularly important to the future of the game.
|
|
|
|
|
Ben_RoarFan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 257,
Visits: 0
|
Could we not potentially combine the A-Leagues two most contentious issues; Expansion & Promotion/Relegation?
Commit to adding 2x new clubs every three years, and every three years, kill 2x clubs off?
IN Brisbane City, South Melbourne OUT Wellington Pheonix, Wanderers.
3yrs later..
IN Wollongong, Dandenong OUT Melbourne City, Sydney FC
|
|
|
|
|
southmelb
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.8K,
Visits: 0
|
This team will have the potential to draw numbers not too dissimilar to city, only in a smaller stadium which will be a bonus.
The big hurdle would be the first season, they won’t have a stadium, afc rules don’t allow 3 teams to play at the one venue so AAMI Park is out of the question...will be a bit of a pickle.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie pride
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
I’ve been a big advocate of this bid and it’s potential.
Ultimately this bid isn’t one that will average 15k crowds straight off the bat but it’s a generational investment.
Technically it’s the geographic ‘heartland’ of a sprawling Melbourne.
Clyde, Berwick, Cranbourne and the surrounding suburbs are absolutely booming and they are struggling to keep up with its infrastructure.
It wouldn’t take much for this side to average 8-10k a season. If they host 3 derbies a season against victory and city plus a few high drawing games against wsw and syd they only need like 6k against all the other sides to get a respectable average.
And then you remember City and Victory get a sugar hit from their home ties against them.
I really hope the state government play ball on this.
The potential economic benefits to Dandenong and Casey would outweigh the initial outlay over time.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 23K,
Visits: 0
|
Any bid that adds significant infrastructure to the game needs to be considered very seriously... The only blip in this plan is that it's not funded. Teams have struggled to come up with operating costs - let alone $170m worth of stadium costs.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAny bid that adds significant infrastructure to the game needs to be considered very seriously... The only blip in this plan is that it's not funded. Teams have struggled to come up with operating costs - let alone $170m worth of stadium costs. Which is a feather in South Melbourne's cap with Lakeside ready to go, but yeah if they can pull off getting that stadium built it would be a tangible addition to football in Australia as a whole. With so many marginal seats down there and the investment in the Skyrail infrastructure to Dandenong Station, it wouldn't be in the realm of fantasy to see both major parties matching their backing for this stadium ahead of the coming state election, and you can be sure that the bid's backers from the three Councils down there would be very aware of this.
|
|
|
|
|
SMFC and proud
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Don't think any government is stupid enough to spend $250 million+( cause that's what it will end up costing!!!) on a soccer stadium for essentially a private franchise that will be used around 15 times a year. People are fed up with money being wasted on this type of stuff. I think the government recently announced that it will be giving hundreds of millions to upgrade the AFL owned Etihad Stadium. Fucking ridiculous imo. Build and psyfor it yourself ffs. This type of money is better spent on what the community out there REALLY needs, schools, healthcare, transport etc etc. I'm not really seeing or hearing a massive community groundswell of support, anticipation etc for a team out in Dandenong either.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+xDon't think any government is stupid enough to spend $250 million+( cause that's what it will end up costing!!!) on a soccer stadium for essentially a private franchise that will be used around 15 times a year. People are fed up with money being wasted on this type of stuff. I think the government recently announced that it will be giving hundreds of millions to upgrade the AFL owned Etihad Stadium. Fucking ridiculous imo. Build and psyfor it yourself ffs. This type of money is better spent on what the community out there REALLY needs, schools, healthcare, transport etc etc. I'm not really seeing or hearing a massive community groundswell of support, anticipation etc for a team out in Dandenong either. $60 million for Lakeside is a-ok though?
|
|
|
|
|
southmelb
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xDon't think any government is stupid enough to spend $250 million+( cause that's what it will end up costing!!!) on a soccer stadium for essentially a private franchise that will be used around 15 times a year. People are fed up with money being wasted on this type of stuff. I think the government recently announced that it will be giving hundreds of millions to upgrade the AFL owned Etihad Stadium. Fucking ridiculous imo. Build and psyfor it yourself ffs. This type of money is better spent on what the community out there REALLY needs, schools, healthcare, transport etc etc. I'm not really seeing or hearing a massive community groundswell of support, anticipation etc for a team out in Dandenong either. $60 million for Lakeside is a-ok though? They had to find a home for athletics and the vis, lakeside doesnt get done without Eddie McGuire, it clearly had afl fingerprints on it.
|
|
|
|
|
SMFC and proud
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
When Bob Jane Stadium was originally built around 25 years ago South Melbourne matched dollar for dollar the government contribution to the project, around $5 million from memory. Before that we had a long term lease at Middle Park and were about to build a brand new social club there when the government took the land over the GP track. Lakeside wasn't exactly given to us. And the $60 million spent on it a few years ago was basically a series of Collingwood/Athletics/Olympic Park/Eddie Maguire side deals designed to give Collingwood FC the site of the old Olympic Park for their training centre. Funny how Maguire was on the board of Aths Australia at the time....Off course you're entitled to compensation when leases are broken and land is compulsory acquired. We have built up a certain amount of 'equity' at Lakeside with which is absolute prime Melbourne real estate. That's why we have a massive headstart on every other bid. We already own something tangible.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWe already own something tangible. Do you own it?
|
|
|
|
|
Angus
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xWe already own something tangible. Do you own it? 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.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xWe already own something tangible. Do you own it? 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Angus
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xWe already own something tangible. Do you own it? 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. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Aljay
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
I’m not from Melbourne, so I’ve got a couple of questions.
- this is a bit of a rough/ lower socioeconomic-economic part of Melbourne right? What’s a Sydney equivalent?
- Am I right in thinking there is zero AFL representation here? What’s the closest AFL team?
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI’m not from Melbourne, so I’ve got a couple of questions. - this is a bit of a rough/ lower socioeconomic-economic part of Melbourne right? What’s a Sydney equivalent? - Am I right in thinking there is zero AFL representation here? What’s the closest AFL team? Perhaps Paramatta. Melbourne is far more geographically central than Sydney, but the south-east spreads much further than any direction, and like Paramatta, Dandenong functions as something of a CBD for that area as that's where the infrastructure splits out for other areas, ie the Pakenham and Cranbourne train lines. There are more high rise buildings around Dandenong Station than anywhere else that far out from the Melbourne CBD, easily. Zero AFL teams are from there, the closest traditional home of an AFL team is St Kilda which is really only a few k's from the CBD, but their training and admin has since been relocated to Moorabbin which is about half way in that direction. AFL also famously experimented and failed with Waverly Park, but unlike the mooted Dandenong Stadium it was so far from any infrastructure and before the huge growth we've seen now that they pulled up stumps and demolished it and turned it into houses. To add salt to the AFL's wounds the developer must have been a football fan as all the streets are named after English football stadiums lol Essentially it's the centre of an area with almost 1.5 million people, many immigrant communities and young families, with no local representation in other football codes.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
The proposed stadium site by Dandenong Station from Google Maps 3D view: 
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Berisha inaugural marquee.
|
|
|
|
|
MarkfromCroydon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+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.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+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.
|
|
|
|
|
southmelb
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.8K,
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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: 8.3K,
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: 8.3K,
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: 8.3K,
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: 8.3K,
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: 8.3K,
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: 8.3K,
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.
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
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: 8.3K,
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.
|
|
|
|