The article says "may not" not "won't.".  The money flowing into the FFA's coffers under that scenario would be $6m per year for 4 years (possibly 5 years if Fox pays from next season as originally indicated in the deal) from Fox + the licence fees of say $20m = $44m ($50m) but that presumes the successful bidders are in the markets that Fox has specified for the expansion uplift in the broadcast rights and those bidders can afford that level for the licence fee.

If the total of $44m ($50m) is reached then I would wonder what the excess over the initial and ongoing cost of expansion would be used for.

Lots of questions arise, e.g.:-

Does the CBA split of 30% apply to the expansion funds from Fox?  If so I would think the 30% x $6m would be fair to go as a distribution to the new clubs i.e. $900k each.

Would it be wise to allocate part of the licence fees to the reserve to cover the (un)likely event of a club needing "rescue" as has happened in the past?

Should a one off distribution to the existing clubs be made from the fees in recognition of their investment that has helped create the value of the league?

Would it be appropriate to use the fees to assist in the creation of a 2nd division or for some other purpose that advances football?

etc.

@ Gyfox

The $10m licensing fee goes to the clubs. Each will get a windfall of about $1.8m with the FFA getting an equivalent amount.

The way it was explained at Roars fan forum is any licence fee is, after costs etc, divided eleven ways (10 clubs plus FFA) and distributed. This is the way it should be - the competition belongs to the clubs, no one else.

Thanks for that explanation Waz.  My only and regular comment is that the competition belongs to football not the clubs.

@ GyFox

Yeah, I understand your sentiment - and let’s be honest that difference of opinion is the issue between the ffa and clubs right now.

The problem is the inequality in the argument which basically goes like this: when the competition makes money (through selling licences, tv revenues etc) then that profit belongs to “football”. However when the competition loses money (through the clubs losing money) then those losses belong to the club owners not “football”.

It’s not a sustainable position.

There will be of course be a middle ground but the ffa do not appear willing to find nd it and I’m not sure the clubs are all that interested either.

FFA said Expansion wouldn't pay

Fox have put their top value on it

Now there's more & more evidence appearing

So now FFA are expanding simply because a 10 team Closed League is dying

Forced to fiddle with the 10 team bit, instead of the Closed bit

Thanks Frank

I'm starting to think that this action is about responding to pressure to be seen to be doing something, but the financing of it is going to be so restrictive that we'll be lucky to end up with two bids who can finance the whole things themselves for the first five years PLUS pay a significant licensing fee.

At this stage, it looks like only the Chinese bid has a chance in hell of meeting the financing criteria, maybe South Melbourne (who might also have wealthy Chinese backing., and at least have a ground ready to go).

Finally, how can we bring in P&R if this is the thinking of both the FFA and the existing clubs, who clearly are all about protecting their own investments and minimising future losses.

Actually FFA said that expansion wouldn't pay with the current model.

True,

I guess then the Strikers haven't been shown the Super Dooper new model. 

I can't wait

My understanding was that the Jets license fee wasn't shared between the other franchisees - it all went to the franchisor, namely the FFA.  Pretty certain it went into the FFA's income figures that year, with no additional payments being made to other owners.

On top of that, any new expansion team will need instant success in relation to fans/crowds/merch/etc in order to alleviate the pressure from the lack of funding. On that basis any new club will need to be in a region that can mimic what WSW did and reach capacity at their stadium in only a couple of seasons. That's a massive ask, which i'm not sure any of the current bids will be able to achieve. Team 11 would be a good candidate if they already had a stadium. Southern Expansion has the money but doesn't have the support of the fans. SM checks a lot of boxes, but there are a lot of unknowns when it comes to their fanbase and ability to grow support. Wolves don't have that kind of money. It's unclear whether the locals would get behind the Brisbane City bid, maybe but maybe not it's high risk for the money. Geelong, Hobart and Canberra would be more of a slow burn rather than an instant success and are probably also light on funds. I reckon, demand for the Nix license is increasing every day. 

@ Benjamin

All I can tell you is what BRFC have said. Specifically in relation to the funds coming in for the two new clubs AAPFC appear to be expecting that distribution (that’s certainly what happened with Wanderers).

Again what this situation highlights is the lack of transparency with FFAs processes - we read in a newspaper article that the licence fee is $10m and new clubs will have to forgo the tv distribution money for four years. Is that correct, who knows?

Everything the ffa do is a PR clusterfuck. .

Absolutely.  Rules move daily.  It's a murky swamp when it should be a shiny swimming pool.

That's the first I've ever heard that the WSW (or any) license fee got shared around.

Part of Wanderers fee was shared with the clubs because the FFA had promised a split of the Roar sale but was unable to afford it at the time.  Wanderers was a catch up payment that the FFA copped a lot of stick for on this forum.

Well there you go.

FFA gave the clubs the surplus ( wonder how much it actually was after paying out Gorman etc) instead of repaying the Taxpayer money

Any government money provided to the FFA at the time was by way of grant, not as a loan, so there was no need to pay back taxpayer money.  The AFL would be broke if it had to pay back every cent it has ever got out of all levels of government, not even its $2.5 billion TV deal would be enough to pay that back

Yea, that would be the dream if Perry Park could be upgraded, maybe one day. 

It's the EOI stage. FFA aren't really required to release too much information now, nor the "bidders" required to offer much.

They set a reasonable bar at this stage designed to both attract bids and screen no hopers.

Something has either stuck out like dogs balls to Brisbane, or Brisbane just figured they're really not prepared as they thought.

Well i think the 10 million pay to play and talks of no tv money for the new sides would be very unattractive. 

Strikers bid has more sizzle than substance and locally it’s always been a case of them saying “wait until you see our bid” but no details were provided and we’ve seen more after they’ve withdrawn than when they were in the running.

It smacks of a staged managed bid with a pre-planned exit - they wanted to be seen to be in the running but knew they weren’t ready or serious about being in the A League in 17 months time.

The image of the stadium is something of a joke, it’s been knocked up on a PowerPoint slide or something - it’s not even an artists imoression of a concept.

For Perry Park to hosts major events it needs local government support which hasn’t been given, at least publicly. It needs financing which isn’t clear or public, planning permission would be needed with a hostile set of local residents that could face severe delays and the process hasn’t even started; and the local railway station would need significant safety upgrades to cope with large volumes of people (probably the easiest to do but they still need to persuade council to pay for it). Then there’s YMCAs approval, they have a major investment on the site with plans for expansion and sticking a major stadium development there would have significant impact. Then finally there’s question marks over who was providing the financial backing for this bid - it’s highly unlikely there’s two sets of investors for two local bids (this and City) so where was the money??

So yeah, bye Strikers - but you were never really serious were you.

The 10m and no TV money sounds like madness.

The current model for the HAL is broken and FFA have said that already.
In case people havent been following the news ,it's apparent the franchise model for many businesses is broken and no longer sustainable.Franchisees get locked into uncompetetive agreements ,where they are forced to do what the franchisor wants,including bearing input costs ,like purchase of goods from the franchise at above market rates ,paying unreasonable fees to the franchisor , being locked into ongoing costs and being limited to how amd where they can trade.
See RFG group media reports for example.

So the big question that noone in the media seems to be asking FFA is ......WTF?.How can you do this?.
FFA have said the current model is unsustainable .If this was a legitimate business ASIC would be asking some serious questions about how an unsustainable business can sell licences at massive prices,with no prospect of a breakeven,let alone a profit.
Imagine if FFA was a bank doing what they are trying to do.

Cameron, who tweeted that pic of the redeveloped Perry Park on the first page, is also claiming that the Strikers would've gone back to Brisbane United if they joined the A-League. Seems like a very strange idea since everyone in Brissie knows the Strikers.



http://footballtoday.news/features/brisbane-strikers-what-could-have-been

"those of us who have stuck with the Strikers since the NSL days are left asking the question – how do we maintain enthusiasm for a club that shows no enthusiasm?

Cameron may come to realise that  watching his club quickly go bust at the bottom of the HAL might drain the enthusiasm considerably quicker.

FFA won't be bailing them out

Strikers are doing the right thing and waiting to get promoted when they are ready.

“This is something Hollandia/Lions/Brisbane Roar has never been able to achieve since they saw off the Strikers’ bid to be an inaugural member of the A-League in 2004“

err, Strikers didn’t bid for the original licence because they couldn’t afford Uncle Franks $50k deposit lol ... only Lions has the deep pockets.

But this statement that Strikers would be able to unify the Brisbane football supporters is bollocks ... they won’t unify Lions supporters, or City, or Olympics - it’s utter garbage, it’s why the city is made for a derby and is made for pro/rel.

The sad fact is strikers as a club lack support themselves, they’re not even 25 years old themselves so they ain’t unifying anything in this city - if they’re not sure the handful of strikers supporters left should go and look at some of the vibrant clubs growing around them

It was designed by Cox Architecture, the same firm behind Melbourne's AAMI Park. Take your hand off it.

#WazFactChecker

@ Catfield

I guess it doesn’t matter now does it - Strikers had a unique bid approach in that they reveal details after they’ve withdrawn.

Redevelopment of Perry Park would have come at huge financial cost (who was going to pay for this?), the local residents have already stated they will object to its redevelopment (so how were strikers going to overcome that?), and then there’s other things like government backing for a stadium to be built (how would strikers get that when QRU are pushing Ballymore and others a boutique stadium south of the river).

It beggars belief strikers didn’t approach Roar and seek a partnership - two teams at PP and derbies at Suncorp maybe?

And as for the quality of those images? I don’t care who did them, they just look photoshopped (look at the stuff that’s coming out of the Melbourne bid which are way better).

The feeling was strikers weren’t running a serious A League bid, you’ll probably contest that and maybe they were, but from the outside looking in they didn’t look serious.

Hopefully they’ll be going for the Div 2 option if/when it comes up, although there’ll be some stiff competition on the park for that, Strikers facilities at PP should give them an advantage.

You're right, it doesn't matter any more and the Strikers deserve all the criticism coming their way. Including mine (see http://footballtoday.news/features/brisbane-strikers-what-could-have-been).

A few fact checks, though. Local residents have already stated they would object? When? Overcoming that would have been easier than you probably think - give them amenity all year round. This is addressed in the original bid document given to the FFA last year. 

Playing out of Perry Park was the point of difference to the Roar. Get the Roar there too and the point of difference disappears, as does the second Brisbane team. I do understand, however, that there was an approach to City, but that was way too late in the piece.

As I wrote in that article as well, the economic argument for Perry Park was/is stronger than Ballymore. The local economy - think Bowen Hills-RNA/Newstead-Teneriffe-the Valley/Breakfast Creek - would have been stimulated by the increased economic activity. It's a solid argument to make to all levels of government during a PPP process.

You're right to say that from the outside they didn't look serious. That has been a massive frustration to me for months, especially since I knew what their vision was and how good it could have been.

As for the quality of the images, that might have more to do with my iPhone than the plans themselves. I took photos of the Perry Park master plan. I'm sure the high-res digital versions would have lived up to your expectations.

@ Catfield.

All good. Strikers were my preference to be honest, I could see a lot of 40-something dads who saw Strikers at their glory days going back, meanwhile their kids try to stick to Roar.

Strikers v Roar has a rivalry too it, Roar “took” strikers licence and now they’re back ... Roar v Gladiators in a decaying rugby stadium ... meh.

So a shame. But Strikers have the Perry Park asset and there’ll be a second chance - I’m not convinced any QLD team will get in this time around, looking at the quality in Sydney and Melbourne that’s what I’d expect to get in now. So Strikers need to be ready for Team 13/14 in 5 years ...