Fourth option:-
 - add 2 teams next season.  Maintain a 27 round competition with each team playing the other twice and the top six then playing each other once more to decide the four knock out semi finalists.
- add another 2 teams the following season in a 26 round home and away season with a top 4 at the end.

But Nix bring in $300k of TV revenue from Sky Sports despite how the team preforms on the park. Also another Sydney team would bring in more money and sponsors then a Melb team, Just look at the mess that is City. 

What we all already knew and what was proven with the failure of Heart and the success of WSW is that any new team in a large city that already has a team must have a point of difference. There is more than one way to achieve this point of difference, and both South Melbourne with their history and identity and Team11 and Western Melbourne with their geography are valid answers to this question.

Yes all Melbourne AFL teams play centrally. We are not the AFL. We must find that point of difference with new teams when they are introduced regardless of whatever "plastic franchise" or fair dinkum pyramid system exists.

There was plenty of social difference between suburbs like Collingwood and Carlton when these teams formed their identities in the latter half of the 1800s, and even though the geography is no longer relevant with the growth of the city rendering most teams' home suburbs as gentrified inner-city postcodes the social and demographic identification absolutely is relevant, wherever their fans are based in Melbourne today.

The best question to ask is what those point of differences are now, and for the fastest growing big city in the developed world where will those differences be in 10, 25, 50 or 100 years?

Nomates, your logic around Sydney being a better option for expansion because you perceive City to be a ‘mess’ sounds messed up.

City and Victory are likely 2 of the strongest clubs off the park, both being very well connected to the business community. Business and sport are largely interwoven in Melbourne, given that they both know the mutually beneficial outcomes from a strong engrained sports culture.

As for expansion, Team 11 appear to have a strong investor group, with a pipeline of potential sponsorship likely to be quite good. They have a significant market out there to tap into, which if done right, would build the foundations for the sport to potentially dominate that area into the future. The value is significant, but the stadium will be key.

Which other team brings in TV revenue from Sky Sports + Fox. Just adding to your point.

Hahaha

What an absolute dogs breakfast

How much do they bring in for Fox?

@ nomates

It’s now fairly simple - we’re in a dogfight for media money. $300k from NZ is worth only 12,000 Kayo subscribers @$25/month or half that if it’s a $50/month mobile contract it’s half that.

The only thing that can save NZ is expansion in NZ but that isn’t happening

I thought Fox pays for it much like they pay for all the A-league clubs. Wellington also gets a dividend from fox.

@RBB

The Fox negotiations with Super rugby put a different value on matches involving

Australian v Australian sides
Australian v NZ sides
Nz v NZ sides

And it’s likely they did the same with football.

The FFA distribution may be equal but that doesn’t mean the value is equal.

RBBAnonymous,
This reminds me of the ship of fools.
But seriously,this isnt hard to workout and I doubt Fox havent considered it,as they specifically put cash up for 12 teams.
33games,starting in Sept is the easy solution.
3 midweek games gets it to 30weeks,which is reasonable.
27 games has always been too little,so it's nonsense to go into a panic for the sake of 6 more games.

If it goes to 14 teams ,then its 26 games plus maybe another 7 by chopping off the bottom 6 teams after round 26.The bottom 6 can playoff for something ,like three FFA Cup spots or go on holiday.

I don't really give a shit about Rugari's analysis. But the direct quote from Gallop is really worth looking at. It reads to me like softening up the stakeholders so a 14 team announcement isn't such a rude shock. I'd love it if that's what we're getting.

The point is this;
Do we as a sport want a Football Culture that is based on the Global Football Standard or based on a model based on the USA-MLS or the AUS-AFL-NRL?

“My opinion is that we are dealing with idiots“ ... pretty much this!

This is what Steven Lowy gave the game. A month after his own deadline for announcing the two expansion candidates his organisation still doesn’t know whether it’s planning for a 22, 27 or 33 game season .... or even if all the A league teams will compete in the ffa Cup post expansion.

The financial difference to clubs is huge, the cost difference between 11 home games and 16 could be well over $500,000 and the revenue difference more than $1.25m ... how can a business budget with such wild variations?

And how on earth had the bidders prepared “detailed financial forecasts” without knowing how many homes games they were having?

It’s totally messed up. It’s laughable only it is serious and this incompetence afflicts other areas of the game too. (The FFA need gutting and rebuilding to rid it of this ineptitude)

The challenges faced do give some credence to the 11 team/30 game option followed by a jump to 14 teams/26 games later.

But the sooner an independent A League arrives the better, and hopefully they go overseas and import a CEO with experience of running and working in a football competition.

Not sure how you can introduce a global standard here when having teams a few kms apart is considered a sin, under our model you wouldn’t be allowed to have Liverpool and Everton because they are too close lol.

Add to that, not knowing what the operating model will be and not knowing how much (or even if) they will be receiving any grant money. Detailed financials on the majority of these bids would be a work of complete fiction. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the bids actually had the balls (naivity) to indicate a profits forecast, when the reality is profits and sporting clubs are a rarity and typically run at a loss. My guess is when the FFA use the term "detailed financials" they are referring to how many zeros are being offered for the license fee. 

Yes and the sooner the FFA realise this, the better. If we have to wait another season to go from 10 to 14 teams, I think I can handle that.

the Geelong Patriots bid was a very good bid. but the bid team saw the writing on the wall in that they stood no chance of getting a licence because they were not based in either Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane. So they decided to team up with the City of Wyndham to create the best bid the HAL is ever likely to see. 

If the FFA does choose 4 bids, I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of those bids would gladly put their hands up to actually enter the comp the following season. Given the option some may prefer to have that extra time to set the club up properly and not have to rush.

I feel I acknowledged that point in saying that a point of difference for new teams being added is desirable regardless of whichever model is in place.

If we went full pyramid tomorrow we'd still need new teams formed with new investment reaching new audiences to make the most of it, in addition to the fine job current NPL teams are doing.

If they went to 14 clubs which 4 clubs would come in?

Canberra would be in I think but which of Melbourne or Sydney would get 2 clubs in?

I think they would have to pick 2 clubs for next season and then declare all bids valid for consideration for expansion by 2 clubs the following season.  That would bring Wollongong, Brisbane and Adelaide back into the mix.

No you wouldn't.

Not knowing who the new teams will be makes EVERYONE interested.  EVERY A2 club is now the new audience instantly and ongoing

No need for Wookies and Japanese language replica shirts

2 + 2 works for me - just a firm decision needs to be made is all.

WMG, SEX, T11 and the last one would be out of Canberra and SWS. But they both might get in as it could reopen the possibility of SWS buying the Nix licence. I think 2+2 is far more likely though.

Well if they boot Wellington, as they should, they really need 2 + 3 or 3 +2.

Tasmania would be the perfect Nix replacement if that is the path we take. IMO under the 2+ 2 model i would like to see Tasmania back into consideration. 

nah the 2+2 model would be chosen from the current 6 bidders. however, I am a big fan of an eventual Tassie team. big opportunity for footaball if we got into that market first. 

surely that possibility is gone for the foreseeable future

We have one of the longest off-seasons in the world as it is, if Australia is serious in being one of the strongest leagues in Asia then this attitude has to change.

I don't understand why some would consider a 22 game season like the old days or even go with a 26 game season.

Add 4 new teams in and extended the season to 30/32 games, plus FFA Cup and finals series.

Its time this attitude changes if Australia wants to be a serious player in this sport.

This trying to fit in the NRL/AFL space attitude holds us back too much in our progression

What @Barca4life said.

Too much BS floating around and we’ve been choking in it for ten years.

Let’s have a roadmap that gets us to a League with 34 regular season games. F’ck clean air and f’ck Fox complaining about the additional costs.