you're looking at it the wrong way. a positive CBA could mean a siginificant raise in the cap. But if you wanna raise a negative, that is clearly the cap floor. that just needs to go (or be significantly dropped) 

Football Victoria posted an interesting read yesterday.
https://www.footballvictoria.com.au/sites/ffv/files/2019-04/MF%20Professional%20Leagues%20Principles.pdf

The Member Federations Professional Leagues Principles (to summarise and share the consolidated principles of the nine Member Federations), has some very interesting points in it, especially how much control they want the FFA to retain, also issues of IP and one that might be of interest to a lot of people here:
"Player Compensation and Transfer Fees. FFA shall revoke limit on player compensation and transfer fees, including between non-A-League clubs and A-League clubs, and replace with a fair and equitable player transfer and compensation system."

"continuation of existing collective bargaining agreements between FFA and the PFA" - are you !@#$ing kidding me? The CBA relating to the professional game needs to be put firmly in the bin before it bankrupts any more teams.

The golden share can get in the bin as well.

So the federations have control in what the A-League can and cant do with this independent thing?? How selfish is that? They get millions a year from hiked fees and now they want A-League money. Am I reading this right or did I miss something? And no Wellington? don't think that's gonna happen. 

Not sure if it's been posted yet but the NLWG complete report may be downloaded here: https://www.ffa.com.au/sites/ffa/files/2019-04/NLWG%20Recommendations%20Report_0.pdf

As the FFA do now   ( Is their that much detail in the public forum as to each detail of the NLWG report))

As I read the regulations these games are Tier 3 internationals that require approval from the FFA, AFC, FIFA and the MA of the visiting team and that FIFA, the AFC and the FFA can charge a levy for the game to go ahead.

Yeah, I took “matters to do with international matches” as touring sides, something the FFA should have no involvement in

Only nuvo new dawners thought this process was going to be simple.

Why does the APLCO want to be deciding whole the operation of the A-League  policy?
Won't the Internationals be the A-League v Premier clubs etc

Good post - shouldn't be structured where the FFA is required to step in and veto changes. The APLCO should be focused solely on operational matters - isn't that the whole purpose of the split? Why does the APLCO want to be deciding whole of football policy?

I'm a bit concerned with some of the items mentioned as subject to a golden share.  There are matters that are the responsibility of the FFA as required by FIFA so these shouldn't be included in a list where APLCO have a say with FFA having to use a veto to stop it.  They should be matters were APLCO can make a request with FFA having sole right to decide on the matter.  P/R is one of these as are matters to do with international matches in fact any matter that impinges on how the football ecosystem runs should not be a golden share issue.  APLCO should be an operational body not a football policy body.

I like the APLCO setup. Basically where things should end up with a separate league and FA

So coming from the recommendations of the report the extension is being put to 30 June for all of the agreements to be put in place, so it means if goes ahead (i doubt it at this stage) then 1st of July will be the first day of the new Independent A-League era.

The issue with the state feds 
The value of the IPs
Whether the Nix still should belong in the A-league
And FFA's share for the distribution.

Sounds so simple but nothing is ever simple with Aus football.

A-League changes on hold for another three months
Changes to the A-League held-up by state member federations, with another 90 days to sort out the future of the professional game
02 April 2019 | Bonita Mersiades
Writer, editor, publisher

The New Leagues Working Group (NLWG) had a bit of a haulage problem yesterday, coincidentally (perhaps) April Fools’ Day.

Their so-called confidential ‘recommendations report’ seems to have fallen off a whole lot of trucks.

Ploughing through the first five pages, one is first greeted with Chairman Judith Griggs’ flowery language praising all concerned – check out the men preening as they read her words – in getting the report done, but noting the “complexity” of the “mandate within such a short timeframe”. A timeframe, by the way, that was set by another working group which she chaired.

The next few pages are taken up with a whole lot of “pursuants”, related to the Constitutional changes in October – yes, almost six months ago – before we get to the nub of the ‘recommendations report’ which notes that quite a few of the ‘come to Jesus’ type issues were not actually settled by the 31 March deadline. Nonetheless, the process was all very pleasant because everyone “shared considerable” information. Allelulia and Praise the Lord.

However, when push comes to shove, it’s all “a work in progress”, with Griggs suggesting that everyone continues to “share information and modeling and finalise the priorities, sensitivities, sources and quantum of funding/investment required going forward”.

It takes several pages of reading a series of principles - some stakeholders call them 'core', others 'guiding', others merely number them - before we get to Griggs' 14 recommendations, the first of which is to buy time and set a new timeline of 30 June 2019 for all of this to be settled, including changes to the FFA Constitution - all couched in language of keeping the “momentum” going.

The other recommendations concern:

procedural issues around taking account of a special resolution related to a new A-League company;
a FFA Constitutional review - yes, another one;
continuing “to share” financial information;
an analysis of FFA owned or controlled assets before binding agreements are made;
a third party valuation be given of these assets (presumably not by PwC in light of a NLWG and FFA Board member's day job);
specialist advice be sought on taxation implications;
the need for “proactive consultation” with FOX Sports Australia;the need for “proactive consultation” with long term FFA partners, especially where sponsorship inventory is bundled into more than one property;
further time and analysis needed on the extent to which media and sponsorship rights should be bundled in the future; the strategy and steps required to make the W-League “the premier women’s league in the world”, the role and structure of the NYL in football development, and how best to meet the often competing demands and priorities of national team activities;
ongoing stakeholder involvement in the A-League with the state member federations and the Women's Council;
consultation with other stakeholders such as AAFC, FCA, FSA, PFRA and the national second division working group; and continuation of existing collective bargaining agreements between FFA and the PFA.

Considering all of those involved in the NLWG - except perhaps the Women's Council - knew all of this was coming for some time, it could be considered optimistic that the report now sets a new timeline, to the point of conclusion of changes to the FFA Constitution, of another 90 days.

The biggest roadblock is, of course, Australian football's great anachronism - the state member federations, who now consider themselves the custodians of the game and who - true to form - are in no rush to come to an agreement.

The state member federations were lead in the saddlebag of the NLWG from the outset as the relevant Constitutional change last year specifically required their agreement to get these changes through the FFA Congress. In effect that means, for example, that it only takes one of the state member federations which doesn't currently have an existing A-League club (Tasmania, the ACT and the NT) can hold the development of the professional game to ransom.

But wait, there's more

The detail is in the attachment setting out the arrangements for the new Australian Professional League Company (APLCO) in which all existing and new A-League clubs will be a shareholder with FFA to hold a 'golden share'.

The 'golden share' is generous. It gives FFA a right of veto over 21 specific matters including changes to the structure of APLCO itself, the criteria for promotion and relegation, the definition of distribution of Leagues revenue, relocation of clubs, and rules concerns international matches and foreign and visa players.

On this basis, it's hard to see what the FFA or the state member federations could object to.

In return, APLCO requires FFA to grant a license over matters such as logos, domain names, websites and other properties associated with the Leagues, and to transfer IP to each respective club. APLCO requires the commercial rights that are relevant to its operations, with FFA to retain what is left which, by the way, is or should be considerable.

In addition, APLCO will pay FFA an annual license fee, as well as percentage of international transfer fees, any future sale of clubs and any future new clubs. FFA and state member federation VIPs will still be able to roam around the VIP enclaves at important A-League matches as they are guaranteed benefits to all games.

Those who drafted the APLCO agreement were also clearly optimistic. The timeline shows that agreement would be reached by 31 March, with the FFA Board to consider and, hoepfully, endorse the recommendations this month.

Instead, we have Grigg's new timeline of 30 June which will take the issue down to the wire.

If agreement is not in place by the end of the financial year, it leaves little time for new structural arrangements and commercial agreements to be in place in time for the 2019-20 A-League season which is likely to kick-off around 11 October.

And that means we'll be left with another potential moribund A-League season which continues to bleed viewers and attendees, a point that FOX Sports makes in its submission to the NLWG that Griggs refers to as “sober reading”.

https://footballtoday.news/features/a-league-changes-on-hold-for-another-three-months

If that's the case, I think it will be done.  The Feds aren't in a hurry and have raised a few points they want fixed before an independent league.  I think you will see the clubs give in on at least 2 of the following 3 points.

No New Zealand
Bigger say (and % for FFA)
Higher IP price for the Feds

Which 2 is anybody's guess (personally I hope they boot NZ and bring in another local team)

i read somewhere the deadline is now June 30 if its to be up and running for next season. 

The "source" raises a couple of legitimate points that do need resolution.  If it takes a 6 months longer of horse trading to resolve these issues to the satisfaction of all stake holders, then so be it.

The solution starts with working out what basic structure(s) comply with the definition in the FIFA Statutes:-

1. 3  League: an organisation that is subordinate to an association.

Normalisation was what we needed. Instead we’re playing snakes and ladders on a board with way more snakes than ladders

That article makes for depressing reading.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Someone needs to come in and shit can the whole lot of it (the federations, the A-league, the FFA) and start from scratch.  Too many vested interests.

They need an independent panel now more than ever.

More slaps in the face than The Three Stooges...

A-League clubs frustrated over opposition to league independence plans

The chances of an independent A-League kicking off by the start of next season appear to be lengthening as argument and major philosophical differences expose the cracks between the game's major stakeholders.

The state federations – the bodies representing soccer's grass roots and second tier competitions Australia wide – have thrown what one insider described as a ''hand grenade'' at the A-League clubs over their plans to take control of the game's elite competition, leading to frustration within the clubs, who want to begin the process as soon as possible

The New League Working Party group received submissions from all the groups involved in the game at the weekend, and there was far from unanimous agreement on how an independent A-League could look – even whether it should be independent at all.

''There are a lot of things that the state federations have questions about relating not just to the A-League but whether the way it might be separated off would be for the good of the whole game,'' said one source familiar with the discussions.

''There is the timeframe of the creation of a national second division, the fact that the state federations see promotion and relegation as part of that discussion, and the whole issue of expansion itself and who decides who gets into the league,'' the source said.

''Who is to say that the clubs, acting independently, will run the game any better than the FFA? There are a lot of issues to be resolved. We should also be asking if there are any other models for running the league that could be examined before we go down this direction.''

It is also understood that the state federations have reservations about Wellington Phoenix's continued presence in the league: the New Zealanders have the right to be in the A-League until the end of next season, but no longer.

The A-League clubs have responded positively to the Kiwis' interest in remaining as part of the top-tier Australian competition in the future.

Advertisement

But the state federations have asked why a New Zealand club, and the NZ game, is benefiting to the tune of several million dollars a year in dividends from the TV broadcast revenue when that money might be better spent underwriting another Australian franchise or underpinning further investment in the broader Australian game.

The issue of payment for the intellectual property of the club's brand names and logos is also a major sticking point. The clubs are reluctant to put a high value on the properties (now owned by the FFA) arguing that they are essentially already own them and that the hundreds of millions of dollars they have collectively spent on establishing their businesses is recompense enough.

There is broad agreement that the A-League would be better off moving away from the overall control of the FFA, but the arguments over how that might best be managed again illustrate the divides between the sectoral interests within the game.

All parties were able to unite behind the idea of an independent A-League over the past couple of years as the major battering ram they used to oust Steven Lowy, who opposed the idea, from the chairmanship of the FFA.

Advertisement

Having wiped away the old leadership, the groups are finding that the old arguments over how best to run the game remain.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/a-league-clubs-frustrated-over-opposition-to-league-independence-plans-20190401-p519nd.html

GATT:

“BREAKING: Have obtained copy of draft New Leagues Working Group recommendations report. Complex, detailed report. 70 pages. 15 recommendations. Plus 18 recommendations from AL clubs. story on line asap”

On Twitter.

Just the finer details (Big $$$ Grab) to sort out - Then the Federations get to vote on it

Don't forget they want a royalty every year as well

I've always been of the opinion that 15% is a fair percentage - and it seems a fair compromise between the two parties opening bids.

I think it should be slightly less. The FFA need an incentive to create a second division. If they don’t get all they need from the HAL, then they need to work harder elsewhere.

playing devils advocate, but what if the FFA get the 18.5% they want? could this reduce player rego's? I'm not on either side, but clearly people favour the position of the clubs due to their lack of trust with the FFA. and thats understandable. but what if this time the FFA are right? 18.5% of the TV rights deal equates to the $7-$8 million you're talking about. 

The question is what is the operational costs of the FFA on its own? Can make a call on what the % from those numbers.