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.

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

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)

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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. 

"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.

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."

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) 

a couple of interesting finance/accounting points were raised in the NLWG report, first is taxation impact of the split. There are various stamp duties and taxes that apply when businesses are transferred and the money for this would need to be found. Plus currently as a Not for Profit body, FFA does not pay any income tax. Suggest that a split out HAL would find it hard to say the same so it will have to pay tax.

Next is the IP issue. FFA owns all the HAL IP and this has a value and if a new league is created they cant just gift it for free as it would have an impact on the FFA books. So what do they do, sell it to the New League? But this has to be at a fair price otherwise FFA board would not be meeting its obligations and could be sued. 

Add the "apparent" $120M the HAL team owners say needs to be invested and you are talking about alot of money needing to be put up to split this baby out totally.

My tip, HAL will become a seperate division, with its own board and a level of independence, but will remain part of FFA

There doesn't need to be a CBA, we have extremely robust workplace relations laws in Australia and they should be applied. On top of that, the salary cap is unnecessary, all it does is create an artificial economy in the game. Squads should be comprised of what is affordable to the clubs, it should not be mandated. The market will determine the player's worth, at a minimum the standard minimum wage in Australia of $37,398.40. Remember as well that there are mandatory conditions that must also exist for an employee which cannot be removed without increasing the amount that is being paid to them, and that the contract must be ratified as putting the employee in no worse a position than the standard employment contract.

What's a fair price though? The FFA owns the branding but the clubs actually created it. The clubs engage with their fans, they hired designers to build their crests, they design their kit, etc. It all has to be approved by the FFA but the FFA didn't actually do anything.

welcome to franchising. Who does the work, McDonalds corporate or the guy who owns your local store? The local owner bought into the system and signed up to the contracts willingly so he cant complain afterwards it isnt fair that Macca's corporate makes him remodel his store for McCafe. Same goes for HAL team owners, no-one put a gun to their head

@AJF

Not quite. The Franchisees bought into the FIFA model, as FIFA have repeatedly said - that’s the only one that matters.

@Waz,if it was FIFA model, there'd have been P/R from the start. Also the HAL competition was sanctioned (approved) by both the AFC and FIFA so you cant say it doesnt comply with their requirements

Updates Rumours anyone.

Think your Federations will kill the A-League  

@AJF

There couldn’t be pro/rel from the start because there wasn’t a second division. The State leagues are considered amateur with a handful of semi-pro clubs so FIFA won’t insist on it.

Even when there is a second division it has to be stable and viable to receive a relegated club, the MLS has withstood pro/rel longer than we have despite the presence of a lower tier primarily due to it being unstable.

It’s not that hard. Pro/Rel requires a stable second division which we haven’t got.

Nothing preventing pro/rel from happening. Basically, every league has requirements on top of the football requirement in order to be promoted, and we can have the same here.

Get rid of the salary cap lads 

There is something preventing pro/rel from happening. 

The rest of the footballing world has two requirements not just the one you mentioned - there are requirements on the side coming up (that they are suitable for the division above and meet certain entry standards) and that the relegated side can be received by a suitable division below. 

Relegation from the HAL into the NPL does not meet that requirement - the gap is too large with a professional team being relegated into a largely amateur division below. 

A pyramid has a top, middle and bottom. At the moment we’ve only got the top and bottom in place. That’s why we need that national second division 

Without pro rel it is a tournament