|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI thought Wollongong had serious money behind them with the WIN people I heard they only offered a $5 million licence fee for a HAL licence. at least $10 million less than what others were offering. Thats why they were eliminated from contention early. +xand cricket sits at the top despite what the AFL may think... the TV rights deal would suggest you are wrong. AFL = just over $2.5 billion over 6 years. cricket = just under $1.2 billion over 6 years. Just for the sake of comparison: NRL = $1.8 billion over 5 years Super Rugby = $285 million over 5 years (ends next year and rumoured to want $80 million per year). HAL = $346 million over 6 years. I'm not sure why the AFL gets so much when the NRL gets the most ratings
|
|
|
|
|
|
nomates
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI had a look at bigfooty there are a bit worried if we get the a league up and running again the codewars are back on 1)AFL 2)NRL 3)Cricket 4)ARU 5)HAL We are a long way off topping anyone. Until we actual have a better TV deal then any of the above then they can worry about football. Oh and having 18 teams. What is it with you and rugby.... Rugby in Australia is a tad above hockey status ... and cricket sits at the top despite what the AFL may think... $300mil spilt between 5 clubs over 5 years is/was superior to what HAL gets now. And Rugby's next TV deal will put a stamp on that HAL is below them.
Wellington Phoenix FC
|
|
|
|
|
Feed_The_Brox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI thought Wollongong had serious money behind them with the WIN people I heard they only offered a $5 million licence fee for a HAL licence. at least $10 million less than what others were offering. Thats why they were eliminated from contention early. +xand cricket sits at the top despite what the AFL may think... the TV rights deal would suggest you are wrong. AFL = just over $2.5 billion over 6 years. cricket = just under $1.2 billion over 6 years. Just for the sake of comparison: NRL = $1.8 billion over 5 years Super Rugby = $285 million over 5 years (ends next year and rumoured to want $80 million per year). HAL = $346 million over 6 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Derider
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI had a look at bigfooty there are a bit worried if we get the a league up and running again the codewars are back on 1)AFL 2)NRL 3)Cricket 4)ARU 5)HAL We are a long way off topping anyone. Until we actual have a better TV deal then any of the above then they can worry about football. Oh and having 18 teams. cricket sits at the top despite what the AFL may think... No way. AFL and NRL draw on consistently passionate diehard support that cricket can only dream of. Cricket is popular, but is most definitely third in Australia. It doesn't inspire anywhere near the same passions or receive the same level of coverage as the leading football codes.
|
|
|
|
|
Melbcityguy
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+xi know people bang on about it, but imo we will really start to pick up momentum once pro/rel is in play. that is what they are probably most afraid of. there is no pro sport in aus that could match connecting the sport from grass roots to professional like that. there is no pro sport where coming last means something and the games are highly entertaining. with a full pyramid - it means your local suburban club can aspire to reach the top. that enormity of that cannot be understated. to be fair we have the ffa cup as well which my local club could make
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
i know people bang on about it, but imo we will really start to pick up momentum once pro/rel is in play. that is what they are probably most afraid of. there is no pro sport in aus that could match connecting the sport from grass roots to professional like that. there is no pro sport where coming last means something and the games are highly entertaining. with a full pyramid - it means your local suburban club can aspire to reach the top. that enormity of that cannot be understated.
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI had a look at bigfooty there are a bit worried if we get the a league up and running again the codewars are back on 1)AFL 2)NRL 3)Cricket 4)ARU 5)HAL We are a long way off topping anyone. Until we actual have a better TV deal then any of the above then they can worry about football. Oh and having 18 teams. What is it with you and rugby.... Rugby in Australia is a tad above hockey status ... and cricket sits at the top despite what the AFL may think...
|
|
|
|
|
Melbcityguy
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI had a look at bigfooty there are a bit worried if we get the a league up and running again the codewars are back on 1)AFL 2)NRL 3)Cricket 4)ARU 5)HAL We are a long way off topping anyone. Until we actual have a better TV deal then any of the above then they can worry about football. Oh and having 18 teams. fair enough
|
|
|
|
|
RyanM
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xCanberra is the capital city and a very large town which should be able to support a pro football team. There's something irrevocably broken in our sporting culture when cities of 300-500,000 people are considered too small to host a football team. Wellington has about 450,000 people. Yeah, so does Newcastle with Central Coast even smaller, but in general, the powers that be are extremely hesitant to expand to any region with less than a million people. The FFA even plainly stated it at one point. I suppose they were stung by the Gold Coast and Townsville debacles. All the football codes in Australia are very metropolis-centric. Very little room for even relatively large 'regional' cities like Wollongong in modern pro sports. The metrics don't stack up, though I don't understand why. Surely any population centre of over 300,000 is more than large enough to have its own professional team in any sport. I mean, Wollongong is larger than Stoke and Bournemouth combined! Why is the system so broken that such big areas are ignored by pro sports in this country? It frustrates me. Wollongong has a nice stadium but no one wants to invest, then you have Tassie that has no stadium and people want to invest. Where do you take your chances? You would go with the money. And what a beautiful stadium it is. Possibly the only stadium with an ocean view in Australia. A beach stadium! That sea breeze really bites you in the arse during the winter night fixtures though. I'm pretty sure Wollongong has some people willing to invest, but there's no single white knight willing to commit. Gordon certainly doesn't want the hassle or the responsibility, and there's no one else around with the necessary funds. Which is a shame. I enjoyed following the Wolves in the NSL. It was a big deal for the city when they won their back to back championships at the turn of the millennium. They even packed out Win stadium for a few key games. Good times. I would love to see them in the a-league. Gosford...
|
|
|
|
|
Derider
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xCanberra is the capital city and a very large town which should be able to support a pro football team. There's something irrevocably broken in our sporting culture when cities of 300-500,000 people are considered too small to host a football team. Wellington has about 450,000 people. Yeah, so does Newcastle with Central Coast even smaller, but in general, the powers that be are extremely hesitant to expand to any region with less than a million people. The FFA even plainly stated it at one point. I suppose they were stung by the Gold Coast and Townsville debacles. All the football codes in Australia are very metropolis-centric. Very little room for even relatively large 'regional' cities like Wollongong in modern pro sports. The metrics don't stack up, though I don't understand why. Surely any population centre of over 300,000 is more than large enough to have its own professional team in any sport. I mean, Wollongong is larger than Stoke and Bournemouth combined! Why is the system so broken that such big areas are ignored by pro sports in this country? It frustrates me. Wollongong has a nice stadium but no one wants to invest, then you have Tassie that has no stadium and people want to invest. Where do you take your chances? You would go with the money. And what a beautiful stadium it is. Possibly the only stadium with an ocean view in Australia. A beach stadium! That sea breeze really bites you in the arse during the winter night fixtures though. I'm pretty sure Wollongong has some people willing to invest, but there's no single white knight willing to commit. Gordon certainly doesn't want the hassle or the responsibility, and there's no one else around with the necessary funds. Which is a shame. I enjoyed following the Wolves in the NSL. It was a big deal for the city when they won their back to back championships at the turn of the millennium. They even packed out Win stadium for a few key games. Good times. I would love to see them in the a-league.
|
|
|
|
nomates
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI had a look at bigfooty there are a bit worried if we get the a league up and running again the codewars are back on 1)AFL 2)NRL 3)Cricket 4)ARU 5)HAL We are a long way off topping anyone. Until we actual have a better TV deal then any of the above then they can worry about football. Oh and having 18 teams.
Wellington Phoenix FC
|
|
|
|
|
Melbcityguy
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
I had a look at bigfooty there are a bit worried if we get the a league up and running again the codewars are back on
|
|
|
|
nomates
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMy view is either nix out or double down. If nix stay then we gotta push for another NZ team. Nix and CCM will be wollowing near the bottom of the second tier in a short period of time. They are more likely to fold before that happens now that there's no administrative body to bail them out during the tough times. There will be absolutely no incentive to invest in those teams. Especially CCM, who look completely unviable under this model. In fact, regional teams are even less viable now than under the FFA. It's very difficult to see any regional team ever making any money for their owners. Newcastle Knights make money. The rugby league team? I was talking about football, which has nowhere near the level of entrenched mainstream cultural support as NRL. And even in NRL, a mid-sized city like Wollongong was ajudged not big enough to have a team of its own, so I'm not sure we should follow the NRL's regional model. It's basically the same as the FFA model, except the FFA will no longer be around to provide a lifeline to struggling clubs. The fear is that we will see the demise of all but a few top Sydney and Melbourne clubs, which will bring the viability of a pro league in Oz into question once again. Unless there really are all these magical benevolent investors waiting in the wings to plow serious money into the league. I suppose anything is possible, though I wouldn't be putting as much faith in the generosity of club owners as you guys seem to be. Your premise makes absolutely no sense....on the one hand you say the FFA will not be around to bail out a struggling club.....however where do you think the FFA got their funds from to bail out those clubs in the past ? They got them from all the money they got from the A-League clubs . Now those clubs themselves will now be getting that money instead of the FFA. The FFA probably also used Foxtel money . I can only assume this will be ongoing in the short term . So the FFA did not use money it generated to help anyone ...they simply gave back money the A-League had generated and they kept. I would also contend that now that clubs can control their own intellectual property they will be more inclined to invest money to keep their clubs going and also be more able to entice extra investors if needed. I see this whole thing making investment in this league far more attractive . It is common sense ...it is the same as in the normal business world .....already rich people do not invest in someone else's franchise ...they are used to running things themselves and keeping their profits (and/or losses) . It really doesn't matter where the money came from. The fact was that FFA was willing and able to subsidise multiple struggling teams that would have folded without assistance. I doubt the club owners will show such willingness to keep bailing out CCM or BR. This is the danger of unfettered capitalism. There has to be a welfare system or safety net. I just don't see one here, which could be dangerous if this sudden investment you guys anticipate doesn't eventuate. The league will not be attractive to investors unless it shows that it can be profitable. No one will want to buy in with such horrendously low viewing figures and declining attendances. They won't be able to count on the TV money for much longer either. You seem to believe that it was the evil FFA keeping money out of football and that now they're gone we'll magically be awash with funds, but that just sounds silly to me. Its just gonna be a learning curve for the new commission if a club goes belly up. That's why we need to avoid the Canberra's and Wollongong's. Except if there was no team in Wellington, Canberra or Wollongong the metrics for Canberra and probably Wollongong would be better than Wellingtons. Having a stable owner is irrelevant when they don't have a team. When they do, an owner could buy in providing even more stability than Wellington. u wot +1
Wellington Phoenix FC
|
|
|
|
|
A.Haak
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMy view is either nix out or double down. If nix stay then we gotta push for another NZ team. Nix and CCM will be wollowing near the bottom of the second tier in a short period of time. They are more likely to fold before that happens now that there's no administrative body to bail them out during the tough times. There will be absolutely no incentive to invest in those teams. Especially CCM, who look completely unviable under this model. In fact, regional teams are even less viable now than under the FFA. It's very difficult to see any regional team ever making any money for their owners. Newcastle Knights make money. The rugby league team? I was talking about football, which has nowhere near the level of entrenched mainstream cultural support as NRL. And even in NRL, a mid-sized city like Wollongong was ajudged not big enough to have a team of its own, so I'm not sure we should follow the NRL's regional model. It's basically the same as the FFA model, except the FFA will no longer be around to provide a lifeline to struggling clubs. The fear is that we will see the demise of all but a few top Sydney and Melbourne clubs, which will bring the viability of a pro league in Oz into question once again. Unless there really are all these magical benevolent investors waiting in the wings to plow serious money into the league. I suppose anything is possible, though I wouldn't be putting as much faith in the generosity of club owners as you guys seem to be. Your premise makes absolutely no sense....on the one hand you say the FFA will not be around to bail out a struggling club.....however where do you think the FFA got their funds from to bail out those clubs in the past ? They got them from all the money they got from the A-League clubs . Now those clubs themselves will now be getting that money instead of the FFA. The FFA probably also used Foxtel money . I can only assume this will be ongoing in the short term . So the FFA did not use money it generated to help anyone ...they simply gave back money the A-League had generated and they kept. I would also contend that now that clubs can control their own intellectual property they will be more inclined to invest money to keep their clubs going and also be more able to entice extra investors if needed. I see this whole thing making investment in this league far more attractive . It is common sense ...it is the same as in the normal business world .....already rich people do not invest in someone else's franchise ...they are used to running things themselves and keeping their profits (and/or losses) . It really doesn't matter where the money came from. The fact was that FFA was willing and able to subsidise multiple struggling teams that would have folded without assistance. I doubt the club owners will show such willingness to keep bailing out CCM or BR. This is the danger of unfettered capitalism. There has to be a welfare system or safety net. I just don't see one here, which could be dangerous if this sudden investment you guys anticipate doesn't eventuate. The league will not be attractive to investors unless it shows that it can be profitable. No one will want to buy in with such horrendously low viewing figures and declining attendances. They won't be able to count on the TV money for much longer either. You seem to believe that it was the evil FFA keeping money out of football and that now they're gone we'll magically be awash with funds, but that just sounds silly to me. Its just gonna be a learning curve for the new commission if a club goes belly up. That's why we need to avoid the Canberra's and Wollongong's. Except if there was no team in Wellington, Canberra or Wollongong the metrics for Canberra and probably Wollongong would be better than Wellingtons. Having a stable owner is irrelevant when they don't have a team. When they do, an owner could buy in providing even more stability than Wellington. u wot
|
|
|
|
|
T1m
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 135,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMy view is either nix out or double down. If nix stay then we gotta push for another NZ team. Nix and CCM will be wollowing near the bottom of the second tier in a short period of time. They are more likely to fold before that happens now that there's no administrative body to bail them out during the tough times. There will be absolutely no incentive to invest in those teams. Especially CCM, who look completely unviable under this model. In fact, regional teams are even less viable now than under the FFA. It's very difficult to see any regional team ever making any money for their owners. Newcastle Knights make money. The rugby league team? I was talking about football, which has nowhere near the level of entrenched mainstream cultural support as NRL. And even in NRL, a mid-sized city like Wollongong was ajudged not big enough to have a team of its own, so I'm not sure we should follow the NRL's regional model. It's basically the same as the FFA model, except the FFA will no longer be around to provide a lifeline to struggling clubs. The fear is that we will see the demise of all but a few top Sydney and Melbourne clubs, which will bring the viability of a pro league in Oz into question once again. Unless there really are all these magical benevolent investors waiting in the wings to plow serious money into the league. I suppose anything is possible, though I wouldn't be putting as much faith in the generosity of club owners as you guys seem to be. Your premise makes absolutely no sense....on the one hand you say the FFA will not be around to bail out a struggling club.....however where do you think the FFA got their funds from to bail out those clubs in the past ? They got them from all the money they got from the A-League clubs . Now those clubs themselves will now be getting that money instead of the FFA. The FFA probably also used Foxtel money . I can only assume this will be ongoing in the short term . So the FFA did not use money it generated to help anyone ...they simply gave back money the A-League had generated and they kept. I would also contend that now that clubs can control their own intellectual property they will be more inclined to invest money to keep their clubs going and also be more able to entice extra investors if needed. I see this whole thing making investment in this league far more attractive . It is common sense ...it is the same as in the normal business world .....already rich people do not invest in someone else's franchise ...they are used to running things themselves and keeping their profits (and/or losses) . It really doesn't matter where the money came from. The fact was that FFA was willing and able to subsidise multiple struggling teams that would have folded without assistance. I doubt the club owners will show such willingness to keep bailing out CCM or BR. This is the danger of unfettered capitalism. There has to be a welfare system or safety net. I just don't see one here, which could be dangerous if this sudden investment you guys anticipate doesn't eventuate. The league will not be attractive to investors unless it shows that it can be profitable. No one will want to buy in with such horrendously low viewing figures and declining attendances. They won't be able to count on the TV money for much longer either. You seem to believe that it was the evil FFA keeping money out of football and that now they're gone we'll magically be awash with funds, but that just sounds silly to me. Its just gonna be a learning curve for the new commission if a club goes belly up. That's why we need to avoid the Canberra's and Wollongong's. Except if there was no team in Wellington, Canberra or Wollongong the metrics for Canberra and probably Wollongong would be better than Wellingtons. Having a stable owner is irrelevant when they don't have a team. When they do, an owner could buy in providing even more stability than Wellington.
|
|
|
|
|
A.Haak
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xCanberra is the capital city and a very large town which should be able to support a pro football team. There's something irrevocably broken in our sporting culture when cities of 300-500,000 people are considered too small to host a football team. Wellington has about 450,000 people. Yeah, so does Newcastle with Central Coast even smaller, but in general, the powers that be are extremely hesitant to expand to any region with less than a million people. The FFA even plainly stated it at one point. I suppose they were stung by the Gold Coast and Townsville debacles. All the football codes in Australia are very metropolis-centric. Very little room for even relatively large 'regional' cities like Wollongong in modern pro sports. The metrics don't stack up, though I don't understand why. Surely any population centre of over 300,000 is more than large enough to have its own professional team in any sport. I mean, Wollongong is larger than Stoke and Bournemouth combined! Why is the system so broken that such big areas are ignored by pro sports in this country? It frustrates me. Easy - no one wants to invest in a team where the population base is so small because it means less people watching their games. I agree, though, there should be places in the league for bigger teams and smaller ones.
|
|
|
|
|
Derider
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMy view is either nix out or double down. If nix stay then we gotta push for another NZ team. Nix and CCM will be wollowing near the bottom of the second tier in a short period of time. They are more likely to fold before that happens now that there's no administrative body to bail them out during the tough times. There will be absolutely no incentive to invest in those teams. Especially CCM, who look completely unviable under this model. In fact, regional teams are even less viable now than under the FFA. It's very difficult to see any regional team ever making any money for their owners. Newcastle Knights make money. The rugby league team? I was talking about football, which has nowhere near the level of entrenched mainstream cultural support as NRL. And even in NRL, a mid-sized city like Wollongong was ajudged not big enough to have a team of its own, so I'm not sure we should follow the NRL's regional model. It's basically the same as the FFA model, except the FFA will no longer be around to provide a lifeline to struggling clubs. The fear is that we will see the demise of all but a few top Sydney and Melbourne clubs, which will bring the viability of a pro league in Oz into question once again. Unless there really are all these magical benevolent investors waiting in the wings to plow serious money into the league. I suppose anything is possible, though I wouldn't be putting as much faith in the generosity of club owners as you guys seem to be. Your premise makes absolutely no sense....on the one hand you say the FFA will not be around to bail out a struggling club.....however where do you think the FFA got their funds from to bail out those clubs in the past ? They got them from all the money they got from the A-League clubs . Now those clubs themselves will now be getting that money instead of the FFA. The FFA probably also used Foxtel money . I can only assume this will be ongoing in the short term . So the FFA did not use money it generated to help anyone ...they simply gave back money the A-League had generated and they kept. I would also contend that now that clubs can control their own intellectual property they will be more inclined to invest money to keep their clubs going and also be more able to entice extra investors if needed. I see this whole thing making investment in this league far more attractive . It is common sense ...it is the same as in the normal business world .....already rich people do not invest in someone else's franchise ...they are used to running things themselves and keeping their profits (and/or losses) . It really doesn't matter where the money came from. The fact was that FFA was willing and able to subsidise multiple struggling teams that would have folded without assistance. I doubt the club owners by themselves will show such willingness to keep bailing out CCM or BR. This is the danger of unfettered capitalism. There has to be a central welfare system or safety net to help the less fortunate in times of need. I just don't see one here, which could be dangerous if this sudden influx of investment you guys are anticipating doesn't eventuate. The league will not be attractive to investors unless it shows that it can be profitable. No one will want to buy in with such horrendously low viewing figures and declining attendances. Clubs won't be able to count on the TV money for much longer either, so I just don't where all this cash will come from. You seem to believe that it was the evil FFA keeping money out of football and that now they're gone we'll magically be awash with funds, but that just sounds silly to me. Given the number of new bids each time there is a licence to give out I think there will be no central fund and it will be Darwin in action. That would be a terrible look though. Multiple teams going belly up would make the league a joke. Certainly wouldn't encourage further investment. It would be similar to NSL in the years before its demise, when clubs were folding with alarming regularity. I just don't think Australian football can afford Darwin right now. But whatever. Clearly everyone is happy that we've wrested control from Lowy and handed the game on a platter to some other fatcat businessmen, who will surely do the right thing.
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
I thought Wollongong had serious money behind them with the WIN people
|
|
|
|
nomates
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xCanberra is the capital city and a very large town which should be able to support a pro football team. There's something irrevocably broken in our sporting culture when cities of 300-500,000 people are considered too small to host a football team. Wellington has about 450,000 people. Yeah, so does Newcastle with Central Coast even smaller, but in general, the powers that be are extremely hesitant to expand to any region with less than a million people. The FFA even plainly stated it at one point. I suppose they were stung by the Gold Coast and Townsville debacles. All the football codes in Australia are very metropolis-centric. Very little room for even relatively large 'regional' cities like Wollongong in modern pro sports. The metrics don't stack up, though I don't understand why. Surely any population centre of over 300,000 is more than large enough to have its own professional team in any sport. I mean, Wollongong is larger than Stoke and Bournemouth combined! Why is the system so broken that such big areas are ignored by pro sports in this country? It frustrates me. Wollongong has a nice stadium but no one wants to invest, then you have Tassie that has no stadium and people want to invest. Where do you take your chances? You would go with the money.
Wellington Phoenix FC
|
|
|
|
|
Derider
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xCanberra is the capital city and a very large town which should be able to support a pro football team. There's something irrevocably broken in our sporting culture when cities of 300-500,000 people are considered too small to host a football team. Wellington has about 450,000 people. Yeah, so does Newcastle with Central Coast even smaller, but in general, the powers that be are extremely hesitant to expand to any region with less than a million people. The FFA even plainly stated it at one point. I suppose they were stung by the Gold Coast and Townsville debacles. All the football codes in Australia are very metropolis-centric. Very little room for even relatively large 'regional' cities like Wollongong in modern pro sports. The metrics don't stack up, though I don't understand why. Surely any population centre of over 300,000 is more than large enough to have its own professional team in any sport. I mean, Wollongong is larger than Stoke and Bournemouth combined! Why is the system so broken that such big areas are ignored by pro sports in this country? It frustrates me.
|
|
|
|
|
superpom
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 164,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]My view is either nix out or double down. If nix stay then we gotta push for another NZ team. Nix and CCM will be wollowing near the bottom of the second tier in a short period of time. They are more likely to fold before that happens now that there's no administrative body to bail them out during the tough times. There will be absolutely no incentive to invest in those teams. Especially CCM, who look completely unviable under this model. In fact, regional teams are even less viable now than under the FFA. It's very difficult to see any regional team ever making any money for their owners. Newcastle Knights make money. The rugby league team? I was talking about football, which has nowhere near the level of entrenched mainstream cultural support as NRL. And even in NRL, a mid-sized city like Wollongong was ajudged not big enough to have a team of its own, so I'm not sure we should follow the NRL's regional model. It's basically the same as the FFA model, except the FFA will no longer be around to provide a lifeline to struggling clubs. The fear is that we will see the demise of all but a few top Sydney and Melbourne clubs, which will bring the viability of a pro league in Oz into question once again. Unless there really are all these magical benevolent investors waiting in the wings to plow serious money into the league. I suppose anything is possible, though I wouldn't be putting as much faith in the generosity of club owners as you guys seem to be. Your premise makes absolutely no sense....on the one hand you say the FFA will not be around to bail out a struggling club.....however where do you think the FFA got their funds from to bail out those clubs in the past ? They got them from all the money they got from the A-League clubs . Now those clubs themselves will now be getting that money instead of the FFA. The FFA probably also used Foxtel money . I can only assume this will be ongoing in the short term . So the FFA did not use money it generated to help anyone ...they simply gave back money the A-League had generated and they kept. I would also contend that now that clubs can control their own intellectual property they will be more inclined to invest money to keep their clubs going and also be more able to entice extra investors if needed. I see this whole thing making investment in this league far more attractive . It is common sense ...it is the same as in the normal business world .....already rich people do not invest in someone else's franchise ...they are used to running things themselves and keeping their profits (and/or losses) . It really doesn't matter where the money came from. The fact was that FFA was willing and able to subsidise multiple struggling teams that would have folded without assistance. I doubt the club owners by themselves will show such willingness to keep bailing out CCM or BR. This is the danger of unfettered capitalism. There has to be a central welfare system or safety net to help the less fortunate in times of need. I just don't see one here, which could be dangerous if this sudden influx of investment you guys are anticipating doesn't eventuate. Has CCM been bailed out at all, let alone multiple times, as this suggests?
|
|
|
|
|
WC1day
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMy view is either nix out or double down. If nix stay then we gotta push for another NZ team. Nix and CCM will be wollowing near the bottom of the second tier in a short period of time. They are more likely to fold before that happens now that there's no administrative body to bail them out during the tough times. There will be absolutely no incentive to invest in those teams. Especially CCM, who look completely unviable under this model. In fact, regional teams are even less viable now than under the FFA. It's very difficult to see any regional team ever making any money for their owners. Newcastle Knights make money. The rugby league team? I was talking about football, which has nowhere near the level of entrenched mainstream cultural support as NRL. And even in NRL, a mid-sized city like Wollongong was ajudged not big enough to have a team of its own, so I'm not sure we should follow the NRL's regional model. It's basically the same as the FFA model, except the FFA will no longer be around to provide a lifeline to struggling clubs. The fear is that we will see the demise of all but a few top Sydney and Melbourne clubs, which will bring the viability of a pro league in Oz into question once again. Unless there really are all these magical benevolent investors waiting in the wings to plow serious money into the league. I suppose anything is possible, though I wouldn't be putting as much faith in the generosity of club owners as you guys seem to be. Your premise makes absolutely no sense....on the one hand you say the FFA will not be around to bail out a struggling club.....however where do you think the FFA got their funds from to bail out those clubs in the past ? They got them from all the money they got from the A-League clubs . Now those clubs themselves will now be getting that money instead of the FFA. The FFA probably also used Foxtel money . I can only assume this will be ongoing in the short term . So the FFA did not use money it generated to help anyone ...they simply gave back money the A-League had generated and they kept. I would also contend that now that clubs can control their own intellectual property they will be more inclined to invest money to keep their clubs going and also be more able to entice extra investors if needed. I see this whole thing making investment in this league far more attractive . It is common sense ...it is the same as in the normal business world .....already rich people do not invest in someone else's franchise ...they are used to running things themselves and keeping their profits (and/or losses) . It really doesn't matter where the money came from. The fact was that FFA was willing and able to subsidise multiple struggling teams that would have folded without assistance. I doubt the club owners by themselves will show such willingness to keep bailing out CCM or BR. This is the danger of unfettered capitalism. There has to be a central welfare system or safety net to help the less fortunate in times of need. I just don't see one here, which could be dangerous if this sudden influx of investment you guys are anticipating doesn't eventuate. The league will not be attractive to investors unless it shows that it can be profitable. No one will want to buy in with such horrendously low viewing figures and declining attendances. Clubs won't be able to count on the TV money for much longer either, so I just don't where all this cash will come from. You seem to believe that it was the evil FFA keeping money out of football and that now they're gone we'll magically be awash with funds, but that just sounds silly to me. With 8 of the ten existing teams consistently losing money and many failed iterations of clubs behind us, I suggest we are going to find out quite quickly. In one way it makes sense to have a central sinking fund to manage the health and stability of clubs because under the broadcast agreement teams have to be in certain locations or no $$$. However, the alternate view is, if I have the financial discipline and business acumen to run a sustainable operation, why should I get less dollars each year to support other teams that don't. That "tension" will be interesting to watch play out. Personally, I would strap in because we are in for a bumpy ride. Given the number of new bids each time there is a licence to give out I think there will be no central fund and it will be Darwin in action.
|
|
|
|
|
Feed_The_Brox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIts just gonna be a learning curve for the new commission if a club goes belly up. That's why we need to avoid the Canberra's and Wollongong's. Canberra have big money backers behind them. they will be fine. Wollongong don't. They will be a basketcase (like CCM) if they were admitted now. They will need to prove themselves via the second division
|
|
|
|
|
doloras
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 92,
Visits: 0
|
+xCanberra is the capital city and a very large town which should be able to support a pro football team. There's something irrevocably broken in our sporting culture when cities of 300-500,000 people are considered too small to host a football team. Wellington has about 450,000 people.
|
|
|
|
|
Eldar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMy view is either nix out or double down. If nix stay then we gotta push for another NZ team. Nix and CCM will be wollowing near the bottom of the second tier in a short period of time. They are more likely to fold before that happens now that there's no administrative body to bail them out during the tough times. There will be absolutely no incentive to invest in those teams. Especially CCM, who look completely unviable under this model. In fact, regional teams are even less viable now than under the FFA. It's very difficult to see any regional team ever making any money for their owners. Newcastle Knights make money. The rugby league team? I was talking about football, which has nowhere near the level of entrenched mainstream cultural support as NRL. And even in NRL, a mid-sized city like Wollongong was ajudged not big enough to have a team of its own, so I'm not sure we should follow the NRL's regional model. It's basically the same as the FFA model, except the FFA will no longer be around to provide a lifeline to struggling clubs. The fear is that we will see the demise of all but a few top Sydney and Melbourne clubs, which will bring the viability of a pro league in Oz into question once again. Unless there really are all these magical benevolent investors waiting in the wings to plow serious money into the league. I suppose anything is possible, though I wouldn't be putting as much faith in the generosity of club owners as you guys seem to be. Your premise makes absolutely no sense....on the one hand you say the FFA will not be around to bail out a struggling club.....however where do you think the FFA got their funds from to bail out those clubs in the past ? They got them from all the money they got from the A-League clubs . Now those clubs themselves will now be getting that money instead of the FFA. The FFA probably also used Foxtel money . I can only assume this will be ongoing in the short term . So the FFA did not use money it generated to help anyone ...they simply gave back money the A-League had generated and they kept. I would also contend that now that clubs can control their own intellectual property they will be more inclined to invest money to keep their clubs going and also be more able to entice extra investors if needed. I see this whole thing making investment in this league far more attractive . It is common sense ...it is the same as in the normal business world .....already rich people do not invest in someone else's franchise ...they are used to running things themselves and keeping their profits (and/or losses) . It really doesn't matter where the money came from. The fact was that FFA was willing and able to subsidise multiple struggling teams that would have folded without assistance. I doubt the club owners by themselves will show such willingness to keep bailing out CCM or BR. This is the danger of unfettered capitalism. There has to be a central welfare system or safety net to help the less fortunate in times of need. I just don't see one here, which could be dangerous if this sudden influx of investment you guys are anticipating doesn't eventuate. The league will not be attractive to investors unless it shows that it can be profitable. No one will want to buy in with such horrendously low viewing figures and declining attendances. Clubs won't be able to count on the TV money for much longer either, so I just don't where all this cash will come from. You seem to believe that it was the evil FFA keeping money out of football and that now they're gone we'll magically be awash with funds, but that just sounds silly to me. This is one of the reasons that pro/rel is needed. If a club is playing above its level, with pro/rel it can fall back to a lower level with lower costs and try to grow from there instead of needing assistance to be propped up, taking on debt, in a level that is beyond their means at that time. You seem to think that investors will only come for a take of current TV revenue and it is that dependence on TV revenue that holds the league back. Investors will come for player development, partnerships, building brands gaining new markets etc and further down the track to be part of a quality football league with strong TV revenue.
Beaten by Eldar
|
|
|
|
|
Derider
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMy view is either nix out or double down. If nix stay then we gotta push for another NZ team. Nix and CCM will be wollowing near the bottom of the second tier in a short period of time. They are more likely to fold before that happens now that there's no administrative body to bail them out during the tough times. There will be absolutely no incentive to invest in those teams. Especially CCM, who look completely unviable under this model. In fact, regional teams are even less viable now than under the FFA. It's very difficult to see any regional team ever making any money for their owners. Newcastle Knights make money. The rugby league team? I was talking about football, which has nowhere near the level of entrenched mainstream cultural support as NRL. And even in NRL, a mid-sized city like Wollongong was ajudged not big enough to have a team of its own, so I'm not sure we should follow the NRL's regional model. It's basically the same as the FFA model, except the FFA will no longer be around to provide a lifeline to struggling clubs. The fear is that we will see the demise of all but a few top Sydney and Melbourne clubs, which will bring the viability of a pro league in Oz into question once again. Unless there really are all these magical benevolent investors waiting in the wings to plow serious money into the league. I suppose anything is possible, though I wouldn't be putting as much faith in the generosity of club owners as you guys seem to be. Your premise makes absolutely no sense....on the one hand you say the FFA will not be around to bail out a struggling club.....however where do you think the FFA got their funds from to bail out those clubs in the past ? They got them from all the money they got from the A-League clubs . Now those clubs themselves will now be getting that money instead of the FFA. The FFA probably also used Foxtel money . I can only assume this will be ongoing in the short term . So the FFA did not use money it generated to help anyone ...they simply gave back money the A-League had generated and they kept. I would also contend that now that clubs can control their own intellectual property they will be more inclined to invest money to keep their clubs going and also be more able to entice extra investors if needed. I see this whole thing making investment in this league far more attractive . It is common sense ...it is the same as in the normal business world .....already rich people do not invest in someone else's franchise ...they are used to running things themselves and keeping their profits (and/or losses) . It really doesn't matter where the money came from. The fact was that FFA was willing and able to subsidise multiple struggling teams that would have folded without assistance. I doubt the club owners will show such willingness to keep bailing out CCM or BR. This is the danger of unfettered capitalism. There has to be a welfare system or safety net. I just don't see one here, which could be dangerous if this sudden investment you guys anticipate doesn't eventuate. The league will not be attractive to investors unless it shows that it can be profitable. No one will want to buy in with such horrendously low viewing figures and declining attendances. They won't be able to count on the TV money for much longer either. You seem to believe that it was the evil FFA keeping money out of football and that now they're gone we'll magically be awash with funds, but that just sounds silly to me. Its just gonna be a learning curve for the new commission if a club goes belly up. That's why we need to avoid the Canberra's and Wollongong's. Yeah, I disagree completely. If Wollongong were brought in, I might actually start watching it. I completely lost interest once the initial novelty of the league wore off years ago. Now I need a local team to get behind. Canberra is the capital city and a very large town which should be able to support a pro football team. There's something irrevocably broken in our sporting culture when cities of 300-500,000 people are considered too small to host a football team.
|
|
|
|
nomates
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMy view is either nix out or double down. If nix stay then we gotta push for another NZ team. Nix and CCM will be wollowing near the bottom of the second tier in a short period of time. They are more likely to fold before that happens now that there's no administrative body to bail them out during the tough times. There will be absolutely no incentive to invest in those teams. Especially CCM, who look completely unviable under this model. In fact, regional teams are even less viable now than under the FFA. It's very difficult to see any regional team ever making any money for their owners. Newcastle Knights make money. The rugby league team? I was talking about football, which has nowhere near the level of entrenched mainstream cultural support as NRL. And even in NRL, a mid-sized city like Wollongong was ajudged not big enough to have a team of its own, so I'm not sure we should follow the NRL's regional model. It's basically the same as the FFA model, except the FFA will no longer be around to provide a lifeline to struggling clubs. The fear is that we will see the demise of all but a few top Sydney and Melbourne clubs, which will bring the viability of a pro league in Oz into question once again. Unless there really are all these magical benevolent investors waiting in the wings to plow serious money into the league. I suppose anything is possible, though I wouldn't be putting as much faith in the generosity of club owners as you guys seem to be. Your premise makes absolutely no sense....on the one hand you say the FFA will not be around to bail out a struggling club.....however where do you think the FFA got their funds from to bail out those clubs in the past ? They got them from all the money they got from the A-League clubs . Now those clubs themselves will now be getting that money instead of the FFA. The FFA probably also used Foxtel money . I can only assume this will be ongoing in the short term . So the FFA did not use money it generated to help anyone ...they simply gave back money the A-League had generated and they kept. I would also contend that now that clubs can control their own intellectual property they will be more inclined to invest money to keep their clubs going and also be more able to entice extra investors if needed. I see this whole thing making investment in this league far more attractive . It is common sense ...it is the same as in the normal business world .....already rich people do not invest in someone else's franchise ...they are used to running things themselves and keeping their profits (and/or losses) . It really doesn't matter where the money came from. The fact was that FFA was willing and able to subsidise multiple struggling teams that would have folded without assistance. I doubt the club owners will show such willingness to keep bailing out CCM or BR. This is the danger of unfettered capitalism. There has to be a welfare system or safety net. I just don't see one here, which could be dangerous if this sudden investment you guys anticipate doesn't eventuate. The league will not be attractive to investors unless it shows that it can be profitable. No one will want to buy in with such horrendously low viewing figures and declining attendances. They won't be able to count on the TV money for much longer either. You seem to believe that it was the evil FFA keeping money out of football and that now they're gone we'll magically be awash with funds, but that just sounds silly to me. Its just gonna be a learning curve for the new commission if a club goes belly up. That's why we need to avoid the Canberra's and Wollongong's.
Wellington Phoenix FC
|
|
|
|
|
Derider
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xMy view is either nix out or double down. If nix stay then we gotta push for another NZ team. Nix and CCM will be wollowing near the bottom of the second tier in a short period of time. They are more likely to fold before that happens now that there's no administrative body to bail them out during the tough times. There will be absolutely no incentive to invest in those teams. Especially CCM, who look completely unviable under this model. In fact, regional teams are even less viable now than under the FFA. It's very difficult to see any regional team ever making any money for their owners. Newcastle Knights make money. The rugby league team? I was talking about football, which has nowhere near the level of entrenched mainstream cultural support as NRL. And even in NRL, a mid-sized city like Wollongong was ajudged not big enough to have a team of its own, so I'm not sure we should follow the NRL's regional model. It's basically the same as the FFA model, except the FFA will no longer be around to provide a lifeline to struggling clubs. The fear is that we will see the demise of all but a few top Sydney and Melbourne clubs, which will bring the viability of a pro league in Oz into question once again. Unless there really are all these magical benevolent investors waiting in the wings to plow serious money into the league. I suppose anything is possible, though I wouldn't be putting as much faith in the generosity of club owners as you guys seem to be. Your premise makes absolutely no sense....on the one hand you say the FFA will not be around to bail out a struggling club.....however where do you think the FFA got their funds from to bail out those clubs in the past ? They got them from all the money they got from the A-League clubs . Now those clubs themselves will now be getting that money instead of the FFA. The FFA probably also used Foxtel money . I can only assume this will be ongoing in the short term . So the FFA did not use money it generated to help anyone ...they simply gave back money the A-League had generated and they kept. I would also contend that now that clubs can control their own intellectual property they will be more inclined to invest money to keep their clubs going and also be more able to entice extra investors if needed. I see this whole thing making investment in this league far more attractive . It is common sense ...it is the same as in the normal business world .....already rich people do not invest in someone else's franchise ...they are used to running things themselves and keeping their profits (and/or losses) . It really doesn't matter where the money came from. The fact was that FFA was willing and able to subsidise multiple struggling teams that would have folded without assistance. I doubt the club owners by themselves will show such willingness to keep bailing out CCM or BR. This is the danger of unfettered capitalism. There has to be a central welfare system or safety net to help the less fortunate in times of need. I just don't see one here, which could be dangerous if this sudden influx of investment you guys are anticipating doesn't eventuate. The league will not be attractive to investors unless it shows that it can be profitable. No one will want to buy in with such horrendously low viewing figures and declining attendances. Clubs won't be able to count on the TV money for much longer either, so I just don't where all this cash will come from. You seem to believe that it was the evil FFA keeping money out of football and that now they're gone we'll magically be awash with funds, but that just sounds silly to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Blew.2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 753,
Visits: 0
|
Clear Contact There
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xWhile some A-League owners, such as Melbourne City’s Abu Dhabi and Chinese-owned parent body City Football Group have considerable funds, others may not have the capacity to inject new funds into the league. That could see owners explore selling some of the league to private equity or a global sports management firm, a strategy believed to have been considered by the owners and FFA.
This is interesting - is this just having clubs have more owners? Like, rather than a single individual owning a club, more consortium's becoming involved? What else could possibly be sold? Yup. Nix owners want to sell 40% for example to spread the risk. The Nix owners don't want to sell 40%, previously they wanted to sell 40% but they don't anymore. Ok. We can still use it as an example though. Divestment isn’t a bad thing. More people in the game. It's probably the strongest aspect of our code - multiple hands providing cash is better than one. Look at how big and wealthy the Victory is because of it.
|
|
|
|