https://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/socceroos-greats-push-for-netflix-style-ffa-tv-streaming-service

this is brilliant.

the sooner they get rid of fox the better. fox and newscorp are cancers on anything they touch.

I'd only pay if they made sure they didn't stream semi professional clubs.

I'm happy to see my money supporting a fully professional league or supporting grass roots, but there's no way I'd spend a cent of my money on supporting semi professional clubs.

why?

This is just a weird mentality, let alone unhelpful. Do you boycott the FFA cup as well because there are scary semi pro teams in there?

If they get rid of Fox , who is going to pay the $67 million ? 

They said they want it with or without AL

Lol its pretty clear that even fox don't want to pay squat, let alone 67m. No point pretending they are the only option if they everyone is going to offer far less for the next deal. 

The GG business name, company name and website are owned by Craig Moore. 
itsourgame.com.au, a website that is "powered" by Football Supporters' Association (owned by Fair Play Publishing) owned by Bonita.
Both pop up around the same time.  You have two "independent groups" in conjunction with SBS agitating for a cut to the Fox deal. 
Throw in Optus' release of "traditional" Aus football related docos and hey presto.
Fox and Telstra dollars = evil.
Streaming/Optus = saviors of the game.

A move to Optus, or FFA producing their own content, may be a better outcome for all of football.  I don't know.   At the moment, there seems to be a whole stack of motherhood statements and very little (in the form of a business case) on how this strategy will deliver quantifiable value (and dollars) to Football. 

^ some interesting observations

I honestly see this as a broadcast deal “of last resort” - the time to do this would be on a peak of popularity not at a time when people are disillusioned. 

That seems like a fairly reasonable assessment.  Through in a couple more expansion teams (which means more content) and the numbers may nudge up a little. 

i signed up to this and never receive any communication. then voila, i received an email this week (which I didn’t bother to read).


I can't support this. $15m would be less that the 7 year deal they did after season 1. its a 74% drop. 

If they wanna negotiate a reduced deal with fox, i can accept a 20%-25% drop with new criteria that benefits the AL when it comes to things such as fixturing, opportunity to do separate/independent negotiations with FTA and acceptance of the IAL running the AL. 

Good summary of where it's likely to land.
But...at the figure of $30 mill, the production costs become important.
If the A-League wears them, then maximum cash flow drops to $25 mill (as an optimistic maximum), and that's spread across 12 clubs from next season (still, that's better than where it might have ended up).
This scenario also means the FFA is getting zero dollars, which is not realistic, and not desireable either.

I can see FFA testing the waters with a streaming service for a new second division and in the meantime strike a deal with Fox for the iHal.

The suggestion put forward is that every registration includes an additional fee that is used to pay to accomodate streaming.
I can see value in spending my money to support our national teams.
I can also see value in supporting our top tier professional league, as it is the representation of our sport in this country and the shop window for our young players and also I know the clubs are committed to football, not just chasing cash like semi-professional plastic NPL clubs. 
As a member of a real grassroots football club, I do not want to pay to support the elite semi professional social clubs with wealthy board members and their own income streams, when they don't even pay their players. Let them support themselves.

I mean, surely this one makes sense to you?

The Bonita thing is interesting in that she hasn't put her name visibly on the site - she probably feels she is still tarnished by the disgruntled ex-employee tag and won't be taken seriously but hiding  isn't a great look either.

If I remember under the independence agreement the FFA were guaranteed a cut of the tv deal so they’d get something from this, albeit less. Plus they’d still have the FFA Cup, Socceroos and Matilda’s friendlies to see on. 

I have no problem with people wanting to add their voice to the conversation. The more voices, the more chance we have of hearing from all sectors of the Football community.  I am concerned when individuals purport to represent a larger group and their communications read as if they were put together by the same copywriter/ad agency.  In that case, it makes me question the motivation behind some of the statements.  Is it what is best for Football, or is there another agenda at play? 

It would be no different if I found out that Robbie Slater or Mark Bosnich had registered a company called The Golden Socceroos and that Simon Hill was behind a site called TrueAussieFootballFans.  These groups both pop up at around the same time and issue similar comments saying that the true home for football was Fox.  Wouldn't it ring some alarm bells for you?  I know it would for me.

I just want the best media deal for Aus Football (ie the most dollars and the most reach) - I have no axe to grind with any particular broadcast platform or company and nor will I receive any monetary or other benefit  from whatever media model is chosen. Wherever it ends up, I will subscribe.  

Yeah I understand.
I just meant that it makes sense for one of the GG group to be who registered the name.

Considering that most NPL comp's in Australia already broadcast their own games either in full or highlights means it wouldn't be that much of a stretch.  

True, good points.

Except they now want to add $25 to the rego fees so they can put a FFA logo on the streaming site

That’s not how I read it. It was taking $25 of the existing fees

I read it that way too.  However, as most players don't pay $25 that gets to the FFA the $25 would have to come from state or club levies.  Shifting the cost down to the lower levels seems to be a theme in these proposals.  

Considering the current FFA junior fee is $14, an extra $11 will need to be found pls FFA would have to forgoe the $14 as well

I think they are saying the State Federations should fund it.

"Alternatively, state federations may wish to contribute to underwriting the establishment of FFA TV from their reserves."

TBH I like the idea, Except if I choose not to buy it I should still be able to access my Club away games with my club membership. That way you encourage people to either buy the subscription or by a membership. 

Perhaps FFA would own the rights so they can no longer broadcast. Meaning people not contributing $25 would pay more than that for the content.

Personally, i dont mind it. There are so many unengaged people who couldnt give two hoots about football playing on a weekend. Levering off them and allowing them access to the sport in their home could be a move in the right direction. Even if they dont use it, we would be making use of our large numbers. 

isnt the gg talking about scraping the state feds to cut wasted funds?  are they doing anything that couldnt be managed (even better?) by a single national body?