Bloody hell. I go away for 5 nights and come back to a whole heap of new P&R threads as well as this old beauty being bumped. I honestly don't know why I expected differently.

Do you know more than one word/sentence? Go back to the weshtern shuburbsh dickhead.

Stick ya P/R up ya a$$, NSL never had it and no one complained period. So why in hell would we need/want it in the A-League?. We got the FFA cup if a NPL side wants to show off.

Stick ya P/R up ya a$$, NSL never had it and no one complained period. So why in hell would we need/want it in the A-League?. We got the FFA cup if a NPL side wants to show off.

Those talking about the danger to clubs being relegated in a PR model need to factor in that competitions like the EPL grant a severance payment to the demoted teams when they go down. I think under the current model a million dollar payment to the team going down, plus incorporating severance/wage reduction in to staff contracts in event of clubs going down is enough to ensure their viability and is consistent with how the business operates in the professional leagues in Europe.

Those talking about the danger to clubs being relegated in a PR model need to factor in that competitions like the EPL grant a severance payment to the demoted teams when they go down. I think under the current model a million dollar payment to the team going down, plus incorporating severance/wage reduction in to staff contracts in event of clubs going down is enough to ensure their viability and is consistent with how the business operates in the professional leagues in Europe.

Those talking about the danger to clubs being relegated in a PR model need to factor in that competitions like the EPL grant a severance payment to the demoted teams when they go down. I think under the current model a million dollar payment to the team going down, plus incorporating severance/wage reduction in to staff contracts in event of clubs going down is enough to ensure their viability and is consistent with how the business operates in the professional leagues in Europe.

Those talking about the danger to clubs being relegated in a PR model need to factor in that competitions like the EPL grant a severance payment to the demoted teams when they go down. I think under the current model a million dollar payment to the team going down, plus incorporating severance/wage reduction in to staff contracts in event of clubs going down is enough to ensure their viability and is consistent with how the business operates in the professional leagues in Europe.

"P/R is actually more financially viable than the current model because it has less burden on the FFA
If the FFA gave each top tier club $3m and each second tier club $1m, that is $44m for 12 teams at the top and 8 teams at the bottom
$3m plus an inevitable $500k sponsorship is enough to field a minimal A League club even with attendances of 0, and 2 away games to Perth. It is an all inclusive viable figure $1m is enough to do the same at a stand alone semi professional level"

So you're saying FFA should spend more than they do currently, but it's less of a burden?
You're suggesting clubs get less than they want, and some get much less than they do currently. (Clubs are unhappy with current dividend of $2.6 mil and want up to $6m if you believe Adelaides chairman. I also can't see any of the current clubs agreeing to take a cut of $2 mil if they get relegated.)  
$1 million will get you an NPL standard team. We already have those, and FFA don't spend anything on them. 

"At the top you will have City, MV, SFC, WSW and BR spending much more due to owners, investors, sponsors and commercial partners. This will drive the total player salaries to levels the game has not seen before. It will also boost attendances and ratings. This is at no cost to the FFA"

There is no extra incentive for any sponsors/investors/owners to spend more than they do currently. If they wanted to, currently they could go and buy 3 superstars at $10 mil each. They don't. I don't see why any club would spend more. Why wouldn't salaries go down? If you're a club that struggles, or was based only in the 2nd tier, you'd be pushing wages down not up. All clubs would have to have either single season contracts, or contracts that provided for a pay cut if the team got relegated. That is why smaller leagues have smaller salaries and we would be no different. Pro/rel would likely put downward pressure on wages. It might boost attendances and ratings for the 'key games' in a relegation battle.

"If a club is relegated they do not die. Even if the owner hands their licence back they are still fully funded by the FFA. If a club is promoted they don't become bankrupt. They receive additional funds and their spot is fully paid for. All other spending is discretionary and if they overspend they will be replaced by a ready made club"

If a club is relegated, their attendance will drop. That is a constant amongst the majority of the world. (Heres a point where I agree with you that the rest of the world is likely to be an indicator of what would happen here). That would affect the income they receive from members/gate takings, and would likely affect sponsorship revenue in a downward manner.


"The FFA simply have to keep the league value at the $44m which it can easily do given 10k crowd averages and 60k ratings for a 10 team league gives us $60m
The current model saw the FFA spend $6m on the Jets and lose $2.5m. Why? Because under a balanced structure a $3.5m club is not suffice. Every club must spend the same which means they are all the size of NQF ($3.5m) all the size of AU ($6m) or all the size of MV ($12m). The answer is in the middle which means the FFA must spend more money to help the small clubs, and at the same time tell big clubs to stop spending. Clubs are demanding $5m from the FFA to stay afloat. The FFA will realistically give them $3.5m. If you take a middle figure of about $4m required for viability then that means $40m gives you a 10 team league. $48m gives you a 12 team league. It actually costs more money to have 12 balanced teams than to have two tiers. Not only that but spending is capped. In a 2 tier league MC can have a squad size of $15m to $20m. In the current model it is $2.6m plus 3 players. People pay money to see the best teams. Its the 80 / 20 rule. To see a $15m club in a 2 tier structure it costs the FFA $44m. To see a $15m club in a single tier structure it would cost the FFA well over $180m. There is a reason why the A League cant get past 10 clubs. There is a reason why $17m was enough for 10 teams and the rest of football, now $80m is barely enough for the next 4 years assuming there is no expansion"

I don't get what you're trying to say here. It seems to be mostly to do with the salary cap. I think the salary cap is o.k., but could be better. At the moment, no club except City (and Victory would've if they could've) chooses to use all of the cap and all 3 marquee spots. City are spending $9.5 mil, which is the most ever spent by a club in Australia. That's a positive in my book. That's done under the current system. There is currently a huge difference between the CCM spend and the City spend, all under the current system. it's true that FFA give each club the same distribution, and that's o.k, or are you advocating that City or another club should get much more t.v money than other clubs that draw lower t.v ratings or are in regional t.v markets?

"To get the most out of the A League the FFA needs to shift the cost burden off the registered players and onto the owners and their commercial partners. Due to the disbalance in population / wealth / player talent it means we have to do away with the cap. And with no cap we need P/R to avoid a break away rebel league or gradual disinterest."

Shift the cost burden onto owners and commercial partners? You do realise that football is a business? Why would an owner want to pay more and earn less and lose money? Theres only so many wealthy benefactors willing to lose money, what we need is a financially viable business that attracts investors looking to make money, and that will grow the game. Why get rid of the cap? As I've said above, anyone can (but don't) spend $30m or more on 3 marquees and the full cap on the rest of the squad. That doesn't seem too limiting to me. Gradual disinterest? The expansion of the top single tier should deter that. A 14-18 tier league would hold my interest. It works in the NRL and AFL to hold their fans interest, many of whom will also be followers of football to some extent.

"Now I don't see any evidence that a single tier structure with a salary cap is commercially viable for our game. Care to demonstrate..."

The single tier gives certainty to investors that the team they buy into will not be devalued by moving out of the main league to lower level with less visibility and less possibility for revenue raising. The salary cap provides some idea of your total spend and some comfort that you will be able to be competitive as whilst one or two teams may spend big on marquees, you can probably compete with the majority of teams without blowing your budget.

Look, I actually like the romance of pro/rel, but you don’t put forward any evidence based analysis as to why it would work here and scoff at reasonable arguments that point out the challenges that we face here in Australia. Grow up and put forward an evidence based case instead of just throwing in a swear word or two when you’re frustrated someone doesn’t agree with your point of view.

"The argument that something works elsewhere is not enough"
Not elsewhere. EVERYWHERE. Theres a difference. 

"There's no analysis that has been put forward on here that pro/rel would work here on a financial basis and make the league secure"

Now wheres the analysis that says it wont work?
Can you point to any of the 200+ leagues employing PR that have failed?
Why do you assume that we will fail where 200+ leagues have thrived?

Let me guess (as melb terrace has already suggested to you) we are a unique sporting environment?
The sooner you realise your only arguments are "we are unique/we need to pander to midget sports" the sooner you can start brainstorming on how we can speed up the process of implementing PR.

Lol what shit. Why would PR mandate that the biggest teams get the most TV money? If every game is being shown, then there is no reason that TV money can't be distributed equally.

It literally works in every country bar America and they could do it tomorrow if they weren't run by a bunch of Muricaball fans, saying it will not here for no other reason than we're different doesn't fly anymore.

Wonderful

You missed the point entirely. It seems the main argument on here from people that want to implement pro/rel is that 'it works in the rest of the world'. What also works in the rest of the world is having the t.v money split unevenly with the top couple of teams getting the most. The argument that something works elsewhere is not enough. There's no analysis that has been put forward on here that pro/rel would work here on a financial basis and make the league secure.As I said, there are a lot of posters with a philosophical commitment to pro/rel, but they don't back it up with any real analysis of how that could work in the Australian sports marketplace.

Lol what shit. Why would PR mandate that the biggest teams get the most TV money? If every game is being shown, then there is no reason that TV money can't be distributed equally.

It literally works in every country bar America and they could do it tomorrow if they weren't run by a bunch of Muricaball fans, saying it will not here for no other reason than we're different doesn't fly anymore.