|
johnszasz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Hiroki Sakai 🔜
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xthe league is practically broke why are we adding another team from NZ if this league isn't a ponzi scheme? 1. 10 million reasons (if reports are correct) 2. It's probably not qualified to claim being a Ponzi anymore, It tried $10 million? Wow what ever happened to the $25 million asking price? So Auckland and Perth license sales combined netted the APL $10,000,001 AUD? Seriously,why is this surprising? The A League is in the toilet. It's hardly a secret. Sure mate, I get it, if its yellow let it mellow but if its brown flush it down...... lol Is that the new Wellington chant for derbies?
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xthe league is practically broke why are we adding another team from NZ if this league isn't a ponzi scheme? 1. 10 million reasons (if reports are correct) 2. It's probably not qualified to claim being a Ponzi anymore, It tried $10 million? Wow what ever happened to the $25 million asking price? So Auckland and Perth license sales combined netted the APL $10,000,001 AUD? Seriously,why is this surprising? The A League is in the toilet. It's hardly a secret. Sure mate, I get it, if its yellow let it mellow but if its brown flush it down...... lol
|
|
|
|
|
charlied
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xthe league is practically broke why are we adding another team from NZ if this league isn't a ponzi scheme? 1. 10 million reasons (if reports are correct) 2. It's probably not qualified to claim being a Ponzi anymore, It tried $10 million? Wow what ever happened to the $25 million asking price? So Auckland and Perth license sales combined netted the APL $10,000,001 AUD? Seriously,why is this surprising? The A League is in the toilet. It's hardly a secret.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
and if right, Canberra will never get an A-League team
|
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
its still a ponzi scheme just on a decaying scale
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xthe league is practically broke why are we adding another team from NZ if this league isn't a ponzi scheme? 1. 10 million reasons (if reports are correct) 2. It's probably not qualified to claim being a Ponzi anymore, It tried $10 million? Wow what ever happened to the $25 million asking price? So Auckland and Perth license sales combined netted the APL $10,000,001 AUD? Auckland, Perth and Newcastle You're right, I cant call it a PONZI scheme anymore :P Its not even AMWAY at this stage. lol
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xthe league is practically broke why are we adding another team from NZ if this league isn't a ponzi scheme? 1. 10 million reasons (if reports are correct) 2. It's probably not qualified to claim being a Ponzi anymore, It tried $10 million? Wow what ever happened to the $25 million asking price? So Auckland and Perth license sales combined netted the APL $10,000,001 AUD? Auckland, Perth and Newcastle
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xthe league is practically broke why are we adding another team from NZ if this league isn't a ponzi scheme? 1. 10 million reasons (if reports are correct) 2. It's probably not qualified to claim being a Ponzi anymore, It tried $10 million? Wow what ever happened to the $25 million asking price? So Auckland and Perth license sales combined netted the APL $10,000,001 AUD?
|
|
|
|
|
LFC.
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
well they had a biter and happily took the consolation license fees to help keep the lights on.
Love Football
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+xthe league is practically broke why are we adding another team from NZ if this league isn't a ponzi scheme? 1. 10 million reasons (if reports are correct) 2. It's probably not qualified to claim being a Ponzi anymore, It tried
|
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
the league is practically broke why are we adding another team from NZ if this league isn't a ponzi scheme?
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xWhy multi-club strategy makes ambition realistic
"[European football ambition] is realistic because we are putting a great team together, with a lot of younger players. We are trying to be careful with how we do this. "We are not a sovereign wealth fund or private equity. We are just simple little guys from America who came over and bought a team. We have a multi-club strategy so we promote players from Club A to Club B to Club C to Club D. "We now have four clubs and we are about to acquire a controlling interest in another [understood to be in Portugal]. Our goal is to have similar coaching, similar playing styles and similar players that can progress through our system. "It is not just going to be Bournemouth and a bunch of other teams. It is all designed to give the players a path to the Premier League. If we can do that, we should be able to be competitive and not have to kill ourselves financially. That will be our competitive edge." https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c7295x478wro So Bournemouth is top of their chain as Club D - I wonder what they would consider as Clubs A, B and C Auckland is obviously A Hibs is C. (for Visa purposes onwards to England) Not sure where Portugese club will fit
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWhy multi-club strategy makes ambition realistic
"[European football ambition] is realistic because we are putting a great team together, with a lot of younger players. We are trying to be careful with how we do this. "We are not a sovereign wealth fund or private equity. We are just simple little guys from America who came over and bought a team. We have a multi-club strategy so we promote players from Club A to Club B to Club C to Club D. "We now have four clubs and we are about to acquire a controlling interest in another [understood to be in Portugal]. Our goal is to have similar coaching, similar playing styles and similar players that can progress through our system. "It is not just going to be Bournemouth and a bunch of other teams. It is all designed to give the players a path to the Premier League. If we can do that, we should be able to be competitive and not have to kill ourselves financially. That will be our competitive edge." https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c7295x478wro So Bournemouth is top of their chain as Club D - I wonder what they would consider as Clubs A, B and C
|
|
|
|
|
Melbcityguy
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWhy multi-club strategy makes ambition realistic
"[European football ambition] is realistic because we are putting a great team together, with a lot of younger players. We are trying to be careful with how we do this. "We are not a sovereign wealth fund or private equity. We are just simple little guys from America who came over and bought a team. We have a multi-club strategy so we promote players from Club A to Club B to Club C to Club D. "We now have four clubs and we are about to acquire a controlling interest in another [understood to be in Portugal]. Our goal is to have similar coaching, similar playing styles and similar players that can progress through our system. "It is not just going to be Bournemouth and a bunch of other teams. It is all designed to give the players a path to the Premier League. If we can do that, we should be able to be competitive and not have to kill ourselves financially. That will be our competitive edge." https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c7295x478wro I know I'm a hypocrite for saying this as a Melbourne city fan but this is killing football
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Why multi-club strategy makes ambition realistic
"[European football ambition] is realistic because we are putting a great team together, with a lot of younger players. We are trying to be careful with how we do this. "We are not a sovereign wealth fund or private equity. We are just simple little guys from America who came over and bought a team. We have a multi-club strategy so we promote players from Club A to Club B to Club C to Club D. "We now have four clubs and we are about to acquire a controlling interest in another [understood to be in Portugal]. Our goal is to have similar coaching, similar playing styles and similar players that can progress through our system. "It is not just going to be Bournemouth and a bunch of other teams. It is all designed to give the players a path to the Premier League. If we can do that, we should be able to be competitive and not have to kill ourselves financially. That will be our competitive edge." https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c7295x478wro
|
|
|
|
|
DandyCasey
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 321,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
These "owners" truly are pieces of shit... They grabbed their Uber driver, gave him a top and $50 and told him to run onto the pitch and when it backfired: “We've removed the post, and we in no way support people who run onto the pitch" Meanwhile some poor dude was sitting in a cell all night wandering what they hell that rectangular field with goalposts on either end was all about that he was paid to run onto.
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
One of their 'fans' won't get to watch til Season 3 (assuming A-League still around) https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/350222368/auckland-fc-takes-down-social-media-post-using-pitch-invader-footageYet to be established whether Franchise's first publicity stunt was to break APL crowd regulations 1 week after Supporter hoo-haa
|
|
|
|
|
Balin Trev
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI love how we have to be a crutch for NZ football...do not know what they bring to us (and don't say the peanuts for the NZ tv deal) Couldn't agree more. Boot them both out. Muz, I usually agree with you but not on this. I lived in and near Auckland for 10 years and I recall the excitement when the Knights were launched. Attendances were decent too until the team morphed into the worst pro side I've ever seen. There's a commercially decent size football public in Auckland and reckon this new club will bring a lot of positives to the A League. We need scale, and Auckland delivers a city of 2 million people. Mate good for you and good for New Zealand. I'm glad you're excited but I'm coming at it from the angle of they bring nothing to Australian football and shouldn't be in our comp. They're taking up professional spots that should be going to Australian footballers. Additionally they bring nothing in the way of revenue and they're a drain on Australian teams. Like I said good for you but if it were up to me I'd bring 3 Australian sides in tomorrow that met the criteria. They brought in a 15 million fee. While I agree it's not much and merely a one off, especially as they won't bring any other tangible revenue into the pool (like TV money), it's not "nothing". I'd say it covers the first 5 years before the fee has run its course covering what we send back over annually, then the club becomes a more traditional kiwi looking for its aussie dole cheque. Wellington brought nothing and were on the take from day 1. I would love to hear some examples of Wellington being "on the take". their mere existence is being on the take. they are sucking off the teet of Australian football. tbf thats not much different than a bunch of other franchises... at least they giving something to Australian football why not invite Indonesia, Malaysia etc etc to field a team if we're throwing out invites based on buy in? and what do NZ give us back? some passive aggressive chip on their shoulder commentators who think the world is against them who force you turn down the volume if you've ever had the misfortune of turning on a 'nux game in the past. That Jason Pine commentator is awful - i can never hit the mute button quick enough
|
|
|
|
|
SUTHERLANDBEAR
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI love how we have to be a crutch for NZ football...do not know what they bring to us (and don't say the peanuts for the NZ tv deal) Couldn't agree more. Boot them both out. Muz, I usually agree with you but not on this. I lived in and near Auckland for 10 years and I recall the excitement when the Knights were launched. Attendances were decent too until the team morphed into the worst pro side I've ever seen. There's a commercially decent size football public in Auckland and reckon this new club will bring a lot of positives to the A League. We need scale, and Auckland delivers a city of 2 million people. Mate good for you and good for New Zealand. I'm glad you're excited but I'm coming at it from the angle of they bring nothing to Australian football and shouldn't be in our comp. They're taking up professional spots that should be going to Australian footballers. Additionally they bring nothing in the way of revenue and they're a drain on Australian teams. Like I said good for you but if it were up to me I'd bring 3 Australian sides in tomorrow that met the criteria. They brought in a 15 million fee. While I agree it's not much and merely a one off, especially as they won't bring any other tangible revenue into the pool (like TV money), it's not "nothing". I'd say it covers the first 5 years before the fee has run its course covering what we send back over annually, then the club becomes a more traditional kiwi looking for its aussie dole cheque. Wellington brought nothing and were on the take from day 1. I would love to hear some examples of Wellington being "on the take". their mere existence is being on the take. they are sucking off the teet of Australian football. tbf thats not much different than a bunch of other franchises... at least they giving something to Australian football why not invite Indonesia, Malaysia etc etc to field a team if we're throwing out invites based on buy in? and what do NZ give us back? some passive aggressive chip on their shoulder commentators who think the world is against them who force you turn down the volume if you've ever had the misfortune of turning on a 'nux game in the past. You don't do irony much, do you ? re: commentators.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI love how we have to be a crutch for NZ football...do not know what they bring to us (and don't say the peanuts for the NZ tv deal) Couldn't agree more. Boot them both out. Muz, I usually agree with you but not on this. I lived in and near Auckland for 10 years and I recall the excitement when the Knights were launched. Attendances were decent too until the team morphed into the worst pro side I've ever seen. There's a commercially decent size football public in Auckland and reckon this new club will bring a lot of positives to the A League. We need scale, and Auckland delivers a city of 2 million people. Mate good for you and good for New Zealand. I'm glad you're excited but I'm coming at it from the angle of they bring nothing to Australian football and shouldn't be in our comp. They're taking up professional spots that should be going to Australian footballers. Additionally they bring nothing in the way of revenue and they're a drain on Australian teams. Like I said good for you but if it were up to me I'd bring 3 Australian sides in tomorrow that met the criteria. They brought in a 15 million fee. While I agree it's not much and merely a one off, especially as they won't bring any other tangible revenue into the pool (like TV money), it's not "nothing". I'd say it covers the first 5 years before the fee has run its course covering what we send back over annually, then the club becomes a more traditional kiwi looking for its aussie dole cheque. Wellington brought nothing and were on the take from day 1. I would love to hear some examples of Wellington being "on the take". their mere existence is being on the take. they are sucking off the teet of Australian football. tbf thats not much different than a bunch of other franchises... at least they giving something to Australian football why not invite Indonesia, Malaysia etc etc to field a team if we're throwing out invites based on buy in?and what do NZ give us back? some passive aggressive chip on their shoulder commentators who think the world is against them who force you turn down the volume if you've ever had the misfortune of turning on a 'nux game in the past. Hahahaha take it easy Nostradamus.... Where do you think expansion clubs 17 -18 are going to come from?
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI love how we have to be a crutch for NZ football...do not know what they bring to us (and don't say the peanuts for the NZ tv deal) Couldn't agree more. Boot them both out. Muz, I usually agree with you but not on this. I lived in and near Auckland for 10 years and I recall the excitement when the Knights were launched. Attendances were decent too until the team morphed into the worst pro side I've ever seen. There's a commercially decent size football public in Auckland and reckon this new club will bring a lot of positives to the A League. We need scale, and Auckland delivers a city of 2 million people. Mate good for you and good for New Zealand. I'm glad you're excited but I'm coming at it from the angle of they bring nothing to Australian football and shouldn't be in our comp. They're taking up professional spots that should be going to Australian footballers. Additionally they bring nothing in the way of revenue and they're a drain on Australian teams. Like I said good for you but if it were up to me I'd bring 3 Australian sides in tomorrow that met the criteria. They brought in a 15 million fee. While I agree it's not much and merely a one off, especially as they won't bring any other tangible revenue into the pool (like TV money), it's not "nothing". I'd say it covers the first 5 years before the fee has run its course covering what we send back over annually, then the club becomes a more traditional kiwi looking for its aussie dole cheque. Wellington brought nothing and were on the take from day 1. I would love to hear some examples of Wellington being "on the take". their mere existence is being on the take. they are sucking off the teet of Australian football. tbf thats not much different than a bunch of other franchises... at least they giving something to Australian football why not invite Indonesia, Malaysia etc etc to field a team if we're throwing out invites based on buy in? and what do NZ give us back? some passive aggressive chip on their shoulder commentators who think the world is against them who force you turn down the volume if you've ever had the misfortune of turning on a 'nux game in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI love how we have to be a crutch for NZ football...do not know what they bring to us (and don't say the peanuts for the NZ tv deal) Couldn't agree more. Boot them both out. Muz, I usually agree with you but not on this. I lived in and near Auckland for 10 years and I recall the excitement when the Knights were launched. Attendances were decent too until the team morphed into the worst pro side I've ever seen. There's a commercially decent size football public in Auckland and reckon this new club will bring a lot of positives to the A League. We need scale, and Auckland delivers a city of 2 million people. Mate good for you and good for New Zealand. I'm glad you're excited but I'm coming at it from the angle of they bring nothing to Australian football and shouldn't be in our comp. They're taking up professional spots that should be going to Australian footballers. Additionally they bring nothing in the way of revenue and they're a drain on Australian teams. Like I said good for you but if it were up to me I'd bring 3 Australian sides in tomorrow that met the criteria. They brought in a 15 million fee. While I agree it's not much and merely a one off, especially as they won't bring any other tangible revenue into the pool (like TV money), it's not "nothing". I'd say it covers the first 5 years before the fee has run its course covering what we send back over annually, then the club becomes a more traditional kiwi looking for its aussie dole cheque. Wellington brought nothing and were on the take from day 1. I would love to hear some examples of Wellington being "on the take". their mere existence is being on the take. they are sucking off the teet of Australian football. tbf thats not much different than a bunch of other franchises...
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI love how we have to be a crutch for NZ football...do not know what they bring to us (and don't say the peanuts for the NZ tv deal) Couldn't agree more. Boot them both out. Muz, I usually agree with you but not on this. I lived in and near Auckland for 10 years and I recall the excitement when the Knights were launched. Attendances were decent too until the team morphed into the worst pro side I've ever seen. There's a commercially decent size football public in Auckland and reckon this new club will bring a lot of positives to the A League. We need scale, and Auckland delivers a city of 2 million people. Mate good for you and good for New Zealand. I'm glad you're excited but I'm coming at it from the angle of they bring nothing to Australian football and shouldn't be in our comp. They're taking up professional spots that should be going to Australian footballers. Additionally they bring nothing in the way of revenue and they're a drain on Australian teams. Like I said good for you but if it were up to me I'd bring 3 Australian sides in tomorrow that met the criteria. They brought in a 15 million fee. While I agree it's not much and merely a one off, especially as they won't bring any other tangible revenue into the pool (like TV money), it's not "nothing". I'd say it covers the first 5 years before the fee has run its course covering what we send back over annually, then the club becomes a more traditional kiwi looking for its aussie dole cheque. Wellington brought nothing and were on the take from day 1. I would love to hear some examples of Wellington being "on the take". their mere existence is being on the take. they are sucking off the teet of Australian football.
|
|
|
|
|
doloras
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 92,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xI love how we have to be a crutch for NZ football...do not know what they bring to us (and don't say the peanuts for the NZ tv deal) Couldn't agree more. Boot them both out. Muz, I usually agree with you but not on this. I lived in and near Auckland for 10 years and I recall the excitement when the Knights were launched. Attendances were decent too until the team morphed into the worst pro side I've ever seen. There's a commercially decent size football public in Auckland and reckon this new club will bring a lot of positives to the A League. We need scale, and Auckland delivers a city of 2 million people. Mate good for you and good for New Zealand. I'm glad you're excited but I'm coming at it from the angle of they bring nothing to Australian football and shouldn't be in our comp. They're taking up professional spots that should be going to Australian footballers. Additionally they bring nothing in the way of revenue and they're a drain on Australian teams. Like I said good for you but if it were up to me I'd bring 3 Australian sides in tomorrow that met the criteria. They brought in a 15 million fee. While I agree it's not much and merely a one off, especially as they won't bring any other tangible revenue into the pool (like TV money), it's not "nothing". I'd say it covers the first 5 years before the fee has run its course covering what we send back over annually, then the club becomes a more traditional kiwi looking for its aussie dole cheque. Wellington brought nothing and were on the take from day 1. I was under the impression that Wellington Phoenix were one of the few clubs who have never needed a bailout. I would love to hear some examples of Wellington being "on the take".
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Corica has confirmed that they have signed 9 players so far. According to reports, they have signed 5 NZ national team players in Callan Elliot, Francis de Vries, Cameron Howieson, Michael Woud and Joe Champness. They have reportedly also signed a couple of NZ youth internationals in Jesse Randall and Luis Toomey in addition to two Australians in Jake Brimmer and Dan Hall.
|
|
|
|
|
Keeper66
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI like it the crest looks like it may have been designed by the same minimalist mob that brutalized Juventus... Would look great on the white away kit, sort of like a retro Hellas logo minus the soccer ball and stars :)  I hope they don't go for a white away kit, so many A League teams go white for away kits. Let's see some colour and a bit of imagination for a change.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
Looks like Auckland City on PES to be honest to me...
|
|
|
|