The Heart is a club that 's only been around for 2 years and already are averaging bigger crowds than most NSL clubs did during their entire history. Why was it a joke of a decision? Who would you rather have in the A-League instead of the Heart? Some old NSL club which took 60 or 80 years to built the number of supporters the Heart has managed to attract in just 2 years? Who are you kidding? Go back to sleep.

I'm not sure why you are comparing it to the heart, the heart and the victory show the supporter base for the sport in the state. The lack of mechanisms to increase connections suggests it could be more. For instance, ignoring the bad blood, you could support a state club and a club in the a-league. In a properly connected sport the next batch of a-league supporters would have a local club as well.

Your obsession with my club again... If my club is unable to put a viable bid together, they shouldn't be allowed in. It doesn't matter if it's my club or anyone other club.

As for the volume of content... It's based on as much evidence as yours. Whilst a geographic spread with fresh markets is desirable, content is king.

This is something I don't understand. Why would in a properly connected sport supporters have two teams to support, as opposed to the one club they support normally?

Would you consider the AFL properly connected? If so I don't really know too many people who even follow the VFL, except for a couple who think the AFL has got too corporate.

Geographical spread is not desirable and i never said it was. The 'content is king' statement you keep repeating has no evidence to support it and i've shown you two examples in Australia where it is not valued nor is it in the overseas competitions i follow.

If you're making claims which go against the norm it's up to you to back it up with evidence, instead you're admitting that you have no evidence and just repeat 'content is king'.


In victoria it’s less so because the VFL became the AFL so the existing supporter bases just flowed on, but in WA and SA two states where representative teams were formed over the top existing teams, much like the a-league was, it's extremely common and what makes up the core of their AFL club's supporter bases. Since then obviously it's attracted new supporters who are purely AFL, but the link is at least there to encourage support. Given football is a bottom up sport, i can only think we would benefit even more from these types of links.

and yes i think AFL does a really good job at instilling a sense of pride and connecting the different levels. The opposite to this sport.

Edited by kapow!: 4/10/2011 07:21:54 PM

Perhaps that's down to the AFL giving loadsamoney to the states, investing in stadia for their teams, etc etc?

Because no matter what the argument is, you always turn it back to SMFC, rather than the issue of viable bids. I specifically talk about viable bids in order to make it clear that this is not to do with any one bid - but is in fact open to any bid, anywhere, from any background. Not MY club - ALL clubs.

As for my 'repeated' comments on the Heart bid being a crock - I never said it should ONLY have been considered on financial grounds - what I've always maintained is that the Heart bid had a name and some money, whilst the SXFC bid had name, venue, training and admin facilities, money and youth set-up all in place. The fact that Heart have still not identified a fan group other than "not Victory" makes it clear that they weren't considered on the basis of increasing support, etc. As you've indicated, the only thing they add is a game every week in Melbourne - which would also have been offered by SXFC.



This is a standard problem with trying to discuss any issue with you... You argue that it's the other person's responsibility to back up 'against the norm' claims with evidence - yet you don't explain your point of view, or give any indication of what 'the norm' is.

If geography (opening up new markets) isn't an issue, and content (expanding tv hours) isn't an issue... Then what is the issue? What is 'the norm'? Why would we want to expand at all?

And if we don't want to expand - why was the FFA so keen to do so? And why are there so many conversations on forums like this about it?

I can provide no written evidence that additional content is required in order to improve the tv deal - all I can say is that people I know, within the media, believe this to be a key element in the next tv rights deal - and it's not just about television content driving expansion.

- Football in Australia benefits through having more professional teams, thus more pathways.

- General interest increases with a more diverse range of fixtures and greater options for supporters.

I’m not sure the average fan cares much about that to be honest. At the administration level they would, but i'm not sure how much money the lower levels actually get. I’m pretty sure the amateur levels get nothing and the state levels only get money for development age groups with strings attached. If a player gets drafted there’s $50k payment and there’s auskick at the junior level which the AFL funds, but that benefits afl clubs.

For football clubs i’d say the attitude exists for former NSL teams because the majority of support has moved on and the remnants are bitter that they aren't appropriate for the a-league. At the amateur level i haven't sensed any ill will towards a-league teams, but there is competing interest form overseas teams, especially as that's what we grew up with. For a new competition i suppose a lack of connection/imprint on the community is to be expected.

The norm is to add teams which add to the ratings, which brings in more money. I wasn’t asking for written evidence, just some analysis which makes sense, your view was to add as many teams as possible which have stumped up the cash. That’s not what other leagues do, so i was asking what's the basis for it. Your explanation was that ‘content is king’ but the two examples we have in Australia with afl and the fury suggests that content, which doesn’t bring any new viewers is not valued very much at all.

Your new view appears to be that there are other considerations other than the TV deal in expansion. That is also wrong the TV revenue makes up the majority of the leagues total revenue. If we add more teams without a lot of value added, you’re splitting the TV money pot more times which means less money for the existing teams. Maybe the FFA with different priorities might see that as a benefit and do it but an independent league, looking after its existing teams wouldn’t do it.

I think this is probably done too, no point in endless discussion.

In terms of adding to ratings - the majority of viewers are in the capital cities, I would strongly suspect that most of these viewers watch games that their own teams aren't playing. I, for example, will watch 3-4 games per round, despite not following any A-league side. I don't care if the game is Brisbane vs Wellington or Victory vs Glory. I just watch if it's on and I'm free. I suspect the majority of football fans are in the same boat... So it doesn't matter where the new teams come from, they add an extra fixture which can be watched. This is extra live programming, and represents a greater attraction to viewers than repeats.

The two examples you mention - the AFL and Fury...
- the AFL are expanding. If they had shut down the poorest Melbourne based side, or relocated it, I would accept your argument, but they are expanding - creating an EXTRA fixture. Does Gold Coast add significant ratings? Or is the extra fixture the key? Ditto GWS.

- Fury. They weren't a viable bid, therefore they were cut. This comes back to my regular point that viable bids are what matters, not location/local population. They added content to the tv deal, but they didn't have the investors and they didn't have the crowds.

The other points I make aren't new - I've stated them on various arguments on various topics many times before. I opted to raise them here as additional points to demonstrate that the argument for expansion goes beyond the tv deal alone.

These are all old points that you've brought up before, which counter points were provided but you chose to ignore them and now you've regurgitated the old points again.....


You may have, but you're not arguing on any factual basis, they're just little things around the edge that avoids mentioning that the TV rights as the major revenue earner are the deal breaker.

1 - more teams creates more rivalries, creates greater competition for prime-time, creates more viewing options, allows supporters to pick from more games.

2 - who said anything about fanless teams? To be viable a team would require fans, would it not? Fury didn't fail because they didn't add to the tv deal - Fury failed because they didn't have enough supporters or investors.

3 - The AFL tried to get teams to re-locate, once they were unable, they EXPANDED. They will plough money into the Gold Coast and GWS no matter what crowds are because they are in a position to do so. NRL has a relocation fund too, good for them, again it's the benefit of having massive financial backing. We don't have that so have to rely of franchises which can support themselves from day one.

4 - Average cost of operating an A-League franchise - $6-8 million / year. Franchise income from tv - $1.4 million / year. I'd say there are far greater revenue issues than tv. I don't consider it a deal breaker. I'd say the major issue when it comes to operating any franchise in the A-League is "how deep are your pockets?" (this is why it's a huge bonus to have Palmer, Sage, Tinkler and Bakrie on board - VERY deep pockets).

Edited by Benjamin: 7/10/2011 07:01:50 PM

Those aren’t the actual figures they’re ones you’ve ‘guessed’. Where the figures are available, from the best leagues in the world all the way down to the asian leagues in our region, shows TV revenue as the main contributor to their leagues.

It’s inconsequential because the reason you were arguing for endless teams *was to increase the TV deal’s value*. It’s only when you’ve found out there isn’t any evidence to support it, that you’re trying to play down the TV deal’s importance and bring up things such as player pathways, which is a separate discussion point.

I think you'll find that the $6-8m figure is conservative, whilst the $1.4m figure is accurate as of 2 years ago. The tv money certainly hasn't gone up since then (it went down slightly when Fury were in the league because the pie had to be split 11 ways rather than 10).

Doesn't matter how you slice it, tv revenue accounts for, at best, 25% of franchise income.

You talk about the Fury being let go because the tv value couldn't balance the books re: 'content'. I don't see the relevance. I'm not saying that any side, placed anywhere, will push up the tv deal to the point that all sides can break even. I'm saying that more teams = more games = better value for Fox, which in turn means Fox will bid more to keep the league.

As for the last statement, nice try, but no cigar - but I've been arguing for expansion based on viability on several fronts for a long time. You opt to narrow it down to a single issue and ignore the others because it suits your argument - an argument which is based on looking at more established leagues with MASSIVE tv deals, or lower costs leagues which require less income, and doesn't look at the basic reality of the Fox tv deal that is "content driven".

No point looking at the Fury situation - because it plays more into my theory of viable bids. It was closed down because it wasn't viable. You suggest that if the content is king theory were true that the FFA would have kept Fury alive, but this only works if you believe that the next tv deal is going to be HUGE, big enough to cover all the losses of a failing franchise. I'm of the opinion that a 12 or 14 team competition is worth more than a 10 team competition, I'm not (and have never) suggested that the extra teams would cover all losses...

There's little doubt that your point, that teams from strong markets would add more value than teams from already covered markets, or weak markets, is correct. I'm not arguing against that - what I'm arguing is that a team that exists will add more value than a team which doesn't. Therefore, bringing in viable bids, wherever they are based, is a positive step toward securing a better tv deal. In other words, if some billionaire is prepared to bankroll a team in Darwin, even if it in itself is a crappy market for Fox, it's a better bet than an unfinanced bid in West Sydney. Especially when one notes that the inclusion of the fictional Darwin franchise doesn't preclude a West Sydney franchise in future.

With regard to the AFL expansion - yes, they tried to relocate North Melbourne, they failed, then they expanded... Then they pushed on with expansion rather than relocation into Western Sydney. New markets, yes, but also an expanded league. No sign of them cutting off assistance the North Melbourne in order to let them fall. No sign of them forcing any other side to move.

Edited by Benjamin: 11/10/2011 12:55:41 AM

Fury required a minimum of $1-2m per year to operate at minimum levels. In other words, at those minimum levels they would have continued to fall behind the rest of the competition and interest would have continued to diminish, thus crowds would have continued to drop and most likely sponsors would have wished to disassociate themselves from a losing brand.

My figures are no more accurate than published figures from other leagues - my point, as stated, is that other leagues have lower costs to cover (Asia) or far higher income from tv (Europe). Yes, if we can alter the balance here then we will get to a point where the tv deal is a greater proportion of income - but we have to get to that point.

Your continued point about the markets in which a team is based for the make-up of the league being an essential area completely falls down when you realise that the richest tv deal in the football world is for the EPL, a league which grew from supply & demand and natural evolution, and which is geographically unregulated meaning that the biggest/strongest/most viable clubs rise to the top no matter where they are based. Your theory doesn't work if you acknowledge the fact that the entire Leeds/Sheffield area doesn't have a single EPL club, whilst the North East with a far lower population has two, and the North West has at least seven. Doesn't affect the value of the deal though, does it?

Another point on the 'not done anywhere else in the world' - first of all, we're not talking about anywhere else in the world, we're talking about the few markets which operate franchise leagues. Secondly, we're talking about markets which always seem to have multiple, fully financed bids to select from. It's a wonderful thing to have options when expanding - unfortunately, the evidence of the last 3-4 years is that we have precious few options.

As for the AFL - yes, they tried to re-locate, they tried to split the pie 16 ways instead of 17/18... But when they couldn't get a club to move, because the club had the power to refuse (something A-League sides can't do by the way), then they expanded. What does it say to you that they expanded anyway? It suggests to me that the new territories are considered to be of extra value, as you say, but it also suggests that expansion is more important than standing still. The right expansion? For me, this is anything which allows the game to grow.

VIABLE franchises allow the league to grow. I don't see how you can't understand this incredibly simple point.

Edited by Benjamin: 12/10/2011 09:27:52 AM

Again, the "not done anywhere else in the world" argument - how many leagues in the world operate franchise systems? And in those systems, how many are based on markets rather than simple viability?

Again, you argue that your three basic points - AFL, NRL and Fury - support your argument, despite the fact that you are talking about the AFL which has 9 of it's teams in Melbourne, and the NRL which has 9 of its teams in Sydney and Fury, a franchise which was not viable.

The NRL and AFL don't help your argument because both have built up a market based on their mass - having a high successful and product rich competition before looking to expand into other, richer, territories from a position of strength.

Again - expansion into new markets for the purpose of increasing the tv deal is desirable - however, my argument is:
- stability of the league creates a stronger environment for negotiating a deal
- the addition of viable franchises increases stability
- the addition of viable franchises ensures and increases product
- a league with 6 games per round provides an additional 15% live action each week over a league with 5 games.
- the addition of Heart didn't add anything for the tv under your theories, but was still worthwhile, and both the FFA and Fox loves the marketing potential of the Melbourne derbies

I have addressed the attempt to move North Melbourne - they tried, the team wouldn't move, so they expanded. Improved markets - PREFERRED, expanded league - ACCEPTED. The key here is that the expansion went ahead, North Melbourne weren't closed down, they haven't been starved of AFL funds in order to push them out, they survived because it was better for the competition to keep them and add the new market, than force them out.

As for the Leeds/EPL issue - the nature of the EPL deal is that it is negotiated on the basis that the content of the league is of a high standard, both in terms of quality and excitement. Much of this excitement comes from the promotion/relegation of clubs - which allows for big clubs to go down and small clubs to go up. A league based on specific tv markets couldn't have this entertainment value, yet the price of the EPL deal doesn't suffer. My point - it's the product rather than the markets that drives the EPL deal.

Edited by Benjamin: 12/10/2011 07:46:38 PM

Edited by kapow!: 17/10/2011 08:00:22 PM

When we've got a 16 team league, and multiple options for further expansion, and funds to support start up sides, and a huge pre-existing tv deal - THEN we can cherry pick the best locations. Until then, don't try to compare us to the NRL, AFL, NBA or NFL, etc.

FTA V Pay TV

regardless of the dollar amount TV provides football - it is the exposure that matters the most
The amount of exposure is what generates vertical income opportunities and that is where clubs generate cash
End of the day Footballs TV value today is valued around $200 million over 5 years - hardly an amount to salvage the game
The critical part is whether their is significant FTA prime time coverage - I don't think it will have and Fox will take full ownership for another 5 years

Last season Match of the day on Foxtel at best generated 40,000 viewers for a big big game - most games generated 10-20k viewers meaning sandwich boards around the ground would have just about the same exposure and value as any potential TV sponsor simply because similar amounts of people would watch the game outside of the stadium as inside

After the next TV deal - a whole re-thinh of HAL model will need to be drawn up including grounds and teams - the current model is not sustainable

Foxtel content is targeted to maximising its subscription firstly and commercial equity comes second

Edited by chris: 19/10/2011 03:11:46 PM

Around and around and around we go.

You keep going back to the argument that the NRL and AFL are looking to expand into new markets, but you refuse to acknowledge that both are doing so having firmly established a successful league by building in the markets that initially formed the core of the competition.

The AFL had a huge deal in place before expanding into the Gold Coast and Western Sydney. The latest deal, with expansion based on markets rather than content is BETTER than that deal, but that doesn't alter the fact that the previous deal was more than enough to sustain the competition.

You don't know what you're talking about. The VFL was broke. They added sydney, brisbane, two SA and two WA teams [All market based expansion] before any large TV deal was in place and have tried to relocate or close down many of the victorian content teams. It was not the content teams that added value to the TV deal and you're foolish for repeating it over and over based on nothing.

If you kept your posting to just this rather than the hate filled xenophobic posts you specialise in you might be half amusing, but unfortunately as you don’t, bugger off.

The previous tv deal, the one Buckley gets so much credit for negotiating, was for a 16 team competition that features 9 Melbourne sides. It was a huge deal which provided the AFL with massive operational freedom. There were no elements of that deal that required further expansion into new markets. That's the starting point I was talking about - not the initial expansion out of Victoria which was a long time ago.

Just looked it up on Google - the expansion you are talking about was in the early/mid 1980s, the tv negotiation I'm talking about was in approx 2006. I think it's fair to say that my selection is more relevant than yours.

Edited by Benjamin: 21/10/2011 09:51:44 PM

Swoossssssh.... That was the point, the 2006 rights was not the starting point of TV market based expansion, it was *the result* of TV market based expansion with the merger or relocation of VFL teams throughout the 80's and 90's. At the starting point with all the content teams the VFL by itself was broke. Hopefully i don’t have to repeat that in 10 posts before it sinks in.

The VFL had reached saturation point. There was no room to expand within that singular market and no benefit to be gained. It was a limited market and needed to expand. We both agree on that.

They expanded out into other markets and the value of the product increased. We both agree on that.

The value of the deal increased dramatically in 2006, with 9 teams in Melbourne and 7 around the rest of Australia. I assume we both agree on that.

My contention is that the size of the league, the volume of the product, and the interest generated by having so many teams/games/options, is a major factor in driving up the value of the deal. We disagree on this.

Your contention appears to be that offering a tv deal which has 6-8 live games per round, rather than 5, and a competition with less repetition of fixtures, wouldn't increase the value of the tv deal, which frankly doesn't make any sense to me.