Nah, Heart are not close to collapse. They aren't even owned by the FFA yet (like Western Sydney). The FFA will persist with the second team in Melbourne for a while. They'll probably try to lure any backers SMFC (or whoever) have before admitting a replacement side. So you're still looking at 5+ years before another Melbourne side anyway (whether that's a replacement or expansion side).

100 pages of this bollocks. lord have mercy on us

To clarify - the question is over the current owner's willingness to continue financing losses, and the ability to find new owners should the current owners pull back.

So far they've been patient, and they did a good job replacing Mirabella when he took his ball home. Credit where it's due.

HOWEVER - as explained above, it'll be hard to replicate this year's sales again, the increase in the tv deal will help, but the lack of growth in support this season, coupled with the end of the sweetheart stadium deal, could mean that operating in the black will continue to be beyond Heart for another few years.

For what its worth (again) - I don't think they will go out of business, nor do I want them to. My point of view is that a third team in Melbourne can work, so long as it offers something different to Victory - and that Heart would be more effective if it also offered something different to Victory. Importantly, if we don't think about the option of a 3rd team in Melbourne, we are conceding that the game is a long long way from growing to anything like it's potential.

Apparently the plan is to win everything in sight, pick up a bunch of short term fans who are only interested in teams that win everything in sight - then hope they keep winning so those fans don't leave town.

Oh, and, er, obviously they are going to hope that having the best coach in the country, at the biggest team in the league, putting together an exciting young team, won't get in the way of winning everything in sight.

Personally I suspect that the 'winning everything in sight' fans are probably going to be at Victory for a while.

(EDIT - damn me and my Americanized spelling)

Edited by Benjamin: 8/2/2013 12:28:55 AM

This is a key point.

You can say the same about Sydney as well, and Brisbane. And Adelaide Perth and Newcastle. Fiji too.

You can probably stuff six or seven teams into Sydney and five in Melbourne, three or four in Brisbane, and then you will have a true football competition realising its full potential.

We are a long way from thinking about a third team in Melbourne, we need to tick off boxes one at a time rather than creating more boxes and hoping by ticking those boxes the other boxes tick themselves, which is stupid.

But before that third team in Melbourne happens there will be a third Sydney team, a Canberra, Wollongong, Gold Coast, Townsville and perhaps Auckland, Geelong and Hobart as well.

And finally in 150 years time, when Melbourne finally gets that third team, long after chris, ben, art et al have bit the dust, that team will be Dandenong or Collingwood.

I'm predicting it will take 5,000 years before South finally gets in the A league.

Indeed. Having a so-called superior/attractive game style to Victory as a point of difference was always a risk since it relied on Heart being successful almost immediately, plus it was something Victory could always reproduce. *coughs*

They should just pick an area of Melbourne where there's about a million people and brainwash all the kids in THOSE schools and THOSE football clubs, and engage THAT community, then brainwash then engage etc, and then the football club becomes their church. Play out of Swan St, but with the view to having a home ground in said area for smaller games in ~5-10 years.

Actually, they should come to the northern burbs (it's where they train) - I would definitely support them then as an ex Rosanna boy.

RUSTY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Heart certainly has a handful of players that are attractive to watch, like Williams, but I don't think their style of play or tactics get the best from him.

I could go through the rest of the squad and honestly say that right now they do not have one player that I would pay may $20 to go and watch other than Williams.

And thats the sad truth.

While winning certainly helps develop attendances, to what extent is the correlation between winning and attendnaces important?

I think its more about people paying their hard earned money to watch players that are exciting.

I have said that if Heart signed Ronaldihnio I would by my family membership no problems.

I have also said that Heart should dump Didiluca, I cannot see how he has put a squad together that is exciting to watch, he has recruited some lumps and this weeks signing and the release of another is an indication of how bad it is.

No Heart doesn't need to be a winning team to attract, it needs to be a team playing attractive football attract spectators.

I don't need to tell you what I think...who are you, Chris in disguise?

And Ben, don't put words in my mouth about "winning everything in sight"...

I went to the Heart Fan Forum and I can assure you that Heart will be here for a while :) They board has acknowledged certain issues and they're working on rectifying them. At the moment, three years into Heart's existence, there are definitely some things that need to be ironed out and some teething issues that we need to grow out of....and we will grow. We are growing.

So yes, we have acknowledged what the issues are, possible ways to rectify them and what the caveats around addressing some of them are.

The fact is, we're not trying to lure people like Chris or CRIMINAL to Heart - they're a lost cause - and I don't need to prove anything to Benjamin or you, Jak. Nor do I need to provide a detailed brief on Heart's "direction". What I know is that Heart is working towards a successful and profitable future, there is a long-term plan and are here to stay.

SMFC might not have to wait 5,000 years, but I personally do not see them entering the highest domestic football competition until the 2030/31 season where I'll be looking forward to the SXFC Vs Heart derbies ;)

.

Do you think Heart will get more than 4,505 tonight?

If so do you think that the people mentioned above have had an effect in drumming up support?

Whilst this thread is about South for Heart, I've no problem with another franchise being brought in as the third team in Melbourne - the important thing is the point of differentiation from the other teams. I've suggested Collingwood in the past, or a clearly defined geographic determination (they don't have to play there - just base themselves there and represent the area). I've argued that point long and hard.

I agree that growth potential isn't just about 3 teams in Melbourne, but also includes (in my opinion) 4 teams in Sydney, plus Wollongong/South Coast, and second sides in Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane. Creating city derbies is a terrific growth tool.

In the case of THIS particular line of discussion - the argument is whether South would be a viable alternative. There are different opinions. We'll likely never see eye-to-eye on them, but debate is healthy because it focuses the key issues. In this case the key issue is the future of the game in Australia, and the A-League in particular.

The problem with Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane is (to my knowledge) there isn't anyone putting their hand up and showing an interest in any of those cities - meanwhile in Wollongong there is some interest but they can't get the money together, ditto Canberra, ditto Tasmania.

Whether you like South or hate them, whether you would have them in the A-league or not, the inescapable fact is that there is very little interest from elsewhere in investing in the competition, and without additional investment the league will stagnate, as will the game. None of us wants that.

Not tonight, maybe tomorrow night :p

Whoops silly me.

Was Frank lying when he said the FFA will NOT bail anyone out?

How do you know there is no interest? Just because it isn't splashed all over the papers doesn't mean investors aren't keeping an eye on things.

Canberra wanted in and finances were ok but they were rebuffed by FFA. FFA has said the 10 team model is sufficient for now, expansion will happen further down the track but the short term focus is the ten teams we currently have and ensuring their viability. When the commercial environment improves and further licences made available investors will come on board.

So, whilst no-one can find buyers for CCM or WS, and had to grovel to Tinks, you're confident there'll be a queue for unestabliched and untried franchises in smaller markets at some unspecified time in the future ?

Good luck getting the Canberrans who put so much effort in to get all enthusiatic again.

The FFA needs to realise that it's cookie-cutter club model isn't appropriate for all locations/markets.

The FFA are focused on stability at 10 teams BECAUSE there isn't sufficient stable interest in expansion. If there were investors keen to get involved, and viable expansion options available, then expansion would be on the table.

Canberra were rebuffed because they didn't have the required finance.

The FFA has - thus far - failed to find a buyer for what is (in theory) one of the more attractive franchises (WSW), and the most consistent performers of the last few seasons (CCM) have been struggling to find investors for the last couple of years.

The general economic climate isn't the FFA's fault of course - but the basic structure of the A-league, the required model of ownership, mandatory requirements, etc., cuts out various options for owners to reduce costs, and that scares away investors.

How many viable options are there? All I'm saying is that IF someone can satisfy the question of whether they can become operational, and remain operational, why ignore them?

Further to the lack of investors, in lieu of finding more of their own, Heart have been trying to poach Victory's sponsors. Also, recently Munn was in Europe looking for investors.



The cookie-cutter is too rigid.

This is incorrect Ben. Canberra had a promising bid but there were concerns over the viability of existing A league clubs, after the debacle that was Gold Coast the focus shifted from expansion to stability, hence expansion bids have been frozen until 2015. Providing the current commerical environment stays on course Canberra will have a team in the A league within five years. The interest is obviously there.

As for WSW gives the huge success it has been so far I don't think they're in any desparate rush to find a buyer. The more derbies they play and home finals they sell out with likely finals and possible ACL on the horizon the more the club will be worth to them. I'm sure you're not privy to all investor activty that goes on behind the scenes, there could be consortiums lining up for all you know. Anyway, it's a brand that already has amazing value and the FFA won't have trouble finding a buyer(s) when the timing is right.

With the new TV media deal set to kick in next season I'm confident the economic climate is generally positive and the model we currently have is the best one in terms of growing the sport and ensuring its long term success.

Nice try, but money was not a problem at GCU

Love the notion being put forward that there are investors waiting in the wings for A-league franchises... This despite the FFA fighting to keep Tinkler at the Jets because the only other option was fan-ownership; CCM's lack of investors; WSW having to be financed by the FFA because no one else would buy into either the Rovers or Wanderers concept; Fury collapsing due to lack of investor interest...

The notion that Canberra didn't get up because of instability in the league... Classic. One of the best ways to stabilize an unstable body is to add stable elements. The biggest problem for the FFA at the end of last season was that the MINIMUM requirement of the tv deal was a 10 team league - losing ONE team would have left the deal in tatters. If Canberra was a solid bid, with good investors, adding them as an 11th side would have provided a 'safety net' (and extra content for the tv deal).

Stability was

I never said there were investors "waiting in the wings" Ben, just that we're not all privy to what's going on behind the scenes. As for CCM, Newcastle and WSW troubles they were happening at a time when the league was going through a dark period, with those issues ironing out and the new TV deal announced we can be confident of the A league trending towards stability. Not saying it's easy, but we can look forward to a bright future rather than focusing on the gloomy past all the time. Good for the brain. Even South fans admit the current environment is perfect for SMFC to come on board and sell out the MCG (no kidding - the chairman did actually say that!)

The Canberra bid was ready to go but the FFA rejected it - bad timing. Adding more unknown elements to the A league at a time of fragility was always going to create more instability. They could have forced it in there if they really wanted but the "safety net" is argument is bullocks, an odd number of teams is bad look and byes don't generate extra TV content.

huh ?

10 teams - 135 games
11 teams - 165 games

They could do 10 teams and 800 games if they wanted.

So why not 8 teams playing more often ?

Don't like derbies?

FFA was happy to shit-can Brisbanes', why not Victorys'?