Nowhere near as much hype as there was same time last year. It's all about the troubles at Brisbane and the PFA vs FFA.

As much as I don't like a 40 year old ex-superstar running around taking a Visa spot from a still half decent 28 year old, a David Villa or Del Piero type certainly would have helped.

=d> \:d/

Nah but remember when everyone on here was saying that high profile players does nothing to grow the game?...

I've always said we need to have a sprinkle of big name players, at the very least to use as a way to market the game to a larger audience who will then get a taste and get attracted to watching the game in the long term. but you can't do this one year and then stop and hope that the job is done. It needs to be ongoing year after year, that's how we'll be able to keep the game in the limelight in the media and in the attention of the casual viewers.

Then as the quality of the game improves naturally, we'll be less reliant on the high profile players as we will have already won the market over. We're not at that stage yet.

Are you serious?

24,000 MV season ticket holders and not a marquee player in sight....

yeah mate I am serious.

Even just today I spoke to 2 avid football fans who follow the EPL religiously and have attended Sydney FC games previously, however when i asked them whether they would be attending games this year, they answered with this

"Who have they recruited? I've hardly heard anything about it in the news" followed up with, "when they had adp it was awesome, everyone was talking about it. Even i went to a few of games."

Now you might reply with: "well who gives a fuck about those types of euro snobs", but the fact of the matter is that there is a lack of general awareness when we're not in the media's attention, and the media (at least in sydney) mainly take notice when there's hype around profile players.

So although the people i spoke to may never be converted, the result is two fold:
1) Literally less people attending games directly
2) Some people that are initially attracted to the a-league through high profile players may decide to stay around and like what they see and slowly become attached.

In the case of point 2) I know a number of people that have now become members due to the success of ADP coming to play for us.

On a side note, can't you see how a high profile player can also help the smaller clubs in the league by increase gate takings etc, rather than a player that may actually perform better on the field than an older marquee player, but does nothing to bring in the crowds? Crowds that many of these smaller clubs absolutely rely on.

Clubs that can afford to bring in a marquee without reducing their community or youth development commitment are Sydney FC and Melb City. Both of these clubs should be bringing in big profile players.

For fucks sake, how many times do i have to say it that MELBOURNE VICTORY DOESN'T need a high profile player. I have never said they should. in fact it would be wasted if Victory brought in anyone big. Just like it's wasted if WSW do so too, because there's no room left to fill in their smaller stadium.

Sydney FC and Melb City should be the two clubs that every year can afford and have the space to grow (in a large market) to have high profile players.



Edited by Davo1985: 14/9/2015 07:01:26 PM

^ ughhh reading so many of these posts make me want to bang my head against a wall. It's actually the iq of 2 year olds.

Davo, you are 1000% right, not even a grammar mistake could make you less right.

For those who say we don't need marquees or we don't want to attract the eurosnobs... Get off your high horse. We want this sport to be the biggest in the country, but we don't want euronobs, nor hooligans, nor afl or rugby fans or whatever... Iv heard it all... It's pathetic dick measuring.

We want our game to grow. Why are people who love football and want the a league to succeed arguing about this sort of stuff.

The seasons before adp, sydney averaged 10k ... Now after his gone they average 20k...plus WSW average 15k... Both adp and another team helped grow the exposure of the sport. Adp helped get people through the gates and the majority have stayed since he has gone. From a financial point of view, adp has been the smartest business decision in the a league to date. If anyone wants to question that i'v got plenty of answers to that.

Davo is right, victory and WSW won't financially gain from lashing out on a named marquee. Clubs that should are those who have big markets and room for crowd growth.

Brisbane roar
Melbourne city
Sydney fc

Those 3 clubs can see the biggest return on a big name player and have the markets to do so .

Whilst heskey helped bring in a few extra fans, the population of newcastle is a smudge compared to the big cities so it is harder to see a return.

Melbourne victory is the benchmark of this competition and because they have done so much right. But make no mistake if they were playing in a 50k stadium week in week out. A named marquee player could benefit them just as much as the other 3 clubs I mentioned.

The very fact that the membership pages in this forum this year are a fraction of the sizes of previous years goes to show even those you have the most interest in a league care less about it this year.

FFA know that marquees is a way to ensure the financially viability of the league. This is why they introduced 2 foreign marquees and have even said that they will help fund this. Clubs are stupid if they don't look at the financial success of sydney fc from a result of paying a player 4 million a season which has seen them drop their losses from 7-10mil to only 1-2.... Not to mention how much money adp poured into every clubs coffers when he visited your home ground.

rants pretty much over for now. But I just felt sorry for Davo speaking to people who quite frankly couldn't hold a business type conversation to save themselves. And before you get in about it, this business is about bringing more people to our games. So that one day we have the league we probably all want to see... Not relying on ageing marquee players. But without them ... Clubs aren't making money. Once the fans are in, our market share grows and TV stations pay big dollars for our game... Then we can revisit this argument that we don't need marquees.

But until the a league (not soccer) is considered mainstream and has a substantial market share. Then Im over hearing shit like marquees aren't necessary... Based on one or 2 clubs in the biggest 2 cities in australia who have both had success. And even one of them isn't turning a profit.... Have a little think about that. Even WSW need more money... How do they get this when there stadium is almost at capacity? Sponsorship, TV deal sharings etc.... Which is derived from more people wanting to watch the a league and get involved. It doesn't matter who those people are.

rant over.

Go victory.

From someone who wants the best for this sport in the country and isn't naive.

It shows YOUR mindset that YOU need marquee and big signings. No one in Melbourne gives two fucks. You either go or you don't. No need to be so insecure.

For everyone else the hoorah lasts for the first two rpunds and then swings and relies on the success of the team. Thats the reality. Where were all the fans when teams with marquees when they played shit.

Also how can you make blanket statements on figures that can be influenced on a number of other factors. Advertising, quality (a marquee is as only as good as the team behind him), and the scheduling.

I live in melbourne. And for every 1 mate I have who goes to the a league... I have about 5 euro snob mates.

If Lampard had signed for city I knew 5 mates who wanted to become members. They would be lucky to go to one game a season.

So yes people in melbourne do give a fuck, and it's not just my mates, it's people at work, people at the gym, family members, whoever.

And yes mate. scheduling doubled sydney fc's attendances in one season.... Lol lol lol.

'No one in Melbourne gives a fuck about marquees' haha.. Actually can't stop laughing at that one.

I am just another opinion.

But I believe I at least have an educated view. I have discussed this with davutavic in person and he agreed with my points of view on this.

If say I know 100 mates/colleagues/acquintances who like soccer. Only about 5-10 would want to come to an a league game with me. And as far as I'm concerned 5-10% of people who love soccer also loving the a league is just not good enough.

In sydney fc . The proof is in the pudding. Adp has been the best single thing to happen to that club, better than any championships or anything.

I am not saying that he alone is the reason why the crowds have jumped 8,000 in only a season or two. But he is a huge factor and you are honestly naive if you can't see that. Just like you are naive to turn a blind eye to the fact that everywhere he played crowds rose.

Really think CCM get 18,000 due to good fixturing or good weather? Honestly...

Maybe in some people's bubbles or areas or groups of mates, marquee players wouldn't make a difference. But doesn't the fact that for some people it evidently does suggest that what the majority of us are saying is correct:

It does matter... You can argue not to the degree we are saying, but to say we don't need it or no one in melbourne cares is so naive it isn't funny.

Look at melbourne city with the villa hype, look at sydney with the adp hype. Look at the crowds.... I just can't even understand how this is even a discussion.

24k Season ticket holders...........lol :roll:

Then please explain the constant disparity between Melbourne and Sydney crowds.

There is some truth to this - marquee players are needed to bring in those eurosnobs. However, the product when they come in needs to be good enough to keep them coming and draw them in. Problem is that they want premier league standard and the A-league is never going to be like that so unless you are bringing in a big name marquee every year, is it worth it??

I personally think that certain clubs benefit from marquee players while others don't need them. Sydney FC and melb City for example are the perfect fit for a big name marquee while WSW and Melbourne Victory will get good crowds whether or not they have big name marquee players.

Long term, we need the younger kids coming up to be involved and want to go to games so as long as the product keeps improving (and this doesn't necessarily mean marquees OR no marquee)

I think there may be misunderstanding. Sorry I am not saying no marquee i mean to say big named marquee passed their used by date.

I realise that the way I think of the word narquee is an aged player with a price tag on his name. Not his ability.

Ie. Carlos Hernandez, Delpierre, Broich etc.

What exactly is incorrect about what he said?

Edited by scotty21: 15/9/2015 10:34:31 AM

You couldn't be more wrong.

in the first year that ADP was with sydney we averaged 19k coming from a 10k average. That year we came 7th.. last year we came second and our average was just over 18k.

What does that tell you, that a) despite the team performing badly when adp arrived in year 1, we still had more people wanting to attend all home games, than last year when the team was pretty much in the top 2-4 all season.

Now before you bring up your Kewell argument, you must remember that not all marquee players will work for you. In the case of kewell he really didn't perform. There's always a risk with a player like that, but it's certainly worth taking. He still adds value to the brand of the club. If the alternative is a no name who may or may not play well, then you have already lost the viewers debate.

The problem is that on here there are too many purists/old schools who hate the commercial/corporate/business side of the game, and wish it went back to being what it was. Unfortunately though, business metrics are absolutely vital if we want the game to be at a level playing field to league and afl, which it's not (far from it). I'm sick of only hearing and seeing afl and league branded about with our little column space dedicated to our game.

In order to grow the game, we need the media on side, and they will only really report what they feel the majority of readers/listeners want to hear.

Finally you mentioned that people in melbourne are not insecure that they either go or they don't go, well i think that's a stupid way at looking at it. Because you have one side that is struggling to grow their supporter base, a base which actually boomed in memberships and crowds during the time they actually invested in a very high profile player. You don't think that would be useful? Obviously not as a guest but as a full year marquee?

Cheers, finally someone else who gets it.

I hope im wrong, but i have a feeling that we'll slip even further again this year. The level of exposure the league is getting atm is almost non existent. This will have an effect.

The only thing that could turn it around is if the two sydney teams both have blinders and are fighting it out at 1-2, with Victory and City in top 4 too.

On the last point do you advocate guest stints? Or do you think they are gimmicky?

Melbourne City - 6,343

The tally seems to be gaining momentum, albeit small, but with our first home game in round three it does provide fans with an additional two weeks to sign up to ensure maximum value.

It was noted on the City forums a few days ago that we're roughly 1,200 behind where we were this year which probably makes it look better than it appears otherwise, obviously a lot of the difference can be attributed to the David Villa hype.

I can see us reaching 7,500 by round 1 and no more than 8,500 ahead of round 3. The derby result in round 2 will be vital and could make a difference of 500 or so.

We'll probably end up on just under 9,500 - 10,000 when the flexi memberships are released.

No i'm against the guest stint because it is gimmicky but also because you don't give a player enough time to adapt. Most players doesn't matter how good they are may require 2-3 months to get acquainted with their new surroundings/type of play etc.

I also think you are selling the potential members short. You want people to commit to a full season, which they do if they know a player is going to stick around. The Villa guest stint was still successful for the a-league but not so much for City as he only played such a small number of games, but as you've seen at NYC now, he's scoring goals for fun. He would have done the same here.

To be honest as Tambo and I have said, only 2 maybe 3 clubs should really be pushing for high profile players, because it works in that market. I'm reluctant to say Brisbane atm because they don't have stable ownership, but the market would be there otherwise. But Sydney FC and City especially should be bringing in the profile players each year. At least 1 of the 2 marquee spots available.

Edited by Davo1985: 15/9/2015 01:45:25 PM

I disagree completely on Villa but my point is that a quality unknown player is worth more than a name. Just imo. Im not particularly passionate on this topic though as i can see you are.

Place the unknown player in any other league then I would be totally on your side on this.

But unfortunately we have to grow the game on both fronts, the on field as well as the off field as our game is no where near the top sport in this country.

It's my belief that adding a few extremely well known players, you may still get added on field benefit but you are sure as hell going to get better off field exposure than a no name. And in the long term that may result in better broadcast deals which in turn will help on field recruiting at the medium and bottom level, which would raise the overall quality. WHich is what we're after.

Either way, the way I see it, if you're going purely off quality alone then you're going to need at least half a team playing fantastic quality in order to get people attracted to come to games. By bringing in a no name player that may perform well, will not get the masses attending the games. You will be reliant on all other non marquee players on the team to gel too.

So in other words, one player doesn't make a team, but one player if high profile enough can raise all the metrics that a club needs.

Anyhow. we'll leave it at that.

Which part of Villa do u disagree with? The guest stint (which i also disagree with) or the fact that you don't think he's quality enough, even though he was only 32 and better than all players ever played in the a-league (at present)

The select few - I think guest stints are pretty gimmicky and what happened with villa was an utter joke. And that is why the supporters aren't back this year. If villa had played a full year and the exact same results happened. I would expect greater members this year then there are currently.

What happened left a lot of members feeling ripped off, and he didn't play long enough to almost convince supporters to stick around.

If he signed a 1 year deal... Supporters live in hope that he may even sign on post the season. Whereas guest stint isn't going to rope people in seriously enough for long enough like adp was able to do with sydney supporters.

If you are arguing worth more in a football sense then we may be arguing completely different things here. I am talking about purely financial returns, which like Davo pointed out... Is what we do need to focus on whilst our league is financially struggling, at least to a degree.

Financially and in terms of growth. A Del piero, drogba, lampard type player even though would cost 3 million more than a Janko or holosko, is a smarter business decision in theory and in Adp's case in practice.

3 million is not hard to return for big clubs like sydney. In attendances alone, 7k more spectators times 14 home matches at $20 an average ticket retrieves $2million f that.

Then you start looking at rebates from the ffa, sponsorship increase, added television value, merchandise sales, people spending money at the games etc.

And even if you break even, and even if only 1,000 of those 6,000 fans each week stick around once the marquee is gone. Then you are financially recouping 1,000 X 14 home games X $20 = $280,000 a season for free essentially.

Not to mention growth breeds growth. And more people coming to games helps more people come to games!

I agree to this to some extent. But your figures are way off, and this is the exact reason why the top players don't come to the A-league, because they're simply unaffordable.
To give you an example, Marc Janko was on $1.4m AUD, but compare that with a Steven Gerrard or a Frank Lampard, who are on $6.2m and $6m US per year. That's $8.5m AUD per player. That's way too much for our clubs, they simply can't afford that, and you wouldn't see the return on investment for that club. What they would bring, as mentioned is increased exposure for the overall league, which will in turn help increase sponsorship, membership and the like.

Which is why I've always thought, players of that magnitude need to be paid by the TV deal separately or by the FFA.

You are right. I used the $4mil as that was adp's wage and carried it fwd in my argument.

Wages can be seen here:

https://www.mlsplayers.org/images/July%2015,%202015%20Salary%20Information%20-%20By%20Club.pdf

Noted that Pirlo is only on $2mil us and villa $5.5mil.

I seem to remember drogba being on around 4 million in China but I could be wrong?

Regardless, I think most people would agree someone of gerrards or lampard's profile would even dwarf that of adp. As stated above, my points still stand... Even if ticket sales $3mil make up for half the wage, the increased expspenditure at the games, merchandise sales (seem to remember hearing 40,000 adp shirts were sold , at $25 a shirt profit to sydney fc, that's another $1million.... Then you look into scarves, and the rest of it. ) , sponsorship increases, television rights sold overseas (sydney picked up another $200k from italy didn't they?) , ffa subsidizing, and the biggest reason of them all.... Helping contribute to a bigger TV deal and they receive a bigger share from the ffa as a result.

Now I know that the above numbers are for the most part guesstimations , but I don't believe they are far fetched and if anything , arguments can be made to show that they are conservative.

And my main point is. Even if it's a slight loss or a brrakeven on these players, they will reap the rewards once these players go and the wage bills drop significantly . It's all about investment by these owners... And if they can risk investing $5-$6 million in a genuine superstar name, then the sky is the limit and you have an endless amount of seasons to reap the rewards for an initial outlay.

This is just my point of view on this. And as pointed out, we have seen plenty of evidence in the a league to suggest their is validity behind what Im saying.

Perth are offering 6,000 free junior memberships for the first three games. Good intiative. Get the kids = get the parents.