A new derby partner......... wow. Just wow.
We're not inputting new teams because there's demand and to grow the game guys. We're putting new teams in so existing sides without 'derby partners' can have their own 'derby partner'.

And the bloke from Adelaide City(Lenzi) thinks AU fans should buy joint memberships. What a spud. does he even understand passion in football? I respect Adelaide City's accomplishments, but fragged if I'd ever give them a red cent of my money. They are a rival. I cant wait for the day we get to play them in the FFA Cup!
If youre just cannibalising existing teams and aren't bringing a significant tranche of 'new' fans to the A-League then Go and Get F'd!

As usual theyre just kicking the can down the street. No real movement here. Just some agenda driven journos barking back at the FFA dog whistles.

I was just thinking, what is everyones thoughts on Red Bull starting up a franchise/buying an NPL team for admittance to the HAL? Which realistic regions/teams would be most receptive to this sort of ownership? 

CFG has done wonders in Melb, so maybe it's a way of replicating that success by having another large football group involved in the league

My only problem with that idea is that they call their clubs Red Bull ____. I don't know who would want to support an energy drink as a football club.

I think red bulls missed their chance with the Jets: http://www.theherald.com.au/story/3013539/opinion-red-bull-could-give-jets-back-their-wings/
I'd argue their only reasonable chance would be an expansion team or the nix

south melbourne red bulls anyone.

they can have a derby against the Melbourne V Knights

Realistically I think FFA are focused on the TV deal and sorting that out, Id say once they sign off on that Id expect them to get into the swing of things for expansion, with the first step reviewing all applicants.
1. Start ups/new entities -
2. Merged clubs
3. association backed clubs
4. Existing NPL Clubs

Once they sift through all of that they will take the learnings from WSW and engage and get all the information they need

Maybe it would suit a smaller region that would otherwise not be attractive to the FFA, and the region would just be happy to have a team.

Like Tasmania, Canberra, NQ, NT

Would Red Bull want to be involved in a small city franchise? From what I know, they've only invested in big cities.. New York, Salzburg, Brasil (Sao Paulo) and Leipzig.

What stops a group of NPL clubs combining and forming a higher order entity to run a 'superclub'. Sure keep your own NPL teams at lower level, but look at the bigger picture. eg Like super rugby franchises in NZ , or the Crows etc in the AFL. If we are not xenophobic, and if the old NSL clubs have truly 'moved on' from the old 'mono-ethnic' social club structures that many started out as, then why couldn't we have clubs that are backed by 2 or 3 or 4 old NSL clubs. It seems to me that the real issue is that there are too many people at NPL clubs (maybe on boards or committee level) who still see the club as a cultural/social club with a football team aligned to it or who are scared of losing power/influence rather than ambitious to take the next step up. Why not  (West Adelaide-Adelaide City, "West Adelaide  Zebra's"), (Melbourne Knights-Hume City), (South Melbourne-Oakleigh Cannons-,Bentleigh Greens) (Sydney United-Marconi) ? I've no doubt, a 'superclub' of NPL clubs could compete at A-League level and could generate a large following.

Whatever happened to the Melbourne Knights/Chinese consortium going for an A-League licence? They were going to go as a seperate entity to Melbourne Knights and have Knights still playing in the NPL as a feeder team.

Would this be considered by the FFA as a 3rd Melbourne team based out west, or because its linked to Melbourne Knights it'll never happen?

I have suggested this before, and it makes the most sense. But I got told I know nothing about these clubs and its a stupid idea

True, maybe Canberra. Its a big city and has 390k in population (Salzburg has about 190k I think). There are some bigger regional cities that may suit, like Gold Coast (although silly idea to expand there imo), or else second teams in big cites like Perth or Brisbane.

The only places it probably wont work it Sydney or Melb I think. I do think their best bet is to buy an NPL team though

Could say with some confidence that having red bull sponsor a Canberra team would be brilliant, and have little to no impact on whether people would support the team or not.

We are so used to having the teams' sponsor as part of the name in Canberra (aquis brumbies, cfmeu raiders a few years ago). 

At this stage, any major backer would be amazing 

All for City in the HAL but they pay their own way. Shared memberships = gagf. If someone wants to support both that's a personal choice.

Canberra and wollongong should be next cabs off the rank 

But it feels like the FFA are waiting for it to magically fall into their laps rather than making it happen, Remember FFA were essentially forced into creating wsw  

not saying that i dont support that, however the only problem there is that it would offer gallop very little bargaining power when it comes to tv viewership in the broadcast deal. he would surely have one from sydney or melbourne as part of the next expansion phase.

perhaps. 
11. southern sydney
12. canberra

13. new victorian
14. wollongong wolves

15. brisbane strikers
16. 2nd adelaide

Fremantle & Adelaide,  then Wollongong & Canberra , then Brisbane & Geelong 16 teams by 2024

Melbourne. Youve had enough time to build support in Melbourne. 

Expansion stalls the Div 2 debate for a few years, or at least the pro/rel aspect but it's still a necessity so I hope it's true the NPL sides are organising themselves in this regard!

Everyone has got a valid opinion on where the expansion teams should go, personally I wouldn't stray too far from the Australian tv markets preference of Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra.

A team in the south of either Melbourne or Sydney would be guaranteed aggregate crowds double those of existing clubs Jets, Mariners, Glory and possibly even Adelaide through:

3x home derbies of 33,000 = 99,000
13 home games of 8,000 = 104,000

Total aggregate = 203,000/12,700 average

and a second team in metro Brisbane might not have the same success initially but a similar effect would be:

2x home derbies of 33,000 = 66,000
14 home games of 8,000 = 112,000

Total BNE2 aggregate = 178,000/11,200 average

I actually believe there's a latent group of (now non) Roar support that would switch to a second Brisbane team and assuming a second team in the city didn't drag attendances down Roar could expect aggregate crowds of 250,000/15,000 average

For the contrived expansion I now favour BNE, SYD, MEL, ADE, Perth and Canberra (not necessarily in that order) to 16 teams and then pro/rel

And it has been the most successful because they expanded into the right area.

I agree with Canberra and Wollongong, they need to be the next two. The number one thing they both have going for them is ready made stadiums, supporter base (Canberra from their initial bid), sponsorship, facilities and in places where football is the most popular sport.

The only barrier I see with Canberra is if they wet the appetite of broadcasters. In terms of attendances for both they would be successful. One - smaller stadiums and two - with the Gong you'd have so many good away trips for SFC, WSW, even NJ & CCM to a lesser extent. With Canberra you'd have a ready made derby with Wollongong, plus decent away trips for the Sydney and even Melbourne clubs. 

It's closer for the Melbourne clubs to drive up to Canberra than it is to go to Adelaide.

So out of 12 Franchises in the A-League 6 would be within the borders of NSW. Interesting!

You could argue Shire is even closer for SFC, WSW NJ & CCM.
Also a 3rd Melbourne team is closer for MV & MC.

2 things are important - what the tv wants and how much FFA can get for the licenses. Bigger cities equals more money for both points. 

Just like there's a lot of Premier League clubs based in London..

I agree but the thing with that sentence in the article is its author.
If we read it again :



The part in bold is what O'Rourke said. The last bit of the sentence is Val editorialising on the comment and trying to make it relevant to what he wants to say.

Get Woolongong and Canberra in next year with the TV deal/brand revamp!

Everyone goes on about Gong and Canberra being added, but the reality is they are located too close together to be added in at the one time. Would be better to get one in and let them grow before adding another in. Question remains, who will give them more TV viewers and who is more sustainable