|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Have the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. +x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. Nothing wrong with Macarthur as an area for a club. Good population, huge population growth, 20,000 registered players that is growing at a rate greater than most locations in Australia with a new local club being set up every couple of years and growing to 800-1000 players in 5+ years. If there is a problem it is the ownership charades. Despite that the club has performed well on the pitch. It will be interesting to see how attendance goes this season as it will be the first season that the club will have been without covid restrictions. The SW of Sydney was the worst affected with covid shutdowns in Sydney. I don't believe there are too many clubs in the big cities that will be able to add another $2.5m+ pa to their current spending and that will make the larger regional cities possibilities for inclusion. As I said in a previous post places like Gold Coast (650k), Greater Newcastle (610k), ACT (460k), Sunshine Coast (350k), Illawarra (300k), Greater Hobart (250k) and Greater Geelong (250k) might be able to fund clubs. If 5 of them get up there is still 9 spots for big city clubs in a 14 team competition. Say 1 in Brisbane, 1 in Perth, 1 in Adelaide and 3 each in Melbourne and Sydney. Of course the quality of the bids will determine the actual spread and P/R will settle what the natural spread is. Gyfox, the "arms race" has commenced. Its amazing what the sniff of aspiration will do to the football ecosystem in my opinion. South just signed a major sponsorship deal for the next two years in anticipation, watch this space for many clubs to follow suit. https://www.smfc.com.au/record-sponsorship-agreement-with-cf-capital/ Great news. The more money coming in to football the better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. No bidding Page 23 "Widest Feasible Geographic spread " & qualification through Competitive football matches 'bidding' as in meeting the minimum competition requirements with regards lighting, ground, financials to suport team, sponsorships, media etc and then selecting the best 'bidders' from them. Sorry , When you said bidding I thought you meant bidding. Meeting the licensing. criteria is a simple Yes or No, there is no Best Bid. This is fundamental to P&R. Once you meet the minimum criteria, the only bid you can make is on the park. As it should be. How do you get the fist 12 teams from all the different NPLs without "bidding" to/from within the AAFC? Fair question and one that will be the most challenging to answer fairly. The licencing criteria will (should) be fairly stringent so I am guessing it will automatically rule out 3/4 of the clubs in NPL as it stands... of the remaining 30 or 40 I reckon only half would be in any position (right now) to want to or be able to compete nationally. I think it will be something along the lines of allocating a geographically component to selection ie 3 from VIC, 3 from NSW, 2 x from SA, 2 x from QLD, 1 from WA, ACT, TAS and NNSW and then, based on applications, award the first seasons participation to the strongets clubs based on criteria... after that its dog eat dog........ happy days. Think what you like. The AAFC document is there and it clearly states you qualify by playing football. SMFC may think being 'the biggest' will get them in but they will need to change the AAFC partner groups stated aims in order to do so. They should perhaps spend the sponsorship cash on better players ? The AAFC don't make decisions for football. That is the role of the Board of FA on the advice of the executive led by Johnson or by the executive under delegation from the Board. The AAFC has done a great job of bringing the thoughts of their members together and both their original and recent document are fairly well thought through. In the final wash up there will be compromise and in my view practicality will win out over philosophical nit picking which is what the idea of playing off for spots in the new entity is. Let a transparent process decide who gets in and then allow P/R to provide all clubs below the NSD the opportunity to compete to get in over time on football merit.
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
Well this is escalating quickly haha
in any case i dont think the proposal makes it clear how selection in the first year works but is clear how it will work after that
npl central is profiling clubs regularly asking them why they should be in the nsd. It seems to suggest the first year will be based on some bids or selection with p and r from year 2
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Have the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. No bidding Page 23 "Widest Feasible Geographic spread " & qualification through Competitive football matches 'bidding' as in meeting the minimum competition requirements with regards lighting, ground, financials to suport team, sponsorships, media etc and then selecting the best 'bidders' from them. Sorry , When you said bidding I thought you meant bidding. Meeting the licensing. criteria is a simple Yes or No, there is no Best Bid. This is fundamental to P&R. Once you meet the minimum criteria, the only bid you can make is on the park. As it should be. How do you get the fist 12 teams from all the different NPLs without "bidding" to/from within the AAFC? Fair question and one that will be the most challenging to answer fairly. The licencing criteria will (should) be fairly stringent so I am guessing it will automatically rule out 3/4 of the clubs in NPL as it stands... of the remaining 30 or 40 I reckon only half would be in any position (right now) to want to or be able to compete nationally. I think it will be something along the lines of allocating a geographically component to selection ie 3 from VIC, 3 from NSW, 2 x from SA, 2 x from QLD, 1 from WA, ACT, TAS and NNSW and then, based on applications, award the first seasons participation to the strongets clubs based on criteria... after that its dog eat dog........ happy days. Think what you like. The AAFC document is there and it clearly states you qualify by playing football. SMFC may think being 'the biggest' will get them in but they will need to change the AAFC partner groups stated aims in order to do so. They should perhaps spend the sponsorship cash on better players ? ...umm OK Nobody supports the AAFC and the wonderful work they have done so far more than me champ but when they become the football federation in this country and are tasked with setting up and administering this league then perhaps you can perhaps point to their WHITE PAPER PROPOSAL as your "source material" until then nobody outside of the FA has any idea what the selection process for the NST will be..... AAFC is a bunch of clubs, loby group if you will, wanting this to happen. /quote] Sure, FA can try and implement a different way on these clubs, or none at all. But until then this is the only NSD model proposal we know about. http://www.australianfootballclubs.org.au/uploads/9/8/8/1/9881717/aafc_nsd_final_report__22.02.22_.pdfBTW , I don't care if SMFC are 'the biggest' I only care that all teams earn their place on the field. Sorry if your fingers were burnt trying to buy yourselves a spot in the AL, but maybe its time to stop screaming racism every time you don't get your own way.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+xDraw the fuckers out of a hat. Base it on how many national titles each has won maybe? hahahahahahahahahahahaha
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. No bidding Page 23 "Widest Feasible Geographic spread " & qualification through Competitive football matches 'bidding' as in meeting the minimum competition requirements with regards lighting, ground, financials to suport team, sponsorships, media etc and then selecting the best 'bidders' from them. Sorry , When you said bidding I thought you meant bidding. Meeting the licensing. criteria is a simple Yes or No, there is no Best Bid. This is fundamental to P&R. Once you meet the minimum criteria, the only bid you can make is on the park. As it should be. How do you get the fist 12 teams from all the different NPLs without "bidding" to/from within the AAFC? Fair question and one that will be the most challenging to answer fairly. The licencing criteria will (should) be fairly stringent so I am guessing it will automatically rule out 3/4 of the clubs in NPL as it stands... of the remaining 30 or 40 I reckon only half would be in any position (right now) to want to or be able to compete nationally. I think it will be something along the lines of allocating a geographically component to selection ie 3 from VIC, 3 from NSW, 2 x from SA, 2 x from QLD, 1 from WA, ACT, TAS and NNSW and then, based on applications, award the first seasons participation to the strongets clubs based on criteria... after that its dog eat dog........ happy days. Think what you like. The AAFC document is there and it clearly states you qualify by playing football. SMFC may think being 'the biggest' will get them in but they will need to change the AAFC partner groups stated aims in order to do so. They should perhaps spend the sponsorship cash on better players ? ...umm OK Nobody supports the AAFC and the wonderful work they have done so far more than me champ but when they become the football federation in this country and are tasked with setting up and administering this league then perhaps you can perhaps point to their WHITE PAPER PROPOSAL as your "source material" until then nobody outside of the FA has any idea what the selection process for the NST will be..... AAFC is a bunch of clubs, loby group if you will, wanting this to happen. BTW If you dont think the SMFC is the "biggest" club outside the Aleague then either you are feeble minded or just a biggot, either way if the selection process involves having to play to qualify for this competition I for one will be thrilled..... If we dont get in the first year, I can guarantee you we will, sooner rather than later... go direct your anger elsewhere bud I think we want the same things in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Draw the fuckers out of a hat.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. No bidding Page 23 "Widest Feasible Geographic spread " & qualification through Competitive football matches 'bidding' as in meeting the minimum competition requirements with regards lighting, ground, financials to suport team, sponsorships, media etc and then selecting the best 'bidders' from them. Sorry , When you said bidding I thought you meant bidding. Meeting the licensing. criteria is a simple Yes or No, there is no Best Bid. This is fundamental to P&R. Once you meet the minimum criteria, the only bid you can make is on the park. As it should be. How do you get the fist 12 teams from all the different NPLs without "bidding" to/from within the AAFC? 1. Pass the license criteria 2. Win your State NPL 3. Fill remaining spots by playing football. Team that scores the most is the winner. 17 years of AL brainwashing seems hard to undo Even this doesn't give you the best teams on solely football based criteria when starting from our current 10 separate systems. You are being rude, arrogant and obnoxious for no reason. They are legitimate questions. You have to start from somewhere and I'm willing to bet even the AAFC won't just choose the winner from each state when push comes to shove. You yourself have added license criteria which isn;t about putting the ball in the back of the net dickhead It's an interesting idea though choosing the winner from each npl then maybe the next 2 from each NPL to play maybe a single rd season or something in summer to choose the final entrants. Would 100% be watching it if it happened. If you don't meet the criteria you can't enter. That is why it is #1 I've stated it several times and referred everyone to the source document. If you don't think winning your State NPL qualifies as "qualification through a promotion/selection process involving competitive football matches" I really can't help you. Yet again I will also state that their is NO BIDDING in the AAFC proposal. Might be fun to save this page for sharing before Rd1 of the 2nd Division kicks off
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. No bidding Page 23 "Widest Feasible Geographic spread " & qualification through Competitive football matches 'bidding' as in meeting the minimum competition requirements with regards lighting, ground, financials to suport team, sponsorships, media etc and then selecting the best 'bidders' from them. Sorry , When you said bidding I thought you meant bidding. Meeting the licensing. criteria is a simple Yes or No, there is no Best Bid. This is fundamental to P&R. Once you meet the minimum criteria, the only bid you can make is on the park. As it should be. How do you get the fist 12 teams from all the different NPLs without "bidding" to/from within the AAFC? Fair question and one that will be the most challenging to answer fairly. The licencing criteria will (should) be fairly stringent so I am guessing it will automatically rule out 3/4 of the clubs in NPL as it stands... of the remaining 30 or 40 I reckon only half would be in any position (right now) to want to or be able to compete nationally. I think it will be something along the lines of allocating a geographically component to selection ie 3 from VIC, 3 from NSW, 2 x from SA, 2 x from QLD, 1 from WA, ACT, TAS and NNSW and then, based on applications, award the first seasons participation to the strongets clubs based on criteria... after that its dog eat dog........ happy days. Think what you like. The AAFC document is there and it clearly states you qualify by playing football. SMFC may think being 'the biggest' will get them in but they will need to change the AAFC partner groups stated aims in order to do so. They should perhaps spend the sponsorship cash on better players ?
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. No bidding Page 23 "Widest Feasible Geographic spread " & qualification through Competitive football matches 'bidding' as in meeting the minimum competition requirements with regards lighting, ground, financials to suport team, sponsorships, media etc and then selecting the best 'bidders' from them. Sorry , When you said bidding I thought you meant bidding. Meeting the licensing. criteria is a simple Yes or No, there is no Best Bid. This is fundamental to P&R. Once you meet the minimum criteria, the only bid you can make is on the park. As it should be. How do you get the fist 12 teams from all the different NPLs without "bidding" to/from within the AAFC? 1. Pass the license criteria 2. Win your State NPL 3. Fill remaining spots by playing football. Team that scores the most is the winner. 17 years of AL brainwashing seems hard to undo Even this doesn't give you the best teams on solely football based criteria when starting from our current 10 separate systems. You are being rude, arrogant and obnoxious for no reason. They are legitimate questions. You have to start from somewhere and I'm willing to bet even the AAFC won't just choose the winner from each state when push comes to shove. You yourself have added license criteria which isn;t about putting the ball in the back of the net dickhead It's an interesting idea though choosing the winner from each npl then maybe the next 2 from each NPL to play maybe a single rd season or something in summer to choose the final entrants. Would 100% be watching it if it happened. If you don't meet the criteria you can't enter. That is why it is #1 I've stated it several times and referred everyone to the source document. If you don't think winning your State NPL qualifies as "qualification through a promotion/selection process involving competitive football matches" I really can't help you. Yet again I will also state that their is NO BIDDING in the AAFC proposal.
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. No bidding Page 23 "Widest Feasible Geographic spread " & qualification through Competitive football matches 'bidding' as in meeting the minimum competition requirements with regards lighting, ground, financials to suport team, sponsorships, media etc and then selecting the best 'bidders' from them. Sorry , When you said bidding I thought you meant bidding. Meeting the licensing. criteria is a simple Yes or No, there is no Best Bid. This is fundamental to P&R. Once you meet the minimum criteria, the only bid you can make is on the park. As it should be. How do you get the fist 12 teams from all the different NPLs without "bidding" to/from within the AAFC? Fair question and one that will be the most challenging to answer fairly. The licencing criteria will (should) be fairly stringent so I am guessing it will automatically rule out 3/4 of the clubs in NPL as it stands... of the remaining 30 or 40 I reckon only half would be in any position (right now) to want to or be able to compete nationally. I think it will be something along the lines of allocating a geographically component to selection ie 3 from VIC, 3 from NSW, 2 x from SA, 2 x from QLD, 1 from WA, ACT, TAS and NNSW and then, based on applications, award the first seasons participation to the strongets clubs based on criteria... after that its dog eat dog........ happy days. Exactly!! You have to artificially pick the first set of clubs based on SOMETHING other than pure results. From then it's game on. You'd think within about 3-5 seasons the top dogs (20 teams interchanging for 16 places sort of thing) would be fairly set.
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. No bidding Page 23 "Widest Feasible Geographic spread " & qualification through Competitive football matches 'bidding' as in meeting the minimum competition requirements with regards lighting, ground, financials to suport team, sponsorships, media etc and then selecting the best 'bidders' from them. Sorry , When you said bidding I thought you meant bidding. Meeting the licensing. criteria is a simple Yes or No, there is no Best Bid. This is fundamental to P&R. Once you meet the minimum criteria, the only bid you can make is on the park. As it should be. How do you get the fist 12 teams from all the different NPLs without "bidding" to/from within the AAFC? 1. Pass the license criteria 2. Win your State NPL 3. Fill remaining spots by playing football. Team that scores the most is the winner. 17 years of AL brainwashing seems hard to undo Even this doesn't give you the best teams on solely football based criteria when starting from our current 10 separate systems. You are being rude, arrogant and obnoxious for no reason. They are legitimate questions. You have to start from somewhere and I'm willing to bet even the AAFC won't just choose the winner from each state when push comes to shove. You yourself have added license criteria which isn;t about putting the ball in the back of the net dickhead It's an interesting idea though choosing the winner from each npl then maybe the next 2 from each NPL to play maybe a single rd season or something in summer to choose the final entrants. Would 100% be watching it if it happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Have the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. +x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. Nothing wrong with Macarthur as an area for a club. Good population, huge population growth, 20,000 registered players that is growing at a rate greater than most locations in Australia with a new local club being set up every couple of years and growing to 800-1000 players in 5+ years. If there is a problem it is the ownership charades. Despite that the club has performed well on the pitch. It will be interesting to see how attendance goes this season as it will be the first season that the club will have been without covid restrictions. The SW of Sydney was the worst affected with covid shutdowns in Sydney. I don't believe there are too many clubs in the big cities that will be able to add another $2.5m+ pa to their current spending and that will make the larger regional cities possibilities for inclusion. As I said in a previous post places like Gold Coast (650k), Greater Newcastle (610k), ACT (460k), Sunshine Coast (350k), Illawarra (300k), Greater Hobart (250k) and Greater Geelong (250k) might be able to fund clubs. If 5 of them get up there is still 9 spots for big city clubs in a 14 team competition. Say 1 in Brisbane, 1 in Perth, 1 in Adelaide and 3 each in Melbourne and Sydney. Of course the quality of the bids will determine the actual spread and P/R will settle what the natural spread is. Gyfox, the "arms race" has commenced. Its amazing what the sniff of aspiration will do to the football ecosystem in my opinion. South just signed a major sponsorship deal for the next two years in anticipation, watch this space for many clubs to follow suit. https://www.smfc.com.au/record-sponsorship-agreement-with-cf-capital/
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. No bidding Page 23 "Widest Feasible Geographic spread " & qualification through Competitive football matches 'bidding' as in meeting the minimum competition requirements with regards lighting, ground, financials to suport team, sponsorships, media etc and then selecting the best 'bidders' from them. Sorry , When you said bidding I thought you meant bidding. Meeting the licensing. criteria is a simple Yes or No, there is no Best Bid. This is fundamental to P&R. Once you meet the minimum criteria, the only bid you can make is on the park. As it should be. How do you get the fist 12 teams from all the different NPLs without "bidding" to/from within the AAFC? Fair question and one that will be the most challenging to answer fairly. The licencing criteria will (should) be fairly stringent so I am guessing it will automatically rule out 3/4 of the clubs in NPL as it stands... of the remaining 30 or 40 I reckon only half would be in any position (right now) to want to or be able to compete nationally. I think it will be something along the lines of allocating a geographically component to selection ie 3 from VIC, 3 from NSW, 2 x from SA, 2 x from QLD, 1 from WA, ACT, TAS and NNSW and then, based on applications, award the first seasons participation to the strongets clubs based on criteria... after that its dog eat dog........ happy days.
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. No bidding Page 23 "Widest Feasible Geographic spread " & qualification through Competitive football matches 'bidding' as in meeting the minimum competition requirements with regards lighting, ground, financials to suport team, sponsorships, media etc and then selecting the best 'bidders' from them. Sorry , When you said bidding I thought you meant bidding. Meeting the licensing. criteria is a simple Yes or No, there is no Best Bid. This is fundamental to P&R. Once you meet the minimum criteria, the only bid you can make is on the park. As it should be. How do you get the fist 12 teams from all the different NPLs without "bidding" to/from within the AAFC? 1. Pass the license criteria 2. Win your State NPL 3. Fill remaining spots by playing football. Team that scores the most is the winner. 17 years of AL brainwashing seems hard to undo
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. No bidding Page 23 "Widest Feasible Geographic spread " & qualification through Competitive football matches 'bidding' as in meeting the minimum competition requirements with regards lighting, ground, financials to suport team, sponsorships, media etc and then selecting the best 'bidders' from them. Sorry , When you said bidding I thought you meant bidding. Meeting the licensing. criteria is a simple Yes or No, there is no Best Bid. This is fundamental to P&R. Once you meet the minimum criteria, the only bid you can make is on the park. As it should be. How do you get the fist 12 teams from all the different NPLs without "bidding" to/from within the AAFC?
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. No bidding Page 23 "Widest Feasible Geographic spread " & qualification through Competitive football matches
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. No bidding Page 23 "Widest Feasible Geographic spread " & qualification through Competitive football matches 'bidding' as in meeting the minimum competition requirements with regards lighting, ground, financials to suport team, sponsorships, media etc and then selecting the best 'bidders' from them. Sorry , When you said bidding I thought you meant bidding. Meeting the licensing. criteria is a simple Yes or No, there is no Best Bid. This is fundamental to P&R. Once you meet the minimum criteria, the only bid you can make is on the park. As it should be. How do you get the fist 12 teams from all the different NPLs without "bidding" to/from within the AAFC? Yeah im guessing they have to either do bids or a draw for the initial 12
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. No bidding Page 23 "Widest Feasible Geographic spread " & qualification through Competitive football matches 'bidding' as in meeting the minimum competition requirements with regards lighting, ground, financials to suport team, sponsorships, media etc and then selecting the best 'bidders' from them. Sorry , When you said bidding I thought you meant bidding. Meeting the licensing. criteria is a simple Yes or No, there is no Best Bid. This is fundamental to P&R. Once you meet the minimum criteria, the only bid you can make is on the park. As it should be. How do you get the fist 12 teams from all the different NPLs without "bidding" to/from within the AAFC?
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. No bidding Page 23 "Widest Feasible Geographic spread " & qualification through Competitive football matches 'bidding' as in meeting the minimum competition requirements with regards lighting, ground, financials to suport team, sponsorships, media etc and then selecting the best 'bidders' from them. Sorry , When you said bidding I thought you meant bidding. Meeting the licensing. criteria is a simple Yes or No, there is no Best Bid. This is fundamental to P&R. Once you meet the minimum criteria, the only bid you can make is on the park. As it should be.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. No bidding Page 23 "Widest Feasible Geographic spread " & qualification through Competitive football matches 'bidding' as in meeting the minimum competition requirements with regards lighting, ground, financials to suport team, sponsorships, media etc and then selecting the best 'bidders' from them.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI really hope 2023 is the start. It is probably at least 7 years before it trickles up to our national team and takes us to another level I think the value will be almost immediate. 7 years for full effect but undiscovered talent will rise straight away when they are competing with the best. That would be nice, but if its semi professional to start its hard to imagine a player going from the division to the roos before the next world cup any idea what semi professional means? Does that mean some fulltime some part time? Or all part time? Or different mix for different teams? yer look lets just get the NSD going first up forget anything re Roo's for now agreed. That last document I read mentioned a % of Clubs will be able to turn Pro whereas the balance of said 16 Club comp will be semi...... Obviously we all know nothing at this stage how this is going work, maybe its changed behind the scenes as discussions have developed. Just can't wait to see once all is finally announced. Arthur may have a good idea but likely cannot let it out of the kit bag at this stage. Please be a proper H A comp. Even one fully pro club makes a big difference imo. That would be great. Gotta get there first. Do you have info on whether any clubs plan to be fully pro from the start? Anyone have any ideas on how the NSD will interlace with the AL re P/R. Will the 2034 licenses get in the way before then? I've always thought the best model might be to plan for NSD promotion to the AL if we can't yet have full P/R. Aim for a 16 team league (in both divisions) with a winter league by 2034 and bob's your mum's brother. Fuck 2034, it doesn't mean shit. It's an APL mind trick This fallacy needs to get through people's thick heads. It has been confirmed again and again that the licenses don't preclude performance-based relegation from being instated. And in the unbundling process between FA and the APL, FA retained decision-making powers on pro-rel and the season calendar. So it's in their hands. Would obviously be difficult to impose it against the will of the APL. But once an NSD is around for a few years, I think the momentum for pro-rel will be unstoppable. It's just you can't put the cart before the horse: you need a viable, stable second division in place first before A-League clubs will be willing to accept the possibility of being relegated to it. But what exactly does that mean? Clubs have been kicked out in the past for financial (or other non-football metric) non-performance but not for being crap on teh park. The current licenses are until 2034 and there would be one hell of a court action if the powers that be tried to relegate a club for being consistently crap. I've spoken to Chris Nikou about exactly this point and he confirmed it. No loss of license before 2034. No one loses their license. They just get relegated   Wow. Presuming that's legit, that's very interesting indeed. I wonder why it isn't more widely known? I asked Nikou the question at a plenary session at the Football Writers Conference in (I think) 2019. He agreed in front of a packed room that no club with a licence could be relegated before 2034. As you can imagine, it caused instant pandemonium. Wow again. It is widely known. Has always been known, we all know it, but equally, most of us think it's meaningless. For example, if the current Chair has said many times that the investment made by owners to date takes priority over everything, then it effectively means that it doesn't matter what's written in the license agreements (in relation to P&R), there is already an understanding between owners and Chairman (and probably the CEO as well to be frank), that they will NOT be subject to relegation before 2034.
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]I really hope 2023 is the start. It is probably at least 7 years before it trickles up to our national team and takes us to another level I think the value will be almost immediate. 7 years for full effect but undiscovered talent will rise straight away when they are competing with the best. That would be nice, but if its semi professional to start its hard to imagine a player going from the division to the roos before the next world cup any idea what semi professional means? Does that mean some fulltime some part time? Or all part time? Or different mix for different teams? yer look lets just get the NSD going first up forget anything re Roo's for now agreed. That last document I read mentioned a % of Clubs will be able to turn Pro whereas the balance of said 16 Club comp will be semi...... Obviously we all know nothing at this stage how this is going work, maybe its changed behind the scenes as discussions have developed. Just can't wait to see once all is finally announced. Arthur may have a good idea but likely cannot let it out of the kit bag at this stage. Please be a proper H A comp. Even one fully pro club makes a big difference imo. That would be great. Gotta get there first. Do you have info on whether any clubs plan to be fully pro from the start? Anyone have any ideas on how the NSD will interlace with the AL re P/R. Will the 2034 licenses get in the way before then? I've always thought the best model might be to plan for NSD promotion to the AL if we can't yet have full P/R. Aim for a 16 team league (in both divisions) with a winter league by 2034 and bob's your mum's brother. Fuck 2034, it doesn't mean shit. It's an APL mind trick This fallacy needs to get through people's thick heads. It has been confirmed again and again that the licenses don't preclude performance-based relegation from being instated. And in the unbundling process between FA and the APL, FA retained decision-making powers on pro-rel and the season calendar. So it's in their hands. Would obviously be difficult to impose it against the will of the APL. But once an NSD is around for a few years, I think the momentum for pro-rel will be unstoppable. It's just you can't put the cart before the horse: you need a viable, stable second division in place first before A-League clubs will be willing to accept the possibility of being relegated to it. But what exactly does that mean? Clubs have been kicked out in the past for financial (or other non-football metric) non-performance but not for being crap on teh park. The current licenses are until 2034 and there would be one hell of a court action if the powers that be tried to relegate a club for being consistently crap. I've spoken to Chris Nikou about exactly this point and he confirmed it. No loss of license before 2034. No one loses their license. They just get relegated Wow. Presuming that's legit, that's very interesting indeed. I wonder why it isn't more widely known? /quote] 
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Cleansheets
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 944,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI really hope 2023 is the start. It is probably at least 7 years before it trickles up to our national team and takes us to another level I think the value will be almost immediate. 7 years for full effect but undiscovered talent will rise straight away when they are competing with the best. That would be nice, but if its semi professional to start its hard to imagine a player going from the division to the roos before the next world cup any idea what semi professional means? Does that mean some fulltime some part time? Or all part time? Or different mix for different teams? yer look lets just get the NSD going first up forget anything re Roo's for now agreed. That last document I read mentioned a % of Clubs will be able to turn Pro whereas the balance of said 16 Club comp will be semi...... Obviously we all know nothing at this stage how this is going work, maybe its changed behind the scenes as discussions have developed. Just can't wait to see once all is finally announced. Arthur may have a good idea but likely cannot let it out of the kit bag at this stage. Please be a proper H A comp. Even one fully pro club makes a big difference imo. That would be great. Gotta get there first. Do you have info on whether any clubs plan to be fully pro from the start? Anyone have any ideas on how the NSD will interlace with the AL re P/R. Will the 2034 licenses get in the way before then? I've always thought the best model might be to plan for NSD promotion to the AL if we can't yet have full P/R. Aim for a 16 team league (in both divisions) with a winter league by 2034 and bob's your mum's brother. Fuck 2034, it doesn't mean shit. It's an APL mind trick This fallacy needs to get through people's thick heads. It has been confirmed again and again that the licenses don't preclude performance-based relegation from being instated. And in the unbundling process between FA and the APL, FA retained decision-making powers on pro-rel and the season calendar. So it's in their hands. Would obviously be difficult to impose it against the will of the APL. But once an NSD is around for a few years, I think the momentum for pro-rel will be unstoppable. It's just you can't put the cart before the horse: you need a viable, stable second division in place first before A-League clubs will be willing to accept the possibility of being relegated to it. But what exactly does that mean? Clubs have been kicked out in the past for financial (or other non-football metric) non-performance but not for being crap on teh park. The current licenses are until 2034 and there would be one hell of a court action if the powers that be tried to relegate a club for being consistently crap. I've spoken to Chris Nikou about exactly this point and he confirmed it. No loss of license before 2034. No one loses their license. They just get relegated Wow. Presuming that's legit, that's very interesting indeed. I wonder why it isn't more widely known? I asked Nikou the question at a plenary session at the Football Writers Conference in (I think) 2019. He agreed in front of a packed room that no club with a licence could be relegated before 2034. As you can imagine, it caused instant pandemonium. Wow again.
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xDoes anyone know the other 2 models theyare discussing on top of the aafc endorsed one and the champions league one? (Boo to the champions league model unless its a bridge to the 2nd div) the only other possible model i could imagine would be some hybrid between an spl system and a conference system to cut travel time. Maybe split into two leagues with the most geographically close teams play a short home and away season. Then for the second half of the season the top teams from each conference go into a champions bracket and the bottom into a relegation bracket Is the system in Brazil one of them? oh what would that be? It is explained pretty well in wiki. It has the state pyramid and the national pyramid separate and clubs play in the state competition and the national pyramid in different parts of the season. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_football_league_system Oh interesting wonder what model works best in oz? My main desire is that we eventually increase the number of full time positions in australia. I doubt we beat the gg until we have over 150 full time aussies playing
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xDoes anyone know the other 2 models theyare discussing on top of the aafc endorsed one and the champions league one? (Boo to the champions league model unless its a bridge to the 2nd div) the only other possible model i could imagine would be some hybrid between an spl system and a conference system to cut travel time. Maybe split into two leagues with the most geographically close teams play a short home and away season. Then for the second half of the season the top teams from each conference go into a champions bracket and the bottom into a relegation bracket Is the system in Brazil one of them? oh what would that be? It is explained pretty well in wiki. It has the state pyramid and the national pyramid separate and clubs play in the state competition and the national pyramid in different parts of the season. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_football_league_system
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. +x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Have the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. No bidding Page 23 "Widest Feasible Geographic spread " & qualification through
Competitive football matches That is a nonsense. Set up the competition based on the best bids and then let P/R sort it out after and short steadying period for the competition. Bad Luck We've already got a league where bullshit on paper and a fat wallet gets you in. 
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xDoes anyone know the other 2 models theyare discussing on top of the aafc endorsed one and the champions league one? (Boo to the champions league model unless its a bridge to the 2nd div) the only other possible model i could imagine would be some hybrid between an spl system and a conference system to cut travel time. Maybe split into two leagues with the most geographically close teams play a short home and away season. Then for the second half of the season the top teams from each conference go into a champions bracket and the bottom into a relegation bracket Is the system in Brazil one of them? oh what would that be?
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+xDoes anyone know the other 2 models theyare discussing on top of the aafc endorsed one and the champions league one? (Boo to the champions league model unless its a bridge to the 2nd div) the only other possible model i could imagine would be some hybrid between an spl system and a conference system to cut travel time. Maybe split into two leagues with the most geographically close teams play a short home and away season. Then for the second half of the season the top teams from each conference go into a champions bracket and the bottom into a relegation bracket Is the system in Brazil one of them?
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Have the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. Despite Melbourne Storm being in the NRL for decades they are yet to even have a miniscule toehold in Victoria besides expat NSWelshman and Bananas going to their matches. Ditto taking the State of Origin and the Wallabies to places like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Waste of time that has done nothing to grow the game and has simply denied fans the opportunity to see these matches in states where people actually play the game. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. +x+x+x+x+xHave the geographical spread people actually looked at a population map of Australia? 1/3 of Australians live in Greater Sydney or Melbourne.
Half the places you dummies suggest can't even keep a team in the NPL and you think they'll last longer then a season in an NSD lol. 40% actually which means 60% of the population doesn't live in Sydney or Melbourne and those 60% have as much right as anyone else to be represented in the NSD. Looking at regional population centres the places that might be able to support a club are:- Queensland could have a club in Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. New South Wales could have a club in Newcastle and Wollongong. ACT could have a club in Canberra. Victoria could have a club in Geelong. Tasmania could have a club in Hobart. Say 5 of them get up then there is the 5 mainland state capitals to share the remaining 7 or 9 spots in the competition. Geographical spread isn't a stupid idea at all in fact the opposite is the case if we want to grow the game across the whole country. His point is still valid. 40% concentrated in two cities is one thing, 60% spread across a whole continent is something else again. Anyway, this idea that a certain place "deserves" a team is actually part of the problem.In a full pyramid, the only team that deserves anything is whoever can earn it on the pitch. I take it then that you don't think that any clubs in Sydney or Melbourne deserve to be in the NSD because of the population concentration there. When you are starting a competition and there has been no opportunity for clubs to show football merit to win a spot then it is normal to accept bids that are in the best interests of the success of the competition. What constitutes "the best interest of the competition" needs to be transparent in the bid documents so everyone can shape their bid accordingly. Once the competition is up and running and P/R is in play then football merit along with the other requirements to obtain and hold a licence will decide who is promoted. Western United and Macarthur Rams are what you get when you try and geographically 'represent' an area. Friggin basket cases both of them. My take is invite bidders and take the best 12, 14, 16 teams that meet the criteria and go from there. It's inevitable that the wealthier clubs are going to have a head start and they're going to be predominantly from major centres and so what?. Given all things being equal on paper between 2 competing bidders then maybe, MAYBE, think about geographical representation. Nothing wrong with Macarthur as an area for a club. Good population, huge population growth, 20,000 registered players that is growing at a rate greater than most locations in Australia with a new local club being set up every couple of years and growing to 800-1000 players in 5+ years. If there is a problem it is the ownership charades. Despite that the club has performed well on the pitch. It will be interesting to see how attendance goes this season as it will be the first season that the club will have been without covid restrictions. The SW of Sydney was the worst affected with covid shutdowns in Sydney. I don't believe there are too many clubs in the big cities that will be able to add another $2.5m+ pa to their current spending and that will make the larger regional cities possibilities for inclusion. As I said in a previous post places like Gold Coast (650k), Greater Newcastle (610k), ACT (460k), Sunshine Coast (350k), Illawarra (300k), Greater Hobart (250k) and Greater Geelong (250k) might be able to fund clubs. If 5 of them get up there is still 9 spots for big city clubs in a 14 team competition. Say 1 in Brisbane, 1 in Perth, 1 in Adelaide and 3 each in Melbourne and Sydney. Of course the quality of the bids will determine the actual spread and P/R will settle what the natural spread is.
|
|
|
|