|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAussies expand broadcast platform with Fox on-selling rights to Ten5th June 2017June 6 – Australian football, currently challenged by a slow moving reform process at federation level, has better news for stakeholders on the broadcast front with Ten Network announcing it has acquired the exclusive free-to-air rights to A-league and national team matches.Fox Sports controlled the rights as part of a record six-year $255.5 million deal concluded earlier this year. This included the free-to-air rights which it has on-sold to Ten in a reported $1.5 million a year deal.Ten will broadcast a Saturday evening A-League match, derbies, and all finals as well as Socceroos matches on multichannel One. Fox Sports will carry the vast bulk of live matches on its pay TV platform.The deal with Ten includes selected games streamed live on the Ten Play app, as well as Foxtel Go.The Ten deal rounds out the broadcast platform for Federation Football Australia (FFA) bringing a broader-based and wider promotional platform for the game as it grows in the sports-mad country. Fox brings the big money number.With the increase in TV money came a dispute between the Australian A-League club owners and the FFA with the clubs rejecting the annual A$3.25 million per club financial offer from the FFA last month. The clubs argue they should receive more money from the new A$56 million per season broadcast deal agreed with Fox.The FFA was already in dispute with clubs over representation on their board. Currently only 10 voters – the lowest of the 211 FIFA member nations – elect the FFA board. The clubs want more representation and FIFA has issued deadlines for the FFA to reform but they have been extended as no real common ground has been reached so far.The dispute over the TV money saw all 10 club owners walk out of a meeting with the FFA in Sydney. The new deal is a 40% increase on the previous agreement. The increase in the offer to clubs is 24%, up from the previous A$2.6 million per season. http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2017/06/05/aussies-expand-broadcast-platform-fox-selling-rights-ten/ If the $255.5m includes the $1.5m for in selling the rights to Channel 10, my maths tells me the deal is for only $42.58m per season, not the $56m everyone keeps talking about. Am i missing something? All of a sudden, we understand why the FFA is only wanting to guarantee an annual dividend of $3.25 mill per club, and retain about $10 mill in cash for administration (which is not over the top in my opinion). The TV deal is not the only source of revenue for the FFA I'm pretty sure it was mentioned that FFA total annual revenue from the A League is closer to $100m Can somebody clarify this point? This lack of clarity is probably the issue Owners claim it's a massive $x, FFA say it's only $y Yeh, I'd agree there is a lack of clarity, but...on this question the FFA might have a legitimate claim. They argue that a lot of the additional revenues are difficult to unpick and allocate out. For example, we know the FFA has had a major sponsorship with Hyundai since day one. The clubs might argue that the whole of that sponsorship belongs to the A-League, but the FFA might argue that the sponsorship goes back to the rebooting of new football in this country, and that is as much a general football sponsorship as it is a specific A-League sponsorship. Similarly, we know the FFA pocket all the revenue from finals. Once again, the A-League clubs might argue it all belongs to them, but the FFA might argue that they have created the hype and spectacle of the finals series, and it represent the pinnacle of football in this country, not just the endplay of the A-League, and at a minimum, hosting the finals has a lot of head office costs. There are probably other FFA revenues which are even more difficult to unpick. I don't favour one argument or the other, we probably don't have all the details, but I would say that a chunk of revenue must always be retained to run the competition, run various bits of infrastructure which support the competition (e.g. review panels, ref training, etc), and even more broader than that, contribute to infrastructure which ultimately benefits the league overall in terms of its quality (grassroots, ref education, promotion of the game, etc.) The FFA are guilty of smoke and mirrors over revenue. Of their $100m annual revenues about $75-$80m is estimated to come from the A league but as you say this is difficult to unpick exactly. The FFA have created a model that is unsustainable but the A League itself is sustainable if the A league gets the money it raises, not an unreasonable request and one that the AFC and FIFA support, the FFA has no automatic rights to keep any revenues raised, in fact the FIFA preference is for clubs to oragnise and run their own competitions. we will see if the owners have the balls to go it alone and cast the FFA adrift. If they do it will be good news for football in this country as a highly greedy and inefficient FFA and power hungry FFA will be forced in to major change. meanwhile the A league will go from strength to strength but MUST take a second divison with it otherwise the gap that opens up will never be bridged. If the FFA model is Unsustainable, then The A-league would of been broke already just like the NSL. The league is starting to get some financial stability and the owners want more money. The only thing I care about the A-league clubs is 3 things.... 1. The Salary cap to pay all the players. 2. Money to pay rent to the stadiums being used and money for the teams to travel and for hotel accommodations for the Away clubs. 3. Survival of the A-league. All this crap about scrapping the cap is stupid. The Salary cap exist for many reasons. One of them is for an even competition another is so Teams don't overspend. You are all happy in people putting 10 million in the A-league. so why don't you key board warriors go out there and Buy an A-league club yourselves? Why are people so Obsessed with Promotion and Relegation? Is that going to somehow make a huge difference and bring in 1 billion dollars a year in TV rights? 1. We don't need a salary cap. We need clubs that are sustainable. That means allowing clubs to reach their level, some will be big clubs and some will be small clubs. There is no need for a salary cap. We obviously need a distribution to all the clubs but don't you think the clubs can decide how much they should spend. This idea of equalization is like a mill stone around the league. 2. That's already happening, except some clubs do not know how to negotiate a stadium deal. To be fair to Brisbane Roar though the Qld government basically has a monopoly on Stadium use which doesn't look like ending soon. 3. I don't want a salary cap. I don't want an even competition. Think of the salary cap as a Tariff. As a Tariff it basically allows clubs to remain inefficient and wasteful, like many industries which were propped up in our economy. That is why a system of promotion and relegation is better, it weeds out inefficient and poorly managed clubs. It sorts out the wheat from the chaff. Instead of pegging our team to the worst in the competition we now peg our league to the best in the competition, it becomes an aspirational league. It doesn't mean you spend money you don't have, even leagues that don't have salary caps still have budgets and costs that they want to maintain or reduce. Do you think some Chairman will all of a sudden become irresponsible and drive their clubs into the ground. Some will and they get replaced, because they don't know what they are doing. It doesn't always mean spending the most on players or "buying a championship", it might mean the best academies or the best practices in the A-league. 4. Promotion and Relegation - it provides for more investment at all tiers. Investors might not want to buy an A-league club, they might want to buy an NPL or an NPL2 club or even lower and earn promotion that way (aspirational). It refreshes the league every season so that we have new teams entering and thereby increasing the base of clubs who have tasted the top level. It provides pressure for the players and the clubs to perform week in week out. This will surely take our football to the next level. It means scrapping hard for every point, fighting for draws, making clubs accountable. It will force those clubs who "cant buy a championship" to think of other ways to compete. In other words more innovation and guile. It punishes the weak and rewards those performing well. It falls in line with AFC and FIFA guidelines. These are just some of the things I can think off the top of my head, I am sure there are lots more. so.... you want a Scottish league? Ok which team in our league is Celtic. I bet we get at least 5-6 different answers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bitza
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAussies expand broadcast platform with Fox on-selling rights to Ten5th June 2017June 6 – Australian football, currently challenged by a slow moving reform process at federation level, has better news for stakeholders on the broadcast front with Ten Network announcing it has acquired the exclusive free-to-air rights to A-league and national team matches.Fox Sports controlled the rights as part of a record six-year $255.5 million deal concluded earlier this year. This included the free-to-air rights which it has on-sold to Ten in a reported $1.5 million a year deal.Ten will broadcast a Saturday evening A-League match, derbies, and all finals as well as Socceroos matches on multichannel One. Fox Sports will carry the vast bulk of live matches on its pay TV platform.The deal with Ten includes selected games streamed live on the Ten Play app, as well as Foxtel Go.The Ten deal rounds out the broadcast platform for Federation Football Australia (FFA) bringing a broader-based and wider promotional platform for the game as it grows in the sports-mad country. Fox brings the big money number.With the increase in TV money came a dispute between the Australian A-League club owners and the FFA with the clubs rejecting the annual A$3.25 million per club financial offer from the FFA last month. The clubs argue they should receive more money from the new A$56 million per season broadcast deal agreed with Fox.The FFA was already in dispute with clubs over representation on their board. Currently only 10 voters – the lowest of the 211 FIFA member nations – elect the FFA board. The clubs want more representation and FIFA has issued deadlines for the FFA to reform but they have been extended as no real common ground has been reached so far.The dispute over the TV money saw all 10 club owners walk out of a meeting with the FFA in Sydney. The new deal is a 40% increase on the previous agreement. The increase in the offer to clubs is 24%, up from the previous A$2.6 million per season. http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2017/06/05/aussies-expand-broadcast-platform-fox-selling-rights-ten/ If the $255.5m includes the $1.5m for in selling the rights to Channel 10, my maths tells me the deal is for only $42.58m per season, not the $56m everyone keeps talking about. Am i missing something? All of a sudden, we understand why the FFA is only wanting to guarantee an annual dividend of $3.25 mill per club, and retain about $10 mill in cash for administration (which is not over the top in my opinion). The TV deal is not the only source of revenue for the FFA I'm pretty sure it was mentioned that FFA total annual revenue from the A League is closer to $100m Can somebody clarify this point? This lack of clarity is probably the issue Owners claim it's a massive $x, FFA say it's only $y Yeh, I'd agree there is a lack of clarity, but...on this question the FFA might have a legitimate claim. They argue that a lot of the additional revenues are difficult to unpick and allocate out. For example, we know the FFA has had a major sponsorship with Hyundai since day one. The clubs might argue that the whole of that sponsorship belongs to the A-League, but the FFA might argue that the sponsorship goes back to the rebooting of new football in this country, and that is as much a general football sponsorship as it is a specific A-League sponsorship. Similarly, we know the FFA pocket all the revenue from finals. Once again, the A-League clubs might argue it all belongs to them, but the FFA might argue that they have created the hype and spectacle of the finals series, and it represent the pinnacle of football in this country, not just the endplay of the A-League, and at a minimum, hosting the finals has a lot of head office costs. There are probably other FFA revenues which are even more difficult to unpick. I don't favour one argument or the other, we probably don't have all the details, but I would say that a chunk of revenue must always be retained to run the competition, run various bits of infrastructure which support the competition (e.g. review panels, ref training, etc), and even more broader than that, contribute to infrastructure which ultimately benefits the league overall in terms of its quality (grassroots, ref education, promotion of the game, etc.) The FFA are guilty of smoke and mirrors over revenue. Of their $100m annual revenues about $75-$80m is estimated to come from the A league but as you say this is difficult to unpick exactly. The FFA have created a model that is unsustainable but the A League itself is sustainable if the A league gets the money it raises, not an unreasonable request and one that the AFC and FIFA support, the FFA has no automatic rights to keep any revenues raised, in fact the FIFA preference is for clubs to oragnise and run their own competitions. we will see if the owners have the balls to go it alone and cast the FFA adrift. If they do it will be good news for football in this country as a highly greedy and inefficient FFA and power hungry FFA will be forced in to major change. meanwhile the A league will go from strength to strength but MUST take a second divison with it otherwise the gap that opens up will never be bridged. If the FFA model is Unsustainable, then The A-league would of been broke already just like the NSL. The league is starting to get some financial stability and the owners want more money. The only thing I care about the A-league clubs is 3 things.... 1. The Salary cap to pay all the players. 2. Money to pay rent to the stadiums being used and money for the teams to travel and for hotel accommodations for the Away clubs. 3. Survival of the A-league. All this crap about scrapping the cap is stupid. The Salary cap exist for many reasons. One of them is for an even competition another is so Teams don't overspend. You are all happy in people putting 10 million in the A-league. so why don't you key board warriors go out there and Buy an A-league club yourselves? Why are people so Obsessed with Promotion and Relegation? Is that going to somehow make a huge difference and bring in 1 billion dollars a year in TV rights? 1. We don't need a salary cap. We need clubs that are sustainable. That means allowing clubs to reach their level, some will be big clubs and some will be small clubs. There is no need for a salary cap. We obviously need a distribution to all the clubs but don't you think the clubs can decide how much they should spend. This idea of equalization is like a mill stone around the league. 2. That's already happening, except some clubs do not know how to negotiate a stadium deal. To be fair to Brisbane Roar though the Qld government basically has a monopoly on Stadium use which doesn't look like ending soon. 3. I don't want a salary cap. I don't want an even competition. Think of the salary cap as a Tariff. As a Tariff it basically allows clubs to remain inefficient and wasteful, like many industries which were propped up in our economy. That is why a system of promotion and relegation is better, it weeds out inefficient and poorly managed clubs. It sorts out the wheat from the chaff. Instead of pegging our team to the worst in the competition we now peg our league to the best in the competition, it becomes an aspirational league. It doesn't mean you spend money you don't have, even leagues that don't have salary caps still have budgets and costs that they want to maintain or reduce. Do you think some Chairman will all of a sudden become irresponsible and drive their clubs into the ground. Some will and they get replaced, because they don't know what they are doing. It doesn't always mean spending the most on players or "buying a championship", it might mean the best academies or the best practices in the A-league. 4. Promotion and Relegation - it provides for more investment at all tiers. Investors might not want to buy an A-league club, they might want to buy an NPL or an NPL2 club or even lower and earn promotion that way (aspirational). It refreshes the league every season so that we have new teams entering and thereby increasing the base of clubs who have tasted the top level. It provides pressure for the players and the clubs to perform week in week out. This will surely take our football to the next level. It means scrapping hard for every point, fighting for draws, making clubs accountable. It will force those clubs who "cant buy a championship" to think of other ways to compete. In other words more innovation and guile. It punishes the weak and rewards those performing well. It falls in line with AFC and FIFA guidelines. These are just some of the things I can think off the top of my head, I am sure there are lots more. so.... you want a Scottish league? Ok which team in our league is Celtic. I bet we get at least 5-6 different answers. Without a cap its a real risk that while we might not become a scotish league, we will most likely become a league with only 3 teams regularly competing. I have to be totally honest, one of the reason i really dont care about European football anymore (other than the fact that i have the a-league) is that most leagues are hopelessly predictable. With the exception of the epl which has approx 4-5 teams u could expect to win it (as well as wonderful anomalies lile Leicester) most leagues are a a set thing. And we cannot risk that because if the league does go that way, the increase from thoes two or three teams will be totally reduced by the fall out of fans from the other 7 clubs. For this to be a viable competition, the league needs to stay competitive. And clubs are already aloud to over pay on certain players if they want anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
bitza
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
At some point we are going to need a split league system like east and west. Because our size does not allow for minnow clubs to exist if they have to travel from say perth the NZ. Another problem with rel/pro is the presences of an NZ club.
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAussies expand broadcast platform with Fox on-selling rights to Ten5th June 2017June 6 – Australian football, currently challenged by a slow moving reform process at federation level, has better news for stakeholders on the broadcast front with Ten Network announcing it has acquired the exclusive free-to-air rights to A-league and national team matches.Fox Sports controlled the rights as part of a record six-year $255.5 million deal concluded earlier this year. This included the free-to-air rights which it has on-sold to Ten in a reported $1.5 million a year deal.Ten will broadcast a Saturday evening A-League match, derbies, and all finals as well as Socceroos matches on multichannel One. Fox Sports will carry the vast bulk of live matches on its pay TV platform.The deal with Ten includes selected games streamed live on the Ten Play app, as well as Foxtel Go.The Ten deal rounds out the broadcast platform for Federation Football Australia (FFA) bringing a broader-based and wider promotional platform for the game as it grows in the sports-mad country. Fox brings the big money number.With the increase in TV money came a dispute between the Australian A-League club owners and the FFA with the clubs rejecting the annual A$3.25 million per club financial offer from the FFA last month. The clubs argue they should receive more money from the new A$56 million per season broadcast deal agreed with Fox.The FFA was already in dispute with clubs over representation on their board. Currently only 10 voters – the lowest of the 211 FIFA member nations – elect the FFA board. The clubs want more representation and FIFA has issued deadlines for the FFA to reform but they have been extended as no real common ground has been reached so far.The dispute over the TV money saw all 10 club owners walk out of a meeting with the FFA in Sydney. The new deal is a 40% increase on the previous agreement. The increase in the offer to clubs is 24%, up from the previous A$2.6 million per season. http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2017/06/05/aussies-expand-broadcast-platform-fox-selling-rights-ten/ If the $255.5m includes the $1.5m for in selling the rights to Channel 10, my maths tells me the deal is for only $42.58m per season, not the $56m everyone keeps talking about. Am i missing something? All of a sudden, we understand why the FFA is only wanting to guarantee an annual dividend of $3.25 mill per club, and retain about $10 mill in cash for administration (which is not over the top in my opinion). The TV deal is not the only source of revenue for the FFA I'm pretty sure it was mentioned that FFA total annual revenue from the A League is closer to $100m Can somebody clarify this point? This lack of clarity is probably the issue Owners claim it's a massive $x, FFA say it's only $y Yeh, I'd agree there is a lack of clarity, but...on this question the FFA might have a legitimate claim. They argue that a lot of the additional revenues are difficult to unpick and allocate out. For example, we know the FFA has had a major sponsorship with Hyundai since day one. The clubs might argue that the whole of that sponsorship belongs to the A-League, but the FFA might argue that the sponsorship goes back to the rebooting of new football in this country, and that is as much a general football sponsorship as it is a specific A-League sponsorship. Similarly, we know the FFA pocket all the revenue from finals. Once again, the A-League clubs might argue it all belongs to them, but the FFA might argue that they have created the hype and spectacle of the finals series, and it represent the pinnacle of football in this country, not just the endplay of the A-League, and at a minimum, hosting the finals has a lot of head office costs. There are probably other FFA revenues which are even more difficult to unpick. I don't favour one argument or the other, we probably don't have all the details, but I would say that a chunk of revenue must always be retained to run the competition, run various bits of infrastructure which support the competition (e.g. review panels, ref training, etc), and even more broader than that, contribute to infrastructure which ultimately benefits the league overall in terms of its quality (grassroots, ref education, promotion of the game, etc.) The FFA are guilty of smoke and mirrors over revenue. Of their $100m annual revenues about $75-$80m is estimated to come from the A league but as you say this is difficult to unpick exactly. The FFA have created a model that is unsustainable but the A League itself is sustainable if the A league gets the money it raises, not an unreasonable request and one that the AFC and FIFA support, the FFA has no automatic rights to keep any revenues raised, in fact the FIFA preference is for clubs to oragnise and run their own competitions. we will see if the owners have the balls to go it alone and cast the FFA adrift. If they do it will be good news for football in this country as a highly greedy and inefficient FFA and power hungry FFA will be forced in to major change. meanwhile the A league will go from strength to strength but MUST take a second divison with it otherwise the gap that opens up will never be bridged. If the FFA model is Unsustainable, then The A-league would of been broke already just like the NSL. The league is starting to get some financial stability and the owners want more money. The only thing I care about the A-league clubs is 3 things.... 1. The Salary cap to pay all the players. 2. Money to pay rent to the stadiums being used and money for the teams to travel and for hotel accommodations for the Away clubs. 3. Survival of the A-league. All this crap about scrapping the cap is stupid. The Salary cap exist for many reasons. One of them is for an even competition another is so Teams don't overspend. You are all happy in people putting 10 million in the A-league. so why don't you key board warriors go out there and Buy an A-league club yourselves? Why are people so Obsessed with Promotion and Relegation? Is that going to somehow make a huge difference and bring in 1 billion dollars a year in TV rights? 1. We don't need a salary cap. We need clubs that are sustainable. That means allowing clubs to reach their level, some will be big clubs and some will be small clubs. There is no need for a salary cap. We obviously need a distribution to all the clubs but don't you think the clubs can decide how much they should spend. This idea of equalization is like a mill stone around the league. 2. That's already happening, except some clubs do not know how to negotiate a stadium deal. To be fair to Brisbane Roar though the Qld government basically has a monopoly on Stadium use which doesn't look like ending soon. 3. I don't want a salary cap. I don't want an even competition. Think of the salary cap as a Tariff. As a Tariff it basically allows clubs to remain inefficient and wasteful, like many industries which were propped up in our economy. That is why a system of promotion and relegation is better, it weeds out inefficient and poorly managed clubs. It sorts out the wheat from the chaff. Instead of pegging our team to the worst in the competition we now peg our league to the best in the competition, it becomes an aspirational league. It doesn't mean you spend money you don't have, even leagues that don't have salary caps still have budgets and costs that they want to maintain or reduce. Do you think some Chairman will all of a sudden become irresponsible and drive their clubs into the ground. Some will and they get replaced, because they don't know what they are doing. It doesn't always mean spending the most on players or "buying a championship", it might mean the best academies or the best practices in the A-league. 4. Promotion and Relegation - it provides for more investment at all tiers. Investors might not want to buy an A-league club, they might want to buy an NPL or an NPL2 club or even lower and earn promotion that way (aspirational). It refreshes the league every season so that we have new teams entering and thereby increasing the base of clubs who have tasted the top level. It provides pressure for the players and the clubs to perform week in week out. This will surely take our football to the next level. It means scrapping hard for every point, fighting for draws, making clubs accountable. It will force those clubs who "cant buy a championship" to think of other ways to compete. In other words more innovation and guile. It punishes the weak and rewards those performing well. It falls in line with AFC and FIFA guidelines. These are just some of the things I can think off the top of my head, I am sure there are lots more. so.... you want a Scottish league? Seriously I have to laugh every time somebody plays the Scottish card Out of all the professional leagues in the world, only 2 will end up like Scotland. Us and Scotland We're unique, blah blah blah, but if we ever tried a different football model we'll end up like Scotland. Gimme a break!
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAussies expand broadcast platform with Fox on-selling rights to Ten5th June 2017June 6 – Australian football, currently challenged by a slow moving reform process at federation level, has better news for stakeholders on the broadcast front with Ten Network announcing it has acquired the exclusive free-to-air rights to A-league and national team matches.Fox Sports controlled the rights as part of a record six-year $255.5 million deal concluded earlier this year. This included the free-to-air rights which it has on-sold to Ten in a reported $1.5 million a year deal.Ten will broadcast a Saturday evening A-League match, derbies, and all finals as well as Socceroos matches on multichannel One. Fox Sports will carry the vast bulk of live matches on its pay TV platform.The deal with Ten includes selected games streamed live on the Ten Play app, as well as Foxtel Go.The Ten deal rounds out the broadcast platform for Federation Football Australia (FFA) bringing a broader-based and wider promotional platform for the game as it grows in the sports-mad country. Fox brings the big money number.With the increase in TV money came a dispute between the Australian A-League club owners and the FFA with the clubs rejecting the annual A$3.25 million per club financial offer from the FFA last month. The clubs argue they should receive more money from the new A$56 million per season broadcast deal agreed with Fox.The FFA was already in dispute with clubs over representation on their board. Currently only 10 voters – the lowest of the 211 FIFA member nations – elect the FFA board. The clubs want more representation and FIFA has issued deadlines for the FFA to reform but they have been extended as no real common ground has been reached so far.The dispute over the TV money saw all 10 club owners walk out of a meeting with the FFA in Sydney. The new deal is a 40% increase on the previous agreement. The increase in the offer to clubs is 24%, up from the previous A$2.6 million per season. http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2017/06/05/aussies-expand-broadcast-platform-fox-selling-rights-ten/ If the $255.5m includes the $1.5m for in selling the rights to Channel 10, my maths tells me the deal is for only $42.58m per season, not the $56m everyone keeps talking about. Am i missing something? All of a sudden, we understand why the FFA is only wanting to guarantee an annual dividend of $3.25 mill per club, and retain about $10 mill in cash for administration (which is not over the top in my opinion). The TV deal is not the only source of revenue for the FFA I'm pretty sure it was mentioned that FFA total annual revenue from the A League is closer to $100m Can somebody clarify this point? This lack of clarity is probably the issue Owners claim it's a massive $x, FFA say it's only $y Yeh, I'd agree there is a lack of clarity, but...on this question the FFA might have a legitimate claim. They argue that a lot of the additional revenues are difficult to unpick and allocate out. For example, we know the FFA has had a major sponsorship with Hyundai since day one. The clubs might argue that the whole of that sponsorship belongs to the A-League, but the FFA might argue that the sponsorship goes back to the rebooting of new football in this country, and that is as much a general football sponsorship as it is a specific A-League sponsorship. Similarly, we know the FFA pocket all the revenue from finals. Once again, the A-League clubs might argue it all belongs to them, but the FFA might argue that they have created the hype and spectacle of the finals series, and it represent the pinnacle of football in this country, not just the endplay of the A-League, and at a minimum, hosting the finals has a lot of head office costs. There are probably other FFA revenues which are even more difficult to unpick. I don't favour one argument or the other, we probably don't have all the details, but I would say that a chunk of revenue must always be retained to run the competition, run various bits of infrastructure which support the competition (e.g. review panels, ref training, etc), and even more broader than that, contribute to infrastructure which ultimately benefits the league overall in terms of its quality (grassroots, ref education, promotion of the game, etc.) The FFA are guilty of smoke and mirrors over revenue. Of their $100m annual revenues about $75-$80m is estimated to come from the A league but as you say this is difficult to unpick exactly. The FFA have created a model that is unsustainable but the A League itself is sustainable if the A league gets the money it raises, not an unreasonable request and one that the AFC and FIFA support, the FFA has no automatic rights to keep any revenues raised, in fact the FIFA preference is for clubs to oragnise and run their own competitions. we will see if the owners have the balls to go it alone and cast the FFA adrift. If they do it will be good news for football in this country as a highly greedy and inefficient FFA and power hungry FFA will be forced in to major change. meanwhile the A league will go from strength to strength but MUST take a second divison with it otherwise the gap that opens up will never be bridged. If the FFA model is Unsustainable, then The A-league would of been broke already just like the NSL. The league is starting to get some financial stability and the owners want more money. The only thing I care about the A-league clubs is 3 things.... 1. The Salary cap to pay all the players. 2. Money to pay rent to the stadiums being used and money for the teams to travel and for hotel accommodations for the Away clubs. 3. Survival of the A-league. All this crap about scrapping the cap is stupid. The Salary cap exist for many reasons. One of them is for an even competition another is so Teams don't overspend. You are all happy in people putting 10 million in the A-league. so why don't you key board warriors go out there and Buy an A-league club yourselves? Why are people so Obsessed with Promotion and Relegation? Is that going to somehow make a huge difference and bring in 1 billion dollars a year in TV rights? 1. We don't need a salary cap. We need clubs that are sustainable. That means allowing clubs to reach their level, some will be big clubs and some will be small clubs. There is no need for a salary cap. We obviously need a distribution to all the clubs but don't you think the clubs can decide how much they should spend. This idea of equalization is like a mill stone around the league. 2. That's already happening, except some clubs do not know how to negotiate a stadium deal. To be fair to Brisbane Roar though the Qld government basically has a monopoly on Stadium use which doesn't look like ending soon. 3. I don't want a salary cap. I don't want an even competition. Think of the salary cap as a Tariff. As a Tariff it basically allows clubs to remain inefficient and wasteful, like many industries which were propped up in our economy. That is why a system of promotion and relegation is better, it weeds out inefficient and poorly managed clubs. It sorts out the wheat from the chaff. Instead of pegging our team to the worst in the competition we now peg our league to the best in the competition, it becomes an aspirational league. It doesn't mean you spend money you don't have, even leagues that don't have salary caps still have budgets and costs that they want to maintain or reduce. Do you think some Chairman will all of a sudden become irresponsible and drive their clubs into the ground. Some will and they get replaced, because they don't know what they are doing. It doesn't always mean spending the most on players or "buying a championship", it might mean the best academies or the best practices in the A-league. 4. Promotion and Relegation - it provides for more investment at all tiers. Investors might not want to buy an A-league club, they might want to buy an NPL or an NPL2 club or even lower and earn promotion that way (aspirational). It refreshes the league every season so that we have new teams entering and thereby increasing the base of clubs who have tasted the top level. It provides pressure for the players and the clubs to perform week in week out. This will surely take our football to the next level. It means scrapping hard for every point, fighting for draws, making clubs accountable. It will force those clubs who "cant buy a championship" to think of other ways to compete. In other words more innovation and guile. It punishes the weak and rewards those performing well. It falls in line with AFC and FIFA guidelines. These are just some of the things I can think off the top of my head, I am sure there are lots more. so.... you want a Scottish league? Ok which team in our league is Celtic. I bet we get at least 5-6 different answers. Without a cap its a real risk that while we might not become a scotish league, we will most likely become a league with only 3 teams regularly competing. I have to be totally honest, one of the reason i really dont care about European football anymore (other than the fact that i have the a-league) is that most leagues are hopelessly predictable. With the exception of the epl which has approx 4-5 teams u could expect to win it (as well as wonderful anomalies lile Leicester) most leagues are a a set thing. And we cannot risk that because if the league does go that way, the increase from thoes two or three teams will be totally reduced by the fall out of fans from the other 7 clubs. For this to be a viable competition, the league needs to stay competitive. And clubs are already aloud to over pay on certain players if they want anyway. Sorry but I don't agree Australia is a very competitive sports market with big investment. We also have 3 major metro areas and 2 secondary metro areas. Each would be the equivalent of some countries The salary cap is new. Yet we have never had a "Scotland" scenario in major sports prior to trying to balance them We have also seen that people like sports and watch sports. Even CCM in their worst year managed an average of over 8k which was better than their year prior. They still play big must see games like hosting Sydney and WSW This balanced model is expensive. The costs are real. The benefits are speculative. It is the furthest thing from viable We need to scrap the cap and implement a competitive model. If things start to go pear shaped then we can reactively put in measures
|
|
|
|
|
And Everyone Blamed Clive
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAussies expand broadcast platform with Fox on-selling rights to Ten5th June 2017June 6 – Australian football, currently challenged by a slow moving reform process at federation level, has better news for stakeholders on the broadcast front with Ten Network announcing it has acquired the exclusive free-to-air rights to A-league and national team matches.Fox Sports controlled the rights as part of a record six-year $255.5 million deal concluded earlier this year. This included the free-to-air rights which it has on-sold to Ten in a reported $1.5 million a year deal.Ten will broadcast a Saturday evening A-League match, derbies, and all finals as well as Socceroos matches on multichannel One. Fox Sports will carry the vast bulk of live matches on its pay TV platform.The deal with Ten includes selected games streamed live on the Ten Play app, as well as Foxtel Go.The Ten deal rounds out the broadcast platform for Federation Football Australia (FFA) bringing a broader-based and wider promotional platform for the game as it grows in the sports-mad country. Fox brings the big money number.With the increase in TV money came a dispute between the Australian A-League club owners and the FFA with the clubs rejecting the annual A$3.25 million per club financial offer from the FFA last month. The clubs argue they should receive more money from the new A$56 million per season broadcast deal agreed with Fox.The FFA was already in dispute with clubs over representation on their board. Currently only 10 voters – the lowest of the 211 FIFA member nations – elect the FFA board. The clubs want more representation and FIFA has issued deadlines for the FFA to reform but they have been extended as no real common ground has been reached so far.The dispute over the TV money saw all 10 club owners walk out of a meeting with the FFA in Sydney. The new deal is a 40% increase on the previous agreement. The increase in the offer to clubs is 24%, up from the previous A$2.6 million per season. http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2017/06/05/aussies-expand-broadcast-platform-fox-selling-rights-ten/ If the $255.5m includes the $1.5m for in selling the rights to Channel 10, my maths tells me the deal is for only $42.58m per season, not the $56m everyone keeps talking about. Am i missing something? All of a sudden, we understand why the FFA is only wanting to guarantee an annual dividend of $3.25 mill per club, and retain about $10 mill in cash for administration (which is not over the top in my opinion). The TV deal is not the only source of revenue for the FFA I'm pretty sure it was mentioned that FFA total annual revenue from the A League is closer to $100m Can somebody clarify this point? This lack of clarity is probably the issue Owners claim it's a massive $x, FFA say it's only $y Yeh, I'd agree there is a lack of clarity, but...on this question the FFA might have a legitimate claim. They argue that a lot of the additional revenues are difficult to unpick and allocate out. For example, we know the FFA has had a major sponsorship with Hyundai since day one. The clubs might argue that the whole of that sponsorship belongs to the A-League, but the FFA might argue that the sponsorship goes back to the rebooting of new football in this country, and that is as much a general football sponsorship as it is a specific A-League sponsorship. Similarly, we know the FFA pocket all the revenue from finals. Once again, the A-League clubs might argue it all belongs to them, but the FFA might argue that they have created the hype and spectacle of the finals series, and it represent the pinnacle of football in this country, not just the endplay of the A-League, and at a minimum, hosting the finals has a lot of head office costs. There are probably other FFA revenues which are even more difficult to unpick. I don't favour one argument or the other, we probably don't have all the details, but I would say that a chunk of revenue must always be retained to run the competition, run various bits of infrastructure which support the competition (e.g. review panels, ref training, etc), and even more broader than that, contribute to infrastructure which ultimately benefits the league overall in terms of its quality (grassroots, ref education, promotion of the game, etc.) The FFA are guilty of smoke and mirrors over revenue. Of their $100m annual revenues about $75-$80m is estimated to come from the A league but as you say this is difficult to unpick exactly. The FFA have created a model that is unsustainable but the A League itself is sustainable if the A league gets the money it raises, not an unreasonable request and one that the AFC and FIFA support, the FFA has no automatic rights to keep any revenues raised, in fact the FIFA preference is for clubs to oragnise and run their own competitions. we will see if the owners have the balls to go it alone and cast the FFA adrift. If they do it will be good news for football in this country as a highly greedy and inefficient FFA and power hungry FFA will be forced in to major change. meanwhile the A league will go from strength to strength but MUST take a second divison with it otherwise the gap that opens up will never be bridged. If the FFA model is Unsustainable, then The A-league would of been broke already just like the NSL. The league is starting to get some financial stability and the owners want more money. The only thing I care about the A-league clubs is 3 things.... 1. The Salary cap to pay all the players. 2. Money to pay rent to the stadiums being used and money for the teams to travel and for hotel accommodations for the Away clubs. 3. Survival of the A-league. All this crap about scrapping the cap is stupid. The Salary cap exist for many reasons. One of them is for an even competition another is so Teams don't overspend. You are all happy in people putting 10 million in the A-league. so why don't you key board warriors go out there and Buy an A-league club yourselves? Why are people so Obsessed with Promotion and Relegation? Is that going to somehow make a huge difference and bring in 1 billion dollars a year in TV rights? 1. We don't need a salary cap. We need clubs that are sustainable. That means allowing clubs to reach their level, some will be big clubs and some will be small clubs. There is no need for a salary cap. We obviously need a distribution to all the clubs but don't you think the clubs can decide how much they should spend. This idea of equalization is like a mill stone around the league. 2. That's already happening, except some clubs do not know how to negotiate a stadium deal. To be fair to Brisbane Roar though the Qld government basically has a monopoly on Stadium use which doesn't look like ending soon. 3. I don't want a salary cap. I don't want an even competition. Think of the salary cap as a Tariff. As a Tariff it basically allows clubs to remain inefficient and wasteful, like many industries which were propped up in our economy. That is why a system of promotion and relegation is better, it weeds out inefficient and poorly managed clubs. It sorts out the wheat from the chaff. Instead of pegging our team to the worst in the competition we now peg our league to the best in the competition, it becomes an aspirational league. It doesn't mean you spend money you don't have, even leagues that don't have salary caps still have budgets and costs that they want to maintain or reduce. Do you think some Chairman will all of a sudden become irresponsible and drive their clubs into the ground. Some will and they get replaced, because they don't know what they are doing. It doesn't always mean spending the most on players or "buying a championship", it might mean the best academies or the best practices in the A-league. 4. Promotion and Relegation - it provides for more investment at all tiers. Investors might not want to buy an A-league club, they might want to buy an NPL or an NPL2 club or even lower and earn promotion that way (aspirational). It refreshes the league every season so that we have new teams entering and thereby increasing the base of clubs who have tasted the top level. It provides pressure for the players and the clubs to perform week in week out. This will surely take our football to the next level. It means scrapping hard for every point, fighting for draws, making clubs accountable. It will force those clubs who "cant buy a championship" to think of other ways to compete. In other words more innovation and guile. It punishes the weak and rewards those performing well. It falls in line with AFC and FIFA guidelines. These are just some of the things I can think off the top of my head, I am sure there are lots more. so.... you want a Scottish league? Seriously I have to laugh every time somebody plays the Scottish card Out of all the professional leagues in the world, only 2 will end up like Scotland. Us and Scotland We're unique, blah blah blah, but if we ever tried a different football model we'll end up like Scotland. Gimme a break! I want to know who will be the only 2 teams in Australia that will win anything ever
Winner of Official 442 Comment of the day Award - 10th April 2017
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAussies expand broadcast platform with Fox on-selling rights to Ten5th June 2017June 6 – Australian football, currently challenged by a slow moving reform process at federation level, has better news for stakeholders on the broadcast front with Ten Network announcing it has acquired the exclusive free-to-air rights to A-league and national team matches.Fox Sports controlled the rights as part of a record six-year $255.5 million deal concluded earlier this year. This included the free-to-air rights which it has on-sold to Ten in a reported $1.5 million a year deal.Ten will broadcast a Saturday evening A-League match, derbies, and all finals as well as Socceroos matches on multichannel One. Fox Sports will carry the vast bulk of live matches on its pay TV platform.The deal with Ten includes selected games streamed live on the Ten Play app, as well as Foxtel Go.The Ten deal rounds out the broadcast platform for Federation Football Australia (FFA) bringing a broader-based and wider promotional platform for the game as it grows in the sports-mad country. Fox brings the big money number.With the increase in TV money came a dispute between the Australian A-League club owners and the FFA with the clubs rejecting the annual A$3.25 million per club financial offer from the FFA last month. The clubs argue they should receive more money from the new A$56 million per season broadcast deal agreed with Fox.The FFA was already in dispute with clubs over representation on their board. Currently only 10 voters – the lowest of the 211 FIFA member nations – elect the FFA board. The clubs want more representation and FIFA has issued deadlines for the FFA to reform but they have been extended as no real common ground has been reached so far.The dispute over the TV money saw all 10 club owners walk out of a meeting with the FFA in Sydney. The new deal is a 40% increase on the previous agreement. The increase in the offer to clubs is 24%, up from the previous A$2.6 million per season. http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2017/06/05/aussies-expand-broadcast-platform-fox-selling-rights-ten/ If the $255.5m includes the $1.5m for in selling the rights to Channel 10, my maths tells me the deal is for only $42.58m per season, not the $56m everyone keeps talking about. Am i missing something? All of a sudden, we understand why the FFA is only wanting to guarantee an annual dividend of $3.25 mill per club, and retain about $10 mill in cash for administration (which is not over the top in my opinion). The TV deal is not the only source of revenue for the FFA I'm pretty sure it was mentioned that FFA total annual revenue from the A League is closer to $100m Can somebody clarify this point? This lack of clarity is probably the issue Owners claim it's a massive $x, FFA say it's only $y Yeh, I'd agree there is a lack of clarity, but...on this question the FFA might have a legitimate claim. They argue that a lot of the additional revenues are difficult to unpick and allocate out. For example, we know the FFA has had a major sponsorship with Hyundai since day one. The clubs might argue that the whole of that sponsorship belongs to the A-League, but the FFA might argue that the sponsorship goes back to the rebooting of new football in this country, and that is as much a general football sponsorship as it is a specific A-League sponsorship. Similarly, we know the FFA pocket all the revenue from finals. Once again, the A-League clubs might argue it all belongs to them, but the FFA might argue that they have created the hype and spectacle of the finals series, and it represent the pinnacle of football in this country, not just the endplay of the A-League, and at a minimum, hosting the finals has a lot of head office costs. There are probably other FFA revenues which are even more difficult to unpick. I don't favour one argument or the other, we probably don't have all the details, but I would say that a chunk of revenue must always be retained to run the competition, run various bits of infrastructure which support the competition (e.g. review panels, ref training, etc), and even more broader than that, contribute to infrastructure which ultimately benefits the league overall in terms of its quality (grassroots, ref education, promotion of the game, etc.) The FFA are guilty of smoke and mirrors over revenue. Of their $100m annual revenues about $75-$80m is estimated to come from the A league but as you say this is difficult to unpick exactly. The FFA have created a model that is unsustainable but the A League itself is sustainable if the A league gets the money it raises, not an unreasonable request and one that the AFC and FIFA support, the FFA has no automatic rights to keep any revenues raised, in fact the FIFA preference is for clubs to oragnise and run their own competitions. we will see if the owners have the balls to go it alone and cast the FFA adrift. If they do it will be good news for football in this country as a highly greedy and inefficient FFA and power hungry FFA will be forced in to major change. meanwhile the A league will go from strength to strength but MUST take a second divison with it otherwise the gap that opens up will never be bridged. If the FFA model is Unsustainable, then The A-league would of been broke already just like the NSL. The league is starting to get some financial stability and the owners want more money. The only thing I care about the A-league clubs is 3 things.... 1. The Salary cap to pay all the players. 2. Money to pay rent to the stadiums being used and money for the teams to travel and for hotel accommodations for the Away clubs. 3. Survival of the A-league. All this crap about scrapping the cap is stupid. The Salary cap exist for many reasons. One of them is for an even competition another is so Teams don't overspend. You are all happy in people putting 10 million in the A-league. so why don't you key board warriors go out there and Buy an A-league club yourselves? Why are people so Obsessed with Promotion and Relegation? Is that going to somehow make a huge difference and bring in 1 billion dollars a year in TV rights? 1. We don't need a salary cap. We need clubs that are sustainable. That means allowing clubs to reach their level, some will be big clubs and some will be small clubs. There is no need for a salary cap. We obviously need a distribution to all the clubs but don't you think the clubs can decide how much they should spend. This idea of equalization is like a mill stone around the league. 2. That's already happening, except some clubs do not know how to negotiate a stadium deal. To be fair to Brisbane Roar though the Qld government basically has a monopoly on Stadium use which doesn't look like ending soon. 3. I don't want a salary cap. I don't want an even competition. Think of the salary cap as a Tariff. As a Tariff it basically allows clubs to remain inefficient and wasteful, like many industries which were propped up in our economy. That is why a system of promotion and relegation is better, it weeds out inefficient and poorly managed clubs. It sorts out the wheat from the chaff. Instead of pegging our team to the worst in the competition we now peg our league to the best in the competition, it becomes an aspirational league. It doesn't mean you spend money you don't have, even leagues that don't have salary caps still have budgets and costs that they want to maintain or reduce. Do you think some Chairman will all of a sudden become irresponsible and drive their clubs into the ground. Some will and they get replaced, because they don't know what they are doing. It doesn't always mean spending the most on players or "buying a championship", it might mean the best academies or the best practices in the A-league. 4. Promotion and Relegation - it provides for more investment at all tiers. Investors might not want to buy an A-league club, they might want to buy an NPL or an NPL2 club or even lower and earn promotion that way (aspirational). It refreshes the league every season so that we have new teams entering and thereby increasing the base of clubs who have tasted the top level. It provides pressure for the players and the clubs to perform week in week out. This will surely take our football to the next level. It means scrapping hard for every point, fighting for draws, making clubs accountable. It will force those clubs who "cant buy a championship" to think of other ways to compete. In other words more innovation and guile. It punishes the weak and rewards those performing well. It falls in line with AFC and FIFA guidelines. These are just some of the things I can think off the top of my head, I am sure there are lots more. so.... you want a Scottish league? Seriously I have to laugh every time somebody plays the Scottish card Out of all the professional leagues in the world, only 2 will end up like Scotland. Us and Scotland We're unique, blah blah blah, but if we ever tried a different football model we'll end up like Scotland. Gimme a break! I want to know who will be the only 2 teams in Australia that will win anything ever Trugganina Hornets and North Perth United. Don't pretend like you don't know. u hav an agendaaaaa.MP4
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAussies expand broadcast platform with Fox on-selling rights to Ten5th June 2017June 6 – Australian football, currently challenged by a slow moving reform process at federation level, has better news for stakeholders on the broadcast front with Ten Network announcing it has acquired the exclusive free-to-air rights to A-league and national team matches.Fox Sports controlled the rights as part of a record six-year $255.5 million deal concluded earlier this year. This included the free-to-air rights which it has on-sold to Ten in a reported $1.5 million a year deal.Ten will broadcast a Saturday evening A-League match, derbies, and all finals as well as Socceroos matches on multichannel One. Fox Sports will carry the vast bulk of live matches on its pay TV platform.The deal with Ten includes selected games streamed live on the Ten Play app, as well as Foxtel Go.The Ten deal rounds out the broadcast platform for Federation Football Australia (FFA) bringing a broader-based and wider promotional platform for the game as it grows in the sports-mad country. Fox brings the big money number.With the increase in TV money came a dispute between the Australian A-League club owners and the FFA with the clubs rejecting the annual A$3.25 million per club financial offer from the FFA last month. The clubs argue they should receive more money from the new A$56 million per season broadcast deal agreed with Fox.The FFA was already in dispute with clubs over representation on their board. Currently only 10 voters – the lowest of the 211 FIFA member nations – elect the FFA board. The clubs want more representation and FIFA has issued deadlines for the FFA to reform but they have been extended as no real common ground has been reached so far.The dispute over the TV money saw all 10 club owners walk out of a meeting with the FFA in Sydney. The new deal is a 40% increase on the previous agreement. The increase in the offer to clubs is 24%, up from the previous A$2.6 million per season. http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2017/06/05/aussies-expand-broadcast-platform-fox-selling-rights-ten/ If the $255.5m includes the $1.5m for in selling the rights to Channel 10, my maths tells me the deal is for only $42.58m per season, not the $56m everyone keeps talking about. Am i missing something? All of a sudden, we understand why the FFA is only wanting to guarantee an annual dividend of $3.25 mill per club, and retain about $10 mill in cash for administration (which is not over the top in my opinion). The TV deal is not the only source of revenue for the FFA I'm pretty sure it was mentioned that FFA total annual revenue from the A League is closer to $100m Can somebody clarify this point? This lack of clarity is probably the issue Owners claim it's a massive $x, FFA say it's only $y Yeh, I'd agree there is a lack of clarity, but...on this question the FFA might have a legitimate claim. They argue that a lot of the additional revenues are difficult to unpick and allocate out. For example, we know the FFA has had a major sponsorship with Hyundai since day one. The clubs might argue that the whole of that sponsorship belongs to the A-League, but the FFA might argue that the sponsorship goes back to the rebooting of new football in this country, and that is as much a general football sponsorship as it is a specific A-League sponsorship. Similarly, we know the FFA pocket all the revenue from finals. Once again, the A-League clubs might argue it all belongs to them, but the FFA might argue that they have created the hype and spectacle of the finals series, and it represent the pinnacle of football in this country, not just the endplay of the A-League, and at a minimum, hosting the finals has a lot of head office costs. There are probably other FFA revenues which are even more difficult to unpick. I don't favour one argument or the other, we probably don't have all the details, but I would say that a chunk of revenue must always be retained to run the competition, run various bits of infrastructure which support the competition (e.g. review panels, ref training, etc), and even more broader than that, contribute to infrastructure which ultimately benefits the league overall in terms of its quality (grassroots, ref education, promotion of the game, etc.) The FFA are guilty of smoke and mirrors over revenue. Of their $100m annual revenues about $75-$80m is estimated to come from the A league but as you say this is difficult to unpick exactly. The FFA have created a model that is unsustainable but the A League itself is sustainable if the A league gets the money it raises, not an unreasonable request and one that the AFC and FIFA support, the FFA has no automatic rights to keep any revenues raised, in fact the FIFA preference is for clubs to oragnise and run their own competitions. we will see if the owners have the balls to go it alone and cast the FFA adrift. If they do it will be good news for football in this country as a highly greedy and inefficient FFA and power hungry FFA will be forced in to major change. meanwhile the A league will go from strength to strength but MUST take a second divison with it otherwise the gap that opens up will never be bridged. If the FFA model is Unsustainable, then The A-league would of been broke already just like the NSL. The league is starting to get some financial stability and the owners want more money. The only thing I care about the A-league clubs is 3 things.... 1. The Salary cap to pay all the players. 2. Money to pay rent to the stadiums being used and money for the teams to travel and for hotel accommodations for the Away clubs. 3. Survival of the A-league. All this crap about scrapping the cap is stupid. The Salary cap exist for many reasons. One of them is for an even competition another is so Teams don't overspend. You are all happy in people putting 10 million in the A-league. so why don't you key board warriors go out there and Buy an A-league club yourselves? Why are people so Obsessed with Promotion and Relegation? Is that going to somehow make a huge difference and bring in 1 billion dollars a year in TV rights? 1. We don't need a salary cap. We need clubs that are sustainable. That means allowing clubs to reach their level, some will be big clubs and some will be small clubs. There is no need for a salary cap. We obviously need a distribution to all the clubs but don't you think the clubs can decide how much they should spend. This idea of equalization is like a mill stone around the league. 2. That's already happening, except some clubs do not know how to negotiate a stadium deal. To be fair to Brisbane Roar though the Qld government basically has a monopoly on Stadium use which doesn't look like ending soon. 3. I don't want a salary cap. I don't want an even competition. Think of the salary cap as a Tariff. As a Tariff it basically allows clubs to remain inefficient and wasteful, like many industries which were propped up in our economy. That is why a system of promotion and relegation is better, it weeds out inefficient and poorly managed clubs. It sorts out the wheat from the chaff. Instead of pegging our team to the worst in the competition we now peg our league to the best in the competition, it becomes an aspirational league. It doesn't mean you spend money you don't have, even leagues that don't have salary caps still have budgets and costs that they want to maintain or reduce. Do you think some Chairman will all of a sudden become irresponsible and drive their clubs into the ground. Some will and they get replaced, because they don't know what they are doing. It doesn't always mean spending the most on players or "buying a championship", it might mean the best academies or the best practices in the A-league. 4. Promotion and Relegation - it provides for more investment at all tiers. Investors might not want to buy an A-league club, they might want to buy an NPL or an NPL2 club or even lower and earn promotion that way (aspirational). It refreshes the league every season so that we have new teams entering and thereby increasing the base of clubs who have tasted the top level. It provides pressure for the players and the clubs to perform week in week out. This will surely take our football to the next level. It means scrapping hard for every point, fighting for draws, making clubs accountable. It will force those clubs who "cant buy a championship" to think of other ways to compete. In other words more innovation and guile. It punishes the weak and rewards those performing well. It falls in line with AFC and FIFA guidelines. These are just some of the things I can think off the top of my head, I am sure there are lots more. so.... you want a Scottish league? Seriously I have to laugh every time somebody plays the Scottish card Out of all the professional leagues in the world, only 2 will end up like Scotland. Us and Scotland We're unique, blah blah blah, but if we ever tried a different football model we'll end up like Scotland. Gimme a break! And this is the problem. We have a generation of Australians who do not know what sport is like without a salary cap in Australia. As far as I am aware it all started with the NRL and John Quayle, and for some reason all sports in Australia thought it was the be all and end all. For a sport like NRL and AFL it makes more sense because they have a limited playing pool. Australian football doesn't have that problem. The other misleading thing people don't realize about a salary cap is that any increases in revenue we receive from Fox are tied to the bargaining agreement struck by the players ie 90% of the cap now needs to be spent. I cannot for the life of me see a scenario where we have 1-2 teams dominating the A-league in a 16 team comp. Its always the doomsday scenario brought up, there are way more benefits than downsides.
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
Fuck me dead.
Bans for anyone who degenerates the next thread into this same old shit please.
Aussies Abroad is protected from derailment, why not other topics too?
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
On the cap.
I supported the cap,until it out lived its usefulness.
The cap was needed in the early days to among other things show we were a mainstream sport and to in some way equalise the sport...
But with Marquees, and discount for home grown players and juniors you can now effectively spend what you want.
Look at the cap as a cost and don't fear clubs will go broke,, BTW its OK if they do as long as players get paid.
The clubs are loosing money... they have no control of their biggest expense and biggest revenue item... Salaries and FFA annual handout are essentially out of their hands.
A club may only want to pay 2 million in salaries to players to not loose money... FFA and the PFA say the cap is !!!!!! ....
When we expand we say we can't afford it ... a reason could be new clubs could not find the cap cost.
Not in one year but I would like as we move forward to set a year say three years away when we say from Hal 15 the cap will not apply....
In economic terms ... its called a barrier of entry....
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
+xFuck me dead. Bans for anyone who degenerates the next thread into this same old shit please. Aussies Abroad is protected from derailment, why not other topics too? This thread is talking about whats best for TV.
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAussies expand broadcast platform with Fox on-selling rights to Ten5th June 2017June 6 – Australian football, currently challenged by a slow moving reform process at federation level, has better news for stakeholders on the broadcast front with Ten Network announcing it has acquired the exclusive free-to-air rights to A-league and national team matches.Fox Sports controlled the rights as part of a record six-year $255.5 million deal concluded earlier this year. This included the free-to-air rights which it has on-sold to Ten in a reported $1.5 million a year deal.Ten will broadcast a Saturday evening A-League match, derbies, and all finals as well as Socceroos matches on multichannel One. Fox Sports will carry the vast bulk of live matches on its pay TV platform.The deal with Ten includes selected games streamed live on the Ten Play app, as well as Foxtel Go.The Ten deal rounds out the broadcast platform for Federation Football Australia (FFA) bringing a broader-based and wider promotional platform for the game as it grows in the sports-mad country. Fox brings the big money number.With the increase in TV money came a dispute between the Australian A-League club owners and the FFA with the clubs rejecting the annual A$3.25 million per club financial offer from the FFA last month. The clubs argue they should receive more money from the new A$56 million per season broadcast deal agreed with Fox.The FFA was already in dispute with clubs over representation on their board. Currently only 10 voters – the lowest of the 211 FIFA member nations – elect the FFA board. The clubs want more representation and FIFA has issued deadlines for the FFA to reform but they have been extended as no real common ground has been reached so far.The dispute over the TV money saw all 10 club owners walk out of a meeting with the FFA in Sydney. The new deal is a 40% increase on the previous agreement. The increase in the offer to clubs is 24%, up from the previous A$2.6 million per season. http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2017/06/05/aussies-expand-broadcast-platform-fox-selling-rights-ten/ If the $255.5m includes the $1.5m for in selling the rights to Channel 10, my maths tells me the deal is for only $42.58m per season, not the $56m everyone keeps talking about. Am i missing something? All of a sudden, we understand why the FFA is only wanting to guarantee an annual dividend of $3.25 mill per club, and retain about $10 mill in cash for administration (which is not over the top in my opinion). The TV deal is not the only source of revenue for the FFA I'm pretty sure it was mentioned that FFA total annual revenue from the A League is closer to $100m Can somebody clarify this point? This lack of clarity is probably the issue Owners claim it's a massive $x, FFA say it's only $y Yeh, I'd agree there is a lack of clarity, but...on this question the FFA might have a legitimate claim. They argue that a lot of the additional revenues are difficult to unpick and allocate out. For example, we know the FFA has had a major sponsorship with Hyundai since day one. The clubs might argue that the whole of that sponsorship belongs to the A-League, but the FFA might argue that the sponsorship goes back to the rebooting of new football in this country, and that is as much a general football sponsorship as it is a specific A-League sponsorship. Similarly, we know the FFA pocket all the revenue from finals. Once again, the A-League clubs might argue it all belongs to them, but the FFA might argue that they have created the hype and spectacle of the finals series, and it represent the pinnacle of football in this country, not just the endplay of the A-League, and at a minimum, hosting the finals has a lot of head office costs. There are probably other FFA revenues which are even more difficult to unpick. I don't favour one argument or the other, we probably don't have all the details, but I would say that a chunk of revenue must always be retained to run the competition, run various bits of infrastructure which support the competition (e.g. review panels, ref training, etc), and even more broader than that, contribute to infrastructure which ultimately benefits the league overall in terms of its quality (grassroots, ref education, promotion of the game, etc.) The FFA are guilty of smoke and mirrors over revenue. Of their $100m annual revenues about $75-$80m is estimated to come from the A league but as you say this is difficult to unpick exactly. The FFA have created a model that is unsustainable but the A League itself is sustainable if the A league gets the money it raises, not an unreasonable request and one that the AFC and FIFA support, the FFA has no automatic rights to keep any revenues raised, in fact the FIFA preference is for clubs to oragnise and run their own competitions. we will see if the owners have the balls to go it alone and cast the FFA adrift. If they do it will be good news for football in this country as a highly greedy and inefficient FFA and power hungry FFA will be forced in to major change. meanwhile the A league will go from strength to strength but MUST take a second divison with it otherwise the gap that opens up will never be bridged. If the FFA model is Unsustainable, then The A-league would of been broke already just like the NSL. The league is starting to get some financial stability and the owners want more money. The only thing I care about the A-league clubs is 3 things.... 1. The Salary cap to pay all the players. 2. Money to pay rent to the stadiums being used and money for the teams to travel and for hotel accommodations for the Away clubs. 3. Survival of the A-league. All this crap about scrapping the cap is stupid. The Salary cap exist for many reasons. One of them is for an even competition another is so Teams don't overspend. You are all happy in people putting 10 million in the A-league. so why don't you key board warriors go out there and Buy an A-league club yourselves? Why are people so Obsessed with Promotion and Relegation? Is that going to somehow make a huge difference and bring in 1 billion dollars a year in TV rights? 1. We don't need a salary cap. We need clubs that are sustainable. That means allowing clubs to reach their level, some will be big clubs and some will be small clubs. There is no need for a salary cap. We obviously need a distribution to all the clubs but don't you think the clubs can decide how much they should spend. This idea of equalization is like a mill stone around the league. 2. That's already happening, except some clubs do not know how to negotiate a stadium deal. To be fair to Brisbane Roar though the Qld government basically has a monopoly on Stadium use which doesn't look like ending soon. 3. I don't want a salary cap. I don't want an even competition. Think of the salary cap as a Tariff. As a Tariff it basically allows clubs to remain inefficient and wasteful, like many industries which were propped up in our economy. That is why a system of promotion and relegation is better, it weeds out inefficient and poorly managed clubs. It sorts out the wheat from the chaff. Instead of pegging our team to the worst in the competition we now peg our league to the best in the competition, it becomes an aspirational league. It doesn't mean you spend money you don't have, even leagues that don't have salary caps still have budgets and costs that they want to maintain or reduce. Do you think some Chairman will all of a sudden become irresponsible and drive their clubs into the ground. Some will and they get replaced, because they don't know what they are doing. It doesn't always mean spending the most on players or "buying a championship", it might mean the best academies or the best practices in the A-league. 4. Promotion and Relegation - it provides for more investment at all tiers. Investors might not want to buy an A-league club, they might want to buy an NPL or an NPL2 club or even lower and earn promotion that way (aspirational). It refreshes the league every season so that we have new teams entering and thereby increasing the base of clubs who have tasted the top level. It provides pressure for the players and the clubs to perform week in week out. This will surely take our football to the next level. It means scrapping hard for every point, fighting for draws, making clubs accountable. It will force those clubs who "cant buy a championship" to think of other ways to compete. In other words more innovation and guile. It punishes the weak and rewards those performing well. It falls in line with AFC and FIFA guidelines. These are just some of the things I can think off the top of my head, I am sure there are lots more. so.... you want a Scottish league? Ok which team in our league is Celtic. I bet we get at least 5-6 different answers. Without a cap its a real risk that while we might not become a scotish league, we will most likely become a league with only 3 teams regularly competing. I have to be totally honest, one of the reason i really dont care about European football anymore (other than the fact that i have the a-league) is that most leagues are hopelessly predictable. With the exception of the epl which has approx 4-5 teams u could expect to win it (as well as wonderful anomalies lile Leicester) most leagues are a a set thing. And we cannot risk that because if the league does go that way, the increase from thoes two or three teams will be totally reduced by the fall out of fans from the other 7 clubs. For this to be a viable competition, the league needs to stay competitive. And clubs are already aloud to over pay on certain players if they want anyway. Sorry but I don't agree Australia is a very competitive sports market with big investment. We also have 3 major metro areas and 2 secondary metro areas. Each would be the equivalent of some countries The salary cap is new. Yet we have never had a "Scotland" scenario in major sports prior to trying to balance them We have also seen that people like sports and watch sports. Even CCM in their worst year managed an average of over 8k which was better than their year prior. They still play big must see games like hosting Sydney and WSW This balanced model is expensive. The costs are real. The benefits are speculative. It is the furthest thing from viable We need to scrap the cap and implement a competitive model. If things start to go pear shaped then we can reactively put in measures Yes it is but consider this other codes use the cap as well.. Rugby is fucked. NRL clubs mostly loose money and are supported up by poker machines. AFL over half their clubs loose money and they are also supported up by poker machines...
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xFuck me dead. Bans for anyone who degenerates the next thread into this same old shit please. Aussies Abroad is protected from derailment, why not other topics too? This thread is talking about whats best for TV. clap clap
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
The only reason Scotland is what it currently is because football in that country is incredibly, incredibly poor and the only team with any money are Celtic and Rangers once again soon enough.
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAussies expand broadcast platform with Fox on-selling rights to Ten5th June 2017June 6 – Australian football, currently challenged by a slow moving reform process at federation level, has better news for stakeholders on the broadcast front with Ten Network announcing it has acquired the exclusive free-to-air rights to A-league and national team matches.Fox Sports controlled the rights as part of a record six-year $255.5 million deal concluded earlier this year. This included the free-to-air rights which it has on-sold to Ten in a reported $1.5 million a year deal.Ten will broadcast a Saturday evening A-League match, derbies, and all finals as well as Socceroos matches on multichannel One. Fox Sports will carry the vast bulk of live matches on its pay TV platform.The deal with Ten includes selected games streamed live on the Ten Play app, as well as Foxtel Go.The Ten deal rounds out the broadcast platform for Federation Football Australia (FFA) bringing a broader-based and wider promotional platform for the game as it grows in the sports-mad country. Fox brings the big money number.With the increase in TV money came a dispute between the Australian A-League club owners and the FFA with the clubs rejecting the annual A$3.25 million per club financial offer from the FFA last month. The clubs argue they should receive more money from the new A$56 million per season broadcast deal agreed with Fox.The FFA was already in dispute with clubs over representation on their board. Currently only 10 voters – the lowest of the 211 FIFA member nations – elect the FFA board. The clubs want more representation and FIFA has issued deadlines for the FFA to reform but they have been extended as no real common ground has been reached so far.The dispute over the TV money saw all 10 club owners walk out of a meeting with the FFA in Sydney. The new deal is a 40% increase on the previous agreement. The increase in the offer to clubs is 24%, up from the previous A$2.6 million per season. http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2017/06/05/aussies-expand-broadcast-platform-fox-selling-rights-ten/ If the $255.5m includes the $1.5m for in selling the rights to Channel 10, my maths tells me the deal is for only $42.58m per season, not the $56m everyone keeps talking about. Am i missing something? All of a sudden, we understand why the FFA is only wanting to guarantee an annual dividend of $3.25 mill per club, and retain about $10 mill in cash for administration (which is not over the top in my opinion). The TV deal is not the only source of revenue for the FFA I'm pretty sure it was mentioned that FFA total annual revenue from the A League is closer to $100m Can somebody clarify this point? This lack of clarity is probably the issue Owners claim it's a massive $x, FFA say it's only $y Yeh, I'd agree there is a lack of clarity, but...on this question the FFA might have a legitimate claim. They argue that a lot of the additional revenues are difficult to unpick and allocate out. For example, we know the FFA has had a major sponsorship with Hyundai since day one. The clubs might argue that the whole of that sponsorship belongs to the A-League, but the FFA might argue that the sponsorship goes back to the rebooting of new football in this country, and that is as much a general football sponsorship as it is a specific A-League sponsorship. Similarly, we know the FFA pocket all the revenue from finals. Once again, the A-League clubs might argue it all belongs to them, but the FFA might argue that they have created the hype and spectacle of the finals series, and it represent the pinnacle of football in this country, not just the endplay of the A-League, and at a minimum, hosting the finals has a lot of head office costs. There are probably other FFA revenues which are even more difficult to unpick. I don't favour one argument or the other, we probably don't have all the details, but I would say that a chunk of revenue must always be retained to run the competition, run various bits of infrastructure which support the competition (e.g. review panels, ref training, etc), and even more broader than that, contribute to infrastructure which ultimately benefits the league overall in terms of its quality (grassroots, ref education, promotion of the game, etc.) The FFA are guilty of smoke and mirrors over revenue. Of their $100m annual revenues about $75-$80m is estimated to come from the A league but as you say this is difficult to unpick exactly. The FFA have created a model that is unsustainable but the A League itself is sustainable if the A league gets the money it raises, not an unreasonable request and one that the AFC and FIFA support, the FFA has no automatic rights to keep any revenues raised, in fact the FIFA preference is for clubs to oragnise and run their own competitions. we will see if the owners have the balls to go it alone and cast the FFA adrift. If they do it will be good news for football in this country as a highly greedy and inefficient FFA and power hungry FFA will be forced in to major change. meanwhile the A league will go from strength to strength but MUST take a second divison with it otherwise the gap that opens up will never be bridged. If the FFA model is Unsustainable, then The A-league would of been broke already just like the NSL. The league is starting to get some financial stability and the owners want more money. The only thing I care about the A-league clubs is 3 things.... 1. The Salary cap to pay all the players. 2. Money to pay rent to the stadiums being used and money for the teams to travel and for hotel accommodations for the Away clubs. 3. Survival of the A-league. All this crap about scrapping the cap is stupid. The Salary cap exist for many reasons. One of them is for an even competition another is so Teams don't overspend. You are all happy in people putting 10 million in the A-league. so why don't you key board warriors go out there and Buy an A-league club yourselves? Why are people so Obsessed with Promotion and Relegation? Is that going to somehow make a huge difference and bring in 1 billion dollars a year in TV rights? 1. We don't need a salary cap. We need clubs that are sustainable. That means allowing clubs to reach their level, some will be big clubs and some will be small clubs. There is no need for a salary cap. We obviously need a distribution to all the clubs but don't you think the clubs can decide how much they should spend. This idea of equalization is like a mill stone around the league. 2. That's already happening, except some clubs do not know how to negotiate a stadium deal. To be fair to Brisbane Roar though the Qld government basically has a monopoly on Stadium use which doesn't look like ending soon. 3. I don't want a salary cap. I don't want an even competition. Think of the salary cap as a Tariff. As a Tariff it basically allows clubs to remain inefficient and wasteful, like many industries which were propped up in our economy. That is why a system of promotion and relegation is better, it weeds out inefficient and poorly managed clubs. It sorts out the wheat from the chaff. Instead of pegging our team to the worst in the competition we now peg our league to the best in the competition, it becomes an aspirational league. It doesn't mean you spend money you don't have, even leagues that don't have salary caps still have budgets and costs that they want to maintain or reduce. Do you think some Chairman will all of a sudden become irresponsible and drive their clubs into the ground. Some will and they get replaced, because they don't know what they are doing. It doesn't always mean spending the most on players or "buying a championship", it might mean the best academies or the best practices in the A-league. 4. Promotion and Relegation - it provides for more investment at all tiers. Investors might not want to buy an A-league club, they might want to buy an NPL or an NPL2 club or even lower and earn promotion that way (aspirational). It refreshes the league every season so that we have new teams entering and thereby increasing the base of clubs who have tasted the top level. It provides pressure for the players and the clubs to perform week in week out. This will surely take our football to the next level. It means scrapping hard for every point, fighting for draws, making clubs accountable. It will force those clubs who "cant buy a championship" to think of other ways to compete. In other words more innovation and guile. It punishes the weak and rewards those performing well. It falls in line with AFC and FIFA guidelines. These are just some of the things I can think off the top of my head, I am sure there are lots more. so.... you want a Scottish league? Seriously I have to laugh every time somebody plays the Scottish card Out of all the professional leagues in the world, only 2 will end up like Scotland. Us and Scotland We're unique, blah blah blah, but if we ever tried a different football model we'll end up like Scotland. Gimme a break! And this is the problem. We have a generation of Australians who do not know what sport is like without a salary cap in Australia. As far as I am aware it all started with the NRL and John Quayle, and for some reason all sports in Australia thought it was the be all and end all. For a sport like NRL and AFL it makes more sense because they have a limited playing pool. Australian football doesn't have that problem. The other misleading thing people don't realize about a salary cap is that any increases in revenue we receive from Fox are tied to the bargaining agreement struck by the players ie 90% of the cap now needs to be spent. I cannot for the life of me see a scenario where we have 1-2 teams dominating the A-league in a 16 team comp. Its always the doomsday scenario brought up, there are way more benefits than downsides. The thing to remember also is that Japan and South Korea had a single tier with no cap Its not instant disaster. Its not inevitability that there is a breakaway group and disinterest Hawthorn and Brisbane both dominated for 4 years and the AFL didn't die. It is very manageable with a careful expansion plan, and ultimately a goal for P/R in the longer term The FFA just want us to believe this is the only way forward because that's the model they were sold on.
|
|
|
|
|
Razor Ramon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 886,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAussies expand broadcast platform with Fox on-selling rights to Ten5th June 2017June 6 – Australian football, currently challenged by a slow moving reform process at federation level, has better news for stakeholders on the broadcast front with Ten Network announcing it has acquired the exclusive free-to-air rights to A-league and national team matches.Fox Sports controlled the rights as part of a record six-year $255.5 million deal concluded earlier this year. This included the free-to-air rights which it has on-sold to Ten in a reported $1.5 million a year deal.Ten will broadcast a Saturday evening A-League match, derbies, and all finals as well as Socceroos matches on multichannel One. Fox Sports will carry the vast bulk of live matches on its pay TV platform.The deal with Ten includes selected games streamed live on the Ten Play app, as well as Foxtel Go.The Ten deal rounds out the broadcast platform for Federation Football Australia (FFA) bringing a broader-based and wider promotional platform for the game as it grows in the sports-mad country. Fox brings the big money number.With the increase in TV money came a dispute between the Australian A-League club owners and the FFA with the clubs rejecting the annual A$3.25 million per club financial offer from the FFA last month. The clubs argue they should receive more money from the new A$56 million per season broadcast deal agreed with Fox.The FFA was already in dispute with clubs over representation on their board. Currently only 10 voters – the lowest of the 211 FIFA member nations – elect the FFA board. The clubs want more representation and FIFA has issued deadlines for the FFA to reform but they have been extended as no real common ground has been reached so far.The dispute over the TV money saw all 10 club owners walk out of a meeting with the FFA in Sydney. The new deal is a 40% increase on the previous agreement. The increase in the offer to clubs is 24%, up from the previous A$2.6 million per season. http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2017/06/05/aussies-expand-broadcast-platform-fox-selling-rights-ten/ If the $255.5m includes the $1.5m for in selling the rights to Channel 10, my maths tells me the deal is for only $42.58m per season, not the $56m everyone keeps talking about. Am i missing something? All of a sudden, we understand why the FFA is only wanting to guarantee an annual dividend of $3.25 mill per club, and retain about $10 mill in cash for administration (which is not over the top in my opinion). The TV deal is not the only source of revenue for the FFA I'm pretty sure it was mentioned that FFA total annual revenue from the A League is closer to $100m Can somebody clarify this point? This lack of clarity is probably the issue Owners claim it's a massive $x, FFA say it's only $y Yeh, I'd agree there is a lack of clarity, but...on this question the FFA might have a legitimate claim. They argue that a lot of the additional revenues are difficult to unpick and allocate out. For example, we know the FFA has had a major sponsorship with Hyundai since day one. The clubs might argue that the whole of that sponsorship belongs to the A-League, but the FFA might argue that the sponsorship goes back to the rebooting of new football in this country, and that is as much a general football sponsorship as it is a specific A-League sponsorship. Similarly, we know the FFA pocket all the revenue from finals. Once again, the A-League clubs might argue it all belongs to them, but the FFA might argue that they have created the hype and spectacle of the finals series, and it represent the pinnacle of football in this country, not just the endplay of the A-League, and at a minimum, hosting the finals has a lot of head office costs. There are probably other FFA revenues which are even more difficult to unpick. I don't favour one argument or the other, we probably don't have all the details, but I would say that a chunk of revenue must always be retained to run the competition, run various bits of infrastructure which support the competition (e.g. review panels, ref training, etc), and even more broader than that, contribute to infrastructure which ultimately benefits the league overall in terms of its quality (grassroots, ref education, promotion of the game, etc.) The FFA are guilty of smoke and mirrors over revenue. Of their $100m annual revenues about $75-$80m is estimated to come from the A league but as you say this is difficult to unpick exactly. The FFA have created a model that is unsustainable but the A League itself is sustainable if the A league gets the money it raises, not an unreasonable request and one that the AFC and FIFA support, the FFA has no automatic rights to keep any revenues raised, in fact the FIFA preference is for clubs to oragnise and run their own competitions. we will see if the owners have the balls to go it alone and cast the FFA adrift. If they do it will be good news for football in this country as a highly greedy and inefficient FFA and power hungry FFA will be forced in to major change. meanwhile the A league will go from strength to strength but MUST take a second divison with it otherwise the gap that opens up will never be bridged. If the FFA model is Unsustainable, then The A-league would of been broke already just like the NSL. The league is starting to get some financial stability and the owners want more money. The only thing I care about the A-league clubs is 3 things.... 1. The Salary cap to pay all the players. 2. Money to pay rent to the stadiums being used and money for the teams to travel and for hotel accommodations for the Away clubs. 3. Survival of the A-league. All this crap about scrapping the cap is stupid. The Salary cap exist for many reasons. One of them is for an even competition another is so Teams don't overspend. You are all happy in people putting 10 million in the A-league. so why don't you key board warriors go out there and Buy an A-league club yourselves? Why are people so Obsessed with Promotion and Relegation? Is that going to somehow make a huge difference and bring in 1 billion dollars a year in TV rights? 1. We don't need a salary cap. We need clubs that are sustainable. That means allowing clubs to reach their level, some will be big clubs and some will be small clubs. There is no need for a salary cap. We obviously need a distribution to all the clubs but don't you think the clubs can decide how much they should spend. This idea of equalization is like a mill stone around the league. 2. That's already happening, except some clubs do not know how to negotiate a stadium deal. To be fair to Brisbane Roar though the Qld government basically has a monopoly on Stadium use which doesn't look like ending soon. 3. I don't want a salary cap. I don't want an even competition. Think of the salary cap as a Tariff. As a Tariff it basically allows clubs to remain inefficient and wasteful, like many industries which were propped up in our economy. That is why a system of promotion and relegation is better, it weeds out inefficient and poorly managed clubs. It sorts out the wheat from the chaff. Instead of pegging our team to the worst in the competition we now peg our league to the best in the competition, it becomes an aspirational league. It doesn't mean you spend money you don't have, even leagues that don't have salary caps still have budgets and costs that they want to maintain or reduce. Do you think some Chairman will all of a sudden become irresponsible and drive their clubs into the ground. Some will and they get replaced, because they don't know what they are doing. It doesn't always mean spending the most on players or "buying a championship", it might mean the best academies or the best practices in the A-league. 4. Promotion and Relegation - it provides for more investment at all tiers. Investors might not want to buy an A-league club, they might want to buy an NPL or an NPL2 club or even lower and earn promotion that way (aspirational). It refreshes the league every season so that we have new teams entering and thereby increasing the base of clubs who have tasted the top level. It provides pressure for the players and the clubs to perform week in week out. This will surely take our football to the next level. It means scrapping hard for every point, fighting for draws, making clubs accountable. It will force those clubs who "cant buy a championship" to think of other ways to compete. In other words more innovation and guile. It punishes the weak and rewards those performing well. It falls in line with AFC and FIFA guidelines. These are just some of the things I can think off the top of my head, I am sure there are lots more. so.... you want a Scottish league? Ok which team in our league is Celtic. I bet we get at least 5-6 different answers. well if you think Central Coast will average 15,000 people a game losing 6-0 each week, well you are mistaken. Salary Cap is there for a reason. As it stands now We have 4 powerhouse clubs in the A-league in Both Sydney and Melbourne sides and they are expected to get the bulk of the Saturday games on One hd. Brisbane and Adelaide Draw good crowds if they do well. CCM, Newcastle and Perth and Wellington Draw less than 10,000. I doubt putting Central coast or Perth Saturday night games on One will get millions of people to watch it.
|
|
|
|
|
marconi101
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
Newcastle will get 20k plus every home game if we get our act together. I bet my beard on it, and I love my beard
He was a man of specific quirks. He believed that all meals should be earned through physical effort. He also contended, zealously like a drunk with a political point, that the third dimension would not be possible if it werent for the existence of water.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xNewcastle will get 20k plus every home game if we get our act together. I bet my beard on it, and I love my beard  http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4713149/jets-owner-commits-to-increased-budget/
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAussies expand broadcast platform with Fox on-selling rights to Ten5th June 2017June 6 – Australian football, currently challenged by a slow moving reform process at federation level, has better news for stakeholders on the broadcast front with Ten Network announcing it has acquired the exclusive free-to-air rights to A-league and national team matches.Fox Sports controlled the rights as part of a record six-year $255.5 million deal concluded earlier this year. This included the free-to-air rights which it has on-sold to Ten in a reported $1.5 million a year deal.Ten will broadcast a Saturday evening A-League match, derbies, and all finals as well as Socceroos matches on multichannel One. Fox Sports will carry the vast bulk of live matches on its pay TV platform.The deal with Ten includes selected games streamed live on the Ten Play app, as well as Foxtel Go.The Ten deal rounds out the broadcast platform for Federation Football Australia (FFA) bringing a broader-based and wider promotional platform for the game as it grows in the sports-mad country. Fox brings the big money number.With the increase in TV money came a dispute between the Australian A-League club owners and the FFA with the clubs rejecting the annual A$3.25 million per club financial offer from the FFA last month. The clubs argue they should receive more money from the new A$56 million per season broadcast deal agreed with Fox.The FFA was already in dispute with clubs over representation on their board. Currently only 10 voters – the lowest of the 211 FIFA member nations – elect the FFA board. The clubs want more representation and FIFA has issued deadlines for the FFA to reform but they have been extended as no real common ground has been reached so far.The dispute over the TV money saw all 10 club owners walk out of a meeting with the FFA in Sydney. The new deal is a 40% increase on the previous agreement. The increase in the offer to clubs is 24%, up from the previous A$2.6 million per season. http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2017/06/05/aussies-expand-broadcast-platform-fox-selling-rights-ten/ If the $255.5m includes the $1.5m for in selling the rights to Channel 10, my maths tells me the deal is for only $42.58m per season, not the $56m everyone keeps talking about. Am i missing something? All of a sudden, we understand why the FFA is only wanting to guarantee an annual dividend of $3.25 mill per club, and retain about $10 mill in cash for administration (which is not over the top in my opinion). The TV deal is not the only source of revenue for the FFA I'm pretty sure it was mentioned that FFA total annual revenue from the A League is closer to $100m Can somebody clarify this point? This lack of clarity is probably the issue Owners claim it's a massive $x, FFA say it's only $y Yeh, I'd agree there is a lack of clarity, but...on this question the FFA might have a legitimate claim. They argue that a lot of the additional revenues are difficult to unpick and allocate out. For example, we know the FFA has had a major sponsorship with Hyundai since day one. The clubs might argue that the whole of that sponsorship belongs to the A-League, but the FFA might argue that the sponsorship goes back to the rebooting of new football in this country, and that is as much a general football sponsorship as it is a specific A-League sponsorship. Similarly, we know the FFA pocket all the revenue from finals. Once again, the A-League clubs might argue it all belongs to them, but the FFA might argue that they have created the hype and spectacle of the finals series, and it represent the pinnacle of football in this country, not just the endplay of the A-League, and at a minimum, hosting the finals has a lot of head office costs. There are probably other FFA revenues which are even more difficult to unpick. I don't favour one argument or the other, we probably don't have all the details, but I would say that a chunk of revenue must always be retained to run the competition, run various bits of infrastructure which support the competition (e.g. review panels, ref training, etc), and even more broader than that, contribute to infrastructure which ultimately benefits the league overall in terms of its quality (grassroots, ref education, promotion of the game, etc.) The FFA are guilty of smoke and mirrors over revenue. Of their $100m annual revenues about $75-$80m is estimated to come from the A league but as you say this is difficult to unpick exactly. The FFA have created a model that is unsustainable but the A League itself is sustainable if the A league gets the money it raises, not an unreasonable request and one that the AFC and FIFA support, the FFA has no automatic rights to keep any revenues raised, in fact the FIFA preference is for clubs to oragnise and run their own competitions. we will see if the owners have the balls to go it alone and cast the FFA adrift. If they do it will be good news for football in this country as a highly greedy and inefficient FFA and power hungry FFA will be forced in to major change. meanwhile the A league will go from strength to strength but MUST take a second divison with it otherwise the gap that opens up will never be bridged. If the FFA model is Unsustainable, then The A-league would of been broke already just like the NSL. The league is starting to get some financial stability and the owners want more money. The only thing I care about the A-league clubs is 3 things.... 1. The Salary cap to pay all the players. 2. Money to pay rent to the stadiums being used and money for the teams to travel and for hotel accommodations for the Away clubs. 3. Survival of the A-league. All this crap about scrapping the cap is stupid. The Salary cap exist for many reasons. One of them is for an even competition another is so Teams don't overspend. You are all happy in people putting 10 million in the A-league. so why don't you key board warriors go out there and Buy an A-league club yourselves? Why are people so Obsessed with Promotion and Relegation? Is that going to somehow make a huge difference and bring in 1 billion dollars a year in TV rights? 1. We don't need a salary cap. We need clubs that are sustainable. That means allowing clubs to reach their level, some will be big clubs and some will be small clubs. There is no need for a salary cap. We obviously need a distribution to all the clubs but don't you think the clubs can decide how much they should spend. This idea of equalization is like a mill stone around the league. 2. That's already happening, except some clubs do not know how to negotiate a stadium deal. To be fair to Brisbane Roar though the Qld government basically has a monopoly on Stadium use which doesn't look like ending soon. 3. I don't want a salary cap. I don't want an even competition. Think of the salary cap as a Tariff. As a Tariff it basically allows clubs to remain inefficient and wasteful, like many industries which were propped up in our economy. That is why a system of promotion and relegation is better, it weeds out inefficient and poorly managed clubs. It sorts out the wheat from the chaff. Instead of pegging our team to the worst in the competition we now peg our league to the best in the competition, it becomes an aspirational league. It doesn't mean you spend money you don't have, even leagues that don't have salary caps still have budgets and costs that they want to maintain or reduce. Do you think some Chairman will all of a sudden become irresponsible and drive their clubs into the ground. Some will and they get replaced, because they don't know what they are doing. It doesn't always mean spending the most on players or "buying a championship", it might mean the best academies or the best practices in the A-league. 4. Promotion and Relegation - it provides for more investment at all tiers. Investors might not want to buy an A-league club, they might want to buy an NPL or an NPL2 club or even lower and earn promotion that way (aspirational). It refreshes the league every season so that we have new teams entering and thereby increasing the base of clubs who have tasted the top level. It provides pressure for the players and the clubs to perform week in week out. This will surely take our football to the next level. It means scrapping hard for every point, fighting for draws, making clubs accountable. It will force those clubs who "cant buy a championship" to think of other ways to compete. In other words more innovation and guile. It punishes the weak and rewards those performing well. It falls in line with AFC and FIFA guidelines. These are just some of the things I can think off the top of my head, I am sure there are lots more. so.... you want a Scottish league? Ok which team in our league is Celtic. I bet we get at least 5-6 different answers. well if you think Central Coast will average 15,000 people a game losing 6-0 each week, well you are mistaken. Salary Cap is there for a reason. As it stands now We have 4 powerhouse clubs in the A-league in Both Sydney and Melbourne sides and they are expected to get the bulk of the Saturday games on One hd. Brisbane and Adelaide Draw good crowds if they do well. CCM, Newcastle and Perth and Wellington Draw less than 10,000. I doubt putting Central coast or Perth Saturday night games on One will get millions of people to watch it. RR I fully understand your logic .. A couple of things we are moving to a FIFA model. The FIFA model which we will be given time to adopt if we are moving in the right direction, requires two general things P & R and to achieve that at least two divisions. This means if the Mariners or Newcastle play poorly they will go down a division and so will there cost and they can rebuild ... thats the way it works. Now I am on record as saying we are not ready for the full FIFA model today.... but equally we are very nicely placed to create the development pathways for it to happen... we already have 12 to 17 bids depending on who you talk to wanting in most government backed to a degree. What we need to to grow the existing Football market and drag to the A-League.... its an issues over 70 years old so the answer tis not as easy as many thing. But we are in a position today, to establish a second division as long as it got some seed funding from FFA, then we can set benchmarks pertaining to market size and growth for the full introduction of P & R. As long as pre determined metrics are established then there are people willing to invest. The elephant in the room is timing.... today is way to early for anything other than planning. However with FIFA insisting on a meetings of the minds and a new governance structure I am confident we are in a good place. Remember FFA have a 100 million dollar budget and the State Federations [why do we need em] earn over 56 million see chart below ... with 156 + million on the table we can create something special. . State Federations revenues and links
|
|
|
|
|
Ricochet
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19,
Visits: 0
|
Just had a quick scroll through the facebook pages of Channel 9, wide world of sports and 9GO!
Unless I'm missing something, there doesn't appear to be a single post promoting tomorrow's game on any of their pages. The biggest match the Socceroos have played in the last two years and not one post.
There's quite a few posts promoting Saturday's netball games on Gem and of course most are regarding NRL. I'm also yet to see any TV commercials promoting the match on any 9 channel, although this may be different in metro areas. I do remember seeing ads (and social media posts) for the previous qualifiers 9GO showed last year.
Considering Thursday night NRL games can rate around 400k to 500k on Channel 9, surely they wouldn't be concerned the Socceroos on a secondary Channel may outrate the NRL?
Yeah I know seems a little bit like tin-foil hat stuff, but I just find it odd for such a big match that Channel 9 are doing nothing to promote it. Odd.
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xJust had a quick scroll through the facebook pages of Channel 9, wide world of sports and 9GO! Unless I'm missing something, there doesn't appear to be a single post promoting tomorrow's game on any of their pages. The biggest match the Socceroos have played in the last two years and not one post. There's quite a few posts promoting Saturday's netball games on Gem and of course most are regarding NRL. I'm also yet to see any TV commercials promoting the match on any 9 channel, although this may be different in metro areas. I do remember seeing ads (and social media posts) for the previous qualifiers 9GO showed last year. Considering Thursday night NRL games can rate around 400k to 500k on Channel 9, surely they wouldn't be concerned the Socceroos on a secondary Channel may outrate the NRL? Yeah I know seems a little bit like tin-foil hat stuff, but I just find it odd for such a big match that Channel 9 are doing nothing to promote it. Odd. Not really they want to protect the NRL in every way they can .... and not promoting a product they are about to lose to 10 is path of the course these days.
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAussies expand broadcast platform with Fox on-selling rights to Ten5th June 2017June 6 – Australian football, currently challenged by a slow moving reform process at federation level, has better news for stakeholders on the broadcast front with Ten Network announcing it has acquired the exclusive free-to-air rights to A-league and national team matches.Fox Sports controlled the rights as part of a record six-year $255.5 million deal concluded earlier this year. This included the free-to-air rights which it has on-sold to Ten in a reported $1.5 million a year deal.Ten will broadcast a Saturday evening A-League match, derbies, and all finals as well as Socceroos matches on multichannel One. Fox Sports will carry the vast bulk of live matches on its pay TV platform.The deal with Ten includes selected games streamed live on the Ten Play app, as well as Foxtel Go.The Ten deal rounds out the broadcast platform for Federation Football Australia (FFA) bringing a broader-based and wider promotional platform for the game as it grows in the sports-mad country. Fox brings the big money number.With the increase in TV money came a dispute between the Australian A-League club owners and the FFA with the clubs rejecting the annual A$3.25 million per club financial offer from the FFA last month. The clubs argue they should receive more money from the new A$56 million per season broadcast deal agreed with Fox.The FFA was already in dispute with clubs over representation on their board. Currently only 10 voters – the lowest of the 211 FIFA member nations – elect the FFA board. The clubs want more representation and FIFA has issued deadlines for the FFA to reform but they have been extended as no real common ground has been reached so far.The dispute over the TV money saw all 10 club owners walk out of a meeting with the FFA in Sydney. The new deal is a 40% increase on the previous agreement. The increase in the offer to clubs is 24%, up from the previous A$2.6 million per season. http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2017/06/05/aussies-expand-broadcast-platform-fox-selling-rights-ten/ If the $255.5m includes the $1.5m for in selling the rights to Channel 10, my maths tells me the deal is for only $42.58m per season, not the $56m everyone keeps talking about. Am i missing something? All of a sudden, we understand why the FFA is only wanting to guarantee an annual dividend of $3.25 mill per club, and retain about $10 mill in cash for administration (which is not over the top in my opinion). The TV deal is not the only source of revenue for the FFA I'm pretty sure it was mentioned that FFA total annual revenue from the A League is closer to $100m Can somebody clarify this point? This lack of clarity is probably the issue Owners claim it's a massive $x, FFA say it's only $y Yeh, I'd agree there is a lack of clarity, but...on this question the FFA might have a legitimate claim. They argue that a lot of the additional revenues are difficult to unpick and allocate out. For example, we know the FFA has had a major sponsorship with Hyundai since day one. The clubs might argue that the whole of that sponsorship belongs to the A-League, but the FFA might argue that the sponsorship goes back to the rebooting of new football in this country, and that is as much a general football sponsorship as it is a specific A-League sponsorship. Similarly, we know the FFA pocket all the revenue from finals. Once again, the A-League clubs might argue it all belongs to them, but the FFA might argue that they have created the hype and spectacle of the finals series, and it represent the pinnacle of football in this country, not just the endplay of the A-League, and at a minimum, hosting the finals has a lot of head office costs. There are probably other FFA revenues which are even more difficult to unpick. I don't favour one argument or the other, we probably don't have all the details, but I would say that a chunk of revenue must always be retained to run the competition, run various bits of infrastructure which support the competition (e.g. review panels, ref training, etc), and even more broader than that, contribute to infrastructure which ultimately benefits the league overall in terms of its quality (grassroots, ref education, promotion of the game, etc.) The FFA are guilty of smoke and mirrors over revenue. Of their $100m annual revenues about $75-$80m is estimated to come from the A league but as you say this is difficult to unpick exactly. The FFA have created a model that is unsustainable but the A League itself is sustainable if the A league gets the money it raises, not an unreasonable request and one that the AFC and FIFA support, the FFA has no automatic rights to keep any revenues raised, in fact the FIFA preference is for clubs to oragnise and run their own competitions. we will see if the owners have the balls to go it alone and cast the FFA adrift. If they do it will be good news for football in this country as a highly greedy and inefficient FFA and power hungry FFA will be forced in to major change. meanwhile the A league will go from strength to strength but MUST take a second divison with it otherwise the gap that opens up will never be bridged. If the FFA model is Unsustainable, then The A-league would of been broke already just like the NSL. The league is starting to get some financial stability and the owners want more money. The only thing I care about the A-league clubs is 3 things.... 1. The Salary cap to pay all the players. 2. Money to pay rent to the stadiums being used and money for the teams to travel and for hotel accommodations for the Away clubs. 3. Survival of the A-league. All this crap about scrapping the cap is stupid. The Salary cap exist for many reasons. One of them is for an even competition another is so Teams don't overspend. You are all happy in people putting 10 million in the A-league. so why don't you key board warriors go out there and Buy an A-league club yourselves? Why are people so Obsessed with Promotion and Relegation? Is that going to somehow make a huge difference and bring in 1 billion dollars a year in TV rights? 1. We don't need a salary cap. We need clubs that are sustainable. That means allowing clubs to reach their level, some will be big clubs and some will be small clubs. There is no need for a salary cap. We obviously need a distribution to all the clubs but don't you think the clubs can decide how much they should spend. This idea of equalization is like a mill stone around the league. 2. That's already happening, except some clubs do not know how to negotiate a stadium deal. To be fair to Brisbane Roar though the Qld government basically has a monopoly on Stadium use which doesn't look like ending soon. 3. I don't want a salary cap. I don't want an even competition. Think of the salary cap as a Tariff. As a Tariff it basically allows clubs to remain inefficient and wasteful, like many industries which were propped up in our economy. That is why a system of promotion and relegation is better, it weeds out inefficient and poorly managed clubs. It sorts out the wheat from the chaff. Instead of pegging our team to the worst in the competition we now peg our league to the best in the competition, it becomes an aspirational league. It doesn't mean you spend money you don't have, even leagues that don't have salary caps still have budgets and costs that they want to maintain or reduce. Do you think some Chairman will all of a sudden become irresponsible and drive their clubs into the ground. Some will and they get replaced, because they don't know what they are doing. It doesn't always mean spending the most on players or "buying a championship", it might mean the best academies or the best practices in the A-league. 4. Promotion and Relegation - it provides for more investment at all tiers. Investors might not want to buy an A-league club, they might want to buy an NPL or an NPL2 club or even lower and earn promotion that way (aspirational). It refreshes the league every season so that we have new teams entering and thereby increasing the base of clubs who have tasted the top level. It provides pressure for the players and the clubs to perform week in week out. This will surely take our football to the next level. It means scrapping hard for every point, fighting for draws, making clubs accountable. It will force those clubs who "cant buy a championship" to think of other ways to compete. In other words more innovation and guile. It punishes the weak and rewards those performing well. It falls in line with AFC and FIFA guidelines. These are just some of the things I can think off the top of my head, I am sure there are lots more. so.... you want a Scottish league? Ok which team in our league is Celtic. I bet we get at least 5-6 different answers. well if you think Central Coast will average 15,000 people a game losing 6-0 each week, well you are mistaken. Salary Cap is there for a reason. As it stands now We have 4 powerhouse clubs in the A-league in Both Sydney and Melbourne sides and they are expected to get the bulk of the Saturday games on One hd. Brisbane and Adelaide Draw good crowds if they do well. CCM, Newcastle and Perth and Wellington Draw less than 10,000. I doubt putting Central coast or Perth Saturday night games on One will get millions of people to watch it. When have CCM ever averaged 15k? The A League has a salary cap. 4 teams averaged less than 10k, and 2 teams averaged fractionally above 10k The NSL was a semi professional mismanaged competition with no backing and riddled with self interest. It managed to average 6k as a competitive single tier league. To think that the A League couldn't do better with more appeal is nonsensical The teams at the bottom will be doing no worse than they do now. The teams at the top will get higher attendances because they have stronger and more appealing squads I'd be willing to bet that CCM would be able to manage 7,395 in an open league just as they did in a closed league. There is no way a strong Sydney would only average 16,000 like they did last season
|
|
|
|
|
GloryPerth
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAussies expand broadcast platform with Fox on-selling rights to Ten5th June 2017June 6 – Australian football, currently challenged by a slow moving reform process at federation level, has better news for stakeholders on the broadcast front with Ten Network announcing it has acquired the exclusive free-to-air rights to A-league and national team matches.Fox Sports controlled the rights as part of a record six-year $255.5 million deal concluded earlier this year. This included the free-to-air rights which it has on-sold to Ten in a reported $1.5 million a year deal.Ten will broadcast a Saturday evening A-League match, derbies, and all finals as well as Socceroos matches on multichannel One. Fox Sports will carry the vast bulk of live matches on its pay TV platform.The deal with Ten includes selected games streamed live on the Ten Play app, as well as Foxtel Go.The Ten deal rounds out the broadcast platform for Federation Football Australia (FFA) bringing a broader-based and wider promotional platform for the game as it grows in the sports-mad country. Fox brings the big money number.With the increase in TV money came a dispute between the Australian A-League club owners and the FFA with the clubs rejecting the annual A$3.25 million per club financial offer from the FFA last month. The clubs argue they should receive more money from the new A$56 million per season broadcast deal agreed with Fox.The FFA was already in dispute with clubs over representation on their board. Currently only 10 voters – the lowest of the 211 FIFA member nations – elect the FFA board. The clubs want more representation and FIFA has issued deadlines for the FFA to reform but they have been extended as no real common ground has been reached so far.The dispute over the TV money saw all 10 club owners walk out of a meeting with the FFA in Sydney. The new deal is a 40% increase on the previous agreement. The increase in the offer to clubs is 24%, up from the previous A$2.6 million per season. http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2017/06/05/aussies-expand-broadcast-platform-fox-selling-rights-ten/ If the $255.5m includes the $1.5m for in selling the rights to Channel 10, my maths tells me the deal is for only $42.58m per season, not the $56m everyone keeps talking about. Am i missing something? All of a sudden, we understand why the FFA is only wanting to guarantee an annual dividend of $3.25 mill per club, and retain about $10 mill in cash for administration (which is not over the top in my opinion). The TV deal is not the only source of revenue for the FFA I'm pretty sure it was mentioned that FFA total annual revenue from the A League is closer to $100m Can somebody clarify this point? This lack of clarity is probably the issue Owners claim it's a massive $x, FFA say it's only $y Yeh, I'd agree there is a lack of clarity, but...on this question the FFA might have a legitimate claim. They argue that a lot of the additional revenues are difficult to unpick and allocate out. For example, we know the FFA has had a major sponsorship with Hyundai since day one. The clubs might argue that the whole of that sponsorship belongs to the A-League, but the FFA might argue that the sponsorship goes back to the rebooting of new football in this country, and that is as much a general football sponsorship as it is a specific A-League sponsorship. Similarly, we know the FFA pocket all the revenue from finals. Once again, the A-League clubs might argue it all belongs to them, but the FFA might argue that they have created the hype and spectacle of the finals series, and it represent the pinnacle of football in this country, not just the endplay of the A-League, and at a minimum, hosting the finals has a lot of head office costs. There are probably other FFA revenues which are even more difficult to unpick. I don't favour one argument or the other, we probably don't have all the details, but I would say that a chunk of revenue must always be retained to run the competition, run various bits of infrastructure which support the competition (e.g. review panels, ref training, etc), and even more broader than that, contribute to infrastructure which ultimately benefits the league overall in terms of its quality (grassroots, ref education, promotion of the game, etc.) The FFA are guilty of smoke and mirrors over revenue. Of their $100m annual revenues about $75-$80m is estimated to come from the A league but as you say this is difficult to unpick exactly. The FFA have created a model that is unsustainable but the A League itself is sustainable if the A league gets the money it raises, not an unreasonable request and one that the AFC and FIFA support, the FFA has no automatic rights to keep any revenues raised, in fact the FIFA preference is for clubs to oragnise and run their own competitions. we will see if the owners have the balls to go it alone and cast the FFA adrift. If they do it will be good news for football in this country as a highly greedy and inefficient FFA and power hungry FFA will be forced in to major change. meanwhile the A league will go from strength to strength but MUST take a second divison with it otherwise the gap that opens up will never be bridged. If the FFA model is Unsustainable, then The A-league would of been broke already just like the NSL. The league is starting to get some financial stability and the owners want more money. The only thing I care about the A-league clubs is 3 things.... 1. The Salary cap to pay all the players. 2. Money to pay rent to the stadiums being used and money for the teams to travel and for hotel accommodations for the Away clubs. 3. Survival of the A-league. All this crap about scrapping the cap is stupid. The Salary cap exist for many reasons. One of them is for an even competition another is so Teams don't overspend. You are all happy in people putting 10 million in the A-league. so why don't you key board warriors go out there and Buy an A-league club yourselves? Why are people so Obsessed with Promotion and Relegation? Is that going to somehow make a huge difference and bring in 1 billion dollars a year in TV rights? 1. We don't need a salary cap. We need clubs that are sustainable. That means allowing clubs to reach their level, some will be big clubs and some will be small clubs. There is no need for a salary cap. We obviously need a distribution to all the clubs but don't you think the clubs can decide how much they should spend. This idea of equalization is like a mill stone around the league. 2. That's already happening, except some clubs do not know how to negotiate a stadium deal. To be fair to Brisbane Roar though the Qld government basically has a monopoly on Stadium use which doesn't look like ending soon. 3. I don't want a salary cap. I don't want an even competition. Think of the salary cap as a Tariff. As a Tariff it basically allows clubs to remain inefficient and wasteful, like many industries which were propped up in our economy. That is why a system of promotion and relegation is better, it weeds out inefficient and poorly managed clubs. It sorts out the wheat from the chaff. Instead of pegging our team to the worst in the competition we now peg our league to the best in the competition, it becomes an aspirational league. It doesn't mean you spend money you don't have, even leagues that don't have salary caps still have budgets and costs that they want to maintain or reduce. Do you think some Chairman will all of a sudden become irresponsible and drive their clubs into the ground. Some will and they get replaced, because they don't know what they are doing. It doesn't always mean spending the most on players or "buying a championship", it might mean the best academies or the best practices in the A-league. 4. Promotion and Relegation - it provides for more investment at all tiers. Investors might not want to buy an A-league club, they might want to buy an NPL or an NPL2 club or even lower and earn promotion that way (aspirational). It refreshes the league every season so that we have new teams entering and thereby increasing the base of clubs who have tasted the top level. It provides pressure for the players and the clubs to perform week in week out. This will surely take our football to the next level. It means scrapping hard for every point, fighting for draws, making clubs accountable. It will force those clubs who "cant buy a championship" to think of other ways to compete. In other words more innovation and guile. It punishes the weak and rewards those performing well. It falls in line with AFC and FIFA guidelines. These are just some of the things I can think off the top of my head, I am sure there are lots more. so.... you want a Scottish league? Seriously I have to laugh every time somebody plays the Scottish card Out of all the professional leagues in the world, only 2 will end up like Scotland. Us and Scotland We're unique, blah blah blah, but if we ever tried a different football model we'll end up like Scotland. Gimme a break! And this is the problem. We have a generation of Australians who do not know what sport is like without a salary cap in Australia. As far as I am aware it all started with the NRL and John Quayle, and for some reason all sports in Australia thought it was the be all and end all. For a sport like NRL and AFL it makes more sense because they have a limited playing pool. Australian football doesn't have that problem. The other misleading thing people don't realize about a salary cap is that any increases in revenue we receive from Fox are tied to the bargaining agreement struck by the players ie 90% of the cap now needs to be spent. I cannot for the life of me see a scenario where we have 1-2 teams dominating the A-league in a 16 team comp. Its always the doomsday scenario brought up, there are way more benefits than downsides. The thing to remember also is that Japan and South Korea had a single tier with no cap Its not instant disaster. Its not inevitability that there is a breakaway group and disinterest Hawthorn and Brisbane both dominated for 4 years and the AFL didn't die. It is very manageable with a careful expansion plan, and ultimately a goal for P/R in the longer term The FFA just want us to believe this is the only way forward because that's the model they were sold on. With the model, the FFA are looking into this right now. Sure, it's in regards to expansion and how A-League franchises are set-up, but that extends naturally into how the A-League is run and this feeds into the current negotiations. The FFA have said what has been done in the past, the past model, is no longer sustainable and they're seeking to change it for a more sustainable approach. On that path, we will surely see greater progress towards what has been long been among the aims from Crawford and when the A-League was being established and even the persisting recommendations from FIFA. We seem to be at an important time of transition, right now. Will be interesting to see where the game is at, once they sort out the Congress representation issue, as too the share of TV deal distribution to the A-League clubs, a new model sorted and A-League expansion to 12 announced. Where will be at, at this time next year?
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
The Tassie state fed bring in more than the SA one? Interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
Coverdale
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Blueballs, you're assuming better players will come out here just because the cap's gone. Where is your evidence. My evidence to the contrary is that most squads can't currently fill their marquee positions with higher quality players that you seem to think Syd/Melb will be able to fill a roster with.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xBlueballs, you're assuming better players will come out here just because the cap's gone. Where is your evidence. My evidence to the contrary is that most squads can't currently fill their marquee positions with higher quality players that you seem to think Syd/Melb will be able to fill a roster with. You are assuming also. The assumption is that players wont be able to step up in a full time professional environment. My contention is that there are a number of steps that will occur which have already been discussed. With about 90-100 clubs currently in NPL clubs around the country, having the best players now funneling into a 12-16 team 2nd tier will provide you with a great foundation of players. The players themselves might not be A-league ready instantly which was the case when the A-league first started, (standards were not great) but once they start training 5 days a week the standards should pick up. You have to remember that by the time we are looking at more teams in the A-league, a 2nd tier etc etc that the national curriculum would have started to kick in. We are already developing a better youth player, but so is the rest of the world. The fact is there is effectively no youth league in Australia and there aren't enough clubs or should I say managers who are willing to give this youth a go, when managers do they are performing well. You will also get other players coming back from abroad looking for opportunities. If the gap is narrowed between the A-league and a professional 2nd tier then the jump to the A-league wont be as daunting say from a semi professional NPL. The scouting of players will also be easier and lets not forget that A-league clubs are now starting to look at developing their own academies and players which is more reason for more teams in the A-league. You might not think they are valid reasons but I certainly do.
|
|
|
|
nomates
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Nixs Vs Glory on FTA Saturday nite suits me.
Wellington Phoenix FC
|
|
|
|
|
Razor Ramon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 886,
Visits: 0
|
+xNewcastle will get 20k plus every home game if we get our act together. I bet my beard on it, and I love my beard I wouldn't mind that either. Still remember a few years ago When Emile Heskey played for your mob, they were getting 12,000 a game. If Newcastle thrive like Sydney FC and Melbourne Victory did last season, they would get 15,000 easily.
|
|
|
|
|
Razor Ramon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 886,
Visits: 0
|
+xJust had a quick scroll through the facebook pages of Channel 9, wide world of sports and 9GO! Unless I'm missing something, there doesn't appear to be a single post promoting tomorrow's game on any of their pages. The biggest match the Socceroos have played in the last two years and not one post. There's quite a few posts promoting Saturday's netball games on Gem and of course most are regarding NRL. I'm also yet to see any TV commercials promoting the match on any 9 channel, although this may be different in metro areas. I do remember seeing ads (and social media posts) for the previous qualifiers 9GO showed last year. Considering Thursday night NRL games can rate around 400k to 500k on Channel 9, surely they wouldn't be concerned the Socceroos on a secondary Channel may outrate the NRL? Yeah I know seems a little bit like tin-foil hat stuff, but I just find it odd for such a big match that Channel 9 are doing nothing to promote it. Odd. I saw commercials of it on go, even if it only lasted 5-10 seconds lol
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xBlueballs, you're assuming better players will come out here just because the cap's gone. Where is your evidence. My evidence to the contrary is that most squads can't currently fill their marquee positions with higher quality players that you seem to think Syd/Melb will be able to fill a roster with. HHHHHMmmmmm me thinks you are caught in yesterdays thinking.... the league is evolving... faster than many including me believed.. Consider there are between 12 & 17 bids to join the A-League most have some form or other of government backing. Football is about to go through a bump IMO it has been cleverly set up by FFA [people will hate me for saying that] .... Football has many tribes and many don't watch the A-League which I think over the next two to three years will happen... my evidence is my experience in trends and charting which when I analysis them all indicate a bump... further evidence and better is the bids .... the current bids IMO are all everyone of them better than the original 8 teams who bid.... government backing would not be as forth coming if others aren't also looking at the same trend lines and models I am... . The so called ethnic issue is well understood by both the ethnic clubs and the current A-League clubs... so expect very professional and inclusive branding from these clubs and finally maybe not as much as it should but the non ethnic clubs are also starting to get remembered and respected something that did not always happen. In effect we need to grow the market base to a certain size ... then its all guns blazing... the trick is and its a very subjective judgement call is when to pull the pin. The difference between now and 4 years from now IMO will be huge ... BUT the planning needs to start now or very soon.
|
|
|
|