|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAnd even though it was a shit show, this is why the FA and the A-League needed to be separated The FA SHOULD be focusing on player pathways and systems etc etc rather than the closed off top tierObviously that should be more than one tier sooner then later but the APL group should eventually include these NSD clubs ie. whichever teams are in the top 2-3 tiers on a rolling basis with the FA always focused on the grassroots. Yup, thats about the gist of it from me.
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
And even though it was a shit show, this is why the FA and the A-League needed to be separated
The FA SHOULD be focusing on player pathways and systems etc etc rather than the closed off top tier
Obviously that should be more than one tier sooner then later but the APL group should eventually include these NSD clubs ie. whichever teams are in the top 2-3 tiers on a rolling basis with the FA always focused on the grassroots.
|
|
|
|
|
LFC.
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xYou've now got the World Cup prize money, and the sponsorship money to invest for the future of the game. Stop stalling and get the NSD going! yer yer ! Knock knock bud :) https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/world-cup-qualification-set-to-net-socceroos-fa-17m-pay-day-20220614-p5atnr.htmlJJ to Bossi "Much of the profit will be set aside for funding a national second division and a women’s national cup competition. FA is eager to improve player pathways with more games across women’s and mens football, in particular by introducing a second professional league to sit below the A-League." Woooohoooooo.... maybe? cheers for that, yer we wait n see........
Love Football
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xYou've now got the World Cup prize money, and the sponsorship money to invest for the future of the game. Stop stalling and get the NSD going! yer yer ! Knock knock bud :) https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/world-cup-qualification-set-to-net-socceroos-fa-17m-pay-day-20220614-p5atnr.htmlJJ to Bossi "Much of the profit will be set aside for funding a national second division and a women’s national cup competition. FA is eager to improve player pathways with more games across women’s and mens football, in particular by introducing a second professional league to sit below the A-League." Woooohoooooo.... maybe?
|
|
|
|
|
LFC.
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+xYou've now got the World Cup prize money, and the sponsorship money to invest for the future of the game. Stop stalling and get the NSD going! yer yer !
Love Football
|
|
|
|
|
southmelb
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xYou've now got the World Cup prize money, and the sponsorship money to invest for the future of the game. Stop stalling and get the NSD going! Absolutely no excuses now. If we do it after this cycle we never will.
|
|
|
|
|
AyyLeague
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 423,
Visits: 0
|
You've now got the World Cup prize money, and the sponsorship money to invest for the future of the game.
Stop stalling and get the NSD going!
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xBack to the board voting rights. Clearly, the professional clubs have gone from having effectively zero stake in the board, to effectively be just one friendly state body away from controlling the whole thing. How aligned are the 9 state bodies? I'd suggest the chances are high that the professional clubs would have at least one state body close to them at any point in time, that's all it takes currently. From the very start, the Chairman has publicly demonstrated a propensity to protect club interests, so the conclusion is a valid one, that the professional clubs are now the kingmakers in Australian football. You have to look no further than how influential SFC, Victory and City were in deciding the latest two new entrants in terms of their ostensible geographic focus. There is a lot of guesswork in your assumptions but at the end of the day people will believe what they want to believe. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating,as you yourself have said on previous occasions. I think we should let it run it’s course. Johnson has only been in the job ‘five minutes’ and there is a lot to put right, especially after the chaos of the Lowy jnr. / David Gallop years. You must then allow a fair amount of scepticism? I agree that JJ seems to "want" to do the right thing, I think what many feel is that perhaps he wont be "able" to make the changes we all want..... Still waiting patiently for your big announcement BTW. Also, the role of a CEO is to implement the strategy approved by the board. So if the board doesn't have the NSD in their strategy, then it's not something JJ will pursue. Yup, thats what I mean dude.
|
|
|
|
|
someguyjc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xBack to the board voting rights. Clearly, the professional clubs have gone from having effectively zero stake in the board, to effectively be just one friendly state body away from controlling the whole thing. How aligned are the 9 state bodies? I'd suggest the chances are high that the professional clubs would have at least one state body close to them at any point in time, that's all it takes currently. From the very start, the Chairman has publicly demonstrated a propensity to protect club interests, so the conclusion is a valid one, that the professional clubs are now the kingmakers in Australian football. You have to look no further than how influential SFC, Victory and City were in deciding the latest two new entrants in terms of their ostensible geographic focus. There is a lot of guesswork in your assumptions but at the end of the day people will believe what they want to believe. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating,as you yourself have said on previous occasions. I think we should let it run it’s course. Johnson has only been in the job ‘five minutes’ and there is a lot to put right, especially after the chaos of the Lowy jnr. / David Gallop years. You must then allow a fair amount of scepticism? I agree that JJ seems to "want" to do the right thing, I think what many feel is that perhaps he wont be "able" to make the changes we all want..... Still waiting patiently for your big announcement BTW. Also, the role of a CEO is to implement the strategy approved by the board. So if the board doesn't have the NSD in their strategy, then it's not something JJ will pursue.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+xBack to the board voting rights. Clearly, the professional clubs have gone from having effectively zero stake in the board, to effectively be just one friendly state body away from controlling the whole thing. How aligned are the 9 state bodies? I'd suggest the chances are high that the professional clubs would have at least one state body close to them at any point in time, that's all it takes currently. From the very start, the Chairman has publicly demonstrated a propensity to protect club interests, so the conclusion is a valid one, that the professional clubs are now the kingmakers in Australian football. You have to look no further than how influential SFC, Victory and City were in deciding the latest two new entrants in terms of their ostensible geographic focus. The APL clubs are not 1 state body away from controlling the Board. Currently they need at least 16 votes to control the Board assuming the PFA supports them. To get to needing only 1 state they need to get all 10 of the members of the Women's Football Council on side and that is not guaranteed as a number of the members have ties to state grassroots football and the Council's brief covers the whole of the football ecosystem and professional football is less than 1% of this numerically. In the battle for control of FA in 2018 the clubs got the support of FV and FNSW however my understanding is that those states have been critical of the APL's attitude to change that benefits the whole of football There is no doubt that the clubs were the winners in the new FA constitution. They attained along with the PFA veto rights for changes to the constitution but getting to 1 vote above 50% is a much harder thing for them to achieve especially if they continue to put their interests above those of football in general.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xBack to the board voting rights. Clearly, the professional clubs have gone from having effectively zero stake in the board, to effectively be just one friendly state body away from controlling the whole thing. How aligned are the 9 state bodies? I'd suggest the chances are high that the professional clubs would have at least one state body close to them at any point in time, that's all it takes currently. From the very start, the Chairman has publicly demonstrated a propensity to protect club interests, so the conclusion is a valid one, that the professional clubs are now the kingmakers in Australian football. You have to look no further than how influential SFC, Victory and City were in deciding the latest two new entrants in terms of their ostensible geographic focus. There is a lot of guesswork in your assumptions but at the end of the day people will believe what they want to believe. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating,as you yourself have said on previous occasions. I think we should let it run it’s course. Johnson has only been in the job ‘five minutes’ and there is a lot to put right, especially after the chaos of the Lowy jnr. / David Gallop years. You must then allow a fair amount of scepticism? I agree that JJ seems to "want" to do the right thing, I think what many feel is that perhaps he wont be "able" to make the changes we all want..... Still waiting patiently for your big announcement BTW.
|
|
|
|
|
libelous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 889,
Visits: 0
|
+xBack to the board voting rights. Clearly, the professional clubs have gone from having effectively zero stake in the board, to effectively be just one friendly state body away from controlling the whole thing. How aligned are the 9 state bodies? I'd suggest the chances are high that the professional clubs would have at least one state body close to them at any point in time, that's all it takes currently. From the very start, the Chairman has publicly demonstrated a propensity to protect club interests, so the conclusion is a valid one, that the professional clubs are now the kingmakers in Australian football. You have to look no further than how influential SFC, Victory and City were in deciding the latest two new entrants in terms of their ostensible geographic focus. There is a lot of guesswork in your assumptions but at the end of the day people will believe what they want to believe. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating,as you yourself have said on previous occasions. I think we should let it run it’s course. Johnson has only been in the job ‘five minutes’ and there is a lot to put right, especially after the chaos of the Lowy jnr. / David Gallop years.
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Back to the board voting rights.
Clearly, the professional clubs have gone from having effectively zero stake in the board, to effectively be just one friendly state body away from controlling the whole thing.
How aligned are the 9 state bodies?
I'd suggest the chances are high that the professional clubs would have at least one state body close to them at any point in time, that's all it takes currently.
From the very start, the Chairman has publicly demonstrated a propensity to protect club interests, so the conclusion is a valid one, that the professional clubs are now the kingmakers in Australian football.
You have to look no further than how influential SFC, Victory and City were in deciding the latest two new entrants in terms of their ostensible geographic focus.
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI think some may not have caught up with what happened with the governance upheaval of 2018. We went from dictatorship (where one person decided absolutely everything, and was in a position to do almost anything) to broad-based democratic representation. That sounds good, if your interested in endless stakeholder engagement and nothing concrete happening. In the meantime, while we go through endless stakeholder engagement and non-action, the professional clubs went from having zero say in anything, absolutely zero, to controlling around 40 to 45% of the board, and in fact, only need the support of one large state to control the board. In effect, they already have the Chairman in their backpocket, and I've seen no evidence that the CEO is out of step with the Chairman. The one big achievement of the CEO is the 2023 WWC, and it is a good achievement, no doubt they will hang their hat on that one for many years to come. But where is the increased infrastructure investment that was meant to usher in? I can't see a heap of evidence for it. So in the end, the upshot will be that all else that needs to happen in the game will be overcome with circuses and a lot of back-slapping on what a great show us Aussies put on. Yay us! Whether the one person in charge believes in fairies, or a panel of people believe in fairies, the end result will be an agency that invests in fairies. Its not "who" is in charge but the broader philosophy that drives the people in charge Australia has been sold on the AFL / NRL model which came from America. It doesnt matter who is in charge, the direction will be a closed off shop that hunts get rich quick commercial opportunities. Whether its one person, a dozen people. Even bring in somebody from overseas and then give them the template that they have to work from. Thats why the FA wasn't able to progress despite a complete cleanout For Australia to progress they need to change their philosophy not their personnel. Every business has a measure of success. Those who see it as dollars in bank accounts don't last long. When the measure of success is football metrics, and commercial success is a result of football success, then you'll see proper pathways and investment in grassroots / infrastructure Yes, agree with opening premise. In other words, the opportunity to set up a true football structure was at the very beginning, when the one man had all the power, and brooked no opposition. That's gone. The current set up cannot deliver it, it just can't. The opportunity is lost.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI think some may not have caught up with what happened with the governance upheaval of 2018. We went from dictatorship (where one person decided absolutely everything, and was in a position to do almost anything) to broad-based democratic representation. That sounds good, if your interested in endless stakeholder engagement and nothing concrete happening. In the meantime, while we go through endless stakeholder engagement and non-action, the professional clubs went from having zero say in anything, absolutely zero, to controlling around 40 to 45% of the board, and in fact, only need the support of one large state to control the board. In effect, they already have the Chairman in their backpocket, and I've seen no evidence that the CEO is out of step with the Chairman. The one big achievement of the CEO is the 2023 WWC, and it is a good achievement, no doubt they will hang their hat on that one for many years to come. But where is the increased infrastructure investment that was meant to usher in? I can't see a heap of evidence for it. So in the end, the upshot will be that all else that needs to happen in the game will be overcome with circuses and a lot of back-slapping on what a great show us Aussies put on. Yay us! Your view on control of the board is worth analysing:- 1. The A-League clubs share a fixed number of votes pro-rata to each full member and that will not change when Western and Macarthur get full membership, Newcastle regains full membership or with expansion. Currently there are only 8 clubs that are full members and each has 3.5 votes. Total votes - 282. The player's member I believe is a PFA appointee. Total votes - 73. Women's Football Council has a role right across football from grassroots to Matildas. Each member of the council has 1 vote. Total votes - 10
4. The 9 State members share their allocation equally. Each has 6.1 votes. Total votes - 55
Current number of votes - 1005. AAFC is a qualifying member and will have voting rights when they attain full membership. Total votes - 26. Football Coaches Australia is a provisional member and currently has 250 members from right across the football ecosystem. It will gain voting rights when it becomes a full member. Total Votes - 2
Future number of votes - 104One would expect that the APL clubs could count on the Players Member's votes but could not count on the other 65/69 votes in voting for Board members so your conclusion that they effectively control the Board is debatable. PS I wonder what will happen once the NSD is up and running. Should the clubs in it share say, 14 votes?
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 648,
Visits: 0
|
+xI think some may not have caught up with what happened with the governance upheaval of 2018. We went from dictatorship (where one person decided absolutely everything, and was in a position to do almost anything) to broad-based democratic representation. That sounds good, if your interested in endless stakeholder engagement and nothing concrete happening. In the meantime, while we go through endless stakeholder engagement and non-action, the professional clubs went from having zero say in anything, absolutely zero, to controlling around 40 to 45% of the board, and in fact, only need the support of one large state to control the board. In effect, they already have the Chairman in their backpocket, and I've seen no evidence that the CEO is out of step with the Chairman. The one big achievement of the CEO is the 2023 WWC, and it is a good achievement, no doubt they will hang their hat on that one for many years to come. But where is the increased infrastructure investment that was meant to usher in? I can't see a heap of evidence for it. So in the end, the upshot will be that all else that needs to happen in the game will be overcome with circuses and a lot of back-slapping on what a great show us Aussies put on. Yay us! Whether the one person in charge believes in fairies, or a panel of people believe in fairies, the end result will be an agency that invests in fairies. Its not "who" is in charge but the broader philosophy that drives the people in charge Australia has been sold on the AFL / NRL model which came from America. It doesnt matter who is in charge, the direction will be a closed off shop that hunts get rich quick commercial opportunities. Whether its one person, a dozen people. Even bring in somebody from overseas and then give them the template that they have to work from. Thats why the FA wasn't able to progress despite a complete cleanout For Australia to progress they need to change their philosophy not their personnel. Every business has a measure of success. Those who see it as dollars in bank accounts don't last long. When the measure of success is football metrics, and commercial success is a result of football success, then you'll see proper pathways and investment in grassroots / infrastructure
|
|
|
|
|
LFC.
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOf course they are going to say the APL is being consulted. They're not going to come straight out and say they will bow to whatever they desire. Did they bow to the APL on the Australia Cup winner taking the ACL spot off the GF winner? Was that the APL or a directive by AFC as to validity of GF winner being a league champion or cup winner? Something to do with length of season requirements oerhaps? The AFC regulations allow the FA to decide which of the two competitions is the Cup. The FA decided that it would be the knock out competition winner not the winner of the grand final that would take the second spot in ACL qualification. The first spot goes to the winner of the home and away section of our ALM competition. The ALM clubs did not like the FA decision at all. - "9.2. Where a Member Association has more than one (1) domestic cup, it shall inform the AFC and its clubs of the ‘domestic cup’ for the purposes of Article 9.1."
Yes, agreed, but their hand was "forced" in a way as otherwise the FFA cup or whatever it's now called would lose any credibility. It seem more a power play for the FA to keep control (and profit from) of at least ONE meaningful competition in Australia (now that they have lost the Aleague). All the more reason why they, I feel, don't need to consult with the APL on any NSD - UNLESS their aim is to have pro rel from the start or in the near future... A conversation which would be pointless in my opinion as if APL investors would EVER green light their own demise? I can't see how the FA was "forced". The Cup has always been FA property and I don't see how it would have lost any credibility with the split to APL running the ALM. Giving it an ACL spot brings it into line with most of Asia. That does give the Cup a higher status and the GF does lose some status especially if our results in the ACL give us extra spots. #2, #3... on the ALM table get spots and the GF winner never does. :) As far as consultation with the APL and the PFA, they are stakeholders and they both have put their views on the second tier so I suppose they need to be included in discussions but if my reading of the article is right its after the discussions with the AAFC have narrowed the options down to the preferred option. Credibility in so much as FA having control of a competition which enables clubs to then compete in ACL (albeit with only a half spot) If FA and AFC and APL all agreed that the finals series and Grand Final was our cup competition as it was previously, then FA dont have ANY representation in Asia is what I meant. Does this also mean that APL clubs do not meet the minimum number of games required for AFC to consider the Aleague a legitimate league for entry to further competitions? I dont know? However, from JJ and Nikou's perspective, absolutely this move gives the cup a higher status (one it deserves in my opinion) I just think it was a move by the FA to retain a semblance of authority over football in Australia after "the breakaway pty ltd" PFA is very gung ho on a second tier for obvious reasons and thus their call, from the start, for it to be a fully professional competition with 5 million per club operational budgets etc. From their perspective it makes perfect sense, whether there is pro/rel or not, as it simply means them almost doubling their membership base, their income stream and their influence at the FA table... The APL however cannot, by its very nature, be considered a stakeholder... More a direct opponent of the NSD - unless they agree with a direct link between the two leagues.... Call me a cynical old coot but I dont see that happening, therefore any "interest" they may have in an NSD is purely so they can shoehorn their youth teams into the comp to save money on having to run their own Y League as promised and committed to.... The requirement is for a minimum of 27 games so involvement in the Cup means the ALM satisfies the AFC. Having set up a club licensing system for the ALM that FA is in charge of shows the APL who controls football in Australia.Making the ALM clubs pay transfer fees for any player they pluck from the lower tiers will show the APL who is in charge of football. The A-League clubs are stakeholders in football through being members of FA. Like every other member they have the right to make their views known to FA management and to be considered in FA's decision making process. and here's the underlying constant issue that will occur for the better of the game ?. Rich owners just like what has arisen in the big leagues of late is setting up their own SL, do you really think ALM owners give a frying stuff of the FA when push comes to shove one day. Yep granted the ALM are stakeholders and like any entity as such its all about them and cause resistance when it doesn't suit them which will be most times for they have no care whats below, what rich owner would. Did Maccas/Bunnings stakeholders care of all the business's below them ? not a fat chance. JJ/FA also is in a catch22 always having to appease to them so as their connect stays amicable, its has to be a strained marriage period and I'm sure they have not been very accomodating of the NSD. I like your optimism Gyfox as always, normally I'm that type of person but coming from experience in my own business dealing with Corporates/CEO's etcetc I don't see the light through the trees. How can these 2 orphans work together long term - it cannot.
Love Football
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
I think some may not have caught up with what happened with the governance upheaval of 2018.
We went from dictatorship (where one person decided absolutely everything, and was in a position to do almost anything) to broad-based democratic representation.
That sounds good, if your interested in endless stakeholder engagement and nothing concrete happening.
In the meantime, while we go through endless stakeholder engagement and non-action, the professional clubs went from having zero say in anything, absolutely zero, to controlling around 40 to 45% of the board, and in fact, only need the support of one large state to control the board.
In effect, they already have the Chairman in their backpocket, and I've seen no evidence that the CEO is out of step with the Chairman.
The one big achievement of the CEO is the 2023 WWC, and it is a good achievement, no doubt they will hang their hat on that one for many years to come.
But where is the increased infrastructure investment that was meant to usher in? I can't see a heap of evidence for it.
So in the end, the upshot will be that all else that needs to happen in the game will be overcome with circuses and a lot of back-slapping on what a great show us Aussies put on.
Yay us!
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOf course they are going to say the APL is being consulted. They're not going to come straight out and say they will bow to whatever they desire. Did they bow to the APL on the Australia Cup winner taking the ACL spot off the GF winner? Was that the APL or a directive by AFC as to validity of GF winner being a league champion or cup winner? Something to do with length of season requirements oerhaps? The AFC regulations allow the FA to decide which of the two competitions is the Cup. The FA decided that it would be the knock out competition winner not the winner of the grand final that would take the second spot in ACL qualification. The first spot goes to the winner of the home and away section of our ALM competition. The ALM clubs did not like the FA decision at all. - "9.2. Where a Member Association has more than one (1) domestic cup, it shall inform the AFC and its clubs of the ‘domestic cup’ for the purposes of Article 9.1."
Yes, agreed, but their hand was "forced" in a way as otherwise the FFA cup or whatever it's now called would lose any credibility. It seem more a power play for the FA to keep control (and profit from) of at least ONE meaningful competition in Australia (now that they have lost the Aleague). All the more reason why they, I feel, don't need to consult with the APL on any NSD - UNLESS their aim is to have pro rel from the start or in the near future... A conversation which would be pointless in my opinion as if APL investors would EVER green light their own demise? I can't see how the FA was "forced". The Cup has always been FA property and I don't see how it would have lost any credibility with the split to APL running the ALM. Giving it an ACL spot brings it into line with most of Asia. That does give the Cup a higher status and the GF does lose some status especially if our results in the ACL give us extra spots. #2, #3... on the ALM table get spots and the GF winner never does. :) As far as consultation with the APL and the PFA, they are stakeholders and they both have put their views on the second tier so I suppose they need to be included in discussions but if my reading of the article is right its after the discussions with the AAFC have narrowed the options down to the preferred option. Credibility in so much as FA having control of a competition which enables clubs to then compete in ACL (albeit with only a half spot) If FA and AFC and APL all agreed that the finals series and Grand Final was our cup competition as it was previously, then FA dont have ANY representation in Asia is what I meant. Does this also mean that APL clubs do not meet the minimum number of games required for AFC to consider the Aleague a legitimate league for entry to further competitions? I dont know? However, from JJ and Nikou's perspective, absolutely this move gives the cup a higher status (one it deserves in my opinion) I just think it was a move by the FA to retain a semblance of authority over football in Australia after "the breakaway pty ltd" PFA is very gung ho on a second tier for obvious reasons and thus their call, from the start, for it to be a fully professional competition with 5 million per club operational budgets etc. From their perspective it makes perfect sense, whether there is pro/rel or not, as it simply means them almost doubling their membership base, their income stream and their influence at the FA table... The APL however cannot, by its very nature, be considered a stakeholder... More a direct opponent of the NSD - unless they agree with a direct link between the two leagues.... Call me a cynical old coot but I dont see that happening, therefore any "interest" they may have in an NSD is purely so they can shoehorn their youth teams into the comp to save money on having to run their own Y League as promised and committed to.... The requirement is for a minimum of 27 games so involvement in the Cup means the ALM satisfies the AFC. Having set up a club licensing system for the ALM that FA is in charge of shows the APL who controls football in Australia. Making the ALM clubs pay transfer fees for any player they pluck from the lower tiers will show the APL who is in charge of football. The A-League clubs are stakeholders in football through being members of FA. Like every other member they have the right to make their views known to FA management and to be considered in FA's decision making process. This so much........there is no way the ‘tail will wag the dog’ during JJ’s tenure. Absolutely, but I think you may be a tad mistaken as to who the "DOG" is......
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOf course they are going to say the APL is being consulted. They're not going to come straight out and say they will bow to whatever they desire. Did they bow to the APL on the Australia Cup winner taking the ACL spot off the GF winner? Was that the APL or a directive by AFC as to validity of GF winner being a league champion or cup winner? Something to do with length of season requirements oerhaps? The AFC regulations allow the FA to decide which of the two competitions is the Cup. The FA decided that it would be the knock out competition winner not the winner of the grand final that would take the second spot in ACL qualification. The first spot goes to the winner of the home and away section of our ALM competition. The ALM clubs did not like the FA decision at all. - "9.2. Where a Member Association has more than one (1) domestic cup, it shall inform the AFC and its clubs of the ‘domestic cup’ for the purposes of Article 9.1."
Yes, agreed, but their hand was "forced" in a way as otherwise the FFA cup or whatever it's now called would lose any credibility. It seem more a power play for the FA to keep control (and profit from) of at least ONE meaningful competition in Australia (now that they have lost the Aleague). All the more reason why they, I feel, don't need to consult with the APL on any NSD - UNLESS their aim is to have pro rel from the start or in the near future... A conversation which would be pointless in my opinion as if APL investors would EVER green light their own demise? I can't see how the FA was "forced". The Cup has always been FA property and I don't see how it would have lost any credibility with the split to APL running the ALM. Giving it an ACL spot brings it into line with most of Asia. That does give the Cup a higher status and the GF does lose some status especially if our results in the ACL give us extra spots. #2, #3... on the ALM table get spots and the GF winner never does. :) As far as consultation with the APL and the PFA, they are stakeholders and they both have put their views on the second tier so I suppose they need to be included in discussions but if my reading of the article is right its after the discussions with the AAFC have narrowed the options down to the preferred option. Credibility in so much as FA having control of a competition which enables clubs to then compete in ACL (albeit with only a half spot) If FA and AFC and APL all agreed that the finals series and Grand Final was our cup competition as it was previously, then FA dont have ANY representation in Asia is what I meant. Does this also mean that APL clubs do not meet the minimum number of games required for AFC to consider the Aleague a legitimate league for entry to further competitions? I dont know? However, from JJ and Nikou's perspective, absolutely this move gives the cup a higher status (one it deserves in my opinion) I just think it was a move by the FA to retain a semblance of authority over football in Australia after "the breakaway pty ltd" PFA is very gung ho on a second tier for obvious reasons and thus their call, from the start, for it to be a fully professional competition with 5 million per club operational budgets etc. From their perspective it makes perfect sense, whether there is pro/rel or not, as it simply means them almost doubling their membership base, their income stream and their influence at the FA table... The APL however cannot, by its very nature, be considered a stakeholder... More a direct opponent of the NSD - unless they agree with a direct link between the two leagues.... Call me a cynical old coot but I dont see that happening, therefore any "interest" they may have in an NSD is purely so they can shoehorn their youth teams into the comp to save money on having to run their own Y League as promised and committed to.... The requirement is for a minimum of 27 games so involvement in the Cup means the ALM satisfies the AFC. Having set up a club licensing system for the ALM that FA is in charge of shows the APL who controls football in Australia. Making the ALM clubs pay transfer fees for any player they pluck from the lower tiers will show the APL who is in charge of football. The A-League clubs are stakeholders in football through being members of FA. Like every other member they have the right to make their views known to FA management and to be considered in FA's decision making process. Sure they have the right to make their views known on matters that affect them but considering we are talking about two totally isolated leagues, why should their opinion carry any weight? Do NPL clubs have a right to voice an opinion on Aleague expansion, or when the next Star Wars round will be? But sadly, Danny Trainwrecks foreign puppet masters now hold the purse strings so FA can be "in charge" all they want, the cartel will NOT be breached.
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
They were originally talking about a 2022 start date.
Then it became 2023, but already it's starting to sound like it won't happen in 2023.
|
|
|
|
|
libelous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 889,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOf course they are going to say the APL is being consulted. They're not going to come straight out and say they will bow to whatever they desire. Did they bow to the APL on the Australia Cup winner taking the ACL spot off the GF winner? Was that the APL or a directive by AFC as to validity of GF winner being a league champion or cup winner? Something to do with length of season requirements oerhaps? The AFC regulations allow the FA to decide which of the two competitions is the Cup. The FA decided that it would be the knock out competition winner not the winner of the grand final that would take the second spot in ACL qualification. The first spot goes to the winner of the home and away section of our ALM competition. The ALM clubs did not like the FA decision at all. - "9.2. Where a Member Association has more than one (1) domestic cup, it shall inform the AFC and its clubs of the ‘domestic cup’ for the purposes of Article 9.1."
Yes, agreed, but their hand was "forced" in a way as otherwise the FFA cup or whatever it's now called would lose any credibility. It seem more a power play for the FA to keep control (and profit from) of at least ONE meaningful competition in Australia (now that they have lost the Aleague). All the more reason why they, I feel, don't need to consult with the APL on any NSD - UNLESS their aim is to have pro rel from the start or in the near future... A conversation which would be pointless in my opinion as if APL investors would EVER green light their own demise? I can't see how the FA was "forced". The Cup has always been FA property and I don't see how it would have lost any credibility with the split to APL running the ALM. Giving it an ACL spot brings it into line with most of Asia. That does give the Cup a higher status and the GF does lose some status especially if our results in the ACL give us extra spots. #2, #3... on the ALM table get spots and the GF winner never does. :) As far as consultation with the APL and the PFA, they are stakeholders and they both have put their views on the second tier so I suppose they need to be included in discussions but if my reading of the article is right its after the discussions with the AAFC have narrowed the options down to the preferred option. Credibility in so much as FA having control of a competition which enables clubs to then compete in ACL (albeit with only a half spot) If FA and AFC and APL all agreed that the finals series and Grand Final was our cup competition as it was previously, then FA dont have ANY representation in Asia is what I meant. Does this also mean that APL clubs do not meet the minimum number of games required for AFC to consider the Aleague a legitimate league for entry to further competitions? I dont know? However, from JJ and Nikou's perspective, absolutely this move gives the cup a higher status (one it deserves in my opinion) I just think it was a move by the FA to retain a semblance of authority over football in Australia after "the breakaway pty ltd" PFA is very gung ho on a second tier for obvious reasons and thus their call, from the start, for it to be a fully professional competition with 5 million per club operational budgets etc. From their perspective it makes perfect sense, whether there is pro/rel or not, as it simply means them almost doubling their membership base, their income stream and their influence at the FA table... The APL however cannot, by its very nature, be considered a stakeholder... More a direct opponent of the NSD - unless they agree with a direct link between the two leagues.... Call me a cynical old coot but I dont see that happening, therefore any "interest" they may have in an NSD is purely so they can shoehorn their youth teams into the comp to save money on having to run their own Y League as promised and committed to.... The requirement is for a minimum of 27 games so involvement in the Cup means the ALM satisfies the AFC. Having set up a club licensing system for the ALM that FA is in charge of shows the APL who controls football in Australia. Making the ALM clubs pay transfer fees for any player they pluck from the lower tiers will show the APL who is in charge of football. The A-League clubs are stakeholders in football through being members of FA. Like every other member they have the right to make their views known to FA management and to be considered in FA's decision making process. This so much........there is no way the ‘tail will wag the dog’ during JJ’s tenure.
|
|
|
|
|
LFC.
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThis article talks about 23 coinciding with the WWC........quoted below aricle Nov '21 In January, the AAFC, a collective of National Premier League (NPL) clubs that have been advocating for the introduction of a second division, released a report outlining a model for a competition they declared was both "affordable and feasible" and capable of launching in 2022. Football Australia chairman Chris Nikou -- whose organisation is the ultimate arbiter of the "who, what, when and where" of a second tier -- told a Melbourne Knights club function in May that he envisioned a model being presented to his board by the end of the year, with the competition, in an ideal world, starting in 2023. https://www.espn.com.au/football/australian-a-league-men/story/4521449/fa-ceo-james-johnson-outlines-the-roadmap-to-promotion-and-relegation-in-australiaJohnson stopped short of making firm commitments but told ESPN that he would personally welcome a 2023 start date for the second tier, linking its potential introduction with a series of other, landmark events. "2023 would be a great year to start, right," Johnson said. "2023 is really lining up to be a really memorable year for the sport. "We've got the Women's World Cup in 2023; 2022 will be a year for the Men's World Cup and a good lead into 2023 [the 2022 iteration of the tournament will run from Nov. 21 to Dec. 18]. "Will it be 2023? I would love to see that be the case." Of course, beyond the "when," there is also the matter of the "who" -- the select group of clubs that will become the founding members of a new chapter in Australian football.
Overall its a good review seeing this again, especially at the end of it re APL saying they will listen work with the FA on unbundling of their agreement - yer can't see it.
Johnson was clear when asked to clarify if A-League club licences prevented their relegation. "No. It doesn't," he said. "What we've got to remember is that we play in a global system. "The global system is regulated by FIFA, and one of the principles is sporting merit and that needs to be seen throughout the world at the appropriate time. You can't contract out of that."
Anyway bring on this bloody NSD so we can move forward !
Told you, it's 2023-24 unless there's a brain fart..again. We knew the word was 23, NPL pre season starts normally in Jan Comp early March and ends Aug/Sept normally as I'm sure you know, thats FNSW no over lapping year. Forget mentioning 24 for the article is re 23. Why I'm saying it should be all out by now with 6mths left of the year, obviously there is still some hoops to jump I expect due to resistance somewhere or 3.
Love Football
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOf course they are going to say the APL is being consulted. They're not going to come straight out and say they will bow to whatever they desire. Did they bow to the APL on the Australia Cup winner taking the ACL spot off the GF winner? Was that the APL or a directive by AFC as to validity of GF winner being a league champion or cup winner? Something to do with length of season requirements oerhaps? The AFC regulations allow the FA to decide which of the two competitions is the Cup. The FA decided that it would be the knock out competition winner not the winner of the grand final that would take the second spot in ACL qualification. The first spot goes to the winner of the home and away section of our ALM competition. The ALM clubs did not like the FA decision at all. - "9.2. Where a Member Association has more than one (1) domestic cup, it shall inform the AFC and its clubs of the ‘domestic cup’ for the purposes of Article 9.1."
Yes, agreed, but their hand was "forced" in a way as otherwise the FFA cup or whatever it's now called would lose any credibility. It seem more a power play for the FA to keep control (and profit from) of at least ONE meaningful competition in Australia (now that they have lost the Aleague). All the more reason why they, I feel, don't need to consult with the APL on any NSD - UNLESS their aim is to have pro rel from the start or in the near future... A conversation which would be pointless in my opinion as if APL investors would EVER green light their own demise? I can't see how the FA was "forced". The Cup has always been FA property and I don't see how it would have lost any credibility with the split to APL running the ALM. Giving it an ACL spot brings it into line with most of Asia. That does give the Cup a higher status and the GF does lose some status especially if our results in the ACL give us extra spots. #2, #3... on the ALM table get spots and the GF winner never does. :) As far as consultation with the APL and the PFA, they are stakeholders and they both have put their views on the second tier so I suppose they need to be included in discussions but if my reading of the article is right its after the discussions with the AAFC have narrowed the options down to the preferred option. Credibility in so much as FA having control of a competition which enables clubs to then compete in ACL (albeit with only a half spot) If FA and AFC and APL all agreed that the finals series and Grand Final was our cup competition as it was previously, then FA dont have ANY representation in Asia is what I meant. Does this also mean that APL clubs do not meet the minimum number of games required for AFC to consider the Aleague a legitimate league for entry to further competitions? I dont know? However, from JJ and Nikou's perspective, absolutely this move gives the cup a higher status (one it deserves in my opinion) I just think it was a move by the FA to retain a semblance of authority over football in Australia after "the breakaway pty ltd" PFA is very gung ho on a second tier for obvious reasons and thus their call, from the start, for it to be a fully professional competition with 5 million per club operational budgets etc. From their perspective it makes perfect sense, whether there is pro/rel or not, as it simply means them almost doubling their membership base, their income stream and their influence at the FA table... The APL however cannot, by its very nature, be considered a stakeholder... More a direct opponent of the NSD - unless they agree with a direct link between the two leagues.... Call me a cynical old coot but I dont see that happening, therefore any "interest" they may have in an NSD is purely so they can shoehorn their youth teams into the comp to save money on having to run their own Y League as promised and committed to.... The requirement is for a minimum of 27 games so involvement in the Cup means the ALM satisfies the AFC. Having set up a club licensing system for the ALM that FA is in charge of shows the APL who controls football in Australia. Making the ALM clubs pay transfer fees for any player they pluck from the lower tiers will show the APL who is in charge of football. The A-League clubs are stakeholders in football through being members of FA. Like every other member they have the right to make their views known to FA management and to be considered in FA's decision making process.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xOf course they are going to say the APL is being consulted. They're not going to come straight out and say they will bow to whatever they desire. Did they bow to the APL on the Australia Cup winner taking the ACL spot off the GF winner? Was that the APL or a directive by AFC as to validity of GF winner being a league champion or cup winner? Something to do with length of season requirements oerhaps? The AFC regulations allow the FA to decide which of the two competitions is the Cup. The FA decided that it would be the knock out competition winner not the winner of the grand final that would take the second spot in ACL qualification. The first spot goes to the winner of the home and away section of our ALM competition. The ALM clubs did not like the FA decision at all. - "9.2. Where a Member Association has more than one (1) domestic cup, it shall inform the AFC and its clubs of the ‘domestic cup’ for the purposes of Article 9.1."
Yes, agreed, but their hand was "forced" in a way as otherwise the FFA cup or whatever it's now called would lose any credibility. It seem more a power play for the FA to keep control (and profit from) of at least ONE meaningful competition in Australia (now that they have lost the Aleague). All the more reason why they, I feel, don't need to consult with the APL on any NSD - UNLESS their aim is to have pro rel from the start or in the near future... A conversation which would be pointless in my opinion as if APL investors would EVER green light their own demise? I can't see how the FA was "forced". The Cup has always been FA property and I don't see how it would have lost any credibility with the split to APL running the ALM. Giving it an ACL spot brings it into line with most of Asia. That does give the Cup a higher status and the GF does lose some status especially if our results in the ACL give us extra spots. #2, #3... on the ALM table get spots and the GF winner never does. :) As far as consultation with the APL and the PFA, they are stakeholders and they both have put their views on the second tier so I suppose they need to be included in discussions but if my reading of the article is right its after the discussions with the AAFC have narrowed the options down to the preferred option. Credibility in so much as FA having control of a competition which enables clubs to then compete in ACL (albeit with only a half spot) If FA and AFC and APL all agreed that the finals series and Grand Final was our cup competition as it was previously, then FA dont have ANY representation in Asia is what I meant. Does this also mean that APL clubs do not meet the minimum number of games required for AFC to consider the Aleague a legitimate league for entry to further competitions? I dont know? However, from JJ and Nikou's perspective, absolutely this move gives the cup a higher status (one it deserves in my opinion) I just think it was a move by the FA to retain a semblance of authority over football in Australia after "the breakaway pty ltd" PFA is very gung ho on a second tier for obvious reasons and thus their call, from the start, for it to be a fully professional competition with 5 million per club operational budgets etc. From their perspective it makes perfect sense, whether there is pro/rel or not, as it simply means them almost doubling their membership base, their income stream and their influence at the FA table... The APL however cannot, by its very nature, be considered a stakeholder... More a direct opponent of the NSD - unless they agree with a direct link between the two leagues.... Call me a cynical old coot but I dont see that happening, therefore any "interest" they may have in an NSD is purely so they can shoehorn their youth teams into the comp to save money on having to run their own Y League as promised and committed to....
|
|
|
|
|
Stenson
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 215,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xIt looks like we were lied to again. I don't think there is enough time to implement a NSD for 2023. It was talked about as 2023, leaving it as a grey area as they deceived everybody, by design. I did once question that date, asking if it was 2022-23 OR 2023-24. Blank faces all round. Galatas on a recent pod said clearly, among other things, that the FA were going to go through the process to choose the teams for the NSD during season 2022-23 and get the comp up and running in 2023-24. Was never going to be 2022-23 season. They only concealed the truth, so they lied yes. Won't get the FA to go from a jog to a sprint. They will always go slow with any progress. Wonder if the NSD will be as big a story as champions Western Utd gracing the hallowed turf of the new training ground, at Wyndham City, in that very season. Time will tell on how it all plays out. It was meant to line up with the NPL from my understanding. I also heard that the NSD will run with the ALeague UNLESS, it is a Champion League format so it would run Winter and the last 10-12 rounds from January-March.region. That's where the place holder on the calendar was as well if you remember.
|
|
|
|
|
theFOOTBALLlover
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xIt looks like we were lied to again. I don't think there is enough time to implement a NSD for 2023. It was talked about as 2023, leaving it as a grey area as they deceived everybody, by design. I did once question that date, asking if it was 2022-23 OR 2023-24. Blank faces all round. Galatas on a recent pod said clearly, among other things, that the FA were going to go through the process to choose the teams for the NSD during season 2022-23 and get the comp up and running in 2023-24. Was never going to be 2022-23 season. They only concealed the truth, so they lied yes. Won't get the FA to go from a jog to a sprint. They will always go slow with any progress. Wonder if the NSD will be as big a story as champions Western Utd gracing the hallowed turf of the new training ground, at Wyndham City, in that very season. Time will tell on how it all plays out. It was meant to line up with the NPL from my understanding.
|
|
|
|
|
Stenson
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 215,
Visits: 0
|
+xThis article talks about 23 coinciding with the WWC........quoted below aricle Nov '21 In January, the AAFC, a collective of National Premier League (NPL) clubs that have been advocating for the introduction of a second division, released a report outlining a model for a competition they declared was both "affordable and feasible" and capable of launching in 2022. Football Australia chairman Chris Nikou -- whose organisation is the ultimate arbiter of the "who, what, when and where" of a second tier -- told a Melbourne Knights club function in May that he envisioned a model being presented to his board by the end of the year, with the competition, in an ideal world, starting in 2023. https://www.espn.com.au/football/australian-a-league-men/story/4521449/fa-ceo-james-johnson-outlines-the-roadmap-to-promotion-and-relegation-in-australiaJohnson stopped short of making firm commitments but told ESPN that he would personally welcome a 2023 start date for the second tier, linking its potential introduction with a series of other, landmark events. "2023 would be a great year to start, right," Johnson said. "2023 is really lining up to be a really memorable year for the sport. "We've got the Women's World Cup in 2023; 2022 will be a year for the Men's World Cup and a good lead into 2023 [the 2022 iteration of the tournament will run from Nov. 21 to Dec. 18]. "Will it be 2023? I would love to see that be the case." Of course, beyond the "when," there is also the matter of the "who" -- the select group of clubs that will become the founding members of a new chapter in Australian football.
Overall its a good review seeing this again, especially at the end of it re APL saying they will listen work with the FA on unbundling of their agreement - yer can't see it.
Johnson was clear when asked to clarify if A-League club licences prevented their relegation. "No. It doesn't," he said. "What we've got to remember is that we play in a global system. "The global system is regulated by FIFA, and one of the principles is sporting merit and that needs to be seen throughout the world at the appropriate time. You can't contract out of that."
Anyway bring on this bloody NSD so we can move forward !
Told you, it's 2023-24 unless there's a brain fart..again.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xOf course they are going to say the APL is being consulted. They're not going to come straight out and say they will bow to whatever they desire. Did they bow to the APL on the Australia Cup winner taking the ACL spot off the GF winner? Was that the APL or a directive by AFC as to validity of GF winner being a league champion or cup winner? Something to do with length of season requirements oerhaps? The AFC regulations allow the FA to decide which of the two competitions is the Cup. The FA decided that it would be the knock out competition winner not the winner of the grand final that would take the second spot in ACL qualification. The first spot goes to the winner of the home and away section of our ALM competition. The ALM clubs did not like the FA decision at all. - "9.2. Where a Member Association has more than one (1) domestic cup, it shall inform the AFC and its clubs of the ‘domestic cup’ for the purposes of Article 9.1."
Yes, agreed, but their hand was "forced" in a way as otherwise the FFA cup or whatever it's now called would lose any credibility. It seem more a power play for the FA to keep control (and profit from) of at least ONE meaningful competition in Australia (now that they have lost the Aleague). All the more reason why they, I feel, don't need to consult with the APL on any NSD - UNLESS their aim is to have pro rel from the start or in the near future... A conversation which would be pointless in my opinion as if APL investors would EVER green light their own demise? I can't see how the FA was "forced". The Cup has always been FA property and I don't see how it would have lost any credibility with the split to APL running the ALM. Giving it an ACL spot brings it into line with most of Asia. That does give the Cup a higher status and the GF does lose some status especially if our results in the ACL give us extra spots. #2, #3... on the ALM table get spots and the GF winner never does. :) As far as consultation with the APL and the PFA, they are stakeholders and they both have put their views on the second tier so I suppose they need to be included in discussions but if my reading of the article is right its after the discussions with the AAFC have narrowed the options down to the preferred option.
|
|
|
|