|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x The A League clubs now have the power in this situation, the smart thing would be if the AAFC and PFA and HAL clubs aligned as that would be an unbreakabke alliance. NSW and Vic may also be willing to join such an alliance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x@ pippinuYou have a strong AFL background and it looks like you are struggling to understand how Football runs. FIFA is a much criticised organisation but underneath the corrupt executive layer is a civil service-like layer that implements the principles of the organisation religiously; FIFAs principles are that the sport should be organised for the benefit of the players and their clubs. This is fundamentally where the FFA are in bother. If there is a dispute between football association and players FIFA will look to back the players wherever possible. It does not back football associations over players, that's proven throughout history. Providing the clubs and players of the A league consult with the AFC on any breakaway and follow their advice then AFC will back any breakaway over the FA. The FFA will have to sanction the new league or have a bloody good reason why not .... if they don't sanction it then the FFA are gone, the IP is a trivial matter. 5 years ago the ffa could have used that and hid behind it, today FIFA would back the clubs and allocate an appropriate fee for the IP transition. If the ffa don't agree, they're gone. The A League clubs now have the power in this situation, the smart thing would be if the AAFC and PFA and HAL clubs aligned as that would be an unbreakabke alliance. If you have the inclination take a pen and paper and map out the personal connections CFG and Nirwen Bakrie have with the AFC. If you understand these relationships you'll understand how this is playing out, that's before Ledman Groups contacts are added in. The clubs are playing a smart game and the FFA know it. The FFA are non-compliant with FIFA regulations and the clubs know it. The politics are clear and playing out in a way that suggests there is only one way this ends - and it will end with FIFA backing one side: the players & their clubs. This is not an Australian question, unlike the AFL and NRL who govern themselves, this is a FIFA question. Sorry Waz, you might be able to explain the bullying of an extra-territorial body such as FIFA, but you are not really explaining how one party bound by a properly drawn contract under Australian law can just walk away from it. Also, let's not forget that the FFA was actually a creation of government and its set up was funded by government.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x The A League clubs now have the power in this situation, the smart thing would be if the AAFC and PFA and HAL clubs aligned as that would be an unbreakabke alliance. NSW and Vic may also be willing to join such an alliance. But we already know the other state bodies sided with the FFA, so I'm not convinced things are as clearcut as people make out on here.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xUntil the governance changes are agreed AND the management of the A-League changes, it's the FFA which has the TV deal with Foxtel because they currently own and run the league. Some may not like it, but as things currently stand, the club owners have to negotiate with the FFA for a slice of the TV money. Presumably all the refs come under the FFA banner as well. So you'd think that Foxtel would stick firm with the FFA if the club owners tried to walk (in fact, I wonder how easy it is for them to walk given the licensing agreements they have signed). It's not difficult. If the clubs really wanted to they could go directly to FIFA with the NPL clubs and say that the A-league is not following FIFA statutes. In comes FIFA taking control of the A-league, who do you think Fox will have to deal with in order to show games. Yeh, but that can't override contractual agreements already in place back here in Australia. An Australian court would insist on the parties meeting their contractual obligations. The FIFA statutes would mean nothing within the Australian court system (unless the actual licensing agreement has something in there about the FFA abiding by FIFA statutes, which is possible I guess) or unless one or more of the clubs can point to other guarantees made to that effect. Who says they won't fulfill them. The FFA don't have to comply but that would mean getting kicked out of FIFA and not going to the World Cup. Unacceptable. Well, I guess it depends on how bloody minded the FFA wants to be. Certainly, as far as the licensing arrangements go, the courts would be on their side. Arguably, the drastic situation of not being able to compete in the world cup would be more the fault of the parties railing against the FFA, given the FFA would be in its rights to adhere to the current licensing arrangements. FFA can cry all they like but football fans all over Australia will want the FFA gone if we get kicked out of FIFA. Everyone will pillar the FFA and rightly so, it's a battle they can't win. Unless they have government onside (and they may will do), and are able to argue bullying on the part of FIFA (already viewed as corrupt by government), the argument being that an extra-territorial body is trying to force an Australian entity to not meet its obligations under Australian law. What are you on about. FIFA will just kick us out, they won't care what the Aust govt wants. FIFA just cares about the FFA's obligations to FIFA.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x@ pippinuYou have a strong AFL background and it looks like you are struggling to understand how Football runs. FIFA is a much criticised organisation but underneath the corrupt executive layer is a civil service-like layer that implements the principles of the organisation religiously; FIFAs principles are that the sport should be organised for the benefit of the players and their clubs. This is fundamentally where the FFA are in bother. If there is a dispute between football association and players FIFA will look to back the players wherever possible. It does not back football associations over players, that's proven throughout history. Providing the clubs and players of the A league consult with the AFC on any breakaway and follow their advice then AFC will back any breakaway over the FA. The FFA will have to sanction the new league or have a bloody good reason why not .... if they don't sanction it then the FFA are gone, the IP is a trivial matter. 5 years ago the ffa could have used that and hid behind it, today FIFA would back the clubs and allocate an appropriate fee for the IP transition. If the ffa don't agree, they're gone. The A League clubs now have the power in this situation, the smart thing would be if the AAFC and PFA and HAL clubs aligned as that would be an unbreakabke alliance. If you have the inclination take a pen and paper and map out the personal connections CFG and Nirwen Bakrie have with the AFC. If you understand these relationships you'll understand how this is playing out, that's before Ledman Groups contacts are added in. The clubs are playing a smart game and the FFA know it. The FFA are non-compliant with FIFA regulations and the clubs know it. The politics are clear and playing out in a way that suggests there is only one way this ends - and it will end with FIFA backing one side: the players & their clubs. This is not an Australian question, unlike the AFL and NRL who govern themselves, this is a FIFA question. Sorry Waz, you might be able to explain the bullying of an extra-territorial body such as FIFA, but you are not really explaining how one party bound by a properly drawn contract under Australian law can just walk away from it. They aren't walking away. Football will still be played, it's just Fox will have to deal with FIFA and a new FFA. FIFA has that power.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xUntil the governance changes are agreed AND the management of the A-League changes, it's the FFA which has the TV deal with Foxtel because they currently own and run the league. Some may not like it, but as things currently stand, the club owners have to negotiate with the FFA for a slice of the TV money. Presumably all the refs come under the FFA banner as well. So you'd think that Foxtel would stick firm with the FFA if the club owners tried to walk (in fact, I wonder how easy it is for them to walk given the licensing agreements they have signed). It's not difficult. If the clubs really wanted to they could go directly to FIFA with the NPL clubs and say that the A-league is not following FIFA statutes. In comes FIFA taking control of the A-league, who do you think Fox will have to deal with in order to show games. Yeh, but that can't override contractual agreements already in place back here in Australia. An Australian court would insist on the parties meeting their contractual obligations. The FIFA statutes would mean nothing within the Australian court system (unless the actual licensing agreement has something in there about the FFA abiding by FIFA statutes, which is possible I guess) or unless one or more of the clubs can point to other guarantees made to that effect. Who says they won't fulfill them. The FFA don't have to comply but that would mean getting kicked out of FIFA and not going to the World Cup. Unacceptable. Well, I guess it depends on how bloody minded the FFA wants to be. Certainly, as far as the licensing arrangements go, the courts would be on their side. Arguably, the drastic situation of not being able to compete in the world cup would be more the fault of the parties railing against the FFA, given the FFA would be in its rights to adhere to the current licensing arrangements. FFA can cry all they like but football fans all over Australia will want the FFA gone if we get kicked out of FIFA. Everyone will pillar the FFA and rightly so, it's a battle they can't win. Unless they have government onside (and they may will do), and are able to argue bullying on the part of FIFA (already viewed as corrupt by government), the argument being that an extra-territorial body is trying to force an Australian entity to not meet its obligations under Australian law. What are you on about. FIFA will just kick us out, they won't care what the Aust govt wants. FIFA just cares about the FFA's obligations to FIFA. Yes, of course FIFA can kick us out, and I am saying it's not a given that the FFA would be viewed as the bad guy by government and the Australian public. In fact, I would argue that FIFA would be more likely to be the one viewed as the bad guy. Government created the FFA, and the FFA has properly drawn and agreed licensing agreements with the ten clubs - do not underestimate the advantage of having both Government and Australian law on your side.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x@ pippinuYou have a strong AFL background and it looks like you are struggling to understand how Football runs. FIFA is a much criticised organisation but underneath the corrupt executive layer is a civil service-like layer that implements the principles of the organisation religiously; FIFAs principles are that the sport should be organised for the benefit of the players and their clubs. This is fundamentally where the FFA are in bother. If there is a dispute between football association and players FIFA will look to back the players wherever possible. It does not back football associations over players, that's proven throughout history. Providing the clubs and players of the A league consult with the AFC on any breakaway and follow their advice then AFC will back any breakaway over the FA. The FFA will have to sanction the new league or have a bloody good reason why not .... if they don't sanction it then the FFA are gone, the IP is a trivial matter. 5 years ago the ffa could have used that and hid behind it, today FIFA would back the clubs and allocate an appropriate fee for the IP transition. If the ffa don't agree, they're gone. The A League clubs now have the power in this situation, the smart thing would be if the AAFC and PFA and HAL clubs aligned as that would be an unbreakabke alliance. If you have the inclination take a pen and paper and map out the personal connections CFG and Nirwen Bakrie have with the AFC. If you understand these relationships you'll understand how this is playing out, that's before Ledman Groups contacts are added in. The clubs are playing a smart game and the FFA know it. The FFA are non-compliant with FIFA regulations and the clubs know it. The politics are clear and playing out in a way that suggests there is only one way this ends - and it will end with FIFA backing one side: the players & their clubs. This is not an Australian question, unlike the AFL and NRL who govern themselves, this is a FIFA question. Sorry Waz, you might be able to explain the bullying of an extra-territorial body such as FIFA, but you are not really explaining how one party bound by a properly drawn contract under Australian law can just walk away from it. They aren't walking away. Football will still be played, it's just Fox will have to deal with FIFA and a new FFA. FIFA has that power. No - FIFA has the power to throw the FFA out. FIFA does not have the power to quash contracts properly drawn up under Australian law.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x@ pippinuYou have a strong AFL background and it looks like you are struggling to understand how Football runs. FIFA is a much criticised organisation but underneath the corrupt executive layer is a civil service-like layer that implements the principles of the organisation religiously; FIFAs principles are that the sport should be organised for the benefit of the players and their clubs. This is fundamentally where the FFA are in bother. If there is a dispute between football association and players FIFA will look to back the players wherever possible. It does not back football associations over players, that's proven throughout history. Providing the clubs and players of the A league consult with the AFC on any breakaway and follow their advice then AFC will back any breakaway over the FA. The FFA will have to sanction the new league or have a bloody good reason why not .... if they don't sanction it then the FFA are gone, the IP is a trivial matter. 5 years ago the ffa could have used that and hid behind it, today FIFA would back the clubs and allocate an appropriate fee for the IP transition. If the ffa don't agree, they're gone. The A League clubs now have the power in this situation, the smart thing would be if the AAFC and PFA and HAL clubs aligned as that would be an unbreakabke alliance. If you have the inclination take a pen and paper and map out the personal connections CFG and Nirwen Bakrie have with the AFC. If you understand these relationships you'll understand how this is playing out, that's before Ledman Groups contacts are added in. The clubs are playing a smart game and the FFA know it. The FFA are non-compliant with FIFA regulations and the clubs know it. The politics are clear and playing out in a way that suggests there is only one way this ends - and it will end with FIFA backing one side: the players & their clubs. This is not an Australian question, unlike the AFL and NRL who govern themselves, this is a FIFA question. Sorry Waz, you might be able to explain the bullying of an extra-territorial body such as FIFA, but you are not really explaining how one party bound by a properly drawn contract under Australian law can just walk away from it. They aren't walking away. Football will still be played, it's just Fox will have to deal with FIFA and a new FFA. FIFA has that power. No - FIFA has the power to throw the FFA out. FIFA does not have the power quash contracts properly drawn up under Australian law. I am sure Fox will happily deal with a new FFA so no problem.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x@ pippinuYou have a strong AFL background and it looks like you are struggling to understand how Football runs. FIFA is a much criticised organisation but underneath the corrupt executive layer is a civil service-like layer that implements the principles of the organisation religiously; FIFAs principles are that the sport should be organised for the benefit of the players and their clubs. This is fundamentally where the FFA are in bother. If there is a dispute between football association and players FIFA will look to back the players wherever possible. It does not back football associations over players, that's proven throughout history. Providing the clubs and players of the A league consult with the AFC on any breakaway and follow their advice then AFC will back any breakaway over the FA. The FFA will have to sanction the new league or have a bloody good reason why not .... if they don't sanction it then the FFA are gone, the IP is a trivial matter. 5 years ago the ffa could have used that and hid behind it, today FIFA would back the clubs and allocate an appropriate fee for the IP transition. If the ffa don't agree, they're gone. The A League clubs now have the power in this situation, the smart thing would be if the AAFC and PFA and HAL clubs aligned as that would be an unbreakabke alliance. If you have the inclination take a pen and paper and map out the personal connections CFG and Nirwen Bakrie have with the AFC. If you understand these relationships you'll understand how this is playing out, that's before Ledman Groups contacts are added in. The clubs are playing a smart game and the FFA know it. The FFA are non-compliant with FIFA regulations and the clubs know it. The politics are clear and playing out in a way that suggests there is only one way this ends - and it will end with FIFA backing one side: the players & their clubs. This is not an Australian question, unlike the AFL and NRL who govern themselves, this is a FIFA question. Sorry Waz, you might be able to explain the bullying of an extra-territorial body such as FIFA, but you are not really explaining how one party bound by a properly drawn contract under Australian law can just walk away from it. They aren't walking away. Football will still be played, it's just Fox will have to deal with FIFA and a new FFA. FIFA has that power. No - FIFA has the power to throw the FFA out. FIFA does not have the power quash contracts properly drawn up under Australian law. There is more than 1 path. FIFA can take over control of FFA, like he has said. Foxtel can also choose (however unlikely) to cancel the deal mutually.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
@ pippinu.
As I said, you'd have to understand how football works this is not AFL.
Australian law is relevant, of course it is. The ffa also agreed to a set of rules when they applied to become a member of FIFA and they have been non-compliant for 7 years or so. Australian law will back FIFA in that.
The simple outcome here is the FFA either get the clubs on side with a compromise or find themselves out of their positions and FIFA running the ffa show in the interim. Happened countless times worldwide.
A good case study is the set up of the EPL.
You and your P&RTimmy multi can carry on the false debate, but this is all heading in a familiar direction.
And to answer your contracts question - FIFA assume control of the FFA, the FFA then cancel their own contracts with the clubs.
So far there's only one party in the wrong and in breach of governance- that's the ffa lol 😜
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x@ pippinuYou have a strong AFL background and it looks like you are struggling to understand how Football runs. FIFA is a much criticised organisation but underneath the corrupt executive layer is a civil service-like layer that implements the principles of the organisation religiously; FIFAs principles are that the sport should be organised for the benefit of the players and their clubs. This is fundamentally where the FFA are in bother. If there is a dispute between football association and players FIFA will look to back the players wherever possible. It does not back football associations over players, that's proven throughout history. Providing the clubs and players of the A league consult with the AFC on any breakaway and follow their advice then AFC will back any breakaway over the FA. The FFA will have to sanction the new league or have a bloody good reason why not .... if they don't sanction it then the FFA are gone, the IP is a trivial matter. 5 years ago the ffa could have used that and hid behind it, today FIFA would back the clubs and allocate an appropriate fee for the IP transition. If the ffa don't agree, they're gone. The A League clubs now have the power in this situation, the smart thing would be if the AAFC and PFA and HAL clubs aligned as that would be an unbreakabke alliance. If you have the inclination take a pen and paper and map out the personal connections CFG and Nirwen Bakrie have with the AFC. If you understand these relationships you'll understand how this is playing out, that's before Ledman Groups contacts are added in. The clubs are playing a smart game and the FFA know it. The FFA are non-compliant with FIFA regulations and the clubs know it. The politics are clear and playing out in a way that suggests there is only one way this ends - and it will end with FIFA backing one side: the players & their clubs. This is not an Australian question, unlike the AFL and NRL who govern themselves, this is a FIFA question. Sorry Waz, you might be able to explain the bullying of an extra-territorial body such as FIFA, but you are not really explaining how one party bound by a properly drawn contract under Australian law can just walk away from it. They aren't walking away. Football will still be played, it's just Fox will have to deal with FIFA and a new FFA. FIFA has that power. No - FIFA has the power to throw the FFA out. FIFA does not have the power quash contracts properly drawn up under Australian law. I am sure Fox will happily deal with a new FFA so no problem. Well, let us tease this out a bit. The government created the FFA and for the time being continues to support the FFA. Foxtel has contracts in place with the FFA. FIFA throws Australia out of FIFA (although I'm not sure how easily they would take such a drastic action as that). The FFA still exists as a legal entity under Australian law, it still owns the A-League, and it has a TV deal with Foxtel to broadcast five games per week. Granted, there might be clauses under the TV deal which would make it null and void under extreme circumstances such as this, although we don't know that for sure. FIFA might support a new government body, and a new league owned and run by the ten clubs - but I tell you what - that's a lot of stuff to organise in a short space of time with zero contracts in place for anything, and no refs.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
FFA greed has come to shoot them in the foot.
Imo they had a chance from the outset to sign a deal with APFCA. Something lile 20-25% of revenue from the next 4 tv deals etc. They want to give 61% and are letting everyone know they are not happy about it and want to give less. The time for peace has gone.
61%!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x@ pippinu. As I said, you'd have to understand how football works this is not AFL. Australian law is relevant, of course it is. The ffa also agreed to a set of rules when they applied to become a member of FIFA and they have been non-compliant for 7 years or so. Australian law will back FIFA in that. The simple outcome here is the FFA either get the clubs on side with a compromise or find themselves out of their positions and FIFA running the ffa show in the interim. Happened countless times worldwide. A good case study is the set up of the EPL. You and your P&RTimmy multi can carry on the false debate, but this is all heading in a familiar direction. It's happened countless time you reckon Waz? Countless? Remind me again which side the Bakries were on when FIFA took action in Indonesia, and then tell me how keen FIFA would be to back the Backries this time round.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
If I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions.
|
|
|
|
nomates
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
What if the clubs went on strike? That would piss off FOX and fk up the FFA. Its the only logical solution if the FFA don't give them what they need, Or the clubs could boycott the FFA Cup and Finals series.
Wellington Phoenix FC
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. If they want to fulfill the obligations of the TV deal, they must show the A-League, which, will still be owned by the FFA which still exists as a legal entity and which, most probably, would still have government support. If any clubs have chosen to break their licensing agreements with the FFA, there'd probably be court action. If clubs pull out of the A-League, the FFA will need to find new clubs to meet the 5 games per week obligation - becomes more difficult if we no longer a member of FIFA, but not impossible (it just means that only rank amateurs would be playing in the A-League).
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWhat if the clubs went on strike? That would piss off FOX and fk up the FFA. Its the only logical solution if the FFA don't give them what they need, Or the clubs could boycott the FFA Cup and Finals series. Would probably result in court action, the FFA would seek that the clubs meet their obligation under the licensing agreement. Let's recall that in the first season of the A-League, the FFA made next to nothing from the TV deal, so my guess is that the existing licensing agreement does not include generous provisions about how much the clubs can expect from any TV deal.
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. How happy would you be in hindsight to pay a 39% commission fee?
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. If they want to fulfill the obligations of the TV deal, they must show the A-League, which, will still be owned by the FFA which still exists as a legal entity and which, most probably, would still have government support. If any clubs have chosen to break their licensing agreements with the FFA, there'd probably be court action. If clubs pull out of the A-League, the FFA will need to find new clubs to meet the 5 games per week obligation - becomes more difficult if we no longer a member of FIFA, but not impossible (it just means that only rank amateurs would be playing in the A-League). What don't you understand, the FFA board will just be replaced by one run by FIFA. Fox will have no choice but to deal with that FIFA board. The FFA under Gallop would have no power at all. No one will want to deal with them, not the clubs, nor Fox. There is no way fox will allow an amateur league on Fox, they will just rubber stamp the existing deal with the new board. NO ONE WILL SUPPORT THE FFA under Gallop if we get kicked out of FIFA. NO ONE.
|
|
|
|
|
aufc_ole
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7K,
Visits: 0
|
Oh boy. This gun be gud
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. How happy would you be in hindsight to pay a 39% commission fee? Well the clubs know they will get more money - probably 75-85% of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
@ pippinu
Guatemala, Indonesia, Kuwait, Argentina, Nigeria, Maldives, Israel all suspended or faced suspension in the recent past.
If you understand the history of the A league you'll know how much effort went into avoiding australias suspension when the government set up Crawford.
It should be noted that government interference in a national association generally leads to suspension.
If the FFA don't like the rules they can resign from FIFA. The clubs, players, referees then have a choice - they can go with the ffa or wait and see if a FIFA compliant organisation emerges? What do you think would happen??
And you like contracts soooo much, all player, referee, sponsorship, tv contracts etc are all written under FIFAs umberella - if the FFA leave the individuals concerned can choose to honour them or null and void them.
FIFA is not any rush to fix this, we are neither unique or special, but they will fix it. Gallop is going and Lowe won't be far behind.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. If they want to fulfill the obligations of the TV deal, they must show the A-League, which, will still be owned by the FFA which still exists as a legal entity and which, most probably, would still have government support. If any clubs have chosen to break their licensing agreements with the FFA, there'd probably be court action. If clubs pull out of the A-League, the FFA will need to find new clubs to meet the 5 games per week obligation - becomes more difficult if we no longer a member of FIFA, but not impossible (it just means that only rank amateurs would be playing in the A-League). What don't you understand, the FFA board will just be replaced by one run by FIFA. Fox will have no choice but to deal with that FIFA board. The FFA under Gallop would have no power at all. No one will want to deal with them, not the clubs, nor Fox. There is no way fox will allow an amateur league on Fox, they will just rubber stamp the existing deal with the new board. NO ONE WILL SUPPORT THE FFA under Gallop if we get kicked out of FIFA. NO ONE. So, you're trying to tell me that an extra-territorial body will just come in and replace the board of an Australian legal entity in complete contradiction of a host of Australian laws? Who else here actually believes this? Waz, do you honestly believe this can happen? PLease note, kicking Australia out of FIFA is one thing - no doubt that can happen - but this other thing you are suggesting is a completely different kettle of fish.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x@ pippinuGuatemala, Indonesia, Kuwait, Argentina, Nigeria, Maldives, Israel all suspended or faced suspension in the recent past. If you understand the history of the A league you'll know how much effort went into avoiding australias suspension when the government set up Crawford. It should be noted that government interference in a national association generally leads to suspension. If the FFA don't like the rules they can resign from FIFA. The clubs, players, referees then have a choice - they can go with the ffa or wait and see if a FIFA compliant organisation emerges? What do you think would happen?? And you like contracts soooo much, all player, referee, sponsorship, tv contracts etc are all written under FIFAs umberella - if the FFA leave the individuals concerned can choose to honour them or null and void them. FIFA is not any rush to fix this, we are neither unique or special, but they will fix it. Gallop is going and Lowe won't be far behind. He is so used to the AFL being its own governing body. They don't have to answer to their own version of FIFA.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. If they want to fulfill the obligations of the TV deal, they must show the A-League, which, will still be owned by the FFA which still exists as a legal entity and which, most probably, would still have government support. If any clubs have chosen to break their licensing agreements with the FFA, there'd probably be court action. If clubs pull out of the A-League, the FFA will need to find new clubs to meet the 5 games per week obligation - becomes more difficult if we no longer a member of FIFA, but not impossible (it just means that only rank amateurs would be playing in the A-League). What don't you understand, the FFA board will just be replaced by one run by FIFA. Fox will have no choice but to deal with that FIFA board. The FFA under Gallop would have no power at all. No one will want to deal with them, not the clubs, nor Fox. There is no way fox will allow an amateur league on Fox, they will just rubber stamp the existing deal with the new board. NO ONE WILL SUPPORT THE FFA under Gallop if we get kicked out of FIFA. NO ONE. So, you're trying to tell me that an extra-territorial body will just come in and replace the board of an Australian legal entity in complete contradiction of a host of Australian laws? Who else here actually believes this? Waz, do you honestly believe this can happen? PLease note, kicking Australia out of FIFA is one thing - no doubt that can happen - but this other thing you are suggesting is a completely different kettle of fish. The legal entity will still exist. It just wont have authority to run the game under FIFA.
|
|
|
|
|
HeyItsRobbie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.5K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x@ pippinuGuatemala, Indonesia, Kuwait, Argentina, Nigeria, Maldives, Israel all suspended or faced suspension in the recent past. If you understand the history of the A league you'll know how much effort went into avoiding australias suspension when the government set up Crawford. It should be noted that government interference in a national association generally leads to suspension. If the FFA don't like the rules they can resign from FIFA. The clubs, players, referees then have a choice - they can go with the ffa or wait and see if a FIFA compliant organisation emerges? What do you think would happen?? And you like contracts soooo much, all player, referee, sponsorship, tv contracts etc are all written under FIFAs umberella - if the FFA leave the individuals concerned can choose to honour them or null and void them. FIFA is not any rush to fix this, we are neither unique or special, but they will fix it. Gallop is going and Lowe won't be far behind. Nice list Waz, I can really see how a first world country like Australia sits in that company. As I said earlier, remind me again which side the Backries were on when FIFA took action in Indonesia, and tell me how keen they'd be to back the Backries this time round. What about we go back to basics, wasn't FIFA's interest in this matter initially about wanting the FFA to broaden representation to have as many stakeholders represented. The FFA has not been able to achieve it because 3 of the current 10 stakeholders have voted against the most recent proposal put to members, afterall, there are strict processes to abide by to change a constitution. So are you arguing that FIFA is going to throw the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy? What about the other 7 stakeholders? Don't they count?
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
@ pippinu
"So, you're trying to tell me that an extra-territorial body will just come in and replace the board of an Australian legal entity in complete contradiction of a host of Australian laws?" ..... err, no. Not in contradiction to Australian laws but with the full support of Australian laws.
The FFA joined FIFA, no one forced them to, but because they joined FIFA they must follow their rules. That's protected by Australian and contract law which you live so much.
FFA must comply with the FIFA law and regulations or they're gone.
|
|
|
|
|
hames_jetfield
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Australian government and our laws maybe on the FFA's side - I'm not a corporate lawyer. But can't FIFA just ban the FFA from the sport so no Socceroos - no World Cup, Asian Cup, Women's World Cup, etc. until FFA fall in line? Would the FFA and the Australian government really want that? It's not like FIFA need Australia in the game like the traditional European and South American powers and China and the US.
|
|
|
|