pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+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. But nor does FIFA have the authority to put its own directors in. So a new body would have to be created, which may or may not have government support, which may or may not be able to quickly assemble sponsors, which may or may not to quickly put together a TV deal, which may or may not be able to assemble sufficient refs. The FIFA support governing body might be in the box seat to gradually win precedence over the FFA - but I put it to you that that would not necessarily happen over night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
@ pippinu
Probably best if you bring up one of your multi's to continue the argument now lol
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+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. But nor does FIFA have the authority to put its own directors in. So a new body would have to be created, which may or may not have government support, which may or may not be able to quickly assemble sponsors, which may or may not to quickly put together a TV deal, which may or may not be able to assemble sufficient refs. The FIFA support governing body might be in the box seat to gradually win precedence over the FFA - but I put it to you that that would not necessarily happen over night. Reference missing
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x@ 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. Yes, but FIFA being able to throw out the FFA is a different matter to FIFA being able to take over an Australian legal entity - I have been arguing that the latter is an impossibility.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+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? Well obviously there are two issues at play here. The first is the governance of the FFA and the FFA's refusal to increase the congress. Currently the number of congress votes is only 10 and the FFA would love to keep this is as small as possible. For goodness sake they don't even want to increase it to 13 which would still be a figure to low for FIFA. The FFA know that if they increase the congress past 12 that they would be voted out. Looking more and more likely. The other issue is the current clubs are not happy with the dividend from the TV deal which is a separate issue but will ultimately drag the FFA down but also ties into the governance issues currently causing the FFA some headache.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+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. But nor does FIFA have the authority to put its own directors in. So a new body would have to be created, which may or may not have government support, which may or may not be able to quickly assemble sponsors, which may or may not to quickly put together a TV deal, which may or may not be able to assemble sufficient refs. The FIFA support governing body might be in the box seat to gradually win precedence over the FFA - but I put it to you that that would not necessarily happen over night. It doesn't need government support. If governments get involved as Waz pointed out the country gets kicked out of FIFA.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAustralian 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. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+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? Well obviously there are two issues at play here. The first is the governance of the FFA and the FFA's refusal to increase the congress. Currently the number of congress votes is only 10 and the FFA would love to keep this is as small as possible. For goodness sake they don't even want to increase it to 13 which would still be a figure to low for FIFA. The FFA know that if they increase the congress past 12 that they would be voted out. Looking more and more likely. The other issue is the current clubs are not happy with the dividend from the TV deal which is a separate issue but will ultimately drag the FFA down but also ties into the governance issues currently causing the FFA some headache. Your first para is the main reason why FIFA took an interest, and has things stand, with 7 of 10 stakeholders supporting the FFA, I cannot see FIFA throwing the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy. Re the 2nd para, everyone is starting to speculate that that would be enough for FIFA to step in, but that is far removed from the original reason for FIFA getting involved.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+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. But nor does FIFA have the authority to put its own directors in. So a new body would have to be created, which may or may not have government support, which may or may not be able to quickly assemble sponsors, which may or may not to quickly put together a TV deal, which may or may not be able to assemble sufficient refs. The FIFA support governing body might be in the box seat to gradually win precedence over the FFA - but I put it to you that that would not necessarily happen over night. It doesn't need government support. If governments get involved as Waz pointed out the country gets kicked out of FIFA. No, we need to separate out government interference and government financial support - the latter does not necessarily mean the former. The FFA only exists because the Commonwealth wiped out tens of millions of dollars of debt from the former Soccer Australia. Let us assume a new body needs to start from scratch - will the Commonwealth Government come to the party again and provide seed funding?
|
|
|
|
|
hames_jetfield
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+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. But nor does FIFA have the authority to put its own directors in. So a new body would have to be created, which may or may not have government support, which may or may not be able to quickly assemble sponsors, which may or may not to quickly put together a TV deal, which may or may not be able to assemble sufficient refs. The FIFA support governing body might be in the box seat to gradually win precedence over the FFA - but I put it to you that that would not necessarily happen over night. It doesn't need government support. If governments get involved as Waz pointed out the country gets kicked out of FIFA. No, we need to separate out government interference and government financial support - the latter does not necessarily mean the former. The FFA only exists because the Commonwealth wiped out tens of millions of dollars of debt from the former Soccer Australia. Let us assume a new body needs to start from scratch - will the Commonwealth Government come to the party again and provide seed funding? I don't think the Commonwealth want their governing body shut out from the sport either.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xAustralian 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. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+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. But nor does FIFA have the authority to put its own directors in. So a new body would have to be created, which may or may not have government support, which may or may not be able to quickly assemble sponsors, which may or may not to quickly put together a TV deal, which may or may not be able to assemble sufficient refs. The FIFA support governing body might be in the box seat to gradually win precedence over the FFA - but I put it to you that that would not necessarily happen over night. It doesn't need government support. If governments get involved as Waz pointed out the country gets kicked out of FIFA. No, we need to separate out government interference and government financial support - the latter does not necessarily mean the former. The FFA only exists because the Commonwealth wiped out tens of millions of dollars of debt from the former Soccer Australia. Let us assume a new body needs to start from scratch - will the Commonwealth Government come to the party again and provide seed funding? Who is soccer Australia. What does this have to do with the entity called FFA. Does the FFA owe the government millions or is it SA?
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xAustralian 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. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps. So a new entity needs to be created, new contracts are needed, new sponsorship, new TV deal, etc, etc - and where is the seed funding coming from to create the new entity? I keep mentioning government support because the FFA only came into existence because of government funding.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
@rbb
Of course it is higher than 61% with refs, admin and travel. But FFA is still taking way too much.
It should something like -the league cost this to run (marketing, admin, refs, insurance, travel etc)
$xxx
Total - $xxx = $yyy
Professional league system (APFCA) gets 75% of $yyy , FFA gets 25% of $yyy
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+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? Well obviously there are two issues at play here. The first is the governance of the FFA and the FFA's refusal to increase the congress. Currently the number of congress votes is only 10 and the FFA would love to keep this is as small as possible. For goodness sake they don't even want to increase it to 13 which would still be a figure to low for FIFA. The FFA know that if they increase the congress past 12 that they would be voted out. Looking more and more likely. The other issue is the current clubs are not happy with the dividend from the TV deal which is a separate issue but will ultimately drag the FFA down but also ties into the governance issues currently causing the FFA some headache. Your first para is the main reason why FIFA took an interest, and has things stand, with 7 of 10 stakeholders supporting the FFA, I cannot see FIFA throwing the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy. Re the 2nd para, everyone is starting to speculate that that would be enough for FIFA to step in, but that is far removed from the original reason for FIFA getting involved. They are already unhappy. NOT BECAUSE 3 are not happy, but because there should be more than 10 votes. Most congresses around the world number at least 50. The congress in Germany as an example has over 300 votes.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+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. But nor does FIFA have the authority to put its own directors in. So a new body would have to be created, which may or may not have government support, which may or may not be able to quickly assemble sponsors, which may or may not to quickly put together a TV deal, which may or may not be able to assemble sufficient refs. The FIFA support governing body might be in the box seat to gradually win precedence over the FFA - but I put it to you that that would not necessarily happen over night. It doesn't need government support. If governments get involved as Waz pointed out the country gets kicked out of FIFA. No, we need to separate out government interference and government financial support - the latter does not necessarily mean the former. The FFA only exists because the Commonwealth wiped out tens of millions of dollars of debt from the former Soccer Australia. Let us assume a new body needs to start from scratch - will the Commonwealth Government come to the party again and provide seed funding? I don't think the Commonwealth want their governing body shut out from the sport either. I agree - but it would be far too simplistic to assume that the Commonwealth will ignore the body they set up and align itself with a new body overnight.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x@rbbOf course it is higher than 61% with refs, admin and travel. But FFA is still taking way too much.It should something like -the league cost this to run (marketing, admin, refs, insurance, travel etc)$xxxTotal - $xxx = $yyyProfessional league system (APFCA) gets 75% of $yyy , FFA gets 25% of $yyy I know which one I am choosing if I am an A-league club.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+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. But nor does FIFA have the authority to put its own directors in. So a new body would have to be created, which may or may not have government support, which may or may not be able to quickly assemble sponsors, which may or may not to quickly put together a TV deal, which may or may not be able to assemble sufficient refs. The FIFA support governing body might be in the box seat to gradually win precedence over the FFA - but I put it to you that that would not necessarily happen over night. It doesn't need government support. If governments get involved as Waz pointed out the country gets kicked out of FIFA. No, we need to separate out government interference and government financial support - the latter does not necessarily mean the former. The FFA only exists because the Commonwealth wiped out tens of millions of dollars of debt from the former Soccer Australia. Let us assume a new body needs to start from scratch - will the Commonwealth Government come to the party again and provide seed funding? Who is soccer Australia. What does this have to do with the entity called FFA. Does the FFA owe the government millions or is it SA? No, the FFA owe the government nothing - but it was government largesse which helped estalish the FFA.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xAustralian 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. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps. So a new entity needs to be created, new contracts are needed, new sponsorship, new TV deal, etc, etc - and where is the seed funding coming from to create the new entity? I keep mentioning government support because the FFA only came into existence because of government funding. FOX will just rubber stamp it. If they don't show football they will lose a lot of subscriptions. Edit - I would assume if FIFA come in they will have their own admin. They might even be paid in Swiss marks.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
@rbb
This is before we even start talking about finals revenue
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+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? Well obviously there are two issues at play here. The first is the governance of the FFA and the FFA's refusal to increase the congress. Currently the number of congress votes is only 10 and the FFA would love to keep this is as small as possible. For goodness sake they don't even want to increase it to 13 which would still be a figure to low for FIFA. The FFA know that if they increase the congress past 12 that they would be voted out. Looking more and more likely. The other issue is the current clubs are not happy with the dividend from the TV deal which is a separate issue but will ultimately drag the FFA down but also ties into the governance issues currently causing the FFA some headache. Your first para is the main reason why FIFA took an interest, and has things stand, with 7 of 10 stakeholders supporting the FFA, I cannot see FIFA throwing the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy. Re the 2nd para, everyone is starting to speculate that that would be enough for FIFA to step in, but that is far removed from the original reason for FIFA getting involved. They are already unhappy. NOT BECAUSE 3 are not happy, but because there should be more than 10 votes. Most congresses around the world number at least 50. The congress in Germany as an example has over 300 votes. Yes, and the FFA Commission put up a proposal to its members to extend membership, and 3 of 10 voted against it. I simply say to you, that is not sufficient reason for FIFA to throw Australia out because the FFA still has the support of 7 of 10 members (but under the consitution, that is not enough to change the constitution). Anyway, the divvying up of the TV rights is far removed from this central issue.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xAustralian 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. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps. So a new entity needs to be created, new contracts are needed, new sponsorship, new TV deal, etc, etc - and where is the seed funding coming from to create the new entity? I keep mentioning government support because the FFA only came into existence because of government funding. FOX will just rubber stamp it. If they don't show football they will lose a lot of subscriptions. Well, in fact, if Foxtel was forced to the negotiation table with a brand new entity, new league, maybe different teams, who knows - I would not count on Foxtel automatically offering the same amount again.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+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? Well obviously there are two issues at play here. The first is the governance of the FFA and the FFA's refusal to increase the congress. Currently the number of congress votes is only 10 and the FFA would love to keep this is as small as possible. For goodness sake they don't even want to increase it to 13 which would still be a figure to low for FIFA. The FFA know that if they increase the congress past 12 that they would be voted out. Looking more and more likely. The other issue is the current clubs are not happy with the dividend from the TV deal which is a separate issue but will ultimately drag the FFA down but also ties into the governance issues currently causing the FFA some headache. Your first para is the main reason why FIFA took an interest, and has things stand, with 7 of 10 stakeholders supporting the FFA, I cannot see FIFA throwing the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy. Re the 2nd para, everyone is starting to speculate that that would be enough for FIFA to step in, but that is far removed from the original reason for FIFA getting involved. They are already unhappy. NOT BECAUSE 3 are not happy, but because there should be more than 10 votes. Most congresses around the world number at least 50. The congress in Germany as an example has over 300 votes. Yes, and the FFA Commission put up a proposal to its members to extend membership, and 3 of 10 voted against it. I simply say to you, that is not sufficient reason for FIFA to throw Australia out because the FFA still has the support of 7 of 10 members (but under the consitution, that is not enough to change the constitution). Anyway, the divvying up of the TV rights is far removed from this central issue. The FFA has to follow its own constitution wouldn't you think. Come up with a new proposal, one acceptable to the clubs and the FFA.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+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? Well obviously there are two issues at play here. The first is the governance of the FFA and the FFA's refusal to increase the congress. Currently the number of congress votes is only 10 and the FFA would love to keep this is as small as possible. For goodness sake they don't even want to increase it to 13 which would still be a figure to low for FIFA. The FFA know that if they increase the congress past 12 that they would be voted out. Looking more and more likely. The other issue is the current clubs are not happy with the dividend from the TV deal which is a separate issue but will ultimately drag the FFA down but also ties into the governance issues currently causing the FFA some headache. Your first para is the main reason why FIFA took an interest, and has things stand, with 7 of 10 stakeholders supporting the FFA, I cannot see FIFA throwing the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy. Re the 2nd para, everyone is starting to speculate that that would be enough for FIFA to step in, but that is far removed from the original reason for FIFA getting involved. They are already unhappy. NOT BECAUSE 3 are not happy, but because there should be more than 10 votes. Most congresses around the world number at least 50. The congress in Germany as an example has over 300 votes. Yes, and the FFA Commission put up a proposal to its members to extend membership, and 3 of 10 voted against it. I simply say to you, that is not sufficient reason for FIFA to throw Australia out because the FFA still has the support of 7 of 10 members (but under the consitution, that is not enough to change the constitution). Anyway, the divvying up of the TV rights is far removed from this central issue. The FFA has to follow its own constitution wouldn't you think. Come up with a new proposal, one acceptable to the clubs and the FFA. AS things currently stand, no - the FFA does not have to put something up which is acceptable to the clubs (who only have the one vote), if either of Vic or NSW voted in favour of the proposal, it would get up unchanged.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xAustralian 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. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps. So a new entity needs to be created, new contracts are needed, new sponsorship, new TV deal, etc, etc - and where is the seed funding coming from to create the new entity? I keep mentioning government support because the FFA only came into existence because of government funding. FOX will just rubber stamp it. If they don't show football they will lose a lot of subscriptions. Well, in fact, if Foxtel was forced to the negotiation table with a brand new entity, new league, maybe different teams, who knows - I would not count on Foxtel automatically offering the same amount again. I would happily ask FIFA to re-negotiate the TV deal. Would Fox want the same. Hmmmm I don't know. I think the tv deal could have been better myself. Most on the forum think so as well.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+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? Well obviously there are two issues at play here. The first is the governance of the FFA and the FFA's refusal to increase the congress. Currently the number of congress votes is only 10 and the FFA would love to keep this is as small as possible. For goodness sake they don't even want to increase it to 13 which would still be a figure to low for FIFA. The FFA know that if they increase the congress past 12 that they would be voted out. Looking more and more likely. The other issue is the current clubs are not happy with the dividend from the TV deal which is a separate issue but will ultimately drag the FFA down but also ties into the governance issues currently causing the FFA some headache. Your first para is the main reason why FIFA took an interest, and has things stand, with 7 of 10 stakeholders supporting the FFA, I cannot see FIFA throwing the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy. Re the 2nd para, everyone is starting to speculate that that would be enough for FIFA to step in, but that is far removed from the original reason for FIFA getting involved. They are already unhappy. NOT BECAUSE 3 are not happy, but because there should be more than 10 votes. Most congresses around the world number at least 50. The congress in Germany as an example has over 300 votes. Yes, and the FFA Commission put up a proposal to its members to extend membership, and 3 of 10 voted against it. I simply say to you, that is not sufficient reason for FIFA to throw Australia out because the FFA still has the support of 7 of 10 members (but under the consitution, that is not enough to change the constitution). Anyway, the divvying up of the TV rights is far removed from this central issue. The FFA has to follow its own constitution wouldn't you think. Come up with a new proposal, one acceptable to the clubs and the FFA. AS things currently stand, no - the FFA does not have to put something up which is acceptable to the clubs (who only have the one vote), if either of Vic or NSW voted in favour of the proposal, it would get up unchanged. Well they have to negotiate with Vic or NSW, but once FIFA gets involved we might have to add another 50 voters to a new congress. Edit - Would it stand to reason that all those NPL clubs in NSW and Victoria fall under those two associations who are not voting the way the FFA want. Even if they did vote in favour of the FFA would FIFA find 12 votes acceptable for a new congress or even 13 for that matter.
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
I assuming at this stage the article is factual or close to it.
Assuming this arguably the most stupid mistake ever made by FFA has just been made.
The original offer was 3.25 million to 3.55 plus some additional contra's.
Under but maybe getting close enough to sit down and talk.
Then for the additional funding you have to spend in on what FFA say and run it by them before you spend it.
My personal view is FFA wanted it rejected god can only know why but to say you have to spend the extra money effectively where we say and then run it by FFA.
FFA IMO would have know that would be rejected... this is beyond stupid... the amount IMO with no conditions would have at least got the parties to the table.
Why The F would FFA offer something I am absolutely sure they knew would be rejected ... unless the Lowy want for control knows no limits.
As to FIFA stepping in ... tad to early ... but this is going down to the wire ... maybe Lowy had a chat at the Conf Cup with FIFA... who knows..
Pip
FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think .
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAustralian 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. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps. So a new entity needs to be created, new contracts are needed, new sponsorship, new TV deal, etc, etc - and where is the seed funding coming from to create the new entity? I keep mentioning government support because the FFA only came into existence because of government funding. FOX will just rubber stamp it. If they don't show football they will lose a lot of subscriptions. Well, in fact, if Foxtel was forced to the negotiation table with a brand new entity, new league, maybe different teams, who knows - I would not count on Foxtel automatically offering the same amount again. I would happily ask FIFA to re-negotiate the TV deal. Would Fox want the same. Hmmmm I don't know. I think the tv deal could have been better myself. Most on the forum think so as well. You reckon FIFA would take a direct interest in how much ten Australian clubs can get from its TV deal? Mate, there are leagues all over the world which don't make a cracker from TV.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+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? Well obviously there are two issues at play here. The first is the governance of the FFA and the FFA's refusal to increase the congress. Currently the number of congress votes is only 10 and the FFA would love to keep this is as small as possible. For goodness sake they don't even want to increase it to 13 which would still be a figure to low for FIFA. The FFA know that if they increase the congress past 12 that they would be voted out. Looking more and more likely. The other issue is the current clubs are not happy with the dividend from the TV deal which is a separate issue but will ultimately drag the FFA down but also ties into the governance issues currently causing the FFA some headache. Your first para is the main reason why FIFA took an interest, and has things stand, with 7 of 10 stakeholders supporting the FFA, I cannot see FIFA throwing the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy. Re the 2nd para, everyone is starting to speculate that that would be enough for FIFA to step in, but that is far removed from the original reason for FIFA getting involved. They are already unhappy. NOT BECAUSE 3 are not happy, but because there should be more than 10 votes. Most congresses around the world number at least 50. The congress in Germany as an example has over 300 votes. Yes, and the FFA Commission put up a proposal to its members to extend membership, and 3 of 10 voted against it. I simply say to you, that is not sufficient reason for FIFA to throw Australia out because the FFA still has the support of 7 of 10 members (but under the consitution, that is not enough to change the constitution). Anyway, the divvying up of the TV rights is far removed from this central issue. The FFA has to follow its own constitution wouldn't you think. Come up with a new proposal, one acceptable to the clubs and the FFA. AS things currently stand, no - the FFA does not have to put something up which is acceptable to the clubs (who only have the one vote), if either of Vic or NSW voted in favour of the proposal, it would get up unchanged. Well they have to negotiate with Vic or NSW, but once FIFA gets involved we might have to add another 50 voters to a new congress. Edit - Would it stand to reason that all those NPL clubs in NSW and Victoria fall under those two associations who are not voting the way the FFA want. Even if they did vote in favour of the FFA would FIFA find 12 votes acceptable for a new congress or even 13 for that matter. As I said, the FFA only needs one of Vic or NSW to get its proposal up. In other words, the ten clubs are at the polar extreme of getting anything up. FFA could rightly argue that they are so close to getting their proposal up, needing just the one vote, that they deserve time to lobby the members.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xPip FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think . Well, it's certianly true that FIFA love to flex their muscle against 3rd world nations.
|
|
|
|