After listening to one of the guys in charge of organising their bid on the dfs a few months ago this is no surprise.

The guy involved seemed to be totally unorganised and didn’t have any idea or direction.

He’s interview was straight after the gentleman from Brisbane City who seemed organised had a clear plan and seemed competent and confident.

Nobody is going to say they were surprised..........

If they feel they are flying that close to the wind in terms of the financial side, then yeah, it was never going to be a strong bid anyway.

A second brissy side would be stupid anyway. Maybe in 10 years.

Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Townsville, Cairns first.

Is this the bid mirron was backing ?

If they were planning on playing at Suncorp then it would’ve been a financial train wreck.
Hopefully they look towards a second tier bid.

Planned 15,360 seat Perry Park.


Tweet

Would be nice. Don't know much about Perry Park, but if this is possible - Let it happen!! Have Brisbane move in as it will be the ideal size stadium for Brisbane.

That's the true loss here

Imagine if we did get the womens world cup. The AFL will be front and centre of it and any money that could have gone to a lasting football legacy will end up going to a training ground for the Brisbane Lions AWFL team with all the required goldplating 

Yea, that would be the dream if Perry Park could be upgraded, maybe one day. 

The Expansion train wreck moves into 2nd gear

nah, just the weakest in the herd being dropped....like pro rel!

More like Rel Pro

These guys just won

That architect design looks like it was on the secondary field at Perry Park.
It shows the YMCA in the far left corner.

Would’ve cost $250m + to do it with the plaza complex etc

Predict SMFC to go next amidst much crying about racism and stuff.

Can’t recall much being released by Strikers on their bid, the plan appeared to be to play at Suncorp anyway?

Redevelopment of Perry Park is the desired outcome for football in Brisbane and City/Roar/Strikers should all be planning to use it.

I am not sure why anyone is bidding yet?  

What exactly are they bidding on? What is the criteria that the FFA has released? I didn't know they were accepting submissions yet? Has the congress issue been resolved yet so that potential bidders know exactly what the structure of the A-league will look like? The whole exercise at the moment is pointless

After losing out on Wellington licence they had nothing left. Good riddance!!.

“The two successful clubs may not receive annual dividends from FFA until the next broadcast deal, still another five years away, because the existing 10 clubs are unwilling to split their share any further”

“FFA is also expected to seek an expansion fee that could be upwards of $10 million for each new entrant”

So they’d need to find $10m to get in plus make up nearly $12m over the first four years in the missing broadcast distribution. Yeah, the FFA have REALLY thought this through lol.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/may/20/a-league-brisbane-strikers-withdraw-expansion-bid-amid-financial-concerns

Where is the Fox expansion money going

Extra central costs for travel, match officials etc for 33 rounds x 6 games = 198 games instead of 127 games would chew up a few million.

According to that guardian article, the successful bidders won't receive 4 years of annual distributions and also pay a 10 million license fee. That's almost 50 million between the 2 new clubs flowing to the FFA covers.

If that particular detail is true the FFA can well and truly stick their arguments about affordability and being "revenue neutral."

The article says "may not" not "won't.".  The money flowing into the FFA's coffers under that scenario would be $6m per year for 4 years (possibly 5 years if Fox pays from next season as originally indicated in the deal) from Fox + the licence fees of say $20m = $44m ($50m) but that presumes the successful bidders are in the markets that Fox has specified for the expansion uplift in the broadcast rights and those bidders can afford that level for the licence fee.

If the total of $44m ($50m) is reached then I would wonder what the excess over the initial and ongoing cost of expansion would be used for.

Lots of questions arise, e.g.:-

Does the CBA split of 30% apply to the expansion funds from Fox?  If so I would think the 30% x $6m would be fair to go as a distribution to the new clubs i.e. $900k each.

Would it be wise to allocate part of the licence fees to the reserve to cover the (un)likely event of a club needing "rescue" as has happened in the past?

Should a one off distribution to the existing clubs be made from the fees in recognition of their investment that has helped create the value of the league?

Would it be appropriate to use the fees to assist in the creation of a 2nd division or for some other purpose that advances football?

etc.

FFA said Expansion wouldn't pay

Fox have put their top value on it

Now there's more & more evidence appearing

So now FFA are expanding simply because a 10 team Closed League is dying

Forced to fiddle with the 10 team bit, instead of the Closed bit

Thanks Frank

I'm starting to think that this action is about responding to pressure to be seen to be doing something, but the financing of it is going to be so restrictive that we'll be lucky to end up with two bids who can finance the whole things themselves for the first five years PLUS pay a significant licensing fee.

At this stage, it looks like only the Chinese bid has a chance in hell of meeting the financing criteria, maybe South Melbourne (who might also have wealthy Chinese backing., and at least have a ground ready to go).

Finally, how can we bring in P&R if this is the thinking of both the FFA and the existing clubs, who clearly are all about protecting their own investments and minimising future losses.

On top of that, any new expansion team will need instant success in relation to fans/crowds/merch/etc in order to alleviate the pressure from the lack of funding. On that basis any new club will need to be in a region that can mimic what WSW did and reach capacity at their stadium in only a couple of seasons. That's a massive ask, which i'm not sure any of the current bids will be able to achieve. Team 11 would be a good candidate if they already had a stadium. Southern Expansion has the money but doesn't have the support of the fans. SM checks a lot of boxes, but there are a lot of unknowns when it comes to their fanbase and ability to grow support. Wolves don't have that kind of money. It's unclear whether the locals would get behind the Brisbane City bid, maybe but maybe not it's high risk for the money. Geelong, Hobart and Canberra would be more of a slow burn rather than an instant success and are probably also light on funds. I reckon, demand for the Nix license is increasing every day. 

Actually FFA said that expansion wouldn't pay with the current model.

True,

I guess then the Strikers haven't been shown the Super Dooper new model. 

I can't wait

It's the EOI stage. FFA aren't really required to release too much information now, nor the "bidders" required to offer much.

They set a reasonable bar at this stage designed to both attract bids and screen no hopers.

Something has either stuck out like dogs balls to Brisbane, or Brisbane just figured they're really not prepared as they thought.

Well i think the 10 million pay to play and talks of no tv money for the new sides would be very unattractive. 

The 10m and no TV money sounds like madness.

I didn't believe that was a real quote when I read it.

That will pretty much knock out all these little bids rattling tins.

Only bids with very, very deep pockets need apply.

Another thing about that quote above, if the existing clubs really do think like that, then we now know precisely what they think about expansion

You can add Wollongong Wolves to the list.  Everyone wanting them over Southern Expansion but he'll the Wolves have no money for a bid. Actually half of the bidders who have gone public have no investors which would probably rule them out straight away with the current ffa structures. 

I'm disappointed to learn there will be no Ipswich/Western corridor bid.

If Brisbane City get up - it will just be another Melbourne Heart all over again with no clear home patch or supporter base. As a league we need to heed the lessons of the past to avoid making these kind of mistakes again.

Brisbane City have never really had a fan base in any period of its history, but they meet derby metrics.

@ flat_eric

There is a bid from Western Pride, assuming it went ahead that is.

It took so long to write this that it doesn't link to the discussion.  It was inspired by Bettega's post.

I agree, but the concept of the FFA paying the "Clubs" to participate has to die first and fast. 

For X years every time a discussion about expansion has come up it has devolved into drivel about P&R, metrics, fish, salary caps, marquees and shirt money.
The underlying problem is that the bulk of the money to run a team currently has to come from the FFA.  The future being touted is more of the same, but from an "independent league".  That is no future.  It's stagnation and death.

There will never be enough money raised directly from the game to satisfy the appetite of professional players and investors.  Frank's idea of wealthy benefactors giving effortlessly to grow the game he loved has fallen under the ambitions of 21st Century new money oligarchs that seek power and fame, but on somebody else's coin.

Now wait for it, there is no instant and easy answer.  Playing football in this country is either going to be expensive or otherwise irrelevant.  With relevance comes interest (measurable in column inches, A League Applications and AFL attacks) and interest brings in money, lots of it.  To sell football you have to sell an experience and if you want to pull in enough money to sustain it, then that experience has to be pleasurable, not just to those few thousand that would attend a match at a remote, terraced shit-hole, but to those who want comfortable seats, good views, hard to pronounce coffee and beer made in some tool shed.  Those people have the money that goes in the bank.  Cheap seats bring nothing much but more "interest".

The FFA need lots of money and quite a bit more than they are getting now.  Everybody accepts there is a nexus between International success and local interest in this country. (Even the ridiculous AFL and their attempts at world domination see it).  There is clearly and markedly advances in investment and interest in the local game when the national team do well on the world stage.  1974 gave us the impetus for the NSL.  The failures of the 1990s saw the end of it.  The carefully garnered results on the world stage since have buoyed up the expectation of investors that the local game has sufficient quality to be saleable.

The howls that go up from fans and pundits alike when the national U12 team fails at the Pan-Pacs should be the clear warning that this linkage is still strong.  Maybe it will weaken in 20 years or maybe never.  Until then the FFA is required to invest in everything possible to get international success and to do that at the level needed to bring home trophy after trophy needs far more money than they currently get.  Small example: You see crying in this forum about our lack of participation in ASEAN football?  Short memory abounds.  The one time we attended (ostensibly to give some A League players international exposure) the players revolted demanding match fees of $30k and even Archie saying he was "forced to go".  Yep, "forced" to represent his country (of adoption) and that the pay wasn't good enough to do it. 

To maintain interest in the local league you have demonstrate competency on the world stage.  You can't do that without money.  You can't get that money unless you have enough interest in the local league to attract investors, sponsors and importantly - spectators.  Catch 22 big time.

That's just the Reader's Digest abridged version of the Gordian Knot of problems in Australian football.

The problem is growing steadily.  The national interest is waning in a men's team that qualifies for, but doesn't advance in tournaments.  It wanes more rapidly if the teams play negatively.
The vultures will tear down anything that smells of defeat or perceived under-performance.  Ask Ange about how his kids were copping it at school to see how woven into the national fabric the vulture instinct is.

The FFA has to get more money.  The A League was supposed to bring it not take it. 
Whatever happens in the future the League has to be cut adrift and not only does it have to fund itself but it has to provide funding, not just visibility, to the rest of the sport.  It cannot be allowed to exist separate to the extent that it sucks the breath out of the game and suffocates any attempt to reform and expand it.

The League must stand alone, but it must pay its way as well.  All the costs of the League have to be born by itself. The simplest way I see is a direct annual registration fee levy on each team playing.  That will become the next endless war as the level will always be too high for Clubs to afford whilst it will never be enough to cover FFA's costs.  At least you will know it is set right when both sides bitch in public about it.

Transition is needed now or the lot collapses.  Either way, it will be an improvement on last year.

@ Gyfox

The $10m licensing fee goes to the clubs. Each will get a windfall of about $1.8m with the FFA getting an equivalent amount.

The way it was explained at Roars fan forum is any licence fee is, after costs etc, divided eleven ways (10 clubs plus FFA) and distributed. This is the way it should be - the competition belongs to the clubs, no one else.

Thanks for that explanation Waz.  My only and regular comment is that the competition belongs to football not the clubs.

My understanding was that the Jets license fee wasn't shared between the other franchisees - it all went to the franchisor, namely the FFA.  Pretty certain it went into the FFA's income figures that year, with no additional payments being made to other owners.

@ GyFox

Yeah, I understand your sentiment - and let’s be honest that difference of opinion is the issue between the ffa and clubs right now.

The problem is the inequality in the argument which basically goes like this: when the competition makes money (through selling licences, tv revenues etc) then that profit belongs to “football”. However when the competition loses money (through the clubs losing money) then those losses belong to the club owners not “football”.

It’s not a sustainable position.

There will be of course be a middle ground but the ffa do not appear willing to find nd it and I’m not sure the clubs are all that interested either.

@ Benjamin

All I can tell you is what BRFC have said. Specifically in relation to the funds coming in for the two new clubs AAPFC appear to be expecting that distribution (that’s certainly what happened with Wanderers).

Again what this situation highlights is the lack of transparency with FFAs processes - we read in a newspaper article that the licence fee is $10m and new clubs will have to forgo the tv distribution money for four years. Is that correct, who knows?

Everything the ffa do is a PR clusterfuck. .

Absolutely.  Rules move daily.  It's a murky swamp when it should be a shiny swimming pool.

That's the first I've ever heard that the WSW (or any) license fee got shared around.

Part of Wanderers fee was shared with the clubs because the FFA had promised a split of the Roar sale but was unable to afford it at the time.  Wanderers was a catch up payment that the FFA copped a lot of stick for on this forum.

Well there you go.

FFA gave the clubs the surplus ( wonder how much it actually was after paying out Gorman etc) instead of repaying the Taxpayer money

Any government money provided to the FFA at the time was by way of grant, not as a loan, so there was no need to pay back taxpayer money.  The AFL would be broke if it had to pay back every cent it has ever got out of all levels of government, not even its $2.5 billion TV deal would be enough to pay that back

Strikers bid has more sizzle than substance and locally it’s always been a case of them saying “wait until you see our bid” but no details were provided and we’ve seen more after they’ve withdrawn than when they were in the running.

It smacks of a staged managed bid with a pre-planned exit - they wanted to be seen to be in the running but knew they weren’t ready or serious about being in the A League in 17 months time.

The image of the stadium is something of a joke, it’s been knocked up on a PowerPoint slide or something - it’s not even an artists imoression of a concept.

For Perry Park to hosts major events it needs local government support which hasn’t been given, at least publicly. It needs financing which isn’t clear or public, planning permission would be needed with a hostile set of local residents that could face severe delays and the process hasn’t even started; and the local railway station would need significant safety upgrades to cope with large volumes of people (probably the easiest to do but they still need to persuade council to pay for it). Then there’s YMCAs approval, they have a major investment on the site with plans for expansion and sticking a major stadium development there would have significant impact. Then finally there’s question marks over who was providing the financial backing for this bid - it’s highly unlikely there’s two sets of investors for two local bids (this and City) so where was the money??

So yeah, bye Strikers - but you were never really serious were you.

It was designed by Cox Architecture, the same firm behind Melbourne's AAMI Park. Take your hand off it.

#WazFactChecker

The current model for the HAL is broken and FFA have said that already.
In case people havent been following the news ,it's apparent the franchise model for many businesses is broken and no longer sustainable.Franchisees get locked into uncompetetive agreements ,where they are forced to do what the franchisor wants,including bearing input costs ,like purchase of goods from the franchise at above market rates ,paying unreasonable fees to the franchisor , being locked into ongoing costs and being limited to how amd where they can trade.
See RFG group media reports for example.

So the big question that noone in the media seems to be asking FFA is ......WTF?.How can you do this?.
FFA have said the current model is unsustainable .If this was a legitimate business ASIC would be asking some serious questions about how an unsustainable business can sell licences at massive prices,with no prospect of a breakeven,let alone a profit.
Imagine if FFA was a bank doing what they are trying to do.

Cameron, who tweeted that pic of the redeveloped Perry Park on the first page, is also claiming that the Strikers would've gone back to Brisbane United if they joined the A-League. Seems like a very strange idea since everyone in Brissie knows the Strikers.



http://footballtoday.news/features/brisbane-strikers-what-could-have-been

"those of us who have stuck with the Strikers since the NSL days are left asking the question – how do we maintain enthusiasm for a club that shows no enthusiasm?

Cameron may come to realise that  watching his club quickly go bust at the bottom of the HAL might drain the enthusiasm considerably quicker.

FFA won't be bailing them out

Strikers are doing the right thing and waiting to get promoted when they are ready.

“This is something Hollandia/Lions/Brisbane Roar has never been able to achieve since they saw off the Strikers’ bid to be an inaugural member of the A-League in 2004“

err, Strikers didn’t bid for the original licence because they couldn’t afford Uncle Franks $50k deposit lol ... only Lions has the deep pockets.

But this statement that Strikers would be able to unify the Brisbane football supporters is bollocks ... they won’t unify Lions supporters, or City, or Olympics - it’s utter garbage, it’s why the city is made for a derby and is made for pro/rel.

The sad fact is strikers as a club lack support themselves, they’re not even 25 years old themselves so they ain’t unifying anything in this city - if they’re not sure the handful of strikers supporters left should go and look at some of the vibrant clubs growing around them

@ Catfield

I guess it doesn’t matter now does it - Strikers had a unique bid approach in that they reveal details after they’ve withdrawn.

Redevelopment of Perry Park would have come at huge financial cost (who was going to pay for this?), the local residents have already stated they will object to its redevelopment (so how were strikers going to overcome that?), and then there’s other things like government backing for a stadium to be built (how would strikers get that when QRU are pushing Ballymore and others a boutique stadium south of the river).

It beggars belief strikers didn’t approach Roar and seek a partnership - two teams at PP and derbies at Suncorp maybe?

And as for the quality of those images? I don’t care who did them, they just look photoshopped (look at the stuff that’s coming out of the Melbourne bid which are way better).

The feeling was strikers weren’t running a serious A League bid, you’ll probably contest that and maybe they were, but from the outside looking in they didn’t look serious.

Hopefully they’ll be going for the Div 2 option if/when it comes up, although there’ll be some stiff competition on the park for that, Strikers facilities at PP should give them an advantage.

You're right, it doesn't matter any more and the Strikers deserve all the criticism coming their way. Including mine (see http://footballtoday.news/features/brisbane-strikers-what-could-have-been).

A few fact checks, though. Local residents have already stated they would object? When? Overcoming that would have been easier than you probably think - give them amenity all year round. This is addressed in the original bid document given to the FFA last year. 

Playing out of Perry Park was the point of difference to the Roar. Get the Roar there too and the point of difference disappears, as does the second Brisbane team. I do understand, however, that there was an approach to City, but that was way too late in the piece.

As I wrote in that article as well, the economic argument for Perry Park was/is stronger than Ballymore. The local economy - think Bowen Hills-RNA/Newstead-Teneriffe-the Valley/Breakfast Creek - would have been stimulated by the increased economic activity. It's a solid argument to make to all levels of government during a PPP process.

You're right to say that from the outside they didn't look serious. That has been a massive frustration to me for months, especially since I knew what their vision was and how good it could have been.

As for the quality of the images, that might have more to do with my iPhone than the plans themselves. I took photos of the Perry Park master plan. I'm sure the high-res digital versions would have lived up to your expectations.

State planning systems have mechanisms to promote developments to the level of 'state significance' or 'major' that takes the power out of the hands of local residents when need be. If Adelaide...  Adelaide, could redevelop the Adelaide Oval into a 55,000 seat stadium then anything is possible. I mean, that thing knocks the "vision" bit out of the Light's Vision monument that essentially represents the key plank of Adelaide history (the Colonel Light city plan). 

Agreed though it's a total mystery who would be paying for it. Or why they'd be prepared to pay for it for Strikers but not anyone else. I find it impossible that it could be the Strikers themselves paying. And if it was a serious proposal, why weren't the Roar all over it as well? Are their owners truly that aimless?

@ Catfield.

All good. Strikers were my preference to be honest, I could see a lot of 40-something dads who saw Strikers at their glory days going back, meanwhile their kids try to stick to Roar.

Strikers v Roar has a rivalry too it, Roar “took” strikers licence and now they’re back ... Roar v Gladiators in a decaying rugby stadium ... meh.

So a shame. But Strikers have the Perry Park asset and there’ll be a second chance - I’m not convinced any QLD team will get in this time around, looking at the quality in Sydney and Melbourne that’s what I’d expect to get in now. So Strikers need to be ready for Team 13/14 in 5 years ...

What quality in sydney and melbourne?

In Melbourne 2 of the bids have no stadium and will require hundreds of millions of funding, whilst the other is pretty much blacklisted..

Are South Melbourne safe from relegation this season?

No way, 3 points above it.

Are Team 11 safe ?

I reckon so.  They haven't lost a game all season.

they would probably make the finals in the a-league with their record this year.

100%. There will need to be a massive culture change in the club, though. The problem they have is inertia and a lack of new blood and new ideas. The potential there is massive - just need people with the drive to see it happen. It's hard though when it's a closed shop - it's not like members can vote a board in, as happens at other clubs.

I really hope they learn from this experience and let more people in to move the club forward. 

@ southmelb

None of the Brisbane bids have stadiums, even City will have to play out of Lang Park while Ballymore is made safe and the challenges of getting PP upgraded would be huge, so again strikers would start out at Lang Park.

But the plans for the two southern Sydney bids have plans to get them (one to build and one to an existing stadium?) and at least one of the bids in Melbourne has plans to build a stadium ...

Compare that to the Brisbane bids - no stadiums, no multi-million dollar academies, basically just a rinse n repeat of the QLD Roar launch.

No plan in Melb to build a stadium, they want the state government to build it to the tune of almost 200 million. The strikers could have made the same claims. Admitedly i dont know enough about sydney.

@ Bohemia

QLD is a strange State, especially when it comes to sport so as an investor this would be the last place I’d throw money at a club.

The only thing stranger than our government is Perry Park - the “home” of football in Brisbane - it is a dump albeit a loveable dump.

Massive Gabba renovation plans revealed in secret report, mistakenly released to ABC

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-24/massive-renovation-plans-revealed-for-brisbane-gabba/9795222

Ha, and there you have it.

Admittedly the Gabba is one of the most soulless stadiums in Australia and could do with an upgrade but it sums up government attitude. Next they’ll announce a plan to demolish Suncorp and build a replica in its place, hey, if NSWs are doing it ...

LOL@ Performing Arts.  They sponge more off the government than AFL does.  

it almost reads like an April Fool's joke

The AFL has been averaging 16k at the Gabba for the last couple of seasons

Quick, throw them a few hundred million... can't make this shit up. Fucking leeches on every level of government in every state.