|
P&R will fix it 2.0
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ACT football chief Mark O’Neill - FFA chairman Steven Lowy’s most influential supporter in the quest to thwart FIFA-endorsed governance reform - has been urged to stand down “for the good of football”. UPDATED BY DAVE LEWIS The president of Capital Football heads up a four-strong rebel faction of state federations threatening to vote down FIFA-backed measures aimed at democratising the game’s Congress at an Extraordinary General Meeting this month, a move which risks Australia being suspended from world football. O’Neill claims to be acting with the full backing of his 17-strong board and the grassroots clubs under the Capital Football umbrella. But he has lost the backing of the ACT’s nine NPL clubs with one club president, Tuggeranong FC’s John Thiele, saying the former lawyer should step aside immediately as he leads Canberra towards towards “isolation and irrelevance” in the eyes of the wider football community. O’Neill is the spokesman for the recalcitrant states - ACT, Tasmania, Northern NSW and Northern Territory - who represent just 18 per cent of Australia’s registered players, yet have the voting power to derail the recommendations of the FIFA-installed Congress Review Working Group (CRWG). If any three of them vote as a block, then the reforms - which include an independent A-League - will be stymied. “Mark O’Neill is impeding the process of reform and our concern is this will only isolate the Canberra football community,” said Thiele. “If he is allowed to continue on this path then when a change of regime comes at the FFA (Lowy has already pledged not to stand for re-election in November), they’re going to look at us and say ‘You’re the outcasts’. “We can forget about ever having an A-League team, and forget about being looked upon favourably in terms of having a say over anything in the future. And rightfully so. ”Myself and the other eight NPL clubs will do all we can, whilst we’re not (voting members on the CF board) to have Mark O’Neill removed. “He’s done some good things but if the two biggest states in Australia, Victoria and NSW, can endorse these reforms, then why can’t he? “We’re trying to apply pressure where we can. Members of his board need to stand up and be counted here. This is their job. “If they don’t agree with Mark O’Neill - and I know for a fact that many don’t - they need to come out and say it.” The clubs penned a letter last month demanding that O’Neill fall into line with the vast majority of football stakeholders in supporting the CRWG report, with Thiele adding: “If he’s not willing to do that he should walk for the good of football.” There is also the possibility of O’Neill being ousted at CT EGM, which can be called at short notice by just one board member. “That is also a possibility and it would be fair to say that as clubs it’s an area we might be able to influence,” added Thiele. “The message we want to send to the football community in Australia and also to FIFA is that his stance does not reflect the stance of the vast majority of football clubs in Canberra. So please, if this goes against us don’t hold this against the clubs here. Hold it against Capital Football. “Mark O’Neill stands up there and says he has the support of his members and the clubs I can tell you right now the clubs do not back him. “We want what’s right for football. What’s going on right now is not right for football.” In a letter responding to the clubs’ concerns, which has been seen by The World Game, O’Neill wrote: “For the sake of clarity Capital Football has not rejected the recommendations of the CRWG. “We have with three other Member Federations raised issues for further
consideration. Capital Football has not opposed any resolutions to be put at an
extraordinary general meeting. “The Notices for this meeting have not yet been settled. We
continue to engage in constructive dialogue with other stakeholders. That dialogue is
ongoing and incomplete.” Thiele is concerned by O’Neill’s perceived close relationship with Lowy, believing that may have compromised him. “I think he has now overplayed his cards and has backed himself into a corner,” he added. “I believe he’s been too close to Steven Lowy and has let that tarnish his judgement. And now he finds himself in this position, unfortunately. “Perhaps he is seeking election to the FFA board, I don’t know. “I certainly feel his days on the Capital Football board are numbered.” The World Game approached O’Neill for comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saweston
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 471,
Visits: 0
|
+xIs the FFA Board in discussions with FIFA to change the CRWG proposal, if not why are we waiting for the EGM to be announced S.Lowy doing what he's good at (in fact the only thing he's been successful at during his time as FFA chair)... delay... delay... delay
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x[quote]Historically the PFA and clubs have not seen eye to eye a lot of the time What's more telling is when the Union and Bosses get together to change the system.
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xOne stick is a table. Because if you have one stick, then add a few more and a flat surface you have a table. Therefore one stick is a table. #logic
|
|
|
|
|
aok
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
I hope I am wrong in my assessment, time will tell.
|
|
|
|
|
Blew.2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 753,
Visits: 0
|
Is the FFA Board in discussions with FIFA to change the CRWG proposal, if not why are we waiting for the EGM to be announced
Clear Contact There
|
|
|
|
|
sanchez
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
One stick is a table. Because if you have one stick, then add a few more and a flat surface you have a table. Therefore one stick is a table.
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
How is the A-League clubs having to get the PFA and 2 states on board them having control?
They have all sided together for the present to get rid of Lowy etc.
Historically the PFA and clubs have not seen eye to eye a lot of the time and there's nothing to say the state feds will keep aligned once they get the new congress make-up decided.
It's just fear mongering by someone desperate to cling onto power
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x@ Mark and Waz I agree that the FFA can charge fees for sanctioning the league, but the question is what will the "fee" be if the FFA is effectively controlled by the clubs? I think it will be Sweet FA. My overriding concern is not that there will be a new FFA model, but that the FFA will be controlled by the HAL clubs. Show me a realistic model where the clubs have no chance of outright control and I will give it my full support. However incompetent (or whatever) you think the current board is, the decisions they make do not benefit them financially. Can the same be said with the new proposed model? The A-league clubs don't control the FFA under the CRWG. They only have 28% of the vote. The FFA will still be controlled by the states. The A-league clubs don't have any interest in controlling the game, they merely want control of their IPs and more say in the A-league. Even the A-league wont be controlled by the clubs, it will be controlled by an independent body under the reformed FFA board. If you add in the HAL clubs, PFA and 2 state feds, the clubs get over 50% and control of the appointments to the board. If you add the PFA and the state feds, the HAL clubs have no control at all...
|
|
|
|
|
aok
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x@ Mark and Waz I agree that the FFA can charge fees for sanctioning the league, but the question is what will the "fee" be if the FFA is effectively controlled by the clubs? I think it will be Sweet FA. My overriding concern is not that there will be a new FFA model, but that the FFA will be controlled by the HAL clubs. Show me a realistic model where the clubs have no chance of outright control and I will give it my full support. However incompetent (or whatever) you think the current board is, the decisions they make do not benefit them financially. Can the same be said with the new proposed model? The A-league clubs don't control the FFA under the CRWG. They only have 28% of the vote. The FFA will still be controlled by the states. The A-league clubs don't have any interest in controlling the game, they merely want control of their IPs and more say in the A-league. Even the A-league wont be controlled by the clubs, it will be controlled by an independent body under the reformed FFA board. If you add in the HAL clubs, PFA and 2 state feds, the clubs get over 50% and control of the appointments to the board.
|
|
|
|
|
HeyItsRobbie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI regularly wonder how much damage the failed World Cup bid did to Australian football, and particularly how much longer we will continue to feel the fallout.Sure, the bid screwed the A-league at the time and brought it to its knees, but here we are 8/9 years later and still the negative impacts continue to screw Australian football. For example we have an FFA chairman holding on for dear life to cover up the trail of corruption whilst letting Australian football die.And I expect the fallout to continue for years to come. All sorts of stuff, eg obtaining future govt funding.Thanks Uncle Frank for your complete screw up :) i reckon that video promoting australias world cup bid looks more like a tourism ad that has nothing to do with football what so ever. boy that was an embarrassing video
|
|
|
|
|
Jowel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 143,
Visits: 0
|
I regularly wonder how much damage the failed World Cup bid did to Australian football, and particularly how much longer we will continue to feel the fallout.
Sure, the bid screwed the A-league at the time and brought it to its knees, but here we are 8/9 years later and still the negative impacts continue to screw Australian football. For example we have an FFA chairman holding on for dear life to cover up the trail of corruption whilst letting Australian football die.
And I expect the fallout to continue for years to come. All sorts of stuff, eg obtaining future govt funding.
Thanks Uncle Frank for your complete screw up :)
|
|
|
|
|
crimsoncrusoe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.9K,
Visits: 0
|
@aok
What could they do to make it worse,when they actually want a 2nd div and expansion.On top of that Hal clubs are doing the youth development.How come they are trusted to do that by FFA?
What have FFA got as a plan after 15 years?Pay themselves as much money as they can?Go on as many junkets as they can?
Get more owners to fund the HAL?
More metrics to sustain their salaries?
Cry grassroots crocodile tears as they pass the ball to HAL clubs.
Cut funding to Futsul?
Have a two month youth league?
How could anyone do worse?
|
|
|
|
|
Bocca
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x@ Mark and Waz I agree that the FFA can charge fees for sanctioning the league, but the question is what will the "fee" be if the FFA is effectively controlled by the clubs? I think it will be Sweet FA. My overriding concern is not that there will be a new FFA model, but that the FFA will be controlled by the HAL clubs. Show me a realistic model where the clubs have no chance of outright control and I will give it my full support. However incompetent (or whatever) you think the current board is, the decisions they make do not benefit them financially. Can the same be said with the new proposed model? The A-league clubs don't control the FFA under the CRWG. They only have 28% of the vote. The FFA will still be controlled by the states. The A-league clubs don't have any interest in controlling the game, they merely want control of their IPs and more say in the A-league. Even the A-league wont be controlled by the clubs, it will be controlled by an independent body under the reformed FFA board.
|
|
|
|
|
azzaMVFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xFFA currently burns cash on trips and ridiculous salaries.They have had 15 years to build a better football model and have failed miserably. A ten team professional mens league is all there is really and its funded by the owners not FFA. No youth development. No second or third division. No promotion/ relegation. A piddly womens competition,thats over just when it gets started. Grassroots fees still unacceptable. 15 years and no plan for anything,except hanging onto power because the sky will fall if they lose power. Well according to my metrics the sky has fallen.Whatever these precious grassroots are ,i have no idea.Anyone ?What do we have over the last 15 at grassroots level which is worth fighting for?...its beyond me...What are recreational players going to lose?What are elite youth players going to lose? There was a massive buzz and huge crowds around the HAL when it first started. It's pretty clear the FFA administration failed to capitalise on this and the growth of football. Grassroots were neglected and the FFA Cup, introduced some ten or so years later, was all they've done to try and reconnect 'old soccer' with 'new football'. They've failed miserably and it's time the league become independent to realise its true potential. I could list many other failures of the FFA but I'd be here all night.
|
|
|
|
|
aok
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
@ Mark and Waz
I agree that the FFA can charge fees for sanctioning the league, but the question is what will the "fee" be if the FFA is effectively controlled by the clubs? I think it will be Sweet FA.
My overriding concern is not that there will be a new FFA model, but that the FFA will be controlled by the HAL clubs. Show me a realistic model where the clubs have no chance of outright control and I will give it my full support.
However incompetent (or whatever) you think the current board is, the decisions they make do not benefit them financially. Can the same be said with the new proposed model?
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+xNice analysis of the CRWG report is out by Bonita.How about the wastage of money by FFA.Read this....  Holy fuck, that's a lot of cash. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
@ aok
I think Mark from Croydon answered this as it’s basically an FFA sanctioned competition there will be some fees applicable - not least player registrstion, match officials and disciplinary charges.
The question then is how much is appropriate for the FFA?
I picked 10% as it’s a nice round number, personally I expect it to be less than this (8?) but there will be something there.
And this is a crucial point for a second division too, part of the reason we haven’t got a second division is because the ffa haven’t figured out how to slug that competition with the same level of retention as the HAL has
The rest of the world makes all this work, it’s only Lowy’s model that stuffs things up.
|
|
|
|
|
MarkfromCroydon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
aok, any top level league has to be sanctioned by the FFA.
Same as in other countries, FFA can and will charge a fee for an independent A League to be recognised by them.
|
|
|
|
|
aok
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x@Gazprom,Gyfox55 votes for 9 federations28 votes for 9 HAL clubs7 votes for 1 PFA10 votes for 10 womenX votes for new members down the track.So 9 federations have a majority and can do what they like.PFA. HAL clubs & women is 45 votes.That's 20 members.Still cant pass anything.Assuming federations are getting equal votes( we dont know that). They get 6.111111 each.Why no whole number ,i dont know.Anyway HAL clubs,PFA and 2 states .(12 members)gets 35+ 12.2= 47.2---- cant pass anything.Basicall basing anything on member numbers is meaningless.State federation and territories rule with only 9 members.The vast minority!You can play around with all sorts of combinations,but if no federations flip,noone else can pass anything. as previously posted, 10 women are from 3 'groups' + 1 independent
HAL will nominate 3, PFA will nominate 3 and the Feds will nominate 3
HAL will have 28% (+3% Womens Vote)PFA will have 7% (+3% Womens vote)2 States (55/9 = 12.2%) if prorata'd, [more if Big States organise higher % and are in the bloc]Total = 53.2% plus maybe another 1 or 2 % from Women's Feds
from the CRWG report  In a perfect world we would have a board that is independent of vested interests and whose main focus is looking after all of football in Australia. Unfortunately in the scenario outlined above (which isn't difficult to imagine) we would effectively have lackeys of the following - City Group, Bakries, Martin Lee, Charlsworth, Van der Pol, et al, controlling Australian Football. - All existing HAL clubs will receive a larger annual payment and have all IP assigned back to them (less money for FFA)
- PFA will be looked after by having the salary cap increase by 25% or more
- The State Feds that are onside will receive more funding through a rejigged distribution of funds.
- Funding for the national teams will basically dwindle to 1990's levels. As a result, the new FFA will decide that the current $14 or so that they receive from reg fees should increase to $280 or more to cover the cost of running the national teams. I don't think the HAL club owners could give a flying f#ck about the development of Aussie football.
Even with that, the MFs and Independent WC has 59% of the vote. There will be a redistribution of resources but I don't think it will be as dire as you put it. 1. The PFA will want to expand their base 2. State Feds will all fight for funding 3. Increasing SIGs will dilute power among the 4 groups now. True, it might not be as dire as I think but nothing the clubs have done to date gives me any confidence that we will see a better run game in Australia.
|
|
|
|
|
aok
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x@AOK - I don't think the HAL club owners could give a flying f#ck about the development of Aussie football.
So where would the HAL player come from
The requirements are 10 clubs with 19 local payers per club - 190 from across Australia. All HAL clubs (with the exception of Brisbane) already extort families with fees for their "elite academies" These same clubs which will effectively control the new board will probably just jack up their fees for their academies. Each club just needs to find 50 suckers per age group and promote a couple of average players per season to fill the gap.
|
|
|
|
|
aok
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x“The following will happen over time;All existing HAL clubs will receive a larger annual payment and have all IP assigned back to them (less money for FFA)”Damn right they will. But that’s not an example of “vested interests” that’s an example of fairness. The HAL clubs should retain 100% of revenues their competition raises minus a small percentage that goes towards the ffa (say 10% which would give the FFA $8m per year). All the IP should reside with the respective clubs. On what crazy-ass planet shouldn’t it? Each club can then create its own revenue stream from merchandise The salary cap? Meh, it can go as far as I’m concerned. Besides, that will be a question for the new independent A League and PFA to decide, not a question for the new FFA Board. Funding for the national teams is a concern but the HAL doesn’t exist to fund the national team. It just doesn’t. The FFA can be well funded in a new model - $8m from the HAL, $4m from FIFA, $10m (estimated) from player registrations, $1m per game for WC qualifiers, plus sponsorship plus the sale of home games to states. There’s every reason to think they’ll still have a budget of $25m-$30m per year ... that’s more than enough to fund national teams isn’t it? Your initial revenue model for the new FFA already has an $8m hole in it. The new FFA won't receive a penny from the HAL. As you said yourself, the HAL doesn't exist to fund the FFA, so why would the clubs give the board anything? The FFA board will simply raise the rego fees to fund the shortfall.
|
|
|
|
|
aok
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xFFA currently burns cash on trips and ridiculous salaries.They have had 15 years to build a better football model and have failed miserably. A ten team professional mens league is all there is really and its funded by the owners not FFA. No youth development. No second or third division. No promotion/ relegation. A piddly womens competition,thats over just when it gets started. Grassroots fees still unacceptable. 15 years and no plan for anything,except hanging onto power because the sky will fall if they lose power. Well according to my metrics the sky has fallen.Whatever these precious grassroots are ,i have no idea.Anyone ?What do we have over the last 15 at grassroots level which is worth fighting for?...its beyond me...What are recreational players going to lose?What are elite youth players going to lose? Why do you think that we will get any of those with a new board controlled by the HAL clubs?
|
|
|
|
|
someguyjc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThe FFA can be well funded in a new model - $8m from the HAL, $4m from FIFA, $10m (estimated) from player registrations, $1m per game for WC qualifiers, plus sponsorship plus the sale of home games to states. There’s every reason to think they’ll still have a budget of $25m-$30m per year ... that’s more than enough to fund national teams isn’t it? Not to mention the FFA won't be spending any resources to actually run the HAL any more. It has been reported that the HAL department of the FFA is grossly over staffed (not to mention the regular spend on 'consultants'). That's a spend they would no longer be required when the HAL is made independent. That would also result in a downsize in required office space further reducing resources required. An independent HAL could (would) be run much much leaner. It's a ten team stand alone league after all. Not that complicated. Any independent HAL (or future second div for that matter) would obviously be paying some sort of fee to the FFA. That is just plain common sense. The FFA won't be anywhere near out of pocket as some have predicted. Any organisation should not be relying on a revenue stream that high anyway. They should be actively lobbying investors and government for funding. Current FFA just don't like to do any actual work. Government got burnt $ millions with the failed WC bid that went to Qatar. Why would they want to waste more funds on football. So by that reasoning, because the current FFA screwed up the WC bid they can never ask for money ever again? Does it make it harder? Probably. This is why active lobbying is important. The FFA need to be constantly lobbying government and potential investors. They are not going to win them all over, but if they will win some. Being reliant on a single revenue stream is just not sustainable for both the FFA and the HAL. Exploring other funding options is vital and a never ending process. The current FFA have been lazy and don't like to do any hard work. Hopefully change is not too far away.
|
|
|
|
|
crimsoncrusoe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.9K,
Visits: 0
|
FFA currently burns cash on trips and ridiculous salaries.They have had 15 years to build a better football model and have failed miserably.
A ten team professional mens league is all there is really and its funded by the owners not FFA.
No youth development.
No second or third division.
No promotion/ relegation.
A piddly womens competition,thats over just when it gets started.
Grassroots fees still unacceptable.
15 years and no plan for anything,except hanging onto power because the sky will fall if they lose power.
Well according to my metrics the sky has fallen.Whatever these precious grassroots are ,i have no idea.Anyone ?What do we have over the last 15 at grassroots level which is worth fighting for?...its beyond me...What are recreational players going to lose?What are elite youth players going to lose?
|
|
|
|
|
patjennings
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThe FFA can be well funded in a new model - $8m from the HAL, $4m from FIFA, $10m (estimated) from player registrations, $1m per game for WC qualifiers, plus sponsorship plus the sale of home games to states. There’s every reason to think they’ll still have a budget of $25m-$30m per year ... that’s more than enough to fund national teams isn’t it? Not to mention the FFA won't be spending any resources to actually run the HAL any more. It has been reported that the HAL department of the FFA is grossly over staffed (not to mention the regular spend on 'consultants'). That's a spend they would no longer be required when the HAL is made independent. That would also result in a downsize in required office space further reducing resources required. An independent HAL could (would) be run much much leaner. It's a ten team stand alone league after all. Not that complicated. Any independent HAL (or future second div for that matter) would obviously be paying some sort of fee to the FFA. That is just plain common sense. The FFA won't be anywhere near out of pocket as some have predicted. Any organisation should not be relying on a revenue stream that high anyway. They should be actively lobbying investors and government for funding. Current FFA just don't like to do any actual work. Government got burnt $ millions with the failed WC bid that went to Qatar. Why would they want to waste more funds on football. The NSW state government pays as much each year to keep the NRL Grand Final in Sydney. It was played there each year before the payments started and it is still being paid. In other words they are paying for something that that they previously got for nothing. At least with the WC bid there was the potential of a substantial NEW upside.
|
|
|
|
nomates
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThe FFA can be well funded in a new model - $8m from the HAL, $4m from FIFA, $10m (estimated) from player registrations, $1m per game for WC qualifiers, plus sponsorship plus the sale of home games to states. There’s every reason to think they’ll still have a budget of $25m-$30m per year ... that’s more than enough to fund national teams isn’t it? Not to mention the FFA won't be spending any resources to actually run the HAL any more. It has been reported that the HAL department of the FFA is grossly over staffed (not to mention the regular spend on 'consultants'). That's a spend they would no longer be required when the HAL is made independent. That would also result in a downsize in required office space further reducing resources required. An independent HAL could (would) be run much much leaner. It's a ten team stand alone league after all. Not that complicated. Any independent HAL (or future second div for that matter) would obviously be paying some sort of fee to the FFA. That is just plain common sense. The FFA won't be anywhere near out of pocket as some have predicted. Any organisation should not be relying on a revenue stream that high anyway. They should be actively lobbying investors and government for funding. Current FFA just don't like to do any actual work. Government got burnt $ millions with the failed WC bid that went to Qatar. Why would they want to waste more funds on football.
Wellington Phoenix FC
|
|
|
|
|
someguyjc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe FFA can be well funded in a new model - $8m from the HAL, $4m from FIFA, $10m (estimated) from player registrations, $1m per game for WC qualifiers, plus sponsorship plus the sale of home games to states. There’s every reason to think they’ll still have a budget of $25m-$30m per year ... that’s more than enough to fund national teams isn’t it? Not to mention the FFA won't be spending any resources to actually run the HAL any more. It has been reported that the HAL department of the FFA is grossly over staffed (not to mention the regular spend on 'consultants'). That's a spend they would no longer be required when the HAL is made independent. That would also result in a downsize in required office space further reducing resources required. An independent HAL could (would) be run much much leaner. It's a ten team stand alone league after all. Not that complicated. Any independent HAL (or future second div for that matter) would obviously be paying some sort of fee to the FFA. That is just plain common sense. The FFA won't be anywhere near out of pocket as some have predicted. Any organisation should not be relying on a revenue stream that high anyway. They should be actively lobbying investors and government for funding. Current FFA just don't like to do any actual work.
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x@Gazprom,Gyfox55 votes for 9 federations28 votes for 9 HAL clubs7 votes for 1 PFA10 votes for 10 womenX votes for new members down the track.So 9 federations have a majority and can do what they like.PFA. HAL clubs & women is 45 votes.That's 20 members.Still cant pass anything.Assuming federations are getting equal votes( we dont know that). They get 6.111111 each.Why no whole number ,i dont know.Anyway HAL clubs,PFA and 2 states .(12 members)gets 35+ 12.2= 47.2---- cant pass anything.Basicall basing anything on member numbers is meaningless.State federation and territories rule with only 9 members.The vast minority!You can play around with all sorts of combinations,but if no federations flip,noone else can pass anything. as previously posted, 10 women are from 3 'groups' + 1 independent
HAL will nominate 3, PFA will nominate 3 and the Feds will nominate 3
HAL will have 28% (+3% Womens Vote)PFA will have 7% (+3% Womens vote)2 States (55/9 = 12.2%) if prorata'd, [more if Big States organise higher % and are in the bloc]Total = 53.2% plus maybe another 1 or 2 % from Women's Feds
from the CRWG report In a perfect world we would have a board that is independent of vested interests and whose main focus is looking after all of football in Australia. Unfortunately in the scenario outlined above (which isn't difficult to imagine) we would effectively have lackeys of the following - City Group, Bakries, Martin Lee, Charlsworth, Van der Pol, et al, controlling Australian Football. - All existing HAL clubs will receive a larger annual payment and have all IP assigned back to them (less money for FFA)
- PFA will be looked after by having the salary cap increase by 25% or more
- The State Feds that are onside will receive more funding through a rejigged distribution of funds.
- Funding for the national teams will basically dwindle to 1990's levels. As a result, the new FFA will decide that the current $14 or so that they receive from reg fees should increase to $280 or more to cover the cost of running the national teams. I don't think the HAL club owners could give a flying f#ck about the development of Aussie football.
Even with that, the MFs and Independent WC has 59% of the vote. There will be a redistribution of resources but I don't think it will be as dire as you put it. 1. The PFA will want to expand their base 2. State Feds will all fight for funding 3. Increasing SIGs will dilute power among the 4 groups now.
|
|
|
|
|
Blew.2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 753,
Visits: 0
|
@AOK - I don't think the HAL club owners could give a flying f#ck about the development of Aussie football.
So where would the HAL player come from
Clear Contact There
|
|
|
|