|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
I thought Wollongong had serious money behind them with the WIN people
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derider
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMy view is either nix out or double down. If nix stay then we gotta push for another NZ team. Nix and CCM will be wollowing near the bottom of the second tier in a short period of time. They are more likely to fold before that happens now that there's no administrative body to bail them out during the tough times. There will be absolutely no incentive to invest in those teams. Especially CCM, who look completely unviable under this model. In fact, regional teams are even less viable now than under the FFA. It's very difficult to see any regional team ever making any money for their owners. Newcastle Knights make money. The rugby league team? I was talking about football, which has nowhere near the level of entrenched mainstream cultural support as NRL. And even in NRL, a mid-sized city like Wollongong was ajudged not big enough to have a team of its own, so I'm not sure we should follow the NRL's regional model. It's basically the same as the FFA model, except the FFA will no longer be around to provide a lifeline to struggling clubs. The fear is that we will see the demise of all but a few top Sydney and Melbourne clubs, which will bring the viability of a pro league in Oz into question once again. Unless there really are all these magical benevolent investors waiting in the wings to plow serious money into the league. I suppose anything is possible, though I wouldn't be putting as much faith in the generosity of club owners as you guys seem to be. Your premise makes absolutely no sense....on the one hand you say the FFA will not be around to bail out a struggling club.....however where do you think the FFA got their funds from to bail out those clubs in the past ? They got them from all the money they got from the A-League clubs . Now those clubs themselves will now be getting that money instead of the FFA. The FFA probably also used Foxtel money . I can only assume this will be ongoing in the short term . So the FFA did not use money it generated to help anyone ...they simply gave back money the A-League had generated and they kept. I would also contend that now that clubs can control their own intellectual property they will be more inclined to invest money to keep their clubs going and also be more able to entice extra investors if needed. I see this whole thing making investment in this league far more attractive . It is common sense ...it is the same as in the normal business world .....already rich people do not invest in someone else's franchise ...they are used to running things themselves and keeping their profits (and/or losses) . It really doesn't matter where the money came from. The fact was that FFA was willing and able to subsidise multiple struggling teams that would have folded without assistance. I doubt the club owners by themselves will show such willingness to keep bailing out CCM or BR. This is the danger of unfettered capitalism. There has to be a central welfare system or safety net to help the less fortunate in times of need. I just don't see one here, which could be dangerous if this sudden influx of investment you guys are anticipating doesn't eventuate. The league will not be attractive to investors unless it shows that it can be profitable. No one will want to buy in with such horrendously low viewing figures and declining attendances. Clubs won't be able to count on the TV money for much longer either, so I just don't where all this cash will come from. You seem to believe that it was the evil FFA keeping money out of football and that now they're gone we'll magically be awash with funds, but that just sounds silly to me. Given the number of new bids each time there is a licence to give out I think there will be no central fund and it will be Darwin in action. That would be a terrible look though. Multiple teams going belly up would make the league a joke. Certainly wouldn't encourage further investment. It would be similar to NSL in the years before its demise, when clubs were folding with alarming regularity. I just don't think Australian football can afford Darwin right now. But whatever. Clearly everyone is happy that we've wrested control from Lowy and handed the game on a platter to some other fatcat businessmen, who will surely do the right thing.
|
|
|
|
|
A.Haak
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xCanberra is the capital city and a very large town which should be able to support a pro football team. There's something irrevocably broken in our sporting culture when cities of 300-500,000 people are considered too small to host a football team. Wellington has about 450,000 people. Yeah, so does Newcastle with Central Coast even smaller, but in general, the powers that be are extremely hesitant to expand to any region with less than a million people. The FFA even plainly stated it at one point. I suppose they were stung by the Gold Coast and Townsville debacles. All the football codes in Australia are very metropolis-centric. Very little room for even relatively large 'regional' cities like Wollongong in modern pro sports. The metrics don't stack up, though I don't understand why. Surely any population centre of over 300,000 is more than large enough to have its own professional team in any sport. I mean, Wollongong is larger than Stoke and Bournemouth combined! Why is the system so broken that such big areas are ignored by pro sports in this country? It frustrates me. Easy - no one wants to invest in a team where the population base is so small because it means less people watching their games. I agree, though, there should be places in the league for bigger teams and smaller ones.
|
|
|
|
|
T1m
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 135,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMy view is either nix out or double down. If nix stay then we gotta push for another NZ team. Nix and CCM will be wollowing near the bottom of the second tier in a short period of time. They are more likely to fold before that happens now that there's no administrative body to bail them out during the tough times. There will be absolutely no incentive to invest in those teams. Especially CCM, who look completely unviable under this model. In fact, regional teams are even less viable now than under the FFA. It's very difficult to see any regional team ever making any money for their owners. Newcastle Knights make money. The rugby league team? I was talking about football, which has nowhere near the level of entrenched mainstream cultural support as NRL. And even in NRL, a mid-sized city like Wollongong was ajudged not big enough to have a team of its own, so I'm not sure we should follow the NRL's regional model. It's basically the same as the FFA model, except the FFA will no longer be around to provide a lifeline to struggling clubs. The fear is that we will see the demise of all but a few top Sydney and Melbourne clubs, which will bring the viability of a pro league in Oz into question once again. Unless there really are all these magical benevolent investors waiting in the wings to plow serious money into the league. I suppose anything is possible, though I wouldn't be putting as much faith in the generosity of club owners as you guys seem to be. Your premise makes absolutely no sense....on the one hand you say the FFA will not be around to bail out a struggling club.....however where do you think the FFA got their funds from to bail out those clubs in the past ? They got them from all the money they got from the A-League clubs . Now those clubs themselves will now be getting that money instead of the FFA. The FFA probably also used Foxtel money . I can only assume this will be ongoing in the short term . So the FFA did not use money it generated to help anyone ...they simply gave back money the A-League had generated and they kept. I would also contend that now that clubs can control their own intellectual property they will be more inclined to invest money to keep their clubs going and also be more able to entice extra investors if needed. I see this whole thing making investment in this league far more attractive . It is common sense ...it is the same as in the normal business world .....already rich people do not invest in someone else's franchise ...they are used to running things themselves and keeping their profits (and/or losses) . It really doesn't matter where the money came from. The fact was that FFA was willing and able to subsidise multiple struggling teams that would have folded without assistance. I doubt the club owners will show such willingness to keep bailing out CCM or BR. This is the danger of unfettered capitalism. There has to be a welfare system or safety net. I just don't see one here, which could be dangerous if this sudden investment you guys anticipate doesn't eventuate. The league will not be attractive to investors unless it shows that it can be profitable. No one will want to buy in with such horrendously low viewing figures and declining attendances. They won't be able to count on the TV money for much longer either. You seem to believe that it was the evil FFA keeping money out of football and that now they're gone we'll magically be awash with funds, but that just sounds silly to me. Its just gonna be a learning curve for the new commission if a club goes belly up. That's why we need to avoid the Canberra's and Wollongong's. Except if there was no team in Wellington, Canberra or Wollongong the metrics for Canberra and probably Wollongong would be better than Wellingtons. Having a stable owner is irrelevant when they don't have a team. When they do, an owner could buy in providing even more stability than Wellington.
|
|
|
|
|
A.Haak
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMy view is either nix out or double down. If nix stay then we gotta push for another NZ team. Nix and CCM will be wollowing near the bottom of the second tier in a short period of time. They are more likely to fold before that happens now that there's no administrative body to bail them out during the tough times. There will be absolutely no incentive to invest in those teams. Especially CCM, who look completely unviable under this model. In fact, regional teams are even less viable now than under the FFA. It's very difficult to see any regional team ever making any money for their owners. Newcastle Knights make money. The rugby league team? I was talking about football, which has nowhere near the level of entrenched mainstream cultural support as NRL. And even in NRL, a mid-sized city like Wollongong was ajudged not big enough to have a team of its own, so I'm not sure we should follow the NRL's regional model. It's basically the same as the FFA model, except the FFA will no longer be around to provide a lifeline to struggling clubs. The fear is that we will see the demise of all but a few top Sydney and Melbourne clubs, which will bring the viability of a pro league in Oz into question once again. Unless there really are all these magical benevolent investors waiting in the wings to plow serious money into the league. I suppose anything is possible, though I wouldn't be putting as much faith in the generosity of club owners as you guys seem to be. Your premise makes absolutely no sense....on the one hand you say the FFA will not be around to bail out a struggling club.....however where do you think the FFA got their funds from to bail out those clubs in the past ? They got them from all the money they got from the A-League clubs . Now those clubs themselves will now be getting that money instead of the FFA. The FFA probably also used Foxtel money . I can only assume this will be ongoing in the short term . So the FFA did not use money it generated to help anyone ...they simply gave back money the A-League had generated and they kept. I would also contend that now that clubs can control their own intellectual property they will be more inclined to invest money to keep their clubs going and also be more able to entice extra investors if needed. I see this whole thing making investment in this league far more attractive . It is common sense ...it is the same as in the normal business world .....already rich people do not invest in someone else's franchise ...they are used to running things themselves and keeping their profits (and/or losses) . It really doesn't matter where the money came from. The fact was that FFA was willing and able to subsidise multiple struggling teams that would have folded without assistance. I doubt the club owners will show such willingness to keep bailing out CCM or BR. This is the danger of unfettered capitalism. There has to be a welfare system or safety net. I just don't see one here, which could be dangerous if this sudden investment you guys anticipate doesn't eventuate. The league will not be attractive to investors unless it shows that it can be profitable. No one will want to buy in with such horrendously low viewing figures and declining attendances. They won't be able to count on the TV money for much longer either. You seem to believe that it was the evil FFA keeping money out of football and that now they're gone we'll magically be awash with funds, but that just sounds silly to me. Its just gonna be a learning curve for the new commission if a club goes belly up. That's why we need to avoid the Canberra's and Wollongong's. Except if there was no team in Wellington, Canberra or Wollongong the metrics for Canberra and probably Wollongong would be better than Wellingtons. Having a stable owner is irrelevant when they don't have a team. When they do, an owner could buy in providing even more stability than Wellington. u wot
|
|
|
|
nomates
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMy view is either nix out or double down. If nix stay then we gotta push for another NZ team. Nix and CCM will be wollowing near the bottom of the second tier in a short period of time. They are more likely to fold before that happens now that there's no administrative body to bail them out during the tough times. There will be absolutely no incentive to invest in those teams. Especially CCM, who look completely unviable under this model. In fact, regional teams are even less viable now than under the FFA. It's very difficult to see any regional team ever making any money for their owners. Newcastle Knights make money. The rugby league team? I was talking about football, which has nowhere near the level of entrenched mainstream cultural support as NRL. And even in NRL, a mid-sized city like Wollongong was ajudged not big enough to have a team of its own, so I'm not sure we should follow the NRL's regional model. It's basically the same as the FFA model, except the FFA will no longer be around to provide a lifeline to struggling clubs. The fear is that we will see the demise of all but a few top Sydney and Melbourne clubs, which will bring the viability of a pro league in Oz into question once again. Unless there really are all these magical benevolent investors waiting in the wings to plow serious money into the league. I suppose anything is possible, though I wouldn't be putting as much faith in the generosity of club owners as you guys seem to be. Your premise makes absolutely no sense....on the one hand you say the FFA will not be around to bail out a struggling club.....however where do you think the FFA got their funds from to bail out those clubs in the past ? They got them from all the money they got from the A-League clubs . Now those clubs themselves will now be getting that money instead of the FFA. The FFA probably also used Foxtel money . I can only assume this will be ongoing in the short term . So the FFA did not use money it generated to help anyone ...they simply gave back money the A-League had generated and they kept. I would also contend that now that clubs can control their own intellectual property they will be more inclined to invest money to keep their clubs going and also be more able to entice extra investors if needed. I see this whole thing making investment in this league far more attractive . It is common sense ...it is the same as in the normal business world .....already rich people do not invest in someone else's franchise ...they are used to running things themselves and keeping their profits (and/or losses) . It really doesn't matter where the money came from. The fact was that FFA was willing and able to subsidise multiple struggling teams that would have folded without assistance. I doubt the club owners will show such willingness to keep bailing out CCM or BR. This is the danger of unfettered capitalism. There has to be a welfare system or safety net. I just don't see one here, which could be dangerous if this sudden investment you guys anticipate doesn't eventuate. The league will not be attractive to investors unless it shows that it can be profitable. No one will want to buy in with such horrendously low viewing figures and declining attendances. They won't be able to count on the TV money for much longer either. You seem to believe that it was the evil FFA keeping money out of football and that now they're gone we'll magically be awash with funds, but that just sounds silly to me. Its just gonna be a learning curve for the new commission if a club goes belly up. That's why we need to avoid the Canberra's and Wollongong's. Except if there was no team in Wellington, Canberra or Wollongong the metrics for Canberra and probably Wollongong would be better than Wellingtons. Having a stable owner is irrelevant when they don't have a team. When they do, an owner could buy in providing even more stability than Wellington. u wot +1
Wellington Phoenix FC
|
|
|
|
|
Melbcityguy
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
I had a look at bigfooty there are a bit worried if we get the a league up and running again the codewars are back on
|
|
|
|
nomates
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI had a look at bigfooty there are a bit worried if we get the a league up and running again the codewars are back on 1)AFL 2)NRL 3)Cricket 4)ARU 5)HAL We are a long way off topping anyone. Until we actual have a better TV deal then any of the above then they can worry about football. Oh and having 18 teams.
Wellington Phoenix FC
|
|
|
|
|
Derider
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xCanberra is the capital city and a very large town which should be able to support a pro football team. There's something irrevocably broken in our sporting culture when cities of 300-500,000 people are considered too small to host a football team. Wellington has about 450,000 people. Yeah, so does Newcastle with Central Coast even smaller, but in general, the powers that be are extremely hesitant to expand to any region with less than a million people. The FFA even plainly stated it at one point. I suppose they were stung by the Gold Coast and Townsville debacles. All the football codes in Australia are very metropolis-centric. Very little room for even relatively large 'regional' cities like Wollongong in modern pro sports. The metrics don't stack up, though I don't understand why. Surely any population centre of over 300,000 is more than large enough to have its own professional team in any sport. I mean, Wollongong is larger than Stoke and Bournemouth combined! Why is the system so broken that such big areas are ignored by pro sports in this country? It frustrates me. Wollongong has a nice stadium but no one wants to invest, then you have Tassie that has no stadium and people want to invest. Where do you take your chances? You would go with the money. And what a beautiful stadium it is. Possibly the only stadium with an ocean view in Australia. A beach stadium! That sea breeze really bites you in the arse during the winter night fixtures though. I'm pretty sure Wollongong has some people willing to invest, but there's no single white knight willing to commit. Gordon certainly doesn't want the hassle or the responsibility, and there's no one else around with the necessary funds. Which is a shame. I enjoyed following the Wolves in the NSL. It was a big deal for the city when they won their back to back championships at the turn of the millennium. They even packed out Win stadium for a few key games. Good times. I would love to see them in the a-league.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanM
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xCanberra is the capital city and a very large town which should be able to support a pro football team. There's something irrevocably broken in our sporting culture when cities of 300-500,000 people are considered too small to host a football team. Wellington has about 450,000 people. Yeah, so does Newcastle with Central Coast even smaller, but in general, the powers that be are extremely hesitant to expand to any region with less than a million people. The FFA even plainly stated it at one point. I suppose they were stung by the Gold Coast and Townsville debacles. All the football codes in Australia are very metropolis-centric. Very little room for even relatively large 'regional' cities like Wollongong in modern pro sports. The metrics don't stack up, though I don't understand why. Surely any population centre of over 300,000 is more than large enough to have its own professional team in any sport. I mean, Wollongong is larger than Stoke and Bournemouth combined! Why is the system so broken that such big areas are ignored by pro sports in this country? It frustrates me. Wollongong has a nice stadium but no one wants to invest, then you have Tassie that has no stadium and people want to invest. Where do you take your chances? You would go with the money. And what a beautiful stadium it is. Possibly the only stadium with an ocean view in Australia. A beach stadium! That sea breeze really bites you in the arse during the winter night fixtures though. I'm pretty sure Wollongong has some people willing to invest, but there's no single white knight willing to commit. Gordon certainly doesn't want the hassle or the responsibility, and there's no one else around with the necessary funds. Which is a shame. I enjoyed following the Wolves in the NSL. It was a big deal for the city when they won their back to back championships at the turn of the millennium. They even packed out Win stadium for a few key games. Good times. I would love to see them in the a-league. Gosford...
|
|
|
|
|
Melbcityguy
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI had a look at bigfooty there are a bit worried if we get the a league up and running again the codewars are back on 1)AFL 2)NRL 3)Cricket 4)ARU 5)HAL We are a long way off topping anyone. Until we actual have a better TV deal then any of the above then they can worry about football. Oh and having 18 teams. fair enough
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI had a look at bigfooty there are a bit worried if we get the a league up and running again the codewars are back on 1)AFL 2)NRL 3)Cricket 4)ARU 5)HAL We are a long way off topping anyone. Until we actual have a better TV deal then any of the above then they can worry about football. Oh and having 18 teams. What is it with you and rugby.... Rugby in Australia is a tad above hockey status ... and cricket sits at the top despite what the AFL may think...
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
i know people bang on about it, but imo we will really start to pick up momentum once pro/rel is in play. that is what they are probably most afraid of. there is no pro sport in aus that could match connecting the sport from grass roots to professional like that. there is no pro sport where coming last means something and the games are highly entertaining. with a full pyramid - it means your local suburban club can aspire to reach the top. that enormity of that cannot be understated.
|
|
|
|
|
Melbcityguy
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+xi know people bang on about it, but imo we will really start to pick up momentum once pro/rel is in play. that is what they are probably most afraid of. there is no pro sport in aus that could match connecting the sport from grass roots to professional like that. there is no pro sport where coming last means something and the games are highly entertaining. with a full pyramid - it means your local suburban club can aspire to reach the top. that enormity of that cannot be understated. to be fair we have the ffa cup as well which my local club could make
|
|
|
|
|
Derider
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI had a look at bigfooty there are a bit worried if we get the a league up and running again the codewars are back on 1)AFL 2)NRL 3)Cricket 4)ARU 5)HAL We are a long way off topping anyone. Until we actual have a better TV deal then any of the above then they can worry about football. Oh and having 18 teams. cricket sits at the top despite what the AFL may think... No way. AFL and NRL draw on consistently passionate diehard support that cricket can only dream of. Cricket is popular, but is most definitely third in Australia. It doesn't inspire anywhere near the same passions or receive the same level of coverage as the leading football codes.
|
|
|
|
|
Feed_The_Brox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI thought Wollongong had serious money behind them with the WIN people I heard they only offered a $5 million licence fee for a HAL licence. at least $10 million less than what others were offering. Thats why they were eliminated from contention early. +xand cricket sits at the top despite what the AFL may think... the TV rights deal would suggest you are wrong. AFL = just over $2.5 billion over 6 years. cricket = just under $1.2 billion over 6 years. Just for the sake of comparison: NRL = $1.8 billion over 5 years Super Rugby = $285 million over 5 years (ends next year and rumoured to want $80 million per year). HAL = $346 million over 6 years.
|
|
|
|
nomates
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI had a look at bigfooty there are a bit worried if we get the a league up and running again the codewars are back on 1)AFL 2)NRL 3)Cricket 4)ARU 5)HAL We are a long way off topping anyone. Until we actual have a better TV deal then any of the above then they can worry about football. Oh and having 18 teams. What is it with you and rugby.... Rugby in Australia is a tad above hockey status ... and cricket sits at the top despite what the AFL may think... $300mil spilt between 5 clubs over 5 years is/was superior to what HAL gets now. And Rugby's next TV deal will put a stamp on that HAL is below them.
Wellington Phoenix FC
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI thought Wollongong had serious money behind them with the WIN people I heard they only offered a $5 million licence fee for a HAL licence. at least $10 million less than what others were offering. Thats why they were eliminated from contention early. +xand cricket sits at the top despite what the AFL may think... the TV rights deal would suggest you are wrong. AFL = just over $2.5 billion over 6 years. cricket = just under $1.2 billion over 6 years. Just for the sake of comparison: NRL = $1.8 billion over 5 years Super Rugby = $285 million over 5 years (ends next year and rumoured to want $80 million per year). HAL = $346 million over 6 years. I'm not sure why the AFL gets so much when the NRL gets the most ratings
|
|
|
|
|
Derider
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI thought Wollongong had serious money behind them with the WIN people I heard they only offered a $5 million licence fee for a HAL licence. at least $10 million less than what others were offering. Thats why they were eliminated from contention early. +xand cricket sits at the top despite what the AFL may think... the TV rights deal would suggest you are wrong. AFL = just over $2.5 billion over 6 years. cricket = just under $1.2 billion over 6 years. Just for the sake of comparison: NRL = $1.8 billion over 5 years Super Rugby = $285 million over 5 years (ends next year and rumoured to want $80 million per year). HAL = $346 million over 6 years. I'm not sure why the AFL gets so much when the NRL gets the most ratings NRL only gets ratings in NSW and QLD, while AFL does well everywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
superpom
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 164,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xCanberra is the capital city and a very large town which should be able to support a pro football team. There's something irrevocably broken in our sporting culture when cities of 300-500,000 people are considered too small to host a football team. Wellington has about 450,000 people. Yeah, so does Newcastle with Central Coast even smaller, but in general, the powers that be are extremely hesitant to expand to any region with less than a million people. The FFA even plainly stated it at one point. I suppose they were stung by the Gold Coast and Townsville debacles. All the football codes in Australia are very metropolis-centric. Very little room for even relatively large 'regional' cities like Wollongong in modern pro sports. The metrics don't stack up, though I don't understand why. Surely any population centre of over 300,000 is more than large enough to have its own professional team in any sport. I mean, Wollongong is larger than Stoke and Bournemouth combined! Why is the system so broken that such big areas are ignored by pro sports in this country? It frustrates me. Wollongong has a nice stadium but no one wants to invest, then you have Tassie that has no stadium and people want to invest. Where do you take your chances? You would go with the money. And what a beautiful stadium it is. Possibly the only stadium with an ocean view in Australia. A beach stadium! That sea breeze really bites you in the arse during the winter night fixtures though. I'm pretty sure Wollongong has some people willing to invest, but there's no single white knight willing to commit. Gordon certainly doesn't want the hassle or the responsibility, and there's no one else around with the necessary funds. Which is a shame. I enjoyed following the Wolves in the NSL. It was a big deal for the city when they won their back to back championships at the turn of the millennium. They even packed out Win stadium for a few key games. Good times. I would love to see them in the a-league. Gosford... Gosford doesn't have a beach view, it has a view of Brisbane Water......according to Wiki (yes, I know...Wiki...) Brisbane Water is a wave-dominated barrier estuary located in the Central Coast region. But still...it's a beautiful view, certainly one of the better stadium views in Oz.
|
|
|
|
|
aufc_ole
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xi know people bang on about it, but imo we will really start to pick up momentum once pro/rel is in play. that is what they are probably most afraid of. there is no pro sport in aus that could match connecting the sport from grass roots to professional like that. there is no pro sport where coming last means something and the games are highly entertaining. with a full pyramid - it means your local suburban club can aspire to reach the top. that enormity of that cannot be understated. This so much. Huge point of difference right there.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI thought Wollongong had serious money behind them with the WIN people I heard they only offered a $5 million licence fee for a HAL licence. at least $10 million less than what others were offering. Thats why they were eliminated from contention early. +xand cricket sits at the top despite what the AFL may think... the TV rights deal would suggest you are wrong. AFL = just over $2.5 billion over 6 years. cricket = just under $1.2 billion over 6 years. Just for the sake of comparison: NRL = $1.8 billion over 5 years Super Rugby = $285 million over 5 years (ends next year and rumoured to want $80 million per year). HAL = $346 million over 6 years. I'm not sure why the AFL gets so much when the NRL gets the most ratings NRL only gets ratings in NSW and QLD, while AFL does well everywhere. AFL gets low ratings in Sydney. It's a niche sport there.
|
|
|
|
|
Derider
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xI thought Wollongong had serious money behind them with the WIN people I heard they only offered a $5 million licence fee for a HAL licence. at least $10 million less than what others were offering. Thats why they were eliminated from contention early. +xand cricket sits at the top despite what the AFL may think... the TV rights deal would suggest you are wrong. AFL = just over $2.5 billion over 6 years. cricket = just under $1.2 billion over 6 years. Just for the sake of comparison: NRL = $1.8 billion over 5 years Super Rugby = $285 million over 5 years (ends next year and rumoured to want $80 million per year). HAL = $346 million over 6 years. I'm not sure why the AFL gets so much when the NRL gets the most ratings NRL only gets ratings in NSW and QLD, while AFL does well everywhere. AFL gets low ratings in Sydney. It's a niche sport there. Sydney ratings are still decent, especially for Swans games. Far higher than NRL gets outside of NSW/QLD.
|
|
|
|
|
Barca4Life
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI had a look at bigfooty there are a bit worried if we get the a league up and running again the codewars are back on The fear mongering from AFL in general about our sport is baffling considering how far ahead they they from us and even the NRL.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI had a look at bigfooty there are a bit worried if we get the a league up and running again the codewars are back on The fear mongering from AFL in general about our sport is baffling considering how far ahead they they from us and even the NRL. They don't want to be one sport getting along with others. They want it all.
|
|
|
|
|
jaymz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMy view is either nix out or double down. If nix stay then we gotta push for another NZ team. Nix and CCM will be wollowing near the bottom of the second tier in a short period of time. They are more likely to fold before that happens now that there's no administrative body to bail them out during the tough times. There will be absolutely no incentive to invest in those teams. Especially CCM, who look completely unviable under this model. In fact, regional teams are even less viable now than under the FFA. It's very difficult to see any regional team ever making any money for their owners. Newcastle Knights make money. The rugby league team? I was talking about football, which has nowhere near the level of entrenched mainstream cultural support as NRL. And even in NRL, a mid-sized city like Wollongong was ajudged not big enough to have a team of its own, so I'm not sure we should follow the NRL's regional model. It's basically the same as the FFA model, except the FFA will no longer be around to provide a lifeline to struggling clubs. The fear is that we will see the demise of all but a few top Sydney and Melbourne clubs, which will bring the viability of a pro league in Oz into question once again. Unless there really are all these magical benevolent investors waiting in the wings to plow serious money into the league. I suppose anything is possible, though I wouldn't be putting as much faith in the generosity of club owners as you guys seem to be. Your premise makes absolutely no sense....on the one hand you say the FFA will not be around to bail out a struggling club.....however where do you think the FFA got their funds from to bail out those clubs in the past ? They got them from all the money they got from the A-League clubs . Now those clubs themselves will now be getting that money instead of the FFA. The FFA probably also used Foxtel money . I can only assume this will be ongoing in the short term . So the FFA did not use money it generated to help anyone ...they simply gave back money the A-League had generated and they kept. I would also contend that now that clubs can control their own intellectual property they will be more inclined to invest money to keep their clubs going and also be more able to entice extra investors if needed. I see this whole thing making investment in this league far more attractive . It is common sense ...it is the same as in the normal business world .....already rich people do not invest in someone else's franchise ...they are used to running things themselves and keeping their profits (and/or losses) . It really doesn't matter where the money came from. The fact was that FFA was willing and able to subsidise multiple struggling teams that would have folded without assistance. I doubt the club owners by themselves will show such willingness to keep bailing out CCM or BR. This is the danger of unfettered capitalism. There has to be a central welfare system or safety net to help the less fortunate in times of need. I just don't see one here, which could be dangerous if this sudden influx of investment you guys are anticipating doesn't eventuate. The league will not be attractive to investors unless it shows that it can be profitable. No one will want to buy in with such horrendously low viewing figures and declining attendances. Clubs won't be able to count on the TV money for much longer either, so I just don't where all this cash will come from. You seem to believe that it was the evil FFA keeping money out of football and that now they're gone we'll magically be awash with funds, but that just sounds silly to me. Given the number of new bids each time there is a licence to give out I think there will be no central fund and it will be Darwin in action. That would be a terrible look though. Multiple teams going belly up would make the league a joke. Certainly wouldn't encourage further investment. It would be similar to NSL in the years before its demise, when clubs were folding with alarming regularity. I just don't think Australian football can afford Darwin right now. But whatever. Clearly everyone is happy that we've wrested control from Lowy and handed the game on a platter to some other fatcat businessmen, who will surely do the right thing. I think you are forgetting about the additional revenue streams clubs now get.
|
|
|
|
|
patjennings
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMy view is either nix out or double down. If nix stay then we gotta push for another NZ team. Nix and CCM will be wollowing near the bottom of the second tier in a short period of time. They are more likely to fold before that happens now that there's no administrative body to bail them out during the tough times. There will be absolutely no incentive to invest in those teams. Especially CCM, who look completely unviable under this model. In fact, regional teams are even less viable now than under the FFA. It's very difficult to see any regional team ever making any money for their owners. Newcastle Knights make money. The rugby league team? I was talking about football, which has nowhere near the level of entrenched mainstream cultural support as NRL. And even in NRL, a mid-sized city like Wollongong was ajudged not big enough to have a team of its own, so I'm not sure we should follow the NRL's regional model. It's basically the same as the FFA model, except the FFA will no longer be around to provide a lifeline to struggling clubs. The fear is that we will see the demise of all but a few top Sydney and Melbourne clubs, which will bring the viability of a pro league in Oz into question once again. Unless there really are all these magical benevolent investors waiting in the wings to plow serious money into the league. I suppose anything is possible, though I wouldn't be putting as much faith in the generosity of club owners as you guys seem to be. Your premise makes absolutely no sense....on the one hand you say the FFA will not be around to bail out a struggling club.....however where do you think the FFA got their funds from to bail out those clubs in the past ? They got them from all the money they got from the A-League clubs . Now those clubs themselves will now be getting that money instead of the FFA. The FFA probably also used Foxtel money . I can only assume this will be ongoing in the short term . So the FFA did not use money it generated to help anyone ...they simply gave back money the A-League had generated and they kept. I would also contend that now that clubs can control their own intellectual property they will be more inclined to invest money to keep their clubs going and also be more able to entice extra investors if needed. I see this whole thing making investment in this league far more attractive . It is common sense ...it is the same as in the normal business world .....already rich people do not invest in someone else's franchise ...they are used to running things themselves and keeping their profits (and/or losses) . It really doesn't matter where the money came from. The fact was that FFA was willing and able to subsidise multiple struggling teams that would have folded without assistance. I doubt the club owners by themselves will show such willingness to keep bailing out CCM or BR. This is the danger of unfettered capitalism. There has to be a central welfare system or safety net to help the less fortunate in times of need. I just don't see one here, which could be dangerous if this sudden influx of investment you guys are anticipating doesn't eventuate. The league will not be attractive to investors unless it shows that it can be profitable. No one will want to buy in with such horrendously low viewing figures and declining attendances. Clubs won't be able to count on the TV money for much longer either, so I just don't where all this cash will come from. You seem to believe that it was the evil FFA keeping money out of football and that now they're gone we'll magically be awash with funds, but that just sounds silly to me. Given the number of new bids each time there is a licence to give out I think there will be no central fund and it will be Darwin in action. That would be a terrible look though. Multiple teams going belly up would make the league a joke. Certainly wouldn't encourage further investment. It would be similar to NSL in the years before its demise, when clubs were folding with alarming regularity. I just don't think Australian football can afford Darwin right now. But whatever. Clearly everyone is happy that we've wrested control from Lowy and handed the game on a platter to some other fatcat businessmen, who will surely do the right thing. I think you are forgetting about the additional revenue streams clubs now get. Which arguably make regional teams more sustainable than in the current situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xCanberra is the capital city and a very large town which should be able to support a pro football team. There's something irrevocably broken in our sporting culture when cities of 300-500,000 people are considered too small to host a football team. Wellington has about 450,000 people. Yeah, so does Newcastle with Central Coast even smaller, but in general, the powers that be are extremely hesitant to expand to any region with less than a million people. The FFA even plainly stated it at one point. I suppose they were stung by the Gold Coast and Townsville debacles. All the football codes in Australia are very metropolis-centric. Very little room for even relatively large 'regional' cities like Wollongong in modern pro sports. The metrics don't stack up, though I don't understand why. Surely any population centre of over 300,000 is more than large enough to have its own professional team in any sport. I mean, Wollongong is larger than Stoke and Bournemouth combined! Why is the system so broken that such big areas are ignored by pro sports in this country? It frustrates me. Wollongong has a nice stadium but no one wants to invest, then you have Tassie that has no stadium and people want to invest. Where do you take your chances? You would go with the money. And what a beautiful stadium it is. Possibly the only stadium with an ocean view in Australia. A beach stadium! That sea breeze really bites you in the arse during the winter night fixtures though. I'm pretty sure Wollongong has some people willing to invest, but there's no single white knight willing to commit. Gordon certainly doesn't want the hassle or the responsibility, and there's no one else around with the necessary funds. Which is a shame. I enjoyed following the Wolves in the NSL. It was a big deal for the city when they won their back to back championships at the turn of the millennium. They even packed out Win stadium for a few key games. Good times. I would love to see them in the a-league. Gosford... Gosford doesn't have a beach view, it has a view of Brisbane Water......according to Wiki (yes, I know...Wiki...) Brisbane Water is a wave-dominated barrier estuary located in the Central Coast region. But still...it's a beautiful view, certainly one of the better stadium views in Oz. Note the tenth stadium listed in the list of the worlds 12 most beautiful stadiums... https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/12-most-beautiful-football-stadiums-world
|
|
|
|
|
Melbcityguy
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI had a look at bigfooty there are a bit worried if we get the a league up and running again the codewars are back on The fear mongering from AFL in general about our sport is baffling considering how far ahead they they from us and even the NRL. They don't want to be one sport getting along with others. They want it all. I draw the line on people who say they won’t support the socceroos/Matilda’s that really triggers me
|
|
|
|
|
WC1day
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI thought Wollongong had serious money behind them with the WIN people I heard they only offered a $5 million licence fee for a HAL licence. at least $10 million less than what others were offering. Thats why they were eliminated from contention early. +xand cricket sits at the top despite what the AFL may think... the TV rights deal would suggest you are wrong. AFL = just over $2.5 billion over 6 years. cricket = just under $1.2 billion over 6 years. Just for the sake of comparison: NRL = $1.8 billion over 5 years Super Rugby = $285 million over 5 years (ends next year and rumoured to want $80 million per year). HAL = $346 million over 6 years. I'm not sure why the AFL gets so much when the NRL gets the most ratings NRL only gets ratings in NSW and QLD, while AFL does well everywhere. AFL in Sydney is like a highly dominant religious leader from another city who is used to unswerving unthinking loyalty and devotion from his followers who decides it is only right and natural he Tells the unconverted in another city how wonderful he is and it is only right and natural that they worship him too. He then gets by turns surprised, frustrated, petulant and angry, then finally mocks them as uncouth and unworthy unless they worship him. When all this fails he decides he needs a Plan. AFL are at this point now and are using all their worshipers (staying with the analogy) money to buy attention and hopefully devotion. Sydney is a big city and lots of people from AFL dominant states have moved here and provide the support base for AFL. The only people I have ever met who follow an AFL team fit into the interstate mover category. AFL does not do well everywhere. They are strong in the southern states and get leftovers from NSW and QLD where it is looked upon with a bit of surprise/confusion about how passionate AFL believers are in their mission/delusion that they on on a Mission to AFLise the world one Australian state at a time. I applaud the AFL in their devotion and deep pockets to pursue what frankly is the only sensible strategy for them. No business ever shrank to greatness. But its destined to fail. AFL will only ever be a niche sport in NSW and QLD. But good luck to them. Strategically we can learn from them. I think they are crap at setting up new teams in NSW and QLD. Thats my opinion. It doesnt mean we cant cherry pick ideas. We own the blue print for new teams. WSW should be the global best practice model. Get the right coach, give him the resources, nurture the supporter base and all else flows. With Rudan the western team are off to a good start.
|
|
|
|