|
charlied
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xGoooooo Auckland Franchise.... yay No competing tradition as in Aus, mono. You can suspend hostilities. No hostilities Charlied, sorry if it came across that way.. Just pointing out they are happy to call themselves a "franchise"..... Yeah, I detest the word too. The original ugly American. I wonder why new dawners get so aggravated over the term though.... If the actual owners see it as buying into a franchise why are the customer insulted... People visit Mcdonalds, KFC, Pizza Hut all the time. They know there is much healthier, tastier, better food options elsewhere but they like the quick, one size fits all convenience of the franchise... Sure its not for everyone but plenty are content to live in this space. I think that using the term franchise was a huge mistake. There must have been a way FAA could have situated them as clubs. When the FFA and now the APL OWN the clubs IP, their name, their website, their actuall identity that is EXACTLY what they are a franchise of business run by a corporation.... and they have paid a lfranchsee license fee for the honour of doing so. Perth Glory (so sad that they had to sell their IP to get into the Aleague) is not different than Michelle's Patisserie... If head office say "sell this", then they "sell that". Understand, but what you call something and what it actually is are two different things. I have a background in advertising... Perception isn't everything. For example, could FFA have mandated each entity established clubrooms with bars as a condition of entry?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
charlied
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xGoooooo Auckland Franchise.... yay No competing tradition as in Aus, mono. You can suspend hostilities. No hostilities Charlied, sorry if it came across that way.. Just pointing out they are happy to call themselves a "franchise"..... Yeah, I detest the word too. The original ugly American. I wonder why new dawners get so aggravated over the term though.... If the actual owners see it as buying into a franchise why are the customer insulted... People visit Mcdonalds, KFC, Pizza Hut all the time. They know there is much healthier, tastier, better food options elsewhere but they like the quick, one size fits all convenience of the franchise... Sure its not for everyone but plenty are content to live in this space. I think that using the term franchise was a huge mistake. There must have been a way FAA could have situated them as clubs. When the FFA and now the APL OWN the clubs IP, their name, their website, their actuall identity that is EXACTLY what they are a franchise of business run by a corporation.... and they have paid a lfranchsee license fee for the honour of doing so. Perth Glory (so sad that they had to sell their IP to get into the Aleague) is not different than Michelle's Patisserie... If head office say "sell this", then they "sell that". Understand, but what you call something and what it actually is are two different things. I have a background in advertising... Perception isn't everything. For example, could FFA have mandated each entity established clubrooms with bars as a condition of entry? Fuck SwiftKey... Perception IS everything
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI love how we have to be a crutch for NZ football...do not know what they bring to us (and don't say the peanuts for the NZ tv deal) Couldn't agree more. Boot them both out. Muz, I usually agree with you but not on this. I lived in and near Auckland for 10 years and I recall the excitement when the Knights were launched. Attendances were decent too until the team morphed into the worst pro side I've ever seen. There's a commercially decent size football public in Auckland and reckon this new club will bring a lot of positives to the A League. We need scale, and Auckland delivers a city of 2 million people. Mate good for you and good for New Zealand. I'm glad you're excited but I'm coming at it from the angle of they bring nothing to Australian football and shouldn't be in our comp. They're taking up professional spots that should be going to Australian footballers. Additionally they bring nothing in the way of revenue and they're a drain on Australian teams. Like I said good for you but if it were up to me I'd bring 3 Australian sides in tomorrow that met the criteria. They brought in a 15 million fee. Can you remember where this figure came from ? Various numbers get thrown around. Saw 15 million but can't remember exactly where. This article puts it at 18 million but lumps Canberra into that, so maybe an average of the two? Who knows https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/a-league-expansion-talks-cools-as-interest-in-16-team-competition-wanes/KWOT2SPMSFF6XMXMPCZR2HRMWY/ It was $25 million from memory. This was Danny and Garcia's pipe dream. All reports since akl were confirmed have consistently said they didn't get the asking price.
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xGoooooo Auckland Franchise.... yay No competing tradition as in Aus, mono. You can suspend hostilities. No hostilities Charlied, sorry if it came across that way.. Just pointing out they are happy to call themselves a "franchise"..... Yeah, I detest the word too. The original ugly American. I wonder why new dawners get so aggravated over the term though.... If the actual owners see it as buying into a franchise why are the customer insulted... People visit Mcdonalds, KFC, Pizza Hut all the time. They know there is much healthier, tastier, better food options elsewhere but they like the quick, one size fits all convenience of the franchise... Sure its not for everyone but plenty are content to live in this space. Yep and I personally never, ever buy from fast food franchises. Blanket rule. I love a sunburnt country A land set in the Southern Seas A vast enormous quarry To serve the pleasure of the Chinese We are vastly independent and it fills our hearts with pride To guzzle Coke a Cola and eat Kentucky Fried
|
|
|
|
|
Coverdale
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xI love how we have to be a crutch for NZ football...do not know what they bring to us (and don't say the peanuts for the NZ tv deal) Couldn't agree more. Boot them both out. Muz, I usually agree with you but not on this. I lived in and near Auckland for 10 years and I recall the excitement when the Knights were launched. Attendances were decent too until the team morphed into the worst pro side I've ever seen. There's a commercially decent size football public in Auckland and reckon this new club will bring a lot of positives to the A League. We need scale, and Auckland delivers a city of 2 million people. Mate good for you and good for New Zealand. I'm glad you're excited but I'm coming at it from the angle of they bring nothing to Australian football and shouldn't be in our comp. They're taking up professional spots that should be going to Australian footballers. Additionally they bring nothing in the way of revenue and they're a drain on Australian teams. Like I said good for you but if it were up to me I'd bring 3 Australian sides in tomorrow that met the criteria. What they deliver is scale... A bigger competition. That money is was not available for an Australian option. Most sensible statement in ages
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xGoooooo Auckland Franchise.... yay No competing tradition as in Aus, mono. You can suspend hostilities. No hostilities Charlied, sorry if it came across that way.. Just pointing out they are happy to call themselves a "franchise"..... Yeah, I detest the word too. The original ugly American. I wonder why new dawners get so aggravated over the term though.... If the actual owners see it as buying into a franchise why are the customer insulted... People visit Mcdonalds, KFC, Pizza Hut all the time. They know there is much healthier, tastier, better food options elsewhere but they like the quick, one size fits all convenience of the franchise... Sure its not for everyone but plenty are content to live in this space. I think that using the term franchise was a huge mistake. There must have been a way FAA could have situated them as clubs. When the FFA and now the APL OWN the clubs IP, their name, their website, their actuall identity that is EXACTLY what they are a franchise of business run by a corporation.... and they have paid a lfranchsee license fee for the honour of doing so. Perth Glory (so sad that they had to sell their IP to get into the Aleague) is not different than Michelle's Patisserie... If head office say "sell this", then they "sell that". Understand, but what you call something and what it actually is are two different things. I have a background in advertising... Perception isn't everything. For example, could FFA have mandated each entity established clubrooms with bars as a condition of entry? I guess they could have if Lowy wasn't just interested in the corporate facilities so that his investors could make their ROI instead of giving a shit about club culture and the pleb fans. Doesnt matter what you or I call them, fact is they are run as satellite branches of "head office" and cant deviate outside of their franchise agreement even if that means running them into the ground. It is making the MLS owners a bucketload of monmey and FFA and now APl see this as the purpose of football in this country .... making them money... Apparently the new "commish" thinks the Aleague should be a development league now, so the clubs can make money from transfer fees... how revolutionary :P Clive was a fruitloop but he at least had a point about franchising... he would have tried every gimmick under the sun to make his club strong but wasnt allowed to because of the franchise license... Just like the guy with the "Jims Mowing" trailer not being allowed to paint his trailer neon pink... or the McDonald's franchisee being able to buy lettuce and potatoes from the farmer around the block from him to save costs... its all dictated to them..... "football but not as you know it" indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.5K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Club name is Auckland FC
|
|
|
|
|
Veritas
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 229,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
alvn1
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Still intend to use "black nights" as a nickname. Thought they would try to distance themselves as far as possible from "knights" lol
|
|
|
|
|
thekingmb
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Satisfied with the name and kit - simple but professional.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
I like it the crest looks like it may have been designed by the same minimalist mob that brutalized Juventus... Would look great on the white away kit, sort of like a retro Hellas logo minus the soccer ball and stars :) 
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
Looks like Auckland City on PES to be honest to me...
|
|
|
|
|
Keeper66
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI like it the crest looks like it may have been designed by the same minimalist mob that brutalized Juventus... Would look great on the white away kit, sort of like a retro Hellas logo minus the soccer ball and stars :) I hope they don't go for a white away kit, so many A League teams go white for away kits. Let's see some colour and a bit of imagination for a change.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Corica has confirmed that they have signed 9 players so far. According to reports, they have signed 5 NZ national team players in Callan Elliot, Francis de Vries, Cameron Howieson, Michael Woud and Joe Champness. They have reportedly also signed a couple of NZ youth internationals in Jesse Randall and Luis Toomey in addition to two Australians in Jake Brimmer and Dan Hall.
|
|
|
|
|
doloras
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 92,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xI love how we have to be a crutch for NZ football...do not know what they bring to us (and don't say the peanuts for the NZ tv deal) Couldn't agree more. Boot them both out. Muz, I usually agree with you but not on this. I lived in and near Auckland for 10 years and I recall the excitement when the Knights were launched. Attendances were decent too until the team morphed into the worst pro side I've ever seen. There's a commercially decent size football public in Auckland and reckon this new club will bring a lot of positives to the A League. We need scale, and Auckland delivers a city of 2 million people. Mate good for you and good for New Zealand. I'm glad you're excited but I'm coming at it from the angle of they bring nothing to Australian football and shouldn't be in our comp. They're taking up professional spots that should be going to Australian footballers. Additionally they bring nothing in the way of revenue and they're a drain on Australian teams. Like I said good for you but if it were up to me I'd bring 3 Australian sides in tomorrow that met the criteria. They brought in a 15 million fee. While I agree it's not much and merely a one off, especially as they won't bring any other tangible revenue into the pool (like TV money), it's not "nothing". I'd say it covers the first 5 years before the fee has run its course covering what we send back over annually, then the club becomes a more traditional kiwi looking for its aussie dole cheque. Wellington brought nothing and were on the take from day 1. I was under the impression that Wellington Phoenix were one of the few clubs who have never needed a bailout. I would love to hear some examples of Wellington being "on the take".
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI love how we have to be a crutch for NZ football...do not know what they bring to us (and don't say the peanuts for the NZ tv deal) Couldn't agree more. Boot them both out. Muz, I usually agree with you but not on this. I lived in and near Auckland for 10 years and I recall the excitement when the Knights were launched. Attendances were decent too until the team morphed into the worst pro side I've ever seen. There's a commercially decent size football public in Auckland and reckon this new club will bring a lot of positives to the A League. We need scale, and Auckland delivers a city of 2 million people. Mate good for you and good for New Zealand. I'm glad you're excited but I'm coming at it from the angle of they bring nothing to Australian football and shouldn't be in our comp. They're taking up professional spots that should be going to Australian footballers. Additionally they bring nothing in the way of revenue and they're a drain on Australian teams. Like I said good for you but if it were up to me I'd bring 3 Australian sides in tomorrow that met the criteria. They brought in a 15 million fee. While I agree it's not much and merely a one off, especially as they won't bring any other tangible revenue into the pool (like TV money), it's not "nothing". I'd say it covers the first 5 years before the fee has run its course covering what we send back over annually, then the club becomes a more traditional kiwi looking for its aussie dole cheque. Wellington brought nothing and were on the take from day 1. I would love to hear some examples of Wellington being "on the take". their mere existence is being on the take. they are sucking off the teet of Australian football.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI love how we have to be a crutch for NZ football...do not know what they bring to us (and don't say the peanuts for the NZ tv deal) Couldn't agree more. Boot them both out. Muz, I usually agree with you but not on this. I lived in and near Auckland for 10 years and I recall the excitement when the Knights were launched. Attendances were decent too until the team morphed into the worst pro side I've ever seen. There's a commercially decent size football public in Auckland and reckon this new club will bring a lot of positives to the A League. We need scale, and Auckland delivers a city of 2 million people. Mate good for you and good for New Zealand. I'm glad you're excited but I'm coming at it from the angle of they bring nothing to Australian football and shouldn't be in our comp. They're taking up professional spots that should be going to Australian footballers. Additionally they bring nothing in the way of revenue and they're a drain on Australian teams. Like I said good for you but if it were up to me I'd bring 3 Australian sides in tomorrow that met the criteria. They brought in a 15 million fee. While I agree it's not much and merely a one off, especially as they won't bring any other tangible revenue into the pool (like TV money), it's not "nothing". I'd say it covers the first 5 years before the fee has run its course covering what we send back over annually, then the club becomes a more traditional kiwi looking for its aussie dole cheque. Wellington brought nothing and were on the take from day 1. I would love to hear some examples of Wellington being "on the take". their mere existence is being on the take. they are sucking off the teet of Australian football. tbf thats not much different than a bunch of other franchises...
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI love how we have to be a crutch for NZ football...do not know what they bring to us (and don't say the peanuts for the NZ tv deal) Couldn't agree more. Boot them both out. Muz, I usually agree with you but not on this. I lived in and near Auckland for 10 years and I recall the excitement when the Knights were launched. Attendances were decent too until the team morphed into the worst pro side I've ever seen. There's a commercially decent size football public in Auckland and reckon this new club will bring a lot of positives to the A League. We need scale, and Auckland delivers a city of 2 million people. Mate good for you and good for New Zealand. I'm glad you're excited but I'm coming at it from the angle of they bring nothing to Australian football and shouldn't be in our comp. They're taking up professional spots that should be going to Australian footballers. Additionally they bring nothing in the way of revenue and they're a drain on Australian teams. Like I said good for you but if it were up to me I'd bring 3 Australian sides in tomorrow that met the criteria. They brought in a 15 million fee. While I agree it's not much and merely a one off, especially as they won't bring any other tangible revenue into the pool (like TV money), it's not "nothing". I'd say it covers the first 5 years before the fee has run its course covering what we send back over annually, then the club becomes a more traditional kiwi looking for its aussie dole cheque. Wellington brought nothing and were on the take from day 1. I would love to hear some examples of Wellington being "on the take". their mere existence is being on the take. they are sucking off the teet of Australian football. tbf thats not much different than a bunch of other franchises... at least they giving something to Australian football why not invite Indonesia, Malaysia etc etc to field a team if we're throwing out invites based on buy in? and what do NZ give us back? some passive aggressive chip on their shoulder commentators who think the world is against them who force you turn down the volume if you've ever had the misfortune of turning on a 'nux game in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI love how we have to be a crutch for NZ football...do not know what they bring to us (and don't say the peanuts for the NZ tv deal) Couldn't agree more. Boot them both out. Muz, I usually agree with you but not on this. I lived in and near Auckland for 10 years and I recall the excitement when the Knights were launched. Attendances were decent too until the team morphed into the worst pro side I've ever seen. There's a commercially decent size football public in Auckland and reckon this new club will bring a lot of positives to the A League. We need scale, and Auckland delivers a city of 2 million people. Mate good for you and good for New Zealand. I'm glad you're excited but I'm coming at it from the angle of they bring nothing to Australian football and shouldn't be in our comp. They're taking up professional spots that should be going to Australian footballers. Additionally they bring nothing in the way of revenue and they're a drain on Australian teams. Like I said good for you but if it were up to me I'd bring 3 Australian sides in tomorrow that met the criteria. They brought in a 15 million fee. While I agree it's not much and merely a one off, especially as they won't bring any other tangible revenue into the pool (like TV money), it's not "nothing". I'd say it covers the first 5 years before the fee has run its course covering what we send back over annually, then the club becomes a more traditional kiwi looking for its aussie dole cheque. Wellington brought nothing and were on the take from day 1. I would love to hear some examples of Wellington being "on the take". their mere existence is being on the take. they are sucking off the teet of Australian football. tbf thats not much different than a bunch of other franchises... at least they giving something to Australian football why not invite Indonesia, Malaysia etc etc to field a team if we're throwing out invites based on buy in?and what do NZ give us back? some passive aggressive chip on their shoulder commentators who think the world is against them who force you turn down the volume if you've ever had the misfortune of turning on a 'nux game in the past. Hahahaha take it easy Nostradamus.... Where do you think expansion clubs 17 -18 are going to come from?
|
|
|
|
|
SUTHERLANDBEAR
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI love how we have to be a crutch for NZ football...do not know what they bring to us (and don't say the peanuts for the NZ tv deal) Couldn't agree more. Boot them both out. Muz, I usually agree with you but not on this. I lived in and near Auckland for 10 years and I recall the excitement when the Knights were launched. Attendances were decent too until the team morphed into the worst pro side I've ever seen. There's a commercially decent size football public in Auckland and reckon this new club will bring a lot of positives to the A League. We need scale, and Auckland delivers a city of 2 million people. Mate good for you and good for New Zealand. I'm glad you're excited but I'm coming at it from the angle of they bring nothing to Australian football and shouldn't be in our comp. They're taking up professional spots that should be going to Australian footballers. Additionally they bring nothing in the way of revenue and they're a drain on Australian teams. Like I said good for you but if it were up to me I'd bring 3 Australian sides in tomorrow that met the criteria. They brought in a 15 million fee. While I agree it's not much and merely a one off, especially as they won't bring any other tangible revenue into the pool (like TV money), it's not "nothing". I'd say it covers the first 5 years before the fee has run its course covering what we send back over annually, then the club becomes a more traditional kiwi looking for its aussie dole cheque. Wellington brought nothing and were on the take from day 1. I would love to hear some examples of Wellington being "on the take". their mere existence is being on the take. they are sucking off the teet of Australian football. tbf thats not much different than a bunch of other franchises... at least they giving something to Australian football why not invite Indonesia, Malaysia etc etc to field a team if we're throwing out invites based on buy in? and what do NZ give us back? some passive aggressive chip on their shoulder commentators who think the world is against them who force you turn down the volume if you've ever had the misfortune of turning on a 'nux game in the past. You don't do irony much, do you ? re: commentators.
|
|
|
|
|
Balin Trev
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI love how we have to be a crutch for NZ football...do not know what they bring to us (and don't say the peanuts for the NZ tv deal) Couldn't agree more. Boot them both out. Muz, I usually agree with you but not on this. I lived in and near Auckland for 10 years and I recall the excitement when the Knights were launched. Attendances were decent too until the team morphed into the worst pro side I've ever seen. There's a commercially decent size football public in Auckland and reckon this new club will bring a lot of positives to the A League. We need scale, and Auckland delivers a city of 2 million people. Mate good for you and good for New Zealand. I'm glad you're excited but I'm coming at it from the angle of they bring nothing to Australian football and shouldn't be in our comp. They're taking up professional spots that should be going to Australian footballers. Additionally they bring nothing in the way of revenue and they're a drain on Australian teams. Like I said good for you but if it were up to me I'd bring 3 Australian sides in tomorrow that met the criteria. They brought in a 15 million fee. While I agree it's not much and merely a one off, especially as they won't bring any other tangible revenue into the pool (like TV money), it's not "nothing". I'd say it covers the first 5 years before the fee has run its course covering what we send back over annually, then the club becomes a more traditional kiwi looking for its aussie dole cheque. Wellington brought nothing and were on the take from day 1. I would love to hear some examples of Wellington being "on the take". their mere existence is being on the take. they are sucking off the teet of Australian football. tbf thats not much different than a bunch of other franchises... at least they giving something to Australian football why not invite Indonesia, Malaysia etc etc to field a team if we're throwing out invites based on buy in? and what do NZ give us back? some passive aggressive chip on their shoulder commentators who think the world is against them who force you turn down the volume if you've ever had the misfortune of turning on a 'nux game in the past. That Jason Pine commentator is awful - i can never hit the mute button quick enough
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
One of their 'fans' won't get to watch til Season 3 (assuming A-League still around) https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/350222368/auckland-fc-takes-down-social-media-post-using-pitch-invader-footageYet to be established whether Franchise's first publicity stunt was to break APL crowd regulations 1 week after Supporter hoo-haa
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
These "owners" truly are pieces of shit... They grabbed their Uber driver, gave him a top and $50 and told him to run onto the pitch and when it backfired: “We've removed the post, and we in no way support people who run onto the pitch" Meanwhile some poor dude was sitting in a cell all night wandering what they hell that rectangular field with goalposts on either end was all about that he was paid to run onto.
|
|
|
|
|
DandyCasey
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 321,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Why multi-club strategy makes ambition realistic
"[European football ambition] is realistic because we are putting a great team together, with a lot of younger players. We are trying to be careful with how we do this. "We are not a sovereign wealth fund or private equity. We are just simple little guys from America who came over and bought a team. We have a multi-club strategy so we promote players from Club A to Club B to Club C to Club D. "We now have four clubs and we are about to acquire a controlling interest in another [understood to be in Portugal]. Our goal is to have similar coaching, similar playing styles and similar players that can progress through our system. "It is not just going to be Bournemouth and a bunch of other teams. It is all designed to give the players a path to the Premier League. If we can do that, we should be able to be competitive and not have to kill ourselves financially. That will be our competitive edge." https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c7295x478wro
|
|
|
|
|
Melbcityguy
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWhy multi-club strategy makes ambition realistic
"[European football ambition] is realistic because we are putting a great team together, with a lot of younger players. We are trying to be careful with how we do this. "We are not a sovereign wealth fund or private equity. We are just simple little guys from America who came over and bought a team. We have a multi-club strategy so we promote players from Club A to Club B to Club C to Club D. "We now have four clubs and we are about to acquire a controlling interest in another [understood to be in Portugal]. Our goal is to have similar coaching, similar playing styles and similar players that can progress through our system. "It is not just going to be Bournemouth and a bunch of other teams. It is all designed to give the players a path to the Premier League. If we can do that, we should be able to be competitive and not have to kill ourselves financially. That will be our competitive edge." https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c7295x478wro I know I'm a hypocrite for saying this as a Melbourne city fan but this is killing football
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWhy multi-club strategy makes ambition realistic
"[European football ambition] is realistic because we are putting a great team together, with a lot of younger players. We are trying to be careful with how we do this. "We are not a sovereign wealth fund or private equity. We are just simple little guys from America who came over and bought a team. We have a multi-club strategy so we promote players from Club A to Club B to Club C to Club D. "We now have four clubs and we are about to acquire a controlling interest in another [understood to be in Portugal]. Our goal is to have similar coaching, similar playing styles and similar players that can progress through our system. "It is not just going to be Bournemouth and a bunch of other teams. It is all designed to give the players a path to the Premier League. If we can do that, we should be able to be competitive and not have to kill ourselves financially. That will be our competitive edge." https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c7295x478wro So Bournemouth is top of their chain as Club D - I wonder what they would consider as Clubs A, B and C
|
|
|
|
|
numklpkgulftumch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xWhy multi-club strategy makes ambition realistic
"[European football ambition] is realistic because we are putting a great team together, with a lot of younger players. We are trying to be careful with how we do this. "We are not a sovereign wealth fund or private equity. We are just simple little guys from America who came over and bought a team. We have a multi-club strategy so we promote players from Club A to Club B to Club C to Club D. "We now have four clubs and we are about to acquire a controlling interest in another [understood to be in Portugal]. Our goal is to have similar coaching, similar playing styles and similar players that can progress through our system. "It is not just going to be Bournemouth and a bunch of other teams. It is all designed to give the players a path to the Premier League. If we can do that, we should be able to be competitive and not have to kill ourselves financially. That will be our competitive edge." https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c7295x478wro So Bournemouth is top of their chain as Club D - I wonder what they would consider as Clubs A, B and C Auckland is obviously A Hibs is C. (for Visa purposes onwards to England) Not sure where Portugese club will fit
|
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
the league is practically broke why are we adding another team from NZ if this league isn't a ponzi scheme?
|
|
|
|