Wondering if we could have the existing 'your position is safe' franchises and add a much cheaper franchise where they are not guaranteed safety in the league.

In principle, the cheap franchises would be a part of a 'sooner' future with P/R - maybe giving them a guarantee of safety until we get the number of clubs we want then P/R for clubs with the second tier franchise.

It would make it affordable for Canberra, Gold Coast, Fury, Tasmania, Adelaide 2 and whoever else might then be able/willing to join.

It would allow simple P/R with the second division structure as soon as we had the 18/20(?) teams we want for our top flight competition - as far as 'simple' with safe legacy teams is.

Nothing needs to change with existing 'legacy' franchises and if they fold over time they are replaced by the second tier of franchises - unless they represent the only team in their state/capital city then maybe the state/city has the option of a first tier high cost licence to keep a specific national interest about the league.

Some would claim it unfair to have 'safe' teams in the competition, but I would expect plenty of teams would still strive to make it into the top league through P/R the same as clubs want to represent at the highest they can achieve.

It would be our own Aussie system, and I can see it working. I don't know much about global club football but it might even be unique enough to cater to the 'we're Aussie and different' thinkers as well.

It could also happen 'immediately'.

Some say NST is kind of a licensed shop so we’re halfway there 

I am thinking more about the idea of $500k/$1m licences for another 8+ teams in the aleagues men's comp - or less if that is what the market would command.

They are not buying a seat at the table - they are buying a chance to stay at the table as long as they are good enough.

Fill the places with a couple of specifically invited teams (Canberra, Tassie) to round out the national competition then promote the top teams from each state willing to pay the lower licence fee and we have 19/20 teams next season and the capacity for P/R at the end of that season. Promoting the top two teams from the Australia Cup and relegating the one aleagues team in the subsequent year is an option to keep the competition growing and refreshed while they work out the longer term P/R from the NST - maybe with an NST playoff across all regions to determine who gets promoted.

The logisitcs of it are beyond me - but I am not an organisation already in place to handle that.

I do not think it is rocket science but I think it would enhance and revive the aleagues comp, produce more games for marketing, development and AFC purposes, and open up the closed shop of top flight football a bit more.

But in doing that, are you then not just opening up relegation only to those franchises that haven't paid the premium? I think that's a bit counter productive.
Personally, APL and FA should just make a deal that, once the current licence agreements expire, whatever year it is, that year is when P/R happens with the NSD.
FA should be P/R from NSD <> NPL earlier than that.

How can this work in practice? Adelaide United, jets and wsw finish in the drop zone with wsw needing a playoff. What we just jump up the table until we find the worst three unsafe licensed clubs?

It’s good having people thinking outside the box but the solution for the APL is to admit defeat and sit down with JJ and FA to work out a solution to end this fiasco.
The only way that football can move forward is with a collaborative approach for the sake of the game.

Yes - they have paid to be in the higher comp with significant money. Their entitlement to the top tier is earned by dollars and to be honest it doesn't hurt the competition to have a geographic distribution of teams playing regardless of how well they play.

I would not be interested in a competition made up of 95% NSW and Victorian teams - but I can enjoy watching a truly national selection.

I would not be relegating more than one club - not sure where I suggested 3 go down.

The lowest licensed club goes down even if they are 5th last - that is what they have paid for and they would understand that up front. I still think clubs would join the competition despite that. They want the visibility and the prestige of being in the top comp available - that is common in sport.

That is exactly what it would do. Silly to have guaranteed participation - but that is what we have now and what they have fairly paid for. Rather than throw the lot out it seems to me that a combination of some stable teams (making it guaranteed a national comp in the mid term at least), and some threatened teams, would attract clubs wanting the exposure and the challenge of top flight football.

It is not a normal model and may be the only one like it, but who says we have to do what others do in the situation we find ourselves now? We need to grow the aleagues or I strongly believe it will stagnate and die. We are charging so much for licenses that clubs like Canberra are going through what they are to try and get the money. Simpler to recognise that quantity is critical to the league now to evolve stronger, and to consider something additional to get several more sides in quickly and sustainably.

I just think having a competiton of safe teams and 'cheaper licensed' unsafe teams is a workable option right now.

To be honest, I had not even considered that clubs have licenses that will expire. I sort of thought they had signed up 'for the duration'. If they are due to expire within 3 years then we can wait it out and have a proper solution ready based on the lessons that we have learned to date. And I do think the lessons have been learned - we just have to hope the powers that make decisions don't simply ignore them.

Somewhere there was talk the current A League licences are to and including 2034. We have 10 years to wait, but I doubt that the A League is its current form will last that long.

As two separate competitions, possibly. But not as one.
This isn't endurance racing where two classes compete as one with separate outcomes.

As for the guaranteed participation, you're right. As silly as it is, it is paid for. That's why there needs to be a league wide agreement to be reached at the end of whatever the latest licence to expire is.

I hear you - but I genuinely ask why not?

Just because it isn't done already does not necessarily mean it can't work.

We see all sorts of teams take on aleagues teams in the Australia Cup. The teams love the prospect of knocking off the 'higher placed' team and the community gets behind them. It might be no different if they both compete in the one competition because the only time they have different outcomes is at the end of the season for one team out of 8 or more. The winner is still the winner and gets an identical reward - as do any teams making it into the AFC extension or subsequent year's Australia Cup draw.

Imagine the support a South Melbourne side would get if they got the opportunity to play in the top flight again and chose to accept the offer. How much feeling, interest and intensity would every game against legacy aleagues teams carry with the weight of history and rejection behind it.

The fact that the bottom team may not be the actual one relegated obviously sounds wrong and smacks of unfairness - but if teams enter the competition understanding that is a possibility do you not think they would still want to give it a go?

Sure it is unusual but the only team to be treated 'unfairly' is the lowest placed unsafe team - and then only if they managed to finish above the bottom place - which may not actually happen for many seasons. I would also not expect any relegation for a couple of seasons while we get the number of teams up to the operating level we want and need.

For the cheaper licenses, it would mean more money might be available to pay for better players too so they have a little more to help them compete against the legacy sides.

I would prefer something like this to 10 years of teams like Canberra struggling to get a foot in when I think they deserve to be in, should be in, and the competition needs more teams now.

We will need a hybrid system on the way to a full pyramid. There are many ways to do this, including this one and all will draw complaints but no point making perfect the enemy of good

That's why.

The reason why it works in the Australia Cup is, essentially everyone is still on a level playing field competing for the same reward, there's no relegation from the Australia Cup. There's only progression if you win. Cup structures work like that, and we see it in finals series, Grand Slam tennis tournaments, etc.
I get the idea in principle, and understand where you're coming from, but fundamentally, The fact that the bottom team may not be the actual one relegated obviously sounds wrong and smacks of unfairness. That's the reason this idea won't work.

The only way smaller licences will work is a bonafide second division with no relegation. Maybe APL wants to compete against the NSD and have a closed shop second division to field new franchises for the future, that's all fair enough in their own world.

‘ Maybe APL wants to compete against the NSD ‘

That in a nutshell is what’s wrong with football, too many people competing against each other. Until there’s a unified approach our sport will remain marginal.

This is not a good idea I’ve thought more about it. It simply can’t work in practice. Imagine 6 aleague teams with a licence guarantee finishing below a no licence guarantee team. It just can’t work, relegated despite finishing 7 above the relegation zone?

Thanks for the discussion guys.

Personally I am sure that teams would line up to play in an unfair competition like I suggested, but I recognise that it goes against the true reward/penalty system of promotion/relegation and the inherent unfairness of a potential 10th last team being relegated would make it a mockery - regardless of the teams signing on to those conditions.

Would it shake up the system and make it more refreshing and entertaining? I think so on that.

Teams probably sign up, yes. It will probably work until an unfair relegation happens though

Hey RIMB, sorry Im late to the party... Not a fan of the idea personally... and before I get the pile on, yes I am well aware that South was the beneficiary of a similar scenario in 1979 when, despite finishing last a NSW team was relegated as was decided at the start of that season. 

It may indeed make the Aleague a lot more interesting but does NOTHING towards the aims of clubs outside of the Aleague... The NST is struggling to get clubs to stump up a much more modest amount now, I dont think clubs would stump up a mil just for the chance to play a season in the top flight with the chances of remaining in the competition being so aggregated against them.. These are members owned/run entities mate, If my club, for example, payed a million to join this comp, finished mid table and was relegated anyway we'ed sack the board for putting through that .... just saying :P

In regards to this, apart from against Perth Glory ...not much mate... Wed rather play Marconi, Adelaide Juve, Sydney Olympic and APIA again...  Clubs we have 40-50 year rivalries against.

Back at work, came in looking for the April 1st thread

yep, I admire RIMB's pro activeness but all I see is a desparate outlook for the AL he follows having some sort of survival approach that means not much but changing the book cover/or another type of sugar hit in short time left on the shelf with the similar dna that isn't working.

Big ups for thinking outside the square.

Once the European Super League gets up, founded on the exact same unfair principles as what the suggested idea is here, you could actually get away with making it down under and calling it an authentic Euro style comp

lol.... true.... I wonder what form the "Against modern football" movement will take in Australia though? 

Perth Glory rescue netted just $1 upfront, Supreme Court told

A footnote to this discussion.  Perth Glory was bought by Pelligra for

1. $1 up front.
2. A commitment to spend $20 million over 5 to 20 years.
And 3. NO equity ownership share in the A League.

There are your two tiers. Talk about prophetic foresight!

link paywalled

https://worldsoccertalk.com/news/korea-makes-landmark-promotion-relegation-decision/

South korea with an interesting hybrid system is now going to an open pyramid

They had 2 pro teirs, 2 semi pro teirs and 2 amateur teirs

Before 2027 pro teams couldnt drop below teir 2, semi pro teams couldnt drop below teir 4 

A little more of a desire to move to something bigger sooner rather than holding onto what we have I think.

I have been trying to find out what EPL teams cost to join the EPL competition and as far as I can tell it doesn't cost them anything and they get an equal share of the TV revenue. I had not even considered the thought that other leagues might not even have an entry fee.

For my part, if I was asked what I want to see from our national competition, I would say I wanted a guaranteed geographic spread across the whole country to make it more interesting for me to follow the league. My suggestion was keeping that element in the league now but expanding it to include promotion now then a P/R element once we get the number of teams we need in the top flight - and since I have found out through this thread that there is likely an end date on licences that actually works better with the transition to full P/R once the licences are done.

If they keep the legacy teams we have now 'guaranteed' (and include ACT and Tassie teams too), and simply promote new teams without a licence I get what I want now and the system goes full P/R when the licences expire.

A big problem would be the TV rights - with distribution of any TV deal having to take into account the fairness/intellectual rights of money going to all clubs participating while also considering giving more to the clubs who paid to be a part of the whole deal including guaranteed inclusion and a share of the TV deal.

It might work if the new TV deal could be big enough on account of the increased number of teams, games and season length to keep the current revenue for legacy clubs and share what they can negotiate on top. For that I don't really care how it might work - just thinking of the commercial and contracted obligations they have now. Certainly seems to be enough added content and increased interest to argue a bigger deal next time in that.

I consider it less than personal desperation to get the guaranteed national spread with a massive increase to 20+ teams inside two seasons with the accompanying season length without having to tear up all the existing contracts/licences.

Mono - I always appreciate your opinions from the real football world. If they took out the joining fee completely for a smaller share of TV revenue would that appeal more to you or is this shiny thing too tainted to even think about merging with in some way? I find it hard to believe playing in the arguable top tier with a chance to beat the bastards in their own houses (figuratively speaking) and prove yourselves would not have some dark appeal.

I can appreciate the intensity and feeling against historic football foes though I have to admit.

 Hey mate, Yeah absolutely I get the thought process and applaud the "out of the box" thinking... Paying a license fee isnt the stumbling block if its reasonable 500K, 1mil etc... Its the 25 mill franchise fee which has/needs to be justified and goes against the grain for me... If South paid 25 mill for a coveted geographic slot then I would understand us not wanting to be able to be relegated... I get the position of the APL... I just DONT see that as conducive to a competitive sporting environment which will bring the best outcomes for football in our country. 

Rivalry is fickle thing and often one club's fans perceive themselves to be the "arch enemy" when in fact they are not even really considered by the others... New hatreds also spring up over time oftne for trivial things... and sometimes even dissapear over time when the forturnes of clubs wax and wane... For 20 years us old bastards have been "outside the tent" playing Aleague clubs will have an initial novelty (Old v new, classic v plastic etc etc) but there are 100s of matches of histpory against some of these NSL clubs for example, matches and upsets, incidents and fights... the marketing guys can try all they like to make a "big blue derby" or a "battle of the bulge" or whatever but it has to be there.... 

My true hope is that the NST kicks off with some degree of success, links to the NPLs after the first 1-2 years with pro/rel and after 3-4 years the APL faces the inevitable and joins in the true pyramid... This should allay your concerns about geographical spread NATURALLY as there will be enough 1st and 2nd div clubs in every town that the drive of true sporting competition will drive fandom...  To get there we need all clubs to agree to the SAME club licensing agreement.. the same structures, the same focus on youth and womens teams and coaching (NOT the same, universal, one size fits all NC boring coaching methodologies though that is just shit thinking ... variety breeds creativity and desire) ... License fees are anathema tot eh MLS franchsie way of thinkling and do nothing but drive the value and profit of assets for overseas owners... The broadcasting distribution value will increase with interest from below, NOT from whithin.

BTW, to be totally fair, Someone like Melbourne Victory who didnt pay a cent and were propped up by FFA should be able to be relegated too wouldn't you say?