I think you'll find that I already held my hand up and admitted I got that one wrong, mate. Sorry to disappoint you by being able to admit when I'm wrong. You should try it sometime.

Sorry to disappoint you by being able to admit when I'm wrong.

That's brilliant work Keyser. Amazing work. Thank you very much for finding all that stuff and sharing it with us.

I couldn't remember the 3rd consortium's name but you solved that memory issue for me.

PS: I don't think it says there anywhere Melbourne United was more cashed-up or deserved entry ahead of the Victory, does it? (that's for my old mate benjamin). No conspiracy by the FFA there mate.

I remember eagerly waiting for the report to be released. By the way the SA Chairman whose name you couldnt remember, was Ian Knop.

There were two functioning bids in Brisbane and two in Melbourne.

The report recomended a process that was fair to the old NSL sides...
O'Neill and Lowy opted to loan Melbourne Victory half their license fee rather than bring in the fully cashed up Melbourne United.

July 10, 2004 - Melbourne United, along with a bid from the Victorian Soccer Federation and another from a consortium called Melbourne Victory, is in contention for the Victorian team.

July 21, 2004 Melbourne has the most syndicates - three - of any city bidding for a place in the new eight-team Australian Premier League. The Victorian applicants are Melbourne United, fronted by ex-Socceroo Steve Horvat; Melbourne Victory, whose spokesman is News Ltd executive Alen Rados; and the Victorian Soccer Federation, which has entrepreneur John Ilhan of the Crazy John's empire among supporters.
The consortia have not named players or coaches. Telstra Dome, Bob Jane Stadium and Olympic Park are possible home grounds.

August 9, 2004 The three groups vying to win the Victorian franchise for the new Australian Premier League could be encouraged to join forces to present a unified bid.
The Victorian Soccer Federation and representatives of the Melbourne United consortium and the Melbourne Victory group all spent time with Australian Soccer Association chief John O'Neill and his competitions boss, Matt Carroll, in Melbourne last week.
It is understood that while the ASA pair was impressed with aspects of the various proposals, there was not, as a source close to one group said yesterday, "a knockout candidate".
"They might end up suggesting that all three groups try to get together to put together a single package for Victoria," the source said.
O'Neill said the United and Victory bids were "in compliance" with the criteria to be included in the new league - that teams play at a high-quality venue, pay a $1 million licence fee and generate $3.5 million in working capital.
But, it is believed the VSF is not happy with the $1 million licence fee, and would prefer any club it was involved in to play at Bob Jane Stadium.

August 18, 2004 - The Victorian Soccer Federation, which had touted itself as a potential third bidder, is now out of the reckoning, at least as a stand-alone franchise holder.
The VSF will seek a stake in whichever party succeeds, but may not contribute money. It could offer administrative support or make the new State Soccer Centre at Northcote available as a training venue. It will also be expected to link between the elite team in Victoria and the grass-roots soccer community.

September 9, 2004 In a potentially embarrassing development for the Melbourne United consortium, a junior sports club has pledged to fight the group's plan to use the name in its bid for the Victorian franchise in the new Australian Premier League.
Helmut Pyrchalla, director of soccer at the Melbourne United junior sports club, says the Melbourne United consortium - launched last year at a press conference at the Melbourne Knights ground - is trying to take over his club's name.
But financier Mitch Savage-Brajdic, one of the driving forces behind the Melbourne United consortium, yesterday dismissed the junior group's claims, saying it was a bid to force the consortium to pay it for the rights to use the Melbourne United name.
The Melbourne Knights did own the rights to the name, but allowed that to lapse, Savage-Brajdic explained.
But Pyrchalla argues his club has registered Melbourne United soccer as a company, and is not prepared to give up the rights.

September 29, 2004.The contentious bids are in Melbourne, where the Melbourne United and Melbourne Victory groups are vying for a place, with the United group thought to have its nose in front.

October 20, 2004 - The association gives the Victory preferred bidder status ahead of the other Melbourne candidate, the Melbourne United group. It has not given a deadline by which the Victory must raise funds, although it has said that it has a contingency plan should Victory fail to meet its target. It is believed that could involve the Victorian Soccer Federation being linked with a separate group of investors.

October 22, 2004 Melbourne Victory Ltd - to which the Australia Soccer Association has conferred preferred-bidder status in the two-handed battle to win the Victorian soccer licence - that would-be subscribers are being asked to invest. The ASA has given the Victory consortium - which also includes Australian music icon and successful boxing promoter Glenn Wheatley as the new club's prospective chairman - extra time to meet its criteria.

October 26, 2004 Melbourne Victory will be the city's club in the elite new national soccer competition after the Australian Soccer Association yesterday announced plans to unveil all the eight teams next week.The Victory consortium had been struggling to raise the $4.5 million needed to ensure its participation in the new competition. Last night Victory spokesman Alen Rados confirmed the club would look to take its place in the new competition. "Melbourne Victory has been offered a licence," he said.

A Manchester United official observed while in Australia last month, "heritage is fine, heritage is good, but if you don't have contemporary relevance, heritage alone will not save you".

The Knights, with their championships and history of player development, have more heritage than virtually any other team in the league. What they lack nowadays, alas, is contemporary relevance.

The club's board should be applauded for the call it made last week. The Knights have become the first of the established clubs to admit that they won't cut it in the brave new soccer world being developed by the Australian Soccer Association, but they surely won't be the last.

Their decision to drop to the state league, while becoming a feeder club for one of the new consortiums seeking one of the two franchises earmarked for Melbourne, is probably the best they could have made in the circumstances.

At best, it preserves their heritage, history and proud name. It gives them and their fans a chance to, at least, have some stake in what is trumpeted as a broad-based, well-funded "corporate club" designed to appeal to Victorians of all colours and creeds, not just the overwhelmingly Croatian demographic that has underpinned the Knights' 50-year history.

In the end, as Mitch Savage-Brajdic, the investment banker and financial strategist putting the new consortium's bid together observed, that supporter base is dying out. "The Knights are not up to it now - an ethnically-based club is not a viable proposition going forward to this franchised competition," he said.

Knights president Ange Cimera didn't mix his words either when he said that the financial stretch to make the Australian Premier League would be too great for most of the traditional clubs in the NSL and that they should get used to the idea of becoming feeder clubs for the new businesses that would be set up to take advantage of the huge reform in the game.

With average crowds of 3000 to 4000, a dilapidated stadium and a budget that would not allow them to spend more than the minimum on most players' wages, the Knights were always going to be up against it.

Does anybody think this would have been a good idea when the league started?

I don't.

An independent body means that they would have only been able to sell the television rights to the a-league and not the socceroos.

meaning no fox deal.

meaning no professional league.

I'm interested in the recommendation of:

• The League as a separate legal entity licensed by ASA.
• A business-oriented organisation, governed by an independent board.
• A clear distinction between governance and management.

We're still waiting for that.

I'm interested in the recommendation of:

• The League as a separate legal entity licensed by ASA.
• A business-oriented organisation, governed by an independent board.
• A clear distinction between governance and management.

We're still waiting for that.

O'Neill and Lowy didn't overrule anything and that claim is not true. All the viable bids they had back then were 8 and they simply went with those 8. If you have evidence to support your claim there were more viable bids back in 2004 than the selected 8, please provide it.

How was the process unfair to the old NSL sides? Who complained? Where are these complaints recorded so we can have a look. Surely the old NSL clubs don't usually mince words or hold back when they feel they got a rough deal. Show some evidence to prove that even a single old NSL club ever complained about the process being unfair and also that a cashed-up consortium called Melbourne United was overlooked in preference to the "underfunded" Melbourne Victory. Please present some evidence that your assertions are based on facts.

I think criticising the FFA for the sake of criticising, especially in a football forum, is almost criminal, if that's the case.

The report recomended a 10 team competition, with 3 sides in Sydney and 2 in Melbourne. O'Neill and Lowy over-ruled with an 8 team '1 team per city' model.

The report recomended a process that was fair to the old NSL sides...
O'Neill and Lowy opted to loan Melbourne Victory half their license fee rather than bring in the fully cashed up Melbourne United.

There's numerous other differences between what was recomended, and what has eventuated. I'd agree that there will always be differences - but I'll stand by my previous comments, and expand them to cover both reports... Had we followed them to the letter, I believe we'd have a stronger and more entertaining league than we have.

As an aside in both reports the key phrases and key recomendations centered on "Corporate Governance" and "Capitalisation". Any one involved in medium to large corporations would have a clear understanding from that alone as to what SA (Soccer Australia) problems where.

The reports also make clear that the NSL was not the "PROBLEM", when people shoot off the handle blamming the games past ills on the NSL as if the NSL and the NSL Clubs ran the game in the country, it gets a lot of people riled up. The games past problems had to do with SA and its Corporate Structure, it's poor Corporate Governance and poor commercial decisions.

When people like myself warn people who do not have the historical context to beware the future without Lowy we get laughed at. But the invisible people at state level who vote for the FFA positions now and in future, the ones who voted at SA elections in the past are still there from 20 years ago.

If anyone cares to find out how and who will vote on Victoria's behalf at FFA elections,let me just say that the Crawford report has not been implemented.


Edited by Arthur: 29/4/2010 11:09:02 AM

That is not happening now. The new rules don't allow for Board members of clubs (or anyone involved in the running of an A-League club) to stand for an FFA Board position.

Everything that has happened to our national competition since the completion of the NSL Task Force Report in December 2003 resembles very closely the recommendations of that report, which may I add was compiled by our own people who were involved in our game at the time.

The A-League has never been the product of the FFA or Frank Lowy but of those people who sat down 7 years ago and listened and gathered information and ideas and prepared the NSL Task Force Report.

The Crawford Report was a magnificent blueprint for the future of the game. I'm convinced that had we followed all 53 recomendations the game would be in better shape than it is now.

‘The optimum number of clubs should be determined by the marketplace and market demographics.’
‘The new NSL teams will not represent any particular ethnic group and should draw support
from the broader Australian community.’
‘Linkages with Schools is an important criterion. The clubs need to work together with schools
in their geographic regions employing a development officer and players targeting the broader
grass roots to increase not only the excitement of the game in terms of the junior level which
is flourishing, but to nurture and increase the supporter base.’
Newcastle United FC

interesting topic lots of good information. esp that post above cheers Arthur.

One thing that i find interesting is the first requirement that the league be separate from the FFA/ASA like the Premier league has no happened.