Channel 7 have their hands full with not only AFL but also V8 Supercar. Although the AFL is mostly done and dusted by the time the A-League kicks in, and doesnt start again until the A-League is finnished, the V8 commitments kick in pretty strong once the AFL is over and it would be a struggle to finnd airtime for the A-League.

Channel 9 is obviously too busy during the summer with their cricket coverage so nothing could really be done their either.

This really only leaves Channel 10, as i dont really see the ABC or SBS as a viable option. Channel 10 have little in the way of sporting commitments outside of the AFL now they have lost the V8's, and most of their motorsport coverage is either late night stuff for the Formula One and the bikes, or delayed replays of rallying. The A-League could easily sit in and around Channel 10's existing sporting commitments and is the main avenue that i would be exploring if i was a part of the FFA.

Crucially, any deal with a free-to-air network would have to be in partnership with foxsports. Channel 10 would never be able to show every game of every round live, particularly when we start getting more teams. However in combination with Fox Sports, it'd be reletively easy to have all games televised live each weekend. Perhaps two on Channel 10 and two on Fox each week.

Also lets not forget that a strong tv deal = more money to the FFA, which the FFA could then destribute to the clubs which would enable to clubs to possibly expand their salary cap, thus building the quality of players in the league

We have come so far in 10 short years....................

or not.  still working this out.  10 years on.  

Davide forgot the blue text

Yeah....this thread bump didn't go in the direction I had planned aha
I will try to be more obvious in the future

It was the NSL which produced the golden generation for us

Not going to bring the golden generation into this but would rather focus on the players that stayed here, I would class the likes of trimboli, Cardozo, boutsianis, ivanovic, tobin and the endless list that goes on and on as superior players to the foreigners we get now. These guys would have been huge names in this era.The A league is significantly quicker though, but the NSL had better technical players.

Emerton played 94 NSL games, culina played 53, grella 40, viduka 48, schwarzer 58, chipperfield 131.

That's 6 of your starting 11 in the first game of 06 World Cup.

Popovic 162 NSL games and sterjovski 67 NSL games, both started the 2nd game against Brazil.

You can't look at the above and say these players were in the NSL for 2 minutes, at a minimum 2 seasons and above.

You can spin it whichever way you want, the numbers make for good reading for the NSL.

As far as game speed goes, you can make the argument for any league in the world that was significantly slower in the 90s compared to now, nobody questions the global superstars of that era, if you watched NSL regularly you wouldn't question the quality of the Na,es I mentioned, they were quality.

Emerton played 94 NSL games, culina played 53, grella 40, viduka 48, schwarzer 58, chipperfield 131.

That's 6 of your starting 11 in the first game of 06 World Cup.

Popovic 162 NSL games and sterjovski 67 NSL games, both started the 2nd game against Brazil.

You can't look at the above and say these players were in the NSL for 2 minutes, at a minimum 2 seasons and above.

You can spin it whichever way you want, the numbers make for good reading for the NSL.

As far as game speed goes, you can make the argument for any league in the world that was significantly slower in the 90s compared to now, nobody questions the global superstars of that era, if you watched NSL regularly you wouldn't question the quality of the Na,es I mentioned, they were quality.

Yeah, thats what I said. Whilst some of the golden gen had NSL experience, many didn't or were taught overseas. Neill, Moore, Cahill, Kewell, Skoko (NPL). Fresh and Vinnie played very little here and learnt a lot in Italy.

As an Anglo-Celtic kid from rural Victoria, with ancestors who were convicts and VFL players. I had no team that I thought I could support until Victory came around. The A League got me into the game as more than just a player and part time Socceroo fan. Even if Victoria had have had a team that reflected my heritage, or lack thereof, I doubt they would have had the marketing capacity to reach out to me. Victory had that marketing capacity. 

The A-League replaced the NSL because it was SO SHITWhat do some people not get

We are just focussing on 2006 here. Many argue and make a fair case that the 1997 team was even better, that team had even greater NSL links.

NSL wouldn't have had fans bored shitless like they are now. At least the variety of teams, supporter bases and venues kept things fresh. 

I doubt the NSL would ever of got a 50 million a year tv deal

So the question is. how do we keep the commercialism with professional standards whilst not boring everyone with a bland competition? 

And PR is the only answer

No its not.
If you want it, maybe you also want what everyone else in the world has as well. ie. the top 2 teams take 50% of the t.v money. Sounds good to me MVFC and SFC can slice up the cash and the rest can get the dregs. That will be much better for player development as all the youngsters will be fighting to leave their small club to go to one of the big 2.
Just because something works overseas doesn't mean it will work here.

Do you just dream up doomsday scenarios with no evidence all time?

No its not.
If you want it, maybe you also want what everyone else in the world has as well. ie. the top 2 teams take 50% of the t.v money. Sounds good to me MVFC and SFC can slice up the cash and the rest can get the dregs. That will be much better for player development as all the youngsters will be fighting to leave their small club to go to one of the big 2.
Just because something works overseas doesn't mean it will work here.

Lol what shit. Why would PR mandate that the biggest teams get the most TV money? If every game is being shown, then there is no reason that TV money can't be distributed equally.

It literally works in every country bar America and they could do it tomorrow if they weren't run by a bunch of Muricaball fans, saying it will not here for no other reason than we're different doesn't fly anymore.

"top 2 teams take 50% of the t.v money" is this bloke for real?

Lol what shit. Why would PR mandate that the biggest teams get the most TV money? If every game is being shown, then there is no reason that TV money can't be distributed equally.

It literally works in every country bar America and they could do it tomorrow if they weren't run by a bunch of Muricaball fans, saying it will not here for no other reason than we're different doesn't fly anymore.

You missed the point entirely. It seems the main argument on here from people that want to implement pro/rel is that 'it works in the rest of the world'. What also works in the rest of the world is having the t.v money split unevenly with the top couple of teams getting the most. The argument that something works elsewhere is not enough. There's no analysis that has been put forward on here that pro/rel would work here on a financial basis and make the league secure.As I said, there are a lot of posters with a philosophical commitment to pro/rel, but they don't back it up with any real analysis of how that could work in the Australian sports marketplace.

You missed the point entirely. It seems the main argument on here from people that want to implement pro/rel is that 'it works in the rest of the world'. What also works in the rest of the world is having the t.v money split unevenly with the top couple of teams getting the most. The argument that something works elsewhere is not enough. There's no analysis that has been put forward on here that pro/rel would work here on a financial basis and make the league secure.As I said, there are a lot of posters with a philosophical commitment to pro/rel, but they don't back it up with any real analysis of how that could work in the Australian sports marketplace.

"The argument that something works elsewhere is not enough"
Not elsewhere. EVERYWHERE. Theres a difference. 

"There's no analysis that has been put forward on here that pro/rel would work here on a financial basis and make the league secure"

Now wheres the analysis that says it wont work?
Can you point to any of the 200+ leagues employing PR that have failed?
Why do you assume that we will fail where 200+ leagues have thrived?

Let me guess (as melb terrace has already suggested to you) we are a unique sporting environment?
The sooner you realise your only arguments are "we are unique/we need to pander to midget sports" the sooner you can start brainstorming on how we can speed up the process of implementing PR.

Look, I actually like the romance of pro/rel, but you don’t put forward any evidence based analysis as to why it would work here and scoff at reasonable arguments that point out the challenges that we face here in Australia. Grow up and put forward an evidence based case instead of just throwing in a swear word or two when you’re frustrated someone doesn’t agree with your point of view.

"P/R is actually more financially viable than the current model because it has less burden on the FFA
If the FFA gave each top tier club $3m and each second tier club $1m, that is $44m for 12 teams at the top and 8 teams at the bottom
$3m plus an inevitable $500k sponsorship is enough to field a minimal A League club even with attendances of 0, and 2 away games to Perth. It is an all inclusive viable figure $1m is enough to do the same at a stand alone semi professional level"

So you're saying FFA should spend more than they do currently, but it's less of a burden?
You're suggesting clubs get less than they want, and some get much less than they do currently. (Clubs are unhappy with current dividend of $2.6 mil and want up to $6m if you believe Adelaides chairman. I also can't see any of the current clubs agreeing to take a cut of $2 mil if they get relegated.)  
$1 million will get you an NPL standard team. We already have those, and FFA don't spend anything on them. 

"At the top you will have City, MV, SFC, WSW and BR spending much more due to owners, investors, sponsors and commercial partners. This will drive the total player salaries to levels the game has not seen before. It will also boost attendances and ratings. This is at no cost to the FFA"

There is no extra incentive for any sponsors/investors/owners to spend more than they do currently. If they wanted to, currently they could go and buy 3 superstars at $10 mil each. They don't. I don't see why any club would spend more. Why wouldn't salaries go down? If you're a club that struggles, or was based only in the 2nd tier, you'd be pushing wages down not up. All clubs would have to have either single season contracts, or contracts that provided for a pay cut if the team got relegated. That is why smaller leagues have smaller salaries and we would be no different. Pro/rel would likely put downward pressure on wages. It might boost attendances and ratings for the 'key games' in a relegation battle.

"If a club is relegated they do not die. Even if the owner hands their licence back they are still fully funded by the FFA. If a club is promoted they don't become bankrupt. They receive additional funds and their spot is fully paid for. All other spending is discretionary and if they overspend they will be replaced by a ready made club"

If a club is relegated, their attendance will drop. That is a constant amongst the majority of the world. (Heres a point where I agree with you that the rest of the world is likely to be an indicator of what would happen here). That would affect the income they receive from members/gate takings, and would likely affect sponsorship revenue in a downward manner.


"The FFA simply have to keep the league value at the $44m which it can easily do given 10k crowd averages and 60k ratings for a 10 team league gives us $60m
The current model saw the FFA spend $6m on the Jets and lose $2.5m. Why? Because under a balanced structure a $3.5m club is not suffice. Every club must spend the same which means they are all the size of NQF ($3.5m) all the size of AU ($6m) or all the size of MV ($12m). The answer is in the middle which means the FFA must spend more money to help the small clubs, and at the same time tell big clubs to stop spending. Clubs are demanding $5m from the FFA to stay afloat. The FFA will realistically give them $3.5m. If you take a middle figure of about $4m required for viability then that means $40m gives you a 10 team league. $48m gives you a 12 team league. It actually costs more money to have 12 balanced teams than to have two tiers. Not only that but spending is capped. In a 2 tier league MC can have a squad size of $15m to $20m. In the current model it is $2.6m plus 3 players. People pay money to see the best teams. Its the 80 / 20 rule. To see a $15m club in a 2 tier structure it costs the FFA $44m. To see a $15m club in a single tier structure it would cost the FFA well over $180m. There is a reason why the A League cant get past 10 clubs. There is a reason why $17m was enough for 10 teams and the rest of football, now $80m is barely enough for the next 4 years assuming there is no expansion"

I don't get what you're trying to say here. It seems to be mostly to do with the salary cap. I think the salary cap is o.k., but could be better. At the moment, no club except City (and Victory would've if they could've) chooses to use all of the cap and all 3 marquee spots. City are spending $9.5 mil, which is the most ever spent by a club in Australia. That's a positive in my book. That's done under the current system. There is currently a huge difference between the CCM spend and the City spend, all under the current system. it's true that FFA give each club the same distribution, and that's o.k, or are you advocating that City or another club should get much more t.v money than other clubs that draw lower t.v ratings or are in regional t.v markets?

"To get the most out of the A League the FFA needs to shift the cost burden off the registered players and onto the owners and their commercial partners. Due to the disbalance in population / wealth / player talent it means we have to do away with the cap. And with no cap we need P/R to avoid a break away rebel league or gradual disinterest."

Shift the cost burden onto owners and commercial partners? You do realise that football is a business? Why would an owner want to pay more and earn less and lose money? Theres only so many wealthy benefactors willing to lose money, what we need is a financially viable business that attracts investors looking to make money, and that will grow the game. Why get rid of the cap? As I've said above, anyone can (but don't) spend $30m or more on 3 marquees and the full cap on the rest of the squad. That doesn't seem too limiting to me. Gradual disinterest? The expansion of the top single tier should deter that. A 14-18 tier league would hold my interest. It works in the NRL and AFL to hold their fans interest, many of whom will also be followers of football to some extent.

"Now I don't see any evidence that a single tier structure with a salary cap is commercially viable for our game. Care to demonstrate..."

The single tier gives certainty to investors that the team they buy into will not be devalued by moving out of the main league to lower level with less visibility and less possibility for revenue raising. The salary cap provides some idea of your total spend and some comfort that you will be able to be competitive as whilst one or two teams may spend big on marquees, you can probably compete with the majority of teams without blowing your budget.