Post history

History for ConanTroutman

FFA Governance

Back to topic

Current version

Posted November 21, 2018 02:16 · last edited November 21, 2018 02:17

Royz wrote:

ConanTroutman wrote:

Royz wrote:

scribbler wrote:

Blew.2 wrote:

New Football Federation Australia chair Chris Nikou is seeking better engagement with disenchanted fans, with his board having plenty on their plate over coming months.

TEN MORE YEARS will help Wgtn Fans

[/quote]

New chair wants to see two new A-League teams next year. Who doesn't? And forget ten more years for the Nix - I want what the other established teams have in terms of long term contracts. Basically, an equal playing field. Anything less would be a huge injustice. 

[/quote]I think its been well established that Wellington cant get a bigger licence then a 10 year deal from the FFA because of the AFC/OFC & FIFA signing off on them is limited in terms of years. 

Please correct me if I am wrong but im sure I read it a few times.

I thought that during the save the nix campaign it came out that AFC and FIFA really didn't care as long as the FFA was happy with it?

[quote]

It was asked why Nix didn't get a 20 year licence and it was due to FIFA/AFC and OFC can only sign off on a 10 year agreement - the FFA just stuck metrics in there. 

However, FFA announced that Wellington's licence will be immediately extended until "the end of the 2019-2020 season, with two further three-year extensions through to 2022-2023 and then 2025-2026, dependent on a number of factors, especially improved broadcast rights from New Zealand."

Those factors include approval from FIFA, the Asian Football Confederation (AFC), the Oceania Football Confederation (OFC) and New Zealand Football (NZF).

I can't work out what's happened with your quote there what's the source of that "it was asked why Nix didn't get a 20 year license..." line in there? Who was aked? When? Because that's counter to the whole narrative around the Nix extension last time, and there doesn't seem to be any reason why FIFA/AFC would limit it to only a few years. They could have either just canned it completely or signed any extension that came up. Whereas the FFA had motive for being dicks to us - pandering to their "Nix are useless" demographic in Australia and distracting from the shamble that was their leadership.

I can't find the source of the FIFA/AFC being fine with us info, unfortunately. Been too long since it was talked about. But I'm pretty sure that their approval was effectively a box-ticking exercise. Just because their approval is listed as a factor needed for us to get an extension doesn't mean it's a sticking point. It might just be how the legal documents are written - every time the license is extended those parties need to sign it.

Previous versions

1 version
Unknown editor edited November 21, 2018 02:17
Royz wrote:
ConanTroutman wrote:
Royz wrote:
scribbler wrote:
Blew.2 wrote:

New Football Federation Australia chair Chris Nikou is seeking better engagement with disenchanted fans, with his board having plenty on their plate over coming months.

TEN MORE YEARS will help Wgtn Fans

[/quote]

New chair wants to see two new A-League teams next year. Who doesn't? And forget ten more years for the Nix - I want what the other established teams have in terms of long term contracts. Basically, an equal playing field. Anything less would be a huge injustice. 

[/quote]I think its been well established that Wellington cant get a bigger licence then a 10 year deal from the FFA because of the AFC/OFC & FIFA signing off on them is limited in terms of years. 

Please correct me if I am wrong but im sure I read it a few times.

I thought that during the save the nix campaign it came out that AFC and FIFA really didn't care as long as the FFA was happy with it?

[quote]

It was asked why Nix didn't get a 20 year licence and it was due to FIFA/AFC and OFC can only sign off on a 10 year agreement - the FFA just stuck metrics in there. 

However, FFA announced that Wellington's licence will be immediately extended until "the end of the 2019-2020 season, with two further three-year extensions through to 2022-2023 and then 2025-2026, dependent on a number of factors, especially improved broadcast rights from New Zealand."

Those factors include approval from FIFA, the Asian Football Confederation (AFC), the Oceania Football Confederation (OFC) and New Zealand Football (NZF).

I can't work out what's happened with your quote there what's the source of that "it was asked why Nix didn't get a 20 year license..." line in there? Because that's counter to the whole narrative around the Nix extension last time, and there doesn't seem to be any reason why FIFA/AFC would limit it to only a few years. They could have either just canned it completely or signed any extension that came up. Whereas the FFA had motive for being dicks to us - pandering to their "Nix are useless" demographic in Australia and distracting from the shamble that was their leadership.

I can't find the source of the FIFA/AFC being fine with us info, unfortunately. Been too long since it was talked about. But I'm pretty sure that their approval was effectively a box-ticking exercise. Just because their approval is listed as a factor needed for us to get an extension doesn't mean it's a sticking point. It might just be how the legal documents are written - every time the license is extended those parties need to sign it.