Wellington Phoenix Men

Bit lost

17 replies · 225 views
about 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Bit lost

ive got a song that wont take long, Adelaide are rubbish.. the second verse is same as the first.. ADELAIDE ARE RUBBISH

Permalink Permalink
about 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Right, so is there going to be 10 teams next year. If not then why are these other teams buying anyone and everyone when they don't start for another year or so ?

ive got a song that wont take long, Adelaide are rubbish.. the second verse is same as the first.. ADELAIDE ARE RUBBISH

Permalink Permalink
about 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
They thought they were going to be included this season, but they now are not.
 
Good point though...does that mean Felipe will come crawling back?

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
about 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Offer him lesser wages as a humbling experience.
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!

The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!

Permalink Permalink
about 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
He wouldn't - who would? Once a player has moved on from a club why would he come back? Who knows if he'll stay in the A League though..
Oh Wellington is wonderful. We got the wind, the rain and the phoenix. Oh Wellington is wonderful.
Permalink Permalink
about 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
This is news from Friday regarding this. We wont know for sure until next week but there is good background info in here.

""FOOTBALL Federation Australia last night ruled out footing part of the bill for a Townsville franchise in next season's A-League to ensure the competition expands to 10 teams.

But FFA chief executive Ben Buckley said the governing body could help a Townsville team "in material ways", which would ease the financial burden of a bid costing an estimated $10 million.
While fellow expansion hopefuls Gold Coast Galaxy seem to have ticked all the boxes in fulfilling the FFA's strict criteria, the Townsville bid has come unstuck following a split in the Northern Thunder consortium.

Millionaire businesswoman Millissa Fischer-Massa, who was to provide 51 per cent of the Thunder's finances, remains committed to establishing a Townsville-based team and is prepared to fund the entire project herself.

But Fischer-Massa's representative, Tony Rallis, yesterday admitted the 2009-10 season was his client's preferred option if she was going to take sole ownership of the club.

"We were happy to be in the 2008-09 competition on the proviso that previous consortium members were going to come up with some money," Rallis said.

"To now come up with the other 49 per cent on your own requires planning, due diligence and financial support.

"We don't want to lose a motza of money in the first year. It's going to take a good month to retain people, such as a CEO and other staff. It's going to take two to three months to put a squad together. It's most important to maximise our income streams for corporate signage, ticketing, promotions and sponsorship. If we were to go in this year, we'd be operating at only 50 per cent because of the time frame."

Rallis said a rival Townsville bidder, Thunder general manager James Gage, would only have himself to blame if the Fischer-Massa ticket got the nod from FFA.

"What people don't realise is that Gage has been running around saying there was a bid � there was no contract with any grounds," he said. "They (Gage and businessman Allen St James) wanted someone to put in all the money.

"When you go into a partnership and the other side can't come up with the money, what are you going to do? It's either fold or put up."

Buckley said the FFA's announcement on the fate of the Gold Coast and Townsville bids had been delayed until next week.
Permalink Permalink
about 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
A reliable source said to me today that unless a miracle occurs in the next twenty-four hours, expect an eight team league.

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink Permalink
about 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
what is the FFA's problem with having a 9 team league btw?? It means 3 extra rounds, with one team having a bye, why has it got to be 8 OR 10 teams? I don't see the problem.
Permalink Permalink
about 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
i think the bye was going to be the problem, from what i've read i don't think many in the FFA and A-league teams wanted a bye during the season
Permalink Permalink
about 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Definately 8 Teams next season!
 
FFA cant afford the risk. Also I think their preferred option is still either a 2nd Sydney or Melbourne side or possibly Wollongong.
 
 

"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009

Permalink Permalink
about 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Makes it tough on the Galaxy as they are ready to go this season. What happens to their signed players?. I guess Felipe will be spending the next 12 months playing beach football.
 
Whats the big deal about having a bye....except its hard to keep the league table balanced weekly.
Permalink Permalink
about 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Hard News wrote:
A reliable source said to me today that unless a miracle occurs in the next twenty-four hours, expect an eight team league.
 
... like someone going to the Barber and hearing the news on the radio...
 
And the rest is history!
Permalink Permalink
about 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Christo wrote:
i think the bye was going to be the problem, from what i've read i don't think many in the FFA and A-league teams wanted a bye during the season
 
Or any other league. It is no coincidence that European football has mainly stayed with even numbers in division sizes. Only once has it happened deliberately that we've had odd numbers of participants within a division:
 
The Prem level had 21 in 1987/88 with the Champ level having 23 that year - but that was because they decided to gradually reduce the top flight from 22 to 20, rather than relegate two additional teams in a single season. The first year they had only two promotions (costing Oldham entry to the top flight - though everyone knew in advance so Oldham weren't really robbed), whereas the second they had four relegations... amusingly enough Chelsea picked up the extra relegation spot!
 
The other 3 times had were accidents:
 
- The regional division 3 (as it was then) North had 21 in 1931/32 - due to Wigan Borough's demise the before the season began and they weren't replaced until the following season.
 
- The 4th level had 23 teams for 1991/92 and 1992/93... but only because Aldershot went belly-up and had their results voided (after 36 games of a 46 game season) in 1991/92 and Maidstone United were declared bankrupt and expelled in 1992/93. They started each season with even numbers.
Permalink Permalink
about 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
SiNZ wrote:
Christo wrote:
i think the bye was going to be the problem, from what i've read i don't think many in the FFA and A-league teams wanted a bye during the season
 
Or any other league. It is no coincidence that European football has mainly stayed with even numbers in division sizes. Only once has it happened deliberately that we've had odd numbers of participants within a division:
 
The Prem level had 21 in 1987/88 with the Champ level having 23 that year - but that was because they decided to gradually reduce the top flight from 22 to 20, rather than relegate two additional teams in a single season. The first year they had only two promotions (costing Oldham entry to the top flight - though everyone knew in advance so Oldham weren't really robbed), whereas the second they had four relegations... amusingly enough Chelsea picked up the extra relegation spot!
 
The other 3 times had were accidents:
 
- The regional division 3 (as it was then) North had 21 in 1931/32 - due to Wigan Borough's demise the before the season began and they weren't replaced until the following season.
 
- The 4th level had 23 teams for 1991/92 and 1992/93... but only because Aldershot went belly-up and had their results voided (after 36 games of a 46 game season) in 1991/92 and Maidstone United were declared bankrupt and expelled in 1992/93. They started each season with even numbers.
 
Trainspotter!
 Nice recall though -  quality post  - respect.
Permalink Permalink
about 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Brewer wrote:
SiNZ wrote:
Christo wrote:
i think the bye was going to be the problem, from what i've read i don't think many in the FFA and A-league teams wanted a bye during the season
 
Or any other league. It is no coincidence that European football has mainly stayed with even numbers in division sizes. Only once has it happened deliberately that we've had odd numbers of participants within a division:
 
The Prem level had 21 in 1987/88 with the Champ level having 23 that year - but that was because they decided to gradually reduce the top flight from 22 to 20, rather than relegate two additional teams in a single season. The first year they had only two promotions (costing Oldham entry to the top flight - though everyone knew in advance so Oldham weren't really robbed), whereas the second they had four relegations... amusingly enough Chelsea picked up the extra relegation spot!
 
The other 3 times had were accidents:
 
- The regional division 3 (as it was then) North had 21 in 1931/32 - due to Wigan Borough's demise the before the season began and they weren't replaced until the following season.
 
- The 4th level had 23 teams for 1991/92 and 1992/93... but only because Aldershot went belly-up and had their results voided (after 36 games of a 46 game season) in 1991/92 and Maidstone United were declared bankrupt and expelled in 1992/93. They started each season with even numbers.
 
Trainspotter!
 Nice recall though -  quality post  - respect.
oldham were robbed. any time something bad happens to us we were robbed.
but yeah i really cant see the problem with the bye. i guess the ffa set the precedent last year of dragging a process like this out so eventually a decision will be made

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink Permalink
about 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
All players signed to Galaxy (and Thunder) were on contracts only applicable to the A-League, as the clubs won't be in the A-League the player's contracts are not binding.  There's plenty of spots open around the A-Leauge, if Felipe wants to hang around in Australia, he'll be picked up soon enough.
Permalink Permalink
about 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
is this a list of players now off contract anywhere.
 
Didn't the Galaxy claim they had several players that played in the grand final?  must be some talent floating around now.
Permalink Permalink
about 18 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
betters wrote:
is this a list of players now off contract anywhere.
 
Didn't the Galaxy claim they had several players that played in the grand final?  must be some talent floating around now.


Yeah, but they also claimed that they had Karl Dodd who we know from a reliable source was not going anywhere so on that basis you have to take their claims with a rather large pinch of salt.


Permalink Permalink