He can't sell the Nix because he doesn't own the Nix, at least not in any meaningful sense (and there's certainly not an open market for A-League licences). Terry funds the Nix, and if he wants out his only option is to hand the licence back to the FFA.
God you're talking rubbish - I must have imagined this then...
You might not have imagined it but you definitely didn't read it. There's nothing there that contradicts what I said.
Tell me, what exactly was Traktovenko buying in this situation? Answer: f**k all. He was providing funding to clear debt. In return he got control of Sydney FC, or more correctly the right to put in a pile of cash and hope he might make one day make a profit.
Also, this was not a "sale" on the open market and it never would have happened without FFA consent. Obviously not an issue in this case because of Lowy's involvement.
The point is that Terry can't just go out and "sell" the Nix. And what is there actually to sell? The FFA even own the Phoenix name and branding ffs!
Just because a newspaper headline writer is a bit loose with the language doesn't change the underlying substance of the transaction.
Absolute garbage - so the owner of an NFL franchise, or NBA franchise, competitions organised in a very similar manner to the A-League, isn't an owner and is a funder? And they can't "sell" their ownership even though such sales occur all the time? Tell me what the difference is - and if you say it is because NFL clubs make money then you are wrong on 2 counts.
Your analysis makes absolutely no sense. Just because the club doesn't make money now doesn't mean it has no value. Here's a thought. A-League clubs lose money. In the future they may not. There is a time value on that possible future income stream. Therefore, depending on your analysis of the future of the league the club could have a value.
What do you sell? You sell fixed assets, player contracts and most importantly you sell the right to participate in the A-League through the licence. Yes the FFA would need to consent to any sale but just because you need FFA consent doesn't mean it can't be sold. All 28 or whatever NFL owners need to vote on a sale but franchises are bought and sold.
This is absolute myth making. First you've said Terry shouldn't go because he wasn't in trouble. WHen is has become clear that he is, you say he shouldn't go because there is no-one else. Now you're saying that he shouldn't go because in fact he can't sell the club.
"Terry funds the Nix, and if he wants out his only option is to hand the licence back to the FFA" is just an incorrect statement.
For argument's sake, Sam Morgan says to Terry I will buy Wgtn Phoenix off you for $150,000. Terry says, done, let's shake hands. The two of thm go to the FFA, FFA says great, we agree and approve Morgan as owner, club sold to Morgan - are you telling me that situation cannot occur?