Phoenix Ownership - Rob says FTFFA (Part 2)

Erm... Newcastle?

So FFA aren't even paying players themselves now?

Shark if the FFA owes players money maybe they are under more financial strain than realised, hence all of the shark gone down this year?

Clearly all those clubs would have been able to pay their players if the Nix had better metrics

I think the more telling part of that article is this, if you presume it's unintentionally giving us a bit of the real story:

"It is understood the FFA is unwilling to continue funding more than $3 million into the club that yields little in broadcast revenue, Australian football development and attendances.

The governing body is putting pressure on the Phoenix to seek alternative funding to continue being part of the A-League. As of yet the club has not been granted additional funding from the New Zealand government, Sky TV or New Zealand Football."

The reported $2.5m - and now claimed $3m in that article - that they send our way is, as they might see it, giving them only 7 Aussie players in our squad, and no Aussies coming through our reserve side.  That imo is what they are bitching about.  Welnix are being too successful in developing NZ football and they are paying for it.  Better to have another Aussie side (assuming it's viable, and doesn't cannibalise from an existing club).

When they thought they'd get moulah from a 4.5m population TV deal, they probably thought they were going to be on the good end of that deal.  So far they are not.

My gut feel is they want $1.5-2m p.a. or so reduction in what they are giving the Nix, so they are expecting Welnix/NZF/WCC to cough that up.  If so they would be sending around $1m our way, to cover the measly seven aussies we support.

Interestingly, by my reckoning, if it's $1.5m they want to reduce the NZ "subsidy" by, less the $200k they already get from the NZ TV deal, with 13 home games, then $100k every home game is the difference.  Which would be 5,000 extra $20 tickets sold per home game.  Make that a smaller sum per game by increasing the TV license deal, or getting something out of NZF or WCC.  Or Welnix.

That's the real metric, I think. 

(And all the above completely ignoring that half their clubs are in a mess and they'd be better off keeping the Nix.)

I personally think that the A League is in a death spiral at the moment and kicking us out won't help them one little bit. As I see it, the only thing which might save the comp is a shift to a separate entity controlling it. I've said it before but the MLS is an example of how it should be done. For a start every owner is technically actually an investor in the competition and player contracts are managed centrally - it's hard to imagine something like the banned fan fiasco or the FFA's treatment of our license extension happening if club owners were part of the leadership of the comp as a whole.

Or maybe it's just Gallop....

Whether or not they are in a spiral or not will depend on their new TV deal. An increase and they will be ok but a reduction and they are fudgeed.

So Gallop & Lowy's can congratulate themselves with a big bonus for slowing down the progression of what is a good concept and competition because their own stupid greed and egos got in the way. 32 screw ups in 18 months and none of them held accountable. 

This surely mirrors FIFA's incompetance too.

But don't worry a 40 year old Tim Cahill & South Sydney will save the day.

I hate this but I have a bad feeling. I think the issue is secretly already decided. 

Shirley Bright on why this is a bunch of lies and nonsense, the FFA up to their old tricks: 

https://fiveyearstops.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/the-more-things-change.html

OK legal minds...... we see some quite ludicrous looking Court applications being made for a wide range of decisions made by governments and similar sporting organisations , so surely there is an avenue here for Welnix to seek an injunction or something that makes the FFA keep us in the A League or at the very least make it a level playing field for all clubs when it comes to metrics etc. Any thoughts?

Doesn't seem to be too secret

Tim Cahill. He's got some life Karma coming if he destroys pro-football in NZ.

Ah, no, it's been my view from the get go that this is part of the FFA thinking.  Just my first post on the subject, because I've not seen anyone put the metric on it in the same detail. 

But I don't think it's "just a shake down".  I think the FFA are stupid enough to actually believe this crap, and that they can plant another Sydney team into the competition.  

You can negotiate thinking the other guys are a bunch of hard balling sharks.  But half the time they just turn out to be idiots that badly misjudge things and behave irrationally. I think Morrison and co's biggest risk in this is that the other guy is an idiot. 

#metrics update: Our average attendance is 8th in the league, but we're closer to 4th than we are to 9th. Victory and the 2 Sydney teams are up top, then there's a big bunch of teams with averages around 10k (including us) and then CCM and Perth are way behind.

Reliable sauce on Saturday suggested that the antagonists for the paper stories are those involved in the South Sydney bid (being the mayor and councils).

So the mayor and council don't want another Sydney team? 

I meant the 'yay Cahill' stories.

fixed

That's how I remember it when I was over in the 'gong and it all began.

Not shocked by that at all. If we stay in the league and the Cronulla riots enter in a few years, I can see a massive rivalry brewing between us. 

riot v righteous. lol

Riot is a horrible name for a club. Might as well change our name to Mongrel Mob - Seek Hell FFa

See page 429 of this thread (its not the real name for the club)

Get back to school HN ;)

No, look into the true meaning and you might find HN could not be more spot on.

Doesn't antagonist mean against? So the people against the Cahill stories are the mayor/council. That's how i'm reading it...

These two Greek tragedy terms are not really opposites.

Antagonist/s = opponent/s  (usually in reference to two opposing parties)

Protagonists = main actors or players, (another, Latin, term is dramatis personae)

Antagonists are antagonising people. That's how I read it...

excessive worry about ants?

noun

1. A person who is opposed to, struggles against, or competes with another; opponent; adversary.

So in the sentence HN used, it doesn't make sense because he said the antagonist for the paper stories. (the paper stories want another Sydney team)

fixed

Not sure if this has been posted in here before? Pretty funny despite taking the piss out of us.

Classic, that guy is gold.

Someone send him a membership