Post history

History for Jerzy Merino

Phoenix Ownership - Rob says FTFFA (Part 2)

Back to topic

Current version

Posted November 10, 2015 00:58 · last edited March 18, 2021 07:34

ConanTroutman wrote:
Mainland FC wrote:
ConanTroutman wrote:
SurgeQld wrote:
Here's the Australian definition (and by it's Australian-ness is quite simple and direct...

METRICS = $$$$$$$$

There are no other metrics that will motivate the FFA. That's it. They want (lots) more money.

Like I said though, clubs are running at losses all over the show, one is already in FFA hands, 2 others are on the verge of financial collapse, and yet the FFA think that we are a financial liability. Obviously they think that if they swap us with a South Sydney club then TV ratings will improve and they will be in a better bargaining position with Fox et al. But what damage to public reputation and therefore interest or support in the league which is caused by clubs folding or so on is potentially far more damaging to ratings than our existence is. FFA are up shark creek and they're lashing out at us because we are an easy target but I think getting rid of us will cost them money and good will in the long run. And I'm pretty sure I'd say that even if I wasn't a Nix fan.

FFA are backing themselves that if they cut us loose the only fallout would be from the NZ public and that it wouldn't harm them domestically. They obviously think they can either get some more money from us or have us jump first and clear the deck for a better replacement. Hence the bullshark aggro posturing and a lot of hot air.

Yeah, what I was getting at was that they are risking that stuff not just from the immediate fallout of getting rid of us, but from the flow on effects. For instance, less investors willing to take over clubs, more clubs folding or suffering serious financial issues, and the associated negative publicity from that. Not to mention the direct costs of the FFA propping up clubs if the have to.. I know we're just one club but replacing a stable club with a risky new venture might make sense if the league was awash in money and stable clubs, but a full third of the other clubs in the league are in dire financial straights. They've already pissed off all the other owners in the league with this so if the going gets tough they may be less inclined to stick with it. I know these are just guesses about what might happen, but it really seems like they are not helping the ALeague's brand at all by treating us like this. And all to seemingly roll the dice on a new club with serious identity and logistical issues.

This. So much for a rich Dorklander willing to invest in a 2nd NZ franchise - who would now be mad enough?

Previous versions

1 version
Unknown editor edited March 18, 2021 07:34
ConanTroutman wrote:
Mainland FC wrote:
ConanTroutman wrote:
SurgeQld wrote:
Here's the Australian definition (and by it's Australian-ness is quite simple and direct...

METRICS = $$$$$$$$

There are no other metrics that will motivate the FFA. That's it. They want (lots) more money.

Like I said though, clubs are running at losses all over the show, one is already in FFA hands, 2 others are on the verge of financial collapse, and yet the FFA think that we are a financial liability. Obviously they think that if they swap us with a South Sydney club then TV ratings will improve and they will be in a better bargaining position with Fox et al. But what damage to public reputation and therefore interest or support in the league which is caused by clubs folding or so on is potentially far more damaging to ratings than our existence is. FFA are up shark creek and they're lashing out at us because we are an easy target but I think getting rid of us will cost them money and good will in the long run. And I'm pretty sure I'd say that even if I wasn't a Nix fan.

FFA are backing themselves that if they cut us loose the only fallout would be from the NZ public and that it wouldn't harm them domestically. They obviously think they can either get some more money from us or have us jump first and clear the deck for a better replacement. Hence the bullshark aggro posturing and a lot of hot air.

Yeah, what I was getting at was that they are risking that stuff not just from the immediate fallout of getting rid of us, but from the flow on effects. For instance, less investors willing to take over clubs, more clubs folding or suffering serious financial issues, and the associated negative publicity from that. Not to mention the direct costs of the FFA propping up clubs if the have to.. I know we're just one club but replacing a stable club with a risky new venture might make sense if the league was awash in money and stable clubs, but a full third of the other clubs in the league are in dire financial straights. They've already pissed off all the other owners in the league with this so if the going gets tough they may be less inclined to stick with it. I know these are just guesses about what might happen, but it really seems like they are not helping the ALeague's brand at all by treating us like this. And all to seemingly roll the dice on a new club with serious identity and logistical issues.

This. So much for a rich Dorklander willing to invest in a 2nd NZ franchise - who would now be mad enough?