Post history

History for ConanTroutman

Phoenix Ownership - Rob says FTFFA (Part 2)

Back to topic

Current version

Posted November 14, 2015 23:59 · last edited March 18, 2021 07:34

C-Diddy wrote:

I think if I was Welnix I would be pointing out that the Central Coast play the same amount of "Derbies" as the Wandertards, Smurfs and Planes, and traveling supporter base for each of these occasions would be quite strong meaning that their average croud would be inflated because of this. 

It just highlights how hypocritical the "metrics" that have been placed on us and nobody else actually are

And Perth, who don't play derbies at all (except of course the distance derby), have a population of 2 million to draw from and this year are drawing smaller crouds than us (and the last couple of years have only been about 1,000 above us). Not to mention they were running a salary cap scam.

But obviously it is because we are kiwis and this isn't about the league at all - it's about Australian football. It shows exactly why the A League should be independently run.

I do understand and respect the position that the A League's primary purpose is to help the growth and development of Australian football, and I can see that at a superficial level we contribute less to that goal than other clubs for obvious reasons. Where the reasoning falls down for me is that we are somehow a drain or impediment on the the growth and development of Australian football. Even at the moment we have 4 young Aussies in our squad (Danoskos, Fox, Powell, Italiano). 

But at a more strategic level, if the FFA want the A League to be stable, sustainable, and internationally  respected, and to be produce high quality football so that Aussie players can be better prepared for European leagues or international games, then they need to think about the long term viability of the competition. It needs more clubs so it doesn't get stale. It needs tradition and a sense of history so that there's connection to local communities and the wider public. In this context the Phoenix should actually be seen as vital to the future of the A League, and by extension to the growth and development of Australian football. Here's why I think that:

  • We are a stable club with owners with long term plans - give us a license and you won't have to worry about us folding or anything.
  • We have a history in the league and an identity and traditions, which help add character and variety to the games. 
  • More clubs will eventually mean that the Australian talent pool is more thinly spread, which may adversely impact the overall quality of the competition. We provide a way to have an extra team in the competition which provides variety into the fixture list without diluting that talent pool too much. 
  • With Wellington in the competition there's a potential for future expansion into other NZ centres - Auckland and Christchurch for instance. This might still be a decade away or more, but if the FFA want promotion/relegation, or even a single tier league with 18 or 20 teams eventually, those could be vital markets. Long term expansion with an eye to more derbies is what the FFA wants, and if derbies also draw more neutral viewers because of the better atmosphere then kiwi derbies might rate more highly on Aussie tv too.
  • The shabby treatment of the Nix will put off smart and sensible investors who might be looking at other clubs. Sure, as a kiwi team we're an outlier, but who's to say the FFA won't just change the goalposts on another club if it suits whatever their current agenda is? THe worse they treat us the less appealing they are to future owners.

Look at the MLS - it's growing and expanding. It's been around long enough to have traditions and history now. There are enough clubs with their own identities and personality that there's a lot of variety in the matches. There are 3 Canadian teams in the MLS and that isn't viewed as a negative for American football development (even though there's much more chance that Canada will play the US in a meaningful game than there is that New Zealand will play Australia. Even across confederations there's technically only a 1/3rd chance each cycle that we will play an AFC team for a WC place - so on average once every 12 years). Yes, North America is much bigger market operating in a different environment, but it does show that a well managed league can develop and grow in a market already saturated with other sports. 

The FFA are just after a short-sighted money grab and a way to deflect from their own poor management. It's not at all surprising but it is fudgeing frustrating.

Previous versions

1 version
Unknown editor edited March 18, 2021 07:34
C-Diddy wrote:

I think if I was Welnix I would be pointing out that the Central Coast play the same amount of "Derbies" as the Wandertards, Smurfs and Planes, and traveling supporter base for each of these occasions would be quite strong meaning that their average croud would be inflated because of this. 

It just highlights how hypocritical the "metrics" that have been placed on us and nobody else actually are

And Perth, who don't play derbies at all (except of course the distance derby), have a population of 2 million to draw from and this year are drawing smaller crouds than us (and the last couple of years have only been about 1,000 above us). Not to mention they were running a salary cap scam.

But obviously it is because we are kiwis and this isn't about the league at all - it's about Australian football. It shows exactly why the A League should be independently run.

I do understand and respect the position that the A League's primary purpose is to help the growth and development of Australian football, and I can see that at a superficial level we contribute less to that goal than other clubs for obvious reasons. Where the reasoning falls down for me is that we are somehow a drain or impediment on the the growth and development of Australian football. Even at the moment we have 4 young Aussies in our squad (Danoskos, Fox, Powell, Italiano). 

But at a more strategic level, if the FFA want the A League to be stable, sustainable, and internationally  respected, and to be produce high quality football so that Aussie players can be better prepared for European leagues or international games, then they need to think about the long term viability of the competition. It needs more clubs so it doesn't get stale. It needs tradition and a sense of history so that there's connection to local communities and the wider public. In this context the Phoenix should actually be seen as vital to the future of the A League, and by extension to the growth and development of Australian football. Here's why I think that:

  • We are a stable club with owners with long term plans - give us a license and you won't have to worry about us folding or anything.
  • We have a history in the league and an identity and traditions, which help add character and variety to the games. 
  • More clubs will eventually mean that the Australian talent pool is more thinly spread, which may adversely impact the overall quality of the competition. We provide a way to have an extra team in the competition which provides variety into the fixture list without diluting that talent pool too much. 
  • With Wellington in the competition there's a potential for future expansion into other NZ centres - Auckland and Christchurch for instance. This might still be a decade away or more, but if the FFA want promotion/relegation, or even a single tier league with 18 or 20 teams eventually, those could be vital markets. Long term expansion with an eye to more derbies is what the FFA wants, and if derbies also draw more neutral viewers because of the better atmosphere then kiwi derbies might rate more highly on Aussie tv too.
  • The shabby treatment of the Nix will put off smart and sensible investors who might be looking at other clubs. Sure, as a kiwi team we're an outlier, but who's to say the FFA won't just change the goalposts on another club if it suits whatever their current agenda is? THe worse they treat us the less appealing they are to future owners.

Look at the MLS - it's growing and expanding. It's been around long enough to have traditions and history now. There are enough clubs with their own identities and personality that there's a lot of variety in the matches. There are 3 Canadian teams in the MLS and that isn't viewed as a negative for American football development (even though there's much more chance that Canada will play the US in a meaningful game than there is that New Zealand will play Australia. Even across confederations there's technically only a 1/3rd chance each cycle that we will play an AFC team for a WC place - so on average once every 12 years). Yes, North America is much bigger market operating in a different environment, but it does show that a well managed league can develop and grow in a market already saturated with other sports. 

The FFA are just after a short-sighted money grab and a way to deflect from their own poor management. It's not at all surprising but it is fudgeing frustrating.