History for Mainland FC

To be perfectly honest, this is a lot of bullshark in many ways. 

If we play like crap but always get 40K people to our games then we will have assured future regardless
(it is an exaggerated argument, I know).

If we play the beautiful game but nobody turns up to watch it or if SKY pays only a modest pittance to FFA to screen it, then there will be an ongoing stream of pay-for-post comments saying "cut them from the league". 

This is all expected because FFA runs HAL as a business, albeit in a bad way (in that they see it as a cash cow while the clubs would do better running it directly themselves). HAL clubs are actually business franchises, and they make a business case to be part of HAL via franchise licence.  Obviously club performance on the field contributes indirectly to the business case but in a league of 10 (or even 12) clubs with a salary cap there should be room for almost any club to have a chance at finishing in the top four in any given year. Of the existing clubs I believe it is only CCM and WPX that have not done so, but please correct me if I am wrong.  If it is also the case of Perth, the argument below still stands for Western Australia rather than Northern NSW.

If you tried to raise an argument to cut CCM from the league you will hear that they are an outlet for an important Australian football development region (which is true for CCM and the Jets in Northern NSW). But this is a conflation of reasons to be important to FFA vs to be important to HAL.  I will argue that if we had a financially viable second HAL club in New Zealand and continued to employ and develop Australian talent, this would be in my logic just as suitable means of satisfying the argument of developing Australian talent, If this reason was in the business case of HAL.This shows the whole fiasco of the "value to the league" reasoning.

Developing Australian footballers of the future may be FFA's primary remit but not necessarily HAL's primary remit.  HAL primarily exists to make money from selling us entertainment; and that is what every club is part of.  Developing local football talent ranks distant third after making money directly (gate and advertising) and providing entertainment value which will make more money.  

My point is that you can't cut the 10th club on the ladder every season just because they sucked like Hoover that particular season and bring another club in.  But if we always come in in the last 2-3 places, and never climb higher than 6th place, then the concept of "not contributing to the overall entertainment product" becomes a valid argument, especially if the number of licences is limited to 10 because of sponsorship, travel money, etc. If it is not limited and expansion is on the cards, then there is no reason to kick us out as long as the club makes enough money to stay afloat, pay bills and wages, has a decent stadium and a vocal fan forum.

To be perfectly honest, this is a lot of bullshark in many ways. 

If we play like crap but always get 40K people to our games then we have assured future regardless (it is an exaggerated argument, I know).

If we play the beautiful game but nobody turns up to watch it or if SKY pays only a modest pittance to FFA to screen it, then there will be an ongoing stream of pay-for-post comments saying "cut them from the league". 

This is all expected because FFA runs HAL as a business, albeit in a bad way (in that they see it as a cash cow while the clubs would do better running it directly themselves). HAL clubs are actually business franchises, and they make a business case to be part of HAL via franchise licence.  Obviously club performance on the field contributes indirectly to the business case but in a league of 10 (or even 12) clubs with a salary cap there should be room for almost any club to have a chance at finishing in the top four in any given year. Of the existing clubs I believe it is only CCM and WPX that have not done so, but please correct me if I am wrong.  

This shows the whole fiasco of the "value to the league" reasoning. If you tried to raise an argument to cut CCM from the league you will hear that they are an outlet for an important Australian football development region (which is true for CCM and the Jets in Northern NSW). But this is a conflation of reasons to be important to FFA vs to be important to HAL.  I will argue that if we had a financially viable second HAL club in New Zealand and continued to employ and develop Australian talent, this would be in my logic just as suitable means of satisfying the argument of developing Australian talent, If this reason was in the business case of HAL.

Developing Australian footballers of the future may be FFA's primary remit but not necessarily HAL's primary remit.  HAL primarily exists to make money from selling us entertainment; and that is what every club is part of.  Developing local football talent ranks distant third after making money directly (gate and advertising) and providing entertainment value which will make more money.  

My point is that you can't cut the 10th club on the ladder every season just because they sucked like Hoover that particular season and bring another club in.  But if we always come in in the last 2-3 places, and never climb higher than 6th place, then the concept of "not contributing to the overall entertainment product" becomes a valid argument, if the number of licences is limited to 10. If it is not, then there is no reason to kick us out as long as the club makes enough money to stay afloat, pay bills and wages, has a stadium and a vocal fan forum.

To be perfectly honest, this is a lot of bullshark in many ways. 

If we play like crap but always get 40K people to our games then we have assured future regardless (it is an exaggerated argument, I know).

If we play the beautiful game but nobody turns up to watch it or if SKY pays only a modest pittance to FFA to screen it, then there will be an ongoing stream of pay-for-post comments saying "cut them from the league". This is expected because FFA runs HAL as a business albeit in a bad way (in that they see it as a cash cow while the clubs would do better running it directly themselves). HA:L clubs are actually business franchises, and they make a business case to be part of HAL via franchise licence.  Obviously club performance on the field contributes indirectly to the business case but in a league of 10 (or even 12) clubs with a salary cap there should be room for almost any club to have a chance at finishing in the top four in any given year. Of the existing clubs I believe it is only CCM and WPX that have not done so, but please correct me if I am wrong.  If you tried to raise an argument to cut CCM from the league you will hear that they are an important Australian football development region (which is true of Northern NSW). But this is a conflation of reasoning. If we had a financially viable second HAL club in New Zealand and continued to employ and develop Australian talent, I would argue this would be equally suitable means of satisfying the argument of developing Australian talent, If this was the remit of HAL.

Developing Australian footballers of the future may be FFA's primary remit but not necessarily HAL's primary remit.  A-League primarily makes money from selling entertainment; and that is what Phoenix is part of.  Developing local football talent ranks distant third after making money directly (gate and advertising) and providing entertainment value which will make more money.

To be perfectly honest, this is a lot of bullshark in many ways. 

If we play like crap but always get 40K people to our games then we have assured future regardless (it is an exaggerated example, I know).

If we play the beautiful game but nobody turns up to watch it or if SKY pays only a modest pittance to FFA to screen it, then there will be an ongoing stream of pay-for-post comments saying "cut them from the league". This is expected because FFA runs HAL as a business albeit in a bad way (in that they see it as a cash cow while the clubs would do better running it directly themselves). HA:L clubs are actually business franchises, and they make a business case to be part of HAL via franchise licence.  Obviously club performance on the field contributes indirectly to the business case but in a league of 10 (or even 12) clubs with a salary cap there should be room for almost any club to have a chance at finishing in the top four in any given year. Of the existing clubs I believe it is only CCM and WPX that have not done so, but please correct me if I am wrong.  If you tried to raise an argument to cut CCM from the league you will hear that they are an important Australian football development region (which is true of Northern NSW). But this is a conflation of reasoning. If we had a financially viable second HAL club in New Zealand and continued to employ and develop Australian talent, I would argue this would be equally suitable means of satisfying the argument of developing Australian talent, If this was the remit of HAL.

Developing Australian footballers of the future may be FFA's primary remit but not necessarily HAL's primary remit.  A-League primarily makes money from selling entertainment; and that is what Phoenix is part of.  Developing local football talent ranks distant third after making money directly (gate and advertising) and providing entertainment value which will make more money.

To be perfectly honest, this is a lot of bullshark in many ways. 

If we play like crap but always get 40K people to our games then we have assured future regardless (it is an exaggerated example, I know).

If we play the beautiful game but nobody turns up to watch it or SKY pays only a modest pittance to FFA to screen it, then there will be an ongoing stream of pay-for-post comments saying "cut them from the league", because FFA is a business and clubs are actually franchises, and they make a business case to be part of HAL.  Performance on the field contributes indirectly to the business case.

Developing Australian footballers of the future may be FFA's primary remit but not necessarily HAL's primary remit.  A-League primarily makes money from selling entertainment; and that is what Phoenix is part of.  Developing local football talent ranks distant third after making money directly (gate and advertising) and providing entertainment value which will make more money.

To be perfectly honest, this is a lot of bullshark in many ways. 

If we play like crap but always get 40K people to our games then we have assured future regardless (it is an exaggerated example, I know).

If we play the beautiful game but nobody turns up to watch it or SKY pays a pittance to FFA to screen, there will be a lot of pay-for-post comments saying "cut them from the league", because FFA is a business and clubs are actually franchises, and they make a business case to be part of HAL.  

Developing Australian footballers of the future may be FFA's remit but not necessarily HAL's remit.  A-League primarily makes money from selling entertainment; and that is what Phoenix is part of.  Developing local football talent ranks distant third after making money directly (gate and advertising) and providing entertainment value which will make more money.