Actually to be fair, Daniel Richardson didn't do too bad a job in this article (back in Oct 2014):
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c...
Quoting Domey:
" 'The FFA are not linking a licence extension to our crouds. They've never said to us, 'you've got to get your crouds up'."
then later...
"the FFA pocketed every dollar from ticket sales from that fixture - when 32,792 saw the Phoenix beat Newcastle in extra time."
He also went to the FFA for comment on Nix's future:
" 'Commenting on the future of A-League clubs is not something FFA deems to be constructive' it read. "
Fudgeing FFA hurt us more by not commenting on that one. They perhaps could comment on the process and where negotiations are at with the broadcaster. Although I suspect Sky wouldn't be too interested in paying for a product that doesn't have a local team yet confirmed in it.
Daniel also directs the FFA's displeaure to Sky's door (not the Nix's):
"It's understood the FFA hold concerns around the fact Sky paid only $200,000 for the rights to screen the competition this year. In future, they want upwards of $1 million.
That would be a significant jump for Sky but not outlandish given they reportedly pay about $17 million a season for the rights to the NRL."
I would love to see a follow up article now from Danial, basically going over the same ground to see what the different parties say (in particular FFA and Sky).
If I was Sky I would certainly be saying, confirm the Nix's licence and we'll talk about broadcasting rights. Can't see much incentive for Sky if the local team is removed from the equation.