Wellington Phoenix Men

Pignata On Finals Revenue

88 replies · 1,972 views
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Marius Lacatus wrote:

smithy loves the ban. he patrols the forums looking for any excuse. he's our parking warden

 
Actually I've only ever banned someone once, and only for 24 hours (which turned into 48 hours because I forgot to unban them).  I think it was Bluemagic actually.
 
And, ironically, it was for abusing another forum member.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

We need to cultivate a ruthless persona for at least one mod Smithy - believe the hype

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
diego's son wrote:
Smithy wrote:
diego's son wrote:
Tegal wrote:
Just because it has always been the way doesnt mean you shouldnt push for change.


Tegs, change happened in the game over 7 years ago. People here didn't push for reform to the game for no reason.

It's a p.sstake. For Tony to come along 5 seasons in and ask this is wrong.

Phoenix reps were at the GF last year in Melbourne (Isaw Ricky and the crew there) so they've known in previous years of this.

Surely the FFA briefs clubs internally about this type of stuff.
 
Really? 
 
So the rules are set in stone for eternity are they?  Lock it in Eddie.
 
Honestly, you keep revealing yourself to be clueless.  I'm going to add an IQ minimum to the Forum Rules I think.


Smithy, I don't really give a f..k what you think. Marius and Hard News I rate on here as 'forum experts' and if I need a question asked, I trust their views.


Perhaps you could ask either or both of them for some time off?


Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Smithy wrote:
Actually I've only ever banned someone once, and only for 24 hours (which turned into 48 hours because I forgot to unban them).  I think it was Bluemagic actually.
 
And, ironically, it was for abusing another forum member.


I think it was Buffy.

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Hard News wrote:
Smithy wrote:
Actually I've only ever banned someone once, and only for 24 hours (which turned into 48 hours because I forgot to unban them).  I think it was Bluemagic actually.
 
And, ironically, it was for abusing another forum member.


I think it was Buffy.
 
It was Buffy, you're right.
 
Can't believe I haven't banned Bluemagic.  Job for this week.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
HappyTed/JordyBean is making a late run.

We should run forum Idol and everyone can vote someone off each week.

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Update: Tony has asked 4-4-2 to change the title of the article

http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/123133,well-fight-ffa-on-finals-prices.aspx
Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Its because hes not said hes fighting it. Just sitting down and discussing it at the end of the season. But sure put your spin on it if it passes time for you.

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Tegal wrote:
Its because hes not said hes fighting it. Just sitting down and discussing it at the end of the season. But sure put your spin on it if it passes time for you.


You're shooting the messenger here Tegs.
Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Not really. Your the one who said he WAS fighting it and other A league clubs wont be pleased. Im just pointing out that he is not in fact doing so.

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
diego's son wrote:
now I'll say from the outset that I disagree with him here. All clubs and their supporters to date have had to put up with this in the past finals' series. So no exceptions here.

DS

http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news.aspx?CIaNID=+123133#comments

We'll Fight FFA On Finals Prices<!-- tools, pic, related, island ad -->
t  

Sportal Australia
Feb 23 2010 13:29
WELLINGTON Phoenix chief executive Tony Pignata is set to fight Football Federation Australia over their ticket prices and finals revenue policy.

FFA increased regular season ticket prices at Westpac Stadium from $28, for silver seating, to $35 and from $35, for gold seating, to $50 for last weekend's elimination semifinal victory over Perth Glory.

Pignata planned to discuss the current system with the governing body.

"Going forward we will sit down and have a chat with FFA and see if something can be done about it because we have had expenses over the last few weeks," he said.

Expenses included player bonuses for making the top four, with 95 percent of the squad believed to receive $2000 to $3000 each.

"And we have no any revenue coming in at the moment," he said. "Our contract says all finals are run by Football Australia and they take all gate receipts - profit or loss.

"It would have been a very good revenue earner for the club on Sunday. We're not complaining. But we will deal with it and discuss it with FFA after the season."

However, Pignata was pleased there would be no further ticket price increase for the home semifinal against the Newcastle Jets on Sunday, March 7.

"They [FFA] haven't increased it for the next game which is fantastic," he said. "Generally as you go deeper into the finals prices increase, but I don't think it is a stumbling block for people to come to our games.

"Anyone who left on Sunday after 120 minutes, plus penalties, would have got their money's worth. We gave them an extra 40 minutes for free. It was quite stressful, but I'm sure that 24,000 walked out of Westpac Stadium wanting to come back."

Pignata was predicting a sell out crowd after members had snapped up 5000 tickets on Tuesday, with public sales commencing on Wednesday.


 
Diego's son please read my quotes correctly
Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
First.

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Tony P wrote:
Diego's son please read my quotes correctly


Fair enough, I note that you asked 4-4-2 to change the article title, which was misleading when I first read it. My main angle/concern was that clubs such as MVFC and AUFC had been in a similar position before regarding expenses and revenue allocation from finals' games held.

Thanks for responding though - DS.
Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
diego's son wrote:
Tony P wrote:
Diego's son please read my quotes correctly


Fair enough, I note that you asked 4-4-2 to change the article title, which was misleading when I first read it. My main angle/concern was that clubs such as MVFC and AUFC had been in a similar position before regarding expenses and revenue allocation from finals' games held.

Thanks for responding though - DS.
 
No problems DS we (clubs) have know about it for 5 years but we will raise it via the correct channels and see if we can change it to help clubs going forward. When I saw the intial  headline I flipped as it was misleading.
Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Tony P wrote:
diego's son wrote:
Tony P wrote:
Diego's son please read my quotes correctly


Fair enough, I note that you asked 4-4-2 to change the article title, which was misleading when I first read it. My main angle/concern was that clubs such as MVFC and AUFC had been in a similar position before regarding expenses and revenue allocation from finals' games held.

Thanks for responding though - DS.
 
No problems DS we (clubs) have know about it for 5 years but we will raise it via the correct channels and see if we can change it to help clubs going forward. When I saw the intial  headline I flipped as it was misleading.


I think the initial headline got a few of us Tony. But yeah, it sounds like all you club CEO's have to take it up at the FFA sometime. Perhaps one of those Chairman/CEO meetings you all have with the FFA form time to time?

As I've said to you earlier, I think it's good that a club CEO comes on here and posts from time to time. Tony Ising did it at MVFC but stopped the practice in early 2007.

All the best.
Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
What was the headline on 4-4-2?

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
bopman wrote:
What was the headline on 4-4-2?


Check my original post on page 1. I cut and paste the article in full at the time.
Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Tony P is absolutely right.
 
Phoenix have to pay out wages, bonuses for getting to the finals, bonuses for progressing in the finals, and all other expenses that are associated with hosting a match. It's a total joke that FFA take all the gate receipts just because they 'run' the tournament.
 
The Scottish Football Association (and no doubt almost every other FA around the world) 'run' tournaments such as the Scottish Cup but the teams split the gate 50/50 throughout the entire competition.
 
I can't see how the FFA justify this?
 
I have no real issue with the ticket prices although the $50 tickets are maybe a bit steep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Tegal wrote:
I think making the playoffs is incentive enough. The problem there is the top clubs would get richer than the other clubs,i suspect the FFA want to share the cash around. Hence the salary cap also.
 
There could still be SOME benefit for the clubs though - i.e. maybe the clubs making the play offs could get 25% each of gates, the other 50% goes to the FFA. Surely this is a fairer way to do it?
 
When all (?) clubs are losing money, it's not really possible for anyone to get 'richer'. Having clubs break even wouldn't be a bad thing though!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Actually I don't really have a problem with the FFA taking the revenue from the play-offs if that is what was in the current license agreements. If it creates an extra revenue stream for them to run the A-League and do whatever they need to do then fair enough.

What I absolutely have a problem with is that right now the club whose fans they are milking the most doesn't even have a license past next season.

And certainly the clubs should revisit this situation with the FFA if they wish but let's not forget that the Phoenix aren't even in the room for that discussion yet.

So what exactly do we get for our $1.6m FFA?

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
The money all goes back into the A league im quite sure steve-o,just distrubuted more efficiently and evenly rather than just across 6 out of 10 teams. But as terminator said,what do we get? We dont have a youth side or a womens league.
 
As for "we have to pay bonuses" thats our clubs individual choice and should in no way be a claim to any of the money.

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Tegal wrote:
The money all goes back into the A league im quite sure steve-o,just distrubuted more efficiently and evenly rather than just across 6 out of 10 teams. But as terminator said,what do we get? We dont have a youth side or a womens league.
 
As for "we have to pay bonuses" thats our clubs individual choice and should in no way be a claim to any of the money.
 
But this is how football clubs operate, and ticket sales are the main revenue stream? If we're going to attract any players, there has to be a bonus scheme surely?
 
It would be interesting to see exactly how all this money is distributed. More transparency required from the FFA for me.
 
The way the league is, it's unlikely the same teams would make the play offs, and if the FFA took 50% as I suggested, then there would still be plenty to distribute.
 
If Terry is bankrolling Phoenix, then how much exactly do we get from the FFA? Anyone know?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Steve-O wrote:
Tegal wrote:
The money all goes back into the A league im quite sure steve-o,just distrubuted more efficiently and evenly rather than just across 6 out of 10 teams. But as terminator said,what do we get? We dont have a youth side or a womens league.
 
As for "we have to pay bonuses" thats our clubs individual choice and should in no way be a claim to any of the money.
 
But this is how football clubs operate, and ticket sales are the main revenue stream? If we're going to attract any players, there has to be a bonus scheme surely?
 
It would be interesting to see exactly how all this money is distributed. More transparency required from the FFA for me.
 
The way the league is, it's unlikely the same teams would make the play offs, and if the FFA took 50% as I suggested, then there would still be plenty to distribute.
 
If Terry is bankrolling Phoenix, then how much exactly do we get from the FFA? Anyone know?


He'd get a slice of the TV money and "league" sponsorship money for starters.
Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Steve-O wrote:

I have no real issue with the ticket prices although the $50 tickets are maybe a bit steep.


Ha!

Just posted elsewhere that I am in agreement with you Steve-O, but for this we now have an ironic role reversal.

At the beginning of the season I was whinging about ticket prices in relation to affordability and you were pretty accepting of them.

Now I think for finals footy the $35 silver, $50 gold prices are quite acceptable.

"Phoenix till they lose"

Posting 97% bollox, 8% lies and 3.658% genuine opinion. 

Genuine opinion: FTFFA

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Steve-O wrote:
Tony P is absolutely right.
 
Phoenix have to pay out wages, bonuses for getting to the finals, bonuses for progressing in the finals, and all other expenses that are associated with hosting a match. It's a total joke that FFA take all the gate receipts just because they 'run' the tournament.
 
The Scottish Football Association (and no doubt almost every other FA around the world) 'run' tournaments such as the Scottish Cup but the teams split the gate 50/50 throughout the entire competition.
 
I can't see how the FFA justify this?
 
I have no real issue with the ticket prices although the $50 tickets are maybe a bit steep.


Hi Steve-O,
Check the little chat Tony P and I had just before you posted this.

Club CEO's talk to DS!
Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Steve-O wrote:
Tegal wrote:
The money all goes back into the A league im quite sure steve-o,just distrubuted more efficiently and evenly rather than just across 6 out of 10 teams. But as terminator said,what do we get? We dont have a youth side or a womens league.
 
As for "we have to pay bonuses" thats our clubs individual choice and should in no way be a claim to any of the money.
 
But this is how football clubs operate, and ticket sales are the main revenue stream? If we're going to attract any players, there has to be a bonus scheme surely?
 
It would be interesting to see exactly how all this money is distributed. More transparency required from the FFA for me.
 
The way the league is, it's unlikely the same teams would make the play offs, and if the FFA took 50% as I suggested, then there would still be plenty to distribute.
 
If Terry is bankrolling Phoenix, then how much exactly do we get from the FFA? Anyone know?
'Back home' maybe.It wont attract more players as there is still a salary cap,so isnt it better that any extra revenue goes to the FFA to distribute amongst things that need it,evenly across all teams (rather than just the 6 that make the playoffs). Regular season games make sense as every side gets 27 of those.
Things are a bit different here,its more to do with whats good for football in the country as a whole. Hence why national sides are followed so closely. I actually love that.Tegal2010-02-23 18:58:01

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I'm assuming that bonuses are counted within the salary cap?

I agree that not allowing certain teams to dominate is a good thing (although you could argue this has happened already with Melbourne) but I just think they should be some sort of financial reward for reaching, and progressing, in the play offs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
diego's son wrote:
Steve-O wrote:
Tegal wrote:
The money all goes back into the A league im quite sure steve-o,just distrubuted more efficiently and evenly rather than just across 6 out of 10 teams. But as terminator said,what do we get? We dont have a youth side or a womens league.
 
As for "we have to pay bonuses" thats our clubs individual choice and should in no way be a claim to any of the money.
 
But this is how football clubs operate, and ticket sales are the main revenue stream? If we're going to attract any players, there has to be a bonus scheme surely?
 
It would be interesting to see exactly how all this money is distributed. More transparency required from the FFA for me.
 
The way the league is, it's unlikely the same teams would make the play offs, and if the FFA took 50% as I suggested, then there would still be plenty to distribute.
 
If Terry is bankrolling Phoenix, then how much exactly do we get from the FFA? Anyone know?


He'd get a slice of the TV money and "league" sponsorship money for starters.
 
TV money is from Fox / Sky though? I guess it just gets paid to the FFA rather than directly to the clubs though?
 
Like I say, it would be interesting to see the breakdown of all these figures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Junior82 wrote:
Steve-O wrote:

I have no real issue with the ticket prices although the $50 tickets are maybe a bit steep.


Ha!

Just posted elsewhere that I am in agreement with you Steve-O, but for this we now have an ironic role reversal.

At the beginning of the season I was whinging about ticket prices in relation to affordability and you were pretty accepting of them.

Now I think for finals footy the $35 silver, $50 gold prices are quite acceptable.

 
 
I think $35 is fine but $50 is a bit steep. Although I am comparing it with the $28 I am used to paying rather than the regular gold prices.
 
That said, if it came down to it, I'd still pay the $50 if I had to, just not sure the non-regulars would all pay that much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Actually I had forgot to factor in the $21 courtesy charge from Parkwise.

"Phoenix till they lose"

Posting 97% bollox, 8% lies and 3.658% genuine opinion. 

Genuine opinion: FTFFA

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Boys, a bit of an old issue, but the finals money allocation has been raised today by Geoff Lord. Just want to show that this issue is not unique.

fdfsjhfjdhsjkhsddfkflgjf

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/soccer/victory-bid-to-share-finals-cash-20100314-q65k.html
Victory bid to share finals cash <!-- 'push-0' just right-aligns the element so that the main content comes first. --> <!-- cT-storyDetails -->
MICHAEL LYNCH March 15, 2010

MELBOURNE Victory chairman Geoff Lord is calling for a rethink by Football Federation Australia to ensure the clubs that put on the show in the A-League finals get some financial reward.

As Victory prepares to take on Sydney in a grand final for the first time on Saturday night, Lord says he is sure the FFA is happy that this year's title-decider at Etihad Stadium is between the two biggest clubs in the competition.

''We would have been happy enough to have played anybody because we are only concerned about our performance,'' the Victory boss said yesterday.

''They (the FFA) will be happy with Sydney getting through over Wellington because, from their point of view, Sydney versus Melbourne is the biggest crowd-puller. They have got what they would have wanted, and they keep the cash. That is one of a number of changes that the club have requested, but of course we don't make the decisions, the FFA does.''

Lord said the clubs were seeking not just prizemoney for winning competitions but appearance money for making finals. And, he added, it would be nice if the clubs were given a trophy to keep without having to spend ''several thousand dollars'' on a replica.

Sydney's controversial triumph over Wellington - in which teenage striker Chris Payne evoked comparisons with Thierry Henry and Diego Maradona for his blatant handball goal that put the Sky Blues 2-1 up at a critical stage of the game - also ensures that Melbourne will definitely play in the 2011 Asian Champions League alongside Sydney, which qualified by winning the premiers plate a month ago.

''We are definitely pleased about that. It was one of the objectives we set ourselves at the start of the season and its good to have achieved it. But while we are still involved in this season's ACL, our focus for all of this week is clearly going to be on the grand final,'' Lord said.

Victory's coaching staff has been highly critical of the FFA in recent weeks for its fixture scheduling, which has had the club playing important matches on a short turnaround.

None was more so than last week, when it defeated Sydney in the second leg of the major semi-final on Sunday night in the harbour city before playing Korean club Seongnam Ilhwa at Etihad two nights later, a game a leg-weary Melbourne lost 2-0.

FFA chief Ben Buckley rounded on the club late last week and told it to stop complaining, and Lord was not buying into the controversy yesterday.

''Our disappointing showing this year [Melbourne has lost its two opening Asian Champions League games and must get something out of its fixture with Kawasaki Frontale next Tuesday night to stay alive in the tournament] has got a lot to do with the scheduling. I accept that we are not going to change the way the Asian Football Confederation organises things, but you can change the Australian configuration.

''We are pushing for changes to be made in the Australian draw next season, perhaps playing more midweek games so the season finishes earlier and we don't run into this conflicted scheduling with the ACL.

''Surely the FFA would want to help Australian clubs. Isn't it our objective to get our clubs to put their best foot forward in this continental competition?''


diego's son2010-03-15 05:50:18
Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
'"Geoff" would have known of the system for a while. He should have done it behind closed doors at the FFA or with all other A-League clubs.

Surely if this was a concern it has been raised before at meeting of the club CEO's? To go to the media now and say it is a joke. The other clubs wouldn't be impressed.'

Sound familiar?
Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
aitkenmike -
 
Having to pay several thousand for a replica trophy is a bit cheeky!
 
DS - if you so happen to know, does most of the money the FFA takes from the a-league finals series go into running the league, or into running the youth-league, or is it spent elsewhere i.e. development and 'grassroots' football?  Or something else entirely?
 
I'm interested because it would be quite a different story if the clubs were asking for a cut of finals revenue for their benefit, when that money was going somewhere more useful (though perhaps not form an NZ perspective, but that's a different matter!)
 
Even though there's a salary cap, I'm not really supportive of your Sydneys and your Melbournes (and, hopefully, your Wellingtons) getting an extra wad of cash each year from the finals, because it promotes an uneven league.  I'd much prefer they all get the same revenue (although surely they have fees and licence fees to pay, so tbh I'm not sure how it balances out) no matter how well they do.  But then I am a socialist at heart.

14/11/09

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Addicks wrote:
aitkenmike -
 
Having to pay several thousand for a replica trophy is a bit cheeky!
 
DS - if you so happen to know, does most of the money the FFA takes from the a-league finals series go into running the league, or into running the youth-league, or is it spent elsewhere i.e. development and 'grassroots' football?  Or something else entirely?


Couldn't answer it, unless the FFA has an official document.
Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
aitkenmike wrote:
'"Geoff" would have known of the system for a while. He should have done it behind closed doors at the FFA or with all other A-League clubs.

Surely if this was a concern it has been raised before at meeting of the club CEO's? To go to the media now and say it is a joke. The other clubs wouldn't be impressed.'

Sound familiar?


Only wives are meant to remember what a man said from a month ago.


Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I lol'd also. Well done aitkenmike

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
diego's son wrote:
Tegal wrote:
Just because it has always been the way doesnt mean you shouldnt push for change.

For Tony to come along 5 seasons in and ask this is wrong.
 
Wrong? Morally wrong? Factually wrong? NT Wrong?  
 
Tony's opinion is as worthy as yours. If you've got an issue, send the FFA a letter. Don't expect that whinging to us is going to make a difference.
 
You vote keep it the same.
He votes change it.
 
What's the big dealio?
Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
phil_style wrote:
 
Wrong? Morally wrong? Factually wrong? NT Wrong?  
 
Tony's opinion is as worthy as yours. If you've got an issue, send the FFA a letter. Don't expect that whinging to us is going to make a difference.
 
You vote keep it the same.
He votes change it.
 
What's the big dealio?


FFS that's 3 of you that have got it wrong.

This issue was discussed and resolved a month ago, all I did when I found this article was to paste it here. The intent was to say "hey, you guys are not alone in this situation that was raised A WHILE AGO".

3 of you have brought up posts and quotes from a month ago, which are now irrelevant. That attitude is f..king worse than some women I know.

Lighten up, get laid or something like that. The intent of my post from the other day wasn't to start a war, it was to provide INFORMATION.

I'm happy not to provide information if you don't want it, or are going to whinge about it.
Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I think what everyone is pointing out DS is that you have contradicted yourself again.
 
 

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
diego's son wrote:
I'm happy not to provide information if you don't want it


Excellent. That's that settled then. F*** off.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.


Phoenix fans. We have to win them over one fan at a time.

Permalink Permalink