Football Media Discussion

[nmh94]

I tend to disagree with Simon Hill on this one (a rare thing). FTA that people actually flick through, and with marketing potential, is a must. Even if it is a side channel to begin with, like a 7mate or ONE. The bigger channels (e.g. the 7 or 10, whatever the case) could then cross promote, drawing greater exposure. I have no doubt we would then see a substantial increase in the viewership, and therefore revenue. 

 

We need to move past the idea of the next TV deal being the cash cow. It won't be. The one after that will be far more important. The next one, we need proper FTA, even if it doesn't allow us much more cash. If we get it, and ratings increase (which they definitely would, even by doing absolutely nothing else different to what happens now), then future deals would bring in the money. 

 

The FFA also must not go down the path of sacrificing crowds for ratings, NRL style Unfortunately with the increase in Thursday night games this year, they have already shown signs of doing this. Big crowds= greater atmosphere= better TV product. It's simple. People flicking past are far more likely to keep the game on if there is a sold out crowd with an great atmosphere rather than if they are seeing 6k at Gosford.

[beatsurrender]

I tend to disagree with Simon Hill on this one (a rare thing). FTA that people actually flick through, and with marketing potential, is a must. Even if it is a side channel to begin with, like a 7mate or ONE. The bigger channels (e.g. the 7 or 10, whatever the case) could then cross promote, drawing greater exposure. I have no doubt we would then see a substantial increase in the viewership, and therefore revenue. 

 

We need to move past the idea of the next TV deal being the cash cow. It won't be. The one after that will be far more important. The next one, we need proper FTA, even if it doesn't allow us much more cash. If we get it, and ratings increase (which they definitely would, even by doing absolutely nothing else different to what happens now), then future deals would bring in the money. 

 

The FFA also must not go down the path of sacrificing crowds for ratings, NRL style Unfortunately with the increase in Thursday night games this year, they have already shown signs of doing this. Big crowds= greater atmosphere= better TV product. It's simple. People flicking past are far more likely to keep the game on if there is a sold out crowd with an great atmosphere rather than if they are seeing 6k at Gosford.

 

What would be acceptable though for a FTA network as regards ratings? Even 100K which is around double what we're getting on FOX wouldn't be a good number for FTA. NRL regularly gets 600k+ for average games, BBL around a million.

I agree we need to get that exposure but for the deal after that to be substantially higher we will need the ratings to be 4x more I reckon at least. Also marketing is the one advantage it will give us. This season there has been sweet FFA promotional stuff.

[Stokz]

Best would be to structure a performance based contract.

 

Start off with the acceptable and then if we get good ratings you get bonus yearly payments.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Stokz

[Burgerman]

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/video/612483651690/Tim-Cahill-Full-interview

I agree with his thoughts of more investment like Cahill suggests.

[Prydzopolis]

 

Simple Gazmon, we get a massive $150m TV deal & then we can raise the salary cap. Simples.

That's not happening though.

As Gazmon says, the cap needs to be modified in some way, shape, or form for the good of the competition. Many (including Simon Hill) have said that the FFA funded marquee idea is being discussed at length by clubs and the FFA. It looks as though it could be implemented as early as next season

I was being a little serious & mostly was being facetious. We'll struggle to get $80m let alone $150m but getting a bumper deal will solve a lot of problems whilst creating a lot more other ones.

[nmh94]

 

 

I tend to disagree with Simon Hill on this one (a rare thing). FTA that people actually flick through, and with marketing potential, is a must. Even if it is a side channel to begin with, like a 7mate or ONE. The bigger channels (e.g. the 7 or 10, whatever the case) could then cross promote, drawing greater exposure. I have no doubt we would then see a substantial increase in the viewership, and therefore revenue.

 

We need to move past the idea of the next TV deal being the cash cow. It won't be. The one after that will be far more important. The next one, we need proper FTA, even if it doesn't allow us much more cash. If we get it, and ratings increase (which they definitely would, even by doing absolutely nothing else different to what happens now), then future deals would bring in the money.

 

The FFA also must not go down the path of sacrificing crowds for ratings, NRL style Unfortunately with the increase in Thursday night games this year, they have already shown signs of doing this. Big crowds= greater atmosphere= better TV product. It's simple. People flicking past are far more likely to keep the game on if there is a sold out crowd with an great atmosphere rather than if they are seeing 6k at Gosford.

What would be acceptable though for a FTA network as regards ratings? Even 100K which is around double what we're getting on FOX wouldn't be a good number for FTA. NRL regularly gets 600k+ for average games, BBL around a million.

I agree we need to get that exposure but for the deal after that to be substantially higher we will need the ratings to be 4x more I reckon at least. Also marketing is the one advantage it will give us. This season there has been sweet FFA promotional stuff.

 

They are the sort of numbers that would be acceptable for one of the side channels (One, Mate etc) though. Realistically, I think that is where it would probably have to start, with the option of putting it on one of the major ones if things go well

[btron3000]

I guess players leave for the following reasons:

• Money
• More playing time
• Promise of 'better' football
• More money (yes, put it there twice)

...

 

How do we fix it? Either abolish the salary cap, or adjust it. Create it so that it limits a teams spending based on their revenue (locally, in the case of Melbourne City). If you can earn x-amount, why should you have to pay them within the same wage bracket as a team that may generate a tenth of what you do? (see Melbourne Victory v CCM).

 

I had an idea ages ago that instead of raising the cap according to revenue, which really does put smaller teams at a disadvantage and would probably also see 'creative accounting' (as well as jersey prices going up further from the ridiculous amounts they already are!!), the cap should be raised for each team according to how much money they make in the transfer market.

At the moment selling a player doesn't really help the club invest in other players because we have a cap. It's just money for the owner or potentially for a marquee.

I'm not sure if it should be dollar for dollar, but I think if it's based on transfer $$ it would be positive overall. 

 

Pros: gives small clubs a chance; simple to define and calculate when compared to total revenue; encourages development (BIG pro!); encourages competitiveness 

Cons: Do we want to be encouraging our clubs to sell players, particularly to Asia just to get big $$$ etc (maybe the way the salary cap increases are calculated can take into account where the player goes too...??)

 

Anyway, not sure how that would play out, but I can't see ideas like this even being thrown around down at FFA headquarters. I don't mind the central fund for marquees idea, but I don't know how that can be fair. At least this one relies totally on the clubs themselves going out there and developing juniors and being smart about how they structure contracts.

[Burztur]

I'm thinking maybe a marquee subsidy from the FFA which is capped but rolling.

 

For example, each year the FFA have a pool of 500k per club to spend on a marquee (total 5m). Clubs can spend that amount on their marquee (which is basically their highest paid player) or roll it forward. E.g. if CCM only spent 400k on their marquee, they could roll forward 100k for the next year and spend 600k on a marquee. For the bigger clubs, they would just reduce their spend (e.g. Berisha is paid $1m but the club and FFA each contribute 500k). Rolling the cap also allows smaller clubs to buy a marquee and be competitive in later years but it shouldn't impact on the bigger clubs.

[Hughesy]

Where are the FFA getting this money from to pay for marquees? They've barely got two cents to rub together for some promotional material let alone 10 players.

[Prydzopolis]

Where are the FFA getting this money from to pay for marquees? They've barely got two cents to rub together for some promotional material let alone 10 players.

Im thinking the new TV deal, I agree that currently they have no money for anything right now!

[Nnnnnathan12]

[Hughesy]

It's very concerning that the short to mid term future of the A-League is hinging largely on the assumption that the next TV rights deal will automatically rise significantly. There's more chance that it's NOT going to at the moment and to be honest it probably doesn't deserve to either under the current set up.

 

The only other plans in place are the stupid targets that have been set in that Whole of Football Plan, some of which will be lucky to be achieved in 50 years or at all, let alone 20 years. I really hope there is something more realistic being planned behind closed doors.

[West13]

Found out today that a colleague's mate works for DG at the FFA.

 

Told him to pass on a message that they need to step up their game.

[Flytox]

It's very concerning that the short to mid term future of the A-League is hinging largely on the assumption that the next TV rights deal will automatically rise significantly. There's more chance that it's NOT going to at the moment and to be honest it probably doesn't deserve to either under the current set up.

 

The only other plans in place are the stupid targets that have been set in that Whole of Football Plan, some of which will be lucky to be achieved in 50 years or at all, let alone 20 years. I really hope there is something more realistic being planned behind closed doors.

 

The FFA's Strategic Plan 2011 -15 finished the end of last financial year and it was left for the new Board to produce the next one along with the executive.  I'm sure they will be on to it.  It sensible that it be prepared in parallel with negotiations for the next broadcast deal.

[beatsurrender]

 

Where are the FFA getting this money from to pay for marquees? They've barely got two cents to rub together for some promotional material let alone 10 players.

Im thinking the new TV deal, I agree that currently they have no money for anything right now!

 

 

Yes it would have to be from a new TV deal. Without that there is no chance of big name marquees.  I guess any FTA deal would be predicated on getting marquees so the FTA network would need to stump up the money going on the hope that high profile marquees will drive ratings increases and therefore justify the highest rights paid.

[btron3000]

I'm thinking maybe a marquee subsidy from the FFA which is capped but rolling.

 

For example, each year the FFA have a pool of 500k per club to spend on a marquee (total 5m). Clubs can spend that amount on their marquee (which is basically their highest paid player) or roll it forward. E.g. if CCM only spent 400k on their marquee, they could roll forward 100k for the next year and spend 600k on a marquee. For the bigger clubs, they would just reduce their spend (e.g. Berisha is paid $1m but the club and FFA each contribute 500k). Rolling the cap also allows smaller clubs to buy a marquee and be competitive in later years but it shouldn't impact on the bigger clubs.

 

I like this! I wouldn't be concerned about the FFA finding $5m. If they think it will ultimately benefit the league, they'll find it. Also, they can sell this idea to the likes of Ch 10 etc. "You give us $xxx, and we guarantee you we will have marquees".

 

EDIT: Beats beat me!

Edited February 2, 2016 by btron3000

[beatsurrender]

Socceroos to play England in May?

 

Quote:

Socceroos set to face England in first friendly in more than a decade

2 February 2016
David Davutovic


THE Socceroos look set to play England for the first time in over 13 years in a highly charged friendly in late May.

England manager Roy Hodgson has pencilled in a May 27 game against Australia to be played in Newcastle or Sunderland, in a crucial Euro 2016 warm-up game.

Socceroos boss Ange Postecoglou will be treating it as seriously, among Australia’s final games before the third and final Asian qualifying phase for the 2018 World Cup.

The clash will pit Socceroos superstar Tim Cahill against England captain Wayne Rooney, who are their countries’ respective record goalscorers.

However both teams are underpinned by an exciting batch of youngsters, led by Harry Kane (Tottenham), Ross Barkley (Everton), Raheem Sterling (Manchester City) and Mat Ryan (Valencia). Massimo Luongo (QPR) and Tom Rogic (Celtic).

The England FA would not comment on the Socceroos clash but revealed that they plan to announce several pre-Euro 2016 fixtures by the end of the month.

Football Federation Australia confirmed that talks had taken place about a potential clash.

“FFA can confirm it has had discussions with the English FA about the possibility of the Socceroos playing England in an international but will make no further comment at this stage,†said an FFA spokesperson.

Australia concludes its second World Cup qualifying phase at home to Tajikistan and Jordan next month before the April 14 draw for the final phase, which starts on September 1.

It will be the first time Australia and England have played since the infamous clash at West Ham’s Upton Park in February 2003, when the Socceroos won 3-0.

Goals to Tony Popovic, Harry Kewell and Brett Emerton helped heal some wounds after Australia missed out on the 2002 World Cup in Japan/Korea.

Then England coach Sven Goran Eriksson was lambasted for changing his entire first XI at half-time.

Wayne Rooney, who made his debut that night age 17 years and 111 days and became the youngest England international just months before joining Manchester United from Everton, is the only remaining player.

There is youthful optimism about the current England side leading into the European Championships in France, with Tottenham trio Kane, Dele Alli and Eric Dier, Everton pair John Stones and Barkley and Sterling all breaking into the senior setup after strong Premier League performances.

The Socceroos match will be played at Newcastle’s 52,500-capacity St James’ Park or Sunderland’s 49,000-capacity Stadium of Light as Hodgson attempts to replicate the logistics they’ll face at Euro 2016.

It’s understood that England will play two more friendlies at Wembley and Old Trafford, against yet to be confirmed European opponents.

England opens its Euro 2016 account against Russia (Marseille) on June 11, before facing Wales (Lens) on June 16 and Slovakia (Saint-Etienne) on June 20.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/football/socceroos-set-to-face-england-in-first-friendly-in-more-than-a-decade/news-story/58f93919d8d623de8f89fd158b854b2c?login=1

[Nnnnnathan12]

A warm up to when we play them in the 2017 confederations cup after Dele Alli and Harry Kane tear up the Euros and England win

[Burztur]

Where are the FFA getting this money from to pay for marquees? They've barely got two cents to rub together for some promotional material let alone 10 players.

I was speaking in a world of hypotheticals where money grew on trees

[ColdRock]

You could put Norwich in England jumpers and Barkley on the left to beat the Socceroos

[Johnno]

Where are the FFA getting this money from to pay for marquees? They've barely got two cents to rub together for some promotional material let alone 10 players.

 

 

have you renewed your kids registrations yet, there's the FFA money

[Gazmon]

 

I guess players leave for the following reasons:

• Money
• More playing time
• Promise of 'better' football
• More money (yes, put it there twice)

...

 

How do we fix it? Either abolish the salary cap, or adjust it. Create it so that it limits a teams spending based on their revenue (locally, in the case of Melbourne City). If you can earn x-amount, why should you have to pay them within the same wage bracket as a team that may generate a tenth of what you do? (see Melbourne Victory v CCM).

 

I had an idea ages ago that instead of raising the cap according to revenue, which really does put smaller teams at a disadvantage and would probably also see 'creative accounting' (as well as jersey prices going up further from the ridiculous amounts they already are!!), the cap should be raised for each team according to how much money they make in the transfer market.

At the moment selling a player doesn't really help the club invest in other players because we have a cap. It's just money for the owner or potentially for a marquee.

I'm not sure if it should be dollar for dollar, but I think if it's based on transfer $$ it would be positive overall. 

 

Pros: gives small clubs a chance; simple to define and calculate when compared to total revenue; encourages development (BIG pro!); encourages competitiveness 

Cons: Do we want to be encouraging our clubs to sell players, particularly to Asia just to get big $$$ etc (maybe the way the salary cap increases are calculated can take into account where the player goes too...??)

 

Anyway, not sure how that would play out, but I can't see ideas like this even being thrown around down at FFA headquarters. I don't mind the central fund for marquees idea, but I don't know how that can be fair. At least this one relies totally on the clubs themselves going out there and developing juniors and being smart about how they structure contracts.

 

 

Most clubs use some form of 'creative accounting' already. Being married to a CA I hear about all the little back ways in that the clubs could exploit. She was very baffled as to how stupid Glory were to get caught. She said it wouldn't be that hard to hide things.

 

So, to curb that, do you just abolish it? Or, alternatively change it and force clubs to publish pay rates and financial figures as they do in the US?

[beatsurrender]

Just Wow!  Around 70 million AUD...!  (that's more than every single player combined in the HAL: isn't it?...)

 

Atlético Madrid’s Jackson Martínez set to join Guangzhou Evergrande for €42m

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/02/jackson-martinez-atletico-madrid-guangzhou-evergrande

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2016/feb/01/why-china-not-mls-is-luring-stars-away-from-europe

Edited February 3, 2016 by beatsurrender

[Nnnnnathan12]

He'll come to Allianz Stadium and do his ankle or knee on a choppy pitch lol

[Gazmon]

He'll come to Allianz Stadium and do his ankle or knee on a choppy pitch lol

 

Shame the Rugby League/Union don't use the sand for kicking anymore... could have busted a knee on the sand

[beatsurrender]

Reminds me of a story where a Man U squaddie goes into see Matt Busby in the manager’s office  during the off season in the 60’s and says that he had just seen Georgie Best’s payslip and he commented that Best was getting five times as much as he was. To which Busby replied, “Aye laddie, but Georgie’s 5 times the player you areâ€.

To which the squaddie replied, “Not in the bloody summer he isn’tâ€.

[Themumf]

Arnie actually praised WSW in an interview. It really did happen. Had to read it 5 times to be sure it wasn't a backhanded p***take but nope. Talking about winning the ACL in a salary capped league. When you stand back now and looked at the clubs we knocked out, it's pretty remarkable isn't it. Those rainy midweek nights..... sigh. 

[beatsurrender]

'Ol Potato head..

 

Sydney FC coach Graham Arnold says entertainment over winning is 'a load of crap'

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/sydney-fc-coach-graham-arnold-says-entertainment-over-winning-is-a-load-of-crap-20160204-gmlcdp.html#ixzz3zA0fVbZs
 

[marron]

'Ol Potato head..

 

Sydney FC coach Graham Arnold says entertainment over winning is 'a load of crap'

 

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/sydney-fc-coach-graham-arnold-says-entertainment-over-winning-is-a-load-of-crap-20160204-gmlcdp.html#ixzz3zA0fVbZs

 

 

"Tell me one coach, ever, who has been sacked for not entertaining."

 

Fat Sam.

 

Next. 

 

[beatsurrender]

 

'Ol Potato head..

 

Sydney FC coach Graham Arnold says entertainment over winning is 'a load of crap'

 

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/sydney-fc-coach-graham-arnold-says-entertainment-over-winning-is-a-load-of-crap-20160204-gmlcdp.html#ixzz3zA0fVbZs

 

 

"Tell me one coach, ever, who has been sacked for not entertaining."

 

Fat Sam.

 

Next. 

 

 

 

Isn't it "Big" Sam ?