Football Marketing/PR Thread

[Prydzopolis]

[StringerBellend]

My last word on the Yoshi thing (I promise... well almost)

 

Decent ad campaign but for mine the fail is if we are trying to get kids who like footy (probably have a replica Liverpool, Barcelona, and Man U shirt or 3)  then 1 thing we have over the EPL (even for a 10 year old) is that you can follow your local team and actually go to the game, see the players up close..

 

If you are going to watch a team, and at that Man City "lite" (with one bigname) on telly that is 1000km away  you might as well watch a team 10000km away on telly (which has 11+ big names) 

 

We should be promoting going to the game and getting involved

 

Still think the below ad is boss, all about going to the game with your family 

 

The tag line is

 

"We are Evertonians. We GO the game. That's what we do"

 

 

Wish our club would rip this off as an ad.

[Prydzopolis]

[StringerBellend]

from the SBS article

 

Victory coach Kevin Muscat dropped his guard during and after the latter match. Upset at refereeing decisions, he complained on the sideline during the game and at the post-match media conference about their being "two sets of rules".

As he exited the media conference he said "at least the FFA gets the result they wantâ€.

City have done the impossible I quite like Muscat now

[pseudonym]

Another Everton video

 

[Valter43]

My last word on the Yoshi thing (I promise... well almost)

 

Decent ad campaign but for mine the fail is if we are trying to get kids who like footy (probably have a replica Liverpool, Barcelona, and Man U shirt or 3) then 1 thing we have over the EPL (even for a 10 year old) is that you can follow your local team and actually go to the game, see the players up close..

 

If you are going to watch a team, and at that Man City "lite" (with one bigname) on telly that is 1000km away you might as well watch a team 10000km away on telly (which has 11+ big names)

 

We should be promoting going to the game and getting involved

 

Still think the below ad is boss, all about going to the game with your family

 

The tag line is

 

"We are Evertonians. We GO the game. That's what we do"

 

 

Wish our club would rip this off as an ad.

**** that is an amazing ad. Makes the Yoshi stuff look absolutely piss weak. How come the FFA can't hire somebody to come up with something like that? Genius. Doesn't just go for the typical angle of the players or the fans making atmosphere, but focuses on the ritual of an everyday supporter going to the game.

 

******* would love to see WSW pull off something like this.

[StringerBellend]

Another Everton video

 

Wow...

 

That one is even better!

 

Take note WSW that is how you do a season ticket ad

 

I'm crying like a baby watching that.

 

My god the accents are strong, I will offer my services as an interpreter as I do understand Scouse. Which reminds me when I took my now wife to Liverpool I had to interpret for her

 

 

(although warning it the video does contain traces of Tim Cahill)

[SomeGuy1977]

City's attendances up 33%??? Home games or is he misleading us by including Victory home derbies?

Yoshi makes 4 does he?

 

Good luck to them both. Maybe they can help paint his red bandwagon sky blue. And when the wheels get too squeaky in a few years time, he'll be right to join the smurfs.

 

I just hope he actually learns something about the game.

[MartinTyler]

So can we assume that Yoshi is flying down to tonight's game with all expenses paid by FFA?

[btron3000]

I can't wait until Yoshi is 16 and his mates all want to rip flares in the RBB and he rebels against the FFA and becomes the posterboy for active support!

[Prydzopolis]

Early on in this thread we picked up on the 2015 financial reports, this years one is out & Bonita has written a fantastic article

 

FFA revenue stays steady

 

2016-11-01 | by Bonita Mersiades

There’s not much to be gleaned from FFA’s financial report for 2016 which is due to be presented to the Annual General Meeting next week.

 

What we can tell is that FFA revenue has remained static over the past twelve months to see its financial position worsen slightly by $646,000 to an overall loss of $387,000. Last year, FFA realised a modest surplus of $259,000.

 

Revenue in 2016 (excluding interest) was $103.4 million, consistent with last year’s result of $103.1 million (excluding interest and one-off Asian Cup revenue). Comparative total adjusted expenditure increased by a little over $2 million to $106.3 million, 85% of which is due to an increase in grant distribution to $32.1 million, mainly to A-League clubs.

 

FFA has opted not to provide a breakdown of revenue since 2010 so it is difficult to assess the progress and the relative contribution of the revenue centres - broadcasting, sponsorship, and gate receipts from FFA-hosted matches. There is also no information on revenue or expenditure related to the A-League, which is one of the contentious issues between FFA and the ten A-League clubs.

 

The last time a revenue breakdown was given in 2010, sponsorship was leading the way with $27.1 million, which was around 28% of total revenue. The broadcast deal contributed a further $21.2 million (22%), while gate receipts from FFA-hosted matches reaped $11.5 million. The ‘tax’ on the game’s participants contributed just under $7 million.

 

Related party transactions

 

Because FFA is obliged to let us know of any transactions related to its Board members, we do learn a little more.

 

The Chief Financial Officer of Caltex, Simon Hepworth has been on the FFA Board since October 2014. The Caltex naming rights sponsorship of the Socceroos announced in March this year is reflected in the 2016 accounts with a $1.9 million contribution. This suggests the Caltex sponsorship is either generous or heavily front-ended.

 

 

 

Westfield’s co-founder, Frank Lowy, was on the FFA Board until November last year, when Steven Lowy, Westfield’s co-chief executive, assumed the role of Chairman. Westfield significantly increased their sponsorship by two-thirds to $2.5 million in 2016 taking their total contribution since 2006 to about $13.5 million.

 

The level of the NAB sponsorship is not given as director Joseph Healy has left NAB. In the six years it was reportable, NAB contributed a little over $6 million.

 

Like many non-profit entities, the FFA Board is voluntary but a Director may be paid for “services rendered†if approved by the Board.

 

They approved payment to long time FFA Board member, AFC Executive Committee member and FIFA Executive Committee member, Moya Dodd, of $113,636 for unspecified ‘consultancy services’ in 2016. Ms Dodd received the same amount the previous year and $225,000 in 2014, taking her total fee for services rendered in three years to just over $450,000.

 

As a FIFA Executive Committee member since 2013, Ms Dodd would also have received a US$300,000 annual payment from FIFA. The additional benefits for Executive Committee members, which are currently under review, include first-class travel, a US$500/day allowance, and a hotel suite and one additional hotel room while on FIFA business around the world.

 

 

 

Moya Dodd with AFC friends Sheikh Ahmad from Kuwait and Sheikh Salman from Bahrain.

 

Ms Dodd’s law firm, Gilbert Tobin, separately received $55,000 for legal services in 2010 and 2011.

 

The only other Board member to have undertaken work for FFA for payment is former Director, Ron Harvey, who received $160,000 over three years for international relations consultancy services from 2005 to 2007.

 

FFA executive management

 

FFA’s top management team continues to be well-rewarded. In 2016, the ten executives received an average of more than $500,000 each – up from an average of $448,000 each in 2015.

 

If each of the executive members had foregone their pay rise, 247 W-League players could have received $150/week for the 2015-16 W-League season.

 

 

 

Player and other employee expense

 

FFA gives the cost of team and administrative employee expenses in one line item - $23.5 million in 2016. In a World Cup or Asian Cup year, this figure increases to between $32 million and $35 million, offset by the contribution from FIFA for participating in the World Cup.

 

Are sport finances a secret?

 

When FFA decided not to give a revenue breakdown, the reason cited was commercial considerations. They reasoned that other sports do not do so, and they followed suit.

 

This is largely true in Australia which is a reflection on both the standards of the Australian Sports Commission, which sets governance and financial reporting standards for national sporting organisations, as well as ASIC.

 

However, the AFL does publish a concise financial statement that gives comparative data and detail of their distributions, while the NRL publishes a descriptive overview of its revenue and expenses (starts p84).

 

FFA’s position is also in contrast to other football federations. For example:

 

The FA in England revealed in their last financial report that £124 million of their £318 million revenue was from broadcasting; £58 million from sponsorship and licensing; and £56 million from Wembley Stadium. Unlike the FFA, they give the cost of national teams (£15 million) and the administration (£30 million) separately. The FA’s biggest expense is investing in the game by way of grants and programmes of £117 million. The FA has to pay tax and last year realised a modest surplus of £3 million.

US Soccer has total revenue on a similar scale to FFA (though obviously in USD) of $102 million, $37 million of which is from sponsorship, broadcast and licensing; $34 million in gate receipts from national team games; and $9 million from registration fees. US Soccer’s biggest expense is the cost of national teams who account for $69.8 million, while total administration is quite efficient at $15.3 million. Like FFA, US Soccer is not required to pay tax and made a surplus of $8.5 million last year.

There have been many matters that FIFA has famously not divulged, but its annual financial statement is relatively comprehensive and is the minimum standard to which FFA should aspire.

While the financial statement prepared by FFA meets the ‘bare bones’ of legal requirements, this is not sufficient for a national sporting organisation – and especially one that claims the A-League needs the FFA to survive. On the current level of reporting, it is impossible for anyone to have any knowledge of, and therefore confidence in, this claim.

 

In the past, the state member federations have demonstrated they are spectacularly unable to ask challenging questions of the FFA Board on the financial statements.

 

For example, the US$465,000 payment that ended-up in Jack Warner’s bank account in the Caribbean does not appear in the 2010 or 2011 financial statements, nor is it referred to in the final report to government on the separate accounting for the World Cup Bid monies. To this day, FFA’s members have not asked where the money came from, and how it was accounted for.

 

However, this year, with the A-League clubs in-synch and determined to get some genuine change from FFA by March next year – ideally separate administration, but at least three Board positions – the A-League representative at the FFA Annual General Meeting should be demanding answers to some obvious questions.

 

What is the breakdown between the A-League, the W-League, the NYL, the national teams and the rest of FFA operations in terms of revenue and costs?

Why did the executive management team give itself an average 13% pay rise between 2015 and 2016?

What consultancy services did Moya Dodd provide for $450,000 over the past three years? Were they the subject of competitive tender?

What is the mean salary of non-executive staff?

What is the breakdown of revenue between broadcasting, sponsorship and licensing, gate receipts and player registrations?

Fantastic article

 

Give the link a click, she deserves it

http://www.footballtoday.com.au/mobile#postDetail7424bmb=1

[spectacular291]

Early on in this thread we picked up on the 2015 financial reports, this years one is out & Bonita has written a fantastic article

 

However, this year, with the A-League clubs in-synch and determined to get some genuine change from FFA by March next year – ideally separate administration, but at least three Board positions – the A-League representative at the FFA Annual General Meeting should be demanding answers to some obvious questions.

 

What is the breakdown between the A-League, the W-League, the NYL, the national teams and the rest of FFA operations in terms of revenue and costs?

Why did the executive management team give itself an average 13% pay rise between 2015 and 2016?

What consultancy services did Moya Dodd provide for $450,000 over the past three years? Were they the subject of competitive tender?

What is the mean salary of non-executive staff?

What is the breakdown of revenue between broadcasting, sponsorship and licensing, gate receipts and player registrations?

Fantastic article

 

Give the link a click, she deserves it

http://www.footballtoday.com.au/mobile#postDetail7424bmb=1

 

 

It's important to note that reporting standards are different in the US in comparison to here but what Bonita has mentioned doesn't conflict with that in anyway. 

 

13% increase on average for executive remuneration is ethically poor. If this was a 13% increase to reach the Australian average remuneration (what I understand to be is roughly $75k) then I have no issue. But when it is already $440k on average - it is a concern. 

 

I don't ever think the FFA will release the information she asked (quoted above) because they don't have to. The FFA's position, presumably, is why would they open themselves up to public ridicule if they don't have to. In order for this to happen, there would be change needed at the FFA OR in the reporting obligations set out by ASIC and to a lesser extent the Australian Sports Commission. 

 

My immediate concern is for the club owners and their management in their ability to make decisions if they are unable to see a detailed financial statement from the FFA. Each club does their own financial statements of course but the FFA is their largest stakeholder - I would be infuriated to not have access to such information. This is on the basis that this is not made available to the clubs already. I understand the outcry from A-League clubs in wanting a more hands on role in decision making. 

 

The only comfort that I have out of this report is that the FFA made a small loss. There should rarely be a surplus for an organisation of this nature as revenue needs to be allocated to areas of need. Ideally, the FFA should only ever breakeven with the exception for a possible cause of needing retained earnings for the provision of future investment or development (new clubs, marquee funds, emergency funds, etc.). 

 

That being said, whilst the FFA made a small loss; it is not comforting when there is an increase on executive remuneration whilst areas of need are not being reliably resourced. This is a concern that Bonita makes a good point about and there should be a detailed report divulging the costs and their apportionment in a percentage to provide an understanding to its stakeholders, not only a break-up of revenue. 

It's also important to note with regards to the reported stance by the FFA in not releasing detailed reports due to it being inline with the industry competitors as the AFL & NRL; that the junior funding of football is bottom-up - not top-down as it is with AFL & NRL. 

[btron3000]

Executive salaries need to be benchmarked to other executives and to compare them to an average wage is a bit unfair.

 

That said, it's outrageous to increase your exec salaries (especially by 13%) while your juniors are paying to play, the game is losing money, and you always seem to be saying the inability of your organisation to spend on advertising/expansion is due to a lack of funds.

 

What is the basis of this increase? Have they improved the league or the bottom line? What exactly have they achieved to deserve an increase of such magnitude?

[Unlimited]

So if they didn't spend the money on increasing executive salaries - the FFA would be ~$130k in the black

 

hmm

[Prydzopolis]

So if they didn't spend the money on increasing executive salaries - the FFA would be ~$130k in the black

 

hmm

I'm glad that executive salaries were thought of being high on the list of priorities in Australian football. I feel that we are now all better off after an investment in the game.

 

As a result of this move, clubs are all profitable, money is available to invest in facilities/infrastructure, grassroots football is affordable meaning it is widely accessible & our women are finally getting a wage comparable to the men.

 

Really good to see that the FFA have its priorities right, great leadership

[Flytox]

Five years ago the FFA required on average $7m pa special assistance from the Feds in order to pay its bills.  Now they require no special assistance from the Feds at all.  Five years ago the clubs made a combined loss of $26m.  Now that combined loss has been reduced by $10m pa in no small part due to the FFA's increased distribution to the clubs and easing off the restrictions on club sponsors.  At the same time the FFA has introduced and funded the FFA Cup, increased payments to the Socceroos, Matildas and referees and has been able to set aside about $8m Members Equity for future projects.  To do this the FFA has grown its revenue to $100m+  pa with the increase raised from sources external to the game.

 

Having reached the point of sustainability for its current business the FFA has set up a platform from which to grow the game and achieve some of the "targets" mentioned in their Whole of Football Plan particularly to improve the various national teams performance, improve the development pathway, expand the A-League, and provide funding to the second tier of football and the women's game.  The next broadcast agreement will take the code some way along this path but it will take astute management to maximise the benefits of it and of course there will have to be compromises.  Are the FFA's management up to it?  In my opinion they have done a good job of getting the code out of the parlous position it was in only five years ago.  Not all of the decisions they make will receive universal approval and some won't work as well as hoped but thats business and its what the executive are paid the big bucks for.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Flytox

[btron3000]

Five years ago the FFA required on average $7m pa special assistance from the Feds in order to pay its bills.  Now they require no special assistance from the Feds at all.  Five years ago the clubs made a combined loss of $26m.  Now that combined loss has been reduced by $10m pa in no small part due to the FFA's increased distribution to the clubs and easing off the restrictions on club sponsors.  At the same time the FFA has introduced and funded the FFA Cup, increased payments to the Socceroos, Matildas and referees and has been able to set aside about $8m Members Equity for future projects.  To do this the FFA has grown its revenue to $100m+  pa with the increase raised from sources external to the game.

 

Having reached the point of sustainability for its current business the FFA has set up a platform from which to grow the game and achieve some of the "targets" mentioned in their Whole of Football Plan particularly to improve the various national teams performance, improve the development pathway, expand the A-League, and provide funding to the second tier of football and the women's game.  The next broadcast agreement will take the code some way along this path but it will take astute management to maximise the benefits of it and of course there will have to be compromises.  Are the FFA's management up to it?  In my opinion they have done a good job of getting the code out of the parlous position it was in only five years ago.  Not all of the decisions they make will receive universal approval and some won't work as well as hoped but thats business and its what the executive are paid the big bucks for.

Why do you have to tell us this so simply? David Gallop umms and ahhs and does nothing to sell the game. 

 

Many of those things they had to be dragged kicking and screaming. Restrictions on club sponsors, FFA Cup, Matildas wages, even expansion they did not discuss at the time of the last 5 year plan, which was only last year.

 

And let's not kid ourselves - the Wanderers gave them a huge shot of adrenaline, something they stumbled into. They're way too passive and don't communicate well - something Gallop was guilty of at the NRL too.

 

AND while all this was happening, parents are still paying crazy fees for their kids to play the game.

[Prydzopolis]

Quality post Flytox, great to see you back & posting

[Flytox]

 

Five years ago the FFA required on average $7m pa special assistance from the Feds in order to pay its bills.  Now they require no special assistance from the Feds at all.  Five years ago the clubs made a combined loss of $26m.  Now that combined loss has been reduced by $10m pa in no small part due to the FFA's increased distribution to the clubs and easing off the restrictions on club sponsors.  At the same time the FFA has introduced and funded the FFA Cup, increased payments to the Socceroos, Matildas and referees and has been able to set aside about $8m Members Equity for future projects.  To do this the FFA has grown its revenue to $100m+  pa with the increase raised from sources external to the game.

 

Having reached the point of sustainability for its current business the FFA has set up a platform from which to grow the game and achieve some of the "targets" mentioned in their Whole of Football Plan particularly to improve the various national teams performance, improve the development pathway, expand the A-League, and provide funding to the second tier of football and the women's game.  The next broadcast agreement will take the code some way along this path but it will take astute management to maximise the benefits of it and of course there will have to be compromises.  Are the FFA's management up to it?  In my opinion they have done a good job of getting the code out of the parlous position it was in only five years ago.  Not all of the decisions they make will receive universal approval and some won't work as well as hoped but thats business and its what the executive are paid the big bucks for.

Why do you have to tell us this so simply? David Gallop umms and ahhs and does nothing to sell the game. 

 

Many of those things they had to be dragged kicking and screaming. Restrictions on club sponsors, FFA Cup, Matildas wages, even expansion they did not discuss at the time of the last 5 year plan, which was only last year.

 

And let's not kid ourselves - the Wanderers gave them a huge shot of adrenaline, something they stumbled into. They're way too passive and don't communicate well - something Gallop was guilty of at the NRL too.

 

AND while all this was happening, parents are still paying crazy fees for their kids to play the game.

 

Did they get dragged kicking and screaming or did they do them when they could afford them taking into account that the Feds told the FFA that they had to wean themselves off special assistance within five years of the Smith Report?

 

The 5 year plan in my view needs to be prepared alongside broadcast rights negotiations so the plan reflects what can be afforded.  

[btron3000]

 

 

Five years ago the FFA required on average $7m pa special assistance from the Feds in order to pay its bills.  Now they require no special assistance from the Feds at all.  Five years ago the clubs made a combined loss of $26m.  Now that combined loss has been reduced by $10m pa in no small part due to the FFA's increased distribution to the clubs and easing off the restrictions on club sponsors.  At the same time the FFA has introduced and funded the FFA Cup, increased payments to the Socceroos, Matildas and referees and has been able to set aside about $8m Members Equity for future projects.  To do this the FFA has grown its revenue to $100m+  pa with the increase raised from sources external to the game.

 

Having reached the point of sustainability for its current business the FFA has set up a platform from which to grow the game and achieve some of the "targets" mentioned in their Whole of Football Plan particularly to improve the various national teams performance, improve the development pathway, expand the A-League, and provide funding to the second tier of football and the women's game.  The next broadcast agreement will take the code some way along this path but it will take astute management to maximise the benefits of it and of course there will have to be compromises.  Are the FFA's management up to it?  In my opinion they have done a good job of getting the code out of the parlous position it was in only five years ago.  Not all of the decisions they make will receive universal approval and some won't work as well as hoped but thats business and its what the executive are paid the big bucks for.

Why do you have to tell us this so simply? David Gallop umms and ahhs and does nothing to sell the game. 

 

Many of those things they had to be dragged kicking and screaming. Restrictions on club sponsors, FFA Cup, Matildas wages, even expansion they did not discuss at the time of the last 5 year plan, which was only last year.

 

And let's not kid ourselves - the Wanderers gave them a huge shot of adrenaline, something they stumbled into. They're way too passive and don't communicate well - something Gallop was guilty of at the NRL too.

 

AND while all this was happening, parents are still paying crazy fees for their kids to play the game.

 

Did they get dragged kicking and screaming or did they do them when they could afford them taking into account that the Feds told the FFA that they had to wean themselves off special assistance within five years of the Smith Report?

 

The 5 year plan in my view needs to be prepared alongside broadcast rights negotiations so the plan reflects what can be afforded.  

 

Well with the Matildas it was clearly obvious they got dragged kicking and screaming. I think on the others they did too.

 

If they didn't, they certainly never communicating their intentions. They have a very poor record in communicating the direction of the game. The information only comes in hindsight.

 

I agree with you somewhat and disagree somewhat about the 5 year plan. A plan has to show where the organisation intends to go. It has to give a vision (apologies Tim). That means projecting the income you think you will make. I said at the time and i still say that the 5 year plan was a mess. Related to our conversation, if they were afraid to be ambitious in talking about plans until they had the tv deal then they could have waited until closer to the end of last season to release the plan, or they could have stated that the consolidation that was part of the plan was to ensure the organisation had a solid base to expand the competition later. They said nothing at the time about expansion. Not a thing. Less than one year later and the message has gone from not on the agenda to "strategic priority". 

 

I've said it for ages - Gallop is not a good CEO for the FFA. He might be a decent operating officer, or an ok CEO for Westfields, but not the FFA. He doesn't have the people and media skills, he doesn't understand his main stakeholders or the football community, he's a poor communicator, and he's reactive. To top it off he's way too conservative. He's not the man you want overseeing an expanding business that sits in the public eye. 

[spectacular291]

My impression is that Gallop was hired as CEO for the purposes of renegotiating the TV rights after showing his strengths in the same position in the NRL. That is the only basis on which I'm going to judge him. His role at the NRL was widely criticised and so far in his tenure as FFA CEO he is lapping up the praises of past efforts (WSW for example) and been left wanting in moments of need (Rebecca Wilson Telegraph Scandal). 

 

If he doesn't achieve the target set out of doubling the TV rights - he will be viewed as a failure as a CEO in my eyes. I honestly think his position is tasked with this objective. 

 

I hate the smug ****. 

Edited November 4, 2016 by spectacular291

[btron3000]

Why would you hire someone so long ago and to do just one job?

 

He was a typical F Lowy hire. Someone he could get to do his operational work while he actually carried the responsibilities of CEO. Gallop is wanting in so many CEO areas.

[GunnerWanderer]

People said the same about Buckley cause before the douche came here he negotiated the AFL rights

 

Maybe moving forward we should hire someone who can run the game

I'd love to get someone from a league like Germany or Japan where they have successfully built it up in a sustainable sense

[SBW]

My impression is that Gallop was hired as CEO for the purposes of renegotiating the TV rights after showing his strengths in the same position in the NRL. That is the only basis on which I'm going to judge him. His role at the NRL was widely criticised and so far in his tenure as FFA CEO he is lapping up the praises of past efforts (WSW for example) and been left wanting in moments of need (Rebecca Wilson Telegraph Scandal). 

 

If he doesn't achieve the target set out of doubling the TV rights - he will be viewed as a failure as a CEO in my eyes. I honestly think his position is tasked with this objective. 

 

I hate the smug ****. 

 

He failed as CEO of NRL.

 

He got trumped by the AFL after underselling the NRL rights to fox and 9 and I fear he will do the same thing of short selling the game.

[TehSmileyBandit]

People said the same about Buckley cause before the douche came here he negotiated the AFL rights

 

Maybe moving forward we should hire someone who can run the game

I'd love to get someone from a league like Germany or Japan where they have successfully built it up in a sustainable sense

 

Imagine that poor sucker? His/her expectations would melt on day 1 when they realise what and who they're working with.

[spectacular291]

I don't know if this is going to be unpopular but Ben Buckley had a harder tenure as CEO in comparison to David Gallop thus far. 

 

DG hasn't had to put up with clubs faiing or billionaire tantrums. 

[theguyyouwishyouwere]

yeah, Buckley only had to deal with and handful of millionaires - but gallop has had to deal with almost the entire fanbase boycotting, and he's not even dealing with the Bakries to fix the issues at Roar

[btron3000]

So, did the Yoshi thing work? Of course the FFA will tell us it did, but I have my doubts. Of course what I'm about to say is only one example, but I'm interested in people's thoughts or experiences.

 

Conversation with two friends - husband and wife - who love sport, including football, but haven't really got into the A-league, but do watch the odd game. They have Fox and apart from watching cricket and HBO/Netflix series there tv would not leave Foxsports much:

 

One of them (after hearing Slater say that Cahill even looked good with his head wrapped in a bandage): "Jesus can they go an about Cahill anymore?"

Me: still laughing at Slater

Them: "Imagine if someone tried to write a story against Cahill"

Me: "There was actually one article in the paper calling City pantomime villains because the FFA changed the rules to get Timmy and now they're pushing him at every opportunity"

Them: "What happened?"

Me: quick explanation of the marquee fund and Manchester City thing.

...

Me: "And then there's the whole Yoshi thing"

Them: "Yoshi?"

Me: explanation of Yoshi

Them: "Oh yeah we saw some kid on an ad, didn't know what it was about"

 

I think the FFA were, once again, preaching to the converted. In my opinion - interested to hear from Jess and other marketing types - there was too much explanation needed about Yoshi. They didn't make it accessible and easy to get into. And the fact they just had the generic ad playing most of the time meant the whole "I'm going to check out all the teams" thing was not the focus it could have been. If every week they released a new ad "this week I'm in Brisbane. Brisbane are...(list all the positives of the Roar)" etc etc then I think it would have lasted longer and made more sense to people outside the current fans.

[Beer]

 

 

Another Everton video

 

Wow...

 

That one is even better!

 

Take note WSW that is how you do a season ticket ad

 

I'm crying like a baby watching that.

 

My god the accents are strong, I will offer my services as an interpreter as I do understand Scouse. Which reminds me when I took my now wife to Liverpool I had to interpret for her

 

 

(although warning it the video does contain traces of Tim Cahill)

I'm very late to the party reading through this thread and your point may have already been addressed, but there is an issue with this line of thinking.

 

The difference between us and the U.K. is the proximity of fans to their team. Even though teams like Everton, Liverpool etc have 40K or 50K stadiums, they pack out every week.

 

Why? In part due to the unrelenting loyalty to the club, but also due to the fact that most people are born, grow up, live and die about 500m from the stadium.

 

You just have to look at the immediate surroundings of most football stadiums in England to see what I mean. Match day consists of waking up, heading literally 100m down the road to the pub, getting drunk with mates and then heading 500m to the stadium. After the game is done, getting home takes no more than 10 minutes.

 

Over here, we have people coming from all over the city to get to the stadium. Pirtek was the closest we had in comparison with England because at least there were some bars and restaurants to sort of have that match day feel.

 

We have people driving, catching public transport from Penrith, Campbelltown and even in inner west region to get to the ground. Not the same situation.

[theguyyouwishyouwere]

but if we lived in england we'd have to travel even further to get to our games...