Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mack

FFA Failure: Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, mack said:

Signing random Asian players from countries who care more about the EPL and La Liga than their own local leagues will do nothing.

It's like saying "well if we sign more Slovakians we'll get big in Eastern Europe".

Most leagues struggle to attract attention in there home country and the media and Asian boosters think that we're suddenly going to be an exception just because the Mariners signed some generic 20 something guy from Thailand or Malaysia who will most likely be a small & fast winger who doesn't score too much.

That may be the case but you need to know when to play to your crowd. We are already highly disliked in Asia, statements like Griffin’s just further isolate us

Edited by hughsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Join WestSydneyFootball.Com and participate by registering an account.

Maybe he is talking about Kayo & the myfootball app. I can’t believe people just let him get away with that comment. Not 3,000 to 30,000, maybe 3,000 to 9,000 if lucky.

How out of touch is he with the Sydney FC comments. Numbers are up due to the venue, games with atmosphere & smaller venue. Sure the form gives an uplift but he is out of touch if he thinks it has all to do with the match times.

At least they now acknowledge that match times affect attendance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Prydzopolis said:

 

At least they now acknowledge that match times affect attendance.

cool. maybe they can now realise giving the mariners a sunday 7pm kick off is a bad idea beacuse 40% of their members are children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately that’s O’Rourke’s only downfall - he’s blindly hopeful haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But wait, the 14,000 that didn’t attend would be made up by 45,000 extra RC viewers at home. Horrible logic.

Next great decision? Let’s make a decision to play a game which we are trying to market as one of the biggest games of the year at 7:00pm on a Sunday night

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Paul01 said:

Interesting read

Exclusive: Chris Nikou talks to ESPN about re-engaging Australia's fractured football community http://www.espnfc.com/australian-a-league/0/blog/post/3851130/exclusive-chris-nikou-talks-to-espn-about-re-engaging-australias-fractured-football-community  -via ESPN FC http://es.pn/fcapp

First I've heard of his community forums. Who was involved in them? Were fan groups included? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paul01 said:

Interesting read

Exclusive: Chris Nikou talks to ESPN about re-engaging Australia's fractured football community http://www.espnfc.com/australian-a-league/0/blog/post/3851130/exclusive-chris-nikou-talks-to-espn-about-re-engaging-australias-fractured-football-community  -via ESPN FC http://es.pn/fcapp

They are doing the stuff that I said should have been done before the changes to the constitution.  Hopefully they will be able to bring the game together.  It's not been united in the time I have been involved in it which goes back to the 50's.  The problem the whole of that time has been a disproportionate emphasis on the elite end of the game.  In most of Australia its the community end of the game that needs to be worked on now.  The rest of the game is dependent on getting kids in to the game and learning to love it.  With player numbers between 1% and 1.5% of the population everywhere except NSW and the ACT we are way down on "healthy" football countries where 8% to 10%+ is the norm.  Even in NSW and the ACT where 4% of the population are registered players there is still a long way to go.  More players brings more talented players which brings more clubs in the lower tiers where development happens which increases the quality of the game further up the tiers including the A and W leagues which flows on to the national teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Flytox said:

They are doing the stuff that I said should have been done before the changes to the constitution.  Hopefully they will be able to bring the game together.  It's not been united in the time I have been involved in it which goes back to the 50's.  The problem the whole of that time has been a disproportionate emphasis on the elite end of the game.  In most of Australia its the community end of the game that needs to be worked on now.  The rest of the game is dependent on getting kids in to the game and learning to love it.  With player numbers between 1% and 1.5% of the population everywhere except NSW and the ACT we are way down on "healthy" football countries where 8% to 10%+ is the norm.  Even in NSW and the ACT where 4% of the population are registered players there is still a long way to go.  More players brings more talented players which brings more clubs in the lower tiers where development happens which increases the quality of the game further up the tiers including the A and W leagues which flows on to the national teams.

Get away. You talk too much sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFA confirm structure of 2019-20 A-League season

Quote

The FFA has confirmed the calendar for next season’s A-League, with the entrance of a new team set to bring big changes.

Western United will make their debut in the 2019-20 campaign, bringing the competition up to an uneven 11 sides. The result will be 29 rounds, with each club playing 13 home and away matches, as well as facing three byes spread across the season.

However, due to the uneven number of rounds, each club will play a minimum of two matches against every other – with the third opponent match-ups ‘determined according to agreed methodology.’

The key principles guiding this methodology are:

- Priority 1: Maximise A League broadcast metrics

- Priority 2: Fairness and competition integrity for all clubs

- Priority 3: Maximise A-League attendance metrics and other commercial priorities


The competition kicks off on the weekend spanning 11-13 October, and will wrap up with the Grand Final on either 16th or 17th May. There will be no breaks for FIFA international windows, and split rounds re also a thing of the past.

Despite plenty of chatter in recent days notably from Sydney FC skipper Alex Brosque, the finals system will remain the same.

“Similar to last season we activated a joint FFA/Clubs Competitions Calendar Working Group, tasked with considering and assessing the unique scheduling challenges for the Hyundai A-League 2019/20 Season,” said FFA Head of Leagues Greg O’Rourke in a media release.

“Following extensive discussions over recent months and assessment of the Hyundai A-League 2018/19 Season data, we collectively decided it is in the best interests of the Hyundai A-League to play through the international breaks this season, with the possibility of rescheduling matches should a certain number of players from a team be unavailable for selection due to certain international duties.

“I would like to take this opportunity to thank the clubs, the PFA and FOX SPORTS for their genuine input and support for collaboration with FFA on determining the optimal competition format for the Hyundai A-League 2019/20 Season.

“With this decision made, detailed work commences on the draw process and we are looking to release the final version of the Hyundai A-League 2019/20 Season draw in July.

“In collaboration with our stakeholders, we will be focussed on developing a schedule which will amplify broadcast and attendance metrics, support club growth initiatives whilst providing a fair and equitable fixture schedule for all clubs that also meets key player welfare principles.”

We've got the the point where the FFA don't even try to hide their priorities. They just come out and say that Foxtel's broadcast metrics are a higher priority than "fairness and competition integrity".

Also not playing everyone the same number of times is crap. You just know we're going to get extra games against ESFC, Victory and Perth while someone else will get CCM, Brisbane and the Jets.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Davo said:

FFA confirm structure of 2019-20 A-League season

We've got the the point where the FFA don't even try to hide their priorities. They just come out and say that Foxtel's broadcast metrics are a higher priority than "fairness and competition integrity".

Also not playing everyone the same number of times is crap. You just know we're going to get extra games against ESFC, Victory and Perth while someone else will get CCM, Brisbane and the Jets.

 

The prestige of "first past the post" is diminished as it is not a level playing field. This is exactly what the FFA/Foxtel want to boost the post season cup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After 29 rounds there will be 3 rounds of finals. Total 32.

For fairness there should be 30 rounds so everyone plays each other 3 times. Then, if they must they can have 2 rounds of finals for the top 4. Total 32. How hard is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Edinburgh said:

After 29 rounds there will be 3 rounds of finals. Total 32.

For fairness there should be 30 rounds so everyone plays each other 3 times. Then, if they must they can have 2 rounds of finals for the top 4. Total 32. How hard is it?

Should be firt past the post are champions......but that another subject entirely....lol

I agree with a top 4.....but this is the FFA and mediocrity for reaching 5th or 6th has to be rewarded.......:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Edinburgh said:

After 29 rounds there will be 3 rounds of finals. Total 32.

For fairness there should be 30 rounds so everyone plays each other 3 times. Then, if they must they can have 2 rounds of finals for the top 4. Total 32. How hard is it?

How hard would ot be to insert mid week games to fit those 3 weeks. F***, we do it over January already don't we? 

I swear that the ffa are on the afl's books. No other explanation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox Sports & FFA took the 11 team league as an excuse to get rid of games they don't want to show on TV. Newcastle vs Adelaide, Perth vs Brisbane, Mariners vs Wellington I would bet turn out to have only 2 rounds.

They will have 3 of every 'derby'. SFC v MV, MC v MVC, WSW v SFC etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what we're up against.

Straight out of the talking points memo released by his employer this morning

YTpB17yM_bigger.jpgMichael ZapponeVerified account @Michael_Zappone
FollowFollow @Michael_Zappone
More
Replying to @CameronAtfield @ALeague

What you fail to recognise is the unique circumstances we find ourselves in Australia. So by that measure the AFL is a joke too? And the NRL?

1:03 PM - 24 May 2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Taurus said:

This is what we're up against.

Straight out of the talking points memo released by his employer this morning

YTpB17yM_bigger.jpgMichael ZapponeVerified account @Michael_Zappone
FollowFollow @Michael_Zappone
More
Replying to @CameronAtfield @ALeague

What you fail to recognise is the unique circumstances we find ourselves in Australia. So by that measure the AFL is a joke too? And the NRL?

1:03 PM - 24 May 2019

Is that a rhetorical question, because the answer to both of those questions for me at least is a resounding 'Yes'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the hope of the side, has received the memo

bsUN_DFs_bigger.jpgNed ZelicVerified account @NedZelic
FollowingFollowing @NedZelic
More

30 regular season games in an 11-team competition without relegation would be silly. 26 games per club = correct decision. #aleague

9:36 PM - 24 May 2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s a sad situation the league is in atm

we rely on fox sports money, so automatically FFA give them final say (from face value in my opinion)

- in expansion, scheduling etc

(as they do have a right to have a input but not end decision)

so I totally disagree (as I think many football people) with putting broadcast metrics in front of attendances / commercial priorities 

it seems all to simple to me 

- if you fix attendances & attract people to games = more pack stadiums & membership = more interest & discussion (social platforms/media etc) =more network exposure (Fox & channel 10)

I think a move away from fox sports is inevitable 

A channel 10 / Optus partnership maybe the future ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Taurus said:

Even the hope of the side, has received the memo

bsUN_DFs_bigger.jpgNed ZelicVerified account @NedZelic
FollowingFollowing @NedZelic
More

30 regular season games in an 11-team competition without relegation would be silly. 26 games per club = correct decision. #aleague

9:36 PM - 24 May 2019

:smurfnono:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

After copping it so hard about lack of transparency (which they haven't improved regarding financials, banned fans etc.), the FFA try and explain their decision. In doing so they openly admit that fairness and INTEGRITY of the competition are not the most important things. HAHAHAHAHAHA what a bunch of ******* idiots.

Then they compound the issue by saying that Foxsports ratings are more important than fans turning up to the game. Maybe one day it will dawn on them that the ratings are linked to the atmosphere and passion of the live experience. 

Last night in the NRL one team demolished another by 38-12.  But because this was a case of a packed home stadium in Newcastle, full of fans going off, insiring their team to beat the favourites, after the game the commentators and news articles raved about what a great night it was. Had one team beat another 38-12 in front of 8,000 people politely clapping, most viewers would turn off at hafltime.

Chasing ratings by making decisions based purely on the thoughts of tv executives is a Catch 22. You make bad decisions, fans don't come, ratings dive, so you make the next decision based off what tv execs think will help, it therefore is likely to be a bad decision, fans don't come...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question I have had for a while, when it comes to expansion and tv etc., is why do all games need to be televised?

Do clubs make a loss on game day? If they don't, why can't they play more games that aren't televised?

I understand some things might cost more - insurances or whatever.  But the players are getting paid for a season, including pre-season and FFA Cup etc., so a few extra games each year won't impact their salaries.

So are there good reasons why all games have to be on tv? Is it that the travel costs for away teams are restrictive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can think of a few factors which might influence whether or not all games are televised.

1) Advertising revenue. The broadcaster can sell ads to sponsors to all games that are played in a competition, allowing for a greater amount of revenue from potential advertisers (and revenue from multiple markets across the country).

2) Selling content overseas. Overseas broadcasters want as much content as they can get to fill in 24 hour coverage of various sports.

3) Fans being able to see all their team (and rival team) games. I'd be annoyed if I couldn't watch WSW play in (for example) Perth or Wellington because it wasn't broadcast. A subscription service like Foxtel or Optus relies on offering all games played to subscribers so they don't miss any potential matches. This is also a selling point for subscribers like pubs and clubs that rely on their customers coming to the venue to see sports which are not on FTA TV.

Not sure if any of these impact the clubs themselves. But considering much of their revenue is derived from the broadcast deal, reducing the number of games broadcast theoretically reduces their income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s been some ridiculous attempts at justifying the new draw, I think Ned’s may take out the top spot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Carns said:

I can think of a few factors which might influence whether or not all games are televised.

1) Advertising revenue. The broadcaster can sell ads to sponsors to all games that are played in a competition, allowing for a greater amount of revenue from potential advertisers (and revenue from multiple markets across the country).

2) Selling content overseas. Overseas broadcasters want as much content as they can get to fill in 24 hour coverage of various sports.

3) Fans being able to see all their team (and rival team) games. I'd be annoyed if I couldn't watch WSW play in (for example) Perth or Wellington because it wasn't broadcast. A subscription service like Foxtel or Optus relies on offering all games played to subscribers so they don't miss any potential matches. This is also a selling point for subscribers like pubs and clubs that rely on their customers coming to the venue to see sports which are not on FTA TV.

Not sure if any of these impact the clubs themselves. But considering much of their revenue is derived from the broadcast deal, reducing the number of games broadcast theoretically reduces their income.

 

5 hours ago, btron3000 said:

A question I have had for a while, when it comes to expansion and tv etc., is why do all games need to be televised?

Do clubs make a loss on game day? If they don't, why can't they play more games that aren't televised?

I understand some things might cost more - insurances or whatever.  But the players are getting paid for a season, including pre-season and FFA Cup etc., so a few extra games each year won't impact their salaries.

So are there good reasons why all games have to be on tv? Is it that the travel costs for away teams are restrictive?

And/or why do ALL the telecasts have to be live?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Carns said:

I can think of a few factors which might influence whether or not all games are televised.

1) Advertising revenue. The broadcaster can sell ads to sponsors to all games that are played in a competition, allowing for a greater amount of revenue from potential advertisers (and revenue from multiple markets across the country).

2) Selling content overseas. Overseas broadcasters want as much content as they can get to fill in 24 hour coverage of various sports.

3) Fans being able to see all their team (and rival team) games. I'd be annoyed if I couldn't watch WSW play in (for example) Perth or Wellington because it wasn't broadcast. A subscription service like Foxtel or Optus relies on offering all games played to subscribers so they don't miss any potential matches. This is also a selling point for subscribers like pubs and clubs that rely on their customers coming to the venue to see sports which are not on FTA TV.

Not sure if any of these impact the clubs themselves. But considering much of their revenue is derived from the broadcast deal, reducing the number of games broadcast theoretically reduces their income.

Some thoughtful points. I think maybe point 3 and that last sentence answer what I was trying to get at, but I still have heaps of questions. 

What I was originally thinking was - the FFA have announced a 26 game season. That is worth a certain amount of $$ from Fox. So what is stopping them having another 4 rounds, to ensure all teams play each other 3 times, and those other games aren’t televised and don’t affect the Fox deal? That’s only another 22 games - 4 games for each team - that won’t be televised.  But it’s 4 games that wouldn’t have occurred anyway, so the people who don’t go to games wouldn’t have seen them anyway! So who loses? Die-hards get another 4 games and others don’t have to worry.

I get it that at this point the clubs are budgeting for 27 rounds (why have they taken a round away, by the way?) and that they would need extra money to travel etc., but if the gates from the extra 4 games could be shared somehow then couldn’t they handle this? OR if there is no gate sharing then with two additional home games each it is encouragement for teams to be able to get gate receipts to cover their two additional away games.

I don’t know, it just seems weird to me that every game HAS to be on tv. It wasn’t really that long ago when even the AFL and NRL only had a couple of games on tv each week, and the NSL had nothing! Not all FFA Cup games are televised. People get by. Bloody hell, fans could live stream the game from their phones, the FFA could come up with something creative for once in their existence! If they really wanted to have 3 full rounds, I’m sure they could do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, btron3000 said:

I don’t know, it just seems weird to me that every game HAS to be on tv. It wasn’t really that long ago when even the AFL and NRL only had a couple of games on tv each week, and the NSL had nothing! Not all FFA Cup games are televised. People get by. Bloody hell, fans could live stream the game from their phones, the FFA could come up with something creative for once in their existence! If they really wanted to have 3 full rounds, I’m sure they could do it.

Providing it was available to be viewed in some format I'd have no problem with it. I don't have Fox, never have. Throughout the years I've used a combination of the Telstra A-league streaming, illegal streaming, watching it at a mates place or the pub. But I always manage to see it. I'd be open to a streaming only option, but not every fan would be happy with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×