Western Sydney Wanderers Sold

 

What about a compromise? The new board acts like businessmen but doesn't wear suits.

then they would be casuals

 

The first A-league violent/hooliganism CEO board. I can live with this.

Lederer punching on with Pignata during the derbies.

 

People would have preferred to know about things like this beforehand.

Otherwise it feels like all his comments about us are fake.

Why would we have needed to know?

I don't feel like I did

Because every time he made a comment about how good things were going - instead of simply agreeing with him (because it sounds good) you could then ask yourself is it his heart or his wallet talking.

 

 

People would have preferred to know about things like this beforehand.

Otherwise it feels like all his comments about us are fake.

Why would we have needed to know?

I don't feel like I did

Because every time he made a comment about how good things were going - instead of simply agreeing with him (because it sounds good) you could then ask yourself is it his heart or his wallet talking.

Lyall Gorman did a good job and I really don't care what he was motivated by to do that job. It is harder though, to do a good job if you're hearts not in it

I'd rather a CEO who cares only about:

1) Success on the field.

2) Financial success off it.

So you want a situation like Melbourne Victory, where they field a premiership team every season, have virtually the best bank balance but don't give two rats about their supporters? Aren't you on social media every two days complaining about ESFC being "only in it for financial success"? Don't you give it to scouse roar because outside of "success on the field", they have nothing to what we do? 

The best thing about this club isn't the financial success. The best thing about this club isn't the success on the field. Those are great to have, but that's not what makes a club great. It's the engagement with the fans and greater community which makes us such a success. It's the passion we have that comes together for one cause. The CEO, who is the ambassador for the club in the biggest of public circles should embody what the club represents.

One day we'll get a CEO who only cares about success on field and financial success off the field. Then you'll be complaining on social media how you want a CEO who only cares about the fans and players. 

I think he did a great job, I have no issues with him having a pretty sweet contract.

The only part that I hate is him possibly ending up in the AFL because I despise AFL with a passion.

We made to take to the streets if we get a **** CEO...

"The World Game understands Gorman's contract was with Wanderers rather than FFA, which meant that if he was still employed by the club when the new owners took charge they would have become liable for his bonus payout whenever he left the club in the future.

Speculation has been that Gorman will leave with a bonus of close to $1 million following the $10 million sale of the club.

The World Game has been told negotiations between the new owners and FFA included FFA being responsible, as outgoing owners, for the payment to Gorman."

FFA tight arses

so no more cops at our matches now?. If i was a wise businessman id save over $100 000 a year for my club by not hiring extra police.

so no more cops at our matches now?. If i was a wise businessman id save over $100 000 a year for my club by not hiring extra police.

The club doesn't have a say in how many police are there.  They fill out a form well in advance and the police decide the risk and the staffing levels.  If the club doesn't submit the paperwork in time the police decide what the risk is without the information from the club and then charge the club more than if they had submitted the forms on time.

And then the club gets blamed for 'letting' so many cops into games.

but the club hires the police, if they don't hire them then they would not come. Surely we all know that the security we have is sufficient enough for our home matches to not have to waste more cash on hiring Police ontop of FFA's hatamoto to monitor us?

but the club hires the police, if they don't hire them then they would not come. Surely we all know that the security we have is sufficient enough for our home matches to not have to waste more cash on hiring Police ontop of FFA's hatamoto to monitor us?

from what flytox said it seems the cops would be there whether we needed them or not

The police are actually decided upon by the local goverment. My dad as part of his job has to meet with the local member for parramatta occasionally and they got talking about the wanderers one day. He told my dad that it's his duty to care for everyone who goes to our games to be safe and he regularly has run ins with the local area commander who thinks it's a waste of time and resources. This was about 7/8 months ago

I just re-read the NSW Police documents on charging for services for policing a Special Event like a football game and it does require a request from the event holder for costs to be recovered.  The clause that I remembered as giving the Police the right to attend and charge no matter what actually was referring to the fact that it is the police alone that decide the staffing levels.  The way I read the documents is that it is assumed there will be an application but it doesn't appear to say there must be an application.  That may, however, be a condition of hire of the venue or of the club's public liability insurers.

Could you link us that information Flytox? Wouldn't mind reading that myself.

 

I'd rather a CEO who cares only about:

1) Success on the field.

2) Financial success off it.

 

So you want a situation like Melbourne Victory, where they field a premiership team every season, have virtually the best bank balance but don't give two rats about their supporters? Aren't you on social media every two days complaining about ESFC being "only in it for financial success"? Don't you give it to scouse roar because outside of "success on the field", they have nothing to what we do? 

 

The best thing about this club isn't the financial success. The best thing about this club isn't the success on the field. Those are great to have, but that's not what makes a club great. It's the engagement with the fans and greater community which makes us such a success. It's the passion we have that comes together for one cause. The CEO, who is the ambassador for the club in the biggest of public circles should embody what the club represents.

 

One day we'll get a CEO who only cares about success on field and financial success off the field. Then you'll be complaining on social media how you want a CEO who only cares about the fans and players. 

 

What is considered a financial success?

I don't think it takes too much work to be considered financial success with our salary cap so low. And given a strong supporter based and attendances, matchday expenditure is reduced or netted profits.

Unless you are looking at setting a bar where we are able to invest in academies, clubshops, even possibly capable on investing into a stadium.

 

 

I'd rather a CEO who cares only about:

1) Success on the field.

2) Financial success off it.

 

So you want a situation like Melbourne Victory, where they field a premiership team every season, have virtually the best bank balance but don't give two rats about their supporters? Aren't you on social media every two days complaining about ESFC being "only in it for financial success"? Don't you give it to scouse roar because outside of "success on the field", they have nothing to what we do? 

 

The best thing about this club isn't the financial success. The best thing about this club isn't the success on the field. Those are great to have, but that's not what makes a club great. It's the engagement with the fans and greater community which makes us such a success. It's the passion we have that comes together for one cause. The CEO, who is the ambassador for the club in the biggest of public circles should embody what the club represents.

 

One day we'll get a CEO who only cares about success on field and financial success off the field. Then you'll be complaining on social media how you want a CEO who only cares about the fans and players. 

 

What is considered a financial success?

 

I don't think it takes too much work to be considered financial success with our salary cap so low. And given a strong supporter based and attendances, matchday expenditure is reduced or netted profits.

 

Unless you are looking at setting a bar where we are able to invest in academies, clubshops, even possibly capable on investing into a stadium.

 

I view the issues at Melbourne Victory as a symptom of poor management but one that is somewhat masked by their financial success.

SFC don't have any financial success. They constantly lose money and are propped up by a Russian billionaire. A club looking for financial success wouldn't have signed Del Piero. That was at best, a loss leader attempt to bring fans into the club. We'll see this year, if SFC don't sign another marquee how much good it did them.

A club can't be great if it goes bankrupt. The CEO should embody what the position of CEO is meant to do, effectively run the club. "Passion" is a meaningless quality for a CEO to personally embody. Being passionate isn't going to make the CEO a success or not. A passionate CEO who sends the club into financial ruin isn't a good CEO.

As for what is considered a financial success, a club in the A-League is imo, a 'financial success', when the club is self-sustaining, and can run itself over the course of seasons without making losses. Once a club is past that then money can be invested into things like training facilities, marquee players, stadium, academies and so on.

If we get a CEO who "only" cares about success financially and on the field and can deliver that, then the club will be in a better position than thousands of football clubs across the world.

Could you link us that information Flytox? Wouldn't mind reading that myself.

Sure.  I should have done it first up.  Its a 2010 document so it may have been updated.

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/9066/Policy_-_User_Charges_-_Final.pdf

More information.

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/services/additional_services/user_charges_user_pays_police_services

I view the issues at Melbourne Victory as a symptom of poor management but one that is somewhat masked by their financial success.

 

 

SFC don't have any financial success. They constantly lose money and are propped up by a Russian billionaire. A club looking for financial success wouldn't have signed Del Piero. That was at best, a loss leader attempt to bring fans into the club. We'll see this year, if SFC don't sign another marquee how much good it did them.

 

A club can't be great if it goes bankrupt. The CEO should embody what the position of CEO is meant to do, effectively run the club. "Passion" is a meaningless quality for a CEO to personally embody. Being passionate isn't going to make the CEO a success or not. A passionate CEO who sends the club into financial ruin isn't a good CEO.

 

As for what is considered a financial success, a club in the A-League is imo, a 'financial success', when the club is self-sustaining, and can run itself over the course of seasons without making losses. Once a club is past that then money can be invested into things like training facilities, marquee players, stadium, academies and so on.

 

If we get a CEO who "only" cares about success financially and on the field and can deliver that, then the club will be in a better position than thousands of football clubs across the world.

Victory fulfill both the criteria you set out yet I know you don't envy the position of their fans. 

Being passionate for the club and being financially successful are not mutually exclusive. Passion for the club includes empathising with fans which is a critical trait needed for someone in the role of a sports club that means so much to the people of Western Sydney. 

I'm not saying to send the club into financial ruin just because he/she is passionate. You're just creating a strawman argument.

No **** winning and having money makes you better than many other clubs. Would you swap the position we're in for Melbourne Victory's? They've had more success and have been the best financially run club.

Victory fulfill both the criteria you set out yet I know you don't envy the position of their fans.

Like I said, I believe the situation there is bad management, and that resolution of that issue will improve the club as a business.

They aren't mutually exclusive, but one (passion) isn't a substitute for the other (effective business skills). Especially when the role of a CEO is to lead the club as a business.

Franz Straka might have been the most passionate manager in the A-League when he ran NQF, but that didn't help his side win anything. Kenny Lowe might bounce around like he's on steroids during a game, that isn't going to help Perth win the comp this season. Same thing for CEOs. Passion has it's place, but it's not a substitute for knowledge in certain roles.

Passion for the club includes empathising with fans which is a critical trait needed for someone in the role of a sports club that means so much to the people of Western Sydney.

Passion for the club won't pay the bills. Empathising with the supporters can help improve it's status in the business side of things, and enable a CEO to better understand the supporters, but passion is not the reason the CEO is there.

I'm not saying to send the club into financial ruin just because he/she is passionate. You're just creating a strawman argument.

It's an effective demonstration of why for a CEO, passion comes second to prudent financial decisions in running the club.

Would you swap the position we're in for Melbourne Victory's? They've had more success and have been the best financially run club.

Why? We're two seasons old, won the Premiership in our first year, have broken even in our second year, and made the Grand Final in both seasons. I would say we're doing just as well as the Victory when taking the years they've been around into account.

Our supporters have been spoiled by the quality of the people who have run this club, especially those with no knowledge of the history of the NSL and the atrocious governance of those clubs & Soccer Australia.

My issue with this entire thread has been people giving Gorman **** for leaving after two years, complaining about his 'fake passion', when other people like Con Constantine, like Terry Seripisos, like Clive Palmer, like Nick Tana, like Nathan Tinkler etc have all run their clubs into the ground & had to have their licenses taken over or cancelled by the FFA.

but one (passion) isn't a substitute for the other (effective business skills)

Never said it was.

Franz Straka might have been the most passionate manager in the A-League when he ran NQF, but that didn't help his side win anything. Kenny Lowe might bounce around like he's on steroids during a game, that isn't going to help Perth win the comp this season. Same thing for CEOs. Passion has it's place, but it's not a substitute for knowledge in certain roles.

Again, never said it was.

Passion for the club won't pay the bills

Again, never said it was. You're continuing to argue a position I have not taken.

Why? We're two seasons old, won the Premiership in our first year, have broken even in our second year, and made the Grand Final in both seasons. I would say we're doing just as well as the Victory when taking the years they've been around into account.

They have 2 "Championships", as well as consistently being in the black. By all rights, they have done better than us. Do you envy their fans given the criteria you set out?

My issue with this entire thread has been people giving Gorman **** for leaving after two years, complaining about his 'fake passion', when other people like Con Constantine, like Terry Seripisos, like Clive Palmer, like Nick Tana, like Nathan Tinkler etc have all run their clubs into the ground & had to have their licenses taken over or cancelled by the FFA.

Because this thread isn't about Con Constantine, Terry Seripisos, Clive Palmer, Nick Tana or Nathan Tinkler. There's separate threads if you want to talk about them and they have little relevance on the sale of WSW and it being heavily influenced by Gorman's presence. People have every right to be critical of a suit who will pocket $1M of FFA money (from ticket sales or regos) and has every chance of walking over to a rival code. 

Well Rodz, why DON'T you wait till he has walked to the other code, before you start calling him a ****?

It's no love in for Gorman from me, but I'm sick of people giving him stick when there's been little or no publically acknowledged reasons to give him stick about.

You want good administrators? Go and get the people who run the Eels. lol. They're a ******* joke. And you think you have problems  with Gorman? Get over it.

I would stand up to security and police but im afraid if they arrest me I will start crying.

Anyway carry on.

Well Rodz, why DON'T you wait till he has walked to the other code, before you start calling him a ****?

Where have I called him a ****? Go, show me.

 

Well Rodz, why DON'T you wait till he has walked to the other code, before you start calling him a rich ****?

 

Where have I called him a rich ****? Go, show me.

 

Fixed

My main grievance is the treatment of fans that helped in the tiniest possible way to make this an immediate success. I think Lyall merely allowed us to be successful, and interfered when he got nervous rather than completely sanction us like what is happening at Victory. However I think that this season the balance between passion and prudence visibly tipped towards prudence and I'm ropable as **** for it.

I think I've said 8 times now I think Gorman did a good job and I wish him all the best. No wonder people make fun of "westie education" when we have so many people who can't read.

God, you people read what you want and not what's in front of you. 

I think I've said 8 times now I think Gorman did a good job and I wish him all the best. No wonder people make fun of "westie education" when we have so many people who can't read.

 

God, you people read what you want and not what's in front of you.

 

Personally I think Gorman did a good job. In the broader context though the FFA was on the edge with fury, GCU, Auckland gone and a owner revolt.

Purely because due diligence was not done and fans were been neglected by clubs and FFFA.

So the FFA gettimg WSW right was only because they had learned some long painful lessons and they could not afford to get it wrong anymore.

In saying this the FFA did what they needed to do to survive. Kind of like communist China opening itself up to capitalist market forces.

But make no mistake, that conservative micro managing body still exists.

i'm not talking sides but mostly what I read from Rodz was that in fact Gorman did do well.

I personally do not agree with the opinion that he is only in it for money - nor do I believe he should get the reported $1 million that's floating around.

The reality is whatever has been agreed was obviously in the contract and thus it is legally fair.

Gorman I am sure worked his farking arse off so good luck to him. He like anyone else who excels in their chosen field deserves what the market determines to be fair. And by the looks of it he can name his price with AFL types on the lurch.