By Jesse Fink
July 24th 2009 @ 2:20am
Is the Bundesliga a model for the A-League?
Stuttgart's Serdar Tasci, left, and Berlin player Andrey Voronin, right, challenge for the ball during the German first soccer Bundesliga match between VfB Stuttgart and Hertha BSC Berlin in the stadium in Stuttgart, Germany, on Saturday, March 21, 2009. AP Photo/Christof Stache
Brendon Santalab pissing off to China is hardly going to sink the SS A-League but you really have to wonder about what having a contract actually means in this day and age.
Santalab signed for two years with the North Queensland Fury and didn’t even play one regular-season match before being pilfered this week by the Chengdu Blades, a Chinese Super League club. Almost half a dozen Aussies now get around in the Chinese comp and more will follow.
Is our own national comp really so weak that we can’t hold on to a player who a couple of seasons ago was getting around in the NSW Premier League?
Clearly, the answer is yes.
Football Federation Australia has to take some of the heat. They’ve been tardy in countering the new Asian Football Confederation dispensation that allows Asian club to acquire an “Asian berth” player (one from the AFC zone) and so bypass normal visa restrictions and continue to moan about the lack of money in the comp.
But there is money in the league.
Look at Melbourne Victory – they are the biggest club in the A-League but can’t spend above and beyond the salary cap. So they’re aggressively pushing into basketball and rugby union and hoping to turn Victory into a southern-hemisphere version of Barcelona, an SC as opposed to an FC.
By rights, Melbourne should be allowed to spend their money as they see fit. They’ve been a standout performer among a clutch clubs that haven’t been able to keep themselves above water without the FFA’s beneficence.
So why can’t the A-League replicate a competition model like the one in Germany that allows clubs to spend money on player salaries as a proportion of their turnover while being forbidden to go into debt?
Yes, it might nudge Melbourne to even greater dominance of the league but who’s to say they don’t deserve it? Would the administrators of the EPL do the same to Manchester United? La Liga to Barcelona or Réal Madrid? Serie A to AC Milan or Juventus?
It’s part of the reason why the Bundesliga, while not the most successful in European competition, is one of the most profitable if not the most.
And it would go some way in servicing the great and enduring problem of player retention in the A-League.
Yes, the Fury is a different kettle of fish to Victory and is only just finding its way as a football club and a commercial entity, but the basic concept is sound.
The more revenue any A-League club can turn over through the turnstiles or off the park in commercial deals, the more they can spend on players and on thwarting the predations of cashed-up Asian clubs.
And so the revolving door of players to Asia can at least be partly jammed and we don’t lose average players such as Santalab the moment some obscure Chinese club knocks on the door.
The salary cap was well intentioned but it’s out of kilter with what’s required to survive and prosper as a national competition in a confederation filled with predatory rivals.
It’s time for a serious rethink.
Get Australia's best Football opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(94)
Gaz said | July 24th 2009 @ 6:11am | Report comment
Gold Coast United might well have signed Coyne, Sterj and maybe a few more Socceroos if not for the salary cap, so I wouldn’t assume a change in the rules means MV go unchallenged. No doubt a few other clubs (Perth? SFC?) would lift their spending to stay competitive.
Then you would have a two-tiered comp like the EPL, where lower teams are looking to build up a team over several seasons, but would still be watching players disappear on a regular basis. I guess the advantage is that the richer HAL clubs could poach them rather than the Chinese and Koreans.
Let’s hope we have some better crowds this season and then Lowy negotiates a better TV deal, bringing more money into the game. Good for everybody. Onwards and upwards!
GeneralAshnak said | July 24th 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Oh my… I feel a bit weird, but I actually agree with you here Gaz…
Andrew said | July 24th 2009 @ 6:16pm | Report comment
We are not a buying league we are a selling league.
We should be aiming at producing better players for
A) Help the national team
B) Increase Revenue from the sale of players
C) Increase the standard of the league
Raising the cap beyond a certain point will just inflate prices same with you’re turnover idea. If we continuely produce better prices will raise with the quality.
StiflersMom said | July 25th 2009 @ 7:30am | Report comment
I see your logic Gaz but then we’d end up like the Scottish 12 or so teams but the same clubs fighting to win the comp each year.
Paul said | July 26th 2009 @ 5:00am | Report comment
I just did a wiki check on game attendances. I’d say things are looking up when you consider that only 2 AFL matches managed to pull more people than the Melb V Adel game yesterday. A bit of interesting reading actually. I checked all the AFL crowds from march onwards. A Footbal ( soccer ) match in melbourne is a far better investment than an AFL game in Brisbane. It’s hard to say if people are staying home more now with the likes of extra TV stations, movie downloads and what have you or the culture is changing slightly. The AFL model wev’e held in such high esteem for years, i’d say is not all that it’s cracked up to be. Maybe people have become more selective. It’s hard to say. And of course population comes into it. The more options people are given, the more thinly spread they become. With football being a world game, it’s getting easier to see it being the dominant Australian sport in the near future.
Midfielder said | July 24th 2009 @ 6:44am | Report comment
Jes
Within reason it’s a good idea … to keep teams somewhat equal as we still need to grow the domestic competition … I would allow with a percentage of budget allow a team to spend … but to a limit over the cap…
The cap is 2.25 million excluding marquee … so you can spend a percentage of your income up to say 3.25 million …
agga78 said | July 24th 2009 @ 8:09am | Report comment
Fury mistake was letting Jade North go, even though he was a very poor marquee imo and Robbie Fowler is better, to allow him to go to Korea set a precedent for others lin the club ike Felipe and now Santalab to follow, which now disables the club.
To allow the bigger clubs like Gold Coast, Sydney and Melbourne to spend bigger money on players would be a huge mistake at this point in time, yes these clubs will get healthy crowds and their playing standard will rise but teams like CCM, Newcastle or NQ Fury will have crowds of 2 or 4 thousand people, is that what we for football in Australia? It’s ok in Europe where smaller teams have a rusted on support because they are 120 years old, A league clubs are 5 years old and don’t have rusted on support .
All I would suggest to improve the game further without hitting the smaller clubs to hard is to allow clubs to spend a bit more on a Asian marquee or a better option imo a South American marquee spot, it’s only one player and should not harm the other teams to much.
AndyRoo said | July 24th 2009 @ 9:33am | Report comment
I agree with this. It’s too early to allow an arms race as it means teams that are 5 years old will be spending as much as they can on players.
As long as the salary cap stays at a relevant level (which the players association will make dam sure it does) I am happy for Victory to have some money in the bank. I think there stupid for spending it on Basketball and Rugby teams unless it’s part of some greater plan.
They should be spending that money on better youth development, facilities, coaching support systems, scouts and scouting trips and even marketing. Make there club something that wow’s prospective players off the pitch not just on it. That will be one of the things that will get us an extra spot in the Asian Champions League.
Unfortunately we do have to protect clubs from themselves and I think the cap is the best way. It means the standard will improve a little bit slower than if there was no cap but it’s steady and doesn’t leave many clubs behind. Take the best and worse club out of consideration and then decide on a cap based on what the other 8 can realistically afford.
I think the Mariners youth plan is excellent but if they were getting blown away in the A league because all the other clubs were spending 4 times as much they would go under before the project was finished.
I also was a little disappointed with this article because the reference to the Bundisliga meant I thought you were going to talk about how awesome cheap tickets are
Brett McKay said | July 24th 2009 @ 8:42am | Report comment
I’m with you Midfielder, within reason it could just work. Before the English rugby league became the Super League, clubs were allowed to spend either a percentage, or their entire annual turnover, and the net result was that Wigan and St.Helens essentially played off annually for the title. Other clubs came and went, but there was always the couple of dominating clubs. The intorduction of the salary cap for SL has had the same effect as in the NRL, the comp is more even.
I still believe there is some merit in the ‘natural selection’ theory though, and clubs being able to spend a percentage of turnover at least rewards the successful clubs, while at the same time providing incentive for the trailing clubs to lift their game..
whiskeymac said | July 24th 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment
bundesliga model has been touted before as a reasonable model, and once the game is able to grow to the stage where the competition would still be viable, and not financially troubled as it is now with Adelaide and Brisbane etc effectively under FFA control, then am sure the FFA and bean counters will modify the salary constraints.
We lose Santalab but gain DWilliams; lose Ogenovski but develop Devere or Jurman or Golec or Danning… the league will always lose players , it’s how we replace them that will be the real litmus test for the HAl and the games development in this country.
Why be held to ransom for average players like Santalab? by this i mean, why pay someone more just because you can under the cap? it doesnt make you a better club or competition paying more money to average players. it makes you a naive one, or one sponsored by undisclosed owners who havent passed the fit and proper test. in which case money is not the issue which it is for all other dilligent organisations.
- if he had the opportunity to play overseas and the club makes money off the transfer thats a win -win. better than having an unsettled player. all clubs lose contracted players. even ManUtd and AC Milan. it’s a facet of the game that inspires loathing (i will never forgive cashley cole’s treachery but hypocritically was happy when sol campbell came over for the gunners…. but for a more local aspect how about colosimo from perth… or petrovski’s moves up the motorway) and makes the game interesting at the same time.
- surely there are enough players in the world game for NQ to replace Santalab. and am sure there are players who can fit under the salry caps.
- better contracts and onselling transfer amounts are more important than vain attempts to try and force players to uphold an employment contract. good luck with trying to force a player back to play for you btw, wld be an interesting court case (not to say expensive and futile). dont swim against the current with players leaving overseas, but ensure you get the money you deserve (Vidmar brought this up yesterday on the fox website re Ogenovski being sold for 350K but valued now at 1.7m (seems a bit high but ya know what he means))
GeneralAshnak said | July 24th 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Whiskey you are spot on the money with regard to the Og monster, Viddie was saying how allowing our players to be under valued would result in our league experiencing negetive growth in playerskill. If you have a player who is worth $1.7m dont sell them for $350k – all you do is set a precident that you are happy to be bent over a table, and will smile nicely while it happens.
Tom said | July 24th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
I always thought the point of an A-league salary cap was to equalise the competition, rather than to prevent clubs from going bankrupt.
Turnover based salary caps only really make sense where you have promotion or relegation, to prevent yoyo teams from going under, or elite leagues where you can get wage bubbles, like the National Hockey League.
Personally, I’d prefer to see some equalisation between the teams, at least for the moment. Makes it easier for new franchises coming in. Not sure how a new club would be able to attract players from established clubs under this system.
Kazama said | July 24th 2009 @ 9:35am | Report comment
Agree with agga78 – raising / removing the cap would be great for the richer clubs like Melbourne, Gold Coast, Sydney etc but for teams like Newcastle, Adelaide, Brisbane, Fury, Mariners it would be a death sentence, and the reality is that you wouldn’t be able to replace those clubs without a salary cap either. Clive Palmers don’t grow on trees – if they did, then how come no one wants to buy Adelaide or Brisbane?
You say you want to reward Melbourne, Jesse. Well, I’m sure most Victory fans would be happy to see Adelaide United go under, as any major adjustments to the cap to favour clubs like Melbourne would see the end of my club. As agga78 says, you can’t expect fans who have been supporting a club for 5 years or less, and in our case accustomed to being around at the business end of the season, to think that finshing about 7th every year is ok. In Europe, where people have been lifelong supporters of their clubs like their parents and grandparents before them low expectations are fine, because it’s their club; “rusted on support” as agga78 says. Here it is different. If United have no chance to win the title people will give up on them in a hurry. Just look at that weak as piss crowd at the Preliminary Final following the hammering we copped from Melbourne in the Major Semi and Vidmar’s ensuing outburst. And once United are gone, that’s it, South Australia is gone too because the only club that would be willing to come in is Adelaide City, and quite frankly no one but the Italian community gives a toss about them. The FFA would probably prefer to have another team in Sydney than any at all in SA.
Wouldn’t mind seeing clubs granted an extra marquee spot, maybe an Asian marquee like I think we’ve discussed in the past. At this time IMO only marginal increases should be considered. If we have to lose players like Brendon Santalab it’s dissapointing but it’s where we are truthfully at right now – a long, long way down the pecking order. And what you are suggesting wouldn’t have saved Santalab unless he was at Melbourne anyway. What’s the point of having a system to help the big clubs save their players if it’s actually the little ones who are losing them? I’m sorry Jesse but I have to disagree with you here.
TBH I’d rather see the extra money go into the proposed youth academies instead of being added as “incentive” to the contracts of players the calibre of Santalab anyway.
GeneralAshnak said | July 24th 2009 @ 9:40am | Report comment
Bloody well said Kazma! Wish I could cheer that post!
Kazama said | July 24th 2009 @ 9:56am | Report comment
Thanks mate. I’d better start doing some actual work soon though…
onside said | July 24th 2009 @ 7:30pm | Report comment
The clubs that financially fail are often those that overspend.
It’s more likely Newcastle,Adelaide,Brisbane, Fury ,and CCM
would survive by having to run a tight budget ,than the big
spenders that underacheive. There can only be one winner.
At this stage of the A leagues development,tired old big name
footballers can be ‘marque’ players.This will change.The time
will come when twenty year olds who can play every week
of the season ,injury free, provide the razzle dazzle.
I don’t have a firm opinion on the salary cap. I struggle with it.
I do know Mr Lowry sunk many millions into Sydney to keep it
afloat,and the owner of Newcastle has put quite a few million
dollars into his team. It’s a slog.
GeneralAshnak said | July 24th 2009 @ 9:37am | Report comment
AUFC is not in financial trouble. Can people stop saying that? The owner of AUFC was affected by his off field concerns (ie his actual business) and needed to sell out of AUFC. It is interesting to note that if AUFC wasn’t forced to give away 60% of its prize money for the season they would have made a great profit. The reason they didn’t is because of the FFA.
I personally am totally against changing the salary cap. Until the HAL is not going to expand any further you need to maintain a level playing field, once we have reached a stable platform of 16-20 teams then I would be happy to remove the level cap and convert it to a proportion of income cap. It is premature to be doing so now. Also one must note that it would be quite easy for a club to spend their income cap and go into debt in the current climate. You are talking about the previous financial years income after all, and a massive downturn in revenue from one year to the next is quite possible. Especially in a league that is only 5 years old.
Nick D said | July 24th 2009 @ 9:42am | Report comment
What if the FFA provided an incentive for players to stay in the A-league by having an all A-league team compete in the Asian Cup (and qualifiers). Yes we might suffer in the short term but at least fringe NT members might be more likely to hang around rather than head overseas to say Norway, Romania etc.
granty09 said | July 24th 2009 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
totally disagree becuz they dont hand out baggy greens to any joe bloe, think they have all ready saturated the honour of pulling on a socceroos jersey and id hate to see them de-value it more
how do you think tim cahill would feel if say player x from the a league played in all the asian cup qualifiers for the next ten years and ended up with 15 less caps and 5 less goals than cahill despite never playing in a team with him
AndyRoo said | July 24th 2009 @ 9:42am | Report comment
It would be a sad day if the Pissants (with surely the best nickname in world football) were to leave the A League.
GeneralAshnak said | July 24th 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
I agree totally Andy, actually I would be devastated if any of the current teams folded – we are just starting to see some actual history form between the clubs which is what this comp has been craving.
Pippinu said | July 24th 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
The Bundesliga model is worth a serious think.
By the way – who says the GCU would have unlimited funds to spend on players under the Bundeliga model?
Don’t forget – it’s about percentage of turnover from football operations- not capital funding from oil magnates.
For all we know – the GCU could be in the bottom tier in terms of turnover!!
Kazama said | July 24th 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
Understood Pip, but would the FFA really risk pissing off Clive by telling him your mob could spend whatever they want while he had to hold back? I’m sure he’d find a way around it – either that or he’d buy Melbourne.
Until we see how GCU perform on and off the field it is premature to say what tier they’ll be in in terms of turnover, but point taken.
AndyRoo said | July 24th 2009 @ 10:17am | Report comment
Turnover includes sponsership, so it’s pretty easy to get arround. Clives coal mining company sponsers GCU for X amount of dollars and there is the turnover.
whiskeymac said | July 24th 2009 @ 9:51am | Report comment
as an aside Kazama and General, apologies if i am one who says that Reds are in financial trouble – i for one like the reds and was more than impressed with their ACL efforts – but it’s whats reported or implied at best (for example in this story there was the damning line that “The cash-strapped Reds can’t afford a marquee reinforcement…” http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25823147-5000940,00.html). Not being from Adelaide my views are ashamedly influenced by such media reports.
the HAL and game generaly would be a lot poorerfor the loss of the Reds. I cld understand MV fans wanting to beat the reds – now they cldnt do that if they werent there…
Kazama said | July 24th 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
No worries whiskeymac – it’s not that we are in major strife, but if we want to be able to spend on marquee signings etc we really do need a proper owner rather than the FFA running us.
So Roman, mate, if you are reading this, perhaps it’s time to invest in a new feeder club for your Chelsea empire. How about you, Sir Richard? No aspiring Bond villain’s portfolio is complete without a football club.
Pippinu said | July 24th 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
Either way, there is a strong case for a bit of tweaking (even if we keep the salary cap system), in particular, via additional categories, similar to the additional category we created for junior marquees.
For instance, a category for an AFC marquee could exist, as well as a Socceroo or ex-Socceroo marquee (i.e. I’m thinking of additional categories that are either out of the salary cap, or at least allow for additional spending).
This allows the ability to do a bit more in terms of recruitment and competing with Asian clubs, while retaining the financial discipline that goes with a salary cap.
We’re now about to start our 5th season – four new teams in the next two seasons – TV rights are up soon after that – it’s time to at least tweak the salary cap system.
Also, please refer to a recent blog I put up where I suggested that we retain a cap for overseas signings only, and make it open slather on Australian players, with the regulation that only a certain number (say 10 to 12) be over the age of 21.
Why?
The vast bulk of Australian players are getting paid their market value, cap or no cap.
I like the idea of putting the focus on youth (which would be completely unlimited in this proposal), and taking it away from salaries.
Basically, in a match day squad of 15, you only need a few injuries to start filling it with U21 players – so it would certainly sharpen a club’s focus on their youth.
Pippinu said | July 24th 2009 @ 9:56am | Report comment
….and youth is cheap – thus you meet your objective of financial discipline.
DogsOfWar said | July 24th 2009 @ 10:08am | Report comment
I think they need to look to the USA for ideas.
Luxury taxes may be a better model, where if you go over the cap, then you have to pay an amount equivalent ot the amount you went over the cap to the league, which is then divided up amongst the teams less well off.
I could see many of the bigger teams spending over the cap, and thus keeping the Nth Qld, Newcastle and CC boys afloat.
Though you also need to have a trigger that allows the salary cap to go up as well, a percentage of total revenue could be the key to this.
AndyRoo said | July 24th 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
Hmmm that is a pretty solid Idea, the luxury tax idea has a lot of merit.
Would make for great chants. Sydney FC buy a huge flop (Billy Alnogoals) as there marquee and he is greeted by mariners fans with “thanks for the 100 grand Billy”
AndyRoo said | July 24th 2009 @ 10:15am | Report comment
Just further to how at this stage of the comp (5 years in) I would rather the clubs be spending on improving operations and develpment rather than pouring massive amounts on mediocre players.
By doing so and having the money to go on scouting missions and such you no longer have to sign players off DVD. And surely in the case of Santalab that is what has happened here.
Mediocre player getting big money, but he has some great U tube clips due to his spectacular long range shots. Fury who aren’t expected to make the finals (with a top 6 that is saying something) have admitted he wasn’t even assured a first team place.
Maybe in 3 months time we will see a host of Chinese football writers talking about the need for a salary cap so that there clubs can afford to invest in infrustructure and not waste so much yuan on mediocre Australians
Gaz said | July 24th 2009 @ 10:17am | Report comment
Mention of the Global Financial Crisis is timely. I wouldn’t expect FFA to tweak the salary cap too much until the global economy looks better.
It’s also worth considering some cautionary tales from UK clubs, where big investors have blown wads of money on a team, failed to find success, and then disappeared into oblivion. Over there, such clubs can sink back down to Div Three and still bounce back. Over here we still have no such mechanism, so it’s up to the FFA to ride to the rescue.
In a healthier financial climate, I am sure more guys like Clive Palmer would be stepping in to “rescue” clubs like Brisbane and Adelaide. When and if that happens, the club owners will surely be putting pressure on the FFA to raise or abolish the salary cap. But the question of what happens when an A-League club (or its owner) crashes would still need to be addressed. Again, the Bendesliga might be a better model than the EPL here.
Art Sapphire said | July 24th 2009 @ 10:20am | Report comment
On these virtual pages at the Roar I have long advocated the introduction of a turnover based salary structure for the A-League ala the Bundesliga. Well done Jesse, for a well argued piece.
Also, Pip makes a good point re: GCU.
Kazama – MVFC supporters don’t want Adelaide to fold. They only want them to crumple in a heap every time we play them.
Seriously, if the FFA plays it right, the new TV rights deal will see and injection of much-needed funds to the A-League clubs. Hopefully, with a much more secure financial situation, the FFA, should then think about introduction of a turnover based system.
If we want better quality, bigger crowds, higher ratings, bigger tv and sponsorship deals the FFA have to take this appoach.
jimbo said | July 24th 2009 @ 10:20am | Report comment
Adelaide actually made a profit last year.
Nick Bianco had to sell his stake in AU to get his construction and import/export businesses out of trouble.
The FFA once owned MV and PG don’t forget and they made a healthy profit when they sold their shares. MV now is a profitable business.
But the next 2 years are going to be the toughest financially for the A-League.
The cheap and plentiful youth players will be part of the rescue package and the majority of them don’t fail to entertain the crowds.
Then the clubs make a good profit on them when and if they sell them.
jimbo said | July 24th 2009 @ 10:27am | Report comment
If you introduced the Bundesliga rule that you can spend up on players as long as you don’t go into debt there would only be 3 teams in this year’s A-league – MV, CCM and AU. The others would have to field their youth teams.
Stephen Smith said | July 24th 2009 @ 10:32am | Report comment
It’s easy – keep the cap, but allow clubs (those that can afford it) to purchase two…or even three marquee players.
Therefore (theoretically) – good business model + success on the park = money to spend on better players.
Cap stays in place = keeping a semblance of fair competition.
whiskeymac said | July 24th 2009 @ 10:55am | Report comment
if the FFA (re Uncle Frank) follows the due dilligence models that Jesse spoke of in his SBS article recently, i think it was concerning Dutchy’s non-employment, then they must have a plan to evolve the cap as the competition grows and is able to sustain the increased financial expenditure? especially if they also expect clubs to stump up youth academies, which if the CCM is the benchmark for wld cost at least $50M (and their land must be cheaper than in Melbourne or Sydney?)
does anybody know how dutch clubs do it (so to speak) – is it based upon their conveyor belt of talent?
Tom said | July 24th 2009 @ 11:12am | Report comment
I think the Asian marquee idea is a great one. Perfectly suited to teams in the ACL.
Not so sure about Pip’s idea of a salary cap only applying to foreign players. I think you’d find the big clubs would offer high salaries to young, promising Aussie footballers and then have them sit on the bench as back-ups to the older proven players. Better to spread the talent around a number of teams, I reckon.
I call this the ‘Steve Sidwell syndrome’.
whiskeymac said | July 24th 2009 @ 11:12am | Report comment
slightly related… Argentinian model for dealing with finaicailly suspect clubs is interesting – especially considering clubs there have to sell to their players to mexico and europe to survive (a bit like us and the erevedesie?) – I refer to http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/feedarticle/8623018 – “Cash-strapped Argentine clubs will not be allowed to register new signings until they have settled their salary debts to players, a Football Association (AFA) official said on Thursday.
“They won’t be able to register recruitments and they’ll have to play with juniors or the professionals they have,” said AFA treasurer Carlos Portell”. I wonder what Constatine would make of that….
Ben of Phnom Penh said | July 24th 2009 @ 11:36am | Report comment
In the longer term something modeled along the lines of the Bundesliga would work in the A-League though as a number of posters have noted it is largely a matter of timing and perhaps a graduated approach would need to be taken.
I don’t mind players leaving as long as the clubs are being adequately compensated. I do believe though that at times we take the whole “don’t want to get in the way of his career” thing a little too far. I can understand it when it is a 20 year old heading off to the Netherlands or Turkey however the clubs should be haggling harder in relation to more mature players being poached. To be fair though I am unaware of the conditions of the Santalab deal however if it made room for Williams or the like then it may be something that suits all parties involved, in which case fair enough.
whiskeymac said | July 24th 2009 @ 11:47am | Report comment
I agree Ben. adequate compensation is the contractual “fix”, for sure. It’s not that players can be stopped leaving, the bigger picture is that it needs to be ensured that the clubs arent financially disadvantaged in the process.
Was always amazed Carney only cost united $50K (altho for a fulltime bench warmer that’s kind of expensive), but there seemed to be some better business when Ruky, Djite and Burns made the inevitable moves. and in line with that mature players (whats that 24-30?) should still attract sufficent compensation.
Pippinu said | July 24th 2009 @ 11:51am | Report comment
Tom
re your reasonable concerns:
1. It’s unlikely that Australian clubs will ever be big enough to “stockpile” players as is often the case overseas (where the larger clubs are capable of fielding 3,4 or 5 teams that can all finish top 5.
2. If a few clubs are able to keep a young player in Australia longer, by offering a decent salary (before they go overseas), I think that would be a good outcome for the A-League as a whole.
nath said | July 24th 2009 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
I believe that the salary cap should be kept. But a sliding scale of the players wage to be excluded from the salary cap based on the number of apperances for the 1 club should be introduced.
For example
50 Apperances 10% of the players wage outside of the salary cap
100 Apperances 20% of the players wage outside of the salary cap
150 Apperances 30% of the players wage outside of the salary cap
200+ Apperances 50% of the players wage outside of the salary cap
This scale would encourage player loyalty whilst helping clubs to keep their best players.
A similar sliding scale could apply to current / ex socceroos returning home.
20 Apperances 15% of the players wage outside of the salary cap
30 Apperances 25% of the players wage outside of the salary cap
40+ Apperances 40% of the players wage outside of the salary cap
Why stop at Australian Internationals the same scale could apply to any international player.
The two systems could be tied into one another. lets say an ex socceroo returning home from Europe has played 32 games for the green and gold. The club would be entitled to pay 25% of his wage outside of the salary cap. Then after 2 years and 50 appearances for the one A league club he would be entiltled to have a further 10% of his wage paid outside of the salary cap.
This system wouldn’t replace the marquee system but would allow clubs with more money to be able to offer more to players. Whilst keeping the playing field level.
Pippinu said | July 24th 2009 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
Nath
I’m in a middle of an engineering degree with honours – I’ll get back to you as soon as I’m finished!!!
Realfootball said | July 24th 2009 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
Kazama, a question that is a bit off line but related to this thread: As someone who has only been to Adelaide once, briefly, I am puzzled by the low attendances for United. With their success, I would have expected them to fill a small stadium like Hindmarsh regularly, but this doesn’t happen,and not by quite a long way. The Prelim Final in particular mystified me. At Suncorp the game would have pulled 30-40,000 people, and there was such huge interest in the ACL semi with the game sold out way ahead. Do you have an explanation for the low attendances?
Pippinu said | July 24th 2009 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
I think it is fair to say that Adelaide people have a wide range of interests – unfortunately, some are far too gruesome to mention on a family oriented site like the Roar.
Kazama said | July 24th 2009 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
I don’t really have a definitive explanation, but I’ll put some ideas out there for you. Keep in mind that I am a mad United fan and generally would move heaven and earth to get to a Reds home game, so my opinions are a tad biased.
1) Parking at Hindmarsh (or any ground in SA) is a nightmare, especially if you can’t get there until late – say coming from work on a Friday night, where people would have to go home, get changed, have dinner and go to the football. I know it puts a lot of people off. Some friends were considering getting season tickets until they saw the number of Friday night games, and told me they’d changed their minds because it was too much of a hassle. Especially considering that the game is live on Foxtel, so they can watch it in the comfort of their own home while having dinner with their families or drinks with their friends instead of having to fight the traffic to and from Hindmarsh as well as having to find a park.
2) Early season clash with the end of the AFL season. AFL is #1 here in Adelaide, and the average punter would probably rather spend their hard earned on watching their AFL side play (or already have, if they own a season ticket or membership) than go and watch United.
3) Poor finals record – not good for any club, much less a young one. I know quite a few discouraged Reds fans who won’t go to finals matches because they feel we’ll get smashed.
4) Adelaidians are as I’ve said pretty fussy when it comes to sports, so they only go when they feel like they’ll be missing out. That’s why the ACL finals and the heavily marketed holiday season blockbusters against Sydney FC at Adelaide Oval had such big attendances, yet the crowds are much lower for A-League games (even the finals).
5) No (successful) marquee players to draw fans to the games. Fussy fans demand the best players, but they haven’t received yet in that department.
6) A lot of the buzz created by Adelaide United in the last season of the NSL (when we were packing out Hindmarsh regularly – 16k+ to the last game v South Melbourne) dissipated because we didn’t have a league for a season, and then Adelaide nearly didn’t join the A-League when there was a dispute between JON and then-owner Gordon Pickard over licence payments. Also for the first few games of the first season the tickets went up massively in price in the Eastern Stand, which had previously been a (popular) GA area. Halfway through the year the club changed its mind and reverted the Eastern Stand to GA, but perhaps the damage had been done by then.
There are probably other reasons. Maybe some of the other AU fans on here can give their opinion.
GeneralAshnak said | July 24th 2009 @ 3:12pm | Report comment
i am with Kaz here, hard to say – however I can state that Hindmarsh, even though it seems easy to get to, is actually a total pain in the arse. Traffic is terrible, there is NO parking and public transport is a joke. I will be going to the Friday night games straight from work as there is no chance of me getting home, having dinner and getting to the game on time. Luckily a mate of mine is the head chef of a nearby establishment so i reckon I may be heading there for a pint and a bite prior to kick off!
Albert Ross said | July 24th 2009 @ 2:18pm | Report comment
The percentage of revenue model is problematic for association football leagues in countries where it is not the dominant code if the League of Ireland experience is anything to go by.
Art Sapphire said | July 24th 2009 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
Albert – next time try using a more suitable comparison
The League of Ireland attracts one tenth the attendance of the A-League and I would suggest a much lower revenue when compared to the A-League teams.
“Premier Division games had an average attendance of 1,539 people, while 570 was the average attendance for games in the First Division. Thus, the overall average for the whole League of Ireland in 2006 was 1,054. Derry City’s average home attendance of 3,127 was the highest of any league team for the 2006 season. The record for the highest attendance in the Premier Division was also set in the Brandywell on the last night of the season (17 November) when Derry City met Cork City FC. 6,080 attended the game.”
whiskeymac said | July 24th 2009 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
interesting points kaz. actually think that at times the FFA or local clubs do not market the game very well at all (in NSW also) – by which i mean they dont promote big games very well…
Kazama said | July 24th 2009 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
Advertising here isn’t what it could be sometimes either. Our ACL group games had very low crowds the first time around because no one knew the games were on.
AndyRoo said | July 24th 2009 @ 4:12pm | Report comment
I know a lot of the A League teams could do better with their web sites.
The Roar are Playing a game against Rochedale Rovers, they have the date as the 29th, click for more info and the date is listed as the 28th.
Had to go to the Rochedale site to confirm the details.
granty09 said | July 24th 2009 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
well its pretty simple, the rule should be changed to an Aus international marquee.. so thompson, sterj, culina, aloisi, would fit under that, an under 23 marquee, and A MARQUEE who should be judged at the discrestion of the FFA, maybe at the inception these players were marquess but to tell me thompson is a marquee player now is a joke.. these spots should be left for INTERNATIONAL players
also if these mid stream players hadnt been poached would players like holland ruka burns djite danning kruse zullo de vere kantarovski and so on been unearthed and giving senior game time.. i doubt it
NUFCMVFC said | July 24th 2009 @ 3:18pm | Report comment
Good discussion article Fink,
Generally the salary cap is an issue, Gold Coast is from a regional area though, and if salary ap was a % of turnover then they simply wouldn’t be able to get as much as a team from a major city as Melbourne. In which case he wouldn’t really be able to throw heaps of money, perhaps the same can be said of Tony Sage, who has had a bit of outlay on the EPL matches for example, at a loss but it serves a purpose
Once again this goes into structure, say have a base salary cap, with an addition based on turnover to encourage good performance/administration. ON top of that have youth marquee and Aussie Marquee + Foreign marquee provisions. This is how you would manage the negative pressure on player skill regarding “Og Monster IMO”
I personally don’t think simply raising the cap is a good idea, as it leads to wage inflation, and paying higher amount for the same standard, I think it is Talay who has come back to A League with NQ after once season in Asia at a higher paying club than SFC.
Obviously it’s a balancing act, we lose players to Europe and Asia, but with Josh Kennedy you can say some of the Europeans are being lost to Asia as well. Naturally we have to subsidise by ensuring refined recruitment of foreigners, and I hope that personally is the case with Asian players too, I personally hope Sukha works out not just for the obvious competitive reasons but to encourage A League players to go fishing in SE Asia and build a rapport
Regarding the MVFC SC thing, I guess I’ll write my own article on that
Pippinu said | July 24th 2009 @ 3:33pm | Report comment
NU
You’ve probably heard that the FFA has put the kybosh on the idea anyway.
Art Sapphire said | July 24th 2009 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
This was from today’s Age for anyone who is interested.
“Expansion plans stymied – Michael Lynch
MELBOURNE Victory chairman Geoff Lord’s ambitious plans to turn the A-League champion into a super sporting brand with franchises across several activities look set to be dashed by soccer’s governing body.
Earlier this year, Lord had hinted at a play for a basketball franchise, and this month, he has surfaced as one of the candidates to win the 15th Super Rugby Union franchise through a bid fronted by his company Belgravia, supported by Melbourne Victory.
But that latest attempt would appear doomed — at least while the team’s name is involved in the bid process — after the Football Federation Australia ruled that it owns the rights to the name Melbourne Victory.
And the game’s governing body says new licensing agreements — which Victory and the inaugural A-League clubs will have to renew at the end of this season — will specifically prohibit a shareholder in an A-League club or a club itself from owning another sporting body.
“FFA will include a provision in the next licence agreements that a Hyundai A-League club and/or individual shareholders in clubs may not hold any form of ownership, shareholding or investment position in either another A-League club or another sporting team, club or franchise in either football or any other sporting code,” a spokeswoman said yesterday.
“The name Melbourne Victory and all associated intellectual property remains the property of FFA, and can only be used in accordance with the Club Participation Agreement. FFA’s priority is to continue to build a sustainable and competitive professional national football league.
“We believe it is important that focus and resources are directed at leveraging the investment FFA and clubs have made in football and specifically the Hyundai A-League.”
Michael C said | July 24th 2009 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
Gee – that’s a bit restrictive isn’t it??
No holding any form of ownership/shareholding or investment position in any other sports team/club/franchise in any other sports code.
Crickey – I’ve heard Andrew Demetriou acused of being authoritarian – but, really, is this a move to ensure that basketball and the rugby codes are ‘frozen out’ so as to focus ‘full attention’ on the growth of soccer??? I’m amazed that such an exclusivity clause would be attempted at such an early point in time. It might actually scare a few people off.
The more I think about it – I’m flabbergasted. It seems very ’self confident’……….or……..arrogant.
Art Sapphire said | July 24th 2009 @ 4:52pm | Report comment
Michael – I don’t think the FFA are trying to freeze out anyone. The last thing they want is an A-League club burning a financial hole for themselves by investing in another code.
Michael C said | July 26th 2009 @ 9:18pm | Report comment
There’s a difference between a ‘club’ as a independantly run club such as an AFL member owned one – - but, when talking about privately owned franchises with a bunch of business folk – - and thus far, most those involved are rather more broad minded (sports wise) than soccer only – - – surely it risks discouraging involvement.
Really – - in that environment – - the ‘club’ is a fairly intangible notion (I guess, the NBL shows how much.).
Midfielder said | July 24th 2009 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
Art
Good pick up… I wonder if the rugby boys have picked up on it..
Koala Bear said | July 24th 2009 @ 6:56pm | Report comment
Midfielder,
yep, it was in the Daily Telegraph “Main Game” lift-out…
~~~~~~~~
KB
Tom said | July 24th 2009 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
I hadn’t heard about that.
I can understanding where they’re coming from on the intellectual property point, but I think they might be on shaky ground arguing that any A-league club shareholder can’t be a shareholder in a rival code’s sporting club.
whiskeymac said | July 24th 2009 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
mid- i think the aticle appeared on one of their threads already (via Mr Pippinu)…
on the one hand i wld like to see a SC type of club here, on the other i wld be loathe to undermine the focus and resources directed at leveraging the investment FFA and clubs have made in football and specifically the Hyundai A-League.
Pippinu said | July 24th 2009 @ 4:00pm | Report comment
I’m a bit mixed about the report – the idea of emulating Barca and other illustrious football clubs seemed attractive to me at first sight.
Quite rightly, the FFA did not want (their) resources being focused on a rival code (and that would have happened to a certain extent).
I think Lord’s involvement would have almost guaranteed success.
The rugby people were concerned that resources would be diverted away from rugby in Victoria, which I think was a bit short sighted – I think rugby is the loser in this decision.
Midfielder said | July 24th 2009 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
whiskeymac
That Pip is a whore … on the rugby thread, on the cricket thread, on the AFL thread,… writes at 442…. OMG is there any end to his talent… Pip’s new song … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UAh7ogwAYQ …
Pip are you getting up to Bluetounge to see the Trads get wipped
Pippinu said | July 24th 2009 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
Mid
have I written on a cricket thread? I may have once to mention that West Indian lass who commentated for a short while.
West Indian female commentators? BRING IT BACK!!
I have also written extensively on korfball.
In fairness, I was on the rugby thread talking about the Victory, more or less.
I’m always half a chance to make it to Bluetongue (rather go there than Sydney to be honest)
Tom said | July 24th 2009 @ 5:45pm | Report comment
I’m just commenting to acknowledge the Coodabeens Champions reference.
Yeah. Love the Coodabeens.
danny said | July 24th 2009 @ 10:54pm | Report comment
seconded
Midfielder said | July 24th 2009 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
Pip
On the Bundesliga thread I got a new song for you … all tounge in cheek…
Midfielder said | July 24th 2009 @ 4:09pm | Report comment
Pip
Its been a long day mate … even posted the last post above in the wrong thread… we must get together one day and have a beer…
Ben of Phnom Penh said | July 24th 2009 @ 8:19pm | Report comment
well if you boys are ever in Phnom Penh we’ll meet for a cold beer at The Gym. Pip should be at home as the only other A-League member I know of here is a Victory man.
whiskeymac said | July 24th 2009 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
Mid – maybe he is just “experimenting”
Koala Bear said | July 24th 2009 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
The salary cap sux and should be gradually fazed out … The best way to do that is introduce Stephen’s concept … very simple; without complicated percentage formulas etc..
Next season start with two marque players; the following year three marque players; until you find a suitable balance with the number of well paid quality footballers to lift the standard to match the J-League… Hopefully in 3-4 years Fox will resolve the problem with a better and fairer TV deal to scrap the entire salary cap restrictions…
Congratulations Stephen for a simply and workable solution….
Btw: the owner Nick Bianco who pulled out of Adelaide U FC but still remains a Port Adelaide AFL sponsor… Shame on him, sponsoring the game that has held Australia back…..
~~~~~~~~
KB
clayton said | July 24th 2009 @ 4:20pm | Report comment
i`m hoping we can keep on developing players better than brendan santalab.
the more players get the chance to play in asia, the more professional footballers we have, the more opportunity we have for young players in the a-league.
maybe asian raids are not the problem, but a player development system that doesn`t turn out enough good players is the problem?
Pippinu said | July 24th 2009 @ 4:24pm | Report comment
Of course in the Australian sporting context, it’s not exactly novel, clubs of one sport dabbling in another – but by and large they have been unsuccessful.
We all know of the Carlton and Collingwood experiments, and despite promising starts (big crowds to their first respective games), they were both doomed to failure (essentially because a Carlton FC fan isn’t going to follow something called Collingwood and vice versa, which I’m sure we can all appreciate).
But another aussie rules club had a go at this sort of thing earlier than these two.
It was my own club, Footscray, in the very early 90s, as means of surviving and staying at their home ground, the Western Oval (now Whitten Oval) in West Footscray.
They experimented with four sports clubs operating out of the same venue. They purchased the baseball team, the Melbourne Monarchs (who actually won a premiership from the Western Oval), had an arrangement with Footscray JUST, and also, would you believe, ran a Rugby League team.
But it all flopped to such an extent that by 1996 they were on the verge of bankruptcy (for the 100th time in their 126 year history).
Because:
1. I have wonderful childhood memories of going to the footy at the Western Oval, but, that doesn’t disguise the fact that it was a crappy, old, windswept ground with zero customer appeal.
2. The Melbourne Monarchs winning the premiership was good news – only thing is that Australians don’t give a damn about baseball, and that was defnitely the case in and around Footscray.
3. Footscray JUST sounded promising, except that the Western Oval is a massive windswept ground and the soccer ground looked like a tiny postage stamp marked out on the oval. Not only that, but JUST were Serbian backed, and I’d say that in and around Footscray, there were as many Croatians and Macedonians as there were Serbians (at a time when the state of Yugoslavia was crumbling away under the yolk of civil wars and worse).
4. The Sunshine Raiders were clearly well ahead of their time, as I doubted there was a Victorian Rugby League at the time, and if there was, it would have been like a secrety society that no one knew anything about.
Midfielder said | July 24th 2009 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
whiskeymac
Quote …”maybe he is just “experimenting””"”
You are on to something here..
Pippinu said | July 24th 2009 @ 4:42pm | Report comment
The closest I’ve come to experimenting is when, for an extremely short period, say about two months, I pretended to like disco music, and actually purchased Saturday Night Fever.
I did it for the chicks.
But when it transpired that I had to wear colourful plastic pants – I started to have second thoughts.
When it transpired that disco chicks were far more discerning than I had first thought – I gave it all up as a bad joke.
However, to this day, I don’t mind the song: “Disco Inferno”.
Pippinu said | July 24th 2009 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
…burn baby burn…
AndyRoo said | July 24th 2009 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
Jesse’s latest entry on the SBS site is pretty interesting. Looking forward to what other people thoughts are when the discussion (petro dollars) pops up here.
clayton said | July 24th 2009 @ 4:52pm | Report comment
oh yeah, the bundesliga is also home to fan friendly ticket prices (unlike the recent celtic / fulham games), safe standing areas and member owned clubs …
there is a lot we could take from the germans
Art Sapphire said | July 24th 2009 @ 4:58pm | Report comment
very good point Clayton –
FYI – it costs 12 Euro ($22) to stand in the biggest Kop and watch Borussia Dortmund play.
There is another thing we can take from the germans. Standing areas behind the goals.
No wonder they have the highest average attendance in Europe.
Pippinu said | July 24th 2009 @ 5:38pm | Report comment
Does anyone else think that the bloke in white in this picture looks a little bit like Roddy Vargas?
Is the bloke at the back Voronin??
Kazama said | July 24th 2009 @ 7:10pm | Report comment
Erm, no…
And yes that is Voronin. Read the caption mate!
Millster said | July 24th 2009 @ 5:40pm | Report comment
Coming out from my self-imposed ROAR exile just for one minute to tell you Jesse that if I could grab you I’d kiss you right on your ugly scone for writing this article.
To me the only positive thing one can write about salary caps is that they are a necessary evil. And that means of course that I feel they should be used as minimilistically as possible given a code’s overall circumstances.
Koala Bear said | July 24th 2009 @ 6:13pm | Report comment
Millster,
great to have you back lad…
~~~~~~~~~
KB
Midfielder said | July 24th 2009 @ 6:12pm | Report comment
Milly
Come out of excile I am http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OQ2ezMpO0g
Pippinu said | July 24th 2009 @ 6:34pm | Report comment
Naah – if you’re gonna be a drama queen – stay away!!!
Koala Bear said | July 24th 2009 @ 6:47pm | Report comment
Jesse,
I just turned to your article on TWG and you have indeed put up a strong argument for loosening up the salary cap … I totally agree … the Arabs quest for ACL supremacy, participation, have raised the stakes … Isn’t it fantastic …?
~~~~~~~
KB
dude said | July 24th 2009 @ 7:35pm | Report comment
the idea sounds great. and the bundesliga is a fantastic model to work from. but untill the ffa loosens it’s grip on commercial arrangments, namely the overly healthy, almost complete percentage they take from merch sales, i fail to see the clubs being able to survive under this type of system. while other commercial sponsorships supply clubs with great amounts of revenue, merch sales are the sweetest nut of all for the vast majority of clubs. so untill a-league clubs can control and actually profit from sales of their own merch, from their own websites no less, without the ffa taking the lions share, most clubs wont be able to compete anywhere.
StiflersMom said | July 25th 2009 @ 7:46am | Report comment
Meh. its only Santalab, wish they took Robinson also. It’s a good idea to restrict the salary to a percentage of your turn over but I don’t want Melbourne wining the comp every year, I’d simply lose interest. Lets face it, no other city supports their teams like Melbourne so it would be a hard road for for the likes of regional placed teams, sure they might make a profit but you’d have to wait for that one special year when a certain group of nobody’s boldly challenged for the premier’s plate for the club to raise it’s turn over to pay them a bit more, but the bigger clubs would still have more money to swoop and steal any players of promise relegating the regional club to start from scratch and rebuild the playing stocks. An this system would not guarantee Asian clubs won’t continue taking our players.
On that, if the player has ambitions on national football, let them go to stronger leagues. Jesse, That’s the base of your argument for Lucas Neil to remain in England.
Ben of Phnom Penh said | July 25th 2009 @ 11:27am | Report comment
I’ve often iterated that Asian clubs taking our players is a good thing. Through engaging with Asia we have an extra avenue available to us for professional development making football a more attractive option for young athletes. Aspects of the Bundesliga model would only enhance this attractiveness, rather than run as a counter to Asia. Hence it is primarily a supply side issue.
An interesting aside is the European visa issue. How many of our current players overseas are doing so primarily as a grandparent came from Europe and hence they can more easily work within the confines of the EU? This avenue for middling footballers will steadily reduce as our demographics change. This won’t make a difference for the Djite’s, Troisi’s, Spiranovic’s of this world who have talent to burn however for a great many others it will. As the East Asian region experiences further integration over the coming decades I’d expect it will become easier and easier for Australian’s to ply their trade in Asia.
hugie said | July 25th 2009 @ 11:45am | Report comment
I find it hard to see how scrapping the salary cap will help the league.
The A-League will (most likely) never have the money in it that the J-League, K-League or Chinese Super League does. Those countries all have bigger populations hence more money.
Successful clubs already get rewarded (more fans, bigger sponsors always flock to winning clubs). Could Victory spend more money? Maybe. But the fact is we only lost Ryall and Theo who were first teamers last year and we’re still under the salary cap. Clubs have to become smarter about how they sell their club to players. If it’s only about wages some players will leave (i.e. Santalab) but if they want to win things, live in a fantastic country and be in front of the national team coach week in, week out then the A-League is the place to be.
Australia will always lose players o/s and sometimes they’ll be average ones like Santalab. But as A-League clubs get smarter and sell players for what they’re worth rather than what other clubs want to pay they’ll get money to spend on new players. Fury’s first preseason has been a strange one regarding players leaving but in the end Fowler for North and Williams for Santalab have been wins. If this Argentine is better than Felipe then in the end Fury have done ok. They’ll get better at working with player contracts as they get older.
One thing that would help the league is to have more marquee spots. A general marquee (like we have now), an Aussie marquee (to attract Socceroos back and blokes like Joel Porter etc), make an Asian foreign player spot (even a marquee Asian spot). Stuff like that will mean clubs with more money can spend a bit more and should help keep players in Australia too. If Newcastle could have a general marquee and an Aussie marquee they probably could lure Joel Griffiths back and keep Vignaroli. Plus another marquee spot means more room in the cap too.
Tom F said | July 25th 2009 @ 9:44pm | Report comment
I believe that a general salary cap is needed to remain until at least the league has reached maturity. In the interim I believe that the marquee positions should be expanded to three- an attacking, midfield and defensive/goalie slot so that teams can build themselves a spine- these positions should be open to all marquee quality players (with the under 23 spots increased to 3 as well). We can see with a team like the Roar, with Craig Moore as marquee, that the lack of finishing from having not enough cash for a top-drawer striker after fitting both Danny Tiatto & Charlie Miller under the cap is telling. So you have a team with a great defensive record that creates a lot of chances but can’t score! Likewise with the Fury shooting their wad over Robbie Fowler, who is going to get the ball consistently too him with the sort of service he needs? Could he end up like Dwight Yorke- forced back into midfield to utilise superior technique and passing learned in Europe to the benefit of the team, but not for fans who buy season tickets to see them bang it in regularly.
Also in the case of the Roar, it has been great to watch young defenders like Luke DeVere come on under Moore’s tutelage, and having an experienced player of that quality in each third of the pitch would rapidly lift the overall quality of the squad. A few thoughts…
Off topic but related to the general discussion, this is what I think the ultimate structure should be for an Australian League system:
12- 16 clubs in the A-league with a similar sized Second Division with play-off promotions into the State Leagues to provide a pathway. Once the A-league has finished expanding, (FIFA recommend 16 teams as ideal- 30 rounds + easy divisibility for Cup draws etc), A second tier could be established, with a five year license guarantee for all franchises in each league (i.e. no promotion or relegation in this period), after which the system allows promotion/relegation. A condition of promotion is that the incoming club should demonstrate that they have the finances in place to meet the minimum requirements of the next level (especially for State League clubs vying to get into the Second tier)- failure to meet this within certain timeframe would mean that the place defaults to the next-best playoff position that can meet the requirements.