What they should have done is set higher standards (in terms of $$ and quality (see hearts)) and let the 4 or 5 prospective expansion teams battle it out rather than just granting licences pretty much the first teams that wanted them. That way they’d have good demand to back asking bidders for larger financial guarantees.

Whatever the case we should be learning from the MLS.

Furthermore, all marquee players should be subject to the FFA approval (similar to what they do in the MLS). The FFA should publish a set of criteria that each category of marquee player must meet. This would prevent clubs just putting their highest paid player and highest paid Under 23 player on marquee status just to exclude them from the salary cap. Also, I think the FFA should pay part of the marquee player’s salary just like the MLS pays part of David Beckham’s salary. This way all clubs can get a Robbie Fowler or Dwight Yorke and it rewards the club for courting a player that meets the outlined criteria.

But I think it’s a bit far fetched to suggest that that will be because of the 3+1 rule.

There are many factors at play here, before we even get down to examining the 3+1 rule.

In fact it’s hardly going to be a negotiation. There’s only one party who can afford the rights (both financially and with the air time to broadcast them live) and that’s Fox Sports.

What we’ll see is Fox Sports saying we’ll pay x amount of dollars and FFA being forced to tow the line. The current deal includes the Socceroos World Cup qualifiers and that may not be a possibility next time thanks to them being added to the anti-siphoning list. So why should that deal increase significantly? Yes the product is worth more then what Fox Sports is paying but who else will offer that sort of money?

FFA aren’t helping the matter by making access to players, coaches and officials from the A-League and Socceroos almost exclusive territory for Fox Sports. The game just doesn’t get the kind of coverage it could otherwise. You need to spoon feed the media and, at times, FFA starve it.

Ben Buckley and co need to act now. We need a product that is exciting and entertaining not just ‘competitive’. Five nil-all draws a week is a sign of both a close competition and a bad one. A 4-3 victory which saw awful defending and sloppy goals is almost as bad. The standard must rise not drop and the 3+1 rule is making that a hard thing to muster.

Don’t forget clubs are spending money on youth development, with the advent of yet another marquee player that money would be better spent in our youth.. look at the players that have come out of the youth system in such a short time?? Imagine what will come in the next few years? Danning or Zura? list can go on.

Cmon I am sure you can see that spending more money on marquee players can WAIT, until the league can afford to do so.

Although I’m not too sure the asian rule would be valid for players who are elegible for an asian national team or is it players who have citizenship for Asian countries.

Culina, of course, would…

The fact that Malaysian football is poorly run is an oppurtunity. It means players may be relatively underpaid or more likely to move.
So while we lose our best players to Japan we are also an attractive destiantion for those below us on the pecking order.

Asia is our confederation now not oceania. There is much more upside off the park to attracting Asian talent here.

Proven players from Europe and South America are still the safest options.

I think we have to slow down a bit and take more modest steps until the teams are better established. Throwing money at a big name player can put bums on seats in which case it’s not a drain but it’s a gamble. I don’t think we can really afford to compete with the petro dollars for Asian stars anyway.

I think MV’s move for Surat Sukah shows a lot more potential for marketing upside and engaging the continent than us brining in another Pom or Scot (Guys like McClinchy, Owusu and Charlie Miller have been great though) or another transient Brazilian who if really successful will quickly move on.
But by and large those Brazilans and Scots are less of a gamble on the field so I understand why Managers go for them.

I think that it’s currently (correct me if I am wrong) 5 visa spots and you can spend them on any nationality. Next time there is a call for it to be raised (after the next batch of players go to Europe) I would like to see it massaged into a 4 plus 2 mix.
You won’t get star players but if you have a Malaysian, Thai, Singapore or Indonesian player you are going to create a little bit of interest in those countries for the A league. And if MV play Uruwa in the ACL Final the Thais might support Melbourne

On the park I don’t want to play into stereotypes too much but Asian players are more technique and short passing orientated which is something most of us want too see more of (while not losing our physical traits).

Imagine, next year, of course, we can’t affod them, but….
MV Viduka Marquee, Thompson Asian marquee.
GC Nedved marquee, Cullina Asian marquee
Nth Q Fowler marquee, Chipperfield Asian marquee
SFC Vieri marquee, Emerton asian marquee and Bosnich.
PG Larson marquee, Sterjoski asain marquee
CCM Kanu marquee, Beauchamp asian marquee
WP Chris Killen marquee, Joel Griffiths asian marquee
NJ Kevin Phillips marquee, Carle asian marquee
AU Nick Barmby marquee, Alosi asian marquee
BR Figo marquee, Schwartzer Asian marquee
Melbourne Heart Solsjaer marquee, Skoko Asian marquee,
West Sydney Lucas Neill Marquee, Kennedy Asian marquee