Harry Kewell damaging his own brand, not A-League’s
Columnist By Adrian Musolino, 5 Jul 2011 Adrian Musolino is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- A-League, Bernie Mandic, FFA, football, Football Federation Australia, Harry Kewell, Mark Schwarzer, Melbourne Victory, Socceroos, Sydney FC, Tim Cahill
190 Have your say
Related coverage
- Sydney FC news
- Melbourne Victory news
- Football news
- A-League news
- Socceroos news
- Socceroos Fixtures news
- Tim Cahill news
- Socceroos 2014 FIFA World Cup Qualifying news
Harry Kewell of Australia is challenged by Mohammed Addullah of Oman and team-mate Mohamed Rabia Jamaan Al Noobi during a FIFA Asian Cup qualifying match. AAP Image/Joe Castro
It’s officially a saga now. Harry Kewell’s career as a whole seems to have been one great saga, but nothing the 32-year-old has done previously has polarised Australian football fans like this current soap opera, which stars he and his manager, Bernie Mandic, as they negotiate a deal with the FFA to play at either Sydney FC or Melbourne Victory in the A-League.
The saga has taken so many twists and turns in recent months it’s hard to keep track, dominating the A-League off-season (have we ever seen an A-League off-season like this?) and shining a light on the A-League’s plight.
Yesterday, Mandic declared that Kewell would not be playing in the A-League, despite having agreed to terms with both Melbourne and Sydney, and being in the process of making his final choice.
The deal breaker, according to Mandic, was on how much the FFA would put up for Kewell’s services as the new face of the A-League. Mandic even went into detail on one facet of the deal, saying he and his client were after a 30/70 split of increased away game revenues generated by Kewell’s presence.
Given the depth of the ongoing saga, you sense Mandic’s declaration that Kewell won’t be in the A-League next season is just the latest twist; a Machiavellian subplot, or the latest front to push the final the deal through.
One can only hope Mandic is not trying to divert blame for any failed deal, or change of heart from Kewell, onto the FFA, who could be seen as an easy target given the recent angst against the governing body regarding their handling of the game.
Ultimately, the complex deal comes down to two key questions: how involved should the FFA be in deal? And how altruistic should Kewell be?
On the first question, a solid argument can be made for the FFA to cave to Mandic’s revenue demand in the name of growing the league. After all, Kewell’s worth to the A-League cannot be underestimated. As the magnitude and reach of this saga highlights, his profile exceeds the game’s boundaries.
Only Tim Cahill, Mark Schwarzer and Lucas Neill have a similar profile in mainstream Australia, but Kewell’s fame exceeds that. He is the golden boy of Australian football, and shouldn’t be confused with other Socceroos who have failed to cause much of a ripple on their arrival in the A-League. None had anywhere near the public profile that Kewell enjoys.
So, given that his arrival has the potential to do more for the A-League than any marketing campaign the FFA can come up with, why shouldn’t the FFA allow Kewell to cash in on his return home? The AFL manipulates matters for its most needy clubs – see the draft concessions to Gold Coast FC and Greater Western Sydney Giants, let alone the role it played in the poaching of Karmichael Hunt and Israel Folau.
But mingling creates a dangerous precedent, particularly with independently owned clubs. Given the recent allegations regarding Sydney FC’s salary cap and the role certain FFA higher-ups have at the club, the last thing the governing body needs to do is unfairly favour one club by helping this deal through. After all, there are some very real concerns around the A-League and multiple clubs are in challenging predicaments. Why should one benefit most when there are more pressing matters?
While the AFL media tends to turn a blind eye to the inconsistent interfering the governing body partakes in within its own league, the FFA and A-League cannot afford such accusations and attacks to the game’s integrity during this challenging growing period.
It needs to tread a very fine line between doing its best to encourage Kewell and not selling its soul and corrupting the competition.
That brings us to Kewell’s role in all this. Knowing the precarious position the FFA is in, and what a difference his arrival would make to the A-League, why doesn’t he just accept no extra revenue from away games?
While on the one hand he and his manager have every right to fight for what they deem acceptable demands at the negotiating table, having worked so hard to build the Kewell-brand, you would hope there is some part of Kewell that is being driven to assist the A-League in its time of need.
While he has no obligation to do so, the Socceroos hero has this great opportunity to help the A-League’s strive forward. Football fans can only hope that opportunity is not squandered by greed.
Sadly, that can be the only motivator when you are demanding the FFA other clubs hand over revenue generated from their home games – games they have promoted, in communities they have worked within to build a football club.
Should these other clubs not benefit from Kewell’s return, particularly when the FFA is helping to orchestrate this deal? If the FFA is involved, it must be beneficiary for all in the league.
Limiting the amount they too can benefit from his arrival seems unjust. It’s just not very altruistic, Harry and Bernie.
The general public knows the A-League has been bleeding – the demise of North Queensland Fury, the off-field struggle of Gold Coast United, and diminishing crowds. They also know the FFA doesn’t have the pots of gold of the AFL or NRL to be throwing around.
By squabbling over away game revenue and declaring that as a deal-breaker, Mandic, and Kewell by extension, are coming across as holding the FFA and A-League for ransom, at a time when the governing body only has so much to give.
Even if this facet of the deal relates to future revenue streams created as a result of Kewell’s arrival, the perception being created is of a footballer with millions in the bank jeopardising a deal that could change the domestic game, for a few thousand dollars. That may not be the case, but that’s the image coming across.
Rather than hurting the FFA – and, by extension, the A-League – in his claims, Mandic is in fact hurting the carefully cultivated brand he has built around his client.
If Kewell does not end up in the A-League next season, having come so close, his brand will be scarred back home, rightly or wrongly.
Follow Adrian on twitter @AdrianMusolino
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
July 5th 2011 @ 6:31am
Brett McKay said | July 5th 2011 @ 6:31am | Report comment
Adrian, for a moment, I thought you were commenting on #KewellAleagueDemands, which last night was one of the best uses for Twitter I’ve seen!!
But you’re on the money here, and it will be interesting to see how he’s received if Kewell does ever end up playing in the A-League. Fair to say a lot of the good will from late last week might have disappeared since…
July 5th 2011 @ 2:49pm
Uncle Bob said | July 5th 2011 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
What was this big announcement today at 2pm on Fox Sports? Have they signed Tim Cahill to Arsenal or something?
July 7th 2011 @ 11:57am
PeterK said | July 7th 2011 @ 11:57am | Report comment
Does anyone know what is the current set-up for revenue from away games? Does the home team keep the lot? If that is so, then maybe it should be changed?
July 7th 2011 @ 12:57pm
TheMagnificent11 said | July 7th 2011 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
I’d be willing to bet that the FFA gets a cut. So, a fair solution is that Harry gets 70% (or some percentage that they agree on) of the FFA’s cut.
July 5th 2011 @ 7:59am
whiskeymac said | July 5th 2011 @ 7:59am | Report comment
just how do you quantify it all anyhow? is it the difference between the average of all the games played; just last seasons (a low point if ever there was one in this respect); the last corresponding fixture…. how do you kow that the increase is due to HRH Kewell and not your own marketing or a spiked interest due to other factors ie increased performances on the pitch (CCM/Roar) better teams (Perth) or cheaper prices (Jets)?
Whats the specifics of the “Formula”?
Wld love to see HK in the HAL but not at any cost.
Agree that its not turning out to be a good publicity farce for HK.
July 5th 2011 @ 8:28am
Rusty0256 said | July 5th 2011 @ 8:28am | Report comment
This is the thing that has been bothering me. Not only is it the formula on which this ambit 30/70 split is based but the expectations of accuracy that will be demanded by Mandic’s forensic accountant (yes, you can be sure he will have one of those).
Can you imagine the fallout if after 6 games Mandic puts in a claim that the FFA is fudging the figures and his client is withdrawing his services (you can also be assured there will be such a sub-clause in his contract).
This is a can of worms just waiting to be opened. In my view more trouble that even Harry is worth.
July 5th 2011 @ 9:26am
Fussball ist unser leben said | July 5th 2011 @ 9:26am | Report comment
I’ve been directly involved in numerous deals that are structured this way – where revenue is based on “increased sales, customers, etc.”
In cases of where one party disputes the figures, the contract will include a clause that allows the other party to have an independent auditor review the books.
July 5th 2011 @ 4:03pm
GibbonsMcGibbons said | July 5th 2011 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
I think this is the sticking point though and what I would like clarified by Mandic since he seems so willing to go public at the drop of a hat.
How do you establish the baseline from which all increased numbers will be considered. Both MV and SFC had relatively poor seasons last year which would not have assisted away gates. MV in particular have typically strong support away from home in strong seasons and a strong season would likely see these numbers go up without Kewell.
Or was the proposal based on an average crowd to date accross all A-League seasons – surely a better representation of a baseline for this purpose?
In addition, by agreeing to this – where would this leave the FFA in terms of Cahill etc on their possible returns. No doubt they would want something similar proposed.
I just think a blanket payment by the FFA for marketing purposes would have been the cleanest approach for all concerned.
July 5th 2011 @ 4:21pm
Fussball ist unser leben said | July 5th 2011 @ 4:21pm | Report comment
Yes, based on my experiences, the “baseline” figure is always haggled over and I’m sure Mandic will be a master haggler!
Thank heavens we only have 6 years’ data for them to contemplate (1 year for away games against Heart!).
It would seem reasonable to have a much heavier weighting on the attendances of the last 2 seasons and less (if any) weighting on Seasons 1-3?
I think this will be a one-off remuneration package since H is the biggest football name Australia has ever produced – he’s bigger than Schwarzer or Cahill. I think Viduka would have been a ‘crowd puller”, but, let’s be honest, I don’t think I’ve ever seen the Big Man market anything!
July 5th 2011 @ 8:13am
Kasey said | July 5th 2011 @ 8:13am | Report comment
All I see is Mandic thinking he could pin this on every football fans favourite whipping boy, the FFA, but it appears he has miscalculated. The twitter-verse exploded last night with#KewellsALeagueDemands trending at #1 in Australia all day yesterday..check it out.
http://tinyurl.com/5wrknqc
Proving someone inside the HK inner-circle is aware of the goings on @ShereeMurphy tweeted this morning
“#KewellALeagueDemands, must admit some are pretty funny”
Its a pity, H could really have built an important legacy here, but I think HK’s or BM’s greed got in the way (or both, very rarely does a manager do things without the direction of the client. A sad episode, could have ended so much better. In all, ask for the impossible, the least you can get is a hell no!, which is what FFA quite rightly gavethis ‘offer’ I hope people actually give FFA props for respecting the integrity of the HAL in this instance
July 7th 2011 @ 12:03pm
PeterK said | July 7th 2011 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
I hope this whole saga gets FFA thinking about the amount of ownership and the amount of control which are appropriate for it to have over the A-League Clubs, and just how much autonomy those clubs should be allowed. My own opinion is that the clubs should have more autonomy.
July 5th 2011 @ 8:16am
Futbanous said | July 5th 2011 @ 8:16am | Report comment
Has Harrys relationship with the football public in Australia ever been any different?
By different did we ever feel that he was 100% committed to the local cause.
Personally I never have, given his quality & standing(early career at least) and his Limited Socceroo appearances.
54 appearances since 1996,surely him & Bernie are having a laugh.
In any other country given his status over a 15 year period it would be double.
Sure hes had injuries,but how many times did he not play for the Socceroos because the opposition was weak or his career was more important?
Regarding publicity the old adage “Any publicity is better than none” stands in a long off season.
Harry via “Arfur Daley” Mandic certainly creates that.
So for me hes not damaging his reputation,its the same old same old Harry & Bernie show.
July 5th 2011 @ 8:20am
JAJI said | July 5th 2011 @ 8:20am | Report comment
Remember in one corner you have Harry Kewell, whose injury record going back the last 10 years is questionable, who is worth $50 million dollars as reported by the BRW in their under 40 rich list, and a manager who as at nest a sketchy reputation – have a read on what happened when Harry moved from Leeds to Liverpool and the resulting court case between Gary Linekar and Harry Kewell/Bernie Mandic
In the other corner the FFA whose finances are a little tight at present and the A League clubs who will know are struggling despite the odd canny transfer like Amini yesterday to Dortmund
Yes we all want to see Harry back home – but to ask for a share in the away gate as well? C’mon…..how can the FFA go to the A League bosses and possibly demand this….for one player who may do his hammy any given day and is already the wrong side of 30
If Harry ends up in Qatar or the UAE we will know greed has won in the end of the day
Will be interesting to see how Craig Foster responds – he is a great fan of Harry…..
July 5th 2011 @ 8:23am
nordozzz said | July 5th 2011 @ 8:23am | Report comment
any deal that includes away games is a no-go imo just on principle. If one club wants to sign him great, others should not be tied to it in any way even if they will gain from his signing. I still think the club/HK revenue share deal is a wise one, they’ve taken it a step too far though.
Putting the cynics hat on … are they turning Harry into the player the rest of us love to hate (or more so), to go along with the club the rest of us already love to hate … Sydney FC. The prospect of him not signing with MV some days ago sounded like it would spark full mutiny down there. Now it seems MV fans are more ambivalent to say the least. A softening up for a last-minute deal with the Sky Blues?
July 5th 2011 @ 8:32am
Redb said | July 5th 2011 @ 8:32am | Report comment
I listened to Mandic first hand yesterday morning on SEN when he bluntly stated Kewell will not be coming to the A League next season. In fact Mandic made it sound like it was a very final almost bitter decision, by the end of the interview though the door seemed more than just ajar.
For such a well regarded figure in Australian sport to be represented by this snake oil salesman it does not do great things for Harry’s image. Witness the twitter parody by all of his motives & intentions. The fun poked was at Kewell not Mandic.
Mandic is just flat out trying this on with the FFA, when I beleive the FFA is right not to throw the whole kitchen sink at one player. Getting all clubs to agree to a 30% take of their home games is a tough ask.
Unlike the AFL concessions or signing of marketing players, other clubs are not asked to directly sacrifice their revenue/profits for a player on another team. There are indirect consequences for other AFL teams for sure in terms of playing talent, but not direct financial consequences.
I’m not sure of the exact nature of the 30%, if it’s 30% of the profits of increased gate takings thats not too bad, if it is 30% of gross revenue that is unacceptable or it should be.
July 5th 2011 @ 8:52am
Champion said | July 5th 2011 @ 8:52am | Report comment
You’ve got it the wrong way around. He wants 70% of away takings.
July 5th 2011 @ 9:08am
Redb said | July 5th 2011 @ 9:08am | Report comment
“By squabbling over 30 per cent of away game revenue and declaring that as a deal-breaker, Mandic, and Kewell by extension, are coming across as holding the FFA and A-League for ransom, at a time when the governing body only has so much to give.”
Dont think so.
July 5th 2011 @ 1:56pm
Champion said | July 5th 2011 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
Michael Lynch thinks otherwise. So who do we believe?
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/soccer/homecoming-a-cruel-kewell-joke-20110704-1gz3h.html
July 5th 2011 @ 2:15pm
Redb said | July 5th 2011 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
Looks like 70%. I was quoting Adrian’s numbers. On radio Mandic said 30/70 or it might have been 70/30..
July 5th 2011 @ 9:00am
punter said | July 5th 2011 @ 9:00am | Report comment
Agree Mandic is a snake of the worst kind, he has damaged Harry’s image.
But is it all a smokescreen, is publicity good or bad, all positive for the game? I mean, last year Ben Cousins was the best known High profile Aussie rules player north of the Murray explains it all.
July 5th 2011 @ 9:10am
Redb said | July 5th 2011 @ 9:10am | Report comment
I dont think it damages the game, but Kewell’s image has taken a battering. if the deal does go ahead he doesnt want people turning off him, that would be counter productive. maybe a compromise?
Somehow I doubt Mandic will be agreeable.
July 5th 2011 @ 9:48am
punter said | July 5th 2011 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Yes despite all the ‘bad boys’ (all sports have them) the game survives & sometimes thrives on the publicity (notoriety).
July 5th 2011 @ 9:58am
Redb said | July 5th 2011 @ 9:58am | Report comment
Kewell doesnt need to be a bad boy though, his reputation and Socceroos star status is enough to get people going to games. His Manager is finding ways to lessen the star quality in my opinion to the point where people might start to think why line his pockets.
This can be cleaned up fairly quickly though with compromise and all will be forgotten as long as Mandic acts a little more responsibly in favour of Harry’s image.
July 5th 2011 @ 10:08am
punter said | July 5th 2011 @ 10:08am | Report comment
The bad boy reference to Kewell is more to the fact that this is not the first time this has happened with recent transfer moves & Mandic has been right in the centre of it. Amongst some football fans he is a money hungry greed. He doesn’t have too many fans at his previous EPL clubs, Leeds & Liverpool (the latter for different reasons).
July 5th 2011 @ 9:10am
nordozzz said | July 5th 2011 @ 9:10am | Report comment
yep yep arise Harry the villain, whether he signs or not i think we, ladies and gentleman, have our new Kevin Muscat (sorta) … australian sport has turned these sorts of figures into an artform, why not buy into it a little?
July 7th 2011 @ 12:08pm
PeterK said | July 7th 2011 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Who is Ben Cousins?
July 5th 2011 @ 9:43am
Roarchild said | July 5th 2011 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Mandic has been a snake oil salesmen for a long time (Kewells departure from Leeds was when it became well known)…. apparently he’s not a licensed agent either.
Some of those that are licensed are pretty angry that the FFA is actually dealing with someone who’s unlicensed…what sort of message does that send?
He’s also the alleged source of the Tim Cahill in Sydney pub story and the Mutiny that never was…..
I’ve always divorced Harry the player but gee it’s tough sometimes.
July 5th 2011 @ 9:54am
Redb said | July 5th 2011 @ 9:54am | Report comment
That’s only the 2nd time I’ve heard Mandic interviewed and both times I thought this bloke is not doing his client’s image any favours. He was fairly aggresive on SEN and did not need to pot people or the FFA.
July 5th 2011 @ 9:02am
sledgeross said | July 5th 2011 @ 9:02am | Report comment
No thanks Harry. We dont need the dubious morality of you and your agents “negotiations” in the A League. Go and hide in the MLS or something.
July 5th 2011 @ 9:03am
Chris said | July 5th 2011 @ 9:03am | Report comment
Yes, I think the FFA should stand firm on this. And while I think he’ll pull a good crowd at the first game I wonder if the attraction will wear off half-way through the season. Particularly if he doesn’t perform and/or misses a bunch of games due to injury.
If he and a club can work out a deal that both parties are happy with then that’s great, but the A-League/FFA shouldn’t be involved.
July 5th 2011 @ 9:18am
Fussball ist unser leben said | July 5th 2011 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Adrian, your column has some glaring errors and I’m disappointed by your review of this issue. But, you are not alone, most sports analysts have formed the same unsophisticated conclusions. Perhaps, on this issue, sports journos should consult with ‘business journalists”, who have a better understanding of how deals are done?
Three major issues:
1. In your opening paragraph, you make a snide reference to Harry Kewell’s career being “one great saga”. This is simply a glib statement (perhaps, you were using “literary licence” to hook the reader?) and is simply not true.
I’m not sure how old you are and whether you followed football in depth before Johnny scored that penalty in 2005?
But anyone, who has followed H’s career from his debut for Leeds in the EPL as a 17 year-old in 1996, would understand what it takes for a 17 year old (and, a 17 year old Aussie) to play EPL football and they would have more respect for H’s achievements than you’ve displayed. There was no saga around H until the media turned on him after he got injured … and nearly died due to post-op complications.
In 2001, at the age of 23, H was nominated for the prestigious Ballon d’Or, which means he was considered to be one of the Top 50 players in the world … his value as a footballer is REAL; not fabricated by good spin-doctor agent.
2. From what has been reported, H is NOT asking for money from other HAL clubs.
Rather, the FFA has asked H to promote and market the HAL competition and Kewell wants to do this. However, the FFA wants to pay Harry a fixed fee of $250k p.a. for this. Harry says: “no I don’t want a single dollar UNLESS I can actually produce some benefits”. So, Harry only wants the FFA’s money – not the away clubs’ money, but the FFA’s money – based on the EXTRA attendances at Away Games.
To me this is THE most transparent way to put a value on a player’s marketing power … would any player in any other sport be so confident in his “drawing power” to put his reputation on the line? How many employees would do the same – i.e. tell their employer “don’t pay me any wages UNLESS I attract additional revenue for the organisation”? Heck, there would be a lot of CEOs at Centrelink if ASX200 companies decided on this remuneration package for their Executives!
3. Based on what has been reported, you seem to have it completely wrong with your interpretation of the proposed 30/70 split. Harry wants 70% NOT 30%!
July 5th 2011 @ 9:41am
AGO74 said | July 5th 2011 @ 9:41am | Report comment
“Harry only wants the FFA’s money – not the away clubs’ money, but the FFA’s money – based on the EXTRA attendances at Away Games.”
Exactly. Harry & Bernie know they will make more out of it this way and this is the point you ignore the reverse side of – the greed. One party in this is ultra-rich millionaire for whom an extra few hundred $K will not make much difference. The other is a governing body who are skint and for whom that extra $$$ makes a significant difference. Point 3 that you make confirms the greed in all of this.
July 5th 2011 @ 9:50am
Fussball ist unser leben said | July 5th 2011 @ 9:50am | Report comment
“One party in this is ultra-rich millionaire for whom an extra few hundred $K will not make much difference. The other is a governing body who are skint and for whom that extra $$$ makes a significant difference. Point 3 that you make confirms the greed in all of this.”
As far as I’m concerned that is NOT an valid argument. Harry Kewell has every right to earn his TRUE WORTH and he should not be embarrassed by his wealth. He has given up his childhood and adolescence to pursue a career in football and he deserves whatever reward is appropriate.
I just don’t see the issue … he gets paid NOTHING if he’s worth nothing. Can it be any fairer for the FFA?
July 5th 2011 @ 10:21am
AGO74 said | July 5th 2011 @ 10:21am | Report comment
Nobody (in Australia at least) begrudges the $$$ Harry has amassed, but let’s discuss your point that he is potentially being “paid nothing if he is worth nothing”. Do you honestly not think Victory or even more glaringly Sydney FC will get increased crowds if H plays there next season? And let’s just say for arguments sake he joins Sydney FC – do you honestly think that on average (even when taking into accounts teams doing better or worse than this season) that the average away attendance for a Sydney FC match next season will be significantly more than last season? Do you honestly think that he will still get “paid nothing” or “get zero dollars”? If so, please stop making this incorrect comment.
July 5th 2011 @ 12:46pm
Brendo said | July 5th 2011 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Ummmm Aren’t you making his point.
H is the reason the crowds are increasing, shouldn’t he then be able to propose a deal so that he shares in that.
Fussball comments are mostly correct, if he doesn’t attract the crowds he gets nothing. The only way this is not valid is if some other circumstance is going to drive up crowds (ie Newcastles massive decrease in members costs).
To me this is the biggest issue with the deal, where does Harry’s influence stop and other initiatives begin. I think the idea of the using a away attendance calc is reasonable one I would just be contesting the %, 70% just seems way too high.
July 5th 2011 @ 1:48pm
AGO74 said | July 5th 2011 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
Brendo – If Fuss or anyone else think that H should get every single cent possible at the expense of FFA or perhaps of even greater value to his own reputation in the Australian public, then fine we’ll agree to disagree. However Fuss is implying that H is being altruistic by proposing the “potentially getting paid nothing” strategy when clearly we know this will not be the case. Why else would they have proposed it?
July 5th 2011 @ 2:16pm
Fussball ist unser leben said | July 5th 2011 @ 2:16pm | Report comment
@ AG074
I tell you what …. I’d rather Harry Kewell get every cent of the FFA’s advertising/marketing budget than some moronic football-illiterate marketing executive or advertising company, who doesn’t understand the culture of the Game.
I’m not saying Kewell is being altruistic … far from it. Rather, some of you (including Adrian Musolino) have made snide remarks suggesting H should be altruistic b/c he is currently wealthy.
What I’m saying is this and let’s be clear …. with the deal being proposed Harry Kewell – the man and the brand – takes on 100% of the business risk. He is putting HIS name and HIS brand on the line.
If he succeeds in attracting more people to the Away Games, then its a win-win-win ..
1. The Away Club wins … they get more gate receipts, etc.
2. Harry wins … he gets paid by the FFA for producing a tangible result from his “marketing appeal
3. The FFA wins … they know that they are only paying for marketing and promotion that attracts more customers.
Now, …. imagine asking an advertising agency to put its reputation on the line as Harry is doing?
Can you imagine ANY advertising agency saying to the FFA: “we don’t want your money up front, we are so confident in our marketing skills, you only have to pay us for producing and broadcasting the advertisements IF you get bigger crowds”?!
July 5th 2011 @ 9:43am
Qantas supports Australian Football said | July 5th 2011 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Good comment Fuss—-there seems to be a lot of confusion out there. What we need now is for Ben Buckley to come out and give a TV press statement on this matter to clear the air.
July 5th 2011 @ 10:12am
Fussball ist unser leben said | July 5th 2011 @ 10:12am | Report comment
Thanks Qantas AF .. the FFA released a simple statement yesterday http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/Socceroos/default.aspx?s=aus_soc_news_feat_news_news_item&id=40225
And, MVFC’s CEO also made a statement that was broadcast on FoxSports. The deal is still being negotiated.
It’s amusing to see the naive and unsophisticated Aussie sports media work themselves into a frenzy over this issue – I guess, they’ve never had to cover a major sports deal in the past so it’s all new to them!
July 5th 2011 @ 12:48pm
Brendo said | July 5th 2011 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
Well said Fussball, I find Michael Lynch’s article and comments on twitter today to be naive and extremely stupid.
People need to take a close look at what is being proposed rather than jumping in with ill conceived opinions.
July 5th 2011 @ 1:11pm
Fussball ist unser leben said | July 5th 2011 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Thanks, Brendo. I just read Lynch’s article … oh dear. I have a lot of respect for Lynch – his working environment must be awful … a football journo surrounded by philistines. But, I expected better from him than his op-ed in today’s Age.
Lynch quotes an “AUFC-insider” as saying: “Adelaide might well sell out at Hindmarsh against Victory even without him. Why should the Reds then have to give him 70 per cent of the gate money? It would have been unworkable”.
By not dismissing this statement, Lynch has demonstrated he simply doesn’t understand the basics of the proposed deal … perhaps, we shouldn’t be surprised, since this “revenue-sharing” deal is cutting-edge and innovative and, possibly, a bit too complicated for sports journos, who are used to dealing with mundane issues in a sporting backwater like Australia.
But the fact is, in the AUFC-insider’s scenario, Harry Kewell would NOT get 70% o the gate money. Rather, he wants the FFA to pay him 70% of any attendance OVER AND ABOVE the norm for such a match.
And, given Hindmarsh’s capacity constraints, the potential ADDITIONAL attendance would be insignificant and Harry would be entitled to 70% x INSIGNIFICANT increase!
A disappointing article from Michael Lynch.
July 5th 2011 @ 1:15pm
Brendo said | July 5th 2011 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
And as I have said below, Adelaide away last year drew 21,000. Impossible for Adelaide away to better this figure in the coming season
July 5th 2011 @ 1:42pm
whiskeymac said | July 5th 2011 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
have read the piece on 442 purportedly on this. It is quite clear in saying the clubs dont pay and it was the way FFA pay for HK’s promoting the hAL. There’s been a lot of conflicting misinformation from the media and forums on this subject which is disappointing.
thanks for clarifying some issues Fuss et al.
July 5th 2011 @ 1:29pm
jmac said | July 5th 2011 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
It frustrates me how so many people have made up their minds that Harry is a mercinary, when they’ve based that conclusion on facts so inaccurate it beggars belief.
Even Sebastian Hassett appears to be misleading the casual sports fan on the SMH back page today. Now I refuse to believe Sebastian Hassett would get it so wrong:
“a deal that would see Kewell earn 30 per cent of gate revenues from matches where his club was playing away”, is nothing short of a grossly misleading description of the deal, on several fronts.
Hands up the sub who changed this one.
You’re right, Ben Buckley needs to clear the air, eventually, or else sign a player to the league whose supposed pulling power and public appeal will have turned faster than matt mckay past a hapless Uzbek defender.
July 5th 2011 @ 11:34am
apaway said | July 5th 2011 @ 11:34am | Report comment
Fussball
Fantastic analysis, thank you.
This is how most touring rock bands structure their fees; they are paid a percentage of the gate over and above a pre-determined ticket sale figure versus a downsized “guarantee”. The figure is usually 95% for the band.
Is it 70% Kewell’s management is asking for or 30%? This part is a little unclear to me.
July 6th 2011 @ 9:12pm
Cleanmatch said | July 6th 2011 @ 9:12pm | Report comment
He is a joke in the UK – fact.