Failed A-League expansion: Should Ben Buckley be sacked?

What an interesting phrase -- "the North Queensland guy simply walk away"! What REALLY happened was the poor fellow went broke in the GFC. What good would it be to chase a bond from a broke bloke! We at Fury were indeed very thankful that FFA stepped in to take over, and to meet the outstanding debts (after some arguing) so that the local business community would continue to have SOME faith in proceedings. FFA told us they'd give us TWO seasons to get our house in order, and all was travelling well until The Roar also needed help! There wasn't enough in FFA coffers for us both (and I have a feeling that there might have been some other propping up happening at the time, perhaps in Adelaide?). FFA chose (probably correctly) to prioritise the capital cities, so we got just ONE season of support, despite having made much progress towards self-sufficiency. We even had an offer from an Asian mob wanting to take us over, but FFA rejected that idea. Interesting then that FFA since approved of a similar takeover for The Roar! How we now wish FFA had never offered us TWO seasons to get our house in order -- we might have worked much faster. (We would have had to work much faster!)

Cattery - Why is it writers like yourself,obviously keen, died-in -the -wool fans' continue to ignore what to me is so inherent in the setting up of the HAL as it was, that it is almost impossible to deny it's existence? Of course I talk about the standard of the game being played at the top level in Australia. The HAL was set up to lift our standards, that is standards all across the professional side of the game,being it coaching,playing arenas and surfaces,training,sports medicine,not to mention how our players perform on the field, etc etc ,in fact the whole "professional" package. If the powers that be (Lowy and Co) thought at the birth time that 8 teams were the maximum and apparently they would also need 5 years to establish themselves, then "expansion" should never have occurred until that standard had been achieved by all parties.Remember, part of that "standard" was aimed at keeping our talented youth players here in Australia,by offering them a "standard" of workplace satisfaction that would see them happy to stay. For the last 3 years much has been written about the fall in crowds etc when in fact a proper analysis of the figures generated by the original 8 teams(including Wellington) show that they are actually growing their crowds in a steady,if not spectacular manner. Five of those clubs are now averaging ,after 12 home games, 5 figure averages,last year it was only 2. I like to think these extra people are being attracted to the games by what is being offered to them on the field.If it is accepted that the standard is improving then the question MUST be asked,how can a new club be set up to the necessary standard (the whole package) without diluting what has already been achieved.Remember,3 clubs equals at least 100 personnel,players and staff,all well versed in the running of a professional football team if that dilution of standard is not to happen.Not easy to procure. jb

Kinda saying we knocked back a five year 360 million deal from Hal 6 to Hal 11 essentially a three year extenstion of the existing deal... Meaning 144 million in Hals 6 & 7... we get 34 million... meaning what ever deal we get needs to be essentially 72 million plus 110 million divided by the last three years .... so 72 + 37 million or 107 million per year... The effective 360 million offer if you think about it replaced the 34 miliion ... meaning 324 million for a three year deal... This is the value that BB knocked back two years ago...

allso eye theenk advce mite hav a eye inn it sumwhere

Griffo I'm pretty sure Optus's "TV Now" offering initiates a geoblock that is based on the State of Australia where the IP addresses is located. But, you're right, there are ways to bypass the geoblock - I'm assuming the average Aussie won't consider such nefarious strategies :-) You're probably right - may be useful to have Foxtel's subscription TV offering as a supplement to an FFA online LIVE offering. I reckon Middy, you & I should be hired to handle the next HAL broadcast rights!

Interesting that you mention SBS and not Fox...particularly in conjunction with an online offering. I see an FFA offering of online subscription services for live or delayed full telecast of HAL matches could go up against Fox and their subscribers. Some arrangement would have to be made for both to co-exist. Also in the way is that Fox on-sells their rights overseas, I believe, recuperating their initial outlay for media rights. This would also butt up against any FFA online offering in the same market. Potential friction but not impossible. I think it would require some out of the box thinking in terms of an online offering, and management of media spaces particularly here, but also abroad (US, NZ, parts of Asia..). Geoblocking is by country usually, but easily circumvented. I would offer subscriptions to the world, particularly Asia. Grow the interest in Asia with their football mad, tech savvy population and the revenue would flow in to the FFA coffers if they employ a bit of lateral thinking into their media contract. This media deal is the time to build that momentum and set the foundations, not the next one.

Griffo You raise some excellent points re: exclusivity & impact on gate receipts. It's essential, in my opinion, that there is no exclusive ISP handling the online broadcasts. The broadcasts would be via an HAL website dedicated to live & replayed online content and all 6 billion people on our planet should be able to click on this website and watch live HAL matches - for a fee of around $2 per game. Optus would be used to build, managing & maintain this website's architecture & content and SBS Tv would produce the actual HAL broadcast - cameras, commentators & analysts at each venue. As consideration for SBS's production, SBS would be given 100% access to use all the footage from HAL games to create their own FTA HAL shows (either full replays, weekly roundups, etc.) The impact of live matches on the gate receipts is harder to gauge. For the past 7 years Foxtel has been broadcasting live into regions against the gate and we know the big money for sport is via the broadcast rights so, maybe, it's not an issue to lose gate receipts. Additionally, whilst I have limited IT knowledge, I'm sure it's easier to put a geographical blocks on internet access to live sport, than a geographical block on Foxtel access to live sport. Interesting & exciting times ahead and the potential revenues are blue-sky if we produce a top product.

Yes, technology and online services change rapidly, as do governments. I think this media deal is the best chance for FFA to get some knowledge on the online media market and ad revenue, and grow an audience with consumers willing to view their content when it suits them. A similar problem to Fox though is if FFA give it to Optus or Telstra exclusively which will limit client base (although the latest stoush between the AFL and Optus might nullify this point). Two issues: impact on stadium crowds if game is LIVE online; if Abbott gets in to office, NBN capacity will go down the tube.

… but wanted the Socceroos to themselves… Fox obviously could see a greener pasture for the FFA over the horizon pre HAL 6 at a time when HAL was at a low ebb and tried to take advantage of it. $40m seems to be the common figure people expect at the moment, I would hope for a bit more than that (are you reading FFA, Fox, SBS, Channel X...). Wonder what side of $72m the actual deal will be? Would also have been interesting to see Fox trying to justify their Socceroo clause when SBS last year successfully bid for World Cup rights. My understanding is FIFA does the negotiating for World Cup rights. Perhaps Fox would not waiver on this clause, and subsequently FFA couldn't sign it with full knowledge that they don't have the authority to barter World Cup rights? This time next year is going to be very interesting.

Fuss Thanks .... Kinda think that FFA overall management under BB overall control has not been of the highest order... BUT it has not been hopeless either.... As for other executives as the article mentioned I have no idea… I guess the thing that is coming home to bite BB is that the expansion to 12 to 14 teams was way over the top… especially without a big media deal to pay for it… that two of the three expansion teams have failed is also not good … Remember too about 20 months ago Fox offered a five year from Hal 6 deal of 360 million per year… but wanted the Socceroos to themselves… at the time I said this is a big call to knock it back given that’s … just over 72 million per year in Hals 6 & 7 when they currently get only 17 million per year. If current reports of 40 million are even close to the mark then he needs to be got rid of because I could get 40 million a year… The gloss has come off the Socceroos …. From day one I said BB does not communicate with the media in the same way JON & AD do and even David Gallop … all the other three heads sound confident …. BB always seems nervous...

Middy I reckon this article you published on Sunday has set the media agenda for the week! Today, David Davutovic, whom I consider to be one of the best football news journalists in Australia (i.e. Davutovic doesn't attempt to analyse games, b/c he understands the difference between being a journo and being an analyst) has a terrific article suggesting "Frank Lowy has had enough" and Lowy is expected to make major changes to the FFA's executive this week, with at least one big-name casualty. Davutovic, in another article in today's Herald Sun, makes the case for Lyall Gorman being the 1st casualty in this shake-up. Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/soccer/ffa-chief-frank-lowy-has-had-enough-of-a-league-turmoil/story-e6frfg8x-1226282071586

For me, the 7-year deal we currently have hurts but would have been hard to envisaged that at the time. Also, the 'media' deal is just that - TV, IPTV, online... ...Foxtel is only part of the equation. There needs to be a FTA component, although will be dependant on Fox and how much they are willing to sacrifice 'exclusivity'. If the FFA are smart they will also drive heavily an online/IPTV deal. If they have their wits about them, they will put in contract a component to make annual revenue from this. A site like www.a-league.tv could be add supported as well as subscription based and top up the revenue stream. My take is that the FFA have this media deal cycle to cut their teeth in online media/IPTV before ramping it up the next cycle. Also, how does the current Optus 2-year deal fit into the online media/IPTV plans in terms of the next media deal? So, four-to-five year deal at the max; max revenue, FTA component, online media and IPTV with continuing revenue stream in conjunction with media partner. How much? Tough question. As much as we can get obviously...

I dont attend games, i do watch the roar now on fox, and this is where your money comes from. I dont attend league games anymore. And Midfeilder, i dont know what you mean, what i wrote is pretty right. League got 80 million a year for 6 years. You guys want 100 million and have less teams. Gallop was on 4-6 hundred thou a year, we found out that the guys running FFA get around 1 million a year. You tell me which part is not true,.

Interesting scenario. Foxtel may offer another long deal possibly for a bit more cash, and Buckley and the FFA will have to work out what's best for the game. IMO we shouldn't accept anything longer than a 4-5 year deal, anything longer and it will restrict the game's growth. This is happening at the moment, with the long 7 year Pay TV deal becoming a restriction and prolonging the pain for the league. Had a new deal come along 2 years ago for more money, and if this extra cash was used wisely, the league possibly wouldn't be having the issues that it's having today. The clubs would be given more money every season, they'd be more money for advertising and promotions of the league, and we probably wouldn't see the owners publicly slag off the FFA. The 7 year length of the contract wouldn't have been thought about in Year 1, but for the last 2 years it's actually hampered the league. For me, 4 or 5 years should be the max.

Not at all extraordinary to me. GER v AUS was broadcast at 5:30 a.m. in the middle of winter! Much harder for the less dedicated fans to rise at this hour. If GER v AUS was played at 1:00 a.m. (same as GHA match) I'm sure the ratings would have been 1.5m+ You'll note the final Group game v SER was played at 5:30 a.m. on a work & school day (match finishing at 7:30 a.m.) ... but still got 728k viewers.

I think it is extraordinary that after getting pumped by Germany 4-0 that an additional 200,000 viewers tuned in to see us play Ghana!!!

2am and 4am starts for Roos matches only appeal to the most diehard. On that basis I think the figures you quote are still reasonable for a tournament that most Aussies have not really latched onto.

May sound irrelevant but Channel10 and the already declared Channel 7 bidding for NRL may have a positive impact for A-league. Everyone knows that NRL is highest average rating program for fox but best case scenario for fox in new nrl deal is 4 games at most compared to current 5. Losing market share in a critical component of fox's overall package could see a-league, socceroos etc become more attractive to retain.

If it were $52.5m p.a. for 2-3 years I'd say fine - just until the NBN is fully functional across Australia. Thereafter, Foxtel is in trouble unless they expand their viewing platforms. It's ridiculous that a Foxtel account only gives me access to HAL games in one room of my house. I'm not always home during during Summer when HAL matches are being played and I'd like the flexibility to watch HAL anywhere I am in the world. I honestly can't see the point of selling any sporting product exclusively to Foxtel in the future, since it limits the customer base compared to broadcasting content through a dedicated internet sports channel.

So...Buckley got renewed for another two years. His main brief: negotiating the next media deal. As the incumbents, Foxtel gets asked first what are they going to offer. Foxtel slap $52.5million/year over 8 years on the table. Should Buckley take it? Would you? Whatever Buckley decides in the end, it's this media deal that is going to colour in hindsight his decisions while FFA CEO.