It’s been a hectic period for Football Federation Australia, the A-League, and notably, besieged outfit Gold Coast United.
Wild commentary from outspoken mining magnate Clive Palmer has unfortunately overshadowed the football on the pitch, prior to an exciting finale for the home and away A-League campaign.
The billionaire businessman, whose ill-mannered, obtuse and impudence towards the game, administrators and fans caused uproar throughout the football community, ultimately gave FFA little choice but to revoke his A-League licence – to the delight of the small but fervent Gold Coast followers.
Palmer contested the decision in the Supreme Court of Brisbane, however his request for an injunction against the termination of his A-League licence was dismissed, leaving the governing body in charge of the competition’s cellar-dweller for the remaining four fixtures.
While Palmer is a much maligned figure on the Gold Coast, his vast fortune did provide football with a team in Australia’s domestic competition. Now, with the boorish magnate no longer connected with the Surfers Paradise club, the club’s future remains precarious.
Last week at a Melbourne Heart business luncheon, FFA chairman Frank Lowy described Gold Coast as a ‘spectacular failure’ to engage and connect with its local community. Since its foundation in 2009, the club has failed to correspond with the local schools, junior clubs and promote what should have been a vibrant brand in one of Australia’s fastest growing economies – an area that is anticipated to tip 700,000 residents by 2021.
When the club’s hierarchy illustrates little concern for its market, nor its new breed of supporters, then it certainly gives the public a negative impression. Unfortunately, its egotistic style of management – capping the crowds to 5000 at the gates, minimal community engagement and its somewhat arrogant and provocative manner of administration – alienated a colossal proportion of its potential target market.
When establishing a sporting organisation, the primary objectives are to create an energetic vibe around the club, promote the brand in a positive light and importantly make the local community feel as though it’s their club – hoping for fans to forge a potent emotional connection with their newly adopted alliance.
Evidently, this hasn’t occurred. Dwindling crowds have proceeded through Gold Coast’s three-year tenure in the A-League. There has been a poor relationship between the club and the FFA, with the club’s hierarchy barely lifting a finger to counter its problems.
FFA is yet to reveal whether it will seek new investors for next season and persevere with a franchise in south-east Queensland. With all the commotion engulfed on the Gold Coast, is there really a viable market for football, in the short to medium-term future at the very least?
In a nutshell, yes.
Under Palmer’s rule, Gold Coast United was manifestly disconnected from the community. It wasn’t a club for the people, or the city. Sooner or later, Palmer and his team of associates were always going to crash and burn.
Although, version two of the Gold Coast can be true to its name and ‘unite’ the people throughout the community. If new investors can be found – with a new community based model implemented – a new style of management adopted and a sound strategic plan instilled, then there is hope.
If the AFL can be a ripe success on the Gold Coast – a region traditionally overshadowed by the NRL – then there’s justification for football to follow in its footsteps. In Gold Coast Suns’ inaugural campaign last year, it welcomed 11,000 members, with an average home attendance of around 20,000. Bear in mind, the Suns triumphed on only three occasions, rooted to the bottom of the ladder.
These statistics verify how an astute business plan and a willingness to reach out to the community can convey the utmost success.
FFA chief executive Ben Buckley has made no secret about the governing body’s desire to have a strong 10-team competition in the A-League next season.
Whether that involves Gold Coast United, or a Western Sydney outfit – an area the FFA is desperate to exploit – remains unknown at present.
If the A-League were to contract to a nine-team league in 2012-13, then it could certainly have enormous ramifications on the upcoming TV rights agreement, which is due to expire at the conclusion of the next campaign.
In 2006, FFA signed an exclusive seven-year agreement with Fox Sports, receiving approximately $18 million per annum. The length of the contract was often criticised, however it guaranteed the financial grounding for the sport, live matches and a first-class broadcast package.
Buckley, a protagonist in the AFL’s 2007-2011 television deal, worth $780 million – an extraordinary figure at the time – is expected to warrant sums of $30-35 million per year for the new football TV deal, which could also comprise a free-to-air component – an immense market, boasting 70 percent of television’s reach, a constituent neglected since the A-League’s inauguration.
While Western Sydney is the palpable choice for expansion, the process needs to be manufactured in a careful and thorough manner. Lessons must be learned from the Sydney Rovers’ experiment – a bid lead by businessman Ian Rowden.
The proposed club received a provisional licence in 2009 to join the A-League, planning to enter the competition in conjunction with Melbourne Heart in 2010-11.
However, financial difficulties ultimately proved to be an impediment it couldn’t overcome, having delayed its entry for another season before the FFA finally closed the curtain on the club.
Assuming that the money is there, a seven-month period doesn’t allow for a constructive analysis on a Western Sydney venture. A market so important, it mustn’t be rushed. The four rules of the marketing mix – product, price, place and promotion – must be carefully analysed to target the western market in the most productive manner possible.
After witnessing North Queensland Fury fold in traumatic circumstances last year – effectively hindering football’s development in the Townsville region – the A-League can ill-afford for another expansion franchise to go under in as many years. The integrity of the competition is at stake, as well as a big cut of the TV rights’ pie.
A quick fix solution – displacing Gold Coast for a Western Sydney team – isn’t the key to unlocking the golden charm for the FFA.
Western Sydney is an integral market for the FFA, although it shouldn’t be used to underpin the death of Gold Coast United. The governing body must allow the glitter strip club to seek new investment, construct a viable ownership model and fulfil the potential that was thwarted by the incoherent Palmer production.
Courtesy of Goal Weekly. Follow Robbie on Twitter @RobertDiFabio.
jbinnie
Guest
Cpaaa. - Good sound common sense and reasoned thinking,talents that have been sadly missing in the thousands of words spoken and written about this blot on our games history. Hope must reign supreme and get us through without too much more damage. jb
pete4
Guest
"Palmer last night told The Courier-Mail that he was not against Schuhkraft's idea of him being among a group of investors who would help fund a Gold Coast A-League team next season and beyond" http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/soccer/entrepreneur-geoffrey-schuhkraft-emerges-as-key-figure-in-fight-to-save-gold-coast-united/story-e6frepmf-1226293872391
The Cattery
Roar Guru
It would be nice to see these kids stay together, either as part of a full A-League license or as a Youth team that continues on the gold coast financed by the FFA. But, in all honesty - it looks like pie in the sky: 1. by the time the end of the season comes along, the other clubs would have picked the absolute eyes out of this carcass 2. the FFA obviously want a 2nd Sydney team, and they want it (need it) straight away, if people haven't cottoned onto that yet they are living in a fantasy land 3. the comp won't have more than 10 teams for a long, long time 4. at best, the FFA may need GCU for one more season while the West Sydney team gets its act together, but who is going to follow a dead team for one more season?
Qantas supports Australian Football
Guest
Good comment PeterK, not many people would realise that CP had a good relationship with the Fury and he put a proposal in to the FFA recently before this mess to join GCU and Fury together to make one club to share home games, which was flatly refused by Lowy. Lowy tried to get Clive to back the Roar when they were owner-less then tried to get him to back West Sydney and abandon us GCU. Lowy has no understanding of the meaning of the word loyalty. Clive Palmer backed the Fury in a sponsorship arrangement and was the sole benefactor of GCU as we well know. He had a relationship with both clubs, Fury and GCU, it was unwavering, something that Frank Lowy couldn't understand ..
PeterK
Guest
And this, Robbie, is the nub of what I got from your article -- if GCU can (very quickly) put together a coherent and workable financial plan, then FFA's priority should be to allow the club to live (rather than to expand elsewhere). I would imagine that the plan would need to be in the Community Ownership style, but I have a feeling that FFA (Lowy) is not as keen on that as it (and he) is on "Big Money". Good luck GCU, from a "Fury Fan Forever". Incidentally, not many seem to even know that in Fury's second season our "crowd" was limited to where we could sit -- some of the stadium was closed off. But it was done in a way which communicated to us fans that it was wise financially as well as in order to get us all closer to each other, since we weren't getting the crowds we'd originally hoped for.
Titus
Guest
When it came in though there was talk that Clive was capping the crowd at 5 000 so that he didn't have to pay the transport concessions for events. It was a disaster and it came after just a couple of games below 5 000. In the early days I remember Sydney and Melbourne playing in front of 7-8 000 with good travelling numbers creating a good atmosphere and Gold Coast playing some really good football, it was a start and it could have been built on.
Cpaaa
Guest
I will never understand when peoples say crowd cap disaster. One thing i do understand, you have to be careful how you say things. "Crowd Cap" sounds like we dont want more people, which was hardly the reason. In future if we have this situation lets call it "Western Stand Closure" , for health and safety reason ( H&S is always more accepted). Would anyone have been upset if the camera was on the other side capturing the 2000 that were there.. i think not and would have looked better for television. lastly " does the GCU deserve a second shot?" Offcourse they do with some homework and renovations to be done. 1. Location Location Location- means GC central, Surfers, Broadbeach or Southport (never play another game at ripoff cowpaddock robina) 2. Membership recruitment ( FFA you decide how many members should be pre sold to have a GC Club. FFA show us how its done. 3. The above are essential but i think new colours and a name change may do the GC some good.
jbinnie
Guest
Robbie- you say you disagree with my use of the words"re-cycled material " & yes,I was referring to material that has been getting discussed in these columns for some weeks so,with your assertion you were bringing readers of a certain weekly up to scratch ,we will have to agree to disagree. Disturbingly you again use the term "crowd capping",can I ask why you and other wrIters of your ilk don't use the term "closing down gates that are not needed" for you do on the other hand seem to agree that it was a good business decision.You go on to mention "such low proportions" when in fact 5000 represents a figure double what they have been pulling in 21 out of 26 games.Now you go on to ask why the GCU marketing has not been up to scratch for these last 2 seasons and ,yes, I totally agree with that observation (I have contributed many times that the opportunity offered to Miron with the number of times he appeared on TV was never used by him to this end.). I did not question the Sun's "astute strategic plan",simply asked you to consider how,and by whom, it was being financed. One question remains from your answer, Who did the FFA's market research into the viability of a team on the Coast?. I hope they have been sacked, for their findings have not been borne out by facts,now even you cannot deny that. So who to blame,FFA,Palmer,Bleiberg, or the community. I would not dare to try and answer that question. Cheers. JB
Robbie Di Fabio
Roar Guru
* If a shrewd community ownership model can be adopted, in conjunction with a viable marketing plan, then the Gold Coast region deserves a second shot in the A-League. After all, FFA’s market research revealed that Gold Coast was a viable market for Australia’s domestic competition.
Robbie Di Fabio
Roar Guru
J Binnie – You’ve pointed out that I’ve used recycled material throughout the piece, although I have to disagree. This piece (a Goal Weekly contribution in the rewind section) is aimed at getting the readers up to scratch with the recent events on football issues. As I’ve chosen to talk about the Gold Coast debacle, I have merely got my readers up to scratch with the current events that I’m discussing – termination of Clive Palmer’s A-League licence, his utter contempt towards the game, lack of community engagement etc and then onto the Sydney Rovers’ failed attempt at joining the competition on behalf of GCU (a signal that illustrates how that expansion into the region shouldn’t be a rushed). Thus, the column is primarily meant to give my readers a thorough background on the state of affairs and reasoning behind my opinions. Yes, the crowd capping of 5,000 was purely from a business perspective – to save money on stadium costs and staff allocations. However, what message does it convey to the average Gold Coast resident? How does that give locals the incentive to attend a GCU game, when the crowd is capped to such low proportions? It certainly gives the club a negative image, a notion that shouldn’t be apparent in the foundational days of an expansion club. If Palmer was fervent about the game, and wanted his GCU venture to be a grand success, he would have made sure that there were marketing initiatives to aid in the promotion of the club throughout the city. There would have been a surfeit of community interaction through schools, shopping centres, local clubs etc. Different promotional strategies would have been adopted and furthermore he wouldn’t denigrate the code to such bizarre levels –regardless of his rationale behind the code’s problems. In relation to the AFL – yes the Suns have been a remarkable success, considering their on the field performances have been rather poor to date. Regardless of the ex-Victorian contingent residing on the Gold Coast, the Suns encompass an astute strategic plan to tackle its local market and make the club a mainstay in the region. If a strewed community ownership model can be adopted, in conjunction with a viable marketing plan, then the Gold Coast region deserves a second shot in the A-League. After all, FFA's market research revealed that Gold Coast was a viable market for Australia's domestic competition.
Qantas supports Australian Football
Guest
I couldn't agree more JB----the irony is both men Palmer and Lowy are Liberal supporters. Come April we will have a new State Liberal Government in office; both could have joined forces to to lobby for a new stadium deal for GCU and perhaps the Roar as well with their political might and influence they hold within the Liberal party.
j binnie
Guest
Realfootball - I am not attempting to defend the "crowd cap", a misnomer used by the media. I am simply pointing out that it was an economic business decision to save money. It is such a simple equation that it never ceases to amaze why people cannot understand the workings behind the move. First of all let me correct part of your statement. GCU crowds during last season and this season have not dropped by 50%.. Out of the 26 games they have played at Skilled Park they have passed 5000 only 3 times,twice in their home game against Roar (6394 & 6927) when it would be reasonable to suggest a lot in those numbers would have been Roar fans down for the game.The other instance was the "free-day" game when14,783 showed up. So in 23 matches played they have had less than 5000, and in 21 of those games they had less than 4000. So what to do?. Palmer finds out that if he curtails the number of staff and services required by the State Government agreement,he can use one part of the ground,(which holds 5000 people) and at the same time save $100,000 per game.A measurable empirical disaster???, if that's what you call saving 100 grand per match then so be it, but if you & others can't see the common sense in that move then I'm glad you are not running any business of mine. Now would you like to supply the following information for other readers.What date did the GCU crowds instantly fall by 50%? & when did Palmer introduce his measures to save money?. I await your answers with interest, in other words prove my analysis wrong and yours right. jb
Dillan
Guest
I would like to see Gold Coast remain in the comp under new or community ownership. A big problem could be that if the Gold Coast remain in the comp and they still fail in regards to crowd and community engagement, then Clive would have more ammunition to fire at FFA... He could turn around an say, hey it wasn't all my fault after all... The fact Clive has ruined the brand makes it all the harder for Gold Coast to remain in the comp...
Realfootball
Guest
Very surprised you attempted to defend the crowd cap. Yes, it was a disaster - a measurable empirical disaster: GCU's crowds instantly fell by around 50% and never recovered. As Miron Bleiberg said on Fox Sports, it was a logical business decision, but a bad football decision. That decision destroyed the club. So, in those terms, how can you possibly defend the move?
j binnie
Guest
Robbie - This is a strange contribution for I have now read it three times trying to"get" the message you are trying to convey.Much of the content is "re-cycled" material & to be frank & honest I was seven paragraphs into the content before once again doubt started to creep into my mind. Once again you mention Palmer "capping the crowd" to 5000 as a disaster when it has been explained numerous times in these columns that by reducing the number of staff required by law to handle crowds of less than 5000, the cost of operating that stadium (an FFA directive) was reduced by $100,000 per match.With a 2 year average gate of around 2500 as factual evidence, why is it obviously intelligent people like yourself cannot see the economic sense in by reducing the number of gates open to allow entry into the ground, savings of around $1.3 million are generated.? We then get another "shot" of re-cycled material ending in you making a statement "In a nutshell, yes". You then proceed to attempt to back this up with,"if,if,& if, going on to use the Suns as an example of what can be achieved but forgetting the amount of money spent by the AFL (and should I add the same state government coining in money from both GCU and the Roar in Brisbane) in getting that identity established. Has the exercise been cost effective?,we will never know, not even if the Suns start to win some games. One thing I would bet on,(& I'm not a gambler) if they continue to only win 3 matches per season that 20,000 average will start to dwindle quickly,that's a fact of life in Australian sport.You also omit to add that a high percentage of the GC population are ex-Victorians, retired to the coast, but also steeped in the AFL game. Then it's back to the much discussed West Sydney problem which in itself has one gigantic problem,- no money.Until that is solved there can be no solution. By now I am again at the end of the article & am looking at where you would like the game to go from this point in time but,unless I missed something it ended as it started.re-cycled material. Pity,a lucid,articulate writer like you could add so much more to the debate by letting your thought processes move ahead & try to envisage how our game can be improved.Let's try. jb