Each new season brings a number of changes with it. Players and managers are constantly under pressure to perform or face the looming threat of contract termination.
The countries two biggest clubs, Melbourne Victroy and Sydney FC, currently find themselves without a coach after inconsistent seasons.
Following the success of Central Coast and Brisbane Roar the A-League has learned the value of good coaches and what they can do to a club.
Rumours surround both clubs, suggesting Sydney may be close to signing Graham Arnold and that Melbourne Victory is also making a play for Ange Postecoglou.
These bigger clubs have traditionally relied on proven personnel to satisfy the high expectations of their fans and rarely take risks in fear of failure.
However, given the youthful nature of the A-League, should smaller clubs be shielded from larger clubs in order to be allowed to grow and develop?
Specifically, should the FFA introduce rules to protect smaller clubs losing their coaches and other staff?
Ngod
Guest
Clubs sign players from other clubs all the time, and now that we have more coaches gaining reputation within the league, that will become a factor as well. I find it surprising that the comments always seem to be about 'poaching' when it's a 'big club.' A couple of seasons ago supposedly cash strapped Brisbane Roar signed Mark Jurman from Sydney by offering him well and above his market value. How did they afford to do that, well they were spending someone else's money (the FFA) So remember that supposed big clubs have private owners who expect value for money on their signings. Big club, small club, there are advantages and disadvantages to both. 'Big' clubs with rich owners might offer more to successful local coaches, but that's an important step in getting more local coaches into senior roles. Brisbane did well by strategically becoming a 'small club' for a while after they screwed their supporters over, allowing them to recruit using someone else's money, leveraging proposed losses in revenue from the introduction of new teams in gold coast and townsville to extract more funds from the FFA. Any coincidence that both those clubs are no longer with us?
JohnL
Guest
If clubs overseas can buy troophies, then clubs here will try to do the same.
whiskeymac
Guest
CCM has a great finals history - albeit no GF winners they have been the premiers twice and runners up a lot, plus more successful in the ACL and yet are still considered the runt of the litter - i assume the idea of being a big club is the postcode not the achievements nor the structure, and on this basis then SFC is a big club and woefully short of reaching its true potential. Still the new kid on the block might help focus things.
Matt F
Roar Guru
I see no reason for clubs to be shielded from losing staff. If another club can offer them more cash, or a return home, or whatever other reason that may convince a coach to leave, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do a deal. besides as of right now neither of them have actualy moved.....yet Surely you're not suggesting that Brisbane is a small club? They had the second largest attendance figures in the league this season and are odds on to host their second straight GF. Then there's the fact that they're owned by an Indonesian Mining consortium so they're not exactly broke anymore. The Mariners might be strapped for cash right now but reports are that a Russian group is very close to taking them over as well.
Matt F
Roar Guru
If you go on crowd figures for the season the Sydney is indeed bigger then Perth, though not Brisbane. Or Newcastle for that matter. On A-League success Sydney's 2 GF wins would place them very high up as well.
whiskeymac
Guest
Sydney has potential to be one of the 2 biggest clubs but are they really bigger than Brisbane at the moment? Or Perth? what are the criteria - crowds, success or media bias?