Tinkler's demise a lesson for all fans of sport in Australia

Pretty much this, there needs to be a range of ownership stakes eoncompassing fans, to small business consortiums to large benefactors But there also has to be a real say in things, FFA restricts too much, eg give them control of websites and team colours etc, regardless of whether there is a clash, eg Melb City should be able to have Sky Blue regardless of SFC squealing

Actually I remember Tinkler was highly praised at the time as he significantly reduced costs for memberships etc which allowed a lot more people through the gates This is actually a major reason why they have a decent sized membership base now I also remember there was a time Clive Palmer style was praised in the media Thing is a lot of the media and even fans like us all like to act like know-ita lls in hindsight if I had to be brutally honest, and this includes myself Fozz is a great example, he has really mellowed out and is a lot less zealous since his anti-local and pro Dutch crusade isn't exactly working out like he would have envisaged 9-10 years ago To be fair Tinkler was very hands off, eg he appointed a Chairman and a CEO to run the club. Tinkler tried to get out a while back but the FFA wouldn't allow it for face reasons, and now they are getting rid of him because his belligerance is annoying. I don't blame Tinkler for being tight with money, you wouldn't throw money at something you suspect is going to be taken away from you Nor when there is a lack of transparency is "franchise" fees, FFA basically gouge the prospective investors which some stupid argument about the market place. They should all be a flat $500k operating fee and that's it, the fact they change it on a whim to make money and then place restrictions on owners means there is a rather opaque relationship from the get-go so it is not surprising that things are turning sour with so many owners

This all smacks of pettiness too In the sense he tried to hand it back at a time it would have publicly hurt the FFA, but they made him keep it, now they are stripping it from him when he publicly wants it Hard not to get a sense of the FFA trying to show who is boss and everything happens on their terms etc Of course the problem here is it is almost exactly like how Tinkler was given the team over Con, and reminds me of Palmer as well Thing here is that people don't like Tinkler and plead "oh won't the FFA step in" etc etc but they aren't thinkingof the big picture that these games the FFA plays with investors means that HAL is seen as a bad investment environment, hence the reason they couldn't get anyone to back WS despite all the potential there, and even when they did sell it was for $10 million and well short of the $20 million figures being bandied about I love the game but wouldn't invest in it as an owner

The 'propping up' notion is an interesting one - the AFL scenario clearly being referenced but also valid for the A-League at least for consideration of implications for people generally from a different sporting/business background. The league based centralisation of funds via broadcast rights is a key facet. And in doing that there's the recognition of providing the desired programming in the desired timeslots for the broadcasters comes at a cost of fairness and that impacts the marketability of the less visible clubs. Any notion of fairness then includes a compensatory redistribution of funds and provides the perception of being 'propped up'. The desire for an 'even' competition also sees clubs always stretching their business case to the limit. Therefore, a bad year or two will be a challenge. For any club in any comp - start losing week after week and that hits the bottom line. And then there is the now historically based inequities of stadium agreements but that's another discussion more suited to the Australian Football tab.

I reckon the following equity model could easily be achieved at every existing A-League club and in every township hub that services at least 500k people. There would be 5 categories of Shares sold. Each share is worth $1 and each share carries 1 vote. Category A: Local Council 500,000 shares Category B: Big Businesses (turnover more than $5m/yr) 20,000 shares Category C: Small Business (turnover $1-5m/yr) 10,000 shares Category D: Sole Traders (turnover up to $1m/yr) 5,000 shares Category E: Individuals 1,000 shares Then I think it's not unreasonable to project the following numbers for each Category & Total Equity raised. Category A: 1 x $500k = $500k Category B: 10 x $20k = $200k Category C: 50 x $10k = $500k Category D: 200 x $5k = $1m Category E: 5000 x $1k = $5m Total Equity: $7.2m Licence Fee = $5m Operating capital = $2.2m By getting a Local Council (or group of Local Councils) as an equity ownership provides clubs with a real local identity.

Punter,neither of the AFL teams in WA are "being propped up by the AFL". Both are owned by the "West Australian Football Commission"( not really "a community based model").& are on a firm financial footing. I also very much doubt if Hawthorn,Geelong,Port Adelaide or the Adelaide Crows are in any need of "propping up"!

" the only reason a company exists is to make money for its shareholders. " This is the "current wisdom",but is a vast oversimplification----companies exist to make various products & services available to their customers. In many cases the founders were driven more by an interest in new technologies to start industries which didn't previously exist. If they just wanted to make money they could have played it safe,investing in property & other such "solid investments". In the same way,investing in a sporting team is not a safe investment.

Yes - I believe MV would be capable of raising the necessary money, plus some. I would think that if the wanderers were offered up tomorrow to its membership that they would be able to raise the money as well. Given Brisbane attracted 50k crowds to its grand finals, it doesn't seem all that far fetched that they could come up with 15,000 foundation members. To be honest, I reckon the Jets could get pretty close to it as well - they have held on to 10k+ members during some ordinary times, so their support definitely runs deep. SFC should be able to. AU and the Glory would probably fall short, but not by a lot. CCM, MC and the Nix, probably no chance. In terms of prospective clubs, I reckon Canberra would go very, very close to raising the necessary cash, but 15,000 foundation members would probably be too high a target. Thereafter, I agree, it becomes quite tough (but in an era of promotion and relegation, the possibility always exists that a club grows to such an extent that it has the necessary support).

Punter I said the Jets are about to get their 3rd owner (but then wondered out aloud whether it was their 4th) - one could argue that it will be the 4th if you count the FFA.

No, you hit the correct reply button, and it is clear that your reply is to SlickAs, I think your avator pushes the start of your post in a bit, making it look like you replied to Andy.

Yep. The league is 10 years old, some of the clubs less, and many of them operate in areas where a membership culture - whether that means season ticket or voting rights if any description - is not ingrained. I would be interested to know exactly who was contributing the most money when more established leagues began.

What a load of bollocks. Honestly Nordster, you should know better than to post a glib, simplistic statement like this.

I'm struggling to think wh the 3rd & 4th owner of the Newcastle Jets are. I know of Con & Nathan. Please enlighten us MF. I presume with all these AFL fans coming on the Football tabs, that the AFL is a community base model. Is that working, from what I've been told the AFL props up most of the clubs, outside of Collingwood, Essendon & the Swans (plus maybe 1 each from SA & WA), good ratio but.... The FFA doesn't have the money like the AFL to prop up the rest. Maybe in years to come when our media money gets up with the big boys.

Thanks MF, But are any of our clubs realistically capabale of selling 15k $500 memberships....possibly MV...not SFC...would the Mariners need to charge $1500 ?. The $2.5m operating capital appears to be about what the average club loses each year...what happens next year, particularly after your club comes last. What happens when members discover an elected board provides them with only the illusion of input into their club...Look at how petulant the RBB and NT can be..does the club fold next year because of a boycott over the new 3rd change strip. What happens when Davo gets elected..not because he has a clue about running a business...but because he was a handy left back in the reserves...and he's just a top bloke..He's a real football man you know. As for your point No 5....well some of the countries most successful business people couldn't manage this. I think a club would need a rusted on Membership of 20k to be self supporting..but if that were the case owners wouldn't be ditching their clubs. MV and Wanderers will be the first candidates. The rest are a generation away.. This isn't at all meant to be a criticism... but there are a significant amount of supporters (parents) who are there because their kids play the game and its a cheap family outing....these are the ones who disappear in lean times...they can't be relied upon to sustain a club.....but hopefully one day their kids will.

It could work something like this: 1. The FFA invites all Jets supporters to become Foundation members of the Jets, with the proviso that they raise sufficient money to cover the the $5 million license fee, with some to spare to cover start-up capital. 2. Foundation memberships are sold at $500 a pop. 15,000 are purchased raising $7,500,000. The FFA gets its $5 mill and there's $2.5 mill in the kitty as capital. 3. The founding members are able to elect the President and board, who in turn appoint the CEO and coach, who employ the admin and coaching staff. 4. Thereafter, anyone with a current membership is able to vote at AGMs (whenever there is a board vacancy or whenever someone challenges the President, etc). 5. The capital might cover a couple of years of losses, but the aim would be to quickly reach a breakeven position, occasionally making a surplus whenever the Jets finished in the top 2, etc.

Was replying to SlickAs or did I hit the wrong reply button :(

It's the illusion of being a community club that people are attracted to.

Can someone explain to me how a Community owned club would actually work in terms of Finance and Governance...because I just don't see how it could possibly work in the real world.

The fans are the link.

This is where the community aspect comes in to play Alice. I think that most football fans would ideally love clubs that they owned and had a direct say in. With the money involved these days that's not always going to be the case. And so "the club" becomes the community of people for such people. The business side of things is another world; "the club" are the people you see week in and out, the people in colours on game day in the surrounding streets, the people you can nod to knowingly, if you're lucky the odd player who is a "club man", etc etc. You know that when this owner or that owner is long gone you and those around you will still be there. The owners are in fact immaterial for that very reason. So the club and what it is and represents is not tangible in that respect. And if it goes down a path you don't like you can make your voice heard; in many cases it's probably as effective as voting someone onto the board who gets caught up in factionalism before they've even entered the board room.