Lowy’s FFA succession plans nearing completion

I actually don't feel like answering your question. I like a lot of what you write especially when you talk football but not so much when you write on the administration side. It actually doesn't matter if I've been involved in football for 5 or 50 years or left school at 14 or indeed got a PhD - I have an opinion and have expressed it. There are too many things going wrong with the administration of football TODAY that need addressing and no one should be given a get out of jail free card because of events over a decade ago. This site works well when people can express their opinions and have those opinions debated freely and fairly; it does not work - as happened recently - when virtual mobs form to ridicule someone's opinion or when people like you ask for my CV so you can place a "value" on my opinion. It seems obvious things are going wrong for the FFA, badly wrong imo, and they keep getting worse with time - the responsibility for addressing those sits with the FFA who would be well advised to follow the old analogy "when you're stuck in a hole, stop digging". As an example of their current folly, I am not alone, on this site and others, in believing Ange may resign over his humiliating treatment last week at the hands of the FFA .. let's say if, IF, he were to resign the blame would sit with Frank Lowy and the organisation he leads! So if Ange resigns are we all expected to say "well that's okay, look at how things were ten years ago". I don't think so, football belongs to all of us not Frank Lowy - we should and we must demand better from the leaders in this sport. The press have been slow to write on anything but the obvious headlines recently but a few are are starting to read between the lines, see this one as an example: http://m.foxsports.com.au/football/comment-as-elections-approach-ffa-can-silence-ange-postecoglou-but-they-cant-the-public/story-fnlt0cqp-1227516483034 Things are not going well and it's becoming transparent to more people than just those involved directly with the sport, and things need to be fixed or how we were ten years ago will be irrelevant. Do you think there'll be another chance for professional football in Australia? I don't. Frank and Co have set us on a dangerous course and they are not listening to anyone outside of their immediate circle, that in any situation, is often extremely dangerous.

paul - You did not answer my question so I am no nearer understandig your knowledge of the game you criticIse so harshly though your final statement re. Frank Lowy does give a slight clue as to where and how deep, your experience lies. You state that Frank learned his football politics in the "bad old days" when in fact he only had an interest in those "bad old days" you refer to for the first 7 years of the NSL ,when in fact his team almost dominated the embryo NSL.He walked away from the game in 1984 when he saw certain trends appearing in a fooball management system that actually took another 20 years to reach the almost total self destruction level. Now, how under any stretch of the imagination could Lowy have been accused of doing what you suggest when he was totally absent from the game( it could be said that in that time he built the foundations of a very successful,almost worldwide. business) is beyond belief..jb

Agreed.

Is Fussball ist unser leben a talented EX GOAL KEEPER?|

This is my basic position: it is unusual in the context of a not-for-profit national sporting body, being the beneficiary of substantial government funds, to have a situation where the head role is handed down to the son of the incumbent. You can talk about the process all you want - but the most important role in Australian soccer is about to be handed down from father to son. And I say to you, that is highly unusual.

Gil McLachlan is the CEO, and he was Demetriou's right-hand man before taking over that position - hardly an unusual scenario. In the case of Steven Lowy, it is a Chairman's position, and it just so happens that he is the incumbent's son. In the business world, if the dad has a controlling interest in a particular company, or group of companies, then no one can say boo if he hands the reins to his offspring - that's his right. But for the exact same thing to happen to a national sports governing body, a not-for-profit body with millions of stakeholders, which is also the beneficiary of government funding - to treat that like your own personal fiefdom, as if it was some sort of family company, well that's something which warrants a bit of scrutiny. The majority of soccer fans on this board are comfortable with the iincumbent chairman treating the FFA like his own family company. That is their prerogative of course. Personally, it strikes me as an unusual scenario, one which would not have gone astray in the bad old days of soccer politics. Additionally, the most outstanding aspect of it is that this process is being held up as the examplar of an independent, professional process aimed at finding the best person for the position - one meant to be diametrically opposed to the bad old days of soccer politics. Well, you know, whenever someone hands on such an important position to his son, one is entitled to question such rhetoric.

I think the last TV deal was $160 million.

What has got me baffled is why some of the current issues have gone on for so long: * Wellington Phoenix licence - 24 months+ now * financial issues at Brisbane Roar - 15 months * PFA negotiations - 8 months * Succession planning - 6 months+ For a leadership that was renowned for a "strong hand" approach this is hardly evidence of that is it? The new TV deal is not due for two more years but you would have assumed whoever takes over that should have been the priority whereas now it looks as if there will be residual issues to resolve before TV companies can actually see what they're getting. It's odd to me - it's not as if this transition came out of the blue is it?

For those interested in Mal Hammerling he is Some big wig at the Playford council in Adelaide's north, where assoc football is quite strong. As part of a new sports hub venture the formerly nomadic (in training terms) Adelaide Utd have signed a fairly friendly deal to relocate to purpose built venue with offices, gym and two pitches set at exact dimensions of Coopers Stadium. Reds will have some time sub lease income rights and will get out of the shafting for offices at Hindmarsh. So he's done something for Football.

I agree with quro .The real issue is money in all that , regardless who you put in tpo job it is no effect , because if the tv stations willing to bank roll a game then it is not who is in charge of a agame , like for instance gaelic hand stuffwhich is falsly reffered to as afl or footy or aussi rules got more than $2.508 billion dollars despite drug use and scandals . as i think frank lowy has been a disastour for australian football and that is evident in the last tv broadcast deal $1648 million dollars , which is a pocketr money for what others got and that bis billions .

"Support for assoc.football outside of NSW has always been over rated" Based on what? Registration numbers right? hahaha, you are an amateur mate.

Although I concede that Frank being replaced by his son with little to no opposition is not a good look I have yet to see anybody present a credible alternative. Many posters on here want to tear down the process but the states have had every opportunity to present their own candidates. For me if you look at Steven Lowry in isolation his credentials do stack up and while his dad's influence will have had a large impact on his thinking he is a big boy who will bring his own ideas to the table. Anybody who believes that Steven Lowry would not have been working hard to make this a seamless transition is kidding themselves. A lot of ground work has been done to woo the state feds to make this happen but is this really a bad thing. Everybody involved will have a very good idea of what they are getting with Steven Lowry. If they were seeing something that really concerned them then we would be seeing a lot more noise from the state feds. In many ways this is the same when Gillon McLachlan became head of the AFL, it was known for almost a year that he would get the job. It is not uncommon for transition of the top role to be known well in advanced. On the other hand I am much more concerned with the other board candidates. Neither seems to have had much experience around sport to bring to the table. I would like to see a lot more talk about potential other candidates to the board. I concede that 1 or 2 "business" people on the board is a good thing you also need to balance that with football/sport people If Mal Hemmerling is interested in a board position surely he should be nominated. His experience across sport in Australia alone should get him a spot but he has also held CEO positions in Government and business. I would also like to see some youth injected into the board. Surely their is some young talent at State Fed level that all of the states could agree on to be nominated to the board and represent all of football not just state interests. Or surely their is a former top level footballer that has made good in business that could be approached for a role on the board?

It is inconsistent to me that assoc.football can be considered "national" when it clearly can not survive in Queensland! And it seems to me the FFA know this, why else would they let one of the sports biggest brands and most successful teams flounder? Can you imagine the AFL or NRL looking the other way, no neither can I. The reason is they knew football had support in NSW's so Newcastle could be saved, but in Queensland their own statistics told them the opposite. Every code is strong in two states and weak in the rest, assoc.football is no different and can not be considered national when it can't survive in the country's third biggest city. Any other arguement denies these facts. Support for assoc.football is over rated by some and the situation in Brisbane proves my point.

As I said, and say to the five or six people that responded, "the emperor has no clothes" so go ahead and beat me with sticks and stones. Football is worse for the cult like acceptance of what is going on. The wheels are coming off and it will be another train wreck this time driven by little Frank who remember learned his football politics in the bad old days you refer to. Frank is just looking for revenge and power for himself, not the greater good of this great game.

"I’m sure Frank was genuinely suprised to find out that his own son was about to take full control of the FFA." Can you give 5 tangible examples to prove your assertion that: the Chairman of the FFA has "full control" of the FFA? Does Mike Fitzpatrick also have "full control of the AFL"? Do the Chairmen of BHP, CBA, TLS have full control of those organisations? I think you need education in corporate governance & the duties of the Chairman of organisations. I have been appointed Chairman of several boards - in the commercial sector & government sector. Those roles did not give me "full control" of anything, other than full control over ensuring Board Meetings were conducted in an orderly manner.

JM My good man, I understand all too well the desire to pass on our possessions to our offspring. Just as we might wish to pass on control of the company we may own to our offspring, so too would we all wish to pass on control of all of our personal fiefdoms, in whatever guise they may appear. If this particular family views soccer in Australia as its very own fiefdom, who am I to argue against that? Quite clearly the correct process has been followed. I'm sure Frank was genuinely suprised to find out that his own son, his own flesh and blood, was about to take full control of the FFA. He may have even responded upon being advised of this event: is he interested in doing it? really? he never mentioned it at breakfast this morning. I'm sure he will do a fine job and I support his decision. We can all be confident that Frank has played no role in this, and that at no stage has he spoken directly to any of the state and territory federations about it. We can all be confident that Steven has done it all off his own bat and has not had to rely on his old man to waltz into the position unimpeded. As we read in that "remarkable" letter to all the federations - we can now put aside forever the old soccer politics - this will be a victory for a fully independent, professional process.

Like I said, when the likes of you & AR shows concerns about FFA decisions in football, I feel comfortable that they probably made the correct decisions.

"Are you suggesting that you have no idea who will become the new chairman?" So, your narrative has transitioned from "only 1 person can be nominated, no other candidate can be nominated" to "only 1 person has the numbers". At the last AUS Federal Election, I had a pretty good idea who would be the new PM of Australia. Doesn't mean there were no other candidates in the race. Your conversation seems to hinge on a premise: "The process for appointing a new FFA Chairman is hereditary & undemocratic". My rebuttal is simply: The process for appoiting a new FFA Chairman is the exactly the same as the process for appointing a new Chairman on any Blue Chip public company on the ASX. The members who are entitled to vote can nominate anyone for the vacant positions & then the members who are entitled to vote will cast the vote. It appears you either do not understand the process, or you are just partaking in your usual sniping of football, which you have exhibited every day for the past 5 years on every football discussion on this website. It's obvious you have an issue with the process for appointing a new FFA Chairman, so I challenge you to outline what changes you would make to the process.

H. G Wells...not David Attenborough! Come on! Too right though. But the major focus is problematic. The lifblood of the sport is the punters who play and support the game at community level. Why do we need businessmen to run the game? We have staff to run the finances and a full Board to decide on general strategic direction. I want a Chairman willing to play hardball with the A-League clubs who seem to think they have little to no responsibility to help grow the game through direct action. I want the money to go back into making the game affordable, to our young women being subsidised to play professionally so we can win a World Cup. I want a Chairman for the 99%, not the 1%. Someone from the community, for the community. Do I think many of the selected candidates care about the hip-pocket issues making parents turn their kids away from playing the game? No! We need to change the direction of this conversation to a more all-encompassing and visionary discource that is relevant to the majority of the 'football family'.

Rubbish. The figures are published and clear to everyone and have been for years.. Of the football codes it ones the only national game - by some distance. Only cricket is comparable to football for its cheographic overage. Where cricket wins out is its commercialisation. For football, that'll take time. However, in terms of nationalisation of the code - the AFL and rugby(s) aren't even in the race.