With the new A-League season approaching, it should be the year of the marquee

"Yeah, as a matter of fact it sounds to me like they do have a good strategy for building long-term support at the grass roots" So, to build AFL at grassroots level for females, AFL will invest in netball? Wow... that's an interesting approach to grow your product. I'm sure we could find a Business School that would teach this strategic thinking. Unless, of course, the AFL investment is designed to kill off netball? Then it is an excellent strategy that is often adopted. The recent example of the Nine Network buying Quickflix & sending it into liquidation is a good Case Study for investing in a rival product to kill it off.

Yeah, as a matter of fact it sounds to me like they do have a good strategy for building long-term support at the grass roots. They seem to be capable of thinking beyond their own single sport and those who already support it, and working out ways to broaden their place in the local sporting community. They're developing partnerships which will give players and fans committed to one sport, a reason to take a look at another sport. Having a bunch of netball fanatics watch or play their own game, then march over to see the footy, is a very interesting concept and one that could reap big support for the clubs in years to come by broadening their base. It's a lot better as a long term approach than your idea that they should turn inward and focus entirely on trying to build up women's aussie rules or league at the expense of netball. And, as others have pointed out, it is in fact a natural combination, at least in chunks of the country. The links are already there.

So, let me see if I understand this correctly.. Collingwood is so committed to Women's AFL that their boad has decided: let's put extra funds into promoting Netball & ignore Women's AFL? MelbStorm is so committed to Women's RL that their boad has decided: let's put extra funds into promoting Netball & ignore Women's NRL? MelbStorm is so committed to growing the RL in Melbourne they've set up their Academy on the Gold Coast! Ok, then. Sounds like those Boards have top quality growth strategies.

Can't agree with Fuss on this. Where I live, the local oval hosts two Aussie rules clubs (the regulars and the over 35s) and the cricket club, and has done so for about a century. The netball courts are next door, and the cricket/footy clubs have a long history of collaboration with the netball club. Sponsorship is a natural match. As for cannibalizing women's aussie rules or cricket, I expect this idea is about more than just the actual players . Thinking a bit more broadly, those netball girls who benefit from cooperation and support from the cricket and footy clubs are likely to become supporters of those clubs themselves when they move into adulthood, jobs and families. Long term, this kind of sponsorship keeps all these sports healthy at the grass roots by strengthening interest and involvement, and that is a good thing. Anything that provides support to youngsters getting involved in any form of team or individual sport is a good thing, after all.

AR is correct about Australian Football collaborating with Netball right across regional Victoria and into Southern NSW. For example the Ovens and Murray League, which crosses both sides of the Murray, would be one of the biggest regional football leagues of any description. Each of its clubs also runs netball teams on the same day, all part of the same competition. For example, one of the bigger clubs in the region is the Lavington Panthers Football and Netball club (all the clubs commonly have that full title) - and yes, that club is actually owned by the Penrith Panthers. So there is zero surprise to me at least that Netball would invite such partnering in its new league - it's pretty much the norm right through South-Eastern Australia.

"The WBBL games drew an average tv audience of 142k. Aleague games during the same period drew to audiences of 42k on Fox and 47k on SBS. " The Egg Ballers. So predictable. The only thing that titillates them are TV numbers. Since AFL don't actually have enough humans to play Women's AFL, maybe, their Women's AFL competition can actually be virtual competition video game & they can televise that? Fans could vote for free kicks, etc. I'm sure it will rate higher than Aleague and that's all that matters for Strayian sport.

Just make sure you watch his early days on DVD first - you'll sign him without consultation just on the skill alone...

"AFL have conceded they don’t have enough female participants to create a viable national AFL competition." The level of female involvement in cricket was very questionable a few years ago. Then, Cricket Australia started to pay female players like professionals. Last season we saw the WBBL go head to head with the ALeague over summer. The WBBL games drew an average tv audience of 142k. Aleague games during the same period drew to audiences of 42k on Fox and 47k on SBS. At this very moment the AFL is weighing up whether to start with 8 or 10 teams in its new womens national comp. I don't think that's "conceding" at all. The AFL is collaborating with Netball because a) financially it can; b) the 2 sports have always been brother/sister sports (ask any country town); and c) it's a win/win for both sports.

This is the story in the SMH: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/netball/gws-giants-and-netball-nsw-looking-to-form-western-sydney-superclub-20160512-gotw3z.html Interestingly, it's the Giants that Netball Australia are courting in Sydney (so to speak), meanwhile, it looks like Collingwood would be partnering with the new Melbourne netball team, and the Storm are looking at a similar arrangement on the Sunshine Coast (where they have an academy already). Really interesting times for women's sport. Netball Australia are claiming that from next year they will have the biggest broadcast deal in women's sport and the largest salary cap of any womens league.

I think the proposed AFL/NRL alliance with netball is a clear indication that those 2 codes know they have ZERO chance of competing with football (and cricket) for female participants. AFL have conceded they don't have enough female participants to create a viable national AFL competition. By providing more funds for netball, they are cannibalising their own potential market for female participants - i.e. females who have athletic ability & can catch a ball. Only yesterday I read that an ex-NRL player who is held in high regard said that "below the NRL level, RL is almost dead". If RL is almost dead for males, you can assume its not very healthy for females at grassroots level. From what I've read, in relation to team sports, only Football, Cricket & Basketball are thriving for males & females. Netball is thriving only for females. The Egg Ball sports are huge at the elite level; below the elite level it's all smoke & mirrors.

I think the author makes a good point about the two different types of marquees and their likely impact on the A-League. One inconsistency is when the author mentions that we are now past having to rely on recruiting players who are older than 35, but then mentions Totti as the sort of player who we should be recruiting. I immediately thought that he must be fast approaching 40 years of age (given he was already 30ish when Italy won the WC in 2006) - as it happens, I was right - he turns 40 later this year. I then saw the example of Klose, and thought something similar - hasn't he played in at least 5 WCs? (he turns 38 next month). Even with the example of Klose, seriously, would people really pay good money to watch him play in large numbers aged 38 or 39? Is he that much of a recognisable figure beyond those of us who passionately follow soccer? While the general principle of attracting attention through the use of marquees is probably right, and the idea of the FFA subsidising the purchase of marquees probably has merit, it got me thinking: if the FFA are going to do this, wouldn't they need to subsidise one marquee into every club? (in the interests of fairness) I would have thought the cost of a true marquee is going to be at least $4 million per annum (of a truly recognisable world class player still able to run around the park). Multiply that by 10 and you have to spend over $40 million per annum to ensure every club has one such marquee. The current salary cap for the league as a whole is some $26 million. The cash component of the current TV deal is around $25 million to $28 million. My maths is not great but I would have thought the FFA is not really in a position to pay for 10 true marquees. Even if you talk about the FFA only subsidising half the cost - it looks beyond them. Even if you talk about the TV deal doubling (which now clearly looks a long shot), it looks beyond them.

The AFL/NRL support for netball is a very smart move, strategically it connects them with the female market much quicker than growing their respective codes female participation organically; and at the same time creates a netball allie also trying to fend off growth in girls soccer participation. Meanwhile our dear old FFA leaders keep shooting themselves in the foot with dumb internal squabbles, PR disasters and a level of marketing activity even Agnus-the-hermit would think modest .... you can't help thinking the leaders of our code are like boys trying to compete with men sometimes. Let's hope this marquee fund isnt their only idea!!

Unfortunately that was the season where watching Brisbane play was 90 minutes 1 emotion - frustration!

If FFA don't fund or partly fund then I agree however if they fund or partly they can and should set guidelines down they are after a particular type player i.e. essentially a player who they believe will help with ratings. Also some clubs to solve salary cap issues in the past have used the marquee rule to sign a player no different to others in the team essentially a salary cap increase by default .... The sporting landscape as we all know is becoming very complex and Netball coming out of nowhere with AFL / NRL support is a new player in a very crowded market.

I never said I am against Marquee's. I am neither here nor there. It all depends on what the clubs needs are. They are best placed to know this not the FFA. I am totally against the FFA's involvement in all this. It is unnecessary micro management. I am all for clubs recruiting the best value players they can to the league. For me this ultimately means getting rid of the salary cap which might skew the competition, but so be it. You can still be be a small market club and be able to compete in a domestic league. Even Leicester has shown that to be the case in the EPL. The point I am making is we should be looking for ways to expanding our league and expanding the quality of Marquee players WITHOUT the FFA's involvement. Their recent initiative of the FFA to willingly disclose the salaries of players playing in the A-league is another in a long line of FFA F up's. I mean who wants everyone to know what they are earning. How the hell does this help the players when negotiating with other teams especially from a team abroad. The players negotiating position has just been shot to pieces and information that we consider ourselves to be private is subject to the public forum. I swear some of the FFA initiatives just beggar disbelief. I would prefer if the FFA allows for transfer fees between A-league clubs before they start disclosing the salaries of our players. If anything that is a better way to garner interest on player movements and its not a total disregard for the players privacy. Sheeesh, some times I give up with the FFA. Ridiculous.

Maybe but the rating history suggest marquees pull in the fans... ratings equals dollars.. Personally I am not a fan of marquees, and your point on who gets who and how much etc... Me I much rather they say give each club a certain amount but I don't think that's gonna happen. 442 are reporting ... Perth Glory have Manchester United defensive midfielder Michael Carrick in their sights as they step up their recruitment. http://www.fourfourtwo.com/au/news/perth-glory-chase-epl-star#V37kSS3ZKsl2J17A.99 Does he qualify he stared in 21 games for Man U last year and I think played in 40 thats a reasonable last club and record, but he hardly a house hold name to other than Football fans. However recent history on Fox and arguably the MLS say marquees help... tis not a simple black and white issue and as you point out who is the judge of quality. FOX SPORTS’ A-LEAGUE RATINGS 2005-06 42,000 2006-07 56,000 2007-08 70,000 2008-09 64,000 2009-10 54,000 2010-11 45,000 2011-12 66,000 2012-13 81,000 ... Marquees 2013-14 72,000* 2014-15 62,000* 2015-16 61,000* * when SBS started to broadcast.

I gave the same misgivings but at the same time the clubs themselves were the architects of this scheme with the FFA set to fund and administer a scheme the HAL clubs requested and designed, even those not planning on signing a marquee.

I am seriously annoyed with a central Marquee fund. The FFA of course has a responsibility to promote the league but they really should not be getting involved in the recruitment of players or assisting clubs in any form through a centralized fund. The issue will come up when certain clubs are denied access to funds for players they believe will fit the criteria of what a Marquee player is. The next issue is how can you apply this equitably among all clubs. Some players will obviously cost more than others and not every club in the A-league is going to go for a Marquee player. No doubt the FFA is creaming themselves over this new initiative and think they are doing the right thing, but to me, its absolutely bonkers. The clubs are the ones who should be searching for players, doing their due diligence and making sure they get value for money. The FFA should only make sure that the league is run well and that they provide a robust framework for clubs to operate in. One that is fair and equitable for all clubs.

you mean Lardel

What about Ricardinho?