The FFA must act to save the Roar

Geordie -You are right, for the Broncos did move to QE11 in 1993 after a dispute between the QRL,Castlemaine and the Broncos sponsors at that time,Power Brewery. This dispute did centre on the display of different sponsorship signs. Broncos actually stayed there for 9 years and did not move back to "Lang Park" until the $208 million redevelopment of Lang Park was completed in 2003. The club's stay at QE11 started well with their average crowd increasing to 43,000 for the first season but by 5 seasons later that average had dropped to 28,000 and with the artificial grass causing all sorts of problems due to "grass burn", the Broncos were only too happy to move back to the revamped Suncorp. Thanks for that info. Geordie,I must confess I was not a Broncos fan per se but due to my employment at that time had to take customers to events as part and parcel of the job,You made me get my finger out and investigate even further. Thanks again jb.

JB I'm pretty sure that the Broncos moved to QE2 due to contractual disputes between their sponsor Powers and Lang Park sponsor XXXX. I remember one particular occasion that caused some angst when the team stayed out on the ground at half time and erected temporary Powers signage around the team talk despite XXXX having exclusive beer signage rights at the ground. Powers also were bitter (pun intended) about not being able to get their product into the ground. When Lang Park was redeveloped the beer wars were pretty much over with Powers being bought out and I think without assurances that the Broncos would return, the redevelopment might not have happened, at least not at that time.

Lionheart - Good to hear from you but I have to point out that one or two of your claims are a little bit "tongue in the cheek". You mention QE 11 hosting crowds of 70,000 but the ground capacity was only 60,000 when all seated and I attended the opening day of the Comm. Games when it was house full. Also the Broncos are averaging only 34,000 to this season's games which is still the highest average in all of the NRL but is still a long way short of the Suncorp's 52,000 capacity. In actual fact the Broncos moved to QE11 when Lang Park was being re-developed into today's Suncorp stadium and I attended many of the Broncos games there and from memory I think the biggest crowd they got there was around 52,000 to one game.You may know of course that the grassed area at QE11 was never big enough to host any of the international football codes and so imitation grass had to be used at each corner to facilitate Broncos playing there. Do we need a boutique stadium in Brisbane???,of course we do ,but the chances appear to be slim. Interesting too you also noted the effect the absence of the Italian community has made to Brisbane football .I always enjoyed playing Azzurri and Hellenic at Perry Park in the early days .they added atmosphere to the game and I agree those days are sorely missed.Cheers jb PS Had some good contacts at the Newmarket club in fact had a young centre forward came over to Bardon to play with us and he did well but had to leave to continue his higher education. David was his name and his brother (Kevin ????) was a coach and administrator with the club but their surname escapes me now. Another club stalwart was Walter Woods.Cheers again jb.

I an is a proven Roar supporter, not something that can be said of Fuss. Besides, I though Fuss always disappeared in winter?

Absolutely agree. When the players stop playing, then I'll boycott. But I'm here to support the players, and the team. Not the owners. Anyone who wants to protest about the owners can do so in so many ways, but withdrawing your support from the players, well they're traitors.

JB, I'm pleased to hear you're a Bardon boy, very nearby myself in my youth, at Newmarket where we had a big Italian presence. What's happened to the Italian influence on our Brisbane football? or am I just not noticing it? Interesting your comments on Suncorp and QE2. I am jealous of Broncos crowds, which are regularly at 40K this year, and several years back they turned away from Suncorp for a season or two and used QE2, over some finances deabte with Suncorp. They had crowds of up to 70K at QE2. Amazing what can be achieved if you have your own paper. The QLD government is spending nearly $6 mil on Suncorp this year, but I don't know what on. It's been a while since we've had any internationals in Brisbane, maybe since the Asia Cup. It seems the Qld government aren't interested in purchasing any games.

Paul - The reasoning behind the building of "super" stadia all around the world can be placed squarely at the feet of politicians ,local and or federal. Always the "procurement" of international sporting events like the Olympics and or Commonwealth Games has seen the opening of the purse strings to build these "mausoleums" with capacities up to 60,000 or 70 ,000 when it is widely known that after "the games" have departed there is next to no chance of these same stadia ever being fully used again. Take Suncorp in Brisbane.The Broncos,the best supported team in the NRL, have an average "home" support of around 30,000 and apart from any Grand Final or,State of Origin games (now under threat) this ground is seldom, if ever, "full". Then we have the 60,000 seat QE11 built for the Commonwealth Games in the 80's, which enjoyed a "full house" sign for the opening and closing days and has never had a capacity crowd since,in all of nearly 40 years. Does that change the status quo???? Not on your life.Having spent the money on development these governmental bodies have to try and recoup their "losses" no matter what the actual factual figures are telling them. Vancouver in Canada have partly solved the problem by putting curtains in front of the different tiers of their "Commonwealth Stadium" and now they simply close off either the top or middle levels by lowering the curtains thus keeping the crowd condensed in an area that guarantees "atmosphere".The idea does work with reduced costs in "policing" all levels of the stadium while allowing continued use of facilities at the levels being used. This means different sized crowds can be accomodated for at reduced costings.Makes sense does it not???Cheers jb

is it a coincidence that the great "fuss" has departed for another forum and his "protector" the great Ian has taken his place? i wonder where uncle junior is?

Here in Sydney, the only stadium that is regularly more than 75% full (boycott excepted) for football is Pirtek with a working capacity of about 18.000. I think Parramatta Eels were about 50% last season Allianz is the white elephant here with most games being less than 25% capacitiy. The average for Sydney FC WITHOUT Sydney derbies is less than 12K. The other tenants being Sydney Roosters and NSW Waratahs also struggle to fill the 40K. If Brisbane Roar were able to vacant Suncorp and use a purpose built Perry Park maybe a 15K capacity, what would happen to bottom line? Perhaps, big games could be scheduled for Suncorp!

It's a mess, that's for sure. I personally am praying that the Bakries are sent packing on Monday.

Paul- As one who was present when Perry Park was opened in 1967 and whose team,Bardon Latrobe,used the facility as a "home ground" for some years,I too have a certain loyalty to what was named as the "home" of Brisbane footballl. Two home games were played every week by Merton,Bardon ,Hellenic and Polonia,the latter 2 having to change their names to St George and North Brisbane when the de-ethnicising of names took place. This arrangement saw the facility under constant usage but even then the lack of money,or foresight,or perhaps both, never saw the original plan come to fruition for there was supposed to be a grandstand built above the present clubhouse and to the best of my knowledge the foundations set in place were of a strength to support that grandstand. Since those days certain things have changed and due to"arrangements" made at government levels not only has the YMCA been allowed to re-locate and develop their tenure down one side of the stadium but Telecom have moved on from a facility they had out towards the river making another large area available. This has opened up the possibility of turning the pitch around on its axis and run it lengthwise and though certain suggestions were apparently undertaken in 2014 when it was suggested the "Roar" would return there ,Stadiums Australia obviously did not foresee the need for a boutique stadium that would in fact interfere with any projected tenancy in their showcase Suncorp with it's vast open spaces, You ask could Perry Park be redeveloped reasonably cheaply.? Of course it could and with Brisbane Strikers using it during the winter and Roar during the summer full time tenancy usage would be guaranteed. Then again one has to consider the effect this would have on Suncorp. Could we see another QE11 on the government books??jb

Ian is right on the AFL acquiring the rights to the name from the NSL club. Brisbane Lions Football Club (Association Football) became Queensland Roar until 2 new Franchises. They then became Brisbane Roar. Football should NEVER COOPERATE WITH AFL. The AFL are determined to stop the growth of football (association football) all over the country. They are now trying to kill the success of women's football by panic starting a women's AFL league. Look how many potential Matilda's have been poached. They (AFL) were a major obstacle to the bid to host the FIFA World Cup in use of stadiums to stop the growth of football from top to the grassroots. The question to what is the plan to connect Brisbane Roar to the grassroots plus should there be a partial membership owner model used?

I heard it said somewhere that FIFA do not allow the controlling authority to take control of 2 clubs or franchises. I think that the FFA will only step in when the Newcastle Jets franchise is sold. Not being a Brisbane resident, could Perry Park be developed into a boutique football stadium without government money?

Non-payment of Superannuation Contributions? An associate of mine some years ago fell behind in paying super. One of his employees lodged a complaint with the ATO (Australian Tax Office). His company was quickly subjected to a Tax Office Audit, and the company was served with a notice to pay the outstanding super, together with penalties and interest. Non-payment would have resulted in court action and the resulting court order to wind up the company. ATO court actions are lodged and dealt with very swiftly. As I understand it, this avenue is still available, and it beggars belief that breaches of contract claims, doubtless involving expensive legal expenses, are being used when the action described above is far more effective.

I'd say most football people in Brisbane are tired of this situation, and most people outside bored of it. It's exactly the same comments and conversations we were having about Brisbane Roar last winter. Someone needs to sort things out, so far it looks like the Bakries can't and the FFA won't so some fans are agitating for more militant action whatever that means.

Mid, you keep making huge assumptions. I don't know what you view as serious but for two years the club was in arrears with its Super payments to staff, that's serious (it's also illegal) and that situation occurred with the FFAs full knowledge for 24 consecutive months until January this year. In January I spoke to one of the senior players and his super was still outstanding but would be paid in January's payment; that was the plan also agreed with the FFA and public knowledge. Now this arrears situation wasn't common knowledge until last winter when the cash flow issues became apparent which was the cause of the similar crisis last winter. The next payment issues occurred in April with some staff and suppliers not getting paid on time. So in the last two and a half years there have been maybe 2 months where everything was up to date. Now the latest payment issues still aren't clear and all we know is the medics have withdrawn services and it was serious enough for a fine CEO to resign over the situation. I don't know where you get your understanding from but it's way off the mark. I'm sure things will settle down but I'm not sure how fans will react if the Bakries stay on, plenty did boycott last season but many stayed on the word of David Pourre. It's interesting that the petition above seems to be a call to reinstate Pourre in all but words.

Waz you posted some time back all you wanted was for FFA to essentially bring this to a head and reach a resolution as soon as practically possible or words to that effect ... I think you were and are spot on ... The PFA reaction indicates FFA are doing that and the demand of 24 hours and then only allowing 7 days to fix things in a manner acceptable also indicates your overall request is being done.. Waz not with you, but with Paul, if you can't see this and want a governing body to react without a boots and all investigation then that model would not last two years. I think the deeper issue could be a total miss trust of FFA to have the skill, courage, funds and ability to undertake whats required.. this is an issue steaming out of last year .... many tough decisions needed to be made many were needed and almost every major decision seemed to attract countless threads and FFA's ability was often questioned. I hold the view on balance FFA have been quite remarkable in their achievements over 11 or so seasons... does that mean everything was almost perfect ... no way far from it ... Glory copped the worst of the decision early on and its taken 10 years to repair.. I get the feeling and I hope I am wrong, but I feel like no matter what FFA do some people will find fault and the issue they have at that point in time becomes so huge it often over rides other issues... the Socceroos are playing on the weekend against a top European side and instead of talking about the game, the side and the WCQ we are consumed by a small mob demanding the inept FFA finally listen to their advise ... when if you sit back and watch it ... it is moving at a reasonable pace. As an aside and just putting this out there ... say ill feeling towards TBG kept the crowd average down by say 2k... over 13 rounds thats 26 K fans at say $ 22.00 per ticket thats $ 572, 000... which I suggest if it ...was in the bank we would not be having this thread...

Waz I have no doubt the 30 months ago is correct ... if this had been a problem in every one of those 30 months its a a major issue... but thats not my understanding.... my understanding roughly 9 months ago it was resolved and then 2 months ago it was getting to be an issue again... meaning for say those seven months it all appeared to be sailing along. The same can be said over the whole 30 months not all of them where there major issues ...

Mid, I want to stay out of this debate but the 30 month thing is actually correct. It came out at the fan forum last winter, the room erupted in anger when it was revealed, from memory the cause was actually the FFA reducing the tv rights payments to roar (The room erupted a second time lol) but nearly three years ago the FFA were aware playef payments were late and super debt was building, so were the PFA.

Griffo, what you have written is quite misleading. I suspect correct on the jets side of things but then you misunderstand the FFAs powers. The reason that the FFA issues licences under the Franchise code of conduct is because it's a very unambiguous act; I've never seen an A League franchise agreement but let's say it had some silly provision like Nirwan Bakrie must wear an orange hat every game day; if that's what the agreement says and Nirwan doesn't wear said hat then his franchise licence can be revoked. So it's any condition of the franchise agreement being breached that is cause for termination not just solvency - if correct processes are followed the franchisor (the FFA) nearly always wins, like 99% of the time if it goes to court. I would expect the HAL franchise agreement would cover a wide range of things from having a proper business plan to paying players on time to having appropriate medical provision even as far as not damaging the A League "brand". The franchisor is always in control, and the law protects that control. It's why the FFA did it that way.