It doesn’t say much for the A-League’s finals series when a team can potentially qualify despite having lost more games than they’ve won.
Does anyone seriously think the Western Sydney Wanderers deserve to qualify for the playoffs?
Perhaps they will if they win their remaining seven A-League fixtures – but that seems about as likely as Ange Postecoglou coaching a Chinese Super League club.
Yet if the finals were to start today, the Wanderers would have qualified for the top six on the back of an insipid display in Perth and a negative goal difference.
It’s not like the Wanderers might be the only team to benefit from a finals system that rewards mediocrity.
Since the six-team finals series was introduced in 2009-10, no less than four teams – the Newcastle Jets, Wellington Phoenix, Perth Glory and Brisbane Roar – have all qualified for the finals despite all losing a staggering 13 games during the regular season.
The Wanderers are on track to match that unwanted record, even if history shows that only two teams have qualified for a grand final after finishing a premiership campaign outside the top two.
After finishing third in the 2005-06 and 2011-12 seasons respectively, both the Central Coast Mariners and Perth Glory went on to lose the title decider.
And there’s been nothing in the recent past to suggest that run is likely to change any time soon, with last season’s fifth and sixth-place finishers, the Perth Glory and Melbourne Victory, exiting in the first week of the finals.
The crux of the matter, however, is not the fact that teams might qualify for the finals on the back of losing campaigns.
The problem is that the A-League is in stasis, with the game’s governing body seemingly crippled by a case of performance anxiety.
A six-team finals series arguably made more sense in 2009 when Gold Coast United and North Queensland Fury had just been added to the league and Melbourne Heart were soon to follow.
But since then we’ve gone backwards, shedding two clubs and adding only one more – the Wanderers.
And if the FFA is going to prevaricate on the topic of expansion, with no criteria in sight, then the least they could do is re-jig a finals series which features 60 per cent of the teams that started the regular season.
It’s not like the first week of the finals typically attract big crowds – attendances for the elimination finals have been atrocious recently – so FFA can hardly point to the bottom line as the only reason for a six-team series, even if they do keep the gate receipts.
However, it’s hard to escape the feeling that when it comes to the big issues, the FFA is too cautious to pull the trigger.
It certainly felt that way when the Wanderers were handed a $20,000 fine for the Red and Black Bloc’s offensive Sydney derby banner, despite a suspended points penalty hanging over their heads.
Given that it took the Wanderers an entire week to apologise to Sydney FC coach Graham Arnold, the message from headquarters seems to be, “mess up and we’ll give you another chance… then another one, and possibly another one after that.”
And while there’s no point being negative for the sake of negativity, when it comes to sending the right message, the FFA often seems to be nowhere to be found.
It’s taking away from the football on the pitch – on a weekend in which Sydney FC, Wellington Phoenix, Melbourne Victory and Perth Glory all turned in impressive performances.
The F3 derby was likewise an entertaining encounter, however Mariners coach Paul Okon was right when he told Fairfax Media the game deserves more than a Sunday afternoon slot every time.
And if the FFA wants to get the critics off their back, they should make some more changes next season – starting with making the finals series a straight shootout between the top four.
Mandrake
Guest
Its bizarre but wont change. TV money for one but the beauty of low scoring soccer is that a team can get the odd penalty (hello this year) and win even if they finish sixth. It means that all teams are still in the running right up till the end with six out of ten finalists whereas the AFL, Super Rugby and NRL (to a lesser extent) finalists are finalized weeks out from the finals so much so that the AFL are thinking of a rejig though in fairness they would have a 10 team finals series out of 18 to line up with six out of ten for soccer. If A league sixth who have lost more than won win it will be a triumph though others may see it as a joke.
reuster75
Guest
If you adopt a top four model then you could have two-legged sem-finals played out over two weekends - that would satisfy fox and FFA as they would still have same number of games as now. It would also likely generate at least as much revenue for FFA from gate receipts as a top six does if not more (given the likelihood of greater crowds in weekend 1 than the elimnation finals currently draw)
Arto
Guest
Sorry, can't resist... is that a case of ignorance = bliss??!! ?
Arto
Guest
It's about rewarding mediocrity in the sense that the Finals have a direct correlation to the regular season. Take away the filter of regular season performance (at least to the extent it is in place today) via opening up the Finals to every team and they gain a legitimacy of their own as almost all Cup competitions around the world have. One solution could be for FFA separated the A-league season into 2 separate competitions with the only link being in relation to a seeding system for an 'A-League Cup' with a group stage prior to SFs & GF (2 groups of 5 - eventually 2x6/7 with expansion).
Arto
Guest
Not necessarily more 'revenue', but arguably more 'profit' given FFA is also the one's who foot the bills of stadium hire, security, marketing, and other associated match day costs. If the preliminary finals aren't so well attended the profit would be marginal if at all.
punter
Guest
One is the Premiership winner, other sporting codes have the premiership, best team in the competition that year. Then you have the champions of the finals series or Knockout competitions, unless they win the double, there is a dispute on who it is the best team I have no doubt, but yes Rainbird, this is confusing for many others.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
"Give up. Try to read more, listen to people who know a particular subject & you will learn more" Yes, but you were 100 per cent certain juries do not decide civil law damages, despite claiming to have a law degree. "I presume you are competent in your line of work" You know I am. I bit#h slapped you last time you entered the medical world challenging my comments before running away. No one with legal expertise makes this statement: "Perhaps, the Clubs could argue it is a restraint of their trade. However the Clubs voluntarily sign an Agreement to comply with the Salary Cap." ...no one.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
That is also true, but removing (replacing, lifting, or doing anything else to) the cap is another argument entirely.
Thomas Roar
Roar Rookie
How about we continue to promote to the public that the A-league regular series and the A-league finals series are completely 2 separate competitions. Then we wouldn't have this argument of ditching the top 6 finish. A final series, if perceived as a separate competition, would require more than just 4 teams, 6 teams in a knock-out competition sounds reasonable.
Nemesis
Guest
Rick, it's pointless trying to educate you. You are so far removed from reality it's quite ridiculous. Every discussion you start with a germ of an idea that you picked up on Wikipedia or some Google search, or just had a thought bubble and you then cling to that idea trying to form arguments on the fly and try to convince the world you can debate any topic. The bottom line is: you don't understand the basic concepts of Contract Law, so you are just fumbling your way around like a teenager on a 1st date. Give up. Try to read more, listen to people who know a particular subject & you will learn more. I presume you are competent in your line of work & I'd assume you know more about your work than people who are not in your line of work.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
"Stop quoting the AFL. The AFL is a Mickey Mouse 1 competition for the whole world of professional Aussie Rules."You should know by now these comments are wasted on me, they just lesson whatever point you're trying to make. "From what I’ve read, the AFL holds the player contracts to prevent AFL Clubs & players forming their own league outside the AFL." At least you acknowledge player contracts are also held with the AFL. There are many reasons for this, not just the ones I mentioned, but we can now move on. "I do know the Players have contracts with the Club only. As I said it’s basic contract law. Refer to Case Law relating to contract disputes (they’re available & I know you love to use Google) involving ALeague players and you will see the FFA is not the defendant. It’s the Club." This is where you hang yourself. Unless you can provide every contract dispute, you can't possibly know if a case hasn't been made against FFA. Why? Because I can once again refer to the AFL. Paddy Ryder was going to take legal action against the EFC two years ago if they didn't allow him a trade to the PAFC, not the AFL. Therefore it's perfectly plausible the above scenario you presented above would allow for this, despite possibly having a primary contract with FFA also. "There is no Restraint of Trade issue. Why? Because when a contract is being negotiated the player has the opportunity to walk away & continue his professional career in hundreds of leagues around the world." I'm pretty certain that sounds like BS. Considering your blunders in the past when it comes to law, the above really doesn't make sense. I'd be interested if anyone with legal expertise would back that comment up. Even so, it matters little to this argument...unless of course you can show players don't also have contracts with FFA, which you've been unable to do. "However the Clubs voluntarily sign an Agreement to comply with the Salary Cap." Now I know you have no idea. It doesn't work like that Fuss. If this were the case, no salary cap around the world would have question marks over their legality. Since this is not the case, I think someone has been found wanting.Nemesis
Guest
Nope. I do know the Players have contracts with the Club only. As I said it's basic contract law. Refer to Case Law relating to contract disputes (they're available & I know you love to use Google) involving ALeague players and you will see the FFA is not the defendant. It's the Club. Stop quoting the AFL. The AFL is a Mickey Mouse 1 competition for the whole world of professional Aussie Rules. From what I've read, the AFL holds the player contracts to prevent AFL Clubs & players forming their own league outside the AFL. Football doesn't have this issue. If the Players & Clubs decided to form their own competition, they can. But they will lose their FIFA registration & that means they'll never play international football and never play for any other league that has FIFA accreditation (which are all the pro football leagues in the world). There is no Restraint of Trade issue. Why? Because when a contract is being negotiated the player has the opportunity to walk away & continue his professional career in hundreds of leagues around the world. Perhaps, the Clubs could argue it is a restraint of their trade. However the Clubs voluntarily sign an Agreement to comply with the Salary Cap. The world of AFL is nothing like the world of Football. Until you figure this out you will never grasp Football concepts.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
So in summary: you don't know if players have primary contracts with FFA along side their club contracts. If the AFL does it for salary cap reason, it stands to reason FFA may do the same thing. The links you provided do not answer my question. In fact, if I used the same logic for the AFL, I would come to the conclusion the clubs are the sole holders of player contracts, which just isn't true.
Nemesis
Guest
I thought you would be able to put facts together to form a conclusion. I was wrong. You don't have the capacity. I provided the front cover to show you that the CBA is a contract between a) FFA; and b) PFA The Clubs are not involved The Clubs sign a Participation Agreement with the FFA to play Aleague and the Participation Agreement binds the ALeague clubs to the terms of the CBA. This is basic contract law. It's not complicated. I'm sorry, but I don't have patience for people who don't follow the bread crumbs I leave.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
"I know you enjoy arguing for the sake of trying to prove you are able to grasp issues beyond your expertise." You ever wonder why most people think you're a complete @#$%er on this site? It's because of comments like this. I simply asked a question. I don't know the answer, nor am I pretending to know the answer. You're now resorting to comments like this because I'm challenging your information. You retort with links like this: https://goo.gl/photos/ZsmBP5bS55HKMBLc8 Really?.. but you can find a link to its front cover. I'm not even sure why you provided this link. It's a front cover! You go further by saying: "The Clubs are not Privy to this Agreement", but you somehow are, by downloading it no less — yet magically it's been lost...just not its front cover! "The Clubs enter a Licence Agreement with the FFA that allows them the right to participate in the ALeague." Who cares! This has nothing to do with what I'm asking, nor does it provide an answer to my questions. It's called 'padding' an argument with BS! It's like your last link: https://goo.gl/photos/sYLGdqk9Gwb5MPBq7 This still doesn't answer my question, so stop providing rubbish links. I want to know if there is a contract between the players and FFA, which is why I supplied the AFL's CBA to show how they structure their contracts. Try reading it instead of dissing it, or saying: "This is football. Not AFL." "This is not complex. It’s HSC Legal Studies." I didn't do Legal Studies at HSC level. I did real subjects: Maths 1, Maths 2, English, Chemistry and Physics, which didn't get scaled down — Legal Studies did & was for the less adept students. Let me reiterate what you've provided in your argument: a #@$*ing front cover! Well done sir. Go away Fuss.
Onside
Guest
Realfootball, trouble is football stories on the Roar are rarely about football They are mainly about crowd issues, how many teams play in finals, all that. But if it's about tactics , team formation, one player is selected over another, then pretty much nothing , coaches decisions,very few clicks or points of view. One reason might be that even though HAL supporters love the game, most only played it at junior level ,were coached by somebody's dad, and never either understood or needed to understood tactics. Most HAL supporters as kids never had access to EPL on FOX, do not really understand the games subtleties, and have not the foggiest about whether a HAL team should play a 442 or a 343 ,or whatever. Not only that, most cannot recognize structural changes as the game unfolds. This will take a couple of generations to evolve. In the meantime it must frustrate the likes of Nemesis, who wants to discuss the game, its tactics , selections, but has a very small audience that appreciate footballs subtleties. ... and so it goes.
Nemesis
Guest
Background to the 2008-2013 ALeague Collective Bargaining Agreement Highlighted section is particularly relevant. https://goo.gl/photos/sYLGdqk9Gwb5MPBq7
Nemesis
Guest
1) I didn't read any of the stuff you wrote about AFL because it's irrelevant & I'm not interested 2) The CBA is a Collective Bargaining Agreement between the PFA and the FFA. The Clubs are not Privy to this Agreement (I've attached a snapshot of the contract cover of the CBA for 2008-2013 https://goo.gl/photos/ZsmBP5bS55HKMBLc8) I downloaded the document as a pdf years ago. You'll have to search for the link if you think I've photo-shopped the cover. But, the CBA is between the FFA & PFA. The Clubs are not involved. 3) The Clubs enter a Licence Agreement with the FFA that allows them the right to participate in the ALeague. 4) I do not have a copy of the ALeague Licence Agreement. As far as I know no one in the Media has even seen a copy because no one has ever reported clearly on the terms of the Licence Agreement. 5) The ALeague Licence Agreement will contain a clause that makes each club bound by the ALeague Competition Rules & Regulations set out by the FFA in the Licence Agreement. And the CBA will be one of the Rules & Regulations for participating in the ALeague. I know you enjoy arguing for the sake of trying to prove you are able to grasp issues beyond your expertise. I've been willing to humour you with this thread, now I'm done. If you can't understand something as basic as a CBA & Licence Agreement you shouldn't be trying to discuss contract law.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
I'll ask you again. Do you have a PDF copy of the CBA referencing this: "The Clubs enter a contract with the FFA to abide by the FFA’s Rules & Regulations." ...are you sure the player does not have a collective contract with FFA? My understanding as to why the AFL holds player contracts (as well as the clubs) is to minimise the chance of the PA challenging them in court for restraint of trade. If a player demands greater money when renewing their contract,, but is denied due to salary cap issues from the club (if this case could be made) the AFL has systems in place to allow a player transfer to another club. The AFL as a whole is therefore far greater than any club, mitigating the chances of litigation against them. Ben McDevitt (head of ASADA at the time) explained this very principal a few years back at a conference in Switzerland explaining why the AFL holds player contracts — his primary concern during this seminar was random in-house drug testing, but he did make a side issue of this important fact. So when you say, "There is no restraint of trade issue", this is just not true. The A-League would have the same issues as the AFL, along with any club. You'll have to excuse me for not believing your expert legal knowledge either. Here is a working example of what I'm talking about: http://www.aflplayers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/CBA-2012-2016-FINAL.pdf Read Terms and Conditions of Employment (page 14) You will see AFL player contracts are not only held with the clubs, but also the AFL for some of the reasons stated above. Once again, if you can provide clear knowledge of restraint of trade and exactly how player contracts are structured...please do so. If you don't know, please stop providing inaccurate information.
Nemesis
Guest
"I’m curious how the A-League, its clubs, FFA & the PFA deal with restraint of trade issues associated with a salary cap" You answered your own question with your comments on the CBA. The Clubs enter a contract with the FFA to abide by the FFA's Rules & Regulations. There is no restraint of trade issue. Players are not restrained - they can move wherever they want & earn whatever they want. The restraint is on the clubs who are limited in the amount they can spend. If Clubs don't want to be stifled by the CBA - or by any other FFA Rule or Regulation - they will not enter Licence Agreement with the FFA to play in the ALeague. So, Club A negotiates with Player X: We will pay your $200k per year for 2 years. Do you want to sign for us? Player X says: a) Yes b) No Player X is not being restrained in any shape, or form. This is not complex. It's HSC Legal Studies.