The problem with that thinking is it relies on certain elements being set in stone and cannot be changed (ie Pro/Rel). When owners have no boundaries their natural tendancy will be to ask why would I vote for that if it going to hurt my club. If you are payign a $15m who would in their right mind choose to introduce pro/rel?

La Liga does not run for the benefit of La Liga its runs for the benefit of the top 3-4 clubs. Are you saying this is a good thing?

It wasn’t that long ago that talk of eliminating pro/rel in the EPL was being floated around by some of the foreign owners. And even this year Liga MX were talking about abolishing pro/rel for a period (4 years).

The truth is leagues being control by the clubs currently in them does not necessary equal good decisions for the league.

It a interesting point. The PFA has negiated one of the best deals posisble for the mens and womens national teams. There is little that the FFA can change about what is paid to the players.

The real impact will be to the other teams, Youth, Futsal, Training Camps etc.

I think what is really likely is a significant rise in the FFA fee that is charged to grass roots players (Current $12.60 Juniors and $25 seniors). This hasn’t changed for a number of years on the back of the A-league revenue growth. The loss of A-league revenue would see a need to increase this fee, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see it double within a few years.

I concur that Lowry has brought this on himself, he failed to sense the winds of change until too late and then failed again to navigate a path that would have satisfied all parties.

The A-league clubs will get a say on the makeup of the next FFA board but they won’t get the final say. At least 2-3 of the state fed would still need to vote for their choices for the board. In the end I would suspect that we will get a better board who will be more sympathetic to the A-league clubs but far from the rubber stamp that some on here think.

I do think the spinning out of the A-league into its own independent org will happen over the next 3-5 years but the real question around this will be what %/fee for affiliation will the FFA be able to negotiate. The A_league cannot be allowed to exit without some contribution coming back to FFA each year, how much will be interesting to see. Maybe 10% of gross revenue?

I am not sold on the idea of the A-league as a independent org at this time. I predict big issues here. The owners are not best people to run the league for football’s benefit. More likely to run it for the existing clubs benefit. New teams being charged $15m will help revenue in the short term but it creates a problem for them in terms of long term expansion, people paying $15m are not likely going to be open to the idea of pro/rel unless the new clubs are also finding $15m to join. It perpetuates the close shop mentality, similar to the issue that the MLS faces

I think the A_League owners are kidding themselves a little around the revenue. There is no way the A-league earns 85% of FFAs revenue, probably closer to 58-65% (I would guess around $75-80m) and I am not sure where they think a big uplift will come from. Sponsorships, Finals Gate Receipts, Merchanise are all not going to change very much. The TV rights are locked in for the next 5 years and it’s anybody guess at the moment if they can realise more in the next deal or not.

New teams being charged $15m will help in the short term but it creates a problem for them in terms of long term expansion, people paying $15m are not likely going to be open to the idea of pro/rel.

Thx Griffo

I agree lots of other things to throw into the mix when talking about youth development. Too many people focus on the NC alone. You have touched on one of the most important, football culture. Too many of our good players now are not spending enough time with the ball. Training 2-3 times per week is not enough, kids need to be playing in the school playground, parks after school and on weekends.

It’s bloody awful, has killed off the comments section on most article with only a few of the die hards now posting.

They need to do something quick to resolve it.

Thx Waz

And I din’t disagree that there are a lot of elements to football development that get overlooked with the NC often the scapegoat.

– The proposed model does not sufficiently broaden the membership of FFA at the outset – to this end, the FFA Board was supportive of the immediate admission of special interest groups including AAFC in light of the importance of NPL Clubs in the Australian football ecosystem

Then why the hell didn’t you include them in your original proposed model?

I agree with nearly all of FFA’s criticism of the CRWG model but FFA had their chance and blew it. They sound like whining children now

I don’t normally buy into the crowd numbers comments but what happened here? I would have thought with the recruiting Perth had done and the expectation that they were favourites to win this fixture it would have drawn at least 4-5K?

I know the weather wasn’t great but it still seems really disappointing.

I think that is what he is saying Nem, that current FFA congress will not accept it.

To be honest if I was a rep of any of the state feds I wouldn’t be accepting this. It provides too much power to the PFA and that cannot be good for grassroots football.

If the 29 members share there % allocations evenly

Each State Fed is allocated 6.1%
Each Club is allocated is 3.1%
PFA Member is allocated 7.0%
Each Womens Council Member is allocated 1.0%

I have had a quick read through and maybe i have missed it but it does not make it clear how the stakeholders votes are arrived at.

The 29 members is a bit of a furphy. The reality is the 58%/31%/10%/1% initial split (moving to 55%/28%/7%/10% once the womens council is accepted as a stakeholder).

For instance we have 9 state feds and they will have 55% of the vote. How is this 55% derived? 55 / 9 = 6.111% so can we can rule out a model that says each state gets the same allocation and an equal say? I am not sure.

The way the document reads is the state feds are treated as 1 stakeholder, one block of votes (ie the assumption is they all vote the same way in the congress). If that is true then how the state feds elect their rep/s to congress will be very interesting.I was really surprised to see them treated as 1 stakeholder rather than individual stakeholders.

Also the PFA seem to be the initial big winners out of this as they gain 7% plus the 3% initially from the womens council. Once the womens council is established as a stand alone stakeholder though it seems the PFA and Womens council would be close to equal in power with either having the swing vote (or they could work together with the clubs).

My initial thoughts is this hands too much power to the PFA initially. I would have liked to have seen a few more stakeholders included to spread the power base.

Note: This is from a quick read, maybe I have missed some details.

This is great news if true Mid, it should always have been more than the 14-16 that was being discussed 12 months ago. It the recommendation is 29 with others road-mapped to join then everybody should be embracing this.

Would still love to see the breakdown of the recommended spots though.

Cannot believe it hasn’t been leaked already.

Agreed, no argument from me there.

Ben this is all about the board. The congress elects the board. He who holds balance of power in the congress decides the makeup of the board and thus potentially the direction of the game (ie where and how the money is spent)

Have a look at the last board elections, the A-league clubs didn’t even bother putting up a candidate as the balance of power sits with the state feds by such a large margin there is no point.

Actually a year ago FFA model was rejected, this was the 9-3-1 model.
They wanted this because it allows them to reach the magic 60% even if NSW or Vic vote against what they want.

Vic and NSW broke ranks to reject this (as it marginalizes them). They wanted a 9-4-1-1 model,
They wanted this model because it makes them the swing voters increasing their power in the elections (assumign they can get one other state fed to vote with them) and makign them the King Makers.

the A-league clubs wanted 9-5-1-1
They wanted this and still do becaise if places the balance of power with them and the PFA. Board members cannot be elected without the clubs or pfa signing off on them. Something the FFA don’t want as they feel if provides too much power to the A-league.

If the reports are correct and the FFA are now willing to compromise to a 9-4-1-1 model then yes we have made some progress but this model has been on the tables since the start and FFA were dead against it back then as it does make Vic and NSW a lot more powerful.

Nem
You are making my point for me

“provided FIFA/AFC were fully involved”

FIFA establish the terms of reference, they forced the appointment of a independent chairperson.

Do you really think after being so heavily involved they will turn around and not accept the findings……won’t happen. It would be like saying we didn’t do our jobs properly.

Claudio
Yes these articles are 1 year old and it was exactly the same sticking point back then. The 1 seat makes a huge difference in such a small congress and to say we have come a long way is naive.

The maths is very simple

9 out of 16 seats = 56% which not enough to elect a board member
9 our of 15 Seats = 60% which is enough

FFA want a model that does not rely on the support of the A-league owners or PFA to elect the board. It is ALL about this and always has been

What they are looking for and what they will accept at two very different things.

There is no way that FIFA will reject the working group findings, you don’t appoint a working group, agree to a structure then throw out their findings (They wouldn’t have been submitted without FIFA knowing their content). Things just don’t work that way

Just one correction, it hasn’t come a long way. They have been arguing about 1 spot for the last 18mths.

It has always been about this 1 spot

Expansion yes, but not a open competition.

If the Owners are in direct control of the A-league do you really think they will vote for pro/rel? You are kidding yourself if you think that would be the case. We would see nearly a exact replica of the MLS with expansion based on commercial basis (we will expand if you pay us) but nobody is going to risk dropping out of the A-league.

As I have said above this is all about who holds the balance of power to elect the board. With such a small congress membership the balance can swing on a single vote.

Lowry is not only fearing his own spot but that the A-league Clubs will be handed too much power (a issue of his and his fathers own doing, as they have failed to spin out the A-League thus handing them a stronger position in these discussions.

Back in September when FIFA had reps out here, we were very close to having this all agreed. At the last minute FFA held one on one talks with a couple of Feds to derail it.

FIFA were fully involved in these talks and it was all around a 9-4-1 vs 9-4-1-1 vs 9-5-1-1 model. There was no talk back then of expanding it more than that. My understanding was that everybody had agreed on 9-5-1-1 and then FFA convinced some state stakeholders that this handed to much power to the clubs.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/football/fifa-a-step-closer-to-taking-over-ffa-after-meeting-to-resolve-the-voting-structure-finished-in-a-scoreless-draw/news-story/7d19c0a685a4e280c51a4d869dc236c7

https://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/football/2017/11/30/ffa-reform-rejected-fifa-may-step-in/

Of course if a normalisation committee is put in place I agree it could all start again and FIFA could push for a larger model.

That is not true Nem, FFA put forward 9-4-1 and that was rejected as a A-League clubs and a couple of the state feds were against it. If they had of agreed to 9-5-2 at the time FIFA would have signed off on it. As that is what the clubs and pfa wanted as well.

The 9-5-2 was the model that everybody agreed to late last year but then FFA lobbied hard for a some feds to reject it and ultimately it fell apart.

This is why I want to see the details. I really hope you are right and they are now proposing a bigger model but I suspect we are still arguing over 1 -2 seats.