I think that is true with regards the tv rights, but from everything i have read in the media it was the FFA who negotited such a bad deal with sky tv, not Phoenix.

I think…and please correct me if i am wrong ….that the tv money is divided between the 10 clubs. The skytv money included but it is nowhere near 10% of the total. The result then is that by default phoenix take out from fox more than they put in with sky. Elsewhere they are paying their way. FFA accepted a poor deal and are now using that deal to pour blame n Phoenix and get rid of them.

The difference between Phoenix and your outback town is that your outback town wouldnt be given a team in the first place.

FFA consciously made a decision at admit a brand new team from Wellington, a relatively small city. You can’t honestly believe that when they did so they thought Phoenix would attract crowds and membership bigger than the Hurricanes? Or are they as stupid as they are starting to seem and thought that Wellington would attract membership from a pool of 4 000 000?

Wellington probably isnt big enough for professional football. But thenneither is gosford. Newcastle and adelaide dont really get big enough crowds for professional football either. And as for city….

I accept your point that there are domestic Australian areas overlooked in favour of NZ and I agree but I can’t see that there is an issue with expanding the league and still including Phoenix. As I repeatedly state, why would any business model get rid of a solid and stable performer?

I don’t know about the other codes but I would hazard a guess and say that the NZ teams in those codes are viable and paying their way. Just as the Phoenix are.

Part of the problem that you aren’t getting is that you (& the FFA) see Wellington as New Zealand. It isn’t. Its a relatively small city. Population around 400k.

That hasn’t changed significantly in the last 8 years so it should come as no surprise that its performance off field isnt at the level of most of the Australian clubs. If we judge off field performance per capita Phoenix blasts everyone else away. Members approx 400. Thats 1% Only Victory come close with a comparatively miserable 25000 out of 4.5 million. Frankly Sydney & Melbourne City should be ashamed of their membership numbers. City are a disgrace in that respect. What sort of crowds do the FFA want Phoenix to get? Rugby is a religion in NZ yet the hurricanes only get 13-15000. More than most of the clubs in the A league I admit, but you cant really expect the Phoenix to be at that level unless you expect say Victory to get similar crowds to Essendon or Collingwood.

There’s a lot of support for Phoenix in NZ but they dont go to games because the 8 hour drive (north or south) is way too much. They dont buy memberships because they cant go to games – the same as every other club.Spreading games around doesnt help because (a) it dilutes the home ground advantage and (b) Fans from Christchurch or Wellington arent going to go to Auckland or Hamilton in huge numbers either so the attendance will stay the same but with different attendees.

TV is the same. Of course the Fox figures for Phoenix are lower. Fox is Australian based it doesnt broadcast in NZ so the viewers will be halved. And it was the FFA that negotiated the deal with Sky TV not Phoenix. Why are they being blamed for the pittance it is? Games between 2 Australian teams will attract supporters from 2 teams in the ratings games with Phoenix won’t include viewers in NZ.

In actual fact from a business viewpoint Phoenix contribute in huge amounts – they are solid financially, they are competitive on the park and they add to the stability of the league. Having a league with 10 or 12 teams stable must be the aim. By getting rid of Phoenix the league is reduced to 10 teams 4 of which are unstable (if you include the NRL club mooted to replace it)

Judge everyone by the same criteria. In absolutely no way does Melbourne City contribute as much as Phoenix. anywhere.

I’m not sure what the NZ flag debate has to do with this but the Australian flag was modelled on the NZ flag – you are aware of that, right?

I can’t see a double standard in anything I have written. Phoenix DO have a sense of entitlement to be in the A League. Not 8 years ago but certainly now. To turn around and say “We dont want you for no reason other than we dont want you” really isn’t good enough and is pure arrogance.

As an aside, getting rid of Phoenix whilst three other clubs are struggling is an astonishingly bad business move – especially for an organisation that says “we are trying to expand”.

Interesting way to treat a guest, wouldn’t you say, Marcel?

We are no more “guests” than any of the other teams.

Which reinforces my comment elsewhere here about Australian arrogance.
“WE want you to help set up our league but once we think it is stable we don’t want you anymore”

That’s arrogant.

Perhaps read the whole thread re getting our own league. Newcastle & Central Coast are a mere stones throw away from a 4 million population market. Thats massive.

Bitter? yes.

the rest of your comment is wrong though. Half the league is struggling financially – it doesn’t make good sense to get rid off a team that is solid. And it is not dead wood. You want dead wood? Jets Mariners Melbourne City. Massive markets minimal impact.

This is a pretty arrogant article, and typical of Australian views on sport in general.

What i read above is “we needed you to help our new league take shape but now that we think we are solid you can bugger off cos we dont want you any more”

When admitting Phoenix to the league the FFA accepted the obligation to treat them just like every other team.. They were under NO obligation to include Phoenix once the Knights folded, and it would have a perfectly reasonable statement to say “the NZ experiment failed we won’t do it again”. But they didn’t. By the time Phoenix joined Australian had already joined AFC so any potential issues with that were already known. To cite AFC as the reason for getting rid of Phoenix now is simply wrong.

Phoenix should be treated like everyone else. They are a solid and competive club. Their membership should not even be questioned.

Wrong.

The FFA DOES have an obligation to them because they invited and encouraged them to be part of the league.

There has been two perfect opportunities to jettison NZ involvement in the A league – at the very beginning of the HAL and then two years later when the NZ Knights debacle ended.
Having invited Wellington on board and having accepted them for the past 8 seasons, FFA has an obligation to treat them the same as every other team. They accepted that obligation when they included them.

Typical arrogant Australian comment.

It will obviously surprise you to know that New Zealand has had a national league for nearly FIFTY years. 1970 was its first year. Years before Australia managed to create one. What New Zealand doesnt have is the population to sustain a professional league. And that isnt going to change in the near future. It seems to be becoming apparent that Australia doesnt have the population or interest to sustain a professional league either. Roar Jets Mariners all on their last legs, Fury and GCU already gone….

Oh and congratulations on your second national cup. Only 91 years behind New Zealand……

Gosh…. what a very Australian article this is!!!

To get to the final Australia have been Argentina and 5 nobodies. New Zealand have beaten Argentina France South Africa and 2 nobodies. Sure Australia look good…but they havent actually played anyone that has tested them…..since Eden Park. What happened there?

To be frank if you put the 15 Wallabies and the 15 All Blacks together as a squad and picked your starting XV, there would be 15 Wallabies on the bench.

All Blacks by 20+

Except that Smeltz didn’t “leave a foot in”. He poked at the ball and played it.
At no time did he pursue the ball in a dangerous manner. At no time were his studs up.

Did you think Fernandez left his head in tonight? Do you think he should have pulled out of the challenge?

I trust we will now have similar outpourings of venom against Guyon Fernandez for his reckless challenge on Tando Velaphi tonight.

There will be many here who will say he left his head in in the challenge and though it probably wasn’t intentional, he should have seen Velaphi coming and pulled out of the challenge. He owed Velaphi a duty of care, right?

Personally i think it was a challenge almost EXACTLY like Smeltz – two committed players going for the ball and the resulting collision causing injury.

It absolutely was a fair and legal challenge.

An injury resulting from a challenge does not automatically make the challenge illegal. In actual fact the speed with which Birighitti dived in contributed to most of the force in the challenge

Your comment is inconsistent – you point out (correctly IMO) that Smeltz “nipped” the ball with his toe but then you accuse his follow through of smashing the face of another player. “Smashed” implies force, “nipping” doesn’t

Firstly the correct decision from a refereeing perspective is a drop ball. Perhaps read the LOTG before slandering referees.

You will have to explain to me what you mean by “a ball up” I am not familiar with that term.

No foul was committed. So why would a free kick be given and why would a player be suspended?

The comments suggesting Smeltz should be suspended are laughable.

This was a 50:50 ball in which Brighitti knew he was putting himself in danger as he dived for it. Smeltz did nothing wrong. He went for the ball, he played the ball and it was Birighitti’s movement towards the ball which resulted in Smeltz’s follow through hitting him.

It was an awful incident with horrible consequences but to blame Smeltz is just folly.

I wonder how many here saw Kantarovski’s foul? Now THAT was a premeditated attack and one which should result in a suspension, but because there is no blood and no lasting injury it is being ignored.

Commenters here are reacting here to the severity of the injury and not the actual incident.

The bribery at FIFA has been going on for decades…long before Blatters time. The absurdity of the Qatar decision simply brought matters to a head. The events of the past week should have happened the day after that announcement, not four and a half years later.

Whilst I, along with every other football fan, rejoice at the news of Blatters demise, it does bring to a sad end a regime that has ultimately been good for the game. The development in Africa and Asia during Blatters rule has been sensational. The growth in interest in the world cup, the development at junior and youth levels…Blatter has been paramount in all this.

When my non-football acquaintances ask me how he can possibly continue to be re-elected i point out the good that he has done and how he developed allies around the world. Asias first world cup? blatter. Africas first world cup? Blatter Asia’s second world cup? Blatter

He will be remembered as a crook for sure but as football fans we should also remember he did a lot of good too.