Jump to content
Melbourne Football

The APL/FA Management Thread


thisphantomfortress
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, belaguttman said:

If doing the job includes giving a voice to all the stakeholders in the game then how could an all male or all female board do this?

It's like having a board without a players rep on it

A "voice for all stakeholders" does not mean that every single sub-group - often self-identified - has a separate person sitting on the highest committee managing the game. You'll have a committee so large that it will never resolve anything.

What is required is the smallest number of people who can and do effectively represent all stakeholders. If that means a woman representing men's football or a man representing women's football then I'm quite comfortable with that. What counts is that they do the job, not who they are or what they are.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bt50 said:

I'd love to peak at the books one day and find out exactly where all the FFA money goes tbh.

Think of the bowling ball scene from the Alcohol Probation episode in The Simpsons..... except the bowling ball system is only one-way, the alcohol is money from the clubs, and it goes straight into Lowy's personal Safe at his house

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

FFS

https://myaccount.news.com.au/sites/heraldsun/subscribe.html?sourceCode=HSWEB_MRE170_a_FBK&mode=premium&dest=http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/football/a-league/aleague-grand-final-melbourne-city-wont-be-able-to-host-decider-at-aami-park-if-melbourne-derby-eventuates/news-story/fb1538e65874996fbe7bf197151e74ec&memtype=anonymous

A-League grand final: Melbourne City won’t be able to host decider at AAMI Park if Melbourne derby eventuates
DAVID DAVUTOVIC, Herald Sun
an hour ago
Subscriber only
MELBOURNE City will be robbed of home-ground advantage if they host the A-League grand final against local rivals Melbourne Victory.

City-hostile Etihad Stadium has been confirmed as the venue if City reaches its first ever A-League grand final, despite AAMI Park’s availability.

A Melbourne derby grand final is the only way City can host the May 5 showpiece, if City and Victory pull off semi-final upsets against Newcastle Jets and Sydney FC respectively.

MAUK: ‘We’ve got a lot of winners’

SOCCEROOS: Arzani right in the mix

Wins to City and Sydney FC would see the Sky Blues host the final at Allianz Stadium, while a historic first final in Newcastle would take place if the Jets and Victory prevailed.

Victory has a strong advantage at the Docklands venue, winning six of their 12 duels, with City winning three and three draws (scoring 16 goals and conceding 23).

Melbourne City’s Stefan Mauk in action against Brisbane Roar in their elimination semi-final.
The silver lining for City is that they won their last encounter at Etihad Stadium, the 2-1 win in Round 2 when Marcin Buszinski and Bruce Kamau cancelled out Leroy George’s goal.

Their only finals encounter finished in a comprehensive 3-0 win in 2014-15 when Besart Berisha, Kosta Barbarouses and Archie Thompson did the damage.

Football Federation Australia confirmed on Monday night Etihad would host a Melbourne derby grand final to ensure an extra 25,000 fans could attend.

“If it’s a Melbourne derby grand final, the game will be at Etihad on Saturday night,’’ A-League chief Greg O’Rourke said.

Melbourne City’s Tim Cahill (right) and Melbourne Victory’s Rhys Williams compete for the ball the last time the teams met at Etihad Stadium, in October last year.
“This optimises our ability to have as many Melburnians as we can get attending the grand final as we believe the demand will outstrip the capacity at AAMI Park.

“We understand that their preference would be at AAMI Park but the grand final is the pinnacle of our season and we want to make sure it’s open for as many numbers to attend as we can.”

City coach Warren Joyce was at pains to say he was focused on this week, although admitted it would be disappointing not to be able to play at home if a Melbourne blockbuster unfolds.

Things get heated in the clash between Melborune Victory and Melbourne City at Etihad Stadium last October.
“Obviously our focus is on preparing for this week’s match and we’re looking no further than Friday. Of course we’d be delighted to progress to the grand final and if we play a team who finished below us on the ladder, our preference would have been to have played at AAMI Park,” Joyce said.

Hunter Stadium is expected to draw at least 25,000 for Friday’s elimination final, with almost 13,000 sold on Monday night. Tickets will go on sale to the general public on Tuesday.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nevertheless IMO there's a strong case for sticking to the general idea that the highest-placed team making the GF has home ground advantage. Maybe the person who's been with the club through thick and thin, i.e. City members, should get consideration before a few blow-ins who might rock up to a GF just to see what it's like, and then not go near the A-League again until City or Victory make it next time?

If Newcastle meet Victory in the GF no doubt they'll host it in Newcastle (capacity 33,000). So why not City at AAMI?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Nevertheless IMO there's a strong case for sticking to the general idea that the highest-placed team making the GF has home ground advantage. Maybe the person who's been with the club through thick and thin, i.e. City members, should get consideration before a few blow-ins who might rock up to a GF just to see what it's like, and then not go near the A-League again until City or Victory make it next time?

If Newcastle meet Victory in the GF no doubt they'll host it in Newcastle (capacity 33,000). So why not City at AAMI?

I agree.

I can see the FFA's position financially but personally I feel like you're compromising the fairness of the league (which should be paramount IMO) by holding it at the lower teams's ground, the higher finisher should be rewarded regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

If FFA had even a cursory look at the metrics they'd see that AAMI hasn't been filled for the derbies, there's little advantage to shifting the game to Shitihad Stadium and expecting >30,000 people to attend

With due respect, they'll sell a derby Grand Final at Etihad out no problems.

Edited by bt50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

If FFA had even a cursory look at the metrics they'd see that AAMI hasn't been filled for the derbies, there's little advantage to shifting the game to Shitihad Stadium and expecting >30,000 people to attend

Well if there was ever a season to dissapoint with attendances this is the one 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jovan said:

What was Adelaides position on their grand final being played at not their home ground? 

Its most likely not going to happen that is 2 upsets but still we can ponder.

Probably didn't object. It's not quite the same scenario because Adelaide's opponents on that day were Western Sydney Wanderers, and the Adelaide Oval is not Wanderers' home ground.

Docklands is Victory's preferred home ground for all their "big" matches. That's why it's an issue in a match between City and Victory.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

As long as it isn't just a money-saving move from the FFA who use international breaks as a justification to reduce the season to 23 rounds

Nah, its just to stop the Nix from selling their license ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

Do you really think that a Shitihad Grand Final would attract 50,000 this season? I'd love to see it but I seriously doubt it

You don't think the sporting capital of the world would sell out an a-league a derby grand final at eithiad? 

Ye of little faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

This season, no. In the past and hopefully in the future, yes.

And IMO it's not the only thing that needs to be looked at if we continue with the "finals" system. At least for the Elimination Finals I'd like to see memberships cover admission for the home clubs, together with "corporate box memberships." Kind of irks me to see all those corporate boxes unoccupied (and all the names removed) once the regular season finishes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/ffa-set-to-permit-loan-moves-between-a-league-clubs-20180522-p4zgvt.html

IMO this is a tiny step in the right direction but in typical FFA fashion there are a layer of restrictions. 

Only Australian players, only A-league players, only those aged under 23 and only for a season. There are still no loan/transfer fees. 

As Didulica (PFA) says, this is a zero-sum game because a young player moving to another club just blocks another young player at that destination club. 

Repealing one stupid rule, every ten years seems to be the FFA's method. Maybe in 2050 we will have the salary cap abolished. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Harrison said:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/ffa-set-to-permit-loan-moves-between-a-league-clubs-20180522-p4zgvt.html

IMO this is a tiny step in the right direction but in typical FFA fashion there are a layer of restrictions. 

Only Australian players, only A-league players, only those aged under 23 and only for a season. There are still no loan/transfer fees. 

As Didulica (PFA) says, this is a zero-sum game because a young player moving to another club just blocks another young player at that destination club. 

Repealing one stupid rule, every ten years seems to be the FFA's method. Maybe in 2050 we will have the salary cap abolished. 

I must be dumb, but I can't see what this achieves that isn't possible now. Players of any age can be and are released all the time from A-League clubs and then sign for another. Our John Roberts for example. Releasing him meant we could sign another and presumably more promising replacement to a Scholarship contract - Najjar. If a club values a player so highly that it wishes to loan him rather than release him, then perhaps he ought to be getting more game time anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

I must be dumb, but I can't see what this achieves that isn't possible now. Players of any age can be and are released all the time from A-League clubs and then sign for another. Our John Roberts for example. Releasing him meant we could sign another and presumably more promising replacement to a Scholarship contract - Najjar. If a club values a player so highly that it wishes to loan him rather than release him, then perhaps he ought to be getting more game time anyway?

I dunno i think you could look at someone like Arzani in the opening month, or even last season. He was still highly rated, but I would have struggled to make a case for him in the match day squad when you looked at the players he was up against. These kids don't have the benefit of exposed form at the level that more senior players do, so they often dont get the opportunity until injuries strike.

Last season would have been a good example where we could have perhaps farmed him out to CCM for six weeks at the end of the season, giving him a chance to play at the level, boosting the CCM side and us ensuring our 'asset' remained ours, and got a bit of valuable experience in the mean time.

I appreciate the argument re releasing players to other clubs, but i kinda feel that's not necessarily optimal, and doesnt encapsulate the youth with more ability either. For example, John Roberts wasn't able to break in as striker when we didnt have one and played Bud there, nor was he able to at WSW whereas Arzani would have almost certainly have played at other clubs last season had he been allowed, but we were never going to let him go for nothing unless he was absolutely demanding to, and even then, he's risking his future by leaving the club that can get him the best pathway to Europe.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, bt50 said:

I dunno i think you could look at someone like Arzani in the opening month, or even last season. He was still highly rated, but I would have struggled to make a case for him in the match day squad when you looked at the players he was up against. These kids don't have the benefit of exposed form at the level that more senior players do, so they often dont get the opportunity until injuries strike.

Last season would have been a good example where we could have perhaps farmed him out to CCM for six weeks at the end of the season, giving him a chance to play at the level, boosting the CCM side and us ensuring our 'asset' remained ours, and got a bit of valuable experience in the mean time.

I appreciate the argument re releasing players to other clubs, but i kinda feel that's not necessarily optimal, and doesnt encapsulate the youth with more ability either. For example, John Roberts wasn't able to break in as striker when we didnt have one and played Bud there, nor was he able to at WSW whereas Arzani would have almost certainly have played at other clubs last season had he been allowed, but we were never going to let him go for nothing unless he was absolutely demanding to, and even then, he's risking his future by leaving the club that can get him the best pathway to Europe.

It would have benefited Arzani and City/CCM but what about the young blokes at CCM? They'd be forced to compete with yet another player. It is a zero-sum game. 

Makes more sense in a two-division system where bigger clubs can loan to smaller clubs but we are so far away from that. In a closed, 10-team league it doesn't make sense to me. 

It just smacks of FFA ceding ground to placate the stakeholders without thinking things through or initiating proper reform. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Harrison said:

It would have benefited Arzani and City/CCM but what about the young blokes at CCM? They'd be forced to compete with yet another player. It is a zero-sum game. 

Makes more sense in a two-division system where bigger clubs can loan to smaller clubs but we are so far away from that. In a closed, 10-team league it doesn't make sense to me. 

It just smacks of FFA ceding ground to placate the stakeholders without thinking things through or initiating proper reform. 

Can see where you are coming from, and yes it blocks those kids chances. However it broadens the horizons for the more talented players, so in that sense no, i dont think its a zero sum game as those kids are far more likely to make it given the chance than the ones further down the pecking order.

I dont disagree re the last sentence, but i do think its a half-step in the right direction. 

Edited by bt50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bt50 said:

Can see where you are coming from, and yes it blocks those kids chances. However it broadens the horizons for the more talented players, so in that sense no, i dont think its a zero sum game as those kids are far more likely to make it given the chance than the ones further down the pecking order.

Who can really say which kid will make it and which won't? I always think of a kid like Atkinson. So far down the nominal order at the start of the season (Muscat, Schenkeveld, Malik?, Pieiras then Atkinson) but has ended up the first-choice and earned a senior contract. If Muscat went down and we could/did loan in a 22-year-old from somewhere else then Atkinson getting that chance is a very slim possibility. Perhaps he would have at some point but it is difficult to say. The jump from youth to seniors is bloody difficult. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Harrison said:

Who can really say which kid will make it and which won't? I always think of a kid like Atkinson. So far down the nominal order at the start of the season (Muscat, Schenkeveld, Malik?, Pieiras then Atkinson) but has ended up the first-choice and earned a senior contract. If Muscat went down and we could/did loan in a 22-year-old from somewhere else then Atkinson getting that chance is a very slim possibility. Perhaps he would have at some point but it is difficult to say. The jump from youth to seniors is bloody difficult. 

Not any of us thats for sure. :D The gaffer's probably have the best idea, particularly in this case where you don't loan in another U23 player and select over you're own unless you clearly think they are better. In that case, that's the system working. If the gaffer's get it wrong, then your player either goes elsewhere (the system working) or falls into the pit, which was going to happen anyway as it stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • jw1739 changed the title to The APL/FA Management Thread
  • jw1739 pinned this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...