aussieshorter

@Shahanga I read the Crawford Report years ago, but you're right that we need to learn from the past. and be careful that we don't make the same mistakes. I like to think my suggested model already does that to a degree, given that the A-League has worked in building a professinoal league, and I've given some protection to that in the form of Professional Licenses and no relegation below the A2 League. Not to mention that if/when discussions on the new model are had by those who make the decisions, it should include the FFA, PFA, A-League clubs, State Federations, NPL clubs, etc., so the lessons from the past should be in that room.

I've had a few people contact me and I'm aware that some others with more influence than me have read it. At this stage for me it's just about getting it out there and hopefully starting the discussion.

You've nailed a few of the comments that frustrate me the msot in these types of discussions On Expansion: I don’t think anyone would argue that 10 is the right number of teams for the A-League, but my view is that expansion is a band-aid fix. Let’s talk about a few of the benefits if expansion is done in isolation: Additional professional spots for players (if two teams, around 40 new Australian spots created) An extra Australian coach or two at the top level More games per season Added interest for the fans (temporarily) Probably more derby games (depending on the location of the expansion clubs) (Minimal) additional value from the TV Deal All of those are good things. But here’s a list of things that isolated expansion would also bring: A subjective and ambiguous selection process that results in multiple bids being rejected and ill-will created (does anyone expect the FFA to conduct an open and transparent process?) Potential investment into the game being turned away when the failed bids disappear More irrelevant games at the bottom of the table each season The added interest for fans will only be temporary. In a few years, the same conversations that involve the words ‘stale’ and ‘boring’ will be had. In effect, the added interest from a fan point of view is a novelty only Increased resentment from the rest of the football pyramid who still feel excluded and ignored (which is exactly what they are) Increased animosity between stakeholders in the game who should be working together Expansion by itself doesn’t address any of the real problems in Australian football, and if anything, makes some of them worse. I am absolutely in favour of expanding the A-League, but only as a small part of a much larger answer. On Financial Stability: What does a ‘financially stable’ club look like? How do we define it? If the big goal is to make sure all our elite clubs are financially stable, why has no one asked the following question – how will we know when we get there? If your answer is that the league must be structured in a way that allows all clubs to spend within their means, I think we’re already at that point. The problem is that it’s down to the management of the individual club as to how they do that. Should we punish not only the other A-League clubs, but all football in Australia, because a particular management team performs poorly? And we only need to look at the big football leagues around the world to see that a significant number of clubs rely heavily on rich owners to cover ‘losses’ (side note – why do we think about them as losses? Let’s reframe our thinking on this. It’s not a loss, it’s an investment made by the owner). In a competitive environment, where clubs are continually under pressure to keep up with the other clubs, we will always see decisions made by club management that are in direct opposition to ‘financial stability’. Any team could cut their staff numbers, marketing budget, let their expensive players go and replace with cheaper alternatives, all in an effort to cut costs. But it won’t happen and nor should it. But we can’t put a hold on progress because of poor club management. On top of that, even if you can define financial stability, the reality is that we will never reach it. In a competitive environment, any additional revenue will just result in additional expenditure. A bigger TV deal won’t make a club financially viable, it’ll increase that club’s ability to spend money. It doesn’t force a club to spend less than it earns in revenue. A club with income of $2M can go bankrupt just as easily as a club earning $100M if the wrong management team is in place. And finally, this whole argument is only important if you’re assumption is for the A-League to remain closed, and for the current clubs to be the entire future of our elite game. With a shift in thinking (which is the whole point of my article), it becomes obvious that if a club makes poor financial decisions or goes beyond its means, there are clubs waiting to take their place. In fact, it’s another way to drive professionalism and strive for better-run clubs, because those that aren’t at that level will be left behind.

Thanks for sharing, and I'll try to answer any questions that come up. I agree with your comments on the salary cap holding back the quality of the A-League, and I think I've touched on it when I talk about the successful teams being punished each year. Another point that I need to add is that removing the salary cap isn't only about spending more on better players, it's also about allowing clubs to replace the players who haven't worked out. The salary cap forces the clubs to wait until those players leave after their contracts are up before they can be replaced. On your point about 'why', I want to focus on the A3 league because to me that's one of the most important points. If we assume that only a second division will be implemented, it will either be fully professional or semi-professional - it can't be both. And yet we need both. A professional second division is needed because if our goal is to increase the number of professional clubs in Australia, we can't have a professional club relegated directly to a semi-professional league. It might not kill the club, but it can only hurt it. We need that professional second division as a buffer. And we also need a semi-professional league to bridge the gap between the Professional Leagues and all the State Leagues (currently there are eight). It's ridiculous to think a semi-professional club playing in a tier among ~100 other clubs can jump straight into a professional league. We need both, and the ultimate 'why' is because we are aiming to increase the number of professional clubs in Australia. On your other question about why we should link to amateur clubs, it's because of the incentive it creates. The amateur clubs are only amateur clubs at a point in time (right now), but there's no reason to assume none of them couldn't be professional clubs if given the chance. It also takes the responsibility off the FFA and puts it on the clubs. To give an example, the FFA could choose two new A-League clubs for the 2018/19 season. That would create two professional clubs, and that's it. Or the FFA could create two new A-League expansion PLACES and say that the top two clubs from the division below the A-League (A2 in my model) will win those places, but only if they meet a set of criteria. All of a sudden you have 10, or 12 clubs becoming more professional (to meet the criteria) in the HOPE that they win those places. The simple act of creating the opportunity encourages investment that otherwise might not happen. For a bold and ambitious model like the one I'm suggesting to work, it also needs the support and backing from all stakeholders in the game. The best way to get their backing is to include them in the structure. We need unity, and a closed structure creates division.