Jump to content
Melbourne Football

An Independent Aleague


Dylan
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, jw1739 said:

IMO that's a narrow view. There are other similar leagues - e.g. the Swiss Super League and the Austrian Bundesliga - that face similar situations, and they have various formats. In the Swiss Super League the teams play each other four times, and the Austrian Bundesliga has a complicated format that is explained on Wikipedia. I just don't think that we have innovative thinkers at FFA. The game will not grow in this country if it continues to shut down for 6 months every year, because it simply disappears off the public's radar for that period, and we're all expected to get excited by such things as the release of memberships, the release of the fixture, the new season's kit etc. etc. We need to be playing at least 40 competitive matches each season to keep the interest alive.

I think it's narrow-minded to presume that Australians will hold their interest in a season that long when we live in a country spoiled for choice with so many other sports and other various ways to spend leisure time. 

I agree that the season should be longer than it currently is but certainly not to 40 competitive fixtures if it means teams sitting outside of finals contention by the 30th matchday end up drawing crowds barely scraping past 2,000 as they watch their team play a 4th fixture against a top side that's already beaten them three times. By that point, surely it's more damaging to the code to prolong that rather than keeping things as they are.

Basically I'm more in favour of waiting on bringing in more teams, forcing the league to extend its length of operation more naturally. In the mean time, there's still heaps of work to be done to grow/fix the game in the 6 months that it isn't shut down such as reintroducing active support, converting participation to attendance, attracting and securing talent and so forth. 

TLDR: More teams = more players = more incentive to attend matches = longer, happier and more competitive league

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 06/10/2019 at 9:11 PM, Nate said:

I think it's narrow-minded to presume that Australians will hold their interest in a season that long when we live in a country spoiled for choice with so many other sports and other various ways to spend leisure time. 

I agree that the season should be longer than it currently is but certainly not to 40 competitive fixtures if it means teams sitting outside of finals contention by the 30th matchday end up drawing crowds barely scraping past 2,000 as they watch their team play a 4th fixture against a top side that's already beaten them three times. By that point, surely it's more damaging to the code to prolong that rather than keeping things as they are.

Basically I'm more in favour of waiting on bringing in more teams, forcing the league to extend its length of operation more naturally. In the mean time, there's still heaps of work to be done to grow/fix the game in the 6 months that it isn't shut down such as reintroducing active support, converting participation to attendance, attracting and securing talent and so forth. 

TLDR: More teams = more players = more incentive to attend matches = longer, happier and more competitive league

You may be right - I just don't know. I'm hoping that whoever is going to run the League in the future is going to have the right ideas and the will to implement them. It might be my personal circumstances driving my feelings just now, but I sense that there's not a great deal of interest in this season already. Let's start by getting a proper, regular, home-and-away fixture - City having four weeks between consecutive home matches to me is just asking for people to lose interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
5 hours ago, citypool said:

I hope that we are going to see some further decisions and changes embodied into this new deal. Namely when the competition is played (summer, winter, in-between), getting a more regular home-away fixture, the days and times when we actually play, and so on. Do we really need to broadcast every single match? It's this obsession with every match that means we have the "graveyard" fixtures on days and at times that suit no-one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, malloy said:

AFR reporting that APL are seeking $100m-$150m in private equity investment for the league.

I know the investment being sought has previously been reported, but not sure the amounts have.

It’s interesting isn’t it? That would give the league money now but raise questions of the future.

The article I read suggested private equity would want to make a good return in say 3 years and then sell. Who would the second buyer be?

Also Presumably the league believes they have a good business model but are cash poor (ie they can’t fund their plans). Given the history of the A League I do wonder how it could all work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Shahanga said:

It’s interesting isn’t it? That would give the league money now but raise questions of the future.

The article I read suggested private equity would want to make a good return in say 3 years and then sell. Who would the second buyer be?

Also Presumably the league believes they have a good business model but are cash poor (ie they can’t fund their plans). Given the history of the A League I do wonder how it could all work.

To quote Alice, curiouser and curiouser...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Shahanga said:

It’s interesting isn’t it? That would give the league money now but raise questions of the future.

The article I read suggested private equity would want to make a good return in say 3 years and then sell. Who would the second buyer be?

Also Presumably the league believes they have a good business model but are cash poor (ie they can’t fund their plans). Given the history of the A League I do wonder how it could all work.

I don't fully understand it, but it seems to be a global push from the little I've read. The Bundesliga and New Zealand Rugby being two of the organisations who are considering it. Again from what I've read it seems the prime motive is to take over the broadcasting rights, merchandising, publicity, etc. but the threat is that the investments places a stranglehold on the organisation and simply bends it to its will. For example, Fox does that already with the A-League - hence the unsuitable fixturing in terms of fans who actually go to matches. New Zealand Rugby, for example, is wary of the haka being commercialised, and that the All Blacks will have to play pointless exhibition matches and thereby degrade the national team playing their national sport. In other words, the threat is that the investment leads to a circus.

The "quick return and then out" is really asset stripping and leaves the original asset even worse off than it was before. There is often no second buyer and it's off to the receivers and liquidators that we go. IMO the A-League should try to be self-sustaining without this circus investment, which has profit as its motive rather than the game itself. Steven Lowy may not have envisaged this when he issued those words "Be careful what you wish for" but whether he did or not it's worth repeating them now.

Edited by jw1739
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest on this topic I can find is that the Bundesliga clubs have voted against continuing talks with potential private equity "investors" and NZ rugby players have also mounted opposition to the idea, proposing an alternative in which investment would be offered to fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/05/2021 at 10:06 PM, Shahanga said:

It’s interesting isn’t it? That would give the league money now but raise questions of the future.

The article I read suggested private equity would want to make a good return in say 3 years and then sell. Who would the second buyer be?

Also Presumably the league believes they have a good business model but are cash poor (ie they can’t fund their plans). Given the history of the A League I do wonder how it could all work.

I've been reading some more, and it's all a bit murky. I think it's not so much the business model of the A-League that should concern us (does it really have one?) but rather more the business model of private equity. Private equity investors are not philanthropists. They are first and foremost looking at a steady and growing income from the investment by using their cumulative management skills that they believe are better than those of the present management, inflating the apparent value of the underlying asset, and then selling that asset. Their interest in the league itself is short-term - say 3-7 years - and is a self-interest motivated by profit, and that doesn't necessarily reflect the interests of other interested parties - such as staff, players and fans; it may do, but it may not. Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing that really bothers me about this is that APL has had control of the league only for one season and has had to deal with legacy issues and the COV-19 situation. Do those now in charge really know how to manage a league? It's all to easy to be dazzled by money dangled in front of the eyes - can they see past that 3-7 years time period (more likely 3-5 years) and understand the implications of getting it wrong?

At this stage I hope that they defer a decision and get a couple of years under their belts as we are now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...