A-Leagues & Football Australia General Chat and News Thread

[hey shorty]

See thats just wrong. Why let the richest club in the country, who are owned by the richest club on the planet, drain all the finance.

How do clubs like CCM, Newcastle and even Welly expect to revitalise their clubs if they see stuff like this going on.

I know we've asked the FFA for help too, but if what you say is true that won't be happening.

They've been bent over by Cahill Hysteria

 

[nobbyiscool]

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/article/2016/07/01/ffa-refuse-subsidise-holmans-league-move

The prospect of a homecoming for former Australia star Brett Holman has taken a hit, with Football Federation Australia refusing to dip into his newly-launched marquee fund to help Brisbane Roar finance his signing.

The ruling body is instead preparing to use much, if not all, of the multi-million dollar kitty – which will rise to $10 million after the signing of the new A-League TV rights deal – to help cash-rich Melbourne City sign Australia veteran Tim Cahill.

City are the only A-League club to have shown genuine interest in snaring Cahill, 36, despite him being offered to each of them, while Holman, who retired from international football with 63 caps ahead of the 2014 FIFA World Cup – has attracted interest from a number of clubs, with Brisbane the keenest of all.

(That was from 1 July.)

The bolded bit is how they'll justify it - the problem with that rationale is that City are the only club with $2-2.5m to offer themselves in addition to the FFA's ~1m.

 

[The City Boyz]

Far out. Imagine how big the first Melbourne Derby will be.

 

[hey shorty]

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/article/2016/07/01/ffa-refuse-subsidise-holmans-league-move



(That was from 1 July.)

The bolded bit is how they'll justify it - the problem with that rationale is that City are the only club with $2-2.5m to offer themselves in addition to the FFA's ~1m.

As Luke Beveridge would say....

That's disgusting.

 

[SloaneysDanger]

City have Fornaroli and Cahill up-front while we have Marc Marino as our only striker until we sign someone. It's ok though, we have millions to work with...

Lel.

 

[giggler99]

City have Fornaroli and Cahill up-front while we have Marc Marino as our only striker until we sign someone. It's ok though, we have millions to work with...

Lel.

Any truth in the Forlan to Adeliade rumors I keep hearing?

 

[hey shorty]

Any truth in the Forlan to Adeliade rumors I keep hearing?

I reckon this is why we went to the FFA. I hope not though, about 2 years too late IMO

 

[SloaneysDanger]

I have no confidence in the club to sign someone like Forlan, purely because we never have besides Romario (lol)

 

[nobbyiscool]

Far out. Imagine how big the first Melbourne Derby will be.

I can see Cahill crying like a little girl in the fallout from that game cos off the merciless treatment he'll get from Victory fans.

Up til now, I haven't really loved the first Melbourne derby being so early in the season - but the Cahill news now makes the Round 2 derby at Etihad a pretty major event.

 

[hey shorty]

I can see Cahill crying like a little girl in the fallout from that game cos off the merciless treatment he'll get from Victory fans.

Up til now, I haven't really loved the first Melbourne derby being so early in the season - but the Cahill news now makes the Round 2 derby at Etihad a pretty major event.

I think he will be genuinely shocked with some of the treatment he's going to get from alot of crowds. He isn't wearing his Socceroo jumper this time.

 

[MrPremiership]

Holman would not make one difference in terms of commercial $$$

That's why he isn't worthy of FFA $$$

 

[MrPremiership]

Some short term narrow views taken by the majority here.

The A-League needs something.....can Cahill bring it? Maybe.
Does CFG need $$ help? No.

But anything to bring the game to the masses is a good thing. Let's lift the league, not petty BS because its one club over another.

 

[nobbyiscool]

Holman would not make one difference in terms of commercial $$$

That's why he isn't worthy of FFA $$$

If that's the criteria, why not tell us?

Holman is a decorated former Socceroo, in 2010 he was the only guy in that Germany game who looked like he gave a shit. Doesn't he deserve support to come and finish his career back home? Isn't Holman (and Troisi for that matter) the exact kind of player the A-League was designed to attract home?

If we're talking about commercial appeal, how many players does that apply to? How does (hypothetically) Forlan have more commercial appeal than Brett Holman?

If the criteria is strictly players who could increase the tv rights deal, and who would forseeably come home, aren't we talking about a total of probably 1 current Socceroo? And if that's the case - isn't the whole thing a ****ing joke, cos we've created a "marquee fund" specifically for one player?

 

[MrPremiership]

If that's the criteria, why not tell us?

Holman is a decorated former Socceroo, in 2010 he was the only guy in that Germany game who looked like he gave a shit. Doesn't he deserve support to come and finish his career back home? Isn't Holman (and Troisi for that matter) the exact kind of player the A-League was designed to attract home?

If we're talking about commercial appeal, how many players does that apply to? How does (hypothetically) Forlan have more commercial appeal than Brett Holman?

If the criteria is strictly players who could increase the tv rights deal, and who would forseeably come home, aren't we talking about a total of probably 1 current Socceroo? And if that's the case - isn't the whole thing a ******* joke, cos we've created a "marquee fund" specifically for one player?

It is the criteria. TV rights around the corner, and the league needs oomph.

Holman is a decent player, but to the masses, he doesn't have any profile in australia and won't lift crowds or lead FTA networks to pay $80m a season for TV rights.

We're trying to appeal to the whole Aus sporting public, so it needs to be household names, and Holman, Troisi aren't that.

 

[MrPremiership]

Do we even know what the FFA are paying Cahill a season? 500k? So City are paying the other $3m???????

Will the investment in Cahill return more than $500k? If so, then good decision. If not, then bad decision.

 

[nobbyiscool]

Some short term narrow views taken by the majority here.

The A-League needs something.....can Cahill bring it? Maybe.
Does CFG need $$ help? No.

But anything to bring the game to the masses is a good thing. Let's lift the league, not petty BS because its one club over another.

I'm not sure how much of the discussion you've actually read.

No one has a problem with him coming back to the A-League - the problem is that there was pretty much already a deal done with the wealthiest club in the country. The FFA have then created a "marquee fund" for high profile players to play in the A-League, and then Cahill has sucked it dry despite 1) having earned more from football than any Australian in history and 2) needing the A-League more than the A-League needed him if he wants to go to Russia in 2 years.

I love the marquee fund.

What I don't love is the whole thing being given to one player, and the failure of the FFA to give us the criteria as to who constitutes an acceptable marquee. The whole thing is a circus - everyone can see straight through the fact that the FFA have bent over backwards with the result being that City now have an unfair competitive advantage over everyone else.

It is the criteria. TV rights around the corner, and the league needs oomph.

Holman is a decent player, but to the masses, he doesn't have any profile in australia and won't lift crowds or lead FTA networks to pay $80m a season for TV rights.

We're trying to appeal to the whole Aus sporting public, so it needs to be household names, and Holman, Troisi aren't that.

So give me another example. Who is another player who would realistically come here (instead of the US or China) that meets that sole criteria?

If there are no other examples, then again, it is clear that the FFA have granted 1 club (who least needs it) a competitive advantage.

I'd rather they'd paid the whole salary and sent him to Central Coast.

 

[MrPremiership]

I'm not sure how much of the discussion you've actually read.

No one has a problem with him coming back to the A-League - the problem is that there was pretty much already a deal done with the wealthiest club in the country. The FFA have then created a "marquee fund" for high profile players to play in the A-League, and then Cahill has sucked it dry despite 1) having earned more from football than any Australian in history and 2) needing the A-League more than the A-League needed him if he wants to go to Russia in 2 years.

I love the marquee fund.

What I don't love is the whole thing being given to one player, and the failure of the FFA to give us the criteria as to who constitutes an acceptable marquee. The whole thing is a circus - everyone can see straight through the fact that the FFA have bent over backwards with the result being that City now have an unfair competitive advantage over everyone else.



So give me another example. Who is another player who would realistically come here (instead of the US or China) that meets that sole criteria?

If there are no other examples, then again, it is clear that the FFA have granted 1 club (who least needs it) a competitive advantage.

I'd rather they'd paid the whole salary and sent him to Central Coast.

The landscape has changed. There are no other "household" names that are going to come to Australia instead of China or US. It's just not going to happen anymore.

Cahill is/was the last of that category.

If he had an asking price of $3.5m.....and the FFA was going to pay 500k......then the club, ANY CLUB, still had to stump up the other $3m.

All 10 A-League clubs had the chance. None jumped at it.

None.

What was the FFA supposed to do? Give Central Coast $3.5mil and pay all of Cahill's salary?

 

[MrPremiership]

Why didn't WSW, Sydney or Victory chase Cahill, knowing that FFA would tip cash in????

 

[MrPremiership]

I'm not sure how much of the discussion you've actually read.

No one has a problem with him coming back to the A-League - the problem is that there was pretty much already a deal done with the wealthiest club in the country. The FFA have then created a "marquee fund" for high profile players to play in the A-League, and then Cahill has sucked it dry despite 1) having earned more from football than any Australian in history and 2) needing the A-League more than the A-League needed him if he wants to go to Russia in 2 years.

I love the marquee fund.

What I don't love is the whole thing being given to one player, and the failure of the FFA to give us the criteria as to who constitutes an acceptable marquee. The whole thing is a circus - everyone can see straight through the fact that the FFA have bent over backwards with the result being that City now have an unfair competitive advantage over everyone else.



So give me another example. Who is another player who would realistically come here (instead of the US or China) that meets that sole criteria?

If there are no other examples, then again, it is clear that the FFA have granted 1 club (who least needs it) a competitive advantage.

I'd rather they'd paid the whole salary and sent him to Central Coast.

How do you know how much of the fund has gone to Cahill? You're just guessing.

How much should have gone to him? Is he allowed to get any? 5%? 50%?

 

[MrPremiership]

Are Victory chasing anyone? Troisi was an excellent signing, but still need another.

Hope the rumours of Miligan coming back are spot on

 

[nobbyiscool]

Do we even know what the FFA are paying Cahill a season? 500k? So City are paying the other $3m???????

Will the investment in Cahill return more than $500k? If so, then good decision. If not, then bad decision.

Christ, you make it hard when you make repeated posts in a row

It's in the order of $1m, possibly a bit more. (It's worth noting that initial reports suggested the FFA were shopping a $2.5m contract that they would contribute to, and that would also include 3rd party contributions from FFA sponsors - so it could be upwards of $1.5m that the FFA and its sponsors are tipping in.)

But the argument you make is extremely superficial - it can't be measured in pure monetary terms, because how much money is your credibility worth? How much does it cost A-League clubs if City win a contrived championship with an unfair competitive advantage if, in 2017/18 people lose faith in a circus of a competition?

The landscape has changed. There are no other "household" names that are going to come to Australia instead of China or US. It's just not going to happen anymore.

Cahill is/was the last of that category.

If he had an asking price of $3.5m.....and the FFA was going to pay 500k......then the club, ANY CLUB, still had to stump up the other $3m.

All 10 A-League clubs had the chance. None jumped at it.

None.

What was the FFA supposed to do? Give Central Coast $3.5mil and pay all of Cahill's salary?

So is this a brand new idea, despite Major League Soccer doing it for years? Where was the money 5 years ago to bring the rest of that "Golden Generation" home? Why didn't Victory, then City get money for Kewell? (That was also when a broadcast deal was being negotiated) Why didn't Gold Coast, then Sydney, get money for Culina? FC didn't even get FFA assistance for ****ing Del Pierro!

And what makes Cahill think he's entitled to 4 times as much money as Kewell got to play out here despite never being the player that Kewell was? What makes Cahill worth more than Del Pierro? The idea that he's worth more than ADP is ridiculous.

The idea that Cahill can somehow have more of a lasting impact than ADP is equally ridiculous.

On your last line, why shouldn't they have given Central Coast the salary for Cahill? If you're going to contrive an unfair competitive advantage, it should go to a bottom side - that's kind of how the MLS designated player rule works (although it's a bit more complex.)

How do you know how much of the fund has gone to Cahill? You're just guessing.

How much should have gone to him? Is he allowed to get any? 5%? 50%?

For ****s sake, can you get your thoughts in your head before you start repeatedly making consecutive posts? You really do make it impossible to have a coherent discussion with you.

We do know that Cahill got most, if not all of the fund. Victory and Roar both requested marquee fund assistance for Holman - they weren't rejected because of some arbitrary criteria, they were rejected because most, if not all of the marquee fund was in the process of being exhausted on Cahill.

 

[MrPremiership]

Christ, you make it hard when you make repeated posts in a row

It's in the order of $1m, possibly a bit more. (It's worth noting that initial reports suggested the FFA were shopping a $2.5m contract that they would contribute to, and that would also include 3rd party contributions from FFA sponsors - so it could be upwards of $1.5m that the FFA and its sponsors are tipping in.)

You still don't know. Just guessing. Wait to see if anyone else is signed. The season is 70 days away.

But the argument you make is extremely superficial - it can't be measured in pure monetary terms, because how much money is your credibility worth? How much does it cost A-League clubs if City win a contrived championship with an unfair competitive advantage if, in 2017/18 people lose faith in a circus of a competition?

Losing faith in a competition IF city win the league because of Cahill? He is big in terms of commercial $$$, he isn't Ronaldo on the pitch.
Amazingly big leap you're going at suggesting losing faith in a comp due to a circus comp.

So is this a brand new idea, despite Major League Soccer doing it for years? Where was the money 5 years ago to bring the rest of that "Golden Generation" home? Why didn't Victory, then City get money for Kewell? (That was also when a broadcast deal was being negotiated) Why didn't Gold Coast, then Sydney, get money for Culina? FC didn't even get FFA assistance for ******* Del Pierro!

The fund wasn't around back then. BAD LUCK. Can't change things. They should have, yes. BUT IT WASNT AROUND.
The FFA were sitting on the hands hoping the league was going to grow.
Now they are actually trying to do something to grow it.

And what makes Cahill think he's entitled to 4 times as much money as Kewell got to play out here despite never being the player that Kewell was? What makes Cahill worth more than Del Pierro? The idea that he's worth more than ADP is ridiculous.

The idea that Cahill can somehow have more of a lasting impact than ADP is equally ridiculous.

Again, it wasn't around. Can't compare.
But it IS available now.

Cahill is the biggest, gettable name around NOW

On your last line, why shouldn't they have given Central Coast the salary for Cahill? If you're going to contrive an unfair competitive advantage, it should go to a bottom side - that's kind of how the MLS designated player rule works (although it's a bit more complex.)

So to make this all fair, the FFA should tip in MORE money and give it to a small club for evens? That's backwards thinking.
Give it to ANY club who wants to stump up the other $3MILLION.

For ****s sake, can you get your thoughts in your head before you start repeatedly making consecutive posts? You really do make it impossible to have a coherent discussion with you.

We do know that Cahill got most, if not all of the fund. Victory and Roar both requested marquee fund assistance for Holman - they weren't rejected because of some arbitrary criteria, they were rejected because most, if not all of the marquee fund was in the process of being exhausted on Cahill.

Again, you post as if you know, but you don't. Don't give me holier than thou BS.
You're just guessing.
Holman isn't a marquee that the FFA are going to sell to the FTA networks. He isn't ADP, he isn't Cahill.

Forget Cahill for a moment, there is no way the fund should go to players like Holman.

 

[bradburygold]

Do we even know what the FFA are paying Cahill a season? 500k? So City are paying the other $3m???????

Will the investment in Cahill return more than $500k? If so, then good decision. If not, then bad decision.

Ffa 1m/city 2.5 is the split

Easily worth the investment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nobbyiscool]

I'm not replying to all of that - I'd just say that you should actually follow the media around A-League before you say I'm only guessing. The vast majority of what I've written has been reported by either Davutovic, Lynch, Gatt, or SBS - you don't get much more reliable than that.

The other bits that aren't widely reported came from someone I know, whose credibility has been proven a couple of times on this board twice on the last 6 months or so.

I haven't guessed anything - I've given an opinion based on readily available facts. You should try it.

I wonder whether you're one of those who squeals about AFL academies or the COLA - what the FFA have done is worse.

 

[craigos]

Whilst I think the FFA are playing a dangerous game by allowing these kind of deals to be done at their own discretion I do think the FFA needs to do something to stimulate the A League and raise attendance and viewership prior to the new TV rights deal. Cahil is a pretty good bet though, still playing quality football, well loved across the country by people who probably only watch football when the World Cup is on and could be a person who attracts other quality players to the league (much like Beckham did but on a lesser scale).

If this is the only deal signed by the FFA before the season starts I'd be extremely disappointed. Whilst I agree that Brett Holman is in no way a marquee type of player, if the Roar want to give him that status I would have thought the FFA could have offered to pay even a smallish percentage of his wages (maybe they did?).