Palmer is a complete wanker though he does have a few points in regards to the rights of owners. He has gone way over the top however.
He has said obviously some dumb things. Though he has made plenty of good points. Sure he's gone over the top, but chances are this is because owners can't get any action done by discreet avenues.
Just read on Soccernet.com that the FFA has turned down a bid by Canberra to raise up a new team in time for next year in favor of a western Sydney franchise that, according to the Canberra bid head, would be held up entirely by FFA money. The Canberra team has now said they won't submit anymore bids unless the FFA comes to them. Another example of the FFA thumbing noses at owners? Bid with money denied because its not what the FFA wants?
A Western Sydney team would be the best bet for any new team at THIS point in time. In terms of crowds, and tv dollars. Canberra may have a shot down the line, and if they really want in, a rebuttal at this time, won't change their minds.
Bids with owners money are only viable whilst the owner puts the money in. Can Canberra be a viable A League club without owner money? Who knows. It is true that they couldn't sustain an NSL side although that was some time ago. The FFA is right to persue new teams in regions where they think the franchise can be profitable in its own right.
Would you rather have a rushed privately backed Canberra bid which could fall on its ass like the Fury did, or a FFA backed West Sydney side as the new side in the biggest city in Australia? They're not playing to be popular, they're making business sense. Its a smart decision whether you believe so or not.
no its not, they need another team for next year quick, teams failing are part of life mate, if your too cautious then nothing will grow, get canberra and west sydney in, we have had 11 team comp b4 so why not again look at the NRL they have had seen over 20 clubs die or merge in the last 100 years, and they are now going better than ever
Agreed. It is not too different from what MLS is currently doing in the US. Orlando (Florida) is making a ton of noise about their quest to land an expansion franchise. The owner and the fans are really making a strong case and the city is planning to renovate the Citrus Bowl (their stadium). The league is fairly receptive to Orlando and has suggested that they are strong candidates. Sacramento (California) came to the league with a stadium plan, owner, and money. They were immediately brushed aside. There are already three teams in California and Sacramento is smaller than the San Jose/San Fransisco Bay market and even a split Los Angeles market. Despite being an NBA city, the league told them to piss off. What the league really wants is a second team in New York, one actually in the city versus the New Jersey suburbs where Red Bull resides. Unlike Orlando, there are no owners and there is no stadium. There is no current team to build from. It's just a brand that has somehow remained viable despite the original team being gone nearly 30 years. But more importantly, it's a second team in our biggest city and strongest TV market. The league is doing everything possible to make it a reality, other markets and owners be damned. But the A-League has a greater need to expand than MLS at the moment. Most of you know that MLS went through a period like this about ten years ago. It took some time and patience, but the league more than recovered. Some say that the strong WC 2002 campaign helped, but then our miserable 2006 performance should have hindered progress. I think that those struggles forced the league to look at how it was operating. It caused them to change their focus from the NFL model to something more unique. From what I can tell, the A-League is modeled a bit after MLS and a bit after your NRL. Maybe it's time for FFA to step back and evaluate how that is working out for them. Perhaps it is time to change the system to better suit the needs and desires of the Aussie fans? Twenty teams over a century sounds like a lot, but is it really? On paper it suggest one team folded/merged every five years, but I am willing to bet that the bulk of those losses came fairly early in the league's history (I honestly do not know enough about the NRL to say). As the league's business model changed to reflect changes in fan behaviors and media, some teams were undoubtedly affected.* The NRL undoubtedly evaluated its business plan and its process for admitting clubs. Now it is a strong league - one that I've been able to watch on basic cable (ESPN) in the Midwestern US. The A-League has only been playing since 2005. Two teams have already been lost. Gold Coast makes a third. That is basically a team every three years. To me, that is enough to change the approach. A focus on strong, sustainable markets probably makes more sense than looking at somebody with cash in hand but not much else. *Same thing has happened in every US league, so I would guess that the effect would be fairly similar down under.
The NRL and its predecessers have only seen 9 teams die, with 4 of those happening due to the resolution of the Super league war. between 1998 to 2000. 4 more have merged (into 2 teams) that still exist. There were two teams that played only in the Super league who no longer exist. Of the 4 that died at the end of the Super League war two had only been in existance for 3 seasons.
Canberra does not have the ability to support a team. It has a small population and has no private industries. Both the Brumbies and the Raiders have financial concerns at the moment. Also unlike other similar sized towns Canberra has no real parochialism since a large part of the population wasn't born in Canberra and are only living in Canberra for work. Western Sydney is an obvious choice with readily avaliable stadiums. Wollongong would then also have to be considered.
These two points are key. Private industry is vital to the sponsorship of professional teams, regardless of sport and regardless of country. Population size is also affected by the existence of private industry and also affects the team's bottom line through ticket & merchandise sales and TV viewership. Transient populations typically make poor sports fans. With no real roots to the area, and especially if a team is already established in their "hometown," most relocated fans will not support an expansion team in what they view as their temporary or working town. Again, this is regardless of the sport or country. As an example, MLS initially assumed that the Latino population in the US would be all over the league because, hey it's soccer. But what they found is that most Latino fans are extremely loyal to their clubs from the homelands. A rise in MLS has done little to win these fans over. Even Chivas USA - a club specifically catering to Mexican fans - support base is largely non-Latino. As an American A-League fan, I am in favor of looking at the best market to stabilize the league. From what I've learned about Canberra and the bid to bring a team there, that is not the solution. Western Sydney makes much more sense. In an ideal world, Canberra and possibly even Tasmania would be getting teams. Another New Zealand team would be great too. I hate seeing Gold Coast pushed out because of their proximity to Brisbane. Unfortunately the league needs to regain some footing first. Bold expansion has to take a back seat to strong, logical expansion for the moment.
Western Sydney ar an obvious choice due to the spectator drawcard of the Sydney Derby. Having lived in Sydney for 40 years I can also see the deep grass roots support for Soccer in Western Sydney. Forget Clive Palmer and his ego, his $$millions which some may believe bring him satisfaction and happiness. Not so. FFA have FIFA support, Australian Clubs in the AFC and Socceroos in World Cup contention. FFA is OK with me. Get over the committee mind games and watch the soccer.