A-League Expansion

Australian Football
82

The only way that 14 happens sooner than maybe 3-4 years after the initial tranche expansion is if 11 and 12 are phenomenally successful off the field and help drive ratings back up to new highs.

It is definitely not something that they can commit to with the ratings drop and the talk in the media about Fox over-paying on the current deal.

EDIT: I suppose it could also happen if the old FFA board did actually funnel a significant amount of A-League revenue out of the professional game, and into grassroots, and the new board allows more of the money to stay within the league.

83

Someone posted this recently but isn’t a 22 game season considered too few for the AFC, thus jeapardising ACL qualification?

84

Unbalanced draws are the absolute worst. The luck of the draw to play crap teams three times shouldn’t decide who wins the league. Go to 33 with a 12 team league then back to 26 when we get to 14. Hopefully we can get to 16 and end up with 30.

85

That’s right. A 22 game season simply isn’t an option if we want to continue playing in the ACL.

86

southern expansion offering SFC $1Mil as compensation for encroaching on our territory

87

Where’d you see that, its hilarious

88

faceplam

89

From the article, SFC have heard through sources rather than a direct approach

90

I almost hope they get up just for the lol’s.

91

According to the article, Fox are “somewhat resistant” and not opposed. Go to 33 games for two or three seasons prior to a 14 team home and away competition, and give Fox a sweetener to keep them happy.

Next, lets find a Middle East peace solution.

92

Minimum 27 games “including cups and grand finals”, the latter of which is clearly non-sensical if it’s strictly “minimum” games - so clearly there is plenty of scope for massaging the rules with AFC.

93

I don’t know - there appear to be direct quotes from Iemma in that article where they’ve budgeted for a cash payment to Sydney FC as part of their financial submission to the FFA…

94

But why would they need to compensate us? I thought we didn’t have any fans down there.

95

As a thank you for us organizing their fan base in preparation of their foundation.

96

Does anyone else think that there is something wrong with Fox being "somewhat resistant " to a 33 game season?
Ok, they are sponsors and have the rights to televise the games, but FFS it surely doesn’t give them the right to say how the game is run.

97

they are shameless

98

It that way with the NRL, Channel 9 pretty much dictate which games are on which nights.

99

That’s a new low. They’d punch their nan in the face if it meant getting this license.

1 Like
100

It’s because they are actually deploying production crews to broadcast the game, sending commentary teams and producing pre-game/post-game and auxiliary TV shows. All of that costs money, but add little value. A longer season for them means more of an overlap with NRL so it just cannibalises their own market. Plus, as the season goes on ratings tend to drop unless there are really tight battles for the top 6.

101

I can understand their reasons, and can live with them stating preferences for time slots but when they start to dictate the number rounds in a season I think it is a step too far.
Maybe Fox is the reason we have an idiotic final 6 in a ten team competition.
It may suit the broadcasters but does nothing to improve the product.
Too much the tail wagging the dog.
Yes I know money talks, but I guess it comes down to whether the premier football league competition in this country is sport or entertainment.