A-League In Trouble

[ozisnowman]

Proof the A-League's in Trouble.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/football/a ... 1affbb7579

Rather than blaming other sports such as BBL and WAFL they should be taking a good hard look at the FFA and its continual fisty cuffs with the clubs and lack of payment back to the clubs.

The sooner the A-League clubs get FIFA to step in and get an independent body to run the A-League the better. That way any TV deals can be put back into the clubs that form the competition. Do the grass roots get shown on TV? do state league and lower leagues get shown on the TV?

Also the FFA's constant pampering of Sydney FC, Melbourne Victory, Sydney WSW and Melbourne City at expense of Adelaide, Perth, Mariners, Newcastle, Wellington and to a lesser extent Brisbane causes an uneven competition were larger city teams are favoured over others. This needs to stop for the health of the competition or will they be happy with a 5 or 6 team Eastern Seaboard Comp.

Not enough has been done to increase the quality of the league - top coaches, youth development, youth player priority and keeping the exciting youth here as long as possible. We seem to be seeing has beens or compo claims waiting to happen flood the league to the detriment of viewing.

Just have a look at the scoreboard, having one team flogging the rest by a good margin bar Newcastle who have had a good year and lucky to have had their stars taken by clumsy challenges.

Poor referreeing and the VAR saga would have also poured salt into the wounds.

Is it that people are voting with their wallet in giving the FFA a vote of no confidence and clear message that we want an independent A-League board managing the league.

[sevengoals]

FFA OUT!!!

You have dropped the ball.
(Oops, wrong sport... )




The lack of progress has been very disappointing.
The lack of vision and the ability to implement it even more so.

It's time for change.

[bpowell454]

So Arnold has been announced as the Socceroos coach 4 months earlier than necessary, just weeks after the current coach has been announced!

Is this a case of gallop/lowy fulfilling a promise to Arnold before they lose contol of the federation? They are so out of touch.

[otto62]

FFA on a hiding to nothing. After Bert was announced as coach only until after the WC, the anti-FFA nutters were complaining that the FFA weren't planning far enough ahead, they should be announcing who the long term coach after Bert would be. Lo and behold, they make the announcement and now people want to complain about that. Unbelievable. (Actually, completely believable.)

I dread the day that the clubs get control of the A-league. We can kiss goodbye to any expansion, because they owners would have to take a reduced % each of the money. We can kiss goodbye to properly funding the national teams, the W-league, the youth league and any other loss making part of the structure. And we can kiss goodbye to any funds allocated to grassroots. (All just IMO of course.)

[blahblah]

FFA needs to sort out its governance issues. The A-League woes, issues regarding the national sides, youth development ect are merely symptoms of a poor governance structure.

[otto62]

FFA proposed what I thought was a reasonable step forward in governance structure, widening the range of voices involved, increasing the A-league club representation, but maintaining overall control with the FFA. The A-league owners refused to accept it because they want control. IMO the best thing FIFA can do for the sake of the game in Australia is come out in support of the FFA proposed structural changes.

[blahblah]

Both proposals fall well short of what is needed for a Congress and are structured to suit their respective agendas. Those who are significant stakeholders but do not have a voice in these discussions have been neglected by all parties.

Then there is the matter of Board composition, which is overly restrictive at the moment, resulting in a narrower focus than need be and, consequently, a more exectuve style of board than the game requires. The result is we have too much operational input and a dearth of strategic thinking.

[otto62]

IMO strategic thinking is what we DO have in the current board structure, and exactly what we would lose if we moved to a board dominated by the A-league club owners, which I believe would deliver a focus on short term benefit to the owners.

[blahblah]

I don't see the long term thinking in the current board, at least I am not seeing evidence of it. Where is the 10 year vision, or even the 5 year plan? Most of the activity we see from the Board reflects the shorter time-frame decision making that the FFA Executive should be in charge of.

I completely agree that a board dominated by the A-League owners is also unhelpful. However there are more choices than merely the status quo or A-League domination.

At this stage though the Board and the Congress are two different issues. The Congress is merely the voting group for the Board. Currently we have the smallest Congress out of all of FIFA's 208 (?) members. The lack of representation of groups such as referees, fans, amateur football, academies, women's football, disabled, futsal/indoor/beach, professional players etc etc remains an issue that neither the FFA nor the A-League clubs appear willing to embrace. Until they do, a Congress with limited voices will remain.

That's unhealthy and a broader representation is required so those going into the Board need to address a broader range of issues before they are elected. The current Board had every single member elected unopposed, hardly fertile ground for the selection of robust individuals.

The make-up of the Board is another issue entirely and is another issue to address once Congress representation is achieved.

[otto62]

The idea of a very wide Congress electing people to the governing body is certainly the FIFA model - tried and tested, it has produced excellence in governa..... oh.

Sorry for the long post following. Here is my understanding, although I'm open to correction.

Current Congress = 9-1 (9 state feds, 1 a-league rep)

FFA are offering 9-3-1 (9 state feds, 3 club reps <2 a-league, 1 w-league>, 1 players assoc) - this would mean that the state federations would maintain control of electing the Board. A-league clubs have up to 3 of 13 seats = less than 25% so can't exert control by way of blocking tactics.

A-league clubs want 9-6-2 (9 state feds, 6 club reps <5 a-league, 1 w-league?>, 2 players assoc <1 mens, 1 womens>) - this would mean that the a-league clubs have at least 5 of 17 seats = more than 25%.

Solution?
Maybe it's partly an ego thing and some of the big A-league clubs (Syd, MV, MC?) just want to be in the room.
How about 18-6-2 - that's 26 members, which IMO is at the very very upper end of a workable Congress. (2 x 9 state feds, 5 a-league club reps + 1 w-league, 2 players assoc (men + women). That keeps the a-league clubs below 25%.

Or maybe widen the Congress even further to include 1 each for refs, indoor, beach, disabled, (takes the total to 30) maybe that would still be workable?

[Stuckey]

I really wonder how much of this voting saga was kicked along by Griff playing his personal brand of hard ball?
I'm guessing now that he's no longer on board with AU would he have a place on the Australian Pro Clubs board now?

[otto62]

IMO the clubs will want to replace him now he has no skin in the game, and he won't want to do it if there's nothing in it for him (and fair enough too). It offers a rare opportunity for a fresh start in negotiations, if the clubs are interested in that.