14/05/2012: Manchester City's stunning EPL win vindicates
A-League finals system
24/04/2012: A-League Season 2010/11 in Review
02/03/2012: FFA bravely and correctly dumps Clive Palmer
from A-League
22/02/2012: Clive Palmer disgraces himself, and the sport
20/12/2011: Melbourne Derby is on and Socceroo Realm
doesn't care
14/11/2011: Brisbane Roar's poor crowds? A reply to Les
Murray
21/08/2011: Kewell signs for A-League as Schwarzer trashes
it; Neill risks future in UAE
06/07/2011: The hidden scam of Kewell deal to play in the
A-League
05/04/2011: A-League Season 2010/11 in Review
20/12/2009: No Heart in Melbourne Heart
Manchester City vs Queens Park Rangers, it was the only English Premier League match I saw all season. Why? With the A-League soaring to greater and greater heights, I've been weened off most non-Australian soccer. Considering my great passion is Australia's nationals teams, I was never that attached in the first place. I'd already forgotten about the FA Cup - the first I missed since I could remember. Nor did I care. Second, this match was an actual decider for the Premier League. Manchester City had to match Manchester United's result in their game against Sunderland. Presumably, that would be a win.
As now known, United did win and City snatched their victory with two goals in injury time. It was an unbelievable finale to the season - a finale that is all too rare in this traditional sense of deciding champions by simply finishing top of the ladder. Only once before can I recall such a similar enthralling final day for the title, and that was the in mid-90s when Blackburn Rovers won the league ahead of Manchester United. That day, it was all about losing while still winning. Rovers lost to Liverpool, only for West Ham to snatch a draw to deny United. No where did losing feel so good, especially for Robbie Slater as part of that team.
Then the dilemma hit, should Australia decide their league similarly? I knew based on this one result that traditionalists would be out on internet forums trumpeting the virtues of a league winner to decide champions. Except, this final day was an anomaly. If anything, it endorses the A-League's system of having such a final every year, thanks to their finals system and Grand Final. Most years leagues like EPL end up as boring races.
Besides the greater excitement of having finals, there are several severe compatibility issues that would prevent the A-League deciding by a league race anyway. Australia has no relegation, no fight for European spots and no separate cup comps. In Europe, most teams over the full course of a season are in a fight for something, whereas in Australia the season would be over within 2 months for some teams. Just witness Adeliade's a Gold Coast's start to the season. Without the lure of a top 6, what incentive to play? There's also an imbalance in the A-League of each team playing each other three times, meaning some home-ground biases exist, like some east coast teams travelling to Perth more than once. It just wouldn't work.
The A-League has its system set-up perfectly. Even within the finals system, it rewards the top 2 teams extensively. With an Asian Champions League spot for the premier, there's already plenty of reward and prestige to finish top of the ladder. Looking at our Grand Finals, why would we even consider killing the opportunity of great drama that those matches have provided over the years just for the sake of being "traditional"? Besides, in Australia, even for soccer, Grand Finals are the tradition. Rightfully so.
It started off in controversy and hype around Harry Kewell signing with Melbourne Victory, and ended in even bigger controversy and bigger hype with Brisbane's stunning Grand Final win and Ange Postecoglou quitting the Roar to take his presumptive position as head coach at Melbourne Victory that he seemed to have even before the season started.
In between, the A-League achieved its greatest success ever with Brisbane taking an Australian record of all football codes for unbeaten matches, a closely fought championship that saw Central Coast pip Brisbane, the equally close fought scramble for the top six, the unbelievable success of "Big Wednesday", and the many classic, dramatic games matches, not least Brisbane's remarkable 93rd minute escape to score two quick fire goals to steal the match at Suncorp against Sydney FC.
On the downside there's been the debacle of Clive Palmer and Nathan Ninkler almost single-handedly turning the sport into a mockery, the loss of Gold Coast United as a result, and general ineptitude of FFA's administration. Just the perception that there seems little structure and procedure to their operation - exacerbated when a western Sydney team would be GCU's replacement, announced almost the full 3 weeks before the 3 week deadline for a decision to be made about GCU. The Gold Coast community never had a chance to save their team, because FFA always had their heart on western Sydney. Any surprise of this outcome? No. Nor any surprise that the FFA will actually deviate from its private ownership model to fund and run the team for the first 3 years, as it conforms to their entirely consistent ramshackle approach of running of the game.
It's a pity those affairs publicly dragged the game through the mud, because the football was brilliant. Thankfully the longevity of which easily overshadowed those few tumultuous weeks of ignominy, and has only left this fan hanging for next season to start.
Three issues do stand head and shoulders above the rest, and they converged into that one crunching season finale of a game - the A-League Grand Final: 1) Brisbane winning the Grand Final and being the first team to win successive championships; 2) The controversial penalty decision that saw Brisbane win; 3) Ange Postecoglou's rise as coaching superstar and seemingly pre-destined to Melbourne Victory even before the season started. I'll encapsulate these moments as mostly posted on the theworldgame website on Monday morning, and earlier today about Ange Postecoglou.
Even as a Brisbane fan, I was deflated with the match's finale. Such a dubious penalty, even from me who is rare in this sport that has a pro-goals philosophy and favour-the-attacker mentality. There's no feral response from me if my team concedes a goal from a slight offside or seemingly harsh refereeing decision. The finale reminded so much of Australia/Italy World Cup match because, as last kick of the game, no response can be made. It wasn't so much a deflating experience because the decision to award the penalty was a galling error. Put it this way. If that penalty incident was the first 5 minutes, there's minimal fuss.
Was it a penalty? There was contact on Besart Berisha. The question then is whether we believe it was enough to cause the air-swing. No doubt the A-League's official line will be exactly that - that the contact to Berisha, the referee deemed it put him off balance and denied him a goal-shooting chance. As a tackle from behind, there can be even less, or no, leeway. Robbie Slater and Mark Bosnich in the Fox studios were both effusive that it was a penalty, with Bosnich citing Berisha's "plant leg" as affected, as replays clearly see it nudged to the point that he stomped on the ball to cause the bobble and miss the connection with the ball entirely. Paul Wade on Sky said it was a penalty, technically. Interestingly, neither Perth coach Ian Ferguson or player Jacob Burns vented their anger on post-match interviews about the decision. Maybe they had seen some replays themselves.
After my initial confusion primarily based on the match commentators' reaction and then the studio experts, I say now it definitely was a penalty - simply because there was contact. That contact even disregards the fact it was a tackle from behind - a rule that if not enforced does see me usually go feral. That's the point. Reckless play, especially from behind, defenders must know they cannot foul on any contact if the ball is not won. The A-League has been strict all year favouring attackers. As long as refs are consistent, no problems here.
Much of the controversy surrounding the decision is perception it seemed soft. Maybe in years gone by it would accepted and the decision is play on. This year is different. The referees have been strict, and that's meant more goals, more action and more drama - and seemingly more yellow and red cards. With both Slater and Bosnich so unequivocal about the penalty, I was sincerely shocked. Maybe it's simply their experience and the ample time to view the replays, or maybe the mood these days is beginning to swing to a mentality of favouring the attacker as I've advocated for years. Forget stupid ideas like enlarging the goals. Just cut out the cynical and dirty play, and punish players according to the rules. If a yellow card also meant 15 minutes off (a logical step considering a red is permanently off), dirty play would be eliminated further and, even better, the infringed team actually getting a material benefit.
There was one big exception in commentary about the penalty. David Davutovic in the HeraldSun: "Certainly not clear-cut enough to decide an A-League grand final in the dying seconds". That's utter nonsense. If it was the first 5mins, the decision is right? The essence of a good referee is to make right decision in the toughest, most stressful situation. It's either right or wrong, not right depending on extraneous variables and match conditions. This issue of match profile and timing of the game that should be factored into a decision is mentality of a bygone era when players across all sports were gentlemen. Now they willingly cheat to win free-kicks and exploit this apparently soft period to cheat and stretch the rules further. It has no place in the game. All congratulations go to the referee for getting the toughest, most pivotal decision right that I can recall ever seeing in the sport.
As for the match in general, while it was rubbish for the most, Brisbane deserved the win. They created more chances, and even at 1-1, would have headed into extra time with a one man advantage thanks to a red card against Perth. If one issue did peeve me it was the abhorrent time-keeping. Shane Schmeltz was down for 5 minutes with his injury, plus there were other stoppages, and guess how much time was added? Four minutes! Then, in added-time, Danny Vukovic was booked for time-wasting. Was that time then added to added-time? NO! Next thing they'll be giving yellow cards on fouls and calling play on. At end of the match, with four minutes signalled, the match went 40 seconds beyond that, allowing Brisbane their shot at glory. While the extra time presented is only a guideline, it still creates the question. It's just so wrong that time-keeping is enturely up to the whim of the referee.
Philip Micallef blogged on the theworldgame website that good fortune played a major part of Brisbane's double success. Good fortune if you want to look at the last 10 minutes of a game. Last year, Brisbane had a ridiculous offside against them in the first 10min on Thomas Broich. The ball would have been squared, almost a certain goal. That changes the game totally. This year, ignoring the penalty, it was 1-1. In extra time, with a man up, the match heavily favoured Brisbane.
Even then, I don't ascribe fortune just because a goal is late. Where's the law against late goals? If there were stats on goals scored for each minute of games, I'd say later minutes have the highest percentage. In a GF, it's increased more since teams are on edge and nervous and, after a long season, tiring. Nerves and fatigue certainly got to Perth at the end.
Last year's GF was played the way we know Brisbane plays. This year was rubbish. That's not an indictment on Brisbane or an advocacy of good fortune, it's the nature of sport. GFs are notoriously tight. This year the pitch was in rough shape and both teams had a recent heavy work-load. It all conspired. Give the players a break. I prefer this match seen as a hallmark to Brisbane's perseverance. Given that's their long established trait, I'd ascribe that element as pivotal in their wins, not downgrade their achievements as good fortune.
It never made sense that a "world wide search" of coaches could arrive at Mehmet Durakovic and then Jim Magilton. Clearly these were interim coaches, biding time for Ange to finish with Brisbane. The worst that could happen for MV under Durakovic or Magilton was they be successful and the club is stuck with either one for another year, while the best case is the season's a flop and MV get the man they always wanted. Either way it's win-win for MV. To think most of us believed the MV board were totally inept, devoid of any football intellect or nous. They showed us. They even saw fit to dump Francis Awaritefe as football manager just weeks into the season so no philosophies or personnel could be entrenched, indicating to Ange that a blank canvas was waiting for him to bring his own regime and philosophy to town.
Two days after the Grand Final win and Ange has quit, effective immediately. As the Socceroo Realm twittered some weeks ago after the speculation then, this signing for Melbourne Victory is arguably more exciting than that of Harry Kewell. That speaks volumes for the profile of Ange Postecoglou. Turn MV into a powerhouse and his next stop is the first domestic coach to have the credibility and the clout to guide the Socceroos in this era of primarily highly paid overseas players. There was never a point for Ange to see his final year contract with Brisbane. He'd be coaching with the shadow of his exit all year. It just would not have worked. For Brisbane, they'll be forever indebted to him, and were perceptibly at ease to allow him free reign to choose the course of his next challenge.
In a monumentally brave and correct decision, the FFA dumped Gold Coast United and with it their unruly owner, Clive Palmer, from the A-League. This has come after two tumultuous weeks of Palmer trying to run rough-shot over the league, intimidate the FFA and embarrass the game with a series of embarrassing actions, media rants and insults to the game. It's so brave that the FFA did not even wait until the season ends in four weeks, preferring to unhinge itself from this maniacal, self-indulgent philistine right now.
Palmer never had any interest in the sport; he primarily saw it as an opportunity to promote his mining interests in Asia via the hope of GCU winning the A-League in its augural season and then playing in the Asian Champions League. When that failed, the bottom line came into effect, to which led to the insulting gesture to cap crowds of 5000 so that three sides of GCU's home stadium could be closed to save money. Palmer has then continued to do nothing to promote the sport or engage in the Gold Coast community in any meaningful way or form.
The FFA have yet to detail the reasons for dumping GCU, other than to say there were multiple breaches of the Club Participation Agreement. One is obviously the "Freedom of Speech" slogan plastered across the players' shirts last week and then the defiance to remove it after an FFA directive, and another could easily be a generic "bringing the game into disrepute" clause, of which Palmer definitely is guilty. The FFA undertook legal advice and is confident they are acting in accordance to their own regulations. Palmer's only public response to the legalities is of the spurious "breach of natural justice" in that he had no course of appeal within FFA. Remember, Palmer already tried to hand the GCU licence back once. The FFA is finally giving has he wished.
To further vindicate the FFA's decision, Palmer's visceral response is to create a "Football Australia" organisation with the slogan "We Kick Harder". While he says it's to hold the FFA accountable and plans "to publish papers, hold press conferences, seek opinions, lobby the government, lobby the FFA for a better outcome for Australians and the game in Australia", more likely it's his churlish ego needing massaging rather than motivation for legitimate good of the game. The most ludicrous idea coming from Palmer's insanity is to use his organisation to challenge the FFA, to take control of the sport in this country or even run a rebel football league. His entire delusion has been quickly snuffed by his own players, FIFA, the AFC, several players and A-League clubs themselves.
The good of the game is the key issue for which all football fans should rejoice at the demise of Palmer. He categorically stated he doesn't like the sport and prefers rugby league. There's no walking that back. Other than for an investigation in the the World Cup bid that the FFA should have had the integrity to undertake of their own volition, Palmer's raised nothing meaningful that the FFA or any fan should indulge. The simplest solution to any pest that can't quickly be squashed is to ignore it. Let Palmer's diatribe and antics go in vain, and soon his heart-felt sentiment that football is a rubbish sport will over-rule his petty motives for revenge and he'll quickly fade from the game. Why? Because he simply doesn't care.
For the FFA's role, obviously a strict revision of licensing agreements is needed. There must be minium standards imposed on all clubs that could see them at the risk of being cut if those standards are not met. This is two clubs that the FFA saw the dollar signs and effectively signed up into an unsustainable territory and to an under-capitalised entity. The owner of North Queensland Fury could just run after one year of a 5-year licence and somehow not be in breach of a contract, and now Palmer was allowed to get away with capping crowds. When the A-League first started, the goal was an average crowd of 10,000 at every club. That's obviously impossible with a capped crowd. The stadium deal that so prompted Palmer to cap crowds, the FFA should have had more diligence in that ensuring a better arrangment was made before agreeing to a licence. For all Palmer's vitriol, GCU is not the only club suffering from ridiculous stadium deals.
Footnote 03/03/2012 Clive Palmer subsequently withdrew the claim in his initial media release that his organisation was to challenge the FFA or to create a rebel league; that it's concerned with only holding FFA accountable. He also lost the Supreme Court case asking for an injunction against the FFA taking over GCU. That's a blip on his much taunted 68-0 victories in court-cases. He's now 68-1. The case was rejected on grounds of disparaging comments Palmer made about the FFA that showed neither party could co-operate and to ensure integrity of the competition that the FFA could take over the team to ensure the season finished adequately.
A huge uproar in the game the fast few days with Gold Coast United's owner, Clive Palmer, installing a 17 year-old debutant Mitch Cooper as captain, then admitting he doesn't even like the game and prefers rugby league, before ultimately sacking coach Miron Bleiberg for refusing to acquiesce to supporting Cooper as captain.
Palmer's comments to the Sunday Mail...
"I think it's a hopeless game. Rugby league's a much better game.
"It's not my decision (whether to quit the A-League). Clive Mensink's the CEO. Whatever he decides, I'll go along with.
"The club is a very small, insignificant portion of what I do. We've got over $20 billion of projects.
"If we wanted to stay and they (FFA) wanted to take it off us, they'd all be in court, and Ben Buckley would run a thousand miles.
"That's the reality of it. They can say what they like ... the A-League's a joke. I don't think I'll ever talk to Ben again in my life, to be honest."
On Monday night's TWG, Palmer claimed he was quoted out of context, that he was referring to the administration of the sport, not the game itself. He also continued his rant, raising key concerns like the $5mil paid to the top 5 executives in the FFA compared to rugby league's CEO on less than $1mil, the $7mil price Nathan Tinkler paid for Newcastle Jets compared to 500k Palmer paid for GCU, and the exclusive TV rights held by Fox Sports that should have been auctioned and that Fox should not be able to televise live against the gate..
Palmer also made several key demands, like clubs having a greater say in running the A-League, increased transparency and accountability from the FFA, and a change in the commercial model of the A-League to prevent his claim of an annual $40mil loss from all clubs each year.
The problem with Clive Palmer's rant is that he has little the biggest hypocrite and with little credibility. Who was the one that decided to "cap" crowds for his team's home matches? That was the worst decision ever for the sport. If he didn't like the stadium deal, why sign up? Did he think that once in he could bully his way through and have conditions relaxed?
What about the total disregard of trying to make GCU part of the community? Nothing.
Palmer only went into this venture for self-gratification and instant glory to help push his businesses in Asia. When the glory didn't come, he blames the FFA like any spoilt brat that will always blame others before themselves.
Some of Palmer's complaints are a joke. The $7mil (or $5mil from other reports) that Tinkler spent on Newcastle Jets was to buy an already established club, whereas GCU was a licence to which Palmer would still need to invest many millions (he claims $18mil so far) to get it operational. The salaries of FFA officials seem high if you consider just the A-League. When there's also 6 national teams to run, perhaps the wages could at least warrant a revision - and that's if there's a firm belief in the accuracy of the figures that Palmer is claiming. Palmer is nit-picking.
As for the TV situation, facts are the free-TV stations stuffed the sport right up. Remember Ch7, and let's not forget that SBS barely showed any NSL games live, preferring to stick to Sunday morning "On The Ball" program. Only in the later years - during the David Hill era - did they add a highlights show on Tuesday evenings and show Sunday afternoon live. Their key focus was bigger ratings affairs, like Socceroos. Could any free-TV stations offer live of all A-League games live plus the support shows? Maybe now with the digital off-shoots they can. At the time, they couldn't, and all had an abysmal record plus offered an abysmal fee compared to the $20mil per annum that Fox Sports agreed to pay for 7 years. Again, Palmer talks nonsense. The TV rights were auctioned, and Fox Sports won.
The issues that Palmer did raise of transparency are definitely of importances. With the sport relying on government grants, the salaries should be released, along with all other expenditure. There should also be accountability, with the World Cup bid that ended in abysmal failure and humiliation a key example of sweeping bad decisions under the carpet. So far nothing has been investigated to justify the expense, even if Australia did choose to engage in the slimy and corrupt process of dealing with FIFA. The point is that the Australian public and government should know 100% of the process so that better informed decisions can be made in the future. Had we known beforehand, no doubt the bid would not have been entertained.
There's no doubt FFA stuffed up all the expansion teams. North Queensland should never been allowed in the first place since it was so obviously under-capitalised and had little potential to grow, and how could the owner just take his money and run after just 1 year without breaking some sort of contract? GCU have been allowed to behave like rogues, totally unaccountable to any standards in the game that other clubs are matching. Somehow Melbourne Heart were allowed their appalling "Heart" nickname despite FFA being against it and wanting a traditional name. When commentators and a HeraldSun poll overwhelmingly endorsed the idea of Sporting Melbourne FC, MH suddenly were granted the use of "Heart". How does that capture "traditional fans" they believed they could? It doesn't. Worse than it being a gimmick name, it's meaningless. With MH's aim to recruit the "traditional" fans that never adopted Melbourne Victory, plus pinch a slice of Victory supporters, the 4000 at their last game, albeit against the lamentable GCU, and the general poor level of crowds show, as a marketing tool, the nickname has failed. For all the talk that MH didn't want to be "the second Melbourne team", they very much are.
All this drama has left the FFA scrambling and the sport embarrassed, with Clive Palmer becoming the quintessential example of problems that rich owners of football clubs bring to game when they want public influence with their toy. Thankfully, the FFA is in a reasonable situation. Gold Coast's licence expires in 2 years. That's plenty of time to prepare another club for entry into more suitable area like Canberra or Western Sydney, and extinguish GCU. Until then, let Palmer play his moronic, insecure mind games. With no one to indulge his childish antics, he'll tire of his venture before FFA ever needs to act.
With the next weekend set to see Melbourne Victory and Melbourne Heart play again, hype is building from both clubs and media and fans about the "derby". Not all are feeling it. Below is the post the Socceroo Realm added to an article at the theworldgame website about the match...
I'm from Melbourne and couldn't care less. My initial liking for Melbourne Victory went sour with the thuggish culture and especially Kevin Muscat in the team. Then Ernie Merrick and his terrible coaching, the team's inconsistency, including losing a home Grand Final against Sydney. The place needs a clean sweep. Out with Mehmet Durakovic, Muscat and all the "old boys club", and in with a really authoritative figure to stamp a cleaner and refined image on the team.
As for Melbourne Heart, no one was more disappointed than me when after all the talk of making a "point of difference" to MV, to make a "serious" soccer club, one that would appeal to traditionalist fans, that instead of using the much serious, the highly traditional and the real point of difference of Sporting Melbourne FC, the club went for the lame Melbourne Heart. They just copied MV's branding style and arrived with a dreadful option.
At least "Victory" makes sense, that it can play on the state name of Victoria, and form a V on the playing shirt. With "Heart", I'm still clueless as to its source or meaning. Is Melbourne a city known for heart? Is Melbourne a city known for having heart? Is Melbourne a city known for pioneering heart transplants? Beats me.
With "Sporting", first and foremost you stamp yourself as a real football club and nominally as equal #1 with MV - just from sheer point of difference the branding evokes. Not to mention it's a relevant name, given Melbourne is the sporting capital of the world. With "Heart", while you first stamp yourself as a joke, mostly you stamp yourself as second rate, and certainly as the "second team" in Melbourne. Because we all know that victory is the accolade that most covet, while heart is the award given as encouragment to a perpetual loser.
http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/a-league/news/1086143/Melbourne-derby-growing-in-stature
Last week at the theworldgame.com.au website, Les Murray blogged about Brisbane Roar's apparent poor crowds in the face of the entertaining and winning football that they play. Despite the overwhelmingly marked increase in interest, TV ratings, football quality and crowds in the A-League, the issue is still somewhat a crusade by TWG, with it being the second such blog within a week and seemingly the last bastion in which to whinge about the domestic competition. Murray based his argument on statistics. An extract followed by the Socceroo Realm's reply...
Where's-the-Roar-of-the-crowds? In today’s A-League, Melbourne Victory may as well make the same boast. The margin by which Victory is the biggest home-crowd puller of all clubs, as pointed out by Philip Micallef in his recent column, is nothing short of astonishing.
What is it about Melburnians and their tribal instinct for getting off their butts and going to stadiums in droves on the off chance that there is a game? Is it the water in the Yarra? The chance to stroll down Collins Street to Docklands, stop in a bar and watch the ladies sashay by?
Harry Kewell is helping, of course. But even before ‘H’ swung into town Victory was by far the league’s premier attraction. Even when it had a lean season, when Ernie Merrick was on the nose, after Fred had left and Carlos Hernandez carried too much in the way of love handles, they flocked.
Imagine if they had a team as prolific, as feared, as admired and as entertaining as Brisbane Roar (notwithstanding that Roar couldn’t beat Victory’s nine man team last time, which is another story).
Which poses the question, why can't Roar attract bigger crowds at home than it does? The Victory's average home gate after three games is 34,827. Roar's: 12,851.
Even if you factor in Brisbane's much smaller population it's pretty pathetic.
Brisbane has, don't forget, a team hailed as the best ever in the league, the best ever in Australia by some people (like me), a team that has gone longer unbeaten than Tony Abbott has been barking about the carbon tax. And is likely to out-last Tony, or even Julia for that matter, at the top.
But no. While the Broncos pull in 40,000 even when they're playing crap, Roar is patronised by little more than a quarter of that.
I'm not from Brisbane but I go there a bit. I have seen the insular nature of the local culture. You can watch a 6pm news bulletin on local TV and have to wait 20 minutes before you see a story that is not about Brisbane or Queensland.
So who's addressing this anomaly? Anyone?
The Socceroo Realm
If you factor in the population difference, the crowd levels are not so pathetic. Melbourne is just over double of Brisbane Roar, so if you double BR's A-League crowds you get 26,000 compared to MV's 35,000. Of course, it needs to be considered MV had two really big games that inflates their figure (last season total avg 15,234). Also, there's now two teams in Melbourne, which somewhat deflates MV's figure last season (Melbourne Heart average last season 8312, for a 23,500 aggregate with MV).
To compare Broncos, sorry to say that the ratio of AFL crowds in Melbourne compared to the Broncos NRL crowds far out-strip the ratio of MV/BR crowds. That only confirms Brisbane are supporting soccer greater than rugby league (by ratio).
The key indicator is looking at previous seasons, which shows a 30% increase for Brisbane on last season (9279) and 40% on the season prior (8652).
Anyone can grab two sets of statistics and fashion an article from them. As Indian cricket Navjot Sidhu would say: "Statistics are like bikinis: what they reveal is suggestive; what they hide is essential". SBS quite easily could have chosen to look at Brisbane's figures for last season and fashioned an article extolling the wonderful 30% increase in attendance. The question: why not?
http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/les-murray/blog/1080715/Where's-the-Roar-of-the-crowds?
Finally Harry Kewell has signed for Melbourne Victory, on a 3-year deal. The deal was bogged down for weeks by Kewell's management trying to gain extra financial leverage via revenue sharing from away-games and then a separate marketing clause that would allow Kewell full rights to the use of his own image and personal sponsorship deals. Little has been said of the final deal, other than it's known it is incentive based, suggested to be 80% of income earned by Victory from an increases in memberships, attendances and merchandise.
There was also a set $500k marketing deal offered by FFA as an enticement in this process. Neither FFA or Kewell mentioned the situation of that involved in the signing. For Kewell's part since the confirmation, he's only spoken diplomatically: "I am delighted to be joining Melbourne Victory. It is a great club whose record in the A-League speaks for itself. I am looking forward to playing in front of the Victory supporters. I am proud to be Australian and want to give something back to the game. It has always been my ambition to play in my home country."
This issue was always about Harry Kewell. The dilemma was never with the FFA. Kewell had a choice to do something good and honourable for the game by signing the offers in place without fuss with Melbourne Victory, even if it was just their offer in isolation, regardless of the extra the FFA offered. Or he could continue the gamesmanship of holding the league, Victory, the FFA and fans to ransom so to extract as much money as possible to fit his ever-increasing inflated ego - as was being readily perceived by many.
The FFA could not have special exemptions, regardless of the player, to allow sole market rights to a player and for their own image. The focus of this issue really became about Kewell: does he have a real desire to play in the A-League or not? He should know the game here can't pay him as he wishes. So his motivation should be more on passion than money. He also needed the A-League because, being realistic, the other option of chasing the millions in the low-grade UAE or Saudi leagues would have seen an instant end to his international career. Australia's coach Holger Osieck has reiterated many times the A-League is of suitable standard for international players. The Middle East is not.
All that now waits is Kewell to run onto the field and score his first goal. Victory's coach Mehmet Durakovic has already excited fans, hinting with the news that Kewell will play just behind two strikers. He's better deeper and it should make for a potent strike-force. Victory's first game of the season is at open to Sydney FC. The interest could be as big as any Grand Final.
While one big name is returning, another is not. Mark Schwarzer made headlines during the week by trashing the A-League in Football+ magazine - saying there's no way he'd return: "I have seen too many players go back home and it has not worked out. The biggest example is John Aloisi, and how he was treated so badly by people. You are up there to be shot down very, very quickly. I don't want to give anyone the opportunity to do that to me. The truth is returning from Europe it is a step down, and I don't want to be in that situation."
What a sour-puss. John Aloisi was really the only player to "suffer" such vitriol, and it was rightly deserved after a succession of dreadful performances and very few goals. Instead of whinging about it, cop it on the chin, as Aloisi actually did, realising fans have every right to express their emotions in both good and bad times. That's the key. Aloisi will always be well-remembered, ultimately retiring from the A-League with reputation and legacy in place. It's amazing how a few goals quickly changes fan attitude. Just wait until Kewell starts setting up goals and scoring, and the saga over his recruitment will be yesterday's kitty litter.
Schwarzer is a disgrace writing this drivel. There was no need. He could have just retired and said nothing - as many others have - and no one would have judged him differently. Instead he trashes the worthiness of the A-League's own right to boo a player performing poorly? To think, Schwarzer got his start via Australia's domestic league, and then rushed into the national team for the 1993 World Cup qualifiers involving Canada after incidents involving Mark Bosnich and Robbie Zabica. Where's the gratitude? To borrow Australian slang, that really is poor form, Schwarzer.
While Mark Bresciano has been in self-imposed exile from the national team and now over-taken by others for his spot, Lucas Neill's move to the UAE is more problematic. Holger Osieck doesn't rate these Middle Eastern leagues, and Neill can be thankful of his impeccable international record that he's been called into the latest World Cup squad. If there's any hint of form drop because of the reduced standard in the UAE, Neill could be wondering about the move. He says he has a 3-year plan to keep in focus with the national team, and probably one more year to cover the 2015 Asian Cup in Australia. Interestingly, a local paper in the UAE stated Neill had a 1-year deal with Al Jazira, so if true, it seems Neill is taking this short term risk for big financial gain before moving to the more acceptable A-League to consolidate his Socceroo future.
As for Bresciano, now signed with Al Nasr, Osieck says he's still the frame. That remains to be seen. Both he and Vince Grella sat out a year of national team duty, missing the Asian Cup. It's a bit rich for such players to expect a priority call-up. No one has the right to pick and choose their time to play for Australia.
Much has been discussed over the recent week of Harry Kewell's potential to play in the A-League and especially the monetary deal that he could expect. On the Socceroo Realm's twitter I've mentioned the key to Kewell coming here is to help the sport, rather than chasing dollarsl. If it's about money, Kewell's coming for the wrong reasons. While, on basic principle, Kewell should obviously be paid well for the player that he is, money should be not be the prime motivator. Unfortunately it seems it is.
One of the Kewell camp's key proposals was to take a 70% share of gate-takings for away games of attendances above the season average. The FFA publicly knocked this idea back, and with that came insinuations that Harry Kewell is all about money. Bernie Mandic, Kewell's long time manager, objected, telling The World Game website:
"The media has got it wrong on this one. And this confusion is all thanks to Mr Kyle Patterson for spinning untruths to the media and you can quote me on that.
"Harry has always said that he would only come to Australia on a performance-based deal with no guaranteed earnings. Harry is no hypocrite and he again sticks to his word. And this is exactly what he wanted in order to play in the A-League. The money figures being thrown around are pure lies.
"We never approached anybody and when FFA asked us how much would we expect for the use of his image for promotional purposes we said we expected no down payment.
"For the record this is what we have proposed:
"If Harry plays for a team in the A-League he does not get paid for any of his home games. He only gets paid an equivalent of 70 per cent of gate takings for away games if his presence generates more people than that particular club's average.
"So if for example Harry is playing for Sydney against Adelaide at Hindmarsh Stadium and the Reds' average home crowd last season was, say, 14,000 and 18,000 turn up to watch him play, he gets 70 per cent of the income generated by the extra 4000 people. If the crowd is less than 14,000 he gets nothing. If the crowd is 14,000 he gets nothing either.
"If he is injured and misses 10 matches he does not get paid, unlike some marquee players who cost a fortune and were injured for many matches. And if, God forbid, he is injured for the whole season he gets nothing. Most importantly the clubs will not miss out on any part of their home gates because the money paid to Kewell will come from the FFA. Now you tell me how this is being greedy on our part. Have you heard of any similar deal in the world?"
"The FFA refused our offer which is fair enough. However this episode proves beyond any doubt that Harry is not about money but about giving something back to the game."
It should be noted that Mandic also said this to SEN radio 2 days earlier:
"We offered them (FFA) a better deal than we have offered the A-League clubs - a 30-70 split of any additional gate revenue from the away games that Harry plays in. If there are no more people coming to the away games that Harry plays in, Harry gets nothing. Now this was not accepted by the FFA, which is fair enough."
There seems a contradiction in these comments with Mandic claiming they never approached the FFA, then saying the FFA knocked back the idea. Obviously such a plan needed contact with the FFA, so in some point in time, Mandic would need to contact the FFA, regardless of whether his implication that the FFA instigated the contact is true or not. The situation of contact is the least significant. Of greatest significance, is the deal itself, that the FFA rightly refused. Not only is it unfair and unworkable, it's a total scam.
On a practical level, the FFA can't be forcing clubs to relinquish gate takings. If there were ever such a situation, each club would need to deal independently with the Kewell camp directly. Mandic mentions a 70/30 split in the SEN interview. Believe his original word and it's a cut from actual gate takings. Who gets the other 30%? Obviously the clubs. Then Mandic suggests to TWG that the clubs won't lose because the FFA is actually paying. That's absurd. The money being used on Kewell would still need to be appropriated from somewhere - most likely money already allocated to the clubs - and the specific dollars from the extra crowd can't be known because of the various seat pricing categories at most grounds. If the money is to be taken from promotional sources, then surely the better idea is to pay Kewell directly.
On the actual mechanics of the deal itself, here lies the true slyness to the deal that Mandic is not disclosing. Any average should be of matches only involving the two clubs, not on seasonal average. For the example that Mandic uses of Adelaide playing Sydney, that match-up already pulls crowds much bigger than the season average, therefore Kewell is guaranteed money from every game. If the Adelaide/Sydney average does not increase, Kewell is effectively robbing the game of income - whether it be the away-clubs directly or through the FFA - it would otherwise receive had he not been in the league at all.
To break it down as an example:
Adelaide seasonal average 8000
Adelaide vs Sydney average 12000
If Adelaide vs Sydney with Kewell get a crowd of 15000...
Under Mandic's plan, Kewell gets 70% of 7000. Now for the kicker. If the Ade/Syd average remains at 12000 (effectively, Kewell brings no one), Kewell gets 70% of 4000. Totally absurd and unfair.
Under the direct match-up average, Kewell would only get 70% of 3000, because Ade/Syd already get 12000 without Kewell. If the Ade/Syd average remains, Kewell gets nothing. A fairer solution, if all the clubs agreed, and a percentage of Sydney's home gate for attendance increase is taken as well.
To be fair to Kewell, it is his manager, Mandic, doing all the talking. It could be his usual bravado that forms part of his job of extracting as much money as possible. Not just for Kewell, also for himself. If Kewell is serious about the A-League and doesn't want his credibility tarnished any further, he needs to break his silence, and show a true ambassadorial motive for coming. Any income he generates should be from a deal with his club, not trying to cut into the income created by the away-clubs and compromising the financial status of the competition as a whole.
The A-League season ended on a massive high a few weeks ago, with Brisbane Roar winning in a most dramatic match, when scoring two goals in the last 4 minutes of the game to then win on penalties. For their outstanding season - this match being their 28th unbeaten - they deserved it. Almost equally did Central Coast, who did everything right on the day to win, only for it to be stolen at the end. It would also have been a handy triumph for coach Graham Arnold, after the huge backlash he suffered from the 2007 Asian Cup, when he was temporary coach of Australia.
Brisbane Roar were truly the revelation of the season, setting a monumental benchmark for other teams to aspire. Personally, after being totally indifferent to the local Melbourne teams, became a Brisbane Roar fan. It's not so much the polished football style, it's also the image presented by players and coach, their playing strip that creates a unique sea of orange, and their ambitions. Their coach, Ange Postecoglou, talks about setting a legacy, and winning the Asian Champions League. Of course, their unbeaten run is still going, so too their world record of scoring a goal in consecutive games. It's just so exciting. May they continue to succeed.
The 2010/11 A-League season also had some well publicised lows - if you are easily seduced by some of the loud "anti-soccer" journalism and ignore the context. Crowds were down, one club was lost, and others are struggling. On the pitch was the horrific tackle by Kevin Muscat against Adrian Zahra of Melbourne Heart.
Crowds were a talking point. Again, not as bad as the potters suggest once placed into context. Total crowds were up thanks to the extension of the league to 30 rounds, while averages were down. The drop in averages was mostly due to the season extension and many midweek matches this season. Those matches might great for TV, they are not great for families to attend live.
Also affecting averages was the split of Melbourne Victory's crowd. Melbourne Heart's inclusion only took crowds from Victory, not gain any extra. The total of both teams' average was the average of Victory last season. This was starkly illuminated in the three derbies, none of which even approached selling out. The derbies themselves proved entertaining enough.
Melbourne Heart did not fulfil expectations, both on and off the pitch. It's main problem is that it's just another soccer team. They didn't offer much extra to Victory, and certainly nothing different. Their nickname is a joke, just a cheap copy of the adjective-type names like Victory, and relates nothing at all to the city or state. "Victory" at least borrows from the state name and there's a symbolic V on their shirt. Why MH never went for "Sporting Melbourne FC" (in reference to the city's world renown sporting culture) or the elegant "Melbournians FC" (a simple reference to the club being of the people), remains a mystery and a potential long term noose around their neck. "Heart" is just not a powerful name. There's no heart in Heart, no heart in Melbourne, no heart in the decision, no heart at all.
Ticket prices also affected crowds. The only game I attended was the 3-3 MV/Brisbane game - and that was to see Brisbane. To sit with my two MV membership-owning friends, it cost $43. They also complain the memberships are too high - higher than AFL. If I paid $25 for crap seats in the ends, there was a chance my friends couldn't enter. Their memberships were allocated seats, so tough for me if it was a full house and I couldn't sit next to them.
Remember, the A-League is hardly elite, neither in general profile of the sport and especially not within the sport itself. When AFL charges $20-$25 for general admission throughout Australia, why the A-League clubs don't offer cheaper ticketing is bewildering. $20 for adults, $10 for children, $40 for family (2 adults, 2 children) should be the maximum. To sit in the members area, maybe a $10 extra premium. That's it. It must be said that at the vast Docklands, there is a $20 general admission. The new Bubble stadium is the one exploiting the Melbourne public.
The A-League lost a team, North Queensland Fury. No surprise since it was losing vast amounts of money, didn't have the required fanbase and had no financial backers. The FFA made great publicity on the launch of the A-League that new clubs must be well-capitalised for at least 5 years and there'll be no rush to expand. Suddenly this policy sunk. Quite how an owner - Don Mathieson - can just walk from the club after a year without some breach of contract is mystifying. NQF's inclusion should never have happened.
Will NQF's expulsion matter much? No. Again, it's demise has been great topic for the anti-soccer brigade and even those passionately pro-soccer within the sport. The talk of legacy and lost opportunity for North Qld players is nonsense. This is a club that was only 2yrs old, and NQ players have managed to ascend through the ranks in all the years without a team in the area. If it were a 50yr team, then sure, room to complain that FFA did not do more. Just because they are out, that also doesn't preclude a return. Fans need to think long term. This planet and the A-League will last longer than a short-term perspective and our own personal lives. In 5 or 10 years when the sport has matured more and can sustain a team in NQ, return it.
As to NQF's exit being a blight on the league or cause for doomsayers, again, rubbish. It's especially hypocritical when such comments come from Australian Rules. The AFL has been propping up teams for years now with special financial assistance and assuming minor financial control of those clubs, most notably North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs, Melbourne and Port Adelaide. The AFL also has a permanent equalisation fund that includes drawing money from gate receipts - yes, gate receipts - of more popular clubs and returning an annual dividend to each club. This is mostly to offset the unbalanced draw and the AFL's deliberate ploy of "blockbuster" matches that ensure the most popular clubs play each other twice a year. The salary cap and draft is also a measure to help clubs. Without this financial assistance, the AFL would lose 2 clubs quickly, and possibly another 2 within 5 years. The two new clubs of Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney would have no chance to exist without the AFL heavily subsidising their first 5 years of existence.
These issues of crowds and financial problems of clubs are peripheral issues more for the ideologues to chew. The real issues that actually did negatively affect the sport was the horrific tackle by Kevin Muscat on Melbourne Heart's Adrian Zahra and the general cynical play and inept refereeing. The latter is actually an affliction against the sport as a whole and a great inhibitor to the recruitment of new fans to the sport. When they see diving, crash tackles, archaic rules and poor refereeing, they see a game that's so backward and arcane that they just turn away. Even as a fan myself, there are moments when I just consider it as the worst sport in the world. Basic proficiency like getting offsides right (90% of tight offside calls are actually onside with the rule to favour the attacker constantly ignored) and proper time-keeping (too arbitrary by referees), it's just mystifying. For all the AFL's ills and desire to dominate, they would be a wonder to take control over the sport and reform it to the great and fair spectacle that it deserves to be.
You only need look at that A-League Grand Final for two glaring examples of horror officiating and the anti-goal culture in the sport. Brisbane's Thomas Broich was wrongly called offside in the second minute of the game. He almost certainly would have squared the ball for an easy tap-in. Brisbane at 1-0 changes the entire match. That's all forgotten by Mariners coach, Graham Arnold, who complains after the match of an offside by Brisbane for their first goal. First, the offside in question was passive and, at best, marginal. Second, the attacker is supposed to be favoured. The spirit of offside was to stop opposition camping in the penalty error, not maraud against normal attacking play and deny goals for even a hint of a technical infraction. Brisbane gained no advantage from the suggested offside play, and it certainly did not infringe based on the intent of the law.
The second glaring error was the time-keeping. Four minutes of injury time were designated to be played, 1.5 minutes were lost because of injury, with only 30secs re-added. To make matters worse, the game was stopped when Central Coast's Ibini was clear on goal. The spirit of stopping the game was always in a lull or dead ball situation. If that wasn't farcical enough, the game was stopped bang on 120mins at the end of extra time despite Brisbane equalising precisely with 30secs left on the clock. Since when are goal celebrations part of time played? It's absurd.
Finally to Kevin Muscat, they most damning part of the A-League's season and the sport in general. How a thug like Muscat has remained in the game for so long is stunning. While it can't be expected of the inept FIFA to reign in the crash tackles and professional fouls via a greater release of yellow and red cards, the A-League itself could have taken a tougher view with post-match video review and longer suspensions, or even pressured Melbourne Victory to act on its incorrigible players.
In many ways, Muscat was not to blame for his action. The assault disguised as a tackle on Mark Zahra was the culmination of the sport's failure to curb this form of play. Earlier in the season, Surat Sukha put Adelaide's Mathew Leckie out for most of the season, and it's rare a game goes by that if Muscat is not dishing out the brutal treatment, he's the first to hypocritically complain when one of his own players is felled.
In response to Muscat's antics, instead of his coach, Ernie Merrick, castigating the player, he's making excuses and setting a culture in his club and, by extension, the sport that encourages others to continue their violent ways. Merrick being sacked by the new Melbourne Victory board no doubt included the club's poor image as part of their reason. If they could have shown the door to his minion Kevin Muscat as well, then maybe we have a club in Melbourne that truly is the benchmark for the league and a turning point for the league and the sport, itself, to be much more presentable as a whole.
Being a Melbournian, there's some interest in the new A-League team currently known as Melbourne Heart. To warm the heart of the Melbourne Heart, I'm one of those that they are targeting who hasn't really taken to Melbourne Victory. The Victory has never really appealed, firstly because the domestic sport was never a great interest, and second, I don't like the colours. Now that the A-League is taking a hold, I am open to a new team.
Melbourne Heart is trying to market themselves as a "point of difference" and align as a more traditional type of club, as much as a brand new club can possibly call themselves traditionally. They are talking from a branding perspective. Already they have chosen well with the proposed colours being red and white, most likely as vertical stripes. The next key point is the name. "Heart" was only a working title, being originally rejected by the FFA as a club name. Recently, the FFA changed its mind, and the Heart is in a group of four possibilities: Melbourne Heart, Sporting Melbourne FC, Melbournians and Melbourne Revolution.
All along, Heart has been appalling name. It's one of those silly nouvaeu emotional names like Glory and Fury and Phoenix and, most of all, Victory. On the surface, it looks like they are trying to out-do Victory. If you're the Victory, we'll be the Heart. This sort of fake sentiment does not wash and is hardly a "point of difference". It's more like an unimaginative copycat, already with an inferiority complex, and unlikely to appeal to those that want a traditional branded club. For the same reason, out goes the even more stupid Revolution. They need to be as far away from these type of names as possible. Selecting either one of those, they have already lost me.
Down to Sporting Melbourne FC and Melbournians. Sporting immediately resonates and is a classic, traditional name, most associated with Sporting Lisbon in Portugal and Sporting Gijon in Spain. Given Melbourne's sporting pedigree, it also pays homage to that, while conceptually being original and distinctive. It's negative is that it could be seen as somewhat fabricated and copycatt. Melbournians has appealed more and more by the day. It's closet culturally similarity is to Corinthians in Brazil. It's a straight-forward, elegant approach that makes no boast. It only says one thing: Melbournians. It's negative is there's no immediate marketing sense about it. This could be good in that it develops its own identity. Either of these names would serve the team well and either of these names would gain my attention.
Ultimately, Sporting Melbourne FC is my preference. It's just such a powerful, immediate brand that makes a boast about the city and makes the biggest "point of difference" boast against Melbourne Victory. All of my friends, including two Melbourne Victory members, like it too.