2016 FFA Cup Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

nobbyiscool said:
You seriously trying to argue that City were shafted by the Brattan/Caceras rule? Ok, let's just make it a feeder league for foreign teams then? :rolleyes:

The fact that the FFA had to introduce a Caceras rule, then introduce the Brattan loophole, and then introduce the Cahill rule while also paying part of his salary proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Heart are getting repeated hand ups I would've thought.
Click to expand...
How would that make it a feeder league? It was pretty much just to stop Melbourne City getting players from other A-League clubs. Again, this could be fixed easily by changing the rules regarding transfers between A-League clubs. Those two rule changes though were deliberately targeted at City to stop them getting better.

The difference with the Cahill rule is that this one is there for every team. In fact, Victory would have made full use of it as well if Essien hadn't have changed his mind about joining the club at the last minute.
 
kangaspurs said:
How would that make it a feeder league? It was pretty much just to stop Melbourne City getting players from other A-League clubs. Again, this could be fixed easily by changing the rules regarding transfers between A-League clubs. Those two rule changes though were deliberately targeted at City to stop them getting better.

The difference with the Cahill rule is that this one is there for every team. In fact, Victory would have made full use of it as well if Essien hadn't have changed his mind about joining the club at the last minute.
Click to expand...

It would make it a feeder league because then clubs across Asia would be buying A-League teams and using them purely for development. I don't necessarily disagree about transfers between clubs - but it's easy for us to say as fans of well-off clubs. I understand what the A-League intended with the banning of transfer fees between clubs - but the intention hasn't come to fruition because no one is hanging onto players who don't want to stay. (Austin, Pain, Galloway, just to name a few involving Victory.)

The Cahill rule clearly wasn't even for all teams - the FFA didn't lead negotiations for anyone else. In fact as soon as the FFA got a sniff of the Essien talks they blabbed, and they screwed it up for us. And you might mention Essien, I would respond with Diamanti, who is now playing in the Serie A and has been captaining Palermo in plenty of matches. (They couldn't let the Victory be too good this season when Heart's $ucce$$ was the priority this season?)

The Cahill rule also wasn't even because it was announced less than 2 months before this season started, and less than 3 weeks before the European transfer window closed.

In a "real" competition where the administration wasn't giving one club a clear leg up, there's no way that happens 7 weeks before the season. Either it should've been announced before the end of last season, or the rule change should've been held off until January (at the earliest)... but they couldn't, cos it wasn't even a rule they were considering until they had to figure out a way to get Cahill to Melbourne City.

Yes, in fairness, they probably would've made the same changes and concessions had it been Sydney FC - but the fact remains that the rules were changed in a completely ******* farcical manner to suit one team. (It should also be noted that the "guest marquee" was only introduced because the FFA had unilateral power to implement it, whereas the third marquee that they initially wanted to introduce was able to be vetoed by the clubs.)
 
nobbyiscool said:
It would make it a feeder league because then clubs across Asia would be buying A-League teams and using them purely for development. I don't necessarily disagree about transfers between clubs - but it's easy for us to say as fans of well-off clubs. I understand what the A-League intended with the banning of transfer fees between clubs - but the intention hasn't come to fruition because no one is hanging onto players who don't want to stay. (Austin, Pain, Galloway, just to name a few involving Victory.)

The Cahill rule clearly wasn't even for all teams - the FFA didn't lead negotiations for anyone else. In fact as soon as the FFA got a sniff of the Essien talks they blabbed, and they screwed it up for us. And you might mention Essien, I would respond with Diamanti, who is now playing in the Serie A and has been captaining Palermo in plenty of matches. (They couldn't let the Victory be too good this season when Heart's $ucce$$ was the priority this season?)

The Cahill rule also wasn't even because it was announced less than 2 months before this season started, and less than 3 weeks before the European transfer window closed.

In a "real" competition where the administration wasn't giving one club a clear leg up, there's no way that happens 7 weeks before the season. Either it should've been announced before the end of last season, or the rule change should've been held off until January (at the earliest)... but they couldn't, cos it wasn't even a rule they were considering until they had to figure out a way to get Cahill to Melbourne City.

Yes, in fairness, they probably would've made the same changes and concessions had it been Sydney FC - but the fact remains that the rules were changed in a completely ******* farcical manner to suit one team. (It should also be noted that the "guest marquee" was only introduced because the FFA had unilateral power to implement it, whereas the third marquee that they initially wanted to introduce was able to be vetoed by the clubs.)
Click to expand...
FFA went early by leaking the Essein deal absolutely, but they did it to drum up interest which clearly worked. They in no way ****ed it up for you, Essein did that by pulling the pin last minute.
RE the guest spot there is a criteria, but it’s a subjective one. The criteria was that it’s a player that’s name can be leveraged to increase interest in the league. A player that casual followers of the game will have heard of. Generally speaking, in Australia these types either played, and were key players in the EPL or are Champions League stars ie Gerrard, Torres, Essein, Iniesta. Players like Diamante might have been terrific from a playing point of view and worthy of a marquee spot, but I hadn’t heard of him prior to the ACL a couple seasons ago and I consider myself a reasonably avid follower of the game. If I haven’t heard of him I don’t expect a casual follower of the game to have and therefore I doubt he’d have been a drawcard in a marketing sense. There was nothing to stop Victory paying out Bozanic and signing Diamante as their marquee.
Sure the extension of the guest rule was made to fit Cahill into the A League, but tbh I don’t think its preferential treatment as such; its unquestionably benefitted the entire A League and football in the country, and like I said, the other teams equally have the opportunity to sign a ‘name’.
I have zero doubt that had Cahill been signed to another A League club, City would undoubtedly used the rule on a Torres or Gerrard anyway because they can afford to.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

bungareepremiers06 said:
FFA went early by leaking the Essein deal absolutely, but they did it to drum up interest which clearly worked. They in no way stuffed it up for you, Essein did that by pulling the pin last minute.
Click to expand...

False. Firstly, it's not the FFA's job to butt in on teams negotiations, because they can go badly. Why do you think we never hear who Victory are talking to until they're signed? Secondly, the FFA absolutely stuffed it up for the Victory, because they broke the news and a journalist asked his wife for comment before he'd spoken to his wife about it. Not only did they * up the signing - but they did it butting their nose in where they had no business to.

bungareepremiers06 said:
RE the guest spot there is a criteria, but it’s a subjective one. The criteria was that it’s a player that’s name can be leveraged to increase interest in the league. A player that casual followers of the game will have heard of.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. There were no announced criteria when Cahill supposedly met them. There were no announced criteria when Diamanti supposedly did not meet them - we only got the criteria after they'd said no to Diamanti in their attempt to justify the decision.

bungareepremiers06 said:
Sure the extension of the guest rule was made to fit Cahill into the A League, but tbh I don’t think its preferential treatment as such; its unquestionably benefitted the entire A League and football in the country, and like I said, the other teams equally have the opportunity to sign a ‘name’.
Click to expand...

I don't know what to tell you if you don't think City get preferential treatment when there have been 2 rules and 1 loophole introduced to either benefit them (Cahill), or to stop unfair practices after the fact (Caceras).

bungareepremiers06 said:
I have zero doubt that had Cahill been signed to another A League club, City would undoubtedly used the rule on a Torres or Gerrard anyway because they can afford to.
Click to expand...

Yeah cos Torres was about to walk away from a team that had just played in the Champions League final - a game that he was still good enough to play in 6 months ago :rolleyes:

If they had've been able to get Gerrard, they would've. They could've punted Koren at the beginning of last season (cos he'd already stunk up the league by then) and paid Gerrard - already owned by the CFG - whatever wage they had to. They also could've brought Gerrard (or Pirlo) in during the January window after they'd punted Koren, but weren't able to.

They were not getting players such as Gerrard (or Pirlo), and City and the A-League were both thoroughly embarrassed by the Villa debacle. The rules were changed to accommodate them and to stop such debacles happening again.
 
nobbyiscool said:
False. Firstly, it's not the FFA's job to butt in on teams negotiations, because they can go badly. Why do you think we never hear who Victory are talking to until they're signed? Secondly, the FFA absolutely stuffed it up for the Victory, because they broke the news and a journalist asked his wife for comment before he'd spoken to his wife about it. Not only did they **** up the signing - but they did it butting their nose in where they had no business to.



Bullshit. There were no announced criteria when Cahill supposedly met them. There were no announced criteria when Diamanti supposedly did not meet them - we only got the criteria after they'd said no to Diamanti in their attempt to justify the decision.



I don't know what to tell you if you don't think City get preferential treatment when there have been 2 rules and 1 loophole introduced to either benefit them (Cahill), or to stop unfair practices after the fact (Caceras).



Yeah cos Torres was about to walk away from a team that had just played in the Champions League final - a game that he was still good enough to play in 6 months ago :rolleyes:

If they had've been able to get Gerrard, they would've. They could've punted Koren at the beginning of last season (cos he'd already stunk up the league by then) and paid Gerrard - already owned by the CFG - whatever wage they had to. They also could've brought Gerrard (or Pirlo) in during the January window after they'd punted Koren, but weren't able to.

They were not getting players such as Gerrard (or Pirlo), and City and the A-League were both thoroughly embarrassed by the Villa debacle. The rules were changed to accommodate them and to stop such debacles happening again.
Click to expand...

I agree with you re keeping signing speculation out of the media in that it doesnt help, but you cant always blame that as a be all and end all. Its all well and good to blame FFA that his wife found out, but do you think he was just going to sign without asking his wife in the first place? FFA went early and made a blue by doing it, but in this case i highly doubt it cost them the signing.

You're wrong re the criteria. There'd been numerous article towards the end of last season that a marquee fund would be introduced for players that would improve the profile of the league. If you recall, Fornaroli was denied a slice of the fund as well due to not being 'marketable'. Admittedly that marquee fund evolved into a guest fund, but never the less it was the same concept. Perhaps the exact specifics werent told to the public, but they sure were to the clubs.

Let's not forget that Cahill was shopped to ALL clubs in the league but City were the only takers due to the hefty price tag that came with him. Let's also not forget that the other 9 clubs voted in favour of the guest spot due to the benefits that Tim would bring to the competition.

Your third point is laughable. The Lampard rule stopped us from signing him on loan for nothing, so clearly disadvantaged us in comparison to the prior rules, of which Victory (with Troisi and Rogic) were by far the biggest beneficiary of over the course of the league to that stage. No complaints with that rule being introduced as it was in the best interest of the league and fairness to cut off loans in that format. A loophole is just that, something that clubs look for and the league shuts off once its realised. You dont 'create' a loophole, it exists as a overlooked point in creating existing rules. Again, no problem with the cutting off of the Caceres situation once it came to light in respect to the fairness of the league, although i do think transfer fees between A-League clubs should be allowed for the benefit of everyone (different argument entirely).

City would absolutely have been able to get a name player, Gerrard or Torres were used as an example of a name player, not as a fact. The Villa debacle was no doubt a stuff up from the club, but theyve learnt from that.
How City choose to spend their money is their concern, not anyone elses so i dont see how the non-payout of Koren, or even JVS for that matter is relevant to the situation other than to say City are not as frivolous with their cash as people would have you believe, every investment is carefully considered.
 
Bomberboyokay said:
Source?
Click to expand...

Melbourne City kit change will mirror Manchester City’s blue
8d9377e6afa872c314a7b6d26b4cb397

Matt Windley, Herald Sun
July 1, 2016 6:31pm
8d9377e6afa872c314a7b6d26b4cb397

MELBOURNE City maintains it is not about to completely ditch its red and white Melbourne Heart roots.

But a long-anticipated switch to an all “City Blue” kit — akin to that worn by parent club Manchester City — appears inevitable for season 2017-18.

For the upcoming season City fans can expect their team to appear in a mostly similar kit worn in the past two campaigns, before the “brand and primary colour refresh” is implemented next year.

The change will come ahead of a 2017-18 season in which the A-League as a whole will undergo a major revamp, with logo and other sweeping changes to the look and feel of the competition expected.

City has long campaigned for the ability to wear blue, but initial attempts to make the switch when it transitioned from the Heart moniker in 2014 were scuppered by complaints from Sydney FC — which also wears the colour.

But Football Federation Australia chief David Gallop said the decision to finally approve the push at a board meeting last week was a “common sense” approach.

“Obviously (Sydney’s) concerns were taken on board, but we felt the competition had evolved to a point where there are a number of uses of light blue in the competition apart from Sydney FC,” Gallop said.

“And the global identity of Manchester City perhaps wasn’t being fully utilised in a situation where their strip was a hybrid of white and city blue.

“We just felt that it’s a smart move for the A-League to embrace that global identity and allow them to play in their home strip in city blue.

“A lot of their training gear, their socks — even their net — so many things were that colour anyway, so it seemed right in a common sense way to allow things to evolve to the point where they can now play in their home strip.”

----------

There's a bit more to the article, but that's the important bit :thumbsu:
 
nobbyiscool said:
It would make it a feeder league because then clubs across Asia would be buying A-League teams and using them purely for development. I don't necessarily disagree about transfers between clubs - but it's easy for us to say as fans of well-off clubs. I understand what the A-League intended with the banning of transfer fees between clubs - but the intention hasn't come to fruition because no one is hanging onto players who don't want to stay. (Austin, Pain, Galloway, just to name a few involving Victory.)

The Cahill rule clearly wasn't even for all teams - the FFA didn't lead negotiations for anyone else. In fact as soon as the FFA got a sniff of the Essien talks they blabbed, and they screwed it up for us. And you might mention Essien, I would respond with Diamanti, who is now playing in the Serie A and has been captaining Palermo in plenty of matches. (They couldn't let the Victory be too good this season when Heart's $ucce$$ was the priority this season?)

The Cahill rule also wasn't even because it was announced less than 2 months before this season started, and less than 3 weeks before the European transfer window closed.

In a "real" competition where the administration wasn't giving one club a clear leg up, there's no way that happens 7 weeks before the season. Either it should've been announced before the end of last season, or the rule change should've been held off until January (at the earliest)... but they couldn't, cos it wasn't even a rule they were considering until they had to figure out a way to get Cahill to Melbourne City.

Yes, in fairness, they probably would've made the same changes and concessions had it been Sydney FC - but the fact remains that the rules were changed in a completely ******* farcical manner to suit one team. (It should also be noted that the "guest marquee" was only introduced because the FFA had unilateral power to implement it, whereas the third marquee that they initially wanted to introduce was able to be vetoed by the clubs.)
Click to expand...
Good post.

I still don't see how it would turn it into a feeder league, but you make some excellent points about the Cahill rule. It really should have been considered with due diligence and perhaps brought in for next season after consultation with the clubs, but then the chance to sign Cahill probably would have gone.
 
kangaspurs said:
Good post.

I still don't see how it would turn it into a feeder league, but you make some excellent points about the Cahill rule. It really should have been considered with due diligence and perhaps brought in for next season after consultation with the clubs, but then the chance to sign Cahill probably would have gone.
Click to expand...

You know, the parts that frustrate me most are:

1) Cahill was playing in the Chinese 2nd division for the 2nd half of last season, so FFA had to know that he would be available.
2) Cahill spoke with Gallop after the Greece games in June, and I've come to 100% believe the information I got a couple of months ago suggesting that the discussion with Gallop came towards the end of negotiations with City, not at the start.
3) The idea of a marquee fund/player has been floated by media and by clubs almost since the A-League began and the FFA, to my knowledge, never publicly acknowledged the idea - and certainly didn't publicly try to win any support for it.

It was crazy that the decision to introduce the marquee fund came so late in the piece - even if it was always going to be a Cahill rule, it showed a complete lack of foresight on the part of FFA.

Which is why I engaged in the discussion before about whether it was or wasn't a "Cahill rule." If it weren't, they wouldn't have waited until Cahill was over the line before eventually ratifying the marquee fund, and it wouldn't have been such a distinct advantage to City because everyone would've had longer to a) find the right player, b) find the money to pay him, and c) get the FFA on board. I really think had we not been in such a hurry we probably could've convinced the FFA of Diamanti, or at least found someone similar.

I think that is the primary issue here - it was less about the fact that a rule was created for Cahill, because I always saw the benefit in him coming to the A-League in the final year of the current tv deal. Primarily, it was the ridiculous way in which the FFA handled the whole thing, because it increased the advantage that Heart got from the Cahill rule because other teams didn't have the opportunity to the a, b & c that I've written.
 
MC Extra Dollop said:
They wanted to wear sky blue from day dot. Sydney kicked up a fuss and the league blocked it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know...

The point was that you suggested if City were bribing the league (which I don't remember suggesting, but maybe I did) then they would be wearing sky blue - to which I responded that next season they will be. You didn't quite make the point that you thought you did!
 
XXRL said:
As a Glory fan we got shafted two years in a row for being out in the wild west.
Click to expand...

Given you made the 2014 final on the back of salary cap cheating I wouldn't be complaining too loudly if I were you. You should actually be glad you lost that match as the FFA would've stripped the trophy a few months later.
 
nobbyiscool said:
Yeah, I know...

The point was that you suggested if City were bribing the league (which I don't remember suggesting, but maybe I did) then they would be wearing sky blue - to which I responded that next season they will be. You didn't quite make the point that you thought you did!
Click to expand...

Oh snap, didn't I? My point was actually that there are numerous examples of the league not letting City have its way over the last three years and it would appear to me that many people are just a little bit salty that City is a threat to Victory's dominance of the Melbourne market now.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

MC Extra Dollop said:
Oh snap, didn't I? My point was actually that there are numerous examples of the league not letting City have its way over the last three years and it would appear to me that many people are just a little bit salty that City is a threat to Victory's dominance of the Melbourne market now.
Click to expand...

That's all a grand delusion that City fans and the media want everyone to think with all this "changing of the guard crap"! They keep harping on about. Frankly it's a little embarrassing and insulting at the some time considering City are yet to win anything signifcant apart from a couple of derby matches.

Just have a look at the crowd last night they could only attract just over 10k on a perfect night for football despite the good start to the season, having stars like Cahill and Fornaroli in the team as well as all the publicity generated with this Yoshi brat! yet only 10k show up! That's no threat!

Not that I care if City threaten Victory or not it will be good if they can actually, it will make a big statement for football in Melbourne.

But the way it is atm in the stands and in the trophy cabinet they are far from it!
 
Last edited:
giggler99 said:
That's all a grand delusion that City fans and the media want everyone to think with all this "changing of the guard crap"! They keep harping on about. Frankly it's a little embarrassing and insulting at the some time considering City are yet to win anything signifcant apart from a couple of derby matches.

Just have a look at the crowd last night they could only attract just over 10k on a perfect night for football despite the good start to the season, having stars like Cahill and Fornaroli in the team as well as all the publicity generated with this Yoshi brat! yet only 10k show up! That's no threat!

Not that I care if City threaten Victory or not it will be good if they can actually, it will make a big statement for football in Melbourne.

But the way it is atm in the stands and in the trophy cabinet they are far from it!
Click to expand...

Rome wasn't built in a day. City's third game at AAMI in a week, three days after playing Victory and following two derbies in less than two weeks? I wouldn't have been surprised if that drew under 7000 in previous years.

I've been there through the slow death of Heart, the CFG takeover and now to the point where City is a clear challenger to win the league. I can tell you there's a pretty clear shift.

People laughed at us, with Victory supporters adopting about the most condescending/patronising attitude possible. After blowing them off the park twice in less than two weeks, it's a little bit difficult to do that, so the insults become stuff we could have predicted years in advance: about our marquee signing (who's played two of our four games so far including our only loss), the lack of history/culture (compared to Victory, a whopping five years older) and attendances/memberships...yawn.

Yoshi is the perfect example. Would I give a stuff if he'd chosen Brisbane, or Wellington, or Central Coast, or Victory? Of course I wouldn't (I probably wouldn't have even realised). To see everyone's knickers in such a twist about it is absolutely hilarious to me. Because five years ago, no-one would have cared if he picked Heart either. I don't think it's a coincidence. It's better to be hated than pitied.
 
Bomberboyokay said:
Given you made the 2014 final on the back of salary cap cheating I wouldn't be complaining too loudly if I were you. You should actually be glad you lost that match as the FFA would've stripped the trophy a few months later.
Click to expand...

Wow, being lectured to about cheating by an Essendon fan. Now I've seen it all.

The point, if you read my entire post, is that the final should be held over two legs to spare us the same shitfight every year.
 
Might push the cup final record attendance if they get a bit more promotion for the game.

Just a shame that we have been brought up with the winning the Grand Final is the only silverware worth acknowledging. FFA cup still being seen by others as important as the Wizard Cup.

I'm really excited for the game a chance to begin a new chapter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

giggler99
2023 Australia Cup Thread
2 3 4
Replies
83
Views
3K
Zim^zuM
Zim^zuM
giggler99
Socceroos World Cup Qualifiers Socceroos V Lebanon
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
GOALden Hawk
G
giggler99
  • Locked
Socceroos World Cup Qualifiers Socceroos V Bangladesh/Palestine
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
2K
krakouers
krakouers
giggler99
2022 Australia Cup Thread
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
204
Views
6K
Zim^zuM
Zim^zuM
giggler99
Auckland FC Thread
Replies
14
Views
853
acm21
acm21
giggler99
  • Locked
A-League A-League Men Round 18 - The Inaugural Pride Cup
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
AJ_2000
AJ_2000
giggler99
  • Sticky
A-League 2023/24 A-League Women Thread
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3K
giggler99
giggler99

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top