Under the Board walk

Don't think I'm setting a precedent but I've actually done some research here.  I know it will come as a shock to those of you that have read my previous hastily bodged together rants.

So we had a chat the other day about Uncle Frank, his bizarre Friday outburst and just how he has remained as a our glorious overlord. We also wondered how the order of succession works as he abdicated the throne for his son and we all considered who his Wallace Simpson is.

Thanks to some interesting responses from some of our football community and this interesting piece from Janek Speight on the Roar website I at least have some idea what I am prattling about.

Without taking away from the need to read Janek's item (do read it, but avoid the comments which are typical 'bitters' vs 'New dawner' arguments) he explains that there are in fact elections for the members of the FFA board albeit ones that are generally from a closed pool.

the nine regional bodies will vote on the new board members, with A-League clubs holding one collective vote. They will ultimately decide who joins the board, thought why A-League clubs don’t have a larger say is a mystery.

What will be interesting is whether the events of the last 3 weeks will have the alarm bells ringing among those responsible for the vote.  The game in this country is largely beholden to TV deals and the FFA leadership and lackeys have talked ad infinitum about how the next TV deal will be the big one and make the game but what happens when your flagship's ratings start sinking?

Throw in the recent announcement that FOX have lost rights to the English Premier League to Optus and the situation looks even more bleak.  FOX have repeatedly sold the A-League as a lead in to a night of Premier League football and generally they use the same teams to produce the supporting shows and the same talking heads for panels.  One incentive to pay up for the A-League and piggy-back it off the UK coverage has gone and you have to wonder how they will keep funding clowns like Harper, Slater and Meredith.  Not all bad then.

One can only expect the Accountants at Fox and the FTA networks are rubbing their hands in glee as David Gallop and company oversee a collapse in viewership worthy of United Passions, FIFA's self-congratulatory boreathon.  Surely the risk to the key revenue stream for the sport in this country will galvanise those responsible for electing new board members into action.

This of course brings us back to the question raised by Janek above.  The two groups who will suffer the largest impact from a failure to deliver on the TV deal promises will be the A-League clubs and the players who will have to fund the excesses of the regime through the fees they pay which are already significantly higher than most rival codes.  

How will the A-League club owners feel when the negligence of the FFA results in the financial bonus promised with the new TV deal being a figment of the imagination.  Surely the idea that one vote in ten of those for the board does not represent the investment of the owners of the A-League clubs, remembering that three clubs are either propped up or a day to day proposition, where will the A-League go when the owners of the other clubs walk away if the TV deal doesn't resolve the current challenges.

With three or four vacancies currently on the board, isn't it time the stakeholders had a genuine say in who should take those spots and why are my fees paying for the FFA to hire consultants to go hunting for people?  Surely football people with business acumen should be the priority, not whether they can rort a healthcare provider for a $30 million dollar salary?

The FFA hired consultancy firm Egon Zehnder in 2013 to conduct a search for new directors, which identified 70 candidates

If the FFA were making the right decisions for the future sustainability of the A-League then this wouldn't be an issue but clearly there are flaws in the business plan when the Federation need to intervene in club ownership and all the league's 'metrics' are in a steady decline.  It must be time some more transparency, ownership and responsibility for the issues facing the A-league was applied to all levels of the FFA from the board down.  Is it still appropriate for it to be a Lowy family personal fiefdom.

The subject of TV revenue does bring me to another side issue and back to the subject of the Wellington Phoenix.  A post on my opening blog brings a bit of focus on the situation of the New Zealand TV deal.  A point often overlooked as the FFA evangelists over at FOX start mashing their keyboards with their foreheads is that the FFA failed to negotiate a quality TV deal out of New Zealand and that this should not be beholden on the Wellington Phoenix any more than if the FFA fail to get adequate funds out of FOX for the A-League it can be blamed on the owners of Melbourne Victory.

Related to this is my final point. A figure was made up or 'leaked' to the media about the New Zealand TV rights being worth $180k.  My reliable sources assure me the value is more than this, and in fact when the costs of broadcasting 13 or 14 games a season are added the revenue from the New Zealand TV deal is closer to $900k.  Clearly this is significantly more than the numbers bandied around by the FFA spin merchants and while not exactly $40m a year, when combined with the Australian revenue for 20% of the A-League for a 5 game round instead of a 4 game round the New Zealand market do clearly add to the FFA revenue picture.

Well look at that, another example of how the FFA 'metrics' as applied to the Phoenix are fundamentally flawed.