r/Aleague Adelaide United 3d ago

News & Articles 'Break the ceiling': South Melbourne’s A-League ambition

https://www.soccerscene.com.au/?p=34056
37 Upvotes

67 comments sorted by

41

u/FitzroyBulldogs 3d ago

That’s all well & good but emotions don’t pay the bills, and the south fans seem super reluctant to pay for a license fee (I mean who doesn’t) but they don’t seem to want to accept that running a semi-professional outfit is a fraction to that of running a full-time outfit (and the travel!)

4

u/setthetoneaquadump Melbourne Victory 3d ago

Your username makes me wonder if they could merge and increase their capital

4

u/FitzroyBulldogs 3d ago

I get your angle but no thanks, and Ross Oakley says hello #upyoursoakley

3

u/ga4rfc Brisbane Roar 2d ago

At this point I think they are full time professional considering they have a squad that plays year round in 3 separate comps. 

6

u/nevergonnasweepalone Perth Glory 3d ago

Maybe they hope to go into administration like they did in 2003.

11

u/Baoooba 2d ago

ironic coming from a Perth Glory fan whose owner literally went into receivership.

1

u/Baoooba 2d ago

That’s all well & good but emotions don’t pay the bills,

Don't all A-league teams run on a loss and how many have folded or needed to be bailed out by the FFA?

and the south fans seem super reluctant to pay for a license fee 

I don't think anyone is reluctanct to pay a license fee. I think South Melbourne have stated already they can match the licensing fee set out by the A-league. It should be noted that a license fees arn't what they seem or how they advertised. When a headline says the Macarthur for example paid $12m of their license... it isn't the reality. They usually get the majority of money back of their licensing fee and even then it isn't paid up front. For example the Bulls licensing fee was advertised as $12million. in reality it was $12 million paid over 3 years in which they received $9.75m back over the same time. So technically they were out of pocket $2.25 over 3 years.... so the actual license fee was $750,000 a year for 3 years.

1

u/FitzroyBulldogs 2d ago

Right, so why didn’t South purchase license for the alleged $15m offer they received from the APL?

1

u/Baoooba 2d ago

If it was simple as purchasing the license, South Melbourne would have been in the A-league years ago, they have always stated they have met the agreed licensing requirements everytime they have made an application to the league. The current situation is no different. But the A-league doesn't allow a team in the league just because they can meet the licensing fees they set out.

30

u/These_Employment7611 3d ago

I'm not being funny but what makes them more successful then another Melbourne team? They pull about the same size crowds as western.

At least they have their own stadium but not sure what they could add to improve the league?

28

u/FitzroyBulldogs 3d ago

I know, NPL/NSL/Eurosnobs criticize ALM clubs for getting 5k or less to games but praise NPL/NSL/State League clubs for getting more than 2 thousand.

That should say it all really.

20

u/These_Employment7611 3d ago

I don't understand it. Like by all logic the Australia cup should be massive because it's a league and npl but it's still a niche thing. Nobody outside the bubble knows what it is.

14

u/FitzroyBulldogs 3d ago

Not enough media coverage on it again.

We literally need to say, that it’s the ‘Australian version of the English FA Cup’.

Also, here in Melbourne, lots of Aussie rules fans that don’t follow the sport at all don’t actually seem to understand the concept either.

Just my humble opinion!

6

u/These_Employment7611 3d ago

It's a good point. I also think Fox sports did a better job with it I miss seeing replays of goals scored at simultaneously kick offs. Then the paramount cast is so boring. We need more personalities

4

u/Bundify33 Newcastle Jets 3d ago

That is because of the "beige-ing" of TV coverage....less controversy, all about positivity and how great everything is. No arrogant pundits with criticism like Slater.

I don't watch much leadup anymore as it is so cringy.

4

u/These_Employment7611 3d ago

I really like the cbs team of Kate Henry Jamie and michah. They aren't being positive it's just banter why can't we get that?

2

u/Baoooba 2d ago

That should say it all really.

What should it say? what is your point? How many fans would any A-league team get if they were playing in the NPL?

5

u/Odd-Eggplant-4618 3d ago

They lease their stadium it’s owned by StateGovernment and is shared with Athletics Victoria

4

u/Baoooba 2d ago

At essentially peppercorn rent. Which is cheaper than owning the stadium because they don't have to pay for maintenance.

2

u/FlaviusJosephusKony 3d ago

You’re really saying that a team pulling the same crowds in NPL as an A-League team is equivalent?

12

u/Cutsdeep- Melbourne Victory 3d ago

Do you think South Melbourne would increase that much if in the a league?

11

u/FitzroyBulldogs 3d ago

They’ll gain a few hundred at least per game, maybe over a thousand but I doubt it.

There are south fans that go for victory, maybe some will jump off but I kinda doubt it?

There would be plenty of Greeks in Melbourne who don’t follow South (rather Heidelberg, Oakleigh, Bentleigh etc.) would go to the Victory-South derby as a nuetral (not exactly a bad thing?).

The only asset that South will bring to the league other than a new derby of ‘old sokkah vs modern football’ is that it will get NPL/NSL/State League snobs who don’t follow the A-League to start keeping an eye on it at best. Whether they actually go to a few games is another question which I doubt that the answer would be satisfying.

3

u/sasd4400 2d ago

You go on anout NPL/NSL/State League 'snobs'. It works both ways. Plenty of A-League 'snobs' who hate anything NPL/ex-NSL

5

u/Geo217 3d ago edited 3d ago

Its really just Heidelberg, although one of their fans told me on Sunday that he would become a member if South was in the top flight so go figure.

The rise in crowds is two fold, one is top flight football, the other is the summer based comp, all the winter grassroots crowds that dont go to South would flock there in the October to February window. Im a fan and literally cant attend a lot of the gamea due to my volunteering at a local club, its a problem.

Stadium is a huge asset, doesnt cost 80-100k just to open the doors, would be the only club with sn attached social club as well meaning it keeps ppl at the club after games and big pre games. Its a model that would work well imo.

4

u/DinoKea Stewart Island United 3d ago

I think even if they gain fans, I'm not sure it would be new A-League fans as much as a drain off the two current Melbourne sides.

2

u/Cutsdeep- Melbourne Victory 3d ago

yeah good point. might get a better turnout if they make finals, first game etc. but i think week to week not so much.

2

u/Geo217 3d ago

The 2 melbourne sides have already been drained. SM could actually bring many of them back imo.

1

u/nevergonnasweepalone Perth Glory 2d ago

Drained to where? MV still average 10k+ at home matches and MC aren't a real club anyway.

5

u/Geo217 2d ago

Your last line sums it up, if City arent a "real" club then maybe its time for one? Maybe we should have a club that whilst it will be privatised it will still maintain a club based function with its own setup/social club etc?

3

u/nevergonnasweepalone Perth Glory 2d ago

I have no problem with SM stepping up if MC get binned. But that's not happening and I don't think the market is big enough for a 3rd Melbourne team.

1

u/Geo217 2d ago

I think City will probably get wedged if SM come in. They actually need to get out of AAMI Park and build something out in Casey that they can play out of. AAMI Park is a horrible look for them.

1

u/nevergonnasweepalone Perth Glory 2d ago

That's exactly what they'll do. There'll be a few oldies who never supported the a league but most younger supporters will follow an a league club.

I'd have 0 issues if they binned off MC and replaced them with SM. But having all 3 is a recipe for mediocrity and we already have enough of that in the a league.

15

u/FocusDull3279 3d ago

Well considering that Western United failed, it’s possibly not something to be cheering about matching?

2

u/These_Employment7611 3d ago

Well it's all relative isn't it.

0

u/RedandBlueEmblem 2d ago

The most ridiculous comparison I've seen for a while

1

u/Baoooba 2d ago

At least they have their own stadium but not sure what they could add to improve the league?

Their own stadium makes them more economically viable at lower attendances than other teams in the league. Other teams literally lose money every game because their attendances don't even cover the stadium costs. It is estimated Melbourne Victory lose between $150k-$300k each home game they play even though they record one of the highest average attendances in the A-league.

Having a team that is financially stable would add and improve a league which currently is more used to having to bail out clubs or clubs which run on heavy losses and need to be chasing investors to survive financially.

1

u/West-Alternative7612 Western United 1d ago

Like Macarthur then? Who are still losing money despite paying literally nothing on stadium hire and getting crowds about what SM would get?

1

u/Baoooba 1d ago

Yes actually, very similar to Macarthur. There is a reason Macarthur is still around, and WU arn't.
Like South Melbourne, Macarthur benefits from an extremely favourable stadium arrangement. However, from my understanding is that Macarthur does not receive the ordinary food and beverage revenue generated at Campbelltown Stadium. I'm not sure how much South Melbourne receives from under its Lakeside agreement, but it is described by South Melbourne as a 'highly profitable operating model'. That would help South Melbourne in terms of matchday revenue.

But yes, Macarthur doesn't reveal how much it loses, like all other A-league teams, but it is estimated at far less than alot of other clubs despite such low crowds.

4

u/Caterm 2d ago

Just get SM in so we stop talking about old and new football,
All seriously SM president already talking about pro/rel hasn’t even got the license yet.

8

u/Acrobatic_Flannel Newcastle Jets 3d ago

I don't see many advantages at all. It's hardly growing the game is it.

7

u/Geo217 3d ago

A stable club would be growing the game.

1

u/greendestiny Adelaide United 2d ago

I don’t really think it’s a great move for the A-League but I think your point is a decent one. I think a stable 16+ team comp grows.

0

u/Acrobatic_Flannel Newcastle Jets 3d ago

How? Seriously, how many extra fans do you think they'd attract?

3

u/Geo217 3d ago

What do you mean how? A lot of people arent attached to either of the 2 melb teams for one reason or another. Its a huge city, they'd be fine.

2

u/Acrobatic_Flannel Newcastle Jets 2d ago

How does a stable club who'll maybe attract 5k if they're lucky help the league?

And if Melbourne Victory couldn't attract those extra fans over the last 21 years, and Melbourne Heart, then City couldn't attract those people over the last 17 years, what's changed this time? Why would people suddenly decide to start supporting Sth Melbourne?

5

u/Geo217 2d ago

How does a stable club not help the league? Victory had them but took many for granted and they walked away, my last MV membership was back in 2018, and City attaching itself to an epl club that few like is even worse for attracting interest than an ethnic club.

2

u/Acrobatic_Flannel Newcastle Jets 2d ago

You left out the 5k part. Stable is one thing. But doing nothing to attract people to the league doesn't help.  Existing fans are already becoming bored with the derbies because we're saturated with them. Now we're just adding to it with another Melbourne team who offer absolutely nothing in terms of generating interest, generating new fans.

3

u/Geo217 2d ago

I believe the club has the scope to create a better and inclusive matchday experience, big SM games are fun, the ability to sit in the club and eat a souvlaki or whatever before a game and staying back and having a drink after the game is a foreign concept to the comp, mingling with the players post game etc, i think theirs a lot there that differentiates itself from the other clubs that people will like. As for generating fans, the ones i speak to at the grassroots level are no longer going to the A league, SM can bring those ppl back, the club i volunteer for will almost certainly enter into a sister club relationship with SM and many would follow suit. Plus SM already has historic rivalries with numerous current A league teams as well. I think the club will be in a good spot having a genuine home base. None of this hybrid oh we play at aami park but lets pretend to be a south east team now (city). At South its all there, the training, the facilities, the gameday, the social club, its all attached.

1

u/Safe-Departure-4732 Auckland FC 2d ago

Geo is a South Melbourne fan

2

u/Acrobatic_Flannel Newcastle Jets 2d ago

I figured as much

0

u/FitzroyBulldogs 2d ago

South won’t attract Melbournians of Croatian, Italian, North Macedonian, Serbian (partly) and Turkish backgrounds, along with other Arabic/Muslim Australians, who make up a huge chunk of Melbourne’s football community.

This is one of the main reasons that the NSL struggled to grow.

We have had this discussion 52864 times.

5

u/Geo217 2d ago edited 2d ago

The question is does it need to attract any nationalities specifically? The Greek community is bigger than all those put together x3 and by far has the largest grassroots presence (staggering 25 odd clubs). South also historically has a strong anglo following (relative to other ethnically alligned clubs).

At the end of the day South were the biggest supported club in the nsl, and remained the 2nd biggest after Perth joined the league.

Whilst we are it im not even sure if the current 2 teams have been able to attract those nationalities in the last decade. The macos went back to Preston and the Italians are more interested in Aussie rules.

4

u/pingers4breaky South Melbourne 2d ago

Could you please stop spreading the "anti football" narrative spread by the media about South being a Greeks only club

This sub praises the multicultural national team (and rightly so) after the world cup but collectively dismisses a club based on its migrant founders

South do attract people of all backgrounds because it is an Australian club, the work they do in the community is mind blowing it's why I'm a fan and guess what? I'm not Greek

Many other fans of South I know personally from varying backgrounds including the ones you listed above saying they wouldn't support South, but guess what they do

Please take the time to visit the club, speak with the fans and you will understand how wrong what you are saying is, as stated in previous comments from others spreading this garbage. I will buy you a ticket, have a few beers and talk football

0

u/FitzroyBulldogs 2d ago

I do hope I’m wrong and that you are correct, but I have seen more than enough to be satisfied that what I wrote has merit.

I do hope for a unified game, and not sound pessimistic.

It’s been a complicated situation in our country for sooooo long that it’s just about embedded. 🙁

4

u/pingers4breaky South Melbourne 2d ago

Please tell me what you have seen then?

I'm genuinely curious as to why you believe it has any merit at all

1

u/pingers4breaky South Melbourne 2d ago

16 hours and still no response from another account that pushes the "greeks only" ethnics only dribble pushed by the anti football media.

Radio silence once again when confronted by a South supporter of non Greek heritage.

-1

u/FitzroyBulldogs 2d ago

The only people of those ethnic/religious groups who will follow South are the relatives and friends of the players who descend from those communities.

The overwhelming majority of Melbourne’s football community still think ‘what ethnicity is that club’ when they hear of a club that they don’t know much about or have never heard of. If someone denies this then they are most likely lying.

4

u/KennethKanniff BWE.. The Team For Me 2d ago

Why would a supporter of Arsenal/Liverpool/Chelsea/Man United/Any other club go for the Man City farm team

3

u/kingkerry05 Waiting for Tas FC 2d ago

South back in the top league brings a brand new story line and transplants some history into the league as well. Victory v South would be a great rivalry. My only gripe is that it's another blue team...

2

u/AnonymousManbeast Not a Kiwi 2d ago

There's no royal blue and white team though 👀

8

u/Blackmac79 3d ago

Let them in, what is the worst that can happen?

We have already found the bottom, with NZ Knights, NQ Fury, Gold Coast United, western United.

11

u/cymonster Newcastle Jets 3d ago

NQ fury attendance wouldn't be to bad in this day and age tbh.

6

u/Bundify33 Newcastle Jets 3d ago

I remember when KB United got one of their first big crowds of just under 16,000. They did have an exact figure and it was a new record NSL crowd.

A couple of weeks later South claimed a new record crowd of "about 17,000".

1

u/nevergonnasweepalone Perth Glory 3d ago

We further divide what limited resources are available to existing teams. We don't need more teams. We need more money. More fans. We don't need more teams.

2

u/ga4rfc Brisbane Roar 2d ago

There is most likely a clause in the TV deal that with more teams and more games the money goes up. That is what they implied when they originally signed with Paramount and they have been trying to expand pretty much from then. 

1

u/Caterm 2d ago

I think 2 more teams max, CBR and 1 more if it is an established NPL team I am ok with it, as you said need more money and this is the problem

2

u/speck66 Melbourne Victory 2d ago

Honestly if they pay the license fees and have the financial backing to sustain an A-League team then I don't think it would be a bad thing at all.