Talk:A-League Men/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The League structure

While the article gives good reference on the A league, it's structure, and make up the article does not provide any link for the reader to move on. What lies below the A League? Remember that an encyclopedic article is one that presumes the reader has no prior knowledge of the subject and is also written in an impartial manner. For the reader of this article they find they have nowhere to go to investigate the subject further, i.e. Read about lower leagues in Australia. My knowledge of Australian Association Football is no solid enough for me to correct this aspect of the article so I leave it to more informed wiki members to act on this oversight. I would also warn that the discussion page here is bordering on becomming an Australian football forum. The discussion page is to discuss what should and shouldn't be in the article not what teams you would like to see in the league or who you think the best players are etc.

While it would be nice to place information on lower leagues, technically they're not lower leagues as you do not get promoted from them to the A-League etc. Hence lower leagues having nothing to do with the A-League - but rather the FFA CipherPixel (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Former notable players

Aurelio Vidmar NEVER played in the A-League. And players like Haliti and And Dilevski are hardly notable...

Victory home ground hasn't been announced yet has it?

Page name

I just redirected all the A-League references to USL First Division, so feel free to move this page to A-League (but leave a note on top with redirect to USL First Division). --DR31 (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Three months later, the move has been done! There are now lots of pages pointing to A-League (Australia) that need to be changed to A-League. I'll change the ones that are affected by double re-directs, and make a start on the rest in the morning. -- Chuq 11:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

football vs soccer

The article makes it sound like this is a soccer competition. Is there any particular reason, Tancred, why you think we should confuse the people most interested in this article into thinking it's a football or football competition? Felix the Cassowary 10:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just read yours and Xtra's talk pages, and I understand your justification. (I was not previously aware that in Sydney, 'football' frequently refers to 'soccer', and I think most Melburnians would be more than a little surprised to hear this.)

Nevertheless, 'football' is still a linguistic variable, and still has no place in referring to a specific sport on an inter-regional website in an introductory paragraph. (I realise that consistently, this means it should be replaced (e.g. football->soccer) or circumlocuted (e.g. football->aussie rules football) in most other occurrences here. I don't have the time to go off and make all these changes, but I would be in favor of them.) Felix the Cassowary 10:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick note - I haven't had time to look at the talk pages above, but Soccer Australia recently changed its name to the "Football Federation of Australia", and expect all other soccer/football organisations to do the same. Many of the clubs are now FC, indicating that they are trying to push everyone in this direction. However, I have tried to follow it, but when i personally say football to mean soccer, everyone assumes I am talking about rugby league (I am in Sydney by the way). In short, I wish we could put football there, but the truth is most people in Australia still identify it as soccer. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 22:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I feel this game should be called football. It's the official name of the game. Most of the clubs are football clubs. Living in Sydney I can state the rugby league is rugby league, and for many people football is football (Aussie rules is Aussie rules). As it stands at the moment, Foxsports, the SMH, ABC, SBS, the online News Limited papers use the term football. Channel 10 in SYdney seems to vary from day to day at the moment. I don't see why we have to use a nickname for the sport when it's correct (and official) name is football. --Tancred 03:10, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

Because the name the body that defines the sport uses is ambiguous. 'Soccer' isn't just a nickname. It's the name you'll find in an Australian (or American) dictionary. It's the name that can be used at all levels of formality in Australia (or America). Living in Melbourne, I can say that Rugby is Rugby (and the distinction between league and union is pretty much ignored), football is Aussie Rules ('Aussie rules' is only used to disambiguate, like here), and soccer is soccer. 'Aussie Rules' is just a modifier---it describes a type of football (which was formely known as Melbourne Rules Football when it was only played in Melbourne, and Victorian Rules Football when it was only played in Victoria). The simplest definition of 'football' is that it describes the commonest form of football in the region you're speaking (or you learnt to speak), so it beans football err... Aussie Rules in Melbourne, one kind of Rugby in Qld, the other kind in NZ, soccer in Europe, Gridiron in America, Canadian footy in Canada. (Also, if you want to cite Media, the only thing I can check is the Age, which categorised the article on Melbourne's soccer team signing an ex-Belgiun player as 'Soccer' and, as usual, the pages discussing the AFL and other related topics as 'Football'. I'll try and find more, but I'm not going to sit in front of a telly to watch the news to do it.)

In short, I simply don't see why we should use a name that's ambiguous when we have a perfectly valid unambiguous form that we can use. Felix the Cassowary 05:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm leaving it alone now. I was about to make the same change you did, realising the futility of this all, but got an edit conflict instead. However, how come the references to organisations with 'Soccer' in their name persist? I don't understand that, and seeing as those are organisations who are fully entitled to choose their own name, doesn't it make sense to call them by their current names? (I don't know the inner workings of the organisations. I know what the name of the sport is—it's soccer—but I don't how the organisations work.) Felix the Cassowary 00:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Guys, it's football. Football people know this. Get over it. Allan.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.47.49.114 (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2005

---

I would like to make the following points:

a) Australian "soccer" articles should be consistent with international "soccer" pages and refer to the game as football (e.g. 2002 Football World Cup).

b) Where "Football" is part of a name (e.g. xyz Football Club), it should not be renamed.

c) Where the context is not obvious, "association football" or "football (soccer)" should appear in the introductory paragraph. However, where it is obvious (e.g. "Australia national football team" or "A-League (Australia)"), it should not be required. Perhaps it may be required for the A-League club articles as it is important to identify what type of club it is - although this is more a problem for AFL vs FFA teams as rugby clubs tend to identify themselves as such).

d) Soccer is a colloquialism and is a corruption of association football.

e) With regards to the (Australian) media:

Channel 7,9,10 call it Soccer as they don't want to confuse the viewer - remember that 7 used to own the rights to AFL and now 9 and 10 do.

Fox Sports, ABC, SBS and Sky News call it football (although SKY can be variable because it uses stories from channel 7 and 9).

The SMH always calls it football (is it a Mike Cockerill initiative?) The Age varies depending on editor The West Australian varies depending on journalist, but context is usually obvious. (Headlines always call it Soccer and the liftout is called "Super Soccer" because of the alliteration).

I have rarely seen the commercial media call rugby "football" regularly (although I live in Perth, so the only rugby we see is Union - and it is called either Rugby or Union).

Of course in the international media: CNN calls it football even though it is based in U.S. BBC call it football for obvious reasons. ESPN calls it soccer or football depending on which league or match is covered.

• ViXx 13:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

CNN International calls it "Football", but its sport coverage is anchored out of London. CNN (US) called it Soccer. --kjd 07:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that last week the Daily Telegraph in Sydney launched its "Football" liftout and it contains nothing about Aussie Rules ;) Almost all of the state federations have changed their name to football as well. --Tancred 00:19, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

---

I think people who love football/soccer get too caught up in this argument. However, I play and referee the sport and call it soccer. Why? Because most Australians will presume you mean rugby league/union or AFL (depending on the state) if you say otherwise. I don't care what the media calls it. If a person honestly thinks that when they call soccer 'football' they are not confusing people they are full of it. I love soccer but it will never be as popular as league, union or aussie rules varients of football. Get used to it!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dankru (talk • contribs) 08:08, 24 September 2005

I'm with you. I love it, but it will always be soccer to me. Why? Because I DON'T agree with FFA's desicion. I don't appericaite being told what I can and can't call a sport. Does this make me less a fan? No it doesn't.

List of Top Scorers

While having a list of top scorers is an excellent step, I feel we should actually list the top scorers since Australia has had a national league, so that would included the NSL. For example the English Premier League still counts stats from the days of the 1st Div. Thoughts? --Tancred 09:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

NSL

This article should be included in the old NSL. In the mid 90's for a season or 2 the NSL was also reffered to as the A-League. The league is under the same boday FFA and doesn't even have a different name. The only difference is there is a different sructure (though the NSL also had a different structure in different era's) and 6 different teams (with all ethnic based teams expelled).

- Actually only 4 different teams (with all ethnic teams expelled).

Ethnic Cleansing

I think there should be a reference to ethnic cleansing in the change over from the NSL system to the A-League system. Succesful teams like South Melbourne, Marconi and Sydney Olympic were refused entry into the A-League for the formation of new teams even though these teams were capable of competing in the A-League at a competitive and financial level. The only two NSL teams to stay were Perth Glory and Adelaide Utd. were 2 of the few non-ethnic teams in the NSL. Newly formed teams like Melbourne Victory also stuggled financially even before this new "league" was formed problem that existing teams like South Melbourne and others would have not had. But they were still overlooked for no other reason but ethnicity. The FFA have made no secret of this often referring to the A-League as a league without ethnic based teams.

Or not. Mono-ethnic teams have never been able to draw crowds close to what is required to maintain an A-League club, and because they only represent a small minority of the population they wouldn't be able to. Therefore they were rejected because of that, and not because of any racist "ethnic cleansing" policy that you are alluding to. So when you finish crying about it, feel free to watch your team's state league games. Oh, and please sign your comments in future. --[dM] 03:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The above comment is false. Newcastle Utd Jets and New Zealand were allowed to compete in the A-League despite both have far lower crowds then most other teams that were excluded entry. New Zealand actually had the lowest support in the NSL, yet they kept there spot and now have an avarage crowd attendance that rivals VPL teams. Also if non-ethnic teams were so succesful why were so many failures in NSL (i.e. Carlton, Canberra Cosmos, Newcastle Breakers, Paramatta Power, Northern Spirit, Eastern Pride). Each of these teams had big crowds in there first season but then after the novelty wore off they lost there support, just like the A-League will with no loyalty amongst its fans.

-David

The Breakers and Spirit never suffered from a lack of loyalty. They suffered from a lack of money. As someone who worked for NSFC, I can assue you that was the problem. In the clubs 3rd season, there was not even enough money to really let season ticket holders know what was going on. Oh and Eastern Pride were formed out of an Italian club in rural Victoria. Parramatta Power never drew big crowds, everyone knew they were a front for the rugby league team. I believe Carlton suffered the same problems in Melbourne. I would also be interested in you showing me any of the ethnic clubs who had the $5 million and a decent stadium required to apply to join the A-League. Places like Marconi, Summers St, King Tom would never have a place in a decent national league.Tancred 12:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Because there's nothing like World Cup success to cause people to lose interest in soccer. ～J.K. 08:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

South Melbourne owns its own stadium and if it was given the allowences and opportunities of that of the A-League (most of which did struggle financially) it could of made the $5 million entry. The FFA had to bend over backwards to allow Melbourne Victory in. Victory only had raised $1.75 million of the needed $5 million by the start of 2005. Now the A-League will try take credit for World Cup success of Australia when really it was due to the old NSL (considering most players played in the NSL rather then the A-League). Also the A-League has no junior leagues so the future players of Australia will once again have to be trained and raised by the old NSL teams (currently in the state leagues of Australia). By the way Eastern Pride was formed from Gippsland Falcons which lost it Italian routes by changing its name and began started advertising itself as a non-ethnic club back in 1964.

-David

South Melbourne would never have sold out Telstra Dome or get 33,000 average crowds. It was a business decision. The new structure of the clubs let everyone (including, in the case of South Melbourne, Greeks) to support a team. I would not support a Greek team myself because I'm not Greece.

Why expell South Melbourne then, if there was such a strong support base for a non-ethnic soccer team in Melbourne, there would have been atleast 1 succesful non-ethnic team in the last 30 years. But lets face it, the only way Melbourne Victory could be succesful was by banning succesful established teams like South Melbourne and Melbourne Knights. The truth is Melbourne Victory is the only success story in the entire A-League and even they are losing money. If half of much money was put into advertising the NSL as tehy do in the A-League the NSL would be getting large crowds also, but the fact is the NSL didn't have the money to spend, either does the A-League despite the backing of Lowie and the recent cash-fall from making the world cup. The ironic thing is all the money they've put in the A-League and using less teams and the standard of football is worse then that of the NSL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.76.160 (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Underlying cores?

"The logo for the A-League was designed by Sydney's Coast Design, and is aimed at reflecting the company's new image and the brand's underlying cores"

This reads more like something from a press release than it does an encyclopedia article. Further more, I am sure Don Watson would love the phrase "underlying cores" should he ever write another "Weasel Words". :) I am going to tidy this up.--dan, dan and dan 20:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Completely Unfair

Why are NSW getting two more soccer clubs next year when they already have three and Melbourne is stuck with only one? I find this rather unfair and the federation seems to favour NSW for some reason. Only good this, is that it'll divide you fans over so many clubs and Melbourne will be more highly supported because they have only one and everone who supports soccer will be going for the one team in Melbourne. I still find it most unfair. Victoria's population isn't that much lower than NSW and after all, we are called the sporting capital of Australia. (Note, Tancred, please do not answer this. I have no wish to discuss anything with you again).

They’re not expanding. Thanks for your concern, Sliat 1981. Please sign your "contributions". --Executive.koala 08:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I will respond to anything I like Sliat 1981. When Victoria has a second city, with a decent football stadium, i'm sure there will be talks about getting a second football team into Victoria. NSW has 3 A-League clubs as we have 3 citys that can support them. Wollongong is going to upgrade their stadium so I would expect a team there within the next 4-6 years, but as Executive.koala said, next season there will be no new teams. Tancred 01:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

(Ignoring Tancred's coments) I'll send u an email to discuss, Koala. There are some people on here which I have no wish to communicate with.

Back in the NSL days the majority of the teams were also from NSW. With Sydney at one stage having Marconi, Northern Spirit, Paramatta Power, Sydney United and Sydney Olympic playing in top flight. If we look at this it shows it has nothing to do with population or stadiums but more to do with the Sydney-centric FFA. If the A-League allowed more then one team per city I wouldn't be surprised if Sydney were allowed to have 3 teams before Melbourne or other cities got a 2nd team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.194.163.235 (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Melbourne Victory

Hey Koala or the rest, I didn't want to have to ask it here, but we need to know what our 'V' stands for. Neither Melbourne Victory of the federation will contact me about it. I say it's for victory, others say it's for Victoria. I keep putting it on the site but some people just get rid of it without explaining what it is in the disacussion.

Medals

There is a need for a medals page or section giving the winners of the FFA run awards (ie. Warren Medal, Rising Star, Coach of the Year). I suggest a table with the year on the left and the award winners for that year in that row. This would avoid cluttering the page. I am unsure how to make this so will leave it to someone else.

New Teams

This all seems a little bit too much guessing. Not sure it is relevant for an encyclopaedia article, tis more forum speek. -Mike 'TinTin'

I see what you mean, but when I originally wrote the article it was from the FFA press release upon the launch of the league, which included most of the information. It's been a while since then so I can't remember how much it has been changed. I'll try and dig up the original info I had. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 09:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

When the League was launched John O'Neil still have a very poor idea of how the world of Football worked. He talked about getting Asian teams to join the A-League and seemed to think that FIFA and the AFC would allow this. The original articles can be found here http://www.a-league.com.au/default.aspx?s=newsdisplay&id=601 and here http://www.a-league.com.au/default.aspx?s=newsdisplay&id=629.

From what has been said in the press, when new teams are added they will need to be playing out of a decent stadium so it's hard to see a team in Hobart. Tancred 12:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

They could play at Bellerive Oval, possibly North Hobart Oval or, if in Launceston, Aurora Stadium. However seeing as Football Federation Tasmania is based at the poor quality (and article-less) KGV Sports Ground, I expect an upgrade would be in order if a Hobart team was established. -- Chuq 13:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, Melbourne and Adelaide have been scheduled to play a pre-season match at Aurora Stadium prior to the next season proper. Graham 10:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Page move

This page naming issue was discussed and sorted last year - please don't move pages with hundreds of links to them without prior discussion. I'll move the pages back to how they were. -- Chuq 01:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The page name should be reverted to Austrialian Hyundai A-League to avoid disambigation with A-League Soccer. Hundreds of links were not changed by the way, only a handful. I don't believe any article can monopolise a name in this situation. Tag at beginning of page looks untidy and that is why I set-up diaambiguation page. Djln--Djln 13:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The American A-League no longer exists. This page is fine as it is. Also the correct name for the league is the A-League so Hyundai should not be considered for the title.Tancred 15:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Whilst the league no longer exists, it doesn't mean that the page name won't be used for the history of it, just like the National Soccer League is used for the old NSL history. In fact, I just had to change an article that linked here instead of to A-League Soccer. Perhaps the page should be called A-League (Australia). Alternatively perhaps the disambigation should point to the A-League Soccer instead of the current US League. --Nicko 12:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Australian Champions

Deleted this section.... just seemed totally pointless. We either list A-League champions (not much of a list seeing as we've had one sesaon) or a combination of A-League and NSL champions - including defunct or state-league teams. IMO just listing championships (including NSL) won by A-League clubs contributes absolutely nothing to the article. --[dM] 03:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Achie Thompson

Needs to be updated.

Getting The Logo's back

This arguement has come to my attention on the NRL site and it may help us get the logos back. What you see now is a copy of a person's view on it on the NRL discussion:

This ludicrous injustice has just come to my attention. In my opinion, the logos are not used in a decorative manner at all, but as the Fair Use guidelines state, should be used "for identification". Now of course, everyone has their own opinion, but if something does come from this issue then we can fight it all the way. --mdmanser 12:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

NSL winners

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A-League&diff=prev&oldid=59403726 - this list was added by an anon IP. I think it should be deleted, as it is already in the National Soccer League (Australia) article. -- Chuq 23:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Rivalries?

Frankly, I'm tempted to delete this section en masse. The clubs (with the exception of Perth Glory) are all precisely one season old. That's not time for rivalries to develop, except in the minds of marketroids. --Robert Merkel 04:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

ACtually, that's not true, as New Zealand and Adelaide were NSL teams and Queensland has roots in an older Brisbane team. Beside, it needs no marketeer to create a rivalry between Melbourne and Adelaide in sport (just look at the AFL), or Sydney and Brisbane in sport (i.e. Origin), or between Melbourne and Sydney in anything. You could start Melbourne and Sydney cockroach-racing teams tomorrow and they'd be bitter and irreversible rivals by next week. The section should stay. Emcee N 05:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree the section deserves to stay, and that there are genuine rivalries. But we need sources. At the moment it looks like baseless assertion. Wantok 01:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think Australian regional rivalries covers most of them. Emcee N 14:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the section should go. As has been stated, most of the rivalries are geographic and not A-league specific, and the ones that are not are no more than two seasons old, and even some of those are now questionable. For example, the Adelaide-Queensland rivalry may well fade given that Queensland no longer have the coach who originally clashed with Kosmina. Murtoa 06:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

3rd tier league?

Where's the information about this? The only link I find that shows the world league rankings is [1] which doesn't have the A-League on the top 31. Portugal and Netherlands are 9 and 11 respectively. Seems incorrect to say the A-League is in the same category. --Awiseman 14:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

For whatever reason, they are no longer there, but this google search shows Sydney FC was on 72.5 points, and says "Australia/3", ie Australia is in the 3rd tier. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 00:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. They aren't on this month's list [2], but so I'll clarify that. --Awiseman 15:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Can this be changed? User IP 211.30.172.68 added that paragraph, and it is basically plagiarism, bothering to change just a few words from here. It is also very misleading to compare the A-League to the Dutch and Portuguese leagues; while the tier division (as strange as it seems) may be true (I don't get any results from that google search, but I'll believe it), the A-league doesn't even show up on the league rankings, while the other two are rather high, as pointed out by Awiseman, and no Australian teams are in the top 350 clubs [3] (compared to 9 Portuguese and 7 Dutch teams). Finally, it's not enough to say "the IFFHS list", but specific dates should be given, their lists change often. So if somone can come up with reliable sources about IFFHS rankings for the A-League, please rewrite that part. Thanks, --Gabbec 00:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Asian CL

Will Australian teams be granted entry to the Asian CL now that they're part of the AFC? If so, when? I can't find info on this and I see they're not going to be part of the Oceania CL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.70.253.82 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not this year, but two teams have been granted entry, starting in 2007. This is probably at the Football (soccer) in Australia article, but I'll try to add details here as well. -- Chuq 00:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers.

Australian AFC Champions League Entry

Re: The ACL section of the article, is there a source confirming that "If they are won by the same club, then the other grand finalists will go through"? I was under the impression that second place in the league would qualify in that case. -[dM] 01:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

IFFHS rankings

I am a partisan in this matter, but I would take another look at the methodology behind the IFFHS rankings before I included them in any article. There are a number of clear flaws in the methodology that work against leagues such as those in the USA and norway, and work in favor of leagues with an extremely low degree of parity (such as, say, the Greek Super League). Basically, if this information is to be included - and the Norwegian and American leagues are to be maligned by it - there needs to be a disclaimer. Bill Oaf 07:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Further - and please understand that this is not a knock on the quality of the A-league, which I know nothing about - is the A-league really at the level of the Eredivisie already? If so, congratulations. If not (and be honest with me here), this speaks against the IFFHS rankings again, and we must consider whether honest information is really being offered here. If these claims are to be made at all - that is, if the claims of the IFFHS are to be presented in earnest - there needs to be some mention of the very controversial methodology of the IFFHS rankings. I'm not gonna pretend to be impartial on this: the IFFHS rankings are basically phony in my opinion. I feel that it would be disingenuous to present them so prominently without addressing their legitimacy in at least some minor way. Bill Oaf 07:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the IFFHS stuff is even accurate anymore. A-League and Sydney FC were included in one set of rankings, but I believe they were thereafter removed (can't be bothered checking right now). I took them out of the Sydney FC article because the mention of a (I agree) questionable ranking system, from an out of date list no less, isn't really worthy of a mention IMO. I'd say they could/should be removed. -[dM] 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I must concur. From the explination of the rankings in the footnote (which was provided by Bill), they don't sound like very fair reflections of quality. So remove. Daniel.Bryant 10:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Premiers

With the ongoing edits I thought I would add some links to prove Adelaide are the Premiers. http://www.adelaideunited.com.au/default.aspx?s=newsdisplay&id=6014&pageid=147 <- includes a picture of the shield the premiers win http://www.a-league.com.au/default.aspx?s=newsdisplay&id=6016&pageid=11

From edit history: 22:29, 28 November 2006 147.10.112.157 (Talk | block) (Vandal? Where is her warning, Chuq?)

To 147.10.x:

• User:Tancred is reverting YOUR vandalism.
• The name for the team at the top of the ladder is the "premier". Some news sources may report this as "minor premier" but that is an error on their part. The URLs above show the use of "premier".
• Just because the teams are franchised, it does not mean they are not clubs. "clubs" is more clear.
• The first time your made these changes, it was not vandalism. Each subsequent time, you were already aware they were not suited/approved, and that should have been an indication that there was a problem.
• Another reminder that you are on your last warning before being banned.

-- Chuq 20:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Chuq, it very obviously was not vandalism and I think that you are a cretin for blovking 147.10 over this when the argument was adequately backed up and there was an ongoing edit war going on between those two. --Caesar34 10:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(Aside: I think that the fact that you consider the existence of an "ongoing edit war" a reason NOT to block shows that you don't quite understand the point here. When an edit war happens, you don't keep on reverting, you stop and discuss. I am blocking User:Caesar34 permanently as a sock of a blocked user, and will do the same thing immediately to any other accounts you create. -- Chuq 12:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC))

That is very convenient Chuq. The point about that is there are references, which are on my talk page, that refer to both premiers and minor premiers as the terminology. Seeing that this competition is made in an Australian style (grand final et alia), I believe that there is very good reason to include the term minor premiers when it is both used to describe the A-League and correct terminology according to Australian precedents.

• If the teams are franchises, than they are not clubs, do you not understand the difference?
• I was being attacked by a very aggressive editor who was vandalising rugby league stuff, and I do not respect your last warning because as I have said, you are POV soccer in a big way, and your conduct referring to me as a vandal when I am making constructive edits proves it further here. On the one hand, apparently it is uncivil to call blatent vandalism, vandalism, of cause unless making very good edits to an A-League document.

The last lines here should be confirmation enough. I can't see any possible confusion/debate there. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 01:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good find - I have added a reference to the relevant sentence with a link to that page. -- Chuq 02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

From here [4], both terms, minor premiers and premiers are used.

Also here [5] at the official Sydney site it refers to minor premiers.

The news.com.au article is a news story, and is less likely to be correct than the official site. They may have intentionally used "minor premiers" so that AFL or rugby fans would know what was meant. Where the official A-League site and the Sydney FC site differ, I would go for the official site - especially as the A-League article is actually ABOUT the champions and premiers - Sydney FC just mentions the term in passing. Not to mention, Sydney being champions and Adelaide being premiers, the SFC writer may have written the article to make the "premier" seem less important than the champion.

All in all, the link that Albinomonkey is 100% the best reference we have - it is from the official site, and it is an article specially about the two awards; the sentence is specifically about the definitions of the two. It is the most accurate reference we have. -- Chuq 03:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Albinomonkey's link says it all for mine. Dibo | Talk | Contribs 04:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to add a reference to the naming difference, commen Australian term(used often in the media), "minor premiers", official a-league term, "premiers". --Caesar34 10:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Clubs section

In the clubs section is a column titled "Inaugral managers", but instead of a list of inaugral managers is a list of current managers. Should the title be changed to "Managers" or should the managers in the list be changed?

Also I added a map of team locations I created that I thought would be useful. If anyone really hates it they can remove it. I was considering making it a map of links like the Major League Soccer page.HorseloverFat 10:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to bring this up again - with the imminent announcement of a new NZ club tomorrow, I think this "inaugural clubs" section should be relocated to the A-League 2005-06 page. The section on this page should be replaced with information that represents all A-League seasons. -- Chuq 09:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion - split the table into "current" and "former" clubs sections, with columns Name, City/Region, State, Home ground, First season, [+ Last season for former clubs], Premierships, Championships. Most of the "inaugural"/"foundation" stuff is irrelevant now in any case, if the chairman/manager columns stay (I suggest they don't anyway because former clubs won't have one), at least make them the current ones. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 11:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have redone the table - with some commented out sections for the "former clubs" section all ready to go. I've also redone the team locator map to be a bit less bright - my alternate versions are at User:Chuq/Sandbox/Sports maps. I'd appreciate any feedback (either here, the WikiProject page or my talk page.) -- Chuq 00:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Team Colours

I have re-uploaded and updated my original team colours. These are intended to solely represent the colours of the team and not any logo and/or kit design.

There are two reasons for this:

Firstly - the kits of A-League teams don't have "designs" as such like AFL or NRL teams. They are basically just a main team colour (represented by two bars on my images), with highlights of other colours (represented with one bar each).

Secondly - I have had a lot of trouble with licencing, etc with my AFL designs which had incorporated part of logos or exclusive designs. By using solely colurs as representation, there shouldn't be any problem.

Cheers, Seth Cohen 06:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Reform

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A-League&diff=116157021&oldid=116106072 - this is ridiculous! (Not the edit, just the content of the news article itself). I haven't seen it reported in Australian media at all. Is it some poor translation?? (How would the AFC know what is best for the game in Australia? Why would they revamp a competition that is only 4 years old? I was about to delete it as being complete OR/speculation, but then I saw the source! -- Chuq 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, on re-reading the article and the edit, there is no mention of promotion/relegation or a 2nd division in the article itself. The news article also said that the reforms are a result of Asia's poor showing in the 2006 World Cup, and "some leagues will be affected more than others", further reducing the likelihood that Australia, the best performing AFC member, will be majorly impacted. From all reports that I can find, I don't think this is bound to have any major effect on Australia. I have reverted, and if further news comes to light that it will affect the A-League, then it can be re-added then. -- Chuq 02:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AFC knows best

"How would the AFC know what is best for the game in Australia?" Australia, by it own request, is now part of AFC not Oceania. It's gotta do what's good for the Asia game not Oceania. The Howard government forced Soccer Australia to reform, now AFC is gonna force FFA to reform. "Why would they revamp a competition that is only 4 years old?" Beacause it doesn't have relegation, promotion and a 2nd divison. It is one of the 10 marked for reform. "I haven't seen it reported in Australian media at all." Soccer gets scant coverage in Australia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tri400 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Just to repeat what I said above, the linked article does not mention promotion/relegation or a second division, at all. The statements made in the article are pretty vague and there is nothing to imply how much it will affect the A-League. Regarding media coverage, I agree it doesn't get the same level of coverage as AFL but it does get reported - and this was four days before the A-League grand final which received blanket coverage in Melbourne at least. -- Chuq 05:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The AFC and FFA have been talking about the future direction of football across Asia for months now. The plan, I as recall it is, for the ACL qualification to be based in part on how strong the national team is. This means Japan, Korea, Australia etc will get more ACL places in the next 1-2 years. AFC want the A-League to expand and so do the FFA. Other improvments already in place is the top 3 nations at the Asian Cup will get direct qualification for the next one. This will mean instead of these teams playing qualification games, they can play friendlys against stronger European, or South American teams. Tancred 15:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Team logos and colors request

Upload the logos and colors on Commons, so it can be used on other languages Wikipedias 200.179.169.3 17:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

2nd Division

What has population got to do with anything with regards to not having a 2nd divison? Do the 8 clubs have a god-given right to be in the A-League? Are the Preston Lions meant to be playing in the VPL forever?

I thought this was the difference in sanity between Soccer and AFL. Thank god FIFA and AFC never accept misgovernance in their associate bodies or political interference. Tri400 13:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

1. In Australia, population and distance has a lot to do the viability of a 2nd division. A 2nd division league would get less support and receive less sponsorship. Combined with the cost of travel across the country, it would make more sense to wait for the game to be better established in this country. Increasing the number of teams is the primary league (A-League) is a higher priority. England has 20 clubs / 60 million people spread over 130,000 km². Australia has 8 clubs / 20 million people spread over 7,741,220 km².

2. No, its an FFA given right.

3. Seeing as they have Macedonian roots, yes, they will, unless the A-League changes in a major way. See 2003 Report of the Independent Soccer Review Committee and A-League#History. -- Chuq 05:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do people get that the A-League is based on the Crawford Report. The Crawford Report never mentioned the one-city policy, nor did it mention the banning of ethnic clubs. It also called for 12 team league not an 8 team league. Johnny Warren was also not happy with the implementation of the Crawford Report and was always in support of ethnic clubs at national competition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.76.160 (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

expansion

WHAT TEAMS DO YOU GUYS WANT ADDED TO THE ALEAGUE FOR THE 2008-2009 SEASON —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.176.180.162 (talk) 23:21:48, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

A team in Christchurch, Canberra, Gold Coast, Darwin and Hobart. It would be good if they worked up to 20 teams over the next 10 years.

A team in Christchurch would be good but New Zeland hasn't got what it takes for a new team especially after the Knights debacle If the Nix can cosistantly make top 4 for a few seasons then maybe but until then: Townsville a must, Canbera, Hobart, and maybe another VIC or SA one or maybe Darwin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.141.113 (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Townsville is a must - nothing against the Gold Coast but I don't want them appropriating the Galaxy name. The Nowra boy in me says Wollongong or Canberra, but I believe Canberra would be the better fit. I wouldn't mind Hobart or Darwin entering either or at a later stage, and a second team for NZ once NZ football is much more developed. Gialloneri (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it will be gold coast galaxy and northern thunder fc it will be announced next week —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.16.57 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Stadium Australia in Stadiums section

I notice there has been some reverting going on here. The link to Stadium Australia keeps getting changed to ANZ Stadium. I believe it should be Stadium Australia because:

• To many people, "ANZ Stadium" refers to the stadium in Brisbane (since the name change is recent)
• At the time of the reference in the article (the LA Galaxy game), the stadium was not known as ANZ Stadium
• Sponsored names like "Telstra Stadium" and "ANZ Stadium" may come and go, but "Stadium Australia" has been used throughout the stadium's entire existence.
• "ANZ Stadium" is a redirect, "Stadium Australia" is the actual article name, therefore less load on Wikipedia servers (although all the changing back and forth pretty much negates it)
• The name may change in the future - "ANZ Stadium" may redirect somewhere else - using the correct link now will prevent huge changes later.

-- Chuq (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconded Gialloneri (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Combined Tasmania/Canberra

Does anyone have details that can be posted under Youth League regarding the A-League Chairman's statement on Total Football that Football Australia may possibly place an FFA combined Tasmania/Canberra youth team into the youth league based in Canberra to help assist these areas get into the national competition at a later stage rather than allow Wellington to put a youth team in Canberra. I cannot find any details on it for a reference even though I watched the article. I thought of posting it but I decided against until I had the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.203.181 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look around yellowfever.co.nz News Section. It should contain details. I do know the Wellington's youth team bid has been rejected. CipherPixel (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't rejected - it was recalled by club management due to the inadequate time frame. The Phoenix will be bidding for inclusion again next season, possibly continuing with the Canberra plan. Gialloneri (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Football Federation Tasmania has arranged a Tasmanian youth team to play four friendly matches against other youth teams - Adelaide twice, Melbourne and Sydney - in November. I'll update relevant pages tonight. [6] -- Chuq (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2