Talk:A-League Men/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Asian Champions League Qualification

If a team from New Zealand qualifies for the AFC Champions League will they be allowed to go? The question is on two fronts: 1) will FFA have to give one of its spots to a NZ team, and 2) NZ is not part of the AFC. Anyone know the answer to this question? -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no answer. :P But basically, the Wellington Phoenix counts as an Australian team. If they were to win the A-league if would be up to Football Australia to decide weather they will go or not. This issue won't have any proper official confirmation until the Phoenix do win teh A-league but yeh.

Other than that, they cannot qualify for the Oceania Champions League (New Zealand is part of the OFC) as they count as an Australian Club and they do not play in the NZ national league. Does that answer your question? CipherPixel (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

They wouldnt be allowed as NZ isnt in the AFC and therefore most of their players are "non AFC" squad members (4 foreign players allowed) so Wellington couldnt play in ACL

Yeah, thanks. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

FFA has stated that ten clubs had submitted proposals by 2/6/08. [1] [2]

I'm just using this section as a scratchpad to track sources for who/what they are - and which ones deserve articles. (I would say none of them, until entry is confirmed. The articles North Queensland Thunder and Gold Coast Galaxy should probably be deleted.)

Region	City	Working name	Backers	Notes, References
Nth Queensland	Townsville	Unnamed	Milissa Fishcer	3 June 3 June
	Townsville	North Queensland FC	Don Matheson	23 May 3 June "rose from the ashes of the North Queensland Thunder FC bid" 4 June -
Gold Coast	Gold Coast	Gold Coast Galaxy	Fred Taplin	3 June 3 June
	Gold Coast	Gold Coast United	Clive Palmer	3 June 18 June 30 June 12 July
Western Sydney	Penrith	Unnamed	3 June 13 June One of these is Paddy Dominguez backed, Lucas Neill supported, and will play at both Penrith and Parramatta - but not sure which is being referred to
	Parramatta	Unnamed
Wollongong	Wollongong	South Coast FC	?	2 June 8 July 12 July
Melbourne	Melbourne	Fmr "Melbourne City"	Colin de Lutis	3 June 12 June 25 July 11 Aug
	Casey	Melbourne Heart	Peter Sidwell	3 June 4 June Red colour [3] 12 June 25 July 15 Aug
	Sth Melb	Southern Cross FC	Jim Mellas	3 June 12 June 25 July 19 Aug
Other:
Canberra	Canberra	?	Ivan Slavich	8 July 11 July
Tasmania	Hobart	Tasmania United FC	John McGirr	19 March 26 June

• Green - accepted
• Blue - frontrunner
• Red - withdrawn or excluded

-- Chuq (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Chuq, the Southern Cross bid is no longer associated with Jim Marinis, nor Casey. It is a South Melbourne initiated bid with the base projected to be at Bob Jane Stadium, with games at the new Bubble Stadium. Cheers. Blackmissionary (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks BM. Do you have a news article or similar stating that? (Found it). I've added a couple of other references to the Melb clubs which indicates the Sidwell one being the frontrunner and the de Lutis one dropping out. -- Chuq (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have created a new wikipage for a-League expansion as the expansion section on the main a-league page would get cluttered up with expansion information. Auxodium III (talk)

Good job, it's a very well-written article. There is still the matter of other A-League bids having articles, such as Canberra A-League Bid and South Coast A-League bid mentioned by Chuq in Expansion clubs below. They should probably be merged into Expansion of A-League. May I also suggest you sign posts with four tildes and change your signature in Preferences > Signature to save a little effort. --timsdad ^(talk) 07:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned up the Expansion article and removed a lot of the entry due to the nature of it being in the other expansion article which is the main one and also the history IS in the relevant clubs entry. I just saw the article as a massive blob of speculative data that would simply confuse people.Auxodium III (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Second Division

Originally reverted an edit announcing the plan by the FFA to introduce a second division to the A-League. I did this too quickly based on wrong information on my part - blame the lack of sleep! I've re-integrated an edited and referenced version of this text into the article, and added more expansion updates while I was at it. If someone more awake than me wants to fix it up even moreso, feel free to do so! Gialloneri (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have the feeling the contends of the paragraph could be better summed up as by adding to the sentence about P&R in the "clubs" lead paragraph. Something like appending "there is no system for promotion and relegation of teams" with " ...however, the FFA plans to publish a proposal for a second division in late 2008". I think a lot more weight has been given to the statement about a second division made by FFA then is warranted. It is (OR/speculation/weasel words warning!) thought of by many as just lip service given to the AFC after their assessment of national leagues. -- Chuq (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Not going to disagree with you - despite the validity of it given by the FFA, I'm among those who think it is lip service. How does this sound?:

Currently, the A-League is a single-division competition with no system in place for relegation or promotion. However, following evaluation by an AFC committee which criticised the single division format (Ref), the FFA announced its intention to develop an A-League second division. With the competition presently expected to be expanded to no more than 12 clubs, this second division may open up a back door to consortiums and clubs unable to enter the A - League before it is complete. (Ref)'

Might be a good idea to mention something about the theory that it is just lip service, but I've yet to see any sources other than a few comments on Yellow Fever. Gialloneri (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

W-League and Youth League

With the growth in coverage associated with these two leagues, I've written up a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia#General article structure on how articles about leagues, clubs, teams, and seasons should be split. All comments appreciated! -- Chuq (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

TV Coverage

I have adding the Fox Soccer Channel (USA) as now having 1 live game per week + highlights basing the information on there online tv guide(pdf files) on there website for the first 2 week of the A-league session they are showing the last game on Sunday live at midnight ET although Fox Sports World in Canada and Fox Sports en Español is heavly linked with FSC there is no proof they will be also showing the live game. There is of yet no offical press release from the site but if there is I will post it djpower (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of teams

The number of teams current reads "8 (expanding to 10 in 2009-10)". When should it stop being "8 (expanding to 10 in 2009-10)" and start being "10" ? After the 2008-09 grand final? When the 2009-10 season kicks off? -- Chuq (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

After the League has officially expanded. CipherPixel (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As was announced last week: [4] [5]. If it is not confirmed, then it should be "8". -- Chuq (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auxodium III (talk • contribs)

Expansion article

Would it be an idea to create a seperate article about expansion of the A-League? Covering both the future expansions noted by the A-League and those areas campaigning for expansion teams (using reliable sources, of course). It could also cover the selection of the initial teams of the original teams to play in the league. A large baulk of the material in the current expansion section could be moved over to the new article, which would shorten this page down a bit. I have suggested something similar over at Major League Soccer as they are both leagues that are likely to expand over the coming years, and the issue of future expansion plays quite a major role in the league in popular knowledge. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. The section on expansion is growing and growing, even when leaving most of it in summary style. To include the selection of the initial teams, "expansion" may not be the right term. "Clubs of the A-League" or "Establishment and expansion of the A-League" perhaps? Maybe initial club details could go into A-League 2005-06 and the remainder in "Expansion of the A-League"? -- Chuq (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just found the articles Canberra A-League Bid and South Coast A-League bid. These should be merged/redirected into.. well, whatever we decide that expansion article is to be called! -- Chuq (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Data

Just replaced removed Tasmania consortium data that had been removed without any reason being posted. The Tasmanian consortium is very much still active and therefore should remain in any 'expansion' section and not be removed. As no reason was supplied perhaps there was some anti-Tasmanian bias in effect? Considering the Tasmania United FC wikipage was vandalised as well this seems quite possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.11.56 (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

I imagine any expansion plans would have been put on the backburner after the collapse is crowd numbers this season. The FFA better hope there is some pick-up after the World Cup - if not the A-League is doomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.55.133 (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If anything, the league needs the new teams to renew interest in the league. There's no reason for Townsville to suffer just because crowds in Adelaide have dropped off despite the success of their team. Last year some teams had rain in almost every home game, yet the attendance was better. --Squilibob (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but thinking the FFA missed the boat by not admitting at least the Gold Coast for the present season. Instead they have allowed the Gold Coast Titans to consolidate their hold in the region and also missed a chance to get a jump on the GC17 AFL team. 58.178.73.196 (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Most sucessful club"?

Should this be changed to just "Most Championships" to avoid any sort of confusion? Just because a team has the most championships doesn't really mean they're the most sucessful, and many people consider the Premiership just as important.121.220.79.54 (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

yea i agree change it to most championships —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.194.238 (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree "Most championships" is better, but there is a problem; changing the text "most successful club" to "most championships" in the infobox will not work - it will just break the infobox. I agree that the infobox should be fixed to allow for this but in the meantime please do not change it as it will just break it! -- Chuq (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Champions League top scorers

I've added a list of top scorers from the Champions League to give the "Top Scorers" section a bit more substance. My main reason for doing this is that if we're going to have a whole other section for just "top scorers" than we should have more than one little table there. If people disagree with this, then maybe we get rid of the Champions League top scorers table and merge the League and Finals top scorers into the Champions and Premiers section and rename it "Records" or something like that...while I think the top scorers table is important to the page, I don't think it's important enough for it to have its own little section by itself. 124.180.28.133 (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename -> Hyundai A-League

Should the page be renamed to "Hyundai A-League" instead of A-League to avoid confusion with the other A-League? Being the league is marketed commercially as the Hyundai A-League not just in Australia but in other countries, I feel it would make sense. Rexfan2 (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I vote no. The correct name of the league is A-League. The NRL page is National Rugby League, not Telstra Premiership, despite the marketing use of the latter name. Using disambiguation is fine. Gialloneri (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No the page should not be renamed, a disambiguation title like "(American)" is fine. This is per the argument above me. Borgarde (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Rivalries

It's starting to become a bit of a joke. I understand the need to add some links between the Queensland teams (such as the rivalry already building between Gold Coast and Brisbane), but seriously, Wellington and Gold Coast? Sydney got Alex Brosque from Queensland, so does that make Brisbane and Sydney a big rivalry? No, it doesn't. Maybe we should wait for an actual game to happen between these two teams before we deem it a notable "rivalry", or wait for more spite to come between the two clubs (such as what's already happening between GC and Brisbane) before it gets an inclusion in this section. Mikhael04 (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Many commentators and fans would say Adelaide United & Perth Glory have a rivalry going, certainly not as strong as Adelaide United & Melbourne Victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.252.26 (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Newcastle's vice captain

Can anyone confirm that Tarek Elrich is the new vice captain for the Jets now that Adam Griffiths has gone? I'm thinking this will be announced during Wednesday's ACL game anyway but could be already announced in the media. --Squilibob (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Mifsud

In the article it says this player is Central Coast's marquee player but every other source says he plays for Coventry City and there is no mention of him on the Central Coast Mariners' official site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.84.84 (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

History section

Is there a reason there isn't a history section? One with a breakdown of background, formation and each season/year with a small paragraph on what has been changed, new clubs etc. Chumchum14 (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

needs to be more i feel on history of the league. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auxodium III (talk • contribs) 15:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What is actually needed is a history section that details how the league came about - there is currently nothing on this. History post-formation then should feature significant events, which I would presume is mostly expansion. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Heart

Could someone please create a Melbourne Heart article. I would but I don't have an account. 130.56.87.136 (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Until the Melbourne Heart are confirmed to be entering the A-League, an article cannot be created. By the way, you can always create an account, it really is quite easy (see your talk page). --timsdad ^(talk) 06:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For anyone wanting to join in, there's a discussion at the Wikiproject. Cheers, timsdad ^(talk) 08:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Correction to the above statement. Anyone can create a Melbourne Heart article SO LONG as the correct tab is selected at the top of the page to indicate that the new page is for a club that does not exist or is proposed. There is a tab for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.230.70 (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The template I assume you are speaking of is Template:Future sport which has been deprecated (see the discussion on deprecating "future" templates). By the way, the Melbourne Heart Football Club article states clearly that "Melbourne Heart Football Club is the working name of an Australian professional football (soccer) club..." This implies that the club does not yet exist in the form of a football club, so there is really no need for the tag. Not that we can use it anyway. --timsdad ^(talk) 11:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be something similar to Vancouver MLS 2011 and two other MLS expansion teams, Portland and Philadelphia, who had their articles named in similar way before the official names were announced. —WiJG? 12:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is already, but the Melbourne club has a name that we can give the article, even if they change their minds anyway. --timsdad ^(talk) 12:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Internationals

Is it necessary to have a list of all internationals when there are so many. Perhaps we could just have a list of players who played at least 15 internationals or have played in the last year.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.58.126 (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The list is a bit too long and there are most likely some players missing from it... However, I'm not sure we can limit it to anything, as it's very hard to keep track of when a player in the A-League reaches 15 international caps, for example. Can we get any other suggestions? Also, in future, you can start a new discussion by clicking the "new section" or "+" button at the top of a talk page and remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). --timsdad ^(talk) 09:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We should either get rid of it or split it off to a separate article if people are desperate to keep it. It's only going to get bigger and more unwieldy as time goes on and from a quick check of a subset of other leagues pages we are the only ones to include such a list. Camw (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If we follow by the example of the Premier League, we would obviously have to remove the list altogether as almost every single player in the EPL has played for their country... I say we remove it altogether; it's not really that useful, and it will begin to get very difficult to maintain as time goes on, as Camw said. --timsdad ^(talk) 10:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and remove it, if people are unhappy and have good reasons for keeping it on this page then we can discuss further. Camw (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that we should bring it back. i thought it was useful to the article and was intersting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooldandan (talk • contribs)

How do you propose the problem of continual growth be solved though? It was already a huge block of links and will only get bigger. I still think it would be better to split it off into a separate article if people really want to maintain it. Camw (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Rivalries section

In the rivalries section it says there can be no local rivalries, since the leagues 'one city one club' policy. This rule would obviously have to be abolished with Melbourne Heart and Sydney Rovers joining in the next couple of years. I'm just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzallday (talk • contribs) 02:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --timsdad ^(talk) 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Lloyd Owusu

Since when was he a marquee player??

Finals Series

Re: "As of the 2006-07 season, this team will also contest the AFC Champions League, although if the team that wins the Premiership goes through to the Grand Final then the other Grand Final competitor will be awarded the second spot in the competition, win or lose.[4]"

This, to me, is a confusing sentence: "the other Grand Final competitor will be awarded the second spot in the competition, win or lose". Will they be awarded 2nd spot in the "Finals Series" (which doesn't make sense to me if you've just won the final)...or... Will they be regarded as a second placing only as it relates to the draw for the AFC Champions League...?

Also, the original [4] citation page is no longer on the end of the link, so I can't verify the citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.6.33 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There are two ACL spots. The premiers win the first ACL spot. Whoever wins the grand final gets the other spot, but if this is the same team then they can't have two ACL spots, so whoever else made the grand final win get the second spot.--Squilibob (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Photo of AAMI Park

I have added a photo of AAMI Park. I showed the interior as the other stadiums did. It was during a rugby league game, but I thought it was ok because several other grounds are shown during RL games. If you don't want this, I have another photo that shows the completed exterior of AAMI Park here =>

Cheers. Sliat 1981 (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Team Listings

I have always found the coding of the teams with their kits to be rather ugly and "clunky" and have removed it with a table that shows all the data that the previous one had shown. If people wish to see their wiki style kits then they can go to their entries right? Auxodium III124.169.79.192 (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Standardised Results Box in A-League clubs

I think that teh standardised football box should be used to ALL a-league clubs as firstly it shows the result at a glance and the coloured results box shows who won, lost or drawn. The other variants of football boxes although correct look rather messy and bulky. --Auxodium II (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

{{Fb match2
| bg1 = f9f9f9;border:solid #f2f2f2 1px;font-size:90%;
| comp = 1
| home = Team X {{flagicon|AUS}}
| away = {{flagicon|AUS}} Team Y
| style = background:#ccffcc;
| score = X – X
| scorers = 
| venue = Venue, City/Town and State/Territory
| attendance = X
| referee = X
| report = [ X Report]
| summary = [ X Summary]
| date = 2010-08-22 16:00 [[UTC+8]]
| home-score = Player Y {{goal|40}} 
| away-score = Player X {{goal|75}} 
| goalscorers = yes
}}

Squad and Salary

I've made a minor update to this section, tidying it up and fixing the references (2 refs were to the same article but via a different url, plus one was to an old article that was not quoting the figures used here). I have left in the part about the minimum wage but I think it's incorrect, as the figure quoted in the CBA [6] is $45k+cpi, which is certainly not $77k. I was also unable to find a document describing the requirement for 3 under-20s and the allowance of 1 AFC player. -- Jklarge (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

2011-2012 season individual clubs standards poll

I am new to editing Wikipedia but I was going though all the individual clubs 2010-2011 pages gathering statistics for a personal project and I found that every page is different. When I say diffeferent I mean they all have different stats, formatting, heading, images (like of flags), I thought Wiki was all about standards and then I see this. I was thinking of going though each of the clubs 2010-2011 seasons pages and changing each club to a standard format but I soon realised what a mammoth task that would be, not only changing formatting but digging up all the missing info as well (all that will be probably reverted as someone else is not happy with the standards I picked). So what I am asking if we could go though each of the 2010-2011 pages ( AU BR CCM GCU MH MV NJ QF PG S WP) and decide on which one (or combination of a few) has the best info and formatting to use as the template for the 2011-2012 season club pages. I personally say the Adelaide United page is the best for a template but without the line between the collapsible football boxes. --Beetle120 (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Infotable countries?

the cube with the data at top of the page do not show "Australia and NZ" or his flags, that relevant information should be show in easy readble, like in leagues of otheres countries around all the world or AFC--Feroang (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

We need a new map

Who's the map expert here?

With the departure of Gold Coast the map showing current clubs is out of date. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well? HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

you jumping the gun. they are not out of the competition yet, the season is not even over. there is also a possibility the team will contniue next season if funding can be found.Simione001 (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

this needs to be corrected now.Simione001 (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Season over, new map needed.Simione001 (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I did it because it's not that hard. Druryfire (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice. Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Gold Coast United

Only youth team next season but are not defunct as i understand. what to do with list of current clubs?Simione001 (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait until the youth team is confirmed or not. That hasn't happened yet. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Team Colours

Guys and Girls can we please maintain a TWO colour policy for A-League clubs thank you? Minor colours such as the orange in Perth Glory for example is now considered TRIM on kits and should just be like AFL or NRL colour boxes of similar nature. Also please keep the ration of the vertical bars the SAME as the other club colour boxes thank you very much. --Auxodium III 11:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk Page

Just been going through this page and tidying up the discussions to make things easier to find (hopefully) and to group similar discussion topics together.--Auxodium III 11:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:TOPPOST, sections in Talk pages must appear chronologically and must not be rearranged. I have reverted the edits Auxodium III has made to chronologically order. --2nyte (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Stadia section

I just wanted to point out that the stadiums section seems to be in no particular order. I suggest capacity or alphabetical order by club or stadium name. I am not really competent to edit tables with pictures and the like - I'll just stuff it up.

Actually I just had another look and it is in capacity order except for Victory being listed first. Typical. I'm tempted to just delete Victory and put an * next to Heart's AAMI entry with a footnote that says "other Melbourne A-league clubs also use this venue". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.32.21 (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Supporters Groups mostly unsourced

It appears that only two of the many entries in the Supporters Groups section of the article are supported by sources. We've just had a change to one unsourced entry, and a new unsourced one added. It would seem mean to revert that last one when most of the rest is unsourced, but if we care about our rules, it should be reverted. The section is hidden by default, so I guess the potential damage is less than it might usually be, but I'd like to see some improvement in sourceing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)