"IMG-R have said the clubs can bid for the franchisees and be stakeholders in the tournament. They can use it as an opportunity to combine the two and gain leverage . The executive committee has also asked the two parties to discuss the necessary issues," AIFF general secretary Kushal Das.
"I</span><b>MG-R have said the clubs can bid for the franchisees and be stakeholders in the tournament. They can use it as an opportunity to combine the two and gain leverage</b> . The executive committee has also asked the two parties to discuss the necessary issues," AIFF general secretary Kushal Das.
<br><div style="font-weight: normal;"><br></div><div style="font-weight: normal;">why don't they directly sell the franchise to clubs. </div><div style="font-weight: normal;">that will improve club profile and will be win win situation for all parties </div>
<br><div><br></div><div>You never want to do that with a franchise league. That would give the clubs to much power. As stakeholders, the clubs would also be partly owned by the league (as are the player contracts) and also all team roster changes would be mandatory approval from the league.</div><div><br></div><div>It can also help keep parity in the league and also many other things off the field like equal sponsorship for all sides etc etc.</div><div><br></div><div>Almost exactly like the American franchise system in place with the NFL and MLS.</div>
Disclaimer BTW: What I said above is not exactly what will happen. I just said that based on what I know from other franchise leagues. You never know here what IMG-Reliance will do.
But if club be allowed to buy franchise that will help both IMG as well as club (still no development) <div>both parties will survive, clubs will get fan following, investors and IMG will get money what they after </div>
<br><div>The major concern would be to have franchise and club belonging to same location. Otherwise it will be futile. </div>
But if club be allowed to buy franchise that will help both IMG as well as club (still no development) <div>both parties will survive, clubs will get fan following, investors and IMG will get money what they after </div>
<br><div><br></div><div>I don't see how that won't happen when the teams are shareholders. Again, one of my examples was the NFL, the most profitable and the highest attended sports league in the world, and this is where the owners are stakeholders in the league.</div><div><br></div><div>That does not mean that the league has full control over each team, the owners of the team (the company or group) should still get full operational rights to the teams in which they fully control marketing, financing of the stadium, and other things off the field (under league approval) whereas the only thing the league should have control over (along with the teams) is the player contracts, TV deals, and league-wide marketing/sponsorship.</div>
<br><br><span itemprop="articleBody">From the article "Initially he will be taken to New Delhi
(JLN Stadium), Mumbai (DY Patil Stadium) and Bangalore (Kantiveera
Stadium) and after the inspections, he will give his expertise".<br><br>So that means they are focusing on D Y Patil Navi Mumbai. Also Kantiveera because bangalore football stadium do not have floodlights. <br></span>
Comments
http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/aiff-gives-thumbs-up-to-ipl-style-league-113080100981_1.html
http://www.the-aiff.com/news-center-details.htm?id=5098
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/bids-invited-from-ileague-clubs-for-iplstyle-tourney/1150004/0
<br><div><br></div><div>You never want to do that with a franchise league. That would give the clubs to much power. As stakeholders, the clubs would also be partly owned by the league (as are the player contracts) and also all team roster changes would be mandatory approval from the league.</div><div><br></div><div>It can also help keep parity in the league and also many other things off the field like equal sponsorship for all sides etc etc.</div><div><br></div><div>Almost exactly like the American franchise system in place with the NFL and MLS.</div>
<br><div>The major concern would be to have franchise and club belonging to same location. Otherwise it will be futile. </div>
<br><div><br></div><div>I don't see how that won't happen when the teams are shareholders. Again, one of my examples was the NFL, the most profitable and the highest attended sports league in the world, and this is where the owners are stakeholders in the league.</div><div><br></div><div>That does not mean that the league has full control over each team, the owners of the team (the company or group) should still get full operational rights to the teams in which they fully control marketing, financing of the stadium, and other things off the field (under league approval) whereas the only thing the league should have control over (along with the teams) is the player contracts, TV deals, and league-wide marketing/sponsorship.</div>
<br><br><span itemprop="articleBody">From the article "Initially he will be taken to New Delhi
(JLN Stadium), Mumbai (DY Patil Stadium) and Bangalore (Kantiveera
Stadium) and after the inspections, he will give his expertise".<br><br>So that means they are focusing on D Y Patil Navi Mumbai. Also Kantiveera because bangalore football stadium do not have floodlights. <br></span>