Monday, December 22, 2014

You take a peice, he take a piece and leave nothing for Singapore football

Have one ever wondered why the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) like revamp so much?

The answer is simple, it allowed FAS to 'rob' the rest of Singapore football clean legally.

Once again, another revamp, that claimed to put money into clubs hand, is found wandering yet again.

First, the sum do not add up with FAS only passing out $130k (It may even be less as I explain later) to each clubs but that is only $780k altogether.

FAS, when they culled Tanjong Pagar and forced merger of Woodlands Wellington and Hougang, have nearly $2million extra from the revamp.

It is missing nearly $1.2 million of funds so want to tell us where it goes, FAS!

It does not take a genius to see as I had previously questioned if the money will really reached the clubs.

After all, FAS had increased the number of internationals in their LionsXII squad, with widespread knowledge they do that by spending big bucks on their wages, FAS will need a lot of extra funds to cover that as well as losses in the past.

Before going on, let take a look at if it possible for LionsXII to make money.

The best example is the past 2 years, for no matter how much the pro-Malaysia Cup media and FAS put it, the fact is the Jalan Besar ground were sold out only 4 times out of 30 games (counting only Malaysian Super League and Malaysia Cup) and that was near the end of 2013 regular season when LionsXII were on the verge of winning a trophy.

Even the 'popular' Malaysia Cup also only saw attendances go up in knockout stage with no record of a sold out group match game in 3 years.

With ticket sales the main source of income, as sponsorship deals are in the low figures and do not help out much, how is possible to make a profit especially as FAM also take a cut of it.

Yet wages are high and fixed expenses like rental to utilities will only keep going up making the situation worse.

If FAS can claimed they can make a profit (which they have never done speaking volume that LionsXII is bleeding rather than helping Singapore football) under such circumstances then the financial team should be hot commodities and every clubs in the world want them.

Now onto what I mean by the 'fake' figures of $130k as the media report mentioned most of it is in cash; which is always a good indication that clubs will never see all of it.

Prime Minister Lee has always defended the high salaries for his government by telling us it is above board as it is simple and all of it in cash; unlike others with their add-on that tend to boast salaries beyond comprehension.

Just like add-on can boast money terms, it can be used in reverse to deny them thus talks of terms and condition, when allocating the subsidies, it tell us most of the money will always end up back in the hand of FAS.

The now-renamed Sport Singapore (SSG) seeing all the action by FAS have also come in for a piece of the action.

After all, a new name does not mean sports is now their core when it has always been money.

Once again we see SSG coming in to inform us it is time to raise the rent again.

4 years back, SSG gobbled up a big share of the subsidies the clubs did get their hands on and this is mattering once again.

Rent will go up an amazing 20%-25% and no doubt they'll tell us they had 'actually' give out more subsidies but like in the link, it is meaningless then, it is meaningless now.

Maybe Mr Teo Ser Luck will once again defend the actions of SSG but they're hurting the interest of Singapore sports industry with their relentless increments of rent as they're a monopoly and sporting teams cannot turn to anybody else.

So what's the use of this revamp as the money end up going back to FAS and SSG!

Indeed S-league CEO Mr Lim Chin talks of the 'big picture' and for our 'own good' is hollow now as this revamp is really for FAS and SSG, not S-league nor Singapore football.

Singapore football industry can never grow as FAS and SSG is gobbling it cash whenever they have a chance under talks of revamp for 'our own good'. ( It is really their own good)

No comments: