New grandstand to complement Preston Lions FC in National Second Tier push

As announced by Football Australia, 26 clubs had progressed to the Request for Proposal (RFP) phase of the National Second Tier competition.

The RFP phase will involve the distribution of comprehensive Bid Documents to the shortlisted clubs, including an information memorandum, NST related data, financial forecasts, key terms of a Club Participation Agreement, and draft transaction documents.

This phase will be conducted confidentially, running from May to July 2023.

One of the clubs that have progressed through to this stage, and one considered to be one of the premium clubs outside of the A-League, is Preston Lions FC.

Preston’s President, David Cvetkovski, is confident that the National Second Tier will be good for Australian football and doesn’t foresee too many issues in regards to the cost of transition to a professional league for his own club.

“We have five key revenue pillars for Preston that I believe every club should have,” he said.

“You need to be strong in the key pillars of sponsorship, gameday (ticketing, food + drink), merchandise, membership and events.

“When you put the five elements together, they are five critical revenue streams for every club in the world, regardless of scale.

“If we get that right, we will succeed.”

Preston average some of the largest crowds in the NPL at their home of BT Connor Reserve, outdrawing some A-League teams on a consistent basis.

Cvetkovski highlighted facility upgrades and the relationship the club has with the local council as important measures for clubs hoping to transition into a National Second Division.

“We are constantly in touch with council, we have an incredible relationship with the City of Darebin and they are aware of our aspirations,” he said.

“We’ve strategically put a lot of work into the facility in the last few years, resurfacing, drainage and lighting and we recently announced two weeks ago our plans to build a new grandstand on the far side.

“Our aim is to have a boutique inner city stadium capable of comfortably sitting 5,000 people as required over time. We are a club with aspirations for our community and supporters, as we continue to navigate our own Preston journey,” he said.

The grandstand, to be located on the western side of BT Connor Reserve, looms as a key ingredient to cater for Preston’s ever-growing fanbase.

The design process is in an ongoing discussion, but Cvetkovski is excited at the prospect of being a destination club in years to come.

“This is an exciting project that will be done over multiple stages, with our own Preston people leading the way,” he said.

“As a starting point, we’d like to at least put the concreting down so people have a place to stand or sit that isn’t on mud, especially on a cold or wet night.

“We need to be a club that provides a premium venue that can comfortably hold around 5,000 plus people regularly.

“Our ultimate goal is to build a welcoming and inclusive ground that allows more people to be undercover or have readily available resources.”

Hypothetically, Cvetkovski knows the importance of assigning improved clear roles for his team of executives and advisors (alongside players who would be on professional contracts), if they were to be selected for the second division.

“I think for this to work properly we are going to need to articulate specific roles, for example, everything from a general manger, a sponsorship manager, a marketing manager etc.,” he said.

Cvetkovski was insistent that despite his club doing quite well quite on a number of fronts, it was of upmost importance that all clubs selected in a national second division will need to contribute effectively in their own way.

“The key to this division is we need 12-14 clubs to bring something strong and contribute – so every club can be successful,” he said.

“It’s no use if four or five clubs to become powerhouses in this league and beat everyone else, it’s about our game creating a competitive division, a thriving football ecosystem, with good rivalries, in a way which is economically viable for all the teams.

“We can’t get to the point where the FA needs to prop up these teams like what we see in in other codes, they have to be strong.”

Secure sponsorships to offset costs at a league level will be fundamental to the health of the National Second Tier. Cvetkovski was looking forward to see how that would eventuate through the governing body.

“Commercial arrangements will be critical, it’s another other element that will need to be factored in (which I’m sure the FA is working on) – we obviously don’t know too much about the commercial arrangements which will come in due course,” he said.

“We’ve been in all the meetings from day dot – as we were early members of the AAFC and have continued to participate in conversations with the FA. The FA did a really good roll out last year and gave us a lot of clarity at that time as to what would be involved.

“In those early discussions, we were all made aware of the astute modelling that was being considered such as travel, flights, corporate sponsors across the league and it will be interesting to see how that turns out.”

While increased financial costs will need to be offset for a national second division, Cvetkovski highlighted attitudes of the aspiring clubs would be critical to the success of the new tier.

“We want football to prosper, we need to work together to create healthy rivalries and a football ecosystem that is sustainable longer term,” he said.

“These aspiring clubs, like South Melbourne for example, are big clubs and we need them, we need the healthy rivalry. All clubs will need to make a contribution and bring something to the table so we can all be successful.

“I want to see 8,000 – 10,000 people at BT Connor when we host South Melbourne, I want to see 2000-3000 of our NSW based supporters attend games in Sydney and Wollongong, that’s beautiful, that’s football, that’s our aspiration.”

Previous ArticleNext Article

Football must set financial rules of engagement following FIFA Forward Enterprise crisis

Never before has football had such deep access to capital, or faced such complex questions about what that means for the future of the sport.

Private equity firms are investing in clubs, institutional investors are moving into stadiums and sports infrastructure, and clubs are looking beyond broadcasting and matchday revenue towards property, hospitality, entertainment and technology.

The question is no longer whether football needs investments. It’s what happens when investment starts influencing the way the game is run.

The issue came sharply into focus this year when FIFA proposed creating FIFA Forward Enterprise, a new FIFA-owned subsidiary that would bring together its commercial and event operations. The concept would effectively place the World Cup, the crown jewel of global football and FIFA’s blue chip stock, inside an investable structure. 

The proposal envisaged raising up to $6 billion by selling minority, non-controlling stakes in the subsidiary to external investors, based on an initial valuation of $29 billion. FIFA said the additional capital would help increase development funding for its 211 member associations.

The proposal triggered a governance crisis, while major questions about Gianni Infantino’s tenure as FIFA President continue.

UEFA, CONCACAF and (to a lesser-extent) the AFC were among the confederations to object, variously stating they had learned about the proposal through media reports rather than through FIFA’s own consultation process.

Amid a firestorm of criticism, the proposal was ultimately abandoned.

Now, Gianni Infantino has proposed an independent review of the organisation’s governance framework for major strategic initiatives, including how responsibility is divided between the president, Bureau, Council and Congress.

That makes this bigger than one investment proposal.

It’s a debate about who should control football’s commercial future.

Capital isn’t the enemy

There is an obvious argument in favour of private investment.

Football is an expensive business.

At club level, the relationship between capital and football is becoming increasingly sophisticated and complex.

RC Lens recently brought infrastructure investor Entrepreneur Equity Partners into its ownership structure, with the club saying the investment will fund development around the Stade Bollaert-Delelis and help create new revenue opportunities beyond matchdays.

Alas, there is a cost that comes with the capital. 

Investors ultimately expect a financial return. This won’t always conflict with supporters’ interests, but it can create different priorities.

Whereas a supporter might value affordability, identity and competitive success, an investor might instead look at property development, hospitality, commercial growth and the long-term value of an asset.

Neither perspective is inherently wrong.

But problems begin when financial objectives and football objectives stop overlapping and start pointing in different directions.

The ownership question

Chelsea provides a useful example of how quickly football ownership can change.

Clearlake Capital has now taken full control of the London club after acquiring the stakes previously held by Todd Boehly and Mark Walter, in a transaction that values the club at around $9.5 billion including debt. Todd Boehly only invested in the club four years ago.

That does not mean Chelsea’s new ownership structure is better or worse than before.

It demonstrates something important about modern football.

Football is becoming an asset class

That is perhaps the biggest change.

Football is no longer simply something wealthy individuals buy because they love the sport.

It is increasingly being viewed by institutional investors as an asset class with multiple potential revenue streams.

That means the investment opportunity can extend beyond owning a club.

There is private capital in stadiums, infrastructure, media rights, technology, sponsorship businesses and surrounding property.

It also explains why the FIFA proposal was so significant.

FIFA was effectively exploring whether the enormous commercial value of its competitions could be packaged into an investable structure.

FIFA argued investors would hold minority positions and would not receive control over sporting decisions or governance. It also argued the additional commercial value could increase funding available to football associations around the world.

That is a legitimate commercial proposition.

But once an asset is valued in the billions and external investors are being invited to participate, questions about control inevitably follow.

Who decides which commercial opportunities are pursued?

What happens when investors want one thing and football stakeholders want another?

And perhaps most importantly, who ultimately gets the benefit from football becoming more valuable?

The danger isn’t investment. It’s misalignment.

Football should not pretend it can grow without capital.

Football today requires enormous amounts of it.

The challenge is ensuring investment strengthens the sport rather than gradually redefining what the sport means to fans.

There are good reasons for clubs to develop their stadiums, diversify revenue and attract institutional capital.

There are also good reasons for supporters, players, federations and communities to ask what they receive in return.

FIFA’s recent episode demonstrates how quickly these questions can become political as well as financial.

The fact FIFA is now considering an independent governance review following such backlash shows the debate is not simply about whether the investment proposal was commercially sensible, but also about how decisions of that scale should be made.

That may be the most important question for football’s next financial era.

Private capital is here to stay. The tap isn’t turning off.

So, it’s critical football determines its rules of engagement before the next billion-dollar proposal lands on the table.

Does The Australian Championship Have a Long-Term Future? Optimism Remains Despite Silence

THE ASSOCIATION of Australian Football Clubs has reconvened to re-engage Football Australia on the long-term future of the Australian Championship, which returns next month for its second season.

The AAFC is preparing a formal approach to head office in the aim of establishing the next steps for the tournament’s development. Little has been said from FA about its long-term prospects since South Melbourne won the inaugural title last summer.

Operated last season as an end-of-year tournament for clubs pulled from NPL competitions around the country, under the (former) model of the UEFA Champions League, it was generally lauded by those who partook as a success. This year, the same format returns.

But there remains a lack of certainty across constituent clubs as to where the Championship is headed. Those spoken to by Soccerscene, both within and outside the ‘foundation’ ranks, retain a firm desire to see it become a full-blown national second division – as was the competition’s working title for much of its development process.

“We’re now in the process of pushing that timeframe [for future discussion] because the clubs’ concern is if you just wait another twelve months, and do nothing towards establishing the home and away competition, then another year will pass,’ said AAFC chairman Nick Galatas.

‘We’re keen on re-establishing the impetus for what we say the clubs and the fans actually want, and that is a proper competition that will be the bridge for what we all want.

“We need to link our game from bottom to top and give more opportunities to our promising young players.”

It is the general view of a number of foundation clubs that discussions with FA have always been due to re-open following this upcoming second season; however, actual specifics have proved harder to find.

“As an aspiring club, we were under the understanding that after two years there’d be a review for the potential of promotion and relegation [to the A-League],’ said one club president from within the eight foundation clubs.

“Or, to discuss expansion into the A-League. We’re not asking to get rid of A-League teams; we’re asking for a connection via expansion. For example: ‘keep playing this competition, keep performing strongly, and then if you meet the criteria, you can apply for A-League expansion.’”

It is nearing three years since Football Australia selected its eight foundation clubs, from a pool of 32 that were invited to enter its Request For Proposal phase. At the time, it was stated that a refined process – to commence early-2024 – would seek to find an additional two-to-four clubs to join them.

That this has not happened means the eight sides still fail to represent any state outside New South Wales and Victoria, a criticism levelled at the competition from its first day. From the outside, this continued inactivity could be construed as a lack of progress – although that’s not to say inactivity is the case.

“We’ve explored it a few times, and FA have been really open about where they’re up to, and really what the trajectory is,” said the president of another club, who were part of the Request For Proposal phase, but were not selected as a foundation club.

“I would describe their current position as ‘we’re doing it, we’ll review what we’re doing, and then we’ll plan to either keep doing it, or expand it.’ Does that mean expansion will happen? Not necessarily.

‘Maybe they’ll do that review and there’s a sense the timing’s not right, there are too many challenges… but I’m not getting any indication that that’s the case.’

Football Australia signed its Championship broadcast deal with SBS in September 2025 for two seasons with an option for a third. Last week, the partnership announced an increase in linear broadcasting for 2026 with an additional match per round to be broadcast on Thursday nights. The entire competition is available via SBS On Demand.

Football Australia has also added a Penalty Shootout Bonus Point Model, where drawn matches in the group stage will see sides awarded a standard one point each, before heading to the penalty spot to contest an additional point.

The competition also remains without a naming rights partner, while participant clubs have this season been charged an entry fee, which was not the case last season. Football Australia continues to foot the travel bill for parties up to a certain number for away fixtures.

Football Australia was contacted for comment.

Most Popular Topics

Editor Picks

Send this to a friend