NPL - Victoria


NPL - Victoria

Author
Message
dirk vanadidas
dirk vanadidas
Pro
Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)Pro (2.8K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K, Visits: 0
cro69 wrote:


There is no rep team from the west zone applying for NPL. The strongest zone and no representation at all.


FFV will just do what FQ did and give the license to the local zone , who will then work with the community clubs ala Western Pride.

By the way the rest of Oz is larfing at you in Victoria at your inabilities in the Sports capital of straya.

Europe is funding the war not Chelsea football club

Benjamin
Benjamin
Legend
Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 23K, Visits: 0
TimmyJ wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
With regard to the FFV's statement (above)...

Benjamin wrote:
cro69 wrote:
95% of VPL and State1 clubs about to desert FFV over their version of NPL. Secret meetings already underway about creating a summer comp of powerfull victorian clubs ( FACT ). This will be in direct competition to the A League. So unless the FFV dont change their version of NPL, then there going to lose a lot of revenue next coming season. This comp is already in advance stages and will be ready for kick off as early as late October this year.Refs in place, insurances done , constitution done. Do FFV still think the powerhouse clubs are kidding?


Unfortunately for those 95% - the highest profile and best equipped club is standing by the FFV & FFA and forging closer links with both bodies.

In the meantime, whilst the other 95% are shouting in public about the need to stand together and make a break-away, many of those clubs are still running around having private meetings with the FFV to see how best they can secure themselves a place in the NPL.


95% of VPL/State1 clubs SAYING they are outraged by the NPL recommendations...

But half of them have submitted an application to join the NPL.

What they say in public is very different to what they do behind closed boardroom doors.


Is there a sort of "if you can't beat em' join em' vibe going around?


It may be a bit of that.

It's a very complicated issue. I can completely understand all of the points the Knights are making, but I can also totally understand why the clubs that are going for it (South, Dandenong, Oakleigh, Richmond, etc.) are looking to secure a place. Like it or not, this will be the second tier in Australia and it will be where (long term) the FFA will look for a second division of some kind if its ever going to happen.

I wouldn't be stunned if they change the player points system to allow clubs to hijack the best players from non-NPL clubs without incurring extra points... They will do whatever they can to direct the best players into the NPL.
SydneyCroatia
SydneyCroatia
Semi-Pro
Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K, Visits: 0
These clubs havent stated that they're going for it. They've done nothing more than submit an EOI

A couple of clubs have already made it clear that they only submitted their EOI so that they can see how it pans out. I havent heard too many clubs come out and say "we're 100% committed to this concept"
paladisious
paladisious
Legend
Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K, Visits: 0
paulbagzFC wrote:
So where's this announcement that South were pulling out?

-PB


It's Friday, so the latest e-newsletter is out from South. Headlines are:
"South to face Pascoe Vale test",
"South to face Herculean task on Queens Birthday Monday",
"Socceroos to train at Lakeside Stadium",
"South to participate in the 2013 Sydney Youth Cup and 2013 Sydney Junior Cup",
"Dominant South diffuse Cannons",
and: "southRadio Episode 7 now available!", wherein "Griffin will provide his weekly canteen ratings!"

I would have thought their 7pm announcement on Wednesday would have rated a mention. :-k
Benjamin
Benjamin
Legend
Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 23K, Visits: 0
SydneyCroatia wrote:
These clubs havent stated that they're going for it. They've done nothing more than submit an EOI

A couple of clubs have already made it clear that they only submitted their EOI so that they can see how it pans out. I havent heard too many clubs come out and say "we're 100% committed to this concept"


FFV only need 10 to make it worthwhile (from their point of view).

The clubs that have submitted EOI to see how things pan out are doing the sensible thing. Those who have shut the door (whilst I understand their reasoning) may have cost themselves 3 years of development.
Blackmissionary
Blackmissionary
Hacker
Hacker (325 reputation)Hacker (325 reputation)Hacker (325 reputation)Hacker (325 reputation)Hacker (325 reputation)Hacker (325 reputation)Hacker (325 reputation)Hacker (325 reputation)Hacker (325 reputation)Hacker (325 reputation)Hacker (325 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 324, Visits: 0
paladisious wrote:
I would have thought their 7pm announcement on Wednesday would have rated a mention. :-k


This is the third time I've read about this, and I still have no idea where this rumour has come from.
paulbagzFC
paulbagzFC
Legend
Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K, Visits: 0
Blackmissionary wrote:
paladisious wrote:
I would have thought their 7pm announcement on Wednesday would have rated a mention. :-k


This is the third time I've read about this, and I still have no idea where this rumour has come from.


Scroll back a page to see cro69 waffling about it.

-PB

https://i.imgur.com/batge7K.jpg

Capac
Capac
Rising Star
Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 885, Visits: 0
Quote:

Bentleigh “not likely” to be a part of NPL
By Donald Sutherland May 29, 2013   


EXCLUSIVE | The new National Premier League Victoria (NPLV) looks likely to go ahead without the inclusion or support of Bentleigh Greens, club Chairman Ray Georgiou confirmed today.

Speaking exclusively to MFootball, Mr Georgiou said his club had already submitted an expression of interest, but after consultation with other Victorian Premier League (VPL) clubs and further assessment of NPLV documentation, the Cheltenham-based side had a change of heart.

“Yeah, we did put in an expression of interest because I guess we didn’t want to get left out of the process at that stage. I think we’ve had more of a chance to meet with the clubs and study the documents more since then,” Mr Georgiou said.

Mr Georgiou described his club’s chance of being in the new competition as “not likely,” citing financial problems and restrictions on Bentleigh’s unique educational clinics as reasons for the club’s view, while stating one positive of the NPLV.

“Fiscally, I don’t see how anyone could sustain that, first of all. Secondly, there is only one benefit that you will see – that we’re limited to $50,000 (in licence fees) to the FFV. A club of our size, and I imagine Melbourne Knights and others might pay more, but we face a $60,000 bill to the FFV in a normal season, so that’s the only benefit.”
“We’ve got one junior program – an under 18 elite program – where the parents pay a premium, and they do two nights a week plus a third night of theory in prac., which is an approved VET (Vocational Education & Training) program through Higher Education and Skills Group.
“That’s quite an advanced program where you can get a certificate I, II, III or IV in sport and coaching. There’s no way of knowing whether that falls into a private clinic definition and therefore would have to be dismantled under this NPLV [as outlined in Section 2.8 of the NPLV Participation Criteria].

“In my opinion, that program is in advance of what the NPLV wants to do. You’re doing a proper, employer recognised qualification while you’re doing your juniors – so what happens to that program? It’s completely unknown.”

Mr Georgiou also said he believed a “massive re-write” would be needed for his club to change its stance, highlighting current arrangements regarding his club’s facilities as a key issues of the structural changes the NPLV would bring in.

“I don’t see tinkering with it making a difference to us,” Mr Georgiou said.
“We have a lease of the grounds for (until) 2018 which has been re-jigged into a licence which will run until 2028 and the community obligations of Bentleigh Greens come first in that lease to the council.

“That’s the top priority, so for someone like us in a regional class facility to do NPLV, we would need to invent another entity – Bentleigh Greens would need to stay a community club, whatever that means of course, because the FFV or FFA have not come forth with what is the fate of all these re-classified community clubs.”

However, the Bentleigh Greens Chairman said his council, City of Kingston, had not forced their hand in regards to the NPLV, even though the new competition would cause headaches for the local government.

“We’re on the same page with our council. We meet with them regularly because of our lease agreement. They are prepared to support Bentleigh Greens which ever way we wanted to go, but they would have a problem with the elite number of training hours that the elite squads need in such a small number of players.

“It would preclude a lot of visitor and casual bookings (of the venue). It would cause a problem to council but they haven’t said “oh you can’t go in.” They’ve been very supportive. On the other hand, the current lease arrangement comes first.”

Mr Georgiou also indicated that many other VPL clubs could pull out of the next year’s top tier too, saying that not many Premier League clubs have been happy with the proposed model.
“We’ve had a series of meetings over the last month. The general mood is that there’s been little enthusiasm from anyone. We have no knowledge in metro Melbourne of anyone being able to cobble together the money and the resources to do NPLV.
“To our knowledge, there isn’t anyone.”


So would this statement suggest that one of the major bones of contention many of the clubs have is the inability in the future to charge exorbitant fees to juniors. Isn't this seen as part of the problem, the very fact that you are cutting off people who can't afford to pay 2k a season for their kid to play football?
Benjamin
Benjamin
Legend
Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 23K, Visits: 0
Capac wrote:
So would this statement suggest that one of the major bones of contention many of the clubs have is the inability in the future to charge exorbitant fees to juniors. Isn't this seen as part of the problem, the very fact that you are cutting off people who can't afford to pay 2k a season for their kid to play football?


Actually the opposite. Under the new system costs will be higher but clubs will be restricted in the number of teams they can operate - so fewer kids paying higher fees. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that lower income families will be pushed toward smaller 'community' sides with lesser facilities and coaching standards, whilst less talented kids with wealthier parents will get better coaching.
paladisious
paladisious
Legend
Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K, Visits: 0
Benjamin wrote:
Capac wrote:
So would this statement suggest that one of the major bones of contention many of the clubs have is the inability in the future to charge exorbitant fees to juniors. Isn't this seen as part of the problem, the very fact that you are cutting off people who can't afford to pay 2k a season for their kid to play football?


Actually the opposite. Under the new system costs will be higher but clubs will be restricted in the number of teams they can operate - so fewer kids paying higher fees. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that lower income families will be pushed toward smaller 'community' sides with lesser facilities and coaching standards, whilst less talented kids with wealthier parents will get better coaching.

Doesn't he say in the next paragraph of that article that the fees for the club would be less under the NPL? Is there something else I'm missing?
Benjamin
Benjamin
Legend
Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)Legend (23K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 23K, Visits: 0
paladisious wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
Capac wrote:
So would this statement suggest that one of the major bones of contention many of the clubs have is the inability in the future to charge exorbitant fees to juniors. Isn't this seen as part of the problem, the very fact that you are cutting off people who can't afford to pay 2k a season for their kid to play football?


Actually the opposite. Under the new system costs will be higher but clubs will be restricted in the number of teams they can operate - so fewer kids paying higher fees. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that lower income families will be pushed toward smaller 'community' sides with lesser facilities and coaching standards, whilst less talented kids with wealthier parents will get better coaching.

Doesn't he say in the next paragraph of that article that the fees for the club would be less under the NPL? Is there something else I'm missing?


The fees for the club (not the parents) will reduce from approx $60k to approx $50k, however, where they would previously have been able to have 100 or more kids per age group, they will now be limited to around 15-18 kids per age group. Couple that to the need to have more training sessions per week, for more weeks of the year, with more qualified coaches, and the need for a director of football type at each club, the costs rise significantly.

These increases have to be met - if you previously had 100 kids paying $500/year each - that's $50,000. If you only have 20 kids now, but still need to raise that $50,000... How do you raise the money without charging $2,500 each?
paladisious
paladisious
Legend
Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K, Visits: 0
Benjamin wrote:
paladisious wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
Capac wrote:
So would this statement suggest that one of the major bones of contention many of the clubs have is the inability in the future to charge exorbitant fees to juniors. Isn't this seen as part of the problem, the very fact that you are cutting off people who can't afford to pay 2k a season for their kid to play football?


Actually the opposite. Under the new system costs will be higher but clubs will be restricted in the number of teams they can operate - so fewer kids paying higher fees. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that lower income families will be pushed toward smaller 'community' sides with lesser facilities and coaching standards, whilst less talented kids with wealthier parents will get better coaching.

Doesn't he say in the next paragraph of that article that the fees for the club would be less under the NPL? Is there something else I'm missing?


The fees for the club (not the parents) will reduce from approx $60k to approx $50k, however, where they would previously have been able to have 100 or more kids per age group, they will now be limited to around 15-18 kids per age group. Couple that to the need to have more training sessions per week, for more weeks of the year, with more qualified coaches, and the need for a director of football type at each club, the costs rise significantly.

These increases have to be met - if you previously had 100 kids paying $500/year each - that's $50,000. If you only have 20 kids now, but still need to raise that $50,000... How do you raise the money without charging $2,500 each?


Yes I see. I wasn't aware clubs were required to limit the numbers in each age group, sounds like a terrible idea.
Capac
Capac
Rising Star
Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 885, Visits: 0
Benjamin wrote:
paladisious wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
Capac wrote:
So would this statement suggest that one of the major bones of contention many of the clubs have is the inability in the future to charge exorbitant fees to juniors. Isn't this seen as part of the problem, the very fact that you are cutting off people who can't afford to pay 2k a season for their kid to play football?


Actually the opposite. Under the new system costs will be higher but clubs will be restricted in the number of teams they can operate - so fewer kids paying higher fees. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that lower income families will be pushed toward smaller 'community' sides with lesser facilities and coaching standards, whilst less talented kids with wealthier parents will get better coaching.

Doesn't he say in the next paragraph of that article that the fees for the club would be less under the NPL? Is there something else I'm missing?


The fees for the club (not the parents) will reduce from approx $60k to approx $50k, however, where they would previously have been able to have 100 or more kids per age group, they will now be limited to around 15-18 kids per age group. Couple that to the need to have more training sessions per week, for more weeks of the year, with more qualified coaches, and the need for a director of football type at each club, the costs rise significantly.

These increases have to be met - if you previously had 100 kids paying $500/year each - that's $50,000. If you only have 20 kids now, but still need to raise that $50,000... How do you raise the money without charging $2,500 each?

You'll have to pardon my ignorance here but how much doee your average top club charge juniors? I noticed that the rules put a cap of $1700 on fees and just assumed that that would be below what most of the clubs charge now.
Capac
Capac
Rising Star
Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)Rising Star (908 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 885, Visits: 0
paladisious wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
paladisious wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
Capac wrote:
So would this statement suggest that one of the major bones of contention many of the clubs have is the inability in the future to charge exorbitant fees to juniors. Isn't this seen as part of the problem, the very fact that you are cutting off people who can't afford to pay 2k a season for their kid to play football?


Actually the opposite. Under the new system costs will be higher but clubs will be restricted in the number of teams they can operate - so fewer kids paying higher fees. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that lower income families will be pushed toward smaller 'community' sides with lesser facilities and coaching standards, whilst less talented kids with wealthier parents will get better coaching.

Doesn't he say in the next paragraph of that article that the fees for the club would be less under the NPL? Is there something else I'm missing?


The fees for the club (not the parents) will reduce from approx $60k to approx $50k, however, where they would previously have been able to have 100 or more kids per age group, they will now be limited to around 15-18 kids per age group. Couple that to the need to have more training sessions per week, for more weeks of the year, with more qualified coaches, and the need for a director of football type at each club, the costs rise significantly.

These increases have to be met - if you previously had 100 kids paying $500/year each - that's $50,000. If you only have 20 kids now, but still need to raise that $50,000... How do you raise the money without charging $2,500 each?


Yes I see. I wasn't aware clubs were required to limit the numbers in each age group, sounds like a terrible idea.


They did this a few years ago and it disnt seem to have a huge negative impact. The basic idea was to reduce the monopoly some of the big clubs had over juniors. It resulted in quite a few new clubs springing up and new age griups forming and becoming important. That said adelaide is a third the size so really we dont have 6or7 divisions in each age group.
Steven of Balwyn
Steven of Balwyn
Under 7s
Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19, Visits: 0
Look guys, the NPL and the local state versions are all about creating a sustainable pathway for the development of elite youngsters. This was never hidden. It was there in black and white right from the start. If you check out the Powerpoint presentations it's very clear. Priority No. 1 is about creating a deeper, better and more sustainable program for the development of a larger number of high quality youngsters who would then come through to the age of 18-20 and be ready for bigger things.

It was never about what is good for the current clubs of the VPL in their current forms with their current reason d’être. The clubs who have decided to not submit a EOI have miscalculated badly. They have not understood what the game is. They have assumed the point was to improve the Victorian league. That may happen over time but it is not the key objective.

In Victoria, the current talent identification and development process just isn't working. It is too hit and miss. Most clubs don't have strong, professional programs that can identify enough young kids from early enough (8-10 yrs) and then develop them over 7-9 years through a sustained and high quality program with the right, professional coaches with the right accreditation, knowledge and experience. Even the best programs in the most organised clubs (or academies) were not doing this consistently, and there are clearly not enough of them with the oversight and longevity required.

This is why the FFV/FFA have long taken it upon themselves to play this role with the Skillaroos, Skill Acquisition Programs, NTC, etc, and in Victoria the VCL each summer. But these programs are of course limited to small numbers and statistically speaking will have limited success in terms of getting volume through the program and out the other side, at the right level. And the VCL was very hit and miss. Trying to choose the best kids over 1-2 weeks in September/October with a rather small number of coaches seeing them in 2-3 artificial trials for a very short period of time is not the way to increase your strike rate in picking the best talent. And the results (or lack of them) are there for all to see.

To pick the kids with the best talent you need to get these kids into the right, professional programs early (8-10 yrs) and to then get them to play against each other regularly from 12+ and watch them regularly over a sustained period with many eyes on them.

This is the only way to statistically increase your chances of successfully picking and keeping the focus on the talented kids, as they develop through the program. This is what the NPL is about. All the rest is dressing.

And of course if the trial processes are fair and open and robust (not at all what I've seen at the VCL) then some kids will drop out and others will be added to the core talent pool as they move up the age groups. These kids will/should come from the community clubs. But the core talent pool will (after the initial few years) move up as a group (within the 10 or 12 elite clubs/programs) around Victoria.

So at some point in the not too distant future we should have approximately 360 young players (12 clubs x U18 + U20 X 15 per squad)who have moved through an intense, professional program (8-10 hrs per week plus games x 48 weeks per year)since they were U12s. A consistent program set up and run by accredited coaches and technical directors at these clubs. Hence the steep and rigorous requirements stipulated in the criteria for the NPLV. We need a critical mass of programs, at the right standard for a sustainable period in order to produce the volume. And every couple of years we will add another 360 to the earlier group.

This is what it's about. Some of these boys will move on to bigger and better things such as State and National squads and A-league and perhaps beyond and most will play in the Senior teams of these elite clubs.

But it's not about the senior teams of these elite clubs; it's about increasing our strike rate in respect to identifying and developing talent which will move beyond the states. In Australia, with our small population, limited resources and the dominance of the hand-ball codes we cannot achieve this in the same way that it is achieved overseas. That's just a fact of the lay of the land. So the powers that be have come up with this approach. It may not be the best approach and will definitely need to be tweaked as we go forward but it's certainly better than what I've seen around the traps at this moment.

Now all of this will have a number of consequences, some of which we can probably see now and others we will find as we move forward.

Clearly one of the key consequences will be that the current VPL competition will change. The emphasis will not be on the club and the fan who comes to watch their VPL senior team. It will be on the development of young talent.

Another consequence will probably be that the quality of the senior squads/teams will suffer over the short to mid term because of the point system. We will lose experienced players to the lower divisions. But I think with time this will come around again and perhaps surpass what we have today because the quality coming through will improve and cannot all go to the A-League, even in an expanded form. The talent of the pool of top tier state players will, over time, get much better even if they are younger.

One final thing. The cost. Such a program is expensive. I've seen it first hand in one of the clubs and there was a good analysis put up on one of the threads here on 4-4-2 a few weeks ago which also showed how expensive the program will be (although in my opinion that poster still underestimated the cost). The program for 10+ hrs per week x 48 weeks with the right coaches and overview and support will be in excess of $2,500 per year per player. This is steep but it's not a lot more than a standard community club program with a few holiday academies thrown in during the year ($800 + 3 x $300 = $1,700).

Unfortunately, in Australia today that's what such a program costs. No two ways about it and someone's got to pay. No club at state level can afford to pay for it unless the A-league pays a great deal more for the future talent it gets from these programs. While it doesn't the only way to pay for it is through the parents and that means the parents of the kids that can afford it, to my personal, deep regret.

We will create a situation not unlike the private/public split we have in the education system in Australia. Those that can afford it will send their kids to the private schools and if the kid shows some football talent those same parents will/can pay for their place in the elite football clubs.

Now this will create two potential problems. One is in my view a non-problem while the other one is very real.

Will we get less talented players because we have high fees? Maybe in the very early stages but very soon there will be enough highly talented players with the money to pay. It happens in the education system and it will happen in football. And don't forget that success is 90% hard work and commitment and only 10% talent. Over time this fact will mitigate against this first problem.

Will we lose talented kids because they can't afford it. Yes we will. That's life in Australia today in so many areas. It's a sad fact and is one the FFV/FFA must find ways to minimise the effects of. For two reasons. It's a question of social justice and also of missing out on exceptional talent. The key way to make this work is to put money in for scholarships at every elite club and set very clear and policed means-tested criteria for the awarding of these scholarships. They should not expect the clubs to do this. They can't afford it and will have little inclination to do it at the early years when it's so hard to tell if the talent and commitment is actually there.

So in the end what does this all mean?

The new elite NPLV clubs will be different beasts to the current VPL clubs with a different focus. Or at least two very distinct areas of focus. The quality of senior team football may/will suffer in the initial phase but will probably come back better in time.

I for one hope it works because I want to see better opportunities for our youngsters and better tier one football in time. And I'm prepared to wait for this to happen. Ultimately we should see better football all the way up.

The clubs who opted out will unfortunately play no role in making it a better process over the next few years and in correcting the NPLV's initial shortcomings. In time I think they will probably regret their decision and their members will not forgive them.












Priest
Priest
Super Fan
Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 99, Visits: 0
Where is the facepalm when you need it?
TheSelectFew
TheSelectFew
Legend
Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)Legend (30K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K, Visits: 0
Priest wrote:
Where is the facepalm when you need it?





Priest
Priest
Super Fan
Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 99, Visits: 0
=d>
SydneyCroatia
SydneyCroatia
Semi-Pro
Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K, Visits: 0
Mate you do realise that, at least in the case of the Knights, it was the members who made the decision, right?

That's how things work at real clubs
Stallion
Stallion
Fan
Fan (65 reputation)Fan (65 reputation)Fan (65 reputation)Fan (65 reputation)Fan (65 reputation)Fan (65 reputation)Fan (65 reputation)Fan (65 reputation)Fan (65 reputation)Fan (65 reputation)Fan (65 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 64, Visits: 0
Well written Steven.
That's what forums are all about, you learn things from different perspectives.
Priest
Priest
Super Fan
Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 99, Visits: 0
No, forums are about people with NFI getting to have their say to some sort of an audience.
Steven of Balwyn
Steven of Balwyn
Under 7s
Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19, Visits: 0
SydneyCroatia wrote:
Mate you do realise that, at least in the case of the Knights, it was the members who made the decision, right?

That's how things work at real clubs


Yes mate I do realise that the members may have voted. But before the vote there was discussion and presentations and guidance from the board and management of these clubs. The misguided 'guidance' is the problem and when they realise this they won't forgive their board for miscalculating. For instance, the stuff I heard about the IP issue is laughable to say the least. Clubs fearing that they were giving up their rights, their names, etc etc. How many of these voting members really read the documents and understood what was required? How many of the board members did? Who are you kidding mate? It was just people's pig headedness and refusal to accept change.

And at the end of the day why not submit an EOI and have a chance to influence the process and find out more about it from the inside? Doing so creates no obligation of any sort on any club!! Why would someone not take this opportunity?

Unless of course they were determined to see the process fail from the outset.
Priest
Priest
Super Fan
Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 99, Visits: 0
TheSelectFew wrote:
Priest wrote:
Where is the facepalm when you need it?



Steven of Balwyn
Steven of Balwyn
Under 7s
Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19, Visits: 0
Priest wrote:
No, forums are about people with NFI getting to have their say to some sort of an audience.


Now now. Why so nasty? You don't like what I'm saying then make an argument. I'm prepared to listen and to change my view. Throwing stones isn't going to help anyone.
Priest
Priest
Super Fan
Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 99, Visits: 0
I've never got a response from a brick wall so I don't bother trying to get one anymore. You seem to know the Knights have got it all wrong anyway so nothing to discuss.

Just waiting for you and the rest of the experts to say I told you so, once the FFV moves the NPLV goal posts.
Steven of Balwyn
Steven of Balwyn
Under 7s
Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19, Visits: 0
Priest wrote:
I've never got a response from a brick wall so I don't bother trying to get one anymore. You seem to know the Knights have got it all wrong anyway so nothing to discuss.

Just waiting for you and the rest of the experts to say I told you so, once the FFV moves the NPLV goal posts.


Priest why do you assume I'm a brick wall? We've never conversed before have we? Have I ever behaved in such a way towards you or anyone else on this thread/site?

I think the Knights and some others did get it wrong. They should have submitted an EOI and participated in the next phase of the process. No one could easily condemn them of walking away because they didn't get what they wanted if they did this. Now it just looks pig-headed.

As to saying 'I told you so' it's not my way. I won't be happy to see the Knights left out and much less so if they end up being diminished over time by their exclusion.
SydneyCroatia
SydneyCroatia
Semi-Pro
Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K, Visits: 0
The FFV have made it very clear that nothing will change in regards to the criteria.

Why would the Knights piss away valuable resources to 'participate in the next phase' when the next phase of the process is putting together an application?
Priest
Priest
Super Fan
Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)Super Fan (100 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 99, Visits: 0
Steve when you can answer SydneyCroatia's question we can continue talking. Until then :-$

Quote:
Media Release

Wednesday 5 June 2013

FFV APPOINTS NEW CEO

Football Federation Victoria (FFV) today announced it has appointed Mitchell Murphy as its new Chief Executive Officer.

Mr Murphy who has a Master of Business Administration was appointed after an extensive recruitment process by the FFV Board and recruitment firm Derwent Executive.

Mr Murphy has more than 15 years’ experience in senior media management roles in Australia and New Zealand and during that time has worked closely with elite sport including football.

He has covered three Olympic Games (Sydney, Athens and Beijing) as a writer and editor.

A former Editor-in-Chief of Fairfax Community Newspapers in Victoria, Mr Murphy spent four years in New Zealand as General Manager (Auckland) of Fairfax Media before taking up his current role as Executive Director (Publishing) of The Newspaper Works, the peak media industry body for the Asia Pacific Region.

“I have been passionate about football for a long time and as the father of a son who has played junior football for the past five years, I understand the issues for parents and grassroots participants,” said Murphy, who is the uncle of Matildas star Katrina Gorry.

“I am excited to be joining FFV at a time when football is on the rise, with a record A-League season on all fronts. With the leadership David Gallop and the FFA are providing and the anticipation of the AFC Asian Cup in 2015, I believe we can further grow the game in Victoria.

“I am also particularly excited to be involved in the National Premier Leagues Victoria launch.

“While all businesses face hurdles, and FFV is not without challenge, I will be particularly focused on ensuring our financial performance is strong to enhance our services to clubs and players and to keep the costs of participation in check.

“My approach will be collaborative with our members and stakeholders. Football has grown 56 per cent in the past 10 years in Victoria and to ensure that continues I will listen to the views of everyone involved with the game.”

FFV President Nick Monteleone said that he was delighted with the appointment.

“On behalf of the Board and the football family we welcome Mitchell and look forward to a new and exciting chapter for football in Victoria,” said Mr Monteleone.

Mr Murphy will take up his position at FFV on 1 July.

Arthur
Arthur
World Class
World Class (5.3K reputation)World Class (5.3K reputation)World Class (5.3K reputation)World Class (5.3K reputation)World Class (5.3K reputation)World Class (5.3K reputation)World Class (5.3K reputation)World Class (5.3K reputation)World Class (5.3K reputation)World Class (5.3K reputation)World Class (5.3K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5K, Visits: 0
Steven of Balwyn wrote:


But it's not about the senior teams of these elite clubs; it's about increasing our strike rate in respect to identifying and developing talent which will move beyond the states. In Australia, with our small population, limited resources and the dominance of the hand-ball codes we cannot achieve this in the same way that it is achieved overseas. That's just a fact of the lay of the land. So the powers that be have come up with this approach. It may not be the best approach and will definitely need to be tweaked as we go forward but it's certainly better than what I've seen around the traps at this moment.



In the Victorian context this appears to be the main focus of the NPL, if my understanding of the NSW and QLD context is correct there appears more emphasis on the Senior teams and creating a commercially viable competition that is the face of the state.

The FFV version also harps back to the failed "Summer League" plan which morphed into the Victorian Champions League (VCL) which became a glorified junior competition that after 5 seasons became tired and boring. A common theme from children was to experience once and that seem to satisfy most.

But even the "Summer League" plans had the Senior Clubs as the key aspect of the competition, it does not appear so at this moment in time.


Quote:
Clearly one of the key consequences will be that the current VPL competition will change. The emphasis will not be on the club and the fan who comes to watch their VPL senior team. It will be on the development of young talent.


I have to agree that this will be a consequence of the change in competition in Victoria. By extension this will also mean that a Senior Competition will most likely be commercially unviable if not financially weak and unsatble.

A key component of the NPLV is to drive down player payments, but by doing this what is the tipping point that the competition has no value for emerging players?

Does this mean emerging players once completing an "apprentiship" at U18 and U20 level will seek out "Community Clubs" for remuneration and competition.

Could they also seek financial remuneration by joining clubs in a "rebel" Summer Competition? Lets not forget the roots of the FFV are one of being a rebel organisation nearly 60 years later it is still going.


Quote:
Another consequence will probably be that the quality of the senior squads/teams will suffer over the short to mid term because of the point system. We will lose experienced players to the lower divisions. But I think with time this will come around again and perhaps surpass what we have today because the quality coming through will improve and cannot all go to the A-League, even in an expanded form. The talent of the pool of top tier state players will, over time, get much better even if they are younger.


Agree with this assumption the only question remains is there or will there be an alternative for players in a the "Communit" Competition or Rebel "Competition" which you have not accounted for. To compete the FFV might have to loosen restrictions on the PPS and VISA players and maybe redirect funds from Community Clubs and Players to prop up the "Elite Clubs". Or change the corporate structure rules to allow for private investment.


Quote:
So in the end what does this all mean?

The new elite NPLV clubs will be different beasts to the current VPL clubs with a different focus. Or at least two very distinct areas of focus. The quality of senior team football may/will suffer in the initial phase but will probablycome back better in time.


Agree again as I have made note of in my comments "Probably" still means that everything else stays static around the NPLV.

If the Community Clubs have higher revenue streams to the NPLV they can recruit the players secondly if the Community Clubs create a 12 or 24 team Super Summer League under an independant soccer body like Vicsoccer or a new Association with no FFV or FFA or FIFA ties. There is already a precedent of FFV CLubs fielding teams in these type of competitions simultaneously I think a court of law would find it difficult to support the FFV kicking them out.

Quote:
The clubs who opted out will unfortunately play no role in making it a better process over the next few years and in correcting the NPLV's initial shortcomings. In time I think they will probably regret their decision and their members will not forgive them.


The FFV already stated there is a cap on the number of possible entrants of 24 teams and I would suggest to you there are a couple of VPL Clubs let alone State One Clubs that wether they apply or not would be very unlikely to be accepted. And I think one would Dandenong Thunder.

So the talk of who applys and in the cases raised who doesn't of noe real consequence anyway.

And lets face it the FFV's track record in these things hasn't been the best over the years so it is oppurtunity for them to get it right as well.

There is a three year moratorium on new licences any way so it will offer clubs reluctant to join the oppurtunity to see how it all goes.

Dean Hennessy a VPL Coach offered his point of view on Mfootball which was very interesting;

Most coaches in the VPL have introduced young players into senior football, and I know all of them are proud of this when it happens.
There are a number of variables that a coach will need to assess when deciding if it is the time is right to introduce a young player into the system.
The player must have the ability to compete physically at VPL level, with a duty of care in mind, and be good enough to play at that level based on their current form – in other words they have earned the right to be picked.
Once picked, the next hurdle is trying to keep their place in the team. Most players learn a certain amount from their coaches, but I believe that most of the education in a young player’s development comes from his team mates (especially the experienced players) and the actual opponents themselves.
If this opinion is agreed by most of the people within the game then the new format has some major flaws.
The new league will penalise clubs for signing players who are over 25-years-old. However, when I look back when I played I actually thought this stage of my career was when I was at my peak. So too were my opponents, because we had experience and had been at that level for six-seven seasons.
So to encourage clubs to stop signing players 26-years-old and over will dilute teams dramatically and I believe the development of the young players will be affected enormously. They simply won’t be learning from experienced team mates and opponents.

http://www.mfootball.com.au/dean-hennessey-is-the-nplv-whats-best-for-our-young-players/

What concerns most in Victoria is how the FFV brains trust is thinking and what their vision is for the game here is a quote from an article with former FFV Director Joe Perri and his thoughts on the game here.

Former Football Federation Victoria (FFV) Board member Joe Perri believes that football (soccer) would benefit immensely if the Federation and community-based clubs reviewed the participatory models and abandoned the senior team competition.

Joe Perri firmly believes that the sport and the Federation’s ambitions would be better served if the competition was restructured and the men and women’s senior / reserves leagues were replaced with ongoing age groups i.e. Under 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, and so on.

“In order to harness opportunity requires the FFV to take a more proactive approach that demands courage and leadership to challenge traditional conventions, including the local suburban club model and senior team ceiling. Failing to do so will be to the long term detriment of the very players, stakeholders and the sport that the Federation is entrusted to administer and oversee,” concluded Joe Perri
.
http://www.goalweekly.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=6894:pre-adult-teenagers-continue-to-pay-the-price-for-ffv’s-outdated-senior-competition-model&Itemid=134

I think all posters can see why many are concerned with the direction of the game here when the FFV Board of Directors are think along the above lines.











Steven of Balwyn
Steven of Balwyn
Under 7s
Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)Under 7s (19 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19, Visits: 0
Priest, SydneyCroatia,

It aint over until the fat lady sings guys.

If there is enough desire from the clubs that put in an EOI I believe that things can change if they need to. And with a new CEO there is a ready-made, face-saving way to do it. No one can say, "You said you wouldn't change". So if you want to have a chance to push for change then inside is where you needed to be. From the outside little will be achieved....not least because you will be seen as recalcitrant.

It's even harder to understand when one considers that there was nothing about the EOI that tied you down to any further obligations of any sort.

I don't buy the line that the Knights didn't have the resources to be part of the next phase of the process.

Don't get me wrong, you may be right that nothing will change. But it's a big risk they've taken.
GO


Select a Forum....























Inside Sport


Search