http://m.theage.com.au/sport/soccer/ffvs-new-model-fails-to-woo-clubs-20130806-2rdih.html

none of this makes any sense to me. If a club does not want to be in the NPL then don't simple as that.But don't complain for the next thee years about it like some do about the A league.

Open Letter to the Football Community of Victoria

7 August 2013

Mr Mitchell Murphy
Chief Executive Officer
Football Federation Victoria

Dear Mr Murphy

Re: National Premier Leagues - Victoria

Your interview with MFootball.com.au published today reveals clearly the reasons why the game has reached this very low ebb under the stewardship of the current FFV Board and management.

Instead of addressing the concerns raised by an unprecedented union of clubs on a single issue, you don’t even acknowledge the genuineness of their action. Rather, you express confidence that they will change their mind and apply! That is a reckless and disrespectful approach. Reckless because if they don’t apply (and they won’t), you are leaving our game high and dry with a paucity of applicants for the NPLV which we agree should commence in 2014. Disrespectful because you still continue to ignore and effectively disbelieve what the clubs are telling you.

Pressing on in a transparent attempt to try and frighten a number of clubs into applying for fear of the alternative or even each other is unacceptable governance. Assuming that happens and you are proven correct, you will have enticed a number of clubs to apply to join a process against their better judgement and despite their serious concerns out of fear of the alternative. Irrespective of your view of the merits of the FFV model for the NPL, these clubs are telling you they disagree with you and hold serious concerns for it and how it will affect them. Your response is to seek to hold firm so that a number of these clubs might reverse their decision for reasons which ought not be relevant.

This position adopted by the FFV comes on top of your recent invitation to clubs, at the eleventh hour, to submit non-conforming bids, whatever that means. The process has now become an unedifying and embarrassing shambles. Again, we call upon the FFV to stop and take seriously our concerns.

The clubs, individually and jointly, recently and over the past few months, have repeatedly sought to have the FFV seriously consider their concerns. To say, therefore, that you have had an open door policy and to imply that the clubs don’t want to discuss their concerns with FFV, is to effectively brand them liars and allege they must be taking this difficult, frustrating and time consuming action for some other reason. The fact is FFV has not taken the clubs’ concerns seriously at all which has brought the clubs, so many of us, so diverse and from so many levels of the game, together.

Notwithstanding that yours and Tim Frampton’s invitation to attend the clubs’ meeting on 23 July was revoked (as it was expected some sensitive matters might be raised), FFV Board member, Kimon Taliadoros,
did attend and remained with the clubs’ consent. Besides, to latch on to one meeting among clubs as evidence of the clubs not wishing to discuss matters is disingenuous and displays bad faith. There have been many opportunities before and since that meeting to discuss our concerns which the FFV has spurned. The FFV weren’t denied access and anyway, that meeting wasn’t called for the purpose of discussing concerns held by the clubs with FFV.

Rather than debating the merits of our concerns in the media, you might do it with the clubs. But you can’t do that while at the same time letting the process run so that applications close on August 16. To do that would just show, yet again, that you are not serious about addressing the concerns of the clubs and as with your ‘extensive consultation process’ your understanding of consultation amounts to no more than listening before forging ahead with your plans regardless.

If you want to talk to us, don’t do it via the media. Instead, suspend the process, come and sit down with us and have the discussion. I think we would all prefer that. If FFV does not advise us by 4pm tomorrow that it will suspend the process and meaningfully address our concerns, the clubs will unfortunately be forced to take legal action.

On behalf of the 47 Co-signatory clubs
Tom Kalas

Edited by troy5: 7/8/2013 06:49:21 AM

Misleading title there Troy5.

-PB

Not available for comment is not exactly going into hiding, particularly when he was available for comment yesterday with mFootball.

http://www.mfootball.com.au/nplv-to-go-ahead-says-ceo-with-others-to-play-in-sl1-style-league/

The letter a few posts above yours directly responds to that mFootball article.

By the way, contrary to what some have suggested.....the FFV can halt the process at anytime

8. Liability
Neither FFV, nor its respective officers, Directors, employees, contractors or agents, will be liable (in contract, tort, equity or otherwise) for any direct or indirect damages, losses, costs or expenses (including wasted costs, loss of profits or loss of business opportunity) incurred by an Applicant or any other person and arising in any way in connection with its submission of an application including in connection with: b) the preparation of a submission
a) the evaluation of a submission
b) any investigations of or by an Applicant
c) the rejection or refusal of a submission
d) the variation, suspension or cancellation of the Application Process or e) any information given or not given to an Applicant

k) By submitting an application (or any part thereof) an Applicant waives any rights it may have to make a claim against FFV, or its respective officers, Directors, employees, contractors, agents or advisers arising out of or in connection with the Application Process.

so...... the FFV can halt the process AT ANY TIME AT NO COST TO THE FFV

It gets better... (again from the FFV Participation Criteria Doc)




a) Applicants acknowledge that it is their own responsibility, before submitting an Application to:

i. examine the Application Documents, any documents referenced by the Application Documents and any other information made available to the Applicant by FFV

ii. identify and obtain all information they may require to prepare and submit an Application

iii. obtain independent advice

iv. consider all the risks, contingencies, impacts and other circumstances which may affect its submission and its ability to perform in accordance with it

v. satisfy themselves as to the correctness of all information in its submission

vi. without limiting this clause, in submitting any application made by the Applicant, an Applicant acknowledges and agrees that it has not relied on any express or implied statement, representation or warranty as to the truth, accuracy or completeness of the information contained in the Application Documents or otherwise provided by FFV


Each Applicant warrants and represents to FFV that the information contained in and submitted with its submission is complete and accurate in all material respects and may be relied upon by FFV and each Applicant indemnifies FFV against any and all losses incurred by FFV as a result of a breach of such warranties or the representations being incorrect.


7. FFV has no obligations
Submission of an application does not oblige FFV to enter into any discussions, negotiations or contractual arrangements with an Applicant.

Please confirm I am reading this correctly - FFV is saying "read everything we've said, make your decision based on what we've said, but you can't blame us if we've given incorrect information"

Best analogy I can think of the FFV's situation

they have suffocated in their own version of a Trojan Horse

Serves them right for smoking cigars and celebrating inside their own Trojan Horse which has no ventilation and then got swamped by a tsunami of clubs and is now underwater

They did not see this coming at all.....oh well

Edited by chris: 7/8/2013 03:11:04 PM

It was the Hellenes who surprise attacked and defeated the Trojans by hiding inside the horse, not the other way around.

This goes a bit deeper than no club being bigger than its league, we are talking 47 clubs across multiple divisions here.

I've just gone through the criteria again and bloody hell I find it scary the more I read it.

Do I have this correct that SMFC for eg in the current nplv criteria would have to put an end to its tv show? mind boggling:shock:

How about is a federation's administration bigger than the good of football?

100%
and some of these clubs were in part the downfall of the NSL and none of them agreed with the A league concept.

A tiny percentage of these clubs are ex nsl,we want a viable league for our state, the ffa may have gotten a bit right in recent times...the ffv have been nothing but failures for near on a decade.

Truthfully southmelb how many of your fans bagged out the A league before the first game. Continually told us it would only last 3 months and until recently kept running poles about should south be allowed in. Is this not the same MO with the NPL and will the result not be the same? South out NPL going ahead and south fans complaining that it is not fair, not going to last, and south should be allowed in.

Edited by krones3: 7/8/2013 11:14:23 PM

I don't see any connection here, this a united effort from the majority of football clubs in Victoria, it is very important that week keep state and national issues separate. The npl in its current form is unlikely to go ahead unless it follows the same process of nsw.

Krones mate, this isn't Queensland. The issues are deeper. Also are you ignoring all the "broadbased" and regional clubs who have pulled out or refused to be a part of the process due to their concerns? Or are you allowing 15 year old preconceptions to cloud your judgement?

Good point but i was there recently at one of the clubs on the list and they don't play small sided football because they are outside of the zone that is forced too.As i have been coaching ssf for 6yrs i am totally convinced it is the way to go but if a club does not do it simply because they can not be forced to then that says it all about their philosophy towards development.I dont think i am far off with some of the others as well.

Coaching wise I have no idea :) I agree that all clubs should be using SSG for development, you would think it was actually more cost effective for then as well.

Not only that but if they had the future of the game at heart then they would do it without force.Which of course makes you wonder about their true intentions in other decisions.
I do however agree that the current model of the NPL is unsustainable (even in Queensland) however i believe the correct course of action is to get the best teams in the system and then address the problems in the interest of the clubs but for the good of the game. I have some great ideas for our zone that i think gallop would be comfortable and familiar with but as yet i have not been able to contact him about it.

I think all the grown ups on this forum know that their are a great many ppl involved in our game that have their own best interests at heart and often against the best interests of the game. At club level at least 2 of the committee members one of the secretary or president half of the coaches and most of the managers all of the technical directors IMO.

(y)

It seems that SA is the only place where the NPL has started up pretty much with out a hitch (after the initial teething problems) - but even here we will have to see some adjustments, mostly to do with the clubs that are in the NPL as a few of them are clearly not ready for the level required.

You say the FFA have got a lot right recently - and you are correct. In fact, if you follow the story properly you'll see that the 47 signatories SUPPORT the FFA's recommendations. It's the FFV's version of the NPL that they object to. What the clubs are actually asking is for the FFV to run the same system that is operated in NSW (a system that was set up under the guidance of the FFA).

The clubs believe that if the NPL is set up as planned, the members will all be bankrupt within 3 years - which is in no way in the best interests of Australian football.

The most glaring 'red flag' on the process is the FFV's position that they must be indemnified completely - including with regard to the wording of their own documents. I'm sorry, but if an organisation prepares a set of guidelines and advice regarding those guidelines, then says they are not responsible for the content of those documents, I get extremely nervous.

I'll repeat the important bit you appear to have missed though... The 47 signatory clubs SUPPORT THE FFA'S NPL CONCEPT. It's the FFV's management of it they are objecting to.

Perhaps you'd be interested to learn that under the FFV's NPL guidelines Small Sided Games will not be allowed as clubs will not be allowed.

Does that alter your position on who is acting in the best interests of the game?

yep

The original article is way off base. Heidelberg were never successful in the NSL.

:lol: :lol:

It would be interesting to see how the FFV model differs from other states as Michael Lynch suggests?

You have partly answered my query.

If the clubs want to copy other states, why have FFV been granted the autonomy by FFA to do things differently?

The NPL inception has been pretty smooth in Tasmania.