Decentric wrote:Benjamin wrote:RedKat wrote:Remember the saying no player is bigger than the club? In the same way no club is bigger than its league.
FFA have gotten a lot right recently. If these clubs cared about Australian football, and the growth of it, they wouldnt be kicking up such a stink 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 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. 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 FFA's stance is that the federations should tailor the NPL to suit the needs of each state. The FFA has also stated that ALL parties need to work together - as it stands the clubs have tried to work with the FFV, but the FFV have rejected all suggestions. So, the big issue is why does the FFV opt to ignore over 50 clubs (4 more signed up over the weekend), plus councils and the parks & recreation dept. - in order to push through a model that no-one in the state wants. Who benefits from this? Again, I could understand the negative twist being put on this by some on the forums if it was just a couple of "old NSL trouble-makers", but the list of concerned parties is ridiculously long now. The only positive to have come from the FFV's actions is that they have actually brought all of these clubs together in a way that has never been seen before.
|