Just released


https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ffvmedia/Update22.pdf

---

This statement is made on behalf of the 64 major Victorian football clubs, identified as the Co-Signatory Clubs, which opposed the introduction of FFV's model for the NPL. It responds to FFV's statement released late last Friday.

In the view of the Co-Signatory group, the statement, which was expressly made by the FFV Board and not its management, was misleading, regrettable but unsurprising.

Nevertheless, the Co-Signatory clubs were very disappointed by it, as they had been engaged in lengthy and positive discussions with FFV, facilitated and attended by FFA. At the initial meeting, the FFA was represented by its senior management and the FFV by its President, CEO and NPL Manager.

Indeed, the FFV had publicly described the discussions as positive and as recently as last Monday, had moved to the point where FFV management was comfortable in proposing a resolution to its board which the clubs' representatives had indicated was acceptable to the clubs.

Against that background, the board of FFV announced late on Friday that the NPL would not be introduced in 2014. Having made its decision early last Friday, it did not think it appropriate to liaise further with the clubs or the mediator, nor to advise the clubs that it had ended the discussions which its management had initiated and involved the FFA, which had made such substantial progress.

Instead, it reverted to its high-handed and unilateral manner with which it has mishandled the implementation of the NPL in Victoria from the outset. The Co-Signatory clubs view its expression of "regret" and "disappointment" as disingenuous and counter-productive and greet it with disbelief. What it meant by "unable to reach a sustainable agreement" remains a mystery and would be amusing if it weren't so serious and if it didn't reflect so poorly on those who purport to represent the game, to protect its proud legacy in this State and to promote its enhancement.

To revert to publicly seeking to reduce the dispute to being between the FFV and two zone representatives, after all that has occurred in recent times, demonstrates bad faith. It knows that the zone representatives have brought the court proceeding, (which now resumes in the Supreme Court on Tuesday), on behalf of clubs and that it is supported by very many clubs representing a broad and diverse cross section of the game and includes all VPL and most State 1clubs. It is also supported by a majority of the zone representatives and FFV members.

It also knows that the court proceeding has been brought in this way because of the provisions of the Constitution and that its negotiations have been conducted with the clubs.

The Co-Signatory clubs remain committed to establishing the NPL in Victoria from 2014 in a manner which meets FFA criteria, is financially viable and protects the great legacy of Victorian football as it moves to the next level of development in step with the national advancement of the sport.

The Co-Signatory clubs will continue to pursue this commitment purposefully, professionally and cooperatively, free of any distraction caused by the so-called 'Strategic Plan' of the FFV which is irrelevant to it and an impediment to the successful introduction of the NPL. They will not be inhibited by those few individuals currently frustrating the successful introduction of the NPL in Victoria from 2014.

Next Actions

- The Co-Signatory clubs are meeting on Tuesday 12th November. At this meeting the clubs will determine the next course of action

- Supreme Court Directions hearing is scheduled for Tuesday 12th November to determine a court date in 2014

Nicholas Tsiaras – Vice President – Box Hill United SC
Tom Kalas – Director – South Melbourne FC

11 November 2013

Edited by troy5: 10/11/2013 11:21:59 PM

Trying to be as independent as possible... As I understand it the position is as follows:

The 'rebel' club's proposal:
- clear criteria regarding coaching, facilities, finances, codes of conduct, etc
- 2 divisions
- 14 teams each
- consisting of the existing VPL and State 1 clubs, plus two new regional sides in each division, selected by the FFV.
- promotion and relegation between the divisions, plus promotion/relegation to and from NPL-V provided clubs being promoted can meet NPL criteria.

FFV's proposal:
- clear criteria regarding coaching, facilities, finances, codes of conduct, etc
- 1 division
- 16-18 teams
- consisting mainly of existing VPL/State 1 clubs, plus 4-6 new regional, all 16-18 sides selected by the FFV.
- no promotion or relegation to or from the NPL.

The main issue appears to be the desire of the FFV to avoid having their precious regional clubs relegated if they underperform; against the desire of the clubs to leave the door open to any side that is prepared to do the work on AND off the pitch.

So the question to the neutrals on here would be which system do you feel is most inkeeping with good football governance and player development?

Well, this makes me sad. I was hoping it would be ready for kick off next year. But at least it'll give them the time they need to work it out with the clubs.

You had one job, FFV.

^^^

Welp, looks like that's my question answered! :p



Also, ](*,)

http://www.footballfedvic.com.au/index.php?id=17&tx_ttnews[year]=2013&tx_ttnews[month]=11&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=1673&cHash=d3d10abdc1bdd1eb7e23a82576b7b70d


Home
Find a Club
News Archive
Social Media
Subscribe
Associations
Club HQ
Search

Victorian Premier League
Women's Victorian Premier League
FFV Futsal
National Competitions Review
FFV on Instagram
FFV on Twitter
Football Fives

Inside FFV
Media
MyFootballClub
Competitions
Small Sided Football
Futsal
Talented Player
Coaches
Referees
Clubs
Community
Facilities

FFV / Article

NPL update - message from FFV Board
08.11.2013
FFV Board announces that the NPL will not be introduced in 2014.

IT is with great regret and disappointment that the FFV Board announces that the National Premier Leagues (NPL) will not be introduced in 2014.

As many clubs are aware FFV is defending court action in the Supreme Court of Victoria brought by two Zone Representatives.

FFV was ready to announce successful applicants for the 2014 NPL on 29 September 2013 but was restrained by a court order from doing so.

In good faith FFV attended mediation recently with the Plaintiffs regarding the NPL. The FFV Board was unable to reach a sustainable agreement with the Plaintiffs.

Therefore, 2014 will be a normal year complying with FFV’s Rules of Competition.

FFV is committed to introducing a NPL in the future that:
• Embraces Victoria
• Provides clear pathways for talented males and females
• Provides equal opportunity for boys and girls
• Is affordable
• Meets FFA requirements
• Meets FFV’s strategic plan

FFV President Nick Monteleone said the key purpose of the NPL, in line with FFA’s aims and intentions of the NPL is to “increase the quality of youth development practices, develop better coaches, require clubs to explain their fee structure and ensure that fees are reasonable and not excessive, regulate the role of player agents and private academies, improve club governance and financial reporting, correct unsustainable player payments in State League competitions and promote local youth development within the club team structure".

FFV will not be making any further comment today regarding the NPL.

Victoria waits another twelve months according to ffv release.... Then what?
12more mths of political crap...thanks for nothing ffv

Edited by game change: 8/11/2013 05:36:53 PM

Edited by game change: 8/11/2013 05:37:52 PM

Bottom 2 would be relegated after 3 years.

I have a problem with ANY club guaranteed a spot on an ongoing basis. If you finish in the bottom 2 you should be relegated, keeps everyone honest.

I don't have as much as a problem with regional sides guaranteed a spot as I do with say Bulleen and/or Richmond guaranteed a spot :-"

They want to lock their regional sides into the top division - remove the requirement for them to actually earn their place. Comical.

They don't even realise that the clubs issue now is that they have lost all faith in the capacity of the FFV as it stands to run any competition.

Mahoney been gone for a while :-k

Ball is in the clubs court. FFV now want to revamp VPL next year with a few additions. Eventually having an 18 team league with no NPL 2 :lol: :roll:

Edited by priest: 7/11/2013 11:26:08 AM

Not sure what the official cut-off point would be - but it's clear that the FFA are trying to get parties together to have it running in 2014.

VPL sides are already recruiting for next year - whatever happens they will be stronger than any new sides that come in from outside.

Is there a date set by which a 2014 Season Structure needs to be agreed upon? I'd just like to know how much time there is left to secure Victoria's participation in 2014.

Thanks.

At the FFA's request, the 'rebel' clubs have met with the FFV to discuss matters further. No agreement was reached.

It would appear that the FFA are putting some pressure of the FFV to back down from their non-negotiable stance rather than have the process stretch out and go through the courts again.

Anyone have an update on what is going on with the NPLV or New NPLV?

It's frustrating, I want to work out what to do in terms of coaching next season, where and what etc.

Slow and drawn out process.](*,) ](*,) :shock: #-o

Point #2 likely to cause great interest on these forums...

News flash

Co-Sig clubs met last night

1. Voted that they have lost confidence and trust in FFV Board and will demand the removal of FFV Directors

2. Agreed to FFA request to have a meeting with Co-Sig delegates

3. Four Co-Sig delegates chosen to represent the clubs

4. Have agreed to form a new Association with 4 men's leagues and 1 WPL (in first season)

5. Have agreed to rollout their NPL V model as tabled in their recent Update 21 (complies to FIFA statutes and FFA NPL criteria)

6. New Association will be a 'Service Provider' model, with lower registration fees, fewer administration staff (more details to follow)

its about bloody time !!



Edited by troy5: 22/10/2013 01:43:09 PM

I would have thought that part of Jusup's claim would have been easy enough for the FFV to handle, as a Zone rep and therefore a member some reasonable access to financial records is par for the course, especially the monthly updates the board would recieve of course after the board had seen the accounts would suffice.

And secondly the ability for members to call EGM's is easy enough and an enforced requirement for all Clubs by FFV regulation so why not the FFV be also required to do the same.

The FFV does not have to change the NPLV if they believe that the structure they have developed is what they truely beleive is necessary for the game. But our democratic process in politics, business with shareholdings and Incorporated Associations with members has always had checks and balances between the executive and the membership.

With a EGM allowed it would be suitable forum for the members to challenge the NPLV and the Board to defend its model. And let democracy and consensus take its rightful place.

As a small aside it is amazing how we reap what we sow, several years ago VSF Chairman Manny Galanos and his Board developed this current FFV constitution approved by the FFA and ratified by the then members the clubs.
In future one would hope that when major measures are introduced like changing the constitution and changing competition structure more due diligence is employed.

Nothing wrong with his insights into the legal system. It's more about how he seems to think he knows everything [-x

Edited by priest: 8/10/2013 09:26:28 AM

That's pretty much how I read it Arthur. Not sure how one actually gets hold of transcripts.

Massive implications to the FFV from yesterday's result - I suspect they will dig their heels in and try to fight on, but it would be far better for the game if they were to simply accept that they are not acting in the interests of the football community and back off, leaving the field clear for the clubs to bring in a fully compliant NPL format of their own, allowing the game to move forward as in the rest of the country.

It's disappointing that some forumites lash out at Mahoney as "the enemy", I have found his insights into the legal system and his different perspective refreshing.

The court case has been interesting and if any one knows how to get the transcripts (Mahoney Benjamin?) or judgements I would love to see them.

As I understand it:
CASE DETAILS
JUSUP, PAVE vs FOOTBALL FEDERATION VICTORIA (FFV) INC.
CASE DATE: 07/10/2013
CASE TIME: 09:30 AM
CASE #: D12423452
J. OFFICER-
DESCRIPTION: INTERLOC APPLICATION
COURT: Magistrates Court of Victoria
DIVISION: Civil
LOCATION: 233 William Street, MELBOURNE

As I understand it;
Jusup is claiming the FFV constitution is "Opressive" as it does not allow the "Members", who are Zone Reps and Cairmen of the standing committees, to call an EGM and that the FFV Board is refusing the members access to current financials for the purpose of the members determining if the Association is financial or not.

Therefore as there is no redress in the form of an EGM for the members in halting or changing the NPLV this to needs to cease until the courts can decide if the FFV constitution should allow EGM's to be called by the members.

Am I correct or there abouts?

Edited by Arthur: 8/10/2013 08:17:12 AM

In fairness to Mahoney - he said that it was hard to get to the SC, and he's now crediting the legal team for achieving that BECAUSE it's so hard and they've managed to do it. And he's not wrong - what the legal team has done is beyond the expectations of many - specifically those at the FFV who still appear to believe that they are dealing with rank amateurs even after having lost previous cases to those same amateurs.

Mahoney so far out of the loop he still thinks it will be hard to get to the SC after the ruling has been handed down :lol:

A significant result for football in Victoria which will have reciprocal benefits nationally

=d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d>
=d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d>

Link just posted

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ffvmedia/ClubsRelease20FFVMedia071013.pdf


UPDATE No: 20 – Monday 7 October 2013

To All Clubs & Co-Signatories – Release to FFA, FFV & Media



Magistrates Court Ruling – 7th October 2013

This morning, Chief Magistrate Mr Peter Lauritsen, made the following ruling:

a) Until further notice the respondent (FFV) is restrained from:

i) announcing the clubs/teams, or other entities that it proposes will comprise the National Premier Leagues of Victoria football competition (NPLV) for seasons 2014 and beyond: and

ii) taking any further step towards establishing, organising or implementing the NPLV for season 2014 and beyond.

b) transfer this proceeding to the Supreme Court c) reserve the question of costs generally with liberty to apply


We would like to thank and congratulate our Legal Team:
 Barristers Paul J Hayes and Elizabeth Boros
 Nick Galatas - Partner GPZ Legal


It's disappointing that we need take to task the organisation that we fund.

We will succeed and do so in readiness for the New NPLV model in 2014.


The New NPL Model the clubs have agreed for 2014:

• It complies with FIFA statutes on PROMOTION/RELEGATION (more information, 15 Oct)
• It does not displace players/parents
• It allows juniors and sub juniors to remain with their clubs
• It allows clubs that aspire to improve and get promoted to do so if they wish
• It allows the freedom of movement of all players across the state with no artificial barriers due to zoning
• It incorporates the FFA’s NPL criteria (e.g. coaching accreditation improvements)
• It does not put financial pressure onto clubs to comply with the financially unviable FFV model


Meeting of Co-Signatory Clubs Tuesday 15th October


The 61 Co-Signatory clubs have scheduled a meeting on Tuesday 15th October 2013 at 7pm.
Venue to be advised.

At that meeting we will review the current events and determine the next steps we need to take to protect the football landscape in Victoria. We look forward to seeing you all there.


We’d like to commend all of the now 61 clubs/associations for taking the difficult but principled decision to stand together and achieve a successful NPL model that works for community, regional, state and VPL clubs in Victoria.


It’s not only a historic stand, but such a vast number of clubs representing a wide cross section of Victorian football demonstrates the concerns that we all hold for the current model are valid and justifies our stance.


61 Clubs to date have joined the co-signatory group in a united voice for a viable and successful NPLV model rollout in 2014, which works for community, country/regional, state and NPL clubs.


These 61 Co-signatory clubs combined constitute over 100,000 football club members / supporters / youth teams / juniors / sub juniors / parents / coaches / administrators.
100,000 football club members /supporters / youth teams / juniors / sub juniors / parents / coaches /administrators.



Our united position on the NPLV
1. We are all committed to a successful NPLV model rollout in 2014 which works for both community, regional, state and NPL club.
2. The FFV model for the NPL is not financially viable for most existing major Victorian clubs according to the financial modelling done by the clubs. It should be. The FFV has not done any financial modelling
3. That the NPLV be introduced after proper consultation with the clubs and after taking genuine account of their concerns.
4. To date the FFV has not properly consulted the clubs but rather has merely informed us of how its proposed model will operate. Even the peak Council body that represents councils, Parks Leisure Australia, in a letter attached to all clubs (29th July) made reference and supported all of these similar concerns about the FFV's approach and failure to properly consult.
5. We are united and determined to work for the good of the game in Victoria. It is unprecedented in Australia that 61 clubs have come together in a united way.
6. No one can reasonably argue that the NPLV could proceed viably, let alone succeed, without the participation of the top 30-60 clubs in Victoria at all levels: Men, Women, Junior Boys and Girls.
7. The 61 clubs are all run by volunteers who have no personal financial interest in any of these issues and are working for a viable NPLV model. The contribution and legacy of all these clubs, large, small and everything in between, should be recognised, respected and preserved. That will not happen under the proposed model.



Yours in football
Nicholas Tsiaras, Vice President, Box Hill United Soccer Club
Tom Kalas, Club Director, South Melbourne Football Club

Just gonna quote the quotes because the quotes are so on the money. ;)

Agreed. Sooner the better

FFV MUST STEP DOWN NOW

Every dollar spent in the supreme court is a dollar directed away from football

FFV no longer represents football = its plans are in isolation of the football community

If the FFV stands down an NPL model and a new administration will be set up by end of October and in time for 2014

Summary of ruling...mahony do you what yoou want with it....

a)Until further notice the respondent (FFV) is restrained from:

i) announcing the clubs/teams, or other entities that it proposes will comprise the National Premier Leagues of Victoria football competition (NPLV) for seasons 2014 and beyond: and

ii) taking any further step towards establishing, organising or implemnenting the NPLV for season 2014 and beyond.

b) transfer this proceeding to the Supreme Court

c) reserve the question of costs generally with liberty to apply