http://www.footballfedvic.com.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Communications/Documents/President_s_NPL_Update_September_12.pdf12 September 2013 PRESIDENT’S NPL UPDATE
Dear Members Much has been circulated via email, published in the media, and commented on in social media regarding the status of the National Premier Leagues (NPL) in Victoria. It is disappointing that much of what has been generated is either misleading or simply incorrect. Accordingly, FFV believes it is important that its members are provided with the facts. What is the status of the NPL in Victoria?
1. The current court action is in the Magistrates’ Court not the Supreme Court and this action is being taken by 2 newly elected FFV zone representatives (the plaintiffs).
2. On Monday 26 August FFV attended the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court for a directions hearing only. The plaintiffs requested the case be adjourned in order for them to compile and submit further material. This was not opposed by FFV.
3. Section 220 of the Associations Incorporation Reform Act 2012 (Vic) under which FFV is regulated allows the Magistrates’ Court to transfer the proceeding to the Supreme Court if it considers the proceeding raises a complex question or a matter of general importance. At this point such an order has not been made.
4. The FFV will attend mediation with the plaintiffs in accordance with FFV’s constitution on or around Wednesday 18 September in an attempt to resolve the matters raised by the plaintiffs.
5. If mediation is unsuccessful FFV will attend the Magistrates’ Court on 23 September for a hearing of the plaintiffs’ claim.
6. Applications for NPL licences are currently being assessed by the assessment panel which is led by highly respected Eugenie Buckley who is a Director of Football Queensland, former CEO of Brisbane Roar and Australian Footballers’ Association and FIFA and AFC Match Commissioner.
7. FFV has stated that it expects licences will be announced on 30 September. The NPL criteria allow for the assessment period to be extended if required.
Now to address some of the other rumours circulating around Victorian football about NPL:
Rumour Comment and correction
FFA does not support FFV’s NPL implementation;
FFV has the ongoing support of David Gallop, CEO of FFA and is proud of
its good working relationship with FFA, its management and staff.
The zonal system makes local clubs ‘subservient’ to NPL clubs;
The NPL zone/boundary system is for the purpose of recruitment of junior players only and is common amongst other junior sports. To be clear, an NPL club can recruit senior men and women from anywhere.
The NPL ought not put local clubs ‘out of business’. In fact the NPL should benefit local clubs as the NPL clubs are expected to engage with and assist in player development at local clubs.
The NPL licence fee needs to be paid upfront;
Neither the NPL criteria nor the licence agreement state that the licence fee has to be paid in one lump sum. To ensure that all players are covered by insurance the licence fee will have to be paid prior to the various competitions commencing. However FFV recognises the cash flow issues that some clubs face and it is intended a staggered payment
period for the licence fee will be available (similar to what is already done for VPL and other leagues).
FFV will have total control of NPL clubs’ IP and commercial rights and will demand a bank guarantee;
FFV does not require an assignment of or the giving up of any existing club IP rights. This clause from the NPL licence agreement, which is a template prepared by FFA, is in essentially the same terms as is being used by other member federations across Australia. The relevant clause simply formalises what we currently do with VPL. That is, it gives FFV
permission to use and reproduce a club’s IP in things such as logos, club names, etc, for the purposes of promoting and commercialising the NPL competition as a whole. The club’s commercial rights, particularly around match day eg. ticketing, signage and catering/hospitality, remain with the club.
Bank guarantee – this clause is NOT mandatory. It may be called upon when there is a genuine concern that an NPL club cannot meet its financial obligations under the licence. This is STANDARD commercial practice and a club which has budgeted properly ought not have any concerns that this will be called upon. A number of other member federations have included the same requirement.
Junior fees have to be a minimum of $1700;
One of FFA’s objectives with NPL is to avoid the possibility of clubs charging high fees to junior and youth players to subsidise senior player wages. Therefore the MAXIMUM amount an NPL club can charge parents for a junior is $1700.
The FFV model is inconsistent with the rest of Australia;
Every other member federation limits NPL clubs to 1 NPL team per age group consistent with the philosophy that NPL is for the ‘best to play against the best’. Although all member federations must adopt the agreed criteria FFA has allowed each of them to take into account their own individual circumstances in the way in which those criteria are
implemented. Whilst NSW, SA and Tasmania allow NPL clubs to have SSF teams other member federations do not. Even amongst NSW, SA and Tasmania there are differences in how their NPL clubs participate in SSF.
Rumour Comment and correction
Model is financially unviable;
The model itself is not unviable. The NPL club determines its own budget within the National Competitions Review (NCR) guidelines.
Failure of FFV to follow FFA’s NCR requirements;
The FFV model has been criticised for not ‘rebranding’ the top state league as NPL. The reference to ‘rebranding’ as mentioned on the FFA website has been taken out of context and was not intended to mean that each member federation would simply ‘rename’ its existing top leagues as NPL without implementing the other reforms required by the NCR outcomes. FFA has confirmed to FFV in writing that ‘the main focus of the NCR was to deliver the best outcomes for state football in Australia by implementing the agreed criteria. Member federations have the ability to decide which clubs are best placed to deliver these outcomes and there is no expectation from FFA that stipulates that member federations are obliged to offer their current clubs in the top tier an NPL licence in their state’.
Councils do not support the FFV model for NPL;
The majority of local councils are either supportive of or have no real objection to the NPL. Parks and Leisure Australia (Victoria) (PLA) is not the peak body for councils, but rather the professional association for staff who work in recreation in councils and other organisations (including staff of FFV). On the request of some of its members PLA organised a forum to discuss NPL in Victoria and subsequently wrote to FFV advising of the concerns of some PLA members. FFV responded and since then FFV has not received any further communication from PLA. Further, various councils have provided letters of support for NPL applicants.
Board to be removed by members at a general meeting;
The media release of Friday 6 September suggesting that a general meeting has been validly called by 3 zone representatives for Friday 27 September is wrong. I am advised there is no inconsistency between FFV’s rules and the provisions of the new Associations legislation relating to general meetings. More specifically I understand that the legislation does not therefore require the model rules relating to the calling of general meetings to be included in FFV’s constitution. The current general meeting provisions of FFV’s constitution continue to apply.
FFV will meet its obligations under its constitution and FFA Statutes and Regulations in dealing with this dispute.
FFV members and clubs are similarly required to meet their obligations under these rules. FFV is committed to providing affordable pathways for male and female players across Victoria. I have now returned from overseas and look forward to meeting with you and other Directors on 17 and 21 September to discuss governance and strategic issues and give you a financial update.
Kind regards, Nick Monteleone