Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/dec/09/national-premier-leagues-victoriaQuote:National Premier Leagues is supposed to boost football in Australia but the politics behind its inception have been tangled to say the least
• Why the NPL matters for Australian football
Share 27
inShare
5
Email
David Gallop
David Gallop and FFA became involved in negotiations in Victoria. Photograph: Tracey Nearmy/AAP Image
In February, the National Premier Leagues (NPL) was launched to great fanfare at Sydney Olympic Park. Football Federation Australia (FFA) CEO David Gallop - then just three months in the job - called it “a landmark announcement for Australian football.” Gallop and Mark Rudan, coach of Sydney United 58, unveiled the competition logo, which is to be used across all states and member federations. “The common brand and logo,” Gallop explained, “will be crucial in our endeavours to find sponsors and commercial partners who’ll be attracted to the national footprint of the NPL.”
Gallop’s address was upbeat. “I’ve been really impressed with the level of collaboration and the resulting coordination that this project is all about,” he said. Kind words from the new CEO, however he might have underestimated Australian football’s capacity to complicate matters. With Victoria, Northern NSW Football and Western Australia needing an extra year to implement their own NPL competitions, Gallop hadn’t seen anything yet. On Friday 6 December, nine months after its launch, the competition was still three member federations short of its desired “national footprint.” FFA is still searching for a national sponsor.
The NPL is a new second-tier of football in Australia, designed to replace the old state league system. The thrust for the new competition came from FFA, as a result of its National Competitions Review in 2012.
Since the advent of the A-League in 2005, the disconnect between the top level of the game and the grassroots has widened. While the A-League shot into the stratosphere, the rest of the game was left in a mire of complex political networks, disorganisation and mediocrity. In this regard, the aim of the NPL is to improve and standardise the level of playing, coaching and administration at club level, while also connecting the state leagues to the A-League via a consistent player pathway, a fairer compensation system for state league clubs who produce top level players, and vague promises of promotion and relegation between the A-League and the NPL.
From the outset, the NPL was to be a national policy implemented under a federalist system. Each member federation was tasked with coming up with their own state-specific model, which would then need the approval of FFA and the participating clubs. As David Gallop reiterated in August, “each state and territory member federation has the
opportunity to shape the NPL criteria to fit their own circumstances.” In New South Wales, South Australia, the ACT, Tasmania and Queensland, the member federations tweaked and massaged a model to simultaneously keep the FFA happy and give the existing state league clubs a little room to move. Queensland has been the most reformist state, but the main priority has been to get the process going, and implement the various reforms gradually along the way. Pragmatism has been the order of the day.
In Victoria, however, the process has led to infighting and uncertainty, with calls for the Football Federation Victoria (FFV) board to be removed, rumours of a rebel competition and a court injunction brought against FFV by a group of Victorian state league clubs.
In May, the first warning shot was fired at FFV. The members of Melbourne Knights, a former National Soccer League club from Sunshine, overwhelmingly voted against FFV’s proposed NPL model. Melbourne Knights labelled FFV’s framework “fundamentally flawed” and dismissed it as not having “football’s best interests at heart”. While there had been rumblings among many of the top state league clubs in Victoria for several months, Melbourne Knights were the first club to go public; the first domino to fall.
The problem was that FFV’s NPL model asked for greater reforms from the participating clubs than in other states. Potential NPL clubs would be forced to recruit players only from an allocated ‘zone’, cap their registration fees at $1,700 and separate their amateur component (sub-juniors) from their NPL side.
Other concerns for the clubs included the implementation of both men’s and women’s NPL at the same time. “Victoria being the only state to have included women and girls in its NPL model is something that we are very proud of,” said FFV President Nick Monteleone in an email in June.
However, every other member federation apart from Queensland has implemented their men’s and women’s NPL separately, and the clubs in Victoria simply wanted to follow their lead. Even clubs such as Cairnlea, Box Hill United and South Melbourne Women - all of whom have a strong women’s component - would later reject FFV’s model.
In June, FFV released a statement stating that they had received 44 Expressions of Interest (EOI) from clubs and consortia wishing to participate in National Premier Leagues Victoria (NPLV). “Forty-four Expressions of Interest is a huge vote of confidence in the NPLV format with clubs from regional and metro Victoria lodging an EOI,” said the FFV CEO, Peter Gome.
However, an EOI is not a formal application. Any club or consortium is able to submit an EOI, but the crucial issue is how many formal applications were submitted to FFV. By August, the initial interest had whittled away. Seventeen dissenting clubs released a statement advising they did not support FFV’s model, and would not be participating in the NPLV in 2014. Importantly, the co-signatory clubs were the heavy hitters. Of the clubs in the existing Victorian Premier League, all had called on FFV to reconsider its position.
Speaking to Guardian Australia, the FFV president, Nick Monteleone, cast doubts on the strength of the dissenting clubs. “People talk about ‘co-signatories,’” said Monteleone, “Have you seen a document which anybody has signed?
“I’ve seen a list of clubs purportedly supporting [the dissenting clubs], and I’ve got emails from presidents telling me that even though their clubs are named, they’re not supporting [the dissenting clubs].
“We’ve got two zone reps and a number of clubs supporting them. It’s not that big. What’s really important is that the current dispute is about the NPL. If it’s not about the NPL, and it’s political, and it’s because you want to get rid of the board, then it’s difficult.”
Tom Kalas, a director of South Melbourne FC and a spokesperson for the dissenting clubs, takes a different view.
“There are 64 signed clubs [dissenting against the FFV model]," Kalas told Guardian Australia on Wednesday. "We have sent to FFA all the letters, all the emails, all the proof on letterheads of all the clubs.
“We have given them a breakdown of over 14,300 registered players that are in this group. It constitutes $2.5m worth of revenue.
“There are another 47 clubs that have called us and written to us in support of what we’re doing … but they aren’t comfortable in sending us written confirmation because they fear retribution from the FFV.”
Publicly, however, many club presidents have vented their frustration over the lack of consultation between FFV and clubs. “This action [by FFV] has the potential to fracture the club,” said the Moreland Zebras president, Joseph Sala. The Northcote City president, Peter Kotsiris ,likened the consultation process to “communist Russia”, while the Melbourne Knights spokesperson and current FFV Zone Representative, Pave Jusup, called it a “power grab” by the federation. Even Parks Leisure Australia (Victoria/Tasmania) endorsed the concerns of the clubs over a lack of consultation from FFV, stating “there is a general feeling that meetings with FFV have been ‘information giving’ rather than ‘consultation’”.
While the other states were midway through their inaugural NPL seasons, Victoria was becoming a pitched battle. Already a year late to the NPL table, trust and cooperation between the governing body and its constituents hit an all-time low.
There has been a glaring disconnect in message between the clubs and FFV. In an email in June, Monteleone deflected criticisms of a lack of dialogue, stating “FFV has had the most wide ranging consultation process of any state, there have been over 20 formal meetings across Victoria … We wanted to conduct a further 12 months of consultation to engage the football community in Victoria.”
However, many of the clubs have disregarded this, accusing FFV of issuing directives, not engaging in negotiation. “Everybody agrees ... It [the process from FFV] has been utterly catastrophic, inept and farcical” said Kalas.
“We’re not autocratic,” Monteleone told Guardian Australia. “We’re trying to be conciliatory in this process, but it has to come to a point.”
Throughout the history of football in Australia there have been many ideological spats between clubs and state and national federations. Victoria has been a particularly militant state. In 1977, the Victorian clubs were the last to join the National Soccer League. It was the same when the NSL was replaced by the A-League. “When the Crawford Report happened, guess who one of the last states to jump on board was?” asked Monteleone. “We’ve [Victoria] got form in this area.”
However, like all ideological battles, the subplots and slanging matches distract from the fundamental issue of economics. The fight over the future of the NPL in Victoria has been no different - FFV has pushed clubs to implement higher standards of professionalism on and off the field, and while the clubs agree in principle, they were concerned about finding the required capital.
Using information supplied from five clubs, Nicolas Tsiaras, the vice-president of Box Hill United, calculated that clubs stood to lose $142,000 per club per season should they participate under FFV’s suggested NPL model. “All five clubs gave me access to their financial information,” said Tsiaras, “no one has got the cash.”
Under the financial model developed by the clubs, 94.4% of revenue comes from three main sources: registration fees, canteen sales and sponsorship. In this regard, preventing clubs from integrating their amateur component inflicts an enormous financial impact, as registration fees for football clubs usually equates to 60-70% of total revenue. There is also a multiplier effect – fewer players at a club means less money from canteen sales, as well as impacting on the clubs’ ability to secure sponsorship and raise cash from fundraising. Additionally, the clubs were concerned there would be inflationary pressures on coaching costs due to stricter coaching accreditation requirements from FFV.
These are not insignificant hurdles. “The issue here is governance,” explains Tsiaras, “the clubs could be insolvent from day one. If you as a director know this, you are liable under Section 588G of the Corporations Act.”
In August, FFV released a statement in an attempt to hose down rumours of an NPL boycott. “We are working with many applicants including some on the so called ‘boycott list’,” said FFV CEO Mitchell Murphy, while David Gallop appeared to support FFV, stating “in any change process, issues will arise, but as we’ve seen in other states these matters can be best resolved without the intervention of FFA.”
Nevertheless, the situation became more urgent by October. The co-signatory clubs mounted a legal challenge, and were granted an injunction by the Melbourne Magistrates Court to prevent FFV from going ahead with their NPL model in 2014. Believing this to be a major roadblock to progress, Monteleone told Guardian Australia the board at FFV had 15 applicants for the NPLV before the injunction.
“The board’s view was quite clear – out of all those applications we felt there were a number of outstanding ones, a number that would need a little bit of help from us, and we came to the conclusion that there would be nine applicants that we would start the process with.
“Nine [applications] is great - we would like a few more. So, our decision was to open it up to any of those who wanted to have another go with the benefit of hindsight. That was the board’s decision, but we haven’t been able to implement it because of legal proceedings.”
Still, the fact that 44 Expressions of Interest had whittled down to just 15 formal applicants – of which only nine were considered – suggests FFV had lost considerable support from its constituents.
Just days before Sydney United 58 beat South Hobart in Tasmania to win the inaugural NPL play-off series, the Victorian case was deferred to the Supreme Court. Instead of celebrating a successful first season, and a just over a month after David Gallop said he would not intervene, FFA was drawn into the negotiations with FFV and the clubs to come up with a mutually beneficial model.
Despite requests, FFA refused to comment on the NPL process in Victoria. However, according to documents received by Guardian Australia, on Tuesday 29 October, Emma Highwood, the FFA head of community football, and Jo Setright, the FFA head of legal, business affairs and integrity, were in Melbourne to sort out the mess. FFV CEO Mitchell Murphy and Nick Galatas, the legal counsel representing the clubs, were present in the negotiations, as well as Andrew Moffat, a hired mediator to help bring the parties together.
It is understood a model was agreed upon in principle by FFV, FFA and the co-signatory clubs. With more than a little prodding from FFA, the clubs and FFV compromised on several key points. The cap on registration fees was lifted from $1,700 to $2,500, selection zones were abolished and clubs would be allowed to maintain an amateur component. Existing Victorian Premier League clubs (all of whom did not put in an EOI or application) would be included in the NPLV if they meet the criteria, along with the two top teams from State League 1. Any applicant from regional Victoria that met the criteria would also be included in the NPLV.
There were, however, several points that could not be agreed upon. FFV wanted to include the clubs/consortia that had been approved for the competition prior to the court injunction, as well as Richmond SC, who were relegated from the VPL in 2013. There were also disagreements on the staging of coaching accreditation requirements, how the women’s competition should be staged, and the licensing agreement.
The documents received by Guardian Australia suggest there was an in-principle agreement that came out of the mediation. However, Monteleone denies this. “Mediation is to mediate,” he told Guardian Australia. “Nobody signed a document that said ‘right, we agree on all these points’ … What I got clear out of that meeting from the FFA was, the FFV model is what they’re all aspiring to do.”
Kalas remembers a different outcome. “Unequivocally we had an agreement. It was to be documented the following day, and it received its first in principle approval by the FFV board ... it went to a board meeting two days later, where the current president and his board members changed their mind.”
The following week, the board at FFV formally voted against the ‘agreed’ model, and immediately released a statement that there would be no NPL in 2014. According to Kalas, FFV’s press release was published without first notifying the clubs of their decision. “It showed us the length of abhorrent behaviour which I have never seen in my commercial life” said Kalas.
On Monday 2 December, 12 months of drama, negotiations and political infighting came to a head. FFA suggested a model to both FFV and the co-signatory clubs, in the hope of achieving a last minute compromise. That morning, Monteleone was adamant that the original NPLV model had the support from FFA. “There is absolutely no question that the FFA’s view of the FFV model is where it would like everyone to get to” he told Guardian Australia, “there’s no question about that. Is it do-able? Absolutely.”
In this regard, either FFA had a last-minute change of heart, or Monteleone misread their ‘support.’ The model that was finally agreed upon on 6 December falls roughly between the clubs’ vision of the NPLV and FFV’s original outline. Give or take a few minor points, it essentially mirrors the model agreed upon in the mediation on 29 October. The details of the model are here.
“The FFA proposal that’s been placed to us is – we feel – a commendable model,” Kalas told Guardian Australia. “We commend the FFA for intervening and taking on this task… For the good of our state, we have accepted, and we will proceed to implement it by March next year. We have already begun the process.
"The clubs are very thankful that FFA, David Gallop, Jo Setright and Emma Highwood have taken such an involvement in helping this process through.”
The impasse is over, the legal proceedings against FFV will be dropped by the co-signatory clubs, and the hard work now begins on implementing the NPL in Victoria by March 2014. It is expected that FFA will continue to play a significant role in the composition and implementation of the new competition.
“We are very excited and relieved that FFV has signed up to the FFA model that was tabled to the clubs and to FFV,” said Kalas after an agreement was reached. “Together the three parties will build a strong NPL structure in Victoria to take on our competitors in the other states.” Indeed, mending the fractured relationship between clubs and FFV will be crucial.
With Western Australia and Northern NSW Football both ready to begin their inaugural NPL seasons next year, the last piece of the jigsaw puzzle, Victoria, has finally fallen into place. Edited by theselectfew: 12/12/2013 10:28:12 PM
|