Really the only two points related to my post. It was made pretty clear early on that the existing smaller clubs add little in terms of interest or development, arthur is of the opinion their priorities don't even match that of a competitive competition; and i would be happy for them to merge or change competitions so we have closer to the amount of teams that is appropriate for a development and interest perspective.

You can never be 100% sure something will work but as we have a low interest competition now, it's worth trying what other sports do rather than leaving it as it is and pretending it will pick up. Topic finished i think.

I'm of the view that a lot needs to change at all levels of the game - but that the powers that be only appear interested in setting up the top level to their favoured model, then forcing round pegs into square holes as they go down to lower levels.

The problem for me is that you have proposed a system in which either:
- a few clubs win and the rest are forced deeper into obscurity (sounds familiar), or
- clubs must merge, the 'weaker' clubs being absorbed by the stronger.

Either way, the system replaces promotion/relegation, which keeps things open for all clubs, which allows all to retain interest. The idea appears to be that removing relegation and forcing geographic representation onto the league will increase interest in the game. There's no evidence anywhere that this will increase interest, attendance, or identification with the competition.

I'm fully aware that you haven't presented this as a masterplan - putting forward suggestions based on what you believe, then offering no explanation of how they might be made to work, is a very good way of making sure no one can shoot your ideas down.

I've said it before - if the FFV wants to add teams in new areas (areas that haven't earned their place in the VPL on the pitch), then they should ADD them to the existing structure and see if they can stand on their own two feet.

With regard to clubs being assigned zones for recruiting - I don't see how interest in Bentleigh Greens (for example) would be raised by having them recruit from Ringwood/Knox. I can't imagine families loading into the car on a Sunday afternoon for a trip down the Eastlink to watch a semi-professional match simply because many of the players come from that area. What say you?

Edited by Benjamin: 5/10/2011 08:44:53 PM

Nice little comment that one, why do i always get the impression you're hardly ever sincere with your comments? If you read the last reply you may have noticed i didn’t pretend to present a master plan and i'm not too concerned if there are better proposals, simply the three points i mentioned need to be addressed, increased connections, fewer clubs and state wide representation.

I tend to think you're nit picking because you’re of the view that nothing should be changed.

The 'little details' like who will run the clubs? Which goes directly to how the clubs will be financed... Which goes directly to what kind of coaching and facilities the clubs will have... Which goes directly to the standards...

Have you actually thought this through?

They are not insurmountable issues that are a barrier for mergers they are just issues which would need discussion and agreement. The two clubs having different aims [success v social] would be a barrier and was acknowledged.

In the end, we need as many connections between the different levels to maximise as much potential support as possible, less teams to raise standards and most of the state represented to maximise support, how it's done and the little details doesn’t really matter.

If you believe that these are MINOR QUESTIONS, then I'm baffled.

Who will own the clubs?
How will they be financed?
What happens to various long lasting entities as a result of the mergers you suggest?
What happens to the players?

I can't imagine more important questions when it comes to setting up a successful competition to move forward.

Edited by Benjamin: 4/10/2011 08:13:17 PM

There might be the odd occasion of this occurring but as a guess i'd say it’s not the norm. As i said the first time without seeing the books i don't know if the juniors are subsidising seniors, but it is a reasonable assumption to make. Anyway, i'd say we've probably flogged this dead horse enough.

How would the area assignments be decided, and how would one decide which 12 clubs form the basis for the potential mergers?

It's ok to pick faults that’s the idea. A zonal club in the way Arthur means is to setup a new competition with zones i.e. no connection to existing competition. Giving a club a zone is, taking existing clubs and giving them a zone to develop, i.e. it continues with existing supporter bases for the most part, except for smaller clubs, but just focuses them on developing an area to achieve success.

I'm sorry but the issue is still not clear. If 12 "ZONES" are created and each zone has a number of Clubs that amalgamate, you're assumption is that everyone associated with the clubs would automatically support this new entity. In effect some kind of super club based on the zone.
My critique goes to the clubs that make the zone club:

Do they all want the same thing? EG. social versus competitive
Ownership issues? All clubs have varying financial backing, so who has ownership? Will the poorer Club be wiped out?
What happens to all the players whose clubs have amalgamated? Where do they play?

With a correction on the number of divisions we have it is actually eight with six of the eight split into north/west and south/east. Below this we also have Metro Leagues.

The AFL though is just not the VFL at State level when comparing you need to take account of the Amatuer League which runs several divisions, the Country Leagues and of course the Metropolitan Leagues. In my area the the Vermont FC regularly attracts 1000-2000 per game and owns a pub with pokies. Many of the Eastern Football League Clubs are similar in size and financial resources, this league runs 4 divisions and praticularly each suburb has its own club. What I'm trying to point out is that the AFL system is not just about the VFL in fact the standard and money in the Metro Leagues can match the VFL.

I always think its dangerous ground comparing our code with the AFL code. On two fronts in player development terms that they have it over us, and will for a few more years yet, is critical mass. CM being the actual numbers playing in particular in the Southern States of Australia. And culturally, when nearly every kid has a footy and plays AFL at school, home in the street, and is tactically aware of the game.



Actually I think I'm more atuned to the local conditions of the game in Victoria and the varying purposes or aims clubs have.
Many Clubs within the eight divisions service "social" needs. Many are about having a game with mates and a drink after. My example of Box Hill is about a club that over the last 20 years has been all about winning and developing strong juniors, male and female. That is their focus. While a club like Sherbroke Rangers that amalgamted with Monbulk is more about participation in the hills of the Dandenong Ranges. Box Hill and Monbulk Ranges are at cross purposes, to bring these two clubs together into one is folly in my opinion.

Your really funny at times on the one hand you say "You're just suggesting the same thing as me..." then straight away you say "....you'll still be here in 5 years complaining about the a-league etc. Just putting up some suggestions which other sports follow.". Enough said on this one.



Well it's not that easy. It is well known that Monash City hired a coach for their U11, U14 and U15 teams who is an Italian qualified UEFA B coaching licence, rumour has it he was paid $15K each for the two older teams have no idea how much for the U/11 team. While coaches with AFC C qualifications can expect to receive upwards of $5,000 per team.

Again that is the reality right or wrong, I personally make no judgement it's just the way it is. Denying it doesn't change it.

So it's not zonal, but teams will be designated zones to increase the local connection. I'm struggling to understand the difference.

How are the clubs selected? What happens to all the other clubs (the ones that want to play at the highest possible level, rather than those who just want to be social clubs with teams).

If we take the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne, for example - an ideal example for me as it's where I live, and it's an area currently lacking any representation at VPL level... In the structure you are suggesting, what happens to this area? Existing clubs from the area 'bid' for the right to be the semi-professional VPL side? If so, how is the most suitable club selected? If not a club FROM the area, then is the suggestion that a club from another area is assigned the north-east suburbs?

For the record, I'm trying to understand, not to pick faults.

Just to be clear that wasn't my 'plan' at all. I simply said we need less clubs and suggested mergers as the obvious option. Each club being designated a zone was suggested to *increase the local connection*. It does not mean it’s a zonal club. For development purposes the AFL uses 12 clubs in Victoria and the VFL has 13 clubs. We have 4 divisions.


You're just suggesting the same thing as me, but keeping the lower clubs as a surplus lower layer, because combining any teams would affect the club you support. Keeping the lower clubs which you admit have different aims, serves no purpose, it does not add to development or does it add significant appeal.

There's no naivety here by the way, the game will continue to shoot itself in the foot and you'll still be here in 5 years complaining about the a-league etc. Just putting up some suggestions which other sports follow.


Yep different clubs have different standards but the fact is it doesn't cost that much to train a junior whatever the standard, they are all non-professional people regardless of whatever self appointed titles they give.

Who said anything about the "Crawford Report" Kapow! but you have read the NSL Report.
Deceitful no not at all, plagirised absoluteley, but to make a pertinent point, that being the answers are there they just need to be implemented. The NSL Report and the PFA's APL report with some updated market research data applied at a micro level should be enough to bring the game forward at a local level. And of course why wouldn't others agree it makes sense. You know it does.

I strongly doubt you can seperate the two areas of local level promotion and management concerns. One without the other will not work. Any way your plan as I have stated before is a rehash or another form of the Zone League idea that the FFV wants to push forward with.

To add some geographical basis at the VPL level is important but not completeley necessary to start with, but with a long term view you would want to add regional areas especially if they can meet the budgets required. At the same time local government support will be more forthcomming to a one Club per Council rule unless two clubs are prepared to share and contribute to the development of a facility. A stong League would want to target Soccer Hotbeds like Greater Dandenong and the outer west with strong Clubs with excellent facilities.

Merging Clubs may work if there is a mutual benefit such as Box Hill with out a senior mens team and Southern Suburbs without womens and limited jr numbers did this year. Or if the FFV is prepared to offer financial inducements to do so. Realistically this won't happen and is very naive. What is possible is this, there are Clubs in the FFV leagues who are strictly social and have little interest in going to the VPL level, while there are others that want to play at the highest levels available to them. Seperating the two provides each with the atmosphere and resources that each want. A semi-pro VPL 1 & 2 and ameatuer competition for the rest.

As far as Juniors goes it has always been easy to assume that Junior CLubs subsidise the Seniors.It is a generalisation, the two biggest junior Clubs are Brighton and Bulleen. brighton with over a thousand players charges around $300 pa while Bulleen $800pa. What they offer the junior player vastly differs. Brighton a participation type club with volunter Dad coaches while Bulleen is elite development focused with paid team coaches a director of coaching and high level facilities.
I'm not denying it doesn't happen just not as much as what everyone thinks, and I was in that boat to.

I didn't read the Crawford report. Still deceitful by yourself to copy it and benjamin and SMFC and proud to give you a pat on the back without acknowledging it was a rip off.


I don’t know enough about the FFV to comment on the 30 years. There may well be mismanagement, but fining antisocial behaviour and a 'lack of promotion' are not grounds to claim there is mismanagement. At the local level most of the promotion will be done by the clubs. My topic was about increasing connections and interest rather than management concerns like you have put forward.

As for the remainder:

At least you're in agreement that all geographical regions should be represented. Although merging existing clubs seems a more realistic possibility than clubs coming forward with large amounts of money.

The junior fees wouldn’t be so high if they were not important to a clubs financial well being, although as i don’t have access to their books, i have no way to prove that.

Poach Adelaide City

Not sure if any of the smfctv crew are affiliated with the FFV Arthut

What I do know is smfc tv was aired first and then FFV seemed to copy later

Same applies to smfc radio podcast

Live streaming was also a fist up initiative by smfc at Singapore

But regardless of who or why, a commercial arrangement is necessary just like smfc tv has with Holmes Now

My view regarding senior level is ground rationialisation

Good grounds = good coverage = more interest from attendance and viewers

I stand by my conspiracy theory

FFV will not make any arrangement if it means it may in some way it may outmaneuver the FFA including corporate sponsors

All state leagues should be moved to summer and many issues will be fixed

The game has been slowed down at all levels due the the FFA being too slow

But the FFA will not allow it

Edited by chris: 24/9/2011 10:13:26 PM

Yes it was very good initiative. But I'll ask Chris this did SMFC do live streaming first? And are the guys doing it now for the FFV are they the ones who were doing it for SMFC then?

But the streaming of lives games is a big tick, I'm sorry. Watched many games this season with this option, enjoy the freedom of everywhere around the house - wifi. Plugging laytop or desktop up to the large LCD tv [projector] is another option :d And with cheap faster internet why not! You could even call do audio this way - less data use so an FFV app with live radio coverage [like SEN app]???


But agree on other statements.

Edited by death2afl: 22/9/2011 03:11:31 PM

Edited by death2afl: 22/9/2011 03:11:50 PM

Any way enjoyed it Kapow! sincerley always a pleasure to debate with someone as articulate as yourself who has an opposing view.

Very rarely would you see programming over an hour's length on C31. The network probably has interested parties a mile long looking to get air time.

Losing the SEN broadcasts circa late 2006 I think was a big blow, when they snared AFL rights.

It's nothing new what this FFV administration seems to be good at is cancelling something like the Docherty Cup then bringing it back 10 years later as though it just got invented.

Greg Blake used to do a show for the VPL back in the 90's, being on C31 is nothing new I'm sorry to say.

VPL TV and extra time on the NOW "digital C31" must be given some credit, C31 on digital is a positive in terms of reception as opposed to none on analogue FTA. Sunday afternoon live game on C31?

The following is what basically is happening

clubs waiting for direction from the FFV

ffv waiting for direction from the FFA

the game is clueless at all levels

the afl never had it this good

Good topic and post there Arthur. It was balanced, and looked at things in detail.



Interesting move, but it does illustrate what each side thinks of the other. The FFV dont trsut the clubs feel the same way back. Hardly an ideal situation for anyone.



Given the lack of club involvement, i'm sure many are waiting to use it as toilet paper :)



The environment is not right for either top down or bottom up inititives at this stage, as either way, neither is going to be accepted. Finding a way to regain trust is vital first, before any real strategies will go anywhere.

The current structure has its issues, which you have detailed, and certainly needs some kind of fresh start, but getting the mix right to facilitate that will be interesting. It will likely take some top down and bottom up involvement in getting things to a position where anything of any real value will be gained.

Edited by Heart_fan: 17/9/2011 04:46:18 PM

Good stuff Arthur. The VPL could really be a good comp if properly run and marketed by the authorities. A lot of volunteers put in heaps of time, money and effort into the clubs only to have the FFV not give a shit. All the FFV seems to be concerned about is fining clubs $5k b/c the change rooms at an under 16 game doesn't have hot water etc etc.
During the NSL era there used to be ok coverage in the daily papers about the state league, now even with the addition of South and the Knights there is absolutely zilch.

There is definately stuff going on behind the scenes that wants to see the 'removal' of 'ethnic' clubs otherwise no one could run the VPL as badly as the FFV does even if they tried.

Hah!Hah! Ha

Love iiittttttt!

The FFV also commissioned a report to be conducted by some cricketing guru/consultant, Jordan I think, most of the VPL did not contribute because they didn't trust the consultant nor the FFV CEO.

The report was supposed to be out in may this year. So far hasn't been realeased.

Waste of money and another example of this top down management style, rather than a horizontal/particapatory style of management.

Excellent post (the first one) - well considered, well worded, well worth a try.

There's something very strange going on at the FFV - it's a mystery that they seem to need so much money from the club and the players, an even bigger mystery that over the last couple of years they have cost themselves so much in legal fees trying to challenge the rights of clubs (put it this way, 2 times they've been challenged in court, 2 times they've failed dismally to prove their case). Why do this if it is only going to widen the gap between clubs and authorities? We should be working together.

Oh! I forgot.

Arthur 3 Kapow! 0 Half Time.