While I cannot speak for others on this forum and the position they take on the NPLV I can only state my own. Nor the way they communicated with you.

I also want to provide the people outside of Victoria a better idea of the problems faced here and how poor decision making has cost us dearly.

I do agree with the FFA concept of the NPL, a concept to provide a better enviroment for player development and Club Governance.

I do not agree with the FFV's version of the NPL & NCR, it has undertones of a slash and burn agenda to rid the FFV once and for all of intransient Clubs and individuals so that the sport can be run according to the FFV's vision.

My major concern is that this approach will not only see the end of any hope of a reasonable "Second Tier" competition in Victoria, but may also affect the quality of junior development from which we may lose a generation of players.

My concerns still revolve around the 2008 Summer League Model developed by the FFV which failed in terms of Senior mens and womens competitions. The Senior Competitions were planned to fund the junior comps and provide the FFV with well over $1.2Mill in revenues annually.
Suffice to say it failed on that basis alone with the Summer league becomming the Victorian Champions league a glorified junior competition that was only successful because of restrictive practices. Those being only players paricipating in the VCL would be open for selection to state teams and NTC teams (which led to NYL for MVFC or AIS selction or Aus team selection). So talented players had to do it whether they liked it or not and whether it was of benefit or not. Those talented players who did not participate would locked out. (This may not have happened in practice as the FFV has consistently made exceptions for the few)

During the five years of VCL the debate on the success of developing talented players can be measured by the low numbers of Victorians in Aus youth teams, at the AIS, the poor performance at Nationals and the low uptake of Victorians into HAL NYL teams (the MVFC & MHFC Vic youth players are generally there to make up numbers the NYL boys from interstate get the Senior Oppurtunities).

While at the same time the junior Club competitions were diluted, seeing the removal of Super league (the top junior comp for each age group diveded into two divisions of North West and Sout East) and the four regional competitions now diveded into 8 zones. Teams that had been at Super league and A standard were now put with C and D division teams in a regionalised comp that was lopsided to say the least. And a model that we are still to recover from. The saving grace has been the SAP and Skillaroo programs an FFA initiative and one the FFV could replicate and expand but has not yet expects the NPL Clubs to do so.

It with background that we now have the FFV add on's to the FFA's NPL.

Selection to the NPL is to be regionalised and not based on commercial decisions such as demographics, ability or past management practice.

Player recruitment is restricted by boundaries. Junior Players will not have the ability to join the NPL Club of their choice. The FFV rational being that all NPL Clubs willoffer the same experience and level of coaching in a standardised format.

The PPS has been poorly explained.

FFV requires clubs to have Mens, Womens, boys and girls to be under the umbrella of one club. This also presents a whole range of issues.

The Corporate structure is restricted to Incorporated Associations in NSW a Club can chose while in Qld it was a requirement to be a Company which provides for higher standards of accounting and reporting Also provides for investment capital especially with new start ups that the FFV is seeking.

The FFV selection process is not concerned with playing standards of the Senior competition in the Short to medium term and is prepared to throw clubs with out the playing experience or quality into the competition. Especially where regional clubs are concerned. This will also filter down to the juniors where the country teams were generally outclassed in the VCL.

In NSW an Elite and Intermediate pathway was established which should be the case in Victoria allowing country clubs to grow into the competition.
The FFV has stated that it will do what is necessary to make the NPLV the major competition including stiffling any success that a community club or community competition may have.

The FFV has provided no marketing plans on how they will promote the League. Going by history with the VPL the FFV has done minimal promotion and what has been done has been ad hoc, inconsistent and even vindictive. (FFV removed funding to Goal Weekly Newspaper as itb had a couple of critical articles in it.)

What has concerned most clubs has been the expected costs of participation especially "Start Up" and the uncertainty of availability facilities for a 10 month junior competition.
None of these issues have been dealt with by the FFV in a business like manner.

In fact we could have a debate on whether or not the FFV actually understands how clubs run, at all levels, the costs financially and for volunteers and for parents and for coaches.

Is there any wonder clubs are cautious?
In "Club Land" the term used by FFV staff to describe their constiuancy or "Customers" there are about 170 odd clubs, 44 have tabled an expression of interest that means 126 clubs have not. Many are happy to be right were they are some that have the capacity have not applied because they can afford to wait 3 years and see what happens.

While still others want to be part of this process others are waiting for more detail.

Certainly there are interesting times ahead.


Edited by Arthur: 7/6/2013 12:06:26 PM

Arthur you are just a one eyed supporter who only cares about his club and would yell things across the stand in the 80s and 90s :lol:

As a man that is clearly not one eyed said, Well we're moving on now boys. Like it or not. (Not a very one eyed comment) :lol: :-$

Thank you Arthur. As someone not involved it's good to have someone explain the situation rather than just write a sarcastic response.

edit: not everyone, it's just annoying having to wade through a bunch of insults and bitching

Edited by capac: 7/6/2013 01:31:38 PM

Certain forum members dismiss him and anything he says immediately because he happens to follow South Melbourne - but the reality is you'll struggle to find a more informed poster on the forum when it comes to youth development issues within Victoria.

You're making me blush Benjamin.

Thanks very much for your comments Arthur. Very informative indeed. My comment was not directed at you. I should have been more specific. I was aiming at those who hurl abuse when they don't like what someone else is saying. I just wonder whether this is how they 'communicated' witht he FFV?!!?

Interesting times ahead indeed. And let me be clear, although I clearly support the NPLV initiative I do understand that not all is right with it in the current form. I am sure it will be adjusted as we go forward.

SoB i agree that there is no need for people to be abusive and I do realise that your comments where not directed at me.

SMFC is actually desperate to see a quality 2nd tier competition to help develop its brand, to help grow the club commercially and provide a quality enviroment for supporters.

The FFV's vision does'nt seem to match up with this expectation, while the FFV is starting to adopt an entrenched position and I don't think you will find much room for movement right now. The FFV may change many of its positions after the first season, by then the damage could be done to the competitions credibility, the FFV's credibility and the games credibility once again.


PS I'm also disappointed with a lack of critical thinking on many issues on this forum and the unbridled support for the FFV and FFA organisations that can be beauracratic and unthinking at times, more so the first.


Edited by Arthur: 7/6/2013 03:46:49 PM

Are you sure that suicide is worse than a slow and miserable death? The world is full of death and rebirth! Personally I support voluntary euthanasia.

Basic intentions/outcomes of the NPLV as I understand it:

1. Elite youth development funded more or less completely by the players themselves. Sad that this is necessary but I simply can't see how we are going to get 10hrs/wk quality training from accredited coaches and techincal directors in any other way at this time in Australia. That's what's done in private academies right now and that's what they charge and there is no consolidated, coherent pathway for these players. We should want to bring it under a group of elite clubs where the proper oversight and coordination can be put in place. So if done properly it should be cost neutral for the clubs (or close enough to it) and they get a steady stream of young and talented players.

2. Senior teams that provide outlets for their youth players coming through without being crammed full of backpackers and older players who simply are on their way down. Cost of the senior teams will drop due to PPS. This should be a big plus for most clubs. And the quality should improve in time because the programs will be producing much better players in greater numbers. And the fact that it is the main pathway forward should ensure the best players are coming to these clubs. These players will be looking to their futures and not looking to the few extra bucks another club could pay them in the state. Those that do aren't what we're looking for anyway. If the senior competition improves in quality then we also have the basis on which to improve the crowds.

So. It's good for the players and good for the clubs and their longevity and shouldn't cost much more than it does now. Unfortunately the money will come from the young players and their parents but they're paying the same today in the academies, if you compare apples with apples.

My biggest concern is ground availability and the links to the community clubs. This is where the FFV needs to do a lot of work still to explain who it will all work.

I'm also concerned that the 18 yr old kid who can't get a game at Club A, will have his options of going to Club B drastically reduced by the PPS penalty applied to transferring players.

One of the directors at one of the clubs which has already rejected the NPL mentioned to me a few weeks back that they would have no problem with first team quotas along the lines of "must always have 3 x u20 on the field" and "may have no more than two visa players", but the age restrictions across the squad, etc., are a serious concern for any team looking to compete in any league as just two injuries can seriously weaken a club.

On the 18yr old kid transferring - it is my understanding that once they are out of the 'youth' arena, the players will be treated the same as any other senior, so any transfer between clubs will see them carrying the full points penalty.

On ya Steve, no need to attend to my post :-$

South Melbourne to withdraw support for NPL-Victoria?

http://www.smfc.com.au/news/1333/media-release-south-melbourne-fc-reviews-its-position-on-npl-v/

In June 2012, South Melbourne FC endorsed the general principles and direction that football was taking under the FFA and FFV's transition to the National Premier League structure. From the outset, however, the Club informed the FFV it would be proposing appropriate changes so that the model would appeal to most clubs.
Over the last twelve months, the Club has become increasingly concerned with the process and consultation undertaken by the FFV Board in order to galvanise and build momentum to successfully launch the new NPL structure in Victoria.
South Melbourne FC is disappointed that the FFV Board has not accepted many of FFV's stakeholders' recommendations for changes to the NPL-V model required to ensure the financial viability of the new league and to maximise the quality of the competition. None of the key recommendations proposed by the clubs have been accepted by the FFV Board.
One of the key concerns of the clubs which have either not submitted an EOI or have since indicated an intention to withdraw their EOI is the financial and operational structure of the clubs taking part in the proposed NPL-V and the proposed competition itself. The clubs have been vindicated in their concerns by the FFV Board announcement on Tuesday 2nd July to the participants which lodged an EOI that the Small Sided Football competition cannot be included in this state. This is in direct contrast to the NPL structures in New South Wales, Tasmania, and South Australia. We are concerned that this decision by the FFV Board will now bring a further exodus of clubs which are not prepared to risk their club's financial integrity and security.
As a result, we believe that Victoria will lose clubs with sound infrastructure and facilities, which will further weaken the proposed competition by further compromising its marketability, popularity, and resulting in restricted broadcasting and commercial opportunities, and more importantly diminishing the potential for a strong and competitive football league.
South Melbourne FC has worked long and hard to enthuse and encourage participants in Victoria to apply and enter the NPL-V as we felt that the major intended reforms would benefit football in our state. However, our Club is very disappointed and concerned with the apparent lack of understanding of the key concerns held by our club and other key FFV stakeholders.
Consequently, South Melbourne FC is now reviewing its position on its application to enter the NPL-V.

FFV needs to be given a bullet.

Great to see a unified front of support for change among the FFV. Absolute appallingly run organisation.

=d> =d>

Bravo to the SMFC board for not being a puppet of the FFV/FFA.

Why are people now applauding SMFC?

Did other clubs not come out with this weeks ago, and South decided to go the other way?

I think the people applauding South now are the same ones who were understanding of the other clubs positions previously. That's certainly the case with me - was always supportive of South pushing on with the NPL-V because I know the club could handle all of the demands; but have always understood where the other clubs were coming from. South's move is evidently based on the notion that there isn't much point in being in a league that alienates many very good options for no good reason.

The sooner the FFV adopt the same program as NSW, QLD, etc., the better.

It was very foolish for the FFV CEO to not take on any of the club's input; now I just hope this discontent engenders change for the better, rather than just more of the same old infighting in Australian football.

Over to you, FFV.

At least clubs like South Melbourne have the balls to change their minds, unlike to FFV who always think they are right no matter what and that everyone else is wrong on this matter. Come on guys wake up and smell the coffee, your time is up, get out of the game you have done enough damage.

Edited by Atlas: 5/7/2013 02:57:03 PM

How is Ljubo going?

In fairness to the FFV CEO - he's only been in the job for a week. Perhaps once he's checked out the lay of the land things may change. Those previously running the comp were a little hamstrung by the fact that the last guy jumped ship leaving them with a pretty rigid set of guidelines and no-one was in a position to change anything after he left.

To be fair to FFV, football is hardly the easiest sport to manage with so many self interested parties vying for power, but yes this needs to be sorted out.

Everyone needs to come to the table, including FFV, and work on a plan that meets the requirements of the NPL structure but will work for stakeholders also.

A key issue is making this League a Commercially viable League, so far the FFV has not sat down with any clubs to discuss, commercial realities. And the FFV is actually not showing any interest in the commercial club realities but seems more concerned with what the the League can bring to the FFV in financial terms.

How have they the balls to change their minds? All they are do is reviewing their position.. Hardly showing any balls, like other clubs have..

If anything they have destroyed the clubs financially. No ambition shown by the FFV at all.

The effort put into promoting or stratergies to improve the visibility of the VPL have been non-existant or those startergies they did have have been down graded.

Too much of a them and us mentality by FFV and Clubs too.


Edited by Arthur: 9/7/2013 12:08:19 PM

What do mean commercially viable ?
The junior part of NPL is self financing, so do you mean How do we pay senior players what they are getting paid at the moment if we have no small sided football to be the cashcow ?

How is the junior part of NPL self financing?

Costs have increased significantly, at the same time the number of young players who can sign up has been reduced, and simultaneously a cap is being placed on fees.

I think commercially viable means not only that the clubs need to present;



I think the FFV should be doing the same, if you go through the documents there is nothing about promotional activities, about top down funding, about how much the league will cost to run, what the FFV has budgeted for the comp to run, staff allocated to efficiently run the league,scheduling for coaching accredetation courses etc. etc. etc..
I have seen AFL documents for the delivery of the Tasmanian State league and they have provided a business plan, costings, fundings, projections, etc. etc. etc.

As Benjamin has pointed out a cap on junior fees restricts charges while the PPS is supposed to solve everything?





Edited by Arthur: 9/7/2013 03:39:33 PM