The problem is, Joffa, if you are distant on the issues, it's very hard to make comment on the situation one way or another.

On this thread we have two guys heavily involved in the process - one acting against the FFV, another bidding for an NPLV license despite reservations so severe that you believed him to be a supporter of the 50 'rebel' clubs. For my part, I've talked to several NPLV bidders AND to several members of the 'rebel' group - I'm fully aware of the concerns of the 'rebels', and I'm also strongly aware of the motivations of the NPLV bidders - and I can tell you that Arthur is not alone in his reservations and concerns for the NPLV process and that almost all of the bidders have their fingers crossed that the FFV will 'reward' them for not fighting by granting them the very concessions that the rebel clubs are seeking.

It's very easy to dismiss the complaints based on a single issue, Joffa. However, if you read the comments that have been printed over and over again by Troy, you'll see that the group are all committed to a successful NPLV model rollout in 2014 and that the chief concerns are of financial viability and a lack of consultation (and/or accountability) by the FFV.

It's hard to maintain an argument of status quo in the midst of the biggest and most unprecedented 'uniting of the tribes' that this state has ever seen.

Just because I am not involved in a State League club does not mean I don't have very clear definite opinions on the matter.

What I'm saying is that it's hard to have a clear and definite opinion on a matter if you don't understand the issues under discussion.

And could you indicate where I have put forward an argument or view point either way, my only comments have been to highlight some of the exaggerations made.

I also disagree with your premise about having to be involved in the State League to have an opinion on the matter

Single issue?



Troy here is claiming there are 'scores' of clubs support the challenge group, well that's another 40-60 clubs involved, of course you're not naming them, why not, your insinuating there on board without any evidence or without naming names, doubtful to say the least.



Once again, this is hubris to say the least, how many rural clubs have signed up?




Sounds political and un NPL relate to me.




So why the court case, is this an attempt to remove the FFV or to bring them back to the table?

I don't believe one has to be involved in the state league to have an opinion - however, I DO believe one must know what the issues are before making statements.

Thank god your not an accountant

Angelica - your argument appears to be that the rebel 50 have no right to challenge the FFV as representatives of the footballing community because they are only 50 out of 320. I believe Troy is suggesting that as only 8 out of the 320 are actually backing the FFV with bids, the claim of the 50 being out of line, is in itself - out of line.

Please, I'd be curious to know, the clubs that had no interest in joining the NPL... How are they in any way inconvenienced by the moves being made by the clubs that want to be a part of a different NPL structure?

He's not saying you can't have an opinion ffs.

He's saying you can't have an informed opinion.

-PB

Anyway, the parties had their day in court yesterday (magistrates, interlocutory / directions etc...). Going into a second day which is scheduled for September 23. Still no idea if this will even get to the Supreme Court for substantive legal argument.

As it stands the Court is obviously happy for the FFV evaluation process to continue or I suspect we would have heard something from either of the parties by now about an interlocutory injunction preventing the FFV from continuing with the process.

The next court date is about a week before the FFV make the announcement of the successful NPLV applicants.

Time will tell.

My Version

To avoid an injunction the Judge advised mediation between the clubs and the FFV

FFV agreed reluctantly

Clubs position is if the FFV proceeds than injuction switch will be flicked on

Why let let the truth get in the way of his fantasy land?

Supreme Court Rules all but require mandatory mediation at the pre-trial phase of a civil matter. Even if it proceeds to the SC, the process will require 'discovery' and a few other pre-trial appearences to encourage a settlement.

Very few cases actually get to the SC. But if they do - an "on balance of probabilities" burden around a proven legal point of dispute will need to be met. A long way to go yet.

If I were the FFV, I too would want to demonstrate how reasonable I was. But you’re the expert!

As I said, time will tell.

The problem with the FFV wanting to demonstrate how reasonable they have been is that there is an email trail between various clubs and authorities and the FFV which demonstrates how everyone has been stonewalled by the FFV throughout the last 10 months.

Not my mail....clubs material was inadequate so judge has given them another 2 weeks to get their act in order and then the FFV has a couple of weeks to put in their material. Then they come back at end of month. Forget about an injunction that's long gone as an option.

B.S. MAIL

Next time smell the envelope before you open it

Injunction very much an option however clubs prefer mediation as not to disrupt the game and finally they get to sit down with the FFV which is what they have been calling for and very much the reason as to why SC day 2 is 2 days prior to final NPL deadline

Evidence clubs have v FFV is a no contest inside and outside court

My reading of a very carefully crafted statement from the FFV is that the clubs tabled a consent order seeking to facilitate mediation (which a judge may have ordered anyway) ahead of a final judgment (injunctive or otherwise) which the FFV did not contest on the basis that they have advice from Counsel to the effect that the Court has no jurisdiction in this matter.

All that happened yesterday was that the clubs sought an adjournment for a few weeks, and as the request was uncontested, they got it.

My instinct is now that, given the bullish attitude of the FFV, that they believe they are on solid legal ground, and at the risk of annoying a magistrate who will soon be making a judgment - let the consent order go uncontested.

Interesting times, but I think I would rather be the FFV tonight.

Time will tell.

Ahhhh, this is the "consultation" argument we often hear raised.

While I think the FFV have been falling over themselves to manage the consultation issue publicly (others have their own view of course), I am not referencing that matter in my last comment (not least of which because I don't think it is material as a legal argument), but simply that the FFV are looking to please a magistrate who is yet to make a judgement believing (rightly or wrongly) that this magistrate will find that the Court has no jurisdiction. It is entirely a point of courtroom strategy - as opposed to a substantive point of law.

Time will tell.

http://ffvmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/TheNewNPLVAug2013.pdf




UPDATE NO 13, Tuesday 27 AUGUST 2013 TO CLUBS, FFV, FFA & MEDIA

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


We would like to thank all of the clubs that attended last night's very productive NPLV workshop & briefing session.

Our Legal team covered the legal action to date which included the court hearing on the 26th Aug.

We discussed the upcoming court case in the Supreme Court and the planned mediation process at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

We would like to thank Brendan Schwab (from FIFPro / PFA) for an extremely informative presentation that among other things tabled points for us to consider in our NPLV modelling.

Our Zone Representatives were introduced to us and we informed them of the many concerns that clubs have with the FFV. The Women's Clubs Representatives tabled their opinions, recommendations and outlook for the New NPLV model as it would apply to them.

The New NPL V Model

We have agreed that the New NPLV model will have many similarities to those implemented interstate (refer PDF document attached)

We have agreed that the New NPLV model complies with the FFA objectives (refer PDF document Page 3 and repeated on Page 11)

We have agreed that the New NPLV principles we have documented will be beneficial for our code and help improve the standards for Community, State League, Country/Regional and VPL Clubs


We have agreed that the New NPLV will incorporate a state wide competition that will see the inclusion of 2 Country/regional teams in the NPL and 2 Country /regional teams in the NPL1


Our united position on the NPLV

1. We are all committed to a successful NPLV model rollout in 2014 which works for both community and NPL clubs


2. The NPLV should be financially viable for all clubs, modelling by clubs reflects otherwise.

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 all 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 50 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 30-50 clubs in Victoria at all levels: Men, Women, Junior Boys and Girls.

7. The 50 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.

You're fishing for information
All will be revealed at court

If they had sat down with their stakeholders and truly 'consulted' like all the pretty...'corporate vision' hyperbole that gets plasted around web sites about their ethical intent to be this and that.....the situation would not be this dire for our state.

The attached model proves that BETTER solutions exist, solutions that bring all on the journey, solutions that unite all clubs to important principles. Principles that are followed around the globe.

mahony let's make a deal. WHEN the FFV loses, you fuck off from social media for good? \:d/

You overestimate my connections within Victorian football. I am a humble punter at MVFC and SMFC and nothing more. I do however have something of a fetish for sports law (and case law more broadly) and find this case fascinating. I find it to be so quite independently of my opinion on the FFV model (which has 3 discreet problems in my view).

Does my reasoning or my opinion cause you that much anguish that you have to continue to 'play the man' and not the ball. You are truly an intellectual giant!

If the FFV loose it is no skin of my nose. South’s will stay in the top flight and football goes on. Sounds OK to me?

I do, however, have the courage to articulate my opinion in a reasonable manner. If you don’t like it – that’s just tough…

You do realise that there is no Supreme Court date set? That indeed the findings of the Magistrate will likely determine if this matter gets anywhere near a Supreme Court justice. Of course you do.

This is on the other Forums

---

Hi Donald (MFOOTBALL)

We wish to correct and clarify the statement FFV made to mfootball as reported by you on 27th Aug.



The response from the Co-signatory group of clubs

At the same time that the court documents were served upon FFV on Friday 16 August 2013, the Plaintiffs offered to mediate the dispute through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). That’s because the clubs are confident this dispute is capable of being resolved before trial, particularly because they support the introduction of the NPL in Victoria from 2014 and simply seek appropriate changes to the model.

Last Friday afternoon, 23 August 2013, FFV informed our lawyers that they agreed to mediate the dispute through CAS. When the matter came before the court on 26 August 2013, as scheduled, the parties attended court represented by their lawyers. They agreed on their preferred mediation dates, informed the court and as a result, the Plaintiffs asked the court to adjourn the matter to a date shortly after mediation. The court made the orders we sought which were not opposed by FFV.

Mediation is now being arranged through CAS. It is for the FFV to decide how it will manage the application process involving the 15 Applicants, which include none of the VPL Clubs, and the mediation of the dispute which is supported by 50 clubs including all VPL Clubs.

End of statement

Edited by troy5: 28/8/2013 10:59:14 AM

Curious about the bolded statement. In what ways do you think the FFV have 'managed' the consultation issue.

They have stood infront of groups and told them what they expect - then refused to discuss any alternative ideas. That's not consultation - the very nature of a consultation is that interested parties get to have input into issues which may effect them... In this case the clubs have had zero input.

I understand that this does not effect the case itself, but directly responding to the earlier point - that the FFV will be seeking to demonstrate how reasonable they have been - it just doesn't stack up.

Relax little legal eagles.... Here's the explanation :)

And the longer the delay the more pressure mounting on the FFV

Fact is a NPLV version without NPL clubs and 1 x SL1 club is hardly a NPL

Clubs have every right to slow down the process and tactically it is a brilliant move - as the FFV are not within their right to proceed with their version whilst the whole model and more specifically the terms leading into the selection process are still in dispute

You cannot claim mediation has occurred whilst the FFV still proceeds to deliver its flawed version - that in itself is a massive element to produce as evidence to the Supreme Court in regards to a lack of consultation

My view is that after mounting pressure from the FFA who themselves are facing mounting pressure from the AFC is that the FFV will simply run out of time and the clubs will have a strong influence on the outcome of the NPLV final version

Already the FFV (BTL) have communicated NPL_V Version 2 and 3 to the remaining applicants simply because Version 1 was not tennable - however issue here is that this puts the whole initial EOI into disrepute

By now I hope you realise that the clubs have learnt from previous experiences and more specifically how the game and its political systems are shaping in this country