To be honest - I'd be curious to see the train-wreck that the FFV's preferred model would create.

Taking the best 12 bids from the 15 they have at their disposal - assuming all of them were compliant to the official requirements - and assuming that the other clubs would fall into line with the FFV and join the State 1 and State 2 set-up beneath the NPLV - you'd have a far weaker set up at the top than in the two divisions below it.

So you'd have small clubs trying to put together squads, competing with far better financed and established clubs in the lower leagues.

Young players with A-league aspirations might consider the NPLV a better option than State 1, but the vast majority of players would opt for the more secure, better paying State 1 & 2 sides over the NPLV. This would lead to vastly reduced playing standards in the NPLV compared to the current VPL, which would make it harder for young players to (a) improve their game, and (b) show themselves off to the A-League.

Meanwhile, A-League coaches/scouts, given the option of watching a few good kids play in a poor competition, or a few good kids playing in a lower tier, but higher standard league, are not going to be shy about signing players from State 1 rather than NPLV... And once the kids know they can be signed from State 1 just as easily as NPLV, there won't be any reason to join a smaller, lower paying, club.

The only way the NPLV could them work would be by staying alive long enough for 'elite' kids to come through their youth systems - another 6-10 years away. That's a long time to push shit up hill.

Clubs have released their version of the NPL_V

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

So, in light of the two statements released to MFootball from the clubs and FFV, does anything I have claimed above about the legal process look like wild speculation now?

Neither of the statements actually conflict with one another, apart from the assertion (accidental we assume) that this was a Supreme Court matter.

So, while both sides are focusing on their best description of the process (spinning it) - this case under 2 of the possible 3 legal scenarios will be resolved in the Magistrates Court. There is a very slight chance it could get to SC and this will easily take 12 months to resolve. I am betting the political strategy of the the clubs is that if they can force that outcome (with a corresponding injunction) this will increase pressure on the FFV to give the proposed NPLv model the flick entirely.

Getting to the SC itself may be all the clubs are after for strategic reasons, even if they have advice from counsel that they have a weak case. This is good short term strategy, but puts the clubs at huge financial risk if the decision goes against them (very, very expensive court costs) - more so if the FFV wanted to subsequently peruse them for damages?

If there is a case for the FFV to answer but not in the SC, that is bad for the clubs, because the Civil jurisdiction of the MC is so limited. It is unlikely under this scenario that we would expect a decision that would stop the proposed NPLv entirely. Unlikely, but not impossible.

Time will tell.

PS: Time for those who don't agree with me to start abusing me personally - over to you!

Edited by mahony: 29/8/2013 08:03:37 PM

Edited by mahony: 29/8/2013 08:04:15 PM

Mahony,
No need for abuse, you have well reasoned points....but put the legal aspect to the side


WA just announced their NPL league, its basically nearly all their top tier clubs.
Its the same with nearly all other states too.

Our mob (ffv), have solicited and encouraged 7 new consortiums to apply, from day one!
Their intent was always to try and revamp their failed zonal system that got canned last Dec.....its no secret.
That is why the 50 clubs have no choice but to take it to the courts.

I may disagree with your emphasis / attribution of intention on behalf of the FFV, however, only a fool would argue that implementation has been a success. Clearly, legal issues aside, it is highly desirable to have strong representation from the "traditional clubs" (including the one I support). Regardless of the court outcomes and what form of competition emerges, I can only hope in time they will be there!

As someone who is now forced to watching this develop from afar I have a few queries about the whole NPL set up.

I would like to know what part the FFA has really played in this. I'm considering that in light of the other state's federations appear to have managed a process to set up the NPL.

1. How does this fit in with the overall vision of a franchised non-ethnic based A-league?

2. Are the other states NPL proposals based solely around ethnic based clubs and communities?

3. Is the FFV trying to incorporate a non-ethnic based equivalent of the A-league?

4. The FFA has stated that the NPLs will be the second tier of Australian football. Does this mean there can be promotion/relegation between the A-league and the NPLs as required by the AFC? If the answer is yes how does this sit with the make up of a franchised A-league and the reason for why the A-league was set up in the first place?

5. If there is a move away from a franchised A-league how will the Federal Government view the situation especially in light of the financial support given to the game and the FFA?

6. How will FIFA (& AFC) see the court case, as it takes a very dim view of clubs taking legal actions and often take sanctions against football associations that allow this to happen?

7. More to the point is how can the FFV, which is an association, made up of member clubs impose something on the clubs without the clubs consent? I think I'm missing something here.

That's an honest attempt to answer those questions. There isn't much balance to be had because in all honesty I can't for the life of me figure out what the FFV believe they will gain from having weak zonal clubs trying to play as a top tier in Victoria - it isn't in the best interest of the players, which means it isn't in the best interests of the game.

Tell me, o wise one, how the FFV can/will do anything to the clubs?

Is that all you've got? Yep, you "owned" me right there. Now go away and teach yourself all about the law of torts and the associated jurisprudential framework for awarding damages (although, for political reasons, even if the FFV did succeed in court, I doubt they would seek anything other than costs - it’s a bad look!). Then come back with your scintillating, sarcasm based humour and try again. In the interim I will have a view whether you like it or not.

Edited by mahony: 2/9/2013 10:29:55 AM

You can't answer it? Go on make a fool out of me :)

Very minor differences in emphasis - I have no problem with any of your interpretations.

It's a love fest.

I still think the big issue is that the NPLV as proposed by the FFV will fail dismally, and that would set football back rather than taking it forward. The NPLV proposed by the clubs will advance football.

The NPLV suggested by myself, on the other hand, would take the game forward with huge strides!

You dont need my help.

I'm sure it will be much sooner than that :lol:

No I want you to say it, so we can all see who the fool is :)

That’s a reasonable view from a person who is prepared to think it through.

I think there are quite specific problems with (1) financial modelling, (2) zoning administration and (3) the PPS. All of these could be overcome in time and in good faith though.

Ultimately none of us are Nostradamus - but we can all try. We all want what’s best for the game and hopefully it will work out that way.

Funny how you can't tell me how the FFV will come after the clubs for damages :lol:

Nah - with your last two posts you have already achieved the mission :lol:

On a serious note, the clubs are well furnished with counsel and will be well aware of their legal exposure should they get to the SC in particular. I was at the derby yesterday and everyone was talking about it. Punters are not stupid. We know politics when we see it and we don't ever assume that disputes such as this are a simple matter of right and wrong.

Life is much more complicated than that - and this is why lawyers are wealthy and most of us are not.

I didnt say when the next election would be? How can the next election be "sooner" than the next election?

What a fool :lol: For someone who knows everything, you don't seem to know much. The clubs are not taking the FFV to court. So are not liable for anything.

Sooner than the next election champ :)

Oh dear...........

(1) You do know that liability has nothing to do with who initiates a civil action? Look at my original post and try again.

(2) with reference to the quoted text. For a group of people who “are not taking the FFV to court” there are a lot of lawyers and court applications flying about? If the clubs (even as members of a new association) are not taking the FFV to court then how on earth did the FFV end up with a summons?

(3) The edifice of an association won't save clubs if the FFV has a case against any principal agent. The insurance they seek through an association does not provide indemnification - and they know it.

An alternative view is that the legal system is designed to ensure that associations can be established to facilitate unlawful acts or omissions without legal recourse.

Good luck! ](*,)

Edited by mahony: 2/9/2013 11:33:01 AM

The FFV are being taken to court by 2 zone reps my friend

But it's OK I'm sure you know better than I do :lol:

More to the point than the financial modeling, zoning and PPS - the issue for an FFV model NPLV is that we will have 12 (from 15) inferior bids, spread around the state, with low support and poor commercial connections, playing the top tier competition, meanwhile, 12 (or more) stronger clubs, with better facilities, established support and commercial connections, strong volunteer lists, etc., will be playing in the 2nd tier non NPL league. These two sets of clubs will be competing for the best players and the 2nd tier will be able to afford to pay higher fees. Having spoken to a lot of players - including young players with A-league aspirations, the majority will be staying with their current clubs, or in the familiar league, rather than transferring over to new entities for an experimental competition.

In short, I don't see how the FFV NPLV system will raise standards in any way, it will be a league not unlike the current VPL u21 league, but with a lot of the best players missing.

I'm so confused.

So the main differences between the rest of the NPL and those proposed in Victoria and Western Australia is the points system that promotes youth. Correct me if I missed completely.

My money is on the court case being dropped soon, but probably another one starting which won't take long and see the clubs get their way :cool:

And mahony can keep studying legal sports cases in the meantime :lol:

No, the points system is the same right around Australia (until the PFA challenge it).

The differences between the others states and Victoria have been discussed at length - but it is essentially a question of in every other state the top division has simply been re-branded as the NPL with certain criteria to be met by clubs within a fixed time-frame; whereas here in Victoria the status (earned on the pitch) of clubs is irrelevant, the FFV plan to bring in a zonal system, with an NPL club in each zone and all sides below that level being subservient to the zonal NPL club.

There are also objections to the wording of the FFV's documentation which essentially says "You do as we say, and you pay for it, we won't guarantee any income, and we take no responsibility for any losses"

Beyond this - there is tremendous acrimony regarding the 'consultation' process, which has consisted of a few information sessions rather than any meaningful discussion.

UPDATE No: 14 Tuesday 3 September 2013

To All Clubs & 50 Co-Signatories – Release to Media, FFA & FFV




1. The Zonal system and impact on all clubs in our state

Many clubs have written to us concerned that if the current FFV NPL model is not challenged (which the Co-signatory clubs have begun via the courts) it will establish a zonal system that will force clubs to be ‘subservient’ to their zone’s “Elite” club, starting as of 2014.

Some clubs have considered the NPLV to:

"not be of concern to them - we are a community club, it won't affect us".

Close scrutiny of the current NPLV model suggests otherwise.


Not only will community clubs be ‘subservient’ to their zone’s “Elite” club, as of 2014, but the utilisation of already scant playing facilities will come under further pressure by the successful NPLV clubs seeking access.

What the current FFV NPLV model will also do is stop a club from progressing on merit via the ‘promotion/relegation’ system that currently operates in Victoria & all round the world.

A zonal system will not allow this to occur, plus our advice is that a zonal system contravenes FIFA Regulations

Clubs that wish to join the 50 Co-signatory clubs and lobby against these changes to fundamental principles to our game need to contact us.

The 50 Co-Signatory clubs are forming the “Association of Football Clubs Victoria”

in order to protect the fundamental principles of our game. Please contact us on the following email addresses:

Tom Kalas - Director South Melbourne FC tom@smfc.com.au

Nicholas Tsiaras - Vice President Box Hill United SC nicholas.tsiaras@gmail.com




2. The NEW NPLV model sees the continuance of football’s fundamental principles with the adoption of the FFA’s NPL criteria (attached PDF)
The New NPLV model has many similarities to those implemented interstate

The New NPLV model complies with the FFA objectives (refer PDF document Page 3 and repeated on Page 11)

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

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





3. Melbourne Councils that have reviewed the New NPLV model have embraced it and remarked: “why was this not tabled from the beginning?”

· It does not displace players/parents

· It allows juniors and sub juniors to remain with their clubs

· It allows clubs that aspire to improve and get promoted to do so if they wish

· It allows the freedom of movement of all players across the state with no artificial barriers due to zoning

· It incorporates the FFA’s NPL criteria (e.g. coaching accreditation improvements)

· It does not put financial pressure onto clubs to comply with the financially unviable FFV model

We need to begin repairing the reputation of what the NPLV stands for with councils and other stakeholders in Victoria.

Councils play a significant role in funding the improvement of our code’s facilities.


The New NPLV stands for a rebranding of a new state wide competition, comprised of clubs which are embedded in their local communities and have both highly skilled and developing players, together with a senior team which is a drawcard for supporters of our game.

Our united position on the NPLV

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

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

That the NPLV be introduced after proper consultation with the clubs and after taking genuine account of their concerns.

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.

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.

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.


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.


The 50 Co-signatory clubs combined constitute over 100,000 football club members / supporters / youth teams / juniors / sub juniors / parents / coaches / administrators.

We call upon the FFV to respect the concerns of its clubs and act as its mandate requires it to do; in the best interests of the game.

Football in this state does need an overhaul, but there are so many opinions around about how that will occur. A pure zonal proposal is divisive, but some parts of its intention may well be valid, but I guess its all a matter of who holds the power.

I agree that the proposed FFV structure for the NPL needs work, given the amount of backlash and lack of support, but I am not sure some of the suggested alternative proposals go far enough to putting football on the right path in this state.

There is far too much self-interest at this stage, as there always has been. Whether that is the FFV or some of the clubs. If I was the FFA, I would be stepping in now to at least mediate before it does even more damage to the game here.


Edited by heart_fan: 3/9/2013 09:03:18 PM