http://ffvmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/ClubsRelease7FFVMedia120813.pdf

12 August 2013 – UPDATE No: 7

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

To All Co-Signatory Clubs & EOI Submitters

Firstly we would like to welcome the following co-signatory clubs withdrawing
from the NPLV & EOI process.

– Doncaster Rovers
– Eastern Lions
– Altona East
– Knox United

51 Clubs to date have joined the co-signatory group in a united voice for a
viable and successful NPLV model rollout in 2014, which works for both
community and NPL clubs.

These 51 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.

Again we remind the FFV to suspend the NPL process, for the current clearly
unworkable and changing model and talk WITH the clubs not AT them.

Today members of our co-signatory group are meeting with our legal team to
finalise our application to the court.

We’d like to commend all of the now 51 clubs/associations for taking the
difficult but principled decision to stand together and try and achieve a
successful NPL model for Victoria. It’s not only a historic stand, but such a vast
number of clubs representing a wide cross section of Victorian football
demonstrates the concerns that we all hold for the current model are valid and
justifies our stance.

For the handful of clubs remaining in the EOI process, we advise you to obtain
legal advice regarding the concerning provisions in the Licence Agreement and
the Participation Criteria documents you have received from the FFV before
proceeding.

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 clubs2. 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 last Monday 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 51 (as at 12 Aug) clubs/association 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 51 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.

It's disappointing that we need take to task the organisation that we fund. We
will succeed and do so in readiness for a new NPLV model in 2014.


Next Steps

1. Our Co-signatory group has instructed GPZ Legal to commence court action.
GPZ Legal Partner, Nick Galatas, will be the solicitor responsible for this action.
GPZ Legal has already briefed eminent sports law barrister Paul Hayes to assist
us. Court Documents will now be prepared and filed in the Supreme Court. We
will keep you abreast of developments in our regular Updates.

2. All the 51 co-signatory clubs will convene on Monday 26 August 2013(Venue
TBA) to agree on the minimum requirements to be contained for the “New
NPLV” model for 2014. It is intended that after this meeting we will consult
with the FFV in relation to the implementation of the new model.

On behalf of the 51 Co-signatory Clubs
Tom Kalas - Director South Melbourne FC
Nicholas Tsiaras - Vice President Box Hill United SC

When will the ffv understand that their policies are not endorsed by the football community in vic

It is time we start considering the ffv as being rebellious and not the clubs

Don Monteleone and his crew MUST step down!

This really seems to be a mess in one of our most important football areas. I really think the FFA needs to step in and mediate on this issue. It makes no sense that it can work elsewhere around the country but not in Victoria. FFV playing hardball here is in no-ones best interest.

FFA, FFV and the clubs need to work together to sort this out.

FFA did meet with some clubs but i'm not sure what came out of it.

They could be waiting until the last minute and then ride in like the white knight to save the day.

Surely that time is now.

The VPL has lacked purpose since the a-league [or earlier] because a) it didn't develop talent and b) it continued to alienate local communities by operating on the migrant club model.

If something can be met that overcomes those issues it would be great for the game, not holding my breath tho.

Ah yes, the old "there are hundreds of thousands of people lining up to support the State Leagues but they're being held back by dem effniks" line

If there is such an overwhelming desire for these non-migrant clubs to be at the top, then why haven't the local communities gotten together and made it happen?

Why aren't non-migrant clubs in other state NPL competitions supported in the thousands? In NSW, they're the least supported clubs for the most part

100,000. Wow. Saying every member and every associated member of a club agrees with this. I thought 1 club had already expressed its anger at south Melbourne speaking on their behalf, when it had no authority to do so, nor was it expressing the clubs wishes. 100,000, geez. Drawing a pretty massive bow. I'm sure most of the parents would say no to paying less for their kids "elite" training... The people saying no are the clubs that enjoy the funding from the bottom up, not the other way around...

Fantastic! 51 clubs now...if this keeps up the only club still interested in joining the NPLV next season will be Geelong Galaxy

Jumping to conclusions.

The Knights said no because they'd be forced to increase junior fees, amongst other reasons.

The issue most clubs have is that a major revenue stream has been capped while other costs have been increased. I doubt that they'd complain about the cap if the FFV was capable of demonstrating that the new model would still be feasible

all I see is this guy ](*,) , at what point does the FFV finally concede it ain't going to work

Dear Big Wally,
Please do your researcch before making statements.
The Council that Richmond belongs too, was on the public record ( via the minutes of a public council meeting ) that they will not allow any club in their municipality to apply (via granting access to facilities) to the NPLV.

The Co-signatory clubs just reported that Richmond had been declined access to apply to NPLV. Not that Richmond had joined them.
They have been forcebly withdrawn from the process by their council.
That's what was announced.

The peak Council body in Victoria is against the way the FFV has conducted themselves AND the way they have not consulted the clubs. The actual letter to the FFV by the Peak Council body 'Parks & Leisure Australia) was published bt the Co-signatory groups 2 Monday's ago.....check the forums

Not quite what i said, but as long as the diversity is reduced at the state level the game is missing out on support. We know Australians of all backgrounds have no problem supporting and playing junior football, the a-league and second tier in other sports.

Better still......here is the letter

So 51 clubs, 100,000 people, Councils, politicians coming on stream too....are all against the FFV's management and process.

9 May 2013

Mr Peter Gome
Interim Chief Executive Officer
Football Federation Victoria
By email
Dear Mr Gome,
Proposed New National Premier Leagues (Victoria) Framework
A number of Victorian local government councillors and staff have
expressed concerns regarding some aspects of the proposed new
National Premier Leagues (Victoria) Framework and the process for its
introduction. These concerns have largely emanated from their
review of the detail of the proposed new elite competition framework
outlined in the FFV report, Summary of Current Draft Conditions:
Local Government Consultation (March 2013) and described during
subsequent consultation processes held with some council
representatives.
Parks and Leisure Australia PLA is the national peak organisation
representing professionals working in the sporting, recreation and
parks sectors. The Vic/Tas Region Council (PLA Vic/Tas) convened
and facilitated a forum on 1 May 2013 (at the request of member
councils and other allied organisations) to provide an opportunity for
the sector to discuss the proposed new National Premier Leagues
(Victoria) Framework, and any issues or concerns that they have.
The forum was attended by 35 councillors and staff who represented
21 local government authorities and nine other agencies/organisations
with a responsibility for the planning or management of football
facilities. An additional nine councils and organisations contributed to
the forum but were not able to be represented on the day for various
reasons. Interested councils and organisations are from both urban
and regional Victoria.
The forum identified a number of common or shared concerns about
the NPLV Framework. However, each local government authority
operates within its own unique setting and framework for the delivery
of sporting and recreation opportunities, so it is acknowledged that
the sector concerns are not necessarily equal for each.
One outcome from the forum was the decision that PLA Vic/Tas
Region prepares a submission to FFV on behalf of the interested
councils and organisations that documents the range of issues and
concerns identified. The submission follows, and it is important to
note that the range of comments, statements and issues contained
herein are endorsed by the staff associated with the planning and
management of council sporting facilities, but may not necessarily be
the official position of their respective councils in relation to the
process currently being undertaken by the FFV in calling for
Expressions of Interests from clubs to become approved licensed
clubs in the proposed new NPLV.
We gratefully request that the FFV firstly, acknowledges receipt of this
submission, and secondly, undertakes to formally respond to the
issues and concerns raised. We are happy to liaise with FFV to
determine what might be the best medium for FFV to respond to the
submission. In the first instance, can any response by email or
telephone please be directed to Richard Simon, Executive Officer, PLA
Vic/Tas Region.
In closing, and on behalf of all interested groups, can I confirm that
all councils and organisations generally concur that the intent of FFV
to identify the optimum model to support the elite player pathway is
to be commended. We, as a significant sector partner in the provision
of sport, certainly support State Sporting Associations that
continuously seek to improve their models of sport delivery.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Jane
President, PLA Vic/Tas Region
Vic/Tas Regional Office:
Office 1, 655 Nepean Highway, Tel: 0498 029 575
Brighton East VIC 3187 Email: victas@parksleisure.com.au
National Office:
207 The Parade, Tel: +61 +8 8332 0130
Norwood SA 5067 Email: admin@parksleisure.com.au Web: www.parksleisure.com.au
Parks and Leisure Australia (Vic/Tas Region)
Submission to Football Federation Victoria
The key points of this submission are:
• There is a general view that the consultation process carried out
by FFV staff was not a true consultation process, rather it was
perceived to be in the form more of information-giving.
• Concern for the impact that the NPLV framework may have on
local football competitions and clubs.
• Concern for the impact that the NPLV framework will have on
the maintenance and management of football grounds and
facilities.
• Concern for the high ongoing costs that need to be borne by
licensed clubs to be involved in the NPLV.
• Concern for the top heavy nature of the NPLV framework.
• Strong view that local government inclusion and approvals are
required during all stages of the expression of interest process
and license approval phase.
• Concern for the short timeframe proposed by the FFV for the
expression of interest process and receipt of submissions.
Details of each point are:
1. General Concerns
• There is a general feeling that meetings with FFV have been
‘information giving’ rather than ‘consultation’.
• Concerns previously raised by councils, such as the issue of
displaced players, do not appear to have been passed onto the
clubs during the submission process.
PLA Vic/Tas Region Submission to the National Premier Leagues Victoria Page 4
2. Impact on local football competitions and clubs
• A condition of a license is that clubs have only one team for each
age group. There are concerns about what happens to displaced
players and the impact this may have on neighbouring
community clubs.
• Generally, one committee runs both the junior and senior
sections at a club. The current VPL clubs have expressed
concern at losing their junior base, which currently supports
their senior teams.
PLA Vic/Tas Region Submission to the National Premier Leagues Victoria Page 5
3. Impact on the maintenance and management of football facilities
• Clubs applying will need access to FFV ‘A’ Class facilities to be
granted a license. What are the facility expectations by FFV for
licensed clubs with facilities that do not currently meet ‘A’ Class
specifications, particularly with such a short lead-in time?
• How strict will FFV be in enforcing the facility standards? What
will the standards be in the short-term and in the years to
come?
• There is no reference in the background papers to funding
assistance to Councils to upgrade facilities to the required
standards. Who pays for any upgrades that may be required to
facilities allocated to licensed clubs?
• The ‘elite’ nature of the League challenges the historic local
government philosophy of encouraging participation and
providing facilities for broad community use. (Although it is
acknowledged that there are now some councils actively
supporting and encouraging elite level sport within their LGA).
• The terms and conditions of existing lease arrangements for
facilities between licensed clubs and councils may be impacted
or conversely, may impact upon prospective applicants’ access
to Class ‘A’ facilities.
• The increase in training loads for teams associated with licensed
NPLV clubs will likely lead to the increased use of allocated
pitches, thereby limiting the potential for these pitches to be
used by other community-based football teams.
• Some councils currently have football pitches fully allocated, so
there is little, or no, capacity to increase training times, match
times, etc.
• Proposed season length is 8 – 10 months, which may have
implications on seasonal ground allocations for summer season
sports and for annual ground maintenance programs scheduled
by councils.
PLA Vic/Tas Region Submission to the National Premier Leagues Victoria Page 6
4. Cost to licensed clubs to participate in the NPLV
• There are general concerns regarding the long-term
sustainability of NPLV licensed clubs.
• Concern for the ability of the sport (of football) and a licensed
club to attract the necessary local sponsorship to operate.
• The $50,000 license fee is high, however many clubs do have
the capacity to make this payment. We understand that this fee
includes team and player registrations so it is similar to the total
fees that current Premier League clubs are paying now. The
concern is the various clubs’ capacities to meet the additional
required costs associated with other deliverables, such as
coaching, medical, etc.
Councils are concerned that some clubs may be allowing for this
revenue to be generated through junior programs, however, the
proposed framework does not support licensed clubs retaining
comprehensive junior programs.
• Some coruncils intend to pass on any increased facility
maintenance costs directly to the licensed clubs. Will the clubs
be able to afford such increases? If these increased costs are
then passed on to the players then it may become a pathway
program only for those who can afford it.
• Junior players’ families should not be financially supporting the
elite level players.
• For licensed clubs to raise additional revenue, there may be
pressure on councils to allow increased sponsorship signage at
venues and to relax liquor licensing conditions, etc. – in some
cases contrary to existing council policies dealing with such
matters.
• The NPLV framework appears to be a 3-5 year vision only of FFA
and FFV. It appears to be a lot of money required to be invested
if the framework changes after that time.
PLA Vic/Tas Region Submission to the National Premier Leagues Victoria Page 7
5. Top heavy framework proposed by FFA and FFV
• There seems to be a continual push from FFA and FFV for a top
heavy model.
• Councils typically have a preference to support the grass roots
level of sport and may not choose to subsidise elite/semi-elite
competitions.
• Melbourne Victory is negotiating with some councils about
setting up a training facility for their junior pathway program.
This seems at odds with the NPLV framework.
• One club being required to support nine elite teams will likely be
too onerous for some regional (country) local government
authorities.
• Could there be an alternative model that supports only juniors?
What is the player pathway for juniors who reside in regional
Victoria if they do not have an NPVL club in their area?
PLA Vic/Tas Region Submission to the National Premier Leagues Victoria Page 8
6. Council inclusion and approval should be required
• Councils should be a part of any license application. Applicant
clubs should be required to demonstrate that they have formal
endorsement from their relevant local government authority, so
councils (with the assistance of an applicant club) can plan for
the displacement of players, even if the club will be playing on
private land. Further, councils need to provide endorsement
during the EOI application by a club, as councils effectively have
the right not allocate any facility in its ownership and in some
instances needs to be reassured that the club has the capacity to
fund improvement projects to meet the desired facility standards
in line with Council policies.
• A model needs to be prepared to show how neighbouring clubs
can accommodate any increase in membership from displaced
players.
• Councils should be able to object to or not approve the
application of a club in instances where that club may have
outstanding debts, has a history of poor governance, or some
other issue. Councils would like to be made aware of any club
considering lodging an application right from the beginning of
the process.
• Some councils may have two clubs based in their municipality
considering applying for an NPLV license. What is the FFV’s
position on this? There are concerns about the increased
movement of players, financial capacity, and the impact on pitch
availability, if two clubs in the same municipality are granted
licenses.
PLA Vic/Tas Region Submission to the National Premier Leagues Victoria Page 9
7. Short Timeframe
• Council approval for a club to submit an EOI may take longer
than the timeline set by FFV – 31 May 2013.
• The package of information recently sent to local clubs from FFV
outlines the following timeframe:
o Approximately 1 month given to work with interested clubs
o FFV to determine if the relevant council is in a position to
support the NPLV in 2014
The timeframe is considered too onerous.
PLA Vic/Tas Region Submission to the National Premier Leagues Victoria Page 10
Staff from the following local government authorities and other
organisations either attended the forum or expressed an
interest in the matter and supported the reasons for it being
held
Bayside City Council
Greater Bendigo City Council
Cardinia Shire Council
Casey City Council
Coffey
Corengal Sport & Leisure Planning
Darebin City Council
Glen Eira City Council
Hobsons Bay City Council
Hume City Council
Inside Edge
Kingston City Council
Knox City Council
Latrobe City Council
Manningham City Council
Melbourne City Council
Melton Shire Council
Monash City Council
Monash University
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council
Nillumbik Shire Council
Parks and Leisure Australia (Vic/Tas Region)
Parks Victoria
Port Phillip City Council
Stonnington City Council
Whitehorse City Council
Wodonga City Council
Wyndham City Council

Wow kapow! Look at all those monoethnic councils that are holding back the game in Australia! They should all make way for broadbased councils that represent all Australians (who are from approved migrant paths)!

If I may ask... If there is such a huge interest in non-ethnic clubs, and Australians of all backgrounds are keen to support second tier football, why on Earth were there so few applications from 'new' clubs for the NPL in Victoria? Surely, if there is such hunger for change, and such depth of interest, there would still be dozens of options for the FFV to pick from.

And out of interest - which second tier sports are well supported in Australia?

Yes! The ethnic reason is why the clubs aren't supported well. Not the fact that:

They play in summer clashing with every major sport

No advertising from the FFV

Second tier league

Not as rich as the A-league clubs because they built their clubs from scratch to represent their footballing landscape at the time.

Clubs have been robbed by the FFV a lot of money through fines.

I could go on but I'm on my phone.

I've seen you go on before probably best you don't, none of your points explain why the diversity is reduced compared to what we see at other levels of the game.

Once the squabbles about ground access and fees are settled you'll have the same centralized system as the other states to compensate for the fact that the clubs didn't get the job done.

You appear to believe that its ok for attendances to be piss-poor so long as they are ethnically diverse.

In other words, you'd rather have 200 at a VPL game, with a wide range of backgrounds, than 1000 with a heavy proportion from one background.

If that's true - you're saying you'd rather people did NOT attend games.

Bit sad.

Yep
that sums it up
so who is holding the game back?

Can either of you point to where no i was hoping for smaller diverse crowds? No i didn't think so. With more diversity there will be greater numbers, reflecting the improved reach of the game today. A stirling contribution as always ben. lol

Do you have factual evidence where that would work in a second tier competition?

-PB

Evidence in other states would suggest otherwise, kapow! Similarly, evidence in other sports would suggest otherwise.

People go to watch teams because they support them. Take the club away and the supporters are lost to the game.

Similarly, your belief that there are 1000s of football supporters desperate to get out to local games but unable to find a club is absolute tripe.

where's the logic that it wouldn't? lol

state leagues in other sports VFL, WAFL, SANFL are supported in the 2nd tier but at a lower number. The VPL is supported in some numbers. i.e. we can put to bed this 'Australians don't support the second tier' theme that gets put forward.

Football has grown support outside of those migrant club backgrounds present in the VPL as evident by the junior, amateur and a-league interest. i.e. the diversity exists within the game.

The migrant clubs have little diversity i.e. the diversity within the game isn't engaged by the current state background model.

If the diversity was engaged we should expect greater numbers and no that doesn't mean 1000's instantly turning up, you have to work the community.

What are the average crowds at VFL games relative to the crowds at AFL games?

If anything NPLV is about participation - not spectators
And participation would be at a very exclusive level
16 kids via 1 iscolated per age group is a very marginal presence
Add the fact that all senior teams outside the nplv will only compete in any 1 zone they are allocated in
Add the fact that the NPLV senior team will not be allowed to develop their own marketing strategy

Where will the fans come from - all I see coming to these games are the parents
Who exactly will volunteer for these teams?
Who exactly will want to watch these teams?

You are aware that Tasmania, NSW, SA and QLD all have ethnic origin clubs involved in their NPL competitions right?

What is expected to come of the court case, will the FFV just have to delay the cut off date for registration and redo the NPL model?

Edited by tjwhalan: 13/8/2013 09:49:02 PM