You're making the argument that the league can go ahead without the 'rebel' clubs and they are potentially causing themselves more damage by making a fuss about it.

I'm making the argument that two teams speaking in favour of the new league is hardly a great argument for that new league when 51 are talking against it.

End of the day I've no doubt that the FFV could form a league with what they got left - it will be a rather comical affair, and will hemorrhage money without benefiting young players in any way. The stance of the clubs is in the best interests of the game.

They are not competing and have not placed an EOI.

They have issues based on the FFV model of where to play from and which zone/boundary to represent.

I am sure I did - I suspect I have missed a few more like everyone else here.

So a league designed to raise the standard of young players coming through will feature 2 clubs at the higher levels who can cherry pick the best of those young players for their own u18/u21 sides?

I'd be curious to see how the Heart/Victory sides would get around the PPS (if it survives) - if they don't have youth systems of their own.

Had a look. The presentation I was thinking of is no longer on the website. Fro memory it was basicly a presentation mashed together from the FFA Official Presentation, with the FFV Criteria and structures on the back. Its no longer there. All the tender documentation is neutral now - that is it doenst name anyone - which, for a tender process, is completely legitimate. It may well be that A-League clubs dont have to tender? Anyway we will see.

From memory (I read the tender documents and the outline material from FFA/FFV on the website a while back now)they are joining - or places were being reserved for them to participate in future years. I will go back and hava look. From memory though - they were participating, but only running two teams I think????

Can Heart and Victory join the NPL?

You missed at least one other bid that's still in the process.

Parties not listed in any Victorian court, in any of their jurisdictions or lists today or tomorrow (MC, CC, SC, CoA, VCAT). Not saying the clubs won't get an injunctive relief hearing at some stage, but it won't happen before the FFV application process closes I suspect? - and therefore won't prevent the EOI/Application parts of the process concluding and the commencement of the evaluation phase.

Still to be seen if the FFV can rustle up enough clubs though. What do we think they have (Wodonga, Bendigo, Ballarat, Geelong, Whittlesea, Sunshine GC, Richmond, Melbourne Victory, Heart and Bulleen).

If FFV have 10 and the new clubs association can halt the issuing of licenses, then I guess the clubs can spend their time preparing a non-FIFA 'rebel league' for 2014? But as I indicated in an earlier post - stopping the formation of the new competition (which is what a licence facilitates) is a much bigger legal leap than ending the tender I would have thought.

Anyway - time will tell.

Now over to Benjamin to again tell me how many clubs are boycotting. Because that appears to be working for him.


Edited by mahony: 15/8/2013 01:54:57 PM

LOL

The article on the 442 front page sugests legal action today? However:

http://scvprobate.com.au/lists/scv_daily_list.pdf

:lol:

Damn me, pointing out the numbers...

You're just not very good at this are you? #palmface

Yep, two positive voices against 51 negative. Certainly appears that things are on the up!

A month ago you would have seen 30-40 clubs talking up the opportunity of the NPL against a couple (Knights, Gully) talking it down.

For what it's worth - I know a figure heavily involved in one of the on-going bids and even he says he doesn't think it can work under the FFV's current program - and has inferred that his club is just hanging in there in the hope that the FFV will do anything they can to hold onto the last few bids they have.

So a couple of the consortia (one regional, one metropolitan) in the Hun speaking positively about the FFV model and why it works. Still no formal withdrawals of EOI's or applications and silence from Chambers. This is getting very interesting indeed. Tomorrow is a big day for Victorian football - whatever your position on the FFV approach to implementation of the NCR. It was good to see some analysis of the FFV model relative to other jurisdictions on Leopold Method. It certainly dispelled a few of the myths on these boards about how the FFV model is unlike any other jurisdiction and reminded us all why Victorian football and NSW football are not remotely similar in commercial or governance terms.

I would have wasted so much time taking the piss out of tobs - but this is so perfect I'll just requote.

Your implication being that SMFC Directors may find themselves liable for legal costs if they loose the case and may find themselves in financial difficulty.

It appears there is more than one way to skin a cat and you will find out soon enough.

Congratulations, you have now confirmed yourself as the forum retard.

Members of these clubs have made a significant contribution for legal costs

whilst smfc is undertaking the legal process the action represent the broader football landscape.....in particular the 51 undersigned

process in its entirity was presented to the members unnaposed

smfc fans are a battlehardened species

nothing has been given to us - we have always fought for everything we have achieved

no big deal

Edited by chris: 14/8/2013 07:02:59 PM

The first thing I would like to ask the one person who seems to have dedicated his entire existence for the last 7 years on promoting the South Melbourne cause, namely my friend chris, is this:

Do you understand the legal implications of the paragraphs I have quoted above?

The members of the clubs involved in the court action against the FFV or the injunction against it, have to vote and give authority to the likes of Mr Nick Galatas to go ahead with it and if the court action or court proceedings are unsuccessful, the members who approved it will be liable for court costs and not Mr Galatas.

Are you listening chris?

It's not the solicitors or the commitee members who are carrying the financial burden of this court action against the governing body, but the ordinary members of the clubs who authorised the legal action.

People like you.

I don't mention Benjamin's name in this because he's always been an impostor and I don't think he's a genuine supporter or member of South.

So.

Good luck to you and the rest of the genuine South supporters chris who might not know what hole they are digging themselves in.

The day of reckoning might not be that far away.

FFV IN TROUBLE

What a shame parks vic were not part of the above report

more of a deselection process than selection

6 clubs at best except that 3 of them are not clubs

Edited by chris: 14/8/2013 06:51:55 PM

The facts are straightforward Joffa. 51 clubs, Parks & Recreation, and numerous councils are against the FFV's plans, the FFA have stated that ALL parties should come to a reasoned settlement, the clubs have tried for months to have a dialogue with the FFV, and the FFV continue with a process now, even though they only have (at best) half a dozen applicants for the process.

Even those who believe the FFV are in the right would have to acknowledge that a 6 team NPL in Victoria is not in the best interests of the game.

It would appear some of the facts are not as straight forward as has been claimed, hopefully dialogue continues.

Football Federation Victoria faces legal fight with angry clubs

by: Patrick Lane
From: Melbourne Leader
August 14, 2013 2:30PM

A GROUP of aggrieved clubs has sought legal counsel after Football Federation Victoria did not comply with their deadline to suspend the National Premier League process.

The group, spearheaded by South Melbourne director Tom Kalas and Box Hill United vice-president Nicholas Tsiaras, claims to have the support of 51 member soccer clubs in their bid to halt what they believe is an unviable competition model.

The group gave the governing body a 4pm deadline last Thursday to suspend the process before releasing a statement explaining the proposed court injunction application had been suspended for 24 hours at the FFV's wish.

The group has engaged GPZ Legal in its fight to suspend the NPLV process but late on Tuesday, five days after the FFV's deadline, the governing body had received no legal papers.

"As yet FFV has not received a letter of demand or legal action, been served with any legal papers nor have we received any explanation of the legal basis for any such action. FFV will not be making any further comment regarding potential or alleged legal action," a statement read.

But GPZ legal partner Nick Galatas has confirmed today that steps are being taken to seek a court injunction to suspend the process, which sees applications close on Friday.

Any legal action undertaken by the aggrieved clubs would hinge on whether a barrister first advised whether they have a course of action.

It is unknown whether the plaintiff will be South Melbourne - Kalas's club of origin and one of Victoria's most powerful football institutions - or the aggrieved clubs, with Galatas telling Leader just who would be listed on legal documents was still a point of conjecture.

Crucially, clubs are incorporated associations, meaning their assets are member-run and membership approval would likely be required for legal action.

Further, any pursuit of a court injunction would require a plaintiff's undertaking of liability should its action be unsuccessful.

The group is calling on the FFV to suspend the selection process and meet with the clubs on August 26 to redesign the current financial model, which clubs believe will see NPLV institutions run at losses of more than $140,000 a year.

But a source close to the application process has rubbished those figures, believing any financial shortfalls in figure estimates rests with player wages - not NPLV demands.

The stoush turned ugly last week, with the aggrieved group even threatening to report the FFV under the Privacy Act and Spam Act after the governing body used the group's mail out list to send out updates on the NPLV selection progress.

Doubts have emerged regarding the aggrieved group's strength, with many of the 51 clubs listed as part of their action never submitting an expression of interest to begin with.

Victorian Premier League giant Richmond, meanwhile, released a statement condemning the action group for including its name without approval.

"If as a club we decide to withdraw from the process then we will send out our own communication accordingly," it read.

Richmond will convene a meeting for its members tonight to discuss the prospect of applying but Leader understands the club faces major economic hurdles should it seek a licence.

Meanwhile, Kalas has defended the action group's decision to cancel talks with the FFV over the proposed model.

An invitation to chief executive Mitchell Murphy and general manager of football Tim Frampton to attend a discussion meeting last month was withdrawn at the 11th hour due to "sensitive information being discussed" - despite FFV board member Kimon Taliadoros attending the meeting - and Leader has seen an email chain detailing Tsiaras's repeated rejections for correspondence.

"That meeting on that day, the reason I asked for it to be called off was that they were actively still talking to clubs who've withdrawn their process," Kalas said.

"We felt that if we'd have gone to the meeting they would have used that statement to say they were still talking to clubs. I want people to understand that there are no discussions until they halt the process."

Werribee City, Sunshine George Cross and FC Bulleen are believed to be seeking a NPLV licence.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/north/football-federation-victoria-faces-legal-fight-with-angry-clubs/story-fnglenug-1226697101740