With the 11 of 14 voting for the board to be replaced, the other 3 did not vote. So no one voted to keep the board.

HZ appointed to take control :cool:

But let's wait for the resident genius to let us know what's happening after he reads it on a blog sonewhere \:d/

Apparently - the FFV refused to allow their own zone reps to conduct the meeting on FFV premises - so the meeting and the vote were taken in the foyer. Class act by the FFV there which shows the respect in which they hold the people they represent in.

I believe 11 out of 14 reps voted for the board to be replaced. A clear vote of no confidence. And 14 out of 14 called for the NPLV process to be halted and clubs consulted with.

Not a case of 'nothing' happening, more a case of another large step taken in the process.

With the zone reps now joining various local councils, parks & recreation, now 59 state clubs in standing against the FFV's NPLV model, and the recent news that the president has been issuing statements without the approval of his board - it's hard to see how they can justify pushing on with their plans.

So nothing actually happened?

-PB

surely the FFV by now need to realise that they are in denial - no one wants them or their plans

they should all step down for the good of the game

Edited by chris: 28/9/2013 01:21:33 AM

I suspect the fun and games start now

a) If the FFV Board fight the overwhelming majority of FFV members that voted them out, it will be ammunition for the Judge in deciding against the Board & their constitution, as being 'oppressive'

b) If the FFV Board fight the overwhelming majority of FFV members that voted them out, the clubs will then possibly begin 'wind up' proceedings

100% against nplv version
78% voted to replace ffv board

things looking unanimous against the ffv

they Are gone

Rumours on twitter !! Are saying Zone reps voted against NPLV Football

So, it's quarter past 9PM in Melbourne on the 27th now. Any news?

One mans justice is another mans power trip :lol:

But yes, just what the FFA can do will be interesting to see.

So who are the new board members? Or is this just another bullshit headline...lol

Clubs don't want power Heart fan - the clubs only want justice

I am very curious how the FFA will handle this - I am sure thy will do the right thing

Edited by chris: 26/9/2013 07:02:30 PM

What a mess... Everyone wanting power and it just isn't helping the game at all.

The FFA really need to step in, and come up with a plan and stick to it.

The date is fast approaching.

Damn those off the record conversations!

Ask Paul to do a piece on his blog about the mediation so you can fill the rest of us in =d>

Thank you! Your feedback is important to me.

PS: was first hand information.

Well done mate, I've given you a GOLD STAR for excellence in repeating second hand information =d>

Is this proposed 'General Meeting' to sack the board still going ahead?

I believe (although did not witness it personally) that one of the arguments in the Magistrates Court yesterday was that a component of the clubs proposed Supreme Court claim of "oppressive conduct" (Corporations Act 2001) was that there was no ability for FFV members to call a General Meeting in the Constitution of the FFV.

If this argument was made, then I assume the clubs accept (but understandably don't agree) that they cannot unilaterally call an General Meeting to vote on any motion – let alone one to sack the board?

To summarize our (obviously completely biased opinion):

FFV stakeholders are not happy with the board and want them out.

Analysis by qualified auditors indicates FFV are in financial difficulty.

Number of clubs standing against the FFV is now up to 55.

One of the 15 NPLV bids is in danger of falling over because no one consulted the stakeholders at the club about making a bid.

55 clubs maintain their stance that they all want an NPL with higher coaching standards and regional sides involved at the top level.

FFV seems to be resilient based on their constitutional position

yet all the members whom the constitution was built to protect want them out

so who exactly does the constitution protect?

Supreme Court

History is laced with constitution that are broken down - particularly when a minority use it for their benefit rather than the benefit of the majority of the constituents

No big deal really

FFV seems to be resilient based on their constitutional position

yet all the members whom the constitution was built to protect want them out

so who exactly does the constitution protect?

Supreme Court

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

Please find Update 16 attached


Summary


Clubs meeting to protect the financial integrity of the football landscape

Recent Media Articles

Additional Clubs joining the Co-signatory group

Bulleen FC announces vote to withdraw from NPLV

Our united position on the NPLV



http://ffvmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/ClubsRelease16FFVMedia130913.pdf

http://ffvmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/FFVFINSTATReview0913.pdf

Edited by troy5: 13/9/2013 02:09:23 PM

Only my dignity. :lol:

I have chosen my words carefully. I cannot accuse people of behaving irresponsibly and then proceed to do so myself.

This is rightly a matter for the Magistrate.

Why respond strategically? Why not just make a statement. What have you got to lose by being 'out there'?

While I strategically choose not to respond directly to Arthur’s analysis above or reflect further on the points I have made in my earler posts, I do want to draw attention to this other part of the FFV President's statement:

"Section 220 of the Associations Incorporation Reform Act 2012 (Vic) under which FFV is regulated allows the Magistrates’ Court to transfer the proceeding to the Supreme Court if it considers the proceeding raises a complex LEGAL [MY INCLUSION] question or a matter of general importance. At this point such an order has not been made."

It is important to read this statement, not in it's plain English sense, but with the inclusion I have made in bold. This, in my opinion, is why the matter is unlikely to reach the Supreme Court, and as I have been maintaining for weeks, is simply part of the overall political campaign by the clubs.

This bulletin board is full of people making absurd, personal and clearly emotional claims and predictions which go to the basic professionalism of the FFV, its executives and its management of this NPL-V process. Not all of these criticism are unreasonable, however, to date there is little evidence that the FFV's legal strategy is anything other than a well advised, sensible and perfectly predictable response to a political campaign (whatever its merits) waged against an registered incorporated association. People need to remove their ‘football hats’ for one minute (I know, it’s hard to do) and think like the Directors of a company for a moment. While many here accuse the FFV of running a circus, it is important to acknowledge that no ‘ringmaster’ has a show without someone providing the ‘clowns’.

I hope mediation works, however my instincts tell me it will be back for a resolution in the Magistrates Court.

Make of my opinion what you will. I make it independantly of the fact that I also believe the NPL-V model needs improvement in three specific ways.


Edited by mahony: 12/9/2013 02:01:43 PM

As I read it and understand the FFV Constitution, only the Board of Directors may call a General meeting. Under Section 4.2;

and further;


Reads that an AGM and a GM is called by the BoD not the members.

So if you look at the tail end of the FFV President's statement:

http://www.footballfedvic.com.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Communications/Documents/President_s_NPL_Update_September_12.pdf

You can see why I chose the words above in bold.

Time will tell.

Don't worry about mahoneys version.

Here's mine :lol:

Board will be voted out at the GM.

Board as always will think it is top shit and does not listen to anyone and just ignore the outcome :lol:

It will go to court.

The board will lose :cool:

Edited by priest: 10/9/2013 11:30:39 AM

Just got even more interesting

Bulleen FC are holding Special General Meeting on the 20th Sept
to withdraw from the FFV's NPLV

http://ffvmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/VenetoClubCommittee20Sep2013.pdf

I'm also curious about mahoney's version