South Melbourne’s Victorian Premier League finals hopes have been dashed after Football Federation Victoria overturned a Supreme Court ruling.

Yesterday, South were given some good news when the Supreme Court rebuked FFV’s decision to hand out a six point deduction for a ground invasion from an earlier match with rivals Hedielberg but last night, things changed for the famous club.

FFV officials met to overturn the ruling and put the six point deduction back in action meaning South are now a chance to miss the VPL play-offs.

South Melbourne are currently sitting fifth on the table on 30 points after the points deduction but are in danger of missing the final 5 as there is a catch up match between 7th and 8th placed clubs Dandenong Thunder and Northcote tonight with the winner qualifying for finals.

A draw would see South go through but with both sides needing a win, that result is highly unlikely.

South Melbourne are expected to appeal to the courts over FFV’s decision and there is also uncertainty if the VPL finals will even go ahead.[/

South Melbourne’s Victorian Premier League finals hopes have been dashed after Football Federation Victoria overturned a Supreme Court ruling.

Yesterday, South were given some good news when the Supreme Court rebuked FFV’s decision to hand out a six point deduction for a ground invasion from an earlier match with rivals Hedielberg but last night, things changed for the famous club.

FFV officials met to overturn the ruling and put the six point deduction back in action meaning South are now a chance to miss the VPL play-offs.

South Melbourne are currently sitting fifth on the table on 30 points after the points deduction but are in danger of missing the final 5 as there is a catch up match between 7th and 8th placed clubs Dandenong Thunder and Northcote tonight with the winner qualifying for finals.

A draw would see South go through but with both sides needing a win, that result is highly unlikely.

South Melbourne are expected to appeal to the courts over FFV’s decision and there is also uncertainty if the VPL finals will even go ahead.[/

You know the FFV is one giant farce when the vast majority of people involved in the game in Victoria can't say one positive word about them. They are a total and utter shambles. They are destroying clubs with their pettiness and heavy handness.

Last nights so called tribunal hearing result has the stench of FFV interference and vengence, "how dare these loudmouth Greeks take us to the Supreme Court, we'll fix them up....."

The lawyer that acted on behalf of the FFV at the Supreme Court hearing(and in last years failed Whittlesea court case!!!!!!) was the same person who was on the so called independant FFV tribunal hearing that South got dudded in the first place. How can you be independant when your on the FFV payroll.

Rendell, Nolan, Dunkerly and all you useless, rascist fuckers at the FFV should be ashamed of yourselves. Fuck you.

Ok, before going making such statements of hatred, wheres your definative proof that the FFV is racist and, more specifically, anti-greek? That just plays on a paranoia element that seems to come out on these occassions. The FFV has issues yes, but throwing around wide accusations like that really are just meaningless attemps at throwing mud around.

SMFC fans did wrong and , as the responsible party, the club deserved punishment. The process was incorrectly performed the first time, which is what the court found, but gave the FFV to rehear the case again.

The appeal and subsequent possible issues to the finals is a going to only hard the game again. SMFC will be having no fans if they ruin the finals for teams that have worked hard to get there. Show some respect and move on.

If clubs want to push for change at the FFV, do it in the off-season.

Edited by heart_fan: 18/8/2010 02:25:36 PM

From what my insiders in the legal world and from what my mates heavily involved with various VPL clubs have to say about the FFV and it's board members, its so called independant tribunal members and employees, I was rather tame in my assessment of them. I couldn't give a stuff if you don't believe me or not. The FFV is full of fat middle aged anglo wankers who look down on certain clubs. This I know for a fact 100%.

Whatever we do or say it doesn't matter, to the football community we've become lowlife, ethnic troublemakers so I really could not care less if the VPL finals get disrupted. The FFV have made life a misery not only for South but for nearly all involved in this joke competition. 6-7 sides have lost points for mainly trivial matters, this type of crap doesn't happen anywhere in the world apart from here. Where has a side lost 6 competiton points for a rather mild pitch invasion. No one was hurt, no punches thrown, no one arrested. There are far worse instances of crowd invasions that have been dealt with more appropriately, fines and crowd lock-outs. The people making these insane decisions at the FFV tribunals are simply lawyers and wankers wanting to boost their personal profile. They don't know about or care about the game. Fuck them and the FFV.

Edited by smfc and proud: 18/8/2010 02:48:15 PM

Great man. You have just proven why no one cares anymore about clubs like yours. Blame everyone else and when things go bad, disrupt everyone elses life, just to settle scores.

Learn how to actually behave professionally as a club, going through the proper channels, and get more support for your cause. By ruining the finals the club will just shoot themselves in the foot, as no one will want a bar of you.

Its all about needing positive PR and gaining the support of your peers. Without it, theres no chance of a resolution.

Big fucking deal, no one gives a stuff in any case. What do you expect any club to do when they are dudded and stitched up, sit back and cop it, no q's asked? Maybe you're happy to do that but most football fans aren't.
It's not about settling scores it's about what's fair. Losing 6 points for this incident is farcical as proven by the responses from other rival VPL fans on the victorian soccerforum. The club has every right to look at any avenue to get those hard earned points back. A lot of volunteer time, money and effort goes into running South and other VPL clubs only for ignorant morons at FFV land to completely taint the competition with their stupidity. Once again, fuck them.

Are those same fans who supported you from rival clubs going to be happy when you screw them over, disrupting the finals?
The saying 2 wrongs do not make a right is very relevant here, so I call for some level of common sense and professionalism. Everyone knows things need to be fixed, at the FFV, but such actions, that hurt everyone else, all in the name of saving yourself a few points, are not going to help anyone.

Whilst I'm not overly keen on further legal action - the strange element to come out of this re-hearing was the make-up of the so-called 'inpedendant' tribunal. I'm pretty sure that if you lost your job, then went to an unfair dismissal hearing and saw your employer's solicitor on the panel - you might just feel that your chances weren't so much thin as they were anorexic.

We're not deliberately screwing anyone over here ok. The FFV have screwed 6-7 clubs with points deductions for things such as refusing to pay to attend last years medal night, fans swearing at a linesman, incorrect lodgement of paperwork etc. So the finals have already been disrupted/tainted by the FFV fuckwits pettiness. We're been the only ones with enough balls to at least have made stand. Opposition fans maybe don't like us as a club but highly respect our stance against the FFV.

17.08.10 | tribalfootball.com

Victorian Premier League club South Melbourne have had a huge win in the Supreme Court today when they had their six point deduction overturned.

Football Federation Victoria were rebuked in the Victorian Supreme Court today and had their decision to impose a six point deduction against South Melbourne for ground invasion when South had played their traditional rivals Heidelberg earlier this season.

The Supreme Court ruling has thrown the Victorian Premier League finals into disarray.

It is believed other VPL Clubs that have been deducted points during this season will now contest their point deduction.

Football Federation Victoria have been hugely criticized by the Victorian football community for their lack of performance over the last few years. Many junior Clubs and amateur clubs have been driven to insolvency by massive fines handed out by the FFV.

Victoria has one of the lowest registered participation rates throughout Australia and the FFV have lost touch with grassroots football in this state. There are calls for the FFV Board and Administration to be removed by a number of VPL , State League and Junior Clubs.

Not speaking on behalf of the club - but this incident has had 2 articles in the Herald Sun today already, which means this action has given the FFV more exposure than they can drum up themselves

A disruption is not neccesarily a bad thing

The FFV can suck my left testicle and the FFA can suck my right testicle

Oh and Heart Fan - Cut the crap mate

There was a pre arrangement that if this hearing was heard last night as not to disrupt the finals - there would be a fair result

Another fucken example of the FFV/A false prophesising to us only to fuck us at the last moment

expect movement - my advise to you is to get out of the way

The FFV have hurt the game already - any additional damage can only be view as coincidental



http://www.tribalfootball.com/south-melbourne-fc-beat-supreme-court-1049911



Edited by chris: 18/8/2010 03:56:39 PM

Here is our perception as it stands at the moment


As much as our enforced demotion in 2004 hurts - and being unfairly dropped - I would gladly aknowledge the FFA when they took over the administration of the game in this country if they actually built a better and more sustainable model - an improvemevent - whilst maintaining the integrity of the game and its members

But they haven't - so rather than building the best house in the street - they have decided to burn down everyone elses so that theirs looks better
Is the Game a better model - still being argued

The integrity of it's members has been ridiculed by the soccer authority more today than ever before

Boat people get more privaledge in this country than the established clubs

To have the game's governing body discriminate its own family is WRONG



Edited by chris: 18/8/2010 04:08:13 PM

One more question

In which hearing anywhere in the civilised world under legal or sport does a tribunal introduce a heavier charge and penalty to what was issued originally???

The whole system is corrupt and needs to be summoned

Edited by chris: 18/8/2010 04:16:44 PM

South didn't want Supreme Court action. They offered the FFV a chance to go to some sports arbitration tribunal to sort the matter out. The FFV arrogantly refused to be a party to this. Again fuck the FFV and its cronies.
You're full of shit. You simply have no idea about the matter apart from assuming because it's an old school 'ethnic' club involved here they must be automatically wrong, just out to make trouble and not allowed to stand up for themselves against being treated unfairly.

The court case gave the FFV the right to rehear the case.

Whatever we think aout the tribunal system, it has followed the regulations, this time, in handing down its decision. SMFC's case was built on a flaw in the process, and subsequent issues with the resulting penalty. The court found that the process was flawed, but it did not rule in favour of not giving a penalty at all.

The end result, is back to step 1.

[size=7]Football Federation Victoria News

Independent Appeals Board deducts six points from South Melbourne FC [/size]


During the second half of the Round 6 Alanic Victorian Premier League fixture between South Melbourne FC and Heidelberg United FC at Bob Jane Stadium on Sunday 11 April 2010, approximately 30-40 South Melbourne supporters entered the field of play, some of whom accosted Heidelberg players, and consequently the match was abandoned. At the time of abandonment, the score line was 1-1.

South Melbourne FC was charged with four misconduct offences.

Football Federation Victoria’s Independent Tribunal (Tribunal) found South Melbourne FC guilty of two of the offences. It fined South Melbourne FC a total of $3500 and handed down a life ban to three South Melbourne FC associates. The Tribunal awarded the fixture to Heidelberg United FC, 3-0.

South Melbourne FC appealed the Tribunal’s determination and the FFV’s Independent Appeals Board (Appeals Board) met on Monday 17 May 2010 to hear South Melbourne FC’s appeal. After considering the evidence and the submissions, the Appeals Board found South Melbourne FC guilty of a different charge to the one originally imposed. The Appeals Board deducted six championship points from South Melbourne FC and determined that the Round 6 match stand as a 1-1 draw.

In presenting its decision the Appeals Board stated: “We regard the circumstances relating to this charge as very serious. It is unacceptable that games are abandoned in these circumstances. Pitch invasions seriously damage the reputation of football in Victoria. Players are entitled to play the game in safety without physical and verbal abuse from spectators.”

South Melbourne FC took the matter to the Supreme Court of Victoria (Supreme Court) and its determination was delivered on Tuesday 17 August 2010.

In relation to the events leading to the charge, the Honourable Justice Pagone of the Supreme Court stated: “About thirty to forty supporters of the Club thereupon invaded the pitch in what may charitably be described, as an act of exuberance by the Club’s supporters but which was dangerous and unacceptable conduct.”

South Melbourne FC argued before the court that the Appeals Board did not have power to substitute a charge of Misconduct Fixed Penalty (MFP) 9 for the initial charge of MFP10. The Supreme Court rejected that argument and said the Appeals Board did in fact have the power and did not misconstrue or misapply the Grievance Discipline and Tribunal by-law (GDT) in finding South Melbourne FC guilty of MFP9 rather than MFP10. Accordingly the Supreme Court did not disturb the Appeals Board’s ruling that South Melbourne FC was guilty of an MFP9 offence.

South Melbourne FC also argued that the GDT required a two part procedure, with a decision on guilt or innocence first, and argument on penalty second. Again, the Supreme Court rejected South Melbourne FC’s argument and said: “I do not regard clause 12 [of the GDT] as imposing on the Appeals Board a fixed requirement to hear submission or evidence on penalties and sanctions separately from the evidence and submissions about the charges....The Appeals Board was entitled to require that there be submissions on behalf of the Club concerning penalties or sanctions at the same time as its consideration of the appeal on the charges.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court found the Appeals Board did not deny South Melbourne FC natural justice by requiring submissions on penalty at the same time as considering the issue of guilt.

The Supreme Court made no finding whatsoever on the correctness or otherwise of the penalty handed down by the Appeals Board. His Honour specifically noted that: "that is not to say that the penalty imposed by the Appeals Board was not correct. Nor is it to say that it [the Appeals Board] committed any error in finding that the Club had committed an MFP9 offence".

South Melbourne FC also argued that it was not given an adequate opportunity to make submissions on the appropriate penalty arising out of an MFP9 charge. This was the only aspect of South Melbourne FC’s claim that the Supreme Court believed was well founded. The Hon Justice Pagone expressed the view that South Melbourne FC was unable to frame appropriate submissions about the penalty that should apply on the MFP9 offence, because "the Club was not told with sufficient particularity what the charges were until after the decision had been made".

Therefore, although the Supreme Court found that the Appeals Board had given South Melbourne FC several opportunities to make submissions regarding penalty, it could not adequately take up those opportunities, as it was unable to “focus its submissions in any meaningful way” until it knew with some particularity what the charge against it was. The Supreme Court suggested this could have been rectified by the Appeals Board better explaining to South Melbourne FC, at the hearing, the particular conduct which it considered constituted the MFP9 charge, so that South Melbourne FC could make submissions about those facts and any related matters on the question of the penalty that should apply.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court ordered the penalty of six points deduction be set aside and the Appeals Board be reconvened for the limited purpose of allowing South Melbourne FC an opportunity to make submissions on the issue of penalty, with the Appeals Board to determine again after hearing those submissions what penalty or sanction should be imposed on South Melbourne FC.

There was no criticism by the Supreme Court of Football Federation Victoria's GDT, or the various processes embodied in it.

The Appeals Board reconvened on the evening of Tuesday 17 August 2010 and after five and a half hours of evidence and submissions, determined the appropriate penalty was a deduction of six championship points against South Melbourne FC.

Football Federation Victoria is disappointed the matter has been taken this far.

Football Federation Victoria has subsequently made it clear to all Tribunal and Appeals Board members that they must advise a party of the particulars of the conduct forming the basis of any given offence before offering the opportunity for submissions on the issue of penalty, prior to determination of any penalty. There is flexibility in how the Appeals Board can accomplish this and the Supreme Court was very clear in saying that such flexibility was appropriate.

Football Federation Victoria has full confidence in its Rules of Competition and GDT, and fully supports the independent Appeals Board decisions.

Football Federation Victoria takes a zero-tolerance approach to inappropriate behaviour at all Football Federation Victoria fixtures, as the safety of the players, officials and supporters is paramount.

Last updated: Wednesday August 18, 2010 4:06PM

[size=7]South Wins Supreme Court Case, FFV Appeals Board Reinstates 6 point Deduction[/size]
Friday, 20 August 2010 5:53 PM


On Tuesday 17 August 2010, Justice Pagone of the Supreme Court of Victoria ruled that South Melbourne Football Club was denied procedural fairness and not afforded natural justice by the FFV Appeals Board during its Hearing on 5 May 2010 of an appeal by the Club against some of the decisions made by the FFV Tribunal on 21 April 2010.

The Supreme Court ordered the FFV to reconstitute the Appeals Board for the purposes of hearing and determining what penalty or sanction should be imposed upon the Club in relation to the incident which occurred at Bob Jane Stadium on 11 April in the 91st minute of the match between the Club and Heidelberg United Football Club. Broadly speaking, the incident involved approximately 20 to 40 of the Club's supporters running onto the ground in the 91st minute, immediately after South Melbourne scored its equalising goal, which ultimately resulted in the match being abandoned by the referee.

The Appeals Board was quickly reconstituted, compromised of the same members as on 5th May 2010, on the same day the decision was delivered by the Supreme Court and the Club called such evidence and made such submissions as it could given the short period of time it had to prepare. The Club is extremely disappointed in the decision of the Appeals Board to deduct six championship points as penalty for the incident.

South Melbourne Football Club maintains, as it submitted to the Appeals Board, that the penalty is inappropriate and excessive. The Club also has serious concerns about the way in which the FFV Tribunal and Appeals Board conducted the three hearings. The Club will be taking up these concerns with the FFV directly and will say more on this topic in due course.

It does not appear that the FFV has fully grasped the problems with the operations of its disciplinary system including the Rules of Competition, the GDT By-Law, the FFV Tribunal and the Appeals Board. This is evident from the disappointing article which appeared on the FFV website under the heading "Independent Appeals Board Deducts Six Points from South Melbourne FC". The Club wishes to make the following comments in response to that article:

•The FFV refers to the Appeals Board as the "Independent Appeals Board". It is called the Appeals Board and we do not see what the FFV is trying to achieve by seeking to style this body as the Independent Appeals Board.
•The Club is unaware if the FFV is seeking to use the word 'Independent' to allay any concerns which may be held by the FFV due to the fact that the Chairman of the Appeals Board (in the present case) has also previously represented the FFV such as in the 2009 Supreme Court case between the Whittlesea Juventus Intl. Football Club Inc vs Football Federation Victoria Inc.
•The Club felt that the conduct of the Appeals Board Hearing on 5 May 2010 (not 17 May 2010 as referred to in the FFV article) was unfair to the Club. As a result, before taking Court action, the Club engaged in extensive discussions with both the FFV and FFA to try and have its matters resolved internally, within the football environment. Unfortunately, its efforts fell on deaf ears. As late as 30 July 2010, the Club wrote to the FFV offering to resolve its grievance by the FFV reconstituting the Appeals Board and the matter proceeding on the basis that the Club was guilty of an MFP9 offence and the Club being afforded the opportunity to properly address the Appeals Board on penalty in relation to that offence. The FFV declined the Club's offer.
•The Club then reluctantly commenced Court action having exhausted its options. It was entirely successful in its bid to have the Appeals Board decision made on 18 May 2010 set aside. The outcome of the Supreme Court Case was exactly as offered by the Club in its proposal to the FFV on 30 July 2010.
•The Club is therefore surprised to read that FFV is disappointed the matter was taken so far. It was within FFV’s power to agree to the Club's reasonable proposal to have the matter resolved without going to Court. It chose not to accept the Club's proposal and the Court's orders were consistent with the Club's proposal.
•In its article, the FFV claims that the Supreme Court did not criticize the FFV's GDT By-Law or the various processes embodied in it. That wasn't the main subject of the case. The Club argued, successfully, that it was denied procedural fairness and natural justice by the FFV Appeals Board. In its reasons for decision, the Court said, in part, that:
"This, in my view, is a breach of procedural fairness in failing to provide the Club with an opportunity to make submissions on penalty or sanction. Natural justice requires that a person know the substance of the case to be met".
The Court went on to say that:

"What was denied to the Club, and what the Appeals Board denied to itself, was submissions about what penalties or sanctions were appropriate upon findings on those terms".

In essence, the Court found that the Club was not informed of which facts constituted the charge of which it was found guilty at a time at which it could meaningfully make submissions about penalty and sanction in relation to those facts.

•The Club was a victim of this failure by the FFV Appeals Board to afford it procedural fairness and natural justice. As a result, the Club has suffered in a number of ways. The Club does not propose to detail all the effects upon it now, but points out that it has been required to spend considerable time and resources in rectifying this failure by the FFV Appeals Board and has had to do so during the course of the season whilst its players and coaching staff have laboured under the resulting uncertainty. It has had to apply its limited financial and voluntary manpower resources to redress this wrong.
•The FFV seeks to make much of the fact that the Court did not interfere with the Appeals Board decision and its findings in favour of the Club were limited to the questions of procedural fairness and natural justice. The Club contends that the major points to come out of the Court's decision was that the Court has jurisdiction to hear such matters in circumstances in which the FFV has failed to comply with its contractual obligation to the Clubs (such as in this case) and secondly, that the Club was not afforded procedural fairness and natural justice. The Club did not seek to agitate all the rights and wrongs of the Appeals Board decision before the Court.
•The Supreme Court of Victoria ordered the FFV to pay the Club’s legal costs.
•The Club is also deeply troubled by a number of other factors arising out of this whole process which include:
1.That the FFV Tribunal, chaired by an eminent senior barrister and comprising two other lawyers found that the appropriate penalty for this offence was $2,500 whilst, on essentially the same facts, the Appeals Board, which was similarly constituted and qualified, founded that it was appropriate to deduct the Club six championship points, a "substantially increased… penalty" as characterised by the Supreme Court. The Club could have had no basis for expecting such an increase in the penalty in these circumstances and was taken entirely by surprise. In the Club's view, that is entirely unfair.
2.The FFV did not appear to prosecute the case at the FFV Tribunal and it did not appeal the $2,500 fine imposed by the FFV Tribunal on the basis that it was too lenient. The FFV gave no notice that it would appear at the Hearing by the FFV Appeals Board of the Club's appeal on 5 May 2010, until it actually appeared and then could not articulate with sufficient clarity (by its own admission) the meaning of MFP10, the offence with which the Club had been charge and which was then under appeal.
3.The FFV did not arrange for any witnesses to be present at the FFV Appeals Board Hearing on 5 May 2010, yet the FFV Appeals Board indicated that it would receive evidence by telephone, if required by the Club, from Heidelberg players who were at training. The FFV and the FFV Appeals Board insisted this was a very serious matter and yet were prepared to take evidence by telephone from players who were at training and presumably did not have with them the relevant statements and statutory declarations which they had filed with the FFV.
4.The Club was motivated to appeal the FFV Tribunal decision because two of its supporters had been given life bans (an excessive penalty which was accepted as such by the FFV Appeals Board) in their absence because they were not notified by the FFV that they were required to attend the FFV Tribunal, they had not been personally charged and were unaware they were facing the possibility of a penalty.
5.Neither the FFV nor the FFV Appeals Board were aware, on the Hearing of this matter on 5 May 2010, that those supporters who had been given life bans by the FFV Tribunal had not been notified by the FFV that they could be penalised by the FFV Tribunal and that they could attend the Hearing, of which they had not been notified.
6.Those supporters who were given life bans were not directly charged and were sanctioned pursuant to a charge (MFP10) brought against the Club.
7.At their request, the Club lodged the appeal in relation to charge four (MFP10 offence), in respect of which the Club had been found guilty, had been fined $2,500 and the life bans were imposed.
8.Because it lodged the appeal, the Club decided to also argue that it was not guilty of the MFP10 offence and that the substitution of a 3-0 result in favour of Heidelberg in place of the 1-1 score line at the conclusion of the match, was inappropriate. The Club did not seek to take issue with the fine of $2,500 imposed as a penalty for the incident which was the subject of the MFP10 offence.
9.The FFV Appeals Board reinstated the result, reduced the life bans substantially and agreed with the Club that it was not guilty of the MFP10 offence. It then found a different offence was applicable for the incident in question and went on to impose a drastically more severe penalty of six championship points in place of the fine.
10.In finding the Club guilty of the offence of 'Other Misconduct', the Appeals Board relied principally on the rule that Clubs are responsible for the behaviour of their spectators. Our Club takes the behaviour of its spectators seriously and in its efforts to comply with the zero tolerance and other crowd behaviour approaches recently adopted by the FFV, it is important that the Club builds and maintains strong relationships with its members and supporters so that it has their trust and support. In that context, it would have been remiss of the Club not to lodge an appeal on behalf of its two supporters who received life bans and who wish to appeal those life bans. By doing this and taking the opportunity at the same time, to rectify the fact that the Club had been charged under the wrong MFP offence, the Club was effectively punished because for the same conduct, it was deducted six championship points in place of a $2,500 fine. So, not only does the Club contend that the deduction of six points is a manifestly excessive penalty for the conduct in question, but just as importantly, that it was placed in a position where it exposed itself to the Appeals Board and its views because of the manner in which the FFV prosecuted the Club and its supporters.
11.The Club considered the whole process resulting in the deduction of 6 points to have been wholly unfair.
12.The Club maintains that the deduction of 6 points by the Appeals Board again in the early hours of 18 August is a manifestly excessive penalty.
•The Club is extremely concerned that the only action which the FFV has taken following this saga is to make it clear to its Tribunal and Appeals Board members that they must advise a party of the particulars of the conduct forming the basis of any given offence before offering it the opportunity to make submissions on the issue of penalty, prior to the determination of any penalty. In the Club's view, that is the minimum the FFV should do, following the findings of the Supreme Court and it should not have needed the Supreme Court to point out this obvious matter.
•Finally, the Club notes the final sentence in the FFV article and says only that it agrees that there should not be any tolerance to inappropriate behaviour at FFV fixtures. The Club has been doing all it can to support that approach and has a very good record during its 50 years of competing at the top level of football. The issue, of course, in this case was not whether or not there should be zero tolerance to inappropriate behaviour but what ought be the penalty and the appropriate process in arriving at the penalty.
The Appeals Board indicated in the early hours of Wednesday 18 August 2010, when it determined this matter, that it would provide brief, verbal reasons for its decision and then publish the reasons the following day. The Club has not been provided with the Appeal Board's written reasons for decision and to the best of its knowledge, they have not yet been published. It reserves all its rights pending the publication of those reasons and its consideration of them.

Despite its disappointment at the process and the outcome, the Club proposes to seek to work with Government, the FFV and with other Clubs to improve the Rules of Competition, the GDT By-Law and the processes adopted by the FFV Tribunal and the FFV Appeals Board.