Parks and Leisure Australia (Vic/Tas Region) Submission to Football Federation Victoria damning report on the NPL & FFV process 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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.
Posted on: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 06:21:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015