Football competition review road show 2018 - FFV
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
football competition review road show 2018
it’s about
leadership
Lead by
example
honesty
respect
integrity
character
page
2
collaboration
and support
page
3
shape
the game
page
4
development
page
5
why?
risk of inaction is
far greater than
it’s time to work risk of action
together
progress is more
important than
perfection
page
6
overview
review results
FFV appointed Sports Business Partners to There were 29 recommendations
review the Men's and Boy’s Football made in the independent report
Competition
why? next
To explore if we have the Optimal NPL The board has noted the recommendations
and Community football structures to and has requested further stakeholder
develop the game, players and clubs engagement before implementation
when?
The review commenced in August 2017 and
was presented to the board on May 31
2018
page
7
project
steering committee
the project steering committee was charged with the responsibility of identifying
the optimum Men and Boy’s football competition structure in Victoria:
the project steering committee members:
Gary Cole Eric Abrams Kon Giannakarios Loui Simopoulos
Chairperson / FFV FFA Chair Junior Standing Committee School Sport Victoria
Sezar Jakupi Joe Luppino Ezel Hikmet Dean Hennessey
FFV Board / Chair – FFV Football LGA Representative Men’s Football Representative / FFV AAFC
Nicholas Tsiaras Dr Ron Smith Harry Zaitman Ian Greener
FFV Board Independent Coaching Expert Men’s Football Representative AFCAT
Emma Highwood Will Hastie Ivan Galjar John Didulica
FFA FFV Project Manager Chair Referee’s Standing Committee PFA
Pedro Afonso John Nekic Simon Colosimo
Regional Football Representative Junior Football Representative PFA
Adam Woods Steve Black page
Regional Football Representative Junior Football Representative
8
guiding
principles
the following principles were provided to guide the Steering Committee on
decision making, information analysis and competitive design recommendations
The overall ‘Good of the Game’ Design a competition structure Be creative in the development of,
is the core focus of the review that assists our clubs in creating and access to football facilities for
Victoria’s football culture our participants
The need for clubs to be Making the playing of football in Liaise with State and Local
economically viable Victoria affordable for all participants Government for the provision of
football facilities
Support our stakeholders to To be successful on measures Consider the child welfare
create a Victorian football of participation and elite player implications of any outcomes
culture that drives the sports development, Victoria must (with recommendations to
success develop world class pool of engage organization's such as
coaches UNESCO)
page
9
key process
facts
the process was the single largest piece of analysis conducted by the FFV that included:
An on line survey with 3,670 responses across 2 x regional forums in Wangaratta and Ballarat
all segments (players, Parents, Coaches,
Referees, Administrators, Volunteers etc..)
3 x key stakeholders forums with representatives
from Local Government, Community Clubs and
18,000 free field comments Coaches
Detailed review of 53 key documents and
correspondence shared with SBP and FFV
28 in-depth interviews completed with the FFV
Staff, Club Administrators, Players, Parents,
Coaches, Referees
2 x Optimal Junior Model workshops completed
page
10methodology and timeframe
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
situation analysis stakeholder options and stakeholder options and
project scoping and benchmarking consultation solutions consultation solutions final report
(phase 1) workshops (phase 2) workshops
Formal workshop and Review all existing Undertake Qualitative A series of formal Forums and focus A formal workshop Detailed report with
initiation meetings documentation in Research (depth workshops with the groups with regional with the Project recommendations
with the Project relation to: interviews) and Project Manager and clubs and other key Manager and Project for competition
Manager Steering - Current quantitative online Project Steering stakeholder groups, Steering Committee structures, pathways
Committee and other competitions survey with key Committee to present including: to present the final and models based
key staff - Participations and stakeholders, including: findings implications - State League draft report, and on insights from
Elite Player - FFV key Staff and potential options. Clubs discuss findings, consultations,
Review, finalise and pathway - Club administrators - LGA implications and research and
agree on the overall - Club development - Players Workshops to focus representatives recommendations workshops
objectives, scope, and facilities - Coaches on problem solving - Coaches
timelines and - Cost of - Referees and discussing - Parents
deliverables of the participation - Volunteers, and practical implications - North East
project - Parents of potential changes regional clubs
Extensive analysis - North West
and benchmarking of regional clubs
key data and metrics
August 2017 – August 2017 – August 2017 – October 2017 –
August 2017 March 2018 March 2018
December 2017 February 2018 January 2018 February 2018
page
11need to
address
fees participation
Cost to play Address elite participation at
junior level – currently 1 in 13
players are in the NPL
competition
competitions high turnover
More competitive games at elite Address high number of players
junior level exiting the game
Best vs Best
Like vs Like
page
12what does the report deliver for victorian football
opportunities
overarching issue (#1) : culture, values and behaviour
purpose and structure clubs and players facilities and coaches
Clarifying the Purpose of Player retention and Growing demand for
2 each Stage of the 5 welfare 8 facilities
Pathway
The structure of the Reducing the cost to Coaches training,
3 Senior Football Pathway 6 players 9 accreditation and
development
Senior and Junior Challenges faced by NPL
4 Alignment 7 Clubs
page
14summary of
proposed changes
process & structure clubs & players facilities & coaches
✓ Re-set license criteria ✓ Clearly define club trial process ✓ Build stronger relationships with
local councils
✓ Re-define pathway ✓ Simplify PPS and Visa process
✓ Develop & publish facilities plan
✓ Restructure senior competition ✓ No restriction on junior team
numbers ✓ Use of new technologies for coach
✓ Introduce Optimal Junior Model education
✓ Review costs and investment in
✓ Decouple seniors & juniors junior development ✓ Flexible coaching criteria
page
15clubs can become
clubs again
for current NPL for current community
clubs clubs
Seniors and juniors are de Access to the pathway via license
coupled for the purpose of application and criteria adherence
promotion and relegation
No restriction on the number of Maintain community participation with
teams per age group. Only 1 current teams
team per age group can
participate in top tier
competition
for current HAL clubs
Clearer criteria independently
governed to increase overall
standards 1 Team in every age group of elite
competition
page
16new tiered senior
competition
senior competition
Introduce a tiered vertical Maintain promotion & Clubs being promoted in to top
competition structure at NPL relegation tier competition need to meet
level criteria and Visa player
guidelines
NPL brand to remain for top tier Number of teams in each
competition division to be confirmed Develop a clear independent
dispute resolution process
Review name of competition
for subsequent tiers Review & simplify the criteria
page
17proposed new tiered senior competition
NPL Best vs Best
VPL1
Competitive environment
Victorian VPL2 reduced criteria
Football
Pathway State League 1 State League 1
North-West South-East
State League 2 State League 2
North-West South-East
Majority of the football
State League 3 State League 3 pathway
North-West South-East
SL4 SL4 SL4 SL4
North West South East
page
18reduce cost of
participation
support affordability
Clubs will have no restrictions Clubs become more
on the number of teams transparent around costs
✓ List costs to play on website
Cost will be spread across
more players ✓ List break up of cost
✓ Develop a plan to re-invest into
junior programs
Revised criteria simplifying
delivery of program ✓ Review costs and investment to
improve perceptions
A commitment by all to reduce
player fees for all junior club Review cost to play for regional
members clubs
page
19visa player &
PPS system
NPL
clearer process
VPL1
NPL to remain at 2 Visa 2 Visa players
players per team
VPL2
For a State League team to be 3+1 AFC rule for
eligible for promotion they must
State League 1 State League 1
comply with Asian Football North-West South-East foreign players
Confederation’s 3+1 rule for
foreign players State League 2 State League 2
North-West South-East
Conduct a review on the player State League 3 State League 3 No restriction
points system to simplify and North-West South-East
improve the process
SL4 SL4 SL4 SL4
North West South East
page
20facilities
Prioritise building relationships Determine optimal time of year
with local councils by all for all football competitions in
stakeholders – NPL & Victoria
Community clubs with FFV
Improved proposal for clubs to
Develop and publish a football take to Local Governments –
facilities plan with minimum “One Club”
facility standards for clubs
page
21regional support
Allow composite teams Review cost to play
Modify license criteria Support talent identification
programs in regional areas
Modify PPS criteria Provide viable competition for
juniors 9-11
Utilise technology for coaching Support with ambassador
support program
page
22optimal junior model
optimal junior
model
junior competition
Workshop and develop the Has annual review process
optimal junior model with key
stakeholders
Develop a model that ensures Helps identify top talent
the “Best play vs the Best” and
“Like vs Like”
Open pathway for all clubs Links seamlessly with Talent
providing they adhere to the Identification Program
criteria
page
24optimal model workshop
FFV in conjunction with SBP conducted an Optimal Model Workshop as part of
the wider review into the Men and Boy’s competition
28 attendees Attendees worked in small Each model was initially presented as
groups of four an overview and then workshopped
further within each group. Each group
then presented each model back to
the group.
4 models workshopped and Design a competition structure
presented that assists our clubs in creating
Victoria’s football culture
Football Community Pedro Alfonso, Simon Colosimo, Sean Douglas, Ivan Gajar, Kon Giannakarios, Dean Hennessey, Damir Julas, Joe Luppino,
Riccardo Marchioli, Frank McGrellis, John Nekric, Dr Ron Smith, Harry Zaitman
FFV/FFA Sezar Jakupi, Nicholas Tsiaras, Will Hastie, Gary Cole, Ezel Hikmet, Emilio Amanatidis, Boris Seroshtan, Hakan Dogan, Tessa Sernio,
David Zucchet, Mal Impiombato, Eric Abrams
SBP Ban Manning, Tim Murdoch, Martin Hirons
page
25model considerations
Reduces the cost to play Improves access to facilities Has ability to include some
Gala days
Clearly defines pathway Helps players love the game Promotion & relegation
Address’s Like vs Like HAL clubs Has clear start up rules without
bias
Reduces number of “Nomadic” Increases access to the Is sustainable over time
players pathway
Supports regional clubs Address’s Best vs Best FFA compliant to min
recommendations
Increases competitive # of Is good for clubs
games
page
264 optimal models considered
scenario 1: 3 tiered competition U13’s to U16’s
east west
2019 2019
35 NPL teams 4 Community teams (all teams would need to 1 1 tiered competition 2020 U13’s U13’s
& HAL clubs who finish top of their meet and agree to the season U14’s–U16’s east west
2 2
conference (New) new eligibility criteria)
3 3
4 4 League 1 x12 League 1 League 1
PROS: RULES: 5 5 League 2 x12 League 2 League 2
- Reduced cost to play - Age groups U13’s to U16’s
- No promotion/relegation for U13’s - Develop new 3 tiered competition at U14’s – 6 6
- Promotion/relegation from 14’s – 16’s U16’s level 7 7 League 3 x 15
- Reduce “Nomadic” players - Teams in Tier 1 will be determined by ladder
- More competitive games positions at the end of the 2019 year as follows 8 8
- Like ability kids versus like ability kids - Top 6 in each of East and West leagues play in 9 9
across 3 tiers Tier 1 competition in 2020.
- Next 6 play in 2nd Tier and the clubs remaining 10 10
CONS: along with the 4 top community clubs for each 11 11
- Diluted gala days conference enter the third Tier automatically
- Increased pressure on TD’s on match - Promotion/relegation applied for U14’s – U16’s 12 12
days from 2021
13 13
- U13’s remains unchanged with exception of
each NPL club introducing a 2nd team at this 14 14 1 north 1 east
age group winner winner
- 2nd team will play in 2nd U13 competition
15 15
16 16
1 west 1 south
17 17
winner winner
page
18
274 optimal models considered
scenario 2:
pre season qualifier: tiered competition
5 leagues of 10 teams post kick off
35 NPL teams 2 Regional Teams – 13 Community Teams
(Existing) Mildura & Gippsland by application (New)
1 1 1 1 1
(New) League 1 x10
2 2 2 2 2
(all teams would need to meet and agree to the new eligibility criteria) 3 3 3 3 3
League 2 x 10
4 4 4 4 4
PROS: RULES:
- Reduced cost to play - Age groups U13’s to U16’s 5 5 5 5 5
- Additional regional representation - Kick off season with 5 leagues of 10 teams.
6 6 6 6 6 League 3 x 10
- No promotion/relegation Make up of leagues TBC
- Best vs Best after qualifying rounds - Each team play each other once – 9 games in 7 7 7 7 7
- Reduce “Nomadic” players total
- More competitive games - The top 2 teams in each league qualify for top 8 8 8 8 8 League 4 x 10
- Like ability kids versus like ability kids tier competition. Name of competition TBC
across 5 division post qualifying games - Each 2 positions after qualify for subsequent
9 9 9 9 9
leagues compromising of 5 tiered leagues with 10 10 10 10 10 League 5 x 10
CONS: 10 teams in each league
- No gala days - Each team will play each other twice (Home &
- Increased pressure on TD’s on match Away – exceptions for regional teams TBD)
days
- Qualifiers only have 1 game with each
team (no home and away)
page
284 optimal models considered
scenario 3:
tiered competition
35 NPL teams 2 Regional Teams – 19 Community Teams Top 14 NPL clubs based on
No. 1 pathway
(Existing) Mildura & Gippsland by application (New) NPL League 1 x 14 aggregate of previous 3 years
competition
(New) cumulative result
(all teams would need to meet and agree to the new eligibility criteria)
2rd tier pathway Next 14 NPL clubs based on
PROS: RULES: VPL 1 competition League 2 x 14 aggregate of previous 3 years
- Best vs Best - Age groups U13’s to U16’s cumulative result
- Gala days to remain - Kick off season with 4 leagues of 14 teams,
- Closed competition, no relegation and assuming demand criteria is met
promotion for 3 years - Take an aggregate of the past 3 years to
- Opportunity for best players to gravitate to determine which current NPL clubs fall into
the top teams which leagues as referenced (see right) 3rd tier pathway Next 7 NPL clubs based on
- More clubs access to pathway - The top tier will be branded as the No 1 VPL 2 competition League 3 x 14 aggregate of previous 3 years
- Unlimited teams for junior clubs as long as competition in the state. Consideration to be cumulative result
criteria can be met (aimed to support given to HAL clubs and clubs new to NPL
reduction of cost) - Community clubs will be eligible to enter lower
tiers via application
CONS: - Only clubs with a track record of existing junior
- Lower tiered clubs may lose best talent programs of each age group will be eligible 4th tier pathway Remaining admitted clubs based
- Closed competition may result in non - New regional clubs will fit into the league based VPL 3 competition
League 4 x 14 on meeting criteria
competitive games on geographical considerations
page
294 optimal models considered
scenario 4: tiered to U18 competition
page
30workshop
participant voting tally of preferences
scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4
At the conclusion of the
workshop, all participants first preference 5 9 5 5
were provided with a ballot
sheet and asked to rank 13 3 6 2
second preference
each of the scenarios, from
1 to 4, based on which 9 3
third preference 4 8
scenario provided the
optimum model for junior
2 4 4 14
football in Victoria. fourth preference
Based on the votes above, scenario 1 & 2 have progressed for further
consideration and review
page
31next steps
31 may 2018 12 july 2018 july/august september
1 2 3 4
Board meeting noted Optimal Junior Workshop #2 Additional stakeholder Board approval
independent recommendations engagement
Additional workshops
Post board approval, communication of recommendations to Football Community
Note: Timelines are proposed and may alter
page
32questions
page
33smart chart -
annual sales, k-
usd
+23% -7% +13% +8%
market review
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,
consectetuer adipiscing elit.
maecenas porttitor congue massa.
4.3 fusce posuere
3.5 3.5
3.1
2.7 2.7
2.5 2.5 sales review
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,
consectetuer adipiscing elit.
maecenas porttitor congue massa.
fusce posuere, magna
sed pulvinar ultricies
CATEGORY 01 CATEGORY 02 CATEGORY 03 CATEGORY 04
sales, $bn budget, $bn
page
034You can also read
