Summary of March 2018 AAFC roadshow Melbourne edition

Introductory remarks
Derisory as I am of the idea of promotion and relegation in Australia, attending the Association of Australian Football Clubs roadshow event in Melbourne last Thursday seemed like a no-brainer. This meeting was meant to be held in Sports House in Albert Park, but a text message received while I was on the train up there said that a burst water pipe had necessitated the relocation of the event to the South Melbourne FC social club.

Of course. What else could they have done at such short notice?

Nursing my gin and tonic I had not intended to tweet much about the event, but rather take some brief notes on my phone (I'd not bothered to bring pen and paper as I do for say, South Melbourne AGMs), but after getting a polite request and checking that I had enough battery left on my phone, I decided to give it a go. I did note that Shouty Mike was also in the room, and though long since blocked by him on Twitter, I guessed he would tweet at least some of what was happening on the night, so there's always that if anyone wants an alternative view of proceedings.

There were also summary notes taken by freelancer/interested onlooker Matthew Galea, if one cares to go back far enough in his time-line, and there has been a positive overview of the night by journalist Jonathan Howcroft on Football Nation Radio. Also on Football Nation Radio is an interview with Tom Kalas.

Through my limited internet trawling, there appears to have been very little comment made about any of the roadshow meetings outside the Melbourne event. I'm not sure why that is the case - was the roadshow not publicised well enough, or is there just inherently more interest in these matters in Melbourne? One thing which came across during the Melbourne meeting is that there were at least slightly different messages given to different AAFC constituencies. This makes sense because, as I'll reiterate later, each state's experience of the National Premier Leagues, let alone Australian soccer, is quite different from each other.

The crowd built up to about 40-50 people, mostly in casual (non-club) gear, with a few exceptions. I recognised (and learned over the course of the night) that there were representatives present from South Melbourne (Andrew Mesourouni and Leo Athanasakis), Northcote, Heidelberg, Goulburn Valley Suns, Bendigo City(!), and North Geelong, but not much more beyond that. There were some non-club representatives - that is ordinary fans, and one bloke from local Greek media who I see around a lot but don't know the name of nor who he works for - but otherwise the audience seemed to be mostly committee members of various NPL teams.

It is interesting that more ordinary fans didn't show up. That being said, AAFC only has a couple hundred more followers on Twitter than I do (I have no idea about their reach on Facebook), so maybe this was actually about as good a turnout as one could expect. Indeed, we were told on at least a couple of occasions that the Melbourne meeting had the biggest attendance of any of the AAFC roadshow sessions up until that point, with only Newcastle yet to come. Why was that the case? I suppose it helps that Victoria has one of the larger NPL setups in terms of numbers of clubs, at over 30, and more NPL teams means more people likely to turn up.

(As an aside, when AAFC representatives were asked who were the Victorian NPL teams not under the AAFC umbrella, it was noted that Whittlesea Ranges and Sunshine George Cross were among them. Ranges I could understand, I guess, from their Victory/sponsor connections - though Moreland Zebras/Victory man Joe Mirabella was in attendance on the night - but the Georgies one has me a bit stumped to be honest.)

There's also a continuity in recent times in terms of Victorian clubs getting together to fight the establishment, namely, the (mostly) united front by leading and aspirational clubs against Football Federation Victoria's original NPL framework. Indeed, two of the key figures in that campaign - Tom Kalas and Nick Galatas - are now key members of AAFC. There's probably other factors for the larger turnout too, like the more obvious seething antipathy in Victoria for Football Federation Australia compared to other states, which would extend to the general distrust of New South Wales' dominance of Australian soccer. Neither do Victorian clubs, even the powerful ones, have anything like the facilities (on field or off) of the wealthier New South Wales clubs. Add in existing under the Aussie rules hegemony, and I guess everyone feels a bit more vulnerable than they'd like to admit.

(As another aside, FFV president - and according to one source, also currently acting FFV CEO - Kimon Taliadoros was absent, due to a competing engagement. FFV had some representation at the meeting in the form of Gary Cole, recently hired by FFV as "Manager, Football Strategy and Special Projects". While an FFA representative attended AAFC's Queensland roadshow meeting, it was speculated out loud that FFA were not likely to attend a Victorian meeting due to the hostility they were likely to receive from members of the audience.)

Representing AAFC on the night on the front table/panel of sorts were Dean Hennessey, current Pascoe Vale technical director, ex-coach and TD of a few places; Tom Kalas, ex-South Melbourne board member, interim AAFC chairman during parts of 2017 and frequent spokesman for the group; Nick Galatas, South Melbourne chairman until very recently; and AAFC chairman Rabieh Krayem, one time Northern Fury chairman. Oddly, of those four only Krayem offered any significant contribution to the night's proceedings, with Krayem at times sharing the stage or delegating proceedings to AAFC treasurer Christo Patsan of Northern New South Wales.

From then to now
The evening began with an address by Rabieh Krayem, giving an overview of AAFC's progress and success up until now. He outlined the reasons for the establishment of AAFC, a summary of AAFC's rise to (relative) prominence, and noted the ongoing unity of AAFC member clubs. This theme of unity was returned to throughout the night, out of a certain degree of truth no doubt, but also in its own way acting as a polite reminder to AAFC member clubs that anything which would undermine that unity would be detrimental to their collective aims.

But as with so much of what AAFC is about, it's about adding a positive spin to everything that they do; thus extolling AAFC's ability to unite so many disparate soccer clubs, and celebrating an unprecedented collective effort in "putting football ahead of self-interest". This was reiterated by comments such as the unity of the AAFC clubs apparently confusing FFA. Added to the repetition of the need for continued unity were the virtues of focus and patience; not everything would happen at once, and the keenness for reform from NPL clubs needed to be properly directed.

Krayem went on to list the three broadest issues which the NPL clubs suffer under and which AAFC hopes to fix:

1. Unsustainable NPL model. 
2. The high costs of junior soccer. 
3. The limitations on growth for NPL clubs under the current system.

Some of these issues were covered in relative brevity, either by the night's two main hosts, or during the workshop period of the meeting. As best as I can recall, no specific details were offered in terms of fixing points 1 and 2, but point 3 was addressed in detailing what AAFC hoped to achieve as part of its aim to help create a truly national second tier.

The Championship/Second Tier discussion
After announcing its initial framework for a second tier model (among other demands) last year (see my take here; or the guest point-counterpoint here), AAFC announced at the roadshow meeting that it is in the process of creating a working model group for the second development stage (out of three) for its second tier/Championship model. The intention is to finish this stage by June, and seeing as how AAFC met its own October 2017 deadline for releasing its original/stage one proposal, we can be optimistic that we'll see the results of stage two sometime in mid-year.

Sceptical as I am about many facets of this plan, one development (or the absence of) I was interested in seeing was whether other relevant Australian soccer parties - federations, players, etc - would become involved in trying to develop a second tier model. And this is where one of the more interesting - and as it turns out, also contentious - parts of the meeting took place. AAFC claimed that it would be working with FFV, Football New South Wales, and Professional Footballers Australia to develop the model; indeed, that those three groups would also provide funding for the necessary research. Apart from the (however vague) political vote of confidence that such a collaboration implies, the news that there would be pooled funding for the working model group caught the attention of a few onlookers both at the venue and among those observing online.

Later on though there emerged conflicting reports about whether FFV had actually agreed to provide funding for the working model group, as opposed to merely providing moral and/or logistical support. In communications I had with different people, from the AAFC side there was insistence that FFV (and even FFA) had committed to funding the working model group, while two sources from the FFV side insisted to me that no financial commitment had been made by FFV. Confusing things further, from the AAFC side I later received "clarification" that AAFC was still in discussions with the different groups about the possibility of funding the working model group.

When combined with the suggestion, made at the Adelaide meeting, that AAFC member clubs would be asked to contribute financially to the working model group, there seem to be mixed messages floating around about how the working model group will be funded.

Not doubting Paul but FYI - at the Adelaide stop of the roadshow it was suggested member clubs of AAFC would be asked to contribute to cover this instead. I think it was $500 pa per club up from the token $100 it cost to first register w AAFC. All attending seemed to agree to it.

— Mathew Doolan (@mdoolsy) March 8, 2018

So far, AAFC has apparently spent $90,000 on research - originating I assume from a mix of club donations, but principally from the generosity of some of its wealthier patrons. It's an expensive business getting together not just the conceptual framework for your new competition, but also putting together the mechanics of how you claim it will all work.

It's also necessary, not just from a "prove the doubters wrong" aspect, but also from a "putting in a competing framework to the only one that currently exists" aspect. When the NSL Taskforce Report was released many years ago (perhaps the most overlooked document in Australian soccer history, because everyone keeps focusing on the Crawford Report, the latter of which was related to governance, not the league), it had the added heft of being based on the research of the PFA, at the time "the most stable and cohesive institution within the game" according to Joe Gorman. The PFA model is what the A-League was born from, albeit not in its pure form; nothing is ever taken straight the shelf, much like the FFA governance model wasn't a direct lift from the Crawford Report.

The main point however is that long ago the one prominent organisation in Australian soccer that had not been sullied by Australian soccer's reputation of mismanagement and corruption was the only one that came up with a plan, funded by itself. In a moment when confidence in Australian soccer's leading institutions is once again at a low ebb, AAFC has the opportunity to do something similar to what the PFA did in the past, by transitioning from being a fledgling advocacy group to something which has its own intellectual property in the form of a firm plan - not just ideas - about how to improve the game in Australia. In an environment where the best ideas anyone else can come up with to rejuvenate the A-League and by extension Australian soccer are "maybe we should add a couple of teams, maybe..." and "all we really need to do is have an independent A-League" - as if either of those alone would be anything other than short term solutions - a bold, costed, detailed and logical plan would stand out.

If some observers of my Twitter feed were upset by the suggestion that FFV and/or FNSW would use "junior fees" to pursue the dreams of a collection of rebellious/ambitious/arrogant clubs, it wasn't just those people that had their jimmies rustled by information provided during this segment. When a slide was put up showing a comparison of current NPL club costs compared to possible Championship model costs, some in the audience were a bit stunned by the figures of current NPL costs, thinking them too high, especially in terms of wages.

The broad range offered by the AAFC's slide claimed that current player wage bills were up to $800,000 a season; the exclamation from some in the crowd was that most clubs would be paying, at best, half that amount. Along with questions about how AAFC got those figures, reasonable comment was made from the floor that this section of the presentation should have included "bands" of spending to more accurately reflect current spending trends. And I agree that there should have been more detailed information about how many clubs were in different wage spending bands, (as well as other costs) and that this data should have also included a breakdown of these details by state, so AAFC members and interested onlookers could see a more complete economic picture of Australian soccer at the second tier level.

Of course, this means more clubs opening themselves up to the kind of scrutiny that few clubs at this level would be comfortable with, but what price the greater good?

With costs, including wages, obviously rising across the board for a national second tier model, it felt to me for a moment that for some clubs the penny may have finally dropped about how realistic participation in a national second tier would actually be for them. But then the discussion moved on to whether second tier teams would be obliged to spend that much, or whether they'd be allowed to get away with spending a lot less. And therein lies one of the problems to be worked out among those arguing for a national second tier. There is a very broad spectrum of people discussing things like a second tier and associated reforms, ranging from a complete laissez-faire approach to something much more regulated, but which side of that ideological ledger will AAFC's second tier model prioritise?

Among those who criticise the A-League, much of that criticism centres around things like the salary cap, the salary floor, minimum player wages, and the assortment of other measures which see the A-League operate as a cartel like the top competitions of the other major Australian football codes. (This includes what might be called the Rolls Royce model around fan experience, stadiums, etc). Apart from disagreeing with that cartel approach from the position of "it's not how a real soccer economy or system works" or "it doesn't replicate the global standard", the argument also claims that the cartel approach entrenches mediocrity. Teams that struggle on the park have less incentive to immediately do better in order to secure their position in the league; successful teams have artificial barriers preventing them from actually putting out the best product that they can, because they must be kept in relative check with all the struggling teams

Cost is one thing, revenue quite another. Of course a lot of the doubters are wondering where the money will come from, especially as costs increase. While some potential national second tier clubs are reasonably well placed to cope with the wage increases (and some will have the benefit of less travel than potential competitors), there will still be significantly increased costs which will need to be covered. In the discussion which reiterated the preferred administrative model for the hypothetical national second tier, there was also some discussion about pooled revenue and profit sharing. Uneducated as I am about these matters, it nevertheless seems to imply a certain degree of cartel discipline, and thus a step removed from a no-holds-barred spending model. It also says something about the fact that AAFC believes that there will be profit to be shared.

But where someone like me sees problems, AAFC sees opportunities. AAFC is frequently on record with talking about how much money is generated by its member clubs for the Australian soccer ecosystem (some would counter that by claiming that it's mostly generated by the junior fees paid to NPL teams), but also about the limitations placed upon teams outside the A-League because of Australian topflight soccer's closed shop. Almost inevitably, AAFC expects that increased sponsorship opportunities will emerge for teams participating in a national second tier. But aside from that, AAFC believes there is an opportunity to take advantage of a changing media landscape, which for me is code for non-traditional (and non-terrestrial) broadcast media.

Previously, if not from AAFC itself than from people advocating for similar outcomes, the idea (or hope) was that SBS would be a partner of a national second tier, an idea which I never had much confidence would be realised. For starters, SBS's Australian soccer content - indeed its soccer content outside of its lone EPL game a week at midnight Saturday -  has now regressed to an almost negligible existence. What could possibly prompt them to spend the necessary funds to show a second tier competition with limited opportunities for recouping any investment? This suggestion, which goes back years before the existence of any tangible second tier movement - and which was originally formulated around showing live state premier league games - has always left me stumped.

Should this subtle rhetorical shift in emphasis - from securing a traditional and established broadcast media partner to a non-traditional equivalent - concern prospective members of a national second tier? It's something that certainly bothers me, but I'm already long gone on the prospects of this thing even working. For those more open-minded on these matters however, it should still be something that they keep an eye on - every cent that The Championship model doesn't get from a broadcast deal is that much more revenue that will need to be collected from other sources to make up for it.

In terms of player recruitment for The Championship, Krayem was adamant that it was "not designed as a retirement home", and that rules would be set up in order to promote younger Australian talent. This was clearly a riposte to the geriatric progression of the A-League, but also perhaps a critique of the NPL as it currently functions with regards to player recruitment. For example, does the luring of players from Queensland to Victoria help Queensland soccer? It may help those individual players by having them play in a higher standard competition, but it also weakens the standard of Queensland soccer. And what does the Victorian appetite for recruiting players from outside Victoria - previously British backpackers, currently Queenslanders and players from smaller states - say about the lack of opportunity given to Victorian players? And in the case of bringing in players from Tasmania, might this actually be much more justifiable? It's a lot to chew on.

Regarding questions from the floor about the transfer model to be used in The Championship, and Australian player transfer reform in general (as part of the now longstanding grievances state league clubs have about their players being poached by A-League teams, including the latter's designated NPL sides), the short and only answer given was that this was something that would be worked on.

The Championship would be a summer competition, with men's and women's components. I was not able to ascertain on the night whether successful applicants for The Championship would need to field both men's and women's teams as part of their participation. (update: see the comments section for clarification) This is an interesting point for how women's soccer exists in Australia. More often than not, the wealthiest soccer clubs in Australia (below the A-League level) are those which have a long tradition of successful male teams, with their female teams, where they exist, being an afterthought. Meanwhile those state league clubs which have historically been most successful at running female teams - often by women themselves and existing in the void left by the absence of a strong senior mens' program - would struggle to find the means to support a grandiose venture such as ongoing participation in a national second tier competition.

There was no elaboration on the matter of promotion and relegation to and from the A-League, or from and to the extant NPL competitions. While perhaps this meeting was neither the time nor the place for an explanation of how the different league layers would be formally linked together, it did leave a gaping hole in the area most casual onlookers (admittedly not in the room, but among those observing online) wanted to know. Krayem said that the NPL would persist; insofar as my understanding goes, this positions The Championship as the mechanism by which Australian soccer begins to achieve a necessary realignment of the its competition hierarchy.

Christo Patsan said that the founding principles and intent of the NPL and National Competitions Review were sound and largely still relevant and worth pursuing. I'm not sure that feeling is shared by everyone. If I was to summarise what I think AAFC want, it is a nationally consistent NPL approach (and eventually second tier) where clubs have the ability to control their identity and destinies. Are the ideals of a consistent framework and the freedom for clubs to do their own thing compatible concepts though?

That the NPL competitions would continue means that there needs to be a lot of work done to sort out how this is all going to come together. I mean, that much is obvious to everyone. Even among the advocates for a promotion-relegation regime however, there are a range of views of how this would work, ranging from a "quasi-cartel, necessary criteria to be met" model, to something much more cut-throat and free-market. At the moment. it also appears that apart from Victoria and New South Wales, most states are only paying lip service to AAFC's aim of a second division. Cue the NSL conspiracy again. Should the Championship become operational, AAFC says its administration would be based in Melbourne, a deliberate challenge to Sydney's dominance of Australian soccer administration.

(And while really not important from the fact of its obvious implausibility, it is worth noting that there was also the odd call from the floor - with slightly more than muted approval from the guests in attendance - that if FFA and everyone else didn't want to get a second tier up and running, that the clubs should just breakaway and form their own competition. This idea had cold water poured on it from AAFC panel members, but it does highlight that there are very diverse views and attitudes to Australian soccer matters within AAFC's constituency.)

The most left-field proposal on the night...
Was AAFC's desire to hold an annual junior tournament for AAFC member clubs. The age range would be 13-16, for both boys and girls teams, with the event held in a single location. The annual extravaganza would also include conferences and seminars. Aiming to start in April 2020 - one assumes over the Easter break - this is a logistically bold, perhaps even insane proposal. It would require accommodating thousands of travellers (kids, parents, coaches, support staff), would cost a lot of money to organise, would require a lot of grounds, and all sorts of other things which someone like me who has never organised or been involved in such an undertaking could possibly think of.

Credit for the scope of the idea, but its scale is such that I'd love to see how this would all come together. Reading online, this idea was a hit with the Canberra people in particular.

FFA Congress progress
Another one of the key issues was the status of reform to FFA's Congress. FIFA and the AFC representatives had recently been in the country and left again, and looking in from the outside it appears that not much has changed. Naturally those involved closer to the action have a better idea than us mere plebs. In terms of AAFC's hope of getting a seat on FFA's reformed Congress, it all seemed to depend on who was speaking for AAFC. Krayem said that Victoria was the only state federation which was for AAFC having a vote on FFA's Congress, while Queensland was happy for AAFC to have observer status.

(A non-AAFC source later told me that most state federations were happy to let AAFC have observer status, until such time as AAFC could "prove themselves", whatever that means. I assume it means in part holding itself together through what will be the much more difficult phase of actually getting some of its grand schemes up and running.)

Krayem was hopeful but cautious about whether AAFC would get its seat in the FFA Congress, but Nick Galatas, making one of his rare contributions during the evening, piped up to say with uncharacteristic confidence that AAFC will get there. This belief is based on the support that AAFC believes it is receiving from FIFA and the AFC; they certainly aren't being made to feel welcome by FFA and the A-League teams, and probably quite a few of the states. This international support gives AAFC a kind of leverage that forces their inclusion into discussions.

The issue of representation
Every state and region is going to be different when it comes to its soccer experience; in fact, this is a problem that cuts across almost every aspect of Australian sport, that rather than anything resembling a uniform and universal sporting culture, we are instead a nation of micro-sporting cultures. One thing I didn't note earlier on about the make up of the audience was how overwhelmingly male it was. I don't think there were any women present at all. Intentional or not, it is not a good look for an organisation that will need to argue that its attempts to reform Australian soccer also include the best interests of women and girls, and not just high level senior male players. Indeed female football was very much an afterthought to the entire evening's proceedings, with AAFC talking heads mentioning little about the topic, and the questions from the floor referencing nothing about women's soccer at all.

This is a serious issue, and I don't doubt for a second that those representing AAFC don't take it seriously. However, apart from the issue of optics - never mind female participation and professional pathways being the zeitgeist of Australian sport - the lack of any almost any reference to the female side of the game plays right into the hands of those who would oppose AAFC solely on the accusation that the group was merely a front for a collective of culturally regressive ethnic clubs who had been unable to keep up with the times. And to be fair, some of those accusations would not be too far off the mark. The room was made up of at least some clubs who represent conservative or traditional ideas of what soccer is about in Australia on this and other issues. Related to those clubs would be those who, like South Melbourne perhaps, espouse a cautious modernism in its approach to women's soccer.

(Albeit a modernism as yet untested by what happens when the female program's principle advocate, in South's case Gabrielle Giuliano, moves on. The matter of cultural and club continuity has always been at the forefront of women's soccer.)

At the same time, apart from your different flavours of ethnically derived conservatism and cautious modernism, you have clubs which exist outside those frameworks, and those which go across several demographics. So while there are clearly clubs in the AAFC movement with a chip on their shoulder about FFA's treatment of ethnicity, there are also those clubs for which ethnicity is not even close to being at the top of their list of complaints. Then there are the clubs from regional areas. The ambitious clubs who have no NSL history. The clubs from states and regions which have never had national representation of any sort, and no obvious development pathway for their talented kids. All of these groups are being presented by AAFC as a unified collective with a common purpose, and not as the motley collection of clubs that this group actually is.

And it's not all smooth sailing. There was some discomfort from the floor about some of the decision making and negotiating processes of AAFC, namely that it does not consult as much as it could or should with its member clubs about key issues.

(I'd also add in the strange and sometimes unprofessional social media antics of AAFC. I think they'd be better off sticking to a conservative online approach - discussing only their affairs, and avoiding clogging up their timeline with stuff outside their immediate remit of being a representative organisation for second tier clubs. At present their social media efforts lack focus - probably operating on the whim of whoever's in control of the relevant social media accounts - while also coming across at times as petty. They need to at the very least get an off-the-shelf social media policy.)

But for the time being, in those narrow schemes where people actually pay attention to any of this stuff, AAFC is winning. It's winning the ideological battle because it is presenting a positive outlook for Australian soccer (even while often talking down present day Australian soccer); it's winning because its opponents have been successfully portrayed as out of touch and stagnant. And whatever the flaws with its social media/PR game, AAFC has also succeeded in having its public face, its front office if you will, obscure whatever disquiet and misgivings clubs under the AAFC umbrella have.

We are all in this together, but for how long?

Unity and patience are the virtues preached, but old habits and attitudes die hard. The nature of soccer in Australia has been, at least since after the migrant lead boom, one of self-interest and self-preservation. (The A-League has been the notable exception to that.) The pursuit of excellence (in all its forms) applies first to your club, and good luck to the others trying to catch or keep up.

But at one point during the meeting Krayem made the salient point - the kind of comment that can deflate a room full of fighting optimists - that "what may be good for football may not be good for your club". Amid the positivity and reinforcement of what it is that AAFC is trying to achieve, it's a message that cuts through, and it's certainly a message that we will look back on if and when a second tier gets up and it's not to everyone's liking.

Of course what the common good is insofar as Australian football goes depends on who you ask, and I'm in no good position to answer that. To me it's at best a nebulous concept, one that's been tainted because more often than not it's been used as a weapon rather than as the vague ideal that it is. For whatever it's worth, I don't think Krayem used the "good of the game" argument here in any sort of malicious way, more as reiteration that even within this group of (for now) united clubs, there would be winners and (at least relative) losers from AAFC's plans.

A word on the "NSL conspiracy"
There are some few pushing the line that AAFC and all of its associated antics are merely a front for getting ethnic NSL clubs back into the national soccer system. At the most extreme end of that argument is the accusation that AAFC is a front specifically set up to get South Melbourne Hellas back into the Australian topflight.

Such thinking (whether directed at ethnic NSL clubs or South Melbourne more specifically) requires two pre-existing notions in order to get off the ground. First, it requires the ethnic NSL teams having the necessary political, financial and grassroots clout to re-emerge from their otherwise terminal decline and irrelevance to Australian soccer (a terminal decline and irrelevance diagnosed by their detractors no less). Second, that these clubs would have the capability and competence (again, both of which their detractors claim these clubs lack) to establish and sustain such a complicated and unwieldy campaign in order to get back into the national league system. Needless to say, I find such conspiracy thinking beyond laughable. Truly, it is at the level of the conspiracies cobbled together by the so-called "bitters" of Australian soccer over the past decade and more.

Whatever else AAFC's faults, or the disagreements one may have with the aims of AAFC, it has been established and managed to succeed beyond the limits placed upon it by its detractors and opponents for a number of reasons. We have already mentioned the support AAFC is receiving from FIFA and the AFC, however much that support may be overstated by AAFC representatives. It has also managed to keep its broad constituency together for longer and greater ends than many people expected. Just as importantly, in an Australian soccer situation which reeks of stagnation - especially with regards to FFA and the A-League - AAFC is putting forward the boldest and most optimistic view of what Australian soccer could become. Whether their approach has gained any traction with people outside those few interested in the narrow field of Australian soccer politicking is almost beside the point; within the demographic that does care about such things, they come off looking more often than not like the good guys.

Something rather obvious that gets missed however is that AAFC exists to represent clubs which exist in a rather strange and hitherto unprecedented "between space" in Australia's football chain of command. The NPL clubs play under the auspices and control of their respective state federations, while at the same time participating in a system largely designed by the national federation. While in cases like Victoria, NPL clubs are able to perhaps organise well enough to exert a measure of influence over the running of their state federation - and thus alter elements of their own NPL environment more to their liking - they have no ability to act as a collective to put pressure on the body which set up the NPL framework in the first place, that being FFA.

Because of this bizarre operating system, no state operates NPL in the same way. When one person from the floor of the Melbourne roadshow complained (fairly enough) about A-League teams having more visa players at their disposal when they play FFA Cup matches against Victorian NPL teams, Krayem noted that when Victorian teams played against Queensland teams in the same competition, that Victorian teams had a PPS cap of 200 compared to Queensland's 170. Meanwhile other states have no restrictions on visa players. Not all of this is FFA's fault, and the clubs themselves - certainly in the case of the Victorian NPL - are also to blame for the mess that NPL has become.

But the point is, while ethnic ex-NSL clubs may be best placed to push for national second tier participation, they are not the only ones doing so. Neither are all of the former ethnic powerhouse NSL clubs best placed to take advantage of any changes. The goal here clearly is to start a competition which adds value across the country, and not just in forgotten suburban pockets of Melbourne and Sydney.

But still, what is it that South Melbourne Hellas is trying to do?
(I included this section because Leo Athanasakis asked what I thought was an unusual question, on the matter of potential A-League expansion and NPL/second tier queue jumping. While this was directed at other A-League consortium bids, I felt the queue jumping element could have - and indeed already has - been directed at South itself. Also South of the Border is a South Melbourne blog, so you know...)

When the campaign against FFV's original NPL model was begun by Green Gully and Melbourne Knights, South Melbourne - represented on this issue by one Tom Kalas - notably took a different tack, preferring to remain what it called "in the tent", believing that it could effect change more effectively from within the system rather than fighting against it from the outside. Then, like magic, South gradually changed its position to the point where it (and to be fair, a whole bunch of other Greek clubs) somehow became the leader of the movement against FFV and its NPL model.

Among those clubs who care to remember that this happened at all, there is understandably distrust and resentment about how that all played out; that the more obnoxiously regressive clubs on all sorts of issues who stuck their necks out on principle (however misguided that principle may have been) only for a bunch of Greeks to come in and take all the credit for getting not just a solution to the NPL impasse, but credit as being the leaders of a re-found boldness for clubs to stand up to the post-Crawford federations for their rights.

Me, I liked the fanciful idea that I invented that it was all coordinated; that certain clubs that had a more uncompromising ethos when it came to rejecting forced modernity would do the initial head kicking and grunt work, allowing more palatable alternatives - ie, us - to come in and finish off the job.

But the truth is that ever since it was compelled to vacate its position in the Australian topflight by the forces which took over Australian soccer, as well because of its own decrepit state, South Melbourne has had one distant goal in its sights above all others: to get back into the big-time, as soon as possible, and by any means necessary. So we bid for the second Melbourne A-League licence under the Southern Cross gimmick, losing out to Melbourne Heart. We tried to buy out the then failing Central Coast Mariners, under a scheme which may have included keeping some games in Gosford for however long it took for people to realise it was a stupid idea and just have all our games in Melbourne. Then we tried buying out Melbourne Heart, and failed there too. Currently, we've thrown our hat in the ring for the zombie A-League expansion process which may not even have ever existed.

They say that you miss all the shots you don't take, and when it comes to failed attempts to get into the A-League, no one's taken more shots than South. And yet, for whatever reason, South has never been at the public forefront of AAFC, other than by proxy association. To its own members, South has played AAFC and promotion-relegation issues as low-key affairs, preferring to put up a wait and see approach. The emphasis has always been on first and foremost getting into the A-League under its own steam (even if details of those attempts provided to members are sparing), and not through wholesale reform of Australian soccer's league structures.

And yet in most recent times, those paying attention to the social media contributions of especially our president Leo Athanasakis indicate a shift in our prior reticence to openly support a promotion-relegation model. Such a shift leads easily to the allegation from within the AAFC tent and from promotion-relegation fellow travellers alike that South Melbourne is not really ideologically committed to the principle of promotion-relegation; rather, South Melbourne is only committed to whatever South Melbourne believes will get it back into the topflight soonest. And if that happens, the rest be damned.

While not serious enough to threaten the unity of the AAFC revolutionary project by itself, it's the kind of fissure that people will need to keep an eye on; when persistent calls are made about unity and its virtues, any deviation from that ideal invites the possibility of infighting and sniping.

The question of heart and soul

I tried to write and re-write this section a number of times, never to my own satisfaction. So I'm going to try to keep it short and sweet.

Community, authentic, grassroots, corporate, franchise, elite. Words like these and many others can be useful in describing the cultural schisms that afflict Australian soccer. Used carelessly however, instead of clarifying the ways in which Australian soccer is divided, these words serve mostly as an act of self-justification.

By any measure, FFA and the management of several A-League teams have treated NPL teams poorly. There are countless examples of this, some of which were given on the night. But it's possible also that NPL teams are seen in a similar light by teams far lower down the food chain.

Claiming the moral and ethical high ground is a dangerous business. Anyone making claims for their own purity of support of the game is on dangerous ground. Resorting to the kinds of rhetoric which filled up forums a decade ago, and which paints simplistic pictures of an "us and them" which does not actually exist, is a tactic fraught with issues.

The focus should be on the actual examples of disrespect given by the top tier towards everything below it. Emotive language which loses sight of that should be avoided.

Final thought
During the aftermath over the next few days, it was funny to see the same info I'd received from different parties via Twitter DMs and text messages - sometimes intended for clarification, sometimes intended for further dissemination - make its way out to the public domain via other trusted vessels. It was like a proxy social media battle in the broader war for hearts and minds, except that I don't think anyone but the already interested even noticed.

Well, there goes this season - Bulleen Lions 1 South Melbourne 1

It was short sleeve weather for most people last night, for Bulleen's now annual early season payday against. At least they put some of that to good use by seemingly cutting down some of the tress and bushes at the southern end, possibly having the effect of improving the lighting on that side. I don't know, I'm no scientician. But they've also installed a new synthetic pitch in place of the old one.

While sporadically watching the under 20s curtain raiser, you could tell that this was a much better field than the former offering. The bounce was much truer, albeit probably keeping a little low, but at least it was predictable. So there goes Bulleen's unique home ground advantage, right? Well it certainly seemed so during most of the first half. Players like Braedyn Crowley aside, Bulleen aren't expected to do particularly well this season, and as for us... well, new coach, a few new players, the common sense consensus would be that it would take time to gel. But we looked pretty damn good. Good, but also different.

Now I don't think I've seen anything of our senior team since Chris Taylor got the sack - not that I would've been paying enough attention in any case - so I can't say with any certainty what Sasa Kolman's tactical approach would be. And going off the Bulleen game provides only a very small sample size, against what was pretty ordinary opposition. But if this is going to be the new normal, it's going to be a lot of fun.

Not that the Taylor era wasn't fun - winning lots of games and titles and cups after not winning crap for years is a hell of a lot fun - but Taylor's "love it or loathe it" pragmatism wasn't for everyone, and it had its own drawbacks, especially when it came to taking risks. Kolman's style is seemingly based around keeping possession, but also moving the ball around the middle of the park with short passes. A key part of that last night was Iqi Jawadi, who apart from his bread and butter breaking up of opposition play, was also in the mood to draw defenders toward himself when in possession, and move with the ball in different directions rather than always play the ball quickly backwards or sideways.

When both Leigh Minopoulos and myself are in short sleeves at a game, you
know it's warm night. Photo: George Kouroumalis.

But it wasn't just Jawadi keeping the ball or taking chances. The fullbacks, especially Matthew Foschini, would often go very high up the pitch. The work rate and teamwork between Foschini and Andy Brennan was working very well from the start; the left hand side, with its unaccustomed paring of Brad Norton and Leigh Minopoulos, is going to need some time to work itself out, though our goal did come from that side.

Against a better side, especially one that's better at pressing, this short passing, possession based, risk taking game plan could backfire, but last night it looked promising, not least because Nick Epifano, playing centrally instead of out wide, worked his backside off in midfield. Whether that's because of a gradual improvement in his defensive efforts over the past year, or because he was playing at his old junior club only time will tell.

Defensively we looked solid enough, with Kristian Konstantinidis and especially Christos Intzidis impressing as our centre-back pairing, though you fancy that there'll be much toughter assignments for them than Bulleen's forward line. Intzidis' performance in particular won the favour of South fans. The goal we copped had some so much luck going for it, that it's understandable that we lost our way for the last ten minutes of the first half. In this case losing our way meant deviating from the game plan, reverting to hopeless long balls, not looking up, and generally looking dejected as all hell.

We recovered in the second half, and once again played Bulleen off the park. We got our equaliser, with a bit of luck of our own - Milos Lujic, on the goal line and in an offside position, attempted to get a foot onto Millar's shot, but fortunately was adjudged to have missed it. It was a stinker of a performance all round for Lujic, who squandered every chance he had, even the ones which would've been disallowed for offside. Here's hoping it was just a bad night and not a sign of things to come for this season.

The most disappointing aspect of last night, apart from not picking up all three points, was the serious looking leg injury sustained by Alastair Bray, in a stupid attempt at a challenge by a Bulleen player. Depth is also going to be an issue this year. Kolman made just the two subs last night, and I'm not sure we were in a position to make many more. You can't predict when injuries will happen, but we at least have to get out of the habit of picking up stupid yellow cards. Apart from whatever other cards we picked up, Brennan was lucky to get away with a huge shirt pull in the first half.

Apart from Bray's injury, there are kinks to work on and weaknesses to manage. Andy Brennan, as good as he was last night, was gassed out by the 35 minute mark of the first half, and while he recovered in the second half, he couldn't run out the game. Is this a pre-season fitness issue, or something more permanent? Millar's shooting was wayward again. Epifano was in charge of all our set pieces, which is a step sideways as much as anything from what's been on offer the past few years. We didn't get to see enough of Oliver Minatel to say one way or another what his contributions will be like.

But as I'm fond of saying, if they were better than what they are actually are, chances are that they wouldn't be playing here. And that goes for every other team in this league as well.

Where’s my souva?! - guest match report by Savvas Tzionis
Having written some pieces for South of the Border, I thought it was time to finally write a South Melbourne match day report (my only previous match day report was for Sydney Olympic vs Blacktown in relation to my trip to Sydney).

What helped prompt this was the fascinating situation where five of my friends, from my days growing up in microcosmic (in relation to Australia’s demographic breakdown) Blackburn, had developed a rabid interest in local NPL soccer. (Interesting to note that they are all primarily Australian Rule supporters).

This stemmed from various sources, such as their knowledge of the old NSL, and South Melbourne’s place in it, and a handful of them having attended some remarkable games in recent years (Heidelberg’s 4-2 come from behind win against Bulleen in 2016, and last year's FFA Cup match against Sydney FC).

So, without me having to cajole anyone, there we were at the Veneto Club, having a few beers in the bistro. A mix of married, divorced, but mostly single blokes, from various ethnic backgrounds including my Italian friend whose parents were from the Venice region itself! Ironically the only other Greek was a Heidelberg supporter, whose claim to fame was that he and Damien Mori played on opposite flanks during their junior days at Box Hill.

The weather was near perfect for such an occasion, and we eventually made our way to the outer side in the grandstand, near the scandalously understocked (in relation to beer and Canadian Dry!) canteen. This became a bugbear for my friends who couldn't understand why Bulleen didn't cater for the typically big opening round crowd against South Melbourne. I mean, this was the third year in a row and they knew what to expect! Perhaps the semi professional nature of the NPL, especially amongst the slightly lesser clubs, induces such ‘unprofessional’ situations.

The game itself had the frenetic start you would expect from an opening round fixture in front of a large crowd (I am no good with picking crowd numbers but it appeared to be as big as two years ago, and bigger than last years crowd). The play was so electric that it elicited comments from my friends that “This is better than the A League”. We were so close to the action you felt like you part of the game. There is no other ground like Bulleen in that respect.

South was clearly the better team, but had no finishing touch. South’s play, especially initially, was expansive; long accurate passes and plenty of speed and strength. But I remarked to a friend at the 30 minute mark that we were starting to get a bit bogged down, and soon after Bulleen scored.
We didn’t start the second half in any better shape than we ended the first. Again, I made an observation, this time that Minopoulos was, as is often the case when he starts a game, not very prominent. But then soon after he was heavily involved in our equalizer, which was engineered by the player that impressed my friends more than any other on the pitch, in Andy Brennan.

Whilst hoping for a sting in the tail, unlike previous years, it was not to be, and both teams had to settle with sharing two points, instead of the hoped for three points on offer. I think Bulleen will struggle this year. They were clearly the inferior team, and with the league set to be an improvement on last year (North Geeling and St Albans having been replaced by the expected to be better Northcote and Dandenong Thunder), they will probably be in a relegation dog fight.

I was very impressed with Christos Intzidis. Whilst he wasn't challenged by Bulleen’s midget like forward line (have they ever had a forward even close to being six-foot tall?), he was very comfortable to the extent I felt he indulged on the ball towards the end, when he could have easily back passed to the keeper. I have a feeling he is too good for this league. Could it be that the emigration of vocationally talented Greek’s from Greece is now including Soccer players?

Whilst I didn’t think the game was that great, my friends were fully satisfied with the whole experience. They have voiced interest in other games, asking about other grounds and where they are in relation to Blackburn. I told them this ground, Bulleen’s, is the closest they will get. Which got me thinking about how things have changed for South Melbourne in this regard.

In the NSL days, traffic was not as hectic as it is now. Our supporter base could travel from anywhere to watch us, and have time to spare. Traffic conditions have changed now. The constriuction of freeways has made it easy to travel to certain places in much less time. For instance, the Peninsula, but for travelling within the suburbs of Melbourne, it is a far more difficult exercise. It’s no wonder some people have found it easier to attend games at grounds of the Greek clubs that they live near, such as Oakleigh or Kingston.

Whilst waiting for the Metro to be built (which will give Lakeside its own station so to speak) South Melbourne could cultivate a stronger support base from areas which can easily travel to our ground. This would require some nuanced marketing. Just a thought.

To finish off, the funniest thing, other than the many attempted insults my friends directed towards number 4 of Bulleen (Hair Bear!) and the linesman (get a suntan!), was the pre game discussion about one of my friends' utter disappointment that Bulleen offered no ‘sou-ver-LARRKI’!! Maybe he heard that this league is sometimes referred to as ‘The Souvlaki League’ and expected them to be served at every ground?

Next week
Saturday night away to Dandenong Thunder who, at least according to the radio broadcast I was listening in to last Thursday, were matching Bentleigh Greens until goalkeeper Fraser MacLaren got himself sent off early with Thunder leading 1-0. Also, the time I had listed initially in my fixture list was wrong, it's not an 8:00 kickoff, it's 7:00.

Just quietly...
Was anybody else compelled by the ticket sellers at the Veneto Club to purchase an adult ticket for people who were eligible for a concession ticket? I got in with my media pass of course, but I was told by one South fan that the Bulleen ticket people refused to sell him concession passes for the two high schoolers he had with him.

That's made my season, there's nothing left to do, see you all next year.
During the second half one of Bulleen's defenders, who had a very boofy hairstyle, was dubbed Sideshow Bob, followed by chants for "Kill Bart" and "Die Bart, Die", which pretty much took away any anxitieis I had about the rest of the game. Until I got back on the bus to go home again, but small mercies.

Nicknames
Hot on the heels of Matthew "Apples" Millar, last night saw the debut of "Cakes" for Kristian Konstantinidis. I'm boycotting that one as well, as well its subsidiary "Nikos (Cakes)" nickname.

Nick Galatas steps down as chairman
Those who listen to 3XY Radio Hellas' Sunday sports program have passed on the message that club chairman Nick Galatas has stepped down from the board. That's been confirmed by the club on the official website, with the official line being that Galatas wants to focus more on his AAFC duties.

This South of the Border correspondent thanks Nick for his eleven years on the South board, and the occasional chats we had about various off-field issues, the highlight of which was attending court proceedings South was involved in where he was representing us or the rebel/anti-FFV NPL model clubs.

Should former South player Dane Milovanovic be serving a suspension in 2018 for something that happened in 2015?
A keen-eyed reader of the blog asked this question late last week:

Is Dane Milovanovic still suspended for 12 matches in Australia for the incident against Hobart Olympia in 2015 whist at @smfc, or has that been served internationally? #NPLVIC

— Davey Raff (@dvrf1878) February 23, 2018

The incident in question related to a contentious bit of referee interaction on Milovanovic's part at the end of that game. I was initially confused as to why Davey would bring this up at all; it's a South game we'd rather wish was obliterated from our collective memory, but Davey explains that Milovanovic has signed with Gully. Here's the FFA tribunal report, a very lengthy and detailed document (with photos!). The relevant part of the punishment handed down is as follows:

46. In these circumstances, the sanction the Committee imposes has two elements: 

(1) The period of the sanction is at least four months from the date of the
match. 

(2) The player must serve a 12 match suspension during a period in which
matches are played in the 2016 Victorian Premier League season. 

47. The consequence of the sanction is that if the four month period does not begin,
because of a non-playing period provision (or similar provision), until the
commencement of the 2016 Victorian Premier League season, then the sanction
will run for four months from the date of commencement of that season and in
effect will run much more than 12 matches of the 2016 Victorian Premier League
season. On the other hand, if the sanction (due to administrative rules)
commences with effect on 19.09.2015, it is the intention of the Committee that its
sanction must not conclude until the expiry of the 12th match of the 2016 Victorian Premier League season.

This was confusing to me, but I think I've got handle on it now... and I think it means that Milovanovic is allowed to play from the beginning of the 2018 season. Of course my grasp of things like this is always prone to faltering. It seems odd that a player can get around the problem of a serious suspension like this by plying their trade overseas for several years, but it could be that the suspension applied only to an Australian context, which if true, would mean that Milovanovic has served his suspension, even if he didn't really spend any time serving it at all.

Albert Park Master Plan update
Another keen-eyed reader saw this in the paper - basically, the state government or Parks Victoria or whoever has backed off the idea of reducing the Albert Park golf course from 18 to 9 holes.  Not that I've been able to glean much information from either government or club sources about the Albert Park Master Plan means for South Melbourne Hellas, but clearly taking a reduction in the size of the golf course off the table means there's a huge limit to what can be achieved in terms of opening up the park to different groups.

SMSCMaster YouTube collection gone
Apparently this happened late last year, but I only came across this fact when I was looking for that video of South players during training under Ange Postecoglou playing a footy-style game with a round ball in the wet at Lakeside. It looked a lot like AFLX to be honest...

Anyway, it's sad that for whatever reason the channel's owner has taken down all those videos, not just the South stuff but also the other soccer videos and assorted Australiana. Hopefully they'll reconsider their decision at some point in the future. I just wish now that I'd downloaded stuff from there; the lesson here is, as it is always, to never assume something is going to be on the internet forever.

Around the grounds
It's not everyone's favourite segment, and I'm aware that this is the part where some of you skip ahead to the end. And this section is unusually long this week, probably because I haven't got bored and disillusioned with the season yet.

We are all blind men touching different parts of the same elephant
The big question coming out of this game seemed to be 'what game were you watching mate?', and by 'you' they mean of course 'me'. It's only round one, so it behooves us to forgive people their sins, even if part of that forgiveness is couched in the selfish hope that they will forgive you yours. And being 'only' round one, everyone gets a bit excited about soccer being back, the weather still being warm, the size of the crowds looking good, and the hope that this season will be better than the one that came before. For Knights fans, surely this season could not be as bad or even worse than 2017? Even if someone like me, who has doubts about the positive prospects of everything, still doubts that Knights will be a force in 2018, faith in a better tomorrow is what sustains the lives of others.

Oakleigh look like they've reinforced their squad with some good inclusions, and they started this game like a house on fire. They could've had two or three goals in the first ten minutes, but had to settle for one. No matter, they still had the better of the first half, but as the game evened up, their one dimensional game plan - long balls from defense into space for their wingers to run onto - got found out. You know every slur directed at Chris Taylor's ultra-pragmatic attacking tactics? People should really be directing that vitriol at Cannons' co-coaches Tsolakis and Tangalakis, whose side became aesthetically bankrupt once things tightened up a bit. To be fair, Oakleigh did suffer the unfortunate situation of being forced to make two substitutions in the first half, with both starting centre-backs having to come off. They also got themselves into trouble with some stupid challenges which saw them rack up a few yellow cards. But Knights only rarely seriously threatened in the first half, and assuming that Oakleigh would re-compose themselves for the second period, I wasn't really seeing an obvious Knights comeback.

Cue then the less obvious comeback. An early second half free kick whipped in and headed home for the equaliser, and the game changed. Then as the two sides try to find the leading goal, with Oakleigh unable to implement either their long ball game or a shorter passing game through the middle, a chance presents itself to the Cannons to retake the lead. They stuff it up, the ball scoots up the other end for a like-for-like chance to Nate Foster, who puts Knights in front instead. That's soccer in a nutshell, it's why we love and hate the game in equal measure, and every other cliché you want to throw in the mix.

The pivotal moment, if there is such a thing, came when John Honos committed an all-time-great goalkeeping howler. My view was a bit obstructed (also I can't see very well), but one observer with keener eyesight and a better attention span tells it like this:

Harris’ (on the line, closer to corner flag than the goal post) deseperate lob attempt to keep the ball alive, somehow shaves the crossbar on its descent and hits Honos (who is standing facing the goal with a hand in the air appealing for a goal kick) on the chest & trickles in

— Jure Dragović (@juredragovic) February 24, 2018

My own delayed appraisal of Honos' blunder, with my trademark rhetorical flourish, went like this

It was like... if you're familiar with mid 90s soccer video games, where the goalkeeper AI wasn't up to scratch at the near post, Honos has fumbled a harmless floating shot into his own net.

— Paul Mavroudis (@PaulMavroudis) February 23, 2018

Oakleigh got a goal back late, and could've/should've equalised, but didn't. So Knights picked up three points, and a lot of people were not only pleased, but also impressed. I seem to have a reputation of sorts for not being so easily impressed

Now some have taken my remarks on Twitter on this game to imply that Knights were not the better team, and that they did not deserve to win this game. On the contrary, they did deserve to win, probably. Perhaps my reserved feelings on the quality of the game overall, or my putting the result of the game mostly onto Oakleigh's deterioration over the 90 minutes than on anything Knights did to adjust, has confused some readers. These things happen.

More goals than the average AFLW game; that's not a good thing on either front by the way
Believe what you want: I'm going to maintain that I went out to Somers Street for a second time within 24 hours, while the rest of you can believe that I slept in the car in the car park. Georgies are playing out of Knights Stadium this year, and they were hosting the overclocked Altona Magic. Rubbish game this for a good part of the first half, Magic content to try and beat the offside trap, while Georgies were doing I'm not sure what. Magic went ahead about a half hour in, ushering in a flurry of goals and action, as Georgies levelled with a sneaky set piece, fell behind again, then equalised with a corker of a half volley from the edge of the box into the opposite top corner. All of a sudden this was a cracking game. Then Georgies imploded in spectacular fashion. A red card, conceding a goal within 30 seconds of that red card, and then another before half time, and yet another just after half time, and this game was cooked. But it was going to get much worse: another red card, and a lot more goals conceded. It finished 9-2 to Magic, in a game that went from bore-fest, to ring-a-ding-ding battle, to "stop, stop, he's already dead" over the course of 90 minutes.

Final thought
There was a bloke walking around the Veneto Club with a Carlton SC shirt, and only much later on (like, when I got home) did I realise it was journo Joey Lynch. And there we were saying things like, "gee that shirt would be worth some money", but also "geez, and people tell South fans to move on".

Notes from the 2015 AGM

Necessary preamble and summary
The following account of the 2015 South Melbourne Hellas and South Melbourne FC AGMs will not be presented in strictly linear fashion, because some points made later in the evening related to earlier presentations - also, I didn't keep a good record of what was said when. As usual, not every question that I would have liked to have seen asked managed to get through. At least some of those questions will be applicable to the next AGM though. Perhaps I should have taken the advice of the person who said I should have submitted them to the club, in order to compel them to deal with them. Food for thought. Apologies for there being no pictures or links to off-site hilarity.

Overall this was an orderly and worthwhile meeting, with good debate and questioning from the members, and what I felt was mostly clear and open information provided by the committee. However, it was in those moments where the board either did not answer queries related to governance or sought to push aside those concerns, that I believe the concerns of many members will remain for the foreseeable future - unless the board somehow drastically improves on that front.

Why the AGM was so late - and the myriad problems that caused
Before the AGM had even officially begun (approval of previous AGM's minutes, etc), committee member Bill Papastergiadis sought to speak to the members in attendance in order to inform them that the agreements related to the Lakeside lease had finally been resolved - making the point that terms had been agreed upon only as late as 2:00PM yesterday. From this fact one could imply - as many have suspected - that this was the primary reason why the AGM had been held so late.

Whether that was the case or not, it still does not excuse the committee for holding the AGM at such a late date, during the first quarter of the next season, on a weeknight, in the week after the grand prix, all of which made attendance of the broadest possible eligible audience far more difficult than it should have been. The question, too, of whether the board had sought permission from ASIC for an extension to the AGM date remained without a definitive answer. Nick Galatas, on behalf of the board, claimed that the club did not need to apply for an extension, while some on the floor contended that Galatas was wrong.

That lack of a definitive answer or explanation was perhaps the most troubling of the night, speaking as it did to the apparent problems of governance and compliance. The contemporary effectiveness of the members to act beyond an annual three hour meeting may be easy to deal with for the current board, seeing as how we have had no alternative tickets front up to add additional pressure on the current board since the end of the NSL - but compliance issues which fall under the jurisdiction of the state and similar third parties will be much harder to deal with.

Apart from the legal issues involved, the delay of an AGM means that much of the information presented was not only long out of date, but that so many more issues piled up (along with the resentment of the members) that more questions and queries than usual failed to get the attention they deserved.

Bill Papastergiadis resolves the Lakeside lease saga, to our apparent satisfaction
Regarding the apparent resolution of the Lakeside lease issue, Papastergiadis elaborated on the process needed to successfully negotiate an agreement as close as possible to the terms of the memorandum of understanding the club's members agreed to in 2009, the mechanisms by which those agreements will be enacted, and the strain of the effort required.

All three extant agreements needing to be signed - the funding agreement, the exclusive lease with regards to our areas (social club and affiliated areas), and non-exclusive areas (playing arena) - have been signed by South Melbourne, and are now simply awaiting for the government to execute their part of the contracts, which Papastergiadis expects to happen this week. We then wait for the funds to released for the reconstruction of the social club, which will be a 90 day build - with the construction of the office spaces to be the first order of business. Should things proceed well from here - and I put forward that hope cautiously, because we have been through such an ordeal already - then it is feasible that the social club will be ready by the end of this season.

Having sealed the deal, Papastergiadis seemed to feel freer to elaborate on the difficulties of attaining the deal to our satisfaction. He was now unafraid to point the finger directly at the State Sports Centres Trust, including their previous management group, who sought to delay us through lengthy legal battles, by providing self-serving and incorrect information to the relevant ministers, and finding any way possible to make our tenure at Lakeside as difficult as possible. This included incurring large legal expenses of their own. We will probably never know whether or not this ended up adding up to such an amount as to prevent the various tenants at Lakeside getting renumeration above their mandated minimum annual stipend.

Even the change in government from Liberal to Labor saw the SSCT attempt to go back and start from scratch, despite the then Liberal government having agreed to terms we would be satisfied with. Making the point that ministers are dependent on the advice of the public service, Papastergiadis noted that the way to tackle the problem was not in legal terms - though that would play a part - but rather through political connections. And thus Papastergiadis emphasised the weight that came to bear on both the Liberal and Labor governments via influential members of the Greek community, and the notion of the Greek community as a whole.

The manifestation of the agreements will both please and annoy our supporters. The pleasing aspect is in terms of the duration of the lease, in that the five years we have already spent at Lakeside since our return from John Cain Memorial Park, will not be counted - so we get 40 years from the signing of the lease starting this year, applicable to the social club and the playing arena. Crown law being what it is though, it will not be a single 40 year term - that while the social club is a single 40 year term, the playing arena will be 21 years, with an option of 19 after that, with Papastergiadis emphasising that the only possible way the 19 year option will not be honoured is if we are in serious breach of the conditions of the lease, a situation which he does not believe the club will find itself in (using words to the effect of burning the joint down to the ground).

Less pleasing, but perhaps inevitable news, is that in all likelihood the club will need to borrow money in order to finance the completion of the social club reconstruction. This is despite the fact that at previous AGMs the board had claimed that this would not be the case. Later in the evening, president Leo Athanasakis updated and/or clarified the plans for the social club, including the providing of a floor plan. As has been noted on previous occasions, the club plans to use the social club and futsal spaces both as a way of creating a sustainable revenue stream from its members and other users of Lakeside Stadium, but also as a means of attracting more people to our spaces from the local area.

Having seemingly completed the herculean task of securing the lease arrangement on terms that we were comfortable with, my mind turned to whether Papastergiadis would continue as a board member after this year. It was not a question that I was able to get to ask, but since this was the main reason he was brought on to the board, it will be interesting to see if he will continue.

Emphasis was made, as has been the case at many such meetings, that Papastergaidis has offered the services of his law firm at a comparatively low cost, as well as having a dedicated member of his staff working on this project. One hopes that with the end of this legal affair, that whatever legal costs we did incur will see at least some savings made in future budgets. Longer term, the financial and working tolls taken by our numerous legal battles over the past few years - against the FFV for the Heidelberg tribunal matter, the Toumbourou affair, the NPL, etc - has been a burden the club could have done without.

Finances
For the 2014/2015 financial year, the club made a small profit of about $7,000. Turnover was over a million - with the ambition to get up to two million - and sponsorship at a very healthy level. The club still has to pay off the loan it took out to pay the Toumbourou loan, but Athanasakis reported that this debt would be settled by October 2016. One expects then, with the onset of the operation of the social club, the lack of this bank loan (albeit the possible addition of another), and the increased efficiencies based on economies of scale from the unification with the women's side of things, that the bottom line will improve significantly.

There was an attempt by some members to ask if the club was running insolvent - based on the overdrafts being made during the course of the year - but that line of inquiry was shut down quickly by a Business 101 explanation of why overdrafts exist and how they work, an explanation that came not only from the board, but also from other businessmen within the membership.

There was, too, a question asked about the football budget, with some confusion based on the figures being provided being different for the members and those being presented. The explanation that one was consolidated, and the other not, didn't wash with some people. Nevertheless, most seemed to be satisfied with the spend on the football department, which had not changed markedly over the past three seasons, and was necessarily elevated in the second half of 2014 due to the continuing success of the club on the field.

Of more concern for me - and judging by the questions submitted here, to others, too - was whether the level of sponsorship we had achieved was sustainable, and what we were doing to make it so. One part of that which got a good reception from the floor was the business and sponsor networking the club is setting up. My concern on whether much of this sponsorship success was dependent on qualification to the FFA Cup (and what would happen if we missed qualification, say, in consecutive years) was not quite answered to my satisfaction, despite the claims that we were not like other clubs who were playing what Shaun Mooney has dubbed the 'crap-shoot' of FFA Cup qualification. Again, time will tell.

The women (mostly) return to the fold; plus constitutional changes
There was a motion at this AGM to make changes to the constitution. Two of these changes were fairly straightforward, seeking to update rules and terms from a bygone era. One of these moves was to change the term 'committee' to 'board'. The second was to change the make up of the board from 11-21 members to a minimum of seven and a maximum of eleven.

The biggest change though, was to ratify the board's motion that there be a minimum of one female board member at all times. Apart from those resistant to quotas in principle (or perhaps using that as a front for being dismissive of women involved in football at all? I wouldn't want to rule that out entirely), there was concern among some that the club, by virtue of not having eleven board members for much of its recent history, had not been abiding by its own constitution, a claim brushed aside all too readily by the board. Then again, without anyone having a copy of the constitution at hand, how were we going to resolve the matter then and there?

Of greater validity though was the complaint that all three motions were bundled up in a single vote. Now this may have been a ploy to head off the expected resistance to the quota motion - sometimes even my thought processes can go off on strange, conspiracy laden tangents - but if that was the case, then I don't think it was worth the ploy, and that the members should have had more trust put in them to pass each motion individually. As it was, the motion passed with overwhelming support.

Recently added board member, and former(?) president of South Melbourne Womens FC, Gabrielle Giuliano, was introduced to the overwhelmingly male audience, and made what I felt was a passionate and non-condescending presentation to the members. Giuliano made the point that the women were not here to take over the club, but that they mostly wanted to maintain the level of facilities and access that had prior to the reunification, which was a part of the agreement they'd signed last year. Giuliano thus made the subtle point that it wasn't only the men who had something to fear from reunification, but that the hard work of the women to develop their own club, on far fewer resources, was something they valued dearly, and were thus protective of.

Solid arguments were made about the inherent improvements in the economies of scale, but also to what the inclusion of the women - as players, as a network of people, and also as a hitherto untapped demographic for South Melbourne - would do for the club. The term 'super-club' was thrown about, as were notions of trying to be ahead of the curve. It's often hard to tell whether the club is being genuine about modernising itself, or whether it thinks that the appearance of doing so is more important than the objective reality of making those changes - on this matter though, I think it was sincere. It will also be interesting to see how the overwhelmingly male dynamic of such things as AGMs changes when more women begin attending.

As to plans for the future, this is where it got interesting as far as I'm concerned. SMWFC was still seeking answers as to the reason its WNPL application (made separately from SMFC) was rejected. To that end, SMFC will be seeking to apply to enter the WNPL in 2017. Should the club be successful in achieving that aim, then those female teams will come under the auspices of SMFC. The community/participatory aspect of SMWFC will continue as a community club, maintaining those community connections developed by SMWFC over the past decade. Of course with any community club 'offshoot' of an NPL club (mens or womens) is how do you control them, considering the fact that you cannot have the same board? SMFC's answer seemed to be via control of the facilities, a solution which will be interesting to see applied in practice.

Chairman Nick Galatas did note that in time the constitution would need to be given a more rigorous overhaul, and while this was not quite the time for that, these changes were as good a place as any to start.

Lots of success, but also disappointment - football report
As noted earlier, the wage bill of the club in terms of player payments has remained steady. Nicholas Maikoussis (representing the board on the senior aspect of the club) outlined the successes of the past season or so, while noting with clear exasperation the club's failure to win the grand final, progress further in the FFA Cup, and especially the devastating loss to Hobart Olympia. Maikoussis made the point that more resources had been deployed to football (fitness, conditioning - even for juniors -, and opposition analysis), and that overall the change room culture was good. When I made the point about my (and perhaps others') being uneasy about player agents being in the change rooms after games, I was rebuffed with a response of obvious irritation. So it goes.

Andrew Mesourouni (representing the board on the junior aspect of the club) made note that the club will seek to have 80% of the under 20 team made up of South juniors, and that three members of the senior squad every year should come from that under 20 side. I raised the question of the affiliation of Genova International School of Soccer, and whether we had any formal arrangements (apart from sponsorship) with them, to which the answer was 'no'. Unfortunately I was not able to dig further into my list of questions on the matter, and while I appreciated the candour of Mesourouni's answer - including the fact that GISS is just one of a network of organisations South Melbourne liaise with - I feel that there is still much to discuss on that front.

On the matter of whether we are interested in joining a cut down/split division National Youth League, the club seemed to indicate that there had been no confirmation that the NYL would take that path just yet, but that the club has been approached to gauge its interest, and that should the opportunity present itself, then the club would certainly be interested in taking up that opportunity. With regards to renewing its NPL licence, the club believes it is well on track to do so.

The Epifano affair finally got its time in the AGM spotlight. The board explained and defended its position, mostly reiterating things that they have already said, but also admitting that they had unintentionally mislead when making one response to a particular member during a conversation. Those members who have been the most obviously critical of Epifano and the board's handling of the affair got to have their say, even making some good points about the double standards with regards to spectator and player codes of conduct, but it was almost inevitable that this was going to end up in a stalemate, and that in that eventuality, the board's way would prevail.

Now that players are mostly(?) on professional contracts instead of 'amateur' ones, several codes of conduct have been introduced or updated, including for social media and sports betting. Next AGM of course will see womens reports also be tabled, for the first time in a very long time. Hopefully they will be treated in a more kindly fashion than they were way back in the early VPL days.

Protecting the brand (security and related matters)
Interspersed somewhere during the two meetings was a discussion on security. It began, I believe, by discussing the problems that with more people coming to games, that the possibility of a return to an older flare lighting culture - which costs the club money, and possible further sanctions - is of concern. This is less of a problem at Lakeside, what with the plethora of security cameras available making it easier to identify culprits, but that the behaviour of some alleged South fans at away games where the lighting and security situation is less than ideal means that the fans themselves will have to be vigilant.

Of course this is not to everyone's cup of tea, due to a wide range of factors and ideologies, but president Athanasakis made what I felt was the valid point that now that we had secured Lakeside as our home, we had an obligation as members to protect it (and by extension the club) from those who choose to damage us via their antics. Equally though, a good point was made from the floor that the services provided by Blue Thunder security could sometimes leave a lot to be desired, and that relying only or mostly on supporters to do the policing was not the way to go about things.

Farewell to Tom Kalas
The last presentation of the night fell to Tom Kalas, doubling up as his farewell from the board. So that meant one last legendary Powerpoint presentation, complete with technical hiccups, but also a useful reminder that while we can get lost in the imperceptible nature of incremental progress - and I say this as a card carrying incrementalist - taking the time to step back and see the bigger picture is a necessary step in reminding us of how far we've come. In South Melbourne's case there were the practical issues of survival - lease, finances, on field competitiveness; the issues of consolidation - reuniting with the women, reforming the juniors; - but also the less tangible issue of resurrecting our reputation.

In that sense, Kalas was right - we have come a long way - but that's all the more reason for the members to continue to apply whatever pressure they can on the board to live up to its own hype as a progressive and professional outfit. For the sake of the future prosperity of the club, it can't just be words - it needs to be backed up by action the whole way through, and not only when it suits this or any other board which may one day represent us. In a near future that will see us operating not just a much larger soccer club, but also a restaurant/bistro and futsal centre, one hopes that such disregard for proper procedure will get us into trouble very quickly. Still, it was nice to leave off on Kalas' unadulterated and unaffected sense of optimism.

Other notes

It was good that some refreshments, in the form of soft drinks, were provided to the attendees.

After suffering from some sort of parasite and being in poor condition for round one, the Lakeside surface is looking both lush and verdant.

There was a mini-infestation of some sort of insect in the President's Room. Very irritating at times.

Any AGM that has a Bouboulina reference can't be a complete waste of time. Equally so when you hear a board member utter such an archaic phrase as 'γαμώ το στανιό σου' (fuck your compulsion). I thought it was just me and my mum that still said things like that.

Another week, another game

Are we going to beat Hume this week? I don't know. Gut feel says no.

Also welcome back Manny, who's back from an overseas sojourn. Bit weird saying welcome back to a person you've never met, but what the hell.

Who owes who?
There's been a continuation of the age old discussion about who owes who anything when it comes to South. Does the club owe the fans? Do the fans owe the club? Are such sentiments entirely pointless? Are people just looking for more scapegoats and/or more reasons to jump off? Can anyone be blamed if they decide not to turn up anymore? Is it appropriate to make a big scene as you exit or threaten to exit? Is it OK to just sit there and take it, whatever 'it' is?

I don't know. I'm sure there's a limit for me, but I haven't found it yet. I even mentioned in a research paper for one my classes (trying to justify my line of study) that I probably owe the club and the game something for it being the major player in turning my life around. But I get too sentimental about such things, perhaps because I'm a sentimental bloke.

NPLV : Day 384267
So, we're off to court apparently. The media release even boasts about our the legal team's record against the FFV.

Cup semi-final fixture set


Our cup semi-final against Green Gully has been scheduled for Wednesday 21st August, 7:30 PM, at Port Melbourne. Will be tougher now that Vlahos and Dimi Harz have walked. Fernando still there though. Someone mentioned to me a couple of days ago that if we make the final all the cup tied players will be allowed to play? Hilarious if true, but let's worry about making it out of the semi first.

Mmm, that's some good sports rorting right here!

Firstly, this post is going to have some really bloody long sentences. I hope none of my students read this.

Secondly, I must declare that I am a Collingwood season ticket holder.

Thirdly, there's one thing that I really want to do, and that's get away from the topic du jour, so I can write about the recent Worlds of Football Conference hosted by Victoria University, even if the interest in that will only be a fraction of the recent goings on.

But that doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon, especially when even the Herald Sun has decided to join the fray. And then in all likelihood, back to 3XY tomorrow...

Anyway, the article included in this blog entry is from this link, but due to the News Limited paywall, there's probably no point in clicking on it. The best to get around it is to Google the article, then visit their site from there, as for some reason that seems to get around it.

Insofar as 'smell the fear' articles go, this one I don't personally think is too bad, though who can definitively say who the dog whistling will reach?

It's biggest failing is in the details it is missing. One of these is the alleged (by rank and file athletics supporters) interference of the Collingwood triumvirate of Eddie McGuire (both Collingwood president and board member of Athletics Australia), John Brumby (then Victorian premier and noted Collingwood supporter) and Robin Fildes (former decathlete and Collingwood player, then of Athletics Victoria, now of Athletics Australia), to get the deal done for Collingwood's benefit.

While certainly understanding how such a view could be constructed, no one has ever found the smoking gun to definitely prove that there was collusion between these parties to force Athletics Victoria out of Olympic Park (and wouldn't there be fireworks if there was!).

I sympathise with the Victorian athletics community who wanted to stay there - it was their home and it had history that has been trampled on. Remembering also that Collingwood had left Victoria Park in a terrible state, and many Collingwood supporters are still very uncomfortable about having left at all. And while I'm not disappointed with the new facilities, which South supporter wouldn't have preferred to be playing at an upgraded Lakeside Stadium that was purpose built for soccer, as it was originally intended?

And at the same time, Olympic Park had had very little work done on it for about two decades. As crap as this situation is for many of the parties (except Collingwood for some reason), well at least athletics got some nice new facilities (they would never have received otherwise) and South gets to survive for another five minutes until we get sent broke by the ingrained mismanagement of the club, and the vultures - you know who you are - can swoop in and do what they've always wanted to do to us.

I am just so tired.

Here's some other things to take umbrage at:

• It's not a building of a social club, it's a redevelopment of the social club. The social club is already there.
• They've given money to upgrade the rest of Lakeside Stadium, so leaving our social club out of those plans would be kind of stupid.
• The redeveloped social club will, it is hoped and planned for anyway, be able to provide an income independent of the government stipend, which will end eventually. 
• The redevelopment money is apparently required to be used for football purposes, so the community, via the futsal court, will have access to it (as is the case with much of the rest of the facility).
• Unlike Olympic Park, which will be for the exclusive use of Collingwood (as one would expect) the $50 million spent on the facility benefits three tenants and the community at large.
• As has also been noted, it's a crappy headline, which ignore the huge state and federal grants given to Collingwood to redevelop Olympic Park, which dwarf what South is getting.
• It also ignores the entirety of what South to give up in exchange for this apparently 'free' money. This included income derived from other parts of the stadium, as well a cut of our (now admittedly meager) gate takings.
• A bit more detail on the details of the court case would be nice. The club have sent out media releases on the matter. The phrasing in the article makes us look a bit more shabby then we probably are.

And I'm glad that negotiations were viewed by the Labor Government as difficult. South had something they badly needed. Why wouldn't South do its homework in terms of ascertaining the worth of its lease, and then going for the jugular?

Taxpayers fund $4 million soccer deal as part of plan to give Collingwood Football Club control of Olympic Park

          By James Campbell

TAXPAYERS are shelling out almost $4.5 million to a Victorian Premier League soccer club under a secret deal agreed to by the Brumby government, as part of its plan to give the Collingwood Football Club exclusive control of Olympic Park. 

The payments - which run for 15 years and cost taxpayers up to $300,000 a year - were signed off by then sports minister James Merlino in return for South Melbourne FC, formerly known as Hellas, giving up its exclusive lease at the Bob Jane Stadium in South Melbourne.

When the deal was signed in 2009 the Brumby government was keen for a reluctant Athletics Victoria to move to the stadium so Olympic Park could be given to Collingwood.

The payments have come to light through documents filed in a court case that could see a receiver appointed to South Melbourne FC over a $120,000 loan it was given by supporters in 2004 and which it has never repaid.

The County Court will be asked next month to decide if South Melbourne FC is liable to repay Wellington Investments for the loan it was given at the time the club was in administration after failing to be admitted to the A-League.

The club told the court "the majority of its income, more than $300,000 per annum, is paid to it by the State Sport Centres Trust pursuant to a memorandum of understanding ... involving the Victorian State Government".

It also told the court it is "receiving the sum of $950,000 from the State Government" to build a social club within its exclusive space at the redeveloped Lakeside Oval.

Sources familiar with the deal said it requires the Government to pay the club $300,000 for five years and then $200,000 for another 10 years after that, in addition to the $950,000 for the redeveloped social club.

Club chairman Nick Galatas declined to discuss the court case, but said the money was fair and reasonable compensation for giving up its exclusive rights to the old Bob Jane Stadium.

He rejected suggestions that the club's lease on Bob Jane Stadium had been for a peppercorn rent.

"It wasn't a commercial rent, but it wasn't a dollar a year," he said.

Mr Merlino said the court case was an internal dispute within the soccer club.

"I hope it gets resolved for all the players and members of the public," he said.

He said Labor government negotiations with the club had been difficult.

"I'm proud of the transformation of sport in the City of Melbourne during the last term of our government,"he said. 

"Melbourne now has two world-class sporting precincts, where most cities in the world would be lucky to have one."

A spokeswoman for incumbent Sports Minister Hugh Delahunty confirmed the existence of the deal but declined to comment, citing commercial-in-confidence.