FFV CEO Mark Rendell Departs FFV

Some of our readers may have seen the 'Lawn Bowls Rendell Bows Out' article that I wrote for Goal Weekly. For the rest of you, here's the article in question, with one minor addition.


Mark Rendell's resignation as Football Federation Victoria CEO couldn't have come at a more crucial time, amid the biggest proposed reforms in Victorian soccer seen in decades. With Rendell hosting National Competitions Review information sessions as recently as mid-September, his sudden exit has caused much speculation as to the reasons for his resignation.

The fate of the NCR, as it was to be enacted in Victoria, could now be in limbo. The FFV, and Rendell in particular, were adamant that they would not baulk from the process. Yet many of the state's leading clubs are strongly opposed to the reforms. While four or five clubs are rumoured to be working with the FFV, only South Melbourne has come out and openly stated its intention to engage with the process with any sort of enthusiasm.

Coming across from Bowls Australia, where he had spent 11 years as either a director or CEO, Rendell was always on a hiding to nothing, especially from the game's conservative male soccer factions. Within days of his hiring he had been dubbed 'Mr Lawn Bowls', a nickname that stuck.

Rendell's experience in lawn bowls seemed to inform his approach at the FFV, with an emphasis on expanding participation, especially in womens soccer. This focus on female soccer, while worthy, received criticism from some quarters as bordering on the obsessive. Many of those complainants also felt that the FFV's promotion of the Victory and Heart (but especially the former) saw little in the way of value returned. They argued that it wasn't the FFV's job to promote private businesses, especially with a limited budget to use on its own concerns.

But for all the criticism leveled at Rendell and the FFV on their lack of interest in elite senior men's soccer, there were attempts to try and revive interest in the VPL. The grand final was played at AAMI Park, this year in conjunction with an A-League match. Last year saw the return of cup football for the first time since 2004, though interest seemed to fall significantly this season, amid complaints about costs and poor organisation. The FFV also ran weekly live VPL matches on the internet, though some wondered if that money wouldn't have been better spent on other media ventures.

There was also the attempt at creating a player development structure independent of clubs, who were perceived to be exploiting junior players in order to pay senior player wages. Rendell was thus an advocate of weakening the control that clubs had over the game, a system of governance in place since the early 1960s. Reforms which sought to grant more power to the majority of ordinary participants – players and parents - were enacted via forced changes to club constitutions and the creation of the zone system. Others, though, felt that the net effect of the zone system was to place different mouths at the same trough, with the majority of the game's participants still more or less powerless.

The FFV also sought to reconnect country soccer to the metropolitan system. In addition to absorbing regional federations under its own banner, the FFV also attempted to bring in the Victorian Champions League, a zone based summer league for all age groups.

However, the VCL senior men's competition never got started, and soon enough its senior women's counterpart fell over as well. There were complaints about travel; about the same sorts of biases being involved in selections; about making kids play throughout the entire year; about forcing junior players to play in the VCL if they wanted state selection. Still, there were those who looked forward to the VCL season, and it created a bridge between country and city soccer.

The FFV also got rid of the Super League system, often characterised by its constituents as a flawed but fixable system. The dissolution of the Super League system was widely panned by people involved at junior level. Mismatches became more frequent, diminishing the social experience of weaker players, while reducing the amount of high level competition faced by more talented players.

During Rendell's tenure, the FFV found itself in court against two of its clubs, Whittlesea Zebras and South Melbourne. Both times the FFV lost – the Zebras' court case in particular, in which the FFV was involved in turfing the Zebras out of Epping Stadium, seriously damaged the FFV's reputation among its constituents. The financial costs were also substantial.

There was also an emphasis on stamping out poor behaviour on and off the field. While docked points were used, the main deterrents used were fines. Several clubs were punished with five figure amounts – difficult enough for teams at the top of the league pyramid to deal with – all but impossible for clubs at the bottom. The FFV claimed that its zero tolerance approach was working, while others wondered if punishing clubs instead of the individuals responsible was the right way to go.

The move to the St Kilda Road headquarters also created discord. It hadn't been so long since the FFV had moved to the Darebin International Sports Centre – now it was moving again, and this time away from its grounds at DISC.

The Knox Regional Football Centre was unveiled this year with much fanfare, but there are allegations that proper due diligence was not performed, and that the facility is bleeding money.

There have also been criticisms of the service that the FFV provides. The switch to the new results system (albeit due in large part to an FFA initiative) started off clunky and is still not seen as satisfactory by many of the game's constituents. In an era when a young Victorian cricketer can trace their statistics across every year of their career, the inability of the FFV to even have correct best and fairest vote tallies is inexcusable.

Whether sourced from within the game or outside of it, the new CEO has their work cut out for them. Among their tasks will be contending with the factional fighting and self-interest which Rendell was not able to stamp out. They'll have to quickly come to grips with the NCR reforms, whose final blueprint is due in January 2013.

They'll be in charge of a large and unwieldy organisation that appears to have high staff turnover, and a reputation of not delivering quality outcomes for its constituency. And perhaps hardest of all, they'll have to find ways of making the game more affordable for participants, as the costs of playing soccer in Victoria continue to rise.

South loses appeal in second go

After months of angst, court proceedings, and another six long hours at the appeals tribunal, we're basically in the exact same position. I'm not going to repeat every word of every step of the process - so here's a summary, aq look back through an amazing journey.

• How it all started 
• The original tribunal hearing
• The orginal appeals session 
• My reaction to rumour we were going to appeal that appeal 
• The court case itself 
• Winning the case but putting the necessary dampener on the spontaneous celebrations that sprouted up 

To not completely short change my public, I will include some new material. I, amongst others, was asked this very valid question on the Victory forum, by a poster I believe Teo Pellizzeri, a local football journalist (apologies if my attribution is false).

So what exactly should be the outcome/reprimand from the original case South was cited for? Or should it have not even gone that far in the first place?

It's a good question because it cuts right to the heart of the matter, moving well away from the increasingly incoherent anti-FFV babblings of several people - that there was a pitch invasion and several other instances of improper conduct, and that something has to be done in these situations to discourage future incidents. It took me at least an hour to craft what in the end was a very short response. The chief requirements were that I did not excuse or lessen the behaviour; that I was not inconsistent with comments I had made previously; and that I offered some sort of alternative.

Personally, I think the club was foolhardy in appealing at all, but it has the right to do so and to be treated fairly. The rules apparently say that you can't be penalised competition points for a 'first offence' - which this was - but the appeals board can make up their own penalties.

Your question is difficult to answer TP, because I think there is a legitimate question of how much a club can be held responsible for the actions of its supporters who are not performing official duties. South (in large part due to the Major Events Act), was required to have more security and police than other clubs. If it complied with all the regulations, and things that it otherwise can't control went wrong, what else could it do? It got on the front foot and dished out bans to the relevant individuals. What happens if a twice a year attendee screws up?

I'm not excusing what happened - a lot of the friendships I've have at the club have been messed up because of this situation. And I think point deductions are a legitimate direction to consider - but there should also be some methodology that people can see and say, yep, we got exactly what we deserved and we know exactly why.

The situation now is, that Dandenong and Northcote are replaying their game tonight at the Veneto Club at 8:30, after their original meeting was abandoned due a lighting failure a few weeks ago - with Northcote leading 4-1 at around the 50th minute mark. The only suitable result for us to make the finals now is a draw - a win for either side sees that team through and us out. The winner of this Mexican standoff plays Heidelberg. For a previw of tonight's game, see the special edition of the Kiss of Death. If I can make it out there tonight, I will. If nothing else, it'll be an exciting end to the regular season.

South win Supreme Court battle - but will it be enough?

Justice Pagone handed down his judgement today, agreeing with the FFV that they may substitute additional charges as is allowed under their constitution, but that in this instance they did not properly offer South an opportunity to defend the newly created charge, which included both not giving enough notice and not articulating the charge. Justice Pagone also awarded legal costs to South - though it seems like we did not get all our costs paid, but rather the majority.

The crowd was the biggest of the trial thus far. At least four South fans in attendance pondering whether to start chanting when the verdict was handed down, asking if anyone had any flares, and whether we should have brought our South scarves to pretend to be ultras for the cameras outside. In the end, nothing happened, and people got quickly to replying to the several dozen phone messages they'd received asking about the case.

The press also turned up today, filling up at least four spots in their section of the courtroom. One bloke was from the ABC, and you should probably keep an eye out for a brief segment featuring Nick Galatas speaking to them outside the court. According to the journo, when asked what the significance was of this case, he said it was something a little different and unusual. Obviously not familiar with Victorian soccer. If I'm not mistaken, Michael Lynch was also there. Probably hasn't reported on a game of ours since 2005 (apart from the Victory friendly), but there he was. Meanwhile Paul Daffey gets a weekly column talking about the VAFA. Beggars can't be choosers I suppose.

The net result is that sometime soon, possibly as early as tonight, the appeals tribunal will be reconvened to hear the case once more. Justice Pagone made the point that he did not have the authority or the will to demand that the FFV use an appeals board made up entirely of people who had not been part of the original appeals tribunal. So the situation basically is that we can still get done over at the appeals tribunal - it'll just be that little bit easier for us to defend ourselves this time. Should we have results of the appeal go our way and we make the finals, we'll end up playing Heidelberg in the elimination final this week. Lovely little coincidence. We'll see what happens.

Judgement Day tomorrow

Well, for us anyway, if not quite Christendom itself. The first part of this will take place at Court, Court 1, Old High Court, 450 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne, with Justice Pagone. Again. The second part, if there is one, later that night, or so they say. Likely won't last long. Your correspondent plans to be there.

Kiss of Death, Special Edition - Dandenong vs Northcote

With the final five already somewhat decided, I will be previewing the most important game of the last two years for South Melbourne. South Melbourne you say? Yes, South Melbourne I say.

Dandenong Thunder vs Northcote City
After going AWOL at Somers St watching Hellas beat the Georgies to a pulp in driving rain and pretty shit weather, I have decided that I am a glutton for punishment and will drive out on Wednesday to the Bulleen Veneto Club with a few mates to go AWOL once again, but this time for a draw. I am a neutral virgin. I have never gone to a match where I have openly supported another team, or cared about any particular result working out for me. I am after all an Oracle, a seer of the future, I am “KODstradamus”!!! (cue lightning bolts).

Why is this game important? Pretty simple really. Hellas needs a draw to finish fifth. A win for either Dandenong or Northcote will result in Hellas finishing 6th. I am not going to talk about the court case because quite frankly, I’m an on the park person, and not a tribunal/court season decider person. For me, what happens on the park, stays on the park. Regardless of any court outcome we need a draw on Wednesday night. A few bright sparks are on various forums are saying stupid things, like the following:

“I expect our friends from Heidelberg to support us on Wednesday night against Norfcote, so we can make the finals instead of them or South, opa rok der !”

I say only one thing. The Bergers have no fans to support themselves so I don’t think they will be supporting any other teams. South fans will be out in force as per usual.
Finally, (picture me walking down from clouds on a white staircase in a white robe Demis Roussos style, virgins throwing rose petals at my feet) Dandenong Thunder 2 – Northcote City 2. This will be the cracker of all crackers. Expect cards and plenty of them. Expect a crowd, and plenty of neutrals. Expect the lights to stay on for the full 90 minutes. Invest wisely, the end is near.

South on the brink of finals - George Cross 0 Hellas 4

Despite putting up a bit of a fight in the first half, the Georgies capitulated miserably in the second half to find themselves out of the VPL. Fernando chipped in with two goals, Recchia with a lovely freekick and Rama rounded it out with a rare goal. We still looked very susceptible on our right hand side. But we got the job done, the Maltese went a bit awol in the first half watching their missed chances before being hit with the familiar feel of relegation.

But what you all want to know is, where are we and what do we have to do make the finals. Quite simply, a draw in the replayed Dandenong vs Northcote game on Wednesday sees us play Heidelberg in the elimination final... unless of course the off field shenanigans fall our way. Will it be worthwhile heading out to that side of the city to watch that game? Well, the next paragraph might have something to do with it.

Word on the street (or more accurately, the front of the Mark Viduka Stand where these conversations took place) is that Justice Pagone would be highly unlikely to give us our six points back, as that would be meddling in the FFV's internal affairs - more so that we would be given the chance to defend ourselves or appeal the latest charge or something like that. We could find out as early as tomorrow afternoon his decision, with the appeal heard at the FFV that very night.

It's all too much to think about.

Your Guess Is As Good As Mine

I'll be blunt. I don't make any claim to understanding the law. While some other people who attended today's hearing walked away from it reasonably confident, albeit still with an appropriate level of cautiousness, I'm not so sure - certainly I don't think we came out of it any worse than we when we came into it - but Justice Pagone is a hard man to read. I'll do my best to set the scene.

The first 50 minutes or so was taken up with our lawyer setting up the foundations so to speak. Nothing new or exciting there; quite dull actually. It was after the 50 minute mark that we started seeing a bit more action. That's where we started going through the arguments we thought were relevant. After about another 45/50 minutes, it was the FFV's turn.

Justice Pagone is quite softly spoken and has a very wry sense of humour. Very old school teacher kind of vibe as well - he was giving each side enough rope before succinctly and subtly bringing them back into line. Since we went first, it was quite nerve wracking to see him shoot down various angles we were trying to pursue - the thing to remember was that he was just as likely to do it to the FFV's lawyers, which is exactly what happened. He even managed to break out in laughter a couple of times.


As one would expect in such a matter, both sides appealed to many of the same materials - the original tribunal hearing, the appeal transcript (which went to 120 pages) and the FFV's constitution - with emphasis on which elements would take importance over others differing, of course.

Much was vested by either side in two little words - for us 'other', and for the FFV 'may'. We were trying to argue the point that since the issues of bottle throwing, racial vilification etc. had been covered by the original charges (I think MP5 and/or MP9 was the main one), what 'other' charges were they trying to hit us with in MP10? For the FFV, if I recall correctly, they were talking about the ways in which they 'may' introduce charges and/or punishments as they wish and as is indicated in their constitution.

In terms of preparedness and performance, I think our side was better. It won't be the main thing Justice Pagone will look at, but it wasn't a good look the FFV fumbling around for papers they didn't have, and being unable to answer how they managed to come to their idea of a six point deduction - in addition to it seemingly going against their pre-ordained list of set penalties of for transgressions. At least, that's how I read the situation.

The FFV tried to argue that the possibility of the punishment being heavier on appeal was always on the table, as it is with regular courts. We argued that how could that be so when we had already been punished and accepted guilt for those actions previously - surely we could not be found guilty and punished for the same charge twice? The FFV seemed to struggle to prove to Justice Pagone that the new charge and/or heavier punishment had been adequately articulated to Nick Galatas - with both sides pointing to different parts of the appeal transcript to prove their point the FFV focusing naturally on very early segments, us on the very end - both sides deemed this quite crucial to the debate. We referred to the Carlton vs AFL case of a few years back - the FFV to the 1978 case of the NSW Coursing Club or something like that.

The FFV lawyers at one stage mistakenly indicated that Heidelberg Laser Dude was one of our fans - he was immediately corrected, though Justice Pagone wondered out loud what kind of game was this that caused such behaviour. Clarendon Corner was described as a known trouble spot. I wish I could be as confident as others seem to be about our chances, but I don't know the law, and I don't know what Justice Pagone will come up with next week, and which arguments he'll be swayed by the most. Like the rest of us, I just have to wait until next week when Justice Pagone hands down his decision.

Directions hearing rundown

Awesome five minutes of action today. The lawyers on each side did their little legalese speaking act, papers and stuff to be done by a certain time (by us), trying to fit the whole thing into Justice Pagone's schedule. The FFV for their part, seemed to be trying to argue that if results of other matches went a certain way, the case wouldn't really be necessary - at least that's how I understood it. Justice Pagone eventually agreed with South's legal reps that, yep, we could finish this all tomorrow.

As for the less important stuff, I've added that court building to my list of court's attended. It's not much of a list to be honest - it was the first time I'd been to court since I got called up for jury duty about two or three years ago. Being the dill that I am, I forgot to take my watch off when going through the metal detector. That's about as exciting as it got.

The action should go up a notch on Thursday 12th August, as the actual trial gets underway. We're back in the Old High Court building once more, in Court 1, 450 Little Bourke Street, kickoff at 10am. Referee for this match is Justice Pagone.

South vs FFV directions hearing tomorrow

In the Commercial Court, with Justice Pagone (who doesn't have his own wikipedia page, unlike some justices), Court 1, Ground Floor, Old High Court, 450 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne, at 9:30.

It's a directions hearing, which this Australian legal glossary defines as

A hearing held before the full hearing so that the court or tribunal can give directions to the parties about how the action should proceed.

Which doesn't sound very fun and interesting. Not sure if it's worth going to. Then again, I don't think I've been in the Commercial Court before. Decisions, decisions.

Channel 9 news report on South going to court

Surprising that this even got this much attention in the mainstream press - even more surprising that it doesn't include gratuitous riot footage as is the norm.

South taking FFV to Court!

Can I just say, I'm all for this. Whether or not it's popular amongst the plebs out there, from both our own and opposition sides, is not important to me. What is important is that, following the lead of the Whittlesea Zebras last season, who fought the FFV and won, we are apparently taking a stand as well. There is the notion of picking your battles, but sometimes you just gotta go for it and see what comes out of it. The fact the Court has allowed the matter to proceed is a good early sign. The club's media release follows, which I think paints a fairly clear picture of where the club is coming from at least.


Word on the street is that Tuesday or Wednesday will see court proceedings go ahead further after the initial court phase which took place today. Hopefully it's Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday - therefore your correspondent can make it down.


Media Release: South take court action to recover points

Friday, 6 August 2010 3:28 PM

South Melbourne Football Club advises that it yesterday commenced a Supreme Court action against both Football Federation Victoria and Football Federation Australia. The Court action relates to the decision by the FFV Appeals Board on 18 May this year to deduct the Club six championship points for a charge relating to an incident at South Melbourne match against Heidelberg United on 11 April this year when a number of South Melbourne supporters ran onto the ground immediately following the equalising goal in the 91st minute.

The Club had initially been fined $2,500 by the FFV Tribunal for that incident. The Tribunal also ruled that the match score which stood at one all when the match was abandoned in the 91st minute, should be recorded as a three nil win to Heidelberg. At the same time, it banned three South Melbourne supporters from attending any further matches for life.

The Club appealed those three decisions and the FFV Appeals Board made the following decisions:
It set aside the life bans for the two supporters who pursued the appeal and in their place, it banned one supporter until the end of the 2010 season and another supporter to the end of the 2012 season.
It reinstated the match score at one all.
It agreed with the Club that it was not guilty of the offence with which it had been charged.
It substituted another charge for the same offence and deducted the Club six championship points in place of the fine.

The Club was aggrieved at the decision to deduct it six points which it felt was wrong. Since that time, it has worked behind the scenes with the FFA and FFV with a view to having its grievance heard by either the FFV or the FFA or even having the matter referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Agreement was not reached to do so and with the season fast coming to a close, the Club has commenced urgent Court proceedings with a view to resolving this matter prior to the VPL finals series commencing following the final round of VPL matches next week.

The Club will not comment any further on the subject matter of the Court action as it is presently before the Court.

It's true - South to appeal the appeal

Appeal result from Heidelberg game finally handed down

And it appears that we probably should have taken what we got initially on the chin and shut up, because while we've got our point back for the draw - and Carl Recchia gets a South goal - we've now been deducted six points instead. Which is a fair result the way I see it. Some of the persons banned for life have had those bans reduced significantly, which I suppose is fair enough. But hopefully, finally, this is the end of all this kind of behaviour, and more importantly the incessant justifications of the so called 'exuberance', both from those who are responsible for it, and those who condone it. That the FFV didn't condone the St Albans and Frankston Pines brawl last year, and that we do not have any sort of special immunity when we stuff up, shows that finally, maybe this sport is getting serious about not condoning what isn't condoned in other sports. That the playing arena, and the fence around it, hold a meaningful place in the football environment. That there is a reason why everyone who is not absolutely essential to the performance of a match are asked to be outside this barrier.

Why the security guards weren't in front of Clarendon Corner, as they usually are, and whether that is the club's fault, I do not know. It matters little now I think, because it doesn't excuse what happened. So, there's goes fourth spot at the halfway mark of the season. There goes a great opportunity for the double chance, instead being brought back into the mire with a tough battle just to get a finals position. So, are we all happy now? I, too, would have much rather stuck the boot into the FFV, because it is so easy to do (fun as well). But not this time.

For the full details of the tribunal appeal hearing itself, head to this link.

There's that scene in The Simpsons

in the Radioactive Man movie episode, where the nerds are trying to find out who's going to play Radioactive Man - I keep telling you, he's 73 years old and he's dead - and they have the one nerd underneath the producers table with his computer and listening device. That's where I wish I was with regards to the marathon hearing and deliberation session going. Instead I'm here. I've got to improve my networks.

Tribunal hearing set for Wednesday 21st April

Check out the full list of alleged offences on the VPL's website. If you don't feel like reading, here's the gist. Four charges against us, two against the Bergers (laser pointing dude and Tilovki allegedly assaulting a fan). We've been charged with:

1. Physical objects being thrown and/or racial taunts
2. People who shouldn't have been on the field of play being omn the field of play
3. Alleged lack of security
4. Bringing the game into disrepute.

Tidy list there. Not sure how it will turn out, and I don't really want to second guess anything. Question is, when the judgements are handed down, what will be asked of the club and it's unruly 'associates'. Will they get the ban stick? Or will they be asked to make up for it in some way? The latest official South press release sheds some light on the matter. Some bannings in the pipeline it seems. Might be a good time to get out of the country for a bit. Probably a good thing I've ditched smfcboard too.