The title of the article is "Woden questions need to put back game against FC". The involvement by Capital Football is the key ingredient in this story.
The situation is simple - Canberra FC made application to make a tour to participate in an overseas tournament in Croatia during the PL season (they are there now). Capital Football said yes and further to that, rescheduled the PL game they would miss while on tour. It could have been two games and two Clubs affected, but one game is a bye for CFC. Importantly, the other Club affected, WVFC was not consulted by Capital Football during the decision making process, they were simply told of the outcome. The WVFC position was not known to the decision maker(s) at Capital Football, because they either forgot to ask them or felt it was not necessary to consult the other PL Club affected by the CFC application (in the context of the PL competition draw). What Premier League Club would be happy with the sitaution WVFC found itself in?
What follows from Capital Football's handling of this situation is not so simple or pleasing for Premier League Clubs.
Has anyone breached any competition or other related rules or regulations for the Premier League? Doesn't seem like it and WVFC aren't saying Canberra FC or Capital Football has done so.
At the heart of this issue is how well the matter was handled by Capital Football. Is this the right way for Capital Football to be doing business between Capital Football and Clubs on very important matters? Obviously Woden Valley FC don't think it is appropriate and I very much doubt other Premier League Club Presidents would have much sympathy with Capital Football's handling of the matter. It could be them next time.
Has Canberra FC done anything wrong - No! They asked and Capital Football gave them everything they wanted. Both WVFC and CFC maintain a good working relationship.
Nothing could illustrate more plainly than this matter, just how poor the communication / consultation can become between Capital Football and Clubs (in this case a Premier League Club) and just how much work needs to be done by Capital Football to come to grips with all aspects of the most senior level of Football in the ACT region - Premier League Football - Men's and Women's.
Some Junior Clubs have similiar concerns for the state of communication with Capital Football. Not for nothing did those who successfully sort election to the Capital Football Board make it clear that communication with the Club was a top priority. It was good to hear. The CEO made some similiar utterances and the Captial Football staff were all present and correct! So who is not getting the message?
The response by the CEO Capital Football in the Canberra Times (see article below) is very disappointing and unlikely to either convince or satisfy anyone who cares to examine this matter closely and asks one simple question - "When is the Premier League the Premier League in the ACT?" Or as one one colleague in Football preferred "How hard would it be to consult and communicate in advance with the other Club affected by any decision by Capital Football?" My response to that was - "only if you don't want have to deal with the response."
This could have been handled so much better and should have been. How hard would it have been to extend Woden Valley FC the ordinary courtesies? Too hard it seems and yet, the CEO seems inclined to go on the front foot in the Canberra Times and attempt to make WVFC seem unreasonable. How do you build communication, trust and co-operation on that basis? I can see the WVFC Womens officials nodding their agreement with the WVFC Mens PL Co-ordinator and then shaking their heads, wondering when this will stop.
But I digress! This matter (subject of the CT article) involves two good Mens Premier League Football Clubs. There is no difficulty between the Clubs - lets be clear on that score and any suggestion to the contrary should be treated with caution and suspicion on this matter.
As is often the case, there are unintended consequences arising from lack of consultation.
Here is another one that that has arisen in WVFC discussions from the original action by Capital Football. When the PL16, PL18 and PPL games are played this weekend between the two Clubs, it will be interesting to see if those CFC PL players who are not on tour (and there are several), will play in the PPL. Now that would raise further concerns for WVFC (and other clubs when they contemplate the situation). Would it be fair for CFC to use these players in the PPL game if they are eligible to play (competition rules prevail here)? Perhaps there has been discussion between CFC and Capital Football on this issue arising, but as there was no consultation between Capital Football and WVFC before a final decision was made on the tour approval and scheduled PL game, WVFC was unable to address this possibility of this additional matter. One wonders whether this even crossed the Capital Football CEO's mind at the time. Difficult to do so now between the Clubs. Its a delicate matter. I guess we find out on Sunday.
One thing must be said - the Premier League draw must be viewed as something of high importance, not something you make sweeping changes to without careful consultation, an underpinning document that is generally set in cement and only altered if there is no detriment to any Club. Once the season is under way, Clubs train, compete, meet obligations to sponsors, make their plans, generate income and develop their competitiveness on the basis of that draw. That's why proposed changes to a PL draw anywhere in the world are met with careful discussion between ALL the parties. That's the way it should be in the Capital Football Premier League. But it seems it is not! Why?
The CEO Capital Football would probably argue that any changes to the PL draw is an "operational" matter and that the competition rules provide for the Mens League Manager / CEO make the decisions. That may well be the problem. Seems to be in this case - but only if you think it appropriate for Capital Football to have consulted with both Clubs. I do and I should think every other PL Club would feel the same way - and on this point alone, the CEO's defence of this discourtesy to WVFC, is absolutely skewered! This was so avoidable.
Then you ask yourself - where does the Mens Standing Advisory Committee fit into this picture? If they don't they should. A matter of this signifcance should have been referred to the MSAC, it is within their remit. Do the Regional Representatives (South) fit into the picture and having read the CT article I would hope they have contacted WVFC to render assistance and that WVFC ask that this matter be referred to .... who? Yes, a problem there I think! The Mens League Manager or the CEO? Hmmm by the CEO's response that doesn't seem like a good idea. So, as the Regional reps sit on the CF Board, perhaps its time to have the matter elevated to the next Board meeting. I can just imagine how that will cause the emails and mobile phones to buzz in an effort to see it doesn't happen. And maybe that's also part of the communication problem between Capital Football and Clubs.
None of this noise should prevent WVFC from doing what they can to see that future matters are dealt with in a more open and collaborative and consultative manner.
A NPL follower called to remind the NPL that there was a recent difficulty between WVFC Womens PL concerning a proposed later start time in a recent game with ANU. The reason given for the request by WVFC was that it would give time for ACTAS players who had the ACTAS coach's approval to play a whole or part of the PL game with WVFC to make it to the game (they were coming back from Goulburn). And heaven knows, WVFC has taken a lot of stick from Capital Football over the availability of their ACTAS players. The request was denied and WVFC Womens felt they had probably been unfairly handled on the matter (again), a matter that seemed the very epitome of "operation" decision making. As it turned out, it seems ANU would have been advantaged by a later start that day as they had players arriving after the scheduled game start time. Now its worth remembering that the structure inside the Capital Football organisation ensure that Mens and Womens Premier League Football is managed by different staff. Makes you wonder!
But back to the substance of the CT article in todays edition. What was the decision making process that underpinned the decision to postpone the WVFC v CFC PL game? Was it made by the League Manager in conjunction with the CEO? Was the matter elevated to the Mens Standing Committee (the place the competition draw was settled) and if so, who in that committee considered the matter (and how did they meet, was it a telephone call from a CF staffer or CEO), and if not, why not? Did the matter get elevated to the Captial Football Board or was this considered to be a low level "operational matter". Well, if it was the latter, and it seems that is exactly how it was done - I suspect it will not be in the future and nor should it be. Important decisions need to be visible, defendable and auditable - not simply "advised" after the decision is made.
So many questions and a number of them seem to touch on that important distinction between governance and operational matters. Lets have a full and forensic accounting of this one. It further illuminates another compelling issue in front of Capital Football Board - is the Capital Football operational structure now appropriate to the business? I would suggest not and it would seem that thought is shared by others with whom I have been in conversation at Capital Football and in some Clubs. The absence of an operational entity to deal exclusively with the Mens and Womens Premier League (jointly) is a case in point. Its holding the back the development of the Premier League.
How quickly this escalates once you start to think about it and how it affects your Club.
The spotlight now seems to be set squarely on Capital Football and the comments in the article in the Canberra Times, attributed to the CEO Capital Football have ensured that this is one matter than will escalate - but not between the two Clubs.
Just unbelievable, a really poor example of sports administration.
Appeals to the correct application of the rules, risk setting aside the need to contemplate what is best going forward for the integrity of the Premier League. If you like - the difference between the "letter" and the "spirit" of these rules. This was one matter that was never going to be decided on a simple application of rules as they exist and most definitely not without both Clubs affected by the matter, being consulted in advance of the decision by Capital Football. How did they miss that one?
And then there is the very unfortunate reference in the CT article by the CEO Capital Football to approval given to Junior Football Club teams to tour overseas during the playing season (specifically WVSC). Unbelievable! Junior Football is all about "DEVELOPMENT" , it is not Premier League Football and indeed, the Club(s) concerned do not send PL16 or PL18 teams overseas during the season. There is one exception in the past - the ACTAS mens teams (U14- U16 players) which plays in our Premier League at an appropriate level and it is a tour which is also for developmental purposes and everyone understands that requirement. It was wrong of the CEO Capital Football to throw this at WVFC and an apology to both WVSC and WVFC would bean appropriate course of action.
You do not judge Junior Football by the same standards (in relation to this and technical matters) as you do the Premier League. The entire National Football Curriculum and Development Plans makes this abundantly clear. How could any Capital Football representative seem to fail comprehend this important distinction, much less appear to use it as justification for a decision in the Premier League situation described in the Canberra Times article? Makes no sense at all and indeed, only inflames an already unsatisfactory situation. Its unlikely to be forgotten in a hurry.
The WVFC PL Co-ordinator, a hard working, respected, fair dealing and very experienced Club official quoted in the CT article, has been told that he should expect a call from Capital Football. I hope it is to apologise, because there is not much point in ringing him or anyone else in WVFC to tell them WVFC has got it wrong.
Will Woden Valley FC make representations to the Capital Football Board to ensure this situation is not handled in this fashion again in the Premier League? I hope so. If they did, it would be a good service to the conduct of game in the ACT.
Will this situation attract the President of Capital Football and the Board members, including the Regional Representatives? It should and as a matter of urgency.
So just in case you haven't a copy to hand, here is the article from the Canberra Times:
Woden questions need to put back game against FC
BY DAVID POLKINGHORNE, SOCCER
22 Jun, 2011 08:20 AM
Woden Valley has questioned the appropriateness of Capital Football's decision to reschedule this weekend's men's premier league clash with all-conquering Canberra FC.
Canberra FC flew out on Monday to play in the Croatian World Club Championship and will return in 2 weeks.
The championships are held every four years and FC was runner-up at the 2007 tournament, losing 2-1 in the final to Canadian club CNSC Toronto Croatia.
While away, Canberra was only scheduled to play Woden, the game pushed back to a mid-week clash on August3.
Woden premier league manager Mike Swan said FC had the depth to cover the absence and the fixture should have gone ahead as planned.
Not all of the senior squad has gone to Croatia, with Adam Spaleta arguably the best player in the competition and John Glass both unable to make the trip.
Swan believed a team could have been built around those two with the addition of reserve-grade players.
''Canberra FC is such a strong club ... that they could field a very competitive first-grade side,'' he said.
''...They might lose, well they might have to put up with what every other club puts up with every week at their hands.''
He said the rescheduling put Woden in a difficult position.
Capital Football chief executive officer Heather Reid said Woden Valley had agreed to the rescheduling.
''It's not like half a dozen of their players were out to attend a wedding, or they're all heading down the coast,'' she said.
''This is quite a legitimate reason and Canberra FC will be representing the national capital at that tournament so we would do what we could to assist.''
But Swan said the club was ''told'' about the change via email rather than asked.
Reid also pointed out that Woden Valley was sending an under-14 girls team to Europe to play in tournaments in Sweden and Denmark in July and had also been allowed to reschedule games.
The Woden Valley senior and junior clubs are separate entities and Swan said there was a distinct difference between junior soccer and the premier league.
''This is first-grade football we're dealing with here, it's not kids football,'' he said. ''... I don't think it would happen in the other [football] codes and I question whether it should happen here.''
Swan said Woden had no issues with Canberra FC, which had been extremely helpful in the rescheduling.
FC coach Rob Graham, who also couldn't make the trip, said it was a great opportunity for his team to play against some quality sides.
''They're going across to play a very high standard of football ... as a coach you should be encouraging your teams to be playing in the highest standard they can,'' Graham said.