changes to capital football

[NicCarBel]

Youth and I hope it doesn't


Queanbeyan have been putting together a decent youth pathway for the last few year (expecting this rule I assume) so I would imagine they wouldn't have been far off meeting the rules. That might have been a small exemption and would make sense.
Yoogali makes sense to be denied.

ANU never stood a chance so why bother to apply haha.
Canberra Juventus currently have little to no juniors that can support the club so makes sense.
White Eagles are the exemption I can't understand, unless they have said the Woden Clubs are their catchment area.
Wagga should have an NPLB but they don't have the structure to hold a NPLM team. All the best players leave for University or Academy's and its hard for them to attract players.


Two tiers of NPLM was the best thing to happen to football in Canberra and should have stayed. But NPLB needed to merge and be smaller.

Brindabella (a far south team) need to be and deserve to be in the NPLM. Enough said on that.

Wagga does not have the ability (not their fault) to be a consistent and competitive team with the proposed squad roles that I have seen. All their best young players leave Wagga for work, study and other opportunities, it can't be helped, its just their reality.

And look - I'm going to at least applaud you for being able to have a constructive discussion about this online - I really appreciate it even if we're disagreeing. But that therein lies my ultimate issue with Capital Football at the moment: I've raised these issues publicly in the past on their social media channels in the same fashion - but come the day of their announcement of exemptions, I found myself blocked from their page (with others from Griffith for example who were not exactly polite about their feelings somehow still being able to comment) - It seems they don't want to have these ideas discussed rationally, and try to censor those out with a bit more sense behind the criticisms they're facing.

When asked to provide details of why they had blocked me in an effort to address my behaviour, nothing had been provided.

 

[NicCarBel]

I hear a lot about long seasons, in england there are leagues with 40+ game seasons several tiers below the pro leagues

I think at an 'elite' level in Australia, you want to be hitting at least 20 games a season to be honest. 12 team divisions would give you a 22 game home and away season - I think that's a great minimum for NPL/elite levels.

For Canberra though, Capital Football cites this as primarily an issue due to ground availability from the ACT Government (since many, many, many grounds are shared with Cricket - so need to have some sort of transition period, or something like that). There's a line supporting that in the review, I will have to find it again.

Grassroots seasons can (and should) definitely be less.

 

[grazorblade]

I think at an 'elite' level in Australia, you want to be hitting at least 20 games a season to be honest. 12 team divisions would give you a 22 game home and away season - I think that's a great minimum for NPL/elite levels.

Grassroots seasons can (and should) definitely be less.

Curious why that is, u have 8th division teams here playing 40+ league games when everyone has a day job

 

[NicCarBel]

Curious why that is, u have 8th division teams here playing 40+ league games when everyone has a day job

I think I edited my post before and added that context haha

Infrastructure, essentially.

For Canberra - Capital Football cites this as primarily an issue due to ground availability from the ACT Government (since many, many, many grounds are shared with Cricket - so need to have some sort of transition period, or something like that). There's a line supporting that in the review, I will have to find it again.

 

[grazorblade]

I think I edited my post before and added that context haha

Infrastructure, essentially.

For Canberra - Capital Football cites this as primarily an issue due to ground availability from the ACT Government (since many, many, many grounds are shared with Cricket - so need to have some sort of transition period, or something like that). There's a line supporting that in the review, I will have to find it again.

Ah thats interesting.

Since the fa here has been buying grounds and clubhouses for lower division clubs for the last century, infrastructure isnt a problem. I know a 9th division teams that owns 9 full sized pitches

 

[NicCarBel]

Ah thats interesting.

Since the fa here has been buying grounds and clubhouses for lower division clubs for the last century, infrastructure isnt a problem. I know a 9th division teams that owns 9 full sized pitches

Yep - is very much a problem outside the premier leagues across the country I would say.


Apologies for the text block - but as per the Capital Football Final NPL Review:

Ground availability
Football Australia Technical recommendation for NPL competitions is that a minimum of 30 round
season is held. However, CF does not have sufficient available grounds to play home and away
matches across the NPL Men, Women, Boys and Girls competitions through late February and March,
which would be required to accommodate a 27-28 match season plus finals.

The ACT Sportsgrounds continue to advise that multiple grounds will be closed through the Autumn
shutdown period (last two weeks of March) for training and matches. In addition, many grounds prior
to this period are allocated and booked for summer sports like cricket. The AIS also shuts down its
fields during this period.

As a result, the review committee has recommended that the NPL Boys and Girls competition include
27-28 rounds, whilst the NPL Men and Women will be 18-21 rounds, plus finals.
The longer season was allocated to the Boys and Girls competition as it will have the greater
impact on the player development pathway and it is also where ground allocations are more flexible.

To make up the short fall in matches, a Preseason Cup competition will be held for the NPL Men’s,
with a separate competition for the U23s.

As the Women’s season is 3 weeks longer, there will be no structured preseason comp in 2026. Should
the ground availability issue be resolved through February and March, in future years, the
NPL Men and Women’s seasons will be expanded to 27-28 round respectively.

 

[Common Sense]

And look - I'm going to at least applaud you for being able to have a constructive discussion about this online - I really appreciate it even if we're disagreeing.

Thankyou and agree this is a good debate.


The way I see it is that the two tier Men's system was better and should be kept, with the Riverina in the comp. But as they have decided to go to one comp again, I agree with removing the Riverina to prioritise Canberra teams.

White Eagles should be forced to link with the Woden juniors teams.
Gungahlin should be removed till they pay there bills.
Juventus should build a juniors while playing CLO1 next year and then be able to apply for promotion for 2027
Queanbeyan should be docked points if they don't start the 2026 season with all the junior requirements filled.
Wagga should be allowed to enter CLO1 and be eligible to win promotion.
Yoogali should be allowed to reapply each year (if playing regional league), or be allowed to enter CLO1 and be eligible to win promotion.

No point asking for the changes to be pushed back a year, it won't happen this late. But Capital Football should release the full criteria and timeframes to be eligible for promotion from CLO1 to NPLM in 2027.

 

[Common Sense]

My biggest issue with the discussion around the review is Monaro and West Canberra in the NPLB.

It was simple, finish top 10 in the Club Championship and you are safe. They didn't achieve that and most of their teams (excluding u14s) played horrible long ball football. Just refocus all this energy they are spending on the poor us parade and start getting your development pathways fixed. Go win some JL Div 1 competitions and then pretty much force Capital Football to let them back in cause they are too good for community football.

 

[NicCarBel]

Thankyou and agree this is a good debate.


The way I see it is that the two tier Men's system was better and should be kept, with the Riverina in the comp. But as they have decided to go to one comp again, I agree with removing the Riverina to prioritise Canberra teams.

White Eagles should be forced to link with the Woden juniors teams.
Gungahlin should be removed till they pay there bills.
Juventus should build a juniors while playing CLO1 next year and then be able to apply for promotion for 2027
Queanbeyan should be docked points if they don't start the 2026 season with all the junior requirements filled.
Wagga should be allowed to enter CLO1 and be eligible to win promotion.
Yoogali should be allowed to reapply each year (if playing regional league), or be allowed to enter CLO1 and be eligible to win promotion.

No point asking for the changes to be pushed back a year, it won't happen this late. But Capital Football should release the full criteria and timeframes to be eligible for promotion from CLO1 to NPLM in 2027.

Very fair assessment there actually.

The issue with there being no time to push the changes back a year, is that the clubs were asking for that back in June, when there was plenty of time do so. Just like Lucy, Capital Football has a lot of 'splainin' to do.

In hindsight, the criticism faced on Olympic in this.. is a bit harsh. At the end of the day, if a 10 club NPL was going to be introduced regardless of keeping Yoogali and Wagga around, they still finished top 2. I've laid my criticisms out of other clubs pretty openly. I do recall some people associated from that club (just to be clear - not Olympic) insinuating that certain clubs were specifically not invited to sign this letter/email to Capital Football - which I find a bit silly to make that insinuation at all. What benefit would this batch of clubs have from not having another number potentially join them?

My biggest issue with the discussion around the review is Monaro and West Canberra in the NPLB.

It was simple, finish top 10 in the Club Championship and you are safe. They didn't achieve that and most of their teams (excluding u14s) played horrible long ball football. Just refocus all this energy they are spending on the poor us parade and start getting your development pathways fixed. Go win some JL Div 1 competitions and then pretty much force Capital Football to let them back in cause they are too good for community football.

Yeah, I can see what you're saying there too. Monaro has the weird distinction of being both Canberra and regional to an extent, so I can see what they're saying. At the very least, they aren't being barred from working their way back up because of their geographic location.

The main issue I have with the NPLB changes is.. do these changes actually promote football development in these clubs now? Or is it just going to simply be a win at all costs mentality now that may hamper the development of players (and that point you make about horrible long ball football from Monaro this season is a big case in point to that). I don't know the answer to this question, but how many other elite/premier youth leagues in Australia have their league status decided solely by on field results?

 

[Common Sense]

I know nothing about what Olympic has been doing outside the review, the timing of these change coming after Belconnen and Olympic drop to the second divisions is a weird coincidence, but it was likely to change anyways. I do know some clubs have actively stayed out of all these support against the review petitions, but that is their choice. Not sure who are these clubs that were skipped...

Yeah, I can see what you're saying there too. Monaro has the weird distinction of being both Canberra and regional to an extent, so I can see what they're saying. At the very least, they aren't being barred from working their way back up because of their geographic location.

Monaro's location has nothing to do with the poor development and bad football. Look at the money they spend on first grade!! I will simply not accept a single excuse from the "club with the largest catchment area in the region".

The main issue I have with the NPLB changes is.. do these changes actually promote football development in these clubs now? Or is it just going to simply be a win at all costs mentality now that may hamper the development of players (and that point you make about horrible long ball football from Monaro this season is a big case in point to that). I don't know the answer to this question, but how many other elite/premier youth leagues in Australia have their league status decided solely by on field results?

Capital Football has caused that issue this year, I hope it is amended about next year with most likely only one or no teams relegated.

 

[NicCarBel]

I know nothing about what Olympic has been doing outside the review, the timing of these change coming after Belconnen and Olympic drop to the second divisions is a weird coincidence, but it was likely to change anyways. I do know some clubs have actively stayed out of all these support against the review petitions, but that is their choice. Not sure who are these clubs that were skipped...

Well.. from what I've been told - the four clubs within the NPLM/CPLM that didn't sign this were:

• Gungahlin United
• Tuggeranong United
• Canberra Olympic
• Brindabella Blues

Capital Football has caused that issue this year, I hope it is amended about next year with most likely only one or no teams relegated.

I mean.. they've built that into the way they've done the review anyways

 

[Common Sense]

One regulation spot is healthy to make the competition competitive. Especially for the teams not fighting for the finals. After all, we are trying to create players that can play first grade in Canberra or higher.

Easy solution for the teams not wanting to be relegated... make a strong development system and don't come last. It is no different to the NPL - CPL system we had for years.

 

[NicCarBel]

One regulation spot is healthy to make the competition competitive. Especially for the teams not fighting for the finals. After all, we are trying to create players that can play first grade in Canberra or higher.

Easy solution for the teams not wanting to be relegated... make a strong development system and don't come last. It is no different to the NPL - CPL system we had for years.

Yes - this system solely working for on-field results is fine. It's when it's littered with other things affecting the pyramid as a whole (geographical for example) that is a problem.

That is the senior P/R set up by the way. Juniors seems that it will be based on the 2024 format (one up, one down based off the club championship). Again, provided that's solely results based - I don't have an issue with that.

To answer a previous question I asked rhetorically - NSW is an example that does have P/R in the Youth League. This goes to 3 levels of a pyramid though, and seemingly is solely results based, and doesn't seem to have relegation out of the bottom tier.

 

[Common Sense]

It should be in youth that you have to prove you are eligible off the field and then prove you can be competitive on the field. I imagine there will be some yoyo clubs, but that happens everywhere.

That is the senior P/R set up by the way. Juniors seems that it will be based on the 2024 format (one up, one down based off the club championship). Again, provided that's solely results based - I don't have an issue with that.

Not gonna pretend I know. But it would make sense to be if you win CLO1 as an eligible club, you are offered an NPLM spot.

 

[NicCarBel]

It should be in youth that you have to prove you are eligible off the field and then prove you can be competitive on the field. I imagine there will be some yoyo clubs, but that happens everywhere.


Not gonna pretend I know. But it would make sense to be if you win CLO1 as an eligible club, you are offered an NPLM spot.

Yes, that's where I think a multi-tiered approach works well - maybe the lowest tier is closed off to relegation (With the exception of those conditional P/R situations). Sure, this region isn't big enough for multi-multi-levels like Victoria, NSW and Northern NSW - but surely two was working.

You might have a bit more info on this than me: but why was CPLB abolished for the single NPLB? I know that the single NPLB was a transitional thing, but I'm still not sure as to why they've abolished it in the first place.

It's similar to how Tasmania Men's NPL is an 8 team comp without P/R, expanding to 10 next season, and then relegating two clubs at the end of it (with no P/R being fully implemented afterwards). Football governance just boggles the mind sometimes.

 

[Common Sense]

Yes, that's where I think a multi-tiered approach works well - maybe the lowest tier is closed off to relegation (With the exception of those conditional P/R situations). Sure, this region isn't big enough for multi-multi-levels like Victoria, NSW and Northern NSW - but surely two was working.

If promotion and relegation is allowed with CLO1, that is more or less a multi tier system. That can work if done right.

You might have a bit more info on this than me: but why was CPLB abolished for the single NPLB? I know that the single NPLB was a transitional thing, but I'm still not sure as to why they've abolished it in the first place.

CPLB was unsustainable cause the gap to the bottom teams was way to big.

See Weston Molonglo dropping out of the comp after 2023 with a -388 goal difference and two teams getting 0 points.


2024 saw a six team comp (too small) and Majura well off the pace. Without the u18s scoring 38 points they would have been left on 30 points or so.


The two systems also meant CPL clubs were losing players to NPL teams like Radford and West Canberra so they could play NPL. With the change to one comp those players all went back to their junior clubs and 4 of the 6 CPL teams survived relegation.


They wanted to change the NPL to one comp for 2026 but were unsure how to do promotion and relegation. They spoke to clubs and the agreement was the best system would be all teams in one comp for 2025, everyone players everyone home and away, top 10 eligible teams get to stay in the NPL for 2026.

 

[NicCarBel]

If promotion and relegation is allowed with CLO1, that is more or less a multi tier system. That can work if done right.


CPLB was unsustainable cause the gap to the bottom teams was way to big.

See Weston Molonglo dropping out of the comp after 2023 with a -388 goal difference and two teams getting 0 points.
View attachment 3421

2024 saw a six team comp (too small) and Majura well off the pace. Without the u18s scoring 38 points they would have been left on 30 points or so.
View attachment 3422

The two systems also meant CPL clubs were losing players to NPL teams like Radford and West Canberra so they could play NPL. With the change to one comp those players all went back to their junior clubs and 4 of the 6 CPL teams survived relegation.
View attachment 3423

They wanted to change the NPL to one comp for 2026 but were unsure how to do promotion and relegation. They spoke to clubs and the agreement was the best system would be all teams in one comp for 2025, everyone players everyone home and away, top 10 eligible teams get to stay in the NPL for 2026.

Makes sense - sounds like they actually did consultation on that part - and the reasoning/evidence on the why makes a bit more sense.

I'm aware the senior stuff didn't have much consultation from my little grapevine tentacles - so it's seems this review has conflated the two issues into one.

If next season's youth campaign happens to be more than a regular Home and Away season (18 games) where they could have feasibly had a 12 or 14 team NPLB season then.. I think that's where things will get icky if Capital Football essentially say one thing and do another.

 

[Common Sense]

If next season's youth campaign happens to be more than a regular Home and Away season (18 games) where they could have feasibly had a 12 or 14 team NPLB season then.. I think that's where things will get icky if Capital Football essentially say one thing and do another.

That's not the issue though, its that the comp is too weak and stretched to be competitive at 12 or 14 teams. Across the four age groups there was 11 teams that conceded more then 90 goals with one team conceding 238 goals at an average of over 9 goals a game!! The current competitive youth scene in Canberra is not yet at the size to field an NPLB larger than 10.

 

[NicCarBel]

That's not the issue though, its that the comp is too weak and stretched to be competitive at 12 or 14 teams. Across the four age groups there was 11 teams that conceded more then 90 goals with one team conceding 238 goals at an average of over 9 goals a game!! The current competitive youth scene in Canberra is not yet at the size to field an NPLB larger than 10.

Fair point - as that list of teams all seem to correlate with who is being relegated.

But also, interesting to note is that the other common offender in that is Woden Valley. I'm hoping that after next season, it's not a case where we see Woden Valley in the Weston Molonglo spot of 2023, and then we hear calls for an 8 team competition.

 

[Common Sense]

All the best players from Woden and West Canberra will combine to make decent squads. I do think they will come last, but not as badly as Molonglo did.