Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

The Football Australia Thread

Midfielder said:
Good article on Football 360

football360.com.au

Former Stan chief to lead Football Australia, Garriock remains in newly created role

Nearly eight months after James Johnson's resignation, Football Australia have appointed his permanent successor.
football360.com.au football360.com.au
Click to expand...
As much as I wish him well he isn’t saying anything different to anyone else on their new position especially we all know how large and ahead our game is in Jnr participation.
No diff to my comments re Heather - talk is talk let’s see some real initiatives and action the game has stood still for a long time.
 
LFC said:
As much as I wish him well he isn’t saying anything different to anyone else on their new position especially we all know how large and ahead our game is in Jnr participation.
No diff to my comments re Heather - talk is talk let’s see some real initiatives and action the game has stood still for a long time.
Click to expand...
HNY big man...

I agree. but lets give the bloke 2-3 months before we say hat he is made of...
 
NicCarBel said:
Will see what happens - I am drafting a response to my ignored request for evidence by CF - and also have something ready to re-escalate to FA (given their response notes about reviewing the process at local level) so will see how that goes.

The interesting bit will be if they give me evidence from after July - as that falls after I was blocked and the initial emails - so it would show targeted exclusion and lack of transparency on their part.
Click to expand...
For transparency - given the vote of no confidence on Monday - and now that I have time in my personal life to follow this up:

To Capital Football:

I am writing to follow up on my email dated 31 July 2025 regarding the decision to block me across multiple Capital Football social media channels, and the lack of clarity around the reason for that action.

As I have not yet received a response, I'm hoping this matter can be clarified in a way that reflects the principles of stability and fairness that guide our football community.

As mentioned previously, I am still unaware of any specific comment or behaviour on my part that would have breached your standards or required removal. No notice, warning, or request to amend or delete content was provided before the block was applied, despite your social media policy outlining a clear process for such situations.

To ensure the matter is properly resolved (considering I am still blocked from the NPL Capital Football page on Facebook, I gather this page doesn't enact gestures of goodwill), I am again seeking clarification on the following:
  1. What specific comment(s) or conduct led to the decision to block me from ALL channels;
  2. Why no prior communication, warning, or takedown request was issued; and
  3. Why I remain blocked from the “NPL Capital Football” Facebook page while being unblocked on other platforms.
As per Capital Football’s own Social Media Policy:
• Clause 3.3 requires consistent and equitable moderation.
• Clause 4.1 requires users to be notified of an alleged breach and given the opportunity to respond or remove content.
• Clause 4.3 sets out the steps to be followed before suspension or blocking occurs.

These steps, from my perspective, were not followed.

I want to reiterate that I would have complied with any moderation request had I been notified. My intention is simply to understand the basis of the decision, and so that this can be appropriately finalised at the local level.

I wish to resolve this matter directly with Capital Football and understand how the relevant sections of your own policy were applied in this instance.

I would appreciate your response at your earliest convenience.
——
Following this, a non-response (or a response absolving them of blame) should give me sufficient reasons to follow up with FA as they have stated that: the Complains Procedure is to request to review whether the process undertaken by the lower level was in accordance with this Complaints Procedure.
 
NicCarBel said:
For transparency - given the vote of no confidence on Monday - and now that I have time in my personal life to follow this up:

To Capital Football:

I am writing to follow up on my email dated 31 July 2025 regarding the decision to block me across multiple Capital Football social media channels, and the lack of clarity around the reason for that action.

As I have not yet received a response, I'm hoping this matter can be clarified in a way that reflects the principles of stability and fairness that guide our football community.

As mentioned previously, I am still unaware of any specific comment or behaviour on my part that would have breached your standards or required removal. No notice, warning, or request to amend or delete content was provided before the block was applied, despite your social media policy outlining a clear process for such situations.

To ensure the matter is properly resolved (considering I am still blocked from the NPL Capital Football page on Facebook, I gather this page doesn't enact gestures of goodwill), I am again seeking clarification on the following:
  1. What specific comment(s) or conduct led to the decision to block me from ALL channels;
  2. Why no prior communication, warning, or takedown request was issued; and
  3. Why I remain blocked from the “NPL Capital Football” Facebook page while being unblocked on other platforms.
As per Capital Football’s own Social Media Policy:
• Clause 3.3 requires consistent and equitable moderation.
• Clause 4.1 requires users to be notified of an alleged breach and given the opportunity to respond or remove content.
• Clause 4.3 sets out the steps to be followed before suspension or blocking occurs.

These steps, from my perspective, were not followed.

I want to reiterate that I would have complied with any moderation request had I been notified. My intention is simply to understand the basis of the decision, and so that this can be appropriately finalised at the local level.

I wish to resolve this matter directly with Capital Football and understand how the relevant sections of your own policy were applied in this instance.

I would appreciate your response at your earliest convenience.
——
Following this, a non-response (or a response absolving them of blame) should give me sufficient reasons to follow up with FA as they have stated that: the Complains Procedure is to request to review whether the process undertaken by the lower level was in accordance with this Complaints Procedure.
Click to expand...
I know they haven't told you why you were banned but I bet you'd have a good idea. What did you say? Do you think they're just trying to silence any criticism or dissenting voices?
 
Quicky said:
I know they haven't told you why you were banned but I bet you'd have a good idea. What did you say? Do you think they're just trying to silence any criticism or dissenting voices?
Click to expand...
The only thing I know I’ve said that could possibly constitute crossing the line, is that there was conversations about people on the committee that made these decisions being involved with certain clubs - and I provided a link to a recent news story that confirmed a particular person was on the committee for what was originally rhetorical club that gained the biggest benefit of this (being promoted to the NPL from the bottom half of the second division, skipping over another two clubs), yet there was no conflict of interest tabled as part of the review - so essentially I was naming someone. However, their name is public information.

I wholeheartedly think that:

A) they were trying to silence criticism. I was probably the most politely vocal opposition to this. There were others (such as players from the club) that I could see speaking with much more harassment that weren’t blocked (as I could see their comments still on a secondary work account).

B) On the point I raised earlier, I think they may have taken that as being defamatory - however truth is a valid defence to this, and the comments I had made were basically saying that we can’t say who exactly has made decisions, but something is fishy when a current club committee member for the club with the most benefit from this is on the committee making the review and its findings.

C) Capital Football spent much of the mid year bandying about their social media policy as the whacking stick for certain clubs (Yoogali), yet don’t adhere to that Social Media Policy when enacting it

D) around the same time as this was happening, a “Capital Football NPL banter” page showed up on facebook - mostly poking Capital Football about this Yoogali/Wagga situation. Now I know for a fact that some within Yoogali thought that I ran this page, but I do not. I reached out to whoever is running the page (they had been blocked as well apparently) - but there’s also a feeling in me that Capital Football thought this was me as well, and may have blocked me for this (despite me not running the page, or their being any proof of me running that page).

This is why I’d like them to tell me what I’ve done that I’ve crossed the line in their mind - as together these points raise red flags whether I’ve been blocked in retaliation, or for actually doing something. If the latter, I have requested Capital Football inform me of said breach to correct behaviour - as per their social media policy - because their interpretation of it in unblocking me is Capital Football admitting that fans and viewers not officially tied to a club are not stakeholders of our game.
 
HappyGuus said:
www.soccerscene.com.au

Football Australia Urges NSW to Fund Women's Football - Soccerscene

Football Australia urges the NSW Government to create a $343 million fund to support the surge in women's football.
www.soccerscene.com.au www.soccerscene.com.au
Click to expand...
The headline is misleading but the call is genuine nonetheless and it is not just Sydney or NSW but all states more broadly. There is an item in the same publication claiming that a suburban council in Victoria has allocated $10 million dollars for AFL upgrades compared to $1 million for football.
It’s a problem nation wide and should be addressed on a national basis but good for Football Australia for leveraging the Womens Asian Cup to call for more funding.
 
NicCarBel said:
The only thing I know I’ve said that could possibly constitute crossing the line, is that there was conversations about people on the committee that made these decisions being involved with certain clubs - and I provided a link to a recent news story that confirmed a particular person was on the committee for what was originally rhetorical club that gained the biggest benefit of this (being promoted to the NPL from the bottom half of the second division, skipping over another two clubs), yet there was no conflict of interest tabled as part of the review - so essentially I was naming someone. However, their name is public information.

I wholeheartedly think that:

A) they were trying to silence criticism. I was probably the most politely vocal opposition to this. There were others (such as players from the club) that I could see speaking with much more harassment that weren’t blocked (as I could see their comments still on a secondary work account).

B) On the point I raised earlier, I think they may have taken that as being defamatory - however truth is a valid defence to this, and the comments I had made were basically saying that we can’t say who exactly has made decisions, but something is fishy when a current club committee member for the club with the most benefit from this is on the committee making the review and its findings.

C) Capital Football spent much of the mid year bandying about their social media policy as the whacking stick for certain clubs (Yoogali), yet don’t adhere to that Social Media Policy when enacting it

D) around the same time as this was happening, a “Capital Football NPL banter” page showed up on facebook - mostly poking Capital Football about this Yoogali/Wagga situation. Now I know for a fact that some within Yoogali thought that I ran this page, but I do not. I reached out to whoever is running the page (they had been blocked as well apparently) - but there’s also a feeling in me that Capital Football thought this was me as well, and may have blocked me for this (despite me not running the page, or their being any proof of me running that page).

This is why I’d like them to tell me what I’ve done that I’ve crossed the line in their mind - as together these points raise red flags whether I’ve been blocked in retaliation, or for actually doing something. If the latter, I have requested Capital Football inform me of said breach to correct behaviour - as per their social media policy - because their interpretation of it in unblocking me is Capital Football admitting that fans and viewers not officially tied to a club are not stakeholders of our game.
Click to expand...
It seems like their public relations is a complete disaster.
 
libelous said:
It seems like their public relations is a complete disaster.
Click to expand...
Since their head of media had left to go run media for OFC - very much so.

And that’s another reason why the red flags are up for me: that same person, who would regularly commentate on NPL matches was still in charge through the year, and he vaguely referenced quite regularly that he didn’t agree with kicking Yoogali/Wagga out either - so I don’t think this was done by whoever actually is in their media side - but that’s obviously an allegation I’m unable to prove.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top