Victory League clubs cry foul over decision

THE two Victory League clubs that will have to reapply to remain a part of the competition say Football Federation Tasmania’s decision discriminates against them and the reasons it gave made no sense.

FFT yesterday said that while South Hobart, Hobart Zebras, Olympia Warriors, Northern Rangers, Devonport Strikers and Kingborough Lions had been offered the opportunity to automatically renew their Victory League licences for the 2016-18 seasons, Glenorchy Knights and Launceston City were not.

The two clubs, who have finished in the bottom two in every Victory League since it began in 2013, will now enter a competitive application process with interested clubs from outside the statewide structure to regain entry for the next phase of the competition.

They will be judged on governance, finance, amenities and their playing lists.

FFT chief executive Mike Palmer said five clubs, four in the South and one in the North, had expressed interest in joining the league and the two best proposals, regardless of where they were based, would take up the vacancies.

“There was never any intention for the league to be a closed shop with eight teams,” Palmer said.

“We asked the eight clubs what the process should be and the view was that the clubs that deserved to stay in the Victory League should stay in the Victory League.”

Glenorchy president Paul Woodham said the FFT process meant that his club, Launceston City and any new Victory League side would be extremely disadvantaged when it came to player recruitment and retention and getting sponsors on board.

“We see this as a discriminatory process in [the] regard that six clubs are going to have a huge advantage,” he said.

“There should be a process that everyone goes through to make it fair.”

One reason given for Glenorchy and Launceston being the two existing clubs that were not offered an automatic renewal of their Victory League licence was their poor on-field performances.

Launceston City president Austin Fagan said this should not be a reason.

“When you look at the actual contract when we first applied in 2012 there was no on-field criteria, so I don’t know why that now matters,” he said.

“I’m disappointed as I was told by FFT that this would all be confidential.”