Sporting turf war in Moonee Valley leads to IBAC probe

Moonee Valley Council

The ongoing dispute between community club  Essendon Royals and the Moonee Valley council is reported to have now reached IBAC.

IBAC or the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission is the Victorian government body tasked with combatting any corruption in the state.

Although IBAC will keep its investigation sealed until it releases its finding what has been revealed thus far shows a damning pattern of code-based discrimination on the part of the council as well as bullying allegations on the part of the Royals.

The battle between the council and the club appears to have begun back in April 2021. At the time the club was based at its historical home Ormond Park.

Despite the Royals 50-year relationship with Ormond Park, including the club footing the bill for the grounds lighting, the council made the unilateral call to expand the neighbouring Australian Football Field and in process render the Royals home untenable.

At the meeting where this decision was made Moonee Valley City Councillor Rose Iser accused the club of sending a threatening message.

It read:

“Hi Rose I’ve had a chat to Brett and I’m happy for these lights to go on tonight … but please keep in mind this is a one off until our needs at Royals are met,” as revealed in the council meeting.

“We start our season off next week and are still one full size ground short to Field our teams. I’ll leave this in your hands to please sort out ASAP. One hand helps the other.”

The club then engaged legal advice on this matter and the council to avoid further conflict passed an amendment allowing the Royals greater access to a subsidiary ground Cross Keys Reserve.

This amendment was proposed by Cr Jacob Bettio and was supported by then Mayor Cam Nation and Councillors John Sipek, Ava Adams, Samantha Byrne, Narelle Sharpe, and Pierce Tyson.

Reviewing public sources from the club it appears that this did result in some amnesty between them and the council with their 2021 AGM stating that the relationship was improving.

“The Club has pursued an improved relationship with Moonee Valley City Council and relevant co-tenants and is delighted to have been able to secure greater access to fields during the summer period,” they said via the club’s website.

However, by the 2022 AGM the relationship once again had soured. As the club stated it was still committed to working with the council to help improve facilities but also that it accuses the Moonee Valley City of failing to support the clubs.

“The Royals and our fellow Moonee Valley clubs struggle to meet that demand due to the lack of facilities within the City of Moonee Valley,” they said via the club’s website.

The Age has now reported that some of the councillors who have supported the club since the original conflict in 2021 have now had their phone seized. This is by far the biggest escalation in the feud and raises more questions than it does answers.

The Councillors who have had their phones seized are Cam Nation, Narelle Sharpe, Jacob Bettio and Samantha Byrne all of whom supported the amendment that allowed the club greater access to Cross Keys. The club also confirmed that they were visited by IBAC officers.

Both the club and the council have released short press statements effectively declining to comment.

Although we shouldn’t speculate, this is nonetheless a sad turn of events for the community club that last year had over 800 children wishing to participate.

No matter the result of this investigation it is almost certain to damage the reputations both of those involved and for football generally in this state.

It opens old wounds and is an unsettling result as it is apparent that both sides have some culpability in this feud.

It is important to recognise that football is the most participated sport in Moonee Valley City and all stakeholders must reflect on how they can be better custodians of the game.

In a period that has been so positive for football in Australia, it is sad to see that the old divisions of code and identity are still a barrier to the growth of football in this state.

It should also be reflected on that the biggest losers will be the community here and it should offer a reminder that cooperation will be our biggest asset as the game continues to grow.

Previous ArticleNext Article

The Participation Boom Councils Didn’t Plan For Is Hitting Football Hard

Football in Australia isn’t being held back by passion, participation, or community support. It’s being held back by local government failure. From a CEO perspective, the warning signs are no longer subtle — they’re screaming. Confidence towards councils is collapsing, clubs are done believing the rhetoric, and the people carrying the game every weekend are telling us the same thing: councils don’t understand football, don’t consult properly, and don’t plan for growth. This isn’t opinion anymore. It’s measurable. And it should embarrass every policymaker in the country.

Football in Australia isn’t struggling because of a lack of passion. It isn’t struggling because communities don’t care. And it certainly isn’t struggling because participation is declining.

Football is struggling because, at the local government level, confidence is collapsing. What is more, the people closest to the game can feel it.

Soccerscene’s latest survey on council readiness and football planning shows something deeply confronting: trust in councils is at its lowest point, and clubs no longer believe the rhetoric. Councils frequently speak about “supporting the world game” and “investing in community sport,” but the data tells a different story.

The people building the game every weekend, people such as presidents, coaches, volunteers and administrators, are telling us councils do not understand football demand, do not consult effectively, and do not plan for long-term growth. And that’s not an emotional opinion. It’s now measurable.

In our survey, over 61% of respondents said their council has limited or no understanding of football participation demand. Consultation outcomes were even worse: 74% said council consultation is inconsistent or ineffective. And when asked if facilities are being planned with long-term growth in mind, the answer should stop every policymaker in their tracks: more than 71% said planning is short-term or non-existent.

Results graphic from Soccerscene’s January industry survey:

This is not a small problem. This is a national warning sign.

Football is not a niche sport. It’s the world’s sport

Councils across Australia are making decisions as if football is still an emerging code, competing for scraps. That thinking is decades out of date.

Football is not only Australia’s largest participation sport in many communities – it is also part of the global economy of sport, the largest sport market on earth, and a cultural engine that connects Australia to Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas.

When councils underinvest in football infrastructure, they’re not just failing local clubs. They’re failing an entire economic pipeline: participation growth, player development, coaching pathways, community engagement, multicultural integration, women’s sport, health outcomes, events, tourism, and commercial opportunity.

And yet, football is still treated as the code that should “make do”.

The Glenferrie Oval case: a perfect example of the imbalance.

Take the redevelopment of Glenferrie Oval and the historic Michael Tuck Stand in Hawthorn.

This is a major project with a total estimated investment of approximately $30 million, with the City of Boroondara allocating $29.47 million over four years to transform the site into a premier hub for women’s and junior AFL.

Let’s be clear: there is nothing wrong with investing in women’s sport. In fact, it’s essential.

But this investment is also a symbol of something football people have been saying quietly for years: councils understand AFL. Councils prioritise AFL. Councils know how to justify AFL.

They don’t do the same for football, despite its participation scale, multicultural reach, and global relevance.

Across the country, football clubs are being told there is “no funding,” that “planning takes time,” or that facilities “can’t be upgraded yet.” Meanwhile, we see multi-million-dollar grandstands, boutique ovals, and legacy infrastructure funded and delivered for other codes.

Football isn’t asking for special treatment.

Football is asking for fair treatment based on reality.

Councils are stuck in a domestic mindset – while football is global.

Here is the core issue: local councils are making decisions through a domestic sporting lens, while football operates in a global one.

Football isn’t just a Saturday sport. It’s a worldwide industry with elite pathways, commercial frameworks, international investment, and an ecosystem that Australia must compete within.

If councils don’t understand this, they will keep making decisions that shrink our competitiveness.

And this is where the stakes become real.

Australia is not only competing against itself. We are competing against countries like Japan and South Korea, who treat football as a national asset. They don’t leave football infrastructure to fragmented local decision-making without a clear national framework. They invest strategically, align education with delivery, and build systems that create long-term advantage.

We cannot keep pretending we are in the same conversation globally while our local facilities remain stuck in the past.

Clubs are carrying the burden – and it’s breaking the system.

The survey results point to a harsh reality: football clubs feel like they are carrying the weight of growth alone.

When asked what the biggest council-related challenge is, nearly 49% said funding is not prioritised, while others pointed to poor facility design, limited engagement, and slow planning processes.

This isn’t just an inconvenience.

It is creating volunteer burnout, club debt, stagnation in women’s participation, and barriers to junior growth. It is forcing clubs into survival mode – patching up grounds, sharing overcrowded facilities, and trying to grow in spaces that were never designed for modern football demand.

And when planning is short-term, the problem compounds. Councils aren’t just falling behind- they’re building the wrong solutions.

So what do we do? We stop reacting and start leading.

Football cannot keep waiting for councils to “get it” organically. That approach has failed.

What we need now is a national strategic response that is structured, intelligent, and relentless.

This is where football must learn from high-performing football nations  not just on the pitch, but in governance, philosophy, and decision-making.

A powerful example is Korea’s “Made in Korea” project, which was built to identify structural gaps, align stakeholders, and create a unified development philosophy. It wasn’t just a technical framework, it was a national alignment strategy.

Australia needs the off-field equivalent.

A National Football Facilities & Readiness Taskforce.

I believe the time has come to establish a National Football Facilities & Readiness Taskforce, made up of the most capable minds across the game and beyond it.

Not another committee. Not another meeting group.

A taskforce.

It should include leaders from football, infrastructure, urban planning, commercial strategy, government relations, and corporate Australia. We should be selecting the most intelligent and effective people in the country, not based on titles, but based on outcomes.

This taskforce should have one clear mission:

Educate, influence, and reshape how councils plan, consult, and invest in football infrastructure.

Alongside a taskforce, we need long-term strategic working groups embedded across the states, designed to:

educate councils on football participation demand and growth forecasting

standardise best-practice facility design and future-proofing

create consistent consultation frameworks

align football investment with economic, health and multicultural outcomes

build a national narrative that football is an asset rather than a cost

Because right now, the survey shows councils aren’t prioritising football for economic reasons. In fact, only 2.56% of respondents said councils should prioritise football due to economic benefits. This is not because it isn’t true, but because councils haven’t been educated to see football that way.

That is a failure of strategy, not a failure of the game.

This is bigger than facilities – it’s about Australia’s place in the world game.

If we want to be taken seriously as a football nation, we must build a country that treats football seriously.

Not just at elite level.

At local level – where the entire pyramid begins.

The message from the survey is blunt: football’s confidence in councils is collapsing. But within that truth is also an opportunity.

Because when trust hits its lowest point, change becomes possible.

The next step is ours.

We either continue accepting a system that doesn’t understand the world game – or we build one that does.

No More: FV introduces ‘draconian’ Three-strike Rule with Mass Points Deductions

Football Victoria (FV) has ratified an uncompromising new “Three Strike Policy” for the 2026 season.

The regulatory overhaul targets the systemic abuse of match officials, shifting liability directly onto club administrations for the behaviour of all associates, including spectators.

The policy responds to critical workforce retention data. In 2022, over 50% of first-year referees exited the system, creating a sustainable coverage crisis. With 2025 data revealing a persistent trend of “egregious incidents” (including threatening language and physical violence), FV aims to arrest the decline by enforcing strict club accountability.

The Framework

The policy targets specific offences, including inappropriate physical contact, intimidation, spitting, and violence committed by any Club Associate. Crucially, this definition encompasses coaches, players, parents, and general spectators. Strikes apply cumulatively over a rolling 12-month period.

Strike 1: A suspended 3-point deduction is issued to all club teams. This places the entire membership on notice immediately.

Strike 2: If a second offence occurs within 12 months, the 3-point deduction is triggered immediately for the offending team. A mandatory $2,000 fine applies. Operationally, FV may also mandate closed-door matches or venue reversals, stripping clubs of home-ground advantage and vital matchday revenue.

Strike 3: A third offence triggers the 3-point deduction for every team in the club that has not yet been penalised. A mandatory $5,000 fine is levied. Furthermore, Club Executives are summoned to a mandatory meeting with FV leadership to explain the pattern of behaviour. FV reserves the right to remove teams from competition or revoke club affiliation entirely.

Implementation

Significantly, there is no right of appeal against a strike. This removes the traditional tribunal pathway for these specific offences, streamlining the punishment process. If a club accumulates a fourth strike, fines escalate to $10,000.

This zero-tolerance approach ensures clubs can no longer view behavioural fines as a mere operational cost. By tying spectator and associate behaviour directly to the league table, FV has effectively monetised the culture of abuse, forcing committees to police their sidelines or face relegation.

Most Popular Topics

Editor Picks