Jump to content

CSA Board Responsible, but we can't fire them!


Mobiiiiiiiilio

Recommended Posts

In my opinion we have to look one step further than removing Dale Michell...The CSA Board has to take the fall for the hiring of Dale Mitchell. They are the ones who over ruled the hiring of Simoes and will not doubt be the ones selecting a new MNT Head Coach. At what point do we say enough is enough and eliminate the volunteers from selecting our coaches and have an actual National Team staff who are accountable and responsible for their successes and failures?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if we fail to qualify (which is not yet a reality in my head at least) then we should most definitely put out a press release calling for the removal of the entire board. they must be held accountable for their long list of failures.

they are simply not serious about winning. they don't know how to raise funds. unacceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CSA needs to be reorganised such that the board of directors' powers are limited to setting policy and direction and the hiring of a professional Chief Executive Officer who is responsible for the day-to-day running of the organisation, hiring and firing of paid staff and is accountable to the board. The CSA directors, most if not all of whom are not professional sports administrators, should not have day-to-day executive responsibilities within the organisation which is the case now. This is why when they hired a new top employee they called him a general secretary not a CEO, because they did not want to transfer power wielded by the executive committee comprising board members to a paid CEO. This is in essence what was recommended by the outside consultants who examined the governance and structure of the CSA at great cost to the CSA membership and whose recommendations were essentially ignored by the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard you have adopted new stripes, kindah.

Same greedy people, different positions, with different rules, acting and behaving exactly the way they did before, except of course even more discreetly thanks to the new rules you suggest.

The entire CSA paid staff must all leave and resign otherwise its just more crap.

The entire system redesigned and every word reread and analyzed, only after their all gone.

Nothing will change, just like I said about the the CSF, they have no chance of altering anything significant.

A referendum maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ OK, we're all unhappy with the status quo. I have made constructive achievable suggestions for meaningful change, change for which I have been advocating for years. I have also advocated for direct election of the CSA board of directors so sorry, no new stripes. What are your suggestions, other than just fire everybody?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Richard

^ OK, we're all unhappy with the status quo. I have made constructive achievable suggestions for meaningful change, change for which I have been advocating for years. I have also advocated for direct election of the CSA board of directors so sorry, no new stripes. What are your suggestions, other than just fire everybody?

Your ideas and the CSF vision paper share many similar themes.

You and I both know that the difficulty with effecting change is the lack of willpower at the grassroots level because, frankly, that's the level where it has to start. The clubs (because of the money they provide to fund the current broken system) can effect change but how do you oganize that group? Ultimately, that was what the CSF project was trying to encourage (organizing the grassroots to create their own system, based around larger, stronger "chartered" clubs and a national federation that has a direct relationship with its members, rather than the convoluted mess that exists today).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question, and it's not only about the CSA, because I notices lots of organizations (particularly in sport) working like that here.

The power of decision is in the board's hands.

So, people who has to vote to give less power to the board are... the board members.

Isn't it like trying to square the circle ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Bxl Boy

I have a question, and it's not only about the CSA, because I notices lots of organizations (particularly in sport) working like that here.

The power of decision is in the board's hands.

So, people who has to vote to give less power to the board are... the board members.

Isn't it like trying to square the circle ?

Not quite. It's not the board members who can effect change in the structure. Constitutional changes are made at general meetings which are attended by delegates representing the Provincial Associations. So if you can elect reform-minded individuals to the Board or Executive of the Provincial Associations, you may have a chance to push through some changes at the CSA. In fact, there were attempts to implement some of the Deloitte-Touche recommendations at the 2008 CSA AGM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Bill Spiers

So if you can elect reform-minded individuals to the Board or Executive of the Provincial Associations, you may have </u> a chance to push through some changes at the CSA.

The current system creates a complete and total disconnect between the "shareholders" (clubs) and the CSA. Most people at the club level who would like to see fundamental change don't have the time or energy to play the endless political game to be in a position to influence policy. I don't understand how a large corporation will little a little granny with 10 voting shares get her say at an annual meeting but in Canadian soccer, direct voting by the clubs is not permitted.

quote:Originally posted by Bill Spiers

In fact, there were attempts to implement some of the Deloitte-Touche recommendations at the 2008 CSA AGM.

Care to refresh our memories about which recommendations they "attempted" to implement? how did it go? I've not noticed much in th way of substantive change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My second biggest beef about the CSA after separation of the board of directors from direct executive/operational responsibilites mentioned earlier in this thread is the number of degrees of separation that exist between the CSA and ordinary members - you and me. For my (or your) voice to be hear I must lobby within my club for the club representative to the district, who must lobby the district representative to the provincial organisation, who must lobby the provincial delegates to the CSA AGM..... and so it goes. Not much chance of my voice being heard at the national level, hence my argument for direct elections for at least 50% of the seats on the CSA board of directors.

We don't elect municipal councillors then have them decide amongst themselves which municipal councillors will sit in the provincial legislature then have the provincial legislature members decide amongst themselves which of them will serve as federal members of parliament. We choose separate representatives to each of these levels of government in direct elections at each level. Why then do we follow such a ludicrously undemocratic and indirect scheme for our national soccer organisation?

I believe we need a national organisation around which those who wish to see meaningful change in the system can rally and lobby for change. I had hoped the CSF would fill that space, the organisation managed to gain a remarkable amount of national media exposure during is very brief flurry of enthusiastic activity but it seems to have sputtered back to obscurity. The only place I am seeing any voices of dissent is in this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by VPjr

Care to refresh our memories about which recommendations they "attempted" to implement? how did it go? I've not noticed much in th way of substantive change

Nothing earth-shattering. Page 15 of the Deloitte-Touche Report. CSA By-Laws changed to establish a Nominating Committee to seek out qualified candidates for the CSA Executive.

I'm sure there will be other changes being considered in 2009.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Richard

^ OK, we're all unhappy with the status quo. I have made constructive achievable suggestions for meaningful change, change for which I have been advocating for years. I have also advocated for direct election of the CSA board of directors so sorry, no new stripes. What are your suggestions, other than just fire everybody?

OK Richard that sounds like English to me and delivered with sincerity and almost an opinion anyway. So the stripes are a lighter shade of black now I guess.

Some people are bad and there are conspiracies and there is greed and corruption. Most of us are capable and strong enough to comprehend this.

There were and are people running the CSA who first, are at the very least greedy. Some are incompetent and some are immature. Probably the chemistry of most groups and organizations.

The greedy usually expose themselves because they have no limits the incompetent expose themselves by their own actions the immature expose themselves constantly and publicly if not immediately, soon after. The corrupt have intent and sometimes are discovered by law enforcement.

You can change the rules and rename the positions but if the same people remain it is redundant as it will inevitably end up with the same results.

The people dont need to be removed or fired just because they were greedy, incompetent or corrupt or solely to blame or persecute someone.

They need to removed if you want a different result than the abject failure they accomplished.

Analogies usually are fruitless but sometimes they might trigger the gist of the concept so here is one.You wouldn't let a bus driver continue to drive if you found out he would not agree to ever turn left. Or that he found out by turning right he made more money and forgot about the passengers need to turn left and promised to try to remember next time. You wouldnt then decide to alter the steering wheel so he had to turn left and you wouldnt change the rules to a larger font. The point is he has decided he will not turn left not that he cant or is not able to turn left.You would remove the driver.

The CSA board is dysfunctional not because it didnt have the right tools it is because the people themselves are dysfunctional . The system they created is also dysfunctional. Most of them are greedy and most of them dont even look for competent ways or means to do things because they dont care. Not what they focus on, they do promise to remember next time though.

The only people who could change or cause the CSA members to change or resign also dont care enough to even investigate it unless it significantly reflects publicly negatively on them.

That is why the CSF with all their good intentions an intelligent forethought were powerless to cause any significant change.

That is why we have another round of abject failure this year and a perpetual circle of failure for the following decades.

The CSF and another poster here pointed out that with the lack of will from the amateur volunteers ,who only want to continue on for their own selfish and egotistical (not unreasonably in my opinion) reasons will also never support change and worse always contribute to splintering of one large power to small districts and groups.They do now see as fans that this failure and incompetence at a national level is embarrassing however they also can dismiss that as not their responsibility.

Splintering is precisely the problem.

The ridiculous confusion of splintered constitutional rules and programs, policies and special groups and committees amongst the current CSA is

clearly dysfunctional. However it serves the volunteers and the board of the CSA perpetual status quo.(these must all be eliminated and erased and simplified, clarified and recreated from bottom up)

The splintered differences between the national professional level and the amateur level.(This should be divided and run separately)

The splintered differences between the CMNT and the CWNT(this should be allocated clearly by a pecentage, even if it is 50/50)

The splintered selfish opinion of fans from one province or town within a province to another makes the fan power impotent.(The fact that we are all Canadians should take precedent in all of our minds over any provincial existence)

The splintered ethnic opinion only adds to the impotence and support of the status quo.(The fact that we are all Canadians should take precedent in all of our minds over any ethnic existence)

Most of us know these splinters all to well and most of us cant overide our prejudices or ego so the suggestions in brackets arent likely to occur.

It takes one united intention from us all to, dismantle all of it and remove every person and position to override all of this splintering.

Simplify, clarify and start again with every step clearly seen by everyone.

I dont feel this forum is the proper medium for proposing actual reforming steps and I dont feel the majority of the people here have the will or desire to change or discuss it.

It might be a proper medium for discussing a referendum or something very similar to what the Australians did but that would be the extent of it for this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general I don't disgaree with you with much of what you write when it comes to flaws in the system but I would be a bit more cautious in making public accusations of the behaviours of other people which border on illegal without having solid evidence to back it up, and I mean more than hearsay. But in all you wrote above I see plenty of criticism and negativism, even bitterness, but still very little in the way constructive suggestions for change and how to go about achieving it. In your fervour to sack everybody, beware of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I also don't see anything wrong with discussing the problem in a forum such as this unless you don't really believe what you're saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_Report

A series of incidents highlighted the critical state of Football in Australia:

a) The failure of the Socceroos to qualify for the World Cup and Confederations Cup due to there being inadequate funds to send European based players to friendlies and the Oceania Nations Cup.

B) The investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Four Corners programme into conflicts of interest and mismanagement at the Board level at Soccer Australia.

c) The constant in-fighting between political factions and concentration of voting and legislative powers in a relative minority of people perpetuating bad governance.

d) The overt resistance to accept the government enquiry, and even an initial refusal to accept its recommendations despite the balance of government and public opinion seeking rapid implementation.

Let's see...

(a) failure on the field, got it.

(B) mismanagement at the board level, got it.

© constant in-fighting, got it.

(d) resistance to change, got it.

Pretty much a no-brainer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the report and the similarities are clear Vic your right.

I guess my concern is Vic I dont see a way to dismantle this group unless w-5 or someone else cares to do a report on them. Or a referendum of some kind.

The other issue is I dont beleive anyone in the soccer public would support or contribute to the intention. Most on here dont seem to care enough to and I dont really see anyone else who has any initiative or gumption except the CSF but their methods were impotent to begin with.

If you get the CSF to write a report and have the minister of sport in Canada present it like the Australians did thats a possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Vic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_Report

A series of incidents highlighted the critical state of Football in Australia:

a) The failure of the Socceroos to qualify for the World Cup and Confederations Cup due to there being inadequate funds to send European based players to friendlies and the Oceania Nations Cup.

B) The investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Four Corners programme into conflicts of interest and mismanagement at the Board level at Soccer Australia.

c) The constant in-fighting between political factions and concentration of voting and legislative powers in a relative minority of people perpetuating bad governance.

d) The overt resistance to accept the government enquiry, and even an initial refusal to accept its recommendations despite the balance of government and public opinion seeking rapid implementation.

Let's see...

(a) failure on the field, got it.

(B) mismanagement at the board level, got it.

© constant in-fighting, got it.

(d) resistance to change, got it.

Pretty much a no-brainer.

There are a few problems with comparing the Crawford report to a possible CSA reform. The first is just the government funding into athletics. The Australian government cares a hell of a lot more about their athletics funding than we do. Second there are a lot more soccer fans in Australia than Canada, and soccer is more important to the average Australian citizen than the average Canadian, giving it more media attention down under. I think for a CSA reform we need to change these two things. First of all pull the money out from the CSA and find a way for a new organization to make money. Second of we need media attention. The Sack The CSA black T-Shirt campaign was well organized and got lots of attention in September, but since then this issue has died away in popular sports media outlets in Canada. We need to have this issue in the media daily for a reform to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ agree about visibility.

quote:

OK, let's say we accept what you say.

You have highlighted the problem, now what is your practical solution?

One of my management doctrines successfully practised for many years in business: don't bring me problems, bring me solutions.

The solution is to get the right people together to find the solution. Anything done without considerable intent, process and experienced judgement is worthless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Right, the only serious independent attempt at that was made by the CSF which I think needs to be morphed from a half-hearted alternative to the CSA into a serious lobby group that focusses on keeping the problems in the media spotlight as much as possible. An active watchdog organisation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I don't believe that the CSF ever had any illusions about itself as a competitor to the CSA. A watchdog with a voice and ability to make noise in the media and at NT games which is exactly what we need before we can hope to get the CSA to fall upon the sword.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "cake" is any and all organizations and people asking for a commission to perform a comprehensive review/audit of the entire system - how it works, how it doesn't work, how to make it work, etc. The "icing" is a few high profile or well-connected people (players, politicians, Canadian Sport NSO executives, etc) to get o board. With numbers and that behind it, it's pretty hard to ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...