V's Leadership thread

[Winnipeg Fury]

quote:Originally posted by River City

I'm not sure about incorporation since the most well versed in legal matters among us felt we didn't need it. But in regards to official titles, we need to be transparent as an organization.

As our numbers grow, everyone needs to know who is doing what and who is accountable for it.

Transparency is one thing, and results are another. While strangers to the forum may not have known what was happening, those involved most certainly did.

The message being sent is that incorporating will lead to results. I don't buy that (although the lawyers may have another angle).

Personally, I prefer our current structure. It has got results and has regional representation. If people want to formalize it, so be it.

The one angle that formal representation does account for, (and has not been mentioned by the proponents) is the financial aspect. It's something I have discussed with people in similar positions with club groups and something that BF and I discussed at length. It was because we did not have a formal organization, that we decided against keeping any cash, and felt it best to spend the entire kitty. Not really a bad thing. Again it worked very well. We have no debts and everyone has been paid. For me personally, I don't have any money that I have held since 2002. All in all, mission accomplished.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by BrennanFan

Yea we achieved alot, but there's a lot still left to accomplish.

As someone else posted, ticketmaster doesn't work for the MNT. As long as the CSA sells tickets to games like any other sporting event via ticketmaster, we will never have a true home field advantage. I think our longterm goal should be to convince the CSA to give us 100% control of ticket sales for all WCQ games. We could run a membership/ticketing system on behalf of the CSA and sell the tickets ourselves to Canadian supporters. To deal with that much money, we need to incorporate.

I agree. Hopefully this should be something at the very top of the agenda.

Ever ask yourselves why the Mexico is so unbeatable at home yet can look so ordinary away from from home. Or how about the fact, as an Honduran supporter recently told me, that Honduras can look forward to their final match with Mex knowing that they haven't lost to them at home in 28 years. Essentially, they have ( appart from one or two people) 100 % support.

As a result, Mex is a power in the region almost guaranteed a spot even though you can argue that on paper the US looks just as strong. Without a clear home field advantage Canada faces a major handicap because, in WCQ, you MUST win your home games to succeed. Home field advantage is up to the fans. So we need need to talk about what we can do, if anything, to ensure 100% home support; or close to it. The ideas that you mentioned are worth discussing and clearly any effective strategy would take time to implement, so it wouldn't be too early to begin talking about it now even if WCQ is four years away. If this can be achieved without pointing fingers in the way of regional differences , then I am sure that we can come up with concrete solutions. Maybe there isn't a solution, but I'd like to know that at least we tried.

I also agree that ticketmaster idea, though a noble attempt, is not effective for the exact reasons that you mentioned.

Speedmonk, count me in. But if its just going to be a bitch about the CSA session, then count me out.

[Grizzly]

I have to side with Winnipeg Fury on this. I have had extensive talks with many of the proponents of this increased organization (especially Speedmonk) and read thread after thread on the topic. There are many who are very enthusiastic about formally organizing but I have yet to hear convincing arguments about what we can achieve with this extra organization that we are not achieving now. I am not entirely against a more formal organization or even incorporating if someone could show me a real benefit to it. To me it seems like the most this will achieve is to make it more time consuming and bureaucratic to run the Voyageurs. At the moment there are people running various things within the organization and while they might not have been democratically elected as far as I can see they are doing a good job.

I see a current organization in which I trust the people making decisions and handling money and I think many of these jobs would become harder in a more formal organization and some of these people may not be interested in continuing with the increased workload. I am quite honestly one of those people who may not be interested in continuing. Along with Daniel I am the main organizer in Montreal but if I have to become a member of the Board of Directors I probably would give up the position because I simply do not have the time and I doubt Daniel does either. I am not saying I would leave the Voyageurs but I would probably become less active in the running of the group. I spent a lot of time organizing the Voyageurs for the Honduras game and one of the things that made the workload a bit less was if there was a problem I could call WF and sort it out quickly as opposed to having to go through a bureaucratic structure. One of the reasons that the Voyageurs works better than the CSA is the lack of bureaucratic structure and we have a real risk of creating a second CSA here. For example, how do we decide things in the future, fully democratically in which Toronto and Ontario will completely dominate everything or regionally in which some members will have more say than others?

As far as taking over ticket sales from the CSA, I think that is the last thing we want to do. It would be an incredibly big and time consuming task and would involve massive ammounts of money and I don't think we should be involved in things like this. The ticket distribution strategy worked in Toronto and we merely need to make it work in the other venues next time.

I also am not sure we really need a face to face meeting to discuss these issues. Too many people will be left out and I don't see what is wrong with deciding things on the forum like we always do. In fact most of the topics are better dealt with through posts than verbally because posts are much more thought out. If we want to limit the discussion to senior members, we could create a private forum.

If we do need to meet in person, holding a meeting in February/March in Toronto is a terrible idea. If people think large or even small numbers of Voyageurs are going to travel to Toronto from thousands of kilometers away merely for a meeting they are dreaming. The Toronto meeting would merely be a meeting of a local chapter albeit the largest one. Any such meeting has to be held in conjunction with a major event that will make it attractive for Voyageurs from around the country to attend. If the meeting is in February/March it would have to be in Montreal in conjunction with the Champions League game which looks likely to be held in Olympic stadium. If we held it later we could wait for possible friendlies or the Canadian Championship games in which case probably Toronto would be the prefferable location.

As an aside I think it should be also mentioned that all the claims about us expanding massively are refferring to the time while we were still in WCQ. Judging from the amount of posts recently membership shrank significantly once we were eliminated from WCQ. I don't see our membership size as a justification for changing our structure at the moment.

[Grizzly]

quote:Originally posted by Free kick

Ever ask yourselves why the Mexico is so unbeatable at home yet can look so ordinary away from from home.

Azteca's altitude, heat and pollution level are the first things that come to my mind. We all want to create a home atmosphere and have gone a long way to achieving that this WCQ but people are giving this too much credit for team performance. The lack of home support, as upsetting as it was, was not the reason we lost the game in Montreal.

[Grizzly]

quote:Originally posted by speedmonk42

We have to organize.

A proper serious thread on this topic should start not with "We need to organize" but a post on why in your opinion our current organization is not sufficient to deal with what we want to achieve now or in the future. Then there should be some debate on what it is we want to achieve in the future and how we should go about it. That should be followed by a debate about how/when/who and where should such issues be decided.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

As far as taking over ticket sales from the CSA, I think that is the last thing we want to do. It would be an incredibly big and time consuming task and would involve massive ammounts of money and I don't think we should be involved in things like this. The ticket distribution strategy worked in Toronto and we merely need to make it work in the other venues next time.

Maybe it doesn't involve massive amounts of money or maybe it doesn't involve taking over ticket sales from the CSA. But its a problem and and it definitlely warrants discussions and action plans. The home support is not the responsibility of Ticketmaster and as far as the CSA it fall second to ensuring that sales cover the costs. Rather, home support is up to the fans. And as far as Canada, we are at cultural disadvantage. The fan support was not the margin of differnce this time, we all agree on that. but it could be in teh future because we are such a long way from what we see in central america.

In Toronto, well home support was evident but by no means was it anywhere close to what we are able to see from the TV screens from the games in Honduras and Mexico. And to even achieve that level that we did in TO, it took inividual effort, sacrifice and investment that cannot be counted on an on-going basis. Example, some people bought up a hundred tickets. I bought some tickets that i ended up giving away in order to ensure that they dont fall into the worng hands. So for the most part, it was an ad hoc effort rather than a concerted effort. Cant always count on that happening.

So this phenomena definitely warrants further discussion, research and action plan.

[River City]

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

I have to side with Winnipeg Fury on this. I have had extensive talks with many of the proponents of this increased organization (especially Speedmonk) and read thread after thread on the topic. There are many who are very enthusiastic about formally organizing but I have yet to hear convincing arguments about what we can achieve with this extra organization that we are not achieving now. I am not entirely against a more formal organization or even incorporating if someone could show me a real benefit to it. To me it seems like the most this will achieve is to make it more time consuming and bureaucratic to run the Voyageurs. At the moment there are people running various things within the organization and while they might not have been democratically elected as far as I can see they are doing a good job.

I see a current organization in which I trust the people making decisions and handling money and I think many of these jobs would become harder in a more formal organization and some of these people may not be interested in continuing with the increased workload. I am quite honestly one of those people who may not be interested in continuing. Along with Daniel I am the main organizer in Montreal but if I have to become a member of the Board of Directors I probably would give up the position because I simply do not have the time and I doubt Daniel does either. I am not saying I would leave the Voyageurs but I would probably become less active in the running of the group. I spent a lot of time organizing the Voyageurs for the Honduras game and one of the things that made the workload a bit less was if there was a problem I could call WF and sort it out quickly as opposed to having to go through a bureaucratic structure. One of the reasons that the Voyageurs works better than the CSA is the lack of bureaucratic structure and we have a real risk of creating a second CSA here. For example, how do we decide things in the future, fully democratically in which Toronto and Ontario will completely dominate everything or regionally in which some members will have more say than others?

BUREAUCRACY

The amount of bureaucracy is something we can easily determine. I sure as hell don't want it. And no one is advocating this. What is being proposed isn't a monolithic bureaucracy that is going to limit anyone's involvement or result in increased workloads.

TRANSPARENCY

After my experience with the Edmonton game, my view is we need a formal structure with transparency. It was nice to contact Winnipeg Fury anytime I had an issue in Edmonton, rather than deal with a hierachal structure. But at the same time, the V's shouldn't be an old boys network that is run entirely by older posters, or V's that have proven themselves. What if WF didn't know me or any of the LOC?

What if I only had 400 posts to my name?

ACCOUNTABILITY

We need to encourage more participation, not limit it. And when we have a select few V's running the show (I admit mostly by default) and no one knows about it, that is not good for us as an organization. Formalizing it creates accountability and trust. What if I would have resold the Edmonton tix at $25 and kept profits for myself? Every V (especially Winnipeg Fury) took a leap of faith in trusting that I wasn't up to do a Polish Lynx.

I agree that formal structure by itself WILL NOT lead to results. But it will help keep everything on the up and up, which will help us achieve results in whatever projects we take on.

[Winnipeg Fury]

One things guys, I will be interviewing the CSA General Secretary on behalf of the Voyageurs next week, and many of these topics will be asked. This interview is not a coincidence. The point of the interview is to hold the CSA accountable to the Voyageurs, and have them answer to many of these questions. It's also not a coincidence that Peter Montopoli has agreed to the interview (and by the way, I want to really thank you guys for the feedback to date. It has been a busy spell and many of the suggestions will be used).

I have been discussing many of these issues (tickets allocation, security) with the CSA for months, but people have to realize that the plans for the last three matches were organized by the CSA months prior to the matches. Again, this is new to the CSA. We have had 4 matches in 3 cities. They have never had supporters sections (which is mind boggling !), and this is a work in progress. I will be the first to defend the CSA on this. They have done their best and have accommodated 95% of our requests. I will go on record right now stating that John Billingsley and Tanya Colbourne of the CSA assisted us as much as possible. Any drastic change or shift was going to wait till the Hex.

Now if they tell me to go **** myself, then I will lead the attack on CSA HQ, and that will most certainly be conveyed to the Voyageurs and media at large. Yes, there is room for improvement and the CSA will have to act on this. I look forward to Peter's comments on this.

The Honduras game in Montreal may be a blessing in disguise, because I don't think the CSA envisioned that blight unfolding in their worst nightmare. And I think all would agree that it could have been much uglier ! I think some in the CSA thought I was off my rocker when I was concerned about foreign fans in attendance, but not after this match. Some good may come out of this match yet (kind of like the raid on Dieppe ). By the way, I still **** myself when I see images of the V's march into the stadium covered in Honduran blue. Sends a shiver down my spine. Great work.

[Winnipeg Fury]

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

I have to side with Winnipeg Fury on this. I have had extensive talks with many of the proponents of this increased organization (especially Speedmonk) and read thread after thread on the topic. There are many who are very enthusiastic about formally organizing but I have yet to hear convincing arguments about what we can achieve with this extra organization that we are not achieving now. I am not entirely against a more formal organization or even incorporating if someone could show me a real benefit to it. To me it seems like the most this will achieve is to make it more time consuming and bureaucratic to run the Voyageurs. At the moment there are people running various things within the organization and while they might not have been democratically elected as far as I can see they are doing a good job.

I see a current organization in which I trust the people making decisions and handling money and I think many of these jobs would become harder in a more formal organization and some of these people may not be interested in continuing with the increased workload. I am quite honestly one of those people who may not be interested in continuing. Along with Daniel I am the main organizer in Montreal but if I have to become a member of the Board of Directors I probably would give up the position because I simply do not have the time and I doubt Daniel does either. I am not saying I would leave the Voyageurs but I would probably become less active in the running of the group. I spent a lot of time organizing the Voyageurs for the Honduras game and one of the things that made the workload a bit less was if there was a problem I could call WF and sort it out quickly as opposed to having to go through a bureaucratic structure. One of the reasons that the Voyageurs works better than the CSA is the lack of bureaucratic structure and we have a real risk of creating a second CSA here. For example, how do we decide things in the future, fully democratically in which Toronto and Ontario will completely dominate everything or regionally in which some members will have more say than others?

I know where you are coming from, but if we formalized as some want, I would like you and Daniel to get some official recognition. You two will be running Quebec and we would keep things going as is, working together on projects as required.

Would you have a problem with that ?

[Reza]

The key thing for me is the longterm success of the group. In the past 12 years, it has been the sum of a lot of individual efforts who at each turn had the time and money to commit to a part of the cause and a few lucky breaks that has helped us grow.

I think we must now seize the opportunity and make things more formal and transparent, and by formal, I don't mean incorporating.

I think we need to make things so that they are term-based, as for one thing, everyone has a life and during that life, there are times, where you can not simply contribute as much as you would want due to other commitments and for another, it gives others a chance to participate. In addition, having a visible list of organizers in each area, gives us more transparency and continuity.

I also think , now that we are actually large enough to sell scarves and shirts, we need to organize our finances. We need to do that to ensure that we cover all of our basis (i.e. seats in stadiums, website, etc..) and that our dollars are transparent as well, to ensure that in the long run, with many more people coming along, this organization will not be abused. (i.e. we already had one instance of someone taking advantage of the forum a few years ago).

Just some thoughts amongst many others.

[Grizzly]

quote:Originally posted by River City

the V's shouldn't be an old boys network that is run entirely by older posters, or V's that have proven themselves.

Then who should run it? New posters that haven't proven themselves? Is it your opinion we are run like an old boys network now? There is nothing stopping anyone new or long time poster from offering their services to the Voyageurs if we need what they can do for us. Of course one does need to develop some credibility with other Voyageurs before doing so. There is no group of old Voyageurs preventing people from getting involved. As far as I can see the people running things are doing a good job and noone is complaining about the decisions that are made.

This debate so far is like watching an Obama speech (with one major difference). There is lots of talk about change and little talk or details about what exactly this change is. The major difference is that in the US change is at least needed while with us it seems like a change for change's sake in order to satisfy the ideas of certain people about how an organization should be run. If we want to give a few people formal titles and make the money handling issue a bit more transparent I don't have any problem with that. Surely we don't need a national conference or major reorganization to achieve that.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by Winnipeg Fury

One things guys, I will be interviewing the CSA General Secretary on behalf of the Voyageurs next week, and many of these topics will be asked. This interview is not a coincidence. The point of the interview is to hold the CSA accountable to the Voyageurs, and have them answer to many of these questions. It's also not a coincidence that Peter Montopoli has agreed to the interview (and by the way, I want to really thank you guys for the feedback to date. It has been a busy spell and many of the suggestions will be used).

I have been discussing many of these issues (tickets allocation, security) with the CSA for months, but people have to realize that the plans for the last three matches were organized by the CSA months prior to the matches. Again, this is new to the CSA. We have had 4 matches in 3 cities. They have never had supporters sections (which is mind boggling !), and this is a work in progress. I will be the first to defend the CSA on this. They have done their best and have accommodated 95% of our requests. I will go on record right now stating that John Billingsley and Tanya Colbourne of the CSA assisted us as much as possible. Any drastic change or shift was going to wait till the Hex.

Now if they tell me to go **** myself, then I will lead the attack on CSA HQ, and that will most certainly be conveyed to the Voyageurs and media at large. Yes, there is room for improvement and the CSA will have to act on this. I look forward to Peter's comments on this.

The Honduras game in Montreal may be a blessing in disguise, because I don't think the CSA envisioned that blight unfolding in their worst nightmare. And I think all would agree that it could have been much uglier ! I think some in the CSA thought I was off my rocker when I was concerned about foreign fans in attendance, but not after this match. Some good may come out of this match yet (kind of like the raid on Dieppe ). By the way, I still **** myself when I see images of the V's march into the stadium covered in Honduran blue. Sends a shiver down my spine. Great work.

Let me say I am split between the two opinions. If there is a formalized organization it could be positive. While if is also undeniable that things already work informally.

Usually things have happened because individuals have stepped up in certain moments, often on their own accord, often solicited. Like you have done lately, like local organizers for the recent qualifiers, like the club fan groups. Like in some press campaigns. We work well this way, but also, at times, not so well.

This is why people accept that you, WF, can do an interview with the CSA president, even when you simply announced it as exclusive without consulting openly first. I think this was an error, because you are not in a position to do anything as an exclusive Voyageur voice (does that mean the CSA could then refuse an interview with someone from the V's who does not agree with you but does have support from a significant portion of the supporters?).

But I understand that if you did not do this, did not take the initiative, it would not happen. You could and should be doing the interview with other V's present, it would be more transparent and representative. But even then, in the end you will be judged by your ability to not pander to the CSA or their interests and show indepedence. To question in a way that represents the ideas and sentiment of the group as a whole, in general, in its majority.

If you can do this without thinking that pissing the CSA brass off will hurt our future seat allocations for the next qualifying round or during the Gold Cup, then you will have done well. If you are soft because you think hard questions will jeopardize your work in favour of Canada fans in other areas, they you will have failed.

Which is probably why you are probably not the right person to be doing the interview.

That said, I insist that I cannot agree with those who appear to be defending the status quo just because they have worked hard within it and have achieved something inside of it. That is not good enough, and fears and qualms about bureaucracy and other bugaboos should and could be eased by coming up with a lean flexible organizational model. Meaning although I basically agree with those who say it is fine the way it is, I am not going to boycott those who want to formalize things legally. It could be better, what is--the Voyageur old boy network--is not good enough. It is especially not good enough if we accept that the old time Vs are less and less representative of what is happening out there.

So it is time to move on and do it, the risks are small and I am sure we are big enough to handle it.

I am disappointed that there are those who by defending the status quo are so obviously defending their own interests and not looking beyond their own efforts in favour of a wider good. A federation, loosely structured, with a financial basis and organizational structure that is lean and non-hierarchical, and that still allows for individuals to act in all ways so that we can have a competitive national program with the fans well taken care of and stadiums where we feel at home.

Defensive attitudes like we see on this thread are in the end understandable, because folks work hard and are often not recognized, but I think they are fundamentally mistaken. Which is why I defer to the opinion of those who advocate for a more organized, more democratic, less hierarchical, less old-boy privilege based Voyageurs, legally and financially.

[Cheeta]

A few of us have talked about this in the past and I think it's important to point out that any formal Vs Organization would be clearly supportive, but an entity separate of the Voyageur website. Or at least I'd assume as much.

No one is going to turn this forum into a private club.

People can still run their own projects, participating in them or no, outside of a VO, in a VO, or in collaboration with a VO. For me the purpose of a VO is to better pool our resources and talents in working towards becoming entirely independent of individual initiatives and energy because that appoach is simply not sustainable and very clearly has it's limits.

As importantly, a VO can say it's speaking for the organization. To the CSA, to the media, to the public through the media, to clubs, provincial organizations, sponsors & businesses. That is important.

[Winnipeg Fury]

quote:Originally posted by Reza

The key thing for me is the longterm success of the group. In the past 12 years, it has been the sum of a lot of individual efforts who at each turn had the time and money to commit to a part of the cause and a few lucky breaks that has helped us grow.

I think we must now seize the opportunity and make things more formal and transparent, and by formal, I don't mean incorporating.

I think we need to make things so that they are term-based, as for one thing, everyone has a life and during that life, there are times, where you can not simply contribute as much as you would want due to other commitments and for another, it gives others a chance to participate. In addition, having a visible list of organizers in each area, gives us more transparency and continuity.

I also think , now that we are actually large enough to sell scarves and shirts, we need to organize our finances. We need to do that to ensure that we cover all of our basis (i.e. seats in stadiums, website, etc..) and that our dollars are transparent as well, to ensure that in the long run, with many more people coming along, this organization will not be abused. (i.e. we already had one instance of someone taking advantage of the forum a few years ago).

Just some thoughts amongst many others.

To me the financial aspect is the big one. We can't (I won't) be holding money like I had been for years. It is a disaster waiting to happen. I could have burned you guys a thousand times. I won't, but others may.

That said, do we need to hold money ? To me the safest and most efficient manner in dealing with this, is to raise funds as you need them. We sold 200 scarves, made some cash, bought some megaphones, flag, banners, postage, etc....No cash left, no worries.

If Canada get's a group at the Gold Cup, we may want to consider doing another order of something. But I really don't see the need at this point in trying to assemble a tidy sum of cash. We had the need before with the Voyageurs Cup, but that is being looked after.

[JamboAl]

As a lurker to the site for years but only feeling like a true member since the summer, I must say that a lot of excellent work was done to organize everyone for the past qualifying round. Excellent work done on all fronts with respect to organizing, ticket allocation/negotiations with the CSA, scarves/t-shirts, and even hosting Vs in the case of Edmonton. The point I'd like to make is that all of this was volunteer work! We all have busy schedules, families, etc and to do this shows a dedication which I can't thank enough.

If we were to run this organization on a more formal basis, you'd likely need meetings and some sort of top-down organization. Meetings are expensive especially if people have to pay their own way to get there (and I'm not talking about a $2.25 subway ride or a $40 taxi). And then expectations of the people at the top would be such that at some point, either they would get fed up of all the complaining from certain members or would want to be compensated for it...and trust me, having some experience with volunteering, you couldn't pay someone at the top enough money to deal with all the crap if it weren't for the love of what they are doing. I like the structure as it stands and will trust the senior members to deal with issues as they see fit.

My only caveat to all this is the money aspect. As WF says in a previous post, no single individual should be responsible for a large amount of money without some sort of controls. All it takes is 1 person to say, hmmm...that's a heck of a lot of interest that can be earned on say $1,000 (yeah right), and then all hell breaks loose. If we need to keep a float for expenditures (can't think of what they would be), then it should be a nominal amount; otherwise, I don't see a need for it.

Sorry for the long post.

[River City]

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

Then who should run it? New posters that haven't proven themselves? Is it your opinion we are run like an old boys network now? There is nothing stopping anyone new or long time poster from offering their services to the Voyageurs if we need what they can do for us. Of course one does need to develop some credibility with other Voyageurs before doing so. There is no group of old Voyageurs preventing people from getting involved. As far as I can see the people running things are doing a good job and noone is complaining about the decisions that are made.

This debate so far is like watching an Obama speech (with one major difference). There is lots of talk about change and little talk or details about what exactly this change is. The major difference is that in the US change is at least needed while with us it seems like a change for change's sake in order to satisfy the ideas of certain people about how an organization should be run. If we want to give a few people formal titles and make the money handling issue a bit more transparent I don't have any problem with that. Surely we don't need a national conference or major reorganization to achieve that.

Who should run it?

Eventually, what I see is the organization being run by V's that are voted in by other V's based on 1) willingness to step up to the plate 2) ideas. This wouldn't have worked in the past because our numbers were low, but as we continue to grow, this is essential. The guys running the show now have done an absolutely bang-up job with limited time, resources and in some cases assistance. But again, as we grow we need to be completely transparent.

From the Edmonton LOC as an example, there were a few V's with very little posts that were of invaluable assistance and I see stepping up in the future to 'lead' future Edmonton LOC's. These are V's that are far more talented than me and should have full opportunity to help run the national organization despite their low post count. At this point, if they wanted to initiate a project, a few of the older V's would have to vouch for them and assure everyone they were on the up and up. With a formal organization though, that personal reference element (which can lead to problems in a large organization) would be removed as there would be agreed upon checks and balances before someone could be in a position of authority.

We need to prepare now for where we want to be and how we're going to get there. I believe that's the point of the summit. If the majority just wants to remain an internet community, so be it. But something tells me what most of us crave is a national fan organization with a leader and executive that can be in contact with the media constantly, generate publicity, grow our numbers, attract sponsorship (ie. beer companies) and whatever else we want to be, whatever else we want to do. All this is needed so that one day, when we as MNT fans go to a Stadium, regardless if it's in Vancouver or St. John's, we are an organized force that will give the MNT that crowd support in large numbers that they have never had, but everyone else in CONCACAF seems to have. That's ultimately why we exist.

[Guest speedmonk42]

Hold on! Let me make something clear.

None of what I am suggesting is coming from any sense of dissatisfaction! I really like the way things are, and the whole thing is very important to me. Do we want to grow this at all? If we increase our numbers by several times and formalize things will we lose something? Quite possibly. I am not sure I want that to happen.

But if the growth continues, it might happen to some extent anyway. The genie may be out of the bottle to some extent, and if we keep things the way they are, we may be stopping something, though that is speculative.

I don’t’ want to incorporate unless there is a clear reason to do so, and there is interest in doing so.

What do you want the Voyageurs to be 10 years from now?

I think we are in a position to make a significant difference in soccer in this country and help the CSA. I don’t want to fight them or work against them, I want to work with them and as WF has demonstrated they are more than willing to do so.

I want to fill the void that everyone complains about, that there is no soccer culture in this country. How? We need a presence, and there is more than enough talent and enthusiasm here to make it happen.

The kids who are starting soccer now at six will be ten years old by the next WCQ round. I want to connect to those clubs and players and parents and coaches now.

That will take money and managing of money from getting it to spending it requires some kind of formalized structure. There is no doubt in my mind that we could eventually raise a significant amount of money. But what do we do with it?

Communications would be the most immediate initiative. Here are some ideas.

Booths at every soccer show & major tournament in the country

Annual, simple newsletter (4page max) purchased by the clubs and distributed to the players through the coaches. It says to kids every year they play soccer, there is a national team and you are a Voyageur.

Voyageur patches for clubs to iron on or sew onto kids jerseys.

Game day materials and promotional material that promotes the Voyageurs and the game.

Pre game marketing to our own established network & membership.

Indirect initiatives could utilize the charitable nature of a formal organization to develop special projects. For example, one my pet fantasies for some time is to see old decrepit and unused tennis courts turned into turf mini fields or futsal fields.

The numbers are there, the interest is there and the money is there. There is just no credible vehicle through which any of this stuff can be done in a financial sense.

There is no imperative to do anything immediately. We can take our time and proceed in any fashion we want at any speed, incorporated or not. It can take us whatever timeline we want to accomplish even just one of the things above or something completely different.

[Winnipeg Fury]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

Let me say I am split between the two opinions. If there is a formalized organization it could be positive. While if is also undeniable that things already work informally.

Usually things have happened because individuals have stepped up in certain moments, often on their own accord, often solicited. Like you have done lately, like local organizers for the recent qualifiers, like the club fan groups. Like in some press campaigns. We work well this way, but also, at times, not so well.

This is why people accept that you, WF, can do an interview with the CSA president, even when you simply announced it as exclusive without consulting openly first. I think this was an error, because you are not in a position to do anything as an exclusive Voyageur voice (does that mean the CSA could then refuse an interview with someone from the V's who does not agree with you but does have support from a significant portion of the supporters?).

But I understand that if you did not do this, did not take the initiative, it would not happen. You could and should be doing the interview with other V's present, it would be more transparent and representative. But even then, in the end you will be judged by your ability to not pander to the CSA or their interests and show indepedence. To question in a way that represents the ideas and sentiment of the group as a whole, in general, in its majority.

If you can do this without thinking that pissing the CSA brass off will hurt our future seat allocations for the next qualifying round or during the Gold Cup, then you will have done well. If you are soft because you think hard questions will jeopardize your work in favour of Canada fans in other areas, they you will have failed.

I think most people recognize that my contribution in this process is not the questions that are asked (which will largely come from the feedback provided on this forum), but the fact that the CSA now feel compelled to respond publicly to the Voyageurs. I can assure you, that has been a far more arduous task than conducting an interview.

As part of the old boys Voyageurs network, who fancies himself a journalist, perhaps you would like to conduct the interview ?

[superbrad]

I've worked with many non-profit organizations over the years (of which I see the V's becoming). There are several reasons to incorporate. This is a good article explaining some of the reasons that would perhaps apply. (Although an American article many principles apply, paticularily regarding liability). As for becoming non-profit, one thing I think the V's would be in a position to do (under formal organization) would be to provide grants, scholarships or other type of bursuries to upcoming footballers who we see having potential for MNT membership.

http://articles.bplans.com/index.php/business-articles/incorporating-a-business/five-reasons-to-incorporate-your-nonprofit/

If you’re involved in a fledgling nonprofit organization, you and the other folks active in the group have probably wondered whether or not you should incorporate. Becoming a nonprofit corporation requires some paperwork, but for many groups, the benefits of nonprofit status outweigh the complications. Here are five circumstances that may make it worth your while to incorporate.

Your association makes a profit from its activities

If your group will make a profit from its activities, becoming a nonprofit corporation can yield a great benefit: As long as the money you make is related to your charitable activities, your nonprofit corporation won’t pay income tax on it.

Example

Better Books and Learning begins as a part-time effort by a few dedicated individuals to hold book groups for disadvantaged youth. The volunteers pay all of the expenses out of their own pockets, and the group never turns a profit. Then a board member of a local junior college asks the group to administer and run book groups as part of the college curriculum — for a fee. Since the group will now show a profit from its educational activities, it decides to incorporate as a nonprofit and seek tax-exempt status with the IRS.

For more information on whether income is “related” to your group’s activities, and thus not taxable, see Earning income as a nonprofit corporation.

You want to apply for public or private grant money

Without tax-exempt status, your group is unlikely to qualify for many public and private grants. While you can form a nonprofit, tax-exempt association, rather than a corporation, qualifying for a tax exemption as an association is harder — it requires preparing and adopting a complicated set of organizational papers and operating rules. Further, it’s generally easier to get the IRS to approve a tax exemption for a nonprofit corporation.

You want to solicit tax-deductible contributions

If your organization becomes a tax-exempt nonprofit corporation, donors can deduct their gifts to your group on their federal and state tax income returns.

Example

For Shore United wants to sponsor monthly cleanup drives to pick up and haul away trash left along the local bay shore. They’ve enlisted a sufficient number of enthusiastic volunteers, but they need funds to rent a truck, buy gas and pay for volunteers’ meals. They know that many people in the community would chip in to help fund their effort if their group was a recognized public charity eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions. Incorporating the group as a nonprofit corporation and applying for tax-exempt status can help them raise these much-needed funds.

You want protection from personal liability for the group’s activities

If your group finds itself the target of a lawsuit, incorporation can provide welcome peace of mind. Nonprofit corporations can be sued — but their members and directors are generally protected from personal liability, meaning that their own money, houses, cars or other property isn’t at risk. That’s not true of an unincorporated association.

Example

Engineers for the Environment is a nonprofit consulting firm that helps developers prepare environmental impact reports for nonprofit housing developments. To avoid legal liability if unforeseen federal and state guidelines cause costly delays, the firm decides to incorporate their organization as a nonprofit.

Your advocacy efforts might provoke legal quarrels

Although nonprofits may engage only in very limited political advocacy (unless they elect to follow special federal lobbying rules), advocacy efforts may occasionally draw a nonprofit into an unwanted lawsuit. Incorporating can support directors and officers in defending the lawsuits and protect them from personal liability.

Example

Citizens for a Smoke-Free America informs the public about the health hazards of secondary smoke from cigarettes. The group decides to campaign for local legislation banning cigarette advertising on billboards in the community. It expects an unfriendly response from cigarette advertisers in the form of expensive and time-consuming lawsuits against the organization, and its directors and officers. The group decides to incorporate before beginning the campaign, to allow the corporation to pay the officers’ and directors’ legal expenses and to insulate the directors and officers from personal liability.

Additional benefits of organizing a nonprofit

Although these aren’t the main reasons people form nonprofit corporations, nonprofits can take advantage of other benefits, including:

Special postage rates. Nonprofits can apply for and receive a mailing permit that gives them a special reduced nonprofit rate for mailings. This is especially helpful for organizations that will do a lot of solicitation by mail.

Property tax exemptions. In addition to an exemption from income taxes, nonprofits are usually exempt from paying property taxes on real estate and other property. Contact your county assessor’s office for more information on this property tax exemption, which is called a “welfare exemption.”

To learn more about forming a nonprofit corporation, see How to form a nonprofit corporation.

Copyright © Nolo

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by Winnipeg Fury

I think most people recognize that my contribution in this process is not the questions that are asked (which will largely come from the feedback provided on this forum), but the fact that the CSA now feel compelled to respond publicly to the Voyageurs. I can assure you, that has been a far more arduous task than conducting an interview.

As part of the old boys Voyageurs network, who fancies himself a journalist, perhaps you would like to conduct the interview ?

I think my post was clear enough. I think if you had not stepped up it would not happen, but at the same time I think you are not in a position to announce an "exclusive" anything as you are not in a position to represent Voyageurs exclusively.

In the same way if I write the Secretary of State for Sport I speak for myself, mention my affilitation with Voyageurs, express my own sentiment and that of many other fans.

As for being part of an old boys network, I agree with you to a point that it makes sense to consult the longstanding members. A bit of perspective helps, or should. But if the whole point is that membership has grown and that there are no longer just a few guys around on top of things, then that method cannot work anymore. Because there is no such thing as seniority rights on the board, and there would not be if the organization was formalized legally either. In fact it is precisely one of the problems with the way the system we are criticizing works, old boy inertias.

Finally, I do not "fancy" myself a journalist. I am a professional writer and cultural journalist apart from teaching art theory, as I believe you know perfectly well. I am a member of the corresponding international professional association, and have been active for twenty years. As such, my experience is entirely irrelevant for a professional interview with the CSA president on the subject of soccer, except for understanding certain things about how professional journalistic interviews are done.

What I do know is that you are being rather defensive about things for someone claiming to represent other members of this community with equanimity. I would have at least expected you to offer to let someone else participate in the interview with you, and I am surprised you have not. Unless you have other reasons for wanting to do it alone.

[Guest speedmonk42]

Lets get back on track (if there was one..lol)

There is no reason to be upset here. Everything being suggested is because things are going so well, not badly.

Lets ask some general questions.

1. What kind of growth do you think is possible, or even desired?

2. What would be one or more things we could accomplish over the next 5 to 10 years?

[Winnipeg Fury]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

I think my post was clear enough. I think if you had not stepped up it would not happen, but at the same time I think you are not in a position to announce an "exclusive" anything as you are not in a position to represent Voyageurs exclusively.

In the same way if I write the Secretary of State for Sport I speak for myself, mention my affilitation with Voyageurs, express my own sentiment and that of many other fans.

As for being part of an old boys network, I agree with you to a point that it makes sense to consult the longstanding members. A bit of perspective helps, or should. But if the whole point is that membership has grown and that there are no longer just a few guys around on top of things, then that method cannot work anymore. Because there is no such thing as seniority rights on the board, and there would not be if the organization was formalized legally either. In fact it is precisely one of the problems with the way the system we are criticizing works, old boy inertias.

Finally, I do not "fancy" myself a journalist. I am a professional writer and cultural journalist apart from teaching art theory, as I believe you know perfectly well. I am a member of the corresponding international professional association, and have been active for twenty years. As such, my experience is entirely irrelevant for a professional interview with the CSA president on the subject of soccer, except for understanding certain things about how professional journalistic interviews are done.

What I do know is that you are being rather defensive about things for someone claiming to represent other members of this community with equanimity. I would have at least expected you to offer to let someone else participate in the interview with you, and I am surprised you have not. Unless you have other reasons for wanting to do it alone.

Really very simple Jeffrey. I am giving you chance to assist and contribute.

I am not being defensive, I am asking you if you would like to conduct the interview ?

Not as fun as spinnning conspiracy theories, but I would appreciate the assistance.

[Grizzly]

quote:Originally posted by JamboAl

As a lurker to the site for years but only feeling like a true member since the summer, I must say that a lot of excellent work was done to organize everyone for the past qualifying round. Excellent work done on all fronts with respect to organizing, ticket allocation/negotiations with the CSA, scarves/t-shirts, and even hosting Vs in the case of Edmonton. The point I'd like to make is that all of this was volunteer work! We all have busy schedules, families, etc and to do this shows a dedication which I can't thank enough.

If we were to run this organization on a more formal basis, you'd likely need meetings and some sort of top-down organization. Meetings are expensive especially if people have to pay their own way to get there (and I'm not talking about a $2.25 subway ride or a $40 taxi). And then expectations of the people at the top would be such that at some point, either they would get fed up of all the complaining from certain members or would want to be compensated for it...and trust me, having some experience with volunteering, you couldn't pay someone at the top enough money to deal with all the crap if it weren't for the love of what they are doing. I like the structure as it stands and will trust the senior members to deal with issues as they see fit.

My only caveat to all this is the money aspect. As WF says in a previous post, no single individual should be responsible for a large amount of money without some sort of controls. All it takes is 1 person to say, hmmm...that's a heck of a lot of interest that can be earned on say $1,000 (yeah right), and then all hell breaks loose. If we need to keep a float for expenditures (can't think of what they would be), then it should be a nominal amount; otherwise, I don't see a need for it.

Sorry for the long post.

A very good summary of the problems with the proposal.

[Grizzly]

We have people here claiming Winnipeg Fury is being corrupt/secretive about conducting an interview with a CSA member. And this despite WF making a thread saying he was going to do this and asking us what we want to ask. And others should now participate in this interview? WF conducts an interview from his basement on the phone, he doesn't fly to Ottawa on his private learjet picking up members who want to participate en route. And now said member doesn't want to participate in the interview process when offered on the excuse that he is a journalist in another field than sports.

This is exactly what is going to happen with the reorganization and letting people who are not longtime or trusted and proven posters have a big say in running the organization. Now our "unofficial president" can't even conduct an interview without it being debated and bitched about. Now people with hidden agendas, chips on their shoulder or who have only been members for a short time and often disappear shortly afterwards will have a big influence on how things are run. The oft mentioned Polish Lynx Fan fiasco was precisely caused by us trusting someone we met at a few games who wasn't a trusted and proven member of the group. In short we are risking going from a well run organization to an ineffectual chaotic organization dominated by certain groups and regions. Many of the people who have led the organization over the years and done a good job will get fed up and leave the Voyageurs.

We have made great strides in recent years under the leadership of WF and those helping him in various regions. There is little advantage or prestige for WF, myself or anyone involved in doing this and in fact if we really rationally thought about it, it would probably improve all of our lives not to be doing this. We have the contacts at high level and good relations with the CSA, the various professional clubs, various supporter groups and amateur clubs, not to mention that our trophy is now the national soccer championship. There is a good chance that a reorganization will throw these things completely out of the window. Noone capable that wants to help run things is being denied an opportunity to do so. Show me the list of people offering to help that we have turned down. Show me the posts by people with detailed descriptions of how we should reorganize, how decisions should be made in the future, how these will positively effect things such as membership, what the possible negative consequences are of their proposals etc, etc. We haven't even got this from the member who started this thread in the first place and unilaterally called for a meeting in February in Toronto with no consultation with anyone else. Is this how the Voyageurs will be run in the future?

The Voyageurs are a well run organization unlike the majority of soccer related organizations in the country. Now people are proposing we create a new structure much more similar to those poorly run organizations based on some vague ideal of how an organization should be organized. I would like to see some detailed posts on why we need a change in leadership and organization. When has the current leadership/organization not properly represented the interests of the group as a whole? When has our current structure prevented us from achieving anything? What proposals are there that cannot be achieved under the current structure? Who is offering their services to the group, what are you able to and willing to do and why have you not made this public or known to the current leadership so far?

If people want to formalize/title the positions of various people involved I don't think anyone has a problem with that. We could also make financial aspects more transparent. Otherwise I see no reason to change an organization that has made tremendous progress in the last few years and risk returning to what we were ten years ago, a bunch of guys posting/arguing/debating on the internet but with little influence on anything.

[River City]

That is a fair post Grizzly, but I think misses the point of those that want to formalize the group.

I had no idea that WF or anyone else was in fact leading us, since this was never discussed or agreed to....unless I missed a thread or two. But that is exactly my point. If we have a 'leader' or 'unofficial president' this needs to be known and agreed to by the vast majority of V's. This isn't a private club. At least I didn't think so. When we reach 10,000 members, is having a secret leadership committee going to be an efficient way of conducting things?

This thread started with the intent of hosting a Voyageur gathering to figure out what we want and how we get there. If any of the longstanding V's feel that their service or leadership is being ridiculed, or swept aside by newbies, or people with hidden agendas, chips on their shoulders, I'm sorry, but I don't think that is what is intended. What's intended is to have a frank discussion of where we go as an organization. An organization that does not have an elected leadership.