V's Leadership thread

[JamboAl]

quote:Originally posted by 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?

I think the intent of the thread is good and so is the discussion. Before I give my 2 cents on the questions, the Vs mandate if I understand correctly is to discuss and support soccer in Canada. An offshoot of that is to gather supporters a few times every four years (or 2 if you count the Gold Cup).

The problems are:

- we aren't huge in numbers relative to hockey (that's what counts in this country I hate to admit)

- we all live in different parts of this vast country and around the world

- most of the 3,000 or so Vs will only be passively interested in Canadian soccer for the next 3 1/2 years.

Keeping that into perspective:

1. The growth of the Vs is through increasing our numbers; that way the supporters group become recognizable in the media and the general public. I won't use the word "more" before "recognizable" because we haven't established that yet (except for the Dobsons, Devos, and others in blogworld). How do we do that when we have nothing on the line for the until summer 2012? I'm not that creative or smart. What we can also do is to put pressure on the CSA and we already have people who have lines of communications with the folks down the street from where I am sitting.

2. If I have only one wish, it's to make Canada's home matches (whether for friendlies or WC qualifiers) as home friendly as possible. After Honduras in Montreal, it shows we still have a long way to go.

I don't want to sound pessimistic because I love Canada and Canadian Soccer; I'm just trying to be realistic knowing how much has been achieved so far and what can be done realistically without absurd time and financial commitments for a small number of people.

[JamboAl]

quote:Originally posted by 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?

I think the intent of the thread is good and so is the discussion. Before I give my 2 cents on the questions, the Vs mandate if I understand correctly is to discuss and support soccer in Canada. An offshoot of that is to gather supporters a few times every four years (or 2 if you count the Gold Cup).

The problems are:

- we aren't huge in numbers relative to hockey (that's what counts in this country I hate to admit)

- we all live in different parts of this vast country and around the world

- most of the 3,000 or so Vs will only be passively interested in Canadian soccer for the next 3 1/2 years.

Keeping that into perspective:

1. The growth of the Vs is through increasing our numbers; that way the supporters group become recognizable in the media and the general public. I won't use the word "more" before "recognizable" because we haven't established that yet (except for the Dobsons, Devos, and others in blogworld). How do we do that when we have nothing on the line for the until summer 2012? I'm not that creative or smart. What we can also do is to put pressure on the CSA and we already have people who have lines of communications with the folks down the street from where I am sitting.

2. If I have only one wish, it's to make Canada's home matches (whether for friendlies or WC qualifiers) as home friendly as possible. After Honduras in Montreal, it shows we still have a long way to go.

I don't want to sound pessimistic because I love Canada and Canadian Soccer; I'm just trying to be realistic knowing how much has been achieved so far and what can be done realistically without absurd time and financial commitments for a small number of people.

[BrennanFan]

i think we've lost track of the point of the summit idea. changing the structure of the Vs, or organizing, is a means to an end, and is completely secondary at this point. a meeting to establish what our short and long term goals are is completely appropriate and next year is the best time to do it.

just to make it clear, i am not in favour of incorporation for the decision making benefits and bureaucracy involved. i like our system as it is. i only want incorporation so that if one of our projects goes to hell for one reason or another, no one here will have to face any serious financial consequences.

im serious here. for example, suppose the material in the voyageurs scarves ended up causing an allergic reaction that killed a kid at one of the WCQ games, their family would be pointing their finger at ME right now, and I'd be screwed.

when a group becomes involved with selling things and making money, incorporation is a logical next step. i'd like to see the v's continue to sell scarves and shirts with a view to generating $ to fund bigger projects like away trip packages as well as addressing ticketing in some way. if others agree, and this is the direction we are headed, incorporating as a non profit is the way to go.

[Guest speedmonk42]

God wtf.

All I wanted to do was get together with people and try planning some stuff that wasn't in a freaking bar, was organized and did something other than complaining about the CSA.

Enough with the overreactions.

[superbrad]

I have a rash but its not related to your scarves.

Seriously - for me thats what it boils down to. No one here wants to assume any liability for anything the V's do directly or indirectly that results in a civil suit. Incorporating also allows for an open and mandatory disclosure of finances and financial records so that any Director (formal) is not subject to inaccurate or defamatory claims by persons involved with the V's. Protection for those who have worked so hard to get the V's to where they are today.

As the membership grows and the V's become influential as they are today, the natural transition is towards a formalized structure. The larger an animal the greater the need.

Now I agree that having a meeting in Toronto is negative in the sense that only locals will be able to easily attend. However - the point has been made that this can be facilitated by electronic conferencing which IMO is OK.

[Guest Ed]

^ Chat room / teleconference would suffice for a meeting of minds. Anything beyond that (meeting of minds that is) reeks of local soccer association politico activity.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

The reactions on this thread suggest that speedmonk is right on track and that he should go ahead with his idea, regardless of those who seem to be defending the status quo. Or their particular contributions, as if doing something well in the current situation had anything to do with being able to do it better and more democratically in a legal and financially sounder situation.

I am comfortable with the way things are too, but mostly because of laziness. How do things work? Every now and then someone steps up, makes a significant contribution, then someone else does the same on another issue. I could list 35 people at least who have put in time and effort and committment and have even gone out on a limb for one or another Voyageur issue, whether banners or travel or game day support or press or lobbying for improvement on something or setting up a letter-writing campaign.

In these cases burnout is inevitable, there is often little shared knowledge, and calls for help do not always get answered. Most people have time for a while and then, within a few months or years, do not. Money is come by on the go, haphazardly, and without necessary transparency, though the only real screw up was the scarf fiasco, which fortunately was solved admirably.

I think the summit is a great idea, and could be complemented with regional summits or meetings or events. There is no reason for the thread to be hijacked by a couple of people feeling ultra defensive about their contributions. I think there are plenty more people around who worked their butts off for years, including economic sacrifice, and they are not coming on justifying the current state of affairs at Voyageurs and shoot down solid and open-minded ideas on the basis of their years of unrequited service.

[CanadasBest]

I don't think anyone has leveled any criticism at Winnipeg Fury at all. Or towards any others who have done so in the past couple years. I don't understand why some people are getting defensive when most of the comments have been pretty reasonable and accurate. What I've read on this thread has been directed to the group organization as a whole, and not any one individual.

The reason I support more organization is for the future of this group, and that's not as a slight against anybody here at all. Some aspects of this group are top notch, and don't need a lot of changes if any. There are other aspects though that definitely could use tweaking if not to run the current day to day stuff, but to put us in a position to deal with future areas of concern.

As others have already mentioned, the way we conduct ourselves financially is really bad. The way we conduct our finances carries a lot of personal risk, and that's not right. No one should be putting their personal finances on the line on behalf of our group. (Whether they volunteer to or not) That alone in my opinion is enough reason to incorporate the voyageurs as an NPO. Unless we incorporate, we can't set up a proper bank account in the groups name. I also disagree with those that say we shouldn't have funds in the bank. There are a lot of projects we could spend money on to further this group. Maintaining and updating this website for example which has been talked about now for about 3 years with no action. If I had the necessary skills to fix it I would do it myself, but to have our main page full of dead links and "Under Construction" all the time is a really poor first impression to people who come across our site. Again that's not a shot at anybody, that's just fact and it is not getting addressed.

Membership too is an issue. Am I the only one that thinks the 3000 membership level is really highly inflated? So what if we have 3000 people on an e-mail list. What we really have is about 200-500 core people that would call themselves Voyageurs. If we put a vote out on a topic, i'd be willing to bet we'd have about 200 voters.

The absence of formal membership guidelines will at some point come back to bite us in the ass. Right now pretty much anyone and their dog can say they're a Voyageur, put on our scarf cause havoc at a game and give our group a bad name. Worse case scenario someone gets hurt and our group is blamed, and the people that organized the tickets get sued. In my opinion what we should have is proper guidelines for membership. I'm not talking about membership fees, or strange initiations, or being an exclusive entity. What I am talking about is a system to become a Voyageur, and also a system (If Needed) to take that membership away from someone that's contravening core values of our charter. In order to protect ourselves members should have to agree to our core values and charter to become a member first. That goes a long way into protecting our group.

I have no agenda whatsoever with regards to supporting more organization of this group. I don't want a position, I don't want a title, I don't want to control the money. I'm stating my opinion because I care about this group, and I think proper organization is long overdue.

[Cheeta]

Just to jump in on the membership numbers. They're actually quite accurate. This world cup cycle has been very good for the Vs membership.

Banned and locked members (spammers, exiles, whatever) do not continue to count as members. Once you're membership is locked you drop off the ledger. People will register with the Vs for the sake of registering with the Vs. If just to have their name added to the rolls as a gesture of solidarity. It's a small gesture, but I'd wager a sincere gesture all the same.

I should also mention for the last 6+ months we've been approving new members manually. A right royal pain in the ass but an incredibly accurate way of weeding out both the active and passive spammers. The odd one sneaks through but they're quickly found out and culled.

Gwallace has made a good guess. By my reckoning I'd say we have about 250 regular, committed members/website visitors. If the old adage holds true that there is one lurker for every registered V that puts us in the 500 regulars range. Pretty solid. Very solid when you consider how little this site really has to offer and combine that number with the irregular, unregistered, casual visitors.

The Vs mailer list I've high-jacked is 2,000 strong. Considering I delete the addresses of undelivered e-mails from the distribution list after each mailer along with the odd few who unsubscribe I'd wager that mailer list very accurately reflects a current V population, casual or otherwise. I haven't kept count of the number of e-mail addresses I've deleted from the mailer but it has to be deep into the hundreds and hundreds which explains my confidence in the value of the current list.

We're doing very good. The Vs forum of 2008 is not the little clique of the Network54 board. No they're not YouTube like numbers but they're still very good when taken in context. Our membership numbers reflect the job we're doing (officially, unofficially) in serving the Canadian football community in our little ways but I think we can and need to do better.

[superbrad]

One more thing about formalization - Directors could receive expenses paid for attending meetings, games etc. Reasonable expenses that are necessary to ensure the continued viability of the NPO are acceptable, (having approved NPO for gaming licenses in a previous life).

In this sense elected volunteers are not put out of house and home for their efforts.

One of the first things to do when deciding on formal organization is defining purpose. Do we have a mission statement currently? Are we simply Canadian Soccer supporters? Do we attempt to advocate for real and positive change in Canadian Soccer that results in National Team success? (CSA lobbyists?). I don't know. I know that I lurked for some time before posting - and that I joined to find the solidarity that I always felt was lacking at MNT games. I've certainly found that and find the Voyageurs to be an integral part of the live football entertainment experience.

I think we can improve our support (especially for away games) and I look to all your ideas on how we continue to grow the group. I would be satisfied with the status quo and would accept the consensus of the group.

[Bertuzzi44]

quote:Originally posted by gwallace76

As others have already mentioned, the way we conduct ourselves financially is really bad. The way we conduct our finances carries a lot of personal risk, and that's not right. No one should be putting their personal finances on the line on behalf of our group. (Whether they volunteer to or not) That alone in my opinion is enough reason to incorporate the voyageurs as an NPO. Unless we incorporate, we can't set up a proper bank account in the groups name. I also disagree with those that say we shouldn't have funds in the bank. There are a lot of projects we could spend money on to further this group. Maintaining and updating this website for example which has been talked about now for about 3 years with no action. If I had the necessary skills to fix it I would do it myself, but to have our main page full of dead links and "Under Construction" all the time is a really poor first impression to people who come across our site. Again that's not a shot at anybody, that's just fact and it is not getting addressed.

I think we can all agree this is the strongest argument for incorporation. It's a very good one, too.

[Winnipeg Fury]

The website is a huge problem and has been ongoing for years. I don't believe this has anything to do with money. We had money, money was offered, money was declined. I don't see that tying into incorporation.

[CoachRich]

You guys did a great job of connecting the supporter clubs together for the MP & that's what the game & it's supporters need. An National entity w/ experience & passion to help lead the supporters to better the sport. Look at the alternative, the CSA.

The model could be a simple NP govern & manage model to build & support soccer supporters & the game across the country.

Getting grants, donations, membership dues, sponsorship & etc makes it easier to build out the NP & to focus.

As a NP, there is the opportunity to get grants from the government to build the NP.

I've posted this before & I think there is some merit to what they have done in the UK.

www.fsf.org.uk

[Lord Bob]

It seems to me that technically, the website is fine. We just need someone willing to point links and create content; even giving a couple of Vs access for blog-type ramblings or something. Money is neither the cause nor the solution.

[Guest speedmonk42]

quote:Originally posted by Winnipeg Fury

The website is a huge problem and has been ongoing for years. I don't believe this has anything to do with money. We had money, money was offered, money was declined. I don't see that tying into incorporation.

Website getting re-built.

Have something up after exams.

[Trillium]

Well.. I dont know where I stand as V .. am I one or not.. or do you just self identify, ( which could be cool process ).

I agree with a meeting ... not sure I like the idea of it in Toronto, I would do it in Montreal first time for variety of reasons.

I believe in a NGO struture and have no qualms about having to pay to be member, I think the upside for product sales to support various activities is huge, the CSA will never understand how to market the team or ancillarys to it, the Voyageurs can fill that void, and become the choice for tee shirts, scarves, etc. and the NGO structure as non-profit makes perfect sense.

[Winnipeg Fury]

After much thought, I have decided to stop acting as the de facto President of the V's. I am willing to continue in this capacity, but not until something can be confirmed/formalized with some consensus. Not an easy task for the V's, but it is needed nevertheless. My position needs to be formalized for transparency sake. If that can't happen, I'm no longer interested in conducting business on behalf of the Voyageurs.

Much has been accomplished during the past year, but only because I had free reign to conduct things as I saw fit and work with individuals I knew could get the job done.

In my position I am doing more than posting on a forum and my position now needs to be formalized for transparency sake. Believe me, I'm not looking for anything cumbersome, or a radical change in how we operate. I would expect to largely operate with the same flexibility and free reign that brought us success/results. I realize consensus is difficult on this forum (which is why I never conduct business on here), but this needs to happen on some level (no, I am not calling for a national summit).

Yes, I could wait for this thread to fizzle (like now), and we could remain with status-quo, but I'm no longer interested in representing the V's in this manner. Until such time as some transparency can happen, I am ceasing all activity on behalf of the Voyageurs. If it can't happen for any number of reasons, it just further confirms that I should cease all activity.

[redhat]

quote:Originally posted by Winnipeg Fury

After much thought, I have decided to stop acting as the de facto President of the V's.

I am willing to continue in this capacity, but not until something can be confirmed/formalized with some consensus.

Yes, I could wait for this thread to fizzle (like now), and we could remain with status-quo, but I'm no longer interested in representing the V's in this manner. Until such time as some transparency can happen, I am ceasing all activity on behalf of the Voyageurs.

Anyone who would question WF's motives is forgetting the level of

your integrity and ability to get things done. They assume it's easy

to deal with the CSA.

I also know WF consults with many senior V's before any initiative

(like the Voyageurs Cup), so I'm quite sure that transparency exists.

But to "formalize" it, here we go:

I NOMINATE WINNIPEG FURY TO BE OUR SPOKESMAN FOR THE VOYAGEURS.

I hope someone seconds this and brings it to a vote. There you go.

[Grizzly]

I would like to add my opinion on the matter to WF's. There are a lot of opinions and theories on this thread as to how we should run the Voyageurs. I think it needs to be said we are a small organization with a very small number of members, ie. a couple of hundred regular posters. Yes we have a registraton/e-mail mailing list of 3000 and for some games can get out large numbers of Canada supporters but most of these people do not participate much if at all in the Voyageurs on a regular basis. Our finances are also very small. It is great to debate a lot of ideas about how an organization, country or corporation should be run but it is an entirely different thing to put such ideas into practice effectively. It would be great to run things in an entirely fair and democratic way but in my opinion the result of this would be chaos, disagreement and a loss of focus. Do we want to be a democratic organization or an effective organization? It is my opinion that the Voyageurs are currently one of the best run soccer organizations in the country.

Contrary to the claim at the top of the thread that we need to organize, we are organized and well organized. I will admit it may not always have been apparent because so much of the work of running the Voyageurs has been carried on behind the scenes so many didn't know what we have been doing. There are many good reasons why much of this activity is not publicized because much of this is very sensitive. When we are negotiating with the any Canadian soccer organization it would be a poor strategy for us to allow them to read out negotiating strategy on the internet. Equally it would not be productive to have them read a hundred opinions on the issue some of which may insult them others which may give them the impression we are not unified on the issue. I am fine with making things a little more transparent as to who is responsible for what area of business but I am not ok with the general membership being able to interfere with how these people fulfill their tasks.

Trying to democratize the Voyageurs or create some more complex structure would create numerous problems. Who would have a vote on the issue? Would new members who haven't proved themselves be given a vote even though they might disappear tomorrow? Would some of our older members with an obvious agenda be given a vote? Would some of our members who are a bit wacky be given a vote? How would we balance regional differences? What would prevent a certain organization, a particular supporter's group for example, from organizing and taking over the Voyageurs? Would we be able to agree on anything? I could write pages of possible problems that could and most likely would occur with a major reorganization of the Voyageurs but I will spare everyone.

At the moment our defacto leader is Winnipeg Fury. Under WF we have achieved a lot this year such as having our trophy and name become the Canadian national championship, having the CSA give us sections in the stadium and a great many other things that I will not list. He has developed extensive contacts within the CSA and is well respected by them and I daresay even if we could replace WF with someone equally good it would still take that person several years to get to this position. I have worked with WF on several projects and he has always impressed me with how he has gotten things done and handled situations. There are even issues on which we don't agree but that doesn't diminish the respect I have for him and the work he is doing. I have worked for many different companies and was also in the military and have a lot of first hand experience of both good and bad organization and leadership and in WF we have someone very competent in both regards. I would be the first to say so if he wasn't. Just as important WF is someone who is respected and accepted by all of the various supporter groups accross Canada which I dare say would not be the case with many other possible leaders of the Voyageurs. I also want to make clear I am not saying this because WF and I are best friends. We certainly do like each other but we live 2000 km away from each other and have personally met 3 times in my recollection. This is purely my professional appraisal of the work he is doing.

The current structure of the Voyageurs is that WF is our leader and selects people to perform various tasks or represent certain regions. I am currently the representative for Quebec and I am not even sure myself who is doing all of the various regions. This may not be the most democratic structure but it is a very effective one as long as the person selecting the people to do various jobs is doing this well and in my opinion that is the case at the moment. We are not attempting to exclude people or create an old boys network but merely trying to do things in the most effective and least time consuming manner. Noone is paid for the work they are doing and the prestige is minimal. We all have busy lives and certainly in many aspects both my and WF's lives would improve if we were not spending a lot of time on this. I think an absolute key aspect to me and WF continuing to do what we are doing is that it doesn't have to take up any more time than it is currently taking. We are both at the absolute limit as to the time we can spend and have no time to be debating things with a Board of Directors or on the forum. I think the people that started the threads and who have posted various opinions on how things are being done had good intentions but the Voyageurs really have to look at what we have achieved this year and decide if we want this to continue or if we want to risk throwing much of this away. If there are people who want to get more involved in running the organization then offer us your services. For example, there are several members who are lawyers but as far as I know we do not have a legal representative. If there are projects that should be carried out make a proposal but it is very important that if you propose something you also have to be willing to commit yourself to helping to carry it out.

In closing I would like to say I feel the same as WF. I am willing to continue to do what I am doing for the Voyageurs under the current structure and leadership with some additional transparency. However, I am not willing to get involved in a more complex and time consuming organizational model. I feel strongly that in order for myself, WF and the other people involved in running the Voyageurs to continue in our postions we need to be able to work in an effective manner without a lot of restrictions and time consuming bureaucracy. I also think that in my job as the Quebec organizer I have a lot to offer the Voyageurs being both a member of the largest supporters group in Quebec and being having a lot of contact with Impact management as the go between the Impact and the Ultras Montreal/Impact fans. I think we have an effective leader and organizational model for our needs at the moment and would like this to continue. If a significant number of Voyageurs do not agree with me than that is certainly their right and I am perfectly willing to resign my position.

[dbailey62]

quote:Originally posted by redhat

Anyone who would question WF's motives is forgetting the level of

your integrity and ability to get things done. They assume it's easy

to deal with the CSA.

I also know WF consults with many senior V's before any initiative

(like the Voyageurs Cup), so I'm quite sure that transparency exists.

But to "formalize" it, here we go:

I NOMINATE WINNIPEG FURY TO BE OUR SPOKESMAN FOR THE VOYAGEURS.

I hope someone seconds this and brings it to a vote. There you go.

I second the nomination and move that we make it unanimous immediately!

db

[Guest speedmonk42]

Contrary to the claim at the top of the thread that we need to organize, we are organized and well organized.

-------

Please stop misinterpreting that.

[Guest speedmonk42]

quote:Originally posted by dbailey62

I second the nomination and move that we make it unanimous immediately!

db

+1

[bettermirror]

Winnipeg Fury gets my vote as well.

[River City]

Whoa gents.........before we start voting on this, I need some clarification.

1) I don't wan't to sound like a douche but how exactly did WF become the de facto leader of the V's? I debated phoning/emailing him, but that would mean that I would be working in the shadows, so I'd much rather ask this question out in the open. This part of the Voyageurs history is not in the History thread and in my mind needs to be put on the record. I've considered myself a Voyageur since I originally stumbled on the website and after lurking for a while, found the first post I remember as 'Portugal Fan' on March 29, 2001. I became 'Sergio' on June 25, 2002, and no idea when I became 'River City'. Regardless, all this time, I thought we were a disjointed community, coming together every once in a while and then disbanding to resume our normal lives. To find out recently we actually have a Leader came as a bit of a surprise.

2) Grizzly, you and I have never met. I'm sure if we did, we'd get along since I'm assuming you're a nice guy that wants Canadian soccer to succeed, and I'm a somewhat nice guy (exes might disagree) who wants Canadian soccer to succeed. I think the only soccer people I've annoyed so far are the folks in the EDSA office as well as Dobson and Godfrey. Anyway, who are you refering to when you mention 'older members with obvious agendas'? For me, an obvious (hidden) agenda is the current state of affairs within the V's where we have a defacto Leader, but only a few select people have known about it. An obvious (hidden) agenda is when a lot of V's call for a formal structure but are historically shot down by older V's. This is an obvious (hidden) agenda.

You say there would be problems with a more complex structure. First, it doesn't have to be complex at all. Second, there are problems with the way things are now. Here's a proposal;

We have one elected Leader.

We have an elected Treasurer.

We have an elected Media guy.

That's your Executive. Between the 3, they'd run the organization with the legitimacy of the membership. Then we have an elected Merchandise guy. And a Membership guy. And a guy for every project deemed to be Voyageur worthy. The Project Managers would report to the Executive.

All V's that bother posting get one vote. And voting would last a month. At the end of the month, the V with the most votes wins. That means new members who haven't proved themselves get a vote. They might disappear tomorrow, but that can happen right now if they suspect this has been an old boys network. That means older V's with obvious agendas get to vote. Wacky members get a vote. All V's get a vote. That's the beauty of an open and democratic process. Let's say, elections are held in December, and terms last a year, running from January 1 to December 31. Nice and simple. You have as uch right to vote as I do, as does someone who doesn't necessarily post often but is a dedicated V, through and through. I can vouch for a lot of Edmonton based V's with very limited posts that are more talented than I am.

Then each region can choose who it wants to be its regional leader. If they even want one. Assuming they do, that V would be in contact with the Exec and push whatever ideas their local constituency wants. This doesn't mean that the Exec would have to consult the V's on every issue - that would be ridiculous. In voting an exec, we would do so entrusting them to run the V's pretty much as they see fit. They would be accountable every year.

3) I think the nomination of WF was premature considering there is no process that was chosen on selecting a Leader. And to be a stickler for details, how can you resign a position that you weren't elected for? This isn't a personal issue with WF. WF was extremely helpful with us out in Edmonton. Trust me, I really appreciated his help. But in looking at what's best for the V's, my opinion is that we need total structural transparency.

And yes I have an agenda. It's that one day Canada can play all games in Canada and actually have overwhelming crowd support. The V's are instrumental in that, and we need to organize ourselves to ensure we can achieve that as efficiently as possible.

[Guest speedmonk42]

quote:Originally posted by River City

An obvious (hidden) agenda is when a lot of V's call for a formal structure but are historically shot down by older V's. This is an obvious (hidden) agenda.

Not really a hidden agenda. What you are proposing above is not what they are against. An official formalized organization carries a great deal of work, most of it mind numbingly boring in nature.

I don't think I have a history of being a dickhead on this forum, and I am greatly saddened by what amounts to two people proposing to quit over something I posted.

This whole organization is very important to me. It is doing very well and I have never said otherwise.

With one game to go in this WCQ shlt festival that has left pretty much all of us in a state of never before seen fcked-upness... I say we just move on and talk about this next summer.