BrennanFan Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 I'd like to get some feedback here. I think we should slightly formalize our current decision making structure. Immediately. Right now, anyone who has an idea goes out and does it and it becomes a Voyageurs project almost automatically. At the moment we have the CSA interview, a summit meeting, and a christmas card project all being discussed. I was thinking that we should have a few people who can at the very least make themselves available to be contacted by other members who have ideas they would like to see the Voyageurs take on. At least this way we can clearly put an official V's stamp on certain projects, and members will know who to go to with proposals, instead of just posting ideas and seeing what sticks. Who do we think should fill these roles? Who is able to? Any nominees or volunteers? Should length of term be defined? Is this a stupid idea? We also need to somehow recognize Winnipeg Fury's role here. It is true that he can no longer just be a defacto leader of this group without there having been some consensus to that. He has cultivated a good working relationship with the CSA, and has done a great job this year on various projects. If someone else wants to be "Prez" or at least be the main contact guy with the CSA on our behalf, speak up now. (not to mods: After a while, this thread should be moved to the Voyageurs section) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redhat Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 This is a loaded issue and will take time to formalize. I also think everyone is spent emotionally (and financially) after our failed WCQ campaign. With that, a lot of finger-pointing and mini-agendas will unnecessarily emerge. I would suggest that, such initiatives be deferred for a later time, perhaps near the Gold Cup campaign. As for Winnipeg Fury, he's a senior Voyageur who gets a lot done without being too controversial. He established a recognized role and has respect from some CSA members. And he does so WITHOUT BEING PAID. So essentially I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with his being our unofficial liason with the CSA. Plus, WF does consult with other senior members so that things do get accomplished smoothly. Sometimes there are advantages to being an informal group, like ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 quote:Originally posted by BrennanFan We also need to somehow recognize Winnipeg Fury's role here. It is true that he can no longer just be a defacto leader of this group without there having been some consensus to that. I agree that the topic should be discussed in general but I am in no hurry. I will however state that I support, concur, agree whatever that WF be recognized as our spokesman/leader if he will accept such a title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettermirror Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 No problem with WF. However, deciding on a formal "board of directors" or what-have-you is very difficult. Being without "leadership" is not an issue. Case-by-case project managers does just fine - especially with a country this size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squizz1402635577 Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 What I think we should do is have a board of directors, comprised of one volunteer representative from each province and territory. What could possibly go wrong??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Are we talking here of having a person in-charge or are we talking of formalizing the voyageurs structure. Formalization went nowhere before in spite of many of us being in favor. I think that an intermediate or initial step of designating an in-charge person is a splendid idea. WF is just fine with me. I would be strongly opposed to have a board of directors comprised of one representative from each province. People need to be elected by their merits not their hometown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sébastien Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 ^ I have a feeling that squizz was pulling a jab at the CSA, hehehe! Nice one by the way! As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't want to be too pushy considering I'm pretty new here. Some people have been at this way longer then I have, and I respect that tremendously. That being said, I wouldn't have a problem with WF doing what he's been doing, as long as he wants to continue doing so. I wouldn't want to be imposing anything on him. It shouldn't be a chore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piltdownman Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 While WF works for me, I have major problems will assigning a leader without a due process. If we are talking about a leadership board, provincial representatives or even giving a single person a title, we need formal organization and a election. Any title given to anyone before this should include "interim". So while I would vote for WF, I strongly disagree with giving him (or anyone else) a formal title of "leader" (or whatever) until due process is taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 quote:Originally posted by squizz What I think we should do is have a board of directors, comprised of one volunteer representative from each province and territory. What could possibly go wrong??? and maybe fund it with money from soccer kids piggy banks..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Either there is a formal board in a national association, accountable to the members and to the corresponding statutes, or we stay the same as we are now. You don't go from a loosely defined group of people yapping and volunteering for this or that haphazardly though competently for over a decade, many working in silent sacrifice with no recognition or all too little, and then acclaim a monarchy because one person did a good job doing the latest task that happened to face the group. Apart from anti-democratic and insulting to the intelligence of everyone here, that would be just plain stupid. Meaning if there is wide consensus and will to work in consequence, we make the change. If not, things will just have to continue as they are. There is no point in alienating any sort of significant minority if they are not happy with setting up a non-profit. My deep down feeling is that probably no one will be happier if the group goes official, as it is a hell of a lot of boring work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbailey62 Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 quote:Originally posted by bettermirror No problem with WF. However, deciding on a formal "board of directors" or what-have-you is very difficult. Being without "leadership" is not an issue. Case-by-case project managers does just fine - especially with a country this size. So I guess a leadership convention is right out. [)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest speedmonk42 Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 quote:Originally posted by dbailey62 So I guess a leadership convention is right out. [)] It was never that, planning and coming up with ideas. That is it. The only reason I said Toronto is cause I was willing to organize it, and take what I learn and help others in other cities. If anyone thinks I am arrogant and dickish enough to think that leadership or anything decisive would be 'decided' at such a thing they need to get their head checked. I am about as far from winning or caring about an ego driven popularity contest as you can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redhat Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 quote:Originally posted by dsqpr I really don't understand why nobody has commented on my previous suggestion that we can have it all! Those people who are so inclined should go ahead and start a formal organization that will co-exist with the V's. It sounds as though many current V's will join in (although clearly some will not). The only contentious issue that I can see is the use of the name "Voyageurs". I'd suggest that the formal (new) organization should use a new name (i.e. the Voyageurs will continue to exist as is) just to avoid confusion, but we could all debate that too. Guys, you don't need approval from anybody on this board in order to just "go for it". And I for one would be happy to see you use this board as a medium for getting the whole thing going. I would disagree Doug. The suggestion is divisive and the name "Voyageurs" is not acceptable for a breakaway group. Our group has history and cohesion, with growing membership that span across the country. Plus some acknowledgment from the CSA and the Men's National Team players. A breakaway group will have to start from scratch; try uniting groups from Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver was virtually impossible before. Guys, I respect your opinions and enthusiasm, but please consider a moratorium on "new" initiatives (formalizing, board of directors, etc) until after the Hex or, near the Gold Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 This thread is really a repetition of the "Voyageurs summit - Feb/Mar 2009" thread that is stickied above: http://www.canadian-soccer.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=18052 Let's keep this discussion to one thread. Winnipeg Fury and myself have both posted our opinion on the topic and offered our resignations if people want to go in another direction in the other thread. I think it would be better if one of the mods locked this thread or merged it with the other one and changed the title of the other one to something like Voyageurs Organization/Leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest speedmonk42 Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Grizzly This thread is really a repetition of the "Voyageurs summit - Feb/Mar 2009" thread that is stickied above: http://www.canadian-soccer.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=18052 Let's keep this discussion to one thread. Winnipeg Fury and myself have both posted our opinion on the topic and offered our resignations if people want to go in another direction in the other thread. I think it would be better if one of the mods locked this thread or merged it with the other one and changed the title of the other one to something like Voyageurs Organization/Leadership. Done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.