Alberta Soccer Dispute Continues ON

[kj52]

I'm not sure why an easy first step isn't to move away from player numbers and move towards financial contribution. As I understand it, youth players contribute somewhere between $10 and $17 to ASA per player depending on their age, while senior players contribute something like $25-$30 (it is a bit difficult to pin down the number because senior fees are assessed on a per team basis I believe). That would seem to start to equalize things a bit.

Interestingly CSA voting formula uses money contributed from player fees instead of just player numbers. It likely would change things slightly, I might run the numbers tonight to see how much (will require much searching through emails and documents).

[Halley]

Interestingly CSA voting formula uses money contributed from player fees instead of just player numbers. It likely would change things slightly, I might run the numbers tonight to see how much (will require much searching through emails and documents).

Yes, but if I am not mistaken, the CSA player levy is $7 regardless of age, so it works out the same at that level.

[tmcmurph]

Ted: I cannot understand, based on the 69 pages of vitriol, allegations and hearsay posted on this topic, how asking for people to obey the rules they agreed to is a problem.

Answer: The rules must apply to everyone. If the SGM of April 24, 2010 is valid then Mr Billings is completely correct to not attend and disciplenary hearings because those hearings are invalid. If that SGM is valid EVERYTHING that Mario and the CSA have done since is invalid. If you have any proof that the SGM is invalid please provide it.

Ted: I cannot understand how people give the CSA a hard time about trying to stay out of this mess when these very same people are first to condemn the evil CSA for interfering in Provincial affairs.

Answer: The CSA are NOT staying out of it. In fact they chose to side with Mario and yet REFUSE to say what about the April 24th SGM is invalid. In fact their double speak is breathtaking. They recognize the Mario board and accept the suspension of Billings but "don't have a position as to the validity of the suspension or the SGM". I'm sorry but "do it because WE SAY SO" doesn't cut it.

Ted: Heck, I cannot understand why Mr Billings, who seems to have a case to make against the ASA, does not realize that stepping over the line is a bad strategic move. No matter what his case was nor how just his intentions, by taking action in a provincial court he has crossed a line that is likely going to cost him the war. No right or wrong anymore, just FIFA rules which Mr Billings agreed to uphold as an officer of the ASA.

Answer: EVERY ACTION by Mario and company is invalid if the April 24th SGM is valid. Mr Billings is upholding the bylaws of the ASA. The fact that the CSA executive feels they alone can determine who runs soccer in Alberta without providing any proof of anything to anyone means there is only one course of action left and that is the court system.

Ted: Equally clearly, a group of fans of the National Team on a message board are not going to fix it.

Answer: These things will be fixed by a lot of people. From the bottom up by people like Mr Billings and all the 15 districts that support him, to all those who have applied pressure on the CSA and ASA to enact reform and from the top down by all those brave enough to vote for reform at the CSA. It has been happening for years and it will continue to happen and it will succeed. Reform of governance will happen. You are witnessing the death spiral of the old guard!

PS. If you or Mario or the CSA has any proof that the April 24th SGM that replaced the Mario board was illegal or not done properly please bring that forward.

[a_coach_in_ab]

Then let's talk about how you'd reform the ASA. What changes would you guys suggest?

What I would like to see is the ASA adopt something like the following:

1) To be a ASA Director you can not also be a Director of a member district or association.

2) The President of the ASA board is not elected by the members rather he/she is elected by the Directors themselves.

3) Minutes of Board meetings be published on the ASA site.

4) At each Board meeting an observer from each member may attend but have no voice or vote.

[oc64]

What I would like to see is the ASA adopt something like the following:

1) To be a ASA Director you can not also be a Director of a member district or association.

2) The President of the ASA board is not elected by the members rather he/she is elected by the Directors themselves.

3) Minutes of Board meetings be published on the ASA site.

4) At each Board meeting an observer from each member may attend but have no voice or vote.

I like all of those suggestions. Particularly #1 and #3. No more working in secret.

[oc64]

I think the reason for some of the negativity in this thread is the extreme frustration many of us feel. Several of us on this board know much more than we can say. I have seen emails that I can't really describe in this forum which show some the extreme tactics Mario, Colin and their group will use. I have seen the disgusting displays and threats they have thrown at disticts and at staff. Am I negative? Absolutely. I am terrified that this group will gain complete power once again and be allowed to continue acting in this manner. I don't consider myself a Billings supporter. I consider myself some one who firmly believes the actions of Mario and his group need to be exposed and made public.

[Regs]

Frustration is one thing but throwing out potentially slanderous statements about individuals while hiding behind an alias is borderline cowardice.

OK, maybe that was harsh. Definitely not borderline.

Halle and Ted are spot on.

[oc64]

This article is a complete load.

http://www.sherwoodparknews.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=2681053

To have someone say that Sherwood Park isn't taking sides is an absolute fabrication.

[1867]

A final word on the hearing debate:

DD and fishman had hearings before a legitimate board that wasnt removed at an agm. I am not denigratng Fishman-i just wonder if after he got his discipline hearing set and the board that suspended him was removed at an sgm whether he would have showed up at the hearing.

Furthemore this matter deals with more than Chris it is about the members rght to choose their leadership. This is about our right to be governed by those we choose. It is about democratic principals. By going to the hearing Chris would be legitimizing these guys. Chris represents the memberships legal rights to choose their leadership. Unless he actually steals from the membership-like some members have-and is then removed in compliance wth the bylaws-we have the right to be represented by him.

Have been away-any word on whether the litigants have been disciplined by CSA?

[oc64]

Have been away-any word on whether the litigants have been disciplined by CSA?

To the best of my knowledge, no action has been taken yet.

[oc64]

Article from the St. Albert Newspaper

http://www.saintcitynews.com/article/20100723/STALBERT0302/307239987/-1/stalbert/shame-on-soccer

It is probably as fair an article as I have seen. It doesn't side with either group (in fact, I read it as advocating the removal of both groups)

It doesn't get into the details behind the dispute at all.

[oc64]

http://www.leducrep.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2681004

[fishman]

A final word on the hearing debate:

DD and fishman had hearings before a legitimate board that wasnt removed at an agm. I am not denigratng Fishman-i just wonder if after he got his discipline hearing set and the board that suspended him was removed at an sgm whether he would have showed up at the hearing.

I would have showed up at any hearing in front of any board if I knew I was right. I do my level best to uphold the rules and regulations of the associations to which I belong, and as such have no problems debating issues based on those directives.

With respect to the board's legitimacy...to correct you, the Charpentier-et al group was NOT removed at an Annual General Meeting. They were removed at a Special General Meeting called by Mr. Billings, something that the ASA Bylaws don't permit. Whether I agree with those bylaws is a moot point; I have read them, and he was not empowered to call an SGM.

Legitimacy comes from undisputed credibility. Based on that definition, neither group deserves to be in positions of power.

Furthemore this matter deals with more than Chris it is about the members rght to choose their leadership. This is about our right to be governed by those we choose. It is about democratic principals. By going to the hearing Chris would be legitimizing these guys. Chris represents the memberships legal rights to choose their leadership. Unless he actually steals from the membership-like some members have-and is then removed in compliance wth the bylaws-we have the right to be represented by him.

You do have the right to be governed by those you choose - at an Annual General Meeting, ensure that your districts nominate and elect good officers. Perhaps Mr. Billings is the right person to represent the province. Maybe not. I don't know. But what I do know is that attending a hearing is not an act of legitimizing "those guys" - it is about recognizing the legitimacy of the association's rules, regulations and bylaws.

Had Mr. Billings attended those hearings - kangaroo court or not - he would have been incredibly empowered and left the Charpentier-group without a leg to stand on. By moving through the various channels of appeal he probably would have helped officially uncover the dysfunction and cronyism that plagues soccer in Canada. By bypassing the routes prescribed by the ASA, CSA and FIFA, he has significantly weakened his position, whether we like it or not.

Go to the SDRCC website, and look through the database of decisions - I have. And the supremacy of bylaws, rules and regulations is almost always upheld. Look into the authority of an association on how it governs its sport, specifically a decision rendered by Mr. Pound regarding a dispute in Taekwondo in Canada.

My fear is that because Mr. Billings failed to follow the prescribed course of action defined by the governing bodies of our sport, he has placed himself in a less-sound position.

I am grateful to Mr. Billings and his backers to have brought forward an opportunity to hopefully see the governance of soccer in Alberta improved and a new leadership group created. We need a directorship that is more interested in improving the game and less concerned about retaining the privilege and entitlement that comes from the status quo.

My gratitude to Mr. Billings, however, is not blind nor does it come without questions. If I blindly follow his lead and fail to acknowledge gaps in his decision-making I am no better than those who fully back Mr. Charpentier's crusade. And before I get attacked, by saying this I am neither comparing the two individuals nor their motives.

[oc64]

I am grateful to Mr. Billings and his backers to have brought forward an opportunity to hopefully see the governance of soccer in Alberta improved and a new leadership group created. We need a directorship that is more interested in improving the game and less concerned about retaining the privilege and entitlement that comes from the status quo.

My gratitude to Mr. Billings, however, is not blind nor does it come without questions. If I blindly follow his lead and fail to acknowledge gaps in his decision-making I am no better than those who fully back Mr. Charpentier's crusade. And before I get attacked, by saying this I am neither comparing the two individuals nor their motives.

I may be wrong, but I believe the SGM was not called by Billings but instead was demanded by a majority of districts according to the bylaws. The SGM called by Mario and his group did not meet the requirements called by the bylaws. I have my own personal doubts as to whether the meeting attended by Billings and the majority of districts met requirements also. Perhaps neither meeting was perfect, but the vote of disapproval for Mario et. al can't be disputed.

In the event the 9AM SGM is deemed to have been invalid (for whatever reason, ex. the declarations having been sent to Chris), the afternoon SGM has no effect either and a new SGM and vote on the board leadership must be called (by bylaws) immediately. Either way, I hope that the voice of the districts are heard.

[fishman]

oc64, I agree. It is obvious that there is massive support for change.

[xtreme]

Nothing major to report but it is worth mentioning that one of Nick G's first tasks appears to be completed.

One of his first priorities was to ensure all remaining T3 / T2 / T1 Youth Provincials had a 100% confirmed host.

I now see on the website that all competitions have hosts listed.

Next up will be confirming teams and getting schedules out.

It's worth noting that several districts that were considered "in bad standing" by Mario's group (i.e. Airdrie) are listed as hosting a Youth Provincial.

Baby steps for the day to day operations but positive none the less...

[kj52]

oc64, I agree. It is obvious that there is massive support for change.

I think one thing that needs to be cleared up is the misconception that Chris Billings called the SGM. In fact the membership called it, however it seems that the old Board believes by denying that fact, they can cast doubt upon the validity of that meeting. That tactic has obviously worked.

On another point, I would say it is very unfair to fault Chris for not following so-called proper procedure even when the other side did not. You need to understand that he is basing his decisions on the advice of some of the top civil litigators in this province (if not the country). As well meaning as the advice on this Board is, it is a foolish client that would take the advice of strangers over his own lawyer's. Even the SDRCC strongly advises those who use their services to not represent themselves. I certainly think everyone is entitiled to his own opinion and Fish, even thought I greatly respect you as a coach and as a man, if it had been me instead of Chris I believe I would taken the advice of an experienced lawyer over that of any lay person.

[fishman]

I think one thing that needs to be cleared up is the misconception that Chris Billings called the SGM. In fact the membership called it, however it seems that the old Board believes by denying that fact, they can cast doubt upon the validity of that meeting. That tactic has obviously worked.

On another point, I would say it is very unfair to fault Chris for not following so-called proper procedure even when the other side did not. You need to understand that he is basing his decisions on the advice of some of the top civil litigators in this province (if not the country). As well meaning as the advice on this Board is, it is a foolish client that would take the advice of strangers over his own lawyer's. Even the SDRCC strongly advises those who use their services to not represent themselves. I certainly think everyone is entitiled to his own opinion and Fish, even thought I greatly respect you as a coach and as a man, if it had been me instead of Chris I believe I would taken the advice of an experienced lawyer over that of any lay person.

kj52, far be it from me to purport that I know better than an experienced lawyer; however, what I do know is that FIFA frowns heavily on court involvement BEFORE appeals are heard by sports tribunals. That much is clear. A lawyer can be well versed in civil law and not be familiar with the best practices demanded by FIFA. We might not like that, but it is true.

Regarding the SGM - either it was called by Billings (as is the general view, right or wrong) or the membership. If the membership called it, it needed to be requested by 1/3 of the active membership and held within 30 days, if my reading of Article 8 is correct. Based on your support of how the SGM was called, I will safely assume that it was requested and held within the spirit of Article 8.

Am I faulting Chris? Only so far as I think it would have been better to go through the ringer of sham proceedings than bypass that pain BECAUSE had he done so, there would have been no argument from the Chapentier group, the CSA or FIFA. And trust me when I say I am fully aware that the CSA-backed group has conveniently bypassed proper procedure whenever it has been expedient for them to do so.

I truly hope that this whole mess is somehow cleared up before the snow flies...

[oc64]

I think one thing that needs to be cleared up is the misconception that Chris Billings called the SGM. In fact the membership called it, however it seems that the old Board believes by denying that fact, they can cast doubt upon the validity of that meeting. That tactic has obviously worked.

On another point, I would say it is very unfair to fault Chris for not following so-called proper procedure even when the other side did not. You need to understand that he is basing his decisions on the advice of some of the top civil litigators in this province (if not the country). As well meaning as the advice on this Board is, it is a foolish client that would take the advice of strangers over his own lawyer's. Even the SDRCC strongly advises those who use their services to not represent themselves. I certainly think everyone is entitiled to his own opinion and Fish, even thought I greatly respect you as a coach and as a man, if it had been me instead of Chris I believe I would taken the advice of an experienced lawyer over that of any lay person.

I think it is safe to say that although the Billings group and the districts who called the April SGM may (I say may because I think this is a very grey area that is open to interpretation) not have been perfect in following the procedural requirements in the execution of the SGM, they were following the spirit and intention of the bylaws in exercising their right to an SGM.

Charpentier et. al and CSA have blatantly disregarded the bylaws of both organizations to suit their purposes. I hope that someday all the information finds its way to a public forum where everyone can judge for themselves whether or not these individuals should be able to lead soccer in Alberta and in Canada.

[kj52]

kj52, far be it from me to purport that I know better than an experienced lawyer; however, what I do know is that FIFA frowns heavily on court involvement BEFORE appeals are heard by sports tribunals. That much is clear. A lawyer can be well versed in civil law and not be familiar with the best practices demanded by FIFA. We might not like that, but it is true.

Regarding the SGM - either it was called by Billings (as is the general view, right or wrong) or the membership. If the membership called it, it needed to be requested by 1/3 of the active membership and held within 30 days, if my reading of Article 8 is correct. Based on your support of how the SGM was called, I will safely assume that it was requested and held within the spirit of Article 8.

Am I faulting Chris? Only so far as I think it would have been better to go through the ringer of sham proceedings than bypass that pain BECAUSE had he done so, there would have been no argument from the Chapentier group, the CSA or FIFA. And trust me when I say I am fully aware that the CSA-backed group has conveniently bypassed proper procedure whenever it has been expedient for them to do so.

I truly hope that this whole mess is somehow cleared up before the snow flies...

You and me both, the longer it goes on the more tired people get. It already feels like forever. I spoke with a couple of your compatriots this week and even though they of course are not directly involved with the politics, they feel the same kind of weariness. Like yourself they don't let it affect their players but the uncertainty keeps everyone just a bit on edge and a bit distracted from being able to focus 100% on the game itself. That is a shame.

[oc64]

Regarding the SGM - either it was called by Billings (as is the general view, right or wrong) or the membership. If the membership called it, it needed to be requested by 1/3 of the active membership and held within 30 days, if my reading of Article 8 is correct. Based on your support of how the SGM was called, I will safely assume that it was requested and held within the spirit of Article 8.

...

I saw the notices from the districts. I can assure you that the SGM was demanded by the districts. I think the only possible debate is around the execution of the SGM and not the fact it was required.

[oc64]

Here is a copy of the court order as posted on the ASA website

http://albertasoccer.com/clientuploads/Arctic%20Winter%20Games/Interim%20Order.pdf

also from the ASA website. (memo from the interim caretakers)

http://albertasoccer.com/clientuploads/Arctic%20Winter%20Games/Interim%20Order%20Memo.pdf

[Halley]

I think one thing that needs to be cleared up is the misconception that Chris Billings called the SGM. In fact the membership called it, however it seems that the old Board believes by denying that fact, they can cast doubt upon the validity of that meeting. That tactic has obviously worked.

On another point, I would say it is very unfair to fault Chris for not following so-called proper procedure even when the other side did not. You need to understand that he is basing his decisions on the advice of some of the top civil litigators in this province (if not the country). As well meaning as the advice on this Board is, it is a foolish client that would take the advice of strangers over his own lawyer's. Even the SDRCC strongly advises those who use their services to not represent themselves. I certainly think everyone is entitiled to his own opinion and Fish, even thought I greatly respect you as a coach and as a man, if it had been me instead of Chris I believe I would taken the advice of an experienced lawyer over that of any lay person.

As a point of clarity, I believe (though please correct me if I am wrong) that "The Membership" is, by definition, incapble of calling any meeting (SGM or otherwise). The membership can request an SGM (and if done in sufficient numbers, this request becomes binding). It is then up to the President or Executive committee (depending on the specific organization's by-laws) to actually call the meeting. There are some timing requirements for this meeting with regards to deadline and notification requirements, but ultimately it is the president that calls the meeting. So, in fact Chris did call the meeting.

[kj52]

As a point of clarity, I believe (though please correct me if I am wrong) that "The Membership" is, by definition, incapble of calling any meeting (SGM or otherwise). The membership can request an SGM (and if done in sufficient numbers, this request becomes binding). It is then up to the President or Executive committee (depending on the specific organization's by-laws) to actually call the meeting. There are some timing requirements for this meeting with regards to deadline and notification requirements, but ultimately it is the president that calls the meeting. So, in fact Chris did call the meeting.

I don't think you are reading article 8 correctly and several heavy hitter lawyers and a retired jurist agree with my take.

[oc64]

I don't think you are reading article 8 correctly and several heavy hitter lawyers and a retired jurist agree with my take.

In the ASA bylaws article 8 does not say that the SGM can only be called by the Board of Directors (at the request of the membership)

It says that the Board can call an SGM by their own motion or an SGM can be called at the request of not less than 1/3 of the membership. It does not stipulate who schedules the meeting when requested by the membership.

As contrast, the CSA bylaws stipulate that the Board of Directors will convene an SGM by their own motion or that the Board of Directors (emphasis mine) will convene an SGM when requested by 1/5 of the membership.

The difference in bylaws results in a different process for calling the SGM. By that standard I would say the Alberta SGM is legal. I know this is just one of many criteria that Mario and gang have used to attack the SGM, but I think it is a weak argument.

A different process would be required at the National level.