Richard Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I have never said i was 100% behind the provinces and how they run... but I have never ever purported to support the game and not pay the appropriate fees, you apparently see value in running your website as a business but council organisations or at least condone people like Colin Innes in Calagary hiding registrants as noted above. You apparently condone Quebec not paying and Manitoba not registering mini players and paying the eight dollars per player fee. On that basis you bet I think your morally wrong and deficient. Difference is Richard I believe in doing things to improve the game and its governance. Simply question Richard . Do you believe every club in Canada should have a direct vote for CSA board of Directors ? I do not condone the witholding of fees - that is not what I said and I apologise if that's how it came across - but I do understand the motivation to do so under the current circumstance. I do of course expect that any monies gathered in fees are properly and honestly accounted for to the players concerned, that I trust goes without saying. But without proper governance there is no game of consequence, it really is that simple. Where do you think Canadian soccer would be with no proper national governance? CSA governance reform is long overdue and I hope provincial governance reform follows. Yes, I have for several years in this forum and elsewhare consistently advocated for grassroots democratic election of directors at all levels of soccer governance in Canada, from the club through provincial to national associations, you're welcome to check my record. If it's good enough for our civil governance it is good enough for soccer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Spiers Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 An interesting take, for sure. I'm surprised that he doesn't see the compromise as much of a change to the reform package. His rationale that provincial reps will soon tire of being on the board needs clarification. Just how will the board be prevented from addressing issues of provincial interest? I hope he answers your comment question, Bill. Jason has answered my question. See his latest blog here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcoatsforever Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 We know OSA support the original reform plan and have 25-30% of the final vote. We know FSQ are likely to vote for the status quo. We know that the ASA could go any which way at this point. What about the YSA, BCSA, NWTSA, SSA, MSA, SNB, SNS, PEISA, and NLSA? Do we have any info or legitimate estimates as to their votes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I think Charlie Cuzzetto, BC Soccer president has made BC Soccer's position very clear in his exchange with Ben Knight, see British Columbia on Governance Reform. He believes pushing for the original reforms will fail so is happy to accept the compromise because something is better than nothing. BC Soccer tried a radical reform a while back which was voted down by the membership and he is trying to learn from that 'mistake'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saviola7 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I think Charlie Cuzzetto, BC Soccer president has made BC Soccer's position very clear in his exchange with Ben Knight, see British Columbia on Governance Reform. He believes pushing for the original reforms will fail so is happy to accept the compromise because something is better than nothing. BC Soccer tried a radical reform a while back which was voted down by the membership and he is trying to learn from that 'mistake'. Except that the vote on the original reforms will happen first, so he has every chance to support the former and accept the compromise if it comes to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Has anything been released which details who the three provincial reps would be? Outside of Ontario the provinces who seem the most interested in compromise are the bigger ones. Makes you wonder if they know something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Spiers Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 Has anything been released which details who the three provincial reps would be? Outside of Ontario the provinces who seem the most interested in compromise are the bigger ones. Makes you wonder if they know something. Vic: Are you asking who the three Provincial Presidents on the CSA Board might be if the compromise proposal is carried? My understanding is that it could be NONE of them. They still have to run for election and it's open for non-Provincial Presidents to run against them. If BC and Ontario are fundamentally opposed to Provincial Presidents on the CSA Board and pledge to vote against them, that's almost 47% of the vote right there! However, the proposed By-Law changes are difficult to follow (so my understanding could be wrong) and they could still be amended further on Saturday. It also depends on qualified, non-Provincial Presidents running against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Yes thanks that's a very important clarification ("might be" and hopefully isn't). I just find the 3 provincial reps thing really arcane and am trying to find out the deal there. We have 10 provinces that are great for soccer in their backyard but are problematic outside that and nationally. Having a rep from another province look after you is somewhat ridiculous, and maybe it's an oversimplification but I can't see how any province could back a 3 rep plan unless they believed the dice were loaded in their favour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Except that the vote on the original reforms will happen first, so he has every chance to support the former and accept the compromise if it comes to that. Which he may well do since his expressed preference is for #1 but he will live pragmatically with #2 if he has to in preference to the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcoatsforever Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Which he may well do since his expressed preference is for #1 but he will live pragmatically with #2 if he has to in preference to the status quo. Is it a two-thirds majority required to pass the reforms? If not, BC and Ontario need only win over any one of the other associations to succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Spiers Posted February 5, 2011 Author Share Posted February 5, 2011 Is it a two-thirds majority required to pass the reforms? If not, BC and Ontario need only win over any one of the other associations to succeed. Yes! A two-thirds majority is required to change the By-Laws and thus change the Board structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcoatsforever Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Here's a question: if the ASA board are replaced with a group who would actually have voted the wishes of their members on the first reform package, and the OSA, BCSA, and the others are still on board, can we not just reintroduce the original reforms at the next CSA AGM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmcmurph Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Here's a question: if the ASA board are replaced with a group who would actually have voted the wishes of their members on the first reform package, and the OSA, BCSA, and the others are still on board, can we not just reintroduce the original reforms at the next CSA AGM? I'm not sure if they can re-introduce it but it is an interesting idea. The other possibility is to block any provicial reps from being on the board by voting down all provicial reps. If Alberta, BC & Ontario join forces nobody provincial will be on the board or all 3 of them might be. Wouldn't that be a horid thought to Traficante and the doc? Board members openly hostile to them and voting them out? Could happen. Count on the AGM in Alberta voting in a pro-reform group and president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.