Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mack

FFA Failure: The Gallop & De Bohun Years

Recommended Posts

FL: Son, when FFA was looking for a new chairman, they did a world wide search (HAHAHA!), and then gave you the job. This was done so football can  stay in the family. Do you understand?

SL: Yes, daddy.

FL: So let me check once more: what is your strategy in any dealings with FFA and the clubs going to be?

SL: Torpedo every compromise that would take power away from us, uhm, I mean FFA.

FL: At any cost?

SL: At any cost!

FL: And what could that look like?

SL: I'll threaten, blackmail, argue, lie, call meetings behind closed doors, rant in public, destroy personal relationships for the sake of our bank account, uhm, I mean for the sake of the game. 

FL: Good boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Join WestSydneyFootball.Com and participate by registering an account.

He suggested a number of weeks ago that a WA led a bid to start up a division two competion that had a number of top NPL clubs signed to join.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My reading of his tweets are that they're just using this breakaway thing to make the EGM legitimate, is that what he's getting at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't take too much notice of Chris.  He has strange opinions and interpretations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, FCWanderers said:

Add this to the list Mack, this was my favourite

The Covert Agent can reveal Postecoglou has struggled to deal with FFA management, including David Gallop, for more than two years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Flytox said:

I wouldn't take too much notice of Chris.  He has strange opinions and interpretations.

I'm not so sure, he certainly has information that has yet to make its way into the public space in regards to the bitter feud over the congress make up.

3 hours ago, btron3000 said:

My reading of his tweets are that they're just using this breakaway thing to make the EGM legitimate, is that what he's getting at?

I wasn't 100% sure what he was implying, I couldn't understand why FIFA would rubber stamp the FFA's congress model even though they publicly implied that they wouldn't rubber stamp it. Mind you, this break away division 2 was mooted by himself a number of weeks ago so unsure why it suddenly has bearing now but FFA must be certain if they are calling an EGM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Prydzopolis said:

I'm not so sure, he certainly has information that has yet to make its way into the public space in regards to the bitter feud over the congress make up.

 

All I will say is that you have been warned.  I haven't talked to him since he was studying archeology and writing a book about Perth Glory who in his opinion invented modern football in Australia and David Hill was his champion.  Enough said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bossi alert

---

October 11 2017 - 7:57PM

A-League clubs to take FFA to court in response to plans for expanded congress

A-League club owners are set to take Football Federation Australia's board to court in an attempt to seek an injunction against the organisation's final attempt to push through its preferred model for a new congress.

The FFA board announced an extraordinary general meeting will be held on November 1 where it hopes to present, and gain approval for, a controversial 9-4-1-1 congress, despite not having the required support of clubs and the professional players.

It is the last roll of the dice from the organisation before it will be removed by world football's governing body, which has confirmed it will put in place a "normalising committee" by November 30 that will disband the FFA leadership should it fail to increase its membership to become more inclusive and democratic.

However, in a letter sent on Monday, A-League clubs accused the FFA board and chairman Steven Lowy of "gerrymandering" the process by attempting to circumvent FIFA's requirements for a new membership tier of the FFA.

The club owners are set to meet on Wednesday night where they will decide on legal action against the FFA board as well as potential action against the board members individually.

"We will be seeking injunctive relief against the FFA," Adelaide United chairman Greg Griffin said. "It just shows the contempt that the FFA has towards the opinions and legitimate expectations of the professional game in this country, being the clubs and the PFA [players' union], where it is attempting to push through a motion that only it – being the FFA – is supportive of. It is not the motion that the federations sent to FIFA two weeks ago."

Lowy denied those allegations in a letter on Wednesday.

FIFA ordered the FFA's 10-seat congress be expanded to become more inclusive, democratic and representative of female participants with a new model having the support of the state member federations, the A-League clubs and the players' union. State member federations sent through a 15-seat model to FIFA and information received indicates FFA's similar model is based on that of the states, with several key requirements omitted.

The FFA is attempting to have that model approved by a majority of 75 per cent of its current 10-seat congress, where nine seats are held by the state member federations and just one representing the A-League clubs. The FFA confirmed it will not have the unanimous support required by FIFA.

"In the absence of unanimity among the stakeholders on the best model for expansion, and mindful of the member federations' advice to FIFA supporting a 9:4:1:1 model, the FFA board has adopted in its resolution for the EGM a 9:4:1:1 model, which enables FIFA/AFC's timetable for an expanded congress to be met," it said in a statement.

Any majority approval could satisfy Australian corporate law, but sources suggest it is unlikely to be ratified by FIFA. Its Members Associations Committee will meet in the first week of December to discuss whether to disband the FFA board and put in place a normalising committee.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, btron3000 said:

FFA logic: we want to use the current unfair system of voting to have a vote to end the current unfair system of voting. 

You've lost me on that one.  The only people that can vote to change the constitution of the company are the current members of the company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Flytox said:

You've lost me on that one.  The only people that can vote to change the constitution of the company are the current members of the company.

Que?

Aren't they calling an EGM to vote on the voting structure? And aren't they going to say that they want to keep it similar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, btron3000 said:

Que?

Aren't they calling an EGM to vote on the voting structure? And aren't they going to say that they want to keep it similar?

Help me too here Flytox....

It is true that the current congress can only vote to expand it but they’ve called an AGM to ratify a model that suits the FFA & feds agenda. FIFA have already said it is unacceptable.

They are going to expand it but has no legitimacy in FIFA eyes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Prydzopolis said:

Help me too here Flytox....

It is true that the current congress can only vote to expand it but they’ve called an AGM to ratify a model that suits the FFA & feds agenda. FIFA have already said it is unacceptable.

They are going to expand it but has no legitimacy in FIFA eyes.

 

 

Well that means we're stuck with Gallop as he will stay if there's a FIFA normalisation committee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, btron3000 said:

Que?

Aren't they calling an EGM to vote on the voting structure? And aren't they going to say that they want to keep it similar?

They are calling an EGM to vote on a proposal to expand by 50% the number of members of the FFA.  Only the current members have a vote on the change to the constitution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prydzopolis said:

Help me too here Flytox....

It is true that the current congress can only vote to expand it but they’ve called an AGM to ratify a model that suits the FFA & feds agenda. FIFA have already said it is unacceptable.

They are going to expand it but has no legitimacy in FIFA eyes.

 

 

They have called an EGM to vote on a proposed model.  Whether that model is accepted by the 75% of members required by the Corporations Act is yet to be seen.  One of the benefits of the EGM is that all members and all directors have the right to speak before the members vote.  Without the EGM no change can happen leaving FIFA to act.  Both sides of the dispute should realise that a normalisation committee will almost certainly result in neither the 9-4-1-1 nor the 9-5-1-1 getting up and a much wider membership structure being put to a future EGM for the 10 current members to vote on.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Flytox said:

They are calling an EGM to vote on a proposal to expand by 50% the number of members of the FFA.  Only the current members have a vote on the change to the constitution. 

Yeah that was my point. They're using the current unfair system to try and keep the current unfair system (expanded or not, the same problems exist in the proposed FFA model). FIFA, and the majority of the football community, want them to LIAISE with people and make a sensible compromise. But the FFA are using the Corps Act and the current 10 member structure to try and hold the game to ransom, and keep the same stranglehold on the voting percentages.

Holding on to the power that you have by hiding behind legalities and browbeating your "support" (the states) into submission really gives you no power at all, because in the end you have to go back to work with all these people you pissed off (the clubs). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, btron3000 said:

Yeah that was my point. They're using the current unfair system to try and keep the current unfair system (expanded or not, the same problems exist in the proposed FFA model). FIFA, and the majority of the football community, want them to LIAISE with people and make a sensible compromise. But the FFA are using the Corps Act and the current 10 member structure to try and hold the game to ransom, and keep the same stranglehold on the voting percentages.

Holding on to the power that you have by hiding behind legalities and browbeating your "support" (the states) into submission really gives you no power at all, because in the end you have to go back to work with all these people you pissed off (the clubs). 

The problem is that unfair or not there is no other system to use.  The current members need to come to a resolution of the matter as time has run out, hence the EGM.  Even if the members had come to an agreed position that would need to be ratified at an EGM this month to meet FIFA's deadline.  Blaming the FFA for bullying without blaming the clubs/PFA for holding the code to ransom using the threat of FIFA intervention to get their way is simply biased.

When it comes down to it the difference between the two models is that with the 9-5-1-1 model the clubs are 1 vote closer to vetoing the election of a director and 1 vote closer to carrying a vote by simple majority.  In both models they can veto changes to the constitution.

Are they all really arguing about this?  

Well yes they are because the clubs/PFA see the possibility that with the extra vote they can entice NSW and Vic to form an alliance with them to effectively control football with elite football being paramount to the detriment of the rest of the code as it was between the 1957 split and the establishment of the new order in 2003.

This isn't reflective of what FIFA is on about with its "representative democracy" and in my view the membership should be way wider to ensure that football cannot be captured by any party and all decisions can be made for the good of the code instead of self interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree on the last sentence. Essentially no party should be able to push through their own agenda. We need a wider voting structure. It's amazing that neither party was able to find a compromise that included a wider pool of voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got an email from FFA to complete a survey.

The survey seems to be an assesment of the state federations as well as grassroots associations. There are numerous questions where the i wanted to answer more than one tick box, so i ticked other and wrote in text box all the issues.There were also political questions like would you support a government putting more facilities for football (NSW state election etc).

I think we should complete it as i think they will use the survey results to put pressure on state governments to support football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2017 at 11:36 PM, Flytox said:

They have called an EGM to vote on a proposed model.  Whether that model is accepted by the 75% of members required by the Corporations Act is yet to be seen.  One of the benefits of the EGM is that all members and all directors have the right to speak before the members vote.  Without the EGM no change can happen leaving FIFA to act.  Both sides of the dispute should realise that a normalisation committee will almost certainly result in neither the 9-4-1-1 nor the 9-5-1-1 getting up and a much wider membership structure being put to a future EGM for the 10 current members to vote on.  

My point was that 9-4-1-1 getting voted at the EGM would end up having FIFA taking over. 9-5-1-1 was a structure that FIFA were happy in the interim.

FFA would not call an EGM unless they were confident of the numbers to get there preferred structure voted by the current congress. What’s the point of voting in a congress of 9-4-1-1 in the knowledge that FIFA will not approve & a normalization committee will take over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Prydzopolis said:

 

So Lowy can't go to his local Member of Parliament to help him survive as this would constitute government interference. 

The most unfortunate part of this is that Gallop survives. I would rather have Lowy without Gallop than Gallop without Lowy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  



×