No consensus reached in FFA congress war

So, it's no then?

The circus continues.

:laugh:

Wait what? did Bossi spread FFA propaganda again?

Moments after the report surfaced, Lowy is believed to have called himself in to his office and convinced himself to back away from his agreement.

Why would anyone in their right mind ever agree to that congress model. Its very obvious to anyone that the states have too much and have always had too much power. No single interest group should have a majority share of power, it defeats the whole purpose of a congress. I don't have the solution, but whatever it is the federations need their power share halved.

They're meant to be representative of all the football within their borders so in that way it makes sense. It's still dumb though. 

LOL

lolwtf?

Wasn't it a done deal, the Lowy stay of execution?

-PB

I suppose FIFA wants at least 30 votes and obviously promotion-relegation is compulsory.

 

If the State Federations are not representative of all the football within their borders then it is the governance process within the State Federations that needs reform. The State Federations should represent ALL interest groups within their geographical regions.

The proposed changes to the Congress do nothing other than provide over proportioned power to special interest groups. It is taking away from the state federations that are intended to represent their participants/stakeholders (i.e. the millions of Australians that actively play or engage with the game) and giving it to a few wealthy people who are willing to buy their way into the position. 

@ Song

This whole process has revealed how big the problems are with the State Federations.

This is perfect.

Send in the clowns.

It is part of a wider problem where we seem to assign equal representation to states when they are in no way equal. Look no further than the federal senate. Why spend money pork barreling NSW with 1 senator per million people when you can spend a fraction of the amount in Tasmania or South Australia?

This problem doesn't get addressed at all with the new congress. Song is on the money. Reform is needed at the state federation level as well. Why aren't the NPL clubs adequately represented by their own federation in the current system? Who do the state federations actually represent, the church leagues???

Seems all too easy to hold the larger federations back by ignoring them and dangling a few perks in the northern territory for the same effect - 1 vote.

@ Bohemia

Couldn't agree more. There's no appetite for change here but there's too much appetite to screw someone else over to get what I want.

Hopefully FIFA stand firm as I suspect there's a few players in this that recognise the need for substantial change and see the normalisation process as the most likely way to get it.

In the preamble to the section on membership FIFA Standard Statutes state the following:-

"An Association may set up different categories of Members, but it is important that every Member of the same category has the same rights and obligations."

This would appear to be the justification for the State Feds each having the one vote despite their differences in size.  

This is Frank Loweys model and it was designed to disrupt the Clubs influence on the game.
The smaller State Federations cower to Steve and Frank Lowey hence they have the balance of power.

The Crawford Report led the way in governance terms shame it's recommendations were never implemented.

Problem with the models suggested it gives too much power to A-League franchises.

There’s normally some New Zealand Football experts floating around on this forum so maybe they can share their experience in congress reform and correct any mistakes made in my understanding of their situation.
NZF went through their congress reform in 2014, from the regional federations holding 100% of the votes (7 in total), to having 50% (2 each for 14 votes in the new 28 vote congress). All are treated equally despite their relative size, the same as the Australian Federations.

Now while I have never been able to find out the exact makeup of the rest of the congress, the proposed makeup was to be 25% (7 votes) to be shared by the professional/elite game (Phoenix, ASB clubs and the PFA).
Then the remaining 25% (7 votes) was to be shared amongst the other stakeholders, I don’t know how this has played out as some of the other stakeholders didn’t have established representation at the time. The other stakeholders proposed included Referees, Secondary Schools (whose competitions are run outside of regional federations), Coaches, Women’s Football and Futsal.

That’s the consultation paper on the proposed changes from 2014.

Consultation Report

I understand that this is the reality, but do the FFA have any formal authority over the State Federations? I'm just curious how he is able to control them? Is it merely political influence, or do they have financial/legal power that would allow coercion?

You're in WAMackie territory now. 

The State Federations hold the power.  The Board has no effective control over the Federations beyond what is ceded to them by the Congress. 
Why do you think that the States would ever want to be governed by A League franchisees rather than by themselves?
Where would their benefit lie?

OTOH the Franchisees would like to run the whole she-bang from top to bottom.  More or less the same way the AFL Clubs collectively run their game for their own benefit (and of course for the betterment of all).
The argument would be that such a system obviously works for the AFL and to a degree, for the NRL.  We should do that too!  God help us.

The ARU are the interesting case.  They were run basically by two State Federations but transformed into I don't quite know what.  Murdoch money+ pro league = strange outcomes.  Whatever their system is - we don't need it.

Ta. 

No one controls the state feds, the current system came about because the federations bullied the other stakeholders in accepting it. There is no logical reason for a breakdown of power that is so ridiculously biased. If a member category has the majority vote then the congress can't be democratic, its very simple. What really needs to happen is the federations need to be abolished, and a new congress system formed that is actually representative of the relevant stakeholders in Australian football.

@ The Frenchman.

Agreed. It's a fundamentally flawed system.

Not sure how we change it but it needs changing.

The thought that the HAL club owners want to run "all football" is Lowy-speak nonsense.

Create an independent HAL run by theclubs.

Same for a Div 2 and the NPL.

Get rid of the States and replace them with a vote each fif the regions eg Football Brisbane, Football West etc (QLD has 13 of them) which would create a congress of probably 50-60

That's why we actually need a normalization committee. We have an undemocratic and unworkable football congress. I am still betting no one will come to agreement because the A-league clubs will only budge if hell freezes over. They will end up getting what they want, all they have to do is wait.  

@ RBB

Totally agree on the normalisation committee. It's way better than any compromise that may occur before then

The clubs would be aware that waiting for a normalisation committee would more than likely lead to the abolition of the franchise system itself. 

@rbb. This is about equitable congress representation not the legal entity structure of the clubs. FIFA won't even rub that surface

@ Coverdale

FIFA won't, they'll just stick to increasing the democratic representation as you say. But everyone else will be doing side deals and an independent HAL will fall out of normalisation and the end of franchising with it.

If it hasn't already been done it'll will probably go something like this - FIFAs normalising committee assumes control, the day after the HAL club owners announce they are to set up their own competition EPL style, FIFA's democratic principles are not challenged by this, the make up of the congress can increase from the minuimum 16 to 60 or even in to the hundreds as they do in Germany meaning all the individual sub-entities could get a seat.

It remains to be seen whether we go as far as a normalising committee but with the PFA/AAPFC seemingly joined at the hip any deal done to prevent it happening must suit those two. It's a coin toss where we end up but I think it's now a case of heads the clubs win, tails the clubs win.

And I don't see any problems with that. The ffa need to work on football from top to bottom not fixate on the power necessary to control ten professional clubs

@waz. Surely you can't just run out a legal entity structure at a whim? It would take more than a day to defranchise the whole shebang and even then if I was FFA I'd be looking for some return on selling the ip's etc. either that or clubs will have to change identity somewhat, why would ffa, regardless of what the congress lands at, ditch 10 profitable licenses for zilch? FIFA know money after all. It's what they do best.