While the CRWG model is not perfect, it does allow for future changes and is by light years better than FFA's.

Their will be dancing in the streets when Lowy is finally voted out..

Should be declared a national holiday

At least have a one-off celebratory Socceroos Shirt designed

That reply from crwg is a fair smack down.

Let's hope the 4 smaller federations supposedly in opposition to CRWG's recommendations are taking note. Surely they must know deep down that siding with Lowy and Co is just bad for everyone. 

Response from S.Lowy... 

Damn right it should be a public holiday over this

i will run naked across the street if this happened

Ps, sorry I messed up with my 2 botched posts. plz delete if you can :)

All of FFA's objections have been smacked down.Now what reason do they have to oppose reform?
Only one...We lose our dictatorship!
What is classical is that some of the CRWG's replies point out that FFA are complete hypocrits,objecting on the basis of things they refused to do themselves,like an expanded board for NPL clubs.
How embarrassing that FFA don't appear to have read the report and claimed HAL clubs could veto votes,when it is clearly expressed that the votes of more than one stakeholder group are required and 25% vote is required.

HAL clubs have 28%

Gazprom.....Hence the at least two stakeholder groups requirement...So HAL clubs can't veto alone!

ah!, see what you're saying

The APFCA are suggested to get 2.8% each unless they agree otherwise among themselves

What happens if the members of a 'group' vote in different directions ? are they still a group ? is each SIG it's own group ?

I think we can assume for the moment that the PFA will align with the A League Clubs and will be seen as a separate stakeholder so they will be able to veto constantly.  If the other other groups take the same sort of stance and also cast a veto against "the other side" things will be quickly unworkable.  Maybe the bar is too low on vetos?

The intriguing issue for me here is the Women's Council.  10 votes but made up of 3 from the Clubs, 3 from the Feds, 3 from the FFA and an outside Chair.  I'm sure they'll be seen as an independent stakeholder.  If the 3 Club votes (by way of example) or the 3 FFA, cast a veto it might be fun to watch.   It could actually be voted down by its own stakeholder.
Not sure that the CRWG really thought that through?  They might have.

The statement added that they were creating a multi-year pathway for new representatives to take a seat at the table by proving their "institutional integrity" as many didn't even exist at the moment or had only just been created.

This bit reconfirms for me that AAFC are completely PNG and will be completely sidelined and finally eliminated. They don't have "institutional integrity" at all.  In the long term they will be some sort of soft ineffective voice for NPL Clubs and they will be excluded completely from League expansion, especially a second division.  Their own fault.  Should have launched something this season.  You know, like they said they were going to.

I am now absolutely certain that the "vision" is expansion following the A League model, of buy your way in and stick to your franchise turf.  Too bad.  The whole thing might fall over yet.  Never know.  Can live in hope.

Don't get bogged down with the veto issue.It's an FFA red herring.

The veto is only relevant to changing the constitution.Assuming the CRWG gets the changes wanted.The veto issue is dead and buried.Why would it need to be changed again and voted on?
The best thing about the proposed change to veto power is to stop rogue federations from blocking progress,like they are doing now!

Day to day voting is still a majority!..vetos are irrelevant then.


PFA is not a stooge of the HAL clubs.Just because they agree on the proposed congress changes doesn't mean they agree on everything else.Why would they?I am sure down the track they will be at loggerheads again.

No system is perfect but the CWRG proposal is much better than the current regime. Hopefully the pathways are properly applied so more stakeholders can be taken into the process.

who are you ? you are quite obviously pro FFA....why ? you argue every point as though you have been tasked with swaying this forum ...why ?

The 2 stakeholders representing the professional game have 35% of the votes.  i.e. the professional game has veto rights.

Gyfox...No stakeholder groups are not from the same group.Pro clubs are one stakeholder group.Federations with 55% do not have veto power for blocking a constitution change either...It's not that difficult a concept.As I said before its largely irrelevant once the constitution is changed.Because why would anyone want to change it again?

Because every time a SIG joins their vote gets smaller

Gazprom...If everyone except one stakeholder wants to change the constitution then it should be changed.
If one stakeholder can't find a freind to veto,then maybe they deserve to be overruled..Just like now!
The way some recalcitrants talk,it's like they want one stakeholder group to have sole veto.In other words.They want Lowy and his croneys to stay in control?

Did you not read the part where the CRWG recommend a review of the governance structure every 4 years?  Any change that requires a change in the constitution will have the opportunity for veto at an EGM.

I am puzzled when people see 9 separate state feds with different priorities and concerns because they operate in different environments as a single block but they see the clubs and the PFA that operate exclusively in the same environment as separate entities.  Its selective grouping.  In reality they are all separate entities and should be treated that way.  If any two stakeholders want to put something up then after appropriate debate it is decided by the requisite voting standard appropriate to the issue.  75% for constitutional change, 60% for a board appointment and 50%+1 for general business.  Its time to stop the nonsense of inventing systems that get around historical differences etc., and for all stakeholders, the board and the administration to grow up and learn to operate on the basis that FIFA set at the start of this reform process, i.e., consensual agreement.  If they don't this process will have achieved little.

You make some excellent points.

I would also add that Steven Lowy has achieved what no other chair has ever come within a bulls roar of... he has united almost the entire Football community. However the uniting has been against him.. To think that the PFA & Clubs will be bed pals beyond getting rid of Lowy is wrong they will be at each others throats.. 

Further to think the state feds will alien with the clubs and PFA as they are now is most unlikely.

The fear Lowy is putting out defies our entire history. We have never been united and the empire building will continue when this is sorted out. 

The united agreement demonstrates simply how much Steven Lowy has united everyone to get him sacked. Once he is gone and the new systems are in place don't expect this unity for a long while.
.

Not until the next Nepotist Oligarch comes along haha

-PB