Westfield dropped the FFA Cup to free up another slot for a sponsor for the FFA but transferred its sponsorship $s to increase what is available for the women's game.

What does this mean for Wellington? Are we free now of the metrics he put in place???.

http://footballtoday.news/features/steven-lowys-resignation-what-does-it-mean

Interesting, Bonita claims this a tactic by Steven Lowy.

@nomates

Oh you'll be free alright

so, he hasn't actually quit. he just not re-contesting if things don't go his way.

@crimsoncrusoe,

Re your post about the independence of the board.

Independence of the board is recommended by the Australian Sports Commission for all sports getting funding from the Feds and all other sports.  It produced a document called "Sports Governance Principles 2012" and I have copied some of the appropriate points:-

Principle 1 Board composition, roles and powers.

1.1 That management powers be formalised, disclosed and placed in a board which has the power to exercise all the powers of the organisation, except those powers that the Act or Constitution requires to be exercised in general meeting.

Commentary and guidance
The ASC does not endorse a governance structure featuring both a board and another body, whereby this other body (usually called a council) assumes some board functions.

The nature of matters reserved to the board and delegated to management will necessarily depend on the size and complexity of the organisation, and be influenced by its tradition and culture and the skills of directors and managers.

1.2  That national sporting organisations be incorporated as a company limited by guarantee under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Commentary and guidance
It must also be noted that, regardless of the Act (Corporations or Associations) under which the organisation is incorporated, if a national sporting organisation carries on business in a state other than that in which it is incorporated, it is required to be registered under the Corporations Act as a registrable Australian body.
...

1.3  That the incorporated body has a constitution, which embodies the following key sections:

2. • interpretation — objects and powers
   • members — membership and meetings of members (general meetings)
   • the board — powers (including delegations), election and appointment of directors,other roles (chief executive officer and secretary) and meetings of the board
   • reporting, recording and execution of company documents
   • accounts
   • auditors
   • indemnity and insurance of directors
   • winding up.
   • 
     

...

1.4  That the members of an organisation should elect the majority of the board of directors. In addition, any issue on which a vote is taken, whether at a board or general meeting, should require a majority of votes for any proposal to be passed.

Commentary and guidance
Each sporting organisation should detail how people and/or organisations may become the members of them. The constitution of the incorporated body will state the voting power of each member in this regard. The ASC advocates that a ‘one state one vote’ voting system be applied to federated sporting structures. While a proportional voting system is an option, it is not recommended. Large member bodies should never be able to dominate the direction of an organisation.
...

1.5  That the governance structure should feature a clear separation of powers and responsibilities between the board and the chief executive officer and their staff.

Commentary and guidance
This clarity of powers and responsibilities must also apply to the various board and management committees. It follows the principle that ‘directors direct, and managers manage’. The governance structure should also recognise that individual directors, the chief executive officer (or similar), their staff, board committees and management meetings hold no authority to act on behalf of the organisation by virtue of their position alone.  All authority rests with the board, which may delegate authority to any person or committee. Each such delegation should be clearly documented in a delegations manual or similar. Normally there will be significant delegations to the chief executive officer. In their capacity as directors, directors have no individual authority to participate in the day-to-day management of the entity, unless authority is explicitly delegated by the board.

1.6  That the chairman/president should be selected by the board.

Commentary and guidance
While some sporting organisations may decide to refer to their chairman as their president, the role should be the same. The chairman is the chairman of the board, not the chairman of the organisation. The leader of the organisation is the board itself, which acts collectively in the best interests of the organisation as a whole to govern on behalf of the members. They appoint and work closely with the chief executive officer, who manages the operations of the organisation and, in most instances, acts as the organisation’s public figurehead. The chairman facilitates discussion among, and provides leadership to, the board. As the first among equals, it is important that the chairman have the respect and confidence of their fellow directors. As such the board should select their own leader.
1.7 That the board should:

• confirm the broad strategic directions of the organisation
• appoint, dismiss, direct, support professional development for, evaluate the performance and determine the remuneration of, the chief executive officer
• approve, monitor and be accountable for the financial and non-financial performance of the organisation, including setting fees
• ensure an effective system of internal controls exists and is operating as expected, and that policies on key issues are in place and appropriate and that these can be applied effectively and legally to those participants or persons for whom they are intended
• develop a clearly articulated and effective grievance procedure
• ensure financial and non-financial risks are appropriately identified and managed
• ensure the organisation complies with all relevant laws, codes of conduct and appropriate standards of behaviour
• provide an avenue for key stakeholder input into the strategic direction of the organisation
• ensure director, board and chairman performance evaluation and professional development occurs regularly.

Commentary and guidance
The board’s primary responsibility is one of trusteeship on behalf of its stakeholders, ensuring that the legal entity, the organisation, remains viable and effective in the present and for the future. The board’s role includes determining the organisation’s strategic direction, core values and ethical framework, as well as key objectives and performance measures. A key critical component of this role is the board’s ultimate authority and responsibility for financial operations and budgeting to ensure the achievement of strategic objectives. Another key role is developing appropriate policy. There should be two levels of policy making; board level policy and operational policy.
...

1.8 That each board should be structured to reflect the complex operating environment facing the modern sporting organisation. Normally, it is envisaged that a board will:
...

• have all directors being independent, regardless of whether they are elected or appointed

...

• be broadly reflective of the organisation’s key stakeholders, but not at the expense of the board’s skills mix and the organisation’s objectives.

Commentary and guidance
The number of directors on a board should reflect the size and level of activity of the organisation. As such, the ASC advocates a board with the necessary skills to carry out its governance role rather than a representative board. Independent directors are those that are not appointed to represent any constituent body, are not employed by or have a significant business relationship with the organisation, do not hold any other material office within the organisational structure and have no material conflict of interest as a result of being appointed director. In relation to traditional federal sporting structures, the holding of state-level positions would be seen to be a material conflict of interest if held at the same time as national-level positions.
...

1.9  That national sporting organisations and their member bodies have aligned objects and purpose to ensure effective and efficient achievement of sport outcomes.

Commentary and guidance
To achieve effective outcomes for the sport it is essential, particularly in a federated model, that national and member bodies have aligned objects and purpose. It is critical that member bodies within a sport operate as if they were one body working towards the same outcome to deliver effective products and services to its members and stakeholders. Member bodies should have aligned constitutions with aligned objects.The sport should have a single strategic plan that drives the overarching objectives, which are delivered consistently and effectively by the member bodies. The sport’s strategic plan should form the basis of all local implementation outcomes and be developed with input and agreement from all stakeholders.

...

1.11 That the board outline the role of individual directors/board members, including(at a minimum):

• the fiduciary duty of directors to act in the interests of the members as a whole and not to represent individual constituents. Thus, once elected, the board should have the ability to operate independently in the interests of the organisation as a whole, free from undue influence
• the legal duties of individual directors, including the requirement of directors to:
  • –  act in good faith and for a proper purpose
  • –  exercise due care and diligence
  • –  ensure the organisation does not continue to carry on its business while insolvent
  • –  meet the requirements of various other federal and state laws that directly impact on the organisation

...

Commentary and guidance
...
In relation to a directors conflict of interest, a director should not hold any official position at state, regional or club level, or corresponding administrative position, that provides a material conflict of interest which is actual or perceived...

1.12 That the roles of key positions in the governance system are documented and understood.
...

1.13 That the chief executive officer will not normally be a director of the board. This enables and supports a clear separation of power between the board and management.

Commentary and guidance
The ASC suggests it is good practice to ensure that a distinction between management and board membership occurs and that the chief executive officer of the organisation should not necessarily be a member of the board. However, in this circumstance it is also good practice to ensure the chief executive officer is aware of, and present at, board meetings to provide information and advice to the board on the operations of the organisation and to understand the direction provided by the board.
...


Thats a "brief" summary of a small part of the ASC document but it helps understand what they mean by an independent board and why they think it is necessary.

What will Gallop do now???? He will go to the International Cricket Counxil and try to salary cap the Indian Super League..Kogli, Rahane, Dohni etc..realiry check, he woyld be thrown in jail for this Communist style of Governance. Could of had Torres and others if the privateers had a serious shot at getting him.

Board independence is not new nor restricted to Australian sporting organisations, it’s a very common business practice and why it’s become such an issue in this debate is hilarious. We look like a friggin third world country over this.

The independence question is also balanced by the requirement directors “be broadly reflective of the organisation’s key stakeholders, but not at the expense of the board’s skills mix and the organisation’s objectives” ... this is central to the current stand off. Are the Directors “broadly reflective”? Many stakeholders say they’re not.

And how Frank Lowy can be a shareholder of SFC and Director at the FFA is a mystery; arguably Steven is not independent either given the nature of the Lowy family interests - but that’s now the world we live in, rich and powerful people saying one thing and doing another.

P&R and they'll be history

Closed HAL and they'll be a constant ghost

so $14 by 1.4 million participants is not a massive subsidy ?  $19.6 million ?  is that chump change to you ?
I personally have no problem with giving $14.00 to FFA either but my question is with how they spend it . It seems nothing comes back to the participants.
I am sure they waste a lot of money and could spend it better and more efficiently.

There are only 550k players that play registration fees to the FFA.  The total is about $10m and last year $6.6m of it was returned to the States to fund agreed projects so thats $6.18 per registered player that was retained by the FFA for other uses.

The one big problem with Lowy wasn't his stance on any of the issues of the game.  A lot of the time I got the strong impression he was following the lead of some of the state bodies on some of this stuff.  The big issue was he didn't ever comprehend how bad the governing structure of the game was and how insulated he and the board had become from the actual stakeholders of the game.  Every single time he makes a statement about this he repeats the same line, the FFA needs to hold the line and remain an 'independent' body not based on self interest.

This whole concept is flawed.  The current state controlled board isn't just independent, its unaccountable.  It doesn't reflect the views of the stakeholders in the states its meant to represent, the players, fans, clubs etc.  It just represents the various layers of bureaucracy around the game.  So we end up with a situation where various members of the bureaucracy vote for each others motions, support each other, and the actual clubs players parents fans etc are left unheard.   That is definitely 'independent'... its also a disaster.  The idea of actual stakeholders getting even minor amounts of power over the game is seen as a disaster by these people.   They honestly believe that independent unaccountable bureaucrats forming political blocks with each other is the way the game should be run.

I don't believe the conspiracy theories regarding the Lowys (mostly), it is just this insane attitude to leadership that makes him leaving so important.  I gave an out-loud cheer when I saw this headline.

1) Economicaly, home games benefit the government. Any money made can go back into the National Teams. 
2) It's an 'Australian' team. Much like our olympic team represents 'Australia' @ olympics.
^ All can be Government run.

A-League can be 'A-League' run. 

Why do we need these FFA idiots.

Good to see the HAL marketing campaign kick off early this year

The witch hunt is dead

good post ...except I would not rule out all conspiracy theories.
Bonita Mersiades has been inside the machine that is FFA and would have a bloody good idea as to what actually happens and why . She also had a lot of contact with Frank and Buckley at the time the World Cup bidding was happening . Her comments about Steven wanting to hang in as Chairman until November this year are interesting . As November this year also coincides with when the Lowys are off the hook with regards to having to provide financial records in the event  of any investigation into Franks handling of moneys in that bid . (there is a 7 year statute of limitations where you must keep financial records...according to Mersiades)

I only hope that the grass roots doesn't suffer with the mooted change, and, we don't plummet to the old days of Soccer Australia and Tony Labozetta's tenure. 

As opposed to the current system where you have to pay a ridiculous amount of money which prices out most of the talent in the country?

And people were criticizing me and others on this forum after we said that Lowy is trying to hold onto power due to some dodgy dealings behind the scenes and wont show his books...

"Some sources suggest that the reason Lowy is so desperate to remain in charge until the end of November relates back to the tainted bid for the 2022 World Cup. ASIC regulations require corporations, including those limited by guarantee, to maintain all financial records for seven years after financial statements are lodged. The seven years is up for 2010-11, the final year of grant monies from the federal government, in November 2018. "
http://footballtoday.news/features/steven-lowys-resignation-what-does-it-mean

Shredders at the ready.

-PB

What an league. 

Mean while ARU have a better/shorter TV deal, better TV ratings and better live gate for Wallabies Vs Socceroos. 66,318 fans at the Olympic stadium for Bledisloe Cup Vs 40k then sub 50k for Socceroo play off games. Ireland vs Wallabies outrated Socceroos v Cheq and Hungary games via TV ratings. 

I can see the ARU taking full advantage of this FFA mess and putting football well and truly behind them. 

No offence @nomates but rugby union is where near to close to football these days, that ship sailed has 10 years ago.

By the way the game is on life support thanks to there stupid private school system that they still rely on for talent for.

@ nomates

lol, maybe this is why so many people want Nix out, you (and Nix) are so detatched from Australia you don’t actually know what the fuck you’re talking about and therefore can’t contribute meaningfully to an adult conversation?

Rugby Australia is a complete shambles after the botched closure of Force, participation rates are in free fall and none-existent in some areas, crowds in Super Rugby were awful again this season, and viewing no better for SR games than HAL and for Australian teams vs NZ/SA teams viewing was way worse than HAL and often sub-40k.

And 63,000 there last night? That’s 10-15,000 below what they’d want. Bledisloe 1 should sell out the stadium. I’d also doubt there were actually 63,000 there ... it’s become common in Australia to up attendances (in all codes) and our dumb ass journalists don’t bother to question it.

My three main sports are Soccer, Rugby and Cricket with all three codes in administrative crisis fur different reafons this year. Rugby is the code at most risk, it’s sliding towards irrelevance as a sporting code and the pressure on RA is huge with a CEO under pressure, division in the game, and political infighting rife and all their major franchises are in debt (QLD Reds make Roar look good).

If there’s one hope in Rugby it’s st traditional club rugby level. But guess what, RA doesn’t want a bar of the Shute Shield being successful and competing with their plastic franchises (sound familiar?).

Meanwhile ASIC has been investigating its franchises, players in twitter are a pr disaster and a series of serious schoolboy neck injuries (5 in the last month?) has junior participation in crisis.

It’s in a real mess.

Soccer meanwhile can sort it’s shit out and move forward. Rugby unfortunately is in a continuing death spiral and is now in competition with Netball and Basketball to be the 4th/5th/6th code in the country ... don’t hold your breath on pro rugby surviving another decade.

I don’t even know why Rugby is even brought up in this thread.

Gyfox,Thanks for that.

Independence of the board and stakeholders is a seperate issue to what Lowy is talking about.
Absolutely the board and stakeholders should not be connected in anyway which would lead to a conflict of interest.

As I have said ,this is where Lowy is clouding the issue.He is arguing that the stakeholders need to be independent .That is total bs.
Stakeholders do not and should not be independent.They should all have skin in the game.They should all have an interest in football.(Although you could invite total outsiders in as well to gain a different perspective to issues.)

Independence for the board is obvious for a democratic board.But independence doesn't mean being dumb about football.For example.Bozza could be a board member(if he has no duties with any of the stakeholders).Archie Fraser could be so could as well ,given the same conditions.
If Bozza for example is a member of a board of a foootball club ,then he has a conflict of interest and is not independent.

The important thing for independence is to not have a conflict of interest.That is independence!

That is why Lowy is not and never has been independent.
His father has a connection with SFC and Hakoa and probably other connections which we can all speculate about,based on a long history with the game.Then you have board members who could have a connection with Lowy.His bleatings about independence are hollow.He says he is an independent thinker and others are not.But he is on the board and needs to be independent and is clearly not.

@Waz

nomates is a troll, he's not actually being serious about anything. I'm 90% sure he's an Aussie who started his account purely to fuck with people who lose their shit over the Nix being in the a-league.

Its all kiwis ever talk about. 

How am I a troll? If Australia get expelled from FIFA we would lose everything including the TV deal, And Rugby wouldn't look so bad if that happened.