|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x@ Mark and Waz I agree that the FFA can charge fees for sanctioning the league, but the question is what will the "fee" be if the FFA is effectively controlled by the clubs? I think it will be Sweet FA. My overriding concern is not that there will be a new FFA model, but that the FFA will be controlled by the HAL clubs. Show me a realistic model where the clubs have no chance of outright control and I will give it my full support. However incompetent (or whatever) you think the current board is, the decisions they make do not benefit them financially. Can the same be said with the new proposed model? The A-league clubs don't control the FFA under the CRWG. They only have 28% of the vote. The FFA will still be controlled by the states. The A-league clubs don't have any interest in controlling the game, they merely want control of their IPs and more say in the A-league. Even the A-league wont be controlled by the clubs, it will be controlled by an independent body under the reformed FFA board. If you add in the HAL clubs, PFA and 2 state feds, the clubs get over 50% and control of the appointments to the board. If you add the PFA and the state feds, the HAL clubs have no control at all...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
How is the A-League clubs having to get the PFA and 2 states on board them having control?
They have all sided together for the present to get rid of Lowy etc.
Historically the PFA and clubs have not seen eye to eye a lot of the time and there's nothing to say the state feds will keep aligned once they get the new congress make-up decided.
It's just fear mongering by someone desperate to cling onto power
|
|
|
|
|
sanchez
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
One stick is a table. Because if you have one stick, then add a few more and a flat surface you have a table. Therefore one stick is a table.
|
|
|
|
|
Blew.2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 753,
Visits: 0
|
Is the FFA Board in discussions with FIFA to change the CRWG proposal, if not why are we waiting for the EGM to be announced
Clear Contact There
|
|
|
|
|
aok
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
I hope I am wrong in my assessment, time will tell.
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xOne stick is a table. Because if you have one stick, then add a few more and a flat surface you have a table. Therefore one stick is a table. #logic
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x[quote]Historically the PFA and clubs have not seen eye to eye a lot of the time What's more telling is when the Union and Bosses get together to change the system.
|
|
|
|
|
saweston
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 471,
Visits: 0
|
+xIs the FFA Board in discussions with FIFA to change the CRWG proposal, if not why are we waiting for the EGM to be announced S.Lowy doing what he's good at (in fact the only thing he's been successful at during his time as FFA chair)... delay... delay... delay
|
|
|
|
|
P&R will fix it 2.0
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ACT football chief Mark O’Neill - FFA chairman Steven Lowy’s most influential supporter in the quest to thwart FIFA-endorsed governance reform - has been urged to stand down “for the good of football”. UPDATED BY DAVE LEWIS The president of Capital Football heads up a four-strong rebel faction of state federations threatening to vote down FIFA-backed measures aimed at democratising the game’s Congress at an Extraordinary General Meeting this month, a move which risks Australia being suspended from world football. O’Neill claims to be acting with the full backing of his 17-strong board and the grassroots clubs under the Capital Football umbrella. But he has lost the backing of the ACT’s nine NPL clubs with one club president, Tuggeranong FC’s John Thiele, saying the former lawyer should step aside immediately as he leads Canberra towards towards “isolation and irrelevance” in the eyes of the wider football community. O’Neill is the spokesman for the recalcitrant states - ACT, Tasmania, Northern NSW and Northern Territory - who represent just 18 per cent of Australia’s registered players, yet have the voting power to derail the recommendations of the FIFA-installed Congress Review Working Group (CRWG). If any three of them vote as a block, then the reforms - which include an independent A-League - will be stymied. “Mark O’Neill is impeding the process of reform and our concern is this will only isolate the Canberra football community,” said Thiele. “If he is allowed to continue on this path then when a change of regime comes at the FFA (Lowy has already pledged not to stand for re-election in November), they’re going to look at us and say ‘You’re the outcasts’. “We can forget about ever having an A-League team, and forget about being looked upon favourably in terms of having a say over anything in the future. And rightfully so. ”Myself and the other eight NPL clubs will do all we can, whilst we’re not (voting members on the CF board) to have Mark O’Neill removed. “He’s done some good things but if the two biggest states in Australia, Victoria and NSW, can endorse these reforms, then why can’t he? “We’re trying to apply pressure where we can. Members of his board need to stand up and be counted here. This is their job. “If they don’t agree with Mark O’Neill - and I know for a fact that many don’t - they need to come out and say it.” The clubs penned a letter last month demanding that O’Neill fall into line with the vast majority of football stakeholders in supporting the CRWG report, with Thiele adding: “If he’s not willing to do that he should walk for the good of football.” There is also the possibility of O’Neill being ousted at CT EGM, which can be called at short notice by just one board member. “That is also a possibility and it would be fair to say that as clubs it’s an area we might be able to influence,” added Thiele. “The message we want to send to the football community in Australia and also to FIFA is that his stance does not reflect the stance of the vast majority of football clubs in Canberra. So please, if this goes against us don’t hold this against the clubs here. Hold it against Capital Football. “Mark O’Neill stands up there and says he has the support of his members and the clubs I can tell you right now the clubs do not back him. “We want what’s right for football. What’s going on right now is not right for football.” In a letter responding to the clubs’ concerns, which has been seen by The World Game, O’Neill wrote: “For the sake of clarity Capital Football has not rejected the recommendations of the CRWG. “We have with three other Member Federations raised issues for further
consideration. Capital Football has not opposed any resolutions to be put at an
extraordinary general meeting. “The Notices for this meeting have not yet been settled. We
continue to engage in constructive dialogue with other stakeholders. That dialogue is
ongoing and incomplete.” Thiele is concerned by O’Neill’s perceived close relationship with Lowy, believing that may have compromised him. “I think he has now overplayed his cards and has backed himself into a corner,” he added. “I believe he’s been too close to Steven Lowy and has let that tarnish his judgement. And now he finds himself in this position, unfortunately. “Perhaps he is seeking election to the FFA board, I don’t know. “I certainly feel his days on the Capital Football board are numbered.” The World Game approached O’Neill for comment.
|
|
|
|
|
P&R will fix it 2.0
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIs the FFA Board in discussions with FIFA to change the CRWG proposal, if not why are we waiting for the EGM to be announced The Notices for this meeting have not yet been settled.
We continue to engage in constructive dialogue with other stakeholders.
That dialogue is ongoing and incomplete.”
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
does anyone have a date for the EGM? for some reason i thought it was sept 7. but i can only find reference to "mid september"..
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
P&R will fix it 2.0
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xdoes anyone have a date for the EGM? for some reason i thought it was sept 7. but i can only find reference to "mid september".. Corporations Act mentions 21 days notice of EGM ( I thought from any 5%+ member, ie any 1 of the current 10) If true, it needs to be called by the 5th. Gyfox loves the small rules stuff, maybe he knows CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 249H Amount of notice of meetingsGeneral rule (1) Subject to subsection (2), at least 21 days notice must be given of a meeting of a company's members. However, if a company has a constitution, it may specify a longer minimum period of notice. Calling meetings on shorter notice (2) A company may call on shorter notice: (a) an AGM, if all the members entitled to attend and vote at the AGM agree beforehand; and (b) any other general meeting, if members with at least 95% of the votes that may be cast at the meeting agree beforehand.
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 249F Calling of general meetings by members
(1) Members with at least 5% of the votes that may be cast at a general meeting of the company may call, and arrange to hold, a general meeting. The members calling the meeting must pay the expenses of calling and holding the meeting.
(2) The meeting must be called in the same way--so far as is possible--in which general meetings of the company may be called.
(3) The percentage of votes that members have is to be worked out as at the midnight before the meeting is called.
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 252DCalling of meetings of members by members
(1) Members of a registered scheme who hold interests carrying at least 5% of the votes that may be cast at a meeting of the scheme's members may call and arrange to hold a meeting of the scheme's members to consider and vote on a proposed special resolution or a proposed extraordinary resolution. The members calling the meeting must pay the expenses of calling and holding the meeting.
(2) The meeting must be called in the same way—so far as is possible—in which meetings of the scheme's members may be called by the responsible entity.
(3) The percentage of the votes carried by interests that members hold is to be worked out as at the midnight before the meeting is called.
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
There was an article saying so long as FIFA have an update by 26 September, they didn't care when the EGM was. So at the latest, if the 21 day rule applies, the EGM must be called by tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
Blew.2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 753,
Visits: 0
|
+xThere was an article saying so long as FIFA have an update by 26 September, they didn't care when the EGM was. So at the latest, if the 21 day rule applies, the EGM must be called by tomorrow. Any noise from FFA or is SL going to hold off so FIFA get the notice on The 7th Euro time and screwing the meeting date of the 26th
Clear Contact There
|
|
|
|
|
Lurker
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 810,
Visits: 0
|
+xThere was an article saying so long as FIFA have an update by 26 September, they didn't care when the EGM was. So at the latest, if the 21 day rule applies, the EGM must be called by tomorrow. Not necessarily. If 95% of the voting entitlements agree then the meeting could be called with one days notice.
|
|
|
|
|
P&R will fix it 2.0
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThere was an article saying so long as FIFA have an update by 26 September, they didn't care when the EGM was. So at the latest, if the 21 day rule applies, the EGM must be called by tomorrow. Not necessarily. If 95% of the voting entitlements agree then the meeting could be called with one days notice. For the meeting that 20-40% don't want ? 
|
|
|
|
|
Lurker
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 810,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThere was an article saying so long as FIFA have an update by 26 September, they didn't care when the EGM was. So at the latest, if the 21 day rule applies, the EGM must be called by tomorrow. Not necessarily. If 95% of the voting entitlements agree then the meeting could be called with one days notice. For the meeting that 20-40% don't want ? But will be forced to have.
|
|
|
|
|
P&R will fix it 2.0
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xThere was an article saying so long as FIFA have an update by 26 September, they didn't care when the EGM was. So at the latest, if the 21 day rule applies, the EGM must be called by tomorrow. Not necessarily. If 95% of the voting entitlements agree then the meeting could be called with one days notice. For the meeting that 20-40% don't want ? But will be forced to have. Why not just delay it further, go past the 26th and ask FIFA for some more time ? “The Notices for this meeting have not yet been settled. We continue to engage in constructive dialogue with other stakeholders. That dialogue is ongoing and incomplete.”
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xThere was an article saying so long as FIFA have an update by 26 September, they didn't care when the EGM was. So at the latest, if the 21 day rule applies, the EGM must be called by tomorrow. Not necessarily. If 95% of the voting entitlements agree then the meeting could be called with one days notice. For the meeting that 20-40% don't want ? But will be forced to have. Why not just delay it further, go past the 26th and ask FIFA for some more time ? “The Notices for this meeting have not yet been settled. We continue to engage in constructive dialogue with other stakeholders. That dialogue is ongoing and incomplete.” that is pretty much how they roll. trying to bluff their way out of actually doing anything. bluff their way into normalisation.
|
|
|
|
|
Lurker
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 810,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xThere was an article saying so long as FIFA have an update by 26 September, they didn't care when the EGM was. So at the latest, if the 21 day rule applies, the EGM must be called by tomorrow. Not necessarily. If 95% of the voting entitlements agree then the meeting could be called with one days notice. For the meeting that 20-40% don't want ? But will be forced to have. Why not just delay it further, go past the 26th and ask FIFA for some more time ? “The Notices for this meeting have not yet been settled. We continue to engage in constructive dialogue with other stakeholders. That dialogue is ongoing and incomplete.” that is pretty much how they roll. trying to bluff their way out of actually doing anything. bluff their way into normalisation. Which looks, more than ever, likely to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
P&R will fix it 2.0
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
FIFA to sweet-talk anti-reform states as deadline approaches to vote on new power blueprint for football in AustraliaSEPTEMBER 05, 2018
FRIDAY is looming as a crucial point in the bitter battle for control of Australian football, as FIFA tries to steer the warring parties to a final armistice.
A series of teleconferences will be held on Thursday as the world governing body seeks to placate concerns of a handful of state associations threatening to torpedo reforms supported by a broad coalition of states, A-League clubs and the players union.
Under the FIFA-defined timeline to reform Football Federation Australia’s annual Congress, and widen its franchise, an extraordinary general meeting must be called by Friday to debate the blueprint put together by the Congress Review Working Group to spread power more widely around the game. Otherwise it raises the prospect once more of FIFA stepping in to suspend Australia’s membership, more than two years after it first directed Football Federation Australia to widen the franchise in its Congress.
The blueprint gives the A-League clubs, the players union and the women’s game more votes, but has been fought against by FFA’s board which claims the plan would weaken the games grassroots and give too much power to the professional side.
FIFA officials are to speak directly with a number of key stakeholders in the next 48 hours including the four state associations who have indicated they will oppose the reforms put forward by the CRWG.
If three of those four vote against the plan at the EGM – likely to be on September 28 - it will fail, and FIFA will be forced to step in – possibly imposing a normalization committee of its own handpicked members to run the game, or simply suspending Australia’s membership.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/football/fifa-to-sweettalk-antireform-states-as-deadline-approaches-to-vote-on-new-power-blueprint-for-football-in-australia/news-story/da7ac43438dc78c321e5004468a248ab
|
|
|
|
|
P&R will fix it 2.0
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Whether the state federations decide to go with progress or be seduced by whatever it is FFA seduces them with, they are surely going to miss the 26 September timeline for reporting back to the FIFA Associations Committee?
With 21 days required to call an EGM, and today being 6 September, that puts us at 27 September. http://footballtoday.news/football-media-watch/ffa-congress-socceroos-w-league-bolt-watch-puskas-award-brisbane-boutqie-stadium
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x
Under the FIFA-defined timeline to reform Football Federation Australia’s annual Congress, and widen its franchise, an extraordinary general meeting must be called by Friday to debate the blueprint put together by the Congress Review Working Group to spread power more widely around the game.
If three of those four vote against the plan at the EGM – likely to be on September 28 - it will fail, and FIFA will be forced to step in –
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
So FIFA will sweet talk the so called "recalcitrant" Feds to pass the voting structure and then when the report comes in from the A-League review working group it will require a change to the constitution because the current constitution gives responsibility to run the League to the FFA. At that stage the "recalcitrants" will have 24.44 votes between them plus 4/9x3 votes from the Women's Commission giving them a total of 25.77 votes which is enough to vote down the required changes to the constitution to let the A-League operate itself under license from the FFA. :) Discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
P&R will fix it 2.0
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSo FIFA will sweet talk the so called "recalcitrant" Feds to pass the voting structure and then when the report comes in from the A-League review working group it will require a change to the constitution because the current constitution gives responsibility to run the League to the FFA. At that stage the "recalcitrants" will have 24.44 votes between them plus 4/9x3 votes from the Women's Commission giving them a total of 25.77 votes which is enough to vote down the required changes to the constitution to let the A-League operate itself under license from the FFA. :) Discuss. I would assume Gyfox is reasonably pissed and laughing to himself.
|
|
|
|
|
crimsoncrusoe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.9K,
Visits: 0
|
@Gyfox
Ok I'll bite.
If the congress changes,then veto only applies to a change to the congress.The new congress would be approved along with an independent A-League.The structure of the independent A-League requires a simple majority.
No seperate vote is required for an independent A-League as it's included in the CRWG proposal,should it be approved.
Over to you.....
|
|
|
|
|
P&R will fix it 2.0
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSo FIFA will sweet talk the so called "recalcitrant" Feds to pass the voting structure and then when the report comes in from the A-League review working group it will require a change to the constitution because the current constitution gives responsibility to run the League to the FFA. At that stage the "recalcitrants" will have 24.44 votes between them plus 4/9x3 votes from the Women's Commission giving them a total of 25.77 votes which is enough to vote down the required changes to the constitution to let the A-League operate itself under license from the FFA. :) Discuss. But seriously. The womens vote isn't divided like that as I read it. The 3 women nominated have 1 vote each. Recalcitrants would need to control 1 of them. How the Feds nominate the 3 would be the key
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x@GyfoxOk I'll bite.If the congress changes,then veto only applies to a change to the congress.The new congress would be approved along with an independent A-League.The structure of the independent A-League requires a simple majority.No seperate vote is required for an independent A-League as it's included in the CRWG proposal,should it be approved.Over to you..... Currently the constitution gives management of the A-League to the FFA. To change that requires a 75%+ vote of the congress. The CRWG proposal recommends the development of a new governance structure for the professional Leagues but the detail of it won't be known until the to be established new working group submits its proposal to the FFA Board. At that time the Board will need to call an EGM to consider the report, its recommendations on it and will be in a position to table the required changes to the constitution for approval by the congress.
|
|
|
|