I am sure most of you read over the weekend that the ‘SPFL are making an attempt to seize power from the SFA’.
When first read I am sure it made many of us laugh. How can anyone in the non-sponsored SPFL be in a position to tell the SFA how to run the game? That’s like two bald men fighting over a comb!
It is essentially about plans from the SPFL to make 4 proposals in next months AGM. I have listed them here and thoughts are in italics.
1. The SPFL to have two out of eight SFA board members instead of one out of seven.
My first thought, like many other fans, would be which two teams will have representation on the board?
How often will these positions be changed and what criteria will be needed for the individuals to be voted onto the board?
I believe it would be pro-active to have representation on the board from the member clubs but I’d demand greater transparency to ensure that they would be acting on the best interest of all clubs.
2. A change to the rule requiring SFA committee members to sit for at least four years before being considered for an executive position.
Anything taking the ‘Old Boys Club’ or ‘Jobs for the boys’ Stigma away from the SFA can only be a good thing.
Why should we settle for a role where its a matter of queuing up to take your turn. Many are astounded, just as many find it laughable, that Mr Ogilvie is still in his position, running unchallenged, after having to step aside from meetings and having clearly mislead the LNS enquiry.
To be humoured with “It’s alright he will be leaving next year” is also an insult to any football fan bemused at how he has lasted this long.
Furthermore, as we know who he is being replaced by as well makes me wonder what process there was? Is it just a case of who has been waiting the longest?
3. For the Professional Game Board (PGB) to take charge of the football youth development.
A few years ago the SPL agreed a deal with the SFA to organise the current grass roots development. It appears to be working well as the kids seem to be progressing well at several levels. The question needs to be asked ‘What would they do differently with the money?’ One of the main reasons Scottish Football has got itself into this mess is the avarice of the owners/operators going for the quick buck instead of looking to development.
4. The clubs, rather than the SFA, to decide whether or not a new club should have full SFA membership.
I would want to see what criteria the member clubs would have for issuing membership. I certainly think that more stringent rules need to be applied but simply removing the parts of rules that mention ‘..At the boards discretion..’ would be a start.
What is the point of having a rule, in black & white, only to go against it, not adhere to it, whenever it suits them. If clubs and players know the rules then there are no excuses when they are broken.
Like most fans of Scottish football we would like to see much needed change being made in the game. We will have to wait and see what materialises and what difference the changes will make. At least we know that all the clubs will have a vote so at least there is a sliver of democracy.
The SFA & SPFL are due to meet today (22/04) to discuss these proposals. According to Mike Mulraney (Alloa Chairman) early talks were positive on some of these proposals and things are still in the discussion phase. With that in mind we would like to add our own proposal…
How about a vote of no confidence?