Plumbs
To be honest, I used to think that you were a crackpot when you were banging on about football committees and politics on here as most posters have no interest in or perhaps only a limited interest in such matters but I was certainly wrong to think like that and I apologise for doing so.
Things should be done properly and people should be held accountable but I am not sure people will take you seriously because most are not overly bothered, especially when they have not been seriously effected by any of the matters you describe and the others may be either directed involved in wrongdoing or perhaps don't want to rock the boat and are happier to maintain the status quo.
I find it strange that those who continually inform of us of the need for improved governance in football seem to have scant regard for propriety themselves and appear to think that it is something that can be disregarded because they are not being remunerated.
Good luck with your quest for justice.
It is a pity that my first foray onto this forum should be about an FSA constitutional matter, rather than one of the big issues facing the game and its fans today but in view of the fact that my signature has been reproduced above as some sort of "evidence" and you appear to have accepted that there may have been some sort of impropriety or poor governance by the FSA it is appropriate that I should explain exactly what has happened on this matter.
In 2018 the FSA was formed from a merger of the Football Supporters Federation and Supporters Direct. The two organisations had very different structures. FSF had three types of members - individuals ( 1 vote), affiliate organisations (5 votes) and associates who did not meet the criteria for affiliates ( 1 Vote). There was no limitation on the number allowed from any club. SD only had Supporters Trusts who met the legal status of Community Interest Societies and had a limitation of 1 Trust per club.
As you can imagine, merging these two structures and traditions was not straightforward, as indeed is often the case with mergers in any sector. For example, some SD colleagues had concerns that the SD tradition might be lost or weakened because of being outnumbered by the ex-FSF members. It required discussions and flexibility and compromise on all sides. But we got there in the end, and produced a new constitution which was separately and democratically agreed by the AGMs of both organisations. Any suggestion that there was some sort of impropriety or rigged procedure is entirely without foundation. Any member of either organisation could have moved an amendment to alter the proposals relating to regional groups or anything else in the rules, and put it to democratic debate and vote.
Turning specifically to the issue of regional groups, Mr. Jordan (Plumbs) is correct when he says that in the FSF such groups could be affiliate members if they met the affiliate criteria ( hence the certificate above with my signature). They obviously couldn't be members at all of SD because they aren't Trusts. He is also correct to say that in the new constitution groups which were deemed to appeal to a limited sub-set of supporters would become associates and regional groups were specifically referenced in the rules democratically approved by the 2 AGMs as an example of that. The FSA staff of course were required to apply the rules as laid down by the two Conferences.
Fast forward a couple of years, and we reviewed all the rules, in the light of experience of operating them, as is good practice. Part of that review was looking at the criteria for the various categories of membership status, including the clause which required that regional groups should be associates. As it happens, I personally ( as did others) felt that clause should be removed or amended.
Following that review, as Mr.Jordan knows, or should know, because he attended the meeting and received its papers, revised rules were submitted to, and approved by, our AGM in December. These included a new definition of what is required to be an affiliate and associate which no longer includes the requirement that regional groups must be associates, something which Mr.Jordan has failed to mention in this thread, preferring instead to mislead readers by referring to speaking to a brick wall . It doesn't mean that any regional group can automatically become an affiliate. Such a group like any other will have to meet the affiliate requirement, but it does mean that the rules no longer prohibit regional groups becoming affiliates as they did previously.
As in any democratic organisation, not everybody in the FSA agrees about everything, or indeed did so in the predecessor organisations of the FSF and SD. Whatever view is taken about the wisdom or otherwise of the clause relating to regional groups democratically agreed by the two conferences at the time of the merger, I completely reject the accusation that there was any impropriety, or rigging to get an agenda or mandate through ( whatever that means) in those two AGMs. And I suggest that the failure to point out that the 'regional clause' no longer appears in the new rules has had the effect of misleading those readers of this Board who are interested in this specific FSA constitutional matter ( which may well not be all readers).
Malcolm Clarke
FSA Chair
thefsa.org.uk
To be fair he did say that not all of us might be interested. (Although to be honest I am wondering whether to get some popcorn in).
