Steve1872 4 Posted July 14, 2012 Author Share Posted July 14, 2012 regan lawell and thompson of d utd. I shit you not. shit!!!!!!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Regan lawell and Thompson of d utd. I shit you not. Thomson is not on it. http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_football.cfm?page=2560 The main Board consists of seven members: the Office Bearers (Stewart Regan, Chief Executive; Campbell Ogilvie, President; Alan McRae, First Vice-President, and Rod Petrie, Second Vice-President), plus Ralph Topping (SPL), Tom Johnston (Junior FA) and Barrie Jackson, the Scottish FAâ??s first-ever independent non-executive director. The main Board would make the decision and obviously Regan could not take part in the discussion. They are supplemented by the two operational Professional and Non Professional Boards, the former consisting of nine members and the latter 11 representatives of their respective parts of the game. Professional Game Board: Chairman: Rod Petrie (Scottish FA) Members: Jim Ballantyne (SFL), Neil Doncaster (SPL), Peter Lawwell (SPL), David Longmuir (SFL), Alan McRae (Scottish FA), Campbell Ogilvie (Scottish FA), Stewart Regan (Scottish FA), Sandy Stables (SHFL) and Ralph Topping (SPL). Non-Professional Game Board: Chairman: Alan McRae (Scottish FA) Members: Donald Beaton (Welfare FA), John Gold (Schools FA), Colin Holden (South of Scotland), Tom Johnston (Junior FA), David Little (Youth FA), Maureen McGonigle (Scottish Womenâ??s Football), Campbell Ogilvie (Scottish FA), Rod Petrie (Scottish FA), Stewart Regan (Scottish FA), Andrew Renwick (East of Scotland), Graham Harkness (Scottish Amateur FA). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
foggy dewhurst 0 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Who has the power to sack regan in theory the clubs in scotland are mr regans employers he and his associates are there to administer the game in scotland in effect a extrodinary general meeting would have to be called with a proposal starting with a vote by all member clubs on confidence and then the process will move on from that point . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,363 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 (Can people please inlcude links to these statements, so one can bookmark them for later reference?!) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1872 4 Posted July 14, 2012 Author Share Posted July 14, 2012 Clyde View on SFL Meeting http://www.clydefc.co.uk/statement3.html link here 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 in theory the clubs in scotland are mr regans employers he and his associates are there to administer the game in scotland in effect a extrodinary general meeting would have to be called with a proposal starting with a vote by all member clubs on confidence and then the process will move on from that point . I don't think that's correct; I am almost certain that the power to hire and fire the CEO will vest in the Board on behalf of the members. I think the procedure you describe would be required to sack the Board but not the CEO. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 could the board ignore the view of the majority of its members? could it survive doing so? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,514 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Clyde View on SFL Meetinghttp://www.clydefc.co.uk/statement3.html link here Fri, 13th Jul 2012 10:19pm The club chairman attended a very sobering meeting of the SFL today where the 30 clubs voted on resolutions in the manner that they felt were, on balance, for the good of the game. Nobody had arrived at decisions easily and all had been placed in intolerable positions of having to decide without the basic information that would reflect good governance and having to speculate about unresolved matters around sanctions and membership of the SFA that other bodies had so far failed to deal with. The outcome was never going to be a good one, but it was one of significant unity amongst the clubs. Even where clubs voted differently, it was not a divisive difference of views, everyone understood the complex mix of circumstances facing each club would never deliver unanimity of voting. We reported this morning prior to the vote of all clubs that “Sevco Scotland Ltd will not be playing in the Third Division in the coming season." Nothing heard today altered that opinion, in fact, it strengthened it. For the good of the game we need to see the SFA accept the will of its members, who all voted today, as members of the SFL, in the clear knowledge that the SFA had it in its power to refuse to transfer SFA membership to Sevco Scotland Ltd should the vote support the entry of Sevco Scotland Ltd into SFL3. We were asked to respect the confidentiality of those presenting today as only that agreement would allow them to be as candid as they were. We cannot therefore share what was said, however Mr Green left the SFL member clubs in no doubt about what he had been told by the SFA. The SFL saw a level of unity and unselfishness that owes significant credit to the First Division clubs who stated their intention to seek a 42 club solution and not to take part in a divisive alternative. This kind of unity, if maintained, will help deliver the change that the game so badly needs and the First Division clubs in particular will merit. If the SFA now act to support any process to undermine the clear views of the SFL members, who are also members of the SFA, then this club will join others in questioning those in leadership. Sadly for our game, this saga is not over, teams cannot plan and that includes Rangers, who may yet be denied the opportunity to play football in SFL3 because it suits the interests of others. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 could the board ignore the view of the majority of its members? could it survive doing so? I've had a quick look through the relevant sections of the SFA Handbook and oddly there doesn't appear to be a section on the CEO but basically the "management, business and control of the SFA vests in the Board" . It's a pdf so couldn't copy it but it's at page 67 para 62.1 http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFApublications2011-12/Scottish%20FA%20Handbook.pdf The following sections describe the make up of the two subsidiary Boards - The Professional and Non Professional Game Boards. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I've had a quick look through the relevant sections of the SFA Handbook and oddly there doesn't appear to be a section on the CEO but basically the "management, business and control of the SFA vests in the Board" . It's a pdf so couldn't copy it but it's at page 67 para 62.1 http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFApublications2011-12/Scottish%20FA%20Handbook.pdf The following sections describe the make up of the two subsidiary Boards - The Professional and Non Professional Game Boards. Quoting myself if that's allowed? Longmuir told me recently that he and Ballantyne get out-voted 7-2 every time on the PGB, even on relatively inocuous issues such as the Glasgow Cup; but I think that may be about to change. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.