posted Apr 9, 2011 2:29 PM by Tyler Durden
[
updated Apr 9, 2011 2:44 PM
]
In a recent CSN article
it was postulated that should the ASA at its AGM vote to remove Article
32 from its bylaws that an immediate suspension would be handed down
from the CSA to the ASA. Further, that FC Edmonton would become a
casualty of the ASA's actions. I take issue with a couple of thing here.
First, FC Edmonton is a member of the CSA separate and distinct from
the ASA. I find it strains credibility to assume that the
actions of one member, the ASA, would cause the CSA to act against
another member, the FC Edmonton. Check CSA bylaws
Article 12.1 c, for a definition of a Professional League
Member and then check out the press
release from the CSA on the 16 May 2010.
Second, any legal advice the CSA would get on this matter must surely
have informed them of the seriousness of the Alberta Court of Appeals
decision. If the CSA is looking to enact an immediate suspension on the
ASA they could not draw a straighter line between cause and effect. The
credibility and integrity of the organization as a whole would be
easily brought into question and would appear to any impartial body
that the CSA was applying a different standard of behaviour on ASA than
other members. It would be unreasonable to immediately
suspend the ASA while allowing all other members time to get their own
houses in order.
Some members of the CSA appear to be attempting to argue that the CSA
is backed into a corner having no options available to it other than
the immediate suspension of the ASA. They are further ratcheting up the
rhetoric to appeal to the soccer community and apply pressure on the
ASA. The question one must ask, is this a corner of their own painting?
How much truth is in the message and how much is the planting of fear,
uncertainty and doubt?
For all those concerned, both at the CSA and the ASA, the rhetoric and
brinkmanship needs to stop. The sowing of fear, uncertainty and doubt
needs to stop. It is time for the adults to move both organizations
forward.
To the CSA:
The ASA has traditionally had a CSA representative at its AGMs. I would
strongly suggest that this continue but if the CSA is truly desirous of
moving forward, do not send Mr Traficante and/or Dr. Maestracci. It is
apparent to all that the ASA membership will be hard pressed to listen
to these gentlemen and trust what they say. This is truly a time when
the messenger will be the message.
To the ASA:
No doubt the CSA meeting this weekend will result in some form of
communication being made to you prior to the AGM, make sure to
distribute this message to the membership well in advance of the AGM.
For those in the ASA membership, carefully read what you are given, do
not let your initial impression be your lasting impression. The CSA
does need to 'sound' strong but there will always be room for
interpretation and negotiation.
I think we all understand the purpose of Article 32 and do not want to
have an environment that is continuously litigious. The issue is that
the scope of the current incarnation of the Article is much too broad. It is not designed to say that if you want to belong to an organization that you must give up all rights.
* per Wikipedia:
Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is a tactic used in sales, marketing, public relations,[1][2] politics and propaganda.
FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by
disseminating negative and dubious/false information designed to
undermine the credibility of their beliefs.
|
|
|
|