The League’s matches should not exceed 18 weeks

Dear Editor,

Reference is made to an article in SN (October 2) captioned ‘Kashif and Shangai can have any date once they comply with the rules – says Christopher Matthias.’ The GFF President was quoted as saying, “The Kashif and Shangai organization or any other that is interested in the development of football in Guyana can have any days they so desire to host any tournament, course, competition or seminar once those days don’t conflict with the calendar of activities of the GFF.”

Editor, the afore-mentioned is nothing new, since GFF competitions/tournaments take precedence over those which are privately run, whether through a club or association. The million dollar question is would the GFF 16 team Premier League be played during the period of mid-November to January 1, 2014? Further, with the Premier League scheduled for an October 6, 2013 commencement, which would realize 120 matches in totality, how many matches are slated for the first edition fixtures, and when will they conclude? I doubt whether the fixture will facilitate all of the matches in one instance. So, in actuality the Federation’s Fixtures Committee, should be able to determine the League’s conclusion, providing on a weekly basis that all 16 teams are playing, and this should not exceed 18 weeks.

Finally, and once again the submission of a proposed budget of expenditure, rules, fixture and a confirmation letter from the invited teams are not a new requirement for granting the relevant approval, save and except for the confirmation letter. It is rather a matter of protecting the interest and image of the sport and the Federation.

Additionally, there is the lodging of prize monies or a letter of commitment from a reputable sponsor honouring payments, along with the lodging of levy fees, all of which must be done prior to the signing of the contract. Was there any evidence in the past of malpractice?

Meanwhile the matter of associations complaining of not receiving levy fees remains the Federation’s responsibility, since it’s they who set the amount, ie, $1,000,000 or 5% of the gate receipts of the entire competition/tournament (less expenses) whichever is greater. Thereafter the Federation proceeds with the division and the relevant distribution, while the onus is on the associations to oversee ticket sales, collection and the accounts after every match.

What would be the position if for instance an association has no participants, should they now be deprived of sharing in the levy fees that was done in the past?

The K&S Organisation is proposing a Round-Robin/Knockout format, involving 32 teams, with each team receiving $250, 000 preparation fees, totalling $8,000,000. Would it not be prudent for associations to impose a levy fee, especially in the absence of domestic activity that in some instances a few have failed to coordinate over 2 years, or in the absence of matches being played in their association, since from all indications the afore-mentioned format may not be conducive at this given point in time? The next best option would be to duly inform the applicant, and to offer a practicable solution, probably for a knockout tournament.

In taking the bull by the horns, the GFA executive must be told in no uncertain terms, that their unprofessional administrative approach in coordinating the Players’ Cup has left much to be desired, along with the absence of youth competitions. And until the latter become a reality on their calendar of activities, approval cannot be granted for the year-end knockout tournament. But their application would be accommodated for April, 2014, providing there is a significant improvement in their modus operandi, and moreover, given their inability to meaningfully develop and promote the sport of association football as enshrined in the constitution. For 2 years, the GFA ran a year-end tournament, when there was an impasse. Now that it’s over underdevelopment cannot continue.


Yours faithfully,
Lester Sealey 

Around the Web