Dear Editor,
Watching one of our two television channels the evening before last, I came across one of the sports programmes (Cricket Info) which was arguably the best I have seen in Guyana so far.
The host’s unique style of presenting information to the viewership is most entertaining and informative and I commend him for his excellent work.
The guest on his programme on Wednesday, Mr Ivan Persaud,Vice President of the GFF, was there I believe to clear the misconceptions and confusion the public would have garnered in the past several weeks from his statements in the media.
He posited that the UDFA executives did violate the initial decision of the congress and as such supported the call for congress to deal with the matter of the association, in addition to which he said the said association should provide reasons for doing what they did. He further stated that the congress was unconstitutional when it came into being because certain constitutional protocols hadn’t been followed and as such, he and Mr Hercules considered it to be illegitimate.
That said, congress had representatives of the various associations and affiliates, if not the majority. Why didn’t Mr Persuad and his colleague put forward their case to the membership present and call the proceedings to a halt? Certainly, they would have been within their right, so why did they choose not to? This question still stands.
Secondly, Mr Persaud publicly confirmed the assertions Mr Matthias made, claiming that he was not the author of the letter sent to the GFF, but it was his lawyer who had written it and he had appended his signature. Contrary to his televised statement, in the Chronicle he was reported as saying that he was the one who wrote and signed this mystery letter.
Editor, the visibly irate and confused guest accused the President of not being candid but who really is?
Thirdly, Editor, the respected former footballer brought into question the leadership style of the President, labelling the gentleman as being authoritarian and dictatorial. If this was indeed the case, why would he have supported Mr Persaud’s call for a congress to deal with the UDFA undertaking? Why would he have allowed the congress to institute the proposed penalty? Are those the doings of a dictator? Or are we to believe then, that the men and ladies of the congress are easily misled by the President? Are we to believe that learned men such as Mr Odinga Lumumba, presidential advisor to President Donald Ramotar; Alfred King, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Youth Sport and Culture; Nigel Garraway, law student at the University of Guyana; Eton Moses, university graduate employed at parliament; Major Burnett of the GDF and countless others would have allowed Mr Matthias to demonstrate his stewardship in such a matter which had plagued the institution for decades? Certainly not!
Editor, what is unfortunate is the high level of shady practices which dogged the federation for years, and which left a dark cloud on the football fraternity. The damage that has been done over the years is however slowly but surely being eradicated, despite these unwelcome mishaps and obstacles.
In this embryonic stage of changing the institution, it is incumbent upon those officials in the leadership of the federation to learn from the past, saving the good and the positives but most importantly, being responsible enough to ensure the negatives of the past never repeat themselves.
All stakeholders are vital components to the success and development of this beautiful game, but we all must be responsible enough to work together for the benefit of the young, the old and the future of the players and Guyana’s football.
All in this arena should let good sense, or as we Guyanese say, common sense prevail for the good of the game.
Yours faithfully,
Jermaine Figueira
