The Cebu Football Stakeholders

Who are they?

One club/school, one vote?

How about the "big" clubs or schools vis a vis the "small" schools. (Small and big here refers to participation.

It's all about the pros and cons, and this thread is for that.

Comments

Anonymous said…
defining or identifying who is a "cebu football stakeholder" is subjective. if one sector has been at it for decades and has hundreds of player, does that mean their demands outweigh those of others ? if a newly formed club or a newly established school starts their own football program, do they have to wait a while before their suggestions and input are to be taken seriously ?

ABSOLUTELY NOT !!!!

a cebu football stakeholder should be an entity who is in it for the long-run, one who has invested manpower and not just facilities.

schools with teams participating in tournaments and festivals organized or sanctioned by CebuFA or DepED gets automatic recognition. football clubs participating in CebuFA tournaments and paying CebuFA membership fees should also be recognized.

we couldn't effectively discuss what it takes to be a cebu football stakeholder without going into the politics of the CebuFA. rather than skirt the issue because it may be disturbing or a distraction to some, let's just discuss it head-on.

a cebu football stakeholder is NOT any tom, dick or harry who buys themselves a voting right into the CebuFA. thats the major flaw in our structure/system that needs to be fixed. if we continue to sell voting rights, instead of legitimate stakeholders determining our proper course of action, we will agin have soccermoms and soccerdads influencing policies.

to be more detailed, here's more:

1. one school-one vote. but there are schools here that has several campuses with different sports programs. USC , DBC, and Sacred Heart for example has several football-playing campuses with distinct and individual sports programs. should they be recognized as one or do we recognize each campus individually.

should we recognize DBC, DB-Boys Home and DB-Lawaan as one football program when in fact they are separate entities founded and administered by one religious order ? same goes for Sacred Heart-Girls and Sacred Heart-Boys (sorry, i am not exactly sure about the school name) as well as the USC group of campuses (USC-North, USC-South as well as the college itself). ditto for Abellana/City Central.

for me, if it is PHYSICALLY a different campus, with different programs and administrators, then i view them as individual stakeholders. and no matter how big or how many players one school may have, it's the sports program that determines their "stakeholder" status and not the number of players or coaches. a school with only 50 players should have equal recognition with a school with 500 players.

2. determining "stakeholder status" for clubs is trickier. clubs- InterCebu, SRFC and Hiroshi for example - who field teams from age-groups to mens open, would be recognized as a stakeholder.

individual teams - like Don Bosco Alumni, EXXAS, Crazy Horse, etc. - who has no age-group teams and only plays in the mens division, should also be recognized as a stakeholder and be given a voting right. but newly formed individual teams to obtain such a status should not be automatic. they must participate in at least 2-3 CebuFA organized or sanctioned tournaments (not counting festivals) for them to gain "stakeholder status". the purpose of this is to distinguish serious clubs from "fly-by-night" ones. but newly formed teams doesn't need "stakeholder status" to get to play in tournaments. what isn't automatic is "stakeholder recognition" and the CebuFA voting right that comes along with it.

small teams - those who get formed to compete only in festivals - should not be recognized as a stakeholder or be granted CebuFA voting rights. before they shout "unfair", this is not meant to alienate them but to encourage them to get bigger.

this is basically the concept. will add more details later.
Anonymous said…
when will be the next election of the cfa board and officers?

should i agree on this one club/school voting?hehehehehhee
Anonymous said…
election is next year.
Anonymous said…
its very difficult to size up things but for me i rather have it by club presidents only and or president of the skul..or representatives of the skul or clubs..

1 representative each, i dont care how many skuls and clubs there will be...as long as 1 vote and 1 representative only..i will agree will that kind of election..

to know who will be the better person to put in the cfa presential seat...who ever is the president football in cebu will not change basta naay sagul politics type of management,wa jud kausaban...

fair play lang tanan unta para wa bulilyasu and side comments...

i dont know who is the right person to be in the seat,do you know?
Anonymous said…
with official school/club reps in place as voting members, the task of formulating the development program should then proceed as top priority. once the program is in place - and this includes schedule, format, and consistency of tournaments - an established football season - standards for PFF and FA tryouts - standards for festivals and tournaments - coaching seminars - refereeing assesment and updates - etc. - all member schools and clubs will simply refer to the program and not to individual interpretations of PFF or FIFA guidelines. we now have a guideline of our own.

choosing our next CebuFA board would then be dependent on the nominees' ability to implement the program. they will no longer be tasked to formulate guidelines but simply to insure that the program will be followed.

now, where does that leave those who are interested to help cebufootball but they are not official representatives of a school or club. well, this is were the spirit of volunteerism comes in.

the school/club reps - the policy making body - cannot totally oversee the different tournaments, PFF and CebuFA programs, etc. of the association. that is were comittees headed by non-reps of schools and clubs come in. a non-rep can take charge of the CFE as chairman of that program, same with a ladies development comittee, or a grassroots committee chairman. such a system insures that all those interested will have an opportunity to take part of the system. it no longer would be a one-man system.

for example, someone like roberto (sorry bai, himuon ka nako as an example) who may not be a voting-member of the CebuFA under this proposed system can be tasked as committee chairman to oversee the training and to act as manager of the CebuFA U19 training pool for 2 years. me, for example, may volunteer to act as team manager for the P14 CebuFA team should there be a national tournament for the age group. volunteering is very easy if there are fixed guidelines to follow, and of course, with the right leaders in place. fact is, nobody wants to volunteer under leaders they do not believe in.
Anonymous said…
non-reps are best suited for the task of tournament managers since official reps will be busy preparing their teams for competition. we can have different tournament managers for each age-group, thus spreading the responsibilities around.

for refereeing assesment and training, manfred would be the best candidate for the comittee chairmanship.

the CebuFA board, with their development program as a basis, can give their requirements to the tournament managers with specific standards that has to be met. the TM should then be given absolute control over the tournament, with no interference from any single CebuFA board member. the TM should be given a slice of the CebuFA budget to cover the actual expenses and it would be up to him if the only way the board can contradict him is if he strays from the program. if we intend to trust him, then trust him fully.he sees the need to raise more funds either thru registration fees or thru sponsor solicitation. any excess amount should be turned over to the CebuFA treasury. i would recommend giving the TM a supervision fee of some sort if the budget allows.

again, this system is dependent on a program approved and sworn to be followed by the majority. the sooner we get ourselves a program then the better off we will be.

and now a reality check. such a system will not be wholly applicable at one time. implementation of the program should be gradual, getting the most applicable policies on-line first.

by the way, manfred and totot, feel free to use any of my proposals. review the topics section of this blog from last year and you will find league proposals, cebuFA field proposals, financial assesments that may be worth reading. to be honest, i still feel that the proper and most effective way to make a development program would be to gather all stakeholders and get their proposals. i do find it frustrating that you have to resort to making your own proposal because CebuFA has been unable to formulate or present theirs. anyway, good luck to both of you.
Anonymous said…
one of the most important projects cebufootball stakeholders must carry-out is the procurement of more public football fields.

in the possibility that tournaments will be handled by different tournament managers, and the off-chance that tournament schedules will be overlapping, the need for more fields will be glaring.

band-aid solutions of course will be the school fields. but since the younger age-groups only needs smaller pitches, we could make use of "unconventional" fields already existing.

for example, P6 and P8 tournaments can be held at SVD, Springdale or Blessed John. the games can be held one after another so that the field won't have to be divided to smaller pitches. the kids will have a bigger pitch to play on, and with more room to move, they can apply their skills more often. the policy i am looking at is to require a bigger pitch for the lower age-groups to compete on.

the procurement of a full-size field under CebuFA administration is more complex. if we purchase it head-on then the most financially practical would be mactan island which still has huge tracts of open spaces selling at 2thou per sq.mt. a 130mt x 70mt field plus bleacher space comes close to 10,000.00 sq.mts. thus a budget of 20million just for lot acquisition. no way are we going to raise that amount and no sane lot owner will give his lot for less than it's fair market value.

that leaves us with the cebu city offer for the SRP fields. forget about that CebuFA mandaue field. after their photo-ops wearing hardhats, that project never went off the ground.

the SRP proposal is quite complicated for the following reasons:

1. the existing filled-up areas are the SRP's prime lots. that means these are the most salelable lots.

2. being so, the city government would not be using these lots for football fields but to sell it at the soonest possible time for debt servicing.

3. the SRP project has it's own zoning classification. the law requires that 5% of commercial land development be set aside for parks and open spaces. that is where the proposed fields should be slotted in.

4. originally, the open spaces allotment was a strip of land from talisay up to downtown in between the SRP project and the cebu coastline. it basically is a "green" buffer-zone or strip that separates the project from the rest of the city. within this strip are the parks and the fields.

5. problem is, that strip of land that was meant to be for open spaces are presently Pond A and Pond C. meaning, those spaces hasn't been filled up yet with soil and gravel.

6. the city government has announced the planned construction of a sports village that will include football fields. but if the priority right now of the city is debt-servicing and the only way to achieve this is thru the sale of prime lots and the area alloted for open spaces remain unfilled, where will that sports village be placed ?

that's my view of the situation regarding the SRP fields. now, politics being politics, the announcement to build a sports village was a great way of putting up hopes but realistically, there are too many issues that needs to be resolved financially and politically for it to push thru.

so what should CebuFA do for the moment as a matter of policy regarding the planned sports village ?

1. ask the city government where it will be located. don't ask mayor osmena nor councilor jakosalem nor ricky dakay. go directly to paul villarete, the SRP administrator. as far as the SRP is concerned, he knows everything from proposals to implementation.

2. verify if the sports village or fields is a permanent or temporary structure. if permanent then it will surely be located in the spaces alloted for parks and playgrounds, thus it means that we'll have to wait for those ponbds to be filled up. if temporary then that means we can have a lesser waiting time but we'll have to accept the fact that if an investor wants to buy the property where the fields are located then we will have to pull out of it.

3. cebuFA should lobby for the joint administration of the fields. football people knows best how to utilize a football field. if the city has full administration over it then rest assured concerts will be held there and maintaining the field to suitable playing conditions will be a nightmare.

4. lobby for at least 3 fields and not just one. think of it as Wimbledon. a center field that we maintain to the highest standards for top flight competitions, and two adjoining fields for everyday use.

i got to talk with a staff member of the SRP and he admitted that they haven't been formally consulted regarding a football field or a sports village. if so, cebuFA should pursue the project since it was the city government themselves who offered it in the first place. we cannot just sit and wait for it to happen.
Anonymous said…
its ok ronaldo guy i know some of these,but not as knowledgable as you are..but still lets wait for wat will happen next...

we cant predict things, maybe you ahve your own bet on who will be the next cfa president...do you have?

but for me who ever seats there money matters and power matters also...no improvement in cebu football and philippines footbal

Popular posts from this blog

The failed U23 experiment

Mother Nature plays spoilsport

A Pinoy played for Real Madrid? (updated)