Dear Editor,
From the outset, the Buxton United Football Club (BUFC) agrees that there are differences and challenges within the football fraternity; however, it is our view that many of the differences and challenges are inflated to create chaos. We also want to make the point that arbitration is the end of a process and has to be agreed on, so one has to make the case for the first two tiers before arbitration. Hence, one should not want to have arbitration imposed because when the practice becomes a precedent it can be misused.
BUFC now wishes to address some pertinent issues of the day in football. The first one is that our club supports the expansion of the league as configured by the legally elected body. It is our view based on the constitution that no statutes were broken since neither of the two clubs has acted as members of the GFF Congress. Our support comes against the backdrop of the need to broaden representation nationally and the fact that the league is largely funded by the GFF. BUFC has an issue with the call for unlimited numbers of foreign players while restricting/delaying local clubs’ entry to a GFF funded league. It should be noted that the brand sponsor did not sign with the NC to cover the $15M prize money – great deal!
Buxton also supports the entry of these clubs because they have demonstrated over the years their economic worth (having a home base) as clubs and their ability to play at a high standard. We have seen the call by a group to delay their entry, positing that a playoff should be held, but may we ask ourselves, for example, how did GFC become elite in 2015? The same member of the big four asked why other clubs for inclusion should not answer this question. Is it because of $ or their groupies? What national or association tournaments did they win at any level in the last 15years to be pronouncing now on the entry of clubs? This is a historical anomaly. Hence, when the big four say in KN of Nov 3, that the inclusion of a club from Region 10 is only geographic and not football related, BUFC says to the sixty thousand residents of that region that we will err on your side. It is worth remembering that this group has a hired pen who is a journalist and is in football.
Editor, BUFC like other clubs had to make do with what are now the final rules for the tournament; this was after a number of meetings, but we never got all we wanted. The prize money was solely decided by the NC, as were the penalties for cards. BUFC spoke against paying $500,000 to play and were told if we did not agree to pay we were out. We had to live with this imposition in what some clubs now call a contract. BUFC did not like or agree with that, but we played and paid in instalments. If as claimed BUFC signed a contract, it had to be an adhesion contract, but more importantly we agreed to rules, as was the norm when participating in tournaments, so there should be no arm-twisting of that understanding to create a national drama in football.
It has been touted in the media and in a number of letters about on and off field contracts and their nature, but what is not said is that if those opposing do not get all they want then everyone else is deemed high-handed and dictatorial. A classic situation exists whereby a number of agreed rules and a contract were amended by the present GFF executive without consent, but no club complained. For example, the NC gave a $2000 match fee per player, but it is now $3500; the payment for cards (red & yellow) was discarded and no club had to pay; the participation fee was reduced and is now about to be phased out. The point is that a precedent was created, but it was not negative news so the big four let it sleep. So BUFC is now asking if the $2000 match fee imposed by the NC was not a contract, and whether the big four were consulted to change it and if they agreed.
Hence, when the big four say they wanted to retain the agreements entered into with the NC, are they saying they want all or only the aspects that please them?
Editor the GFF has a communication challenge which in our view may be because of a combination of bureaucracy and institutional flux. This, however, should not be the basis for unwarranted attacks on the administration for every blade of grass that touches a ball. Moreover, the continuous use of used materials in the public space diminishes the perceived value of the original arguments. A case in point is a belated call for one of the GFF committees to look at a matter of discipline against a club president; one must ask why after months in the media this matter was not petitioned to that committee. The fact is that since it died a public death the advisers now seek the legal avenue. However, do they expect the committee to bully the GFF President in relation to who should attend his meeting without him having control of it?
BUFC is reluctant to comment on the posture taken by the aggrieved four on the issue of who manages the league because it is the GFF League and not the clubs. So why should the GFF expend $23M on a league they agreed is making a loss? Those who protest this decision don’t represent and cannot represent the BUFC as we see no legal structure in the desk of elite clubs. Let clubs with grounds earn. This sum is larger than the total prize money. Important to note is that those who make these demands have never submitted audited reports to the GFF, which they now want to hold accountable. The other point is that the issue of expenditure is an executive function.
Editor recent developments in relation to withdrawal from the league is a democratic issue, and BUFC respects the actions of those who did, but is mindful to remind them that lunch is never free. We implore the GFF to pursue the restarting of the league with renewed purpose, utilizing the best clubs available. Those who wanted to play had up to the 7th Nov to so do; now no one has an excuse going forward. Their actions are now explicit so let history judge their intent.
Yours faithfully,
Eton Moses
Secretary
BUFC
