Stadium secrecy ‘a watershed moment in local football’

While it seems that officials from Guernsey FC and the GFA are congratulating themselves for having conducted secret talks over the years with each other and the States (who own the land) they are also telling us, again, that this project will be of benefit to the whole of football, not just themselves.

GFC also claim that they don’t want to kill the local clubs because ‘we need them to develop players for us’. From that we may conclude that GFC do not see the Priaulx League as a league in its own right, merely a development league for them. It is clear where their priorities lie.

You did not report, as far as I can see, the reaction of the clubs themselves.

My information is that the clubs were not included in the talks. If that information is correct, then the question is, if the plan is intended for the benefit of all of football, why were the clubs not part of the consultation process? One club official is reported to me as saying that the first his club knew about the stadium was from reading your newspaper.

Apparently, the clubs have also been asked to pay an extra £10 per registered player to the GFLM next season. A reasonable proportion of the subscription money goes to the GFA and I understand that when the GFLM, at the clubs’ insistence, asked the GFA to renegotiate the existing deal the latter refused. Maybe they need it to pay for their swanky new headquarters. I believe that the GFA has since agreed, however, to reconsider the matter at board level.

According to the GFA’s Memorandum and Articles of Association, the domestic clubs are Members of the GFA. As members should they not be consulted as a matter of course when any significant project is being proposed? Especially as it could have financial implications for them. In this case I’m thinking along the lines of attracting sponsors, but resources of all sorts may be affected.

Surely given the number of members of each club, the domestic clubs effectively represent the overwhelming majority of the number of people whose interests the GFA is ultimately responsible for representing? What sort of association enters into secret talks and agreements involving itself in a project without even informing, let alone obtaining the approval of, the majority of people it represents?

As this may be a watershed moment in local football, and if the clubs are as furious about this and other issues concerning the way in which the sport is being run as they would be entitled to be, they can always exercise their right to make changes to the board of the GFA. (See the latter’s Memorandum and Articles of Association, paragraphs 53-61). If the clubs do not act, they may effectively give the green light to authorising the GFA and Guernsey FC to represent them without future consultation. If that happens then they will be continually railroaded and there is the likelihood that a few years down the line the Priaulx will be little more than an impoverished ‘jumpers for goalposts’ league. It would also be regrettable if the strength of the clubs’ objections was watered down by the fairly toothless and increasingly conflicted GFLM, which seems almost permanently afraid to make a decision which will upset anyone.

Another question is, if the Victoria Avenue project were to go pear-shaped for whatever reason, who would be left carrying the debt?

MATT WATERMAN,

Flat 2,

3, Burnt Lane,

St Peter Port,

GY1 1HL.