Jump to content

Shetland Football 2009??


penfold
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 288
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Personally I would rather have seen Richie and Peter as managers but i think the decision taken should stick. What's done is done. There should really be no reason for another vote to be taken, if people are unhappy that Bradley got in they should have been at the original meeting to cast their vote.

If they had a problem with this continuity issue, why couldn't that have been sorted before the vote was taken?

Are they now going to bring in loads of Lerwick Rangers reps so that they can get extra votes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldn't make any odds if they did stoichkov, as it is meant to be one club one vote, the managers of the teams get a vote on issues to do with county business, the fixtures secretaries get a vote as well as the Secretary, Treasurer, Vice-president, the President only votes a deciding vote in the event of a tied vote.

 

If I recall correctly Whitedale and Spurs had two representatives at the meeting on their behalf and both reps voted which I understand is the basis of the appeal. Also all votes on such business should be conducted by a show of hands, not a secret ballot as is what happend in this instance, as some folk were uneasy at voting on the issue. I would suggest that for this vote if folk are unwilling to vote yes or no then they excerise their right to abstain when the time comes.

 

So even if Rangers role up on mass they as a club would only get one vote. I note that in the Times it was suggested the vote was a result of a backlash against Rangers domination of the association. If that was the case anyone if they were of that mind should have endeavoured to get a postition on the committee, at the AGM there were four posts unfilled?? If the clubs or indivduals who held the alleged view of Rangers dominance had bothered to stand for these then the association would surely be more representative?

 

As it stands it means another night sitting going over the same arguements I heard last meeting because the vote was not conducted as per the constitution, I'm not saying the result will be any different this time but the business should be conducted as per the constitution and not to asuage peoples consciences and feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the committee posts were filled with a good representation from all clubs, Spurs fielded a candidate for the under 16's fixture secretary, Hostel fielded one for the 18's fixtures secretary, and an independant stood for the 14's fixture secretary. Whitedale provided the vice-president, Ness United the President, Rangers the treasurer, the secretary stated he had an affiliation to Lerwick Thistle where he helped coach Thistle's under 12's.

 

A vote was taken as to the under 18's post all clubs with the exception of Northern Rovers and T.S.B who were not present exercised their right to vote or abstain, as did all the committee members and representative team coaches who were present. The vote was held with 6 for Richie Smith, 5 for Derek Bradley and their were 4 abstension.

 

Why would there be an appeal to the Senior association when there was only one applicant? If there had been 2 and one of them felt aggrieved by the decision to appoint John Jamieson then I could understand an appeal, but as there was no persons interested in applying in writting to the Association as per the advertisment in the local press who would be the aggrieved party? Surely not someone who couldn't be bothered in applying in the first place? hardly a good precursor to throwing your hat into the ring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The meeting addressed the issues that had arisen from the AGM and statements made to the local press regarding the appeal over the under 18's coaching positions. There were a good exchange of views on the issues discussed, from all clubs and committee members who were present. It was not an easy position for any involved to be in, though ultimately a decision had to be made.

 

What needs to happen now is that the association through its office bearers and committee take junior football forward to the next stage, both at representative level and local level. With the committee that is now in place I believe that is an achievable goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a note that i have been made aware of. The Whitedale and Hostel reps, who were voted onto the committee, only got one vote each, when they should've gotten two, as reps and committee members. Controversy?

 

Spurs had 2 reps there, one who went onto the committee, so that was covered fairly, so either the committee lost two votes or Whitedale and the Hostel lost their vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a note that i have been made aware of. The Whitedale and Hostel reps, who were voted onto the committee, only got one vote each, when they should've gotten two, as reps and committee members. Controversy?

 

Spurs had 2 reps there, one who went onto the committee, so that was covered fairly, so either the committee lost two votes or Whitedale and the Hostel lost their vote.

 

Thats a mercy dan Jeemsie, I'll tell the President of the association that he can have the Ness vote as well as long as it is recorded how it was cast then it'll save me having to trek to the town for the next meeting :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...