Trinidad and Tobago Football should be Restructured

[coache]

Centralized control of power under a single, Football Tsar may not be the best approach.

Control should be pushed downward thereby decentralizing control.

Downward at least one echelon ..this I mean the various regions North, South, East, West, Tobago.

[Football supporter]

So, ignore the example set by every other nation, that has evolved over 100 years and has produced successful development of the game, and ask FIFA to deal directly with 4 zones individually? So we have 4 different agendas and 4 sets of administrators, offices etc to pay for instead of one set? Which zone would Stephen Hart report to? Which zone would appoint the technical director? Would all 4 zones send "Presidents" and "General Secretarys" to international meetings?

How about the existing zones start working for the benefit of national football instead of fighting to control their individual fiefdoms. Maybe zones should have less autonomy and be ruled directly from a central location?

[Tenorsaw]

No sense decentralizing, if the incompetencies continue at that level.  We need to get back to support at the grassroot level, as in the ole days. 

[dreamer]

Good behavior and management is no longer (never was) an automatic virtue in football administrative office.
Need a watchdog culture in the press, fanclub and population as a whole,
to police the TTFA into doing the right thing for fear of penalties, fines and imprisonment for criminal activity
Keep up the work, fearless journalist Lasana (previously venomously called "yuh f**ker") Liburd.
Express, Guardian, Newsday and various radiostations, you'll need to step up big time.

[coache]

I always have to break it dong fuh people to understand what I mean....it wasn't too long ago in our history football was decentralized ..yuh had SFA .. I know.. I from south the man in charge was John Alleyne..the National teams were loaded with talent ..I say no more.. I sign out till next tournament..

[Tiresais]

Decentralisation is actually better if in a situation of incompetence - its effects are contained to specific parts. Moreover, if you have say 6 potential candidates for FA head (NFA, SFA, EFA, ECCFA, CFA, TFA) then there's more chance of someone competent. The other advantage would be accountability - the higher the proximity of decision makers to the front line (in this situation) the more informed their decisions (theoretically) can be. The problems of centralisation are made all too clear by the Warner legacy on Trini football

[Deeks]

The constitution needs to be changed. Long ago clubs had the votes until Jack W. changed  just for zones to have voting power. So we go back that way where the clubs will have more "leverage". Maybe!

[coache]

The constitution needs to be changed. Long ago clubs had the votes until Jack W. changed  just for zones to have voting power. So we go back that way where the clubs will have more "leverage". Maybe!

Decentralisation is actually better if in a situation of incompetence - its effects are contained to specific parts. Moreover, if you have say 6 potential candidates for FA head (NFA, SFA, EFA, ECCFA, CFA, TFA) then there's more chance of someone competent. The other advantage would be accountability - the higher the proximity of decision makers to the front line (in this situation) the more informed their decisions (theoretically) can be. The problems of centralisation are made all too clear by the Warner legacy on Trini football

These men : Deeks and Tiresais allyuh now onto to someting........

[Bakes]

Decentralisation is actually better if in a situation of incompetence - its effects are contained to specific parts. Moreover, if you have say 6 potential candidates for FA head (NFA, SFA, EFA, ECCFA, CFA, TFA) then there's more chance of someone competent. The other advantage would be accountability - the higher the proximity of decision makers to the front line (in this situation) the more informed their decisions (theoretically) can be. The problems of centralisation are made all too clear by the Warner legacy on Trini football

Explain how centralization is a problem for the English FA... or the USSF for that matter.

[Deeks]

The constitution needs to be changed. Long ago clubs had the votes until Jack W. changed  just for zones to have voting power. So we go back that way where the clubs will have more "leverage". Maybe!

I don't think decentralization would make much of a difference in the TT football. As it is now, each zone can work on their own to revitalize football. The big zones like SFA could split in about 4 groups for lower tier football. SFA-north(Sando PaP,)  SFA-southwest(Point, LaBrea area), SFA-southeast (Palo Seco, Fyzabad, Siparia), SFA -central(Princess Town area). Central can do the same thing. Couva have their area. Chaguanas area. I feel North FA should include San Juan area, west POS AND EAST POS. EFA could have St.Joseph-curepe-St ,Agustine area. Tagarigua-Tunapuna area, 5-Rivers-Arouca area, dabadie-aroma area. Allyuh should get an idea of what madness I trying to put forth.

I honestly feel the clubs should get back their voting power so they can have their "voice" back in football. They will then be able to pick the president that they want. That said, they will then be blame or praised collectively for the progress or non-progress of football.

But football need people who can bring money into the sport. Jack Warner had it and used it for his benefit. I said for his benefit because look where he left us. A mountain or valley of debt. Take your pick. The TTFA still does not have their own grounds.

[MEP]

Centralized control of power under a single, Football Tsar may not be the best approach.

Control should be pushed downward thereby decentralizing control.

Downward at least one echelon ..this I mean the various regions North, South, East, West, Tobago.

you mean bring back Jack?

[Tiresais]

Decentralisation is actually better if in a situation of incompetence - its effects are contained to specific parts. Moreover, if you have say 6 potential candidates for FA head (NFA, SFA, EFA, ECCFA, CFA, TFA) then there's more chance of someone competent. The other advantage would be accountability - the higher the proximity of decision makers to the front line (in this situation) the more informed their decisions (theoretically) can be. The problems of centralisation are made all too clear by the Warner legacy on Trini football

Explain how centralization is a problem for the English FA... or the USSF for that matter.

As per usual Bakes, you read what you want to. Why don't you bold up the first sentence and answer your own question

[Bakes]

As per usual Bakes, you read what you want to. Why don't you bold up the first sentence and answer your own question

As per usual you haven't the faintest semblance of a clue what you're talking about.  Incompetence isn't the result of centralization, nor is it made any more likely by centralization.  There's a difference between "centralization" and "consolidation of power,"  you would do well to learn the difference.  Centralization of the TTFA isn't preventing the zonal heads from running for office.  Any member of the TTFA can stand for election so your comment about the zonal heads running for power is irrelevant... which is not at all uncommon for you.

[coache]

I would like to know if each zone can run their own affairs as they see fit and if monies are provided for zonal programs .

[Tiresais]

As per usual Bakes, you read what you want to. Why don't you bold up the first sentence and answer your own question

As per usual you haven't the faintest semblance of a clue what you're talking about.  Incompetence isn't the result of centralization, nor is it made any more likely by centralization.  There's a difference between "centralization" and "consolidation of power,"  you would do well to learn the difference.  Centralization of the TTFA isn't preventing the zonal heads from running for office.  Any member of the TTFA can stand for election so your comment about the zonal heads running for power is irrelevant... which is not at all uncommon for you.

Bakes your stupidity is 2 for 2 - where did I say the incompetence was made of centralisation? You're talking utter rubbish. Incompetence is the situation, centralisation doesn't help a situation of incompetence, but decentralisation can help. Consolidation of power clearly implies centralisation - centralisation involves the concentration of decision making at a central body, which is clearly what consolidation of power involves. Centralisation also wouldn't involve preventing zonal heads from running for office - you're talking utter rubbish once again.

Bakes step away from the keyboard and read peoples damn posts.

[Bakes]

Bakes your stupidity is 2 for 2 - where did I say the incompetence was made of centralisation? You're talking utter rubbish. Incompetence is the situation, centralisation doesn't help a situation of incompetence, but decentralisation can help. Consolidation of power clearly implies centralisation - centralisation involves the concentration of decision making at a central body, which is clearly what consolidation of power involves. Centralisation also wouldn't involve preventing zonal heads from running for office - you're talking utter rubbish once again.

Bakes step away from the keyboard and read peoples damn posts.

I'll ignore your hystrionics and ad hominems just as I do most of the other nonsense you usually post.  I never accused you of saying "the incompetence was made of centralisation," that is just the logical deduction from your argument. "Centralization" is a geo-spatial or positional construct.  Having the seat of power or confluence of power located in the same building, area code etc., doesn't in anyway promote incompetence (or corruption) for that matter.  "Consolidation of power" refers to the amassing of power, not in one locus, but in one person/entity. 

Therein lies the the real threat to transparency, accountability and efficiency.  Spreading "power" out geographically doesn't in anyway mean that power would not still be consolidated into the hands of one individual.  All that individual would have to do is bribe or install his own regional lackeys to ensure that they do his bid... wait a minute, what am I explaining?  We already had that situation, that is precisely how Jack Warner rose to power   

There is a chasm of difference between "consolidation" of power and "centralization" of power, the two are not synonymous, no matter how much you toss your toys out the pram, call me names and otherwise exhibity symptoms of your post-menopausal hot flashes.

[ANC2]

Right now those same zones are the Executives that run T&T Football.
The same executives that worked under jack warner.
The same executive who individually cannot run one effective zone in local football
The same executive members who cannot run the FA or Super League

[Deeks]

Right now those same zones are the Executives that run T&T Football.
The same executives that worked under jack warner.
The same executive who individually cannot run one effective zone in local football
The same executive members who cannot run the FA or Super League

That is why I say that the clubs should get back their vote. So that they will be "empowered".

[Tiresais]

I'll ignore your hystrionics and ad hominems just as I do most of the other nonsense you usually post.  I never accused you of saying "the incompetence was made of centralisation," that is just the logical deduction from your argument. "Centralization" is a geo-spatial or positional construct.  Having the seat of power or confluence of power located in the same building, area code etc., doesn't in anyway promote incompetence (or corruption) for that matter.  "Consolidation of power" refers to the amassing of power, not in one locus, but in one person/entity. 

Since you're lacking in basic reading skills I'll highlight this for you - I agree, my original post agreed, but you're too dense to understand the subtleties. It doesn't promote incompetence any more than having a boss does, but it does exacerbate its problems when an incompetent person is at the centre of a centralised system. Decentralised systems involve decision making being removed from the central body (at least relatively speaking) - the individual incompetencies of the separate bodies now matter. If, for the sake of argument, we had a random distribution of competencies, a decentralised system would tend to the mean of the distribution, whilst a centralised system would be more variable in its effectiveness. Put another way, you're less likely to have 10 idiots than you are 1, if we're talking about random chance.

Therein lies the the real threat to transparency, accountability and efficiency.  Spreading "power" out geographically doesn't in anyway mean that power would not still be consolidated into the hands of one individual.  All that individual would have to do is bribe or install his own regional lackeys to ensure that they do his bid... wait a minute, what am I explaining?  We already had that situation, that is precisely how Jack Warner rose to power   

But a centralised leader has less accountability - if you centralise the important decision who has enough power to challenge them? There's a reason Jack closed the door behind him. Your second sentence is self-contradictory - what power is being spread out if not their own? Your third sentence is just poor reasoning - clearly it's more expensive to bribe 10 individuals than 1, and what's the point of lackies if you can just give yourself all the power and not bother with them?

There is a chasm of difference between "consolidation" of power and "centralization" of power, the two are not synonymous, no matter how much you toss your toys out the pram, call me names and otherwise exhibity symptoms of your post-menopausal hot flashes.

Sadly, you're nowhere near as smart as you think you are - your reasoning is poor for a secondary school kid, let alone a grown adult. Next time try not muddling your own arguments up