truesoccer
Active Member
At last night's CCF meeting it was apparently raised by the CCF Director of Rep Football that CC Lightning had a strategic plan for the next 5 years ago.
When a Club delegate asked where he could view same I am told he was told it as private.
He persisted and was grudgingly granted that at next meeting a summary would be given. As gfar as I was told arguments persisted as to why CCF members were being denied reading same and some pathetic responses were given by the director. It seems he stated that the only money that Lightning got wfrom CCF was the $2 per head levy imposed on local players at rego time and this was not enought to justify why clubs should see how Lightning was spending or intending to spend their money. The director also refused to give a straight answer as to why the High Performance Managers wages was being charged to CCF and not Lightning who he spent all his time on.
From rumours around much of the wages paid to staff in the office are actually paid on matters assisting Lightning and not CCF members generally.
CCF directors. Come clean. If costs relate to Lightning let them pay them not us. Alternatively break up wages costs job by job and show where they are being spent.
3 generations of my family have and are contributing to CCF general revenue. Our money should not go to others. My son played reps in Sydney. It cost me much more than here. A neice played seniors in Sydney. It cost her a lot of money. Coaches and Managers down rthere were not on the gravy train they are up here.
I am all for rep soccer and do not object to the $2 levy. However I do object in helping to pay the wages of staff who devote their time to lightning or other projects that support other facets of football anfd not the local clubs. In addition we have bailed the overspending rep clubs, whatever they are called every few years when they go defunct and we have yet again to bail them out. In view of this, if only for the levy, I believe we are all stakeholders in Lightning, and our clubs should be entitled to see the content of the strategic plan. Who is to say it may not contain provision to yet again fall back on our shoulders to bail them out when they again go bust.
Lightning should beside the $2 levy be self sufficient. Mr Director of Rep Soccer please reply and prove this is the case.
When a Club delegate asked where he could view same I am told he was told it as private.
He persisted and was grudgingly granted that at next meeting a summary would be given. As gfar as I was told arguments persisted as to why CCF members were being denied reading same and some pathetic responses were given by the director. It seems he stated that the only money that Lightning got wfrom CCF was the $2 per head levy imposed on local players at rego time and this was not enought to justify why clubs should see how Lightning was spending or intending to spend their money. The director also refused to give a straight answer as to why the High Performance Managers wages was being charged to CCF and not Lightning who he spent all his time on.
From rumours around much of the wages paid to staff in the office are actually paid on matters assisting Lightning and not CCF members generally.
CCF directors. Come clean. If costs relate to Lightning let them pay them not us. Alternatively break up wages costs job by job and show where they are being spent.
3 generations of my family have and are contributing to CCF general revenue. Our money should not go to others. My son played reps in Sydney. It cost me much more than here. A neice played seniors in Sydney. It cost her a lot of money. Coaches and Managers down rthere were not on the gravy train they are up here.
I am all for rep soccer and do not object to the $2 levy. However I do object in helping to pay the wages of staff who devote their time to lightning or other projects that support other facets of football anfd not the local clubs. In addition we have bailed the overspending rep clubs, whatever they are called every few years when they go defunct and we have yet again to bail them out. In view of this, if only for the levy, I believe we are all stakeholders in Lightning, and our clubs should be entitled to see the content of the strategic plan. Who is to say it may not contain provision to yet again fall back on our shoulders to bail them out when they again go bust.
Lightning should beside the $2 levy be self sufficient. Mr Director of Rep Soccer please reply and prove this is the case.