Latest update March 28th, 2024 12:59 AM
Oct 19, 2013 Sports
Dear Editor,
I hasten to respond to the publication of an article in K.N. (09.10.13) captioned “GFA submits application to stage Banks Beer Cup”.
Editor, before I expose the harsh but sad realities as they unfold in the “comedy of errors that continues unabatedly” in the continued under-development of the sport at the behest of the GFA Executive, may I, at this juncture enquire if Banks DIH Limited has already granted approval to sponsor this tournament.
Whereby the submission of a letter as the sponsor honoring the payments of prize monies was documented and attached with the application.
Meanwhile, with overt politicking taking centre stage which entails the National Association of Women’s Football application on behalf of the K & S Organisation, having failed to fulfill all the requirements set out by the GFF.
In the name of transparency, the application not surprisingly can be dispatched to all affiliates outlining the flaws, while the GFA’s application would be presented for clarity after consultation for rectification.
By the way, is the GFA and some Associations in good standing with the GFF? Since the absence of Youth Competitions, reflective of meaningful development is regrettably absent, but yet still the year-end tournament is being given priority, which should have been submitted to the GFF prior as part of their calendar of activities for the 2013-2014 season.
In the final analysis, with the Associations of East Bank, East Demerara, Berbice and Upper Demerara all having no level of domestic activity presently more so, at the senior level, what would be the determining factor towards ascertaining the best possible teams representing the interest of these respective Associations? With the Upper Demerara Football Association currently going through a phase of dormancy within a 2 year period along with Bartica to some extent, is the Constitutional clause-Re: “Loss of Membership /Associate Status” being contemplated?
As it relates to the utilisation of the Sharing Formula, of net gate receipts, maybe if the GFF President, Mr. Matthias wants to be honest he can offer a public explanation in relation to, “His role during the period 2000-2001, while serving as President, GFA, he had ultimately refused to accept the Sharing Formula”.
However, he rather proposed $50,000 appearance fees for the 18 participating teams, in the Annual Kashif & Shanghai K.O. At the time I was the Secretary of Fruta Conquerors and our position was “Empowering the Organisers to declare where we will find $900,000 from”! Further, our suggestion entailed 25% of the net gate receipts; 7 ½ % for each winner and 5% for each loser.
By the way, the Sharing Formula was inherent from the then GFL Administrations, which I met since in the 1980’s that was applicable to all KO Tournaments. So, in actuality it’s nothing new! Nevertheless, it would be a sad but yet still a justifiable day given all the hypocrisy and shortcomings for the K&S Organization to file an injunction to stop the GFA’s year-end Tournament, with discrimination ruling the roost in one instance and favoritism in the other!
Is the Banks year-end tournament taking precedence over development, with a promotional interest and rivalry unfolding?
Lester Sealey.
THIS IDIOT TELLING GUYANA WE HAVE NO SAY IN THE 50% PROFIT SHARING AGREEMENT WE HAVE WITH EXXON.
Mar 28, 2024
Minister Ramson challenge athletes to better last year’s performance By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – Guyana’s 23-member contingent for the CARIFTA Games in Grenada is set to depart the...B.V. Police Station Kaieteur News – The Beterverwagting Police Station, East Coast Demerara (ECD) will be reconstructed... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – In the face of escalating global environmental challenges, water scarcity and... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]