From what has been said on this blog and elsewhere, there seems to be much confusion on this subject. I am going to risk saying something here. I have noted on this blog that many will jump in to criticize but few will offer constructive ideas. It is alot easier to destroy than to build.
I see MCF as the Vison provider, MCF as the beacon that says, this is the way. The way to the goal of our first GM. I see MCF as the helmsman correcting the course if we go astray.
So if MCF determines that healthy competition is the way forward, it will set policies that guide this process. If there are rogue organisations that do not share the Vision, then it is MCF's role to guide them back to the correct path.
But there is more. I think we also need to have realistic and reasonable expectations of what MCF can and cannot do. Now remember that MCF is an NGO. The officials are not paid, their officials are elected and cannot be expected to have all the skill sets. Let me elaborate on this point.
For much of my corporate life, I acted as the deal maker and as a negotiator for construction contracts. In my experience, it is very very time consuming to learn how to navigate the corporates. It took me almost 2 years to understand how Star Cruises made decisions, who to see, how to present etc. so as not to face road blocks. So in business, this know how is highly valued. You can only see this if you have walked this path. For this same reason we look to a GM for his road map for he has walked the path.
Now let us take the First GM offer and see the possible role of academies. Is it reasonable to expect, say Greg from MCF, to get the sponsors, learn how to be a tour operator, get up the guidelines etc. etc. and not be paid? Is it even reasonable to expect him to have all the skill sets even if he was paid?
I think that expectation is unfair, very unfair. And we criticise and attack. I think MCF should focus on providing the Vision, be the Helmsman by providing guidelines. If MCF does this well we will have a direction.
The academies will provide the other services in line with that Vision. This seems reasonable to me unless of course you subscribe to the idea chess does not need money to grow. All we have to do is sit down and cry and someone will provide.
It may well be that academies can provide greater value for the same price or maybe even cheaper. That is what we are attempting. Why don't we let the evidence speak for itself instead of jumping to conclusions and putting in weird and wonderful assumptions based on our imagination. And if we fail, you have one of 2 choices, you can either say, hey you almost made it but maybe you got this part wrong. Better luck next time but good attempt and at least you tried. Or you can say, you see I was right. :)
A little like chess yes?