Extraordinary Congress

pierocapponi wrote:If so, I would swear that your board has always respected the rules?

Sincerely, yes. We were not perfect but we tried to respect the basic rules of ethics.

pierocapponi wrote:We are talking about the past, but no one explains how we came out of this situation.

Just because a few people "who are of course intelligent, perfect and soooooo professional" believe they can make table football "professional". The main problem is that these people don't know the history of the game, the history of FISTF, the needs of the players. I believe 99% of players don't care about change the rule of the goalkeeper but they want a newsletter, informations about tournament, a proper circuit. That's the ultimate priority and that's why FITF exists. The rest is just a bunch of details. And the problem is that people like Catania, you, Koutromanos, De Francesco,... concentrate on details and not on the priorities, which is a huge mistake.

Piero, you think I broke an administrative rule when I was sports director, please give me an example?
I can't answer how we come out of the current situation, maybe the CoN should take time to find a team for elections, one more time it could be an important part for the CoN, the same as the statutes could have been, i hope they manage it better this time.

pierocapponi wrote:Vincent, you read what you wrote Lorenzo?

Not true?

Heinz, the same speech is worth all the board, also for the board where you or were you not?

If so, I would swear that your board has always respected the rules?

We are talking about the past, but no one explains how we came out of this situation.

Voting? ok, but to whom?

I would agree on the direction to make it more professional, BUT only when the rest is still working in a proper way, which is not the case actually.

Admin wrote:

pierocapponi wrote:If so, I would swear that your board has always respected the rules?

Sincerely, yes. We were not perfect but we tried to respect the basic rules of ethics.

pierocapponi wrote:We are talking about the past, but no one explains how we came out of this situation.

Just because a few people "who are of course intelligent, perfect and soooooo professional" believe they can make table football "professional". The main problem is that these people don't know the history of the game, the history of FISTF, the needs of the players. I believe 99% of players don't care about change the rule of the goalkeeper but they want a newsletter, informations about tournament, a proper circuit. That's the ultimate priority and that's why FITF exists. The rest is just a bunch of details. And the problem is that people like Catania, you, Koutromanos, De Francesco,... concentrate on details and not on the priorities, which is a huge mistake.

So much writing about what? Professionalism and bullshit!

There is NOTHING professional in destroying the communication and sports departments of FISTF in less than a few months. NOTHING professional in having half of the BoD members resigned in less than half a year. NOTHING professional in banning the former president and abolishing elections. NOTHING professional in forbidding players to play.

A bunch of AMATEURS, that's what the "provisional" BoD are.

PS: Piero, please reconsider your opinion. It does not honour you to become the supporter of a person who has caused so much trouble, just because you were offered an invitation and hospitality. Regarding justice, please wait for a few more days before you express any comment.

Stop dividing people into professionals and amateurs.
Profis are the ones that make a living out of doing something. Therefore, only the manufacturers of equipment can be considered profis.
Amateurs are all the rest. It is not bad to be an amateur, it is not evil to be a profi. My opinion is that the those with econimic interest should be the ones to do the promotion etc.

The only problem with some - few - people is that they do not respect the laws. Nothing more, nothing less. This is why every organization should be shielded against such ambitions.

Hi lads... I am just a player, I have little playing and no managing experience, and I am not qualified to assess rights and wrongs of this situation.

If I may add a personal note, I am a bit amazed to see so many people being so firmly convinced about their own reasons , both here and on the Italian forum. I am full of doubts all the time .

My one point is this: if FISTF must stand a chance, somebody should start making practical proposals. Maybe my previous suggestion was not acceptable. If you think so, why don't you try to work out a different framework, some kind of compromise that can be discussed on a do-ut-des basis?

PS: Heinz, I didn't want to be divisive. It was just a slip of tongue.

Lorenzo, we have a CoN, if you want it is simular to a durable congress, the representatives in that CoN are the same people who will vote for their country at the Congress or an EGM.
The same way the board couldn't overrule an agreement of new statutes in the CoN, the board couldn't do anything, if the CoN would find an agreement about a new board and ask for elections.
The CoN should find an agreement for a team, then contact the people to ask them, if they want to be candidate. When they found the team and the involved people agree on it to build a board together, the CoN could ask for an EGM.
In combination with new statutes that would be nearly a dream for me. Now it looks only overhasty by the CoN to get rid of the actual board, but without a plan for the time after, that's what you can read out of Piero's post. Spain called for that meeting, but Piero don't seem to know what should happen there!?
It is also very strange to call for elections before knowing names to replace the current board members!
Why should it be done easy, if it could be done difficult too!?
Anyway I don't have to understand anything decided by others or maybe my level of information is so poor, that my post is nonsense anyway

Lorenzo wrote:Hi lads... I am just a player, I have little playing and no managing experience, and I am not qualified to assess rights and wrongs of this situation.

If I may add a personal note, I am a bit amazed to see so many people being so firmly convinced about their own reasons , both here and on the Italian forum. I am full of doubts all the time .

My one point is this: if FISTF must stand a chance, somebody should start making practical proposals. Maybe my previous suggestion was not acceptable. If you think so, why don't you try to work out a different framework, some kind of compromise that can be discussed on a do-ut-des basis?

PS: Heinz, I didn't want to be divisive. It was just a slip of tongue.

Heinz, I know I do not want to present.

My responsibility was to unblock the situation and have contributed on this, nothing else.

It is incredible that anyone still thinks that I am supporting Catania.

I am supporting the search of a future. But I do not think there is an alternative that knows what to do to grow the game.

The responsibility of the names (and all of the ideas) is yours.

I've already failed. Twice.

A hug.

Piero

We must stop thinking that "we must grow". From country to country, the situation is as it is and we can't do really much. You can have the best promotion, TVs interested, exhibitions,... i there are not people who are ready to start clubs, to take care of young players, there is no development possible.

After the Europa Cup in Tournai, we had an excellent TV & press coverage in Belgium for about 2 months. I think we have about 10 new players in the whole country and, apart from 2 persons, I'm not sure we have any new players thanks to that (all others are people who played 20 years ago and who start again).

For comments like this are no longer the president of the FISTF Vincent.

A president can not help believing in growth. Never.

I never said I want to be president. To be a president "of a kingdom of idiots". No thanks...

Admin wrote:We must stop thinking that "we must grow". From country to country, the situation is as it is and we can't do really much. You can have the best promotion, TVs interested, exhibitions,... i there are not people who are ready to start clubs, to take care of young players, there is no development possible.

After the Europa Cup in Tournai, we had an excellent TV & press coverage in Belgium for about 2 months. I think we have about 10 new players in the whole country and, apart from 2 persons, I'm not sure we have any new players thanks to that (all others are people who played 20 years ago and who start again).

Quite an answer. From an intellectual point of view I tend to agree with Vincent, but really, I can't help but sympathize with Stefano's and Piero's commitment, and be supportive of their efforts.

Whatever, I feel that less time should be dedicated to personal attacks, or to stress the points of disagreement, and more effort devoted to look for a reasonable compromise. Bickering is becoming a sport in itself.

It is very clear that development in nearly all countries is running that way.
In my opinion you need press and TV all over the year every month that people get interested. Additionally I don't think that people contact a club by mail or even phone, if they are interested, they first want to buy it and play it possibly at home.
Then, if they played for a while at home they maybe make the next step and go to a club in their area, or they contact the association to build up their own club.
Somebody who calls it development to reactivate players and their children doesn't know what he is talking about, sorry.
Development is for me, if people who are not known get interested in table soccer and start playing. Something like that is very difficult in our current situation, but we can see what is possible in countries where the situation changed. There are people who are doing a great job. I think there are enough people in every country who could do a good job, but they are fed up to spend a lot of time that some players are reactivated for some months and then they stop again. We need support from producers. Currently the chance is very good after many years of silence, so the main work of every country should be to take the chance and try to start something in that direction.
The board's issue is the thing of other people, who hopefully know what FISTF needs and what they have to do. I also hope that some people don't need a job in FISTF to do something for the international federation.
If somebody has contacts to print or TV media or companies for sponsorship it shouldn't automatically mean that this person needs to be communication or marketing director in a FISTF Board. The director only has to "manage" the activities, maybe a system of commission would motivate more people to look for sponsors for FISTF. The promotion material of course has to be done by the board of FISTF.
There is a tournament on the circuit every week-end, having a good press release would maybe help to be more often represented in medias? Of course it would cost maybe some money, but if the result is ok, maybe FISTF should take the risk?
Those things in combination with starter kits available in a world wide shop would be a good plan of development for FISTF. If FISTF grows the countries grow too.

Heinz

Lorenzo wrote:

Admin wrote:We must stop thinking that "we must grow". From country to country, the situation is as it is and we can't do really much. You can have the best promotion, TVs interested, exhibitions,... i there are not people who are ready to start clubs, to take care of young players, there is no development possible.

After the Europa Cup in Tournai, we had an excellent TV & press coverage in Belgium for about 2 months. I think we have about 10 new players in the whole country and, apart from 2 persons, I'm not sure we have any new players thanks to that (all others are people who played 20 years ago and who start again).

Quite an answer. From an intellectual point of view I tend to agree with Vincent, but really, I can't help but sympathize with Stefano's and Piero's commitment, and be supportive of their efforts.

Whatever, I feel that less time should be dedicated to personal attacks, or to stress the points of disagreement, and more effort devoted to look for a reasonable compromise. Bickering is becoming a sport in itself.

Southern and Northern...
Proffesionals and Amateurs...
Good guys and Bad guys...
Clevers and Fools...
Simple players and Political players...

All these comments are racistic or funny?
All you are talking for new ideas but i haven't see other new realistic ideas in this forum.

If table soccer die everybody will loose a hobby.
But Pierro you will loose more.
So please think more who can protect the future of table soccer.

You came in Greece and you saw someone who spend many money for a luxury hall with new expensive tables but without players. Three kilometers (15 minutes away 5euros with taxi) away you could see a simple hall with new but simple tables but with MANY players more of them are newcomers. A club with dark red shirts with "total soccer" sponsor.
In Olympia we spend love and time no money for to find new players. 2007 we were 8. 2008 we were 15. 2009 we were 21. 2010 we were 26. ONLY WITH ONE TRANSFER. THE OTHER ARE NEWCOMERS. YOU SAW THEM IN MADRID LAST WEEK!!!
Every wendesday and saturday the 8 tables are full from 18.00 until 02.00. Many players by other clubs. YES you can ask to check it. So please if you really want in future international tournaments with more more more people take your decisions using the brain the heart and no the wallet.
No more "big" words but "big" acts.

Thank you.

I am just worried about one topic:

Eight countries asked for an EGM and we still have no answer from the board. The circular calling for a "meeting" in Athens was no answer to the request because due to the statutes the EGM must be held within three months.

If we don't get an answer we have to press the board by a lawyer.

I will put some money on the table for hiring a lawyer. Who is going with me ?

Janus Gersie

My wife is a lawyer. We can solve for free. but I hope not required.

Also, legally, I think the last board recognized by the French law is that of Garnier, 1994 ..... but that is another issue .....


(Kostas, from 11 am to 16 pm on Saturday. in that room you say, i was sitting with George Papas to talk about the Christmas season in Greece and the programming of 2011.

I remember it was played, Total Soccer Christmas Cup.

I do not think I have to explain the dynamics of companies.

Thing is that I think you know perfectly.

I'll explain only for respect. I do not think has much to do with this discussion.)

pierocapponi wrote: Also, legally, I think the last board recognized by the French law is that of Garnier, 1994 ..... but that is another issue .....

This is another lie from Laurent Garnier. All Heinz, Thosse, Fred and Collins can say it's not true. Alex Popoff also made the search and saw everything was OK. But th fact that the "hq" of FISTF was changed from a place to another place in France right after the elections of january might be another reason to see what things are done in an unproper way...

This is good news.

The biggest problem at the moment is the illegality of Catania's group. This is why the EGM must be held as soon as possible. A caretaker board, that would only do administration until a good solution is found, would be much better.

Heinz, I've seen the starting steps of the CoN. It will never happen there, that a team that is supported by all, will come from there. They also don't have the personnel for that. Remember what I told you about the time limitations people in the CoN have.

Once the election date is official, and we know it will not be cancelled again, I'm positive that people will stand up with their ideas.

pierocapponi wrote:
It is incredible that anyone still thinks that I am supporting Catania.

I am supporting the search of a future. But I do not think there is an alternative that knows what to do to grow the game.

If there would be confirmed elections, I'm sure people would come forward with their ideas and candidacies. It's all wasted time until the elections have been officialised. No one wants to waste time for nothing.

I'm happy that you are not supporting Catania. But if you think he is the best there is, then I'm unhappy, because then you don't respect the rules of FISTF (he broke them many times).

pierocapponi wrote: I've already failed. Twice.

I'm sure you can come up with good names from Italy and Spain. At least for contributing to the work after the elections.

Heinz Eder wrote:I never said that Catania is a dictator, I don't think he takes most decisions on his own, but he is the one who publish them and he is president.

von K. wrote:Piero, you said Catania will not be the only dictator in the EGM. Writing this contradicts very much that you say you agree on with Heinz. I'm really puzzled.

A misunderstanding on my part. I thought Piero meant someone other than the board members.

Many problems come from misunderstandings. It really is hard to get the correct tone when writing a foreign language you don't know so well. With a translator it's also impossible.

pierocapponi wrote:
(Kostas, from 11 am to 16 pm on Saturday. in that room you say, i was sitting with George Papas to talk about the Christmas season in Greece and the programming of 2011.

Of course Pierro job is first. I respect this. But after meeting you could spend half an hour to see and to hear another view of table soccer. Never mind another time.

Dear Janus the times for money are difficult in Greece. But i spent many money for Greek courts i feel responsible to spend moneys for solving the problem of FISTF. Please tell me in prive message how will cost the lawyer. I think i can find one more person who can help with few moneys.

Happy new year.

Hi Pierro, I want to wish you a happy new year.
It is your personal decision who you support or who you don't support. The only wish I have, is that board members are evaluated on facts and not on personal matters.

Heinz

pierocapponi wrote:Heinz, I know I do not want to present.

My responsibility was to unblock the situation and have contributed on this, nothing else.

It is incredible that anyone still thinks that I am supporting Catania.

I am supporting the search of a future. But I do not think there is an alternative that knows what to do to grow the game.

The responsibility of the names (and all of the ideas) is yours.

I've already failed. Twice.

A hug.

Piero

Ok, wrong from my end, a team supported by the majority of the CoN.
I can't understand why people are doing something they can't spend time on. If the only reason of forming that CoN was to call for an EGM, it missed my expectance.

von K. wrote:The biggest problem at the moment is the illegality of Catania's group. This is why the EGM must be held as soon as possible. A caretaker board, that would only do administration until a good solution is found, would be much better.

Heinz, I've seen the starting steps of the CoN. It will never happen there, that a team that is supported by all, will come from there. They also don't have the personnel for that. Remember what I told you about the time limitations people in the CoN have.

Happy new year to you, too, Heinz!

This explains the problem with the CoN. For example you don't know what were the basic thoughts when creating the CoN. I don't blame you for not knowing. It's a question of mr. Catania "giving us the CoN", but conveniently forgetting to set any guidelines or information for its work.

In short:
- the idea of the CoN was brought up, because we did not have elections in Rain
- the idea of the CoN was to have information and control of what the BoD is doing
- the idea was that the CoN would be an easier solution than the EGM to control the BoD in controversial decisions, and it would represent the nations of the EGM
- the idea was that the CoN would approve the bigger decisions after the BoD present them to the CoN
- the CoN woould not need more than 2 weeks per decision, because it was supposed to have only short comments and discussions about the matters
- the time the members of the CoN were supposed to need, was very little. This way the people who don't have time to be BoD members could also participate
- there could be some bigger discussions for the CoN, like the statutes, but also here the BoD should have made a proposal for the CoN to comment, and then possibly the CoN would ask the BoD to make changes, and then this new proposal would be done again
- the CoN was not supposed to be the work horse on other things than the possible problems caused by the BoD, or not fixed by the BoD

- the reality is a disaster which contradicts all these basic ideas
- the reality is that some members of the CoN have a lot of time for it, and some have what was discussed, very little
- this difference of possible time to use, and much too big discussions to have, means the CoN can't do many things properly

With hindsight it was a utopia, which would only work if the BoD would act legally, and if the nations appoint good persons for it (not necessarily those with time, but those with a will to do good for the FISTF and with faith in the CoN).

I would not bury the CoN after EGM. I would clarify the whole structure of the FISTF decision-making. This way the CoN would have its work clear.

Heinz Eder wrote:Ok, wrong from my end, a team supported by the majority of the CoN.
I can't understand why people are doing something they can't spend time on. If the only reason of forming that CoN was to call for an EGM, it missed my expectance.

von K. wrote:The biggest problem at the moment is the illegality of Catania's group. This is why the EGM must be held as soon as possible. A caretaker board, that would only do administration until a good solution is found, would be much better.

Heinz, I've seen the starting steps of the CoN. It will never happen there, that a team that is supported by all, will come from there. They also don't have the personnel for that. Remember what I told you about the time limitations people in the CoN have.

of course I can't know the basic idea of having a CoN, but in my opinion there happened a mistake in the way of thinking.
If the CoN should approve decisions done by the board, they need a lot of time for that work. Imagine the sports department decides to make a new set of rules. If the CoN wants to take its work honestly, it costs a lot of time to build an opinion about changes like that.
If the board would decide to make new statutes, and the CoN only gets a final approve, this could cost a lot of time for nothing too.
If the board "only" has to bring an approval, because the members of the CoN don't have enough time to work actively, and the CoN says no, the board needs to do another one (that game could continue for more than once).
Especially in case of the statutes the CoN needs to be implemented in the work, so it is a lot of work, anything else would cost the board a lot of time. Only because of being board member it doesn't mean that the members of the board have more time, maybe they have a better time management, but if I would be in the board and work on statutes and then the CoN would tell me after weeks of work, that they don't like it, and I should think about a new set, I wouldn't be happy about the spent time too.
We don't need a CoN only to say yes or no to ideas of the BoD, if that's the idea, it is not good. In my opinion the discussions have to happen on a totally different level. I don't like people saying blind yes to everything or saying automatically no to everything, because it is the idea of a person somebody likes or doesn't like. That's one of the biggest problems we currently have. There is no will to listen to the other one and try to understand another opinion.
The CoN should be an instrument to find together again, so there could happen longer discussions too, I prefer it to spend some more time in discussions and have a better result for everyone, than only try to build a simple majority without considering the opinion of those who are not part of that majority. That's the reason why I always preferred a 2/3 majority for CoN's or sports commission's decisions. That would mean more discussions and if 2/3 agreed, it is maybe easier for the other 1/3 to understand that they seem to be wrong with their opinion in that topic.
Anyway as I see I had a totally different expectance from that CoN, and in the end it shows one more time that the CoN was only a consense that nobody lost his face in Rain.

Heinz

von K. wrote:
In short:
- the idea of the CoN was brought up, because we did not have elections in Rain
- the idea of the CoN was to have information and control of what the BoD is doing
- the idea was that the CoN would be an easier solution than the EGM to control the BoD in controversial decisions, and it would represent the nations of the EGM
- the idea was that the CoN would approve the bigger decisions after the BoD present them to the CoN
- the CoN woould not need more than 2 weeks per decision, because it was supposed to have only short comments and discussions about the matters
- the time the members of the CoN were supposed to need, was very little. This way the people who don't have time to be BoD members could also participate
- there could be some bigger discussions for the CoN, like the statutes, but also here the BoD should have made a proposal for the CoN to comment, and then possibly the CoN would ask the BoD to make changes, and then this new proposal would be done again
- the CoN was not supposed to be the work horse on other things than the possible problems caused by the BoD, or not fixed by the BoD

- the reality is a disaster which contradicts all these basic ideas
- the reality is that some members of the CoN have a lot of time for it, and some have what was discussed, very little
- this difference of possible time to use, and much too big discussions to have, means the CoN can't do many things properly

I agree that the whole structure of work must be thought through again.

But I'm still sure that doing things as was the idea (that I got from all the discussions) and respecting that, it would have worked.

We can never find enough intelligent people to do as much work as the BoD would have to do. That is why CoN can't be implemented in the planning and creating of the proposals.

This does not mean it will be just yes or no. The CoN should of course comment what they don't agree with on the proposal.

I take an example from a democratic government. They have the work cut to smaller pieces, and more steps. All sorts of expert panels and commissions, then finally the vote of the parliament.

A CoN can never be as good as an expert panel or commission that is created to do the work in some areas.

The CoN is a lightweight EGM, and we don't expect the EGM people to create new proposals either. They decide on things.

So my solution would be to have a CoN "between" EGM and BoD, which means above the board, regarding the bigger decisions. Then the BoD to control and plan the work. The President should mainly be the overall manager of director's work and keep things (and personalities) working and under control. Then there would be many commissions for specific work like the statutes, the sports matters (can be divided in rules and others), promotion, overall development of FISTF and the game etc.

The starting point is of course, that we can trust those commissions to do a good job, so there would not be too much extra work, and the "no" would only mean small adjustments based on written general (not personal like "I want this") arguments declaring the problem.

This way people who are working for something, really have enough time to do it well. And this way we could really have the best people to make the work (which brings out the best proposals) for which they have expertise. For example the statutes are certainly not a playing field for everyone. For example I would not be the best suited for that work, but for example of the finns Zinga would be perfect for it.

Overall I think at least you, Heinz, and I agree that there is a need for discussion and development of decision-making and working in the FISTF.