Piero Capponi at least resigned

On behalf of the german BoD of DSTFB I only can say, the current situation is a complete mess. A FISTF-President Garnier until 2015 is totaly unacceptable and will get no support from us. We call for new elections immediately. The date at the Major in Belgium is ok.

Next weekend at their expensive meeting in Athens the BoD have enough time to put things on a right track for new elections.

von K. wrote:
I didn't change your words. I interpreted them.

The rule was not respected, because there is nothing in the rules prohibiting score boards. But if you consider it following the rules when everything that is NOT mentioned in the handbook is NOT done, it leaves out all the extra positive things people do, and expect from tournaments of certain calibre or status.

It also seems strange to defend something that is not mentioned in handbook by the handbook, when many other things that ARE mentioned there are not done accordingly.

Just strange in my opinion, but enough of that. We clearly approach this from different directions.

Why do you try to put me in one corner? You are looking for people's mistakes. That is a valid thing, but doesn't bring us one step closer to a constructive discussion and the points which need to be changed.
FISTF needs a list with all required things for WC and EC, you need to argue with facts not with comparisons with other tournaments of the same importance or your personal feeling what is needed or not. Then we can all talk about the same. Rules are made for that reason and nothing else. The only reason is that people are different, logic is differently defined like some other things too. To talk on the same base we need rules.
Again and again I say our rules are bad, I'm bored to repeat it every time.
I think it is a totally wrong menthality that people are looking if it is for their benefit to decide about good or bad, when there is nothing written down about something.
Look back to the discussions about elections in february, sometimes you will find statements that people don't agree on something, because it is not mentioned in the statutes, but it was interpreted a way by A or B. Most discussions only happend about interpretations of things which were not written down.
It never can happen that if it is for my benefit things which are not written down are valid, if it is for my disadvantage things, which are not written down are not valid. That's disposal and it happens on "both" sides and it is the most destroying factor in our community.
I hope I explained it well and you got my point.

von K. wrote:
If something is prohibited when it is done, a change (by the persons who made the illegal thing) in the rules later doesn't make it legal and acceptable. So the Major of Greece remains illegally given to Athens.

For the rest I agree that it is a matter for Congress, or other, more simple, member body. This was discussed for a long time ago already, but the people in the Board have not done anyt proposal on it. And they havent' written the new statutes as also was promised.

Why is it illegal still now? The only illegal thing is changed to make it legal. Everybody can apply for a Major, in this point the only problem is that FISTF isn't very flexible. For an example it wouldn't even be possible to organize a Major in another city in Belgium, if you read the handbook very carefully.
For me the Major in Athens isn't a problem now. If I remember right your arguments according on that were, that it has nothing to do with Greece, at that time it only wasn't allowed by the handbook now it is and you still say, Greece shouldn't have a Major.
According on you Greece shouldn't ever get a Major as long as this board is working, because they decided illegal about it last year?
Who should be against it now that Greece should have a Major?
Shouldn't the sports department decide about that?
Are there any valid reasons now, why it shouldn't be a Major?

It was illegally given ok formally they should send their application again now, after the handbook was changed, but in the end I don't think it should change the fact, that Greece now has a Major.

von K. wrote:
The benefit of FISTF should be clear in the statutes and other documents ruling what FISTF is. Decisions must be based on that, and not on 1 or 2 countries juniors or holidays.

I mean that big decisions don't need to be done in Congress, but they need to be done openly, have open discussion about them (at least with members) before deciding, and they have to be done without challengeability of the persons deciding.

If you decide to change the venue and the date of the biggest event in FISTF year, you can't do it behind closed doors, without explaining why, and by doing benefit to your own country and harming other countries, and thus harming also FISTF. It was, as facts show, a decision that harmed FISTF (the smallest number of participants for many years) and it was clear to many members from the start. By asking and discussing the BoD would have had the knowledge. And unofficially they also did have it from forums. But they volunterily and knowingly chose to harm FISTF.

Could you show me the chapter where it is exactly written down in the statutes when and what has to be the benefit that act A or act B can be done regulary?
Benefit is a nice word, but you won't find any definition in our statutes or in our handbook. It is always a subjective opinion of people. If the rules would exist, then this would exactly be a decision which should have to be taken by all members of FISTF.
As long as they don't exist, you can't say that they have done something against the statutes or any rule of FISTF, that's the point.
Morally is also such an expression without any common and agreed definition by everybody. For one it is morally for another it is not.
Who is right, and who is wrong?
To find that out so much time and discussions had been spent, this time should be used for other things which brings us more forward.

von K. wrote:
Now you clearly misread me. I wrote transparency. This means every reason for controversial decisions have to be open. And they have to be water-proof. For this purpose a wider field of people, from many countries and different "schools/sects", are needed to take part of the groundwork of those decisions. And this means listening to and involving also those who disagree, and finding compromises that no one loves but all can live with.

This way you also have also ready and argumentated answers when critics arrive.

The current state of FISTF needs this, although I think it's ridiculous to need tools usually used in politics, to govern such a small sport/hobby.

I don't have any intention of burn-out because of defending FISTF decisions. If I would be involved in FISTF, it would only be, if a system involving enough people could be created.

I hope that somebody will find enough people, who are able to find compromises.

von K. wrote:
Believe me, that was the reason that was given in the italian forum. So it's not about thinking what it was about. It's about reading it from the persons responsible. Or did you see another reason somewhere?

Why change to Palermo was never cleared (to my knowledge) even there, despite many questions by many italians. Perhaps some important person wanted it there, who knows...

The school year is of course different in different countries. But in FISTF you should definitely find an accepted compromise and not change to benefit yourself.

The disadvantage of prices is a clear disadvantage, too, that was not considered, and affected the tournament a lot.

But has anyone any real reasons for the change that actually had any positive effect and where considered from the view of all countries? Thought so...

The World Cup also shouldn't be given to a member, but to a clear location which is presented in the application. It can't be so that a BoD gives a World Cup to a luxury palace with great connections and cheap prices, and then it's changed to a completely different place.

In the end I think the members should accept all changes, and also the first decision, to give an approval on the big decision, and to end all unnecessary rumours.

Do you know anything about the internal rules of the italian federation? With what you write here you say nothing else than that the structure of the italian federation has to be changed. Hard words from an "outsider" don't you think?
Of course you can say, you don't agree on it, but you can't tell them they were not allowed to take that decision, because as I said, I'm pretty sure you don't know the internal regulations of the FISCT. In my opinion what you wrote is not based on any fact, except the voices you read on the italian forum.
From the side of FISTF it was allowed to change the city, that's the fact.

von K. wrote:
I'm not sure, but I don't think I wrote that this was the worst EC. I wrote that the hype was about a Super EC, and they delivered an ok EC. Ok EC is something ok, not bad, but also nothing special. i have no knowledge of the standards of the EC, so I can't say this was worst. I just read what is written, see the promises, the hype, see the videos (with italian as the only spoken language, that I heard, didn't watch through all of it, but jumped), see the comments etc.

What I wanted to say is what you agree on. It was disappointing gafter the promises given. Which is, in fact, why also the BoD has failed so badly in my opinion. The promises and the talks are not connecting with the reality. But hten again, I commented already in the old FISTF forum before Frankfurt that the PDF of Catania's lot was full of nothing concrete and just posh sales jargon.

Ok, you didn't write it, but you said it must have been a bad one, after what you heard. With sales jargon everybody wins elections in that world. People only win elections when they say what voters want to hear. Some are more talented and bring different opinions under one roof to gain more votes, others only concentrate on the majority and don't care about the rest.

von K. wrote:
Ok, maybe I'm not making the distinction always correctly. But organiser Marco Pinausi is, in my knowledge, in the FISTF "team" of SdF. The location was clearly chosen by FISTF to show how italians organise a tournament. And the promises and talk made by FISTF where not contradicted by the organiser at any point.

I don't want to underestimate the work of Marco Pinausi. He clearly did a huge job.

FISTF asked for application and became the one of Marco Pinausi for Slovenia. Marco did everything I would ask from an organizer in my opinion (except of the scoreboards).
The only mistake in my opinion was done by the CM, when they decided a silver cup against what is written down in the latest version of the handbook.

von K. wrote:
Ok, but you also wrote that these boards have done positive things. If maintaining, in many ways not even at the same level, some basic things is enough to judge them positive, then ok. For me it is not enough. I can't remember any positive new or clearly developed things added by these boards.

I didn't judge anything positive or negative, I only said, what i would like to see continued by another board too.
In my opinion a clear view is needed, a fair view is needed, discussion based on facts is needed.
I wouldn't agree on it to throw everything away and start again in january 2010. that's all. in some areas of FISTF we are still on the same level of january 2010 in others we are not.
The most important thing wasn't started yet unfortunately.

I don't want to start a talk about how immoral and insulting towards Table Football Community was the election of Capponi and co in Madrid. But, I feel I need to answer at least the following comments of Lorenzo.

Lorenzo wrote:People like Garnier and Kutroumanos were only integrated in the board out of electoral reasons. As far as I know, they disappeared shortly thereafter and the Board was reduced to a two-men status.

Lorenzo, I was the other candidate for the post of the General Secretary if you remember. I was not voted because the winner block had to secure the French and the "Argentinian" votes. EVERYBODY knew that Garnier would disappear the next day of the election, but still they voted for him... Also, EVERYBODY knew about Koutroumanos and his well-known competency, in his previous post as communication director. So, WHO was suprised???

Lorenzo wrote:On another topic, it is my (faulty?) understanding that the Greek issue was assuaged – if not fully disentangled – by the Board’s strong-willed approach. Not everybody was delighted, and perhaps Koutroumanos was unduly favoured, but the earlier scism situation seems to have been overcome.

Your understanding is certainly faulty. Greek players could not oppose that "strong-willed" approach of FISTF BoD gang and they bowed their heads and accepted their fate.

Thanks for bearing with me.

Someone able to copy/paste Garnier's letter which is available at SN forum?