europa cups

von K. wrote:
The Council was created to prevent the game from separating into two sides. Anyone who wasn't in Rain can have a very hard time understanding the situation there.

The Council will work for current BoD as an easy way of buying time. The BoD will never let you take any decisions, if they do not agree. They will just by-pass you. They do not take you seriously and you know why? Because they know you do not dare. When you had the chance to overthrow them in Rain, you made a compromise, accepting the formation of a council which is absolutely out of FISTF statuses.

If you think you have the guts, first thing to discuss in Council must be the exclusion of Olympia players by the illegal (according to the court decision) BoD of PATFAP. A perfect example for everyone to see and understand how wrong BoD people think about the development of the game. And then you will see how seriously your opinion is taken by FISTF BoD.

A bet?

drastis wrote:

von K. wrote:
The Council was created to prevent the game from separating into two sides. Anyone who wasn't in Rain can have a very hard time understanding the situation there.

The Council will work for current BoD as an easy way of buying time. The BoD will never let you take any decisions, if they do not agree. They will just by-pass you. They do not take you seriously and you know why? Because they know you do not dare. When you had the chance to overthrow them in Rain, you made a compromise, accepting the formation of a council which is absolutely out of FISTF statuses.

I was the one suggesting the Council in Rain. The reason was political. With an election with Coppenolle and Catania against each other, it was clear ita would only separate the FISTF for good. The tension and the situation were very unpleasant. I was astonished about many things in the Congress. This is the reason to the suggestion. It has got nothing to do with supporting the board, that didn't even allow itself to be given a vote of confidence, which was asked at least by Germany and Finland.

Many persons I spoke to in Rain told me that if the Council doesn't work like discussed in Rain, Extra Congress will be asked. The view of finnish federation is very clear on this.

drastis wrote:If you think you have the guts, first thing to discuss in Council must be the exclusion of Olympia players by the illegal (according to the court decision) BoD of PATFAP.

You'll see.

drastis wrote:A bet?

I bet only that sparks will fly...

drastis wrote:If you think you have the guts, first thing to discuss in Council must be the exclusion of Olympia players by the illegal (according to the court decision) BoD of PATFAP. A perfect example for everyone to see and understand how wrong BoD people think about the development of the game. And then you will see how seriously your opinion is taken by FISTF BoD.

A bet?

The exclusion of Olympia players is not a FISTF decision anyway !!

OK, so the Council discusses this and says to the BoD that we must help Olympia. So the BoD says to PATFAP you must not exclude Olympia players. If PATFAP takes no action, then the natural action is to suspend the Greek association and all players completely. Is this better or worse than the current situation ?

Martin Hodds wrote:

drastis wrote:If you think you have the guts, first thing to discuss in Council must be the exclusion of Olympia players by the illegal (according to the court decision) BoD of PATFAP. A perfect example for everyone to see and understand how wrong BoD people think about the development of the game. And then you will see how seriously your opinion is taken by FISTF BoD.

A bet?

The exclusion of Olympia players is not a FISTF decision anyway !!

OK, so the Council discusses this and says to the BoD that we must help Olympia. So the BoD says to PATFAP you must not exclude Olympia players. If PATFAP takes no action, then the natural action is to suspend the Greek association and all players completely. Is this better or worse than the current situation ?

It's possible also to suspend the association until the final court verdict. If a board has been found guilty in court, the decision would only be normal.

For that time the players would then be provided with a FISTF license. This sort of license would be useful also in countries without a federation, or for players with problems in their country etc. So this would be useful for the Olympia issue anyway.

People should be incouraged to play by making it easy, and making creative solutions in case of problems.

There are many solutions if there is the will.

That's exactly the reason for this kind of licence.
Those teams and players playing with FISTF licence can't play the EC or WC as long as they don't qualify over the WR. Those players also shouldn't be able to play in the national team of their country.

before doing this we need the full member lists of all existing associations (legal or officially recognized). in those countries where no association is existing FISTF needs to give FISTF licences.

Heinz

von K. wrote:

Martin Hodds wrote:

drastis wrote:If you think you have the guts, first thing to discuss in Council must be the exclusion of Olympia players by the illegal (according to the court decision) BoD of PATFAP. A perfect example for everyone to see and understand how wrong BoD people think about the development of the game. And then you will see how seriously your opinion is taken by FISTF BoD.

A bet?

The exclusion of Olympia players is not a FISTF decision anyway !!

OK, so the Council discusses this and says to the BoD that we must help Olympia. So the BoD says to PATFAP you must not exclude Olympia players. If PATFAP takes no action, then the natural action is to suspend the Greek association and all players completely. Is this better or worse than the current situation ?

It's possible also to suspend the association until the final court verdict. If a board has been found guilty in court, the decision would only be normal.

For that time the players would then be provided with a FISTF license. This sort of license would be useful also in countries without a federation, or for players with problems in their country etc. So this would be useful for the Olympia issue anyway.

People should be incouraged to play by making it easy, and making creative solutions in case of problems.

There are many solutions if there is the will.

Did you hear something from the board against the decision of the greek organizer?

Heinz

Martin Hodds wrote:

drastis wrote:If you think you have the guts, first thing to discuss in Council must be the exclusion of Olympia players by the illegal (according to the court decision) BoD of PATFAP. A perfect example for everyone to see and understand how wrong BoD people think about the development of the game. And then you will see how seriously your opinion is taken by FISTF BoD.

A bet?

The exclusion of Olympia players is not a FISTF decision anyway !!

OK, so the Council discusses this and says to the BoD that we must help Olympia. So the BoD says to PATFAP you must not exclude Olympia players. If PATFAP takes no action, then the natural action is to suspend the Greek association and all players completely. Is this better or worse than the current situation ?

you are right by saying the word political.
look on the list, the board will be represented with at least 6 or 7 delegates in the council, so if you want to tell somebody that it will be easy to take decisions against the current board, you don't seem to verify the situation the right way.
You said the council is the only way to unit FISTF in the current situation, but in the next post you are talking about it to suspend the greek federation. Do you really think that Italy, Greece, Malta, Argentina, Gibraltar and Spain will welcome your idea?
Do you really think the council can take that decision without a conflict between representants?
The council only should decide about the players, who are not member of the association, that would be easier maybe (i even don't know if that will be so easy).

The council should start with a catalogue of questions, which should be sent to the responsible people in the board. There are many things which need to be clearified by the board.

There is a new sports director, he could answer questions about the future of the tournament system, the WR and some other things.
There is a communication director who is not communicating at the moment, the council should ask for his future plans!
The council also should ask the general secretary, what he exactly is doing for FISTF.
The financial director should be asked, how much money the board spent till january and what for they spent the money.
The council also could ask the president of FISTF, why he allows an international tournament which is not officially confirmed by FISTF and if he thinks that an organizer can ban people from FISTF tournaments without informing FISTF before.
That should be the priorities of the council together with statutes. If the answers are not satisfying, the representants should make a voting about an Extra Ordinary Congress.
The council should take the time to get facts about the status of FISTF in France too, that would be very interesting I think.

Heinz

von K. wrote:

drastis wrote:

von K. wrote:
The Council was created to prevent the game from separating into two sides. Anyone who wasn't in Rain can have a very hard time understanding the situation there.

The Council will work for current BoD as an easy way of buying time. The BoD will never let you take any decisions, if they do not agree. They will just by-pass you. They do not take you seriously and you know why? Because they know you do not dare. When you had the chance to overthrow them in Rain, you made a compromise, accepting the formation of a council which is absolutely out of FISTF statuses.

I was the one suggesting the Council in Rain. The reason was political. With an election with Coppenolle and Catania against each other, it was clear ita would only separate the FISTF for good. The tension and the situation were very unpleasant. I was astonished about many things in the Congress. This is the reason to the suggestion. It has got nothing to do with supporting the board, that didn't even allow itself to be given a vote of confidence, which was asked at least by Germany and Finland.

Many persons I spoke to in Rain told me that if the Council doesn't work like discussed in Rain, Extra Congress will be asked. The view of finnish federation is very clear on this.

drastis wrote:If you think you have the guts, first thing to discuss in Council must be the exclusion of Olympia players by the illegal (according to the court decision) BoD of PATFAP.

You'll see.

drastis wrote:A bet?

I bet only that sparks will fly...

Back to the topic of the Europa Cup, it's totally out of logic that Malta will have 2 teams at the Europa League and 0 team at the Champions League. What a crazy situation...

absolutely, i guess rules are missing for such a case.
how can it happen that malta isn't represented in the CL but the EL? Another question the council should send to the board.
clubs shouldn't choose what competition they would like to play. first the number of starters in the CL should be full before a country can send clubs to the EL, if the maltesian champion don't travel the second ranked club has to play the CL. if they are not interested to play the CL they shouldn't be allowed to play the EL too.
The board took away one country from the most important team competition and the most important team competition now has to be played with 18 teams over 2 days (I'm really curious about to see the system). Mons is played with more than 30 teams on one day, now FISTF has to organize a tournament with 18 teams over 2 days. Sounds boring already now.
2 groups of 9? very boring 1,5 days only games of group stage. 2 groups of 5 and 2 groups of 4? how long breaks will be that the tournament will go 2 days?

Heinz

Admin wrote:Back to the topic of the Europa Cup, it's totally out of logic that Malta will have 2 teams at the Europa League and 0 team at the Champions League. What a crazy situation...

Heinz Eder wrote:Did you hear something from the board against the decision of the greek organizer?

Heinz

Martin Hodds wrote:

drastis wrote:If you think you have the guts, first thing to discuss in Council must be the exclusion of Olympia players by the illegal (according to the court decision) BoD of PATFAP. A perfect example for everyone to see and understand how wrong BoD people think about the development of the game. And then you will see how seriously your opinion is taken by FISTF BoD.

A bet?

The exclusion of Olympia players is not a FISTF decision anyway !!

OK, so the Council discusses this and says to the BoD that we must help Olympia. So the BoD says to PATFAP you must not exclude Olympia players. If PATFAP takes no action, then the natural action is to suspend the Greek association and all players completely. Is this better or worse than the current situation ?

No Heinz, I didn't hear anything from the board. I was just suggesting the likely outcome of any discussions.

Οf course is better to find a beggining for solution.
Yes FISTF MUST ban the GREEK association until it leaves all players to play in tournaments.

The exclusion of Olympia players is a FISTF decision anyway !! Because FISTF BoD decided for members but with a rule who is not active and clear. What is the difference between members and players? Of course it is not the same.

If world table soccer community close eyes in olympia's problem then maybe the next time the problem will called Yorkshire or Royal or Murcia or Perugia. FISTF must protect players and clubs by dangerous persons.

p.s.1. when FISTF ban Coppenolle then all the countries ask to change this decision. Now it is the same. They ban us because more of Olympia's players are in courts against them

p.s.2 who is responsible for international tournamrents. Fistf or Greek association? FISTF of course. And all national associations must respect the Fistf.

kechris wrote:What is the difference between members and players? Of course it is not the same.

It's complicated because it depends of the statutes of the associations. Many associations are "associations of clubs" (for instance Belgium) but at the same time, there must be rules matching the FISTF regulations so that for instance belgian players can play for foreign clubs AND are still affiliated to the belgian association. It's sometimes more complicated in "associations of players" because it means all players have the right to vote and there can be complicated situations when there are elections for instance.

kechris wrote:p.s.1. when FISTF ban Coppenolle then all the countries ask to change this decision. Now it is the same. They ban us because more of Olympia's players are in courts against them

I still haven't heard that I'm not suspended anymore...

Anyway, I don't care. If I want to play, I really wonder who will prevent me to play!

Admin wrote:
Anyway, I don't care. If I want to play, I really wonder who will prevent me to play!

Lucky you! Not the same case for others! And if we do this, then we will have a fight!
We respect the game and till now we have been GENTLEMEN (which in our case this word becomes a synonym to .. f****d!). BUT as we say in Greece "even tolerance has limits". Our limits have been reached.
We just want to play (most of us) and have fun. It is ridiculous to ask NATIONAL membership fees and ban players from INTERNATIONAL games based on this. Especially since there in no clear regulation for every FISTF member/player/association.

In my opinion the EASIEST solution would be this: Set a low membership fee for all the players in the world which will be collected first time in any tournament that a player participates for the first time. These money will go to FISTF. Then you are a registered player by FISTF.

MEMBER does NOT mean player!!! Members HAVE RIGHTS! They are not supposed just to pay memberships! For example in Greece, the Greek federation can decide not to allow non-member from playing in NATIONAL tournaments. That, I find acceptable, even though I disagree. You can lure or tempt members by saying that they will pay less in international tournaments. Members CAN VOTE. Members might use the "home of subbuteo" for free (the new greek place for everything!).

I really consider it a joke, that for probably much less than 2000 players worldwide, we consider it to be difficult to create a "database" of players, so every association has to send their members to FISTF.
As you see now with the "Olympia" case, depending on the association, problems might occur, and I bet will occur in the future!

I think the RULES should be simple and GLOBAL! The same for everyone! That's why the tournaments are called INTERNATIONAL.

You can't play in Greece but you can play anywhere else because I don't know any organizer who will prevent you to play.

FISTF has asked every nation their list of members. In some way it's good but in another way it's absolute bullshit foor a small sport/game like ours. I say that because all countries have different rules.

For instance in Belgium a player who is not a member of the association can play 1 tournament per year without paying any membership fee (2 tournaments for a new player). That's how in the tournament in Stembert for instance there were players from the Stembert area who played without being member of the the belgian association because they know it's their only tournament of the season and everybody is fine with that.

When "borned" patfap i told that the solution is only one.
Players are all who want to play table soccer. All the ages.
Members are all who wants extra than players to vote and to be candidate in elections.
Members must pay yearly fee and players must pay extra fee in tournaments 50% or 100% because they will not pay yearly fee.
So a player who play two or three tournaments per year and he interests only to play maybe he will prefer to be a simple player.
Fistf follow the same road. Two categories of associations. Full members nations and partner member nations. It is so simple solution.
Players wants points in ranking and members wants to change the future of the game.

kechris wrote:CIRCULAR N. 43 - Champions & Europa Leagues
Submitted by sc on Fri, 2010/10/01 - 9:51pm.

Champions & Europa Leagues
In a month’s time, we will be practically on the eve of the kick off of both the Champions League and
Europa League to be held in Mattersburg and Rome respectively.
Here under, one can find the list of clubs to participate in both competitions. This board is looking
forward for a very interesting competition on both cups.
I would like to ask some collaboration from your end, especially the involved Presidents and clubs. We
need urgently the logos of all the clubs, so those clubs which don’t have a YES under the coloumn logo,
please send a JPEG, PNG or BMP format of your logo by not later than Thursday 30th September 2010.

SEE ATTACHED PDF FOR LIST OF TEAMS

I am looking for about a month to find this f---- list but i cann't find.
Please can anyone of you to wake up the communication department to give the official list of both Europa cups in FISTF's site.

please the list of teams in Europa cups.

From http://fbfts-bstvb.blogspot.com/

Ligue des champions (à Mattersburg, Autriche):
The Glide, Slide, Chip & Dip club (Angleterre), Yorkshire Phoenix (Angleterre), Roligans Ilioupolis TSC (Grèce), Black & Blue Pisa (Italie), Stella Artois Milano (Italie), ACS Perugia (Italie), F.lli Bari Reggio Emilia (Italie), Eagles Napoli (Italie), TFC Mattersburg (Autriche), TFC Wiener Neustadt (Autriche), TSC Royal 78 Kaisermühlen (Autriche), Sparta Spreeathen 74/82 (Allemagne), SC Stembert (Belgique), Rochefort Tale Soccer (Belgique), AS Hennuyer (Belgique), FTC Issy (France), Real Murcia (Espagne), Turia Valencia (Espagne).

Europa League (à Rome, Italie):
NETFA Teesside (Angleterre), Pireas Lions TSC (Grèce), Atlas TFC (Grèce), Bologna Tigers (Italie), CCT Roma, CdT Urbino (Italie), CS Warriors Torino (Italie), ASD Calciotavolo Sessana 1982 (Italie), FTC Les Herbiers (France), Bormla SC (Malte), Valletta SC (Malte), Madrid total Soccer (Espagne), Tiburones Malaga (Espagne).

panagios wrote:... And apparently, since all the nations legalized the new board by sending reps in this "council of nations", the majority is ok with - at least - most of the things the new board does.

Sorry, but I have to protest. With founding the Council of Nations we gave a clear statement of mistrust against the board. And it is not the Council of Nations legalising a board.

There wasn't anybody standing up in Rain and saying: "YES, I will do the job as president!" And I tell you why: too much fields of work to be solved and cleared. Too much left from the board. But I don't let them out of their responsibility!

The council is the right way. If it fails we will have an EGM. BUT: we need alternatives!
And the legal way of throwing out the board is still possible. As Alexandre Popoff clearly stated. Who will do the first step ?

Janus Gersie

Janus_Gersie wrote:
And the legal way of throwing out the board is still possible. As Alexandre Popoff clearly stated. Who will do the first step ?

Janus Gersie

What is the first step Janus? I hope it is not "going to courts", because we have already spent enough money in Greece for lawyers, trying to get rid of the illegal (according to first degree court decision) BoD of PATFAP.

If the first step is to ask for an EGM, I am in. I am also ready to help re-organising FISTF, either as a member of a new BoD, or as an assistant to any new FISTF Director. My english is good, I am computer literate, I love the game, but unfortunately I am not a friend of the greek "president". I am sure many more people are ready to help FISTF get on its feet again, so why not calling for an EGM instead of trying to solve things with a Council that will never work?

as far as i know there were enough candidates for elections!?
Look on the last months Janus.

1. Calender
No official calender published anywhere. Associations have no information about the calender. We got 3 circulars for the EC but no official information about the calender. There are tournaments organized which are not approved by FISTF.
The communication director of FISTF didn't realize that the tournament was not in the calender, but what was decided in the end? The tournament is added in the last ranking sent out. I don't want to know the decision if that would happen in another country. With such decisions a board creates chaos, because that opens the door for everybody to organize a tournament without getting the approval by FISTF. The communication director of FISTF unfortunately showed how it works.

2. Handbook
There is no official handbook existing for the actual season. Circulars are only information, but the final step of approving those announced changes is to send a handbook with all those changes. For me there is no doubt that without a handbook all announced changes are not valid.

3. Suspention
The board suspended somebody without including the disciplinary council (you are member of that council, did you give them any notice that it is only the DC, which has to decide about such things?).

4. Europa Cup
The last circular about the EC told us that the seeding of the EC is made with the ranking of august, which is not right.
The actual edition will be played with 18 teams in 2 groups of 9 5 italian teams in 2 groups and 4 teams go through to the quarter final. How can it happen that Malta is represented with 2 teams in the EL but no team in CL?

5. Communication
There is no homepage existing with satisfying information about the sport. The tournament results are not available. There was a red card at the World Cup, and the chairman of the DC even don't know anything about it.

Without attacking somebody personal, but I think those people are overcharged with their job and they didn't have only one look in the handbook, otherwise I can't explain mistakes like the one with the last EC circular. Of course it was a small mistake, but it wouldn't need to happen, if somebody would try to work professional and first check the facts before sending out a circular with wrong information. A board isn't allowed to do things like they want, there are rules, they have to respect. Changing rules when needing it isn't the job of a board.
I don't complain about the changes because the opinion about those changes are personally, but the board has to implement those things the right way. I don't want to check 25 circulars before knowing what has to be done. I want one document where I can read all those things.

Heinz

Janus_Gersie wrote:

panagios wrote:... And apparently, since all the nations legalized the new board by sending reps in this "council of nations", the majority is ok with - at least - most of the things the new board does.

Sorry, but I have to protest. With founding the Council of Nations we gave a clear statement of mistrust against the board. And it is not the Council of Nations legalising a board.

There wasn't anybody standing up in Rain and saying: "YES, I will do the job as president!" And I tell you why: too much fields of work to be solved and cleared. Too much left from the board. But I don't let them out of their responsibility!

The council is the right way. If it fails we will have an EGM. BUT: we need alternatives!
And the legal way of throwing out the board is still possible. As Alexandre Popoff clearly stated. Who will do the first step ?

Janus Gersie

Heinz is 100% right.

One more thing: we have a new sports director but even the decisions about sports are signed by the President (!!!!). It's all ridiculous!

Heinz Eder wrote:as far as i know there were enough candidates for elections!?

Who were the candidates Heinz ?? I was there and I didn't see any !

Janus_Gersie wrote:There wasn't anybody standing up in Rain and saying: "YES, I will do the job as president!"

Correct.

Martin Hodds wrote:

Heinz Eder wrote:as far as i know there were enough candidates for elections!?

Who were the candidates Heinz ?? I was there and I didn't see any !
I was there, Vincent Coppenolle was there, Fred Vulpes was there and Chris Aggelinas (wanted to be candidate as Sports Director) was there. And Janus was also candidate for a job in FISTF BoD plus the current one´s.

Janus_Gersie wrote:There wasn't anybody standing up in Rain and saying: "YES, I will do the job as president!"

Correct.It´s an unfair opinion, because the circumstances were not fair, too. Vincent was the one who said "YES", but he was in a tricky way santioned. Gentlemen, where is the Circular saying this santion is no longer valid?

Thossa, all those people were there, but I never heard any of them say they wanted to be president.

Martin Hodds wrote:Thossa, all those people were there, but I never heard any of them say they wanted to be president.

Of course not, because only Vincent was the one who was nominated a candidate for the job as president. And you know very well how tricky it was to bring him into the room....