2011 FISTF Champions League and Europa League?

Heinz Eder wrote:

von K. wrote:

Heinz Eder wrote:
You have to allow weak players to play against the strong players if they wish to.

Yes, sometimes. But not in almost all competitions, as it is now. The semi-professional section of players and the promotion side of the game also need tournaments for only the top players. Like in all real sports.

Yes sometimes isn't a clear answer too for me. When do you want to allow players to play against the semi-professionals and when don't you want to allow it? Don't you think the players should choose when they want to play against the semi-pros?
Where is the difference to the current system? We have events for semi-professional players, where also some others CAN play, and we have events where most of the semi-professional players are not allowed to take part.

What tournaments at the moment are only for the semi-professionals? I'm not sure, but they are not so many. Instead a beginner has almost every week a tournament where he can play against the best in the world. It can't be the idea.

It's the same as in football a finnish amateur football team from 7th division could play every week against the champions of European big leagues. But the big teams would only have the CL to play without the amateurs.

Why should the weaker players have the possibility to choose more than the best players?

So more balance is needed. To find the right answers, right questions must be asked. Starting from the basic question: What is the reason to play competitions? Many answers to that depending on players and levels, of course.

So it's a very complicated issue, that is not solved with one or two small changes, and with random discussions. It needs a working group that has an open mind and clear working system.

Heinz Eder wrote:

von K. wrote:

Heinz Eder wrote:You have to find a rule that doesn't allow players like Bom to play a Challenger in Open category for an example.

Again I have to say a ranking based on the ELO system or similar is the answer. Of course if a player doesn't play for a year or two, he drops in ranking and can play easier tournaments. But it's an exception and happens also in for example tennis. Although in tennis, I think, for example injuries are taken into consideration, so that a player doesn't drop as much as just by losing always.

Why is the ELO ranking the answer? The ELO ranking is only better because you get more points if you win against a much better ranked player. Maybe I didn't understand the system the right way?

2 GP tournaments with 24 players. 1 player (ranked 75) participates in both. One with top 23 of the WR, the other with all other players below 100. In ELO the first is worth more for the ranking than the other. At the moment the winner of the second gets more points than the 2nd best player in the world in the other. For the player ranked 75 the first means probably full points, and the other minimum points.

I'm not saying ELO is the best, but it's better than the actual system, when we think about ranking players according to playing quality. In ELO (or it's better vesions) it's not possible to have Philippe Hipfinger inside the top 16 or Martin Hodds inside the top 30 players, or a finnish player inside the top 70, or an active englishman in nr. 187 without ever winning a game in a group. No offense to them, but a ranking should rank players according to quality. That's the idea in all real sports with rankings. At the moment our ranking is completely useless especially outside 100. It tells nothing to anyone about a player's level.

Our game probably needs a modified version of ELO because we perhaps want to give some more carrots for travelling to distant tournaments.

The version of ranking can be decided after the needed questions and answers have determined what the ranking should show.

Heinz Eder wrote:

von K. wrote:
More generally there is a need for fresh way of thinking, and espeacially doing things:

The complete tournament and ranking system needs to be seen from clear table. Without the burden of the actual systems, without the burden of other games/sports systems, without the burden of fixed ideas.

Only this way it is possible to come up with the best ideas and solutions. If ideas are only modifications based on the actual system or other games/sports, they will always be limited, and they will always be done separately, without a consideration of the whole.

This doesn't exclude that the actual decisions can be done by modifying the existing. It's just the only way to bring up the best ideas and create the best solutions. When the best ideas and solutions are known, it's time to see which of them and how they can be implemented in our game.

We have to start by creating the most general questions, and answer to those. Then, in subjects needed, the questions get more specific. If more than 1 answer comes up (natural with the diversity of players and countries), we follow all those paths.

Totally right, you need to start from the scratch. Anyway, you need a total program which makes sense in every point in combination with all the other points of the program. It doesn't make sense to discuss about single points picked out of a whole program.

Yes, the final decisions have to taken considering the whole system. My idea is a little like a shape of a family tree. On top the basic question, then different smaller questions as many as needed, but sometimes none at all. And from this path the solutions fit automatically to the basic question. After this all that is needed, is to fit the big basic things together, which is not difficult.

I think we understand the idea of this work about the same way, although the concrete work is not easy to explain without images.

In short, the questions are always very simple and create simple answers. From the answer become the next simple question and so on.

Heinz Eder wrote:

von K. wrote:
A quick example:

What is the goal of the ranking?
Possible answers:
1) Rank players according to quality of play
2) Rank players according to possibility to participate

If answer A is chosen:
How to do this?
a) Giving points according to the level of players in the tournament
b) Giving points according to the amount of participating players
c) Giving points according to results against other players

Maybe A and C are worth following, and so we continue.

Point 1:
Of course you also can create a formula which considers the number of events a player plays to reach the number of points. Then you would see how "good" a player really is.
Point 2:
That shouldn't be a fact in my opinion.
Point A:
You need a formula where you consider the rankings of all players taking part in combination with the number of players. Then you will get a coefficient for the tournament. This would also be the solution for B.
Point B:
That's acutally the case. You get more points for playing a tournament with 32 players than playing a tournament with 14 players..
Point C:
Of course it is possible to consider every single result, but without software it is a lot of work.

This was just an example of the question/answer chain. The answers are not thought of. This system brings easily good solutions and can easily be used for a group (a commission) of for example 10 people. It can also be used for subjects from the size of the whole FISTF to the size of 1 rule.

You have good questions and points there, but I will not get into those now, because it was only an example without much thought.

For the ”point C” I can say, that there is software for this kind of systems. And these rating systems of course have many possibilities for modification. For example the importance of the tournament or the game could have meaning. A World Cup final between Flores and Bertelli can have more meaning for the rating than a GP group game Flores-Bertelli.

Heinz Eder wrote:
Generally we should think about it, if it makes sense to have a ranking based on 2 years, if we have every year a World Cup and Europa Cup. The qualification for those events should be based on the results of 1 year and not 2 years. In the end I currently have an advantage twice if I have a good ranking.
That this could be done we need to have 2 things first. The ranking for the qualification needs to be taken every year at the end of the same month for both events (EC and WC).

In Finland we have a system which counts the 5 best (in points) results in the national ranking (including maximum of 1 FISTF tournament), and 3 of the best from the previous year. After 1 year the points are also only worth 50%. To explain the figures, we have about 8 national ranking tournaments in a year. An example that many solutions are possible.

We arrived to that system through after 1 or 2 previous systems in 3 years had problems. This system came after long thinking of many players about the idea and the meaning of ranking (for example to our distant tournaments). The key is to ask the right questions. For a bigger and more complex scale, like FISTF, it's not possible to identify the right questions without using a simple and pragmatic template.

ok, now I understand your view according on the tournament's issue.
the ranking is a very interesting thing, but as i said i would prefer it to have a yearly ranking, if we wish to organize the WC yearly. Even if the points are reduced (the current FISTF ranking works the same way) the points earned 2 years ago are in the ranking and that ranking decides if you are qualified for the World Cup of the CURRENT season.
generally the ranking needs to be changed in my opinion too. the ideas for that are so far very good in my opinion, and the result could be somewhere in that area.
those are the things which could be done well in a sports commission like we have it now.

Do you need to quote everything ?
This way it is hard to read and understand.

if that's the only problem, i hope it is better for you now.

Luis Filipe Horta wrote:Do you need to quote everything ?
This way it is hard to read and understand.

Luis, sorry. I also quoted too much in the previous message. I didn't have time to "clean" the quotes, and they were needed, because of so many different subjects in the posts of Heinz and me.

Heinz, the World Cup could easily be every 2 years for individuals, every 2 years teams. Then the problem of ranking wouldn't be so big for it. This way also the World Cup would have more prestige, like in football or olympics. If those would be every year or even every 2 years, the prestige and the magic would disappear.

But I too prefer a version where the last year is at least more important than the one before that. I think we came up with the 50% from tennis.

We'll see if the Sports Department will do something with the ranking (there are also many things waiting). It's possible, but it's also possible that it could be left until after the EGM.

Maybe we could say something like this for the Open category:
- Majors can be played only by the top 200 players in the world (maybe + X wild-cards?). The organizers of Majors must have a 2nd Open category for other players (because some people travel for the team event and it would be a shame not to give them more games while some of their teamates are playing the main individual event).
- Grand Prix can be played only by the top 300 players in the world (maybe + X wild-cards?). (same idea with a 2nd Open category).
- This system might give more sense to tournaments such as Future, Challengers & Satellites as people would need points to reach the top 200/top 300 (???).

Just an idea though...

I agree with you that the WC every 2 years would be a good thing, but people who are against that will bring the argument, that it is a bad thing for the youth categories.
In my opinion we need a change in the categories too.
Do we really need U12, U15 and U19?
Do we really need a veteran category over 40?
Is it needed to play in the youth till you are nearly 20?
We are not a physical sport, where you maybe have a physical disadvantage.
in veteran's we should really let play only veterans, with 40 you are not a veteran, in my opinion people like Stolwijk are real veterans, so we should think to move the age to 50 or 60, that should have been done already at the start of this category.
Currently with 40+ we see that the veterans become stronger and stronger but there is nothing equal coming from the Youth to Open so Open loose its attractivity every year when other good players become veteran with 40.

only my personal opinion.

von K. wrote:Luis, sorry. I also quoted too much in the previous message. I didn't have time to "clean" the quotes, and they were needed, because of so many different subjects in the posts of Heinz and me.

Heinz, the World Cup could easily be every 2 years for individuals, every 2 years teams. Then the problem of ranking wouldn't be so big for it. This way also the World Cup would have more prestige, like in football or olympics. If those would be every year or even every 2 years, the prestige and the magic would disappear.

But I too prefer a version where the last year is at least more important than the one before that. I think we came up with the 50% from tennis.

We'll see if the Sports Department will do something with the ranking (there are also many things waiting). It's possible, but it's also possible that it could be left until after the EGM.

With the WC I would do like this

- every second year individual-tournament
- every second year team-tournament
- big groups and placement games
- Serie A and Serie B in the individuals for open and veterans

I believe this arrangement would attract players from small table football countries, even outside Europe. Everyone would get enough games againts opponents of his own level.

We had Finnish championship tournament with Serie A and B with groups of 6. The feedback was only positive.

Sure I understand those players who come to the WC once in their life and wants to test the very hard opponents. Maybe then there should be some qualification round before Serie A and B.

Just my thoughts.

If we could manage it with the qualifications the best system for the WC in my opinion would be.
Open/Veteran - 40 players (8 groups of 5)
other categories - 20 or 24 (4 groups of 5 or 6)
Team WC should be a MUST to play only in 2 groups in each category then the groups are bigger and the smaller nations also have more games guarentee.
every second year seems to be a good choice for me too.

Heinz

hönkki wrote:With the WC I would do like this

- every second year individual-tournament
- every second year team-tournament
- big groups and placement games
- Serie A and Serie B in the individuals for open and veterans

I believe this arrangement would attract players from small table football countries, even outside Europe. Everyone would get enough games againts opponents of his own level.

We had Finnish championship tournament with Serie A and B with groups of 6. The feedback was only positive.

Sure I understand those players who come to the WC once in their life and wants to test the very hard opponents. Maybe then there should be some qualification round before Serie A and B.

Just my thoughts.

Heinz Eder wrote:if that's the only problem, i hope it is better for you now.

Luis Filipe Horta wrote:Do you need to quote everything ?
This way it is hard to read and understand.

Heinz Eder wrote:In my opinion we need a change in the categories too.
Do we really need U12, U15 and U19?

If I ask the questions can many U12 players compete at U15 level ? Can many U15 players compete at U19 level ? Can many U19 players compete at Open level ? The answers are usually no. (Some exceptions of course.) So I think the categories are a good idea to make sure the young players play mostly with people of their own ability.

Heinz Eder wrote:Do we really need a veteran category over 40?....

We are not a physical sport, where you maybe have a physical disadvantage.
in veteran's we should really let play only veterans, with 40 you are not a veteran, in my opinion people like Stolwijk are real veterans, so we should think to move the age to 50 or 60, that should have been done already at the start of this category.

I think most people agree with this. So I am puzzled why you never made this change as Sports Director but you say it now is your opinion ?

If we don't change the youth categories it is a problem to play the WC every second year, because then a player can play maximum 2 times the WC in the category.
about the veteran's category I had that opinion also when I was sports director, but as I wrote before working in a board doesn't automatically mean that you can realize all your personal opinions.
The problem with raising the age is that players are going to fall out of the category again, they played all over the season.
If we would raise the limit to 60, many players spent a lot of money to get a good ranking and then from one day to the other day, they have to start in open with 0 points again. That's another problem when you have a ranking based on 2 years.

Heinz

Martin Hodds wrote:

Heinz Eder wrote:In my opinion we need a change in the categories too.
Do we really need U12, U15 and U19?

If I ask the questions can many U12 players compete at U15 level ? Can many U15 players compete at U19 level ? Can many U19 players compete at Open level ? The answers are usually no. (Some exceptions of course.) So I think the categories are a good idea to make sure the young players play mostly with people of their own ability.

Do we really need a veteran category over 40?....

We are not a physical sport, where you maybe have a physical disadvantage.
in veteran's we should really let play only veterans, with 40 you are not a veteran, in my opinion people like Stolwijk are real veterans, so we should think to move the age to 50 or 60, that should have been done already at the start of this category.[/quote]

I think most people agree with this. So I am puzzled why you never made this change as Sports Director but you say it now is your opinion ? [/quote]

Heinz Eder wrote:If we don't change the youth categories it is a problem to play the WC every second year, because then a player can play maximum 2 times the WC in the category.

If the WC is individual 1 year and Team next year, then juniors can still play every year in their category, exactly the same as Open players ?

Heinz Eder wrote:about the veteran's category I had that opinion also when I was sports director, but as I wrote before working in a board doesn't automatically mean that you can realize all your personal opinions.
The problem with raising the age is that players are going to fall out of the category again, they played all over the season.
If we would raise the limit to 60, many players spent a lot of money to get a good ranking and then from one day to the other day, they have to start in open with 0 points again. That's another problem when you have a ranking based on 2 years.

Fair answer, thank you Heinz. However this would mean the age can never be changed now ! My personal opinion is we don't need a veteran category at all, even though I am now a veteran myself.

in the individual they can only play 2 editions maximum.
if you split the team WC and the individual WC this could be another chance to give more matches to teams and players in individual because then you can play 2 days, would be another idea, interesting to discuss.
back to the veterans. Of course it is possible to change the dates, but you need to inform 2 or 3 years in advance. I think we need that category, but the age must be much higher, even if it would possibly mean that the category won't be played often anymore, i honestly don't know how many players currentliy are over 60 and still play tournaments.
on the other side I also don't know how many actual veterans would play again open then.

Martin Hodds wrote:

Heinz Eder wrote:If we don't change the youth categories it is a problem to play the WC every second year, because then a player can play maximum 2 times the WC in the category.

If the WC is individual 1 year and Team next year, then juniors can still play every year in their category, exactly the same as Open players ?

Heinz Eder wrote:about the veteran's category I had that opinion also when I was sports director, but as I wrote before working in a board doesn't automatically mean that you can realize all your personal opinions.
The problem with raising the age is that players are going to fall out of the category again, they played all over the season.
If we would raise the limit to 60, many players spent a lot of money to get a good ranking and then from one day to the other day, they have to start in open with 0 points again. That's another problem when you have a ranking based on 2 years.

Fair answer, thank you Heinz. However this would mean the age can never be changed now ! My personal opinion is we don't need a veteran category at all, even though I am now a veteran myself.

Heinz Eder wrote:in the individual they can only play 2 editions maximum.
if you split the team WC and the individual WC this could be another chance to give more matches to teams and players in individual because then you can play 2 days, would be another idea, interesting to discuss.

One idea of split WC is just that. To have 2 days competition only for teams and only for individuals. A lot better to organise many games without a stressing schedule.

Also a lot easier to organise every two years so that everyone knows already before the summer, if they can participate.

The number of editions per person per category has no relevance. It's the same with youth football. The main event is always the Open.

Heinz Eder wrote:back to the veterans. Of course it is possible to change the dates, but you need to inform 2 or 3 years in advance. I think we need that category, but the age must be much higher, even if it would possibly mean that the category won't be played often anymore, i honestly don't know how many players currentliy are over 60 and still play tournaments.
on the other side I also don't know how many actual veterans would play again open then.

This would be easiest to ask from players themselves.

It is a physical game. Especially needing good reactions, firm hand (or finger), stamina (in long 12 hour tournaments), movement around the table etc. I'm not sure if 40 is the correct age (I'd say 45 or 50), but a veteran category is good to have in my opinion. In the future there will probably be an "old veteran" category of over 60 as well...

But the players know best.

Suddendly i read very modern ideas. I opened the door and all enter in the new future.
Vesa, you are my alter ego.

I am veteran and i can answer for this category.
Veterans are players who restart after years.
Veterans are players who love playing for many years but without great targets.
Veterans are players older than 40.

If a person feels as veteran he can play in veteran. But if he plays open then he is not veteran. He is open who wants playing more matches. This is the truth.
And who create the veteran category? Ask him for the reasons who create veteran cat and after check if more veterans agreee with these reasons...

I read for wild cards. This was the worst idea in table soccer. The key which open the doors for "friends".
I hate the limits for the participations. Over or under 100 of world ranking. FREE SELECTION FOR ALL EVERYWHERE. Two or more divisions in open with standard points. Until 48 participations one division. For extra 48 persons one more category.

Simple and clear rules without special rules and limits.

After a rumor said (on the other forum) that the EC could be played in Stembert, there is another rumor (straight from Bologna) saying the EC could be held in Slovenia... Wait and see...

marco pinausi organized a friendly game between austria-italy there, was a nice place from what i've heard..... don't know if it's allowed to play the WC in a country that is not a members but nvm.... it would be a least a good location

Heinz Eder wrote:If we don't change the youth categories it is a problem to play the WC every second year, because then a player can play maximum 2 times the WC in the category.
about the veteran's category I had that opinion also when I was sports director, but as I wrote before working in a board doesn't automatically mean that you can realize all your personal opinions.
The problem with raising the age is that players are going to fall out of the category again, they played all over the season.
If we would raise the limit to 60, many players spent a lot of money to get a good ranking and then from one day to the other day, they have to start in open with 0 points again. That's another problem when you have a ranking based on 2 years.

Heinz

Martin Hodds wrote:

Heinz Eder wrote:In my opinion we need a change in the categories too.
Do we really need U12, U15 and U19?

If I ask the questions can many U12 players compete at U15 level ? Can many U15 players compete at U19 level ? Can many U19 players compete at Open level ? The answers are usually no. (Some exceptions of course.) So I think the categories are a good idea to make sure the young players play mostly with people of their own ability.

Do we really need a veteran category over 40?....

We are not a physical sport, where you maybe have a physical disadvantage.
in veteran's we should really let play only veterans, with 40 you are not a veteran, in my opinion people like Stolwijk are real veterans, so we should think to move the age to 50 or 60, that should have been done already at the start of this category.

I think most people agree with this. So I am puzzled why you never made this change as Sports Director but you say it now is your opinion ? [/quote][/quote]

What about freezing the Veterans age for 5 years... that way all players who are born for example 1970 stays 1970 for the next five years, hence no new players will be entering the veterans category from the open for the next five years... hence solving the problem for all those who spent their time and money to get a high ranking in the Veterans category while also raising the age for veterans participants... just an alternative opinion

For me it is more important that the board shows unity than to profile myself by saying my personal opinion which doesn't have a majority in the board. We have some specialists who only try to divide the board and to pick out some people they like and the others are free to shoot out.
When i was in the board there were internal discussions of course, but the most important fact is that the decision which was taken was accepted by every board member.

Your proposal about the vet's category sounds very good, but the problem is that we already have the huge number of veterans in the category and in the youth there aren't many players at the moment. The idea behind raising the age is to get more open players again, because the open should be the main event, actually the vets become the main event more and more, so it would be important to reduce the numbers in veterans and not to freeze "only".
Your idea would be perfect if there would be 150 to 200 young players who enter the open category in the next 1 or 2 years, but i fear we are far away from that.

attardsubbuteo wrote:

Heinz Eder wrote:If we don't change the youth categories it is a problem to play the WC every second year, because then a player can play maximum 2 times the WC in the category.
about the veteran's category I had that opinion also when I was sports director, but as I wrote before working in a board doesn't automatically mean that you can realize all your personal opinions.
The problem with raising the age is that players are going to fall out of the category again, they played all over the season.
If we would raise the limit to 60, many players spent a lot of money to get a good ranking and then from one day to the other day, they have to start in open with 0 points again. That's another problem when you have a ranking based on 2 years.

Heinz

Martin Hodds wrote:

Heinz Eder wrote:In my opinion we need a change in the categories too.
Do we really need U12, U15 and U19?

If I ask the questions can many U12 players compete at U15 level ? Can many U15 players compete at U19 level ? Can many U19 players compete at Open level ? The answers are usually no. (Some exceptions of course.) So I think the categories are a good idea to make sure the young players play mostly with people of their own ability.

Do we really need a veteran category over 40?....

We are not a physical sport, where you maybe have a physical disadvantage.
in veteran's we should really let play only veterans, with 40 you are not a veteran, in my opinion people like Stolwijk are real veterans, so we should think to move the age to 50 or 60, that should have been done already at the start of this category.

I think most people agree with this. So I am puzzled why you never made this change as Sports Director but you say it now is your opinion ?

[/quote]

What about freezing the Veterans age for 5 years... that way all players who are born for example 1970 stays 1970 for the next five years, hence no new players will be entering the veterans category from the open for the next five years... hence solving the problem for all those who spent their time and money to get a high ranking in the Veterans category while also raising the age for veterans participants... just an alternative opinion[/quote]

Well, the EC will be held in Nova Gorica, Slovenia.

Surprisingly, Vova Gorica is just 5,5 km away from the italian city of Gorizia, home of Marco Pinausi's club. (I just check it on www.viamichelin.fr)

Below is a quote from the handbook. I find it quite disturbing that a nation which is not even a partner (or is it?) can have the right to organise the biggest club competition of FISTF. Even a partner nation doesn't have the right to host a GP, so how can they host EC!?

It's completely outrageous!

"Rights and duties Member nation Partner nation
Yearly fee 100 Euros free
Organisation of a Grand Prix (from 2008-09) yes no Grand Prix
Organisation of an Open (from 2008-09) yes 1 Open + 15 Euros (tax)
Organisation of a “Satellite” free 10 Euros (tax)
Organisation of a “Challenger” free 10 Euros (tax)
Organisation of a “Future” free 10 Euros (tax)
Participation to the world cup authorised authorised
Participation to the Europa Cup authorised authorised"

It's clear that the decision is based on having it close to Italy, but similar to appointing Antonello only as an "unofficial director", it is just a loophole to organise it practically in Italy.

And can you choose a more difficult place to reach than that? The close airports certainly don't cover many nations with affordable prices. But hey, it's easy to drive there or take a train from Italy!

They will answer you that they negociate with Eurosport for this fantastic event, lol

Hi von K., please use the following text not as my personal opinion, I also don't want to defend anybody, but the information level on the other forum is close to 0 and people only continue attacking each other, there are only a few who ask for information, which they unfortunately don't get from the officials there, because of their own lack of information and interest.
I think many people don't understand the system "FISTF" unfortunately people like Stefano and Piero can't explain it too, because they actually spend their time with things like WASPA instead of spending their time with the important things FISTF is missing actually.

You have to divide in 2 parts.

There are international tournaments under the name of FISTF, they are requested by the national associations, the organizers are competition manager (they can be the officials of the national federation or a club organizes the event, then in most times it is a person of that club). This is only possible in countries where an association is existing.

There is the World Cup and Europa Cup, where the competition manager is FISTF, normally the sports director of FISTF is the competition manager, who decides about the formula and all the other things around the competition. The FISTF Board in the end only asks for a place and the equipment to organize that event, it is not obligatory that there is an association which is member or not, it isn't even obligatory that there is an association existing. The idea behind that is to make it possible to organize those events for promotion in a country where maybe in future something could grow. So if the FISTF Board has the equipment and the venue, they can organize the WC and EC in countries where no association is existing.

Pinausi asked us 1 or 2 years ago, if it would be allowed to organize a Slovenian Grand Prix, the Sports Department refused that out of the reason mentioned above.

Heinz

von K. wrote:Below is a quote from the handbook. I find it quite disturbing that a nation which is not even a partner (or is it?) can have the right to organise the biggest club competition of FISTF. Even a partner nation doesn't have the right to host a GP, so how can they host EC!?

It's completely outrageous!

"Rights and duties Member nation Partner nation
Yearly fee 100 Euros free
Organisation of a Grand Prix (from 2008-09) yes no Grand Prix
Organisation of an Open (from 2008-09) yes 1 Open + 15 Euros (tax)
Organisation of a “Satellite” free 10 Euros (tax)
Organisation of a “Challenger” free 10 Euros (tax)
Organisation of a “Future” free 10 Euros (tax)
Participation to the world cup authorised authorised
Participation to the Europa Cup authorised authorised"

It's clear that the decision is based on having it close to Italy, but similar to appointing Antonello only as an "unofficial director", it is just a loophole to organise it practically in Italy.

And can you choose a more difficult place to reach than that? The close airports certainly don't cover many nations with affordable prices. But hey, it's easy to drive there or take a train from Italy!

On the CSF Kostas Kechris wrote:

Dear Stefano. We are still waiting the program.
Quote from: Stefano De Francesco on October 02, 2011, 08:02:01 AM

The program is ready (we must solve only this small problems) and we will publish next Friday.


We are still waiting to follow the handbook.
Quote from: Stefano De Francesco on October 02, 2011, 08:29:24 AM

FISTF Silver Cup ( 10 eliminated teams in FISTF Champions and 6 eliminated teams in FISTF Europa league with knockout system)
My idea is to make a real tournament and not useless finals for the thirteenth places.
Minimum of 9 matches for the team in FISTF Champions and 7 for team in FISTF Europa League.

Your idea for silver cup is illegal. LOOK YOUR HANDBOOK. Maybe for you the finals for all positions are useless but i don't want to travel to play 6 matches the first day and maybe only one knock out match the second day.
Be carefull. Maybe your decisions the next year to stop weak clubs to participate in Europa Cups.

i suppose that your program has 12 rounds the first day. With your system with two groups Europa league teams will play 6 matches and 3 as refs and champion league teams will play 8 matches and 4 as refs. The champion league teams will not stop for a moment (12 rounds=8m+4r). I hope that you will not ask by europa league teams more times as refs.

Your idea for W.C in Palermo was a disaster. Sorry for my strong comments but i afraid that you will destroy the E.C. After the first round of second day the half teams will loose in knock out game. The 16 teams will not continue play so the more of them will prefer a walk in Venice than waiting five hours until final. With your system i am sure the only persons who will be present in finals will be the referees and you. Marco Pinausi agree with this plan? Did your partner in marketing department of FISTF BoD give advices for this possibility?

Maybe you must remember that the MAJORITY of teams travel to play AT FIRST and the minority of them travel for the victory. Don't ever forget it.

Does anybody know what is really going to happen in Slovenia?
If Kostas' theory is right, it would be worth thinking of NOT going...
Kostas is absolutely right in what he says and it would be very disappointing to have a Europa League like this. Where can we find the official schedule?