Madrid, 02/11

Vincent, statutes, (I have not written me), anyone can say candidly in any time, in theory until the very morning of the elections as.

The same statute provides for voting by mail (secret to the president).

The two things are in open conflicts.

Janus, of course I have a new set of statutes.
they only need the final wording of a lawyer that they are accepted by the french gouvernment and of course they need discussions between the associations to get an agreement.

About the rest

My point is only that it is a bit late to tell people who booked their ticket already that the meeting is meaningless and the meeting is nonsense. The time for evaluating that would have been before the associations decided to sign the request.
Please don't forget that people already spent money for being there, and with the confusion you maybe will loose some people who would be there, but aren't sure anymore now.
Of course every association is free to vote by letter too, but cancelling the meeting will upset some people, and I can understand that totally. One day it is that decision the next day it is changed to another one, that's not good.

Janus_Gersie wrote:
Coming to the statutes: Maybe everything would run better if we would have other statutes. Who will work on them. Only writing (your really good thoughts) about this matter is not enough. Did you put an (unofficial) commission together to work on it ? Are you able to present a new set of statutes ? What I would like to say is: what did you do to prevent us from the situation we are in ?

The eight countries calling an EGM started to go forward ....

Heinz, what are you going to do to save FISTF ?

Janus

P.S. Don't take it personally but a lot of things are written here but I can't see almost no actions. This attitude will only support Silvio.

Can we have the names of the 8 countries and the candidates until now, Pierro?

Thanks

p.s.1 Giulio my name is Kechris and no kekris. Kostas Kechris.
you can see it on every of my posts.

p.s.2 one more time i think that Janus has right view for the matters and Heinz hidden under the confused rules and laws.

p.s.3 please stop the long "copy paste". You can use and the "cut" and the "delete".

as long as you don't agree with me I still know that everything is fine with you

PS: I'm pretty sure you don't have a ticket for Madrid

kechris wrote:
p.s.2 one more time i think that Janus has right view for the matters and Heinz hidden under the confused rules and laws.

Giulio, thanks a lot for this post. It gave a lot of information that I was missing.

Mistake in my name was really no problem! I'm used to it, and finnish names are often misspelled.

giufaz wrote:

von K. wrote:

The problem I see is that the current president is illegally acting as president, and can therefore still affect things and even lead the Congress. In my view according to the circular0006 and other things I explained, he has been acting illegally against members, without giving truthful information.

...

Dear Von K.,
First of all sorry for the mistake in the name and thanks for the trust.
I share your point above and your concern. But, as specified in a precedent post, a BoD terminate its job once the new one is elected. It happen even if they dismiss officially and publicly their charge: an association always need to have a representative. Otherwise the activities are totally blocked, nobody can call a general meeting and every decision thake by associates can be claimed.
Of course, given the acceptance by the BoD of the termination of their charge in September, Board Members (and the president) cannot make any extraordinary act. They can only efford ordinary activity such as call the General Meeting for new elections.
Of course a Board that terminated its job (as in our case) cannot postpone it's duty to call the congress for new elections to infinity but must do it as soon as practicable. I'm not in condition to evaluate if the conduct of meeting in September was legal or not, but at this point the sole legal remedy - a claim - would be useless.
For sport associations federated to CIO it is always easier to find a solution as, instead of going to the tribunal, associates can always go to the main Federation asking to verify the situation, to declare officially the termination of the mandate of the Board and appoint a provisional person with extraordinary powers to manage the association and call the new elections.
In our case the sole remedy would be to ask for the same effects to a Court.
I guess that it is very important now to make the new Congress effective. If it doesn't happen of course we can discuss also of the many remedies we can have going to a Tribunal.
But being this long and expensive, I really hope that the sense of responsibility of all of us will prevail.
Last but not least I trust very much Antonello that is the first person I met when I decided to practice table soccer. Of course he is not directing me and I didn't share with him my opinions but, as kekris suggest, I will ask for informations as it can be useful to better understand the contest.
Best

Giulio

pierocapponi wrote:Also, despite the barrage of insults that are still reading here, we are looking for a positive solution for FISTF.

Can you specify some insults, Piero?

I would like to know if you undesrantd some criticism as insults, or if they really are insults.

There are many things that can be considered insults by many people. So it's important to specify.

Heinz Eder wrote:
Do you think the solution is to have candidates who are only doing it that the rest of current board won't be elected anymore?

For the moment this is enough. As Janus wrote. Nothing big is needed for this moment. If you would have been in Rain, and heard what was discussed and agreed there, and then seen how those things were not respected by for example Catania, then there is no other possibility than to get rid of him by, nothing more. If he would have kept true to what was discussed in Rain, the new statutes would most probably be ready now.

Heinz Eder wrote:
After the invitation for the EGM some people of those who signed the request for EGM find out that they don't want to go to Madrid and BECAUSE OF THAT they get interested in legal views to find possibilites to cheat the Extra Ordinary Congress.

You are speculating about motives, and I dare say, incorrectly. For example I am very interested in the legal points, because I saw Catania in Rain, and he is very capable of destroying a good meeting only by being incometent leader of discussion. His agenda also does not go along with what was asked from the EGM (by Finland also). If Catania is illegally the president now, he has no right to lead the Congress. BECAUSE OF THIS I am interested in the legal views.

After what happened with the elections in Rain, after people also had booked flights, is another reason to be interested in the legal points. It is only about making sure that it's not possible again. Common sense.

On top of this it has recently became obvious that Finland as a member (others too, I think) have been given false information by FISTF (Catania's BoD) on many issues. A clear legal interest in my opinion.

Finland was always going to have problems getting to Madrid with a delegate. The legal issues have nothing to do with this. I have also asked here several times about the possibility of taking part by internet. And we will vote by mail, if we don't travel and net conference is not possible.

Your accusation about the motives has no grounds, and you are just mixing 2 things that are discussed under 1 topic here.

Heinz Eder wrote:You are making fun of those who called for the EGM and you are making fun of those who already booked their flights to Madrid. If the CoN would like to decide the place of the EGM it should have changed the statutes, the CoN had enough time. Our current statutes say that the FISTF Board (President) has to invite to the EGM (of course it is wrong and should/could be changed). As it seems the current president isn't interested to make the trip as cheap as possible, but those associations who signed the request for an EGM had to think about that worst case scenary instead of wondering now.

You are always talking about doing things according to statutes (good, of course), but how can you then write a thing like this about the CoN and the statutes?

1. The CoN has zero legal power until it is mentioned in the statutes. It should have had a lot of pressurising power, but the idea failed.

2. The statutes can't be changed until in a Congress approves them

So what would have changed with CoN making new statutes? Nothing!

I do appreciate your point about the impossibility to cancel Madrid. The sad thing is that if the BoD would have been informative and discussive about things, the whole Madrid meeting could have been avoided. A net meeting and elections, with financial report delivered to members, would have been enough.

Janus_Gersie wrote:Unfortunately some of the associations called for an EGM are now not able to answer mails and discussing the way forward. It is a like a pile of headless chicken ....

I'm not sure Finland has answered yet. I'll try to find out today and we'll get back to you.

I want to remind people here that since the start of the year our President is not Kari Hakkarainen anymore. It is Teemu Sihvola (Zinga). The information has been given many times to FISTF and as answer to some mails, but all the mail still seems to go to Kari first.

Janus_Gersie wrote:Yes, we have had candidates. Enough ! But from November until today we lost a few of them due to several circumstances: Some are not able or are not willing to travel to Madrid ... "Who will pay my ticket ?" Sorry, but it is as it is ....

Why should the candidates have to travel to Madrid? Is it in the statutes?

It would be ridiculous and effectively rule out a number of people. Is it really that who has money, should have power...

Janus_Gersie wrote:The easiest thing now would be just to ignore the current board (only existing of Catania. Or are there still more members ? Who ? Laurent ? Alan ? Some more ? - Who knows ....) The current board ignored the associations in the last months so now let's ignore them. I am pretty sure the french authorities even doesn't know anything of Catania & Co. I am sure no (or wrong) minutes were sent to the authorities. Otherwise they would have complained about the block vote etc. etc.

This is not possible, and would have possible legal consequences. For example using FISTF money without legal justification...

I think the authorities are not interested in minutes before someone asks about them. If they would check all, they would also have to get confirmation from witnesses to make sure they are correct.

But as Giufaz wrote, the current BoD should only have the possibility to administrate what is necessary for keeping the basic things in operation in FISTF. Without any personal decisions or views on the agenda etc. And in the Congress Silvio should not have the right to speak his views, but only act as administrative president. He has no real mandate after circular0006 and Rain, but he still has the duty to administrate FISTF. But no rights for decisions. This is how I interpreted Giufaz' comment on this matter.

Tell me one person who bought a ticket to go to Congress Rain?

The problem is that here we want to play ... and the way to solve the problems of FISTF.

If someone in 2011 can not spend 400 euros for a conference (or federation can not afford it) can not be FISTF management.

The Fistf need people for whom the rules are more important than the game. And is willing to go to sites just to solve the problems of FISTF and not to play and the lunch talk of more and less.

The truth? The truth is that the "opposition" does not exist. There is only Coppenolle Vincent. Than to, WEB, newsletter, results, etc. and did so well and with passion.

I'm sure if would now like communication service .... would have neither Congress nor elections as nothing simply because nobody cares.

Not so? Honestly?

Piero "bla bla bla" Capponi

Piero, sometimes here (because of language, I presume) you give too generalised comments without argumentation. They raise a lot of questions. So, I will comment and ask. It is not against you, I just wish to know what you base your comments on.

pierocapponi wrote:Tell me one person who bought a ticket to go to Congress Rain?

I don't know, but for example I would have arrived in Rain later and with a cheaper flight. But it's is a matter of principle, and Rain is an example. I'm happy it was not Madrid, when it happened. It could have been.

pierocapponi wrote:If someone in 2011 can not spend 400 euros for a conference (or federation can not afford it) can not be FISTF management.

Why?

This means anyone who has a family with a house loan, and doesn't have a high paid work is out? As well as smaller federations (400€ is for us important money). It leaves quite a lot of intelligent and able people (and members) out, without other reason than money. Is FISTF only for those with extra money? How about countries in economical crisis and lot of unemployment? Undermining the importance of 400€ for anyone is very elitist and against my sense of equality.

But more than a problem of money, it is a problem of time. No one is professional in TF administration and many people can't come in a months notice somewhere for a weekend. It is the same in amateur sports, not only TF. How about countries outside Europe.

Poor people (can be a lifestyle choice also), people from smaller countries, and people who are not ready to travel any time (most important directors etc) are out even if they are better at something?

Seeing things from other perspectives is important.

By the way, what is the problem with a net conference? (In general, not in Madrid.)

pierocapponi wrote:The Fistf need people for whom the rules are more important than the game. And is willing to go to sites just to solve the problems of FISTF and not to play and the lunch talk of more and less.

If these people don't have the time and the money? Sorry, but it is illogical to ask for best persons, and then rule out a majority.

The reality is also that things can be done so that people take part. If it means a meeting on friday, and a tournament on the weekend, then why not? Don't you try to do things according to people's needs in your work? You don't have a presentation for a toy in and elderly home at school time (exaggeration).

For me it's obvious to think about the best time and place, if we want the best people and many people participating (same problem as the World Cup in TF with not many countries).

Reality now is not the future of visions.

pierocapponi wrote:The truth? The truth is that the "opposition" does not exist. There is only Coppenolle Vincent. Than to, WEB, newsletter, results, etc. and did so well and with passion.

What opposition? Opposition to whom?

This way of thinking is the reason behind the catastrophy. Thinking it's "we or them".

I also think all members who respect the laws of FISTF should oppose Catania's actions.

I can only second Heinz’ view.

Those who have been following the discussions over the Italian forum know that I have always attempted to frame an unbiased opinion, I have criticized the current Board for its calamitous inefficiency, and I have been having many arguments with Stefano De Francesco because of his aggressive stance. Privately I even quarreled with some gaming mates of mine to dispel their beliefs about Italian primacy and Belgian arrogance, to the point that some people regard me like a kind of traitor.

I havn’t contributed much to this forum, but I have been reading nearly everything that was posted here, and now I feel an obligation to raise my voice and say that Heinz is right when he says you are turning this issue into a farce. You asked for an EGM yourselves. Catania wanted to organize it in Malta, yet Piero offered to set it up in Spain JUST TO PREVENT dissent over the location. Cheap flights can be booked to Madrid from all over Europe. I can’t remember any disagreement at the time.

All of a sudden, one month before the meeting, some of Catania’s grittiest opponents find out that the holy mission of saving FISTF and getting rid of the loathed Catania board is not worth the effort of a short trip abroad, and they start looking for every reason why the hypothetical lack of legitimacy of the Catania Board should make the EGM illegitimate, and so provide them with a convenient excuse not to go. To make things even more comfy, Catania is fittingly invited to resign of his own will or even proclaimed resigned ex officio, and the negotiations necessary to redeem FISTF’s desperate plight are reviled to the status of a pointless bla-bla. So there is no further need for an EGM and everybody is welcome to stay home.

Janus makes a good point when he insists that at this point we need is a crisis management far more than a conventional Board with long-range objectives. But, apart the fact that I strongly doubt that the recent posts were born from a sincere concern over the changing situation, such an evolution makes a full extraordinary congress all the more necessary. The decision to settle a provisional board in defiance of the statutes is an almost revolutionary (and possibly illegal) act, one which might easily result in the organization’s final dissolution. How can an informal reunion of players take a decision like that? What about country representatives wishing to partake the discussion but uninterested to play at Mons? Shall they have to book a flight to Belgium even if you don’t want to book one to Spain?

Further: what persons will be chosen to be members the provisional board? What goals and guidelines shall it endorse amidst conflicting opinions about what FISTF should be and strive for? What new statutes shall be issued? Don’t you think that such long-ranging issues need to be confronted at some length (over a two-days discussion) if the interim board must have any chance of success at all?

Finally, the choice of Mons itself might well be questioned: why not Bologna? Ought FISTF meetings be held between Belgium and Germany to facilitate the participation of Belgian and German representatives?

I never worked in FISTF and I can’t assess the deeds of past boards. But frankly, in the last weeks I have been coming closer and closer to Piero’s view, centered on the opposition between those who have a serious commitment in the future of tablesoccer (even with all of their personal faults) and are willing to invest time and effort into it, and keyboard fighters who basically want their cozy little gaming events, who raised hell over the inadequacy of the Catania board, but are quickly backing away from the complexities and commitments inherent to a truly European tablesoccer federation.

Understand, this is not meant as a dispute and even less as a personal attack against anybody. I have been spending one year quarreling with my countrymen in order to work out an impartial, unbiased approach to the topic, and I thought it fitting to let my views be known on this forum, as well. Fairness and objectivity are all that matters.

Heinz Eder wrote:Janus don't get me wrong it is nothing personal against you, but I think it is becoming more and more a farce. All those who decided to call for an EGM should read the following and feel responsible.

I write for nearly 6 months in that forum, please ask for legal advice, but nobody took it for real. An EGM shouldn't be something regular like a Congress, maybe some people should keep that in mind. The word Extra Ordinary Congress isn't the insurance that everything will be solved. For me it is already the worst word of the years 2010 and already 2011.

I write for nearly 6 months that the statutes are crap, nothing happened, and now you as one of those who called for the EGM (and some others) ask the people here, why we currently need an EGM or why people should go there?

You as one who asked for the EGM really write here that there isn't a queue of candidates
Please tell me why those associations decided to call for an EGM without having candidates?
Did you plan to kill FISTF by making elections without candidates?
Did you want to see another victory of the left board members, because there aren't other candidates?
Do you think the solution is to have candidates who are only doing it that the rest of current board won't be elected anymore?

Maybe it would run different with other statutes and/or more time to prepare things? I'm pretty sure the result would be much better than the result we seem to get now.
Maybe the goalkeeper of the CoN could help now?

After the call for an EGM some people find out that it isn't maybe needed anymore, because a lawyer have pity with FISTF and post on a forum with us. Sorry, but that's only a shame.
After the invitation for the EGM some people of those who signed the request for EGM find out that they don't want to go to Madrid and BECAUSE OF THAT they get interested in legal views to find possibilites to cheat the Extra Ordinary Congress.
Please think about the reaction if the current board would do that.

Is it so difficult to inform before taking some action? One action without thinking is followed by another action without thinking and now we are very deep already.
When do people stop taking actions without thinking?

You are making fun of those who called for the EGM and you are making fun of those who already booked their flights to Madrid. If the CoN would like to decide the place of the EGM it should have changed the statutes, the CoN had enough time. Our current statutes say that the FISTF Board (President) has to invite to the EGM (of course it is wrong and should/could be changed). As it seems the current president isn't interested to make the trip as cheap as possible, but those associations who signed the request for an EGM had to think about that worst case scenary instead of wondering now.

I hope nobody get me wrong and think I'm fan of the current board, but those who should bring it to an end actually create more chaos. I only try to keep my neutral view on the happenings and try to sort those things correctly. So it is absolutely no personal attack to you Janus, you are only one of some people, but I felt this reaction is needed on your post and some others of the last days around that Congress.

I am a bit uncertain and I hope somebody who knows the statutes better than me can give an answer.

If in Madrid a new BoD will be elected, for how long? Is just a provisional again, only until the next FISTF meeting at the next congress, or for just two years, or is it for four years?

Is it possible to create clearification on this matter now?

pierocapponi wrote:
The Fistf need people for whom the rules are more important than the game.

everybody doing the same mistake.
the fistf need people who believe that the game is more important than the rules. But the rules are more important than people opinion. So we need person who respect both rules and game. So simple.

Today our lawyer inform us that we can begin our acts for the new provisional BoD.
We want to follow the cool way. If the other side accept that they lost the "game" we can continue without problems. If they don't then we will follow the proposals of our lawyer. No problem.

Thossa wrote:If in Madrid a new BoD will be elected, for how long? Is just a provisional again, only until the next FISTF meeting at the next congress, or for just two years, or is it for four years?

Is it possible to create clearification on this matter now?

I am sure that we all can agree that the current statutes are not clear about this (and many other) issues. Thus, I would elect a BoD that would have an agenda of the following issues:
- Unite the community
- Restart of the FISTF operational actions such as communications, rankings etc.
- Re-organizing of the FISTF decision making structure including commissions and CoN.
- Preparation of the new statutes
- Preparation of the next Congress (from the statutes point of view it probably has to be EGM again) to have new elections and accepting the prepared new statutes.

So to answer to your question, in my opinion it does not matter if we elect a BoD that has a priority to save FISTF and not to raise their own political status. I am sure that we get more easily good candidates now for the elections in Madrid if the following agenda is on the frame.

Thossa wrote:I am a bit uncertain and I hope somebody who knows the statutes better than me can give an answer.

If in Madrid a new BoD will be elected, for how long? Is just a provisional again, only until the next FISTF meeting at the next congress, or for just two years, or is it for four years?

Is it possible to create clearification on this matter now?

Thossa, according to art. 12.6 of the Statute the new BoD will be in force during next 4 years.
The Statute doesn't contemplate a provisional BoD. In the case the BoD duly elected accept to be provisional, it can be interpreted as a commitment to resign but it is not automatic and depend on will and good faith of people.
I strongly recommend to avoid it.
Best

Vesa, please tell me what a board can do, if the CoN would make new statutes and find a majority for that set before the congress?
The answer is nothing, because at the congress the same people vote again about statutes they already agreed on, when they vote in the CoN. For something like that the CoN doesn't need to be mentioned in the statutes. Everything which has to be decided at a Congress can already be solved in the CoN before.
What would be changed? The new board already could work with those statutes. The CoN did nothing except organizing 8 countries to request an EGM in the last 6 months. I don't think that was the only reason to form it in Rain.

About the rest, I agree on it that i maybe shouldn't generalize it that way, but I'm pretty sure that some people thought that way.

von K. wrote:
You are always talking about doing things according to statutes (good, of course), but how can you then write a thing like this about the CoN and the statutes?

1. The CoN has zero legal power until it is mentioned in the statutes. It should have had a lot of pressurising power, but the idea failed.

2. The statutes can't be changed until in a Congress approves them

So what would have changed with CoN making new statutes? Nothing!

I do appreciate your point about the impossibility to cancel Madrid. The sad thing is that if the BoD would have been informative and discussive about things, the whole Madrid meeting could have been avoided. A net meeting and elections, with financial report delivered to members, would have been enough.

exactly that has to be the schedule now.
that was my point, having the statutes now, we wouldn't need another meeting to approve the statutes, now we need only for that another meeting,which always caused troubles in the past.

zinga wrote:

Thossa wrote:If in Madrid a new BoD will be elected, for how long? Is just a provisional again, only until the next FISTF meeting at the next congress, or for just two years, or is it for four years?

Is it possible to create clearification on this matter now?

I am sure that we all can agree that the current statutes are not clear about this (and many other) issues. Thus, I would elect a BoD that would have an agenda of the following issues:
- Unite the community
- Restart of the FISTF operational actions such as communications, rankings etc.
- Re-organizing of the FISTF decision making structure including commissions and CoN.
- Preparation of the new statutes
- Preparation of the next Congress (from the statutes point of view it probably has to be EGM again) to have new elections and accepting the prepared new statutes.

So to answer to your question, in my opinion it does not matter if we elect a BoD that has a priority to save FISTF and not to raise their own political status. I am sure that we get more easily good candidates now for the elections in Madrid if the following agenda is on the frame.

Heinz Eder wrote:that was my point, having the statutes now, we wouldn't need another meeting to approve the statutes, now we need only for that another meeting,which always caused troubles in the past.

I agree that it would have been better if we had the new statutes for the Madrid meeting. However, the most important reason to have the EGM now, with or without the new statutes, is to restart the FISTF. If it is not done immediately, there will be no FISTF later on.

Hello everybody, as I see many interesting question and I will be out for a week (I'm traveling for work reason) after a first reading of the Statute (2004) I tried to draft some point to clarify what the Statute says on some uncertain situation and I post it in case it can be useful for somebody.
Sorry for posting this in the two relevant discussion.
Best

1. Greek question: The Greek provisional board that will be considered in charge according to the decision of the Court will choose the delegate for Greece (unless otherwise previewed from Greek Statute). It can also give a commitment on how to vote (so I read art 9-1 under which a Country can have only one delegate). No proxy can be given to any of the existing BoD members (art. 9-5).
2. The call for the meeting: it is legal if it was requested by at least 1/3 of the members, at least 3 month a go (art. 8-3).
3. Who participate to the EC: all the Members. BoD can, before the congress, make effective the provisional members (that will vote) if they comply with requirements (art. 4-2).
4. Who can be elected: everybody. No necessity that candidates are Appointed directly by the BoD of the Members or the National associations. The limit is that the elected board members must have a different citizenship and come from a different National association (art. 12-4). The Board (for logic reasons the one that manage elections, but for sake of clarity better if confirmed also by the new board once elected) can derogate this rule permitting the election of two citizen of the same Country of the same National Association (art. 12.5).
5. Elections: with secret scrutiny (art.11.1)
6. President is elected at the first round with 2/3 of votes (art. 11.2). Otherwise, if this quorum lack, further rounds of votes shall be organized between the two candidates who gathered the highest number of votes at the first round. For these further rounds, the candidate who receives an absolute majority of the cast votes shall be deemed elected.
7. The other BoD members are elected with simple majority (art. 11-3).
8. Postal vote: it is expressly recognized by art. 9.6. However it is very difficult to permit its exercise given the freedom for candidate to be candidate up to the very last moment and, above all, the chance for the President to have further rounds of votes. Given this, the impossibility to exercise this vote in a democratic way imply that it should not be permitted. However, if the BoD intend however to gather the chance of exercising the postal vote, the Members could vote sending their choose written in a white sheet of paper, to be inserted in a white envelope, to be inserted in the shipping envelope. In theory in a separate white sheet it could be indicated also a preference for the eventual further round of vote for the President with the clear limit that this vote could result useless and void (if the two candidates are different from the one indicated). As this system impede to vote for candidates who decide to participate at the last moment, in order to avoid any kind of contradiction this system should be used only if strictly necessary and with an express waiver from who vote trough postal system for the potential negative consequences derived from the lack of direct participation.
9. Vote via email: not contemplated in the Statute (and however actually, not comparable – given the IT of FISTF - to a certificate postal system) and, therefore, not possible.

The relavant articles:
Art. 3
3-1 A National Association is admitted as Member of FISTF by the Congress after a probation period as Provisional Member. The Board of Directors is competent to grant provisional membership.
3-2 This probation period is necessary to ensure that the National Association complies with all the requirements for membership as listed in the relevant regulations. This period can be of variable duration.
3-3 Provisional Members shall not vote at the Congress, nor shall its individual members be eligible.
3-4 Members and Provisional Members may participate in official competitions.
Art. 4
4-1 A National Association wishing to become a Member shall offer its request to the FISTF Board of Directors. This request shall include its statutes and regulations. These will be scrutinized by the Board of Directors for conformity with the principles of FISTF.
4-2 The request for membership shall include (but not be limited to) the solemn promise to:
a) Abide by the Statutes, regulations and decisions of FISTF; and
b) Apply the rules of the game in force within FISTF.
4-3 The acceptance by FISTF of the request for membership shall render such promise legally binding on the new Member. This provision shall apply equally to Provisional Members.
4-4 A Member may at any time withdraw from FISTF by informing in writing the Board of Directors.
4-5 Even after it has withdrawn or has been excluded from FISTF, a National Association, its successors and assignees, shall remain liable for any obligation, monetary or otherwise, incurred when it was a Member.
Art. 8
8-2 The Board of Directors may at any time call for an Extraordinary Congress.
8-3 On the written request of one third or more of the Members, The Board of Directors shall call for an Extraordinary Congress within three months following the request.
Art. 9
9-1 Membership of the Congress shall consist of one Delegate per Member and of the members of the Board of Directors.
9-2 The Congress is chaired by the FISTF President.
9-3 Each Member shall have one vote at the Congress. The members of the Board of Directors shall not have a vote.
9-4 No Delegate shall represent more than one Member.
9-5 During the term of their mandate, the members of the Board of Directors shall not be appointed as Delegate by their National Association.
9-6 It shall be possible for Members to use postal vote.
Art. 10
10-2 The Congress shall elect the members of the Board of Director in accordance with the present Statutes
.
10-4 The Congress shall vote on the approval of the discharge of the Board of Directors, based on its activity report.

Art. 11
11-1 The Congress votes for elections shall be by secret ballot. In any other case, the vote shall be by show of hand.
11-2 For the election of the FISTF President, if one of the candidates receives a two-third majority of the cast votes at the first round, he shall be deemed elected. Otherwise, further rounds of votes shall be organized between the two candidates who gathered the highest number of votes at the first round. For these further rounds, the candidate who receives an absolute majority of the cast votes shall be deemed elected.
11-3 All other decisions of the Congress shall be taken by simple majority of the cast votes.
11-4 A white vote shall not be considered as a cast vote.
Art. 12
12-1 The FISTF Board of Directors shall include the following members:
• One President; and
• One General Secretary; and
• One Vice-President in charge of promotion and marketing; and
• One Vice-President in charge of sports matters; and
• One Vice-President in charge of communication; and
• One Vice-President in charge of financial matters.
12-2 The President shall be elected by the Congress following the procedure in Article 11-2.
12-3 The Vice-Presidents and the General Secretary shall be elected by the Congress following the procedure in Article 11-3.
12-4 The President, the Vice-Presidents and the General Secretary shall all be members of different National Associations, and all of them shall have different citizenships.
12-5 However, the Board of Director may, in exceptional circumstances, authorize a maximum of two of its members to depart from the rule of Article 12-4.
12-6 The President, the Vice-Presidents and the General Secretary shall be elected for a period of four years. They may be re-elected.
12-7 Should the President resign or be impeached from exercising his duties, the Vice-President who has been a member of the Board of Directors for the longest period shall take over his duties up to the next Congress. The next Congress shall elect a new President.
12-8 Should one of the Vice-Presidents or the General Secretary resign or be impeached from exercising his duties, the President shall appoint his successor. The latter shall be appointed up to the end term of the resigning or impeached Vice-President.

Heinz, I just answered to your view, that things would be different now at this moment, if the CoN would have written new statutes. I understood you meant that.

Answer to this question is that the Board could act just as they have done, because the new statutes will only be available after a vote in the EGM. And they have done things against the current statutes already.

I get your point, and new statutes would have been good for this Congress, so that the new board would work under them. But I thought we spoke about the situation before the Congress and in Congress before voting about statutes.

Writing good statutes requires a commission with people who have ability to write them and think analytically and logically about the problems and even legal issues. It's not a job for anyone (for example better for Zinga than me in Finland). The CoN was not created for doing that ground work. The CoN would then only accept the proposal or not accept it, and in Congress the accepted version would be accepted.

Heinz Eder wrote:Vesa, please tell me what a board can do, if the CoN would make new statutes and find a majority for that set before the congress?
The answer is nothing, because at the congress the same people vote again about statutes they already agreed on, when they vote in the CoN. For something like that the CoN doesn't need to be mentioned in the statutes. Everything which has to be decided at a Congress can already be solved in the CoN before.
What would be changed? The new board already could work with those statutes. The CoN did nothing except organizing 8 countries to request an EGM in the last 6 months. I don't think that was the only reason to form it in Rain.

About the rest, I agree on it that i maybe shouldn't generalize it that way, but I'm pretty sure that some people thought that way.

von K. wrote:
You are always talking about doing things according to statutes (good, of course), but how can you then write a thing like this about the CoN and the statutes?

1. The CoN has zero legal power until it is mentioned in the statutes. It should have had a lot of pressurising power, but the idea failed.

2. The statutes can't be changed until in a Congress approves them

So what would have changed with CoN making new statutes? Nothing!

I do appreciate your point about the impossibility to cancel Madrid. The sad thing is that if the BoD would have been informative and discussive about things, the whole Madrid meeting could have been avoided. A net meeting and elections, with financial report delivered to members, would have been enough.

Zinga's simple agenda for the new Board was good and it is also my view (and no doubt all finnish players) about the priorities.

For Giufaz' again thanks for the points that have to be considered.

zinga wrote:I agree that it would have been better if we had the new statutes for the Madrid meeting. However, the most important reason to have the EGM now, with or without the new statutes, is to restart the FISTF. If it is not done immediately, there will be no FISTF later on.

Normally I am one of the most optimistic men of the world .... but in fact FISTF is not existing anymore because all structures are broken and away. Who of the responsibles cares about what ? Nobody .....

We have to act to save FISTF! All associations should give their vote in Madrid ... I think it is a MUST to support FISTF in the best possible way.

Sorry but I missed who is coming to Madrid.

I have heard the following:
- Belgium
- Italy
- Spain
- Malta
- Germany
- Greece

Somewhere here in the Forum I have read that 8 countries are coming. Who are the missing two ?

What about France, Portugal, Finnland, Monaco, Gibraltar, Norway, Denmark, Scotland, Wales (who knows who is still member nation ? Another breach of statutes of Silvio to degrade some members: this can only be done by the congress (have a look in the statutes))

Janus_Gersie wrote:Sorry but I missed who is coming to Madrid.

I have heard the following:
- Belgium
- Italy
- Spain
- Malta
- Germany
- Greece

Somewhere here in the Forum I have read that 8 countries are coming. Who are the missing two ?

What about France, Portugal, Finnland, Monaco, Gibraltar, Norway, Denmark, Scotland, Wales (who knows who is still member nation ? Another breach of statutes of Silvio to degrade some members: this can only be done by the congress (have a look in the statutes))

I hope having news about Portugal before the end of the week.