Madrid, 02/11

I believe that Greece will not send represantive.

I heard that the two persons who want to go to Madrid are fan of SPLIT !!!
Because they will loose the elections so they want to create another new greek federation and they want a second FISTF for their targets...

Interesting proposition, Kostas. Maybe Piero knows more and is able to confirm they will not going to Madrid.

kechris wrote:I believe that Greece will not send represantive.

I heard that the two persons who want to go to Madrid are fan of SPLIT !!!
Because they will loose the elections so they want to create another new greek federation and they want a second FISTF for their targets...

Sorry guys, you are in the wrong path. You are missing a fact.

That the decision of the Court of Appeals has finally been published. Soon, FISTF will have an official copy and a translation of the decision which says that there is NO BoD after the INVALIDATION of the elections of 2008 and that things return to pre-2008 elections status.

This means that the governing and deciding body in PATFAP NOW is the initial provisional BoD. In other words, Koutroumanos has no authority to decide about anything, and if someone presents himself in Madrid as Greek delegate without the written consent of the Provisional BoD, this will be a breach and an attempt to cheat against FISTF.

Greece can only be represented by someone if this someone has the OK from the Provisional BoD of PATFAP. PATFAP Provisional BoD members have not yet discussed the matter, so until now there is NO Greek delegate for Madrid. Only tourists.

drastis wrote:Greece can only be represented by someone if this someone has the OK from the Provisional BoD of PATFAP. PATFAP Provisional BoD members have not yet discussed the matter, so until now there is NO Greek delegate for Madrid. Only tourists.

Good to know ....

We still read our bylaws.

Leonidas may be a candidate (like anyone else, as the same Drastis) but Greece can not vote (if and certain sentencing).

The application is individual has nothing to do with the federations. (what you have asked here 200 times.)

Besos.

pierocapponi wrote:We still read our bylaws.

Leonidas may be a candidate (like anyone else, as the same Drastis) but Greece can not vote (if and certain sentencing).

The application is individual has nothing to do with the federations. (what you have asked here 200 times.)

Besos.

Piero, could you please try to rephrase what you are saying, I don't think I fully understand.

drastis wrote:

pierocapponi wrote:We still read our bylaws.

Leonidas may be a candidate (like anyone else, as the same Drastis) but Greece can not vote (if and certain sentencing).

The application is individual has nothing to do with the federations. (what you have asked here 200 times.)

Besos.

Piero, could you please try to rephrase what you are saying, I don't think I fully understand.

Piero used the translator from italian, I think. So you can get better picture by translating this back to italian (with the google translator, I think) and then to greek.

Only a week to go for the election and everything is in the air.

What is the agenda?
Who are candidates?
Which countries have the right to vote?
When is the deadline for sending a candidature?
Is postal vote accepted?
Are delegates accepted?
Who is going to chair the Congress?

As I am a candidate, I would like to particiapte, but who can ensure that I will be allowed to participate? Whose task is to inform people properly?? PLEASE, give us a break!!

post those questions in the Italian forum

panagios wrote:post those questions in the Italian forum

And then????? What is the point of that?

It seems De Francesco knows everything of what goes around and all informations are published ont he italian forum. For instance, a few hours after Belgium had confirmed its presnce (by Titi Giaux), it was already on the italian forum.

Allt he questions from Drastis are very important. Because there are no answers, because the way votes will be made, because nobody knows who will be the candidates,... we are in a situation were we don't trust each other and it's really sad.

Even if many countries will be "represented" in Madrid, I fear elections will be a joke (once again) and the meeting itself will not mean really much. If the only main point was to have elections, I cans ay once again it would have been clever to hold these elections in Mons where there was a better chance to have many more countries attending.

Who can prove Papakonstantinou's vote for Argentina will reflect the Argentinian opinion? I'm really scared of the dangers of such elections.

FISTF should join FISCT

Postal vote .... the statutes were written in 1994 !!!
We must replace that by "e-mail vote" urgently !!!

a video conference would be better.

dromer wrote:a video conference would be better.

I fully agree.
It is the time to use video conference for the good of our sport.

Luis Filipe Horta wrote:

dromer wrote:a video conference would be better.

I fully agree.
It is the time to use video conference for the good of our sport.

Totally agreed! Sadly, I assume that some non-named individuals are more interested on their own agendas than the common sense and the future of FISTF.

zinga wrote:

Luis Filipe Horta wrote:

dromer wrote:a video conference would be better.

I fully agree.
It is the time to use video conference for the good of our sport.

Totally agreed! Sadly, I assume that some non-named individuals are more interested on their own agendas than the common sense and the future of FISTF.

... Piero Capponi, tell us more about this. Is Spain able to set new standards - possible or not?

Already a couple of weeks ago I asked for the possibility of a video conference, or even the possibility to follow the meeting online, but no one has said anything about it.

An EGM, especially if called for reasons like this has, should be dealt with a video conference without any need for travelling for anyone. That would be democratic (especially regarding countries outside Europe).

von K. wrote:Already a couple of weeks ago I asked for the possibility of a video conference, or even the possibility to follow the meeting online, but no one has said anything about it.

An EGM, especially if called for reasons like this has, should be dealt with a video conference without any need for travelling for anyone. That would be democratic (especially regarding countries outside Europe).

Think, it would be .... professional
No promises are allowed

Thossa wrote:

von K. wrote:Already a couple of weeks ago I asked for the possibility of a video conference, or even the possibility to follow the meeting online, but no one has said anything about it.

An EGM, especially if called for reasons like this has, should be dealt with a video conference without any need for travelling for anyone. That would be democratic (especially regarding countries outside Europe).

Think, it would be .... professional
No promises are allowed

Of corse possibile, if the statute is changed.
Unfortunatelly to keep the meeting via videoconferenza we need an amendment to the statute.
Not possibile for Madrid.
Best

[quote="giufaz")Of corse possibile, if the statute is changed.
Unfortunatelly to keep the meeting via videoconferenza we need an amendment to the statute.
Not possibile for Madrid.
Best
[/quote]

Are there anything in the Statutes about it is mandatory everybody who attend the EGM must be phisically in the same place ? I believe not.

Luis Filipe Horta wrote:

giufaz wrote:Of corse possibile, if the statute is changed.
Unfortunatelly to keep the meeting via videoconferenza we need an amendment to the statute.
Not possibile for Madrid.
Best

Are there anything in the Statutes about it is mandatory everybody who attend the EGM must be phisically in the same place ? I believe not.

The same thing came to my mind, and I checked. The Statutes say nothing about a congress being held at one physical location. It could be done as a video conference, without any one location, according to the statutes.

von K. wrote:

Luis Filipe Horta wrote:

giufaz wrote:Of corse possibile, if the statute is changed.
Unfortunatelly to keep the meeting via videoconferenza we need an amendment to the statute.
Not possibile for Madrid.
Best

Are there anything in the Statutes about it is mandatory everybody who attend the EGM must be phisically in the same place ? I believe not.

The same thing came to my mind, and I checked. The Statutes say nothing about a congress being held at one physical location. It could be done as a video conference, without any one location, according to the statutes.

Sorry Von K., it is not like this: the way a meeting should be held must be indicated in the statute.
We can have a virtual meeting only if expressly stated in the statute.
Just to confirm this, the chance of having meetings via electronic way was recognized by European Law (and, consequently, European Countries) only after year 2000. And it was made possible to exercise this chance only if the statute would have previewed this.
The FISTF statute doesn't permit this and therefore it could be possible to connect via videoconference only with the consent of all Members (difficult to imagine, given the situation). Or changing the Statute.
In order to be sure, I also checked the French law of 1901 (as updated and amended) and it doesn't give any general permission of helding meetings via videoconference.
I repeat: we need to amend the statute.
Best

Ok, that's clear. It's just impossible to know all the details that have to be thought of, that are not necessarily in the statutes (you mentioned the European Law). I don't think FISTF has ever had to think things like this before. So it's obvious that many people are a little confused. I just read the statutes and make conclusions from there (not mentioned a physical place, because it seems to be the norm in the eyes of the law).

Thanks again for the clarification. You spending time for answering is really appreciated.

The statutes need a lot of work.

I'm not totally convinced.
Everybody knows that the laws has different interpretation when they are not enough objectives.
What we have is a single interpretation. Maybe another lawyers has a different interpretation.
Who may ask Baudouin Heuninckx ?