You really are infuriating Taneepak. You continue to deliver the IBF line which you seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker. You even seem to believe in the democracy of the IBF. Or at least you believe that if you repeat it often enough people will believe it. Take a look at what Neil Cameron, chief executive of the IBF for five years from 1998 has said: "I am concerned with what the IBF are currently suggesting, primarily because I believe they haven’t approached the issue in a well thought out and structured way, eg: what’s the purpose of the IBF’s planned changes? There is very little information available on this where’s the analysis backing up their proposals? ie what benefits are foreseen for the systems to be used? what’s the full plan to implement any new system? and does the plan comply with the IBF’s own Rules? has IBF consulted widely with the National Associations on the experimental systems? how will IBF evaluate the success or otherwise of any new system? etc It all smacks of the seat-of-the-pants thinking that I fear is becoming commonplace in other areas of IBF’s work. He is asking some of the questions I have been asking you, and believes they are acting outside the rules. But you continue to ignore them, presumably because they are too embarrassing to contemplate. Will you answer them now?
Well, if Neil Cameron and you are so sure you are both right then the coming crucial vote on the new scoring system should be a resounding no. In that case why are you so upset about this going to a vote? The same thing happened to the 7 points experimental system. It was given a trial and then given the thumbs down. If you are right, this new 21 points system should have utterly no chance of being adopted. If so, so be it. There is such a thing as due process. If Neil Cameron really believes in what he says about the IBF acting outside the rules, surely he knows what to do? Can't he stop it, either through the courts or in the AGM? I say let the votes decide. You can scream or curse but these will count for nothing. Or do you have a nagging feeling that the vote will turn out differently? Whether the vote turns out to be yes or no, it is a damn good decision, because for the first time in IBF's history today's voting system is fairer than ever before.
There are a thousand and one questions, some relevant and others delaying tactics from people who disagree, but a decision has been made, presumedly in accordance with the laws of the IBF, for trying out a new scoring system. Now, what is wrong with that? Does the IBF have to answer all your questions or for that matter Neil Cameron's for this? You are free to have your own opinions. You are also free to take out a restraining order against the IBF for not answering all your questions or for not consulting you before making the decision to try out the new system. Your questions to me are misdirected. You should direct your questions to whoever can save you the day. As a matter of fact there is a precedent for taking the IBF to the courts some time back. Right now, the reality is that the trial period is on. A vote will be taken later. Either way the vote goes, let us accept it. I have no problem accepting the decision. But can you, if I may ask?
Well, that is the point of the questions, isn't it. A properly set up trial, with clear and published success criteria, intelligently analysed and reported, would be a solid basis for such a law change and I would be content with a democratic vote on the issue. I would not be happy for a dishonest vote, taken on the basis of a poorly conducted trial and where the evasiveness of the people involved leads one to believe that a stitch-up is being conducted. The answers to these questions are fundamental in giving the badminton public confidence in what is going on. Why are you so confident in a vote when you don't have the answers to these questions? Why do you believe that the trial is a fair one, for instance, when you don't know what the success criteria for the trial are?
- Why not give things a chance? Do we need a referendum for everything ? Were all thiese stuffy measures put in place in 2002 when Europeans demanded the 7 point system ? The world is full of stories of people who dared to take a chance. Is failure the end of the world?
I think you misunderstand how things in real life works. The IBF is a legal entity and is operated like a corporation, with shareholders (votes from all the confederations of the 5 zones), board of directors (IBF council), and managerial staff. The decision to try out the new system was the board's (council's) decision alone and nobody else. Neil Cameron was the head of the managerial staff but not a director (council member) and should have no say or vote in the council's decision. The IBF council members (board of directors) who decided on the new system trial period comprise members from Korea, Thailand, Austria, Scotland, Malaysia, Denmark, Australia, Canada, Japan, Sweden, Indonesia, Nigeria, USA, Peru, Singapore, China, India, Sri Lanka, Philippines, Greece, Kenya, Mauritius, Bulgaria, and Germany. The 'shareholders' (member confederation countries) voted and appointed the board of directors (council members) to run the business. Just because you believe the council should consult you and answer your thousand and one questions, in order to do a proper job, doesn't mean they will. Come on, do you think the board of directors have to consult their shareholders, employees, their customers, government, or the public in their board deliberations? The world will come to a standstill if they were to do that. What you can do is to overthrow the board (council) and then appoint your slate of council members who will do what you command. You think you can do that? This is what you are knocking your head against. This is democracy at work, no?
Patronising, or what? The consistent over-use of does not help, of course. I do have some experience of real life, you know. You have to get away from all this idealistic voting stuff and think about the problem and practical solutions to it ... in the real world. If the management were held to be competent I would say that democracy is not a suitable means to getting the right decision among so many politically-motivated people. You really ought to focus on the fact that the IBF is running a business. Buiness are not run on particularly democratice principles on a day-to-day basis. They are run by management teams. This business wants to make its product more popular. Any competent business management, if contemplating major changes to its products, will first determine (and record) why the changes are necessary. Next, any plan or trial (as in this case) formulated will have success criteria set down so that it can be reviewed in the light of what actually happens. If you know (and have defined) what constitutes success (or what the acceptance criteria are) you can make a fairly simple decision about whether you have achieved that success, or whether an alternative strategy should be followed. The IBF is singularly failing to adopt such methods, leading to the inevitable conclusions that (a) they are not competent to manage their business or (b) they have not thought out what constitutes success in the trial or (c) they just want to bulldoze a major change through and are so nervous of its acceptability that they wish to keep away from the clarity that is required by adopting evasive methods. Or all of the above. I am not challenging the IBF (directly). I am sitting on the sidelines and commenting (like everyone else here). I am challenging you directly when I ask why you are so confident in the decision when such basic aids to business management, decision-making and transparency have not been implemented. You have still not addressed those questions. Why are you so evasive?
Come, come, you are getting a bit off track by challenging me on a subject that has nothing to do with me. The IBF council is a duly elected council and they have the power to make a decision about trying out a new scoring system for a certain period. They have also wisely passed the decision to implement or not to implement the new scoring system to the shareholders (member confederation countries). It is not for you or anybody else, including Neil Cameron, to meddle in their affairs. You are implying or explicitly saying the IBF council members are useless. You also seem to believe that I am Mr IBF. Am I seeing things? However, these are your opinions, and much as I disagree, at least you have your say.
But my questions are do to with you. I am asking you why you are confident that a decision can be made (by anyone) when some basic management principles and methods have not been followed (such as defining the success criteria for the trial). You are correct in one thing. I did call you Punches poodle because you seem to blindly follow whatever they say.
I think you are confused about management principles and decision. A decision is made after due considerations by the concerned parties. Whether the management style used in reaching that decision complies with your version of good management practice is not the point. One man's meat is another man's poison. What is good management practce to the IBF may be rubbish to you. But can anyone imagine you taking charge? Yes, I am confident that a decision will be made after the trial period. And why shouldn't a decision be made? Surely you are not going to stop them? I do not question the competence of the IBF council to decide on trying out the new scoring system nor do I question the competence of the AGM (shareholders) vote when the time comes for the final decision. But you relish in rubbishing them. I wonder why? No, I do not blindly follow whatever the IBF says. You are getting a bit derailed by being a bit personal. I think I will take a 'rain check' now and wait for calmer weather.
I agree. And part of the due consideration is to know how you are going to judge the success of a trial. Now, who did you say was getting personal?
- Some of the management principles , reasearch methods etc quoted here are sth. if such things were done at undergraduate level the student will get an immediate D. Management styles, decision making processses, research etc are very varied, it all depend on the situation. Bureaucratic styles perhaps are more suitable for runnng hospitals, governments etc, they may not be suitable for say Microsoft corporation. I think theyoung are even more resistant to change and challenge than the experienced, they seem very good at treating books as the gospel truth.
- Then again things like that depend on culture. That's why globalisation is a load of crap unless it is related to WTO. What happened to Sven what's his name would be considered petty nit picking elsewhere .although he achieved so mich for football. Applies to so many football managers too but in other places they would have been forgiven. Even in Asia people like Frost etc have had the same problem. That's why people like like LI Yong Bo are still valued in their societies and still achieving. Still the high standards demanded of some cultures have today made them very wealthy. Many allegations have been made against Gunalan or li Yong Bo but are they really the truth? And who's perfect?Maybe he will suceed like Li?
Changing the scoring system, or any laws of badminton, can only be done at an interval of once in every four years. Only in special circumstances can this 4 years be waived, and that is when 4/5 of all the votes request for an urgent change. The new scoring system is a proposed change in the laws of badminton. Any such changes must meet a threshhold of 2/3 of the votes, an extremely high threshhold. The new system will be defeated even if it wins a simple majority of the votes or any majority below 2/3. It is like changing the constitution of a country, very difficult and a built-in check and balance against hasty decisions.
Where did you watch that? I caught that game only in the 3rd set in 97. Would love to watch the whole thing.
Let us vote for the New or Old point system Hi friends, I vote for the old system because:- 1) A 15-0 victory is possble only in the old system 2)Some show-off movements can be made when we serve.No harm will happen.But we should be cautious when we receive.
