KO - Gathering

Noodlebug wrote:Hello, my name is Stephen D and I quit the forums (and competitive Kick Off) 7 years ago as a result of unpleasant and dismissive comments in response to pretty much anything I said.

After a pleasingly persuasive email from Danny D, I attended my first World Cup in Dublin and enjoyed the experience and found myself more competitive (at my level) than I had expected. I have nevertheless still been reluctant to return to the forums because... well this.

So what has prompted me to reconsider my stance? Well, I have a vested interest in Steve E and the KOBRA boys remaining active in KO2 as they are my only feasible regular sparring partners. I do not wish to see them disillusioned by all the politics and bickering and withdrawing their bid and cutting ties with the KOA. I thought I could use my professional legal skills to give some analysis and advice. Free of charge (!).

They have made a bid which is wholly contingent on a proposed change from recent precedent allowing the use of Trapfix for players who wish to do so. They have made it clear that without the proposed change, there is no bid. There have been discussions about separating bids from rules but as things stand at the moment, there is no rule or precedent preventing them from taking this position.

Two alternative bids have been proposed, and as things stand at the moment they do not have any rule contingencies.

As things stand at the moment voting is open, there is a deadline. Some people have stated they are boycotting the vote due to concerns about the process. Other people have no concerns about the proposed rule contingency and I presume some people have been or will be voting.

Undoubtedly the Birmingham vote is very strong and would be massive favourites if they were willing to drop the rule contingency (it is not inconceivable that the Copenhagen bid may even be withdrawn should this happen). Birmingham may win even with the rule contingency, but it is very likely that a number of high profile competitors may decide not to attend if this is the case, which would be sad but entirely their prerogative. If Birmingham did not win, then my fear is that KOBRA would downscale their activities and involvement with the KOA, again this would be sad but entirely their prerogative. I would be delighted if they confirmed that this would not be the case in this scenario.

Each side is not going to convince the other now, so there is no point in continued bickering, we should all just await the outcome of the vote. Of course it would be naive to think whatever the outcome of the vote, that will be the end of it, there may be attempts to have the vote anulled, or held again with clearer rules - I think that would be a shame, and I would recommend that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome of the vote.

In my opinion, the best outcome for the KOA as a whole would be for KOBRA to reconsider their stance, in full awareness of the potential political consequences. Dropping the rule contingency would not close the door to Trapfix, it can be carried over and maybe voted on separately, and if its merits are clearly argued and it is the will of the KOA, the proposed "solution" would be adopted. Doing it the "contingent bid" way is very clearly alienating the anti-Trapfix lobby which seems to include many of the most competitive players and it would be a shame if the bad will and bitter taste this argument is creating resulted in a diminished World Cup shorn of some of its brightest stars.

I have broken my 7-year silence to come back here and plea to Steve E and KOBRA... think about what you're doing. And whatever happens, please don't quit. Quitting is for losers.

Noodlebug wrote:There have been discussions about separating bids from rules but as things stand at the moment, there is no rule or precedent preventing them from taking this position.

dnielsen wrote:Hi Stephen, welcome back!

I fully agree with the gist of Stephen's post: The Bham bid should reconsider their stance.

There is a clear precedent for separating bids from rules, and there was a de facto constitutional rule in effect on this matter at the time of starting the vote.

I hope that a compromise will be reached within the next couple of days.

Steve1977 wrote:I hope an acknowledgement that the above is incorrect for the last 2 world cups. No vote on rules for past 2 events.

dnielsen wrote:Just to remove any doubts: The vote is cancelled.

Reasons:

1) The reasons listed in the protest by Gianni and Dagh.
2) The Bham bid was withdrawn.
3) Jorn of the CPH bid agreed with the recommendation to cancel.
4) The Ibiza bid is premature at this stage.
5) The whole process was rushed for no particular reasons and carried forward by a small group of people with impartiality problems.
6) There has been turmoil in the forum, and it is prudent to take our time and do things properly and unrushed.

There will be a fundamental rule discussion in January, and the next WC location will be selected in February (suggested time frame for a bidding round is 1-15 February.)

Danny D wrote:Thanks for the update Dagh. Can you tell me who made the decision to cancel. Was this your decision alone? Was this a group? Who decided this.

alkis21 wrote:

Danny D wrote:Thanks for the update Dagh. Can you tell me who made the decision to cancel. Was this your decision alone? Was this a group? Who decided this.

No, it was not his decision alone. In fact, the number of people who decided to cancel this vote was three times more the ones who decided to hold it.