Questions for Dave Perrott

Foosball chat / key issues and discussion
User avatar
Richard
Posts: 1703
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:50 pm
Real Name: Richard Thomson
Location: London

Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by Richard » Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:29 am

OK i will try to be constructive here.

Dave, i am trying to understand the grievance here so please do bear with me. I think there are three key events that i want to understand.

i) World cup team selection: i genuinely do not think the BFA committee was involved in sorting out the admin mistake, but rather it was solely discussed between you and Boris. If the committee had been involved i would have thought we would have issued a public apology not a private "debt", but either way this is history. If i have misremembered and this was a committee decision then i do apologise.

... for the benefit of the doubt, lets assume it was a committee decision and there was clear expression of "debt". That brings us onto two other items

ii) Havelock incident: you raised a complaint that I managed on behalf of the committee. I took statements from all involved, asked publically for people to come forward with their version of events, and after much deliberation across the committee issued a formal warning to Kalsi. The committee discussion over whether to warn or ban Kalsi extended to c.40 posts and showed the extent of the discussion. I have previously (and confidentially) shared this discussion with you, and thought you had accepted the result both at the time and subsequently. Until you started the source thread to this email (now locked) i was unaware that you had rejected this verdict or asked that it be reconsidered or reopened.

iii) "Calling in the debt": i assume you made a formal demand to the 2007/8 BFA committee. I was not on such committee and cannot comment on whether their response was appropriate. You clearly think it was not. I have highlighted that i think the demand is inappropriate, but ultimately the decision has nothing to do with me so i will again give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your demand was simply ignored without due consideration.


My annoyance is around the implied direct criticism of my actions whilst i was BFA chairman. You appear to be saying (1) that i promised something that i then did not deliver on (what?), and (2) that i mishandled the Havelock complaint and ignored your subsequent protestations (again, how?). As i say, in the interests of trying to be constructive, can i ask the following questions:

1) Do you think i mishandled your complaint re the Havelock event. Before answering, i ask that you kindly re-read the formal response you received at the time and the subsequent off-the-record details of the committee's decision making.
2) Do you think the committee decision re the Havelock incident should have taken into consideration the debt you feel was owed to you. In effect, do you think your standing should have outweighed the neutrality of the decision making process.
3) Who did you make your demand to re point (iii) above, and how (in writing for the attention of the rest of the committee?), and is the dealing with this demand the real source of your angst. I think it is a cop-out simply to refer to "the BFA", but if you insist on doing that then please state the precise committee you are referring to (ie one that i was on or not).
4) Is there anything that you think could have been done to meet your demands / satisfy your "debt" etc within the constraints of the BFA constitution, and without resorting to a rewriting of the constitution.
5) If the wider membership considers it inappropriate to introduce a category of "honorary life members", but the BFA committee instead provides some kind of achievement award, would you accept this outcome and move forward.


People may think i am over-reacting or being overly sensitive. Probably. But i take significant offence to the idea that people are slandering me in the background, and forming judgements about my historic actions when - as most people who were around at the time will attest - I spent literally thousands of hours developing the constitutional and organisation framework of the BFA, coordinating the organisation of tournaments, financially supporting various table schemes, and helping UK foosball catch up with the international scene. I dont think it is unreasonable to ask - Dave, who is your gripe with?

Richard
Last edited by Richard on Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

snakecharmer

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by snakecharmer » Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:56 pm

Richard, I am tired of all of this as much as D. Carter and Paddy. World Cup selection. It was all agreed and "sorted" out on the C'ttee Forum. I posted the C'ttee "owed me one, and one day I may collect" or words to that effect prior to the agreement. and they accepted. They have since reied to dodge or deny that. Nothing new. Your actions here and then look like you're just trying to wind me or get more mileage out of it all. I never had a personal issue with you over it, rather it seems the other way around.
As with many of the answers to questions you are seeking, they are well documented in this forum somewhere. You state you were unaware that I was unhappy with the BFA decision over the Havelock incident, that in itself is proof you really haven't followed anything or researched too much.

My gripe is with the BFA fpr failing miserably to deal with a real incident where a ref was threatened at a tournament. The players who witnessed it all and refused to come forward a state what they'd seen. Then finally, the BFA again. Once I knew the BFA would not accept their failure to deal with the original issue, I said I'd leave the scene for good, but requested that the World Cup selection moral debt was recognised as still unpaid. At that stage I had no intention in collecting on it, just acceptance that it still stood. When the BFA started denying it ever existed I decided it was time to be collected. The price was Lifetime Honorary for Stumpy.
I am "old school". My word is my bond. I take others to be the same. The BFA have proved very far removed from it. What was agreed on the C'ttee forum was later denied to exist by the BFA. The fact that after 3 or so years people are still asking what my gripe is makes it laughable to be asked in the same post if I would accept an outcome decision from the BFA re. awards. There is a long way to go, and therefore plenty of time for more lyin', duckin' and diving by those BFA still involved. There is no rush by anyone to reconcile the situation for my benefit, and any attempts are now seen by me as simply a way to bury this minor embarrassment for the BFA. Many have spoken to me privately over the situation but unfortunately few have publicly aired their views. As for Dunleavy and Carter, this may all be a long joke for you, it is not for me, let's try to keep this one constructive and unlocked.

User avatar
CannonBallGuy
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:23 pm
Real Name: Matthew "Mac" Simmons
Location: Newport, Wales
Contact:

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by CannonBallGuy » Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:35 am

snakecharmer wrote:Mods, you're quick enough to lock threads over this when it gets heated, how about keeping the dickhead jokers off here and letting those really interested discuss the topic?
Since there seem to only be two of you who give a rat's ass, why not take the conversation to private message such to avoid the 'dickhead jokers' and stop wasting everybody else's time? I have no idea what all this is about but it's sure as hell bored the crap out of me.

User avatar
davez
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:17 pm
Real Name: Dave Ziemann
Location: London, UK

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by davez » Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:00 am

OK, the translation stuff is funny but Dave also has a personal and serious issue he's trying to deal with here, and he's doing it on his own. A crack or two is always fair game but if everyone piles in it just starts to feel disrespectful or like bullying.

This is a clearly titled topic in the general forum so nobody has to dive in if they don't want to. I think people generally have good reasons for wanting this dialogue be on public record, and it's a sign of maturity that difficult discussions can be successfully held in a public forum.
Apostrophes never make plurals.Incorrect:Table's,Garlando's,DVD's,1900's.Correct:Tables,Garlandos,DVDs,1900s.

User avatar
DaveC
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 7:20 pm
Real Name: Dave Carter
Location: Oxford

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by DaveC » Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:07 am

snakecharmer wrote:As for Dunleavy and Carter, this may all be a long joke for you, it is not for me, let's try to keep this one constructive and unlocked.
Dave, it's not a joke for me. As it happens I sympathise with you completely, and I do think Stumpy (and some others) should be right honourable lifetime BFA members (but I'm not interested in starting a debate on this). I think you and Dave need to get a room and sort it out. Apart from being bored rigid now by this argument, which seems to me to be going in circles, I don't think it's good for table football to have things descending into thinly veiled public threats (I presume the latter was the reason for the previous thread lockage).

User avatar
tom_k
Site Administrator
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 9:32 am
Real Name: Tom King
Location: Oxford

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by tom_k » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:57 am

*sigh* - I go away for a few days and look what happens.
Maybe I can politely request:

a) for anyone who's not interested, to keep off this thread, at least for a while? Assuming it doesn't descend into threats, if there is an issue, it should be aired.
b) for an official response from the committee over this? - Otherwise I fear we'll all go around in circles.

Ta
T

User avatar
Richard
Posts: 1703
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:50 pm
Real Name: Richard Thomson
Location: London

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by Richard » Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:41 pm

Dave P wrote:My gripe is with the BFA fpr failing miserably to deal with a real incident where a ref was threatened at a tournament.

I thought i was an appropriate person to adjudicate - given i was not there and fully considered witnesses' views before a committee consensual decision was taken - and I am sorry you did not agree with the outcome. I also think the committee process did as much as it could have done, and that the real issue was the lack of people coming forward (at the time and subsequently), not the committee decision making process per se. Perhaps in your reference to "the BFA" you are talking more generally than "the BFA committee" - ie your gripe is aimed at the players who were there on the day, the organisers, and subsequently the witnesses for not coming forward.

What i took personally was the direct criticism about the handling of your havelock complaint, which was solely managed by me, so i could hardly take it any other way! This was amplified by the comments other people made saying "oh we did not have a complaints procedure back then, we are setting it up now" which is just not correct.


On the rest i think we will have to agree to disagree (or at least agree that our perspectives/memories differ).

..... But just before i leave it there, some people (those not bored - who should have stopped reading this thread ages ago) may be wondering why we dont just look at the old committee forum to see exactly what was written.... good question. Unfortunately the britfoos site was hit by a malicious virus of sorts that deleted all non-topic posts over a certain age. There is a backup version (that was saved on the server - i no longer have the ftp so cannot access it myself) which could in theory shed light on this. I would be interested (as would dave i assume) in case someone can track the backup down and somehow review the contents. Webmasters?

Thanks,
Richard

User avatar
tom_k
Site Administrator
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 9:32 am
Real Name: Tom King
Location: Oxford

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by tom_k » Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:43 pm

I have got that .sql backup (at least I assume so) however, integrating it into the existing forum isn't really an option.
If it's deemed important I can try and resurrect it somehow though.

User avatar
Boris
BFA Treasurer
Posts: 9447
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 10:15 pm
Real Name: Boris Atha
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by Boris » Tue Sep 01, 2009 3:44 pm

Facetious contributions mod-binned.

I have kept quiet on this topic and related topics as I don't believe it is appropriate to 'air our dirty linen' in a public forum.

The committee is considering a proposal to introduce 'honorary life membership' on its own merits, and a proper procedure for nomination and ratification to formally recognise individuals who have made an outstanding contribution to UK foosball. However any constitutional amendment (the proper way to do this) would need to be agreed by a general meeting (AGM or EGM). There is a long and distinguished list of potential candidates for such an award. The truth is that the game in the UK depends entirely on the voluntary efforts of individual players and promoters, and those 'unsung heroes' who do the hard work that no-one else can be bothered to do, and who, rather than getting praise or thanks, more usually are the victims of petty criticism and backbiting for their efforts.

In relation to the Havelock Incident, the proper procedures in place at the time were followed to the letter and the guilty party received a warning as to future conduct after being 'convicted' on the lesser of two charges faced. The disciplinary tribunal which heard the case was hampered by the unwillingness of independent witnesses to come forward to give written or oral evidence. If you were there and saw the incident, and failed to come forward, then you must share some of the blame for the long-term consequences of that incident. The disciplinary procedures are currently being reviewed and a revised system, with more 'teeth', should hopefully be in place by this year's UKC.

In relation to the 2006 World Cup selection announcement, it was my mistake made in good faith and corrected within hours. I don't want to go into detail as to the rights and wrongs of that selection as to do so would be unfair, both to the players who were selected and to those who narrowly missed out on selection at the time. I have apologised for this both in public and in private on numerous occasions.

User avatar
Mike A
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 11:14 pm
Real Name: Michael Amsden
Location: London

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by Mike A » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:53 pm

Richard wrote: I also think the committee process did as much as it could have done, and that the real issue was the lack of people coming forward (at the time and subsequently), not the committee decision making process per se. Perhaps in your reference to "the BFA" you are talking more generally than "the BFA committee" - ie your gripe is aimed at the players who were there on the day, the organisers, and subsequently the witnesses for not coming forward.

What i took personally was the direct criticism about the handling of your havelock complaint, which was solely managed by me, so i could hardly take it any other way! This was amplified by the comments other people made saying "oh we did not have a complaints procedure back then, we are setting it up now" which is just not correct.
Richard, having been present at the Havelock and subsequent events where disciplinary procedures have ensued, I can talk about this with first hand experience.
Boris wrote: In relation to the Havelock Incident, the proper procedures in place at the time were followed to the letter....
Unfortunately, this failed to make direct contact with known witnesses, something which subsequent disciplinary hearings have done. Indeed player lists and contact details are obtained at every event for the purpose of successfully administering the event, disciplinary procedures would fall into this category.

The problem with the disciplinary process was the fact that there was no email sent out to those people present to advise that if they witnessed anything relating to the event in question they should submit statements to the BFA. Instead, a lonely post was left on the Britfoos discussion boards which was ignored/overlooked/not taken seriously/not even seen/whatever and was quickly lost. This was a feeble attempt at obtaining witness statements and it duly failed. Consequently, the process was lacking vital witness statements (including mine amongst many others - for which Dave I can only apologise).
By the time the post had been highlighted to people and the weaknesses of it's efforts exposed, the damage had been done and there was no additional effort to obtain witness statements in such a fashion that has proven far more successful in subsequent disciplinary investigations.

At no point in the process was it made explicitly clear to me, or any other potential witnesses present at the Havelock event of:

1) The need for witness statements.
2) My/others obligations to provide witness statements should I/they have witnessed the event in question.

The lack of this explicit clarity undermined what I'm sure, would otherwise have been a robust process.

User avatar
davez
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:17 pm
Real Name: Dave Ziemann
Location: London, UK

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by davez » Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:53 pm

Mike, your description of an ineffectual attempt to solicit witness statements is exactly as I remember it.
Apostrophes never make plurals.Incorrect:Table's,Garlando's,DVD's,1900's.Correct:Tables,Garlandos,DVDs,1900s.

User avatar
Boris
BFA Treasurer
Posts: 9447
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 10:15 pm
Real Name: Boris Atha
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by Boris » Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:12 pm

The problem with soliciting witness statements is wording the solicitation so as not to prejudice the responses.

Mike's suggestion of contacting players individually is one which we may look to take up in the future, where this is practicable. Our problem was that none of the then committee (other than Jude) was present on the day, so all we had to go on were the statements of those who did come forward.

User avatar
shovie
Posts: 2696
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2003 2:16 pm
Real Name: Alex Shovelton
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by shovie » Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:09 pm

I think it's pretty pathetic not to say something just because you weren't pushed to do so. If you were there and saw what happened, and then saw the post asking for witness statements you should have come forward.

Alex

Steviola
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 6:02 pm
Real Name: Stephen Lyall
Location: London

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by Steviola » Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:55 pm

Agree with Alex.

snakecharmer

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by snakecharmer » Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:39 pm

Boris wrote:so all we had to go on were the statements of those who did come forward.
None.....

User avatar
Mike A
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 11:14 pm
Real Name: Michael Amsden
Location: London

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by Mike A » Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:25 pm

Alex, it is not about people needing to be 'pushed', it is about making it explicitly clear that there is a requirement; put more simply, it is a communications issue, and at no point was the requirement for witness statements effectively communicated to potential witnesses. How did the process check that the message had been read and understood by the target audience?
No other disciplinary process I am aware of would ignore known witnesses in favour of a generic public request for statements, that is reliant on an individuals thorough use of an internet discussion board.

Furthermore, posting an advert for witnesses on a discussion board is in direct contradiction of the BFA's desire to keep such matters out of the public eye. As a result, such requests for witness statements can become confusing and slightly cryptic, another hinderance to effective communications.

It is quite easy to word email requests to maintain impartiality from the event in question, in fact a template email with input fields could probably be set up to apply to most situations:

Dear [name],

You recently attended a BFA table football event at [venue] on [date].

It has been alleged that there was an incident involving some of the players who attended this event. This is alleged to have taken place around the time of [enter time] at [enter table number or location within venue]. The BFA is now conducting an investigation into this alleged incident. If you have any information relating to this, or were in this area of the venue around the specified time please contact [enter name and contact details of disciplinary officer conducting the investigation]. Conversely, if you did not witness this incident, please respond to this effect.

If as a result of this investigation it transpires that you have not cooperated with this request, this could result in disciplinary procedures being brought against you, and could affect your eligibility to attend future BFA sponsored events.


Obviously rushed and would need fine tuning, but essentially, not difficult and would be entirely in keeping with a good disciplinary process.

User avatar
Mike A
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 11:14 pm
Real Name: Michael Amsden
Location: London

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by Mike A » Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:56 pm

What is currently concerning me, is the readiness of BFA officials (past and present) now looking to publicly (officially) berate BFA members (paying customers).

The UK game is not currently in a very healthy position, this is only making things worse.

User avatar
Messiah
Posts: 1520
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 4:12 pm
Real Name: Dan Gallon
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by Messiah » Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:46 am

Mike A wrote:What is currently concerning me, is the readiness of BFA officials (past and present) now looking to publicly (officially) berate BFA members (paying customers).

The UK game is not currently in a very healthy position, this is only making things worse.
What is currently concerning me, is the readiness of BFA members (past and present) now looking to publicly (officially) berate BFA officials (unpaid volunteers).

The UK game is not currently in a very healthy position, this is only making things worse.
Still going....

User avatar
davez
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:17 pm
Real Name: Dave Ziemann
Location: London, UK

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by davez » Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:43 am

Dan,

I can see the attraction of posting the symmetrical viewpoint, but I think it is an unfair implication. At no point was Mike berating any BFA officials. He was analysing and then explaining why he thought the process used to solicit responses was inneffective. I've been silent here, but was moved to respond because Mike's observations really gelled with me and I think he hit the nail on the head. Now I would like to see the original solicitation to see if I still feel the same way.
Apostrophes never make plurals.Incorrect:Table's,Garlando's,DVD's,1900's.Correct:Tables,Garlandos,DVDs,1900s.

User avatar
Mogwai
Posts: 2024
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 10:59 am
Real Name: Dave Morgan
Location: Wokingham
Contact:

Re: Questions for Dave Perrott

Post by Mogwai » Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:24 am

I personaIly think the main point was that this incident showed the shortcomings of the previous system, not in necessarily principle but in definitely in practice. Since this incident there have been investigations into other alleged incidents, which were dealt with in a more structured and rigorous way, moreso in the way Mike suggests in fact. The implementation is now much better so at least a small amount of good has come out of the Havelock incident.

Mike, I think Alex was berating players with his own players hat on, not in any way officially. Remember that all committee members are entitled to give their individual opinions on this board which don't necessarily fall into line with overall committee opinion.

Locked