Saturday, August 14, 2010

Not correct

Dear Friends & Colleagues,
PRESS RELEASE – August 14, 2010
I draw your attention to an article published on a National English daily today (August 14, 2010) with the title of Hong Kong replaces Malaysia.
This article relates to the World Women Tenpin Bowling Championship 2011 which was awarded to Malaysia as host.
We like to point out that the report published is not true.
The statement  in the article “ A source said the contract was not signed by MTBC before the deadline “ is totally  untrue .
The truth is MTBC was given the contract on the last day of the deadline making it impossible to sign within the deadline.
The writer should have referred to us before going to the press, putting MTBC in a bad light.
Presently MTBC is in the process of appealing to CAS.
The matter is therefore subjudice.
On behalf of MTBC


  1. Sydney , Why go straight to Court of Arbitration for Sports in Switzerland? Why don't you chaps just write to Organisizer of this bowling Championship and tell them your problems.
    You know that before it is offered to you and your organisation must have given an indication of acceptace to host the Championship. The fact that5 the contract was given to Malaysia speaks alot.
    There may be postal delays and you know this is quite common for post Malaysia. What can CAS do? Award damages to you?
    Relax Sydney , this is sports and you chaps arae doing a good job.

  2. Very confusing claims.... The reporter's story and Sidney's claims are about the same... What is the dispute......
    Why didn't MTBC sign the correct? In the first place, why did MTBC bid for the world meet if they did not agree with the new terms and conditions?
    I think the contract was handed or emailed to them much earlier.
    ... Maybe Sidney was talking about the revised contract in his reply to the reporter's story.
    There is something fishy. MTBC should be truthful...

  3. Dear Anon 8.18 pm. Sydney in his missive has made it very clear that the contract and not the amended or the varied contract, it is the contract that was given one day before the dead line.
    That is the substance and issue at hand. Even if it is amended or revised contract MTBC should be given reasonable time to execute it and return it.
    I concede that with email you can make your intentions know that you are agreeable to enter into the contract, but it at most only demonstrate an intention that is all.
    Be fair to MTBC council and let the matter be resolved properly.
    I agree with Anon 11.45 pm that CAS should only be used as a last resort.

  4. MTBC had a problem with the standard contract. One line says that "disputes will be solved by the WTBA Presidium".
    MTBC wanted to get this changed into "FIQ Presidium". WTBA argued that FIQ has nothing to do with its World Championships.... and that's the reason why.....

  5. Thank you anon 1.25a.m. for clarifying. Contracts are actually are consensus between the Contracting parties. In this case if MTBC does not accept it and if it passes the deadline what does MTBC wants to argue anymore. Time is no longer a criteria for MTBC cannot agree to the WTBA Presidium.
    Personally I feel WTBA Presidium is right although MTBC may argue that that FIQ may be a more independent body to resolve this dispute.
    Subjudice or not CAS or no CAS the show must go on. Personally Sydney, I think you have picked the wrong timing to test your point.