Results 18 to 34 of 38
02-05-2008, 08:38 PM #18
Although I smell something fishy it's left to be seen what comes up next.
Competition is good in general, but not when it creates frictions and factions that result in two competing camps trying to take power. It becomes too political for the good of world badminton. Instead of channelling all its resources into promoting the game, the in-fighting and fire-fighting here and there will distract from the main goal.
If money can buy power to destroy what has been achieved so far, and we have seen how difficult it is, then it becomes a mockery of the top leadership of world badminton. Badminton will inevitably be placed in a very bad light.
The leader in this new organisation happens to be the leader of the world badminton body. If he can't influence his committee to support his ideas in the world badminton body, then he should step down and not try to create more problems as he is currently doing.
02-05-2008, 11:01 PM #19
This Might Just Be What Badminton Needs!
The launch of the World Badminton Foundation, in my opinion, is far from something ominous. Rather, I see it as a very positive development.
Personally, I'm quite fired up by Young-joong Kang's determination to pull badminton out of its current stagnant environment... for if anyone is capable of it, it's he.
What particularly endears Kang and his development strategies to me is his love for badminton. Many of us would agree that badminton is a sport that should rightfully be a global passion, rather than an Asian export that commands at best a derisive regard in much of the developed world.
Fortunately, Kang is no eager freshman... he has created a niche industry and a powerhouse within it. Perhaps he will now do for badminton through the WBF what he has done for education through Daekyo and its outreach concept.
I'd greatly hesitate to either write off Kang or the WBF or, worse, label them as entities with nefarious motives
02-05-2008, 11:39 PM #20
My stand is neutral. But I would not like to see two entities trying to compete for the control of world badminton. It has happened before and nearly brought world badminton to its knees. Thankfully good sense prevailed in the end and the two entities merged to become one.
Remember the current BWF Council consists of representatives from the world over, not only Asia but Europe as well. But it seems that fingers are being pointed at Asia for the so-called "backwardness" (for want of a better word) of Europe. Just that Asia is seen to be more active because the top players hail from Asia and not without good reason.
There is unfortunately little or no information regarding Mr Kang's love for badminton as you claimed. Rather what we read was his love for political manoeuvers to win over Council members but he failed miserably as he is now the subject of an 'ejection' attempt.
If Mr Kang has had foresight and good ideas to promote world badminton, he would have won the support of Council members. If he was as generous as he is now painted to be by establishing the Foundation, and had he contributed his enormous wealth to developing BWF projects when he 'was' at the helm, I doubt the majority of Council members would object as they themselves are badminton loving people to have come forward to serve their respective countries as representives.
I don't agree that world badminton is stagnant. Progress has been made. Perhaps it could have achieved much more if Mr Kang has led his committee well and not engaged in unproductive activities to further retard BWF's aspirations.
But we shall see what happens next and whether Mr Kang can be of any good to world badminton.
Last edited by Loh; 02-05-2008 at 11:42 PM.
02-06-2008, 12:49 AM #21
02-06-2008, 09:03 AM #22
3 cups, world championships, Olympic badminton compitition for BWF, and the others for WBF as same as tennis.
02-06-2008, 01:18 PM #23
WBF to BWF is quite similar to KLRC to BAM...
I tend to agree with you Oldhand.
As I have said in my 2 previous posts...
(1) What I see about "WBF to BWF is quite similar to KLRC to BAM". and
(2) "I can see that Kang has a genuine interest in Badminton at heart".
But what kwun have posted is also true. If Punch and Kang were not in conflict, Kang could/might have ploughed his monies on to BWF.
IMHO, because of their conflicts, Kang has decided to create WBF and to allocate his monies there.
02-06-2008, 11:28 PM #24
In similar fashion, perhaps Young-joong Kang feels that if he were to spend through the WBF, all of that money will go to badminton
02-07-2008, 01:29 AM #25
But Bill and Melinda Gates are not the president and executive vice president of the BWF. To be honestly above board and to not have any conflict of interest, perhaps the WBF under Kang should be put into a blind trust type of foundation with no badminton-related big wigs to run it. Or better still, transfer the funds to the Gates Foundation, which I am sure will be as fair to all receipients worthy of any funds and will guarantee that no money will go into badminton.
The crux of the problem is the perceived real intent and the element of conflict of interest. To dispel these is simple. But I don't believe it will be done, given the personalities.
Or we can take the example of the Shantou University in China, which is being funded almost comlpetely with billions of US$ by Li Ka Shing, who has utterly no say in how the university is being run. The running costs of the university are being met from tuition fees and a Li Ka Shing-donated large power plant's profits, making the university self-supporting. Here is a classic example of a foundation's funds (for the whole university construction and power plant) being wisely used with no say from the donor in the running of the university.
BTW Li Ka Shing has also donated some funds to the Singapore University and I am sure he has no say whatever in how the university is being run. At best he gets his name on a building.
02-07-2008, 01:53 AM #26
Yes I share taneepak's view that there should be no indication of any conflict of interest or animosity between the donor and the beneficiary such that the donor can apply pressure on how the beneficiary should run its operation.
As stated by taneepak, the key personalities in WBF are or have been involved in the running of BWF. Having failed to influence the majority of BWF Council members they, led by Kang, are now trying to establish another competiting organization under the guise of donating money to badminton's cause just to outshine and make things difficult for the world body, BWF.
Their money politics seems to have worked since it appears that they now managed to influence some Council members to their cause.
02-07-2008, 03:59 AM #27
Kang likes badminton
Kang has money
Kang decides to use what he has to promote what he likes
a) why should Kang give his money to someone else?
b) and... why should he stay away from how his money is used?
It's fine if you want him to stay away from how the BWF or the WBF uses their money or someone else's money.
Not when it is his money, his time and his initiative
02-07-2008, 05:57 AM #28
02-07-2008, 08:23 AM #29
I hope that organisations like this appear n get into business,to do their job..to make badminton a better sport,not just hanging their name on the wall n do nothing..
02-07-2008, 08:35 AM #30
02-07-2008, 10:37 AM #31
Could Dr. Kang not simply change the name of the Foundation to "Dr. Kang's Foundation for Culture and Education"?
As far as I can read the Foundation is supporting other activities than badminton. Of course a pity for badminton to lose the close connection to the Foundation and possibly funds.
Perhaps some other sports or worthy organisations would be very happy.
02-07-2008, 10:57 AM #32
02-08-2008, 12:24 AM #33
Regarding KLRC and BAM, these two organisations are at club and country level, not international. Therefore any conflicts between them would not be that demaging to the world badminton community.
KLRC started off quietly but over time the club managed to woo and 'buy' over top players and coaches because the club, or the people behind the club, has the money to do so. It is good that KLRC used some of its money to sponsor tournaments, to develop young players, to give additional incentives to "off-shore" players like Peter Gade and Taufik Hidayat to wear its club colours.
But it is quite different when Cheah Soo Kit decided to leave BAM as national women's coach to cross over to KLRC. Or even worse now that Hafiz is doing likewise, not only to BAM but also to his own club started by the Sidek brothers. The support and training offered by BAM and his own club all these years meant nothing and KLRC can now benefit because they could offer better incentives!
I could see the conflict and the silent animosity that such incidents and arrangements are creating and it will burst out to the fore in time to come.
02-08-2008, 02:33 AM #34
As a foundation to promote sports, education, and culture on a global basis a disbursement of US$1.25 million per year is actually peanuts. Its own administrative costs will eat up almost all of it, that is if they hire professional administrators who are experts in the field of all sports, education and culture. Badminton administrators are not the people who should run this foundation. Do you think they will recruit and hire the necessary expertise?
By kkkccc in forum MalaysiaReplies: 33: 08-02-2010, 02:44 AM
By Blurry D in forum MalaysiaReplies: 16: 08-12-2009, 11:57 AM
By CanuckBur in forum Chit-ChatReplies: 1: 12-17-2007, 06:04 AM
By kwun in forum Z Badminton Training CenterReplies: 12: 01-23-2007, 08:50 PM