erpel wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 2:41 pm
I mean Bonnat DOM was on the AC. Lyu CHN and Reis BRA previously also in 2021. It's just another layer of bureaucracy.
I don't share the perception that there's a great rift between an old (not just in age) guard and a newer generation represented by (younger) athletes.
Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly as I do agree with you.
I agree that the AC is another layer of bureaucracy and optics (not for the IOC, who don't give a fuck) and that athletes are not necessarily representing positive change.
However, every athlete/politician represents different vested interests and has a different history of behaviour behind the scenes. Some are complete sock puppets, whereas others are likely to be more independent. My point with my first post was regarding the AC chairs being involved with the EB, where having a federation control the board through sock puppets obviates the entire point of a board. Part of the reason I'm aggrieved about it is the holier than thou attitude of said puppeteers.
Also noted earlier, I don't think it's the IWF's most pressing issue, not by a long shot. Board members, AC or otherwise, don't do operational stuff. For all of Ajan's innumerable faults, he did actually set up a functional office. Well it functioned for him, but it functioned.
From relatively public information, at least some Hungarian employees in the secretariat did not move to Lausanne to continue working for the IWF. But I would really suspect that none of the Hungarian employees have moved to Lausanne. Remote work is possible, though there are some particular limitations with that (outside of the normal ones).
Should said employees be terminated however, the IWF would struggle to get anything done, more than it already does. You can't have a federation without ops managers, IT, financial, legal officers and so on.