AWDF take over attempt ...... - Page 2

It's always reasonable to the people who live and breathe USCA.  So if this were to happen USCA gets to force feed the smaller clubs whatever they so choose. DVG is the second largest organization within the AWDF and they wouldn't come anywhere near the votes USCA would carry if it's based on membership numbers. Hell all the other clubs combined, including DVG, don't carry the numbers USCA does.  How much control over the sport in the US is ever going to be enough for the USCA?


Keith

AWDF was started as an all breed organization. It you base votes on membership numbers it becomes just another GSD dominated dog club. UScA knew the rules when they joined and now they're trying to rewrite them.
If the other breed clubs vote in favor of the Chaffin motion they are fools. When UScA members start
other "breed clubs" for the main purpose of gaining UScA votes. That is dishonest and underhanded IMO
The purpose of the AWDF was to promote dog sports and friendly TEAM competition amongst ALL breeds.
They've already changed the rules to allow UScA to send 50+ SchH III entries where they  used to be limited to nine. The AWDF has become a slush fund where some people are spihoning money into their own pockets and
financing Europeian vacations for themselves and their faimilies.

Thomas Barriano
Dubheasa Germania (11/05/99-08/11/08) SchH III M R Brevet AKC WD III AWD 1 STP 1 CD WAC TT
Ascomannis Jago (06/20/03) SchH III AKC WD III AWD I TT WAC
Belatucadrus (08/14/05) DS BH TT MR I
Flannchadh von der Bavarianburg (5/21/08) BH STP I

 I notice that none of you wants to address the fact that USCA also financially supports the AWDF all out of proportion to the financial support from the other breed clubs, too.  The dues are based on membership numbers.    How is USCA having only the same ONE vote as a ten member breed club  fair and reasonable?  Why is that alright, in your opinion?   In what organization in the "real world" would that happen?   Please address that  issue, and with more than "that's how it has been."  The fact that USCA took the hit in the early years to get AWDF off the ground is not sufficient reason for it to continue to do so, particularly in the face of the  enmity from some of the breed clubs, or at least their "spokespersons."



If the other breed clubs truly have such an issue with basic fairness when it comes to USCA's representation in AWDF, the alternative may be simple--USCA should pull out of AWDF.  Then, the smaller breed clubs would do as they wish, without the "bully" USCA, or its funds,  to kick around.

AWDF take over attempt ...... by Dobermannman on 17 February 2012 - 17:02

Dobermannman Post: 103 of 103 Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 03:24 pm

AWDF was started as an all breed organization. It you base votes on membership numbers it becomes just another GSD dominated dog club. UScA knew the rules when they joined and now they're trying to rewrite them. If the other breed clubs vote in favor of the Chaffin motion they are fools. When UScA members start other "breed clubs" for the main purpose of gaining UScA votes. That is dishonest and underhanded IMO The purpose of the AWDF was to promote dog sports and friendly TEAM competition amongst ALL breeds. They've already changed the rules to allow UScA to send 50+ SchH III entries where they  used to be limited to nine. The AWDF has become a slush fund where some people are spihoning money into their own pockets and financing Europeian vacations for themselves and their faimilies. Thomas Barriano Dubheasa Germania (11/05/99-08/11/08) SchH III M R Brevet AKC WD III AWD 1 STP 1 CD WAC TT Ascomannis Jago (06/20/03) SchH III AKC WD III AWD I TT WAC Belatucadrus (08/14/05) DS BH TT MR I Flannchadh von der Bavarianburg (5/21/08) BH STP I

Thomas,

If you are going to make outrageous and defamatory  accusations like this on the internet, you had damn well better be prepared to PROVE them in court.     You may well be on the road to losing everything but your drawers with statements like this.   And, yes, I am making copies of it,  in case the mods step in and delete it.

I am a big USCA supporter, I own an alternate breed. Will always be a USCA member as they have the best competition and love the USCA clubs and people I train with. That being said. This is not an issue about dues. As John and Nia stated I believe that all clubs in the AWDF should pay the same dues and have one vote per club, it is only fair. I don't care what they do in Europe. USCA/BRT should of just proposed a change in dues per members on the agenda instead of this voting issue the BRT club is proposing. Even if the pay schedule was voted on and all the same for all of the clubs, the BRT/USCA would still proceed with their proposal of voting by club membership. This is a straight up power play..... If it was really about $$$ USCA has certainly offset their $3500 dues to AWDF and ADOA with $2300 they earned in 2011 from non member score books and score book certification. This is not including the $100 USCA charge for having AWDF club use their judges, which I have no problem with as the breed clubs need to develop their own Judge program.

We were having this discussion last night, people are throwing out USCA is supporting the AWDF by always hosting the AWDF. You know why it is a sweet deal..... I toyed with the idea of having our club host the AWDF. Hosting club only has to pay $10 per entry fee to the AWDF. If the hosting club has 90 entries at lets say $150 that is a nice chunk of change in trial entries alone, not to mention sponsors and trophy sponsors (AWDF breed clubs sponsor trophies), food, entrance fee...Trial cost wouldn't be no more than 5-7k if you used USCA/DVG judges.

Nia you are right USCA did support the AWDF for many years. But it wasn't for the goodness of their heart. USCA uses the AWDF to send teams to the FCI CH. The only good thing Paul Meloy did in his presidency of USCA was help formed the AWDF. USCA formed the AWDF to strength their international ties with the FCI, since WDA was aligned with the AKC and only one breed club per country is recognized by the FCI, this was a nice loop hole they found... to have an all breed organization, similar to the VDH. USCA keeps a strong hold of SCh in the US and keep the WDA out. Do you really think USCA will leave the AWDF and give the opportunity to the WDA to become a member of the AWDF? That is a fat chance.

I tell you this USCA better tread lightly, if the want voting per member issue. USCA may not have the controlling vote they think they may have, especially if their may be a club like the rumors have suggested coming in the next few years that has more members then all the breed clubs in the AWDF combine. Agility is world wide and dwarfs IPO.

"Thomas,

If you are going to make outrageous and defamatory  accusations like this on the internet, you had damn well better be prepared to PROVE them in court.     You may well be on the road to losing everything but your drawers with statements like this.   And, yes, I am making copies of it,  in case the mods step in and delete it."

The MSSV case is scheduled in approximately two weeks. There will be all the proof you need then. Make all the threats you want from behind a user name. The truth
about missuse of club funds and lots of other finanacial shenanigans will be revealed.
Still waiting for the final toxicology and PI reports.



Thomas Barriano
Dubheasa Germania (11/05/99-08/11/08) SchH III M R Brevet AKC WD III AWD 1 STP 1 CD WAC TT
Ascomannis Jago (06/20/03) SchH III AKC WD III AWD I TT WAC
Belatucadrus (08/14/05) DS BH TT MR I
Flannchadh von der Bavarianburg (5/21/08) BH STP I

Are you on retainer for USCA now Nia or for just Roetemeyer and Govednik?

Keith

Keith

The only "mystere"  about Nia is that she actually passed the Bar.
I sure hope she doesn't sue me..................HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Thomas Barriano

Here is one of the BIG problems with Internet lists. Mystere (*removed by admin*) is making ridiculous threats of law suits. First off you can't win a defamation suit if the information is right. Truth is the ultimate
defense. Someone has to sue. I didn't mention any individuals in my posts. Who is going to sue me? If Nia represents AWDF then I challenge her to sue. I dare her to sue me. Threats from behind a user name are easy. Let's get into discovery and you can show us all how the AWDF financial records are on the up and up.
Your move Nia.

Thomas Barriano