The Malta Motorsport Federation (MMF) notifies that pursuant to clause number 20 of the MMF Statute and Bye Laws, the resignation demanded by ASMK was discussed at an Executive Council meeting and was accepted. Although the resignation was accepted, the Federation still leaves its doors open to any subject that members within the ASMK wishes to discuss.
However, the Federation brings to the attention that in the press release issued by ASMK dated 14th February 2014, the interpretation that it is giving on the approval of the amendments and certain comments contrasts with reality and are not truthful.
Referring to MMF Statute amendments that were approved at the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM), held last January, these were all in line with the objectives of the federation and are not weakening the autonomy of any entity affiliated with the Federation.
Regarding the first motion which ASMK is implying that it is discriminating between its’ disciplines, as ASMK is stating that now it needs to choose whom to represent in the Executive Council between motocross and autocross disciplines, the primarily intention is that this motion has brought similarity within the affiliated entities of the MMF and from now on, any entity affiliated with the Federation shall have the same representation of commissioners as any other entity, that is one Commissioner with one vote and not two commissioners with two votes as ASMK had until now.
The fact is that the structure of the Executive Council of the Federation is built on 13 Commissioners, who each one of them represent a number of entities and sporting disciplines within the motorsport community. In this way each commissioner after consulting with those whom he represents, vote in the Executive Council.
However ASMK was the only entity which had two commissioners, resulting in two votes at any meeting of the Executive Council, one for motocross (motorcycle) and one for autocross (cars). This created an awkward situation since both disciplines where already grouped under the same association, as the name of the association clearly implies and their membership with MMF was of a single entity and not separate clubs as stated in their statement. The interpretation made by ASMK that they had to select whom to represent between their ‘clubs’ after this motion, that is motocross and autocross or better still between motorcycles and cars, is entirely a misleading interpretation, as the motion simple implies that ASMK will be represented under one commission as all other entities which have different disciplines do.
Clear example is the Drag Racing discipline, which falls under a single commission although there are Drag Racing for motorcycles and cars. This discipline was grouped under one sporting discipline having one commissioner and one vote. International regulations of drag racing fall under two international bodies such as the ASMK disciplines, namely the FIM covers the drag racing for motorcycles and motocross and FIA for drag racing of cars and autocross. Therefore the motion passed by a large majority of 11 against 2 of the affiliated members present during the EGM, arranged something which was unfair and created an imbalance within the structure of Federation since the foundation days. MMF feels that ASMK should have waited for at least until the first meeting of the Executive Council after the EGM, to discuss and assist in the change that such amendment brought in the structure of the Executive Council of the Federation before resigning.
Referring to the second motion which ASMK is making reference to in its press release, the MMF carefully checked all motions approved during last December AGM as well as the January EGM and got to the conclusion that this is absolutely an invention deployed by ASMK, that a motion was approved which has put ASMK in a difficult situation to discontinue its affiliation with any other affiliations ASMK might have nationally or internationally until it remains a member with MMF. The MMF never received such motion which is being implied by ASMK, and is completely mistaken if ASMK is referring to a motion which was put forward for vote during the EGM but was not approved by its members.
In conclusion, MMF recalls that last December at the Annual General Meeting (AGM), the ASMK filed a motion proposed and seconded only by two of its officials, to create division between the Commissioners in the Executive Council of the Federation. This motion was directly related on who could vote from the Commissioners under specific sporting businesses brought up from time to time in the agenda of the Executive Council. Had this motion been approved it would have raised discrimination and disputes between the MMF Commissioners because it went outright against one of the fundamental principles of a Federation, that of unity without discriminating, but fortunately, this motion of ASMK was not approved. ASMK press release also mentions that since July 2011, the ASMK executive committee got the approval of its members to resign from MMF for their best interest, approval which was kept in a drawer for almost two and a half years. Therefore one cannot underestimate the real intentions why the ASMK filed such a divisive motion, when ASMK had already the intention with the approval of its members to resign from the MMF.
MMF would like to take this occasion to wish any success and honours to ASMK and its members.