Joseph Cassar, General Secretary of the Malta Olympic Committee, yesterday issued the following media releas to make some important clarifications:

Following the media statements regarding the KMS and KOM, the Executive of the Malta Olympic Committee noted the comments and points raised, about the autonomy and would like to comment as follows:

During the meetings with Minister Galea, the Minister agreed that the MOC’s autonomy needed to be respected and the concept of subsidiarity should prevail. It was also made clear by the Minister that the system to be adopted would be that the MOC will be responsible for those funds emanating from the government grant. However this did not materialise as the KMS kept insisting that they had other directives.

Government funding to the MOC commenced in 1994 and right up to the period for the year ending 2003 no problems reference vetting and accountability emerged, notwithstanding the fact that both the KMS and the sports law were in place during a part of this time. Things changed in 2004 and one might question the motivation behind this change. During all this period of time the MOC had always complied with those regulations and laws put in place so as to ensure the accountability and transparency so much so that according to the MOC no queries were ever raised by the auditor general in respect to Government / MOC funding during this period of time.

About the amount of Lm22000 worth of invoices and receipts which the MOC sent to the KMS and which as stated by the KMS as not having adequate supporting documentation, we to date have no indication of what exactly is the problem here as no details have yet been given to us, notwithstanding that we have asked for these in writing.

It is quite surprising how the requisites of the KMS regarding the supporting documentation required for 2004 grant only reached us in July 2004. If one expects a serious and accountable process, then these instructions should have been part and parcel of the grant conditions which should have been stated before the year starts, as it is now extremely difficult for these associations to come in line retro active. Besides this there is also a problem that for certain payments, original fiscal receipts are not possible in that for example e-ticketing or digital airline tickets and other such expenses.

Amongst the major operational problems encountered has been the role switching between decisions taken at Ministerial level or decisions taken at the level of KMS with the MOC getting the cross fire of this dual communicative system.

The Malta Olympic Committee reiterates that its autonomy has been stifled and a typical example of this is the list imposed on the MOC reference which and which not national federations were deemed to qualify under the elite category. Whilst 19 of these associations were earmarked by Government to receive government funds, the other 28 national federations were deemed not eligible for government support through MOC.

The full list of the federations which were to receive funds from Government Grant was the following:

Athletics, Basketball, Billiards, Bocci, Cycling, Gymnastics, Handball, Judo, Karate, Sailing, Shooting, Squash, Swimming, Table Tennis, Taekwondo, Tennis, Tenpin Bowling, Triathlon and Volleyball

Furthermore the MOC up till the early months of 2004, namely before the Cabinet reshuffle, were subject to a continuous pressure from the Minister of the time with many questions raised as to why certain associations were allocated so much funds and not more or not less.

The MOC has signed letters from the Minister of the time regarding such matters. The point reached an untenable situation when in early 2003 the MOC deemed it necessary to take disciplinary action against a number of associations in view of their violation of the terms and conditions of specific contacts entered into between the respective associations and the MOC which disciplinary measures were deemed by the Minister incorrect and consequently should be revoked.

The continual interference in the running of the MOC affairs was also experienced in the technical sector where in the run up to the games of 1999 and 2001 the selection process and final Olympic squad or the games was put in question and a great amount of pressure exercised so that certain athletes would be given due consideration.

One of the contentious issues was the fact that the MOC when presenting claims in the name of its member federations is being held to ransom by the contract signed with that federation in respect to the devolution of funds. In practice this does not work as for many reasons and circumstances, certain initiatives and projections months ahead do not materialise, like for example ‘force majeur’ instances with SARS and other unforeseen reasonably circumstances which warrant a redress of the technical programme. This inflexibility brought the MOC to a standstill.

The MOC has official correspondence which transpired between the period 1999 and 2004 and to which reference has been made in the preceding paragraphs. For ethical reasons and with our firm intention to finding permanent solution, we feel that it is not pertinent to publish any of this correspondence now.

At this stage, whilst existing, the financial issue is of secondary importance as the main issue in question is the strife to an autonomous management of sport in full respect of the Olympic Ideals and the Olympic Charter.

This issue of autonomy and its relevance within the context of the sports act 455 has been the subject of lengthy and inconclusive discussions with government since 2001, and the MOC has always affirmed the same principles throughout.

Notwithstanding all said, the media statement in our opinion indicates a willingness by both government and KMS to address pending key issues. Consequently the MOC would like to inform that it already has proposals which could lead to the solution of the current empasse which will however remain respecting the core issue at stake. The MOC has already on previous occasions before October 2003 presented such prospectus of an agreement to the then Minister and for which we received no reply. These proposals have been reviewed and revised in the context of today’s realities which since then proved our concern at the actual implementation of the Sports Act and its erosion of our autonomy.