OOAK Table Tennis Forum


A truly International Table Tennis Community for both Defensive and Offensive styles!
OOAK Forum Links About OOAK Table Tennis Forum OOAK Forum Memory
It is currently 15 Dec 2019, 17:39


Don't want to see any advertising? Become a member and login, and you'll never see an ad again!



All times are UTC + 9:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 23 Mar 2013, 20:23 
Offline
Dark Knight
Dark Knight
User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2006, 12:34
Posts: 32506
Location: Adelaide, AU
Has thanked: 1987 times
Been thanked: 1297 times
Blade: Trinity Carbon
FH: Victas VS > 401
BH: Dr N Troublemaker OX
As far as I know, manufacturers pay the ITTF to get their rubbers authorized, and once the ITTF deems them to be legal they are put onto the next LARC so that they can be used for competition.
The manufacturers also have to pay a regular fee (not sure if they have to submit rubber again) to keewp the rubber on the list.

The question is, if the manufacturer stops paying the fees (they might not be able to afford it for example as they're struggling financially), should the ITTF have the right to remove them immediately.

Obviously this is unfair to players that use this rubber, as they are using a rubber which abides by all the ITTF requirements, and it's only removed due to fees not being paid.

_________________
OOAK Table Tennis Shop | Re-Impact Blades | Butterfly Table Tennis bats
Setup1: Re-Impact Smart, Viper OX, Victas VS 401 Setup2: Re-Impact Barath, Dtecs OX, TSP Triple Spin Chop 1.0mm Setup3: Re-Impact Dark Knight, Hellfire OX, 999 Turbo
Recent Articles: Butterfly Tenergy Alternatives | Tenergy Rubbers Compared | Re-Impact User Guide


Top
 Profile  
 


Don't want to see this advertisement? Become a member and login, and you'll never see an ad again!

PostPosted: 23 Mar 2013, 21:00 
Offline
Super User

Joined: 06 Dec 2008, 10:22
Posts: 624
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 6 times
haggisv wrote:
The manufacturers also have to pay a regular fee (not sure if they have to submit rubber again) to keewp the rubber on the list.


No, they do not have to submit the rubber every year, the have only to pay annual fees for the rubber to remain on the list. I'll look for the quotation from a Technical Leaflet later. As far as I remember, 10 years period for re-submitting is mentioned, but it is not mandatory.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Mar 2013, 21:09 
Offline
Super User

Joined: 06 Dec 2008, 10:22
Posts: 624
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 6 times
haggisv wrote:
Obviously this is unfair to players that use this rubber, as they are using a rubber which abides by all the ITTF requirements, and it's only removed due to fees not being paid.


Haggisv, why, why did you use the word "unfair"? I have to struggle now against the overwhelming desire to start ITTF bashing immediately ;( :) .

No, let us stick to the ITTF rules. The only legal reason to remove a rubber from the list is given here:

"3.02.01.01 The approval and authorisation of playing equipment shall be conducted on behalf of the Board of Directors by the Equipment Committee; approval or authorisation may be withdrawn by the Board of Directors at any time if its continuation is found to be detrimental to the sport."

Now I am looking forward to the explanation how not paying annual fees can be reasonably considered "detrimental to the sport".

The case is closed. Next. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 00:45 
Offline
Count Darkula
Count Darkula
User avatar

Joined: 01 Dec 2007, 15:07
Posts: 17488
Location: Dark side of Australia!!
Has thanked: 416 times
Been thanked: 290 times
Blade: Bty Gergely T5000
FH: TSP Regalis Blue Max
BH: Tibhar Grass Dtecs
The way I see TT bodies view any fees they are "owed" and not paid is that it is detrimental to the sport because its money that should be theirs to develop or maintain the sport. I have little doubt the ITTF would see any rubber approval fee not paid being just like this.

_________________
I'm always in the dark, but the Dark sheds lights upon everything!! :twisted: Beauty is only pimple deep! Beauty is in the eye of the pipholder!
S/U 1: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Andro Rasant 2.1 . BH Red Tibhar Grass Dtecs
S/U 2: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Hexer+ 2.1 . BH Red GD Talon
S/U 3: Blade: Bty Gergely . No rubbers...thinking of adding Red Dtecs and Black Rasant
Aussie Table Tennis Shop / Aussie Table Tennis Facebook Page / Equipment Review Index / Read my Reb Report Blog: click here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 00:46 
Offline
Modern Chiseler.
Modern Chiseler.
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2007, 06:49
Posts: 11013
Location: USA
Has thanked: 472 times
Been thanked: 524 times
Blade: Grubba ALL+
FH: Reflectoid 1mm
BH: DG ox, TM ox
The T4 leaflet sets out the current Laws and Regulations, defines some of the terms used and
lists some additional criteria
for ITTF authorisation of racket coverings and thereafter entering
the List of Authorised Racket Coverings (LARC).

The following is "additional criteria" not in the official rules:


Attachments:
Screen Shot 2013-03-23 at 11.14.41 AM.png
Screen Shot 2013-03-23 at 11.14.41 AM.png [ 116.71 KiB | Viewed 2512 times ]

_________________



The MNNB Blog has had some pretty amazing stuff lately. Just click this text to check it out.
| My OOAK Interview
Table Tennis Video Links: itTV | laola1.tv | ttbl | fftt | Challenger Series | mnnb-tv

No matter how good you are at something, there's always about a million people better than you.
Homer J. Simpson
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 00:50 
Offline
Modern Chiseler.
Modern Chiseler.
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2007, 06:49
Posts: 11013
Location: USA
Has thanked: 472 times
Been thanked: 524 times
Blade: Grubba ALL+
FH: Reflectoid 1mm
BH: DG ox, TM ox
RebornTTEvnglist wrote:
The way I see TT bodies view any fees they are "owed" and not paid is that it is detrimental to the sport because its money that should be theirs to develop or maintain the sport. I have little doubt the ITTF would see any rubber approval fee not paid being just like this.


Being allegedly detrimental to the sport is one reason. Not paying fees is specifically laid out out as another reason.


Attachments:
Screen Shot 2013-03-23 at 11.17.26 AM.png
Screen Shot 2013-03-23 at 11.17.26 AM.png [ 52.69 KiB | Viewed 2511 times ]

_________________



The MNNB Blog has had some pretty amazing stuff lately. Just click this text to check it out.
| My OOAK Interview
Table Tennis Video Links: itTV | laola1.tv | ttbl | fftt | Challenger Series | mnnb-tv

No matter how good you are at something, there's always about a million people better than you.
Homer J. Simpson
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 04:24 
Offline
Modern Chiseler.
Modern Chiseler.
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2007, 06:49
Posts: 11013
Location: USA
Has thanked: 472 times
Been thanked: 524 times
Blade: Grubba ALL+
FH: Reflectoid 1mm
BH: DG ox, TM ox
Anyone remember this incident?

This happened over a dispute about sponsorship money, not unpaid LARC fees. Apparently Dawei was a sponsor at the 2002 world championship and Dawei paid the fees to a middleman (like TMS). The middleman went out of business and didn't pay the ITTF, so the ITTF went after Dawei. They banned all Dawei equipment to force Dawei to pay (twice).

Seems an abuse of power. Innocent players shouldn't have their equipment banned when the ITTF has a business disagreement with a manufacturer. Go to court, don't punish the players or use them like pawns.


Attachments:
Screen Shot 2013-03-23 at 2.53.09 PM.png
Screen Shot 2013-03-23 at 2.53.09 PM.png [ 146.75 KiB | Viewed 2497 times ]

_________________



The MNNB Blog has had some pretty amazing stuff lately. Just click this text to check it out.
| My OOAK Interview
Table Tennis Video Links: itTV | laola1.tv | ttbl | fftt | Challenger Series | mnnb-tv

No matter how good you are at something, there's always about a million people better than you.
Homer J. Simpson
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 06:49 
Offline
Super User

Joined: 16 Jan 2009, 21:38
Posts: 256
Location: Germany
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 22 times
I am thinking about this rule if this is legal. Obviously the ITTF can take fees for the investigations if a rubber is according the rules. But once it is OK then further payments are arbitrarily demanded. Let us asume the FIFA would place a rule that every football shoe is only allowed if the company pay fees. One claim and this would be turned down faster than a piece of lead would sink in water.

However unfortunately a company lacking the money for the fee cannot afford to finance a claim.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 09:10 
Offline
Dark Knight
Dark Knight
User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2006, 12:34
Posts: 32506
Location: Adelaide, AU
Has thanked: 1987 times
Been thanked: 1297 times
Blade: Trinity Carbon
FH: Victas VS > 401
BH: Dr N Troublemaker OX
THanks for those attachments MNNB! :up:

Sounds like there are yearly fees now as well! I wonder how much there are?

_________________
OOAK Table Tennis Shop | Re-Impact Blades | Butterfly Table Tennis bats
Setup1: Re-Impact Smart, Viper OX, Victas VS 401 Setup2: Re-Impact Barath, Dtecs OX, TSP Triple Spin Chop 1.0mm Setup3: Re-Impact Dark Knight, Hellfire OX, 999 Turbo
Recent Articles: Butterfly Tenergy Alternatives | Tenergy Rubbers Compared | Re-Impact User Guide


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 11:08 
Offline
OOAK Super User
OOAK Super User
User avatar

Joined: 09 Oct 2008, 00:48
Posts: 2268
Location: Redwood City, California
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Blade: BBC Leo-P
FH: JOOLA Express Ultra
BH: Dr N. Troublemaker OX LP
haggisv wrote:
As far as I know, manufacturers pay the ITTF to get their rubbers authorized, and once the ITTF deems them to be legal they are put onto the next LARC so that they can be used for competition.
The manufacturers also have to pay a regular fee (not sure if they have to submit rubber again) to keewp the rubber on the list.

The question is, if the manufacturer stops paying the fees (they might not be able to afford it for example as they're struggling financially), should the ITTF have the right to remove them immediately.

Obviously this is unfair to players that use this rubber, as they are using a rubber which abides by all the ITTF requirements, and it's only removed due to fees not being paid.

Of course it's not fair. But it's an easy source of monthly recurring revenue for the ITTF; a source that back in 2009 (when the LARC was far smaller) I calculated they were pulling in close to US$15000 per month with this gambit. Here's the thread: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8861&p=111620&hilit=recurring#p111620

Now flash forward to 2013 and in LARC 33B we have..
1062 instances of the case-sensitive whole word "In".
193 instances of the case-sensitive whole word "Out".
129 instances of the case-sensitive whole word "Long".
37 instances of the case-sensitive whole word "Anti".
-------
1421 rubbers (approximately) on List No. 33B.

Using the ITTF's 2009 rate of $12.50 per month per authorized rubber that's $17762.50 monthly recurring revenue! And that doesn't take into account the first-time approval fees that back in 2009 were rumored to be $450 per rubber! And, as with most things, these fees have almost certainly been increased over the course of the last 3-4 years.

Read the whole thread to learn what killed rubber company SE7EN back in 2009. I had to trash a near-new sheet of SE7EN LP (thankfully I hadn't stocked up or put in hundreds of practice hours on the rubber). Xiom Guillotine S LP was delisted in 2012 which again caused me to have useless rubber on hand; in this a case a unopened sheet I'd just spent $35 on and the dealer clearly wasn't interested in refunding my order.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 11:26 
Offline
Dark Knight
Dark Knight
User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2006, 12:34
Posts: 32506
Location: Adelaide, AU
Has thanked: 1987 times
Been thanked: 1297 times
Blade: Trinity Carbon
FH: Victas VS > 401
BH: Dr N Troublemaker OX
I really don't like the idea of a annual fee, as they're not really providing any sort of service to justify this.

However I can see one reason for having something like this:

Consider the senario that a manuafacturer get their rubber approved and put onto the LARC. Once approved, they change the rubber for whatever reason (cost cutting, improved characteristics, etc). Even though this is clearly not legal, the ITTF can't stop them from producing it, nor can they stop distributors or retailer from selling it, as they have no power over them. All they can do is to stop their member from buying it, and they can do this by removing it from the LARC.

_________________
OOAK Table Tennis Shop | Re-Impact Blades | Butterfly Table Tennis bats
Setup1: Re-Impact Smart, Viper OX, Victas VS 401 Setup2: Re-Impact Barath, Dtecs OX, TSP Triple Spin Chop 1.0mm Setup3: Re-Impact Dark Knight, Hellfire OX, 999 Turbo
Recent Articles: Butterfly Tenergy Alternatives | Tenergy Rubbers Compared | Re-Impact User Guide


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 11:30 
Offline
Modern Chiseler.
Modern Chiseler.
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2007, 06:49
Posts: 11013
Location: USA
Has thanked: 472 times
Been thanked: 524 times
Blade: Grubba ALL+
FH: Reflectoid 1mm
BH: DG ox, TM ox
haggisv wrote:
I really don't like the idea of a annual fee, as they're not really providing any sort of service to justify this.

However I can see one reason for having something like this:

Consider the senario that a manuafacturer get their rubber approved and put onto the LARC. Once approved, they change the rubber for whatever reason (cost cutting, improved characteristics, etc). Even though this is clearly not legal, the ITTF can't stop them from producing it, nor can they stop distributors or retailer from selling it, as they have no power over them. All they can do is to stop their member from buying it, and they can do this by removing it from the LARC.

They can remove it from the LARC without charging an annual fee. That is a T4 rule and unrelated to the annual fee.

_________________



The MNNB Blog has had some pretty amazing stuff lately. Just click this text to check it out.
| My OOAK Interview
Table Tennis Video Links: itTV | laola1.tv | ttbl | fftt | Challenger Series | mnnb-tv

No matter how good you are at something, there's always about a million people better than you.
Homer J. Simpson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 14:10 
Offline
Dark Knight
Dark Knight
User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2006, 12:34
Posts: 32506
Location: Adelaide, AU
Has thanked: 1987 times
Been thanked: 1297 times
Blade: Trinity Carbon
FH: Victas VS > 401
BH: Dr N Troublemaker OX
Yes I agree... my point was that removal from the LARC is the only power ITTF have over manufacturers and retailers.

_________________
OOAK Table Tennis Shop | Re-Impact Blades | Butterfly Table Tennis bats
Setup1: Re-Impact Smart, Viper OX, Victas VS 401 Setup2: Re-Impact Barath, Dtecs OX, TSP Triple Spin Chop 1.0mm Setup3: Re-Impact Dark Knight, Hellfire OX, 999 Turbo
Recent Articles: Butterfly Tenergy Alternatives | Tenergy Rubbers Compared | Re-Impact User Guide


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 21:30 
Offline
Super User

Joined: 06 Dec 2008, 10:22
Posts: 624
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 6 times
haggisv wrote:
my point was that removal from the LARC is the only power ITTF have over manufacturers and retailers.


The authorization of rubbers and the LARC is there to ensure that players use legal rubbers. If it were easy for an umpire to decide if any rubber is legal, there would be no justification for authorization. It is clear that at a tournament the umpire can not conduct all the tests, therefore it is reasonable that a sample is tested and authorized. And if a rubber becomes illegal because the rules have changed, it also reasonable that it's authorization is withdrawn. That is the power over manufacturers and retailers the ITTF legally have. If they go beyond that, it is illegal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Mar 2013, 20:06 
Offline
Full member
User avatar

Joined: 04 Feb 2009, 19:26
Posts: 67
Location: France
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 8 times
Smartguy wrote:
No, they do not have to submit the rubber every year, the have only to pay annual fees for the rubber to remain on the list. I'll look for the quotation from a Technical Leaflet later. As far as I remember, 10 years period for re-submitting is mentioned, but it is not mandatory.

According to their Technical Leaflet n°4 :
Technical Leaflet n°4 wrote:
5. Fees
There is a testing fee, which must be paid before the results of any actual tests are
published. The testing fees are subject to changes year by year. The ITTF Equipment
Coordinator may be contacted for information about testing fees. This is also the case for any
extra tests made for suppliers and for the retesting of racket coverings after a period of ten
years. If more frequent testing is considered necessary by the Equipment Committee, the
supplier will have to pay the fee. The fees will be invoiced from the ITTF Headquarters in
Lausanne.

So, every ten years. Or any time the ITTF wants it.
Oh, and there's a little extra for pips-out rubbers :
Technical Leaflet n°4 wrote:
2.2 Normal procedure
[...]
11. For pimples-out only: Racket coverings will be subject to the special friction test which
may take additional time and will be invoiced additionally. An extra sample may then
reduce time. An authorisation is not valid before also this test is passed.


nathanso wrote:
Now flash forward to 2013 and in LARC 33B we have..
1062 instances of the case-sensitive whole word "In".
193 instances of the case-sensitive whole word "Out".
129 instances of the case-sensitive whole word "Long".
37 instances of the case-sensitive whole word "Anti".
-------
1421 rubbers (approximately) on List No. 33B.

Using the ITTF's 2009 rate of $12.50 per month per authorized rubber that's $17762.50 monthly recurring revenue! And that doesn't take into account the first-time approval fees that back in 2009 were rumored to be $450 per rubber! And, as with most things, these fees have almost certainly been increased over the course of the last 3-4 years.

There are 106 different brands and 1383 rubbers on the LARC 33B (or so my little script tells me). Back in 2009, I asked Odd Gustavsen about those fees.
"Testing fee : USD 550,
Per year, first rubber USD 1500, per each added USD 200."
Let's assume that those fees weren't revised since that time. I know - that's somewhat bold.
Total : a little over USD 410k per year just to keep those rubbers on the list, nearly twice what you thought.

The sum for the approval fee is left as an exercise for the reader !


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next



All times are UTC + 9:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Copyright 2018 OOAK Table Tennis Forum. The information on this site cannot be reused without written permission.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group