British Championship 2017

[Roger de Coverly]

I note from the British Championship website that significant changes are proposed for 2017 and beyond.

There was a thread on this started, when the announcement first appeared.

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8363

Although the ECF board are said to support the the changes the announcement didn't merit any mention on the ECF website, nor do I recall any mention in the Board's published minutes.

What did you expect? It's a standard operating practice that's independent of whoever is on the Board, that if there's a chance to discuss something with the voting members at the six monthly meeting, that they avoid doing so. They have to keep it out of the Board's minutes, as otherwise it can be raised as Any Other Business. In the context of the recent Finance Meeting, it should have been part of the main business as the level of financial support to be offered to the annual Congress was itself up for discussion.

Personally I think it's an issue of sufficient importance that if the relevant directors intended to implement it, it should have been part of their election manifestos last year.

[Michael Flatt]

Sorry, I missed the original discussion.

I think the point I am trying to raise is whether a Director can take unilateral decisions on these matters?

The British is the premier ECF tournament and it seems wrong to me that a single person can make such changes without proper consultation. I don't argue with the reasons for wanting to make changes but rather the timescale and means of introducing them.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think the point I am trying to raise is whether a Director can take unilateral decisions on these matters?

It isn't known whether this was a unilateral decision. It's something we've seen before, in particular on the decision to secretly support the Kasparov CAS legal case against FIDE, that the non Executive Directors really should speak out when the Board propose to do something in secret that at least some Council members would object to, had they known about it. In this case, an announcement that this proposal was under consideration should have been made before the April meeting to enable opinions to be expressed. There is a financial angle, that fewer days in the British reduces expenses. It does however reduce entry fees as well, with fewer events. If the length of time that visitors stay is of relevance to the hosting town or organisation, it reduces that as well.

[John Upham]

I think the point I am trying to raise is whether a Director can take unilateral decisions on these matters?

I would very much hope that they could. Being a Director and not being able to make decisions (or "direct") would be entirely pointless.

Just imagine if highly competent business persons became ECF Directors and were told that they had to go cap in hand to ECF Council twice a year.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I think the point I am trying to raise is whether a Director can take unilateral decisions on these matters?

The British is the premier ECF tournament and it seems wrong to me that a single person can make such changes without proper consultation. I don't argue with the reasons for wanting to make changes but rather the timescale and means of introducing them.

I doubt the decision was unilateral. There will have been a lot of discussion behind the scenes, even if it was outside of a formal board meeting. The reasons that have led the ECF to change the format of the British Championship have been in the public domain for some time.

I might be opening a can of worms with this one but if anybody is that rabidly opposed to the changes they can lobby for a motion to be put before Council in October (of course it may make the event unsustainable but people like that rarely consider practical matters to be their problem). Not everyone will agree but sometimes I think it's easier for the people actually doing the work just to go ahead and let those opposed to the proposals do the legwork in preventing them.

[NickFaulks]

Just imagine if highly competent business persons became ECF Directors and were told that they had to go cap in hand to ECF Council twice a year.

You mean like in a normal company with shareholders? Yes, I can imagine that.

Organisations where the executives consider themselves to be gods who should not be shackled by the little people who pay the bills rarely turn out well.

[Mike Truran]

Directors don't go "cap in hand" to shareholders in a "normal company". They are appointed by shareholders annually, and fired annually by shareholders if the shareholders don't like what's being done. So it's entirely within the gift of Council to get rid of the Board in October if they don't like the proposals (or earlier, if they can muster enough support to call an EGM), giving ample time to reverse the proposals before the 2017 BCC. That of course might involve you, and others opposed to the motion, in doing some work, but no doubt that won't get in anybody's way.

Anyway, I would have thought that this is an operational matter. Why should it go to Council, most of whose members don't play in the BCC in any event?

[Roger de Coverly]

Anyway, I would have thought that this is an operational matter. Why should it go to Council, most of whose members don't play in the BCC in any event?

The Pearce Report advocated the view, apparently shared by many of the ECF Directors, that mechanisms to give individual players a direct say were not needed because the ECF Council was sufficiently representative, given that many of the members were appointed by, and reported to local organisations. So it's not relevant that those with Council votes don't play in the British, the players they nominally represent do and have been denied even an indirect say to protest against this decision outside of being able to gripe on this forum.

[Mick Norris]

Anyway, I would have thought that this is an operational matter. Why should it go to Council, most of whose members don't play in the BCC in any event?

The Pearce Report advocated the view, apparently shared by many of the ECF Directors, that mechanisms to give individual players a direct say were not needed because the ECF Council was sufficiently representative, given that many of the members were appointed by, and reported to local organisations. So it's not relevant that those with Council votes don't play in the British, the players they nominally represent do and have been denied even an indirect say to protest against this decision outside of being able to gripe on this forum.

Roger

if there is a problem with the proposals, it should be easy enough to get Council to discuss them in October shouldn't it?

[Simon Brown]

Mike is right, of course.

Slightly depressing (but sadly predictable) that the usual suspects prefer to debate whether a director is allowed to do something rather than consider the merits or otherwise of what he wants to do.

[Roger de Coverly]

if there is a problem with the proposals, it should be easy enough to get Council to discuss them in October shouldn't it?

Given that details of the following year's British are expected to be made available at the latest by this year's British in July/August, then whilst Council can discuss, it will be too late in practice in October 2016 to do anything about it for 2017. All they could potentially do is instruct the ECF Board to reinstate an 11 round tournament and 14 day format for 2018. Even that might be too late, as discussions for 2018 may already have been started.

The latest practical time for Council to be asked to express its views was April 2016 and it appears the ECF Board forget to mention that the 9 round option was on the table. It may well be that the unknown potential 2017 venue can only offer a one weekend plus two weekends schedule, but that case has yet to be made.

[Michael Farthing]

Roger,

I look forward to you putting forward a motion to reverse these changes at the next Council meeting. I suspect it will be defeated nem pro.

[Michael Flatt]

I don't expect that anyone will attempt to reverse what appears to have been decided for The 2017 British Championships. What seems to be missing is any public debate or consideration of different options before deciding on a particular solution.

Were there any other formats considered?

Shouldn't ECF members be permitted to participate in the decision making process?

[Mike Truran]

As you're so keen to lecture other people about consultation, perhaps you can fill us in on how the Hertfordshire Congress consults with its players (or, as the Sage of Bourne End is so keen to label them, "tax payers") as regards how the congress is organised.

If the Sage of Bourne End actually organised anything worthwhile himself I would of course ask him the same question.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Topics merged.