Re: Andrew Paulson -- Candidacy for ECF President
Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 3:22 pm
Something of a false debate, since i presume sponsorship from Rothmans would be illegal...
The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://www.ecforum.org.uk/
Of course, that should be our question! Could AP do a Bernie Ecclestone and lobby his friends in government to bring in an exception for chess?Richard Bates wrote:Something of a false debate, since i presume sponsorship from Rothmans would be illegal...
How many of these sponsors were doing it for purely commercial reasons and how many were doing it because someone in a position of influence in the organisation had an interest in chess? Andrew Paulson has stated that we should not now expect to get sponsors in the latter category.Stewart Reuben wrote:Many of our sponsors were related to dealing with money. shares or insurance, such as Duncan Lawrie, Lloyds Bank, NatWest, Grieveson Grant which became Kleinwort Benson, Phillips & Drew, Smith & Williamson, Watson & Farley Williams, LV=.
But we have had Zetters Pools, London Dockland Development Corporation, Pilkington Glass, Aaronson Brothers, Leigh Industries, Terence Chapman, ICL, Evening Standard, Sunday Times, Times, Batsford, Cadogan, Praxis Systems.
...
But the list may help Andrew Poulson.
The answer for several of those listed is 'both'. As an example of which I have personal knowledge, Lloyds Bank backing coincided with chess problemist Sir Jeremy Morse becoming the bank's chairman, while the sponsorship manager had noted the high level of publicity for English junior successes, and young players were the the bank's target market. They were not disappointed, as for many years Lloyds Bank press chess mentions were double or treble all the bank's other sponsorships combined. It lasted 18 years from 1976 to 1994 until Sir Jeremy retired and a new sponsorship manager was only interested in TV exposure.Ian Thompson wrote:How many of these sponsors were doing it for purely commercial reasons and how many were doing it because someone in a position of influence in the organisation had an interest in chess? Andrew Paulson has stated that we should not now expect to get sponsors in the latter category.Stewart Reuben wrote:Many of our sponsors were related to dealing with money. shares or insurance, such as Duncan Lawrie, Lloyds Bank, NatWest, Grieveson Grant which became Kleinwort Benson, Phillips & Drew, Smith & Williamson, Watson & Farley Williams, LV=.
But we have had Zetters Pools, London Dockland Development Corporation, Pilkington Glass, Aaronson Brothers, Leigh Industries, Terence Chapman, ICL, Evening Standard, Sunday Times, Times, Batsford, Cadogan, Praxis Systems.
...
But the list may help Andrew Poulson.
It seems a brave man who would write "My ï¬rst concrete goal is to arrange for the Government to accord to chess the status of a sport". The aim is presumably financially motivated, but that is reflected in the nature of the obstacles. Is this not an own goal on your part?Andrew Paulson wrote:Into the fray. I've been monitoring the commentariat and I'm happy to answer all questions myself, no holds barred. I expect to be held to what I say here; so should you.
Andrew's candidacy might appear to some to be a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. The offer of a debate à outrance is therefore to be welcomed. It could be that, as well as hoping to win the election, he wants to disperse the untrusting mist that sometimes envelops the exotic.Andrew Paulson wrote:... I'm happy to answer all questions myself, no holds barred.
That might well be the case, nonetheless, the erstwhile president of Kalmykia does seem to get his way within FIDE when he wants to. I may be in the minority, but I fail to see the urgency of bonding with him; my two-worded explanation is: Larissa Yudina.Andrew Paulson wrote:I think that to reduce the FIDE issue to pro-Kirsan or anti-Kirsan is simplistic.
Can one infer that Andrew comes from FIDE with love? We've been told that Kirsan was very irritated when the ECF acted as a vehicle to sue the world body. Certainly, I can live with the ECF not acting in such a manner for the foreseeable future, but, on the other hand, I was hardly upset when we did annoy Ilyumzhinov. Some have argued that it is precisely Ilyumzhinov's baggage that has put off some sponsors, although, I'll concede, that that is simplistic.After years of estrangement from and conflict with FIDE which has achieved nothing, the ECF should engage with FIDE and urge upon it a new tone of transparency and collegiality which will improve the commercial prospects of chess worldwide. My experience with FIDE should help us achieve this.
Quite obviously, I don't know how accurate this assertion is. Furthermore, many of us are aware that it is not only in IT that Robert the Bruce's mantra of if at first you don't succeed; try, try again can be invaluable. Still, it might be useful should Andrew try to rip out this particular web by arguing back. For instance, how close to the truth is Glukhovsky? Indeed, should Andrew say this is unfair and grotesque, then I have no objection to the quote being excised. Although what he can do about the Russian original is something else.Mark Glukhovsky wrote:A year ago an expert in the IT industry said to me that the proportion of successful and failed projects for the business man Paulson was 1 to 10. I do not claim to know whether this is a lot or a little. Yet, into which category to place projects linked with chess is not hard to understand.
It might be common in the USA to use a non-driving license as a form of identity card, but I would have thought a rarity in the UK and elsewhere in Europe.Q: Why is one of your goals to make chess classified as a sport?
For the same reason that even people who don’t drive should have a drivers’ license. Chess’ classification as a sport it entitles the ECF to membership in real or virtual clubs that can bring benefits to its members. This is not a question of terminology or dogma, but rather of practical advantages that such a classification could bring.
It has changed its name. It's now the Sport and Recreation Alliance.Roger de Coverly wrote:The ECF is represented in the CCPR (if it hasn't changed its name). The PR stood for physical recreation.
This post seems to exist in more than one thread however 'for better' was the right choice.Andrew Paulson wrote:For better or for worse, the EC Forum is currently the only forum for understanding the moods and concerns of an important part of the chess community.