English Chess Forum

David Pardoe wrote:So, Andrew..Carl....you`ve got access to my personal details (or not) regarding my ECF membership status, and you`d like me to publically justify my position??????

Do not involve me I just commented I am not a member.

Andrew Zigmond wrote:Obviously the new board members have to settle in and receive a full handover from the previous incumbent.

I trust I have not yet exhausted my "teasing" credit with Andrew, who possesses the merit of being well meaning; for what he suggests has at times been a pious belief of the innocent, rather than a reality. It can make one seem naive. This is not to speculate what will happen after last Saturday's election. I certainly know past directors who have been left to their own devices from day one. Passing over materials, recommendations, connections and such constituting, to my way of thinking, part of a "full handover".

I'm probably a fool in rising to the bait but ...

The ECF membership list is in the public domain. I'm not the one who put it on there.

You're the one banging on about the `validity of the voting process` and calling for One Member One Vote. Obviously one of the things that would have to be decided is what constitutes a member. It might be that members at the end of the preceding season are entitled to a vote while new members are prevented from participating. Alternatively it might be that only fully paid up members at the time of an election are entitled to vote which (rightly or wrongly) would have ruled you out from voting in October.

We now have a consultation process on OMOV voted for by council. That is one of the next things that must happen. I'm trying to steer this thread towards working out the detail rather than muttering about the election just gone.

Simon Spivack wrote:

Andrew Zigmond wrote:Obviously the new board members have to settle in and receive a full handover from the previous incumbent.

I trust I have not yet exhausted my "teasing" credit with Andrew, who possesses the merit of being well meaning; for what he suggests has at times been a pious belief of the innocent, rather than a reality. It can make one seem naive. This is not to speculate what will happen after last Saturday's election. I certainly know past directors who have been left to their own devices from day one. Passing over materials, recommendations, connections and such constituting, to my way of thinking, part of a "full handover".

I could add the word `hopefully` before receive. The elections this year have been reasonably good natured, at least in public and only in one case (two if you count the NED vote) has the incumbent lost. I certainly don't think Roger Edwards received a full handover from his predecessor.

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt and trust them. They only get my trust once.

David Robertson wrote:What should we do next?

Easy. Someone should open a book on the first resignation. No way that Board of suppurating egos and personality disorders will hold together for long.

Mehdi Hassan said a similar thing - that this Con-Dem coalition government would not last 6 months - on BBC TV Question Time just after the 2010 General Election. He was wrong, of course, even I thought that he was talking out of his a** at the time. Despite - or perhaps because - of that kind of judgement he has gone from being at the New Statesman to the Huffington Post. Is that a promotion or a demotion!?!

David Robertson may be right that there will be some early resignations but the 'core' could endure.
I just wonder, in passing, if David R noticed that Seamus Heaney's Beowulf ends with -

They said that of all...
he was the man most gracious and fair-minded,
kindest to his people and keenest to win fame.

So far all we can say so far is that the new president seems to want fame. He may even prove to have other qualities - let's wait and see. (Even Medhi gave the Con-Dems up to almost half a year.)

If I was a member for the ECF (like a tax payer I guess) I'd be wanting for this rich guy to SPEND HIS MONEY... and would have quizzed him more on this during his 'election'... like I mean, no matter how much some people moan about there not being enough funds for getting foreign women to play for England they never actually pay much for it do they

That's not what I think he should spend his money on though... if he cares about chess England, it'd be best funding our best English players and perhaps good juniors with potential. If he felt nice he could give some to 'grass roots' chess too.

Mark Howitt wrote:If I was a member for the ECF (like a tax payer I guess) I'd be wanting for this rich guy to SPEND HIS MONEY... and would have quizzed him more on this during his 'election'... like I mean, no matter how much some people moan about there not being enough funds for getting foreign women to play for England they never actually pay much for it do they

They are not foreign women, much as you like to say otherwise

And yes they (those who moan about the lack of a womens' team) do pay towards it. £28 a year in my case, and I imagine that I am much like the thousands of others who are effectively forced to pay this amount when I say that I expect the money to spread across the various good causes the ECF is supposed to promote.

Yes, £28 a year - bet you didn't know that - but why would you? positive contributions to the English chess community are not your strong point.

Andrew Paulson has said absolutely nothing about putting his own money into English chess. His starting-point, as I read it, is that the game is under-selling itself and can band together to make more of its assets.
Whether that's true and can be rectified is a bit of a moot point.

If people have elected him because they think he will start pouring his own money in, then they only have themselves to blame if he doesn't.

P.S. - all of what Jonathan just said too of course.

What so no foreign women have played for England in chess? And they wouldn't have been any up for selection this time? Ok then...

If I was spending more time on chess, that's what I would have asked him. I mean, even CJ put some money in for the publicity. Not sure "I'll vote for you if you pay my tax" would work but you never know... maybe some schoolchildren could try it- everyone learning the rules should have to pay the tax I think.

Mark Howitt wrote:What so no foreign women have played for England in chess? And they wouldn't have been any up for selection this time? Ok then...

you will find they are all "ENG" on the FIDE list and pay ECF membership fees, unlike, for example ....

Mark,

I am sure that that a few members (at least) of this place would be curious to examine your definition of a

Mark Howitt wrote:foreign woman

I note that you promised to ignore my past posts but you had no plans of future ones.

Even if I 'came back to chess' (did play for 21 years) I wouldn't want to be a member of the ECF- just Yorkshire chess would do for me. Sad to see that so many players aren't ECF members- obv according to you they aren't 'real players' then. Just looking at the Yorkshire chess website- my club Netherton which produced a lot of young players, some of whom played for England (I beat 2 of them), aren't even playing in the Yorkshire league this season- first time I can remember that in over 17 years. Thanks ECF tax.

Mark Howitt wrote:Even if I 'came back to chess' (did play for 21 years) I wouldn't want to be a member of the ECF- just Yorkshire chess would do for me. Sad to see that so many players aren't ECF members- obv according to you they aren't 'real players' then. Just looking at the Yorkshire chess website- my club Netherton which produced a lot of young players, some of whom played for England (I beat 2 of them), aren't even playing in the Yorkshire league this season- first time I can remember that in over 17 years. Thanks ECF tax.

Not really one for this forum but as the current Yorkshire League controller I was the one who received the communication withdrawing Netherton from the league. There were several reasons given - it's not my place to divulge them but the ECF game fee was NOT one of them.