Should Nigel Short resign as FIDE delegate?

[JustinHorton]

It's always been a bit ambiguous as to who actually is the leader of the ECF.

Well indeed, and the swapping of roles between President and CEO early on scarcely helped clarify things in that respect.

[JustinHorton]

I think, though, Roger, that nothing in Phil Ehr's approach to his role has suggested that he sees himself as anything other than second fiddle to Paulson. Do you not agree?

[Angus French]

JH wrote:

That's your view. It's likely Nigel Short's view. It might even be my view. But it's not necessarily everybody's view,

Meaningless gibberish which acquires meaning only if one accepts that viewpoints which ignore facts are as valid as any others.

To go back to the point. The only people who are voting yes in this poll are accurately described in a preceding post by Paul McKeown. There is no other credible explanation.

Typically perceptive analysis from Martin Regan.

Those who believe that Nigel Short ought to resign might be thinking that Nigel has shown support for Garry Kasparov ahead of representation of the ECF. It's quite telling that in the vote of confidence, only two Directors of nine supported Nigel.

[Martin Regan]

Angus F wrote:

Typically perceptive analysis from Martin Regan. Those who believe that Nigel Short ought to resign might be thinking that Nigel has shown support for Garry Kasparov ahead of representation of the ECF. It's quite telling that in the vote of confidence, only two Directors of nine supported Nigel Short.

Angus. I don't believe I have ever met you, so my only judgement can be based on the your postings here.

I could ridicule the above post for its use of asinine phrases such as "quite telling". I could give you a long lecture about Council's longstanding pro-anyone-who-is-anti-KI-attitude, but that would never overcome your obvious loathing of Nigel Short, nor dent your unjustified self-regard.

[Warren Kingston]

I voted no. Only a bloody idiot would vote yes.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think, though, Roger, that nothing in Phil Ehr's approach to his role has suggested that he sees himself as anything other than second fiddle to Paulson. Do you not agree?

We know very little. The ECF Board went into almost complete silence for three months until the disclosure of the draft Agon contract, the AP email calling for Nigel's dismissal and then the emergency Board meeting. Phil Ehr was one who supported the election of AP, so must have presumed they could work together.

[JustinHorton]

We know very little.

Well, we have some minutes to go by.

[Nigel Short]

Resign for what? For being re-elected unopposed? For being consistently pro-Kasparov (rather than pretending to be something I am not)? Resign for exposing a dodgy signed deal between Andrew Paulson and the President of FIDE? Resign for failing to have a harmonious relationship with the man who wrote to me explicitly asking me not to bother communicating with him even BEFORE he got elected as President of the ECF and who openly calls me a "pain in the ass" during meetings? You cannot be serious...

[JustinHorton]

Resign for exposing a dodgy signed deal between Andrew Paulson and the President of FIDE?

Seeing as the question comes up, what are you actually claiming about AGON and its ownership? It's not always been quite clear to me.

[Martin Crichton]

Resign for what? For being re-elected unopposed? For being consistently pro-Kasparov (rather than pretending to be something I am not)? Resign for exposing a dodgy signed deal between Andrew Paulson and the President of FIDE? Resign for failing to have a harmonious relationship with the man who wrote to me explicitly asking me not to bother communicating with him even BEFORE he got elected as President of the ECF and who openly calls me a "pain in the ass" during meetings? You cannot be serious...

part quoting the minutes from the recent EGM...

For the good of English chess, particularly the untenable Board climate, I asked AP today to resign.

Nigel Short’s behaviour releasing the AGON memorandum to The Sunday Times resembles that of a whistle-blower, a role we must respect. I am disappointed, however, by the vituperative language he used in the press and in social media, persistently asserting that the AGON memo is proof of a criminal conflict of interest. The lack of circumspection is unbecoming the role of our FIDE Delegate and a Grandmaster.”

7. Each Director was asked to present the charges against AP and NS which were the cause for this meeting to be convened:

9. Motion of confidence in Andrew Paulson as President of the English Chess Federation.

In favour: 2 (AP, JC)
Against: 5 (SH, DO, AH, LC, DE)
Abstain: 1 (DT)
The Chairman (PE) did not vote.

10. Vote of confidence in Nigel Short as the FIDE Delegate of the English Chess Federation

In favour: 2 (DO, LC)
Against: 0
Abstain: 5 (JC, AP, DE, DT, AH, SH)
The chairman (PE) did not vote.

the purpose of these 2 polls posing the questions asking should AP and NS resign is to give the wider chess community a similar opportunity to express their opinions.

to date the percentages expressed in the polls are not too dissimilar to the results of the recent votes of confidence in AP and NS at the recent EGM of the ECF.

[John McKenna]

What a curious thread. Why on earth should Nigel Short even contemplate resignation? He has the support of the board, he has the support of council and he has the support of the chief executive.

Now I can see why the President might vote "yes" in this poll, but who are the others? Really. Who are they?

Yes, curious isn't it. Martin asks - who are others?

Perhaps I could be one of "the others" - I have not yet decided how, or even if, to vote here.

Martin, since this thread is about Nigel let's examine the evidence you gave, above.

You say that Nigel, "has the support of the board, he has the support of council and he has the support of the chief executive."

In what could be called "votes of confidence, or not as the case may be" Emergency Board Meeting (held on 8th Feb.) I cannot see that Nigel has the support of the board.

As Martin Crichton says, above, 2 directors supported Nigel, none were against BUT 5 abstained. In my book abstention is not support. Therefore, as I see it, Nigel is sailing close to the wind as far as the board goes.

As for Council, well, he had the overwhelming support of that august body in Oct. last year, however, there were some against him (I guess you will be asking yourself - who could they be?) I suspect it could be different in April.

The hard-pressed CEO - between a rock and a hard place - is trying, in my view, to be even-handed. He does not seem to me to be supporting Nigel any more or less than Andrew. He probably wishes that one or both would resign if they cannot bury the hatchet (Nigel) and tomahawk (Andrew) in the warpost and declare at least a 6 month (edit: I originally wrote an unnecessary '9') cessation of hostilities with truce, i.e. a kind of peace - even if it is an uneasy one.

Martin Crichton>... to date the percentages expressed in the polls are not too dissimilar to the results of the recent votes of confidence in AP and NS at the recent EGM of the ECF.<

Don't think I can disagree at present HMS Short has a favourable tide, the wind in the sails and looks to be on course to sink USS Paulson. While Kirsan's junk gets clean away, yet again, with all the loot.

[NickFaulks]

Abstain: 5 (JC, AP, DE, DT, AH, SH)

?

[John Philpott]

Nick Faulks wrote

Abstain: 5 (JC, AP, DE, DT, AH, SH)

?

If you refer to the draft minutes as these appear on the ECF website you will see that the number 6 appears.

[John McKenna]

Thanks to John P for clarify the numbers.

I take it Andrew Paulson also did the honourable thing by abstaining then.
In a parallel universe where abstentions are each worth -0.5 Nigel would get +2-3 = -1.
Ergo he'd lose the vote under such a - not unreasonable - rule.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Yes, but if abstentions were worth -0.5 they wouldn't be abstentions, they'd be mild votes-against.