Commercial Director

[Roger de Coverly]

I doubt the revised Board have yet considered the issue, even informally. What are they going to do with the vacant Commercial Director position?

Advertise for a replacement, perhaps combining this with downgrading the post to management level?
Realign the responsibilities elsewhere amongst the directors?
Leave it vacant?

I'm still marginally baffled as to why the previous incumbent was thrown out of office. Complaining to the headmaster about Alex, perhaps. Is ecforum that highly regarded that setting up in competition is heinous? It hadn't been an issue at the 2014 elections and the flame wars created by Chris Fegan and Martin Regan had encouraged traffic in the last month.

[Michael Farthing]

I think people felt that the continuing antagonism was so bitter that it would be not be healthy to have both Bob and Alex on the Board together. Bob's contributions during the campaign continued to hint at a deep seated antagonism towards Alex which it was clear he would not drop.

[Martin Regan]

Indeed, and no doubt they would have worked out how we are going to explain to our largest new sponsor for many years - that the men they dealt with have now been sacked.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Martin, are you saying it is impossible to explain the election results to the sponsors? It is tricky, but you would hope that those now dealing with this will do so sensibly on both sides and not let politics affect things going forward. It should be about the organisation (on both sides) and not the individuals. Put it this way: if the person on the sponsor side dealing with the ECF got sidelined/replaced, should that affect the ECF relationship with the sponsors? You would hope not, and that a working relationship can continue.

[Martin Regan]

CK:

Martin, are you saying it is impossible to explain the election results to the sponsors? It is tricky, but you would hope that those now dealing with this will do so sensibly on both sides and not let politics affect things going forward. It should be about the organisation (on both sides) and not the individuals. Put it this way: if the person on the sponsor side dealing with the ECF got sidelined/replaced, should that affect the ECF relationship with the sponsors?

Not "impossible". But In sponsorship and indeed business - personal relationships are important. Had my business committed substantial sums to the ECF only to found that some of the key players (who presumably I would have trusted) had been sacked, I would be perturbed. If I found they had lost to NOA I would be alarmed. It happens the other way around. The long-standing sponsorship of the British Championships was ended after a change of personnel at the sponsor.

[David Pardoe]

I hope the forthcoming meetings within the ECF will look closely at recent events, and consider if some bridges can be rebuilt and repaired.
I`d like to see a combined meeting of board members (including some ex members), and members of the Governance group, including recent colleagues, to see if some common ground can be re-established, lessons taken on board, and maybe invite back some recent casualties from this sorry situation... Messrs Kane and Robertson, not to mention Openshaw, and others could make valuable contributions to the ECF, I`m sure..

[Alan Kennedy]

Indeed, and no doubt they would have worked out how we are going to explain to our largest new sponsor for many years - that the men they dealt with have now been sacked.

If the colleague of Mike Truran got the analysis right (see below), which the evidence suggests (s)he did, then the cost of keeping the Directors who harassed and bullied would far outweigh the loss of a sponsor. Perhaps instead of pointing the finger at the electorate you should look to Messrs Foley, Fegan and Kane and the events that led up to Alex H sending an email that was so out of character. In essence what the correspondent below said was that certain individuals failed the fit and proper test which is a precursor to being a board member in a well run organsation.

As regards you points elsewhere about Arbiter Nexus you also need a balance of skills on any board and I hope that the existing board members look to others to strengthen the board.

On a lighter note, I read with interest the mistaking of Alex H for Alex M - I would be delighted if anyone want to mistake me for a 28 year old!

From an esteemed friend and colleague who would prefer to remain anonymous:

In amidst all this guff about traditionalists vs. progressives and the arbiter nexus, it strikes me that Council did something rather simple. They were prepared to forgive occasional bad behaviour and incompetence, but gave short shrift to premeditated harassment and bullying either by individuals or their associates. If that is the case, Council has gone up in my estimation.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

On a lighter note, I read with interest the mistaking of Alex H for Alex M - I would be delighted if anyone want to mistake me for a 28 year old!

Alex R. Holowczak is 25, born 1990
Alex H. MacFarlane, born 1954, is 60 or 61, so more than twice his age.

PS. Not this Alex MacFarlane!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... S-ban.html

[Christopher Kreuzer]

CK:

Martin, are you saying it is impossible to explain the election results to the sponsors? It is tricky, but you would hope that those now dealing with this will do so sensibly on both sides and not let politics affect things going forward. It should be about the organisation (on both sides) and not the individuals. Put it this way: if the person on the sponsor side dealing with the ECF got sidelined/replaced, should that affect the ECF relationship with the sponsors?

Not "impossible". But In sponsorship and indeed business - personal relationships are important. Had my business committed substantial sums to the ECF only to found that some of the key players (who presumably I would have trusted) had been sacked, I would be perturbed. If I found they had lost to NOA I would be alarmed. It happens the other way around. The long-standing sponsorship of the British Championships was ended after a change of personnel at the sponsor.

Yes. The important point, for those commenting from the sidelines, is not to ratchet up the rhetoric and inadvertently disturb what might be a delicate point in the relationship. As an ex-CEO yourself, you will probably be aware of that. I was in effect trying to say that (probably too subtly) in my response to your previous post.