Not Sure Championship Relevance?

Details of upcoming UK events, please provide working links if possible.
Peter Turner
Posts: 385
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: Not Sure Championship Relevance?

Postby Peter Turner » Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:34 pm

... and junior game fee!!

User avatar
Peter D Williams
Posts: 836
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:15 pm
Location: Hampshire

Re: Not Sure Championship Relevance?

Postby Peter D Williams » Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:41 pm

Adam Raoof wrote:
Peter Turner wrote:I repeat, "ECF does not currenty have funds to support junior chess". The £5,000 available is a grant from the JR Trust!!


Your point is taken, but the JRT is there for the ECF to ask for funds. Therefore the ECF has funds to support Junior chess - just not the whole amount, but some of the interest on the whole amount in the gift of the trustees.


Agree with Adam JRT is there for ECF to ask for funds.
when you are successful many losers bark at you.

E Michael White
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: Not Sure Championship Relevance?

Postby E Michael White » Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:25 pm

Peter Turner wrote:I repeat, "ECF does not currenty have funds to support junior chess". The £5,000 available is a grant from the JR Trust!!
Do you know whether the JRT is a protective or discretionary trust ?

Peter Turner
Posts: 385
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: Not Sure Championship Relevance?

Postby Peter Turner » Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:34 pm

I think it is a Discretionary Trust.

http://www.charitiesdirect.com/charitie ... 16981.html

Peter

User avatar
Adam Raoof
Posts: 2205
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:16 pm
Location: NW4 4UY
Contact:

Re: Not Sure Championship Relevance?

Postby Adam Raoof » Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:45 pm

Paul Sanders wrote:It would be nice to think that a proportion of junior subs could be guaranteed to the junior budget...


Don't worry, I am also in favour of spending more of the ECF budget on juniors, and protecting income from ideas such as a junior only grading list. However there is something called Council, and you have to carry everyone with you...

E Michael White
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: Not Sure Championship Relevance?

Postby E Michael White » Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:38 pm

Adam Raoof wrote:Don't worry, I am also in favour of spending more of the ECF budget on juniors, and protecting income from ideas such as a junior only grading list. However there is something called Council, and you have to carry everyone with you...
This approach is misguided. Extra expenditure on juniors should come from the JRT until the ECF and Junior part is organised in a more tax efficient way utilising tax advantages discussed and agreed by MPs in the charity bills.

John Upham
Posts: 4026
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Not Sure Championship Relevance?

Postby John Upham » Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:17 pm

To get rid of "Council" (seems like an Oxymoron but heh!) would "Council" be required to vote for by some crazy margin?

I'm about to re-read a novel by Joseph Heller to prepare myself...

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 7886
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Not Sure Championship Relevance?

Postby Alex Holowczak » Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:18 pm

John Upham wrote:To get rid of "Council" (seems like an Oxymoron but heh!) would "Council" be required to vote for by some crazy margin?


I assume it'd be a change to the Articles (as opposed to Bye Laws), and if it were, then it'd need to have a three-quarters majority.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 15799
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Not Sure Championship Relevance?

Postby Roger de Coverly » Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:56 am

I did eventually get a tip off as to what the issue at the London Chess Classic might have been about. Given the general cryptic nature of this thread, I'll just supply a visual clue.

http://union.ic.ac.uk/rcc/chess/wp-cont ... hnAdam.jpg

If the reaction is "Oh no, not again", you have my sympathy.

User avatar
Adam Raoof
Posts: 2205
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:16 pm
Location: NW4 4UY
Contact:

Re: Not Sure Championship Relevance?

Postby Adam Raoof » Wed Feb 29, 2012 7:38 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:I did eventually get a tip off as to what the issue at the London Chess Classic might have been about. Given the general cryptic nature of this thread, I'll just supply a visual clue.

http://union.ic.ac.uk/rcc/chess/wp-cont ... hnAdam.jpg

If the reaction is "Oh no, not again", you have my sympathy.


Not Sure Classic Relevance?!

John Upham
Posts: 4026
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Not Sure Championship Relevance?

Postby John Upham » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:28 am

Adam Raoof wrote:Not Sure Classic Relevance?!


Were not similarly witty notices displayed at the London Chess Classic 2011?

I did not witness them myself but learnt of them subsequently.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 15799
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Not Sure Championship Relevance?

Postby Roger de Coverly » Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:38 am

John Upham wrote:Were not similarly witty notices displayed at the London Chess Classic 2011?


That joke is wearing a bit thin now, but I don't see the logic of why the ECF should be involved.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 2778
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Not Sure Championship Relevance?

Postby David Sedgwick » Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:05 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
John Upham wrote:Were not similarly witty notices displayed at the London Chess Classic 2011?

That joke is wearing a bit thin now, but I don't see the logic of why the ECF should be involved.

I believe that one person in particular found them upsetting.

One or two others took exception to them, which led to the ECF involvement.

At the risk of being accused of wanting to shut down the thread, could I make a gentle request for people to move on.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 15799
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Not Sure Championship Relevance?

Postby Roger de Coverly » Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:34 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:One or two others took exception to them, which led to the ECF involvement.


Personally I would have thought a "complaint" to this forum would have been more effective.

What though is the involvement of the ECF in notices which might be considered by some to be in poor taste and by others humorous?

Whilst the main tournaments at the event would have been graded by the ECF and submitted by the ECF to FIDE, I don't see why that gives the ECF intervention rights except in extreme circumstances. Or was the issue, the conduct of an ECF director or officer?

For what it's worth, which is not a lot as I wouldn't have a say, I would be opposed to the notion of an ECF Ethics committee. This is a case in point, that such a body would become a vehicle for triviality and point scoring. We've got the forum for that :) .

Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Not Sure Championship Relevance?

Postby Alex McFarlane » Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:49 pm

I had hoped to keep out of this but recent postings make that very difficult.

Michael, you do not do yourself or your case any favours by making the comments that you do about David Sedgwick. He is as entitled to his opinion as you are. Could I suggest that you edit your last post.

I certainly agree that the sign "Some Rounds Start Late - Get Over It" was ill advised. It referred to the Blitz event organised by Adam Raoof and not to the FIDE Open but this was not made clear in the sign and certainly further confused by its position next to the result box for the Open.

When the creator of the sign realised that people were taking offence it was removed and he offered to resign.

The length of time the sign was displayed was unfortunate. Humour at events is always to be welcomed. Sometimes that humour can go wrong. When this is the case then a complaint must be taken seriously. There was one player greatly upset by the sign and others thought that it was not in good taste.

I apologise that I did not insist more forceably that the sign be removed immediately it was pointed out to me. Under normal circumstances I would have been more proactive. I have already explained to Michael the unusual circumstances which made that difficult for me at that event.

With regard to Roger's point about an ethics committee. Such a body should only be used as a last resort. It has existed in Scotland for a number of years and I know of no time that it has been called upon, though obviously Chess Scotland is run in a more open manner than the ECF (Eg one member one vote).


Return to “Congress Diary”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests