CCF v Surrey

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
John Upham
Posts: 4353
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by John Upham » Fri May 13, 2011 3:57 pm

Scott Freeman wrote:Somewhere I did record all the serial numbers and with an extended search would surely find them if I ever had to. What I might do if and when I find the list is to post the numbers on the forum so that if anyone ever gets suspicious they could cross check the numbers. They all had CCF scratched (with a compass point) into both ends of the clock and on the underside - and possibly on the front as well. So either they would be found with those marking still visible, or perhaps stickers on both ends or something to cover up the marking.
Scott,

What model and colour were the clocks?
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

User avatar
Ben Purton
Posts: 1620
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:53 am
Location: Berks

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Ben Purton » Fri May 13, 2011 3:57 pm

I think in the end , having "balls" really is not about posting behind a computer screen Paul.

Do I have the inclination to slag off Scott? Hardly , they have a great chess club etc.
I love sleep, I need 8 hours a day and about 10 at night - Bill Hicks
I would die happy if I beat Wood Green in the Eastman Cup final - Richmond LL captain.
Hating the Yankees since 2002. Hating the Jets since 2001.

Scott Freeman
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:42 am

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Scott Freeman » Fri May 13, 2011 4:09 pm

To answer the last few posts:

1 I believe all of Paul's questions have been directly and truthfully answered - and as Paul McKeown has stated, even what I have said has been effectively backed up by what some of those who might be seeing as opposing me have said. Also, I have little doubt that if I had said anything that wasn't true, that a number of people would have pounced on me straight away.

2 Whether people believe me or not, I have not lied to this forum or to Paul, or to the SCCA. And I go back to the dawn of my involvement with all of them in making that statement. Perhaps it would help if Paul stated in simple short sentences what he thinks I have lied about and I will be happy to answer him. I am quite happy for this accusation to remain up as I want it followed through so that I can clear my name!

3 The clocks were the older (red) DGT clocks. A few of them had previously been bought second hand from Tony Corfe. Some of them had been bought from the Chess & Bridge Centre (before we had our book stall). One we had been presented by the 1999 Surrey Congress for having the club with the best aggregate score, or something like that.

PS/ I did say a day or so back that it was a good idea having this on a different thread. People could then leave it alone if they wanted (although it might be like trying not to chew a fruit pastel put in your mouth!). I have been told that there are 18 or so people on line reading this, so I guess it is of some interest!

Paul Dupré
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 pm
Location: Cove, Hampshire

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Paul Dupré » Fri May 13, 2011 4:14 pm

Ben Purton wrote:Do I have the inclination to slag off Scott? Hardly , they have a great chess club etc.
They have a great chess club, wrong they HAD a great chess club it was called Coulsdon & Purley Chess Club. They took over and destroyed that, now they have CCF World. Which if not stopped from spreading their lies will destroy all chess in the rest of the world. :wink:

Check your history before you slag me off http://www.ccfworld.com/Chess/ChessClub ... istory.htm.

By the way Ben, I'm not slagging him off. I'm sure he works very hard for Howard. What, I am saying is misinformation is the same as lying.
Any postings on here represent the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,
...and by the way the world is flat.

Paul Dupré
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 pm
Location: Cove, Hampshire

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Paul Dupré » Fri May 13, 2011 4:20 pm

Please can somebody who actually saw the clocks come forward and state for the record whether they were quality clocks worth in the region of £600.00 which is the amount CCF wanted us to give them.

Thank you
Any postings on here represent the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,
...and by the way the world is flat.

Scott Freeman
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:42 am

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Scott Freeman » Fri May 13, 2011 4:31 pm

I think you can read back on posts and see that the clocks "came forward," Paul, that is not in dispute. In fact, nobody other than you is possibly disputing that fact. The saleable value of the clocks was probably a lot less than £600. All that happened at the time (as I recall) was that we were asked (for some reason) to quote a figure for replacing them and that was (I assume) the figure that Howard worked out would be the cost if they were bought new.

Now having said I know exactly what is now going to happen, so let me deal with that.

We were not expecting anyone to just give us £600. Obviously when you buy bulk orders, you can get good discounts. We don't know where Ben went for the clocks but whatever he paid was probably considerably less than £600. You would have to ask him what he paid. All we were asking for was that we received 21 clocks to replace the ones that went missing. I believe that new for old when you deal with insurance is normal, but frankly I think we would have been happy with second hand had we had guarantees that they were working.

Now as for the history of the chess club, CCF was not looking to swallow the club up. At an AGM a few years ago, I think it was Joe Xuereb who (out of the blue) proposed that CCF swallowed up the club, as we were running it anyway. The club has not changed from that other than we don't need annual elections as we just run it. Anyone who wishes to agree with Paul that we "HAD" and do not "HAVE a good chess club is either welcome to come down on Monday nights to watch it in operation - or a little less strenuous method might be to look at our list of members from this season just finishing:
http://www.ccfworld.com/Chess/ChessClub ... hecker.htm

Around 130 members all in, of which around 70-80 are full members. We have 4 FIDE rated divisions in our club championship. We have speed chess nights. We have an internal league structure involving 16 teams over 2 divisions of 8 (annual promotion and relegation). We have a FIDE rated team event.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I am sure that most chess clubs would love to have the structure that we have. The internal structure has been so good that the vast majority of members don't bother electing to play league chess anymore.

Paul Dupré
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 pm
Location: Cove, Hampshire

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Paul Dupré » Fri May 13, 2011 4:43 pm

Yes, if my local club had all that available I would be impressed. However, and this is big however, where do you get off going around accusing people of lying and been dishonest, when you are yourself.

Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."
Any postings on here represent the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,
...and by the way the world is flat.

Scott Freeman
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:42 am

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Scott Freeman » Fri May 13, 2011 4:57 pm

Paul Dupré wrote:Yes, if my local club had all that available I would be impressed. However, and this is big however, where do you get off going around accusing people of lying and been dishonest, when you are yourself.

Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

Paul

I am challenging you to tell me specifically what you think I have lied about and what I have been dishonest about. I know I haven't and that is all that matters, so welcome the chance to publicly set the record straight.



By the way, I didn't know you were a Christian! Which church do you go to?

John Upham
Posts: 4353
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by John Upham » Fri May 13, 2011 5:05 pm

Paul Dupré wrote:
Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."
Will we invoke Godwin's Law today? It is looking pretty likely!

All we need now is some right wing references and we are there! :D
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3266
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Paul McKeown » Fri May 13, 2011 5:10 pm

John Upham wrote:
Paul Dupré wrote:
Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."
Will we invoke Godwin's Law today? It is looking pretty likely!

All we need now is some right wing references and we are there! :D
John,

I'm just waiting for GMan - Lancs slap down to start.

Paul Dupré
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 pm
Location: Cove, Hampshire

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Paul Dupré » Fri May 13, 2011 5:55 pm

Sorry, been away from my PC to check some facts on the grapevine. Apparently, Daniel Gliddon delivered the clocks, and apparently, we used three of them. Though, Ray Ryan said they were the old clocks no longer being used by CCF, so why then would you not accept £300 that was offered?

Is it so you could keep up this an eternal barrage against us?

I need this to end, so what can I say or do the end this today???
Any postings on here represent the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,
...and by the way the world is flat.

Susan Lalic
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:54 am

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Susan Lalic » Fri May 13, 2011 5:57 pm

Scott Freeman wrote: "The boards and sets that CCF lent for the tournaments were properly handed over by Susan Lalic, who counted them out to Howard. Obviously the clocks were not. The fact that Susan handed the boards and sets over shows that she took proper responsibility and appreciated the importance of that. :) "

I remember everyone packing up (including CCF) and I just went over to Howard to count out the boards since some of them belonged to Surrey and I didn't want to be out on my inventory. As I said before, there was no official handover of equipment.

I have little doubt the clocks were there. Funnily enough I have 20 DGTs to sell (with no compass markings!) as I bought the clocks off Mike Gunn (the ones he still has the receipt for).

I did ask Ben what he paid for the clocks - he said £600, but he had no receipt and no proof that he had taken £600 from any account, which ruined any real chance of an insurance claim. I asked if we could chase a receipt from the seller but he said the guy had just gone back to Nigeria, the day after selling him the clocks.

I don't blame Paul for being slightly skeptical.

Scott Freeman
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:42 am

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Scott Freeman » Fri May 13, 2011 6:08 pm

Paul Dupre wrote:
"Though, Ray Ryan said they were the old clocks no longer being used by CCF, so why then would you not accept £300 that was offered?"

Paul, this could be quite a key piece of information in the mystery. I would like to ask Ray if he said that because if he did, he would know that it was not true. Can I ask when he said it?

To follow up Susan's comments, I know that Howard had seen it as an official hand over on your part, but no matter as all the boards and sets were there. At the end of the day, you were trying to do the right thing in making sure that the right bits of equipment were with the right people.

I am surprised that Ben said that he actually paid £600 for the clocks as I am sure he said he was able to get them cheaper from a source. Is it possible that he was referring to the value of the clocks new? I want to be careful what is said here because I remember that Ben made it clear in his wrwitten communication that he was not looking for the money for the clocks, more who was legally responsible for them.

Sorry if this sounds challenging, but I am reminding Paul that I am expecting specific details of his accusations against me that I have lied and been dishonest, so I can set the record straight. Again the lines seem to have gone quiet on me asking that question.

Scott Freeman
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:42 am

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Scott Freeman » Fri May 13, 2011 6:17 pm

Susan Lalic wrote:I don't blame Paul for being slightly skeptical.
Being scepticle is one thing - it is right to be cautious, but I think even you must have cringed watching the way Paul has flown off the handle today. I suspect that there are a lot of my so called enemies who have read his posts and begged him to stop, because he has actually given me the oxygen I needed to get some facts into the open which needed to get there.

He has, on at least 2 or 3 occasions, directly accused me of telling lies and being dishonest. If he could back up the accusation with facts, then fine, but he failed to do that, and I think the responses of others reading this forum have recognised that. He commented about us having had a great club (indicating that we didn't any more) and then had to state in his next post that he was impressed with what we provide, so I am unclear where he stands there. I think it's fair to say that he is (and I know he will remain) unable to substanciate his claims of lying against against me.

And for the record, I am not joking when I say that Paul would be welcome to join the club here if he wanted (although I am sure he intends not to!). But I am serious. And he will be made welcome if he does. As would you!
Last edited by Scott Freeman on Fri May 13, 2011 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Ian Thompson » Fri May 13, 2011 6:18 pm

Scott Freeman wrote:I believe that new for old when you deal with insurance is normal, but frankly I think we would have been happy with second hand had we had guarantees that they were working.
New for old is normal for most insurance policies, but that's not the case if the lender is claiming against the borrower for a loss. The law says the borrower's liability (if they are liable at all) is the value of the clocks at the time of loss. If the clocks were, say, 5 years old, you would be entitled to the value of 5 year old clocks.

With the confused versions of events described in this thread, It seems to me that the chances of anyone successfully claiming against anyone else for the loss of the clocks is low. It seems to me that the lesson everyone should learn from this is to agree responsibilities up front and put it all in writing.

Locked