CCF v Surrey

[Mike Gunn]

As one of the co-organisers of the Surrey Congress I can report that we have 93 competitors this year spread across 4 3-day sections (Open=24, U180=29, U150=23, U120=17) which isn't enough for our venue. But then tomorrow we will have 140+ juniors in a junior event and an unknown number in the adult rapidpay (was 40 last year)*.

The Surrey Congress has never thrived since leaving our old venue of the Sutton Library where we had 400+ entrants on ooccasion and we suffer from the continuing competion with CCF events. Yes, I know you will say why don't we try to co-operate with CCF - we tried that the year and 21 digital clocks belonging to CCF somehow went missing.

*There is till time to enter tomorrow's rapidplay, details are on the website, £15 entry in advance, £2 discount for ECF members, £2 discount for juniors, £5 late fee if you enter on the door.

[Alex Holowczak]

Yes, I know you will say why don't we try to co-operate with CCF - we tried that the year and 21 digital clocks belonging to CCF somehow went missing.

It does seem strange that both CCF and Surrey have FIDE-rated chess competitions on the same weekend as each other.

[Scott Freeman]

Mike Gunn wrote:
The Surrey Congress has never thrived since leaving our old venue of the Sutton Library where we had 400+ entrants on ooccasion and we suffer from the continuing competion with CCF events. Yes, I know you will say why don't we try to co-operate with CCF - we tried that the year and 21 digital clocks belonging to CCF somehow went missing.

*There is till time to enter tomorrow's rapidplay, details are on the website, £15 entry in advance, £2 discount for ECF members, £2 discount for juniors, £5 late fee if you enter on the door.


There is also a rapid play followed by a blitz at CCF for those who want to do both. Entries can be taken online for the rapidplay (blitz can be done on the evening):
http://www.ccfworld.com/Chess/Adult%20C ... april.html

The loss of the Sutton library was a blow for the SCCA because it was a much loved venue. CCF ran the congress in 2000 and had to find a new venue; I know that some within Surrey blamed us for the change of venue but we had tried to get the library. Unfortunately, the cost had become prohibitive so that had ruled out any possibility - and they had re-furbished the upper level where the Minor and Novice took place, so the logistics of the building no longer worked. We thought we had found a good venue for a decent price and probably would have used it again if we hadn't withdrawn from running the congress after that one year.

I understand that people are curious as to why there are 2 events in Surrey at the same time and it is not necessarily my aim to explain everything here as some issues go back years. All I will say is that despite the 21 CCF digital clocks going missing in 2006 (I think it was), Howard (Curtis) had offered to work with the SCCA with a joint event at Easter the following year but was ignored. I think that was because the Congress Company Directors at the time thought this a better way forward than having to work with us again, which would obviously have meant them having to face issues of responsibility over the cost of the clocks. That's why we carried on by ourselves.

Am pleased to say we had a wonderful event on Friday and Saturday. Enjoying the rest today (and watching Bolton beat Arsenal.....so far!) and looking forward to the speed chess stuff tomorrow.

[Alex Holowczak]

I understand that people are curious as to why there are 2 events in Surrey at the same time and it is not necessarily my aim to explain everything here as some issues go back years.

Oh, it's one of those reasons...

[Susan Lalic]

The Surrey Congress has never thrived since leaving our old venue of the Sutton Library where we had 400+ entrants on ooccasion and we suffer from the continuing competion with CCF events. Yes, I know you will say why don't we try to co-operate with CCF - we tried that the year and 21 digital clocks belonging to CCF somehow went missing.

I think it only fair to say that nobody playing, or otherwise, was suspected of taking the clocks. The most likely scenario was that they were thrown away by the site staff as they were clearing up, due to the fact that the clocks were stored in black bin liners.

[matt_ward]

Then their was one intelligent person who put the chess clocks in black bin liners.

One should suspect that who ever but the clocks in the black bin liners should be blamed not site staff.

Matt.

[Susan Lalic]

Matt I agree.
I remember CCF delivering the equipment the day before the tournament as we set up, and as the clocks came out of the black bin bags I just thought it must have been to protect them from the rain. It never entered my head that they were at risk of being deposited in a landfill site within a few days.

[Richard Thursby]

Not at all chess related, but the last few posts remind me of this story from a few years back.

[Scott Freeman]

Susan Lalic wrote:
Matt I agree.
I remember CCF delivering the equipment the day before the tournament as we set up, and as the clocks came out of the black bin bags I just thought it must have been to protect them from the rain. It never entered my head that they were at risk of being deposited in a landfill site within a few days.


Although I am not suggesting here that anyone was guilty of stealing them, the flip side to the argument is that if anyone did chuck them away, bear in mind they would have been quite a weight and quite a shape that would certainly have made most people look in the bags to see what they were. That's why it is all such a mystery. From CCF's point of view, our concern was not necessarily what happened to them, but who should have taken responsibility for ensuring they were returned safely.

[Susan Lalic]

It was a most unfortunate incident. Since CCF was there, collecting its own equipment up, there was no obvious formal change over. If there had been a stock take at the venue, I am in no doubt the clocks would not have been lost. It is an important lesson both for those lending and borrowing equipment.

[Scott Freeman]

CCF staff only collected the equipment that was in the analysis area (which was lent over and above the agreed stock that had been brought) and not anywhere else; it is important that this fact is understood as the facts have been mis-quoted a few times. Nobody from CCF went anywhere near the playing areas where the digital clocks were being used/stored (by the open section). Different people were loading Howard's car and the clocks were obviously were not accounted for (Howard himself was on a walking stick at the time and could hardly do anything himself - I was not there), so for the record, a court of law would have had to accept that the equipment lent had not been handed back to CCF to appropriate satisfaction (if we are going to argue the case "legally"), and therefore the congress organisers remained liable (in law) for the loss of the clocks. Thankfuklly, Ben Ogunshola paid for them out of his own pocket so the issue never arose - a very generous and considerate act for which I hope the SCCA will, in due course (and we he returns to the scene) thank him.

[Mick Norris]

It was a most unfortunate incident. Since CCF was there, collecting its own equipment up, there was no obvious formal change over. If there had been a stock take at the venue, I am in no doubt the clocks would not have been lost. It is an important lesson both for those lending and borrowing equipment.

Susan

Should the lender or the borrower insure the equipment?

[David Sedgwick]

It was a most unfortunate incident. Since CCF was there, collecting its own equipment up, there was no obvious formal change over. If there had been a stock take at the venue, I am in no doubt the clocks would not have been lost. It is an important lesson both for those lending and borrowing equipment.

Susan

Should the lender or the borrower insure the equipment?

I'm not Susan, but perhaps I can comment.

My view, not universally shared, is that the borrowing organisation should insure the equipment whilst it is in their hands.

One of the problems in the case in question it was far from clear, or at least not universally accepted, in whose possession the clocks were at the time they went missing.

[Scott Freeman]

David is correct that it was not universally accepted as to who was responsible for the equipment but it was totally clear who had the clocks in their possession and as such, the law was absolutely clear. Those that know me will appreciate I would have checked that carefully!

CCF staff had not received the clocks back having handed them over at the start of the congress - they were still under the care - and in the possession of the open controllers in another part of the venue. The only issues I think could be under dispute was whether the SCCA as a county body was responsible (as it was their sub-committee's member who had asked to borrow the clocks) or the SCCA Congress Company (whose Directors were not (I believe) on the committee, who actually legally ran the congress. I think both groups played off against each other somewhat to deny liability, but as I said, at the end of the day, Ben Ogunshola should be being thanked by the SCCA or Congress Company (whichever is applicable) for what he did.

CCF quite reasonably could have (and would have had) to take action for recovery, as we needed our equipment back (21 digital clocks are not cheap to replace!) - Ben's kind action solved everything for both parties. Sadly he received little thanks from anyone beyond ourselves even though he made it clear he was not looking to be re-imbursed; all he wanted to know was who should have been responsible - and he was effectively insulted for asking those questions (as were we).

[David Sedgwick]

Mick Norris asked a perfectly sensible question and I endeavoured to give him a fair, useful and objective reply. I'll leave it there.