CCF v Surrey

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Scott Freeman
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:42 am

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Scott Freeman » Fri May 13, 2011 8:23 pm

Again David, thank-you. Obviously it is no secret that the feeling has been mutual but I respect your evidence here. But please can I hear from you re this issue with Ray Ryan. It is important.

I had forgotten that the clocks had not been taken down on the first run - and now you come to mention it, I do half recall them having to be sent down the next morning; I don't think anyone made an extra journey down that night, but it is possible a car was coming down later and brought them then. Anyway, no matter.

Paul Dupré wrote:
Scott, Are you sure you didn't plan this deception in advance?


I must have missed this quote in everything else and only spotted it next to Ben's considered evaluation of the situation. Maybe my mind is not deceptive enough but how on earth could we have deceived anyone by someone losing/stealing our clocks.......? How did we gain from it? We were short of digitals for our congress a week later and South Norwood Chess Club (through Ben) helped us out by lending us some digitals.

I repeat we need some evidence from Paul concerning:
1 Ray's alleged comment about "CCF no longer using the clocks"
2 Paul's claim that I have told lies
3 Paul's claim that I (and/or CCF) have been deceiptful
4 Paul's claim that ex-members of CCF are unhappy with us
5 Paul's claim that ex-employees of CCF are unhappy with us.

In respect of item number 4 and the fact you mentioned one name I shall not repeat, I recall back in 2005 (I think it was) that a family left our club to set up their own claiming that their new club would be filled by (and I quote her from an SCCA meeting) "disaffected Coulsdon members." She reported that they had about 12. This was at a time that they were trying to join the league and I had stated at the meeting that I had no problem with it but that the SCCA needed (for the protection of their own competition) to ensure that they really did have enough players, as they had a track record of mass defaults with several of their internal teams.

Once the season started, it turned out that the only people who had left CCF were the 4 in their family. Two other players were playing for both clubs but had made it clear that their priority club was CCF, and I heard a number of reports of the desperately phoning around contacts (sometimes CCF club members whose contact info they had from being with us - and sometimes junior players from other counties). As such, they never had the players that they were claiming, so all I am saying is that if it is the same people you are believing that many people have left the CCF club unhappy, you might want to go and check your facts.
Last edited by Scott Freeman on Fri May 13, 2011 8:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Scott Freeman » Fri May 13, 2011 8:44 pm

Susan Lalic wrote:I agree the clocks were there. I think they were thrown away and then Ben was persuaded by CCF to say he'd bought some replacements, with the logic that the Committee was more likely to refund Ben more quickly than CCF.

Paul seems angry with CCF and it may partly be a delayed reaction from the time he stood in as Surrey's first team captain when Scott suddenly resigned. Paul had the unenviable task of getting a team together with no contacts (as he'd recently come back from Wales) in less than two weeks. Scott refused to pass on any contact details or to tell Paul who had already agreed to play in the forthcoming match.

Susan - can you explain what you mean by saying that "Ben was persuaded by CCF to say he'd bought some replacements, with the logic that the Committee was more likely to refund Ben more quickly than CCF." I don't want to over-react without clarification but that seems to be implying that we were actually involved in dishonest dealings. I won't comment on that further until you have responded. I also repeat what Ben said a thousand and one times - that he was not looking to be refunded but that he wanted to know who was responsible. As such, what could he or we have gained from it if we had been underhand or dishonest?


Regarding the county team, I never actually resigned from the post as Susan says. What had happened was that the previous captain had made a complete botch of selecting the team for the first match of the season, which had caused uproar with some of the players, one of whom refused to ever play for Surrey again. The captain resigned. For some reason, I offered to take on the running of the team until a replacement could be found. I then used the CCF database to try and canvass for players, and we developed a significantly stronger squad than before and (I think) we qualified for the national stages so I think I did my job well.

Then Paul Dupre was appointed as captain at the next Surrey AGM. As I was only a stand in captain, I just assumed that was it and my job was done (maybe that was wrong, but it didn't occur to me at the time) - so it was never a case of me resigning; I had been replaced. However, in the days leading up to the next match (I think it was less than the 2 weeks Susan quoted, so even less time for Paul than she said), I started to get calls about the game. I can't remember all the ins and out without going back to my emails but it appears that the Surrey officers had assumed that I would continue in the job until Surrey got knocked out or won the national stages. But I had said that I was only caretaker and for whatever reason (I think I was preparaing for a tournamant that weekend?) I simply could not re-structure my diary to do anything about the match. It was a mess I concede.

Where the problem came was that Paul then requested the contact information off me and now came the problem. I had been using the CCF database and with data protection could not pass info on without permission. Yes, it is probably fair to say that permission would have been given by most if not all, but in the age of mis-trust between CCF and the SCCA (as you will see from the posts on this thread) it was decided that we couldn't risk it and I was instructed that we should not do it for our own legal protection. That is probably what Susan is referring to but it wasn't a case of me refusing as Susan says. I can understand that some (maybe all) of you will think this was paranoia gone to extremes, but dare I point at what has come at me today........!

Paul Dupré
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 pm
Location: Cove, Hampshire

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Paul Dupré » Fri May 13, 2011 9:07 pm

Susan Lalic wrote:Paul seems angry with CCF and it may partly be a delayed reaction from the time he stood in as Surrey's first team captain when Scott suddenly resigned. Paul had the unenviable task of getting a team together with no contacts (as he'd recently come back from Wales) in less than two weeks. Scott refused to pass on any contact details or to tell Paul who had already agreed to play in the forthcoming match.
Sorry Susan, you're wrong there he did tell me who offered to play, just wouldn't give me their contact details something about Data Protection. However, I just dug up my old PC and found the email from Scott dated 07/06/2005, the match was 11/06/2005. So, four days - plenty of time to get a team of 16, with no contact details. :?

No that's not why I'm angry guess again :idea:. Although saying you're helpful and not being is obviously one clear lie.
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: 211
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 pm
Location: Cove, Hampshire

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Paul Dupré » Fri May 13, 2011 9:36 pm

Scott Freeman wrote:Where the problem came was that Paul then requested the contact information off me and now came the problem. I had been using the CCF database and with data protection could not pass info on without permission. Yes, it is probably fair to say that permission would have been given by most if not all, but in the age of mis-trust between CCF and the SCCA (as you will see from the posts on this thread) it was decided that we couldn't risk it and I was instructed that we should not do it for our own legal protection. That is probably what Susan is referring to but it wasn't a case of me refusing as Susan says. I can understand that some (maybe all) of you will think this was paranoia gone to extremes, but dare I point at what has come at me today........!
Just read this tosh, when we passed the previous Congress entries contact data to you in 2000, you didn't say "no no no Data Protection". But, when it came to 2002 Congress in Balham, you refused to pass on the details of the players who entered to Mike Gunn & Tony Corfe who were going to run the event. Even, though you had merged the entries with your database, I suspect. So, it's one rule for CCF and one rule for everyone else. You think you can make any spurious comments and get away with it.
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: 211
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 pm
Location: Cove, Hampshire

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Paul Dupré » Fri May 13, 2011 9:55 pm

John Constable wrote:Sorry Paul, but your source is completely wrong. CCF Mindgames have never had any digital clocks to loan out to congresses. Our 100 clocks are (and always have been) analogue. Check here http://www.ccfworld.com/MindGames/Terms.html Also noting items 6,7 & 8 which every organiser has accepted before borrowing our equipment.
You say that John, but they've been pretty accurate so far. How would they know you were elsewhere. One of you is not correct, and I'm more inclined towards them being right. Maybe, they just meant good clocks not digital. By the way they also said good equipment, and I believe that to be correct as the sets and boards we "borrowed" (and Howard packed away) were also very old.
Any postings on here represent the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,
...and by the way the world is flat.

John Constable
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 10:34 pm

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by John Constable » Fri May 13, 2011 10:01 pm

[quote=Just read this tosh, when we passed the previous Congress entries contact data to you in 2000, you didn't say "no no no Data Protection". But, when it came to 2002 Congress in Balham, you refused to pass on the details of the players who entered to Mike Gunn & Tony Corfe who were going to run the event. Even, though you had merged the entries with your database, I suspect. So, it's one rule for CCF and one rule for everyone else. You think you can make any spurious comments and get away with it.[/quote]


"when we passed the previous Congress entries contact data to you in 2000, you didn't say "no no no Data Protection".

An admission that you broke the data protection act.

"But, when it came to 2002 Congress in Balham, you refused to pass on the details of the players who entered to Mike Gunn & Tony Corfe who were going to run the event."

An admission that Scott/CCF kept to the data protection act.

"Even, though you had merged the entries with your database, I suspect."

Paul, can you please keep to proven facts not just your speculation."

Paul Dupré
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 pm
Location: Cove, Hampshire

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Paul Dupré » Fri May 13, 2011 10:07 pm

John Constable wrote:"when we passed the previous Congress entries contact data to you in 2000, you didn't say "no no no Data Protection".

An admission that you broke the data protection act.

"But, when it came to 2002 Congress in Balham, you refused to pass on the details of the players who entered to Mike Gunn & Tony Corfe who were going to run the event."

An admission that Scott/CCF kept to the data protection act.
Wrong again, the data belongs to the congress, which CCF took over for one year only. In other words "borrowed", we did not get the information back.
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 10:11 pm

Paul Dupre wrote:
Although saying you're helpful and not being is obviously one clear lie.


I think most people will read this thread and realise that we tried hard to work with everyone and were dropped upon from a great height. We were helpful and supportive - but I think Paul is now implying that I have lied about being helpful because I wasn't able to give him the contact information.

As I said in my earlier post, I can totally understand and accept the viewpoint that data protection ought not to have been an issue here, but we (CCF) just felt we couldn't take the chance. I again point out the things I have been accused of today and you can perhaps see why we have been so nervous of doing anything that could get used against us.

Paul Dupre also writes:
Just read this tosh, when we passed the previous Congress entries contact data to you in 2000, you didn't say "no no no Data Protection". But, when it came to 2002 Congress in Balham, you refused to pass on the details of the players who entered to Mike Gunn & Tony Corfe who were going to run the event. Even, though you had merged the entries with your database, I suspect. So, it's one rule for CCF and one rule for everyone else. You think you can make any spurious comments and get away with it.


I am not sure when we registered with the Data Protection people but I will see who in the office has those records and come back to you.

In 2000 we signed a contract with the SCCA and were given the contact information from the previous year; that was part of the deal and the SCCA were clearly happy for their part that this did not break data protection. After the 2000 event, we had gone back to the meeting to say that we didn't feel that the congress could continue on its current basis and that we would not continue on that basis. Richard Davey (quote) said "well if that's that case, we want the rights to the congress remarketed to prevent people like CCF from screwing the association." That was when Richard turned on us and was (rather coincidentally) the very meeting that we had proposed our motion against Basman for excluding the children from the UK Chess Challenge. As a result of Richard's comments, we decided not to have any involvement, as nobody else said anything.

Mike Gunn (the new SCCA President) had then stated that he would seek to run the event in 2001 and I had made sure all the stuff (contact info, etc, that Paul refers to) was ready for him. Just a few weeks before the date of the expected event, Mike told us that we would not be running and that we were free to (as we had said that we would like to run an event if Surrey didn't). So we went ahead and had a bumper entry. Loads of people who entered begged us to run again next year. Following that, Howard and I decided that we would go ahead anyway, partly because of the fact that so many of our entrants had asked us to run another 2 day event the following year and partly because we honestly felt that Mike Gunn probably wouldn't get around to doing anything (with apologies to Mike, he did have a bit of a reputation with the rest of us on the SCCA committee (which we left in the Spring of 2001) for missing team matches he was captain for and not always delivering what he intended).

When the issue of the contact information came up for 2002, we couldn't find it; it was packed in a box somewhere and I think there had been some building work. Anyone that knows CCF well knows that it is a complicated place with lots of tucked away areas for storage, etc, and the stuff had been moved. I think I came across it in around 2008/9 at the back of a storage filing cabinet.

This is one of those issues that you can either believe me or you won't, and your subsequent argument will be based and justified on what you choose to believe. I can put my hand on my heart and say it is the truth, but I know some won't believe me, mainly because it is not convenient to do so.

Paul Dupré
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 pm
Location: Cove, Hampshire

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Paul Dupré » Fri May 13, 2011 10:17 pm

OK, I would like to hear from anyone who played at Carshalton Girls School in 2000, and received emails from CCF though had never played in one of their tournaments at Coulsdon.
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 10:21 pm

You might be better asking who had received leaflets from us in this situation as I don't think we started sending tournament emails for some time after 2000. I could be wrong but I think it was around 2003 and beyond that I finally grasped the essence of emails.

John Constable
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 10:34 pm

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by John Constable » Fri May 13, 2011 10:23 pm

Scott Freeman wrote: Ben Ogunshola made a point of asking us if we could provide digital clocks.
I have tried to avoid getting involved in this debate but have been dragged into it if only to put right the mistruths told about our business. As previously stated we only supply analogue clocks to congresses. Although Howard is a director of CCF Mindgames he has no input in the day to day running of the business, the decisions about which congresses we attend and who borrows our equipment our entirely ours. CCF Mindgames Ltd had nothing to do with this congress other than some CCF staff running a small bookstall for us as we were at the West of England Championships at Exmouth.
Our equipment is completely separate from CCF, so to say that we took the "better" equipment, implying that what was left for Surrey was inferior, is incorrect. We took OUR equipment, not the main CCF equipment.

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

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Scott Freeman » Fri May 13, 2011 10:26 pm

I have found some emails I sent in 2000 but not nearly as many as I send now. Initially I had very limited ability with emails and it took me a long time to work out what I could do. I am trying to get into the files to see when I started sending tournament emails but the original file is semi-corrupted and not sure whether I will need help to open it.

Paul Dupré
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 pm
Location: Cove, Hampshire

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Paul Dupré » Fri May 13, 2011 10:40 pm

John Constable wrote:Our equipment is completely separate from CCF, so to say that we took the "better" equipment, implying that what was left for Surrey was inferior, is incorrect. We took OUR equipment, not the main CCF equipment.
I'm not implying anything - I'm stating a fact, what we got in way of "borrowed" equipment was embarrassing and for that CCF received 6 free entries totalling about £150.00 - how is that a fair deal.

And, then tried to con us out of £600.00 as well. :evil:
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 11:00 pm

Paul Dupré wrote:
John Constable wrote:Our equipment is completely separate from CCF, so to say that we took the "better" equipment, implying that what was left for Surrey was inferior, is incorrect. We took OUR equipment, not the main CCF equipment.
I'm not implying anything - I'm stating a fact, what we got in way of "borrowed" equipment was embarrassing and for that CCF received 6 free entries totalling about £150.00 - how is that a fair deal.

And, then tried to con us out of £600.00 as well. :evil:

Ben Ogunshola, on behalf of the congress, asked for the equipment. I believe he had seen what we had. The boards were perfectly ok and the pieces in the sets matched with each other (we always made sure of that), which is more than can be said for many of the SCCA sets for which I was curator for quite a time and had got so badly mixed up that they looked awful. So I come back to the clocks. If Paul doesn't feel they were up to scratch, then he has an unreserved apology from me for not buying brand new clocks before the event for his benefit, so he could say the equipment was up to scratch. However, I am confused here, because only 3 of them were used (was it 3?), so thankfully for Paul, the embarrassment he felt was limited. We were asked to lend what we had - and we did so willingly.

I think we had 4 free entries (I still haven't checked to see whether there were more but I don't think there were) - the SCCA Company or Congress Committee offered them to us as an extra because they had been so grateful for all the extra pre-tournament help we had given them. Does that not sure that we were clearly doing all the right things?

So you still accuse us of trying to con the congress company out of £600 - well I think I have answered that all perfectly for those who have the common sense to see it. Again, if you pre-suppose that we are dishonest, then everything that follows in your argument will tally up. If you accept the truth that we have not told lies and not been deceiptful (which is the truth as I have said before), then your arguments fall down somewhat.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18518
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri May 13, 2011 11:06 pm

John Constable wrote:CCF Mindgames Ltd had nothing to do with this congress other than some CCF staff running a small bookstall for us as we were at the West of England Championships at Exmouth.
It's difficult for an outsider to keep track of all this, but I have my personal game record of playing in 2003 in the Easter event at Ashstead. From memory this was partly organised by Tony Corfe.

The clocks went missing at Guildford? If so this was over the August Bank Holiday weekend, so it clashed with the relatively nearby Berks & Bucks, but not the West of England because that's always at Easter.

Only the 2006 Congress was at Guildford over the August Bank Holiday
http://surreychesscongress.co.uk/2007_P ... index.html

For 2007 it was at the Nonsuch school over Easter

http://surreychesscongress.co.uk/2007_P ... /open.html

Locked