CCF v Surrey

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Locked
User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 5813
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Carl Hibbard » Fri May 13, 2011 11:07 pm

Ok bored with this nonsense

It's an old feud that either needs resolving or forgetting to be honest

Either close it off or I will...

Anyone posting further on the matter is going to push their luck :roll:
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

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 11:09 pm

Ian Thompson wrote:
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.
This post sums up your position for the last 5 years. NOT VALID....

Please stop posting nonsense.

Look I haven't any proof of what I'm about to say, but I know it's true.
One day I was at CCF for a meeting or something and I put entry forms for the 2006 Congress on the table next to CCF entry forms, under the assumption that CCF were being "helpful". Less than 5 minutes later they were all gone - in the bin. That's really helpful. Thanks.
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 11:11 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
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
Lies will always come back to haunt 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 11:12 pm

Carl

I understand that some people are bored with it but look how many people are monitoring. The thread has actually been able to show to people who have read it what has really been going on - and I think that I (well, CCF) are the only people who have been accused "over the line." We are not worried about this.

This thread has already brought a new lead regarding the msising clocks - the fact that Ray Ryan is alleged to have said something about CCF not using the clocks any more. Now either he didn't say it and what Paul said isn't correct, or Paul is correct and he did say it, in which case one must ask why - and what might have been the consequences of anyone making such assumptions.

I accept that you are the moderator in charge, but this thread is under its own heading and as Jack said, it would be a shame to close it down at a time that it might bring some key information forward.

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

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Scott Freeman » Fri May 13, 2011 11:13 pm

Look I haven't any proof of what I'm about to say, but I know it's true.
One day I was at CCF for a meeting or something and I put entry forms for the 2006 Congress on the table next to CCF entry forms, under the assumption that CCF were being "helpful". Less than 5 minutes later they were all gone - in the bin. That's really helpful. Thanks.[/quote]


Sorry Paul - if anyone put them in the bin, it wasn't us. We were promting the 2006 event.

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 5813
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Carl Hibbard » Fri May 13, 2011 11:16 pm

Scott Freeman wrote:I accept that you are the moderator in charge, but this thread is under its own heading and as Jack said, it would be a shame to close it down at a time that it might bring some key information forward.
Sorry but it's gone too far (my fault...) and is only going to end it tears - so for now it's closed off :!:
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 5813
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Carl Hibbard » Fri May 13, 2011 11:22 pm

Do we really feel that Paul and Scott are ever going to agree?

I have PM's from both less than 5 minutes after I closed it off and it's 11:21pm?
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

Locked