CCF v Surrey

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

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Scott Freeman » Thu May 12, 2011 7:17 pm

I can totally understand you not wanting that Carl, especially knowing what I know of the subject - and some of what would come out would certainly cross the lines you have to avoid being crossed for legal protection of your web site. But for the record from our side of things, I would have been quite happy (and still am!) to answer any such questions in the public arena, which I hope will send the message that needs sending to those who have believed the negatives of what they have been told about us. As such, I think most people will have seen that the accusations that have been made of me in the last 48 hours have crossed that line - but I am happy for them to remain up because I know it's what is being said behind our backs and I want to challenge the misinformation that is in circulation.

CCF is an organisation that has pumped money into chess - it is not (as Paul Dupre described it) a Curtis Cash Fund that rakes money in (clever idea though, I'll give him that! :) ) We are a non-profit making company; some of the staff at CCF are volunteers and others (like me) are on low salaries (in fact I earn more as a senior match day steward with Chelsea than I do for my "full time" job in chess - not complaining as we are all happy with what we do, but I am saying that to try and show everyone who incorrectly think we "make money" out of chess that they are far off the mark in believing that. Having said that, I don't have a problem if anyone does so, as long as they act with integrity and do a good job. Other organisations have volunteers who obviously don't need paying - and that affects their financial situation; we have a full program of events for adults and juniors which include coaching at 50 or so schools across the south-east (in 4 counties). Unfortunately, the fact that we earn anything for doing chess is used against us by others who also earn out of chess, with the intention of putting us in a bad light.

May I therefore suggest taking any questions about personal or controversial issues that anyone has by private mail, either through the forum or through the standard CCF account (chess@ccfworld.com). I would, of course, try to keep any public replies to questions and comments on any matters as coded as possible so as not to divulge or imply names, as some of the evidence we would have to give is (assuming Paul is thinking of who I am thinking of when he refers to "ex-employees" - who were not "employees" for the record) extremely damning - and conclusive!

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 3393
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Fri May 13, 2011 8:19 am

Ben Purton wrote-
"Scott is just an ordinary guy who runs the CCF,
Mike is just an ordinary guy whos runs some Surrey Chess.

But there lives are about to be turned upside down in

You,Me and Dupre.

In Box Offices Friday"

Brilliant!

I do recall at the height of the original argument, I suggested to the Committee (which was to become the Board of SCCA) that we should imitate West Side Story and challenge Howard Curtis and Richard Davey to dance at each other, in an attempt to settle the dispute. Encouraged by the response, I approached the protagonists separately and they both laughed (which was something in the circumstances) and seemed interested in the idea (and both thought they would win). Unfortunately, I had the feeling there would be disagreements about which dances would be performed and how you would judge them, (Craig Revel Horwood is probably a bit expensive) so never really pursued the matter.
"Kevin was the arbiter and was very patient. " Nick Grey

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

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Scott Freeman » Fri May 13, 2011 9:30 am

Dancing, eh? I don't remember that, but it sounds.......interesting! :D

Mike Gunn
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Mike Gunn » Fri May 13, 2011 10:16 am

Following on from Kevin's suggestion: presumaby the result of this dance-off would have been determined by adjudication (rather than adjournment or a quckplay finish)?

I have found a copy of the 2006 Surrey yearbook which lists the same Congress Committee as 2005. (but I confirm that the responsibility for the congress had passed from the SCCA to the Congress company at the time of the congress).

The report on the 29th Congress lists the personnel involved and their responsibilities:

"Due to the generous sponsorship by Shopping.net Ltd, obtained by Richard Jones our Congress Chairman, we were able to hire space in the Surrey University Sports Hall, the venue found by Ben Ogunshula.. [...] The Chief Arbiter was our own David Sedgwick assisted by Mike Gunn, Ray Ryan, Richard Jones and Mike Adams. [...] Our Congress team also included: Paul Dupre (website entries, database and post event grading), Richard Davey (pairing cards) and finally, strrong-man, Ben Ogunshula (furniture arrangement)."

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

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Scott Freeman » Fri May 13, 2011 10:29 am

[quote="Mike Gunn"]Following on from Kevin's suggestion: presumaby the result of this dance-off would have been determined by adjudication (rather than adjournment or a quckplay finish)?

I am not sure that this would have been acceptable, and might turn out to be another cause of argument between us!!! :lol:

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 10:32 am

Further to Mike Gunn's confirmations above, I would like to mention that Mike Adams delivered and collected his (Guildford Chess Club) clocks each day of the three day congress. Does anyone actually know if the 21 CCF clocks were in the hall on the Monday in question. As, I was unaware they were there at all, I feel this needs to be investigated as the University Sports Hall is a public area where almost anyone could taken them.

I don't expect an answer from Scott as he was not there. Though, I would like to know who the legal owner of the 21 Clocks, be it Coulsdon Chess Club or CCF Mindsports.
Any postings on here represent the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,
...and by the way the world is flat.

User avatar
David Shepherd
Posts: 855
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:46 pm

Re: Are Opens a little too open?

Post by David Shepherd » Fri May 13, 2011 10:37 am

Mike Gunn wrote:. I therefore devised a cunning plan whereby I would myself buy 21 chess clocks (thereby obtaining a receipt). Having done this (I still have the receipt)
Mystery solved - was the man that sold them to you wearing a mask and black and white striped jumper with a bin bag slung over his shoulder and offering clocks at a discount in return for a quick sale? :D

User avatar
David Shepherd
Posts: 855
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:46 pm

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by David Shepherd » Fri May 13, 2011 10:41 am

I noticed someone above said the clocks were in a bin sack - is that right ? - just seems a slightly stange way to transport them - wouldn't a cardboard or plastic box be more normal?

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

Re: CCF v Surrey

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

I can confirm that the chess clocks belonged to CCF Chess Club, if you wish to differentiate, but both CCF and CCFMindGames are part of CCF, so not sure that there is any issue there. I can also confirm that David Sedgwick recently confirmed to me by email that he had seen the clocks in the hall just before/during the prize giving, but that they had gone minutes later (although I don't think he told us that at the time). In the past, I have spoken to Ray Ryan about them as well, who was the other controller at the open table - he knew they were there. Obviously Ben Ogunshola knew about them as well, as clearly did others involved, as was proved by correspondence at the time. I can confirm that there was no doubt that the clocks were there, although it maybe that you were not told about them, Paul - I have no problem accepting that.

Not sure that it makes any difference whether Mike Adams came and collected his stuff personally or not; he was part of the congress arbiting team after all, so it could be argued that he was part of the clearing up process anyway. The fact that Ben paid for the the clocks out of his own pocket means that nobody is in any danger financially here (it is the moral side of what happened that was wrong), but to repeat the legal position again, the borrower is basically obliged to return the items(s) to the owner "to their (the owner's) satisfaction" before they can claim that they no longer have responsibility for the item(s). I am sure you will appreciate that we looked into that very carefully at the time when confirming liability.

I would ask what other lenders (such as Tony Corfe) would have done in such a situation and would be surprised if he had offered to let it go as a large donation. But I doubt whether he would have been attacked and insulted in the way we were for quite reasonably asking for replacements. It is true that offers were made that included us paying half (see earlier posts). Sorry, but those offers were an insult. The only person who actually tried to do the right thing was Mike Gunn (and I don't mean him putting on a black and white mask and striped jumper....... :D ) in trying to make an insurance claim.

It's one thing if we have the finances to make a donation and chose to do so but quite another to be expected to pay anything for items that we had lent in good faith that we did not get back.

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 11:46 am

Scott Freeman wrote:I can confirm that the chess clocks belonged to CCF Chess Club.
Please stop bluring the lines, who owns CCF Chess Club. Do you own CCF Chess Club or is it Howard Curtis?
Scott Freeman wrote:Not sure that it makes any difference whether Mike Adams came and collected his stuff personally or not; he was part of the congress arbiting team after all, so it could be argued that he was part of the clearing up process anyway.
The point I'm trying to make is that a sensible lender, Mike Adams, took responsibility for his equipment and with so many people milling about collected the valuable clocks owned by Guildford Chess Club.

There were many CCF staff in attendance, yet far less Congress Organisers. How can we be responsible for you not collecting your clocks. As was mentioned much earlier CCF delivered the clocks, though they never collected them afterwards.

I'm hoping I have demonstrated how easily you have blamed us for your misfortune.
Scott Freeman wrote:I would ask what other lenders (such as Tony Corfe) would have done in such a situation and would be surprised if he had offered to let it go as a large donation.
I'm sure he would have done as Mike Adams and made sure he collected his valuable clocks.
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 12:17 pm

Paul Dupré wrote:
Scott Freeman wrote:I can confirm that the chess clocks belonged to CCF Chess Club.
Please stop bluring the lines, who owns CCF Chess Club. Do you own CCF Chess Club or is it Howard Curtis?
Scott Freeman wrote:Not sure that it makes any difference whether Mike Adams came and collected his stuff personally or not; he was part of the congress arbiting team after all, so it could be argued that he was part of the clearing up process anyway.
The point I'm trying to make is that a sensible lender, Mike Adams, took responsibility for his equipment and with so many people milling about collected the valuable clocks owned by Guildford Chess Club.

There were many CCF staff in attendance, yet far less Congress Organisers. How can we be responsible for you not collecting your clocks. As was mentioned much earlier CCF delivered the clocks, though they never collected them afterwards.

I'm hoping I have demonstrated how easily you have blamed us for your misfortune.
Scott Freeman wrote:I would ask what other lenders (such as Tony Corfe) would have done in such a situation and would be surprised if he had offered to let it go as a large donation.
I'm sure he would have done as Mike Adams and made sure he collected his valuable clocks.


I think most people reading your postings, Paul, are reading with increasing incredulity at you - even those who don't like me!

1 CCF is part of Creating Community Facilities, which is a non-profit making company. Howard ultimately runs it all. Not quite sure what lines you think I was blurring......? I don't think there was anything hidden in my last reply, was there?
2 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. :)
3 I think all that you have demonstrated is complete irrationality in your arguments; the comments I am getting from people are asking why you have made various statements (which I again state are not correct) and not backed them up with any evidence whatsoever.
4 We borrowed equipment from Tony Corfe for the 2000 Surrey Congress in Carshalton......and had to collect them from his home in (I think it was) Potters Bar. We also had to return them to him afterwards (as I recall), even though he did the book stall at the event. I am sure he did not go round collecting his equipment. I am sure you will find that this is standard policy with him.

What you clearly do not understand is that if you own equipment that you have lent to someone and then you go round collecting it, you run the risk that if there is then an argument over missing items, the lender can then claim that you had already picked it/them up, as you were involved in the process of clearing, so you lose your safety net. That is why the law states that the items must be returned "to the lender's satisfaction," which was not the case with the clocks. As such, and particularly when considering the aftermath of this situation, I think it was a very good job that we didn't collect them!

For the record, I am still waiting to hear, privately or otherwise, about these "ex-members" and "ex-employees" who are unhappy with us. I repeat my assertion that I am ready for any questions. Paul, I already have a legal case against you if I wanted for your posts on this forum. I am not interested in taking it (Carl - please relax - you are TOTALLY safe! :) ) because I believe that everyone else will read the posts and come to their own conclusions.
Last edited by Scott Freeman on Fri May 13, 2011 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 3393
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Fri May 13, 2011 12:20 pm

Having worked with Tony Corfe, I can confirm that he would have delivered (or allowed to be collected) the clocks at the start of the tournament and taken them away (or had them delivered) at the end. (Technically, he is not a lender as he supplied equipment free in return for being allowed to run a bookstall - a very sensible arrangement.)

"I would like to mention that Mike Adams delivered and collected his (Guildford Chess Club) clocks each day of the three day congress."

If this is true, it is unusual (and a nuisance) to take equipment away every night and then bring it again the next day. Did Mike Adams expect a robbery, or was he just being understandably cautious with expensive equipment?
"Kevin was the arbiter and was very patient. " Nick Grey

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

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Scott Freeman » Fri May 13, 2011 12:28 pm

That was very much the same arrangement we had in that we had the book stall and provided the equipment. Can you imagine the chaos if we had insisted on packing up the sets and clocks every day at the end of play.....?

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

Re: CCF v Surrey

Post by Scott Freeman » Fri May 13, 2011 12:30 pm

Actually, that last post leaves slightly the wrong impression. Yes, we were offered something in return, but what people need to understand is that CCF made a decision to get involved with trying to help the SCCA start its congress again and did extra in promoting it. But I don't think it's fair that we should have to add a donation of 21 digitial clocks.....!

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 1:21 pm

Scott Freeman wrote:I can confirm that the chess clocks belonged to CCF Chess Club, if you wish to differentiate, but both CCF and CCFMindGames are part of CCF, so not sure that there is any issue there.
Again untrue; CCF Mindgames Ltd. is wholely owned by HOWARD CHARLES PARRY CURTIS and RACHEL ELIZABETH BURLEY (£1 share each). John & Christine Constable are just Managers. Scott, either you are ignorant of the facts or deliberately misleading everyone.
Kevin Thurlow wrote:Having worked with Tony Corfe, I can confirm that he would have delivered (or allowed to be collected) the clocks at the start of the tournament and taken them away (or had them delivered) at the end. (Technically, he is not a lender as he supplied equipment free in return for being allowed to run a bookstall - a very sensible arrangement.)
Again, blurring the lines, going on about something quite unrelated: Tony Corfe has nothing to do with this 2006 Congress;
Kevin Thurlow wrote:If this is true, it is unusual (and a nuisance) to take equipment away every night and then bring it again the next day. Did Mike Adams expect a robbery, or was he just being understandably cautious with expensive equipment?
Not a nuisance to us, as the clocks were ready to play each round. Whereas, what is a nuisance is CCF blaming us for losing CCF clocks. The CCF clocks were looked after (apparently) by CCF employees (David Sedgwick & Ray Ryan) by the Open arbiter's desk; unbeknownst to the rest of the Congress Committee (not including Ben Ogunshola, a friend of CCF).
Any postings on here represent the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,
...and by the way the world is flat.

Locked