English Arbiters to suffer???

[Nigel Short]

All you are saying is the court is not a high court. Nevertheless its decisions are legally binding.

[Stewart Reuben]

Ernie Lazenby >That matter will be revisited at the AGM by someone other than me because under the current system I am not allowed to attend.<

That really puzzled me. I thought members could apply to attend the AGM and, if they gave adequate notice and there was room, they would be invited.
Andrew Farthing: Has this changed or am I simply wrong?

[Alex Holowczak]

Ernie Lazenby >That matter will be revisited at the AGM by someone other than me because under the current system I am not allowed to attend.<

That really puzzled me. I thought members could apply to attend the AGM and, if they gave adequate notice and there was room, they would be invited.
Andrew Farthing: Has this changed or am I simply wrong?

Stewart, it hasn't changed. Ernie is wrong. I think we had five such people attend the Finance Council meeting.

[Roger de Coverly]

Ernie is wrong. I think we had five such people attend the Finance Council meeting.

I suppose what he meant to say was that he would only be allowed to observe, not to participate or vote. There wouldn't be anything to stop him borrowing a proxy from a friendly local organisation and attending that way.

[Alex Holowczak]

Ernie is wrong. I think we had five such people attend the Finance Council meeting.

I suppose what he meant to say was that he would only be allowed to observe, not to participate or vote. There wouldn't be anything to stop him borrowing a proxy from a friendly local organisation and attending that way.

That's also true. He could stand to be Cleveland's ECF Delegate. (I assume he's from Cleveland...)

[Andrew Farthing]

My main point was that instead of doing this (extract quoted from initial announcement of ECF protest)
a wider lobbying for support would have sent a more powerful message rather than restricting yourself to the author nations of the dispute presented to CAS. I think you have overfocussed on the wrong aspect.

It's a valid point of view. My approach was influenced by the need for a swift response and the recognition that, understandably, organisations take time to consider issues and decide upon a position. The more organisations that are involved, the longer the process takes and the more politically complicated it becomes. By focusing initially on the most directly affected federations, plus the ECU and ACP, we were able to lodge a protest supported by another five major federations, quickly followed by a sixth and the ACP and ECU. It was sufficient to make an impact in the chess media and, if the statement from the Russian federation is any indication, has the prospect of gaining further force.

Whether the suggested alternative would have achieved more in the time or proved more effective in the long run, I don't know. One has to make a judgement at the time. It's too soon to know whether anything positive will come from the protest. As of now, I am reasonably satisfied with how matters have progressed.

[Jonathan Rogers]

My main point was that instead of doing this (extract quoted from initial announcement of ECF protest)
a wider lobbying for support would have sent a more powerful message rather than restricting yourself to the author nations of the dispute presented to CAS. I think you have overfocussed on the wrong aspect.

It's a valid point of view. My approach was influenced by the need for a swift response and the recognition that, understandably, organisations take time to consider issues and decide upon a position. The more organisations that are involved, the longer the process takes and the more politically complicated it becomes. By focusing initially on the most directly affected federations, plus the ECU and ACP, we were able to lodge a protest supported by another five major federations, quickly followed by a sixth and the ACP and ECU. It was sufficient to make an impact in the chess media and, if the statement from the Russian federation is any indication, has the prospect of gaining further force.

Whether the suggested alternative would have achieved more in the time or proved more effective in the long run, I don't know. One has to make a judgement at the time. It's too soon to know whether anything positive will come from the protest. As of now, I am reasonably satisfied with how matters have progressed.

Yes; so far so good, it seems to me, and the Russian support is a real boon.

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger >I suppose what he meant to say was that he would only be allowed to observe, not to participate or vote. There wouldn't be anything to stop him borrowing a proxy from a friendly local organisation and attending that way.<

FIDE is somewhat different. All the meetings are open. At Commission Meetings you can put up your hand and the chairman may call upon you. This may be true of the Executive Board and General Assembly, but I am not sure. The reason I am not sure is that very likely I would be called upon being personally known to the chairman.

[Ernie Lazenby]

Ernie is wrong. I think we had five such people attend the Finance Council meeting.

I suppose what he meant to say was that he would only be allowed to observe, not to participate or vote. There wouldn't be anything to stop him borrowing a proxy from a friendly local organisation and attending that way.

Correct. We have an ECF rep it's Gerry. I don't know for sure and would not want to embarrass him however I think his opinion accords with mine. That said I would expect him to reflect opinion in the County not any individual. If I could get a proxy I would think about attending.

[JustinHorton]

In point of fact I think some damage was done by the 2011 fiasco: the damage was done to the reputation of the ECF in general and to that of its officials, especially, but not only, the President.

I'll repeat my view that it was not, ultimately, properly dealt with, though it doesn't matter so much if the appropriate lessons are genuinely drawn. These would include the lesson that you don't just dispense with proper financial procedures because somebody waves money at you. Some ECF officials who previously didn't understand this, probably now do. Some may not. I doubt that the President does. And from his comments here, I doubt that the FIDE Delegate does either.

[Paul McKeown]

I'll repeat my view that ...

I think that's one the main problem with this thread, endless repetition of entrenched positions. Other problems with the thread include personal dislikes being played out via proxies, accusations and implications of falsehood without clear evidence, conspiratorial thinking. Hasn't it all been said already? At least until new evidence or developments?

[JustinHorton]

Sure, but what can you do? Many or most things we discuss involve reference to previous events, about which they are nearly always unresolved differences. You can't really avoid substantial repetition. Andrew here repeats his view that the where's-the-invoices affair was adequately dealt with: I therefore repeat mine, which is that it was not. But I agree, it doesn't tend to advance the discussion.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Hasn't it all been said already?

A lot of repetition perhaps, but one thing new thing that has been revealed by this thread is that it seems that there are some within the ECF who, despite everything, appear reluctant to accept that the funding arrangements/procedures for Sheffield last year were an utter shambles. That strikes me as a rather important - and rather worrying - piece of information.

[Andrew Zigmond]

True, but a touch pedantic, Mr. de Coverly. This year's British Championship will be a pale shadow of the 2011 event. That will be due to the absence of sponsorship. Those who have carped on endlessly about 2011 should just bear that in mind...

Does this have to be the case? We appear to have an excellent venue in a beautiful part of the country run by some of country's most respected arbiters who have a track record in organising excellent events - and more to the point are prepared to do the job in very difficult circumstances.

[Paul McKeown]

Well, personally, I see (perhaps valid) arguments regarding the ECF's governance as separate from arguments about how the ECF should respond to the male fide governance of FIDE. Their conflation is, to my mind anyway, an abuse of logic and an exercise in politics. And nothing new is being said here, at all.