No news is bad news

[JustinHorton]

My opponent tomorrow.

[Matthew Turner]

You cannot apply concepts of collective responsibility to the ECF board. It is far too big (relative to the size of the ECF) for this to be applicable. It is my belief that the board needs to thinned out so that it can more effectively undertake it's management role.
Andrew obviously has disagreements with certain board members, but he is working from inside to change things for the better - good luck! He needs time to use his powers of persuasion and it is frankly fairly ridiculous to be asking him to resign after a couple of weeks in post.
That being said, Andrew is the Director of Chess in Schools and if he is not able to Direct then it is pointless him being in place. Andrew obviously wants to do the best for chess (that's where his living comes from after all) and ultimately the ECF may be unable to progress until there are more people like Andrew in place. It is not clear to me that the majority of ECF Directors are really that interested in chess (as distinct from the ECF). History is not that encouraging, 'professionals' like Graham Lee, David Norwood, myself and Claire Summerscale have not being able to modernise the ECF in any meaningful way - let's hope Andrew is more successful.

[Chris Majer]

Matt wrote:

It is my belief that the board needs to thinned out so that it can more effectively undertake it's management role.

Matt are you aware that since your day we have reduced the board from 20 to 9 (at the AGM increased to 10)? How many board members do you think would be appropriate and what roles? As the jobs get bigger and harder (but still unpaid) doesn't this make it ever more difficult to find anyone to do the job?

[Angus French]

Andrew Martin said earlier in this thread (Nov 2 @ 12.0pm, last post on page 2): “I have delegated full responsibility for the production of the sets and liaising with Holloid Plastics to Gerry Walsh and Peter Wilson”. I didn’t understand the statement when I first read it, five days ago, and I don’t understand it now. How can that responsibility be delegated? Isn’t it what the position of Director of Chess for Schools is for?

[Angus French]

Ernie, I think you’ve missed the point. It’s not the rationale behind the decision that I’m asking about. It’s the ability to make the decision (if I’ve understood its meaning) and yet retain the Directorship.

[Matthew Turner]

I think Andrew is in charge of Chess for Schools and NOT Free Chess Set For Schools. There are many things he could be doing which would be very valuable to British Chess, which don't involve negotiating with Holloid Plastics. I would say though that if I were in his position I would not want anyone to think, even just for a moment, that I felt Gerry Walsh and Peter Wilson were suitable people to negotiate with potential sponsors.

[Angus French]

I think Andrew is in charge of Chess for Schools and NOT Free Chess Set For Schools.

That’s what I’m asking about. Isn’t liaison with Holloid Plastics and seeing through the delivery of the sets an – or the – essential part of the job? Isn’t the importance of this project the reason the Directorship was created?

[Carl Hibbard]

I think Andrew is in charge of Chess for Schools and NOT Free Chess Set For Schools.

That’s what I’m asking about. Isn’t liaison with Holloid Plastics and seeing through the delivery of the sets an – or the – essential part of the job? Isn’t the importance of this project the reason the Directorship was created?

Ah but you aren't allowed to ask "difficult" questions just keep quiet cross your fingers and all will be well...

[JustinHorton]

Well maybe Carl but at the moment Angus is asking a question and not getting an answer.

[Matthew Turner]

I obviously don't understand the intricacies of Angus' point. Surely a director directs, if they feel someone else is best qualified to carry out part of their remit then they delegate. Otherwise, are you suggesting Stewart Reuben needs to play board 1 in the Olympiad, because it is too important to be left to Mickey Adams?

[Mike Truran]

It feels like the whole chess sets for schools debate is running out of steam on this forum. In the absence of any sensible involvement in the forum debate by the ECF, combined with a deathly silence on the ECF website and an steadfast refusal on the ECF's part to recognise both that the project and their public credibility are shot to pieces, it's a little hard to know what more can be done though the medium of this forum - if indeed it has any effect anyway on the thinking of the ECF. Presumably it doesn't, given the ECF's decision to disassociate itself from it.

As far as I can see only Stewart Reuben, Andrew Martin and Chris Majer of the current batch of ECF directors ever participate in this forum to any significant degree (the others being presumably either computer illiterate or uninterested in opinions different from the prevailing ECF orthodoxy). Stewart as international director I guess has little interest in this particular subject anyway. Andrew has at least posted some forthright thoughts on the forum, but is clearly fighting a losing battle against the Walsh/Wilson axis and has washed his hands of the project. Chris, despite being CEO, shows no sign as far as I can see either through his forum postings or through private email exchanges of actually understanding that there is a serious issue here, let alone being prepared as CEO to actually do anything about it.

Probably time to move on. If any serious change is going to be effected in the ECF generally and on the chess sets for schools specifically, I doubt it will be through the forum.

[Carl Hibbard]

I have been expecting the ECF to generate "something" to deflect interest and debate elsewhere - perhaps another "Chess for Schools" website or perhaps even another heavily moderated (restricted posting etc.) ECF official forum

It's unlikely but nothing would surprise me now

[Nick Thomas]

It feels like the whole chess sets for schools debate is running out of steam on this forum. In the absence of any sensible involvement in the forum debate by the ECF, combined with a deathly silence on the ECF website and an steadfast refusal on the ECF's part to recognise both that the project and their public credibility are shot to pieces, it's a little hard to know what more can be done though the medium of this forum - if indeed it has any effect anyway on the thinking of the ECF. Presumably it doesn't, given the ECF's decision to disassociate itself from it.

As far as I can see only Stewart Reuben, Andrew Martin and Chris Majer of the current batch of ECF directors ever participate in this forum to any significant degree (the others being presumably either computer illiterate or uninterested in opinions different from the prevailing ECF orthodoxy). Stewart as international director I guess has little interest in this particular subject anyway. Andrew has at least posted some forthright thoughts on the forum, but is clearly fighting a losing battle against the Walsh/Wilson axis and has washed his hands of the project. Chris, despite being CEO, shows no sign as far as I can see either through his forum postings or through private email exchanges of actually understanding that there is a serious issue here, let alone being prepared as CEO to actually do anything about it.

Probably time to move on. If any serious change is going to be effected in the ECF generally and on the chess sets for schools specifically, I doubt it will be through the forum.

I am very hopeful that Chris Majer will come onto this forum very soon to give us a full update on when the free sets will start rolling off the production line. A quick glance through some old posts reveals the following comments from him:
On 30th Sep 08

David is correct that Fergus Christie & Holloid Plastics have parted company, however his pessimism is unjustified.

At a meeting yesterday, Holloid confirmed that they remain committed to the project. Unfortunately, Holloid have had a problem with one of their moulds and this has delayed production. A statement on the production of sets will be issued once this has been resolved. The ECF remains in close contact with Holloid.

On 6th Oct 08

Expanding on my previous remarks.

There is a delay in the manufacture of the free chess sets. This is because one of the three tools that Holloid use for making the pieces was damaged. They are now repairing it and making a modification to improve the rate of production. They have two further tools in China for the tiles and board, which will be shipped soon but will require about 5-6 weeks before they become available.

Holloid are arranging some production slots to make sets of pieces as soon as they can but they have to put the welfare of my company and staff ahead of this project. They have undertaken to do their best to make as many sets as they can in the shortest possible time. This is costing Holloid, and indeed their MD personally, considerable sums of money.

A statement on deliveries will be released when the production situation is clear.

I believe we are nearing the end of the 5-6 week delay. Perhaps the production situation is still not clear though in which case perhaps he could let us know that. It is after all possible that Fergus is misinformed.

[Carl Hibbard]

It seems clear this is Holloid who (at this time...) clearly do not want to make a statement and the ECF who have no formal agreement will not be rocking the boat - all a bit of a mess

I appreciate for once that the ECF have a problem, either fingers crossed something will happen or announce it's over

I expect Chris cannot comment on state of play since he doesn't really know

[JustinHorton]

You've gone green, Carl. Are you all right?