English Chess Forum

Matthew Turner wrote:As far as I am aware Peter Wilson has done nothing as Director of Marketing. I would also remind forum readers that Peter stood for the International Directorship. I believe that if you were to speak to anyone involved in Channel Islands Chess they would say how fortunate we have been. The general view would be that a Peter Wilson who does nothing is infinitely preferable to a Peter Wilson who does something.

Its as you say "As far as I am aware", Peter has done some work. The help I received was invaluable, and I know he done more in other areas. As for working with the local league, your throwing out a general criticism here that effects many people everywhere, me included. I work hard with the Renaissance Academy in Bradford (and other areas) but I do not sit on the committee locally, because I can't do both, its too big a job doing one to do the other. If he was would you be kicking him for concentrating locally and not for the ECF. I can't wait to see your proposal giving your outlines on the improved role for the Director of Marketing, i believe it needs to be in for September.

I attended a ecf council meeting at shefield peter seemed to take pride in not having spent £1 off his budget for marketing when i raised the issues of tv and the internet his reply was i was a journalist i have no contacts in tv and have no ideas on using the internet for publicity enough said i think

Matthew Turner wrote:I think we have to have a dose of reality here.

Your previous point still sailed too close to what I consider was acceptable, he may be the invisible man but there are still limits to the mud slinging when it comes to just an assumption

Matthew Turner wrote:Why would he want to be the ECF's Director of Marketing (or International Director)?

I did however find it shocking that anyone is allowed to stand for two directorship posts and then have the nerve to continue when they were not elected for the post they clearly preferred

Matthew Turner wrote:Peter
No, I will not be standing in November. Like you, I have served time on the ECF Board and I have some achievements, notably the Certificate of Excellence and the Ampleforth Young Masters, but I do not believe that I could take the ECF forward at this time. The organisation is not in my opinion 'fit for purpose'.

Matthew,

You hit the nail on the head.

The 'fit for purpose' issue is much more important than the competence or otherwise of certain individuals.

I suspect you and I might agree that the ECF could be doing a much better job for chess in England, particularly in the light of its recent good fortune in coming into the John Robinson money. However, that's not the prevailing view of the Board and Council, who are mainly content with the status quo.

Unless that argument is won, there is frankly little point in attempting to force individuals out, particularly if there are no replacements in view.

Best regards,

Peter

Peter Sowray wrote
The 'fit for purpose' issue is much more important than the competence or otherwise of certain individuals.
Whilst I accept this, the two issues are linked. You cannot completely disentangle structure from individuals. Whilst massive structural impediments would still remain, I'm sure a board made up of Peter Sowray, Brian Smith, David Norwood, Jonathan Rogers, Chris Majer, Chris Ward, Stewart Reuben and Ian Reynolds, for example, would be able to make much more progress than the current incumbents.
Just ask yourself a simple question, If you had a potential sponsor which current Directors would you like them to meet to provide a good impression?

Matthew Turner wrote:I'm sure a board made up of Peter Sowray, Brian Smith, David Norwood, Jonathan Rogers, Chris Majer, Chris Ward, Stewart Reuben and Ian Reynolds, for example, would be able to make much more progress than the current incumbents.

Interesting choices, who is doing what in that selection?

Carl,
I do not put forward that list as a definite selection and I apologise to individuals that should have been included that have been left out. I merely give the list to show that there are capable individuals out there, who I believe under different circumstances would be prepared to work for the ECF. I'm not sure that the particular Directorships that each took would be that important. I believe that a group like that would be able to work collectively and set more appropriate goals and priorities for the ECF.

I'm somewhat surprised, though flattered, by my nomination! If one is looking at the success story of the 4NCL and asking who has proved themselves there over a long period of time, then the first name is surely Mike Truran ... who, of course, is one of many good people who has already tried to ride to the rescue of the ECF in the past.

Without wishing to attack Mr Wilson personally, or to cast doubt on his concern for the interests of chess, I think he made a lot of dramatic and premature claims about the CfS project and then went missing when the project went into crisis. I don't think this is a very good basis for standing for further office.

Matthew,

The English chess scene is blessed with any number of excellent people who could make a contribution to the ECF. So why is it that so few wish to get involved? And why is it that many of those who do try to help end up leaving in short order?

Three reasons:

1) There is a lot of hard work to be done if the ECF is to realise its potential. That work is going to be unrewarded (unpaid and in most cases unthanked).

2) The ECF's culture is dreadful. The ultimate can't do organisation.

It was instructive that when the Robinson money appeared, the ECF couldn't wait to kick it into the long grass. The Federation is much more comfortable having the excuse that it is underfunded.

3) There are a handful of individuals whose primary concern is their own status within the Federation rather than the well-being of English chess. They act as an effective brake on progress.

Peter

Peter Sowray wrote:3) There are a handful of individuals whose primary concern is their own status within the Federation rather than the well-being of English chess. They act as an effective brake on progress.

This has to be dealt with first otherwise there can be little progress

Carl Hibbard wrote:

Peter Sowray wrote:3) There are a handful of individuals whose primary concern is their own status within the Federation rather than the well-being of English chess. They act as an effective brake on progress.

This has to be dealt with first otherwise there can be little progress

Carl,

How can we stop Council voting in whoever puts themselves up for election when there is only one candidate?

The loop has to be broken somehow.

John Upham wrote: How can we stop Council voting in whoever puts them up for election when there is only one candidate?

Logically enough, get more candidates. But if so few people are prepared to stand, then maybe the question "Why does 'no one' want this job?" is appropriate? E.g. the position of Director of Finance.

Carl Hibbard wrote:

Peter Sowray wrote:3) There are a handful of individuals whose primary concern is their own status within the Federation rather than the well-being of English chess. They act as an effective brake on progress.

This has to be dealt with first otherwise there can be little progress

Carl, John and others,

I wouldn't get too hung up on this. If the 'culture' point was addressed - and this requires strong leadership and role models above all else - the naysayers would wither on the vine.

Peter