ECF Annual General Meeting 13 October 2012

[Carl Hibbard]

And why on earth are arbiters half-running the Council (supposing that statement to be true). Arbiters are useful and all, but at the same time they're just functionaries.

Seems a little harsh and of no relevance to this topic

[David Pardoe]

I agree that the ECF treatment of Adam seems very strange.
He did not attend the meeting. Well, not helpful, but then again other key figures, such as the Finance Director, I understand were absent. Sometimes of course, these things are unavoidable.
The fact that Birmingham might be inconvenient for some is not really good enough...
That Adam did not issue any personal statement also doesnt seem a major issue, bearing in mind the treatment dissed out to other candidates who did put out statements of `opinion`, which were then contrued as `policy` and castigated as unacceptable by the muppitts running the ECF circus.
What is the point of people putting out there honestly held views, if the ECF are going to treat them with such contempt. All officers are entitled to there views...that does not make them magically become `POLICIES`. That is a rubbish assertion.
Now to the key point... Adam is not an unknown quantity, he has a track record for organising significant number of chess events, which have been successful, as far as I know, and have contributed significantly to ECF chess. He`s also made significant numbers of contacts with those in our chess circles, so he is not exactly an unknown quantity. He`s also made key contacts in chess circles.
So the key question is...can he do the job of Marketing Director with reasonable confidence.
I`d have said there looks to be a fair chance that he`d make a good fist of it.... But the meeting decided they`d rather have nobody...?? Very bazzaar...unless Adam has really got the backs up for some reason and made himself `outcast`....

[Jonathan Rogers]

Council has, in the last three years alone

a) rejected Malcolm Pein as a non-executive Director
b) almost unanimously re-elected CJ last year, by when it should have been obvious to all but the blind that he was seriously flawed as a leader/President
c) elected Tim Woolgar to anything
d) rejected Adam who, to judge from his chess CV, might have done very well in marketing (at least, he has enthusiasm)
e) elected Roger Edwards, despite rejecting his manifesto and so presumably having little or no confidence in him

So discussions about "who is on Council?" seem inevitable.

[John Cox]

>It is hard work getting players, pretty strong ones, involved

I seem to remember Peter trying to get involved a year or two ago. He's a strong player. Malcolm Pein's a strong player. He tried to get involved and what happened then? Jack's a strong player. Adam's quite a strong player. Lawrence is a strong player (when he plays).

>Whether this fault lies with the players, the ECF or neither I don't know

My observations would suggest that it lies with the ECF Council, which is the most absurd administrative body I've ever run across, which believe me is a strong statement coming from someone whose professional life is in the law. No-one in their right mind would volunteer to work with it unless driven by powerful urges of some kind.

But anyway, we don't need strong players on the board particularly; we need a combination of people with some idea of proper governance and people with drive and imagination off the field. Unfortuately when people who have those qualities stand, they tend not to get elected owing to halfwits like whoever these people I can't be bothered to look up the names of are.

[John Cox]

> If you don't like the way Council is run, you might want to think about standing for office yourself and changing the system.

Didn't some people try just that a few years ago (with my full support and that of every player I know), and conclude that the system was just too resistant to change? Anyway, do I strike you as a natural politician?

>As for your 'just functionaries' comment, at least arbiters make the effort to put the structure in place to enable competitive chess to take place. All people like you have to do is find your way to the board, sit down and play.

Do they? I would have thought organisers of tournaments did that, and match captains, and club presidents, and people like that. Arbiters may or may not do those things as well, but all an arbiter has to do qua arbiter is turn up and arbit (if that's the word I want). A simple job which, (and again I think every player I know would agree) is normally done very, very badly.

>BTW WHF is John Cox, for example?

No-one at all, of course. But so what - we're not talking about me. The point is that Adam is someone; someone who's spent 20 years organising actual events which actual chess player turn up and, y'know, get pleasure from. Someone who could contribute to the Board a lot more than the cretins they've elected to it in recent times, and certainly a lot more than None Of The Above.

[Richard Bates]

I think many people tend to take the word "arbiters" in these discussions as an umbrella term for "not players". ie. to include organisers etc. There aren't that many arbiters who don't get involved in organisation on some level.

[John Cox]

>I suspect there were three factors operating here:

>1. Not producing an election manifesto/statement

Oh for God's sake. You and he both post enough on here. If it's important to you and you really need to know, ask him.

> 2. Not attending the meeting

Oh, for God's sake. He was spending time running a popular tournament which actual real chess players were playing in and actually enjoying. If the first thing any volunteer has to do is give up a day to no purpose for an uncontested election, it's no wonder you get the class of applicant you do.

>3. Comments made about the Grand Prix prize giving and other matters.

Oh, for God's sake.

>I raised the first point.

In that case, can I suggest that you get over yourself?

>Can I just point out that my relationship with Adam Raoof deteriorated significantly following Sheffield, as it did with several other ECF officials. Whilst this did have some influence on the way I feel it was a minor consideration compared to others that I do not feel it would be right to go into in a public forum. As things stand I would be unable to work with Adam.

Ah, now we're talking. Personal animus. What an adornment to the administration of chess in this country.

To be honest, I feel that the above post illustrates more effectively than anyone else's words could ever hope to why it is that the ECF is so utterly, utterly hopeless. I'm surprised no-one else has already pointed this out.

[Mike Truran]

Jon, I'd love to disagree with you, but that would only be to disagree with the intemperate way in which you state things. Of course, however, it's hard to argue with your comments. What struck me most about the meeting (apart from the fact that it took five hours to get through an agenda that should have taken no more than two, not least because the agenda items were regularly hijacked by vested interests) was the degree of personal animosity displayed by some people towards Adam (among others). They may well have reason to dislike Adam, and it may be that Adam didn't do the job he was supposed to do, but the way in which people spoke about him was (in my humble opinion) shameful.

It's quite clear to me that the various vendettas in English chess have not yet run their course, and that the various boils remain unlanced.

[Graham Borrowdale]

Having read all of this, can I now cancel my renewed membership of the English Chess Federation?

[Andrew Zigmond]

And why on earth are arbiters half-running the Council (supposing that statement to be true). Arbiters are useful and all, but at the same time they're just functionaries.

Seems a little harsh and of no relevance to this topic

The arbiters you disparage are the people who give up a significant amount of their free time to organise chess events and make them happen. Some arbiters are more involved in organisation than others but to dismiss them as `functionaries` is pretty ignorant. They make chess in this country happen, why shouldn't they have a voice?

And if you're thinking of two arbiters in particular they are the same people who have brought the 2014 Commonwealth Chess Championships to Scotland. Good going for functionaries. Perhaps if we were a bit nicer to them they might be able to bring such events to England.

Now that's over ...

Adam Raoof has more than done his bit for English chess and nobody should take any pleasure from his fall. We are not exactly spoilt for top class organisers at the moment (I wonder why) but his act of bad faith over the Sheffield mediation process and subsequent failure to provide any explanation (public or private) probably sealed his doom.

[John Cox]

>Some arbiters are more involved in organisation than others but to dismiss them as `functionaries` is pretty ignorant. They make chess in this country happen, why shouldn't they have a voice?

Do referees have an equivalent voice in the running of football? Or indeed in any other sport?

[John Cox]

>And if you're thinking of two arbiters in particular they are the same people who have brought the 2014 Commonwealth Chess Championships to Scotland. Good going for functionaries. Perhaps if we were a bit nicer to them they might be able to bring such events to England.

I assure you I'm not - what's more (a) I don't even know who the people you mention are and (b) I don't know who these arbiters are who 'half-run' the Board/Council.

My general point is that arbiting is a fairly small and defined function (which as I have said is generally done appallingly). It would be better if arbiters concentrated on drafting the FIDE Rules of Chess badly and matters of that kind. If, on the other hand, as Richard suggests and you seem to confirm, 'arbiters' is used in these discussions as some kind of general shorthand for 'organisers and administrators', then that's a different matter.

In any case I thought we now had an English Chess Federation (and presumably Welsh and Scottish and Northern Irish Chess Federations, and I'm sure they're all jolly good as well). What have Scottish arbiters (who sound more like Scottish organisers anyway from your description) to do with it?

[IM Jack Rudd]

The people with IA, FA or ECF Arbiter titles on the Board are Sean Hewitt, Alex Holowczak, Roger Edwards, Mike Gunn and me.

The people who were instrumental in bringing the Commonwealth Championship to Scotland are almost certainly Alex McFarlane (Scottish) and Lara Barnes (English), who are active as both arbiters and organizers on both sides of the border.

[John Cox]

Well, assuming this Alex Macfarlane is the same person who posted his reasons for voting against Adam R earlier, I'd have thought his total unfitness for any sort of governance role was reasonably obvious from that.

[Rob Thompson]

Whilst we are discussing Adam, it is my recollection that the most vociferous opposition to his re-election came from Lara Barnes, after I made the (I thought) fairly uncontroversial suggestion that even if you don't like the guy and think he's useless, he's still better than no-one.