ECF Annual General Meeting 13 October 2012

[John Upham]

In other words, as Peter said, a change of culture.
I see explaining why Council has mismanaged this particular business so appallingly as a tiny contribution towards that.

John,

You are quite right and have hit the nail on the head. ECF Council is one huge millstone round the neck of the ECF: It requires excision and soon.

Another is the apparent abhorrence of allowing enterprise to benefit chess.

I now refer to the mindset or apparent ethos of the culture English chess and not the ECF itself...

Whilst English chess seeks to cater for amateurs by giving them a grading periodically it does not seek (or want to seek) to improve the professionalism of the way chess is played in this country.
It is sin to earn a living from any aspect of chess it would seem. Anyone doing so is castigated or viewed with suspicion.

Good competent people (Andrew Farthing for example, but there have been many others) are and have been battered into submission by the constant criticism from many who are not prepared to move a muscle to work for chess in this country. No wonder he upped sticks.

Until this ethos and culture is improved we are stuck in the dark ages and will never emerge.

Geoffrey Borg laughed at my suggestion that England be designated as "a third world chess country" by FIDE but he knew exactly what I meant. He referred to England as "very lazy" resting on its laurels from many decades ago. I agreed. He said the potential here was huge but totally untapped. At least CISC, e2e4, UKCC and 4NCL are doing things in the right direction.


The CEO of FIDE has a very accurate and sharp perception of chess in England: why do you think FIDE does not attempt to bring events to this country?
I think we all know the answer.

[Jonathan Rogers]

The CEO of FIDE has a very accurate and sharp perception of chess in England: why do you think FIDE does not attempt to bring events to this country?

The recent Agon event?

I think we all know the answer.

The much higher cost of living in comparison to Kalmykia and the disinterest in actually attracting spectators in any event?

[Roger de Coverly]

why do you think FIDE does not attempt to bring events to this country?
I think we all know the answer.

Because we don't offer them enough money either directly or indirectly?

Most FIDE events require a bidding process. This year's World Championship could have been in London, but Malcolm pulled out when FIDE wanted more than had originally been agreed.

[John Cox]

>Bottom line is he was not appointed and his supporters need to get over it until next years AGM.

I'm not his "supporter", you clown. I hardly know the man. I'm a supporter of the proper way of doing things. This notion you have that there are factions of 'supporters' of this or that personality is precisely what is wrong with council and ECF politics at the moment.

>Those who say we should all forget about Sheffield and other matters arising since then such as the FIDE court case and fincancial matters are akin to those who buried their heads whenever controversial issues arise,

I don't say we should forget about either of those. Nor do I see that we have - the FIDE case dominated the Short/Jones election and the view seems to have been taken by Council that it was a good thing (not my view, but hardly 'forgetting about it'). As to financial matters my impression is that everyone accepts that what has happened was not good enough and that Mike T has been appointed with a mandate to sort it out and put procedures in place to see it doesn't happen again.

By contrast I don't see what issues arise from Sheffield apart from (i) personal ones (ii) the reflection that possibly if in future we appoint as President fewer TV personalities who have changed their names to reflect their physical beauty we may be less likely to wind up with out-of-control narcissists whose celebrity friends run squawking to the press at the slightest provocation, and (iii) as Jonathan R pointed out, the fact that council re-elected CJ and should therefore bear a large part of the blame.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Going back to what John Cox wrote. I am minded of what happened to Neil Kinnock when he treated the population with contempt by saying a couple of days before the general election, 'the tories are out and we will be in power' He got a good kicking for that one. Labour lost.
It seems to me that Adam simply expected by offering his name, and in the knowledge that there was no other candidate for the position, his supporters would carry the day. Nothing is ever certain.

Bottom line is he was not appointed and his supporters need to get over it until next years AGM.

It seems clear the federation has more important matters to deal with than worry about Adam being sidelined.

BTW Those who say we should all forget about Sheffield and other matters arising since then such as the FIDE court case and fincancial matters are akin to those who buried their heads whenever controversial issues arise, dont want to know because they have not a clue what to do to make sure it does not happen again, and more to the point would not have the ability to do anything even if they did have a clue.

I disagree with this now. As Ernie knows, I have been keeping some of these issues alive over the past year, as has he, but now that CJ is gone, I am less bothered. So I agreed with the 4NCL's decision to support Nigel Short for FIDE Delegate, despite the unsatisfactory secrecy of the CAS case; and with the decision to support Adam Raoof - not that it had actually occurred to me, nor I think to anyone else, that he would have a serious battle with NOTA. I agree with all that John has said on this latter point.

I actually do agree that there are broader lessons to learn from the CJ days, but many of these are personal - why didn't the Board do more to control him? - as much as procedural or institutional. And there are certainly more urgent matters now, such as finding the people to fill the Board in its immediate post - CJ disaster period.

[Ernie Lazenby]

For the avoidance of doubt I have been saying for 10 years that Council should be abolished but thats for another thread.Its what we have got and those who attended did what they did good or bad depending on your point of view.

John U, no one in England is ever going to make money at chess while it remains at the bottom of the heap and its going to remain there until it has a severe make over and vastly improves the public image.

[Roger de Coverly]

It is sin to earn a living from any aspect of chess it would seem. Anyone doing so is castigated or viewed with suspicion.

I don't think any criticism has been levelled against those earning their living from chess, provided they don't also have senior positions in the national governing body, in which case there is quite obvious concern about conflicts of interest.

[John Cox]

I'm not sure to what extent members of Council would consider it part of their remit to contact a candidate to demand a statement. Is it not usual in elections for the candidate to contact the potential voters rather than the other way round?

'Demand' a statement - good grief. You mean, 'politely suggest that one might be helpful', I think.

Is it in fact usual for existing directors standing uncontested for re-election to offer a statement? Did Phil Ehr and Chris Majer on the present occasion, for example?

My expectation would be that in uncontested re-elections, especially with such a small electorate so well known to the candidate and each other, the candidates would not generally canvass. I think Ernie is probably right that AR expected the election to be a formality, as indeed did everyone else, even (according to their own account) his enemies, and obviously he was wrong (as were they).

Where Ernie is utterly wrong is in this smug, self-important 'so it serves him right' follow-up. Once we get out of the playground, we can behave better than that.

[Ernie Lazenby]

Jonathan said, quote I disagree with this now. As Ernie knows, I have been keeping some of these issues alive over the past year, as has he, but now that CJ is gone, I am less bothered. So I agreed with the 4NCL's decision to support Nigel Short for FIDE Delegate, despite the unsatisfactory secrecy of the CAS case; and with the decision to support Adam Raoof - not that it had actually occurred to me, nor I think to anyone else, that he would have a serious battle with NOTA. I agree with all that John has said on this latter point.

I actually do agree that there are broader lessons to learn from the CJ days, but many of these are personal - why didn't the Board do more to control him? - as much as procedural or institutional. And there are certainly more urgent matters now, such as finding the people to fill the Board in its immediate post - CJ disaster period. end of quote.

I dont disagree with much of that indeed we all need to move on however the point I was making is that the new board must seriously look at the last 18 months and do its best to make sure we never get into a similar position again.I said many months ago that it appeared to me there was no one on the board with the strength of character to get to grips with CJ who gave all the appearance of being a loose cannon. Proceedures must be adopted to prevent a repeat. That would help us all move on.

[Ernie Lazenby]

John Cox said, ''Where Ernie is utterly wrong is in this smug, self-important 'so it serves him right' follow-up. Once we get out of the playground, we can behave better than that''

Do try and not be a child, I never said that, I said he contributed to his own downfall. Do try and be grown up it would help and it would help chess.

[Ernie Lazenby]

John Cox said I'm not his "supporter", you clown.

You have lost the argument when you make such silly childish comments.

Its a clown who says he does not know someone, has never met them but is so vocal in supporting that person/proceedures. Rather think those at the AGM had far more personal knowledge and thus would not make a clowns judgement. They made a judgement on what they know.

[Roger de Coverly]

Is it in fact usual for existing directors standing uncontested for re-election to offer a statement? Did Phil Ehr and Chris Majer on the present occasion, for example?

AR wasn't standing for re-election in his current post, he was moving sideways to a revamped set of responsibilities. So there was no track record. Phil Ehr did a lengthy report on his first year of office with the implication that next year would see more of the same.

It's not been the practice for the "Chairmen" to do a manifesto, merely an annual report.

[Alex McFarlane]

In his resignation CJ De Mooi told the Board that he would make a statement to various sources concerning the events of the previous year. I certainly don’t know what that meant, but one interpretation could see it as some sort of threat. At the AGM I asked if it was known if this statement had been released. No-one was aware that it had but I was further given assurance by the Chairman, Mike Gunn, that it was most likely that anyone adversely affected would be given more support from the Board if the release of the statement made it necessary. With that assurance and a motion from the floor that the Board be tasked with establishing if CJ De Mooi had fulfilled his commitments at the Olympiad or if he should be asked to return his token amount( of over £600 I believe), I am satisfied that this matter should be put to rest.

It would appear that the current Board accepts, with hindsight, that matters could have been handled differently. I took Mike Gunn’s assurance to mean that it would be in the future. With that in mind I have been in touch with several officials (though not the President) with a view to taking things forward. Having said that, I agree with Ernie and Jonathan that procedures do need to be put in place and believe that with some revision the documents concerning standards are a step in the right direction with regard to this.

[LawrenceCooper]

With that assurance and a motion from the floor that the Board be tasked with establishing if CJ De Mooi had fulfilled his commitments at the Olympiad or if he should be asked to return his token amount( of over £600 I believe), I am satisfied that this matter should be put to rest.

That amount would have virtually covered my eleven nights accommodation and flights

[William Metcalfe]

I have come in for a lot of stick in this thread but i am going to take the high road and not reply in kind.There are enough cyberspace/office/schoolyard bullys on this thread already.All you managed to do was make yourselves look stupid and childish.
I went to the Agm having gathered as much knowlage as i possably could i read all the statement talked to as many people as i could so to say i did not know what i was doing is false.I put my thaughts out pre Agm to the Nccu,Durham exec and Cleveland exec i asked them all if they had any voting instructions for myself.Ray changed my mind at the meeting is that a bad thing at least it shows i went with a open mind.As to Adam if he had been present or made a statement maybe he would have changed my opinion.
Would people prefer that i did not put out a report for the people i represent that is what the previous rep for Cleveland did.He never informed anybody how he voted or what went on at meetings.
The reason i voted NOA in the Adam vote was very straight forward i did not think he did a good job in his previous role and now he was standing for a even more difficult job.Without a statement or him being present at the meeting how was i supposed to work out if he was upto the job was i supposed to use guesswork.If Adam had come from the north i would have voted the same way so to say this way a north/south thing could not be further from the truth.
My jobs are to do what i think is best for English chess and to represent the Northern players at least i consult with my membership and ask for there opinions i really wish more reps could say the same.