ECF Council Meeting 12 April 2014

[Nigel Short]

A excellent day, yesterday! The new charity should provide long-term benefits to chess in England and is a very important step. An awful lot of work has gone into the project and those who have been involved are to be thanked for their contributions. Thank goodness the plan of turning the ECF itself into a charity was eventually abandoned, as this would have been the death-knell of what little professional chess there is remaining (just 3-4 players - and two of those middle-aged).
Obviously I am peronally delighted that Council resoundingly defeated the motion to make Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's Trojan horse - Andrew Paulson - our ECU Delegate. Thanks to everyone who contributed to defeating a shabby and undignified proposal.

[David Pardoe]

Nigel,
I wonder if Phil Ehr shares your views on FIDE and ECU matters..?

From what I can see, no-one comes out of yesterdays meeting covered in credits.
You keep talking about this corrupt FIDE chess circus, where you support one set of East European jokers, and Andrew Paulson supports another, it would appear.

[Sean Hewitt]

A excellent day, yesterday! The new charity should provide long-term benefits to chess in England and is a very important step. An awful lot of work has gone into the project and those who have been involved are to be thanked for their contributions. Thank goodness the plan of turning the ECF itself into a charity was eventually abandoned, as this would have been the death-knell of what little professional chess there is remaining (just 3-4 players - and two of those middle-aged).
Obviously I am peronally delighted that Council resoundingly defeated the motion to make Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's Trojan horse - Andrew Paulson - our ECU Delegate. Thanks to everyone who contributed to defeating a shabby and undignified proposal.

The biggest cheer of the day was when Nigel spoke later in the meeting (after the vote) and introduced himself as "Nigel Short, FIDE delegate". Priceless!

[David Pardoe]

And when the Board held that `confidence vote` on Nigel, most of them abstained, I believe.

But in the popularity stakes, I can see that Nigel would score well against `out of favour` Mr Paulson.
But it does seem rather bazzar that the ECF seems to have shot itself in the foot over those East European FIDE pundits, and a FIDE/ECU chess scene, where we have the most insignificant influence.

Meanwhile, the ECF remains rudderless....

[Nigel Short]

Nigel,
I wonder if Phil Ehr shares your views on FIDE and ECU matters..?

From what I can see, no-one comes out of yesterdays meeting covered in credits.
You keep talking about this corrupt FIDE chess circus, where you support one set of East European jokers, and Andrew Paulson supports another, it would appear.

David, my point yesterday was something entirely different: the democratically elected Delegate should be the one who decides who to vote for. The deadline for the submission ECU tickets is the 9th May. Danailov has announced his ticket (and it contains some highly respected people), whereas Azmai has not. It is entirely possible that a third and better contender will enter the fray. We are simply not in a position to make a judgement at this point in time. It would be profoundly wrong, for so many reasons, to hand Paulson the ECU proxy as a pay-off for resigning - which he should have done months ago, if he had any sense of decency. A Paulson proxy means a vote for Azmai - the Kirsan backed candidate. Anyone who has seen the signed Agon memorandum will know that Paulson's claims of independence from the FIDE President are just elephant turd.

When we know the full list of candidates for the ECU elections, AND their tickets, I will form a firmer opinion. It is no secret that, at the moment, I am leaning towards Danailov because I consider him to be the least bad of the two options so far. However I stood for election on a pro-Kasparov platform, not on a pro-Danailov platform, and I am not so rigid in my views that I can't change my mind - particularly if a better candidate should appear. I hope this makes my stance a little clearer.

[David Sedgwick]

The biggest cheer of the day was when Nigel spoke later in the meeting (after the vote) and introduced himself as "Nigel Short, FIDE delegate". Priceless!

Not quite right, surely. I thought that the point was that he introduced himself as "Nigel Short, ECU delegate".

[David Sedgwick]

The deadline for the submission ECU tickets is the 9th May. Danailov has announced his ticket (and it contains some highly respected people), whereas Azmai has not. It is entirely possible that a third and better contender will enter the fray. We are simply not in a position to make a judgement at this point in time

[snip]

When we know the full list of candidates for the ECU elections, AND their tickets, I will form a firmer opinion. It is no secret that, at the moment, I am leaning towards Danailov because I consider him to be the least bad of the two options so far.

Nigel, it is possible, indeed probable, that you know more than I do, but I think that it is now unlikely that a third ticket will emerge.

A few weeks ago I was involved in some tentative discussions about forming a third ticket. Had it become a serious possibility, I would of course have contacted you about it.

In the event, the idea was dropped when Danailov announced his ticket, which, as you say, contains some highly respected people.

[Mike Truran]

Job well done by Mike Gunn in the chair to bring the meeting home on time. Congratulations to him on his excellent management of a meeting that could have been a very difficult one to handle.

[Nigel Short]

Indeed, I would like to echo Mike Truran's thanks to Mike Gunn for chairing the meeting very efficiently and successfully.

As a small addendum, here is Andrew Paulson's e-mail to the Board on January 20th, which may cast a small shaft of light on some of the rancourous proceedings of the previous months :

"All,

Thanks for all working so well together to get today’s work done. I appreciate your support in this unexpectedly conflictual situation. I know that I was not elected to lead the ECF Board to war, however unsought! I will do everything I can to make sure that this current situation does not distract from the important work we are doing here in England. I will continue to inform and consult on all matters that I undertake at my own initiative. And I will voluntarily and timely resign if I lose the confidence the Board for any reason (for more than 15 minutes), because the last thing I want is to detract from the work that you are all selflessly engaged in.

Andrew"

To no one's surprise, these words proved as insincere as his risible claim to be independent of Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, despite proposing and signing an agreement to be paid 240,000 euros per annum by the FIDE President. No single director expected him to resign when his bluff was called and he lost a motion of confidence a few weeks later. He didn't. Indeed he fought tooth and nail to extract every concession out of the ECF as the price for his resignation. The shabby motion that was presented to Council on Saturday was the price that was paid (at my expense) for his removal. Thankfully Council had the wisdom to reject it resoundingly. Half the Board who actually voted for this motion were secretly delighted when it failed.

[NickFaulks]

Half the Board who actually voted for this motion were secretly delighted when it failed.

I think we all got there. The question which would be asked by anyone unfamiliar with the ECF snakepit is why they would think this behaviour reflects well on them.

[Sean Hewitt]

Half the Board who actually voted for this motion were secretly delighted when it failed.

I think we all got there. The question which would be asked by anyone unfamiliar with the ECF snakepit is why they would think this behaviour reflects well on them.

It reflects well because they successfully yet pragmatically ensured that Kirsan's stooge got sidelined. This must be a source of angst to Kirsan supporters as it's clear some significant effort went into getting him into post in the first place.

[NickFaulks]

pragmatically

Ah, yes. I have no objection to the result, since the idea of the ECF's vote being given to someone who is not their Delegate was always daft, but "duplicitously" is still a more accurate description.

[Sean Hewitt]

pragmatically

Ah, yes. I have no objection to the result, since the idea of the ECF's vote being given to someone who is not their Delegate was always daft, but "duplicitously" is still a more accurate description.

I guess that all depends on which side of the fence you're looking at it from. Andrew Paulson presumably thought that he could win the vote, otherwise he wouldn't have suggested those terms.

[Andrew Zigmond]

And when the Board held that `confidence vote` on Nigel, most of them abstained, I believe.

But in the popularity stakes, I can see that Nigel would score well against `out of favour` Mr Paulson.
But it does seem rather bazzar that the ECF seems to have shot itself in the foot over those East European FIDE pundits, and a FIDE/ECU chess scene, where we have the most insignificant influence.

Meanwhile, the ECF remains rudderless....

International chess doesn't really affect me or any other player of my standard, however it makes a big difference to people like Mr Short. I don't agree with him on everything but he understands the international scene (unlike his predecessor) and fights vigorously for English players within FIDE - we should trust him to get on with it and consult with those affected.

The ECF may indeed remain rudderless - although I notice you're not short of opinions about what should be done but expect somebody else to come forward to do all the hard work ...

[Mike Truran]

David, I fail to understand why you assert that 'the ECF remains rudderless'. You may or may not like the ship's direction of travel, but it is the CEO and the Board who deliver the ECF's stategy as determined by Council. The President's role is primarily an ambassadorial and liaison role.

You might want to peruse the ECF's Directors and Officers Responsibilities Regulations document to get a better idea of the directors' and officers' various roles and responsibilities rather than spouting off at random: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... g-2013.pdf

PS I heartily endorse Andrew's observation in his final sentence.

PPS 'bizarre', not 'bazzar'.