Update from Shallow Throat

[Jonathan Bryant]

So to recap,

Malcolm Pein was declared to have lost but the next day he was declared to have won after all.
Chris Majer definitely did win, but it has been decided that he cannot continue in post so he has resigned.
Bob Kane definitely did lose, but it may be decided that me must continue in post so he may return.


I’m minded to consider this not the ECF’s finest hour.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I'd be surprised if the author of the quoted post was at the meeting.

Your comment is rather ambiguous. Which of the authors wasn't there?
On what grounds should the vote be disallowed?

The author of the post you quoted when suggesting that he may have been at a different meeting.

[John Upham]

Bob Kane definitely did lose, but it may be decided that me must continue in post so he may return.
I’m minded to consider this not the ECF’s finest hour.

I suspect BK would best return as a Manager rather than as a Director and then report to the The President. Since there is no CEO (right now but two are in the frame) or Commericial Director BK would report to a member of The Sensible Party. This should ensure continuance of the Tradewise contract.

Thoughts of a member of the Pearce Commission on this matter are illuminating.

[JustinHorton]

John,
I have asked this question of others who seem to be of your persuasion, but always without success.

Could you state for the record your view of what

"others who seem to be of your persuasion" means and provide examples of who these others might be?

writes bloke who has begun thread with a list of anonymous rumours.

[Andrew Zigmond]

John,
I have asked this question of others who seem to be of your persuasion, but always without success.

Could you state for the record your view of what

"others who seem to be of your persuasion" means and provide examples of who these others might be?

I'm assuming the `persuasion` Michael Farthing refers to is the supposed nexus (apologies to Michael if this was not the case) and how they are supposedly damaging English chess. Are you prepared to name these people? Why are they somehow unqualified and/ or unwilling to decide what might be in the best interests of English chess? I made quite a lengthy post about this earlier and it does seem that those opposed to the `nexus` go quiet when asked to flesh out their comments.

[JustinHorton]

Thoughts of a member of the Pearce Commission on this matter are illuminating.

Do we have access to these illuminating thoughts?

[John Upham]

writes bloke who has begun thread with a list of anonymous rumours.

and what became of the first rumour?

[John Upham]

Thoughts of a member of the Pearce Commission on this matter are illuminating.

Do we have access to these illuminating thoughts?

If you bother to spend time talking to him then yes you will.

[JustinHorton]

Thoughts of a member of the Pearce Commission on this matter are illuminating.

Do we have access to these illuminating thoughts?

If you bother to spend time talking to him then yes you will.

Well I'm afraid it's just the missus and me here at the moment. Perhaps this individual would like to make their thoughts public? If not, then why I am supposed to be interested in them?

[Michael Farthing]

John,
I have asked this question of others who seem to be of your persuasion, but always without success.

Could you state for the record your view of what

"others who seem to be of your persuasion" means and provide examples of who these others might be?

Examples of people who seem to be saying the same sort of thing as you (sometimes using the word 'progressive' in the way that you seem to be using the word 'sensible' as those individuals opposed to the 'arbiter-organiser nexus') include:

Martin Regan
David Robertson
Phil Ehr
John Foley
Chris Fegan

My analysis may be inaccurate and I may have misunderstood you. If so my apologies.
I would still be interested in your answer to the question. If answered seriously it might make an interesting basis for a serious, non-acrimonious discussion. If you don't want to go down that line then please say so and the matter can be closed.

[John Upham]

Examples of people who seem to be saying the same sort of thing as you (sometimes using the word 'progressive' in the way that you seem to be using the word 'sensible' as those individuals opposed to the 'arbiter-organiser nexus') include:

Martin Regan
David Robertson
Phil Ehr
John Foley
Chris Fegan

I (not BCM) would be content to be added to the list above.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Examples of people who seem to be saying the same sort of thing as you (sometimes using the word 'progressive' in the way that you seem to be using the word 'sensible' as those individuals opposed to the 'arbiter-organiser nexus') include:

Martin Regan
David Robertson
Phil Ehr
John Foley
Chris Fegan

I (not BCM) would be content to be added to the list above.

If that is the case perhaps you could answer the question both Michael Farthing and myself have raised. Who are the supposed nexus and why are their opinions on what might be best for English chess somehow less valid than those of other people.

[Mick Norris]

Bob Kane definitely did lose, but it may be decided that me must continue in post so he may return.
I’m minded to consider this not the ECF’s finest hour.

I suspect BK would best return as a Manager rather than as a Director and then report to the The President. Since there is no CEO (right now but two are in the frame) or Commericial Director BK would report to a member of The Sensible Party. This should ensure continuance of the Tradewise contract.

Thoughts of a member of the Pearce Commission on this matter are illuminating.

Any chance of expanding on this here, or is it going to feature in BCM?

[Martin Regan]

AZ wrote:

Who are the supposed nexus and why are their opinions on what might be best for English chess somehow less valid than those of other people.

You ask two questions. To the first:

You
Alex H
Chris Majer
Stuart Reuben
David Eustace
Alex McFarlane
Andrew Leadbetter
Rupert Jones
Mike Gunn
Lawrence C
Dave Thomas
Bill Armstrong
David Welch
Jack Rudd
David Anderton
The list is not exhaustive.

To the second question - I don't think they are.

[LawrenceCooper]

AZ wrote:

Who are the supposed nexus and why are their opinions on what might be best for English chess somehow less valid than those of other people.

You ask two questions. To the first:

You
Alex H
Chris Majer
Stuart Reuben
David Eustace
Alex McFarlane
Andrew Leadbetter
Rupert Jones
Mike Gunn
Lawrence C
Dave Thomas
Bill Armstrong
David Welch
Jack Rudd
David Anderton
The list is not exhaustive.

To the second question - I don't think they are.

I've no idea what my name is doing on this list, I have no votes on Council and I'm not an arbiter.