English Chess Forum

Well, David, you have the explanation. It’s your prerogative to disagree with my view - as indeed it is mine to disagree with yours.

Hang on, surely the paper should simply say something like: The board expects to have appointed a development officer before the Council meeting ? What is gained by lying?

{edited to italicise quote}

Brendan - it's not worth it. The statement was intended to be correct. Any inaccuracy is un-intended. You know how these things work, those complaining have far less idea. Indeed David has previously admitted to not implementing a significant ''policy' in his life. You would have hoped that running the Grand Tour with younger people might have helped him.

I think you mean the statement was intended to be correct at some point in the future As we have been told, it wasn't correct at the time it was published. Iffy and risky behaviour which I hope does not become a habit.

David Sedgwick wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:46 pm

Really? I would have thought that those Council members who haven't taken the trouble to read the paper in advance probably won't read it at all.

It was on the website, so ECF watchers who weren't Council members might be expected to read it. Some form of words to the effect that the appointee would be announced "in the near future as of the date of writing" might have been more appropriate.

Not that it's a disqualification, but Carl does write regularly for Malcolm's magazine.

Would it be too bold a statement to suggest that our time might be better spent discussing Carl Portman's appointment and what he might bring to the role rather than nitpicking over ECF papers from a year ago?

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:49 pm

nitpicking over ECF papers from a year ago?

They aren't a year ago. The ECF Directors report of a couple weeks ago recorded the appointment of the Development Manager. It was noted at the time that the appointment was a closely guarded secret. That's not a surprise as the ECF Directors didn't know either who had been appointed, because the appointment was in the future.

If the ECF demands that it be financed directly by individual chess players, it must learn to deal with the greater scrutiny this will provoke.

There is scrutiny and there is scrutiny. Unfortunately there are those who frequent the internet and don't know the difference. Its very much a matter of degree. A slight and debateable error on the part of the Board doesn't mean a free for all with the criticism of that error. It is important that organisers are held to account, but they should also be given the benefit of the doubt. And that along with the odd word of praise are lacking in the contributions from many posters. Do people really believe that unrelenting negativity gets you a better ECF or just a thicker skinned one?

There are unrelenting critics and there are also those who criticise isolated decisions sometimes with merit but the cumulative effect is perhaps missed by many people.

I agree that in this particular instance little milk has been spilt, so no tears need be shed. My concern was the chief executive's defence of misrepresenting intention as fact.

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:34 pm

Indeed David has previously admitted to not implementing a significant ''policy' in his life.

Can you give chapter and verse for that, please?

Mike Truran wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:29 pm

The paper was written to reflect the fact that many people would be reading the paper for the first time on or only shortly before the day of the Council meeting and so to reflect the position as it was expected to be (and indeed will be) as at the day of the Council meeting.

The intention was to help rather than mislead Council members. But each to their own view, I suppose.

Hi Mike

I'd have gone with something along the lines of we are interviewing a number of promising candidates (I assume Carl wasn't on a shortlist of 1 ) and by the time you read this expect to have appointed one

I'd see the major snag with "we have appointed" is what would have happened if Carl had said no

Then again, I'd probably also have said how many candidates applied, in a bid to be transparent, and probably asked the candidates if they minded being named publicly too

I'm sure we all wish Carl every success, and also look forward to arguing on here about how to measure that properly

Well I have been amongst the cynics regarding the appointment of a development officer, believing that the budget proposed was insufficient for anything meaningful to be achieved but large enough for it to be a burden. I have some sympathy also with those that say the announcement was misleading, but I can't get over-excited about that.

What I can get excited about is the actual appointment of Carl Portman which has lifted my spirits and given me hope that my analysis was wrong. I believe he is a very good choice and I wish him every success in his endeavours.

This will teach me for being honest!

"What I can get excited about is the actual appointment of Carl Portman which has lifted my spirits and given me hope that my analysis was wrong. I believe he is a very good choice and I wish him every success in his endeavours."

Yes - he is very enthusiastic and I think that tends to rub off on others. He hasn't got an easy task...

"This will teach me for being honest!"

No good deed goes unpunished.

I don't think the misleading announcement was desperately serious, (not like Government of any colour saying "this will cost £50 billion, when it's already cost £100 billion), but any sort of misleading statement makes people wonder if anything else is true.

I think ECF is generally good at present, but some of us remember really spectacular dishonesty from ECF/BCF in the past, so we get a bit wary over even minor things!