English Chess Forum

So we've learnt that Tim doesn't want to replace Carl Portman, supports the work of the ECF, and doesn't have a problem with the panel appointed to hear his complaint. But he's still "extremely unhappy". Down with this sort of thing.

TimWall wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:15 am

I do have complete confidence in the highly qualified panel of Gareth Pearce, Suzzane Wood and Roger Emerson.
Best regards,
Tim Wall"

If, after arguing at length about the procedure adopted to appoint a panel, someone states that he has "complete confidence" in the "highly qualified panel" then that someone is bound to lose a certain amount of sympathy. That's not to say he doesn't have a point, in as much as the end doesn't automatically justify the means, but it's highly doubtful whether it ever warranted the amount of attention it received.

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:21 pm

TimWall wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:15 am

I do have complete confidence in the highly qualified panel of Gareth Pearce, Suzzane Wood and Roger Emerson.
Best regards,
Tim Wall"

If, after arguing at length about the procedure adopted to appoint a panel, someone states that he has "complete confidence" in the "highly qualified panel" then that someone is bound to lose a certain amount of sympathy. That's not to say he doesn't have a point, in as much as the end doesn't automatically justify the means, but it's highly doubtful whether it ever warranted the amount of attention it received.

Politics, innit. Throwing a tantrum over something unimportant means you have credit in the bank for the important things. If anyone rises to the bait, ask them why they're making a big deal out of something unimportant when you were just trying to get along with everyone.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 17, 2019 2:08 pm

But you could use historic money elsewhere to develop chess. What if you gave each and every weekend Congress a grant of a thousand pounds or more? They could use it to hire better premises, slash entry fees, increase prize money or just increase the arbiter's meal allowances.

If you ever decide to run for ECF president I would definitely vote for that idea (and quickly get myself an arbiter qualification)

New on the ECF website today: Outcome of a complaint regarding the CEO of the English Chess Federation.

Hopefully, in the interests of transparency, the Board will publish the full report.

Thread withdrawn

Its like a really tedious game of chess that ends in adjudication with all parties dissatisfied. Maybe just start a new game?

Is Tim Wall by any chance related to the late Jim Tennant-Smith?

Relatedly....

After this, I was sufficiently interested in this "simple" explanation to write to Carl to ask if he could tell me what it was.

He replied that "since an official complaint by Mr Tim Wall is underway I am unable [to] make comment on it at the moment."

Fair enough, I thought, so I waited until the complaint had been adjudicated, and then wrote again. Could he comment now?

The answer was, again, no.

Now I don't have a view on the Wall Affair, and I don't really care about it much. But I do wonder why somebody comes onto a public forum to proclaim the existence of a simple explanation but refuses to make that explanation, and for a couple of reasons, I am beginning to form a view about Carl Portman.

Maybe before your "view" begins to fester, you should air it in open light. Presumably, this exact issue is one of your "couple" of reasons. What is the other?

Please also share the embryonic "view" being formed. What is it?

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 23, 2019 8:58 am

Now I don't have a view on the Wall Affair, and I don't really care about it much. But I do wonder why somebody comes onto a public forum to proclaim the existence of a simple explanation but refuses to make that explanation, and for a couple of reasons, I am beginning to form a view about Carl Portman.

I do have a view on the "Wall affair" which is that it is costing a lot of time and money which could be more usefully expended elsewhere.

I wouldn't want to prejudge this without first reading the full 37-page report although the starting-point seems to be either that Tim Wall is right, in which case something like a dozen others including the latest panel in which he earlier expressed total confidence are either wrong or misguided, or it is Tim who is wrong or misguided. Either way, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that - even if this affair went a stage, or multiple stages, further - Tim would be dissatisfied with any decision which didn't agree with him.

Having said that, I agree with Justin that the rights and wrongs of this matter would become a good deal clearer if an explanation were publicly forthcoming regarding Carl Portman's acceptance letter - in particular, its date. The absence of any explanation simply adds credibility to Tim's issue.

Nick Burrows wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:04 am

Maybe before your "view" begins to fester, you should air it in open light. Presumably, this exact issue is one of your "couple" of reasons. What is the other?

Please also share the embryonic "view" being formed. What is it?

It's hard to pin down, Nick, what with it not being fully formed and all, but I'm not getting the impression of somebody whose information can be relied upon without checking.

This is not someone we are electing to spend our taxes, but a chess VOLUNTEER.

Perhaps your emerging machiavellian view does not reside in Mr Portmans character but exists somewhere else.

Perhaps we should judge Mr Portman on his actions, which are what led to him being offered the role. He contributes a lot of time and energy to English Chess. He does it very well, and maybe its best we don't try and discourage him from doing so. Especially when the grounds may prove somewhat illusory.

How long is this saga going to go on for?

Nick Ivell wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:27 pm

How long is this saga going to go on for?

In 1960 13 episodes of Coronation Street were planned and then that would be the end.