Resignation Rumours

[Dr Andrew Cula]

Merseyside must have hundreds (thousands?) of schools so why doubt that 15 have gone direct to the Chess for Schools Project rather than to the local chess association.

Approx numbers

Code: Select all

LEA        primary count    Secondary Count
Knowsley   59               11
Liverpool  135              34
Sefton     88               23
St Helens  59               11
Wirral     103              22

Total      444              101

[Charles W. Wood]

Merseyside must have hundreds (thousands?) of schools so why doubt that 15 have gone direct to the Chess for Schools Project rather than to the local chess association.

Approx numbers

Code: Select all

LEA        primary count    Secondary Count
Knowsley   59               11
Liverpool  135              34
Sefton     88               23
St Helens  59               11
Wirral     103              22

Total      444              101

Nice figures, less than I thought. But still a lot. But It should not include: Independant, PRU, Hospital Schools, etc (but it may to an extent) and could also miss Army Schools, and in some cases full Academies.

[David Robertson]

Of the Merseyside numbers, Liverpool has nearer 40 secondary schools, or roughly 40% of total. But CWW now seems to be claiming the schools visiting him in Bradford were mainly from Widnes & St Helens. Widnes is in (Halton) Cheshire, but never mind.

He claims 10 secondary schools visited him. If all were from St Helens & Widnes, that would be interesting indeed. As you can see, there are only 11 secondaries in St Helens (10 actually); and I can tell you there are 4 in Widnes. That would seem to suggest that nearly every secondary school in St Helens & Widnes has visited CWW in Bradford. Frankly, this is unlikely

In fact, it's worse. There are only 5 secondaries in St Helens itself (the rest are scattered across the borough), making 9 with Widnes.

I've been making a few enquiries these past two days, phoning some people. Fascinating stuff. Let's see whether CWW names his schools tomorrow, as promised; or whether we have more prevarication. My initial challenge still stands.

As for Merseyside becoming a test bed, I just smile quietly, and wait

David Robertson
Atticus CC

[David Robertson]

Hi Charles

Where are these names you promised me? You promised the secondary school names on Wednesday - ie today. OK, there are still 12 hours to go

David Robertson
Atticus CC & MCA Junior Organiser

[Steve Henderson]

Hi Charles

Where are these names you promised me? You promised the secondary school names on Wednesday - ie today. OK, there are still 12 hours to go

David Robertson
Atticus CC & MCA Junior Organiser

Less than 6hrs to go now

[David Robertson]

Right. The 'witching hour' is upon us. I have received no email or similar specifying the ten secondary schools and five primary schools from the Liverpool or MCA area, later amended to St Helens & Widnes area, that purportedly have visited Bradford. So that specific task has not been fulfilled at all.

But, in the name of progress, let's not be too burdened by that for the minute because other strange goings-on are upon us. This afternoon I did receive an email from CWW, sent to my private & professional email addresses. That caused me to raise an eyebrow because I have given CWW neither address. I think I can guess how he obtained them though. But that's another story.

The email in question lists 53 schools, 44 of which are primary schools; about half are not in Liverpool or MCA areas; more than half are Catholic schools. It's a very odd list indeed. It looks to have been culled from a longer ECF list of schools that have made initial enquiries to ECF about the chess set initiative; nothing to do with visits to Bradford. None of the schools known to me by name have had any chess-playing history to my knowledge.

But the email opens with the following, rather astonishing, caution:

It is vital that this information does not find its way into the public domain, so I ask you to keep this information private. I hope that it will go no further than Merseyside CA Committee and coaches

What follows is not the least bit sensitive; contains no personal or similar references; and makes no case for its confidentiality. Indeed, if the MCA committee sees it, secrecy is ended thereupon So I'm not really sure what is so vital about the secrecy.

However, I am in a quandary. I normally respect the privacy of emails published to me personally. But in this case, the email contains matters of significant public interest, given the current concern over reliability and trust etc. I'm going to sleep on it before deciding what to do.

David Robertson
Atticus CC & MCA Junior Officer

[Charles W. Wood]

Right. The 'witching hour' is upon us. I have received no email or similar specifying the ten secondary schools and five primary schools from the Liverpool or MCA area, later amended to St Helens & Widnes area, that purportedly have visited Bradford. So that specific task has not been fulfilled at all.

But, in the name of progress, let's not be too burdened by that for the minute because other strange goings-on are upon us. This afternoon I did receive an email from CWW, sent to my private & professional email addresses. That caused me to raise an eyebrow because I have given CWW neither address. I think I can guess how he obtained them though. But that's another story.

The email in question lists 53 schools, 44 of which are primary schools; about half are not in Liverpool or MCA areas; more than half are Catholic schools. It's a very odd list indeed. It looks to have been culled from a longer ECF list of schools that have made initial enquiries to ECF about the chess set initiative; nothing to do with visits to Bradford. None of the schools known to me by name have had any chess-playing history to my knowledge.

But the email opens with the following, rather astonishing, caution:

It is vital that this information does not find its way into the public domain, so I ask you to keep this information private. I hope that it will go no further than Merseyside CA Committee and coaches

What follows is not the least bit sensitive; contains no personal or similar references; and makes no case for its confidentiality. Indeed, if the MCA committee sees it, secrecy is ended thereupon So I'm not really sure what is so vital about the secrecy.

However, I am in a quandary. I normally respect the privacy of emails published to me personally. But in this case, the email contains matters of significant public interest, given the current concern over reliability and trust etc. I'm going to sleep on it before deciding what to do.

David Robertson
Atticus CC & MCA Junior Officer

How I got your email address is indeed a mission for Miss Marple, as both your email address' are in the ECF Year Book?

As for requesting sensitivity with regard to information sent is purely because the information at this point is not sensitive but the following information is. And to top all that sensitivity has been requested from the Contacts that have come forward.

As for the amount of information, well it did take a short while because I was making sure you got ALL the information in a proper fashion. I knew it was larger than I had facts about. So another miracle happened, I contacted everyone to make the list even more than I promised.

One thing is correct from your statement some of the schools are in LCCA and C&NWCA areas. Sadly the Local Authorities didn't take into account chess boundaries when divvying up their areas . So a meeting between LCCA, C&NWCA and MCA seems like the best way forward, so we sort out which of the many ways to separate the LEAs or not as the case may be.

As for finding out the huge MCA secret of the now shared Junior Organiser post, sadly that is even more simple. I'd seen details on the Atticus web site about the MCA AGM and did find that it would be a good time to sort out buying a full sets, boards and clocks for one of my teams I've been working with. As you so eloquently put "So I'm not really sure what is so vital about the secrecy". Sorry my fault I'm nosey as hell. A major flaw, but one I admit to.

And as for Secondary Schools, its a fair cop. Its 9 not 10. I got one wrong. My apologies.

Now we have a huge amount of work to do over the next 6 Months, by my estimates thats at least 2 major meetings straight away followed by 20 or so smaller meetings to sort out introductions and direction over the next month (June). All the education contacts are very eager to start work with you guys. All I need to know (Via PM if possible) is how the MCA Junior Organisers want to move forward?

[Charles W. Wood]

Right. The 'witching hour' is upon us. I have received no email or similar specifying the ten secondary schools and five primary schools from the Liverpool or MCA area, later amended to St Helens & Widnes area, that purportedly have visited Bradford. So that specific task has not been fulfilled at all.


David Robertson
Atticus CC & MCA Junior Officer

At all you say, so you did not get a list of schools yesterday? Yes you did................ Chaz's Cred goes up.
Did you get 15 schools? No (cred goes down a little)
You got more schools than you ask for? Yes you did................... Chaz's Cred goes up.
Did I suggest a way forward? Yes I did................... Chaz's Cred goes up.
Am I trying to learn about your area, through enquiry? Yes I am ..............(No cred there).
Did I take time to contact both Junior Organisers at the same time to ensure transparency? Yes. (no cred there either).
To I take time out from a busy week to contact each of the 15 school representatives to give as full an answer as possible? Yes (loads of Cred there)
Have I offered to meet with both or either Junior organiser? Yes I did. (Cred just went into the stratosphere)
Am I following the wishes of many different groups? Yes, I have to or this all falls down.


Do Mike and Sean need to apologise? Depends on their credibility, but it will go down if they didn't. ("sorry to doubt you O your royal Supreme Beingness" will do, I'm joking) No you don't need to apologise, but do be mindful that I follow up action with words, not the other way round.

Oh and Sean you now owe me beer. See earlier post.

But it does point out one major issue here, there is a mass of information for each area to work from. The idea behind starting with MCA is because we need to sort out the mistakes so everywhere else will get the most out of this. Trust is a key part. You guys say you didn't trust me, I came up with as much as I can (with more to follow). What you guys see as simple information that can be banded around like confetti, is actually a mass of complex agreements, expectations and objectives. Any of which will make or break a whole avenue of development.

If you want to find a reason to tip this project over, thats easy. If you want to try and see it work. Thats hard. but worth every minute of learning, work load, and effort, as we have the chance for thousands of juniors "Rabbits" helping us develop. If we choose to.

[Sean Hewitt]

Do Mike and Sean need to apologise? Depends on their credibility, but it will go down if they didn't. ("sorry to doubt you O your royal Supreme Beingness" will do, I'm joking) No you don't need to apologise, but do be mindful that I follow up action with words, not the other way round.

Oh and Sean you now owe me beer. See earlier post.

Charles - I suggest you re-read my earlier post (and Mike's for that matter). If you do, you will see that neither Mike nor I were expressing any opinion either way (and therefore we have nothing "to apologise" for). What we were saying is that the junior organiser at MCA had directly challenged your assertion that 15 schools in his area had travelled to Bradford and met with you. He didn't believe what you had said. That challenege adversely affected your credibility when you failed to name the schools as he had asked you so to do. Therefore, and for the sake of the project, we both asked you to name the schools who came over and met with you. Whether you have done that, I don't know although, for the sake of the project, I certainly hope that you have.

[Charles W. Wood]

Do Mike and Sean need to apologise? Depends on their credibility, but it will go down if they didn't. ("sorry to doubt you O your royal Supreme Beingness" will do, I'm joking) No you don't need to apologise, but do be mindful that I follow up action with words, not the other way round.

Oh and Sean you now owe me beer. See earlier post.

Charles - I suggest you re-read my earlier post (and Mike's for that matter). If you do, you will see that neither Mike nor I were expressing any opinion either way (and therefore we have nothing "to apologise" for). What we were saying is that the junior organiser at MCA had directly challenged your assertion that 15 schools in his area had travelled to Bradford and met with you. He didn't believe what you had said. That challenege adversely affected your credibility when you failed to name the schools as he had asked you so to do. Therefore, and for the sake of the project, we both asked you to name the schools who came over and met with you. Whether you have done that, I don't know although, for the sake of the project, I certainly hope that you have.

Ah so you were both just causing trouble, thats fair enough.

Mission done as per my post above, even though he firmly has denied that exists. It was meant to be a start, now its an end. As he puts he and the MCA now longer want to do business with me. Which is also fine.

Credability is just perfect. Now can you imagine this. The people I called this week to make sure I could start the liaising process with David and/or Gareth, are all reading the posts to try and work out whats going on. Read it from their perspective and wow.

[Sean Hewitt]

Do Mike and Sean need to apologise? Depends on their credibility, but it will go down if they didn't. ("sorry to doubt you O your royal Supreme Beingness" will do, I'm joking) No you don't need to apologise, but do be mindful that I follow up action with words, not the other way round.

Oh and Sean you now owe me beer. See earlier post.

Charles - I suggest you re-read my earlier post (and Mike's for that matter). If you do, you will see that neither Mike nor I were expressing any opinion either way (and therefore we have nothing "to apologise" for). What we were saying is that the junior organiser at MCA had directly challenged your assertion that 15 schools in his area had travelled to Bradford and met with you. He didn't believe what you had said. That challenege adversely affected your credibility when you failed to name the schools as he had asked you so to do. Therefore, and for the sake of the project, we both asked you to name the schools who came over and met with you. Whether you have done that, I don't know although, for the sake of the project, I certainly hope that you have.

Ah so you were both just causing trouble, thats fair enough.

Charles - Are you for real? You really should read the posts before you reply to them.

[Charles W. Wood]

My credibility is fine.

Charles - with the greatest respect your credibility is not fine.

The longer you delay, the greater the damage to your credibility.

If you fail to name at all, your credibility is zero.

So if thats not implied accusation nothing is. So whats my credibilty now, with you?

[Sean Hewitt]

So if thats not implied accusation nothing is. So whats my credibilty now, with you?

Charles, read the whole post, the you'll get it in context.

Where's your credibility now? Well, you say you've named the schools, David says you haven't. I don't know if you have or if you haven't. All I do know is that you haven't published the list.

[raycollett]

From Ray Collett, ECF Delegate Worcs. E-mail: collett(AT)clara.co.uk Replace (AT) with @ for a well-formed address

I attended the Finance Council meeting and although leaving 30 minutes before the scheduled closing time to catch my train back from London, I was very suprised to read that 3 directors had resigned on a matter of policy shortly after.

It was not made clear to those attending the meeting what policy issues separate the resignees from other ECF directors and managers. One of the directors who resigned argued strongly for compulsory membership and dropping game fee. There did not seem to be a coherent plan to replace the income that would be lost from game fee and I was concerned that ECF would have to reduce the level of its activities further in line with a reduced income. I was not convinced (there were comments from the floor of the meeting suggesting I was not alone) that the ECF could continue to sustain its current activities without a viable plan to replace the income from game fee. The debate could have been more focused and productive if the resignees had produced a paper sent to delegates before the meeting and the debate better directed from the Chair of the meeting.

Volunteer directors of ECF should be able to consider strategic issues in depth and are not currently able to do so because they are burdened with day-to-day matters. Strategies need to be researched and presented cogently to members at national, regional and county meetings, congresses and circulated widely by electronic mail. More income is also required to enhance the professional skills of organisers at national and regional level.

My perception is that there are a few player-organisers, player-coaches, publishers, equipment sellers and chess journalists who derive significant income from the game and many part-time businesses that derive part of their income from chess. Are they too suspicious of each other to work together? Or, do they think a strong ECF led by member players would damage their businesses? If prominent chess players, journalists and enterprises could agree to work together within the ECF, there would be a chance that the game would achieve a higher profile, which would make it easier to gain sponsorship. With more income and a national office that could relieve ECF volunteer directors and managers of the day-to-day running of chess, all players would benefit through better organisation of the game.

[Sean Hewitt]

The previous post shows all that is wrong with the ECF.

Of course there was a coherent plan to replace the income from the chess prevention tax. It was called membership. The idea is that members pay a fee to join! Sure, there was a debate as to what level it should be set (which would of course determine what activities the ECF could undertake - just as setting the game fee level does now) and I believe the board wanted it higher than most players would agree to, but there was no doubt that the board had a plan.

But the ECF does not need more income from players. In the current economic climate, it needs to cut costs. Doing so would not only make the cost of joining the ECF lower (leading to more players joining) it would free up much needed cash to invest in chess - rather than at the moment where a huge proportion of turnover is spent on admin (a figure well in excess of £100,000 per annum).

And it's doable. Whereas raising more income is far more problematic. Let me put that into perspective. If the ECF DOUBLED game fee tomorrow (and assume for the moment that everyone in the country agreed to pay the increase which of course wouldnt happen) it would only raise about £55,000. A reasonable amount, but not enough to change the chess playing world in this country in any significant way. Yet, if this were to happen, league fees would increase by 60-70% and therefore so would club subs to ordinary players. What would that do to membership at your club?

We need to accept we are a game played actively and competitively by about 15,000 people in the whole country. If we were discussing setting up the ECF today, would we start by sugesting an office staffed by four full time employees?