English Chess Forum

I have read all the posts and they confirm what I always knew; that there are an enormous number of people out there who care about English Chess. In order to make chess strong again, we have to have a strong Federation. That is the inescapable conclusion. Chess players, especially strong ones, need help organising themselves,because the nature of the game forces one to be almost wholly egotistical and selfish,which explains why all attempts to form unions of chessplayers have failed.

So, the King is dead etc....Instead of talking now,we need volunteers to make the ECF work, strong-minded people willing to stay the course and fight through all this total crap and sludge that is slowing everything down. But any work that is done must be WITHIN OR FOR THE FEDERATION, because anarchy dooesn't work.

All the concerns,debates, aggro amounts to nothing unless people are willing to put their hands up and do a job.

That's it.

Andrew

andrew martin wrote:I have read all the posts and they confirm what I always knew; that there are an enormous number of people out there who care about English Chess. In order to make chess strong again, we have to have a strong Federation. That is the inescapable conclusion. Chess players, especially strong ones, need help organising themselves,because the nature of the game forces one to be almost wholly egotistical and selfish,which explains why all attempts to form unions of chessplayers have failed.

So, the King is dead etc....Instead of talking now,we need volunteers to make the ECF work, strong-minded people willing to stay the course and fight through all this total crap and sludge that is slowing everything down. But any work that is done must be WITHIN OR FOR THE FEDERATION, because anarchy dooesn't work.

All the concerns,debates, aggro amounts to nothing unless people are willing to put their hands up and do a job.

That's it.

Andrew

Interesting, on a ticket stating "no Camp" and with a view to reforming the structure (Martin might say good luck here). Which would mean a lot of contact with council. My hat goes in in October, I believe; a weeks a long time in politics.

Ernie puts his finger on the problem. For as long as the ECF is essentially amateur (in the old, non-pejorative, sense), it will have to rely on volunteers to do the work. But volunteers only have limited time available. If people choose to get involved in local affairs, then they are unlikely to have time to work for the ECF.

Someone keen to make a contribution on the larger stage might decide to drop some or all of their local activities to make time, but suddenly, it seems, that time will be spent on ECF politics, not on actually working for English chess.

The ECF needs full or part-time (depending on the particular job) paid officers if it is ever to stop being so amateurish (negative connotations intended) and ineffective. That's not to decry the good work that has been and is being done, but the image presented to the chess-playing community and the world at large is awful. If we want to deal with professionals (sponsors, government agencies etc.) we have to be professionals.

Ian Kingston wrote:Ernie puts his finger on the problem. For as long as the ECF is essentially amateur (in the old, non-pejorative, sense), it will have to rely on volunteers to do the work. But volunteers only have limited time available. If people choose to get involved in local affairs, then they are unlikely to have time to work for the ECF.

Someone keen to make a contribution on the larger stage might decide to drop some or all of their local activities to make time, but suddenly, it seems, that time will be spent on ECF politics, not on actually working for English chess.

The ECF needs full or part-time (depending on the particular job) paid officers if it is ever to stop being so amateurish (negative connotations intended) and ineffective. That's not to decry the good work that has been and is being done, but the image presented to the chess-playing community and the world at large is awful. If we want to deal with professionals (sponsors, government agencies etc.) we have to be professionals.

Here Here.

My case, I run my own academy and have the support and backing of my directors to be able to stand forward. Sponsorship and Government Depts are something I have to deal with daily. So I have the time. Its just who would vote for me at 37, Claire did amazing to get into one of those chairs, it shows her strong work rate and attitude (Hat come off). Sadly would the ECF do it again?

Charles W. Wood wrote: My case, I run my own academy and have the support and backing of my directors to be able to stand forward. Sponsorship and Government Depts are something I have to deal with daily. So I have the time. Its just who would vote for me at 37, Claire did amazing to get into one of those chairs, it shows her strong work rate and attitude (Hat come off). Sadly would the ECF do it again?

I suspect that would very much depend on what position you were standing for, what experience you could bring to the role and what your future plans would be. If you ticked all the boxes I'm sure you'd get elected.

Sean Hewitt wrote:

Charles W. Wood wrote: My case, I run my own academy and have the support and backing of my directors to be able to stand forward. Sponsorship and Government Depts are something I have to deal with daily. So I have the time. Its just who would vote for me at 37, Claire did amazing to get into one of those chairs, it shows her strong work rate and attitude (Hat come off). Sadly would the ECF do it again?

I suspect that would very much depend on what position you were standing for, what experience you could bring to the role and what your future plans would be. If you ticked all the boxes I'm sure you'd get elected.

The main one for the CEO roll is an understanding of ECF rule and regs, I started work on that. I don't sit in any camp, but do take ideas, suggestions, or general input from anyone who can put a good case forward (as long as a clash of direction is not obvious). I have been a sales manager for too many years to think about, fully training as a sales director ofa £27m a year company, I run three companies of my own, all successfully (long may that continue).

My main aim is to get a fair system in place that would probably have to start with some sort of mandate from the masses. But that would be to engage them and find out what the feeling across the country as a whole. My main aim is to help the associations with the link between Junior and Adult players playing in evening, county, and other such leagues. This is just a small amount of what I'm thinking about but I do think an ECF that ticks the boxes is more important than any other issue, and we need to get the message of the good things the ECF do out to the playing public.

I'm sure there are loads of people with a decent business background, desire to improve chess in this country and some time to devote to the cause. I'd count myself in that group (Chief Exec of a medium-sized charity, Chair of another, very keen on chess, parent of a decent junior player). But what's the point? Unless the various vested interests (Council, Unions, County Associations, leagues, congresses) agree to vote for their own power being removed, then there's no way forward.

In this age, surely the only sensible approach is OMOV and a national membership scheme.

Possibly a slate of candidates to achieve this would be a good idea - only isn't that what's just gone belly-up?

Matt Harrison wrote:I'm sure there are loads of people with a decent business background, desire to improve chess in this country and some time to devote to the cause. I'd count myself in that group (Chief Exec of a medium-sized charity, Chair of another, very keen on chess, parent of a decent junior player). But what's the point? Unless the various vested interests (Council, Unions, County Associations, leagues, congresses) agree to vote for their own power being removed, then there's no way forward.

In this age, surely the only sensible approach is OMOV and a national membership scheme.

Possibly a slate of candidates to achieve this would be a good idea - only isn't that what's just gone belly-up?

The power issue is the killer. I'm all for OMOV and letting the associations and unions do what they do best, sort out chess.And a national (something) scheme is what is needed, thats why a mandate from the masses is needed. I'm (and I believe no-one) is big enough to say what is standard for everyone, nor is any one organisation.

I'm dreaming I know, but I would love to see five or six people standing for each job on the board. Each one saying the promise to work closely with anyone else who wins other seat, regardless of the politics. I will.