AGM : 15 October 2011

[Sean Hewitt]

I'm just completing my voting form as the deadline is today. However, I can't find online http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=897

7.1 President's Report
7.3 Non-Executive Chairman's Report
7.4.1 Director of Finance's Report
7.7.1 FIDE Delegate Report

I'm obviously looking in the wrong place so if someone could direct me that would be great.

[David Sedgwick]

It's kind of you to omit me from your strictures, as the Report of the Sport and Recreation Alliance Representative is also not yet available. There are reasons, although they may not be very good. (Get off the Forum now, Sedgwick. Go and write the Report.)

I returned my proxy forms yesterday and I abstained or voted against the motions on the items you mention. I was still prepared to support the re-election of those involved where I thought they'd done a reasonable job overall.

[Sean Hewitt]

The ECF have confirmed to me that these reports are not on the website because they have not been submitted by the people concerned. I think that's pretty poor, and have voted against all the reports (if they are ever received) as a result.

Like David, I have supported re-election (or not) based on the overall package offered by the candidate.

[Adam Raoof]

(Get off the Forum now, Sedgwick. Go and write the Report.)

Is this a new approach by the Forum moderators?

[Jonathan Bryant]

I'm just completing my voting form as the deadline is today. However, I can't find online http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=897

7.1 President's Report

....

Unfortunately, it seems to be the case the ECF President's promise that accounts will be published is not a guarantee that any accounts will actually appear (http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... sness.html). One would hope that the same is not true of the Presidential Report.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Sadly in this life great expectation born out of media driven perception ....

I think you have a point about the American President. As for the ECF's my expectation that accounts would be provided was driven by CJ's own statements. That and the fact that on these very boards:-


on 14th September 2010 he said that the Staunton Memorial Dinner raised £7,000 for the British Championships
on 12th July 2011 he said that the Staunton Memorial Dinner raised £1,500 for the British Championships

on 30th March 2011 and 23rd May 2011 he said that the first Nigel Short simul tour raised £1500 for the British Championships
on 12th July 2011 he said that the simul tour had raised £500 for the British Championships but that he had decided to spend the money elsewhere
on 6th August 2011 he said that the simul tour had made a "significant" contribution to the British Championships.


In such circumstances the absence of accounts is indeed disappointing, but I'm not sure that 'media driven perception', as you put it, has much to do with it.

[Mike Truran]

I must admit that when CJ made the postings I assumed he was talking about the accounts for the individual events in question, and not the overall ECF accounts - but I may of course have assumed wrongly.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I must admit that when CJ made the postings I assumed he was talking about the accounts for the individual events in question, and not the overall ECF accounts - but I may of course have assumed wrongly.

I don't think that there's any possible reading of the posts made other than the promise to provide accounts for the Staunton Memorial Dinner and the Nigel Short simul tour. In any event, accounts were not published. To be fair, CJ did - after some nudging - post a list of words with pound signs and numbers next to them on the thread about the first simul tour. Clearly, however, this was not the "full accounts" promised.

[Mike Truran]

Yes, sorry. I misread your original point. You were talking about the likelihood of the President's Report not appearing, and not about the likelihood of the full ECF accounts not appearing.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I may be way wrong however I am wondering if the lack of a Presidents report may be the prelude to him standing down because of recent events.

On another thread it has been suggested that this will happen. Not that that means the unanswered questions go away.

The agenda, by the way, has the president listed as seeking re-election (if that means anything).

[Jonathan Rogers]

I may be way wrong however I am wondering if the lack of a Presidents report may be the prelude to him standing down because of recent events.

On another thread it has been suggested that this will happen. Not that that means the unanswered questions go away.

The agenda, by the way, has the president listed as seeking re-election (if that means anything).

See the "Appeal for Support" thread. I noticed that when quite a few posters proved to be unhappy about CJ refusing to publicly denounce RDK (and the apparent refusal of the Board to do so, and so on) David Roberston popped up to say that CJ would be resigning anyway - and then the thread rather dwindled through lack of interest. Not a bad outcome for CJ, that.

But is that the case? Only CJ knows for sure and he is still publicly silent. If he were intending to resign, the responsible thing to do would be to say so asap in order to give the Board the most time to find a successor.

[Adam Raoof]

I may be way wrong however I am wondering if the lack of a Presidents report may be the prelude to him standing down because of recent events.

On another thread it has been suggested that this will happen. Not that that means the unanswered questions go away.

The agenda, by the way, has the president listed as seeking re-election (if that means anything).

See the "Appeal for Support" thread. I noticed that when quite a few posters proved to be unhappy about CJ refusing to publicly denounce RDK (and the apparent refusal of the Board to do so, and so on) David Roberston popped up to say that CJ would be resigning anyway - and then the thread rather dwindled through lack of interest. Not a bad outcome for CJ, that.

But is that the case? Only CJ knows for sure and he is still publicly silent. If he were intending to resign, the responsible thing to do would be to say so asap in order to give the Board the most time to find a successor.

As far as I know, David Robertson is mistaken.

[Sean Hewitt]

But is that the case? Only CJ knows for sure and he is still publicly silent. If he were intending to resign, the responsible thing to do would be to say so asap in order to give the Board the most time to find a successor.

As far as I know, David Robertson is mistaken.

It might be helpful, if he has the time, for CJ to confirm this in advance of Saturday's meeting.

[Adam Raoof]

But is that the case? Only CJ knows for sure and he is still publicly silent. If he were intending to resign, the responsible thing to do would be to say so asap in order to give the Board the most time to find a successor.

As far as I know, David Robertson is mistaken.

It might be helpful, if he has the time, for CJ to confirm this in advance of Saturday's meeting.

CJ confirms that he is standing for re-election.

[Steve Rooney]

CJ confirms that he is standing for re-election.

Excellent news.