Finance Council Meeting

[Roger de Coverly]

Paul, are you really saying that you believe the fees the ECF paid people to play in its Championship Tournament should not be revealed to the ECF?

Just guessing, but suppose CJ aggregated the ECF's £ 12,600 with his own money and paid out regardless of itemising the source. Someone would know or could establish how much each individual player received, but how you apportion that between the ECF and CJ is something you leave accountants to have a long debate about. But even there, it would be helpful if the ECF stated that was the process used. Also there were claims made last July by CJ about how much money he had put into the British. These claims aren't validated by amounts put through the ECF's books.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Just guessing, but suppose ...

Roger, what you say is I would say (and perhaps this is what you're getting at) exactly why a person *shouldn't* make undocumented private contributions to an event like the British Championships. Especially if that person has a position within the organisation that is running it.

That the fiction of the possibility of 'private' activity is still being maintained is one of the reasons why I think it's important to pursue exactly what the ECF thinks went wrong. I'm also concerned at the at the suggestion, even now, that there is no need to account for funds raise for the ECF or its events*.

Of course that the ECF don't seem to be to interested in investigating the various claims that its President has made with regard to funds he has (a) raised and (b) personally donated to its coffers is also somewhat of a worry.









* and I say that despite being grateful for the contributions that Adam and Andrew have made on this thread/these boards/elsewhere.

[Paul Cooksey]

Given I'm trying to watch the football, you'll have to forgive me replying to points without embedding quotes.

Maybe my disagreement with Justin, is based on a misunderstanding. I believe their was a complete governance failure, so regardless of whether receipts are produced now, it does not change my view. I do not believe anyone knew at the time how CJ intended to distribute the money. It does seem to have been handed over no (detailed) questions asked. For me that is the key point. I don't think it matters that we don't know now. I think it matters that the ECF did not know at the time.

I'm not suggesting Justin is insisting that he knows what everyone was paid, as Jonathan suggests. I'm just saying it is not possible to prove the answers to his other question without revealing that information.

I assume Roger was joking when he implied CJ may have paid RDKs expenses. I assume Alex was not when he speculated as to whether CJs hotel expenses had somehow got mixed up with the sponsorship receipts.

I think Andrew Farthing stated completely unambiguously at the Finance Council the CFGCR recommendations would be implemented. (Management reporting being a hobby horse of mine, I was going to follow that up after the membership announcements are made)

Finally, as I've said before I suspect a no confidence vote in CJ would have got through council. I think I've counted at least 20 "pro-CJ" votes on procedural rather than substantive grounds. I'm even starting to wonder if there is some Byzantine reason why CJs opponents want him to resign rather than vote him out.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Given I'm trying to watch the football, you'll have to forgive me replying to points without embedding quotes.

Maybe my disagreement with Justin, is based on a misunderstanding. I believe their was a complete governance failure, so regardless of whether receipts are produced now, it does not change my view. I do not believe anyone knew at the time how CJ intended to distribute the money. It does seem to have been handed over no (detailed) questions asked. For me that is the key point. I don't think it matters that we don't know now. I think it matters that the ECF did not know at the time.

I'm not suggesting Justin is insisting that he knows what everyone was paid, as Jonathan suggests. I'm just saying it is not possible to prove the answers to his other question without revealing that information.

I assume Roger was joking when he implied CJ may have paid RDKs expenses. I assume Alex was not when he speculated as to whether CJs hotel expenses had somehow got mixed up with the sponsorship receipts.

I think Andrew Farthing stated completely unambiguously at the Finance Council the CFGCR recommendations would be implemented. (Management reporting being a hobby horse of mine, I was going to follow that up after the membership announcements are made)

Finally, as I've said before I suspect a no confidence vote in CJ would have got through council. I think I've counted at least 20 "pro-CJ" votes on procedural rather than substantive grounds. I'm even starting to wonder if there is some Byzantine reason why CJs opponents want him to resign rather than vote him out.

Understood. But Justin does not want "proof" of his answers - just an unequivocal statement that someone involved in ECF Finance has them.
Please do let us know what happens to the CFGRC recommendations (geesh, though, you have strange hobbies)

Whilst the governance issue is important in itself, it's also true that I have said many time before that CJ should resign. That would be the more dignified way, surely - and he'd also be less likely to whinge about anyone in the ECF to the mainstream press, something which apparently cannot be ruled out even when he is President, if he gets emotional.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Whilst the governance issue is important in itself, it's also true that I have said many time before that CJ should resign. That would be the more dignified way, surely - and he'd also be less likely to whinge about anyone in the ECF to the mainstream press, something which apparently cannot be ruled out even when he is President, if he gets emotional.

I have a horrible feeling that we're now in a no win situation with CJ de Mooi. To my mind he will do one of two things. He will either sit this season out, let the 2012 British championship be judged a flop in comparison to Sheffield (it was his imput that made Sheffield such a success - had it not been for his subsequent treatment of Lara and Alex that would not have to be put in brackets), blame his detractors for that and, aided by a big name sponsor, reposition himself as the saviour of chess in 2012-13. Alternately he may just not seek re-election in September and let Keene, Short and his other sycophants portray him as a martyr driven out of chess by brutish, bigoted termites.

[Carl Hibbard]

Alternately he may just not seek re-election in September and let Keene, Short and his other sycophants portray him as a martyr driven out of chess by brutish, bigoted termites.

I don't see him standing again yes I do agree

[Alex McFarlane]

Paul why assume Roger was joking? I think it very likely that De Mooi paid Keene to come to the British. Indeed it would not be unreasonable to pay travel and meals to the person who had 'found' you £13,000 + £2600 VAT. That is a very small agent's fee indeed.

Had it been anyone other than Keene and the actual involvement had been acknowledged prior to the event such a person would have been welcomed with open arms. The secrecy concerning the Keene involvement implies to me that the President knew it would be unpopular but didn't really care what the ordinary member thought. He was determined to give Keene his moment of glory no matter what.

The CEO seems afraid to ask certain officials to be accountable for their actions but will pursue others. Today Mr Farthing asked Lara for assurances about her behaviour should De Mooi attend the British. I asked him to also obtain assurances from De Mooi that he would behave himself because of his actual history. He refused to do so, leaving me with the impression that Lara's behaviour was worse than his (making a statement to Council is obviously much worse than running to the press and refusing to have a retraction published). This same CEO has refused to insist that Messrs Short and Reuben should apologise to me when Board confidentiality was broken by them in matters concerning me. This is the same CEO who told me that a leaked email to Keene could have come from a solicitor rather than from De Mooi!!
The CEO asked the Times for a transcript of the De Mooi conversation. This was refused. He did not ask De Mooi to make such a request.
I was accused on this forum of wanting De Mooi to resignwhen I really want him to clarify the situation (after which resignation may be demanded by the members) which was ironic as I have reliable info that it was Mr De Mooi who was the prime mover in my 'sacking' as manager of the British.

I have asked Andrew Farthing to treat all officials in the same way. He has told me he will not communicate with me further on this matter.

[Jonathan Bryant]

(it was his imput that made Sheffield such a success - had it not been his subsequent treatment of Lara and Alex that would not have to be put in brackets)

I disagree. With the bit about why the need for the brackets, I mean.

Leaving aside the events of the closing ceremony, the financial horlicks that Sheffield was (and is) was entirely foreseeable from the way that the President went about raising funds for it.

No need for hindsight. At one point during the tournament (august 4th, to be precise) I wrote,

"It's far from obvious that the the financial model and other arrangements for this year's championships will, could or should - I retain my doubts about certain issues - be repeated in the future, but in terms of the British Championships I can't think of a parallel for last Tuesday in my chess lifetime. Hat tips to everyone, not the least of whom, to put it mildly, is CJ de Mooi, who helped bring about the day that big time chess came to town."

I planned to return to the money questions after it was all over (and did). I'm not sure whether I expected that we'd still be coming back to them in April.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Had it been anyone other than Keene and the actual involvement had been acknowledged prior to the event such a person would have been welcomed with open arms. The secrecy concerning the Keene involvement implies to me that the President knew it would be unpopular but didn't really care what the ordinary member thought.

(my emphasis).

the secrecy indicates to me that the president didn't really care what anybody at any level within the ECF thought. (http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... y-ecf.html).

To be fair, though, given that Keene was clearly played a very important role in the securing of funds for Sheffield, isn't it reasonable that he attend. This, I would say, is one very important reason why you should know where the money comes from for your events: you can thank people properly.



As for the President not standing again. He's won every vote, hasn't he? He's not actually been told by the board - at least not in public - that his behaviour is unwelcome. Why would he not stand again?

[Mick Norris]

Alex

After the way you treated Andrew while he was playing at Scarborough in October, are you surprised he wants to limit his dealings with you?

Have you apologised to him?

Have you considered whether pursuing this matter is now detrimental to your health and well being?

Simply, have you considered that your continuing involvement actually makes it less likely you will achieve whatever outcome you really seek?

[Paul Cooksey]

1-0. crickey. Stepping back a moment to clarify:

I've not seen anybody from the ECF acknowledge it ( pc - the governance failure) though.

1. My overall conclusion is that controls over sponsorship-related income and expenditure for the 2011 British Championships were wholly inadequate, as set out below. There are some related issues which fall within the ambit of the Governance Committee: in particular, namely the way in which the ECF's own Bye Law requirements in respect of sponsorship arrangements have not been adhered to, and the failure to draw a clear line between sponsorship arrangements that are managed and accounted for by the ECF and sponsorship arranged on a private basis with which the ECF has no involvement.

Er, that is it, I think. The CEO has accepted the report fully. I can't help feeling S&B are trying to fight a battle that was won some time ago.

(For anyone not fluent in corporate speak, that is the most direct language you will ever see in this kind of report. Not only does Mike condemn things within his sphere, he is so sure other things have gone wrong he notes them too. If you'd like a visual metaphor, that is an axe dripping blood. Alternatively the CFGC Report says this was a monumental **** up. The CEO said he accepted it fully, and fully means he accepts it was a monumental **** up)

[Jonathan Bryant]

(For anyone not fluent in corporate speak, that is the most direct language you will ever see in this kind of report. Not only does Mike condemn things within his sphere, he is so sure other things have gone wrong he notes them too. If you'd like a visual metaphor, that is an axe dripping blood. Alternatively the CFGC Report says this was a monumental **** up. The CEO said he accepted it fully, and fully means he accepts it was a monumental **** up)

I'm afraid I don't accept the battle has been won. If it *is* accepted, as you say, I'd like to see public comments (in plain language) along the lines of:-

x,y,z happened that shouldn't have. This won't happen again.


Where specific individuals are at fault (in major ways) I'd like to see that publicly acknowledged too. Especially relevant to future elections, I'd say. In this regard, I think Adam's post earlier today was a big step forward.



I guess we will just have to agree to disagree as to whether it's important that the ECF clearly and explicitly acknowledges that it lacks receipts for large amounts of expenditure - if that is indeed the case.

Believe me, nobody would be happier than me for all this to be cleared up so I can go back to my series of articles proving that the french exchange is the most interesting chess opening ever played.

[Paul Cooksey]

I'm afraid I don't accept the battle has been won. If it *is* accepted, as you say, I'd like to see public comments (in plain language) along the lines of: x,y,z happened that shouldn't have. This won't happen again.

You might be waiting for John Upham's Director of Communications to get appointed, unless the DoM fancies a challenge for his first ever communication.

Where specific individuals are at fault (in major ways) I'd like to see that publicly acknowledged too. Especially relevant to future elections, I'd say

This issue is a slightly odd one. No-one really wants to go after the office or its manager (on the basis they weren't equipped to deal with this kind of thing) or the Finance Director (who was unable to give the ECF much time due to work issues, at a moment when everything conceivable, and a few inconceivable things, went wrong).

I could argue that CJ created the mess, but it was other people who failed to deal with it adequately. David Welch and the British management team keen to focus on the first part and link t-shirtgate of course, rightly or wrongly.

In passing - The CFGC report does also suggest that it isn't possible for the FD to oversee everything adequately. My gut reaction is to want to ask how the ECF has got that complex, but a different debate.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I keep coming back to this point because it is arguably the sole one that has not been addressed.

Back in October Alex wrote quite passionately about the impact of the T shirt incident and its resulting fallout on Lara; most critically the damage to her health and confidence and the stain it could cause on her professional reputation. All Lara wanted and all Alex wanted on her behalf was public backing from the board and meaningful help in setting the record straight. There was no need for anybody to criticise De Mooi at this stage, in fact he could and should have taken the lead here and won himself much respect in the process. It was his media profile that created the mess, his media profile could have cleared it up.

Lara was accused of homophobia, mainly by ill informed people outside of the chess community. It is now universally accepted that she had no homophobic intent - indeed her own views and personal history are entirely the opposite. All she wanted was loud and effusive support to that effect. The board, for reasons still unclear, would not do her that simple service. From there things have of course descended in a vicious circle of acrimony.

I give here a wonderful link from a Canadian blogger who initially jumped to the wrong conclusion like so many others. I even managed to get Keene to retweet this. It says everything CJ needed to say http://www.xtra.ca/blog/national/post/2 ... biter.aspx

NOTE - the link does contain some strong language not related to the article in question.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I could argue that CJ created the mess, but it was other people who failed to deal with it adequately.

Well there we can agree. It's the reason that I think that the story isn't really about The President at all - and why it starts a long time before the Sheffield opening ceremony.