Role of the Manager of the British Championships

[Paul Cooksey]

Indeed, (Paul) has a real skill in provoking other people to get themselves banned from this forum. Carl, banning Paul for a while should greatly reduce the risk of your moderating finger getting RSI.

Probably true. I'll be self indulgent and explain my position.

My "skill" is being reasonable when other people are angry. I don't know how to avoid it though. If I allow myself to become equally angry I won't be able to make my point.

I waited a few hours before replying to William. I suppose some people would have thought it more honest if I'd replied in anger. But it is not in my nature. When someone upsets me, I think about it for a bit and try to respond rationally.

I self censor a bit. Martyn and Krishna have both said things I disagree with in the last couple of days, but I would be making political points not really related to chess. I did this once before, people got banned arguing with me. So I decided stick closer to chess.

I have a right to my opinion, even if people disagree with it strongly. I don't think I necessarily have a right to express it here. I prefer to, because I enjoy talking with people directly. Occasionally someone says something that changes my opinion. But if I think I am becoming too disruptive, I will probably set up a blog instead.

Again, being arrogant, I think you probably have to have blood as cold as mine to disagree with Alex and everyone who supports him without getting banned yourself. But I think when people post to this forum, instead of a blog, they are inviting criticism. Sometimes deliberately so they can develop their own point.

Finally, Carol is right that I did take rather a cheap shot at David about his low grade. So I agree he is rather unlucky to have been banned. I'll self-ban myself for 24 hours.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I've been at work all afternoon so I've missed a lot of this. Obviously I don't want to inflame matters but I'd like to pick up on a point on the `sniping from the sidelines` comment.

This whole debate arose because Paul responded to a comment of mine praising Lara's work for the British. He suggested that Lara's judgement was not what it should be, largely in the light of the Plymouth distraction. It has now been proven that Lara did nothing wrong in mentioning this (just to re-iterate the Plymouth offer was made and it seemed likely the board would discuss it at a meeting this wednesday - Andrew Farthing subsequently (and probably correctly) ruled the Plymouth offer as out of the question but Lara wasn't to know he would do this) and Paul's main criticism appears to have dissipated.

I'd like to state one simple fact and invite Paul or anybody else to disprove it. T-shirtgate is still casting a long shadow one year on. In the twelve months since Lara has dedicated herself to organising this year's British out of a determination to deliver the best event possible and the vast majority agree she has succeeded. Her hard work has been visible for all to see and she can point to North Shields as the fruit of her labours. Can anybody else claim a similar achievement within that time? Certainly not the ECF President who has been largely inactive.

[Paul Cooksey]

I'll self-ban myself for 24 hours.

Er, few minutes before that starts...

It has now been proven that Lara did nothing wrong in mentioning this (just to re-iterate the Plymouth offer was made and it seemed likely the board would discuss it at a meeting this wednesday - Andrew Farthing subsequently (and probably correctly) ruled the Plymouth offer as out of the question but Lara wasn't to know he would do this) and Paul's main criticism appears to have dissipated.

No. My point was that the error of judgement was in making the announcement about Plymouth without consulting the Board, given she knew a contract was in place. I believe this was influenced by the poor relationship between Lara and the Board. I made the point that I think it showed that there remained a culture conducive to in-fighting that needs to be addressed.

Various people have disagreed with this argument in various ways. But I would not say the subsequent developments changed my mind about whether an issue had arisen.

I'd like to state one simple fact and invite Paul or anybody else to disprove it. T-shirtgate is still casting a long shadow one year on.

I'm not the right person to bounce this one off, I said it myself yesterday.

[Andrew Zigmond]

My point was that the error of judgement was in making the announcement about Plymouth without consulting the Board, given she knew a contract was in place.

Two points jump out here. First of all the Board are a collection of individuals, not a single entity. To the best of my knowledge the only member of the board definitely present at the time of the announcement would have been Jack Rudd - who was obviously focused on playing chess at that exact moment. They were not that easy to consult. Secondly Lara was managing the event at the time and the Plymouth offer was one of many issues she was no doubt trying to deal with.

Friday was the last day of the event for many of the competitors. It was reasonable enough to already start to look ahead to the 2013 championships in Lara's speech before play - most people would have expected her to do that. So to my mind she had three options.

a) Mention Plymouth (or an unspecified alternative venue) and advise people to defer making firm arrangements very few would have made anyway. If she hadn't done this and the board had subsequently run with the Plymouth offer people would surely have queried whether she knew anything at the time.

b) Tell everybody the 2013 event would be in Torquay and say nothing about Plymouth. With hindsight this was actually the right option but short of having a crystal ball to consult, never mind the Board, Lara had no way of knowing.

c) Say nothing about the 2013 championships at all in which case the omission may have provoked comment.

In any event (and I'm sorry if I sound a bit pithy here) I doubt any of Lara's addresses to the entrants before start of play were written in advance. Do you think she was in a position to ask the board what she should say and what she shouldn't say? I'm not saying that I'm completely right and you're completely wrong btw, I'm just trying to look at the question from every angle and putting myself in Lara's shoes.

I'm sorry of the above makes me sound like a pedant but I wanted to make sure I'm not misunderstood.

[Roger de Coverly]

To the best of my knowledge the only member of the board definitely present at the time of the announcement would have been Jack Rudd - who was obviously focused on playing chess at that exact moment.

The non-exec Chairman and the alternate to the Home Director were also present. Rumours were flying round, one of the players at the next board in the Seniors mentioned it a few minutes before Lara. Members of the ECF Board were quick to reject the Plymouth proposal once they learned of it. In the interests of keeping a potential future sponsor or cheap venue on board, a more diplomatic rejection would have seemed advisable.

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger >I'm not sure who ran the Congresses in the 1970s when Anne Hopton and later Paul Buswell were the General Secs.<

When I took on the British in 1981 Paul Buswell was immensely helpful as he was until he left office in 1985. From what he said it was culture shock that I became so involved, e.g. preparing the budget. That suggests effectively he was congress manager until 1981. Gerry Walsh was of course my predecessor as director.

Although it may have looked like appointment to the Director of Congress Chess post was in perpetuity I was in fact elected each year. Similarly with Neil Graham. Only in 1998 were there 2 candidates, when Neil took over from me; the election taking place in 1997.

One way to run the British would be for a stand-alone company to be created, running the event on license from the British Isles Coordinating Committee, or, if preferred the ECF. The contract might require 50% of the profit to be paid to the ECF. That would have the advantage of removing one of the sections of the federation that cannot readily be justified for charitable status. I doubt this can be arranged in time for 2013.

The suggestion that a company combining the British and adult international representation be formed might not work. I am sure that won't be in place for 2013.

Another possibility is leave things as they are, coming under either the Home or International Director.

Another is that the post of Director of Congress Chess be re-created. Then that person be in charge and might appoint a manager of the British, or him/herself intend to run the whole project. In all cases the final decision would be the Board's. That is my preferred solution for 2013. There will be a great deal to do if the opportunity represented by the Centenary is to be seized and time is running out.

Although directing the congress involves a great deal of work, in some ways it was the easiest of the various posts I have held. That is because the objectives can be stated so simply: to run an excellent congress. It also has a regular annual cycle.

[Paul Buswell]

Roger >I'm not sure who ran the Congresses in the 1970s when Anne Hopton and later Paul Buswell were the General Secs.<

When I took on the British in 1981 Paul Buswell was immensely helpful as he was until he left office in 1985. From what he said it was culture shock that I became so involved, e.g. preparing the budget. That suggests effectively he was congress manager until 1981. Gerry Walsh was of course my predecessor as director.

The term 'congress manager' wasn't around all those years ago. In effect as one of only two employees I did most of the work before the event, with varying degrees of assistance from local organisers. But it was quite clear that in my time policy level decisions - budgets, deciding on possible venues (which I might have researched), tournament structure - lay higher up, in my time first with Victor Soanes then with Peggy Clarke, later with Stewart Reuben, all of whom were accountable to the Congress Committee (while it lasted), Executive Committee or Management Board.

As always, the above are my immediate recollections and memory might be fallible.

PB

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I doubt any of Lara's addresses to the entrants before start of play were written in advance.

It is arguable that they should have been. When I've ever done anything that required public announcements, I make a little list of what I need to say, to remind myself not to miss anything out. I know from long experience, though, that congress organisers are very busy getting rounds started on time, and usually just have a mental list of things to say, usually with a pause to see if they've forgotten anything, or looking at one of their assistants to see if they've forgotten anything (e.g. directions to toilets and fire exits, though those are more at the start of each day).

The spiels at the start and end of congresses are slightly different, though. Normally, for something the size of the British, you would have someone making a short speech of some sort (I think there was a local mayor who started the games? But not sure if anyone opened or closed the congress formally). If I'd been in Lara's position, I'd have pushed forward someone else to say something about next year's event. Though that may not have been any better, actually.

[Alex McFarlane]

The presence of the guy from Plymouth had started speculation (read other posts). As such something had to be said before the afternoon round.

She could have confirmed Torquay or, as she did, issue a caveat. One Director thought the Plymouth offer worth further investigation.

Paul Cooksey may be right in that T-shirtgate had an effect on this matter but it was not on the part of Lara. Unless there are reasons that haven't been made public (for example a potential sponsor), then I feel that it was reasonable to see if Torquay would delay staging the event. If such reasons exist then some members of the Board have shown little faith in the Manager not to have informed her of them. If she was informed and acted as she did then she should be sacked.

I do not believe the latter to be the case as I think Jack or Alex H would have made some comment to discourage Plymouth.

[JustinHorton]

I am also telling a wider audience that I think Alex is wrong about some things, in case I cannot persuade him. I suppose this might have made William think that I am making a personal attack on someone he thinks highly of, and therefore a personal attack on me is justified. Justin does seem to have this view, since he expressed shock when I used the phrase "playing the man not the ball”.

Not at all, sir. I merely suggested your own approach wasn't quite cricket. Of anybody else's approach I said nothing and implied nothing.

[Andrew Zigmond]

To the best of my knowledge the only member of the board definitely present at the time of the announcement would have been Jack Rudd - who was obviously focused on playing chess at that exact moment.

The non-exec Chairman and the alternate to the Home Director were also present. Rumours were flying round, one of the players at the next board in the Seniors mentioned it a few minutes before Lara. Members of the ECF Board were quick to reject the Plymouth proposal once they learned of it. In the interests of keeping a potential future sponsor or cheap venue on board, a more diplomatic rejection would have seemed advisable.

I think this establishes that there was nobody present on site at the time who had the authority to accept or reject the Plymouth offer. To my mind that would only be Andrew Farthing or possibly Adam Raoof. Having a potential sponsor turn up at the venue unannounced also seems slightly unusual. I'm getting into the realms of speculation here but surely Lara's main priority (while actually running the event at the same time) was to get in touch with a member of the board who had the authority to speak to the Plymouth representative in the first place. I'm sorry to labour this point but Paul's suggestion that Lara was in a position to consult someone as to what she should say seems quite unfair. I've already set out her options above; she had to make a call, with hindsight she made the wrong one but it's not the massive error of judgement Paul has been suggesting.

Another point is that this forum moves faster than the general business of the Federation; hopefully the kind offer from Plymouth has been acknowledged and hopefully the representative will be invited to meet formally with a senior director to discuss how they could work together in future. A well known chess commentator (I won't name him but I believe he has a blog) has accused this forum of detering one previous sponsor; he'd have a field day if it happened again.

[Neil Graham]

Although it may have looked like appointment to the Director of Congress Chess post was in perpetuity I was in fact elected each year. Similarly with Neil Graham. Only in 1998 were there 2 candidates, when Neil took over from me; the election taking place in 1997.

Sorry to contradict you on this - but in my seven years as Director of Congress Chess I was returned unopposed on each occasion from 1997 to 2003. A candidate whose name had been put forward prior to the 1997 AGM withdrew; I was the only nominee and elected nem con

[Paul Habershon]

As there have now been controversial issues at the end of both the 2011 and 2012 British Chess Championships, would it not be appropriate for more of the ECF 'top brass' to be present for the last round and the prizegiving? Arbiters have been left to take unsought responsibility.

Incidentally, it was good to see Gawain Jones dressed in jacket and tie for the 2012 prizegiving. I thought that was appropriate. The arbiters also made an effort by wearing official shirts. Chess players tend to be a scruffy bunch and, to be fair, it is summer holiday time and the national trend is towards informality. However, men's ties do lend dignity and I hope that the officials at the 100th prizegiving will create a decent sartorial impression worthy of the occasion.

[Alex McFarlane]

Last year's controversy was caused by the top brass present!!!

This year's was little more than a storm in a tea-cup (rather than t-shirt) and should have been treated as such.

[Mike Gunn]

Although I was present (indeed playing) on the Friday afternoon I came into the hall a few minutes late (probably while Lara was speaking) and I was therefore concentrating on finding my opponent so I wasn't paying attention to what Lara was saying (or I missed it). I was therefore surprised that several people asked me questions about the 2013 venue during the next 24 hours and it wasn't until I was driving back after the event that I looked at my emails and the forum and understood why I was being asked about the venue. I remember having a conversation with Lara (probably late Friday afternoon) when I mentioned to her the fact that we had signed the contract for Torquay and the reason why we were not going to break it (the penalty).

In most of the previous British Championships I have attended there has been a session where the venue for the following year's congress has been promoted (usually by someone from tourist office) and there has also usually been an opportunity to express a view on future venues (i.e. those starting 2 years later). I did notice a lack of either of these things from the Championship just concluded and thought it rather unusual.