Disputes between the ECF Board and Alex McFarlane

[Paul Cooksey]

My comments in the thread Thank you Lara and staff have been criticised as inappropriate to the intention of that thread. I have said previously that I felt they were appropriate because deserved praise had been mixed with politicking. But I will start a new thread to avoid any doubt.

I feel Alex McFarlane is treating me unfairly by stating he hopes to end the discussion and simultaneously making direct criticism of points I have made. Specifically:

I never made any agreement that the De Mooi statement would end the matter as Paul Cooksey has repeatedly stated.

I think this is revisionist. I do not think there was doubt that the statements were intended to end the public discussion of the matter at the time. Indeed even the nuance that de Mooi did not apologise is relatively new. Lara to referred to his statement as an apology at the time.

Lara is not an unelected official. She was appointed by the Board. Therefore the Board voted to accept her. To call her an unelected official is simply rubbish.

The is a substantial difference between elected and appointed. I seems to me Alex and Lara do not accept the board have authority over them.

Lara has stated that CJ De Mooi would have been welcomed to the event. Indeed Andrew Farthing insisted that she make her position clear on that matter.

I cannot imagine Alex is arguing CJ should have come to the 99th British, since he believes it would have had a positive outcome.

[JustinHorton]

McFarlane

[Paul Cooksey]

McFarlane

thanks and apologies.

[Alex McFarlane]

The ECF Board has no control over me. Any control it had ended when I was not reappointed as Manager. For you to state

I don't think anything I said in the post referred to was revisionist. I have stated it for quite a considerable time, initially in private but when that failed then in a more public manner.

I am quite happy that CJ De Mooi did not come to the event but I will say that if he had done I would have a lot more respect for him. I could easily argue that good could have come from it. For one thing it would have created the opportunity for a face to face meeting. Something he has refused to have almost from the beginning of this saga. Indeed at short notice he decided to go to a snooker competition rather than attend a board meeting in a venue where I was present. That is fact.

[Paul Cooksey]

I don't think anything I said in the post referred to was revisionist. I have stated it for quite a considerable time, initially in private but when that failed then in a more public manner.

I think "considerable time" is insufficient in this context, at the time is the key thing.

A little earlier, and slightly out of context

"Personally I think the main effect of the "fault on both sides" is to make that moving-on process much harder while providing an alibi for the people who could have facilitated it.

I partially agree. But I think it is often necessary to reach an agreement with which both parties are unhappy. If such an agreement is reached, both must stick to it. If only because if either of them breaks it, it will probably be impossible for them to agree anything else.

My feeling, and I cannot know for sure but I do think subsequent actions support it, is that Alex, Lara and David did not think there was any fault on their part.

[Bill Porter]

I find it hard to accept good faith, given the preceding actions.

You do realise that what you're implying is that Lara made the announcement deliberately in order to disrupt the following year's tournament? OK, if you want to say so. But that is liable to cause a great deal more damage than anything Lara has said.

While I thank Justin for saying my views on an unofficial forum are of equal weight to those of the Manager of the British Championship making an announcement at the British Championship, I think this is unlikely.

I was not going so far as to say that Lara was deliberately causing damage to the 100th British Championship. But I do believe her ongoing dispute with the ECF Board influenced her decision making.

As far as I can see, you are willing to write but not say that Lara was deliberately causing damage to the 100th British Championship ie you are attempting to smear her reputation in a deniable way. You have now distanced yourself further with the title of this new thread.
I would appreciate a less deniable expression of your views on this specific subject.

A conspiracy theorist ( I also can do deniable ) would notice the convenient timing of the various old and new attacks on Lara and Alex ( ie 2012 British Championship just ending).

[JustinHorton]

I have to say that even if we are to find fault of both sides I prefer the option of continuing to complain, but also continuing to work for chess, to the option of apparently ceasing to work in one's post at all.

[Paul Cooksey]

I would appreciate a less deniable expression of your views on this specific subject.

i can only repeat the response that I made to Justin, "I was not going so far as to say that Lara was deliberately causing damage to the 100th British Championship. But I do believe her ongoing dispute with the ECF Board influenced her decision making.". I have also stated clearly that I think she made an error of judgement, and that she did do damage to the 100th championships.

A conspiracy theorist ( I also can do deniable ) would notice the convenient timing of the various old and new attacks on Lara and Alex ( ie 2012 British Championship just ending).

Also a point I addressed earlier. I would not have written this during or in the run up to the British, since I think it would have been wrong to distract those running it.

[Alex McFarlane]

Alex, Lara and David did not think there was any fault on their part

OK Paul. List where you think there was fault on our part and I will say if I agree.
You might also list where you think therewas fault on the CJ De Mooi side and allow him to do the same. That would give balance to the debate.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I'm not sure exactly what `damage` Lara has done to next year's event. The 100th championships are a year away for goodness sake. Only absolute fanatics are going to be making their accomodation arrangements now and only very daft fanatics would make non refundable arrangements.

Lara mentioning a possible change of venue before the start of play on the penultimate day may, with hindsight, have been the wrong call. It was not a massive error of judgement. Roger de Coverley subsequently asked the question on here and Andrew Farthing answered it. The fact that a mini firestorm arose from a small minority refusing to accept Andrew Farthing's word is hardly Lara's fault.

[Ernie Lazenby]

I am not sure we should only be focusing on CJ and the T shirt. Alex has drawn our attention to other important matters and rightly so. Clear to me by doing so he's shown what a shambles our federation currently is.
One can only hope that the next AGM brings to end a passage of time in our history that has done us no good at all other than to show major changes are needed. I have no confidence that will happen.

[Paul Cooksey]

Alex, Lara and David did not think there was any fault on their part

OK Paul. List where you think there was fault on our part and I will say if I agree.

To do so would be rather contrary to the point I am trying make, that an agreement was made between Lara and CJ not to continue this dispute. It is not necessary that Alex, Lara or CJ agree anything with me.

I am conscious that I am not party to everything said. But I think it is a reasonable presumption from the issuing of joint statements that an agreement was reached, even if that is not the word Alex would choose to describe it.

I have to say that even if we are to find fault of both sides I prefer the option of continuing to complain, but also continuing to work for chess, to the option of apparently ceasing to work in one's post at all.

Clearly people do not need to like each other to work together successfully. But equally there is a point where their disputes making working together impossible. My feeling is we have reached the point where the dispute is intractable, and the ECF Council need to decide whose services to retain.

This isn't to say whoever is removed is required to stop all chess activity. There are those on this forum who would suggest freeing people from the shackles of working with the ECF is in fact doing them a favour.

I'm not sure exactly what `damage` Lara has done to next year's event

It does an event no favours to suggest there is a better option that has been rejected. I agree that we should not overstate the impact, I was not thinking of writing to the governance committee or the police. I'm posting on a relatively obscure forum.

However I think the issue arose because of an ongoing unresolved situation. Something that has to be dealt with, or similar issues will continue to occur.

[JustinHorton]

My feeling is we have reached the point where the dispute is intractable, and the ECF Council need to decide whose services to retain.

Although if CJ's services have, in the past year, been retained, it is obscure to me what services they may be.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I am conscious that I am not party to everything said. But I think it is a reasonable presumption from the issuing of joint statements that an agreement was reached, even if that is not the word Alex would choose to describe it.

This is slightly selective. The joint statements did draw a line under the misunderstanding over the T shirt. However since then we've had Alex's non reappointment as manager of the championships and the continuing criticisms from Raymond Keene. It is known fact that there was correspondance between Alex and CJ de Mooi that was amicable to start with which ended when Alex raised the issue of Keene's comments. Unable to resolve the matter privately Alex was forced to go to public which led to the Appeal For Board Support, Open Letter and finally My Resignation threads. Since then you'd have thought we might have made some progress if only by accident ...

[Alex McFarlane]

Any 'agreement' that was made was defaulted when the true meaning of De Mooi's expression to the press came into existance.

It is a bit like Chamberlain's 'Peace In Our Time". You cannot possibly be serious when you claim that the initial statement from De Mooi was a true and full statement of the situation. It may not have been inaccurate but it certainly hid many things that have subsequently been discovered.

Again, you keep claiming there was blame on our side. Please state what you think that blame was. It shouldn't be too difficult for you. If you cannot do so then you should withdraw the allegation and withdraw from this thread.