ECF Director elections for 2012/13

[Ernie Lazenby]

Google his name it's all there. he's qualified to represent us not a problem.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I notice that Rupert is registered with Papua New Guinea. I don't know the background behind that. Would it be strange to have a 'foreign' registered player as FIDE delegate?

Does he or didn't he have a FIDE position also?
He has previously been the BCF's Director of International Chess.

I'm not sure what Rupert's connections to Papua New Guinea are but he is a former President of the Yorkshire Chess Association and a major figure in Leeds chess. I believe he has also been a FIDE arbiter. I know Rupert personally and his enthusiasm for chess is not in doubt.

[Roger de Coverly]

Google his name it's all there. he's qualified to represent us not a problem.

Searches reveal him to be CACDEC Secretary. Seems to me an obvious conflict of interest to be both the ECF's delegate to FIDE and part of an organisation that spends FIDE's money on emerging federations.

[John Upham]

Seems to me an obvious conflict of interest to be both the ECF's delegate to FIDE and part of an organisation that spends FIDE's money on emerging federations.

Yawn...

[John Philpott]

Andrew Zigmond wrote

I'm not sure what Rupert's connections to Papua New Guinea are

He was born there, and did his early schooling there before moving to England. He subsequently taught in Botswana, which he has also played for at the Olympiad.

[William Metcalfe]

You can not please some people you want contested elections then spend all your time ripping candidates apart.

[Ernie Lazenby]

It seems to me that Rupert is a worthy candidate. He knows how to conduct himself in public, does not need to resort to abuse or ruddness and has the right background.

He seems to be a very suitable replacement for the FIDE rep we currently have.
Picking up on who he has played for because of where he was born seems rather trivial.

[IM Jack Rudd]

It seems to me that Rupert is a worthy candidate. He knows how to conduct himself in public, does not need to resort to abuse or ruddness and has the right background.

He seems to be a very suitable replacement for the FIDE rep we currently have.
Picking up on who he has played for because of where he was born seems rather trivial.

It's not so much that he was born there, it's that he is registered with the country in question and has an official post within FIDE, both of which could potentially lead to conflicts of interest with a role as FIDE Delegate for England.

(A concrete example: several members of this forum have suggested changes to the voting rights for FIDE, with the common theme that they would tend to increase England's voting power relative to Papua New Guinea's. This might put Rupert in an awkward position when it came to voting on such proposals.)

[Jonathan Rogers]

Much as I understand William's dismay, Roger and Jack have valid points. They are certainly not looking intently for concerns about a candidate, rather they are pointing out something which is really there for all to see, if they are prepared to see it.

I will say something positive though - if both Rupert and Nigel speak at the AGM, it is potential box office stuff! (No wonder someone leaned on one of the accountants to withdraw )

[Roger de Coverly]

He seems to be a very suitable replacement for the FIDE rep we currently have.

The concern is that the election is likely to turn into a referendum for or against the ECF current policy regarding FIDE. We don't know yet where Rupert will stand on this issue, but it seems unlikely that he shares the same views as Nigel.

[Jonathan Rogers]

The concern is that the election is likely to turn into a referendum for or against the ECF current policy regarding FIDE...

You've lost me. What exactly is the nature of this concern?

[Roger de Coverly]

You've lost me. What exactly is the nature of this concern?

Not exactly a concern, but is the reason why Nigel is being opposed an attempt to change the ECF's policy of hostility towards the current FIDE president and his allies?

[Sean Hewitt]

Not exactly a concern, but is the reason why Nigel is being opposed an attempt to change the ECF's policy of hostility towards the current FIDE president and his allies?

I guess we'll find that out when we read the respective election addresses.

[Gerard Killoran]

It seems to me that Rupert is a worthy candidate. He knows how to conduct himself in public, does not need to resort to abuse or ruddness and has the right background.

He seems to be a very suitable replacement for the FIDE rep we currently have.
Picking up on who he has played for because of where he was born seems rather trivial.

It's not so much that he was born there, it's that he is registered with the country in question and has an official post within FIDE, both of which could potentially lead to conflicts of interest with a role as FIDE Delegate for England.

(A concrete example: several members of this forum have suggested changes to the voting rights for FIDE, with the common theme that they would tend to increase England's voting power relative to Papua New Guinea's. This might put Rupert in an awkward position when it came to voting on such proposals.)

Since I estimate the probability of a majority in favour of such a change to be zero, it wouldn't matter which way the English FIDE delegate voted.

[Matthew Turner]

Kirsan won the election by roughly 95 - 55 (the exact count seems to vary by the odd vote on different sources). Kirsan's own website

http://www.onefide.com/supporters/

lists 102 supporters, but Papua New Guinea doesn't appear to be one of them.